Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
(Nearly) full tickless operation in 3.10
Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online)
Posted Jan 23, 2009 3:33 UTC (Fri) by salimma (subscriber, #34460)
When it comes to kernel features, though, your observation is more or less true. Red Hat employs more core kernel developers than other distributions, and as a result, Fedora tends to get them first (though they tend to favor the extN filesystems, so this is not necessarily true for other file systems).
Posted Jan 23, 2009 7:46 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322)
What, like "startx -- :1" followed by Ctl-Alt Fn to switch? This is a feature of X. Predates both Fedora and Ubuntu, I wouldn't be surprised if it worked on UnixWare pre-Linux.
That you can now achieve the same in Ubuntu with a mouse is not exciting.
Posted Jan 23, 2009 9:08 UTC (Fri) by RobWilco (guest, #40828)
Ok, Kudos for Fedora for this audacious step, it is a good thing. Kudos for Ubuntu for putting efforts in the notification system. It is needed too.
Posted Jan 23, 2009 12:15 UTC (Fri) by epa (subscriber, #39769)
Posted Jan 25, 2009 21:49 UTC (Sun) by salimma (subscriber, #34460)
It is now turned on, after the development of PolicyKit.
Posted Jan 23, 2009 9:05 UTC (Fri) by buchanmilne (guest, #42315)
fast user switching
KDE has had this feature since 2003, I think SUSE was the first distribution to ship with it, all before Ubuntu even existed.
If you mean support in GNOME, well, it seems that Fedora was concerned with taking the security issues into account, which Ubuntu didn't (at the time KDE got this feature in 2003, there was no ConsoleKit, less restrictive pam_console permissions and device-groups were the only means to make this work in a semi-secure way). Fedora has also added ConsoleKit support to KDM.
upstart (which is developed by Ubuntu)
Posted Jan 23, 2009 17:51 UTC (Fri) by jdahlin (guest, #14990)
Posted Jan 23, 2009 23:51 UTC (Fri) by Burgundavia (guest, #25172)
Posted Jan 25, 2009 22:11 UTC (Sun) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
Posted Jan 26, 2009 0:04 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
I suspect everyone on LWN would breathe a sigh of relief if you just
*stopped commenting* when Canonical or Ubuntu was mentioned. I suspect
most Fedora contributors probably would, too: the distro having a rep
as 'the distro the obsessional conspiracy theorists contribute to' is
probably *not* what they would prefer. (I don't know if you really are an
obsessional conspiracy theorist, but I've known a few and you're acting
just like they do.)
For goodness sake *give it a rest*.
(The annoying thing is I can't even killfile you because a few percent of
your comments, those not related to Canonical or Ubuntu in any way, really
Posted Jan 26, 2009 17:29 UTC (Mon) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
Posted Jan 26, 2009 22:29 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
Posted Jan 26, 2009 23:27 UTC (Mon) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
Yes "Originally developed" was the phrase used. So yes I was hmm'ing about Canonical's role there. Why am I hmm'ing? Because I was under the impression that this was a Canonical developed codebase. Why was I under that impression?
My reading of http://upstart.ubuntu.com/wiki/CopyrightAssignment
The assignment to Canonical isn't something I would have expected to see in a project that was original developed on personal time. Sure assigning copyright to a nonprofit like the FSF or asking contributors to assign copyright to the main developer, that I can see for a personal project. But when I see copyright assignment requirements to a for-profit corporate entity like Canonical that implies to me that the company had a hand in paying for the original development of the work. It's not proof of course, just an implication.
The developer even talks about the copyright assignment to Canonical here:
Saying its the same assignment required by bzr, and again my understanding is that bzr was originally developed on Canonical's dime. This doesn't prove that Canonical paid for the original Upstart development time, but its what I took away from the requiring the Canonical copyright assignment.
And there's nothing inherently wrong with the copyright assignment either. If the original developer wants to sign over copyright assignment to Canonical and give Canonical the power to re-license the codebase on whatever terms it sees fits as a corporate entity, even if the codebase originated on volunteer time, that's totally within his rights to do.
Also my previous reading of
specifically lists the original developer as a Canonical employee instead of just a Ubuntu community member and that again implied to me that it was a Canonical development.
Why does it matter? I fully expect that the History of Ubuntu to be a category on Jeopardy in ten years so I want to make sure I get all the trivia correct.
Posted Jan 27, 2009 5:34 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
Posted Jan 27, 2009 6:50 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
Look I didn't bring it up, I was just expressing the fact that the assertion that Upstart was initially a volunteer effort without Canonical backing seemed odd. If I were angling to beat up Canonical about it, I'd be on the other side of the discussion, trying to argue that this is an example of Canonical not contributing...which the exact opposite of what I thought the situation was.
