| |||||||||||||
Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online)Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online)Posted Jan 22, 2009 23:03 UTC (Thu) by BillyCrook (guest, #53586)Parent article: Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online)
"Fedora Project is going one step beyond Ubuntu"
That's hardly news. Fedora has always taken the lead, and always will.
(Log in to post comments)
Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online) Posted Jan 23, 2009 3:33 UTC (Fri) by salimma (subscriber, #34460) [Link]
There are some features that Ubuntu get first -- for example, fast user switching and upstart (which is developed by Ubuntu).
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).
Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online) Posted Jan 23, 2009 7:46 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]
> "fast user switching"
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.
Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online) Posted Jan 23, 2009 9:08 UTC (Fri) by RobWilco (guest, #40828) [Link]
I'll tell my Mom that she can use "startx -- :1" followed by Ctl-Alt Fn to switch" instead of her mouse. I will also tell her that ext4 and btrfs are in Fedora and she wil be so happy she will cook a cake for me.
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.
Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online) Posted Jan 23, 2009 12:15 UTC (Fri) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
FWIW, my mother has been using 'gdmflexiserver --no-lock' (run from a panel icon) to do fast user switching for several years now. The improvement in recent Fedora releases was to make fast user switching more polished somehow, not to make it possible.
Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online) Posted Jan 25, 2009 21:49 UTC (Sun) by salimma (subscriber, #34460) [Link]
That feature was specifically disabled from Fedora's GNOME, because it previously did not integrate well with Fedora's management of system devices (only the user logged on locally get access to devices such as the sound card).
It is now turned on, after the development of PolicyKit.
Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online) Posted Jan 23, 2009 9:05 UTC (Fri) by buchanmilne (guest, #42315) [Link] 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)Starting this discussion (who develops what) is dangerous for Ubuntu supporters ...
Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online) Posted Jan 23, 2009 17:51 UTC (Fri) by jdahlin (guest, #14990) [Link]
Besides Upstart was originally developed by an Ubuntu developer in his free time, if that make a difference.
Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online) Posted Jan 23, 2009 23:51 UTC (Fri) by Burgundavia (guest, #25172) [Link]
So was PackageKit and whole host of RH-driven things...
Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online) Posted Jan 25, 2009 22:11 UTC (Sun) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
You mean it was not originally developed on Canonical paid time?
Hmm.
-jef
Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online) Posted Jan 26, 2009 0:04 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
*sigh* why the *hell* does this matter? *Linux* wasn't developed on 'paid
time'. Being developed on 'paid time' says nothing about the quality of the software in question (actually, I'd tend to trust it less if it was paid, because there were probably deadline pressures).
I suspect everyone on LWN would breathe a sigh of relief if you just
For goodness sake *give it a rest*.
(The annoying thing is I can't even killfile you because a few percent of
Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online) Posted Jan 26, 2009 17:29 UTC (Mon) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
Linux isn't developed on paid time? Noone spends time contributing to the linux kernel while on the clock for some corporate entity?
hmm.
-jef
Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online) Posted Jan 26, 2009 22:29 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Linux didn't start as a paid project, which is *exactly* what you
were 'hmmm'ing about with regard to upstart.
Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online) Posted Jan 26, 2009 23:27 UTC (Mon) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
Yes you are right, apologizes for the last comment as it was reading what you wrote in the wrong context.
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 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.
-jef
Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online) Posted Jan 27, 2009 5:34 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Please could you shut up about Canonical/Ubuntu? You're an embarrassment to Fedora with your behaviour here
Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online) Posted Jan 27, 2009 6:50 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
Sadly I'm also an embarrassment to my parents too.
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.
-jef
Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online) Posted Jan 27, 2009 7:35 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Jef,
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[1].
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"..
Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online) Posted Jan 27, 2009 8:02 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
I know my place... my place is in the kitchen...barefoot.
-jef
Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online) Posted Jan 29, 2009 14:18 UTC (Thu) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
> Your socio-political standing means it is NOT YOUR PLACE to launch such direct criticisms.
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.
Meh.
Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online) Posted Jan 27, 2009 23:12 UTC (Tue) by cry_regarder (subscriber, #50545) [Link]
Child: Mommy Mommy! The teacher is picking on me again!
Mom: What about?
Child: Not doing my homework!
Mom: Did you do your homework?
Child: Ummm. No...
Mom: Well?
Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online) Posted Jan 27, 2009 0:02 UTC (Tue) by keybuk (subscriber, #18473) [Link]
No it wasn't.
It was originally developed as a feature for Ubuntu 6.10, and very much in paid time by a Canonical employee.
Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online) Posted Jan 23, 2009 8:33 UTC (Fri) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
I would be really happy as an Ubuntu user if Fedora always took the lead and Ubuntu concentrated on being second with improved reliability (both would be valuable services to the community). To quote Seymour Cray - "One of the problems of being a pioneer is you always make mistakes and I never, never want to be a pioneer. ItÂ’s always best to come second when you can look at the mistakes the pioneers made." Unfortunately, Ubuntu don't seem to agree with me :)
Ext4 to be standard for Fedora 11, Btrfs also included (heise online) Posted Jan 23, 2009 9:44 UTC (Fri) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]
Which is more important: To take cutting-edge features and shipping it, or making sure that the not-so-cutting-edge features work and that the entire system is smooth and easy to use? Different people might have different answers to that.
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) [Link]
Unfortunately this 'features matter most' attitude is endemic to the whole computer industry. Almost everyone ignores the 'non-functional requirements' such as reliability, security, usability, etc. A couple of examples:
- 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...
Features vs. non-functionals... Posted Jan 24, 2009 5:15 UTC (Sat) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link]
>traditionally Windows had more features than Linux, but Linux was much
more reliable and secure - however, most people chose Windows based on features
Quite regularly someone shows me something that they did with windows that
I would be interested in a survey of users showing how the capabilities of
Derek
Features vs. non-functionals... Posted Jan 29, 2009 10:45 UTC (Thu) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link]
I can't think of many things you can do with Windows that you can't do with Linux - really I was making the point that out of the box, Windows has some additional features including hardware support, good usability, consistent UI, sound that always works, etc.
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.
|
|||||||||||||