“Fedora Core 6 was released on October 24, 2006 and scheduled to come out a half-year later is the seventh major release for the Fedora Project. However, unlike Yarrow, Tettnang, Heidelberg, Stentz, Bordeaux, and Zod, Fedora 7 is shaping up to be the most ambitious release yet. With all the work and reform going into Fedora 7 it poses the question, will Fedora 7 be Linux’s knight in shining armor?”
The only problem, can I see with this, is the short life time of fedora releases, now that the Fedora legacy project is dead. They are supposed to increase the lifetime to 13 months but even that is a bit short.
Other than that they seam to do all the right things, such as improving wireless support (not that it was bad in FC6), getting better free 3D drivers that is so important to get the AIGLX candy to work.
Good wireless support is more and more important as more and more people buy laptops that they expect to be able to move around in their homes or offices without losing network connection.
The 3D drivers are needed to look just as good as Vista, and there are even some usability aspects of it such as being able to run the Expose like feature of compiz.
Merging extras and core was also a good idea, I never could understand the reason for putting some commonly used packages in extra. To only have one repository will make it easier to find software
Edited 2007-01-17 11:23
The only problem, can I see with this, is the short life time of fedora releases, now that the Fedora legacy project is dead. They are supposed to increase the lifetime to 13 months but even that is a bit short.
Unfortunately, I don’t have the specifics, however.
I think with the merge of Fedora Core, and Fedora Extra’s, the multiple “spins” of different evironments. That “legacy” is going to be delt with differently, and as such the Fedora Legacy project is less important (as I said I’m not entirely sure how this works).
In addition to this, the reason for the FC Legacy going the way of the dodo, is the fact that there has been little community support. This suggests heavily that it’s not really needed (or at least the ones that do need/want it have no interest in actually helping them selves, or any one else).
I also think it is important to yet again point out that, since the inception of Fedora Core it has never really been geared to wards an environment where it needs to be installed and left for years, and I wish people would stop critasizing it for some thing it’s never said it would be.
But that’s just me.
I agree that wireless is very important. I have been using Linux for quite a while. But, setting up wireless on my Dell Latitude D800 (Broadcom) is still too much trouble. I know all about NDISwrapper and the new open source driver, but it’s still too much work. I primarily use XP on my laptop for this reason.
Now, if we could just get Intuit to release their products for Linux . . . I tried to use GNU Cash 2.0. But, I still prefer Quicken.
Now, if we could just get Intuit to release their products for Linux . . . I tried to use GNU Cash 2.0. But, I still prefer Quicken.
Having had a look through the winedb; it appears that MYOB is supported; have you tried that?
I still think they should use smart for the package management, it’s quicker than the ghastly pirut or yumex.
Smart and Apt/Synaptic is already available as part of Fedora along with Yum/Pirut/Yumex etc. There are some unique features to Yum like plugins which Fedora takes advantage of so yum is likely to remain the default but you do have the choices.
The Fedora Project will be offering separate releases for Fedora Desktop, Fedora KDE, and Fedora Server.
Ubuntu-like?
There are many differences.
* Fedora is completely Free and open source software.
* These spins are not limited to single disks. Single disks are fine for those who have lots of bandwidth but thats not the case for many regions. It is likely that the GNOME and KDE based spins will spawn two or three CD’s. There will be installable live CD variations for those who prefer single disks though.
* You have the ability to install choose between packages during installation off the network or on the disk. If updates are available, the plan is for the installer to pick them up on choice over the ones on media.
* There are no different types of repositories – supported/unsupported, free/non-free, only the packages in the media get guaranteed security updates etc. Every package will be in the same unified repository
Fedora is completely Free and open source software.
It seems that new features like codec-buddy make it pretty clear that Fedora is just playing a game when it says it’s “completely” Free software.
Fedora is now pointing people to the non-Free stuff and making it as easy to install the non-free stuff as any other distribution. Fedora recently rejected making a free-software update of Xorg because it would inconvenience non-free software users.
That is _not_ how a “completely” free software distribution operates. Fedora is the same as the rest.
Of course that’s exactly what some people want. But it would be nice if one distribution would actually stick to it’s guns and _really_ target Free software users and leave the other distros to service the users who don’t care.
”It seems that new features like codec-buddy make it pretty clear that Fedora is just playing a game when it says it’s “completely” Free software.”
Well… codec-buddy doesn’t actually install anything but it only gives advise where you can find a legal codec to play the media (like: https://shop.fluendo.com/). I don’t think that makes Fedora less FREE.
From codec-buddy wiki:
”Basically:
1. Detect that they tried to play a codec that wasn’t installed
2. For certain sets of such codecs (MP3, MPEG, etc.) explain how Freedom Isn’t Free, why we can’t ship such support, and how to use free formats.
3. Point them to a site where they can get legal support for such codecs, if such support exists.”
Well… codec-buddy doesn’t actually install anything but it only gives advise where you can find a legal codec to play the media (like: https://shop.fluendo.com/). I don’t think that makes Fedora less FREE
We will see when FC7 arrives, but discussions i’ve seen at least some have expressed a desire to make codec-buddy a click-here-to-install-mp3 type application. Either way, it’s an application designed to facilitate non-free software.
While I understand some people want that, it would be really nice if Fedora rejected that path and catered to the people who don’t want cruft like that. Instead, Fedora is making itself more and more like the others.
And as an even worse example of how Fedora is losing it’s way in regard to Free software, they recentl refused to distribute a free-software update of Xorg. Why? because it might disrupt systems of users who had installed a non-free driver.
Neither is behavior i’d expect of a distribution that goes around touting how dedicated it is to Free software. Instead, they’re trying to play to both camps, and end up not pleasing anyone.
We will see when FC7 arrives, but discussions i’ve seen at least some have expressed a desire to make codec-buddy a click-here-to-install-mp3 type application. Either way, it’s an application designed to facilitate non-free software
You talk as if giving users the option to install non-free software was wrong. It is not wrong. Users should be entirely free to use/install whatever they so please, just as in any other walk of life.
The key points are that a) users should have a clear choice about what they wish to install, and neither the free nor the non-free options should be made deliberately difficult; and b) users should take responsibility for the consequences of what they choose to install. Putting blocks in the way (on either side) is authoritarian. Anything that takes away personal responsibility isn’t really free. Or, to paraphrase a famous Frenchman, I may not agree with what you install but I will defend to the death your right to install it.
As for Fedora possibly being “a knight in shining armor”, I rather hope that does not happen. Competition is good, and Red Hat already rule the commercial enterprise world of Linux. We’ll all be better off for some hot competition in the SOHO/enthusiast/home spheres. If SuSE, Ubuntu, Mandriva or whoever produce some shining knights too (and many feel they already do), that would be just great.
I’ve never tried Fedora (Debian here). But this is a very good article of the kind that makes me want to try Fedora.
You talk as if giving users the option to install non-free software was wrong. It is not wrong. Users should be entirely free to use/install whatever they so please, just as in any other walk of life.
It’s not _wrong_ but there are some of us that don’t want it. There are some of us that expect a distribution that goes around telling everyone they’re all about Free software to act accordingly. Besides, there are lots of other distributions already catering to users who _want_ that option.
There’s nothing authoritarian about saying “this is our sandbox, we’ll play the way we want to play”, you play any way you want in your own sandbox. Originally that was one of the stated goals of Fedora. To be a sandbox for people who wanted to play only with Free software.
It would be really nice to see Fedora live up to it’s promise of catering to Free software users. Instead they’re trying to please everyone and that’s just impossible. They should concentrate on what makes Fedora different, not try to join the rest of the pack.
I’ve never tried Fedora (Debian here). But this is a very good article of the kind that makes me want to try Fedora.
It’s a good distribution and worth a look.
It’s not _wrong_ but there are some of us that don’t want it. There are some of us that expect a distribution that goes around telling everyone they’re all about Free software to act accordingly. <<– there are already existing distros for that too.
Free software to act accordingly. <<– there are already existing distros for that too.
Yes, and Fedora was one of them until it got hijacked. I’m just hoping they have second thoughts before they diverge from the principles that defined the distribution at its inception.
> Yes, and Fedora was one of them until it got hijacked.
> I’m just hoping they have second thoughts before they
> diverge from the principles that defined the
> distribution at its inception.
“Hijacked”? That’s rich! Fedora has never been opposed to proprietary software, and I honestly don’t understand what your problem is. The Fedora project has never shipped proprietary software, but they’ve never actively prohibited proprietary software from running on Fedora, and why should they?
“Hijacked”? That’s rich! Fedora has never been opposed to proprietary software, and I honestly don’t understand what your problem is. The Fedora project has never shipped proprietary software, but they’ve never actively prohibited proprietary software from running on Fedora, and why should they
They couldn’t prohibit anything if they wanted to. This is about what they choose to promote and what they stand for.
It’s almost impossible to find the original mission statement and project goals… they’ve all been wiped away and hidden, changed to something more proprietary software friendly. But when the project was founded it was quite clear it was a Free software project.
Even today they tout their devotion to Free software… Here’s what the project lead had to say in August of last year:
“Fedora is about the rapid progress of Free and Open Source software.”
And now that project is about to devote itself to the rapid installation of binary and Proprietary Software.
Sad.
Edited 2007-01-17 23:45
” We will see when FC7 arrives, but discussions i’ve seen at least some have expressed a desire to make codec-buddy a click-here-to-install-mp3 type application. Either way, it’s an application designed to facilitate non-free software. ”
You dont have to speculate about what you will see when F7 is released. The specification is already there in the wiki. It basically cleans up the error messages around missing codec supports and adds pointers. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureCodecBuddy
Can you point to actual discussions that you have seen otherwise? Software affected by patents is not a global issues. There are good Free software MP3 players that I can very well use in my region.
”
And as an even worse example of how Fedora is losing it’s way in regard to Free software, they recentl refused to distribute a free-software update of Xorg. Why? because it might disrupt systems of users who had installed a non-free driver”
Fedora has never updated to a major release of Xorg in between a stable version. The reasons were clearly described in an announcement earlier. The major criteria here is that Fedora does not include non-free software package.
Edited 2007-01-17 16:07
Fedora has never updated to a major release of Xorg
That’s just spin. Mike Harris wanted to distribute the release and was stopped by the board, now all of a sudden he doesn’t work for Red Hat any more:
http://lwn.net/Articles/195356/
While that email pays lip service to free software, it talks much more about the needs of non-free software users.
The major criteria here is that Fedora does not include non-free software package.
And my point is that is becoming a distinction without much practical meaning since Fedora is going down the road of pointing users to non-free software. How long is it until someone adds a feature to make it click-to-install?
“That’s just spin. Mike Harris wanted to distribute the release and was stopped by the board, now all of a sudden he doesn’t work for Red Hat any more:”
It is still a fact that Fedora has never updated a major release of Xorg in between a stable version. Mike Harris left a while back before Fedora Project Board (which I am part of btw) decided not to update and him leaving had no relationship to the decision. The decision not to update was also because of the updates policy being drafted that I started out at that time which suggests not to do ABI breakages in updates.
”
And my point is that is becoming a distinction without much practical meaning since Fedora is going down the road of pointing users to non-free software. How long is it until someone adds a feature to make it click-to-install?”
Again as I said, the pointers are not necessarily non-free software. The software is completely Free (in both senses) for me. Fedora has clearly defined guidelines which documents the current licensing policies
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
Every distribution that currently only includes Free software could decide anytime to change their minds and include non-free software. Nothing prevents them except the developers involved.There is a big difference between point to click and including non-free software especially for derivate distributions. So let’s keep that in mind too.
It is still a fact that Fedora has never updated a major release of Xorg in between a stable version.
Okay.
Mike Harris left a while back before Fedora Project Board (which I am part of btw) decided not to update and him leaving had no relationship to the decision.
It’s a shame he left, perhaps there would have been another voice of reason to influence the board, if only to put out a statement that didn’t talk so much about non-free software. ;o)
The decision not to update was also because of the updates policy being drafted that I started out at that time which suggests not to do ABI breakages in updates.
Sure… It’s just interesting how much that email talked about the needs of non-free software users. Seems a little strange coming from a distribution that goes around telling everyone they’re all about Free software.
There is a big difference between point to click and including non-free software especially for derivate distributions. So let’s keep that in mind too.
The entire Xorg episode has already shown that the board is willing to be distracted by the desires of non-free software users. Now you want to split hairs about which repo a package comes from.
I really like Fedora, but to me its leadership has clearly retreated from being a principled advocate for Free software. It’s a shame, because there are already lots of distros that fill that niche. It would be nice to see Fedora stick to it.
”
It’s a shame he left, perhaps there would have been another voice of reason to influence the board, if only to put out a statement that didn’t talk so much about non-free software. ;o) ”
Of course, he would talk about non-free software like you do
“Sure… It’s just interesting how much that email talked about the needs of non-free software users. Seems a little strange coming from a distribution that goes around telling everyone they’re all about Free software”
You do talk a lot about non-free software too. Another way to put it is do you want to risk regression putting out a major ABI breaking Xorg update in the middle of a cycle or do you want to wait for the next two months and put out a new release of Fedora?
“The entire Xorg episode has already shown that the board is willing to be distracted by the desires of non-free software users”
Fedora Project Board *needs* to not just be distracted but also listen to all Fedora users to understand the different view points. We cant really split up users squarely into Free software/non-free software users. That’s a developer centric licensing view point.
“Now you want to split hairs about which repo a package comes from.
”
Fedora doesnt have any official non-free software repository. With the current guidelines in place, it wont either.
But it would be nice if one distribution would actually stick to it’s guns and _really_ target Free software users and leave the other distros to service the users who don’t care.
Here ya’ go: http://www.gnewsense.org/
> Fedora is now pointing people to the non-Free stuff
> and making it as easy to install the non-free stuff
> as any other distribution.
Not quite. While they do sometimes point you to legal ways of obtaining proprietary software, they go out of their way to avoid mentioning non-free (patent-encumbered in the US) repos such as livna.
> Fedora recently rejected making a free-software
> update of Xorg because it would inconvenience
> non-free software users.
That’s stretching it a bit. The Fedora project didn’t release 7.1 to the FC5 repositories (FC5 came with 7.0), but as far as I know, Fedora don’t usually do upgrades to major software such as Xorg during releases. But yes: the fact that there were no nVidia or ATI drivers for 7.1 at the time did play a part, mainly since very few users would actually have any use for 7.1 without those drivers.
Don’t get this post wrong. I like Fedora, always have, but I’m getting to like Ubuntu also.
There are many differences.
* Fedora is completely Free and open source software.
Well, so is Ubuntu. I would be interested in seeing what packages in one of the standard *buntu releases is not FOSS.
* These spins are not limited to single disks. Single disks are fine for those who have lots of bandwidth but thats not the case for many regions. It is likely that the GNOME and KDE based spins will spawn two or three CD’s. There will be installable live CD variations for those who prefer single disks though.
I’m not really sure what you are saying here. I wanted to try something in my something on the KDE desktop so I opened Synaptic and installed the KUbuntu desktop.
* You have the ability to install choose between packages during installation off the network or on the disk. If updates are available, the plan is for the installer to pick them up on choice over the ones on media.
Nice idea. Some other distros have used that too and it can be nice if it works properly.
* There are no different types of repositories – supported/unsupported, free/non-free, only the packages in the media get guaranteed security updates etc. Every package will be in the same unified repository
The separation helps me to see what type I’m installing. If I want to make sure that I only use true FOSS that is supported and known to work by the project I can easily keep to only certain reps. I’m not saying that Fedora’s approach won’t do that, but I would like to see their organization of the packages.
Well, so is Ubuntu. I would be interested in seeing what packages in one of the standard *buntu releases is not FOSS.
I am not that experienced with Ubuntu, but in the Xubuntu install I have tried out lately (btw, impressive performance on an old PIII-550!) the linux-restricted-modules package was installed by default. And that contains the nvidia and ati drivers.
“Well, so is Ubuntu. I would be interested in seeing what packages in one of the standard *buntu releases is not FOSS.”
A default installation of Ubuntu includes the linux-restricted-modules packages, which includes a shitload of proprietary drivers. Everything from weird-ass ISDN and DSL drivers, non-free wireless drivers (The Madwifi driver for example), the kernel parts of the ATi and NVIDIA drivers. That package also includes binary-only firmware.
You can see the complete contents of the linux-restricted-modules packages here: http://packages.ubuntu.com/cgi-bin/search_contents.pl?searchmode=fi…
(Yes, I am aware that Fedora 7 will add proprietary firmware)
Why does everyone get such a twist in their panties over “binary/proprietary firmware”? Every single device in your computer (the CD-ROM, the floppy, the harddrive, the NIC, the monitor, *everything*) includes binary, proprietary firmware. These are little programs that run *on the device* to manage all the features of that device.
Without these, the devices would be paper-weights.
NOTE: FIRMWARE DOES NOT RUN ON YOUR COMPUTER, DOES NOT RUN ON THE OS!!! It runs on the device itself, and only affects that one device.
So, why do all the OSS “everything-must-be-free in my OS” people get so bent out of shape over binary firmware?
These are very different beasts from binary/proprietary *DRIVERS*. Binary/proprietary drivers run in the kernel. These can cause all kinds of problems with the OS.
I’m not really sure what you are saying here. I wanted to try something in my something on the KDE desktop so I opened Synaptic and installed the KUbuntu desktop.
What he’s saying is that a single-disk distribution is fine for people in developed countries who can just use Synaptic to grab any other software they want off the internet.
If you only have, say, dialup internet, the amount of time (and probably money, the cost of internet in some countries are ridiculous by my (USA) standards) required to download all those packages becomes prohibitive.
Those people would probably prefer getting a 2- or 3-CD set (or DVD) with far more applications than you can fit onto a single disk, it would get them farther without having to resort to the internet. (How will they get it? You can probably buy it from one of those CD presses, or get a friend/forumuser to mail some to you)
I think that’s the logic behind Debian’s 11-CD set.
After reading the article, I fail to see what would make Fedora 7 “the Linux Knight in Shining Armor.” Sounds more like Fedora is taking inspiration from other successful distros and making changes that some people have been waiting for forever.
Don’t get me wrong, Fedora is definitely taking steps in the right direction. But to claim they’re becoming “the Linux Knight in Shining Armor” is a bit too much.
Perhaps they’re (implicitly) becoming the knight in shining armor by providing shipwrecked ex-Suse users a home?
This is news to me, although I’ll admit I don’t follow Fedora development that closely.
Are they actually planning on developing components around KDE, or is this simply the standard KDE desktop they’ve always offered with a default set of Gnome/GTK-based tools for managing everything?
I’m only wondering what the point is, really. They’ve always supported KDE/Qt as part of the standard distribution, and the kde-redhat team seemed to do a good job of backporting current releases (although I haven’t used Fedora since FC3/FC4). Why a separate release for KDE as opposed to an option for Fedora Desktop?
Just curious.
Are they actually planning on developing components around KDE, or is this simply the standard KDE desktop they’ve always offered with a default set of Gnome/GTK-based tools for managing everything?
Red Hat itself continues to focus on Gnome and AFAIU won’t be putting any extra resources into KDE. However, things have been opened up so that KDE can get as many changes/improvements as the rest of the community cares to make.
Why a separate release for KDE as opposed to an option for Fedora Desktop?
Just for those people who prefer KDE and don’t want to to download or install Gnome.
I’m only wondering what the point is, really. They’ve always supported KDE/Qt as part of the standard distribution, and the kde-redhat team seemed to do a good job of backporting current releases (although I haven’t used Fedora since FC3/FC4). Why a separate release for KDE as opposed to an option for Fedora Desktop?
My undesrstanding is that, it is accepted within the community, that RedHat concentrate on GNOME, and really only pay lipservice the the KDE environment (no insult intended).
As such, RedHat and associated community have decided that the best approach would be to alow the KDE development to be pushed by the community (I would assume they would still be assisting), said community would also do the spins of the KDE build.
