Per: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2010-June/002830.html
"Fedora 12 will continue to receive updates until approximately one month after the release of Fedora 14. The maintenance schedule of" Fedora releases is documented on the Fedora Project wiki."
I did get an update to fuse for FC12 sunday, so it doesn't seem dead yet...
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 12:23:30 -0600 Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
Per: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2010-June/002830.html
"Fedora 12 will continue to receive updates until approximately one month after the release of Fedora 14. The maintenance schedule of" Fedora releases is documented on the Fedora Project wiki."
I did get an update to fuse for FC12 sunday, so it doesn't seem dead yet...
Fedora 12's end of life is 2010-12-02.
You have until then to look at upgrading to f13/f14. ;)
kevin
--- On Tue, 11/9/10, Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 12:23:30 -0600 Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
Per: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2010-June/002830.html
"Fedora 12 will continue to receive updates until
approximately one
month after the release of Fedora 14. The maintenance
schedule of"
Fedora releases is documented on the Fedora Project
wiki."
I did get an update to fuse for FC12 sunday, so it
doesn't seem dead
yet...
Fedora 12's end of life is 2010-12-02.
You have until then to look at upgrading to f13/f14. ;)
Just because it's EOL doesn't mean it stops working on that date, too. ;-)
Since FC6 (I've been using Fedora since Core 3), I've only upgraded with every third release--6-9-12. I think it wasteful of time and energy to upgrade any faster. It takes almost the 6 month release cycle to get everything working smoothly anyway. Then chuck it all and start anew with a new set of problems? No thanks.
I've gotten to the point where I'm tiring of Fedora's fast release cycle. I need a longer life OS. I build my personal systems to last about 5 to 7 years with periodic hardware upgrades as needed. I'd like the OS last that long, too. My current system is only 4 years old and has already had 3 versions of Fedora on it.
I've looked at the beta of RHEL 6, which seems to be based on F12/13, and it's "current" enough for my needs. (5 along with CentOS and Scientific Linux versions are too old being seemingly based on FC6.) So, when the new RHEL is release, about a month later, I'll take a look at CentOS 6, and go from there.
Of course, there's always Debian 6.0. ;-) It's in Beta now. Stable should be out Februaryish. Or March. Or April. With Debian, you can never tell.
B
On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 19:35:33 -0800 (PST) Patrick Bartek bartek047@yahoo.com wrote:
Just because it's EOL doesn't mean it stops working on that date, too. ;-)
Sure.
Since FC6 (I've been using Fedora since Core 3), I've only upgraded with every third release--6-9-12. I think it wasteful of time and energy to upgrade any faster. It takes almost the 6 month release cycle to get everything working smoothly anyway. Then chuck it all and start anew with a new set of problems? No thanks.
Note however that when a release goes end of life you no longer get ANY updates from Fedora (including security updates). This makes your machine more and more vulnerable over time. Also, you may be told in various support forums to upgrade if you run into issues.
I've gotten to the point where I'm tiring of Fedora's fast release cycle. I need a longer life OS. I build my personal systems to last about 5 to 7 years with periodic hardware upgrades as needed. I'd like the OS last that long, too. My current system is only 4 years old and has already had 3 versions of Fedora on it.
Take a look at RHEL or CentOS then.
I've looked at the beta of RHEL 6, which seems to be based on F12/13, and it's "current" enough for my needs. (5 along with CentOS and Scientific Linux versions are too old being seemingly based on FC6.) So, when the new RHEL is release, about a month later, I'll take a look at CentOS 6, and go from there.
Note that if you installed rhel5 when it came out it would be about 3.5 years old. You say above you want 5-7 years, so toward the end of that cycle it's going to be old software. ;)
Of course, there's always Debian 6.0. ;-) It's in Beta now. Stable should be out Februaryish. Or March. Or April. With Debian, you can never tell.
Use what you like. ;)
kevin
--- On Tue, 11/9/10, Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 19:35:33 -0800 (PST) Patrick Bartek bartek047@yahoo.com wrote:
Just because it's EOL doesn't mean it stops working on
that date,
too. ;-)
Sure.
The way people talk about EOL, you'd think that it did. Stop working, that is.
Since FC6 (I've been using Fedora since Core 3), I've
only upgraded
with every third release--6-9-12. I think it
wasteful of time and
energy to upgrade any faster. It takes almost
the 6 month release
cycle to get everything working smoothly anyway.
Then chuck it all
and start anew with a new set of problems? No
thanks.
Note however that when a release goes end of life you no longer get ANY updates from Fedora (including security updates). This makes your machine more and more vulnerable over time. Also, you may be told in various support forums to upgrade if you run into issues.
I'm not running a server with the need for up-to-date security, but a personal desktop that has more that sufficient security. After 10 years of using various versions of Linux, I've yet to be infected or hacked. So, I must be doing something right. I ran FC6 for almost a year past EOL before finally upgrading to 9. Never had any problems.
I've gotten to the point where I'm tiring of Fedora's
fast release
cycle. I need a longer life OS. I build my
personal systems to last
about 5 to 7 years with periodic hardware upgrades as
needed. I'd
like the OS last that long, too. My current
system is only 4 years
old and has already had 3 versions of Fedora on it.
Take a look at RHEL or CentOS then.
I have (See following quoted paragraph). I'm waiting for the Final release.
I've looked at the beta of RHEL 6, which seems to be
based on F12/13,
and it's "current" enough for my needs. (5 along
with CentOS and
Scientific Linux versions are too old being seemingly
based on FC6.)
So, when the new RHEL is release, about a month later,
I'll take a
look at CentOS 6, and go from there.
Note that if you installed rhel5 when it came out it would be about 3.5 years old. You say above you want 5-7 years, so toward the end of that cycle it's going to be old software. ;)
That's okay. The hardware's going to be old, too. I would just like an OS I can install when I build a system, and not have to install another until I build another system. Simple. Efficient. Cost effective.
FWIW, I considered Rolling Releases, but that comes with its own set of problems. Mainly, hardware incompatibilities after a time.
Of course, there's always Debian 6.0. ;-) It's
in Beta now. Stable
should be out Februaryish. Or March. Or
April. With Debian, you
can never tell.
Use what you like. ;)
I always do, regardless of consensus.
B
On 11/10/10, Patrick Bartek bartek047@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm not running a server with the need for up-to-date security, but a personal desktop that has more that sufficient security. After 10 years of using various versions of Linux, I've yet to be infected or hacked. So, I must be doing something right. I ran FC6 for almost a year past EOL before finally upgrading to 9. Never had any problems.
How do you know you haven't been infected or hacked? (I don't doubt that you do, just curious about how.)
Andras
--- On Wed, 11/10/10, Andras Simon szajmi@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/10/10, Patrick Bartek bartek047@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm not running a server with the need for up-to-date
security, but a
personal desktop that has more that sufficient
security. After 10 years of
using various versions of Linux, I've yet to be
infected or hacked. So, I
must be doing something right. I ran FC6 for
almost a year past EOL before
finally upgrading to 9. Never had any problems.
How do you know you haven't been infected or hacked? (I don't doubt that you do, just curious about how.)
Lack of the usual indicators, that is, no odd application behavior, no unusual slow-downs, no excessive CPU usage, no excessive or abnormal net (or hard drive) activity, no crashes or freezes, no strange log reports, no reports from friends about receiving spam e-mails from me that I never sent, etc.
I've spent enough time fixing friends' infected Windows machines that I've gotten a "feel" for when something is amiss. It's not a definitive feeling, just an indicator to start checking for something wrong.
B
On 11/10/10, Patrick Bartek bartek047@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 11/10/10, Andras Simon szajmi@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/10/10, Patrick Bartek bartek047@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm not running a server with the need for up-to-date
security, but a
personal desktop that has more that sufficient
security. After 10 years of
using various versions of Linux, I've yet to be
infected or hacked. So, I
must be doing something right. I ran FC6 for
almost a year past EOL before
finally upgrading to 9. Never had any problems.
How do you know you haven't been infected or hacked? (I don't doubt that you do, just curious about how.)
