| Please consider subscribing to LWN Subscriptions are the lifeblood of LWN.net. If you appreciate this content and would like to see more of it, your subscription will help to ensure that LWN continues to thrive. Please visit this page to join up and keep LWN on the net. |
Watching Ubuntu and Fedora development is something like watching episodes of Iron Chef: Given roughly the same ingredients and the same amount of time, the two projects produce vastly different dishes. The Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10 release cycle is particularly pronounced in this regard, with Ubuntu's focus largely on refining improvements from 10.04 and Fedora introducing major changes to the infrastructure.
The two distributions follow largely the same development cycle, six months between releases with new major releases each Spring and Fall. Ubuntu's next release is scheduled for October 10th, while Fedora 14 was scheduled for October 26th, but slipped by a week and is now scheduled for November 2nd. Even though the two distributions ship roughly the same software, the difference in features that have been emphasized by each is significant in the upcoming releases. It almost goes without saying that F14 and Ubuntu 10.10 include the normal array of package updates for the usual suspects like Firefox, the Linux kernel, etc.
Fedora's feature list largely consists of infrastructure improvements and developer-oriented updates. For example, some of the features scoped for F14 include providing a GNUstep development environment, updating to Perl 5.12, updating to Python 2.7, and adding Rakudo Star — the first production release of the Perl 6 implementation for the Parrot virtual machine.
In contrast, Ubuntu 10.10 ("Maverick Meerkat") has more conservative developer tools, with Python 2.6.6 and Perl 5.10 still the defaults in the beta release. Rakudo doesn't seem to be available at all. Fedora has also adopted a new version of the libjpeg library, libjpeg-turbo, which is still awaiting packaging in Ubuntu. In short, Fedora is sticking to its philosophy of shipping free software first.
Fedora is also being adventurous with its init system. The project is in the process of switching to systemd, an alternative to the venerable System V init and (more recently) the Ubuntu-led Upstart, which Fedora adopted with the Fedora 9 release. Even though systemd is shipped with the Fedora 14 alpha, there's no guarantee that it will wind up in Fedora 14 final. The Fedora project scheduled a test day on September 7th get feedback on systemd and determine whether the new init system for Fedora will hit the streets with Fedora 14 or be held back for Fedora 15.
Not surprisingly, many of F14's features are likely to be important to Red Hat for future Red Hat Enterprise Linux releases. Assuming all goes according to plan, F14 will also be the first release to include support for Spice. The Spice project is designed to provide high-quality remote access to virtual desktops, allowing users to run several Linux or Windows clients via QEMU on a single server and display the clients on remote machines. It's not something that will appeal to many home users, but the ability to run many client OSes on a single server and display on remote clients via Virtual Device Interfaces (VDIs) will appeal to large organizations.
Fedora 14 is also road testing features for Multipath install, which is to say Storage Area Network (SAN) devices. Again, not something that will really appeal to the consumer desktop market, but important to larger organizations.
Compared to the Ubuntu 10.04 release, Maverick seems like a fairly modest update. Many of the new features in 10.10 focus on Ubuntu-specific features like the Ubuntu One services offered by Canonical and supported by software shipped with Ubuntu. In particular, the release includes a number of improvements to the Ubuntu Software Center, with a focus on the "For Purchase" section. Presumably the idea is to offer proprietary packages within Ubuntu following the 10.10 release. So far, the only package to show up is the Fluendo DVD player, which is priced at $24.95.
The Software Center has received a number of usability enhancements and is very polished now. For instance, it now shows where an application has been installed — something that may have confused some users. For programs like Firefox, the Software Center can also show add-ons or extensions, so users will be able to easily find plugins or extensions packaged for the software. The history of packages installed, updated, or removed by the Software Center is also displayed by date and action. When comparing the Software Center and the PackageKit front-end for Fedora side by side, PackageKit is much less polished and user friendly.
Ubuntu has also worked on refining the Ubiquity installer for 10.10. Whereas the Fedora Project is trying to tackle more complex storage and so on, Ubuntu is working on hiding the complexity of partitioning disks and dealing with storage as much as possible. Ubuntu now presents a dialog at the beginning of the install suggesting that "for best results" the machine be plugged in, and that the system should be connected to a network. Ubuntu also offers to install things like Flash and MP3 support, though they're not shipped on the disc. Unfortunately, while it suggests being connected to a network is a Good Thing, it doesn't offer a way to actually configure wireless networking at install time if the system is not connected via Ethernet. The partitioner has also been simplified, and has a positively Mac-like feel.
