Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora 20 Runs Great On The Intel Bay Trail NUC

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fedora 20 Runs Great On The Intel Bay Trail NUC

    Phoronix: Fedora 20 Runs Great On The Intel Bay Trail NUC

    Last month I wrote about Intel's Bay Trail NUC Kit on Linux and shared some early Intel Bay Trail Linux benchmarks. That earlier testing was done from Ubuntu 13.10 but this DN2820FYKH NUC can also be made to work quite well with Fedora 20. Here's the experience on setting up Fedora 20 for the Intel Bay Trail NUC Kit and some Ubuntu vs. Fedora benchmarks from this low-power, mini Intel system.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=19955

  • #2
    Its just too bad the Bay Trail NUC only have one USB 3 port.
    No Power over Ethernet.
    No eSATA ports.

    I think it ought to have four USB 3 ports. That would be good.

    Comment


    • #3
      On USB Fedora 20 is faster than Lubuntu but I cannot hear sound because of wrong detection.

      Comment


      • #4
        When booting Fedora 20 with its current Linux 3.13 stable kernel, unfortunately, the system didn't boot.
        How does that equate to "runs great"? Having an unbootable system after a stable upgrade, and having to mess with development packages just to be able to use your computer is far from great as far as most users are concerned...

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't understand what people see in Fedora. Of all the Linux distro's I've tried Fedora ranks down near the bottom in terms of stability and usability. I tried it on my MacBook Air for a few days and the bugs were so bad I had to return to Mac OSX.

          Besides, the Fedora installer is one god awful piece of software. I'm not sure what the hell they were thinking with that thing.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by litfan View Post
            I don't understand what people see in Fedora. Of all the Linux distro's I've tried Fedora ranks down near the bottom in terms of stability and usability. I tried it on my MacBook Air for a few days and the bugs were so bad I had to return to Mac OSX.

            Besides, the Fedora installer is one god awful piece of software. I'm not sure what the hell they were thinking with that thing.
            1) You get bleeding edge software updates across the board without mucking around with Gentoo or Arch
            2) You get to be able to see and try out all the latest tech that Fedora chose to adopt for that release
            3) Yum's a nice touch (sorry, but once I got used to yum there's no way I would ever go back to using apt)
            4) SELinux support is nice for security

            Honestly the only big issue i have left is that they cant integrate with RPMFusion to ship a "Do you want restricted codecs?" button like Ubuntu does

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by mourgos View Post
              How does that equate to "runs great"? Having an unbootable system after a stable upgrade, and having to mess with development packages just to be able to use your computer is far from great as far as most users are concerned...
              Anyone who even READS phoronix, knows what a NUC is, and is going to GET ONE has enough know-how to load their own kernel. Pulling from the nodebug tree on Fedora doesnt even require a recompile, pretty sure there's even a dedicated repo for it. Furthermore I doubt anyone is basing their immediate opinion off this article. There's obviously a bug in the current-stable version of the kernel, when the next RC comes out it gets followed up by a stable-tree x.y.z+1 bug fix update, so you might not even have to update to the in-development version, you might just need to wait a week for the next bugfix release to come out.

              Inconvenient? Yes. Annoying? Absolutely. But it perfectly shows that the bug is known, has been diagnosed, a fix has been written, AND has been accepted for inclusion in mainline. The system works.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                1) You get bleeding edge software updates across the board without mucking around with Gentoo or Arch
                2) You get to be able to see and try out all the latest tech that Fedora chose to adopt for that release
                3) Yum's a nice touch (sorry, but once I got used to yum there's no way I would ever go back to using apt)
                4) SELinux support is nice for security

                Honestly the only big issue i have left is that they cant integrate with RPMFusion to ship a "Do you want restricted codecs?" button like Ubuntu does
                Well there is a Fedora spin called Korora which includes the RPMFusion stuff. I still can't get over how bad the installer is though.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by litfan View Post
                  Well there is a Fedora spin called Korora which includes the RPMFusion stuff. I still can't get over how bad the installer is though.
                  Overall, I'm not a big fan of the installer either. That being said, if you just do the default layout with one of the options (I opt for Btrfs) the number of clicks required is pretty low other than "Next/Done" clicks. Like it actually doesn't need that much input (Or doesn't seem like it anyway) and thats something compared to the old installer. THAT being said, if you need to do a custom partition layout, then yes, it can get frustrating until you figure out how.

                  Perspective: I came to Fedora after early-Ubuntu, Arch, and playing around with Gentoo and FreeBSD... So what I consider "bad", in-comparison, may be skewed.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    yes

                    Originally posted by litfan View Post
                    I don't understand what people see in Fedora. Of all the Linux distro's I've tried Fedora ranks down near the bottom in terms of stability and usability. I tried it on my MacBook Air for a few days and the bugs were so bad I had to return to Mac OSX.

                    Besides, the Fedora installer is one god awful piece of software. I'm not sure what the hell they were thinking with that thing.
                    i neve managed to put a pc working well with fedora, in my college the people simply give up from fedora because of this, bugs and more bugs... bit i need to try fedora 20 some day to see if its better, last one i try was F18

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by litfan View Post
                      I don't understand what people see in Fedora. Of all the Linux distro's I've tried Fedora ranks down near the bottom in terms of stability and usability. I tried it on my MacBook Air for a few days and the bugs were so bad I had to return to Mac OSX.

                      Besides, the Fedora installer is one god awful piece of software. I'm not sure what the hell they were thinking with that thing.
                      Installer is quite bad, but apart from that the rest is great. It's stable, especially if you are a Gnome Shell user. It also feels lightweight. It felt lighter than Ubuntu on my machine. Also, as others mentioned, its packages are more up to date.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mourgos View Post
                        How does that equate to "runs great"? Having an unbootable system after a stable upgrade, and having to mess with development packages just to be able to use your computer is far from great as far as most users are concerned...
                        If Michael would actually report problems to us, usefully, with data, we might have a shot at fixing them.

                        Here is the sum total of all Michael's activity, ever, on bugzilla.redhat.com unless he has an account I don't know about:

                        * Two comments on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485596
                        * Er...that's it.

                        So, I don't have one of these systems. None of the Fedora kernel devs has one of these systems. The article provides no useful details at all about the bug. All he says is that it hangs during boot. The message about duplicate EFI variables is just a warning, and unlikely to be the cause of the issue, according to Peter Jones. So...what would you like us to do? How could we fix it? We can hardly just go around backporting the entire 3.14 UEFI patch set to 3.13, or something.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by AdamW View Post
                          That's six.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                            That's six.
                            True. Still, it's the only bug he's ever posted to. And it's not even a bug, it's the package review request for his own piece of software.

                            If https://bugs.launchpad.net/~michael-...ugs?advanced=1 works as expected, he's got a similarly non-existent track record of reporting bugs to Ubuntu.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by AdamW View Post
                              If Michael would actually report problems to us, usefully, with data, we might have a shot at fixing them.

                              Here is the sum total of all Michael's activity, ever, on bugzilla.redhat.com unless he has an account I don't know about:

                              * Two comments on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485596
                              * Er...that's it.

                              So, I don't have one of these systems. None of the Fedora kernel devs has one of these systems. The article provides no useful details at all about the bug. All he says is that it hangs during boot. The message about duplicate EFI variables is just a warning, and unlikely to be the cause of the issue, according to Peter Jones. So...what would you like us to do? How could we fix it? We can hardly just go around backporting the entire 3.14 UEFI patch set to 3.13, or something.
                              The reason as I've said before on other occasions is simply due to being stretched thin as it is with myself writing articles each day and usually using at least six different systems... And with always running benchmarks on the "latest and greatest" or "most interesting" at the moment, the configurations are changing -- sometimes multiple times per day in my ~16 hour work periods. So like in this NUC Bay Trail Fedora 20 configuration, it was that way for a day while a day later it's currently running Debian Sid. By the time the relevant person sees the bug report, chances are the hardware/software configuration has already change. Most often the person looking at the bug will request running some extra tests or trying out patches, but by the time that comes up the system is totally different configuration. So in the end the bug would possibly be closed as needing more info or unresolved/abandoned, etc. With only often having only one of each piece of hardware, I can't keep the systems around in a known configuration for bug triaging any longer since other articles must be written if Phoronix is to stay in business....

                              I welcome feedback and ideas, but so far nothing that's been suggested has worked out. The only stuff that has worked out a few times is when Intel's supplying hardware and I am testing it and I run into an issue and any of the developers I know are immediately pingable via IRC then I am happy to work through it.
                              Michael Larabel
                              http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X