Lack of the usual indicators, that is, no odd application behavior, no unusual slow-downs, no excessive CPU usage, no excessive or abnormal net (or hard drive) activity, no crashes or freezes, no strange log reports, no reports from friends about receiving spam e-mails from me that I never sent, etc.
I've spent enough time fixing friends' infected Windows machines that I've gotten a "feel" for when something is amiss. It's not a definitive feeling, just an indicator to start checking for something wrong.
I hope that you're not deluding yourself...
Andras
--- On Wed, 11/10/10, Andras Simon szajmi@gmail.com wrote:
[snip] How do you know you haven't been infected or
hacked?
(I don't doubt that you do, just curious about
how.)
Lack of the usual indicators, that is, no odd
application behavior, no
unusual slow-downs, no excessive CPU usage, no
excessive or abnormal net (or
hard drive) activity, no crashes or freezes, no
strange log reports, no
reports from friends about receiving spam e-mails from
me that I never sent,
etc.
I've spent enough time fixing friends' infected
Windows machines that I've
gotten a "feel" for when something is amiss.
It's not a definitive feeling,
just an indicator to start checking for something
wrong.
I hope that you're not deluding yourself...
Why would you think I am?
B
On 11/11/2010 02:19 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
--- On Wed, 11/10/10, Andras Simon szajmi@gmail.com wrote:
I hope that you're not deluding yourself...
Why would you think I am?
Because it is whole lot of "fun" to play the speculation game.... Some people have too much time on their hands....
to, 2010-11-11 kello 14:28 +0800, Ed Greshko kirjoitti:
On 11/11/2010 02:19 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
--- On Wed, 11/10/10, Andras Simon szajmi@gmail.com wrote:
I hope that you're not deluding yourself...
Why would you think I am?
Because it is whole lot of "fun" to play the speculation game.... Some people have too much time on their hands....
I think this question shouldn't be associated only with someone's speculation or paranoia. This is a typical entries from logwatch reports on my machine: --------------------- pam_unix Begin ------------------------
dovecot: Authentication Failures: web6p5 rhost=178.77.68.97 : 242 Time(s) web7p1 rhost=178.77.68.97 : 239 Time(s) web6p4 rhost=178.77.68.97 : 238 Time(s) web6p3 rhost=178.77.68.97 : 235 Time(s) web6p2 rhost=178.77.68.97 : 232 Time(s) ..... sshd: Authentication Failures: unknown (mail.access350.co.ke): 845 Time(s) root (222.33.56.100): 800 Time(s) vsftpd: Authentication Failures: Administrator rhost=ns.medicalyohin.com : 2283 Time(s) admin rhost=ns.medicalyohin.com : 2283 Time(s) Password Failures: user unknown: 4566 Time(s)
Also there's a lot of 404-error messages from httpd, when somebody (something?) looked for mysql or phpmyadmin web-cinfiguration: --------------------- httpd Begin ------------------------ ...... //php-my-admin/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); .....
When I first saw it all I was scared that occasionally THEY will guess root passwd and will take control over my machine. So, I did a bit of modification of stock configuration (i.e. ssh root login is now forbidden, every user on the system has strong passwd, phpmyadmin is uninstalled, system is always up-to-date and so on). Probably I should also configure rkhunter or sshd to allow only 3 authentication failures before blacklisting the intruder IP. Anyway, this topic is not a joke! THEY ARE hunting for us!
On 11/11/2010 04:20 PM, Hiisi wrote:
Because it is whole lot of "fun" to play the speculation game.... Some people have too much time on their hands....
I think this question shouldn't be associated only with someone's speculation or paranoia. This is a typical entries from logwatch reports on my machine:
My response was only meant for the single instance in the thread.
On 11/11/10, Patrick Bartek bartek047@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 11/10/10, Andras Simon szajmi@gmail.com wrote:
[snip] How do you know you haven't been infected or
hacked?
(I don't doubt that you do, just curious about
how.)
Lack of the usual indicators, that is, no odd
application behavior, no
unusual slow-downs, no excessive CPU usage, no
excessive or abnormal net (or
hard drive) activity, no crashes or freezes, no
strange log reports, no
reports from friends about receiving spam e-mails from
me that I never sent,
etc.
I've spent enough time fixing friends' infected
Windows machines that I've
gotten a "feel" for when something is amiss.
It's not a definitive feeling,
just an indicator to start checking for something
wrong.
I hope that you're not deluding yourself...
Why would you think I am?
I'm no expert on intrusion detection, but I'm pretty sure that it involves much more than gut feelings. A clever cracker will make sure that you don't experience "the usual indicators".
Anyway, even if you use eol'd Fedoras (and I must admit, I do, too), you should probably not let sensitive data (credit card numbers and such) anywhere near it.
Andras
-- On Thu, 11/11/10, Andras Simon szajmi@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/11/10, Patrick Bartek bartek047@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 11/10/10, Andras Simon szajmi@gmail.com
wrote:
[snip] I hope that you're not deluding yourself...
Why would you think I am?
I'm no expert on intrusion detection, but I'm pretty sure that it involves much more than gut feelings. A clever cracker will make sure that you don't experience "the usual indicators".
I run daily cron-jobs, check logs, etc., too, but being familiar with how a system performs is important. Abnormal performance is a first indicator that something may be wrong. It does not necessarily mean a virus, etc., but it would make me start checking for a cause.
Anyway, even if you use eol'd Fedoras (and I must admit, I do, too), you should probably not let sensitive data (credit card numbers and such) anywhere near it.
I never do. Or have. I don't even store e-mail addresses or log-on info for secured sites like banks, businesses, etc. that I need to access.
B
On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 10:36 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote:
Lack of the usual indicators, that is, no odd application behavior, no unusual slow-downs, no excessive CPU usage, no excessive or abnormal net (or hard drive) activity, no crashes or freezes, no strange log reports, no reports from friends about receiving spam e-mails from me that I never sent, etc.
I've spent enough time fixing friends' infected Windows machines that I've gotten a "feel" for when something is amiss. It's not a definitive feeling, just an indicator to start checking for something wrong.
I've seen comments made that the usual things you notice with a hacked Windows installation (where it's horribly sluggish and unstable), really only apply to Windows. Not to mention that an un-hacked, but otherwise crappily maintained, Windows box behaves just the same.
Having your Linux box re-tasked to do a lot of work would probably be noticeable, but a hacked box might be abused in other (low load) ways, and you might be the sleeping zombie, waiting to be used. Or simply the anon proxy for one nefarious person, who doesn't do a lot of their illegal actions, but enough that you don't want to be held responsible for.
And I'd be inclined to think that if someone was going to use you as a spam server, they'd probably be using their own list of recipients and random "from" addresses.
I don't think it's that likely that you'd be crash happy with a hacked Linux computer. Crashing is in Window's nature. It's more than happy for the whole thing to come down in a mess, rather than just the errant program. I'd expect a bad program trying to be naughty on Linux to be the thing that crashed, while the rest of the computer kept on going. It certainly behaves that way when normal programs screw up.
So, I wouldn't say "I don't think anybody could have hacked me, and I'm not going to check."
--- On Thu, 11/11/10, Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 10:36 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote:
Lack of the usual indicators, that is, no odd
application behavior,
no unusual slow-downs, no excessive CPU usage, no
excessive or
abnormal net (or hard drive) activity, no crashes or
freezes, no
strange log reports, no reports from friends about
receiving spam
e-mails from me that I never sent, etc. I've spent enough time fixing friends' infected
Windows machines that
I've gotten a "feel" for when something is
amiss. It's not a
definitive feeling, just an indicator to start
checking for something
wrong.
I've seen comments made that the usual things you notice with a hacked Windows installation (where it's horribly sluggish and unstable), really only apply to Windows. Not to mention that an un-hacked, but otherwise crappily maintained, Windows box behaves just the same.
Having your Linux box re-tasked to do a lot of work would probably be noticeable, but a hacked box might be abused in other (low load) ways, and you might be the sleeping zombie, waiting to be used. Or simply the anon proxy for one nefarious person, who doesn't do a lot of their illegal actions, but enough that you don't want to be held responsible for.
And I'd be inclined to think that if someone was going to use you as a spam server, they'd probably be using their own list of recipients and random "from" addresses.
I don't think it's that likely that you'd be crash happy with a hacked Linux computer. Crashing is in Window's nature. It's more than happy for the whole thing to come down in a mess, rather than just the errant program. I'd expect a bad program trying to be naughty on Linux to be the thing that crashed, while the rest of the computer kept on going. It certainly behaves that way when normal programs screw up.
So, I wouldn't say "I don't think anybody could have hacked me, and I'm not going to check."
I never said that nor was it my intention to imply that. All I said was in the 10 years of using Linux none of my systems were ever hacked or infected. I never said I didn't check my system. I do. Daily. Automatically. Cron-jobs. Plus, manual checks--logs and what-nots--periodically. Sometimes the first indicator that something may (not is) wrong is the way the system runs and performs: the little things that someone who doesn't use the system daily wouldn't notice.
B
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Patrick Bartek bartek047@yahoo.com wrote:
I never said that nor was it my intention to imply that. All I said was in the 10 years of using Linux none of my systems were ever hacked or infected. I never said I didn't check my system. I do. Daily. Automatically. Cron-jobs. Plus, manual checks--logs and what-nots--periodically. Sometimes the first indicator that something may (not is) wrong is the way the system runs and performs: the little things that someone who doesn't use the system daily wouldn't notice.
No one can say that he/she's never been hacked. You can only say that you've never seen any sign of proof that you've been hacked...
How would you know what being hacked might feel lie if you've never been hacked?
--- On Fri, 11/12/10, Tom H tomh0665@gmail.com wrote:
Patrick Bartek bartek047@yahoo.com wrote:
I never said that nor was it my intention to imply
that. All I said was in the 10
years of using Linux none of my systems were ever
hacked or infected. I never
said I didn't check my system. I do. Daily.
Automatically. Cron-jobs. Plus,
manual checks--logs and what-nots--periodically.
Sometimes the first indicator
that something may (not is) wrong is the way the
system runs and performs:
the little things that someone who doesn't use the
system daily wouldn't notice.
No one can say that he/she's never been hacked. You can only say that you've never seen any sign of proof that you've been hacked...
Such a scenerio--leaving no trace of an intrusion--I think highly improbable.
How would you know what being hacked might feel lie if you've never been hacked?
I've seen it on other computers as well as studied ways it's done.
B
Patrick Bartek wrote:
--- On Tue, 11/9/10, Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 12:23:30 -0600 Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
Per: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2010-June/002830.html
"Fedora 12 will continue to receive updates until
approximately one
month after the release of Fedora 14. The maintenance
schedule of"
Fedora releases is documented on the Fedora Project
wiki."
I did get an update to fuse for FC12 sunday, so it
doesn't seem dead
yet...
Fedora 12's end of life is 2010-12-02.
You have until then to look at upgrading to f13/f14. ;)
Just because it's EOL doesn't mean it stops working on that date, too. ;-)
Since FC6 (I've been using Fedora since Core 3), I've only upgraded with every third release--6-9-12. I think it wasteful of time and energy to upgrade any faster. It takes almost the 6 month release cycle to get everything working smoothly anyway. Then chuck it all and start anew with a new set of problems? No thanks.
I'm noticed, when trying upgrade from F11 to F14, this combination isn't supported, anaconda refuse it - to F14 is upgrade possible only from F12 or F13. As I usually do fresh install, I not know exactly in which Fedora version was this restriction introduced, but I am certain this must occur not long ago - older Fedora distros make possible upgrade almost without restriction, from any previous version.
Franta Hanzlik
On 11/10/2010 09:49 AM, Frantisek Hanzlik wrote:
I'm noticed, when trying upgrade from F11 to F14, this combination isn't supported, anaconda refuse it - to F14 is upgrade possible only from F12 or F13. As I usually do fresh install, I not know exactly in which Fedora version was this restriction introduced, but I am certain this must occur not long ago - older Fedora distros make possible upgrade almost without restriction, from any previous version.
This is because of a change in RPM (switching to LZMA compression)
Rahul
On 11/09/2010 07:35 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
I've gotten to the point where I'm tiring of Fedora's fast release cycle. I need a longer life OS. I build my personal systems to last about 5 to 7 years with periodic hardware upgrades as needed. I'd like the OS last that long, too.
...
5 along with CentOS and Scientific Linux versions are too old being seemingly based on FC6.
If you want your OS to last 5 to 7 years, your package version are going to be old. To paraphrase Babbage, I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such requirements.
--- On Wed, 11/10/10, Gordon Messmer yinyang@eburg.com wrote:
On 11/09/2010 07:35 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
I've gotten to the point where I'm tiring of Fedora's
fast release
cycle. I need a longer life OS. I build my
personal systems to last
about 5 to 7 years with periodic hardware upgrades as
needed. I'd
like the OS last that long, too.
...
5 along with CentOS and Scientific Linux versions are too old being seemingly
based on FC6.
If you want your OS to last 5 to 7 years, your package version are going to be old. To paraphrase Babbage, I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such requirements.
That's okay as long as the OS is "current" when it is installed and will be supported for those 5 years or so. (I'm not a cutting edge type of person. It matters little to me whether something is new or old as long as it works and satifies my requirements.) I wouldn't install, say, CentOS 5, on a new or old system today and not expect problems, either today or later. That's why I'm waiting for CentOS 6 or Debian 6, etc. to be released before doing anything to my current 4 year old system--Fedora 12 64-bit.
However, nothing has been written in stone.
B
On 11/12/2010 08:31 AM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
That's okay as long as the OS is "current" when it is installed and will be supported for those 5 years or so.
I understand that, but you will never find that to be the case on a sustained basis unless you schedule your hardware purchases to coincide with OS releases. You said that you were tiring of Fedora's release cycle, but that release cycle is the only way to give users an OS that is "current" given that those millions of users are going to continue buying hardware in the periods between long-term releases. It's certainly legitimate to choose the long-term release (RHEL/CentOS/Scientific Linux), but I'd hope that you'd recognize the value that Fedora provides to its users and avoid demeaning it for its strength.
--- On Fri, 11/12/10, Gordon Messmer yinyang@eburg.com wrote:
On 11/12/2010 08:31 AM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
That's okay as long as the OS is "current" when it is
installed and
will be supported for those 5 years or so.
I understand that, but you will never find that to be the case on a sustained basis unless you schedule your hardware purchases to coincide with OS releases.
By "current" OS, I don't mean one newly released the same day the system is built, but one that is from the "era" of the hardware's manufacture. I don't (and never) use cutting edge hardware. As far as Linux is concerned, that's asking for problems. I make sure all my system hardware has been on the market for at least 6 months. That way, the Linux community has had time to write drivers, "fix" code, etc.
You said that you were tiring of Fedora's release cycle, but that release cycle is the only way to give users an OS that is "current" given that those millions of users are going to continue buying hardware in the periods between long-term releases.
Fedora's release cycles when it was Fedora Core used to be longer and not on a strict schedule as it is now. A new version was released when it was ready. Fedora now has become a rapid release test bed, an eternal beta if you will, and we are the testers. But that's okay, since the "good" stuff eventually gets into RHEL and its clones making them more stable and more secure with a longer life.
Anyway, in my case, once I build a system, it pretty much doesn't change--hardware-wise--during its life. So, I have no need need for fast release cycles to keep up with cutting edge hardware. Now I may upgrade a CPU or add a another hard drive or install a new graphics card because the orginal one died, but none of that requires upgrading to a newer OS version, or at least, it shouldn't.
Also, upgrading Fedora every 6 months or so as most do on this list just means additional headaches and work of a couple months of fixing the problems with the "new" OS when the "old" one was running just fine, but is fast approaching "unsupported." This is my major "problem" with Fedora, and mostly why I only upgrade every third release--Why make more work for myself?--and why I'm considering switching to a long term support version of Linux, whatever that may be.
Now I'm not lobbying for Fedora to change its ways. Although, there was some discussion months ago about "why not make Fedora a rolling release?". I'm just saying that its "ways" no longer fulfill my needs. And that's one of the reasons I use Linux: a multitude of options. (If I used Windows or OSX, there would be no option.)
