Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 63

Thread: Fedora 19 Beta Released With Lots Of New Work

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,619

    Default Fedora 19 Beta Released With Lots Of New Work

    Phoronix: Fedora 19 Beta Released With Lots Of New Work

    The first beta of Schrödinger's Cat, or more widely known as Fedora 19, is now available for testing. As usual, there's lots of new upstream improvements incorporated into this latest Fedora Linux build...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM4MDE

  2. #2

    Default

    Aside from the features called out in the release announcement, here are a couple probably of interest to Phoronix readers:

    1. anaconda in 19 is way, way, way, way, way better than 18. I mean, a _lot_ better. If you hated anaconda in 18, do give 19 a try. Hopefully you'll like it more. There are a couple of graphical glitches in 19 Beta (the 'warning' symbols that show up on spoke icons when they're incomplete are grey, so hard to see, and the check mark that indicates whether disks are selected as install targets is a bit unobtrusive and people seem to miss it), but it's already a lot better than 18.

    2. we have live images for GNOME, KDE, Xfce, LXDE, MATE, and Sugar, and they all work (they at least make it to a desktop without exploding unduly; I checked). In addition, Cinnamon is available from the DVD/network install.

    Overall 19 is a pretty good release, I think. I'm pretty excited about it.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    601

    Default

    And with fglrx supporting xserver 1.14 it seems that proprietary driver compatibility is already in the bag as well for those who need it, since distrowatch claims that F19 will use xserver 1.14.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    914

    Default

    I hope there will be a "ppa" for mesa 9.2 and kernel 3.10 or just for "uvd activation" I guess they dont will backport that feature to mesa 9.1 and kernel 3.9 ^^



    I have that aktivated in ubuntu 12.10 and it works ok, some xbmc crashes (but its xbmc 13.0 alpha) some videos seem to not work, but no X crashes or something like that. So in a 1-2 months it should be working pretty solid.

    BTW xbmc 13.0 rocks... pre 13.0 were always that slow the menues... 13.0 is just lack free and that on zacate systems... fast lag-free

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    914

    Default

    omg, failed to install fedora. seems that its impossible to install on a 12gb logical volume in a existing volume group.

    I even created the volume outside of anaconda, rebootet several times... but I can assign / to it, it seems to accept all but if I press done it comes a warning and it says that not enough space like 100mb or so.

    So there is absolutly no way to install that, and I played to install that on 3 machines all with lvm so its impossible to install it, I cannot wait and hope this is fixed till final release in 1 monath.

    Redhat or who ever makes fedora has a really bad quality control. Its hard to see a totaly messed release with Fedora 18, but 2 in a row thats unforgivable.

    Thats amateuric. And again there is no way in hell to install it somehow, no alteranate installer or something.


    1 totaly trash version is nearly unforgivable, ubuntu is maybe boring but they have some kind of minimal quality they dont make big regressions and dont fix it for 1 year or so...



    Its really sad, I want hard to switch away from ubuntu, and I now really consider switching with my server and htpc to arch linux.

    Or I do against my will upgrade the ubuntu 12.10.

    Linux desktop is so sad nowadays ubuntu sucks because of coorpared asholes but there is no real alternatives.

    or for noobs there is opensuse... but I cant take it really serious. yast kde... (yes preferences but I have others so it is)...

    debian would be alternative but way to old....

    I could not imagine that fedora is such a amateur club. unbelivable.


    2 release cycles trash because of wrong desition to use anaconda... if it costs you 2 releases dont migrate to it.


    omg total fail...
    Last edited by blackiwid; 06-01-2013 at 06:32 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    This is a beta release. It is supposed to be buggy, that is the whole point of a beta release. This IS the quality control. Have you reported the bug, as you are supposed to do when using (or trying to use) a beta?

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    omg, failed to install fedora. seems that its impossible to install on a 12gb logical volume in a existing volume group.

    I even created the volume outside of anaconda, rebootet several times... but I can assign / to it, it seems to accept all but if I press done it comes a warning and it says that not enough space like 100mb or so.

    So there is absolutly no way to install that
    (snip five paragraphs of you repeating yourself)

    So, you don't have enough space for the install. Why is that Fedora's fault exactly? I don't quite get it. If you don't have the space, pick fewer packages or create a larger space. I don't see why you think the problem here is with the installer.

    If there's some reason I'm missing, perhaps you could explain in more detail?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    914

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamW View Post
    (snip five paragraphs of you repeating yourself)

    So, you don't have enough space for the install. Why is that Fedora's fault exactly? I don't quite get it. If you don't have the space, pick fewer packages or create a larger space. I don't see why you think the problem here is with the installer.

