10:38 a.m.
Or: Why I'm jumping ship to Ubuntu.
This is intended as friendly criticism, not as flame bait. Fedora devs
may wish to address these issues.
I started using Linux in 1994, and Red Hat shortly thereafter. About a
year and a half ago I reluctantly started looking at other disties,
and settled on Ubuntu. After experimentation, I started migrating to
Ubuntu, and completed that in December when I decommissioned the last
Fedora box in my home.
I'm migrating to Ubuntu for several reasons, actually.
* Fedora is more bleeding edge than I'm comfortable with. I need a
stable desktop Linux, and Fedora breaks too often.
* Fewer updates. One might be forgiven the impression that Fedora has
a new kernel every week. It just seems that way. Meanwhile Ubuntu
updates are few and far between. This has advantages and
disadvantages, of course. The most obvious disadvantage being if
something is broken in Ubuntu it is likely to stay broken, possibly
until the next distribution. I have lived with that and can do so
again.
* Related to the last, no simple caching software. The last I knew,
there was no RPM analog to the Debian apt-cacher. This caches deb
packages, so that, for all the machines that use it, a given package
is pulled in from the mirror only once, thereby reducing network
traffic, and greatly speeding updates on other clients of the
cache. For Fedora, I used an rsync script, but that meant I had
copies of entire repos, with massive redundancy of updated packages,
far more than I need.
* Small machine installations. Using the "alternate installation CD"
and installing a text only environment, I can run Ubuntu on a
machine with 68 MB on it, my venerable 133 MHz firewall. Indeed,
this was the first place I tried Ubuntu in production. I am looking
at the fit-PC (http://www.fit-pc.com/new/) for a number of
applications, and it comes from the factory with Ubuntu 7.10. While
Fedora 8 will run on the fit-PC, I wonder for how long?
* I prefer XFCE or similar lightweight desktops for these machines. I
can get XFCE with xubuntu. I see no Fedora analog.
* While I am glad to see the Fedora live CDs, they are klunky compared
to the Ubuntu/Knoppix/Finnix live CDs I have used. For one thing, on
shutdown those live CDs will eject the CD and wait for you to remove
them from the drive.
--
Charles Curley /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Looking for fine software \ / Respect for open standards
and/or writing? X No HTML/RTF in email
http://www.charlescurley.com / \ No M$ Word docs in email
Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0 809C FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB
5:14 a.m.
Charles Curley wrote:
*Please* see to it that this gets coverage on the download page
(http://fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora). Other folks will want to use
XFCE on older hardware. Maybe some of the other custom spins.
There is a link to the custom spins. All of them are not listed on the
main page as that would be make the download page even more of a link farm.
Rahul
5:07 p.m.
Charles Curley wrote:
* I prefer XFCE or similar lightweight desktops for these machines. I
can get XFCE with xubuntu. I see no Fedora analog.
Not that it makes a huge difference now but
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2008-February/msg000...
Rahul
6:27 p.m.
--- Rahul Sundaram <sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Charles Curley wrote:
>
> * I prefer XFCE or similar lightweight desktops
for these machines. I
> can get XFCE with xubuntu. I see no Fedora
analog.
Not that it makes a huge difference now but
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2008-February/msg000...
Rahul
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Rahul,
What are the system requirements for the Xfce Desktop
on Fedora?
It is never too late to reconsider. Many users have
two or more OS's on their machines. There are many
people that want to know the requirements at least the
minimun to run XFce on Fedora.
Thanks,
Antonio
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
5:49 p.m.
* Related to the last, no simple caching software. The last I knew,
there was no RPM analog to the Debian apt-cacher. This caches deb
RPM doesn't need a specialist tool for this thankfully. Squid and similar
generic caching setups can handle it quite nicely. It is true we don't
have a package that does that setup in one go (or I've not found it
anyway).
* I prefer XFCE or similar lightweight desktops for these machines.
I
can get XFCE with xubuntu. I see no Fedora analog.
Fedora includes xfce packages, they just aren't burned on the standard
CDs but are in the yum repository.
* While I am glad to see the Fedora live CDs, they are klunky
compared
to the Ubuntu/Knoppix/Finnix live CDs I have used. For one thing, on
shutdown those live CDs will eject the CD and wait for you to remove
them from the drive.