It's certainly legitimate to choose the long-term release (RHEL/CentOS/Scientific Linux), but I'd hope that you'd recognize the value that Fedora provides to its users and avoid demeaning it for its strength.
I've never demeaned Fedora. There are things I don't like to be sure, but that can be said of all things. I've been using it since FC3 after trying a dozen or so other distros before settling on it as my primary desktop OS. So that says something. And I'm VERY particular. It's just that over the years Fedora's development model and my needs have diverged. And it's time to move on.
B
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 15:26:09 -0800 (PST) Patrick Bartek bartek047@yahoo.com wrote:
...snip...
Fedora's release cycles when it was Fedora Core used to be longer and not on a strict schedule as it is now. A new version was released when it was ready. Fedora now has become a rapid release test bed, an eternal beta if you will, and we are the testers. But that's okay, since the "good" stuff eventually gets into RHEL and its clones making them more stable and more secure with a longer life.
While it wasn't quite exactly 6months, it was pretty close. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Linux#Version_history
...snip...
Also, upgrading Fedora every 6 months or so as most do on this list just means additional headaches and work of a couple months of fixing the problems with the "new" OS when the "old" one was running just fine, but is fast approaching "unsupported." This is my major "problem" with Fedora, and mostly why I only upgrade every third release--Why make more work for myself?--and why I'm considering switching to a long term support version of Linux, whatever that may be.
I almost never have issues on os upgrades anymore. The last 2 machines here I upgraded from 13->14 just worked. I didn't have to change anything at all.
..snip...
I've never demeaned Fedora. There are things I don't like to be sure, but that can be said of all things. I've been using it since FC3 after trying a dozen or so other distros before settling on it as my primary desktop OS. So that says something. And I'm VERY particular. It's just that over the years Fedora's development model and my needs have diverged. And it's time to move on.
Sorry to hear it, but I understand your reasoning. ;)
I hope you will think fondly of Fedora and look and see how we are doing from time to time. ;)
Good luck.
kevin
--- On Sat, 11/13/10, Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
Patrick Bartek bartek047@yahoo.com wrote:
...snip...
Fedora's release cycles when it was Fedora Core used
to be longer and
not on a strict schedule as it is now. A new
version was released
when it was ready. Fedora now has become a rapid
release test bed,
an eternal beta if you will, and we are the
testers. But that's
okay, since the "good" stuff eventually gets into RHEL
and its clones
making them more stable and more secure with a longer
life.
While it wasn't quite exactly 6months, it was pretty close.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Linux#Version_history
I never used RH Linux. The project was merged with Fedora about 2 years before I first installed Fedora Core 3. Although, I was aware of FC1 & 2, they seemed to have too many problems to be considered.
As I remember releases from then were semi-regular from 5 months to 7 or 8. I think when Fedora Core was renamed Fedora with version 7 that a 6 month release cycle was decided as being optimum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedora_(operating_system)#Version_history
...snip...
Also, upgrading Fedora every 6 months or so as most do
on this list
just means additional headaches and work of a couple
months of fixing
the problems with the "new" OS when the "old" one was
running just
fine, but is fast approaching "unsupported."
This is my major
"problem" with Fedora, and mostly why I only upgrade
every third
release--Why make more work for myself?--and why I'm
considering
switching to a long term support version of Linux,
whatever that may
be.
I almost never have issues on os upgrades anymore. The last 2 machines here I upgraded from 13->14 just worked. I didn't have to change anything at all.
I avoided the upgrade process when I was installing every release, because at the time (FC3-6), it was at best problematical, and only did clean installs for that reason. After 6, I started installing only every third release, so true upgrading was impossible.
It seems that Fedora with the preupgrade utility has made the process much more reliable. However, it still doesn't work across more than one release number at a time, i.e. 12->13, 13->14 and not 12->14.
B
On Saturday, November 13, 2010 06:40:03 pm Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I almost never have issues on os upgrades anymore. The last 2 machines here I upgraded from 13->14 just worked. I didn't have to change anything at all.
I had my first issue with such this cycle; F12->F13 on this box went well, but I hit a snag with this one, but it was somewhat my own doing.
I had forgotten that I had moodle installed, and, a while back, moodle kept failing to upgrade during yum updates. Since I wasn't actively using it, I didn't file a bug report at the time. I had intended to remove moodle (and all my PlanetCCRMA packages that don't have upgrades yet to F14), but forgot to do so. Made a really good learning opportunity!
The moodle issue threw Anaconda for a loop, and generated a fatal error during package install (it looks like a corrupt package during execution). This was about 85% through the upgrade.
I should really do a scratch F13 install, install moodle, do the preupgrade, and see if I can duplicate so I can file a proper bugzilla report; I just simply was in a rush.
But the tools yum provides were able to fix the issue, but I did have to boot using the F13 kernel, since the initramfs for the F14 kernel wasn't there. One niggle: yum-complete-transaction didn't see any incomplete transactions, but there was one from Anaconda. Like I said, I need to file a complete report. And next time be more diligent.
In a nutshell, "package-cleanup --cleandupes" then "yum update", then I removed all but the currently running F13 kernel, and then reinstalled the F14 kernel, and rebooted into the F14 kernel. And the box is running fine. In the old days this would have been a reinstall, but the yum tools have really gotten robust.
On Saturday, November 13, 2010 06:26:09 pm Patrick Bartek wrote:
I've never demeaned Fedora. There are things I don't like to be sure, but that can be said of all things. I've been using it since FC3 after trying a dozen or so other distros before settling on it as my primary desktop OS. So that says something. And I'm VERY particular. It's just that over the years Fedora's development model and my needs have diverged. And it's time to move on.
I would recommend you take a look at a RHEL6 rebuild when they become available. RHEL6 (and thus the rebuilds) are based off of essentially F12 with some F13 stuff in there, and you can then have the same setup for five years. Now, when the time does come to upgrade to, say CentOS 7, you will have a much harder time of it. But if you like what you have, and you're used to the Fedora tools and setup, either CentOS 6 or Scientific Linux 6, both in the early stages of building, should fit your bill. SL6 is already available in a 'pre-alpha' form; the pre-alpha meaning that, while the upstream source packages are stable, the process and binaries built may not be.
You will still be getting quarterly updates that can be more major than you might think; Red Hat is very good about backporting stuff, but every once in a while it becomes necessary to do a version upgrade of some package, like Firefox for one, that can cause more grief than you might think. But, all in all, my experience running CentOS (2.1, 3, 4, and 5) has been very smooth.
The old Red Hat Linux advice was always 'skip the X.0 release, test the X.1 release, use the X.2 release' but then 7 came along (which most everybody called 7.0), 7.3 came along (which to many people, was not as stable as 7.2 had been), 8.0 came along, and then there was 9. The most stable releases of Fedora have always seemed to be the ones right before a new RHEL, and the least stable the ones right after a new RHEL; this hasn't been true in a while, although I'll have to admit that going from F8 to F9 tried my patience; KDE 4 I really didn't need, I was productive in KDE 3.5.10. Enough that I went Kubuntu 8.04 LTS for a while, but after seeing that the grass wasn't any greener (in fact, it was browner!) in Kubuntu-land came back with F11, which seemed nice and solid. And there were quite a few more than the previous three Fedora releases between RHEL5 and RHEL6.
And I'm now as productive in KDE 4 as I was in 3.5.10. But it did take a while.
--- On Sun, 11/14/10, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
On Saturday, November 13, 2010 06:26:09 pm Patrick Bartek wrote:
I've never demeaned Fedora. There are things I
don't like to be sure, but that can be said of all things. I've been using it since FC3 after trying a dozen or so other distros before settling on it as my primary desktop OS. So that says something. And I'm VERY particular. It's just that over the years Fedora's development model and my needs have diverged. And it's time to move on.
I would recommend you take a look at a RHEL6 rebuild when they become available. RHEL6 (and thus the rebuilds) are based off of essentially F12 with some F13 stuff in there, and you can then have the same setup for five years. [snip]
Both CentOS 6 and SL 6 are on my short list. As is Debian 6. Nothing else so far, but still investigating.
You will still be getting quarterly updates that can be more major than you might think; Red Hat is very good about backporting stuff, but every once in a while it becomes necessary to do a version upgrade of some package, like Firefox for one, that can cause more grief than you might think. But, all in all, my experience running CentOS (2.1, 3, 4, and 5) has been very smooth.
Good to know. It seems that CentOS is much better supported than SL, too. (I guess those Fermi Lab guys have other things to do. ;-) ) However, SL seems noticeably faster than Cent.
[snip] The most stable releases of Fedora have always seemed to be the ones right before a new RHEL, and the least stable the ones right after a new RHEL; this hasn't been true in a while, although I'll have to admit that going from F8 to F9 tried my patience; KDE 4 I really didn't need, I was productive in KDE 3.5.10. Enough that I went Kubuntu 8.04 LTS for a while, but after seeing that the grass wasn't any greener (in fact, it was browner!) in Kubuntu-land came back with F11, which seemed nice and solid. And there were quite a few more than the previous three Fedora releases between RHEL5 and RHEL6.
I never liked Ubuntu: The way it was set up; the way it worked. And the color. Ugh! Bull shit brown. Awful. You only get one chance to make a good first impression. Ubuntu didn't.
And I'm now as productive in KDE 4 as I was in 3.5.10. But it did take a while.
I left KDE behind in favor of GNOME when I switched from Slackware to Fedora Core 3. Up until that time I found GNOME lacking in many ways except in RAM use and CPU cycles. I'm now looking at LXDE or just running OpenBox (or some other window manager) alone as an alternative to GNOME, but more testing is required.
B
Patrick Bartek wrote:
--- On Wed, 11/10/10, Gordon Messmeryinyang@eburg.com wrote:
On 11/09/2010 07:35 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
I've gotten to the point where I'm tiring of Fedora's
fast release
cycle. I need a longer life OS. I build my
personal systems to last
about 5 to 7 years with periodic hardware upgrades as
needed. I'd
like the OS last that long, too.
...
5 along with CentOS and Scientific Linux versions are too old being seemingly
based on FC6.
If you want your OS to last 5 to 7 years, your package version are going to be old. To paraphrase Babbage, I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such requirements.
That's okay as long as the OS is "current" when it is installed and will be supported for those 5 years or so. (I'm not a cutting edge type of person. It matters little to me whether something is new or old as long as it works and satifies my requirements.) I wouldn't install, say, CentOS 5, on a new or old system today and not expect problems, either today or later. That's why I'm waiting for CentOS 6 or Debian 6, etc. to be released before doing anything to my current 4 year old system--Fedora 12 64-bit.
I will probably be using CentOS-5.5 or later until CentOS-7 comes out. RHEL6 is dropping xen, and the little utility boxes I seem to build for firewall or similar don't have HVM and can't support KVM. Hopefully xen will be back in mainline soon, and people will have a choice how they want to run things.
--- On Sun, 11/14/10, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Patrick Bartek wrote:
[snip]
That's okay as long as the OS is "current" when it is
installed and will be supported for those 5 years or so. (I'm not a cutting edge type of person. It matters little to me whether something is new or old as long as it works and satifies my requirements.) I wouldn't install, say, CentOS 5, on a new or old system today and not expect problems, either today or later. That's why I'm waiting for CentOS 6 or Debian 6, etc. to be released before doing anything to my current 4 year old system--Fedora 12 64-bit.
I will probably be using CentOS-5.5 or later until CentOS-7 comes out. RHEL6 is dropping xen, and the little utility boxes I seem to build for firewall or similar don't have HVM and can't support KVM. Hopefully xen will be back in mainline soon, and people will have a choice how they want to run things.
I think you're SOL expecting XEN to be reinstated after being so resoundingly dropped in favor of KVM by Redhat. I vaguely remember reading a press release about it.
Wait for CentOS 7? Going to be long wait. 5 years(?), at least. But patience _is_ a virtue. ;-)
B
Patrick Bartek wrote:
--- On Sun, 11/14/10, Bill Davidsendavidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Patrick Bartek wrote:
[snip]
That's okay as long as the OS is "current" when it is
installed and will be supported for those 5 years or so. (I'm not a cutting edge type of person. It matters little to me whether something is new or old as long as it works and satifies my requirements.) I wouldn't install, say, CentOS 5, on a new or old system today and not expect problems, either today or later. That's why I'm waiting for CentOS 6 or Debian 6, etc. to be released before doing anything to my current 4 year old system--Fedora 12 64-bit.
I will probably be using CentOS-5.5 or later until CentOS-7 comes out. RHEL6 is dropping xen, and the little utility boxes I seem to build for firewall or similar don't have HVM and can't support KVM. Hopefully xen will be back in mainline soon, and people will have a choice how they want to run things.
I think you're SOL expecting XEN to be reinstated after being so resoundingly dropped in favor of KVM by Redhat. I vaguely remember reading a press release about it.
Wait for CentOS 7? Going to be long wait. 5 years(?), at least. But patience _is_ a virtue. ;-)
If xen goes in mainline, and it is certainly on track to do so, then Fedora 15 (or 16 at the latest) may offer it again. It allows operation on processors which lack HVM, which is not only old gear (my Celeron systems and laptops), but alternate vendors, appliances, and misguided systems killing HVM in BIOS to meet MSFT license requirements.
Depending on what you run in a VM, there may be performance issues in xen vs HVM, harder to say with Linux, since it might run paravirtualized anyway.
On 11/25/10 11:50 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
If xen goes in mainline, and it is certainly on track to do so, then Fedora 15 (or 16 at the latest) may offer it again. It allows operation on processors which lack HVM, which is not only old gear (my Celeron systems and laptops), but alternate vendors, appliances, and misguided systems killing HVM in BIOS to meet MSFT license requirements.
They are not misguided, just misinformed. Microsoft has been doing this for years (OS/2 anyone?) Microsoft wants to maintain their 'monopoly' over the desktop by any means they can. Sorry, but the EU has partially stepped up to the plate. They have to finish the job that the US Department of Justice is unwilling to do.
Depending on what you run in a VM, there may be performance issues in xen vs HVM, harder to say with Linux, since it might run paravirtualized anyway.
Good to see that there are options. I use a Mac, people use and abuse Linux. May we always see an option.
James McKenzie
--- On Thu, 11/25/10, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Patrick Bartek wrote:
--- On Sun, 11/14/10, Bill Davidsendavidsen@tmr.com
wrote:
Patrick Bartek wrote:
[snip]
That's okay as long as the OS is "current"
when it is
installed and will be supported for those 5 years
or
so. (I'm not a cutting edge type of
person. It
matters little to me whether something is new or
old as long
as it works and satifies my requirements.) I
wouldn't
install, say, CentOS 5, on a new or old system
today and not
expect problems, either today or later.
That's why I'm
waiting for CentOS 6 or Debian 6, etc. to be
released before
doing anything to my current 4 year old
system--Fedora 12
64-bit.
I will probably be using CentOS-5.5 or later until
CentOS-7
comes out. RHEL6 is dropping xen, and the little utility boxes I seem
to build
for firewall or similar don't have HVM and can't support KVM.
Hopefully xen
will be back in mainline soon, and people will have a choice how
they want
to run things.
I think you're SOL expecting XEN to be reinstated
after being so resoundingly dropped in favor of KVM by Redhat. I vaguely remember reading a press release about it.
Wait for CentOS 7? Going to be long wait.
5 years(?), at least. But patience _is_ a virtue. ;-)
If xen goes in mainline, and it is certainly on track to do so, then Fedora 15 (or 16 at the latest) may offer it again. It allows operation on processors which lack HVM, which is not only old gear (my Celeron systems and laptops), but alternate vendors, appliances, and misguided systems killing HVM in BIOS to meet MSFT license requirements.
While trying to find the press release from RH about dropping XEN and why (found this instead: http://virtualization.info/en/news/2008/06/red-hat-adopts-kvm-what-happens-t...), noted that RHEL 6 Final was release about 2 weeks ago, and the default virtualization is KVM. Do you really think Red Hat is going to switch back to XEN for 7 after all the work that went into finalizing 6? Of course, XEN probably will be available as an alternative, but you'll have to recompile the kernel. XEN is still listed in the F12 repo.
Depending on what you run in a VM, there may be performance issues in xen vs HVM, harder to say with Linux, since it might run paravirtualized anyway.
I used to run qemu and its accelerator load module with a stock kernel on a 1GHz Duron machine with 1.5 GB RAM (Its max) in Slackware, Fedora Core 3, 4, 5, & 6. It worked quite well, although, it wasn't in a server environment, just experimentation. I hated having to multi-boot to test distros or run Windows. To make a long story short, I never liked the way XEN was implemented.
B
Patrick Bartek wrote:
--- On Thu, 11/25/10, Bill Davidsendavidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Patrick Bartek wrote:
--- On Sun, 11/14/10, Bill Davidsendavidsen@tmr.com
wrote:
Patrick Bartek wrote:
[snip]
That's okay as long as the OS is "current"
when it is
installed and will be supported for those 5 years
or
so. (I'm not a cutting edge type of
person. It
matters little to me whether something is new or
old as long
as it works and satifies my requirements.) I
wouldn't
install, say, CentOS 5, on a new or old system
today and not
expect problems, either today or later.
That's why I'm
waiting for CentOS 6 or Debian 6, etc. to be
released before
doing anything to my current 4 year old
system--Fedora 12
64-bit.
I will probably be using CentOS-5.5 or later until
CentOS-7
comes out. RHEL6 is dropping xen, and the little utility boxes I seem
to build
for firewall or similar don't have HVM and can't support KVM.
Hopefully xen
will be back in mainline soon, and people will have a choice how
they want
to run things.
I think you're SOL expecting XEN to be reinstated
after being so resoundingly dropped in favor of KVM by Redhat. I vaguely remember reading a press release about it.
Wait for CentOS 7? Going to be long wait.
5 years(?), at least. But patience _is_ a virtue. ;-)
If xen goes in mainline, and it is certainly on track to do so, then Fedora 15 (or 16 at the latest) may offer it again. It allows operation on processors which lack HVM, which is not only old gear (my Celeron systems and laptops), but alternate vendors, appliances, and misguided systems killing HVM in BIOS to meet MSFT license requirements.
While trying to find the press release from RH about dropping XEN and why (found this instead: http://virtualization.info/en/news/2008/06/red-hat-adopts-kvm-what-happens-t...), noted that RHEL 6 Final was release about 2 weeks ago, and the default virtualization is KVM. Do you really think Red Hat is going to switch back to XEN for 7 after all the work that went into finalizing 6? Of course, XEN probably will be available as an alternative, but you'll have to recompile the kernel. XEN is still listed in the F12 repo.
I don't think "switch back" is the right term, once the support is in mainline it becomes a few more builds in a sea of thousands, so it might be like PAE and non-PAE kernels. Having it allows use on additional machines, as the effort to have the capability goes down and the effort to remove or disable it goes up, the possibility goes up.
There is a lot of stuff with a small user base in Fedora, and the users tend to be more diverse in their hardware (I'm being very polite here), so low effort support seems consistent with users vs. resources. And with all the effort which has gone into a better desktop, offering some solution to netbook users with no HVM has some justification.
I have no crystal ball, but I own or support a fair number of netbooks. I have no thought that xen would continue as long as a custom kernel is needed, but once that's no longer the case, we'll see.
Depending on what you run in a VM, there may be performance issues in xen vs HVM, harder to say with Linux, since it might run paravirtualized anyway.
I used to run qemu and its accelerator load module with a stock kernel on a 1GHz Duron machine with 1.5 GB RAM (Its max) in Slackware, Fedora Core 3, 4, 5,& 6. It worked quite well, although, it wasn't in a server environment, just experimentation. I hated having to multi-boot to test distros or run Windows. To make a long story short, I never liked the way XEN was implemented.
Patrick Bartek wrote:
Since FC6 (I've been using Fedora since Core 3), I've only upgraded with every third release--6-9-12. I think it wasteful of time and energy to upgrade any faster. It takes almost the 6 month release cycle to get everything working smoothly anyway. Then chuck it all and start anew with a new set of problems? No thanks.
I went from 6->13 on one machine, had some drivers for custom hardware which new driver models didn't support. Finally the USB passthru in KVM got good enough to run in a VM, and I do.
--- On Sun, 11/14/10, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Patrick Bartek wrote:
Since FC6 (I've been using Fedora since Core 3), I've
only upgraded with every third release--6-9-12. I think it wasteful of time and energy to upgrade any faster. It takes almost the 6 month release cycle to get everything working smoothly anyway. Then chuck it all and start anew with a new set of problems? No thanks.
I went from 6->13 on one machine, had some drivers for custom hardware which new driver models didn't support. Finally the USB passthru in KVM got good enough to run in a VM, and I do.
Custom hardware isn't required to have new release issues. Just older hardware is good enough, particularly peripherials. And they don't have to be that old. For example, my Samsung ML-1710 laser printer has been discontinued for 4 years or so. I bought mine in 2006. No problems. FC6's CUPS had the driver. So, did F9 when I upgraded to it a year or so later, but F12 didn't. Support had been dropped due to it being discontinued (I guess). Samsung's dedicated driver had problems with F12. Or, perhaps, it was the other way around. Fortunately, I was able to find a third party compatible driver through the LinuxPrinting site.
Now, there is nothing wrong with the printer. I've used it daily in my business since I bought it. Have gone through 4 or 5 toner cartridges, and reams and reams of paper. One of these days, it will finally die and I'll replace it, but I resent having to replace something that works perfectly well simply because support has been dropped due solely to time and not lack of demand.
Another reason, I'm looking for Long Time Support in my next OS.
B
Patrick Bartek wrote:
--- On Sun, 11/14/10, Bill Davidsendavidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Patrick Bartek wrote:
Since FC6 (I've been using Fedora since Core 3), I've
only upgraded with every third release--6-9-12. I think it wasteful of time and energy to upgrade any faster. It takes almost the 6 month release cycle to get everything working smoothly anyway. Then chuck it all and start anew with a new set of problems? No thanks.
I went from 6->13 on one machine, had some drivers for custom hardware which new driver models didn't support. Finally the USB passthru in KVM got good enough to run in a VM, and I do.
Custom hardware isn't required to have new release issues. Just older hardware is good enough, particularly peripherials. And they don't have to be that old. For example, my Samsung ML-1710 laser printer has been discontinued for 4 years or so. I bought mine in 2006. No problems. FC6's CUPS had the driver. So, did F9 when I upgraded to it a year or so later, but F12 didn't. Support had been dropped due to it being discontinued (I guess). Samsung's dedicated driver had problems with F12. Or, perhaps, it was the other way around. Fortunately, I was able to find a third party compatible driver through the LinuxPrinting site.
Now, there is nothing wrong with the printer. I've used it daily in my business since I bought it. Have gone through 4 or 5 toner cartridges, and reams and reams of paper. One of these days, it will finally die and I'll replace it, but I resent having to replace something that works perfectly well simply because support has been dropped due solely to time and not lack of demand.
Another reason, I'm looking for Long Time Support in my next OS.
I stayed on FC4 for similar reasons, until I could go to better hardware and FC13, and I still run XP in a VM for one application. I know where you are coming from.
I stay with things that work for me, I'm still on wife 1.0. ;-)
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Patrick Bartek wrote:
--- On Sun, 11/14/10, Bill Davidsendavidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Patrick Bartek wrote:
Since FC6 (I've been using Fedora since Core 3), I've
only upgraded with every third release--6-9-12. I think it wasteful of time and energy to upgrade any faster. It takes almost the 6 month release cycle to get everything working smoothly anyway. Then chuck it all and start anew with a new set of problems? No thanks.
I went from 6->13 on one machine, had some drivers for custom hardware which new driver models didn't support. Finally the USB passthru in KVM got good enough to run in a VM, and I do.
Custom hardware isn't required to have new release issues. Just older hardware is good enough, particularly peripherials. And they don't have to be that old. For example, my Samsung ML-1710 laser printer has been discontinued for 4 years or so. I bought mine in 2006. No problems. FC6's CUPS had the driver. So, did F9 when I upgraded to it a year or so later, but F12 didn't. Support had been dropped due to it being discontinued (I guess). Samsung's dedicated driver had problems with F12. Or, perhaps, it was the other way around. Fortunately, I was able to find a third party compatible driver through the LinuxPrinting site.
Now, there is nothing wrong with the printer. I've used it daily in my business since I bought it. Have gone through 4 or 5 toner cartridges, and reams and reams of paper. One of these days, it will finally die and I'll replace it, but I resent having to replace something that works perfectly well simply because support has been dropped due solely to time and not lack of demand.
Another reason, I'm looking for Long Time Support in my next OS.
I stayed on FC4 for similar reasons, until I could go to better hardware and FC13, and I still run XP in a VM for one application. I know where you are coming from.
I stay with things that work for me, I'm still on wife 1.0. ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I stay with things that work for me, I'm still on wife 1.0
That's just too funny bro. I laughed my butt off.
Don't let your 1.0 see that though
Michael
On 11/25/10 12:07 PM, Michael Miles wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
I stay with things that work for me, I'm still on wife 1.0
That's just too funny bro. I laughed my butt off.
Don't let your 1.0 see that though
I'm on 2.0. 1.0 passed away. Nothing funny about that. However, I do stick with things that work. Wife 1.0 one week shy of 19 years. Wife 2.0 going on nine years.
Thinkpad A22p is almost a decade old and may not be able to run FC14 (damn shame.) Macs from a Graphite Mac that is almost six years old (and on its second "hockey puck" power supply) to a MacBookPro Intel that was one of the first made.
I move slowly and deliberately when I do things...
James McKenzie
On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 11:07 -0800, Michael Miles wrote:
I stay with things that work for me, I'm still on wife 1.0. ;-)
I stay with things that work for me, I'm still on wife 1.0
That's just too funny bro. I laughed my butt off.
http://www.indranet.com/potpourri/humor/girlfriend_upgrade.html
:-)
--Greg
Greg Woods wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 11:07 -0800, Michael Miles wrote:
I stay with things that work for me, I'm still on wife 1.0. ;-)
I stay with things that work for me, I'm still on wife 1.0
That's just too funny bro. I laughed my butt off.
http://www.indranet.com/potpourri/humor/girlfriend_upgrade.html
:-)
--Greg
Too funny....Thanks for the laugh
On 11/25/2010 10:55 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
I stayed on FC4 for similar reasons, until I could go to better hardware and FC13, and I still run XP in a VM for one application. I know where you are coming from.
I stay with things that work for me, I'm still on wife 1.0. ;-)
I still have Win98 on this box and last time I tried, it booted. Granted, it took long enough that I remembered just why I switched to Linux, but it did manage to come up. I never went to any newer version of Gatesware because I dislike NotToday "technology." I don't like the way it works and, as I was considered a Windows Internals Geek back when I did tech support, I think I have good reasons.
Be that as it may, I'm not posting to show off my advocacy. I use what works and, more and more, Linux Just Works. People ask when we'll have The Year Of The Linux Desktop; for me, it was several years ago.
to, 2010-11-25 kello 13:55 -0500, Bill Davidsen kirjoitti:
I stayed on FC4 for similar reasons, until I could go to better hardware and FC13, and I still run XP in a VM for one application. I know where you are coming from.
I stay with things that work for me, I'm still on wife 1.0. ;-)
I usually do yum update girlfriend. It produces a lot of warnings like "You're logged into reality as root user" but usually makes the trick. However it seems that this time I won't get away with it: yum list installed | grep wife wife.i686 1.0.beta.rc @rawhide
To the topic: F12 seems to became more stable recently. My current uptime is 12 days, 14:55 which is remarkable for this specific configuration/hardware.
On 11/25/10 3:46 PM, Hiisi wrote:
To the topic: F12 seems to became more stable recently. My current uptime is 12 days, 14:55 which is remarkable for this specific configuration/hardware.
How long will it take for FC14 to become 'stable'.
One of the reasons is that FC12 is nearing EOL thus no updates!
James McKenzie
On 11/25/10, Hiisi saippua5@gmail.com wrote:
To the topic: F12 seems to became more stable recently. My current uptime is 12 days, 14:55 which is remarkable for this specific configuration/hardware.
[simon@pici dl]$ uptime 01:23:47 up 309 days, 1:43, 7 users, load average: 0.26, 0.33, 0.27
On a puny netbook. Yes, F12 is pretty stable. (I'm cheating a little, because this netbook goes to sleep every day. But still...)
Andras
On 11/25/10 5:29 PM, Andras Simon wrote:
On 11/25/10, Hiisisaippua5@gmail.com wrote:
To the topic: F12 seems to became more stable recently. My current uptime is 12 days, 14:55 which is remarkable for this specific configuration/hardware.
[simon@pici dl]$ uptime 01:23:47 up 309 days, 1:43, 7 users, load average: 0.26, 0.33, 0.27
On a puny netbook. Yes, F12 is pretty stable. (I'm cheating a little, because this netbook goes to sleep every day. But still...)
Before the days of Linux, I had an OS/2 system that was up for two years. I had to shut it down to move it from the United States to Korea. It ran there for months and months. Not all Operating Systems are as unstable as Windows98 (it had the worst uptime that I know of.) I even ran a NetWare server that was up for six months (I crashed it running a backup, the tape drive was filthy and a bug in the backup program brought down the server.)
James McKenzie
to, 2010-11-25 kello 17:40 -0700, James McKenzie kirjoitti:
Before the days of Linux, I had an OS/2 system that was up for two years. I had to shut it down to move it from the United States to Korea. It ran there for months and months. Not all Operating Systems are as unstable as Windows98 (it had the worst uptime that I know of.) I even ran a NetWare server that was up for six months (I crashed it running a backup, the tape drive was filthy and a bug in the backup program brought down the server.)
James McKenzie
I didn't say that F12 or Linux in common is unstable. On the contrary, I'm pretty sure we're on the right shore. My system serves as a router for home network so it's up all the time. However with buggy flash (random crashes that causes hangups of X server) and kernel updates (which is not so frequently near the EOL of F12) I had to reboot it or even hard reboot every 5-10 days.
On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 15:07 +0300, Hiisi wrote:
On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 07:05 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Never trust an aphorism you don't have the source for :-) -- Me
poc
]$ which fortune /usr/bin/fortune
Not to beat a dead horse, but /usr/bin/fortune is not the source, it's simply a collection. The attribution even says "Unknown Source", which is what provoked my tongue-in-cheek reply, now ruined by having to explain it :-)
poc
On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 08:51 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Not to beat a dead horse, but /usr/bin/fortune is not the source, it's simply a collection. The attribution even says "Unknown Source", which is what provoked my tongue-in-cheek reply, now ruined by having to explain it :-)
poc
Yes, I understand it well ;-) About that phrase ("never trust an operating system you don't have sources for"): I'm in a total agreement with it!
On 26/11/2010 07:57, Hiisi wrote:
to, 2010-11-25 kello 17:40 -0700, James McKenzie kirjoitti:
Before the days of Linux, I had an OS/2 system that was up for two years. I had to shut it down to move it from the United States to Korea. It ran there for months and months. Not all Operating Systems are as unstable as Windows98 (it had the worst uptime that I know of.) I even ran a NetWare server that was up for six months (I crashed it running a backup, the tape drive was filthy and a bug in the backup program brought down the server.)
James McKenzie
This is all system and people dependent though. I've had windows servers running with no problems for months on end
On 11/26/10 12:57 AM, Hiisi wrote:
to, 2010-11-25 kello 17:40 -0700, James McKenzie kirjoitti:
Before the days of Linux, I had an OS/2 system that was up for two years. I had to shut it down to move it from the United States to Korea. It ran there for months and months. Not all Operating Systems are as unstable as Windows98 (it had the worst uptime that I know of.) I even ran a NetWare server that was up for six months (I crashed it running a backup, the tape drive was filthy and a bug in the backup program brought down the server.)
James McKenzie
I didn't say that F12 or Linux in common is unstable. On the contrary, I'm pretty sure we're on the right shore. My system serves as a router for home network so it's up all the time. However with buggy flash (random crashes that causes hangups of X server) and kernel updates (which is not so frequently near the EOL of F12) I had to reboot it or even hard reboot every 5-10 days.
Ouch. Buggy systems are a bear to troubleshoot and maintain. I liked my uptime however. I have a Mac now and things have been getting stranger and stranger. It may be time to go ahead and refresh build it. May take care of the problems with Firefox locking the system from any inputs, which started with FF 3.5.
James McKenzie
On 11/25/2010 11:57 PM, Hiisi wrote:
However with buggy flash (random crashes that causes hangups of X server) and kernel updates (which is not so frequently near the EOL of F12) I had to reboot it or even hard reboot every 5-10 days.
Odd. I only reboot my desktop for kernel updates and I can remember f 12 having updates of literally biblical proportions.
pe, 2010-11-26 kello 08:49 -0800, Joe Zeff kirjoitti:
On 11/25/2010 11:57 PM, Hiisi wrote:
However with buggy flash (random crashes that causes hangups of X server) and kernel updates (which is not so frequently near the EOL of F12) I had to reboot it or even hard reboot every 5-10 days.
Odd. I only reboot my desktop for kernel updates and I can remember f 12 having updates of literally biblical proportions.
I don't remember having to hard reboot this machine this month. By I've switched to firefox 4 which is much more stable than previous versions.
On a puny netbook. Yes, F12 is pretty stable. (I'm cheating a little, because this netbook goes to sleep every day. But still...)
I found Fedora 12 very stable throughout its lifecycle, and enjoyable to use on my netbook (ASUS 1005HA). I skipped the 13 release and now have 14 on it, though I must say it does 'feel' a little slower. Other than that, I've had no issues with it.
Take Care and Be Well,
Landor
Andras Simon wrote:
On 11/25/10, Hiisisaippua5@gmail.com wrote:
To the topic: F12 seems to became more stable recently. My current uptime is 12 days, 14:55 which is remarkable for this specific configuration/hardware.
[simon@pici dl]$ uptime 01:23:47 up 309 days, 1:43, 7 users, load average: 0.26, 0.33, 0.27
On a puny netbook. Yes, F12 is pretty stable. (I'm cheating a little, because this netbook goes to sleep every day. But still...)
Session time 20:02:09 on 11/26/10 www2:davidsen> uptime 20:02:18 up 1188 days, 2:36, 4 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
OS: KRUD - based on FC3
No cheat, UPS and standby generator at home.
--- On Thu, 11/25/10, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Patrick Bartek wrote:
[snip] Another reason, I'm looking for Long Time Support in
my next OS.
I stayed on FC4 for similar reasons, until I could go to better hardware and FC13, and I still run XP in a VM for one application. I know where you are coming from.
Sadly, people like us are nearly extinct. Today, the self-esteem of the majority seems directly proportional to the newness of want they own.
B
On 11/25/10 7:00 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
--- On Thu, 11/25/10, Bill Davidsendavidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Patrick Bartek wrote:
[snip] Another reason, I'm looking for Long Time Support in
my next OS. I stayed on FC4 for similar reasons, until I could go to better hardware and FC13, and I still run XP in a VM for one application. I know where you are coming from.
Sadly, people like us are nearly extinct. Today, the self-esteem of the majority seems directly proportional to the newness of want they own.
True. Or they are forced to buy new to 'keep up with the Joneses'. Not a good place to be. I remember 'slow down' programs when the higher speed 386s were released so that the program would not run stupidly fast.
However, I believe that being a 'sheeple' is not the way to go. Sure Windows7 has some whiz-bang stuff in it, but I've been enjoying the same things with a Mac for years.
The only thing that Linux has to overcome is people's fear that they will loose essential functionality by switching from Windows to Linux. I don't see this unless they are (stupidly) Access addicts and that is being addressed as well.
So, on with Linux.
James McKenzie
--- On Thu, 11/25/10, James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@earthlink.net wrote:
On 11/25/10 7:00 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
--- On Thu, 11/25/10, Bill Davidsendavidsen@tmr.com
wrote:
Patrick Bartek wrote:
[snip] Another reason, I'm looking for Long Time
Support in
my next OS. I stayed on FC4 for similar reasons, until I could
go to
better hardware and FC13, and I still run XP in a VM for one
application. I
know where you are coming from.
Sadly, people like us are nearly extinct. Today,
the self-esteem of the majority seems directly proportional to the newness of want they own.
True. Or they are forced to buy new to 'keep up with the Joneses'. Not
Those types have always been around. Although, there's no "forcing" involved. It's a competitive, almost pathological, need, I think. Totally irrational.
a good place to be. I remember 'slow down' programs when the higher speed 386s were released so that the program would not run stupidly fast.
However, I believe that being a 'sheeple' is not the way to go. Sure Windows7 has some whiz-bang stuff in it, but I've been enjoying the same things with a Mac for years.
I still have been unable to get an rational answer as to why Windows 7 needs 20 GB(!) just to install. Never mind the applications. What miraculous things does W7 do that it requires so much space? No Windows user seems to know. Or care. Well, I don't care either, but I do wonder. ;-)
The only thing that Linux has to overcome is people's fear that they will loose essential functionality by switching from Windows to Linux. I don't see this unless they are (stupidly) Access addicts and that is being addressed as well.
I think the primary reason Windows users stay with Windows, even though they constantly complain about its shortcomings, is it's familiar, and they dread learning something different. Fear of the unknown is a pretty big phobia to overcome. The other reason is that few consumers have ever heard of Linux. They're not going to try it if they don't know it exists. It may run on their smartphone or multimedia appliance or the server that they stream the latest tunes or videos from, but they don't know that.
B
On Sat, 2010-11-27 at 20:52 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote:
I still have been unable to get an rational answer as to why Windows 7 needs 20 GB(!) just to install. Never mind the applications. What miraculous things does W7 do that it requires so much space? No Windows user seems to know. Or care. Well, I don't care either, but I do wonder. ;-)
The short answer is that it doesn't. I have a Win7 VM in a 20GB image and 50% is free. That's with some apps and user files.
The other answer is "because it can". 20GB is nothing these days. You might as well ask why it takes a machine faster than the fastest supercomputers of a couple of decades ago and with more RAM than total *disk space* of the mainframes of yesteryear just to run a single-user graphical desktop which spends well over 90% of its time doing absolutely nothing.
As the saying goes: "Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away".
poc
On Sat, 2010-11-27 at 20:52 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote:
I think the primary reason Windows users stay with Windows, even though they constantly complain about its shortcomings, is it's familiar, and they dread learning something different.
Not to mention lock-in. You have this data that's only directly, or practically, usable with your particular software. To change to another OS, you have to transfer, and probably, convert your data, and that process might be lossy/messy/lengthy/expensive.
ma, 2010-11-29 kello 01:13 +1030, Tim kirjoitti:
On Sat, 2010-11-27 at 20:52 -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote:
I think the primary reason Windows users stay with Windows, even though they constantly complain about its shortcomings, is it's familiar, and they dread learning something different.
Not to mention lock-in. You have this data that's only directly, or practically, usable with your particular software. To change to another OS, you have to transfer, and probably, convert your data, and that process might be lossy/messy/lengthy/expensive.
On practice there's a combination of the two above reasons. Windowz people are often asking "will it be possible to open all my stuff from documents? I have a bunch of word and excel documents on disk D:..." And when hearing the answer the second reason appears the scene: "Uhh! You say openoffice? It's so unhandy!" And when I hearing it from scientific crowd (who have to write article, reports, these, etc.) I always ask them have they ever heard of LaTeX? It's a funny question because I work in a polymer industry :-)
-
Andras Simon -
Bill Davidsen -
Ed Greshko -
Franta Hanzlík -
Gordon Messmer -
Greg Woods -
Hiisi -
James McKenzie -
Joe Zeff -
Kevin Fenzi -
Lamar Owen -
Landor Clark -
Michael Miles -
Michal -
Patrick Bartek -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
Rahul Sundaram -
Robert Moskowitz -
Tim -
Tom H