Skip to comments.Fedora 17 Has More Features: GIMP 2.8, GCC 4.7, oVirt, Etc
Posted on 01/10/2012 11:55:21 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
The Beefy Miracle already has a beefy list of possible changes like maybe the Btrfs file-system by default, multi-touch advancements, GNOME Shell software rendering, and many other features, but now there's even more.
At the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee (FESCo) meeting on Monday (9 January), several more Fedora 17 features were approved. Here's the features that were just approved to be part of the Beefy Miracle:
(Excerpt) Read more at phoronix.com ...
Unfortunately for me, the piece of $@#! machine I run Fedora on won’t let me upgrade from 14 to 16 due to insufficient RAM, so I doubt I’m gonna be able to get 17, either.
That’s one VERY large hat.
If I may make a guess, it requires 768MB of ram but you have less than that?
That said, my multiboot GRUB monster does have a Fedora 16 environment. It's a splendid system and when 17 goes official, a "yum" upgrade will make that an easy transition.
Yup. A paltry 512 MB. And at the present time, I don’t want to sink any more resources into this old clunker.
I may have to get 17 to run inside of a VM on my Mac, though...
Can you explain why “Linux from Scratch” instead of Gentoo? Which community is bigger?
2 weeks into FC16 and loving it. Will be one of the first in line for Beefy Miracle when the time comes. Most of my linux career was all about finding some old decrepit hardware and coaxing new life out of it by running linux. Now for me the game has changed and my current machine is gaming or server quality hardware with huge RAID arrays, as well as power supplies, chassis, fans, DRAM and other components to match. If you can afford it, spend some more $$$ and you well be well repaid. If you can’t, you can’t.
Gladly and thanks for asking!
I have both Gentoo (now at release 2.1) and Linux from Scratch, hereafter LFS, on my system -- GRUB is a beautiful thing since it makes booting into different environments a breeze (also Solaris is present here on my box as are OpenBSD and FreeBSD).
Gentoo is much like LFS in that both are source-based systems. They also share the trait of having excellent documentation since the presumption is that the user is very hands on and actively involved with the guts of the operating system and the applications as well as system administration.
Where they differ is that Gentoo packages all of the compilation steps into a tool known as "emerge". For instance, to get the latest Firefox on a Gentoo system, just execute "emerge firefox" at the command prompt. It then takes care of downloading the source, chasing down the dependencies and then compiling everything. In contrast, with LFS, those same steps are up to you to perform manually.
For me personally, I have a slight favoritism for LFS because I prefer to be be involved with every step of the process, even if it's some additional work. I guess a rather strained analogy is that with Gentoo, someone delivers all of the ingredients to your door but you still cook the meal. With LFS, you have to grow all of the crops and maintain the animals (and do the slaughtering). :-)
The gimp wears a fedora now? What?
I failed to answer that part of your question. As a wild guess, I think both are niche markets in the grand scheme of things compared to the huge Ubuntu and Fedora slices of Linux.
My opinion is that the LFS partisans are a just a tad more informed than Gentoo. That's probably because most LFS people are more used to solving their own problems since they are DIYers to the extreme. There's a bit more hand-holding with Gentoo because some of the steps are abstracted out with the "emerge" tool.
Most (by no means all) Windows users would probably consider either LFS or Gentoo to be utter nonsense. Sure, the computer is a tool but with LFS or Gentoo, we're also the toolmaker!
It’s not Fedora that’s denying you, per se.
GNOME 3 requires 768.
With 512 you probably won’t get very far with KDE either. That’s what the other DEs are for.
Get Fedora with XFCE or LXDE, and you’ll be fine. And E16 is easily found on the software servers.
I thought about upgrading to F16 in November, but btrfs wasn't ready yet, so I'm waiting for F17. While the other upgrades may be pretty cool, btrfs is what I'm really waiting for.
I’m going to start (pre)upgrading every Fedora Release. Preupgrade from 14 to 16 went incredibly smoothly and I can only infer that jumping 1 release will go even better.
The preupgrade process leaves all your main settings intact--including filesystems, etc. Since I want to move from ext4 to btrfs, and I want to remove LVM (I have HW Raid on my laptop and do not need LVM) the preupgrade won't work for me.
Understood. I have so much time/effort invested in my system that I don’t want to have to go back and redo all that stuff. It’s not any one thing - it’s just the totality of getting the system into a state where it works for me. I’d hate to reinvent that wheel - I could do it - but I wouldn’t want to.
BTW - what does btrfs do to make your life better or more exciting?
> Preupgrade from 14 to 16 went incredibly smoothly
Oddly, this went smoothly on my virtual guests, but not so smoothly on the host servers.
Reason is that the BIOS wasn’t prepared for the change from Grub-1 to Grub-2, which uses GPT (Guid Partition Table) instead of the legacy partition table in the MBR (Master Boot Record).
This was fixed by pressing Alt-F2 to get a command prompt after the install and before the reboot. Then invoking fdisk to identify the correct partition as the active boot partition. A small extra step that can probably be executed in kickstart for automated provisioning.
LOL! Probably nothing. However, It's supposed to be faster, and more robust. I have a friend that uses ZFS on BSD and he keeps bragging about how good it is. I just want something that is as good or better.
btrfs does have copy-on-write, though, so data corruption is minimized, volume resizing is built in, and I believe it is generally a faster filesystem. We'll see.
Besides, I also don't need LVM, so if I can get rid of that, then that is one less thing running on my system.
I have so much time/effort invested in my system that I dont want to have to go back and redo all that stuff.
I have so much time/effort invested in my system that I dont want to have to go back and redo all that stuff.
I can understand that. I'm currently in the process of trying to organize what my tasks will be upon re-install. Also, I have to consider that I use my laptop for work as well, so there are things there to think about. /home is just the beginning. :)
I had no problems - don’t know why - but zero issues.
And I have HW RAID as well as dual boot FC/Win7 and the grub to grub2 conversion was seemlessly handled by preupgrade. Guess I was mostly lucky :)
> Guess I was mostly lucky :)
More likely that your hardware vendor’s BIOS was more friendly to GPT in the MBR.
I have the feeling, very subjective of course, that the maturity that has been sorely needed for linux is really upon us. It’s gotten to the point that the software quality is very high, and daily tasks like upgrades and package installations “Just Work”. It’s a great time to be a linux user.
Could be - ASUS P7P55D-E Pro.
Oh, and I believe it’s an anaconda bug.
anaconda should be aware that not every BIOS is going to play well with GPT and that the boot partition flag must be set in the MBR for some BIOS to play well.
There’s also a whole series of issues related to Grub2 and it’s strange use of symlinks involving a config file that have messed a few people up -
OK, your MB has AMI BIOS. +1 for AMI.
The systems I’m having problems with are based on Phoenix BIOS.
I think that for W8 logo secure boot, all BIOS will have to migrate to UEFI.
Agreed - have yet to figure out in my own mind if UEFI is the antichrist or just another bump in the road - guess we’ll know soon enough.
> have yet to figure out in my own mind if UEFI is the
> antichrist or just another bump in the road - guess well
> know soon enough.
Heh. UEFI is a ROM based operating environment that looks and feels like DOS. From the UEFI point of view, the OS is just a long procedure call. :)
There are a lot of nice features with UEFI. Support for installing to and booting from partitions > 2TiB, a shell environment, a character-cell based gui, the ability to boot from a much greater variety of sources, more granularity in defining failovers, etc.
Newer OS’s will be relying more and more on it.
I had read some stuff that it was a technology that could be used by Redmond to force manufacturers to keep linux off UEFI enabled machines - not so? Sort of a anti-linux potion?
> Redmond to force manufacturers to keep linux off UEFI
> enabled machines - not so? Sort of a anti-linux potion?
This is inaccurate, and I am a staunch Linux supporter.
However, I am not at liberty to discuss. Be aware that not everything you read on the internet is accurate. Think WikiPedia and hyperbolic blogs.
Wikipedia on UEFI has this:
Red Hat developer Matthew Garrett in his article “UEFI secure booting” raised a concern that UEFI “secure boot” feature may impact Linux (machines with the Windows 8 logo with secure boot enabled that ships with only OEM and Microsoft keys will not boot a generic copy of Linux) In response, Microsoft stated that customers may be able to disable the secure boot feature in the UEFI interface. Concern remains that some OEMs might omit that capability in their computers.
Josh Gay of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) raised concerns on “secure boot” implementation to UEFI and FSF declared a public statement open for signing which states:
We, the undersigned, urge all computer makers implementing UEFI’s so-called “Secure Boot” to do it in a way that allows free software operating systems to be installed. To respect user freedom and truly protect user security, manufacturers must either allow computer owners to disable the boot restrictions, or provide a sure-fire way for them to install and run a free software operating system of their choice. We commit that we will neither purchase nor recommend computers that strip users of this critical freedom, and we will actively urge people in our communities to avoid such jailed systems.
I claim no special insight into what TRUTH is here.
Concerns have been expressed wrt secure boot implementation.
I can only say that these concerns are being addressed by the appropriate parties.
It is very likely that you will be able to install/boot the OS of your choice on the hardware of your choice. It is possible that a few exceptions will exist. If necessary, workarounds will emerge, as they always do.
Sounds good - things generally do work out - at least they have in the past.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.