I THINK that is the idea behind it, but I really don’t follow kde, so appologies if I’m wrong.
Fedora, the IT playground of thrill seekers who often call themselves “powerusers”
Everyone else who needs to get productive work done on a computer (your sister, a doctor, a lawyer) should use a different distribution, one that has at least three years of support.
Having said this, it is useful and important to have an IT playground where new stuff can be tried,tested and improved. It just bothers me that people actually damage the chances of desktop linux by asking new users of Linux to use Fedora.
Bah. I’ve used Fedora on my Linux desktops for years now and it’s treated us right nice. And by desktops I mean the workstations the researchers and I use at my workplace. In fact I’ve even had it on a number of nfs servers every now and again, and also had a home grown openmosix cluster based on Fedora going at one point. Granted I very much prefer CentOS on my servers these days, but Fedora is far from the bug laden junk you’re making it out to be. And sure I wouldn’t go throwing a Fedora release into production the same day it’s out (aside from on my own desktop machine perhaps, but for that matter I’m not going to put vista into production any time soon either.), but that doesn’t make Fedora worthless.
And as for Fedora damaging desktop Linux, in what way I ask? If people are competent enough to throw Fedora on their system in the first place then I doubt they’re going to stick with it for years and years. And if someone else is throwing it on their system then again I doubt they’re going to be sticking with Fedora for years and years. I mean, sure, Fedora moves a bit fast. But to me, that’s a good thing. Especially as far as a desktop OS goes. Fedora just keeps getting better and better.
But then all this is just my opinion, so take it for what it’s worth.
So the next release ‘Fedora 7’ will have several different versions with different desktops?
This is the reason why I like Fedora because you have both of them with the features of both. I do not want to try to install Gnome and or KDE because it never works right or it leaves something off. I am disappointed with the whole Fedora Project in general now.
Edited 2007-01-17 15:44
”
This is the reason why I like Fedora because you have both of them with the features of both. I do not want to try to install Gnome and or KDE because it never works right or it leaves something off. I am disappointed with the whole Fedora Project in general now. ”
There is no reason you can’t have both. There is already a discussion around having a DVD set with all the packages in it. You can choose one of the different desktop or server spins or pick the complete the complete DVD.
There is no reason you can’t have both. There is already a discussion around having a DVD set with all the packages in it. You can choose one of the different desktop or server spins or pick the complete the complete DVD.
So basically if I understand this correctly, you would be able to install the DVD and select like KDE & Gnome then download the newest packages right? Kinda like Ubuntu is now, instead of installing and having to download 400 meg + of all new stuff (current Fedora install method).
“So basically if I understand this correctly, you would be able to install the DVD and select like KDE & Gnome then download the newest packages right? ”
Yes. The repository would have updated packages.
“Kinda like Ubuntu is now, instead of installing and having to download 400 meg + of all new stuff (current Fedora install method).”
I am not quite sure I understand the Ubuntu comparsion. Let me just tell you what Fedora Projet is planning.
The current plan is to do three different spins – GNOME, KDE and server while also discussing the idea of putting all the packages in the DVD. You can download one of the spins which is 2 or 3 CD’s or download the DVD and get all the packages or download the 6 MB boot.iso and do a network installation or download one of the installable live CD’s or DVD’s and do a installation.
Edited 2007-01-17 16:34
I am not quite sure I understand the Ubuntu comparsion. Let me just tell you what Fedora Projet is planning.
The current plan is to do three different spins – GNOME, KDE and server while also discussing the idea of putting all the packages in the DVD. You can download one of the spins which is 2 or 3 CD’s or download the DVD and get all the packages or download the 6 MB boot.iso and do a network installation or download one of the installable live CD’s or DVD’s and do a installation.
***Now I like the sound of downloading ALL of the current packages, that is like a HUGE improvement over what they have now. I started out with RedHat 6.0 and used Caldera/Mandrake and several others in the past but I have to say Fedora is my favorite one.
However, I am afraid with the advent of Vista DRM is likely to destroy any multi-media support for Linux (or am I wrong). That is my biggest concern, with everything getting licensed-locked down I hope this does not cripple Linux.
SP
However, I am afraid with the advent of Vista DRM is likely to destroy any multi-media support for Linux (or am I wrong). That is my biggest concern, with everything getting licensed-locked down I hope this does not cripple Linux.
No Fedora will point you to and instruct you how to install all the great non-free software you need to enjoy most non-free media formats and binary drivers etc you want…
But if anyone asks remember to mention that Fedora is all about Free software <wink><wink><nudge><nudge>
So basically Fedora(RedHat) will direct you to a site so that you can pay for the codecs/multi-media stuff???
So basically Fedora(RedHat) will direct you to a site so that you can pay for the codecs/multi-media stuff???
Yes, great isn’t it? Fedora wants you to have easy access to all that binary and proprietary software!
Just to be clear though, a lot of it you don’t have to pay money for. It’s just that the software isn’t Free as in free-speech.
Edited 2007-01-17 20:20
Long story short, RedHat could careless about the desktop market or anything except licensed software and their stock price – investors!
Also, – fewer and fewer desktop distro’s of Linux limiting the end user to a few choices. So I guess Ubuntu will be hit with the same multi-media fiasco?
The kvm virtualisation in the 2.6.20 kernel is fast.Running w2k on Feisty with quemu+kvm is better than running the same natively.
Fedora is cutting edge and hasn’t been as stable as other distros. Plus, the distro has a fast release cycle now with no legacy support–meaning that any gains made by the system can be enjoyed only briefly until the next release.
In order for Fedora to improve it needs to have longer term support. But seeing that Fedora is a developmental playground for Red Hat, long term support for any version of Fedora seems to be an impossibility.
Edited 2007-01-17 17:45
No.
Exactly. As we all know that will be Debian 4.0 Etch in 2009.
I don’t think you can just compare binary drivers with mp3, dvd, etc. codecs. The former are operating at the most central level of the operating system and make it virtually impossible to debug. The latter are just easily disposable desktop thingies.
For example, I can (should) choose a graphics card/WLAN with an open driver if I want to run Linux/BSD, but I can’t just get around, say, mp3 streams, flash videos on Youtube, DVD codecs to play the DVDs I bought, etc.
And all of these things are legal, perfectly legitimate media many Linux/BSD users like to use.
So I’d say, encourage .ogg, flac, etc., and discourage blobs, as long as we don’t forget blobs are way more “evil”.
But if .ogg, .flac and anything else put out by the Xiph.org folks do not enjoy the ubiquity that has been held for the longest time by MP3, .wav, .rm, .mov, .swf, and .avi, then encouraging them to just use OGG codecs without any incentive is nothing more than a legalistic encumberment on the user.
People want to use a format that they can see and share with each other. This is why you have P2P networks such as Gnutella or ed2k; people know that they can find whatever title, author, or genre they want through these networks. Do you know how rare it is to come across free audio or video formats on these networks?! (The only one that has any widespread usage is OGM, which is used for lots of Anime DVD rips)
To that end, I was thinking a while back about creating a semi-decentralized P2P network that only distributes free container formats for various multimedia. This approach would encourage the creation, distribution, and proliferation of OGG files on a cross-platform level. “XiphNet”, if you will.
This is the case of “turning your dogfood into a gourmet and eating it, too”.
I agree. Interesting idea btw., that p2p network.
But my point was really in line with yours.
Whereas binary blobs and proprietary codecs are often just all taken together as “non-free stuff”, I do think the former are much worse than the latter. The fact that you can create .doc and .pdf with OOo or Abiword doesn’t seem to bother many people. Yet mp3, .avi, dvd etc. are really the same, basically.
So I’d say – be realistic: it’s very difficult to avoid .avi and DVD if you’re into any kind of multimedia content. Encourage .ogg etc., but don’t make it hard for people to install the proprietary codecs. They will, anyway. Even essential information in the video format that occasionally even tries to keep democracy and truth going (I was thinking of Alex Jones’ videos, for example) will be available on p2p etc. only in proprietary formats. Send these people mails, requests for open formats, but in the mean time it’s a matter of improvisation.
However, on the other hand it is a piece of cake to get rid of your unsupported hardware. Sell it, give it away, buy something better with an open driver. There is plenty 100% supported, open driver hardware. No need whatsoever for any distro, really, to include those binary blobs. If you really want to run Linux, BSD, etc., which is usually free in two senses of the word, and you wouldn’t be prepared to make slight adjustments to your hardware if possible, or research your planned purchase a little then that’s your problem, not Linux’s.
Edited 2007-01-19 10:18
Good points.
Fedora _was_ one of the few distributions that wasn’t all caught up in the pursuit of every last user. They _were_ more concerned with the advancement and testing of FREE software.
Now the project has been hijacked by people who don’t give a damn about the original goals and are on some quest to compete with Ubuntu and other distros to attract every user who is interested in proprietary codecs and drivers.
All distributions need not service the same user base. It would be nice if Fedora stuck to the original user base it set out to service in the first place, that was Free Software users.
But alas, Fedora doesn’t seem to care much about those users any more. It’s more interested in catering to the same users that Ubuntu does. Even to the extent that they refuse to consider pushing out free software updates that might inconvenience binary driver users.
Now the project has been hijacked by people who don’t give a damn about the original goals and are on some quest to compete with Ubuntu and other distros to attract every user who is interested in proprietary codecs and drivers.
May I ask, what do you base these statements on?
I have a somewhat different impression.
Fedora still has the reputation to be “crippled” when it comes to multimedia (well, it actually is), and I haven’t seen them ship any blobs either. The “Codec Buddy” thing is merely a pragmatic thing, that is growing out of the realisation that Fedora users will install at least some proprietary codecs anyway. I haven’t heard yet of the Codec Buddy turning into a “Blob Buddy”.
I do hope that Fedora will never assist people more than absolutely necessary in finding their binary blob drivers. I don’t see where Fedora is now in any way more seductive to lovers of things like EasyUbuntu, Linux Mint, and that kind of nonsense, than Debian is.
For the record, on the user level I do use the ubiquitous proprietary codecs, but for all of my hardware there are open source drivers.
May I ask, what do you base these statements on?
On decisions of the board, like refusing to release a free open source software update, with their explanation being that it would be inconvenient for binary driver users. I quoted that email explanation from the board in a previous post. Just read it and see how worried they are about binary driver users. This is not the explanation of a board that is primarily concerned with Free software USERS.
Also on a recent decision to essentially endorse certain proprietary software by providing links and make it easy for users to install said software.
In fact on the web page where they describe this technology, they refer to the promotion of open source principles as “brain washing”:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureCodecBuddy
There are numerous more examples that can be seen on their development mailing list for example where binary driver users are defended as an important segment of the Fedora user base.
The “Codec Buddy” thing is merely a pragmatic thing, that is growing out of the realisation that Fedora users will install at least some proprietary codecs anyway
It’s only “pragmatic” if you’re focusing on users that are interested in binary codecs etc. Which is clearly something that Fedora is becoming more inclined to do.
If Fedora does continue down this path, they should just stop all the propaganda about being more committed to Free Software than say Ubuntu is. The difference between Fedporas new policies and Ubuntu is so subtle as to be meaningless.
>…refusing to release a free open source software update, with their explanation being that it would be inconvenient for binary driver users.
… see how worried they are about binary driver users. This is not the explanation of a board that is primarily concerned with Free software USERS.
I’ll give that a closer look.
That would indeed be a bad thing.
Frankly, I don’t really care about binary driver users’ systems crashing or something, they should have done their homework.
>…decision to essentially endorse certain proprietary software by providing links and make it easy for users to install said software.
In fact on the web page where they describe this technology, they refer to the promotion of open source principles as “brain washing”:
Edited 2007-01-19 13:45
Frankly, I don’t really care about binary driver users’ systems crashing or something, they should have done their homework.
Amen.. But the Fedora board DOES… It’s sad state of affairs. :o/
I’m not sure how deep that irony goes; it might be just some tiny protest against what some people may regard as patronising ~ first tell people smoking is bad, and then tell them where the cigarettes are.
Well, your interpretation is more charitable than mine. But it still smacks of someone telling you not to smoke on the one hand and passing you a coupon for cheap smokes with the other.
I don’t think I know people that are not ‘interested’ in these codecs.
Well I know some. But people who do want to watch DVD’s on their computer (or whatever) have lots of distros to choose from that don’t claim to be dedicated to the promotion and advancement of free software.
Fedora _was_ a flag ship distro that showed just how far Free software had come, and also wasn’t afraid to show its limitations.
There’s already a huge number of voices that say open source software doesn’t matter at all and nobody should care one way or the other.. Fedora was a powerful voice for open source, and now they’re diluting that message.
Not to mention the DVDs I bought with my own money, and absent a separate consumer DVD-player, how do I play these? Those players are not open source either, BTW.
Ubuntu or any of the other distributions that cater to people with these needs. I’m not arguing that everybody should completely avoid binary drivers and codecs, but it’s nice to have a flagship distro like Fedora that does exactly that.
Unfortunately the Fedora board seems to have decided that user-count at any cost is more important than sticking to the goals that originally defined Fedora.
Well I know some. But people who do want to watch DVD’s on their computer (or whatever) have lots of distros to choose from that don’t claim to be dedicated to the promotion and advancement of free software.
Fedora _was_ a flag ship distro that showed just how far Free software had come, and also wasn’t afraid to show its limitations.
There is some logic to your statements, but I am not going to change my favourite distro (i.e., Fedora) for something else, just because I want to watch a DVD occasionally on my computer. I haven’t found any distro that works better to me than Fedora.
I do have some principles (no blobs) but there are more severe matters than a few closed codecs (that are quite unlikely to bring about kernel panics and the like) that I worry about… sorry for that.
I do have some principles (no blobs) but there are more severe matters than a few closed codecs (that are quite unlikely to bring about kernel panics and the like) that I worry about… sorry for that.
You don’t have to be sorry about it, but hopefully you would be willing to accept a Fedora that didn’t distribute things like CodecBuddy, and didn’t take binary drivers into consideration when deciding whether or not to release a free software update of some piece of software.
… hopefully you would be willing to accept a Fedora that didn’t distribute things like CodecBuddy, and didn’t take binary drivers into consideration when deciding whether or not to release a free software update of some piece of software.
Absence of Codec Buddies or an imagine total lack of interest in the well being of binary drivers users would be the last thing that could drive me away from Fedora. But not even gNewSense could, technically or ethically, prevent users from installing binary stuff, completely by themselves.
Absence of Codec Buddies or an imagine total lack of interest in the well being of binary drivers users would be the last thing that could drive me away from Fedora. But not even gNewSense could, technically or ethically, prevent users from installing binary stuff, completely by themselves.
Agreed. This isn’t about trying to prohibit people from using the software any way they choose. This is about having the Fedora board respect the original goals of the project and act accordingly.
In no particular order, I’d like to see Fedora try the following release ideas:
* One major release a year, followed by one or two minor releases inbetween (which would strictly be all the updates rolled in – e.g. Fedora 7.0, then 7.5 six months later). I wouldn’t complain if Fedora starting using a year.<something> numbering scheme to enforce the annual major release concept.