And point of fact, another person has also chimed in that the original assertion is false. Unlike most everyone else, I've putting my opinion in context by citing the reference material which influenced how I formed that opinion. It would have been nice if the original assertion and come with an authoritative reference. Are you okay with people making unsupported assertions and treating them like facts? I'm more than happy to be shown an authoritative source material that Canonical didn't pay for the development time for Upstart, but until then I'm giving Canonical the benefit of the doubt.
Posted Jan 27, 2009 7:35 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
I have no doubt that you believe you're arguing objectively and in good faith, on important questions regarding Canonical.
However, it's completely missing the point: You are a prominent member of the Fedora community (possibly even an officer of it of some sort, I don't know). It reflects very badly on you - and anybody you represent, by extension - when you wage a bad-mouthing campaign against rivals on forums. However well-founded your bad-mouthing might be doesn't matter.
Your socio-political standing means it is NOT YOUR PLACE to launch such direct criticisms. Rather make them indirectly by promoting those *positive* aspects of your distro which contrast with what you feel is lacking in others. E.g. "More developers get paid to work on Fedora", or whatever your point is. Leave any direct criticism to 3rd parties (e.g. LWN editors) who have at least semblence of impartiality.
Please, please stop..
1. On the flip-side: if it's not well-founded, it reflects even more poorly on you. Though I suspect many people now ignore any of your comments containing the words "Canonical" or "Ubuntu"..
Posted Jan 27, 2009 8:02 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
Posted Jan 29, 2009 14:18 UTC (Thu) by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
I hadn't noticed that Fedora was in a state of war, or any kind of emergency that precludes its members, albeit high-standing ones, of criticizing it.
Lucky Debian, in which _really_ high-standing ones can criticize the project at will and with impunity.
Posted Jan 27, 2009 23:12 UTC (Tue) by cry_regarder (subscriber, #50545)
Mom: What about?
Child: Not doing my homework!
Mom: Did you do your homework?
Child: Ummm. No...
Posted Jan 27, 2009 0:02 UTC (Tue) by keybuk (subscriber, #18473)
It was originally developed as a feature for Ubuntu 6.10, and very much in paid time by a Canonical employee.
Posted Jan 23, 2009 8:33 UTC (Fri) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183)
Posted Jan 23, 2009 9:44 UTC (Fri) by Janne (guest, #40891)
Why do we only consider technical features as proper features, whereas polish and ease of use are not?
Features vs. non-functionals...
Posted Jan 23, 2009 10:08 UTC (Fri) by Cato (subscriber, #7643)
- Microsoft Office beat the competition largely by adding features more quickly - since software reviews focus on what they can easily measure in a few days usage, which means features and ease of learning the new features (not long term usability), it tended to always win the reviews and gain market share until it was dominant.
- in the Ubuntu world, many people jump on the latest release even if they don't really need the new features - good thing for testing, but not so good if they simply need a reliable desktop system, for which the Ubuntu stable releases would be more appropriate.
- traditionally Windows had more features than Linux, but Linux was much more reliable and secure - however, most people chose Windows based on features. Linux is approaching feature parity for desktops so this is no longer so valid.
If it was common practice to quantitatively measure and review software based on these non-functionals, the world would be a different place, but it would also take a lot longer to review software...
Posted Jan 24, 2009 5:15 UTC (Sat) by dkite (guest, #4577)
Quite regularly someone shows me something that they did with windows that
can't be done with linux. No one showing off, just useful things they did
with ease. Sometimes there is no choice, just a need.
I would be interested in a survey of users showing how the capabilities of
their platform shape their usage patterns. I know there are things I don't
do or even attempt to do with linux that I used to do years ago with msdos
applications. Of course it works the other way around, but not as often.
Posted Jan 29, 2009 10:45 UTC (Thu) by Cato (subscriber, #7643)
Generally I can load up a Linux box with far more apps and it's still stable. For example, my main Linux desktop can do email, browsing, video, VoIP, VMware, web serving and OpenNMS all at the same time, but I wouldn't dare do all that on Windows. Hardware support can be more problematic if you don't choose the kit carefully, but generally most things work "out of the box".
Linux also scales down much better of course - I've recently been hugely impressed by SliTaz, which needs only a tiny amount of RAM yet still supports Firefox and other modern apps, and has a very light Debian-like package system, and by Crunchbang, which is a very light Ubuntu (much less than Xubuntu) while also coming with Java and Flash pre-installed. Either of these is great for older PCs with 100MB or 200MB of RAM respectively, on which XP would really struggle and Vista would not even install.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds