It's been pushed to Fedora 24. Still, supposedly with 23 everything should work the same (instead on 22 there were still features missing), allowing to iron out the bugs (well, some of them).
Yeah, the plan is to have one full release where we feel like Wayland works 100% as non-default, and then switch to the default the next release. We aren't at that point yet.
Even if you say "it's fixed now" the fact that this problem existed for 6 years. (SIX YEARS! screams internally) and the handling of it "we'll close this ticket WONTFIX if you discuss patents here" is so terrible that it's shaken my perception of RedHat in regards to Fedora.
CentOS was packaged and shipping (I know it wasn't redhat owned, but they are binary compatible, right?) with the elliptic curve options enabled.
I'm still running Fedora 21 on my machine at home, I've been using Fedup to upgrade since Fedora 17 and it's still working! but this has caused enough doubt about their intentions that I may end up replacing my distro.
Red Hat is a multi-billion dollar US corporation. They are absolutely a target for every crappy patent troll out there, and they do have to take this stuff very seriously. Plus, even discussing a patent causes wilful liability.
> "we'll close this ticket WONTFIX if you discuss patents here" is so terrible that it's shaken my perception of RedHat in regards to Fedora.
Sure, but if I was "Tom "spot" Callaway" I'd lose my patience a bit. If things are bunged up in legal what's he to do. I thought he did a reasonable job of trying to keep the bug report on-topic whilst fending off the tin foil hatters and some generally quite rude individuals adding nothing to that thread.
The patent is free use- and while I understand why they'd be skittish; this particular problem has implications about weakening security for non-business customers, since CentOS (and I infer RHEL) ship with ECDSA enabled.
as an aside: 6 YEARS is an insane lead time to check the patents usability.
I'm not sure crippled is the right word. I think limited might be a better choice. Redhat seems paranoid about patents and lacked the particular curve necessary to build bitcoin / ethereum without first building openssl.
I'm actually mildly surprised there's not an unofficial "spin" that addresses these IP-related limitations the way various distros like Mint address various Ubuntu pain points.
I moved from Mint XFCE to Xubuntu and in the 15.04 release everything works out the box as well, even the monitor setup with the open source radeon drivers via xfce4-display-settings -m is one of the best I've used for 3 screens with one rotated.
Absolutely painless all around and XFCE 4.12 is a nice little upgrade just gentle improvement all around but functionally the same.
I switched to Fedora after aging out some old Mac hardware only Ubuntu seemed to support. My primary motivator was the appearance of Amazon on my Unity desktop and Canonical's increasing desire to go it's own way with technologies like Mir.
I've been very happy with Fedora and Gnome 3 since the latter hit 3.12 or so. There are still some edge cases like the ability to snap windows to corners that I really think should be addressed but otherwise I'm a happy camper.
You are so naive if you think redhat(or samsung) does not control wayland.
Both player redhat/samusng/intel/etc and canonical wants only what in their interest !
Sadly in linux community redhat is more vocal than any other player (because of their money and their long history in linux), and people think whatever redhat supports it is best and free and better and all these ridiculous arguments.
Which is not , comparing in only license shows me Mir is GPLv3 (which is best for software freedom) vs MIT License which is just another mediocre opensource license.
People get manipulated very easily . If you want privacy you should not use any ubuntu/fedora like distro , use something like tail or fsf approved distro.
But if you don't care about privacy and stil you criticizing canonical for mir you are just another guy manipulated in linux community about redhat being cool and canonical being evil.
I liked Fedora. Since release 21 they are really stepping up their game in terms of quality. But I can't see myself using it in any foreseeable future. I'm just enjoying rolling release distros (Arch) too much, that going back to Fedora would felt like 2008 again...
Basically true, but if you don't mind the occasional hiccup, you can run it as your daily system. (I do — but I also keep another laptop handy with the latest stable release.)
The most likely problems are simply dependencies getting out of sync, which results in a) updates not applying and b) an uninstallable nightly state — not actually a broken system.
We're working (slowly — we've got a decade of inertia) on an automated system to move updates which break this consistency to a "side tag", so they can be worked on without breaking the main tree. And possibly in the future we can actually have a similar thing with automated functional testing (but... don't hold your breath). (Also, shout-out to openSUSE, where they're already doing a lot of this.)
Of course, as with any "rolling release", you have "oh look, the UI of my software is different today".
Funny, I switched from a rolling release distro to Fedora around 2006, having gotten sufficiently annoyed with the lack of wide scale integration testing. I like that there's a Fedora "image" that gets tested as a whole, and every 6 months it gets updated to the latest and greatest (after more testing).
Ongoing stability leaves a lot to be desired with Fedora. The utter disregard for bug reports and general aggression towards pushing untested bleeding edge broken updates with no equivalent of Ubuntu LTS means I'll stick to Ubuntu for a long time. I even donated to them recently.
For servers that is fine - try installing CentOS on your newer laptop or workstation. Even if you did get it to install, the s/w stack is way too outdated. Between that and Fedora being the extreme, Ubuntu LTS is a well balanced choice for workstation/laptops - you get stack refreshes periodically with point releases and it is not so bleeding edge as to be unusable.
Internally Red Hat gives every employee a laptop running RHEL 7 (it was RHEL 6 until quite recently). Also RHEL 7 version numbers don't necessarily reflect the upstream version of the software, since Red Hat actively backports major features and fixes.
I've found CentOS 7 to be remarkably stable in recent laptop configurations. Main issues encountered were the odd package with hacky systemd integration.
Fedora is considered the bleeding edge of Redhat distros. Always has been.
If you want stability and long term support then consider CentOS or Scientific Linux.
That said, the last seven Fedora releases have been totally stable for me both running inside Virtualbox and on bog standard Dell hardware with nvidia GeForce GPU's. I guess YMMV depending on how exotic your hardware is, but that's my general experience with Linux full stop (or any desktop OS for that matter, Windows too).
Yeah, I am an old timer when it comes to Linux and so am perfectly aware of it all. CentOS or derivatives don't support recent hardware, has _way_ too outdated s/w stacks and so it's something you use on servers, not laptops or workstations. On the other hand Fedora is so bleeding edge and broken that it is pointless.
Ubuntu/LTS supports most hardware without all the instability and I was merely pointing out that there isn't such an option with Fedora and many people find that a non starter.
Apologies if I came across as a wee bit patronising didn't mean to, I too am an old timer and been around the distro block more times than I can remember.
I settled on CentOS and Fedora because I mostly buy Dell kit and by and large it's always worked with little or no fuss, even brand new laptops which are often a friction point. CentOS is also our production distro at work, so it makes sense for me.
That said I've built a brand new machine from components (Core i5 Devil's Canyon on an Asus Z97-K mobo with an Asus GeForce GTX 750 Ti graphics card - not exactly bleeding edge, but still fairly new spec -wise for me) so I'm going to see how well CentOS & Fedora get on with that.
Yeah, it's better now a days with CentOS 7.x releases than it was with the 6.x ones when it comes to hardware support - but I still had issues for example with suspend/resume not working and Virt manager having issues because the Haswell Xeons weren't tested with Centos 7. Minor issues but for desktop you prefer something that works great.
Funny, CentOS 7 was based on Fedora 18-20ish. You'd be hard pressed to find non-exotic hardware that it doesn't support. Also, RHEL is supported a LOT longer[1] than Ubuntu's LTS[2] releases (5 years for Ubuntu vs 11+ for RHEL). As to new software, there are now software collections[3], which render that more or less a moot point.
Yes, the situation is lot better with CentOS 7.x but still the kernel/DRM and Xorg are a lot older and getting those upgraded to something newer is a pain. I guess I should give the latest release a try - initial 7.x release had my Haswell CPU untested, suspend resume not working and there were some packages missing and/or older (FreeRDP/thermald were couple of them). Thanks.
I don't think "utter disregard for bug reports" paints an accurate picture. Remember, the vast majority of packages are maintained by volunteers, with different day jobs. (This is often true even for those with @redhat.com email — their day job is usually RHEL or OpenStack or OpenShift, and Fedora may or may not be part of that.) So, response time, attitude, and even expertise available to fix the issue varies. For some packages, you'll get great response (ever tried to file a bug against SELinux? I'd be surprised if your issue wasn't fixed in a magically small window, because those people are crazy awesome and on top of it). For others... well, yeah.
Many packagers aren't even coders — they're sysadmins or end-users who needed the software packaged up — and if the bug is in the upstream code rather than the _packaging_, they may not be properly qualified. They _should_ help the user negotiate the process of getting a fix from upstream, but sometimes that's hard too when the packager can't reproduce.
For some packages, bugs are a firehose. Triaging alone can be a full-time job. We've had some efforts at triage teams, but those have generally died out due to burnout. (Help wanted if you have any ideas, though.)
I'm downloading the Workstation beta now mainly to have a look at Gnome 3.18. I have quite liked Gnome 3 since around 3.4 (used the Debian Wheezy manifestation). I can't seem to get on with KDE but that is probably just me.
For the 'just do stuff' laptop, I find xfce4 reassuringly gradualist. I'm using version 4.10 with whisker-menu bound to Mod4-space, and with the panel brought down to the bottom of the screen. I hand this laptop to students who are used to Windows and they have no problems with the navigation at all. Slackware as underlying OS but almost any of the larger distros will package a full xfce4 desktop session.
I must give Gnome 3 another spin. I fell out of love with Gnome 3 whenever it popped up in Fedora 16? or 17? and switched to KDE 4 which I kinda like. I have a spare Dell Vostro 1720 laptop with a nice 1900x1200 display I can blow away and play with.
My main machine is still Windows 7 (about to be 10) because I spend 50% of my day inside Visual Studio/SQL Server/IIS, and we still use Exchange (therefore Outlook) and Word...etc. Also for the life of me I still cannot get Fortigate's VPN client (essential because I'm a remote worker) to play nice with Linux yet, otherwise I'd probably switch and virtualise my Windows bits. I know the Linux OpenVPN stuff should work with our VPN hardware but I've never worked out which knobs to to dial, maybe a project for the weekend.
Thanks, but they obviously put all of their fine work into the Gnome front-end and using a different spin doesn't get you any of that. The number of customizations that need to be installed and maintained between updates to make this OS X-like abomination usable is ridiculous.
Sure, and all the maintainers of all the other front ends such as KDE, xfce, lxde, compiz etc have been putting all their own fine work into their own UI's.
Gnome is a product of the Gnome project, it just happens to be the default desktop shipped by Fedora, and I guess they had to pick one at some point in the mists of time.
I ran KDE across three versions of Fedora (18,19 and 20), I didn't encounter any problems each time I upgraded or updated.
I don't see the logic or reasoning behind your complaint.
You don't understand the logic that - as the default desktop shipped by Fedora, the Gnome desktop version has things that the others don't?
I've been using Linux since the 90's. Generally, if you don't go with the default desktop you lose things. Important things like the entire UI for your package manager. So, to me it's like putting a dingleberry on top of a really nice cone of ice cream.
I've been using Cinnamon as my desktop in Fedora for a long time now works fine 'out of the box'.
Like a lot of people here I Fedup my system only thing I've noticed recently is yum->DNF change I'm too lazy to learn the new package manager and it keeps giving me a message that yum is depreciated I'm sure at some point I'll have to switch.
Reminder: if you want to be awesome, please help seed the torrents listed on http://torrents.fedoraproject.org/ - just set them up on my Scaleway seedbox.
I run Fedora 22 with KDE Plasma on my Toshiba laptop and it's been great. The only real issue was a couple of the kernel releases did something weird to Java apps like Eclipse, Gephi, Cytoscape, etc. But the latest one works fine. Otherwise it just works, with the one small glitch that sometimes when I reboot, the icons on my desktop get rearranged for no apparent reason. In the grand scheme of things, I can live with that.
I've been preupgrading/fedupping since 17 on my current computer with no major problems (although I usually wait a month or two to upgrade). I think every release has been an improvement.
58 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 126 ms ] threadThe workstation build they have worked on for a few releases now was a real boon.
Just like OSX, I just get on with it, and I don't notice it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=319901#c98
CentOS was packaged and shipping (I know it wasn't redhat owned, but they are binary compatible, right?) with the elliptic curve options enabled.
I'm still running Fedora 21 on my machine at home, I've been using Fedup to upgrade since Fedora 17 and it's still working! but this has caused enough doubt about their intentions that I may end up replacing my distro.
If you don't like it, change US law.
Sure, but if I was "Tom "spot" Callaway" I'd lose my patience a bit. If things are bunged up in legal what's he to do. I thought he did a reasonable job of trying to keep the bug report on-topic whilst fending off the tin foil hatters and some generally quite rude individuals adding nothing to that thread.
It's just legal fear. It may be justified or not (probably not, as this feature is now enabled), but I don't see the reason to invoke malice.
Why the tinfoil hattery? This is hardly the first time Fedora has refused to ship patent-encumbered software and it won't be the last.
as an aside: 6 YEARS is an insane lead time to check the patents usability.
Does anyone know if OpenSSL was intentionally crippled in CentOS at the time of this thread?
I'm actually mildly surprised there's not an unofficial "spin" that addresses these IP-related limitations the way various distros like Mint address various Ubuntu pain points.
Maybe I'll give Fedora 23 beta a shot.
With Mint, everything works straight out of the box - except for dual monitors, which was a cinch to set up. Great distro.
Absolutely painless all around and XFCE 4.12 is a nice little upgrade just gentle improvement all around but functionally the same.
I've been very happy with Fedora and Gnome 3 since the latter hit 3.12 or so. There are still some edge cases like the ability to snap windows to corners that I really think should be addressed but otherwise I'm a happy camper.
People get manipulated very easily . If you want privacy you should not use any ubuntu/fedora like distro , use something like tail or fsf approved distro. But if you don't care about privacy and stil you criticizing canonical for mir you are just another guy manipulated in linux community about redhat being cool and canonical being evil.
The most likely problems are simply dependencies getting out of sync, which results in a) updates not applying and b) an uninstallable nightly state — not actually a broken system.
We're working (slowly — we've got a decade of inertia) on an automated system to move updates which break this consistency to a "side tag", so they can be worked on without breaking the main tree. And possibly in the future we can actually have a similar thing with automated functional testing (but... don't hold your breath). (Also, shout-out to openSUSE, where they're already doing a lot of this.)
Of course, as with any "rolling release", you have "oh look, the UI of my software is different today".
http://www.scrye.com/wordpress/nirik/2015/09/18/rawhide-note...
If you want stability and long term support then consider CentOS or Scientific Linux.
That said, the last seven Fedora releases have been totally stable for me both running inside Virtualbox and on bog standard Dell hardware with nvidia GeForce GPU's. I guess YMMV depending on how exotic your hardware is, but that's my general experience with Linux full stop (or any desktop OS for that matter, Windows too).
Ubuntu/LTS supports most hardware without all the instability and I was merely pointing out that there isn't such an option with Fedora and many people find that a non starter.
I settled on CentOS and Fedora because I mostly buy Dell kit and by and large it's always worked with little or no fuss, even brand new laptops which are often a friction point. CentOS is also our production distro at work, so it makes sense for me.
That said I've built a brand new machine from components (Core i5 Devil's Canyon on an Asus Z97-K mobo with an Asus GeForce GTX 750 Ti graphics card - not exactly bleeding edge, but still fairly new spec -wise for me) so I'm going to see how well CentOS & Fedora get on with that.
[1] https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata
[2] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS
[3] https://www.softwarecollections.org/en/
Many packagers aren't even coders — they're sysadmins or end-users who needed the software packaged up — and if the bug is in the upstream code rather than the _packaging_, they may not be properly qualified. They _should_ help the user negotiate the process of getting a fix from upstream, but sometimes that's hard too when the packager can't reproduce.
For some packages, bugs are a firehose. Triaging alone can be a full-time job. We've had some efforts at triage teams, but those have generally died out due to burnout. (Help wanted if you have any ideas, though.)
https://spins.fedoraproject.org/
For the 'just do stuff' laptop, I find xfce4 reassuringly gradualist. I'm using version 4.10 with whisker-menu bound to Mod4-space, and with the panel brought down to the bottom of the screen. I hand this laptop to students who are used to Windows and they have no problems with the navigation at all. Slackware as underlying OS but almost any of the larger distros will package a full xfce4 desktop session.
My main machine is still Windows 7 (about to be 10) because I spend 50% of my day inside Visual Studio/SQL Server/IIS, and we still use Exchange (therefore Outlook) and Word...etc. Also for the life of me I still cannot get Fortigate's VPN client (essential because I'm a remote worker) to play nice with Linux yet, otherwise I'd probably switch and virtualise my Windows bits. I know the Linux OpenVPN stuff should work with our VPN hardware but I've never worked out which knobs to to dial, maybe a project for the weekend.
Gnome is a product of the Gnome project, it just happens to be the default desktop shipped by Fedora, and I guess they had to pick one at some point in the mists of time.
I ran KDE across three versions of Fedora (18,19 and 20), I didn't encounter any problems each time I upgraded or updated.
I don't see the logic or reasoning behind your complaint.
I've been using Linux since the 90's. Generally, if you don't go with the default desktop you lose things. Important things like the entire UI for your package manager. So, to me it's like putting a dingleberry on top of a really nice cone of ice cream.
Like a lot of people here I Fedup my system only thing I've noticed recently is yum->DNF change I'm too lazy to learn the new package manager and it keeps giving me a message that yum is depreciated I'm sure at some point I'll have to switch.