Fedora and Ubuntu are also diverging significantly with the netbook experience. Fedora is scheduled to include the MeeGo 1.0 UX experience for F14, though it doesn't seem to be packaged for the alpha release. Ubuntu, on the other hand, is pursuing its own netbook experience called Unity (which is somewhat ironic, since Ubuntu is going it alone) that is not based on MeeGo (or Moblin which was the earlier basis for Ubuntu's netbook distribution).
One thing that won't be appearing in Ubuntu 10.10 is the much talked about Ubuntu Font Family that's being designed outside the community. The Ubuntu font is currently available to Ubuntu Members through a Private Package Archive (PPA), but doesn't appear to be ready for release with 10.10. Ubuntu has also included more refinements of its indicator applets in GNOME and improved the sound controls so that if the user is listening to Rhythmbox, some simple playback controls (play/pause, forward, backward) are included in the drop-down control.
The next release for Ubuntu is the release candidate, scheduled for September 30th. The Fedora 14 beta, taking into account the slip, is now scheduled on September 28th.
Both releases seem to be shaping up well, if very differently — as befitting the focus of the distributions and projects. Ubuntu 10.10 is a polished consumer OS that is well-suited for users who are new to Linux, or just prefer a desktop system that's easy to use. Fedora's developer-centric approach makes for an OS that is easy enough to use, but better suited for developers or experienced users who want to tinker with technologies before they make an official appearance in RHEL and other distributions. Ubuntu, on the other hand, is the end result of development rather than the beginning. Many of the changes in 10.10, e.g. the Ubuntu One improvements and the application indicators, are unlikely to show up in other distributions (excepting, perhaps, Linux Mint).
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 7, 2010 20:50 UTC (Tue) by Frej (guest, #4165) [Link]
PS: Those two projects has a redhat employed maintainer ;)
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 7, 2010 21:37 UTC (Tue) by DOT (subscriber, #58786) [Link]
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 7, 2010 22:27 UTC (Tue) by busterb (subscriber, #560) [Link]
https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-installer
Here's the code for it:
http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-installer/ubiquity/tr...
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 8, 2010 21:12 UTC (Wed) by cjwatson (subscriber, #7322) [Link]
The Ubuntu installer has always been based on the Debian installer ("d-i"), and given our heritage as a distribution it makes a lot of sense to take that route. While the version you see on Ubuntu desktop CDs has a customised frontend, much of the backend code is shared with d-i, and this is particularly so for the partitioner - partitioning code is sufficiently delicate that we have no desire to maintain two entirely separate versions of it!
d-i's partitioner is called partman, and it's been used in all versions of Debian since 2004 or so, and in all versions of Ubuntu. We have contributed extensively to d-i over the years, and I'm one of the primary developers of partman among other things. (I guess it isn't fashionable to regard Debian as an upstream or something, but in this case it certainly is.) Like many partitioners, partman uses libparted, one of whose maintainers indeed works for Red Hat.
If you select "Specify partitions manually (advanced)" in the current Ubuntu graphical partitioner, you'll get something that's essentially a graphical rendering of partman's dialogs (though there are a couple of features missing). I wrote that graphical frontend for Ubuntu, and it has not been changed much in 10.10. The big changes are in the automatic partitioner, whose job it is to supply a small number of clear common-case options; Michael Forrest gave us a new design for that, and Evan Dandrea implemented it. Those changes, the ones mentioned in the main article, can and should be credited to Ubuntu.
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 8, 2010 21:58 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
-jef
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 8, 2010 22:21 UTC (Wed) by cjwatson (subscriber, #7322) [Link]
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 21, 2010 10:07 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
On a 2Gb ram machine it gave me a default 2Gb swap. This machine dual-boots gentoo, and I *need* 10Gb usable memory (to compile OOo). Would SuSE let me increase the size of the swap partition? No it wouldn't! Even shrinking another partition to make room it refused to give me more swap :-( It seems all are capped at whatever SuSE thinks is the best default, and all you can do is free up space, not reuse it elsewhere :-(
And my default rule for swap anyway is (given that disk is cheap) is "twice max ram" which on my mobo is 32Gb. People have been saying "the twice ram rule is obsolete" since before linux was born ... then 2.4 proved they were wrong! I haven't seen anything (yes I know there's been some major rewrite since then) that says the actual underlying algorithm has changed, so I still stick to the rule. If it still holds it means there's some (minor) performance hit if you have less ram.
Cheers,
Wol
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 24, 2010 12:55 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
The rule for swap is really 'configure as much as you need'. Swap partitions aren't much faster than swapfiles these days, so adding swap as needed isn't penalized anymore.
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 25, 2010 20:24 UTC (Sat) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link]
Did you consider multiple swap partitions, or emergency swap files (which aren't as nice as swap partitions/spindles but hey, if you need that much virtual memory actively you should go after more RAM)?
> People have been saying "the twice ram rule is obsolete" since before
> linux was born ...
I'm not to cry "prooflink!!11" but for 4, 8, 16, 32M RAM it was perfectly the rule. Somewhere near 64M RAM things became less apparent for desktop as working set more or less got into that plus 1x swap.
> then 2.4 proved they were wrong!
There were quite a few VM managers for 2.4.x, and at some time a bug has caused the "need" in 2x swap which is probably what you heard and recall when it was long fixed.
My main reasons for large swap these days are tmpfs for hasher package builds (with swap on 15kRPM SAS drives, and not heavily used -- rather "just to free up memory before having to clean up") and hiberation (where again, I have a hard time filling up RAM to get all of the RAM+VRAM+tinybit swap used by hibernation alone).
My, and probably yours either, main reason *not* to do uselessly large swaps is the time needed to write or read it all. If you're not going to wait for minutes, that is -- hdparm -t/-T will help to estimate both hard disk's and RAM read speed, and bc -l to turn that into full swap read time.
Correction?
Posted Sep 7, 2010 20:59 UTC (Tue) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link]
Correction?
Posted Sep 7, 2010 22:33 UTC (Tue) by lool (subscriber, #36299) [Link]
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 7, 2010 21:08 UTC (Tue) by whiprush (guest, #23428) [Link]
Ubuntu Font Family PPA
Posted Sep 7, 2010 21:41 UTC (Tue) by sladen (subscriber, #27402) [Link]
Slightly more comprehensive Howto for requesting Ubuntu Typeface Interest membership and for adding the user-specific PPAs for the phased beta programme .deb:
Ubuntu Font Family PPA
Posted Sep 7, 2010 21:50 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
However.. because the copyright is still all rights reserved Canonical you are not allowed to redistribute the files or even embed them inside documents and then distribute said documents. It's unclear to me what the usage rights are on fonts that are all rights reserved like this. If I use these fonts as my desktop fonts and then take a screenshot of my desktop and upload that publicly..have I just violated Canonical's copyrights on the fonts?
-jef
Ubuntu Font Family PPA
Posted Sep 8, 2010 1:15 UTC (Wed) by SEMW (subscriber, #52697) [Link]
No more, surely, than you would have done so anyway, due to that Ubuntu logo visible in the screenshot (or in your case, the Fedora logo -- copyright Red Hat). And, of course, Mozilla's -- that darned Firefox icon in the panel. And, probably, several dozen anonymous icon designers who haven't explicitly released their work under a Free license. And, oh dear, I seem to have violated Red Hat's trademark myself, by publishing (in this comment) the word "Fedora" without the ® symbol or the words "Fedora and the Infinity design logo are trademarks of Red Hat, Inc.", as I am required to do by their trademark guidelines. Not to mention....
Etc, etc, etc. Being that paranoid over IP leads nowhere, fast. And whilst IANAL, I was under the impression that these sort of uses are more than covered by Fair Use in the USA, and its equivalent in other jurisdictions.
Ubuntu Font Family PPA
Posted Sep 8, 2010 2:53 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
Fonts _do_ have copyright licenses associated with them. The permission to use a font typeface to render a static image can not be taken for granted as fair use in all cases. Fair use is at best situational and decided on a case-by-case basis.
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/tips/archives/2008/0...
-jef
Ubuntu Font Family PPA
Posted Sep 8, 2010 3:30 UTC (Wed) by SEMW (subscriber, #52697) [Link]
> You are confusing trademark and copyright which is unfortunate.
Ubuntu Font Family PPA
Posted Sep 8, 2010 4:49 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
Even granting you that court case... the copyrightability of digital typography is even more complex than you realize. That court ruling basically makes typefaces uncopyrightable as artistic works in the US. But, because the US is a signatory of the Berne convention... US courts must uphold typography copyrights from other jurisdictions that allow then to be registered as artistic works... effectively mooting that ruling as other countries allow fonts to be copyrighted.
But regardless of that little nuance... none of that actually speaks to fonts as copyrightable pieces of software. Here's some more up-to-date reading that puts that ruling in context of software:
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/20050425novalis
If I had clear license to _use_ the font software and took a screenshot of that usage or printed a document from a computer program _using_ the font software...things would be fine. But there is no EULA that tells me what I am allowed to actually do with the font software such that I can take a screenshot or print a document rendered with the font software in use. Certainly installing and accessing font software with other software programs is not automatically fair use.
-jef
Ubuntu Font Family PPA
Posted Sep 9, 2010 13:56 UTC (Thu) by DOT (subscriber, #58786) [Link]
Ubuntu Font Family PPA
Posted Sep 9, 2010 20:50 UTC (Thu) by jmm82 (guest, #59425) [Link]
Ubuntu Font Family PPA
Posted Sep 9, 2010 21:07 UTC (Thu) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
If the fonts came with a EULA about what I was actually allowed to do and spelled what I was allowed and not allowed to do..fine. But there is no EULA on those fonts which is a lapse. It doesn't really matter what the license will be in the future or the intention to openly license it at some point. Right now I have no license under the terms of which I can _use_ the fonts even though I can obtain them and install them. Even proprietary licensed fonts come with EULAs which tell me what I can and cannot do with the software. This software doesn't provide any licensing terms at all which describe what is and is not allowed usage. That's a problem.
-jef
Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 7, 2010 22:26 UTC (Tue) by mrjk (subscriber, #48482) [Link]
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 7, 2010 22:34 UTC (Tue) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link]
If I /wanted/ Mac, I'd gotten Mac already. Doing it like someone else does is boring.
(You may also try: s{Mac}{Apple products}, s{Mac}{MacOS and its interfaces} and s{Mac}{Mac-ish hardware}.)
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 7, 2010 23:16 UTC (Tue) by Lennie (guest, #49641) [Link]
When you want to see what the result is when people start to just blindly copy what Apple is doing, you should have a look at this project:
http://www.elementary-project.com/
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/tag/elementary/
http://elementary-project.com/news/
Maybe it just seems that way from a far.
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 8, 2010 14:37 UTC (Wed) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 8, 2010 21:35 UTC (Wed) by mgedmin (subscriber, #34497) [Link]
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 11, 2010 9:06 UTC (Sat) by elanthis (guest, #6227) [Link]
Many ideas can use improvements, sure, but there's old adage about wheels and inventions...
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 7, 2010 23:12 UTC (Tue) by mitchskin (guest, #32405) [Link]
...Ubuntu's focus largely on refining improvements from 10.04 and Fedora introducing major changes to the infrastructure
Sometimes I think Ubuntu should use Fedora as its upstream. Fedora is starting to find its niche with the early adopters of new linux technology, and Ubuntu's niche is more in making things user friendly (which is not to say that Fedora isn't user friendly, or that Ubuntu doesn't have cutting-edge tech, just that their focus is different).
Right now, those two goals of user friendliness and new technology are pretty closely aligned, because the linux desktop world is undergoing a lot of development; the best thing to do for users is to get the latest, best technology to them quickly. As things mature, though, those two goals will diverge more and more. It'll be less important for Ubuntu to rev every six months, and the goal of making things easy for users will lead them toward more conservative choices for infrastructure.
Shuttleworth has talked about wanting to coordinate release cycles, but of course it's possible to go further and share very large chunk of the stack, if he wants to.
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 7, 2010 23:57 UTC (Tue) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link]
Sometimes I think Ubuntu should use Fedora as its upstream.In large part they do, just not directly. As well as Ubuntu benefiting from the extensive testing that new software gets in Fedora considerably before it makes it into Ubuntu, Fedora's 'upstream first' approach means that a lot of Fedora and Red Hat work is done directly in upstream projects, from whence it flows into Ubuntu, either directly or via Debian.
It's safe to say that Ubuntu wouldn't be where it is without Fedora's contributions.
Ubuntu wouldn't be where it is without Fedora
Posted Sep 8, 2010 0:42 UTC (Wed) by sladen (subscriber, #27402) [Link]
It is wonderful when everyone works (cooperatively) together, be it Fedora users finding bugs in Upstart, or Ubuntu users finding bugs in ext4 and g-p-m; and the same for Gentoo, Debian, Suse, Mandriva, ...."Ubuntu wouldn't be where it is without Fedora"This is precisely the concept of Ubuntu (philosophy); no man is an island: we are each where we are because of each other, and would not be there without them.
Ubuntu wouldn't be where it is without Fedora
Posted Sep 8, 2010 1:54 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 8, 2010 14:40 UTC (Wed) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
Not really. Basically, what you have is two distros that have a more ground-breaking release (I think Ubuntu's was in April), and then you have a few polishing releases where mostly they keep the underpinnings stable and polish things. Fedora is in the groundbreaking phase of their cycle; Ubuntu is in the polish phase. Intel calls it "tick" and "tock."
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 8, 2010 19:25 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 21, 2010 22:40 UTC (Tue) by AdamW (subscriber, #48457) [Link]
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 8, 2010 7:43 UTC (Wed) by xnox (subscriber, #63320) [Link]
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 8, 2010 11:07 UTC (Wed) by RCL (guest, #63264) [Link]
Let's build market around Linux, so "Linux developer" will no longer be understood among professional developers as "young amateur programmer with naive communist-like ideas" :/
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 9, 2010 8:38 UTC (Thu) by philipstorry (subscriber, #45926) [Link]
There is this nasty perception that Linux users don't - or worse, won't - buy software. And I think that's complete crap.
It's no doubt caused by a very vocal minority of people that genuinely won't buy software. But most users will happily pay a reasonable price for well-written software if they need or want it.
It's not helped by the fact that some of the attempts to sell software on Linux have been a bit naive - going after the FPS gaming market, for example. That just seemed premature.
Myself, I've bought software for Linux when I couldn't find an acceptable open source solution. So far, off the top of my head, that means I've bought VMware Professional (at the time VirtualBox's USB support was ropey), Bibble Pro (versions 4 and 5), LightZone, and others.
Some software projects just aren't really feasible for free software without significant support (i.e. Sun supporting VirtualBox) or a commercial revenue stream (i.e. Bibble Labs sometimes needs to buy new cameras to properly profile them). Hopefully, the community can recognise this and make it easier to be successful on the Linux platform.
In an ideal world, maybe we could also get a "Donate" button so that some GPL'd projects can do better too. I really like the idea of being able to install something and then donate to the project via the same software centre... Maybe a "recently installed" view which shows a Donate/Give Thanks button for projects that choose to participate?
Hmmm. Time to hit the Launchpad for the Software Centre and throw in a suggestion or two! :-)
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 8, 2010 12:15 UTC (Wed) by sitaram (guest, #5959) [Link]
I've never seen an open source project do that. Enabling JS didn't show me anything that would *need* JS so it's doubly puzzling why they do this.
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 8, 2010 14:44 UTC (Wed) by amit (subscriber, #1274) [Link]
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 8, 2010 17:13 UTC (Wed) by Lukehasnoname (guest, #65152) [Link]
Spice sounds like a re-implementation of the thin-client concept, except it's a remote thick client...
Seems to me like there are other technologies like LTSP or Citrix that accomplish similar things.
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 8, 2010 19:27 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Yes.
> Seems to me like there are other technologies like LTSP or Citrix that accomplish similar things.
Not really.
It depends on your goals. Do you want to provide a bunch of people some GUI applications so they can get some work done? Then, sure, you can use LTSP.
Do you want to give your users access to a OS were they can have a set of applications and be able to set things up for themselves without your intervention? Do you want to allow them to use Windows in a thin client setup? Do you want them to have access to multiple operating systems?
Then you'll want to use KVM/Linux + Spice.
As KVM matures your gaining access to a lot of features like 'deduping' memory (so you can do something like run multiple copies of Windows from the same section of physical RAM). That way you can over commit resources to your virtual machine and economically provide multiple copies of the OS to a large number of end users on a large server machine. It's not as lightweight as doing containers or just going multiuser on a box and doing X networking, but it's not nearly as expensive as it once was.
Spice depends on paravirtualized drivers and KVM to create a GUI were you have some actually really good compresson over a network. Performance of it is much better then Microsoft's Rdesktop (RDP) or Citrix's ICA remote desktop protocols and will usually perform better then X11 networking.
It's very neat and is needed as corporations are now leaning much more towards virtualization + full desktop + remote GUI versus the old thin client scemes.
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 8, 2010 19:30 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 8, 2010 17:21 UTC (Wed) by rgoates (guest, #3280) [Link]
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 10, 2010 10:15 UTC (Fri) by mdz@debian.org (guest, #14112) [Link]
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 9, 2010 15:24 UTC (Thu) by pjones (guest, #31722) [Link]
Fedora 14 is also road testing features for Multipath install, which is to say Storage Area Network (SAN) devices. Again, not something that will really appeal to the consumer desktop market, but important to larger organizations.I think you've misunderstood the Fedora feature process here - which is all too easy to do, unfortunately. This "feature" has been removed from the Fedora 14 feature list. It's actually very functional in Fedora _13_ as shipped, and mostly unchanged in Fedora 14 as it will ship, but there are some lingering polish issues that are still on the TODO list: mostly kickstart work. This has kept me from declaring the feature to be finished.
Looking at Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 10.10
Posted Sep 22, 2010 10:26 UTC (Wed) by robbe (guest, #16131) [Link]
Well, that's basically the definition of it... oh, you didn't infer the mathematical meaning of unity? But still, it's easiest to attain unity if you are just one entity.
Copyright © 2010, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds