Well I'm not sure how many of you all have seen this: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/22/207231
And this may or may not be the correct -list for this, but here goes. I think its fair to say that a lot of the louder voices on the internet do not like Fedora for fair and unfair reasons. My question is what does this do to Fedora, and RedHat by association. I can't imagine that anything good is coming of this. All the developers here are bound by the 24hr daily limit, ie. there is a finite amount of work that any developer can accomplish, esp. those not being paid to work on Fedora. Making the assumption that all these negative word of mouth is bleeding Fedora of contributors, then what's the plan?
A few loyalist bound by the laws of Physics can only accomplish so much, and I'm even more worried that the bad karma trickles down to RedHat, who I believe is the Cinderella of the Linux community - one day I hope to be in the position to purchase RHEL licenses, but I'm becoming worried that it may not be around by time I get there.
Peace
Well I'm not sure how many of you all have seen this: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/22/207231
Look, Linux has gained very large market and more importantly mind shares. Along with this growth, has come diversity of code. This is a good thing. There are far more developers just working on the fedora project than there were total when I first found Linux (at least it appears that way to me). Redhat will be fine. Fedora will be fine. I don't hear of many businesses using Ubuntu on their servers, do you? It wouldn't bother me one little bit if Redhat narrowed it's focus just to the server market and left the desktop to other distros like the afore mentioned.
Now, that does not mean that Redhat/Fedora don't currently have their problems. I agree with the criticizem about the RPM and I've had more problems with FC6 than I have had with any release since Redhat 4.2 (I think it was it).
Anyway, sure Fedora has lost some steam, I believe these things go in cycles. People will step up and get things moving faster and better. We are already seeing some of that (IMHO). Be patient, help out where you can and everything will be fine.
On 2/22/07, aragonx@dcsnow.com aragonx@dcsnow.com wrote:
Well I'm not sure how many of you all have seen this: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/22/207231
Look, Linux has gained very large market and more importantly mind shares. Along with this growth, has come diversity of code. This is a good thing. There are far more developers just working on the fedora project than there were total when I first found Linux (at least it appears that way to me). Redhat will be fine. Fedora will be fine. I don't hear of many businesses using Ubuntu on their servers, do you? It wouldn't bother me one little bit if Redhat narrowed it's focus just to the server market and left the desktop to other distros like the afore mentioned.
Now, that does not mean that Redhat/Fedora don't currently have their problems. I agree with the criticizem about the RPM and I've had more problems with FC6 than I have had with any release since Redhat 4.2 (I think it was it).
Anyway, sure Fedora has lost some steam, I believe these things go in cycles. People will step up and get things moving faster and better. We are already seeing some of that (IMHO). Be patient, help out where you can and everything will be fine.
Ok, fair assessment.
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
way to me). Redhat will be fine. Fedora will be fine. I don't hear of many businesses using Ubuntu on their servers, do you? It wouldn't bother
One of Australias leading ISP's/Telco uses it, and another is trialling it, in place of RHES.
aragonx@dcsnow.com wrote:
Well I'm not sure how many of you all have seen this: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/22/207231
Look, Linux has gained very large market and more importantly mind shares. Along with this growth, has come diversity of code. This is a good thing. There are far more developers just working on the fedora project than there were total when I first found Linux (at least it appears that way to me). Redhat will be fine. Fedora will be fine. I don't hear of many businesses using Ubuntu on their servers, do you? It wouldn't bother me one little bit if Redhat narrowed it's focus just to the server market and left the desktop to other distros like the afore mentioned.
Now, that does not mean that Redhat/Fedora don't currently have their problems. I agree with the criticizem about the RPM and I've had more problems with FC6 than I have had with any release since Redhat 4.2 (I think it was it).
Anyway, sure Fedora has lost some steam, I believe these things go in cycles. People will step up and get things moving faster and better. We are already seeing some of that (IMHO). Be patient, help out where you can and everything will be fine.
Some may consider it almost sac-religious to suggest the Fedora/Redhat have a specific out of the box desktop version. In my opinion the big advantage of Ubuntu over Fedora is their basic install is an easy lazy setup. While one can use command line in Ubuntu it is not set up nor do I feel one is intended to use command line. The majority of computer users do not want to bother with command line, they just want simple lazy administration. I personally prefer to use Fedora but when I recently set up a laptop for my 85 year old father (his first computer) I went with Ubuntu. I do not live close enough that I can regularly drop in to maintain his computer and wanted him to be able o do it himself. While the cutting edge command line approach for geeks is preferable for most of us on this list the reality is most computer users want to be able to use their computers with as little technical skills as possible. Yes technically and for performance reasons command line is superior but if Linux is to have wide spread use the technical level of the consumer has to be considered, in my opinion the Ubuntu distros are an attempt to move in this direction.
Yes technically and for performance reasons command line is superior but if Linux is to have wide spread use the technical level of the consumer has to be considered, in my opinion the Ubuntu distros are an attempt to move in this direction.
Fedora/Redhat can NOT be the best distro for all applications. Perhaps it isn't a very good desktop. I wouldn't know. I use them as servers. If Ubuntu is a better desktop, great! When I need a desktop I will install that. I think Redhat/Fedora make superior server distros and that is what I use them for. There is plenty of room for a great desktop distro and a great server distro.
In the long run, it might even be wise for Redhat to specialize on the server sector. The number of applications that are available for Linux has grown to the point where I don't see how one company, no matter the size, would be able to find the 'best of breed' apps for everything.
With growth, comes change.
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 14:49 -0500, aragonx@dcsnow.com wrote:
I don't see how one company, no matter the size, would be able to find the 'best of breed' apps for everything.
I don't see why not. You're presuming that everybody in a company works on just one thing.
On 23/02/07, aragonx@dcsnow.com aragonx@dcsnow.com wrote:
Yes technically and for performance reasons command line is superior but if Linux is to have wide spread use the technical level of the consumer has to be considered, in my opinion the Ubuntu distros are an attempt to move in this direction.
Fedora/Redhat can NOT be the best distro for all applications. Perhaps it isn't a very good desktop. I wouldn't know. I use them as servers. If Ubuntu is a better desktop, great! When I need a desktop I will install that. I think Redhat/Fedora make superior server distros and that is what I use them for. There is plenty of room for a great desktop distro and a great server distro.
In the long run, it might even be wise for Redhat to specialize on the server sector. The number of applications that are available for Linux has grown to the point where I don't see how one company, no matter the size, would be able to find the 'best of breed' apps for everything.
With growth, comes change.
I agree that one distro should not be both server AND desktop. Even M$ has a desktop version of Windows (Vista) and a server version (Server). Well, it might be more like trashcan version and spambot version, but you get the point.
Dotan Cohen
http://what-is-what.com/what_is/fedora.html http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/617/yo-yo.html
On 2/25/07, Dotan Cohen dotancohen@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/02/07, aragonx@dcsnow.com aragonx@dcsnow.com wrote:
Yes technically and for performance reasons command line is superior but if Linux is to have wide spread use the technical level of the consumer has to be considered, in my opinion the Ubuntu distros are an attempt to move in this direction.
Fedora/Redhat can NOT be the best distro for all applications. Perhaps it isn't a very good desktop. I wouldn't know. I use them as servers. If Ubuntu is a better desktop, great! When I need a desktop I will install that. I think Redhat/Fedora make superior server distros and that is what I use them for. There is plenty of room for a great desktop distro and a great server distro.
In the long run, it might even be wise for Redhat to specialize on the server sector. The number of applications that are available for Linux has grown to the point where I don't see how one company, no matter the size, would be able to find the 'best of breed' apps for everything.
With growth, comes change.
I agree that one distro should not be both server AND desktop. Even M$ has a desktop version of Windows (Vista) and a server version (Server). Well, it might be more like trashcan version and spambot version, but you get the point.
Dotan Cohen
Strange complaint, since Fedora will have a Desktop and a Server spin - or are you implying that the diff. Windows "versions" are more than spins?
On 24/02/07, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that one distro should not be both server AND desktop. Even M$ has a desktop version of Windows (Vista) and a server version (Server). Well, it might be more like trashcan version and spambot version, but you get the point.
Dotan Cohen
Strange complaint, since Fedora will have a Desktop and a Server spin
- or are you implying that the diff. Windows "versions" are more than
spins?
That wasn't a complaint. Rather, I see the wisdom in 'spins' and think that it should have been done a long time ago. I'm also rather hoping that the powers that be will get it down to THREE DISKS maximum. I've already had to install Kubuntu on peoples machines because 5 disks is way to much to have a potential convert download.
While I'm not familiar with the Windows code base, I'd image that XP (and possible Vista) shares quite a bit of code with Server. I think that Server can be run as a desktop OS, in fact.
Dotan Cohen
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/lyrics/96/321/madonna/i_m_breathless.html http://what-is-what.com/what_is/microsoft.html
Dotan Cohen wrote:
On 24/02/07, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that one distro should not be both server AND desktop. Even M$ has a desktop version of Windows (Vista) and a server version (Server). Well, it might be more like trashcan version and spambot version, but you get the point.
Dotan Cohen
Strange complaint, since Fedora will have a Desktop and a Server spin
- or are you implying that the diff. Windows "versions" are more than
spins?
That wasn't a complaint. Rather, I see the wisdom in 'spins' and think that it should have been done a long time ago. I'm also rather hoping that the powers that be will get it down to THREE DISKS maximum. I've already had to install Kubuntu on peoples machines because 5 disks is way to much to have a potential convert download.
The whole idea of spins is that we need to continue serving completely conflicting requirements. What would we do with all the end users who need to have all the packages in the media since they dont have a good network access to pull packages off a repository? The number of CD's is by no means the final criteria for selction. This is the reason there is a broad range of choice provided now right from a single installable live cd to a complete DVD set with 2 or 3 DVD's depending on the architecture. Plus, you get the tools to produce your own live cd or spin in a trivial fashion.
Rahul
On 24/02/07, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
The whole idea of spins is that we need to continue serving completely conflicting requirements. What would we do with all the end users who need to have all the packages in the media since they dont have a good network access to pull packages off a repository? The number of CD's is by no means the final criteria for selction. This is the reason there is a broad range of choice provided now right from a single installable live cd to a complete DVD set with 2 or 3 DVD's depending on the architecture. Plus, you get the tools to produce your own live cd or spin in a trivial fashion.
Rahul
In an ideal world the install medium would not be a factor in selecting a Linux distro, I agree. However, it does have veto power and when I've got a hour to download, my chances of getting Kubuntu intact at the end of that hour are much better than getting Fedora. Furthermore, I have to burn those disks, and I can do one disk in five minutes with no babysitting, but burning five disks require that I babysit the machine for half an hour. Not a good impression to make on someone who I'm installing thier first Linux distro for.
Shall I continue with the amount of problems that a 5 disk installation makes? Thats 5 disks to check before an install. That's five times the chance that a disk will get scratching in handling. Also, here Fedora competes with cracked versions of Windows with Office (and probably spyware) preinstalled. Sad, but a fact. Nobody has morals, and nobody thinks that they are stealing. Fedora has to compete with a one-disk install of Windows XP, that can be installed in an hour with no babysitting. Fedora installs require one to switch disk three or four times.
For my own use, I use Fedora. But there are enough hurdles to overcome before one even thinks about installing Linux instead of Windows. Making them download, burn, and check 5 disks is a very strong turnoff. Not to mention all the babysitting that disk-swapping requires.
Dotan Cohen
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/646/tesla.html http://what-is-what.com/what_is/html_email.html
[snip]
Fedora has to compete with a one-disk install of Windows XP, that can be installed in an hour with no babysitting. Fedora installs require one to switch disk three or four times.
No way. Win XP comes with NOTHING. You can't even open ZIP file. FC includes thousands(?) of programs. Not a fair comparison.
Since FC5, I only download the first two discs and do a minimal install. I then yum groupinstall Gnome, KDE, etc. Actual time I need to be present is about an hour - do XP and say 100 applications and tell me how long it takes you.
Chris
Chris Mohler wrote:
[snip]
Fedora has to compete with a one-disk install of Windows XP, that can be installed in an hour with no babysitting. Fedora installs require one to switch disk three or four times.
No way. Win XP comes with NOTHING. You can't even open ZIP file. FC includes thousands(?) of programs. Not a fair comparison.
Since FC5, I only download the first two discs and do a minimal install. I then yum groupinstall Gnome, KDE, etc. Actual time I need to be present is about an hour - do XP and say 100 applications and tell me how long it takes you.
Chris
I'll second that. With Fedora, you can get a complete word-processing suite (though why they disabled the Replacement list in AutoCorrect for OpenOffice Writer, no one has ever explained), compilation and linking tools for nearly every programming language of any consequence, your choice of two database managers, and a complete set of network diagnostic tools.
Whereas with Windows XP (I can't vouch for Vista) you're limited to one each rich-text and plain-text editors, a very crude and non-robust firewall, /no/ development tools (and you're lucky to get a Java Runtime Environment), and a browser whose chief or only recommendation is that Microsoft has convinced a lot of Web sites to "optimize" their content for it.
Updating can be set to automatic, but it is like walking a tightrope stretched over a bed of swords (as you can see in the Joan Crawford motion picture /Berserk/) while wearing a blindfold. Once in fact, a Windows XP update broke every applications' ability to save new documents, or alter old ones. I had to /roll back/ some updates--by /trial and error/--to correct this fault.
At least with Fedora you can use a package manager that reads repository metadata and tells you what it wants to update, what that package does, and what it requires.
Now I'd certainly like to see some programs that can help me do certain things better than I can do them today. I tried for a week to set up a decent environment for creating and burning DVD-Video disks. No joy. And right now, an awful lot of sites, many of which are very popular, are offering multimedia content in proprietary formats. Until YouTube, for example, at least allows an Ogg Theora option, you still have to go--er--elsewhere to find reverse-engineered codecs that permit you to read more on the site than its text and still images.
Nevertheless, I do the bulk of my work on a Fedora machine, including writing and development. And if RH gets ready to implement a 13-month security-update support cycle for F7 and beyond, then it will definitely become the distro of choice for building a HIPAA-compliant server of laboratory and other medical data--which is my current project.
Temlakos
On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 15:54 -0500, Temlakos wrote:
With Fedora, you can get a complete word-processing suite (though why they disabled the Replacement list in AutoCorrect for OpenOffice Writer, no one has ever explained)
I seem to recall someone mentioning search and replace being under threat of one of those foolish patents from some other application that first provided search and replace, according to them.
Tim wrote:
On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 15:54 -0500, Temlakos wrote:
With Fedora, you can get a complete word-processing suite (though why they disabled the Replacement list in AutoCorrect for OpenOffice Writer, no one has ever explained)
I seem to recall someone mentioning search and replace being under threat of one of those foolish patents from some other application that first provided search and replace, according to them.
Interesting. I would think you could find all kinds of prier are for search and replace. Maybe not auto-correct, but there was search & replace, and possibly a spell checker in Word Star for CP/M. The spell checker would have been a separate module - everything was broken down into modules because of memory limits. (It ran in less then 64k of RAM.)
Mikkel
On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 09:10 -0600, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 15:54 -0500, Temlakos wrote:
With Fedora, you can get a complete word-processing suite (though why they disabled the Replacement list in AutoCorrect for OpenOffice Writer, no one has ever explained)
I seem to recall someone mentioning search and replace being under threat of one of those foolish patents from some other application that first provided search and replace, according to them.
Interesting. I would think you could find all kinds of prier are for search and replace. Maybe not auto-correct, but there was search & replace, and possibly a spell checker in Word Star for CP/M. The spell checker would have been a separate module - everything was broken down into modules because of memory limits. (It ran in less then 64k of RAM.)
It was a bit of a clunker, but it worked just fine. All the CP/M machines I had had 64k of memory, and I had darn near one of each. Ric
Ric Moore wrote:
It was a bit of a clunker, but it worked just fine. All the CP/M machines I had had 64k of memory, and I had darn near one of each. Ric
I had an 8085 based one that could only use 60k because of where 2K of ROM was mapped in. It was not designed to let you map out the ROM after booting. I still have a Z-80 system with 64k of dynamic RAM, and 256K of static RAM - the static RAM has battery backup. The system uses extended addressing, and the disk controller uses the static RAM as a RAM disk. (DMA support as well.) You would be surprised st how much faster the system boots/runs when you use the RAM disk as the system drive. It also help to have the WS overlay files on it.
Mikkel
On 25/02/07, Mikkel L. Ellertson mikkel@infinity-ltd.com wrote:
Ric Moore wrote:
It was a bit of a clunker, but it worked just fine. All the CP/M machines I had had 64k of memory, and I had darn near one of each. Ric
I had an 8085 based one that could only use 60k because of where 2K of ROM was mapped in. It was not designed to let you map out the ROM after booting. I still have a Z-80 system with 64k of dynamic RAM, and 256K of static RAM - the static RAM has battery backup. The system uses extended addressing, and the disk controller uses the static RAM as a RAM disk. (DMA support as well.) You would be surprised st how much faster the system boots/runs when you use the RAM disk as the system drive. It also help to have the WS overlay files on it.
Mikkel
Why can't Fedora do this? I've got 2Gb of physical RAM on this box. I know that slax can be booted into a little as 256MB of RAM to free up the optical drive, so I'm sure that Fedora can fit in my 2GB.
Dotan Cohen
http://technology-sleuth.com/short_answer/what_is_hdtv.html http://what-is-what.com/what_is/webpage.html
Dotan Cohen wrote:
On 25/02/07, Mikkel L. Ellertson mikkel@infinity-ltd.com wrote:
I still have a Z-80 system with 64k of dynamic RAM, and 256K of static RAM - the static RAM has battery backup. The system uses extended addressing, and the disk controller uses the static RAM as a RAM disk. (DMA support as well.) You would be surprised at how much faster the system boots/runs when you use the RAM disk as the system drive. It also help to have the WS overlay files on it.
Mikkel
Why can't Fedora do this? I've got 2Gb of physical RAM on this box. I know that slax can be booted into a little as 256MB of RAM to free up the optical drive, so I'm sure that Fedora can fit in my 2GB.
Dotan Cohen
You can create a RAM disk, and copy files over to it. But it tends to work out better to use the memory for buffers and disk cache instead when you are using a reasonably fast hard drive. (Optical drives are another story - they are MUCH slower.)
The thing to remember is that most CP/M systems were run from floppy disks. They also had to do a lot of swapping in and out because the processors could only directly address 64K of RAM. CP/M+ could swap pages in and out if your hardware supported it, but you were still limited to 64K mapped in at one time.
If you want a system that boots up fast, you have the option of suspend to RAM or suspend to disk. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but if they work on your system, they can get you to a working desktop in a short time.
Mikkel
On 27/02/07, Mikkel L. Ellertson mikkel@infinity-ltd.com wrote:
You can create a RAM disk, and copy files over to it. But it tends to work out better to use the memory for buffers and disk cache instead when you are using a reasonably fast hard drive. (Optical drives are another story - they are MUCH slower.)
The thing to remember is that most CP/M systems were run from floppy disks. They also had to do a lot of swapping in and out because the processors could only directly address 64K of RAM. CP/M+ could swap pages in and out if your hardware supported it, but you were still limited to 64K mapped in at one time.
If you want a system that boots up fast, you have the option of suspend to RAM or suspend to disk. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but if they work on your system, they can get you to a working desktop in a short time.
Mikkel
I'm not looking for fast boot times, rather for snappy system performance. Slax in RAM is _f_a_s_t_. I really could not believe how fast the system was. Give it a shot if you're not familiar with it. Open Office loads in about a second, slowed only by it's splash screen. Firefox comes up instantly.
Dotan Cohen
http://what-is-what.com/what_is/website.html http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/lyrics/129/108/carey_mariah/butterfly.html
Dotan Cohen wrote:
If you want a system that boots up fast, you have the option of suspend to RAM or suspend to disk. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but if they work on your system, they can get you to a working desktop in a short time.
I'm not looking for fast boot times, rather for snappy system performance. Slax in RAM is _f_a_s_t_. I really could not believe how fast the system was. Give it a shot if you're not familiar with it. Open Office loads in about a second, slowed only by it's splash screen. Firefox comes up instantly.
That should happen the 2nd time you load something or even better as the 2nd user executing the same program someone else is running on any machine that would have had enough memory for a ramdisk. Anything loaded from disk to ram will normally stay there until the buffer space is needed for something else. Maybe you just need to come up with a way to preload a few programs.
On 27/02/07, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
That should happen the 2nd time you load something or even better as the 2nd user executing the same program someone else is running on any machine that would have had enough memory for a ramdisk. Anything loaded from disk to ram will normally stay there until the buffer space is needed for something else. Maybe you just need to come up with a way to preload a few programs.
Open Office has a preloading feature, I decided a while ago that I didn't like it but I don't remember why. Maybe I will try using it again. But the point I was trying to make is that the whole OS can easily fit into less RAM than Windows Vista runs it's shell in (540 MB on a clean install). If Fedora can run the OS in 256 RAM, it will absolutely fly. I'd love that, and I'm sure a lot of other people would as well.
Dotan Cohen
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/240/haddaway.html http://uldu.com
Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com writes:
Maybe you just need to come up with a way to preload a few programs.
In a startup script:
cat /usr/lib/openoffice.org2.0/program/* > /dev/null cat /usr/lib/firefox-$VERSION/firefox-bin > /dev/null ...
This will at least put those programs in the disk cache.
Regards Ingemar
At 3:54 PM +0100 3/1/07, Ingemar Nilsson wrote:
Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com writes:
Maybe you just need to come up with a way to preload a few programs.
In a startup script:
...
Readahead does this, and is probably already installed. "rpm -qil readahead" and read its README.
I use the following command to list missing files in the readahead.later file:
while read f ; do [[ ! -a "$f" ]] && echo "'$f'" ; done \ </etc/readahead.d/default.later
Tony Nelson tonynelson@georgeanelson.com writes:
Readahead does this, and is probably already installed. "rpm -qil readahead" and read its README.
I know that readahead exists, but not exactly what files are actually read.
Regards Ingemar
On 24/02/07, Temlakos temlakos@gmail.com wrote:
I'll second that. With Fedora, you can get a complete word-processing suite (though why they disabled the Replacement list in AutoCorrect for OpenOffice Writer, no one has ever explained), compilation and linking tools for nearly every programming language of any consequence, your choice of two database managers, and a complete set of network diagnostic tools.
Great. All these horseshoes want is IE, Office, and MediaPlayer. And their pirated XP disks already have Office. Here's the proof: people are receptive to Kubuntu. One disk. It doesn't look complicated.
Whereas with Windows XP (I can't vouch for Vista) you're limited to one each rich-text and plain-text editors, a very crude and non-robust firewall, /no/ development tools (and you're lucky to get a Java Runtime Environment), and a browser whose chief or only recommendation is that Microsoft has convinced a lot of Web sites to "optimize" their content for it.
Unfortunately, that's the whole Hebrew internet. All the major Israeli sites are built with M$ tools and don't even work in Fx on Windows. I've written to almost all of the sites. Why do you think I'm using a Gmail address instead of Walla (major Israeli site)? Because they're written with ActiveX crap for submit buttons!
Updating can be set to automatic, but it is like walking a tightrope stretched over a bed of swords (as you can see in the Joan Crawford motion picture /Berserk/) while wearing a blindfold. Once in fact, a Windows XP update broke every applications' ability to save new documents, or alter old ones. I had to /roll back/ some updates--by /trial and error/--to correct this fault.
If you want to tell me that Fedora is any better, go ahead and make me laugh. A recent update ruined suspend on my laptop: I can only hibernate now. And every updagte requires that I reconfigure VMWare.
At least with Fedora you can use a package manager that reads repository metadata and tells you what it wants to update, what that package does, and what it requires.
True, but that's no guarantee that it will work. And the monkeys who are called everyday users don't read all that stuff. Few people are going to take a CS class to operating their OS.
Now I'd certainly like to see some programs that can help me do certain things better than I can do them today. I tried for a week to set up a decent environment for creating and burning DVD-Video disks. No joy. And right now, an awful lot of sites, many of which are very popular, are offering multimedia content in proprietary formats. Until YouTube, for example, at least allows an Ogg Theora option, you still have to go--er--elsewhere to find reverse-engineered codecs that permit you to read more on the site than its text and still images.
Nevertheless, I do the bulk of my work on a Fedora machine, including writing and development. And if RH gets ready to implement a 13-month security-update support cycle for F7 and beyond, then it will definitely become the distro of choice for building a HIPAA-compliant server of laboratory and other medical data--which is my current project.
I also use Fedora, and after trying a few other distros I came back to Fedora. Suse was polished, Kubuntu was easy to administer and use on a day to day basis, but Fedora is to me the closest thing to a 'real' OS. That's good for tech-heads like me, who want to learn. Not good for bonehead 'average' computer users. Ubuntu IS designed for them. The one-disk install is an extension of that.
Dotan Cohen
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/556/45_grave.html http://technology-sleuth.com/short_answer/what_is_a_router.html
"Dotan Cohen" dotancohen@gmail.com writes:
And every updagte requires that I reconfigure VMWare.
I hope that you mean "every kernel update".
Regards Ingemar
On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 14:24 -0600, Chris Mohler wrote:
[snip]
Fedora has to compete with a one-disk install of Windows XP, that can be installed in an hour with no babysitting. Fedora installs require one to switch disk three or four times.
No way. Win XP comes with NOTHING. You can't even open ZIP file. FC includes thousands(?) of programs. Not a fair comparison.
Since FC5, I only download the first two discs and do a minimal install. I then yum groupinstall Gnome, KDE, etc. Actual time I need to be present is about an hour - do XP and say 100 applications and tell me how long it takes you.
Chris
There is some truth in what you say but implies that: 1. You have semi-fast Internet connection. 2. You know the group names of the things you want to install. 3. yum update is of less use to you. It is hard to know what things your would like to install that may be out there.
Another strange thing that the Fedora distribution has one of the lowest number of packages in the core distribution and one the largest number of CDs in the distributed set. At least that was true a year or so ago. Of course, more modern computers that read DVDs are free of CD changing problems during installation. -- ======================================================================= "Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberrys!" -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail ======================================================================= Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam@sbcglobal.net
There is some truth in what you say but implies that:
- You have semi-fast Internet connection.
Of course. But DL of the ISOs will hardly be any faster.
- You know the group names of the things you want to install.
#yum grouplist
- yum update is of less use to you. It is hard to know what things your
would like to install that may be out there.
I think there are several gui frontends for yum: yumex and pirut come to mind. Also: #yum-search "what you want to do" is a good first step. Granted you might not always find anything, but many times you will. I don't use the front-ends, but assume they have some type of search functionality also.
Anyway, I hate getting sucked into these types of discussions. I just wanted say that FC 5 discs vs XP 1 disc is not really a valid comparison.
Chris
On 24/02/07, Aaron Konstam akonstam@sbcglobal.net wrote:
No way. Win XP comes with NOTHING. You can't even open ZIP file. FC includes thousands(?) of programs. Not a fair comparison.
Since FC5, I only download the first two discs and do a minimal install. I then yum groupinstall Gnome, KDE, etc. Actual time I need to be present is about an hour - do XP and say 100 applications and tell me how long it takes you.
Chris
There is some truth in what you say but implies that:
- You have semi-fast Internet connection.
- You know the group names of the things you want to install.
- yum update is of less use to you. It is hard to know what things your
would like to install that may be out there.
Another strange thing that the Fedora distribution has one of the lowest number of packages in the core distribution and one the largest number of CDs in the distributed set. At least that was true a year or so ago. Of course, more modern computers that read DVDs are free of CD changing problems during installation.
If you're lucky and careful then you can install on two disks. So maybe a minimal spin is in order. Shall I post a wish-bug?
Dotan Cohen
http://technology-sleuth.com/technical_answer/what_is_a_cellphone.html http://what-is-what.com/what_is/yahoo.html
Chris Mohler wrote:
[snip]
Fedora has to compete with a one-disk install of Windows XP, that can be installed in an hour with no babysitting. Fedora installs require one to switch disk three or four times.
No way. Win XP comes with NOTHING. You can't even open ZIP file. FC includes thousands(?) of programs. Not a fair comparison.
Since FC5, I only download the first two discs and do a minimal install. I then yum groupinstall Gnome, KDE, etc. Actual time I need to be present is about an hour - do XP and say 100 applications and tell me how long it takes you.
Chris
Since when could Windows XP not open zips by default? I just installed XP for someone and I can open zip files just fine. I also do not have Winzip installed on a laptop and it opens zip files and can create zip files without winzip having been downloaded or any other archive manager for that matter. Are there version of winxp that can not zip and unzip? =-/ Weird.
Alex White
Since when could Windows XP not open zips by default? I just installed XP for someone and I can open zip files just fine. I also do not have Winzip installed on a laptop and it opens zip files and can create zip files without winzip having been downloaded or any other archive manager for that matter. Are there version of winxp that can not zip and unzip? =-/ Weird.
Alex White
Maybe I'm thinking of win2k. The point still stands: a plain ol' XP install isn't goint to give you much joy. If it'll open a ZIP, how about DOC? PPT? Any MS Office file? Or SVG, AI, PSD? What about a plain old PDF?
These are things handled by 'yum -y groupinstall "GNOME Desktop Environment"', with zero human interaction required.
Chris
Chris Mohler wrote:
Since when could Windows XP not open zips by default? I just installed XP for someone and I can open zip files just fine. I also do not have Winzip installed on a laptop and it opens zip files and can create zip files without winzip having been downloaded or any other archive manager for that matter. Are there version of winxp that can not zip and unzip? =-/ Weird.
Alex White
Maybe I'm thinking of win2k. The point still stands: a plain ol' XP install isn't goint to give you much joy. If it'll open a ZIP, how about DOC? PPT? Any MS Office file? Or SVG, AI, PSD? What about a plain old PDF?
These are things handled by 'yum -y groupinstall "GNOME Desktop Environment"', with zero human interaction required.
Chris
Oh no! I wasn't arguin' for XP. I just, was pretty sure that XP did. 2k sure didn't. And it sure can't do anything else by default that Fedora can. I'm a CentOS user, but I have FC6 on a laptop, and it runs well. I don't use office though, I'm an emacs user lol. I completely understand the point you're making.
Perhaps I should delete 'emacs' from this e-mail so there's no holy war. ;)
Sincerely,
Alex White
On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 18:18 -0600, Alex White wrote:
I don't use office though, I'm an emacs user lol. I completely understand the point you're making.
Perhaps I should delete 'emacs' from this e-mail so there's no holy war. ;)
I admire the living heck outa someone that can use that beast on a day-to-day basis. That's walking the walk and talking the talk, in my book. Semper Fi and Booyah! to you sir. Ric
On 24/02/07, Chris Mohler cr33dog@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
Fedora has to compete with a one-disk install of Windows XP, that can be installed in an hour with no babysitting. Fedora installs require one to switch disk three or four times.
No way. Win XP comes with NOTHING. You can't even open ZIP file. FC includes thousands(?) of programs. Not a fair comparison.
Since FC5, I only download the first two discs and do a minimal install. I then yum groupinstall Gnome, KDE, etc. Actual time I need to be present is about an hour - do XP and say 100 applications and tell me how long it takes you.
Chris
XP can open zips, but not rars. And even though this is supposed to be a technical university, people don't look at the 50 disks that they need to install XP, Office, anti-this and anti-that. They have one (pirated) disk labeled XP, and it installs. Fedora has 5.
You can argue with me, but you'd be argueing with someone who agrees with you. I'm telling you how the public views Fedora. Because I deal with them, because I try to help them. Not myself, and not Fedora. I try to explain why pirating is bad, and the dangers of XP, and the few people who actually are receptive, are discouraged by the fact that they need 5 install disks. It makes fedora seems complicated, a preconception that people already have of linux in general.
Dotan Cohen
http://dotancohen.com/eng/dell.php http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/lyrics/92/321/madonna/madonna.html
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 02:07:16PM +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote:
XP can open zips, but not rars. And even though this is supposed to be a technical university, people don't look at the 50 disks that they
Unless I'm mistaken, Fedora can't open rars without additional software either -- it's a proprietary format.
On 25/02/07, Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org wrote:
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 02:07:16PM +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote:
XP can open zips, but not rars. And even though this is supposed to be a technical university, people don't look at the 50 disks that they
Unless I'm mistaken, Fedora can't open rars without additional software either -- it's a proprietary format.
Hey, you're right. One more argument pro-Fedora out the Windows. :)
Dotan Cohen
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/379/no_authority.html http://what-is-what.com/what_is/voip.html
Dotan Cohen wrote:
On 24/02/07, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
The whole idea of spins is that we need to continue serving completely conflicting requirements. What would we do with all the end users who need to have all the packages in the media since they dont have a good network access to pull packages off a repository? The number of CD's is by no means the final criteria for selction. This is the reason there is a broad range of choice provided now right from a single installable live cd to a complete DVD set with 2 or 3 DVD's depending on the architecture. Plus, you get the tools to produce your own live cd or spin in a trivial fashion.
Rahul
In an ideal world the install medium would not be a factor in selecting a Linux distro, I agree. However, it does have veto power and when I've got a hour to download, my chances of getting Kubuntu intact at the end of that hour are much better than getting Fedora. Furthermore, I have to burn those disks, and I can do one disk in five minutes with no babysitting, but burning five disks require that I babysit the machine for half an hour. Not a good impression to make on someone who I'm installing thier first Linux distro for.
Shall I continue with the amount of problems that a 5 disk installation makes? Thats 5 disks to check before an install. That's five times the chance that a disk will get scratching in handling. Also, here Fedora competes with cracked versions of Windows with Office (and probably spyware) preinstalled. Sad, but a fact. Nobody has morals, and nobody thinks that they are stealing. Fedora has to compete with a one-disk install of Windows XP, that can be installed in an hour with no babysitting. Fedora installs require one to switch disk three or four times.
For my own use, I use Fedora. But there are enough hurdles to overcome before one even thinks about installing Linux instead of Windows. Making them download, burn, and check 5 disks is a very strong turnoff. Not to mention all the babysitting that disk-swapping requires.
Dotan Cohen
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/646/tesla.html http://what-is-what.com/what_is/html_email.html
For me the ideal Fedora distro(s) would be a 1 live disk for both server and a desktop version. The ability as we have now to add individual packages we feel the need for. And the additional 3 to 5 disks we have now could be bundled packages such as a graphics add on to either of the of the main distros. Yes I know graphics on a server does not make a lot of sense. Other packages could be a security bundle, sql bundle etc.
Norm wrote:
For me the ideal Fedora distro(s) would be a 1 live disk for both server and a desktop version. The ability as we have now to add individual packages we feel the need for. And the additional 3 to 5 disks we have
What I would like to see in Fedora 7 is a 2 DVD set that has *everything*. Almost all ISPs that I can opt for here have ridiculously low caps on download limits. So, unless I use my office network (which is okay for my laptop, but not for my desktop), I can't do any heavy duty yum'ing.
now could be bundled packages such as a graphics add on to either of the of the main distros. Yes I know graphics on a server does not make a lot of sense. Other packages could be a security bundle, sql bundle etc.
Not necessarily. AFAIK, Oracle installation has to be done thru GUI. So whenever I am building a box for a database server I have to put in a minimal gnome desktop. My DBA even wanted to have a remote GUI terminal (he heard of XDMCP from somewhere). I literally had to put a gun to his head and make him do all his work via putty.
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 12:45:20PM +0530, Vivek J. Patankar wrote:
What I would like to see in Fedora 7 is a 2 DVD set that has *everything*. Almost all ISPs that I can opt for here have ridiculously low caps on download limits. So, unless I use my office network (which is okay for my laptop, but not for my desktop), I can't do any heavy duty yum'ing.
Better than that, you'll be able to make an N DVD or CD set containing whatever you want. And you could include all the security updates, so you won't have to yum those.
Not necessarily. AFAIK, Oracle installation has to be done thru GUI. So whenever I am building a box for a database server I have to put in a minimal gnome desktop. My DBA even wanted to have a remote GUI terminal (he heard of XDMCP from somewhere). I literally had to put a gun to his head and make him do all his work via putty.
Put that gun away! Your DBA is totally right. Remote GUI is *exactly* the way to handle this. You have a much more secure server automatically protected from X server security flaws (setuid, runs as root, crazy memory access required = it's gonna happen again), and yet you as an admin have the full GUI at your disposal.
Using XDMCP is an outdate approach, of course -- instead, tunnel X over ssh. You can even do this with Putty and a free X server for Windows, if necessary.
On 2/25/07, Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org wrote:
(he heard of XDMCP from somewhere). I literally had to put a gun to his head and make him do all his work via putty.
Put that gun away! Your DBA is totally right. Remote GUI is *exactly* the way to handle this. You have a much more secure server automatically protected from X server security flaws (setuid, runs as root, crazy memory access required = it's gonna happen again), and yet you as an admin have the full GUI at your disposal.
He doesn't need a GUI for anything that he does. The only application that I've seen him use is gnome-terminal!
Vivek J. Patankar wrote:
Norm wrote:
For me the ideal Fedora distro(s) would be a 1 live disk for both server and a desktop version. The ability as we have now to add individual packages we feel the need for. And the additional 3 to 5 disks we have
What I would like to see in Fedora 7 is a 2 DVD set that has *everything*. Almost all ISPs that I can opt for here have ridiculously low caps on download limits. So, unless I use my office network (which is okay for my laptop, but not for my desktop), I can't do any heavy duty yum'ing.
now could be bundled packages such as a graphics add on to either of the of the main distros. Yes I know graphics on a server does not make a lot of sense. Other packages could be a security bundle, sql bundle etc.
Not necessarily. AFAIK, Oracle installation has to be done thru GUI. So whenever I am building a box for a database server I have to put in a minimal gnome desktop. My DBA even wanted to have a remote GUI terminal (he heard of XDMCP from somewhere). I literally had to put a gun to his head and make him do all his work via putty.
Remote X with forwarding via 'ssh -Y' makes a lot more sense for servers than having a real console and all of the desktop environment stuff installed. If you have low bandwidth or need remote access you can run freenx on a machine near the servers, and the free NX client (windows, linux or mac) from the remote location(s). This gets you an X desktop with good remote performance that you can use to host ssh sessions with or without X forwarding to your server machines. And it gets even better: with nx/freenx you can disconnect and suspend a session and reconnect later, even from a different location with all the communication done via ssh, so if you need to start some long running programs from work and check on them later from home it is easy to do.
Make your DBA happy...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Vivek J. Patankar wrote:
Norm wrote:
For me the ideal Fedora distro(s) would be a 1 live disk for both server and a desktop version. The ability as we have now to add individual packages we feel the need for. And the additional 3 to 5 disks we have
What I would like to see in Fedora 7 is a 2 DVD set that has *everything*. Almost all ISPs that I can opt for here have ridiculously low caps on download limits. So, unless I use my office network (which is okay for my laptop, but not for my desktop), I can't do any heavy duty yum'ing.
I see this as problematic. The day after release, many packages are updated and must be yummed for (assuming you want the full latest install. Anyone with a 'slow' connection is out of luck, those with a fast connection are not inconvenienced at all either way.
Personally I usually install a majority of packages, though not nearly all, and usually I get the DVD via BT as this takes a good strain from the fedora servers. I have to wonder if it would be feasible or advantageous to set up a torrent for each yum group, and have a basic cd with just minimal setup + the Internet etc. which could then be customized fairly quickly and has the advantage of being as small as possible for everyone.
Scott
now could be bundled packages such as a graphics add on to either of the of the main distros. Yes I know graphics on a server does not make a lot of sense. Other packages could be a security bundle, sql bundle etc.
Not necessarily. AFAIK, Oracle installation has to be done thru GUI. So whenever I am building a box for a database server I have to put in a minimal gnome desktop. My DBA even wanted to have a remote GUI terminal (he heard of XDMCP from somewhere). I literally had to put a gun to his head and make him do all his work via putty.
On 25/02/07, oldman talbotscott@cox.net wrote:
I have to wonder if it would be feasible or advantageous to set up a torrent for each yum group, and have a basic cd with just minimal setup + the Internet etc. which could then be customized fairly quickly and has the advantage of being as small as possible for everyone.
Scott
I've been argueing for this since FC4. If half the disk gets updating in a week anyway, then why force us to download it all? Something similar to a network install, but would create a working system before turning to the repos for packages.
Dotan Cohen
http://what-is-what.com/what_is/open_source.html http://technology-sleuth.com/technical_answer/what_are_the_advantages_of_lcd...
On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 22:13 +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote:
Fedora has to compete with a one-disk install of Windows XP, that can be installed in an hour with no babysitting.
I'd argue about it not needing minding, but that's one disc of OS, not an OS with applications. Personally, I would like to see a Fedora OS installation that was *JUST* the OS. Let everything else be an extra. Wnat X? Install it, additionally, now or post OS installation. You get a quick installation, no extra baggage, and you can add your extra stuff working inside a completely functional OS instead of the limits of a boot CD.
Dotan Cohen wrote:
On 24/02/07, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
The whole idea of spins is that we need to continue serving completely conflicting requirements. What would we do with all the end users who need to have all the packages in the media since they dont have a good network access to pull packages off a repository? The number of CD's is by no means the final criteria for selction. This is the reason there is a broad range of choice provided now right from a single installable live cd to a complete DVD set with 2 or 3 DVD's depending on the architecture. Plus, you get the tools to produce your own live cd or spin in a trivial fashion.
Rahul
In an ideal world the install medium would not be a factor in selecting a Linux distro, I agree. However, it does have veto power and when I've got a hour to download, my chances of getting Kubuntu intact at the end of that hour are much better than getting Fedora. Furthermore, I have to burn those disks, and I can do one disk in five minutes with no babysitting, but burning five disks require that I babysit the machine for half an hour. Not a good impression to make on someone who I'm installing thier first Linux distro for.
Shall I continue with the amount of problems that a 5 disk installation makes? Thats 5 disks to check before an install. That's five times the chance that a disk will get scratching in handling. Also, here Fedora competes with cracked versions of Windows with Office (and probably spyware) preinstalled. Sad, but a fact. Nobody has morals, and nobody thinks that they are stealing. Fedora has to compete with a one-disk install of Windows XP, that can be installed in an hour with no babysitting. Fedora installs require one to switch disk three or four times.
For my own use, I use Fedora. But there are enough hurdles to overcome before one even thinks about installing Linux instead of Windows. Making them download, burn, and check 5 disks is a very strong turnoff. Not to mention all the babysitting that disk-swapping requires.
This whole reply missed out the fact that there is much more flexibility in the next release. Please read what I said again.
Rahul
On 2/24/07, Dotan Cohen dotancohen@gmail.com wrote:
In an ideal world the install medium would not be a factor in selecting a Linux distro, I agree. However, it does have veto power and when I've got a hour to download, my chances of getting Kubuntu intact at the end of that hour are much better than getting Fedora. Furthermore, I have to burn those disks, and I can do one disk in five minutes with no babysitting, but burning five disks require that I babysit the machine for half an hour. Not a good impression to make on someone who I'm installing thier first Linux distro for.
You only have to burn them if it is your first Linux install.
Shall I continue with the amount of problems that a 5 disk installation makes? Thats 5 disks to check before an install. That's five times the chance that a disk will get scratching in handling.
Download the iso images to an NFS-exported directory. Burn the first disk. Boot it with "linux askmethod" at the boot prompt. Pick nfs image as the install method. Fill in the info for the host and path to the nfs directory where you downloaded the images. When the install starts, go away and come back when it is finished. No disk swapping or babysitting needed.
On 26/02/07, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/24/07, Dotan Cohen dotancohen@gmail.com wrote:
In an ideal world the install medium would not be a factor in selecting a Linux distro, I agree. However, it does have veto power and when I've got a hour to download, my chances of getting Kubuntu intact at the end of that hour are much better than getting Fedora. Furthermore, I have to burn those disks, and I can do one disk in five minutes with no babysitting, but burning five disks require that I babysit the machine for half an hour. Not a good impression to make on someone who I'm installing thier first Linux distro for.
You only have to burn them if it is your first Linux install.
For converts (those who [k]ubuntu is aimed at, remember this started because someone mentioned ubuntu) it WILL be their first install.
Shall I continue with the amount of problems that a 5 disk installation makes? Thats 5 disks to check before an install. That's five times the chance that a disk will get scratching in handling.
Download the iso images to an NFS-exported directory. Burn the first disk. Boot it with "linux askmethod" at the boot prompt. Pick nfs image as the install method. Fill in the info for the host and path to the nfs directory where you downloaded the images. When the install starts, go away and come back when it is finished. No disk swapping or babysitting needed.
And how am I to do that on a machine with one big NTFS partion that will be nuked as soon as I start the install? Remember, we're talking about installing over Windows machines in this thread, not reinstalls or upgrades.
Dotan Cohen
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/504/weezer.html http://song-liriks.com
Les Mikesell
Download the iso images to an NFS-exported directory. Burn the first disk. Boot it with "linux askmethod" at the boot prompt. Pick nfs image as the install method. Fill in the info for the host and path to the nfs directory where you downloaded the images. When the install starts, go away and come back when it is finished. No disk swapping or babysitting needed.
Dotan Cohen:
And how am I to do that on a machine with one big NTFS partion that will be nuked as soon as I start the install? Remember, we're talking about installing over Windows machines in this thread, not reinstalls or upgrades.
If there's no network, and you've got one machine with a big enough drive, pre-partition it. Leave a big space that'll you'll put your ISOs on, after installation do something else with it. Use it for storage, change it to being your /home partition, or whatever.
Dotan Cohen wrote:
In an ideal world the install medium would not be a factor in selecting a Linux distro, I agree. However, it does have veto power and when I've got a hour to download, my chances of getting Kubuntu intact at the end of that hour are much better than getting Fedora. Furthermore, I have to burn those disks, and I can do one disk in five minutes with no babysitting, but burning five disks require that I babysit the machine for half an hour. Not a good impression to make on someone who I'm installing thier first Linux distro for.
You only have to burn them if it is your first Linux install.
For converts (those who [k]ubuntu is aimed at, remember this started because someone mentioned ubuntu) it WILL be their first install.
If you are helping them, having the isos downloaded to a laptop which you can connect via a crossover cable would be the easy approach.
Shall I continue with the amount of problems that a 5 disk installation makes? Thats 5 disks to check before an install. That's five times the chance that a disk will get scratching in handling.
Download the iso images to an NFS-exported directory. Burn the first disk. Boot it with "linux askmethod" at the boot prompt. Pick nfs image as the install method. Fill in the info for the host and path to the nfs directory where you downloaded the images. When the install starts, go away and come back when it is finished. No disk swapping or babysitting needed.
And how am I to do that on a machine with one big NTFS partion that will be nuked as soon as I start the install? Remember, we're talking about installing over Windows machines in this thread, not reinstalls or upgrades.
You can also install from a hard disk partition, so you could use one of the run-from-CD versions to make a partition to hold the isos, download them, then install directly from there.
"Dotan Cohen" dotancohen@gmail.com writes:
Furthermore, I have to burn those disks, and I can do one disk in five minutes with no babysitting, but burning five disks require that I babysit the machine for half an hour.
Fedora has to compete with a one-disk install of Windows XP, that can be installed in an hour with no babysitting. Fedora installs require one to switch disk three or four times.
You obviously never heard about the DVD version. One disc to burn, one disc to install from and no switching. With it, a Fedora install becomes much more pleasing than a Windows XP install, which asks some questions, then processes for a few minutes, then asks some more questions, followed by some processing, and then more questions, etc, etc.
Regards Ingemar
On 01 Mar 2007 17:14:55 +0100, Ingemar Nilsson init@pdc.kth.se wrote:
"Dotan Cohen" dotancohen@gmail.com writes:
Furthermore, I have to burn those disks, and I can do one disk in five minutes with no babysitting, but burning five disks require that I babysit the machine for half an hour.
Fedora has to compete with a one-disk install of Windows XP, that can be installed in an hour with no babysitting. Fedora installs require one to switch disk three or four times.
You obviously never heard about the DVD version. One disc to burn, one disc to install from and no switching. With it, a Fedora install becomes much more pleasing than a Windows XP install, which asks some questions, then processes for a few minutes, then asks some more questions, followed by some processing, and then more questions, etc, etc.
Regards Ingemar
I actually do have he DVD tucked away at home, and I installed this system from DVD. However, DVD burners are not as common on the most common hardware that I see in the dorms at my university, but CD birners are very common. And the DVD is over 3 GB in size, about 5 times the size of Kubuntu.
I want to remake the point that I'm not argueing for my own good: I use and love Fedora. I'm simply stating that requiring 5 disks to install is a turnoff for those not familiar with Fedora or Linux. No amount of arguing will change that fact. And there is no need to convice me that 5 disks is fine: I'm voicing the opinion of those whom I've installed for, not my own opinion.
Dotan Cohen
http://technology-sleuth.com/technical_answer/what_is_a_cellphone.html http://what-is-what.com/what_is/gpl.html
Dotan Cohen wrote:
I want to remake the point that I'm not argueing for my own good: I use and love Fedora. I'm simply stating that requiring 5 disks to install is a turnoff for those not familiar with Fedora or Linux. No amount of arguing will change that fact. And there is no need to convice me that 5 disks is fine: I'm voicing the opinion of those whom I've installed for, not my own opinion.
1) You do not need 5 CD's. A default package selection only requires 2 CD's.
2) Fedora 7 Test versions already provide single Live CD's with the ability to install to hard disk. The general release would have it too
3) Single CD's are not useful for the folks with limited bandwidth connnections. They can download alternative spins like the "Prime" and "Everything" versions.
4) Instead of arguing for what is right, participate and help do it. If you are right, folks will use it. Look at tools like Pungi and Pilgrim for customizations.
Rahul
On 01/03/07, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Dotan Cohen wrote:
I want to remake the point that I'm not argueing for my own good: I use and love Fedora. I'm simply stating that requiring 5 disks to install is a turnoff for those not familiar with Fedora or Linux. No amount of arguing will change that fact. And there is no need to convice me that 5 disks is fine: I'm voicing the opinion of those whom I've installed for, not my own opinion.
- You do not need 5 CD's. A default package selection only requires 2 CD's.
Oh? And how is one to know that? Where is that mentioned in the documentation?
If I choose to install KDE, or foobar for that matter, can I be certain that 2 disks is enough? Or will I find myself stuck in the middle of an install, after I wiped the harddrive of a working XP install, and have no way of downloading more disks?
- Fedora 7 Test versions already provide single Live CD's with the
ability to install to hard disk. The general release would have it too
Excellent. I was unaware of that. That will improve the situation dramatically.
- Single CD's are not useful for the folks with limited bandwidth
connnections. They can download alternative spins like the "Prime" and "Everything" versions.
And multiple-disk downloads are not useful for those with limited disk to waste, time to spare, and/or patience. I term those people "end users".
- Instead of arguing for what is right, participate and help do it. If
you are right, folks will use it. Look at tools like Pungi and Pilgrim for customizations.
Rahul, if I could help I would. I'm not a CS major, just a silly Mechanical Engineering student. Many of the usability problems that I encounter with Linux, not specifically Fedora, is that all computer users are assumed to be software engineers. We're not. Sorry.
Dotan Cohen
http://dotancohen.com/howto/rbldnsd/index.php http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/259/house_of_pain.html
Dotan Cohen wrote:
Oh? And how is one to know that? Where is that mentioned in the documentation?
Many places in the wiki, installation guide, announcements, discussions in this list etc.
If I choose to install KDE, or foobar for that matter, can I be certain that 2 disks is enough? Or will I find myself stuck in the middle of an install, after I wiped the harddrive of a working XP install, and have no way of downloading more disks?
As I already indicated, if you select non-default packages you might have to use additional disks
- Fedora 7 Test versions already provide single Live CD's with the
ability to install to hard disk. The general release would have it too
Excellent. I was unaware of that. That will improve the situation dramatically.
I already told you in a previous post on the same thread. Your reply on that indicated that you hadnt read it.
- Single CD's are not useful for the folks with limited bandwidth
connnections. They can download alternative spins like the "Prime" and "Everything" versions.
And multiple-disk downloads are not useful for those with limited disk to waste, time to spare, and/or patience. I term those people "end users".
Sure. Like I said in my earlier post, having a single CD does not fit the requirements of many end users which is why you should not argue that only a single CD be provided. Package size as well as numbers are constantly increasing in the Fedora repositories. A single CD is bound to become less and less useful over time as a result. Fedora 7 will provide multiple variations to fit into the different needs better.
Rahul, if I could help I would. I'm not a CS major, just a silly Mechanical Engineering student. Many of the usability problems that I encounter with Linux, not specifically Fedora, is that all computer users are assumed to be software engineers. We're not. Sorry.
You do not need to be a CS major to participate. You can help in documentation, bug reports, triaging and so on very easily. Take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/HelpWanted. Arguing on this list changes nothing.
Rahul
On 01/03/07, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Dotan Cohen wrote:
Oh? And how is one to know that? Where is that mentioned in the documentation?
Many places in the wiki, installation guide, announcements, discussions in this list etc.
I apologize then. My ignorance is at fault.
If I choose to install KDE, or foobar for that matter, can I be certain that 2 disks is enough? Or will I find myself stuck in the middle of an install, after I wiped the harddrive of a working XP install, and have no way of downloading more disks?
As I already indicated, if you select non-default packages you might have to use additional disks
There is a default? In every installation the user is prompted to choose his software. I suppose that just clicking "ok" without reading or changing anything is default. I'm not a default kind of guy :)
- Fedora 7 Test versions already provide single Live CD's with the
ability to install to hard disk. The general release would have it too
Excellent. I was unaware of that. That will improve the situation dramatically.
I already told you in a previous post on the same thread. Your reply on that indicated that you hadnt read it.
I'm rereading the posts, I don't see where that was mentioned.
- Single CD's are not useful for the folks with limited bandwidth
connnections. They can download alternative spins like the "Prime" and "Everything" versions.
And multiple-disk downloads are not useful for those with limited disk to waste, time to spare, and/or patience. I term those people "end users".
Sure. Like I said in my earlier post, having a single CD does not fit the requirements of many end users which is why you should not argue that only a single CD be provided. Package size as well as numbers are constantly increasing in the Fedora repositories. A single CD is bound to become less and less useful over time as a result. Fedora 7 will provide multiple variations to fit into the different needs better.
As it should be.
Rahul, if I could help I would. I'm not a CS major, just a silly Mechanical Engineering student. Many of the usability problems that I encounter with Linux, not specifically Fedora, is that all computer users are assumed to be software engineers. We're not. Sorry.
You do not need to be a CS major to participate. You can help in documentation, bug reports, triaging and so on very easily. Take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/HelpWanted. Arguing on this list changes nothing.
I'm familiar with the page. I have filed bugs in the past, I'll get myself back into the habit. Usability bugs, especially, I can comment on.
Thanks.
Dotan Cohen
"Dotan Cohen" dotancohen@gmail.com writes:
I actually do have he DVD tucked away at home, and I installed this system from DVD. However, DVD burners are not as common on the most common hardware that I see in the dorms at my university, but CD birners are very common. And the DVD is over 3 GB in size, about 5 times the size of Kubuntu.
I see. Nowadays DVD writers are so cheap that I almost forget that some people don't have them :)
You might have noticed that I didn't respond to your gripe about download size. That's because I saw it as a valid complaint (even if I have no problems with it personally). Complaining about having to change between five CDs was what I answered to, because there is a better solution. Of course if you don't have a DVD writer...
Regards Ingemar
On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 21:18 +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote:
On 24/02/07, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that one distro should not be both server AND desktop. Even M$ has a desktop version of Windows (Vista) and a server version (Server). Well, it might be more like trashcan version and spambot version, but you get the point.
Dotan Cohen
Strange complaint, since Fedora will have a Desktop and a Server spin
- or are you implying that the diff. Windows "versions" are more than
spins?
That wasn't a complaint. Rather, I see the wisdom in 'spins' and think that it should have been done a long time ago. I'm also rather hoping that the powers that be will get it down to THREE DISKS maximum. I've already had to install Kubuntu on peoples machines because 5 disks is way to much to have a potential convert download.
Dotan, why would three disks be "enough"? You "had to install Kubuntu because 5 disks..." ...if you're installing, why would they gripe? How would they even know how many disks is enough, or too much, if they can't install their own machines? Isn't free "free" enough for these friends?? C'mon, you gotta do better than that. They'll either dnload it to the CD's, or dnload 1 CD and still dnload the rest, piece by piece, so it's a wash.
Every time someone proselytizes Kubuntu on this list I keep seeing the scene where Jack Nicholson as the Joker, is on a parade float while Prince plays "You've Got The Look." Money is floating down out of the sky, pizza and beer is free. Everyone is deliriously ecstatic. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.
You tell me what glorious advances they have contributed to the community, as RedHat has. Zilch, nada. Just a bunch of press, is all. I'll dance with who brung me, even if they piss me off from time to time. :) Ric
Ric Moore wrote:
You tell me what glorious advances they have contributed to the community, as RedHat has. Zilch, nada. Just a bunch of press, is all. I'll dance with who brung me, even if they piss me off from time to time. :) Ric
Isn't Debian with an actual release schedule enough?
On 25/02/07, Ric Moore wayward4now@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 21:18 +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote:
On 24/02/07, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that one distro should not be both server AND desktop. Even M$ has a desktop version of Windows (Vista) and a server version (Server). Well, it might be more like trashcan version and spambot version, but you get the point.
Dotan Cohen
Strange complaint, since Fedora will have a Desktop and a Server spin
- or are you implying that the diff. Windows "versions" are more than
spins?
That wasn't a complaint. Rather, I see the wisdom in 'spins' and think that it should have been done a long time ago. I'm also rather hoping that the powers that be will get it down to THREE DISKS maximum. I've already had to install Kubuntu on peoples machines because 5 disks is way to much to have a potential convert download.
Dotan, why would three disks be "enough"? You "had to install Kubuntu because 5 disks..." ...if you're installing, why would they gripe? How would they even know how many disks is enough, or too much, if they can't install their own machines? Isn't free "free" enough for these friends?? C'mon, you gotta do better than that. They'll either dnload it to the CD's, or dnload 1 CD and still dnload the rest, piece by piece, so it's a wash.
I once talked to someone and we decided to d/l while we ate, and install afterwards. I knew that there was no way that all five Fedora disks would download in time. Kubuntu barely managed to download it's 700 megs over http in time (bittorrent is disabled in the university). Three Fedora disk would still be too much, but it's at least comprehensible. 5 is plain ridiculous.
If Fedora required 18 disks to install, would you still argue in it's favor? I doubt it. So where is the line drawn? For me it is at 3 disks: an arbitrary number that is not _too_ high, yet possibly within reach if Fedora devs want to do it. I doubt that Fedora has 3 times the necessary software as does [k]Ubuntu.
Every time someone proselytizes Kubuntu on this list I keep seeing the scene where Jack Nicholson as the Joker, is on a parade float while Prince plays "You've Got The Look." Money is floating down out of the sky, pizza and beer is free. Everyone is deliriously ecstatic. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.
What do you mean? Kubuntu is mentioned for some of the same reasons that Windows is mentioned: this is a list centered around an operating system, and Kubuntu is a competing operating system. It's not as good as Fedora in some regards, better in others. People will disagree which are strong points and which as weak points. But they should be discussed, to learn from them.
You tell me what glorious advances they have contributed to the community, as RedHat has. Zilch, nada. Just a bunch of press, is all. I'll dance with who brung me, even if they piss me off from time to time. :) Ric
Kubuntu is exactly what it's motto implies: Linux for humans. Not CS majors, and not gearheads. That's why I don't use it. It's also why I install it for others. [k]Ubuntu has brought Linux within the reach of the average dumbass computer user. It's simple to maintain. Things just work. It's easy to install. It addresses, one by one, all the misconceptions surrounding Linux. Especially the "hard to use" and "complicated" misconceptions.
Dotan Cohen
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/372/new_order.html http://what-is-what.com/what_is/google.html
Dotan Cohen wrote:
I once talked to someone and we decided to d/l while we ate, and install afterwards. I knew that there was no way that all five Fedora disks would download in time. Kubuntu barely managed to download it's 700 megs over http in time (bittorrent is disabled in the university).
You do know that you can install from a rescue CD? It downloads all the packages it needs (and only the packages it needs) as it installs them. This might be a better bet for such situations.
Hope this helps,
James.
-
Aaron Konstam -
Alex White -
Arthur Pemberton -
Chris Mohler -
Dotan Cohen -
Ingemar Nilsson -
James Wilkinson -
Les Mikesell -
maillist＠sios.ca -
Matthew Miller -
Mikkel -
Oldman -
Rahul Sundaram -
Res -
Ric Moore -
Temlakos -
Tim -
Tony Nelson -
Vivek J. Patankar -
Will Yonker