| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review)Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review)Posted Nov 9, 2006 1:30 UTC (Thu) by davej (guest, #354)In reply to: Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review) by mcastell Parent article: Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review)
> compare Fedora with other distribution such Ubuntu.
The point is that Ubuntu ships not-upstream drivers, and enables proprietory software, and Fedora doesn't.
Comparing the two as if they were on a level playing field isn't realistic.
One of the objectives of Fedora is to try and get as much content as possible upstream, so we just 'inherit' rather than accumulate a gazillion patches to packages. Ubuntu seems to have the complete opposite intention.
(Log in to post comments)
Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review) Posted Nov 9, 2006 5:05 UTC (Thu) by Burgundavia (guest, #25172) [Link] Ubuntu only enabled those drivers absolutely needed to get up and running, such as networking drivers. "Up and running" does not include ATI or Nvidia binary drivers.
As for the upstream issue, Ubuntu does care. I invite you to look at https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2006-Octob... and https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/UpstreamDelta
Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review) Posted Nov 9, 2006 5:44 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] As long as distributions continue to install proprietary drivers without even the explicit consent of the users while superficially claiming to support free software, the situation is going to remain just the same. The goal should be to collectively resist that. When hardware people lose market share to competition due to the absence of Free sotware and open source drivers, they will open up the specs or even participate in the kernel development process. Many kernel developers consider distribution of such proprietary drivers a violation of the GPL license as well.
The upstream delta reduction work pointed out seems to be focussed on the desktop while Fedora there is usually low number of patches on the desktop components and the following upstream as much as possible is considered a distribution wide policy.
Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review) Posted Nov 9, 2006 6:12 UTC (Thu) by Burgundavia (guest, #25172) [Link] If you read the first link I sent, it is clearly aimed at the entire distribution. The DesktopTeam link is merely an example.
Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review) Posted Nov 9, 2006 6:52 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
I will believe it when the number of distribution specific patches in the kernel, GNOME and other places actually go down.
Posted Nov 9, 2006 13:23 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] Comparing the two as if they were on a level playing field isn't realistic.Enough already with the Ubuntu-bashing. I use Ubuntu and Debian not for binary drivers but because they just work. And, in particular, I'm talking about updating individual software packages and upgrading to a new release. I still have nightmares about Red Hat, and it looks like Fedora hasn't changed much. To this day, Fedora apparently recommends backup, reformat and reinstall as the upgrade procedure. If you don't like Ubuntu, fine, but how about making your own fork of Debian that takes advantage of others' good work and lives up to your ideological requirements? Debian solved the package management and upgrade problem years ago. And the smarter new distros noticed and based themselves on Debian. There is no excuse for a modern distro not having a sane updating and upgrading procedure.
Fedora upgrade procedure Posted Nov 10, 2006 1:53 UTC (Fri) by kheine7 (guest, #41582) [Link] > To this day, Fedora apparently recommends backup, reformat and reinstall as the upgrade procedure.
Gee I must be luck. I have taken my laptop through Fedora Core 1 -> Fedora Core 6 over time with no problem with upgrades. And this is not the only machine I have done with with. So to say the only way to upgrade Fedora is through a re-install is rubbish and I have my laptop to prove it.
> Debian solved the package management and upgrade problem years ago.
To bash Fedora Core/Extras about other 3rd party repos not working is like saying to the Ford that my car does not work anymore since I took it to the local mechanic. I bet not all Debian/Ubuntu repos work 100% with the main system all the time.
> There is no excuse for a modern distro not having a sane updating and upgrading procedure.
You are 100% right and I couldn't agree with you more BUT please check what you right is 100% right before you start saying things that dont agree.
PS. Please check the post at slashdot about Ubuntu 6.4 -> Ubuntu 6.10 upgrade not working. (http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/10/28/239258.shtml)
Fedora upgrade procedure Posted Nov 10, 2006 20:12 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] """> To this day, Fedora apparently recommends backup, reformat and reinstall as the upgrade procedure.
Gee I must be luck. I have taken my laptop through Fedora Core 1 -> Fedora Core 6 over time with no problem with upgrades. And this is not the only machine I have done with with. So to say the only way to upgrade Fedora is through a re-install is rubbish and I have my laptop to prove it.
Must be. And that's a good thing, because otherwise I'd have to call you on a bald-faced lie. ;-)
Few upgrade through 5 releases of any OS without a problem. Least of all Fedora users, where easy upgrades are not a particularly important goal. (At least Fedora Unity is doing some respins, in stark contrast to the traditional Fedora policy of "This horrendous installation problem will be fixed in FCx+1, but we don't do respins.)
And this is most especially true on a laptop, where you can't just run out and buy a card with a supported chipset and then simply fib a little about how things "just worked".)
You are, indeed, one lucky guy... because I know you wouldn't lie.
Fedora upgrade procedure Posted Nov 16, 2006 8:21 UTC (Thu) by Pc5Y9sbv (guest, #41328) [Link] > Must be. And that's a good thing, because otherwise I'd have to call you on a bald-faced lie. ;-)>
I don't know about using the install media in "perform an upgrade" mode, but I upgraded a laptop from FC3 -> FC4 -> FC5 simply by using rpm to install the new fedora-release package (switches versioning metadata for yum) and then running yum to pull in and upgrade all of the packages. I'd do an upgrade to FC6 right now as a test, but that old machine developed bad blocks and I reinstalled FC5 on a new harddrive since this episode...
I followed one of the how-tos I found in a quick websearch for "fedora remote upgrade yum", which documented a couple of gotchas and pitfalls. It worked very nicely, such that I was able to do it remotely from another continent with only two hiccups:
1) running out of disk during FC3->FC4 yum upgrade! had to delete some packages to make space, delete a few stragglers of the old FC3 packages, re-run yum upgrade, and get back to good working order
2) had to arrange for someone to plug it into ethernet since I wasn't feeling up to the task of trying to build new atheros drivers (out of kernel) in lock-step with each reboot into a newer kernel.
Truth be told, I suspect this method may be more reliable than the install media method... my experience with Fedora is that the brand-spanking-new release is always a bit fragile. This method, when applied carefully, allows you to upgrade directly to the later maintenance updates and avoid running the earliest versions of packages in the new release.
BTW, if you shopped carefully and got a Thinkpad that had good hardware support in the kernel, you wouldn't find it surprising to have newer versions of Fedora continue to work well with the same machine. ;-)
|
|
||||||||||||