Useful feedback.. hope you get on well with Ubuntu
Alan
2:01 a.m.
On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 20:04 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
I'm told that /var/cache/yum can be shared by NFS, but never
had the guts
I've done that in the past, but selectively. Rather than share out the
whole /var/cache/yum, and risk trying to write to the database twice
over, I've shared out the individual packages sub-directories, and let
each machine have its local databases.
Sure, there's still some risk if two try to download and save the same
package at once, but that's an easy problem to solve, much less messy
than database screwups.
--
(This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
1:57 a.m.
On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 18:34 -0600, Charles Curley wrote:
I don't know how long squid will cache a file; I assume
that's
configurable.
Yes, it is. And, if I recall correctly, you can even specify that some
domain has a different retention time than usual.
--
(This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
9:35 p.m.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 01:24:04PM -0400, Michael Wiktowy wrote:
The amount of RAM seems to be the biggest issue with running distros
on older systems. ...
I have found that you need at least 256 MB of RAM. I think the stated
minimum is 192 MB or something like that...
That sounds about right.
In addition, there is also the minimum amount of RAM necessary to
install, which may be higher. I was able to install Xubuntu on a 68 MB
machine some years ago by using the text installation and installing a
command line only system. I went to that the first time Fedora wouldn't
install on it.
There was a nasty problem with RPM a few years ago that only shows up
in a low memory situation: if RPM fails to install a apackage because
it runs out of memory, it returns a value which Anaconda and yum
interpret as sucess. So it is possible to complete the process and
reboot to a corrupted sytem.
--
Charles Curley /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Looking for fine software \ / Respect for open standards
and/or writing? X No HTML/RTF in email
http://www.charlescurley.com / \ No M$ Word docs in email
Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0 809C FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB
11:49 p.m.
On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 11:20:03AM +0200, Marcel J.E. Mol wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 11:49:32PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > * Related to the last, no simple caching software. The last I knew,
> > there was no RPM analog to the Debian apt-cacher. This caches deb
>
> RPM doesn't need a specialist tool for this thankfully. Squid and similar
> generic caching setups can handle it quite nicely. It is true we don't
> have a package that does that setup in one go (or I've not found it
> anyway).
>
I just nfs share /var/cache/yum across the machines and configure yum
not to delete downloaded packages.
The only thing I still need is a tool to cleanup the packages dirs from
old package version (e.g. only keep the latest version).
-Marcel
Try this:
mkdir oldrpms
cd oldrpms
repomanage -o /var/cache/yum/>oldrpmslist
for x in `cat oldrpmslist`; do mv $x .;done
du -m
rm -f *.rpm
repomanage is in yum-utils package.
HTH
--
vikram...
||||||||
||||||||
^^'''''^^||root||^^^'''''''^^
// \\ ))
//(( \\// \\
// /\\ || \\
|| / )) (( \\
--
BEWARE! People acting under the influence of human nature.
--
~|~
=
4:30 p.m.
Tim wrote:
On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 11:20 +0200, Marcel J.E. Mol wrote:
> I just nfs share /var/cache/yum across the machines and configure yum
> not to delete downloaded packages.
Just be sure not to do a yum update on two machines simultaneously.
Yes, a lock file or something would really be good for that ;-)
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
7:45 p.m.
On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 17:36 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
I have a 16MB Pentium laptop I'd love to use for just taking notes in
text mode, and stuff like that, Fedora sure won't fit anymore. ;-)
I've used Puppy Linux on an old laptop for odd jobs and it works a
treat.
--
'ooroo
Simon
Registered Linux User #463789. Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
4:36 p.m.
John Thompson wrote:
On 2008-04-27, Charles Curley <charlescurley(a)charlescurley.com>
wrote:
> * I prefer XFCE or similar lightweight desktops for these machines. I
> can get XFCE with xubuntu. I see no Fedora analog.
XFCE is in Fedora Extras. If you select the Fedora Extras repo at
install time, you can make XFCE your default desktop right from the
start. Not that it's hard to change to XFCE after you've installed...
I read that someone was going to develop a low memory spin for FC9 using
XFCE. Not clear what the timeframe on that is. I can probably look up
where I saw it.
But Redhat distributions are definitely going to take more memory to
install than some others, and unless there's a trick they don't take
advantage of a swap partition for install, even if you prepartition a
disk to provide it. I believe Slackware will install in 32MB, I know I
ran old SLS and Slackware in 16MB, and without X in 12MB. Memory cost
the earth in those days.
I have a 16MB Pentium laptop I'd love to use for just taking notes in
text mode, and stuff like that, Fedora sure won't fit anymore. ;-)
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
4:20 a.m.
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 11:49:32PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> * Related to the last, no simple caching software. The last I
knew,
> there was no RPM analog to the Debian apt-cacher. This caches deb
RPM doesn't need a specialist tool for this thankfully. Squid and similar
generic caching setups can handle it quite nicely. It is true we don't
have a package that does that setup in one go (or I've not found it
anyway).
I just nfs share /var/cache/yum across the machines and configure yum
not to delete downloaded packages.
The only thing I still need is a tool to cleanup the packages dirs from
old package version (e.g. only keep the latest version).
-Marcel
4:55 a.m.
On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 11:20 +0200, Marcel J.E. Mol wrote:
I just nfs share /var/cache/yum across the machines and configure
yum
not to delete downloaded packages.
Just be sure not to do a yum update on two machines simultaneously.
--
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
4:29 a.m.
On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 11:20 +0200, Marcel J.E. Mol wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 11:49:32PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > * Related to the last, no simple caching software. The last I knew,
> > there was no RPM analog to the Debian apt-cacher. This caches deb
>
> RPM doesn't need a specialist tool for this thankfully. Squid and similar
> generic caching setups can handle it quite nicely. It is true we don't
> have a package that does that setup in one go (or I've not found it
> anyway).
>
I just nfs share /var/cache/yum across the machines and configure yum
not to delete downloaded packages.
I am using bit more complicated, but very
similar setup ;)
The only thing I still need is a tool to cleanup the packages dirs
from
old package version (e.g. only keep the latest version).
You are looking for repomanage (from yum-utils; Check option -o).
Ralf
6:33 p.m.
Antonio Olivares wrote:
Rahul,
What are the system requirements for the Xfce Desktop
on Fedora?
It is never too late to reconsider. Many users have
two or more OS's on their machines. There are many
people that want to know the requirements at least the
minimun to run XFce on Fedora.
I haven't tried it anything below a P2 with 256 MB RAM. It will possibly
run but be painfully slow on anything below that esp when run as a live cd.
Rahul
6:25 p.m.
On 2008-04-27, Antonio Olivares <olivares14031(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > What are the system requirements for the Xfce
> > Desktop on Fedora?
> I haven't tried it anything below a P2 with 256 MB
> RAM. It will possibly run but be painfully slow on anything below
> that esp when run as a live cd.
The reason I ask is because a friend wants to try out
linux on an old p3 with the following specs
cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
model name : Pentium III (Katmai)
cpu MHz : 451.017
cache size : 512 KB
bogomips : 903.08
MemTotal: 510372 kB
I've run XFCE on my Thinkpad-240X for years now. Hardware in 450mHz
Celeron, 192MB ram, 12GB hard drive. The / filesystem uses 3.2GB of
space, leaving plenty of room for my own stuff.
--
John (john(a)os2.dhs.org)
6:20 p.m.
On 2008-04-27, Charles Curley <charlescurley(a)charlescurley.com> wrote:
* I prefer XFCE or similar lightweight desktops for these machines.
I
can get XFCE with xubuntu. I see no Fedora analog.
XFCE is in Fedora Extras. If you select the Fedora Extras repo at
install time, you can make XFCE your default desktop right from the
start. Not that it's hard to change to XFCE after you've installed...
--
John (john(a)os2.dhs.org)
12:24 p.m.
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Antonio Olivares
<olivares14031(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Take it for a spin if there is still time. A friend
of mine has two old machines in that situation, but I
still consider that even Xubuntu will not run on them
old PII with 64 MB ram :( Tried to boot Slitaz, but
it failed to boot :(, DSL and Austrumi work, but I
cannot get machines to identify the network and
connect.
The amount of RAM seems to be the biggest issue with running distros
on older systems. There is not really a hard lower limit on CPU/ disk
access speed, things will just run linearly slower ... and will get
unbearably slow soon enough. But if you don't have sufficient RAM, you
are done. Lots of RAM will compensate a lot (but not totally) for a
slow CPU/disk access in a lot of desktop usage situations. Hard-care
gaming and number crunching is a whole other world though.
I have found that you need at least 256 MB of RAM. I think the stated
minimum is 192 MB or something like that but any machine will run like
molasses in January if it has to constantly seek to the hard-drive for
everything it does every time it does it. Slow old hard-drives/CD-ROMs
just exacerbate the problem.
/Mike
1:55 a.m.
Tim:
> You may not want the disc ejected. You might want it to stay in
the
> drive, so the computer boots the live disc again, without anyone
> having to put the disc back in the drive.
Charles Curley:
Handy if you are planning to reboot to the same CD. Not so handy if
you are planning to reboot to a different one or shut the machine
down. With the Debian live CDs, if you plan to reboot to the same one,
you simply leave it in the drive. The boot firmware will usually close
the drive, and away you go.
Not all drives can do that, and you mayn't want a disc sticking out for
someone to remove. There's swings and roundabouts to this, but I'd say
that if you were going to swap discs anyway, it's not hard for someone
to press eject and swap them.
--
(This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
11:30 p.m.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 03:37:06AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Charles Curley wrote:
> * I prefer XFCE or similar lightweight desktops for these machines. I
> can get XFCE with xubuntu. I see no Fedora analog.
Not that it makes a huge difference now but
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2008-February/msg000...
This is great. I may even pull it in and try it. In my
<irony>copious</irony> free time. I wish it had been around when I
decided to move to Ubuntu.
*Please* see to it that this gets coverage on the download page
(http://fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora). Other folks will want to use
XFCE on older hardware. Maybe some of the other custom spins.
--
Charles Curley /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Looking for fine software \ / Respect for open standards
and/or writing? X No HTML/RTF in email
http://www.charlescurley.com / \ No M$ Word docs in email
Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0 809C FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB
9:35 p.m.
Rahul Sundaram <sundaram <at> fedoraproject.org> writes:
I haven't tried it anything below a P2 with 256 MB RAM. It will
possibly
run but be painfully slow on anything below that esp when run as a live cd.
I have F7 with KDE running on less than that (old laptop: P2 266 MHz, 160 MB
RAM).
Kevin Kofler
8:45 p.m.
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 09:38:06AM -0600, Charles Curley wrote:
Or: Why I'm jumping ship to Ubuntu.
I'm sorry to see you go, but I'm glad there's a Linux distribution
that you feel still fits your needs.
* Related to the last, no simple caching software. The last I knew,
there was no RPM analog to the Debian apt-cacher. This caches deb
packages, so that, for all the machines that use it, a given package
is pulled in from the mirror only once, thereby reducing network
traffic, and greatly speeding updates on other clients of the
cache. For Fedora, I used an rsync script, but that meant I had
copies of entire repos, with massive redundancy of updated packages,
far more than I need.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/IntelligentMirror
which is a work in progress, but is intended to meet your needs and be
easily installable too.
--
Matt Domsch
Linux Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO
linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux
7:44 p.m.
--- Charles Curley <charlescurley(a)charlescurley.com>
wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 11:49:32PM +0100, Alan Cox
wrote:
> > * Related to the last, no simple caching
software. The last I knew,
> > there was no RPM analog to the Debian
apt-cacher. This caches deb
>
> RPM doesn't need a specialist tool for this
thankfully. Squid and similar
> generic caching setups can handle it quite nicely.
It is true we don't
> have a package that does that setup in one go (or
I've not found it
> anyway).
An excellent point.
I don't know how long squid will cache a file; I
assume that's
configurable. apt-cache can be called (from cron) to
purge only
packages that have been superceded. So you can
update machine A in
January, and machine B in March, and if a package
pulled in in January
is still the current package machine B will get it
from the local
cache.
Even so, a squid sounds better than my rsync setup.
>
> > * I prefer XFCE or similar lightweight desktops
for these machines. I
> > can get XFCE with xubuntu. I see no Fedora
analog.
>
> Fedora includes xfce packages, they just aren't
burned on the standard
> CDs but are in the yum repository.
True. Is there an XFCE only installation option?
Absent an XFCE
specific CD, that would require network access, and
likely slow down
installation time. Neither one is a major obstacle
for most people in
rich countries. For folks in poorer countries,
either one could be a
show stopper.
Charles,
Rahul wrote the following:
<quote>
Not that it makes a huge difference now but
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2008-February/msg000...
Rahul
</quote>
Take it for a spin if there is still time. A friend
of mine has two old machines in that situation, but I
still consider that even Xubuntu will not run on them
old PII with 64 MB ram :( Tried to boot Slitaz, but
it failed to boot :(, DSL and Austrumi work, but I
cannot get machines to identify the network and
connect.
Regards,
Antonio
>
> > * While I am glad to see the Fedora live CDs,
they are klunky compared
> > to the Ubuntu/Knoppix/Finnix live CDs I have
used. For one thing, on
> > shutdown those live CDs will eject the CD and
wait for you to remove
> > them from the drive.
>
> Useful feedback.. hope you get on well with Ubuntu
Thanks. I'm glad you found it useful.
--
Charles Curley /"\ ASCII Ribbon
Campaign
Looking for fine software \ / Respect for
open standards
and/or writing? X No HTML/RTF
in email
http://www.charlescurley.com / \ No M$ Word
docs in email
Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0 809C
FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB
> --
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
7:39 p.m.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 07:46:33AM +0930, Tim wrote:
You make some good points, but a couple of yours can be rebutted.
Charles Curley:
> * While I am glad to see the Fedora live CDs, they are klunky compared
> to the Ubuntu/Knoppix/Finnix live CDs I have used. For one thing, on
> shutdown those live CDs will eject the CD and wait for you to remove
> them from the drive.
You may not want the disc ejected. You might want it to stay in the
drive, so the computer boots the live disc again, without anyone having
to put the disc back in the drive.
Handy if you are planning to reboot to the same CD. Not so handy if
you are planning to reboot to a different one or shut the machine
down. With the Debian live CDs, if you plan to reboot to the same one,
you simply leave it in the drive. The boot firmware will usually close
the drive, and away you go.
--
Charles Curley /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Looking for fine software \ / Respect for open standards
and/or writing? X No HTML/RTF in email
http://www.charlescurley.com / \ No M$ Word docs in email
Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0 809C FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB
6:50 p.m.
Antonio Olivares wrote:
Another friend at worked has recommended Xubuntu on
that machine, and I told him to hold off till Fedora 9
is released and that I would install it for him, but
if he wants xubuntu, then I lost my battle. If he
goes for Xubuntu, I'll try to convince him to dual
boot. See how that goes :)
I would be interested in some feedback on that. I got precious little to
go with in general.
Rahul
6:47 p.m.
--- Rahul Sundaram <sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Antonio Olivares wrote:
> Rahul,
>
> What are the system requirements for the Xfce
Desktop
> on Fedora?
>
> It is never too late to reconsider. Many users
have
> two or more OS's on their machines. There are
many
> people that want to know the requirements at least
the
> minimun to run XFce on Fedora.
I haven't tried it anything below a P2 with 256 MB
RAM. It will possibly
run but be painfully slow on anything below that esp
when run as a live cd.
Rahul
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
The reason I ask is because a friend wants to try out
linux on an old p3 with the following specs
cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 7
model name : Pentium III (Katmai)
stepping : 3
cpu MHz : 451.017
cache size : 512 KB
fdiv_bug : no
hlt_bug : no
f00f_bug : no
coma_bug : no
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 2
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8
sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr sse up
bogomips : 903.08
clflush size : 32
cat /proc/meminfo
MemTotal: 510372 kB
MemFree: 18988 kB
Buffers: 36308 kB
Cached: 277104 kB
SwapCached: 4432 kB
Active: 233128 kB
Inactive: 207432 kB
HighTotal: 0 kB
HighFree: 0 kB
LowTotal: 510372 kB
LowFree: 18988 kB
SwapTotal: 1052248 kB
SwapFree: 1045832 kB
Dirty: 0 kB
Writeback: 0 kB
AnonPages: 122716 kB
Mapped: 48004 kB
Slab: 28060 kB
SReclaimable: 16744 kB
SUnreclaim: 11316 kB
PageTables: 1328 kB
NFS_Unstable: 0 kB
Bounce: 0 kB
CommitLimit: 1307432 kB
Committed_AS: 272380 kB
VmallocTotal: 507896 kB
VmallocUsed: 14804 kB
VmallocChunk: 493028 kB
Another friend at worked has recommended Xubuntu on
that machine, and I told him to hold off till Fedora 9
is released and that I would install it for him, but
if he wants xubuntu, then I lost my battle. If he
goes for Xubuntu, I'll try to convince him to dual
boot. See how that goes :)
Regards,
Antonio
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
5:16 p.m.