* To avoid the accusation of being a “stagnant” distro with its annual releases, allow some (less than a dozen, IMHO) very important packages to be updated even when they increment a major version number. The classic example was the release of Firefox 2 in the same week as FC6 final came out and then discovering that FC6 will *never* get Firefox 2 (despite it being available in Rawhide almost from day one of FC6 final’s release). Having to wait 6+ months after everyone else to get an official major version update of Firefox 2 (i.e. wait for FC7’s release) was a mistake, IMHO.
* Interleave releases with RHEL so that RedHat engineers can concentrate on the RHEL major release first (e.g. the forthcoming RHEL 5) and *then* the Fedora 7 test 1 etc. cycle should start. As it stands, Fedora 7 test 1 and 2 are scheduled to be released slap bang as the RedHat engineers are concentrating on the RHEL 5 final release (which is based on FC6, to add to the dilution of effort)!
* Switch to live CDs and DVDs as the only install mechanisms (e.g. like Ubuntu, Sabayon and quite a few other Linux distros do) and drop the non-live install CDs/DVDs.
* Support the current major release and the last minor release of the previous major release (the latter of which people can get to with a “yum update”).
* Try to ensure that you can smoothly upgrade from version N to N+1 (don’t need to go from N to N+2 or beyond though) – this way, when support is dropped in 2 years for a major old release, a “yum upgrade” can jump you up a release (though I’d like to be able to specify a version jump for such an upgrade – you might be dumped too close to the bleeding edge otherwise).
* Ensure that the old repositories (e.g. for FC1 onwards) with their final set of updates remain online for as long as is possible (5-7 years, even if they don’t get updated for 3-4 of those years).
* One major release a year, followed by one or two minor releases inbetween (which would strictly be all the updates rolled in – e.g. Fedora 7.0, then 7.5 six months later). I wouldn’t complain if Fedora starting using a year.<something> numbering scheme to enforce the annual major release concept.
It has been used on pre-Fedora era which is Red Hat Linux. Because of the fast development nature of Fedora Project, the traditional naming scheme does not make any sense. Looks through the name of package and version of the release through the terminal.
[…] The classic example was the release of Firefox 2 in the same week as FC6 final came out and then discovering that FC6 will *never* get Firefox 2 (despite it being available in Rawhide almost from day one of FC6 final’s release). Having to wait 6+ months after everyone else to get an official major version update of Firefox 2 (i.e. wait for FC7’s release) was a mistake, IMHO.
Firefox 2 issues has been discussed because it offers nothing new for the distribution. For example, Firefox 2 still use the old libraries and cannot run on the new libraries available on not only Fedora, but also RHEL and Novel distribution. There is a talk to maintain Firefox 1.5 after it is end of life. Firefox 3 is more interesting because it will finally take advantage of Linux distribution
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Firefox2
Another issues to deal is an incompatible license use on the new version of a particular application. CDRecord (I think) is one of them.
* Interleave releases with RHEL so that RedHat engineers can concentrate on the RHEL major release first (e.g. the forthcoming RHEL 5) and *then* the Fedora 7 test 1 etc. cycle should start. As it stands, Fedora 7 test 1 and 2 are scheduled to be released slap bang as the RedHat engineers are concentrating on the RHEL 5 final release (which is based on FC6, to add to the dilution of effort)!
RHEL and Fedora are independent development use because of their different aim. RHEL is an enterprise distribution which requires intensive test than a normal distribution. You seem to forgot Fedora is a community project.
* Switch to live CDs and DVDs as the only install mechanisms (e.g. like Ubuntu, Sabayon and quite a few other Linux distros do) and drop the non-live install CDs/DVDs.
Why only release a live CD/DVD when Fedora provides different way to get a distribution from a media to network using a boot.iso? You neglect the users who don’t have broadband connection and they are still the majority. For them, having multiple CDs or a DVD make sense than having a single CD install that requires the use of broadband connection.
* Support the current major release and the last minor release of the previous major release (the latter of which people can get to with a “yum update”).
Both Fedora 5 and 6 are supported.
* Try to ensure that you can smoothly upgrade from version N to N+1 (don’t need to go from N to N+2 or beyond though) – this way, when support is dropped in 2 years for a major old release, a “yum upgrade” can jump you up a release (though I’d like to be able to specify a version jump for such an upgrade – you might be dumped too close to the bleeding edge otherwise).
Feel free to submit a enhancement request to the development team.
* Ensure that the old repositories (e.g. for FC1 onwards) with their final set of updates remain online for as long as is possible (5-7 years, even if they don’t get updated for 3-4 of those years).
Bandwith is not cheap. At least the SRPMS can be use to rebuild package for these legacy distribution. Are you willing to get that task?
Edited 2007-01-18 22:00
Would be nice if Fedora installed seamlessly in the VM Market: Parallels, VMWare Fusion, …
If you want people to use Linux you’ve got to get it running successfully in the Virtual Machine Market.
Ubuntu was the only successful linux install out of the box, for me, on Fusion.