You make some good points, but a couple of yours can be rebutted.
Charles Curley:
* Related to the last, no simple caching software. The last I knew,
there was no RPM analog to the Debian apt-cacher. This caches deb
packages, so that, for all the machines that use it, a given package
is pulled in from the mirror only once, thereby reducing network
traffic, and greatly speeding updates on other clients of the
cache. For Fedora, I used an rsync script, but that meant I had
copies of entire repos, with massive redundancy of updated packages,
far more than I need.
A simple RPM cache can be done. You simply use a HTTP caching proxy,
like Squid, and configure all your computers to use the same mirror.
Squid will cache anything dragged from it, and the next computer wanting
the same RPM file will use your locally cached version.
* While I am glad to see the Fedora live CDs, they are klunky
compared
to the Ubuntu/Knoppix/Finnix live CDs I have used. For one thing, on
shutdown those live CDs will eject the CD and wait for you to remove
them from the drive.
You may not want the disc ejected. You might want it to stay in the
drive, so the computer boots the live disc again, without anyone having
to put the disc back in the drive.
--
(This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
7:04 p.m.
Charles Curley wrote:
Or: Why I'm jumping ship to Ubuntu.
This is intended as friendly criticism, not as flame bait. Fedora devs
may wish to address these issues.
I started using Linux in 1994, and Red Hat shortly thereafter. About a
year and a half ago I reluctantly started looking at other disties,
and settled on Ubuntu. After experimentation, I started migrating to
Ubuntu, and completed that in December when I decommissioned the last
Fedora box in my home.
I'm migrating to Ubuntu for several reasons, actually.
* Fedora is more bleeding edge than I'm comfortable with. I need a
stable desktop Linux, and Fedora breaks too often.
* Fewer updates. One might be forgiven the impression that Fedora has
a new kernel every week. It just seems that way. Meanwhile Ubuntu
updates are few and far between. This has advantages and
disadvantages, of course. The most obvious disadvantage being if
something is broken in Ubuntu it is likely to stay broken, possibly
until the next distribution. I have lived with that and can do so
again.
* Related to the last, no simple caching software. The last I knew,
there was no RPM analog to the Debian apt-cacher. This caches deb
packages, so that, for all the machines that use it, a given package
is pulled in from the mirror only once, thereby reducing network
traffic, and greatly speeding updates on other clients of the
cache. For Fedora, I used an rsync script, but that meant I had
copies of entire repos, with massive redundancy of updated packages,
far more than I need.
Um, you do know that by changing a single character in yum.conf
(keep-cache 1 instead of 0) the rpms downloaded will be left in the yum
cache? Now I'm told that /var/cache/yum can be shared by NFS, but never
had the guts. I do copy the rpms to a file server, run createrepo, and
wind up with a local repo which is all the packages I ever had to
upgrade on any machine running that release.
Yes, you can put it on a CD, mount it after an install, and update local
only, if network access is an issue.
I'm trying ubuntu now, too, because it drops in and supports printers
and scanners and wireless cards I have to configure by hand in FC. Also
because it shipped on time and FC9 isn't out, so I'm reversing my test
effort. But if I can run ubuntu on a small machine, I suddenly have a
ton of firewall machines I thought were scrap.
I like Fedora, but I am seeing more and more places where it gets harder
to do configuration by hand, while the need to do that grows. Soundcards
are a symptom.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
8:41 p.m.
On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 17:44 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
--- Charles Curley <charlescurley(a)charlescurley.com>
wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 11:49:32PM +0100, Alan Cox
> wrote:
> > > * Related to the last, no simple caching
> software. The last I knew,
> > > there was no RPM analog to the Debian
> apt-cacher. This caches deb
> >
> > RPM doesn't need a specialist tool for this
> thankfully. Squid and similar
> > generic caching setups can handle it quite nicely.
> It is true we don't
> > have a package that does that setup in one go (or
> I've not found it
> > anyway).
>
> An excellent point.
>
> I don't know how long squid will cache a file; I
> assume that's
> configurable. apt-cache can be called (from cron) to
> purge only
> packages that have been superceded. So you can
> update machine A in
> January, and machine B in March, and if a package
> pulled in in January
> is still the current package machine B will get it
> from the local
> cache.
>
> Even so, a squid sounds better than my rsync setup.
>
>
> >
> > > * I prefer XFCE or similar lightweight desktops
> for these machines. I
> > > can get XFCE with xubuntu. I see no Fedora
> analog.
> >
> > Fedora includes xfce packages, they just aren't
> burned on the standard
> > CDs but are in the yum repository.
>
> True. Is there an XFCE only installation option?
> Absent an XFCE
> specific CD, that would require network access, and
> likely slow down
> installation time. Neither one is a major obstacle
> for most people in
> rich countries. For folks in poorer countries,
> either one could be a
> show stopper.
Charles,
Rahul wrote the following:
<quote>
Not that it makes a huge difference now but
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2008-February/msg000...
Rahul
</quote>
Take it for a spin if there is still time. A friend
of mine has two old machines in that situation, but I
still consider that even Xubuntu will not run on them
old PII with 64 MB ram :( Tried to boot Slitaz, but
it failed to boot :(, DSL and Austrumi work, but I
cannot get machines to identify the network and
connect.
Heh, I installed early versions of RH and Caldera on a 486 DX2/66 with
32 megs of memory and they ran like a charm. So much for the
good-ole-days. Of course I had to roll a new kernel for the 486, after
which the speed up was noticeable. <grinning> Ric
--
================================================
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar
http://www.wayward4now.net <---down4now too
================================================
7:34 p.m.
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 11:49:32PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> * Related to the last, no simple caching software. The last I
knew,
> there was no RPM analog to the Debian apt-cacher. This caches deb
RPM doesn't need a specialist tool for this thankfully. Squid and similar
generic caching setups can handle it quite nicely. It is true we don't
have a package that does that setup in one go (or I've not found it
anyway).
An excellent point.
I don't know how long squid will cache a file; I assume that's
configurable. apt-cache can be called (from cron) to purge only
packages that have been superceded. So you can update machine A in
January, and machine B in March, and if a package pulled in in January
is still the current package machine B will get it from the local
cache.
Even so, a squid sounds better than my rsync setup.
> * I prefer XFCE or similar lightweight desktops for these machines. I
> can get XFCE with xubuntu. I see no Fedora analog.
Fedora includes xfce packages, they just aren't burned on the standard
CDs but are in the yum repository.
True. Is there an XFCE only installation option? Absent an XFCE
specific CD, that would require network access, and likely slow down
installation time. Neither one is a major obstacle for most people in
rich countries. For folks in poorer countries, either one could be a
show stopper.
> * While I am glad to see the Fedora live CDs, they are klunky compared
> to the Ubuntu/Knoppix/Finnix live CDs I have used. For one thing, on
> shutdown those live CDs will eject the CD and wait for you to remove
> them from the drive.
Useful feedback.. hope you get on well with Ubuntu
Thanks. I'm glad you found it useful.
--
Charles Curley /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Looking for fine software \ / Respect for open standards
and/or writing? X No HTML/RTF in email
http://www.charlescurley.com / \ No M$ Word docs in email
Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0 809C FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB
5:17 p.m.
I've been a Linux user since 1998, and also started with Red Hat. Since
then, I've also used Mandrake, SUSE, Debian, and Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Edubuntu. I
switched to Fedora about 3 years ago, away from my last SUSE box, and now use
Fedora and Kubuntu exclusively. I love Kubuntu, but will retain my Fedora
boxes (3) for exactly some of the reasons that Charles mentions. All my home
machines, my laptops, and student (graduate) machines run Kubuntu. Easy to
maintain, and easy to use for newbies. Servers and number crunchers all run
Fedora, because I depend on and like the bleeding edge. Great combination and
one couldn't ask for more!
Having said that, Fedora maintenance is definitely clunkier. Updates (yum
vs. apt) are significantly slower, and some things are noticeably buggier.
But I guess that if the desktop is not, or no longer a focus, perhaps it's
not a big deal. Too bad.
I recommend distributions to a lot of newbies, and my number one
recommendations are always Ubuntu and Fedora, depending on their needs,
and/or available hardware. That's not likely to change.
Peter
Peter D. Roopnarine, Assoc. Curator
Dept. of Invertebrate Zoology & Geology
California Academy of Sciences
875 Howard St.
San Francisco CA 94103
USA
http://zeus.calacademy.org/roopnarine/peter.html
http://www.calacademy.org/blogs
Tel. (415)321-8271
FAX (415)321-8615
"There's a thing about Americans. We're not very good occupiers."
Judgement
at Nuremberg
-----Original Message-----
From: fedora-list-bounces(a)redhat.com on behalf of Charles Curley
Sent: Sun 4/27/2008 8:38 AM
To: fedora-list(a)redhat.com
Subject: So Long and Thanks for All the Fish
Or: Why I'm jumping ship to Ubuntu.
This is intended as friendly criticism, not as flame bait. Fedora devs
may wish to address these issues.
I started using Linux in 1994, and Red Hat shortly thereafter. About a
year and a half ago I reluctantly started looking at other disties,
and settled on Ubuntu. After experimentation, I started migrating to
Ubuntu, and completed that in December when I decommissioned the last
Fedora box in my home.
I'm migrating to Ubuntu for several reasons, actually.
* Fedora is more bleeding edge than I'm comfortable with. I need a
stable desktop Linux, and Fedora breaks too often.
* Fewer updates. One might be forgiven the impression that Fedora has
a new kernel every week. It just seems that way. Meanwhile Ubuntu
updates are few and far between. This has advantages and
disadvantages, of course. The most obvious disadvantage being if
something is broken in Ubuntu it is likely to stay broken, possibly
until the next distribution. I have lived with that and can do so
again.
* Related to the last, no simple caching software. The last I knew,
there was no RPM analog to the Debian apt-cacher. This caches deb
packages, so that, for all the machines that use it, a given package
is pulled in from the mirror only once, thereby reducing network
traffic, and greatly speeding updates on other clients of the
cache. For Fedora, I used an rsync script, but that meant I had
copies of entire repos, with massive redundancy of updated packages,
far more than I need.
* Small machine installations. Using the "alternate installation CD"
and installing a text only environment, I can run Ubuntu on a
machine with 68 MB on it, my venerable 133 MHz firewall. Indeed,
this was the first place I tried Ubuntu in production. I am looking
at the fit-PC (http://www.fit-pc.com/new/) for a number of
applications, and it comes from the factory with Ubuntu 7.10. While
Fedora 8 will run on the fit-PC, I wonder for how long?
* I prefer XFCE or similar lightweight desktops for these machines. I
can get XFCE with xubuntu. I see no Fedora analog.
* While I am glad to see the Fedora live CDs, they are klunky compared
to the Ubuntu/Knoppix/Finnix live CDs I have used. For one thing, on
shutdown those live CDs will eject the CD and wait for you to remove
them from the drive.
--
Charles Curley /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Looking for fine software \ / Respect for open standards
and/or writing? X No HTML/RTF in email
http://www.charlescurley.com / \ No M$ Word docs in email
Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0 809C FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB
5826
days inactive
5842
days old
31 comments
16 participants
participants (16)
-
Alan Cox -
Antonio Olivares -
Bill Davidsen -
Charles Curley -
John Thompson -
Kevin Kofler -
Marcel J.E. Mol -
Matt Domsch -
Michael Wiktowy -
Rahul Sundaram -
Ralf Corsepius -
Ric Moore -
Roopnarine, Peter -
Simon Slater -
Tim -
Vikram Goyal