    If there's some reason I'm missing, perhaps you could explain in more detail?
    You are wrong of course 12gb is way enough to install a linux distro no matter which...

    that was not the problem, the problem is that it dont detect that I have choosen the volume with 12gb it does say something about there is 100mb free on the device or something stupid instead of the selected volumes size.



    And NO, thats not quality control, each alpha of ubuntu is more stable that this. Take any alpha of debian or ubuntu with the alternate or the official debian installer it will install fine on a free volume.

    My ubuntu with much software on it gnome and xfce and... and firefox chromium + other stuff fits on 12gb. A fresh install was way less like maybe 8gb or less. So dont tell me that 12gb is not enough for fedora it even says something about 9gb...





    I am able to install arch or gentoo with chroot environment... so I am shure not to stupid to understand how this installer works... it just does not work... I select my ssd, I select / press ok it says format it with 12gb or something then in the main install-thing it says not enough space or something or not selected something... like I did not what I did, it just dont recognise my selection even in the preview of what it will do it did. and it says on selected harddisk is only 100mb or so... its like it does now in the manual partitioning mode knows about lvm and in the upper levels it doesnt know about it.

    I mean I am not alone somebody else sayed something about he could not instlal fedora 18 because of something similar to that, the final not the beta... even on this thread somebody says that anaconda in 18 (final) was buggy/bad... so that alone would prove that fedora has bad quaity control. But ok they fucked up one release, but it seems they repeat that.

    If they cant make anaconda work in 1 year they maybe should not have switched to it.

    a Beta its ok to have some bugs maybe, but a expert should be able to do a workaround I tried the text-based thing, that did not even know about lvm, at least not with custom-partitioning.

    So of course most will use non-lvm setup, but if you include it and this is the only way (no bootstrap) method no alternate install cd or something... it should work...

    Sorry I except that, make the install hard as you will but in some way it should work... iven if have to type in 30 console commands for it.
    Last edited by blackiwid; 06-01-2013 at 07:37 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    A beta phase is per definition part of the quality control, regardless how buggy other distros are. And of course an alpha or beta of Debian will be more stable, since they have a much longer release cycle. The the question remains: Have you used your expert knowledge and helped with quality control with filing a bug report? Or are you just venting?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    914

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    A beta phase is per definition part of the quality control, regardless how buggy other distros are. And of course an alpha or beta of Debian will be more stable, since they have a much longer release cycle. The the question remains: Have you used your expert knowledge and helped with quality control with filing a bug report? Or are you just venting?
    The sites of fedora are just crap... sorry arch linux has more userfriendly web sites... I someday reported a bug, it got completly ignored for weeks or so till I flamed here about fedora is bad and some fedora dev here made the right people look to it.

    I just dont see the reason behind fedora, they claim they want to be somewhat easy to use if you are able to read console instructions... I am able to do that... so it should be a alternative to ubuntu in some way if you like freedom and are not a console-hater or something like that.

    I dont see it compete in any way to ubuntu, its not even remotly in the same leage than ubuntu. So they make a distro and want that nobody use it (something like that I heared in a youtube video from a fedora guy.

    I get just headsickness. So why make such a noobish graphical installer if you dont try to be usable for even linux professionals.

    I would maybe install fedora 18 and upgrade it, even it would be totaly stupid, but of course fedora dont suggest to update it. Because what quality control.

    I dont even am pissed that I dont have a livecd to install from it, like ubuntu, I dont mind that their dvd-image is jsut a bit bigger than 4gb so it dont fitt on a 4gb usb-stick. Its just so amateurish, canonical does evil stuff, but they know some point that matters for most users.


    I would not even mind that hard, I dont mind that they have some kind of not-invented-here syndrom too, having a windows and fedora only usb-stick-maker and unetbootin does not work...

    So give me something... where is the "debootstrap" thing that works? a wiki entry to it please no blog post from 2009 from somebody on fedora 16 or something like that.

    I do not care to much about such installer I only use them 1 time I will not reinstall if fedora fucks really upgrades up I switch away anyway because thats a thing a good distro have to manage... ubuntu can do taht, debian can do that, all rolling distries (gentoo arch) can do that... so if fedora cant do that rpm or the rpm-providers still suck till 5 or 10 years ago...

    coorparate bullshit... I go arch on server I think... even its retarded... I need something newer than debian because its also a htpc so if you dont go ubuntu it seems arch is the only alternative.


    Maybe I would write a bug report even its so obvious there should be 1000 reports about this bug, its not like 30-50% of all users will run into this bug... but I need first a workaround cant wait 2 weeks till maybe somebody fix it and test it for them... if somebody gives me money for that work of course I do that.


    Sorry for bitching so much, maybe I ate to much schokolate so I overdramatise maybe... or its the weather been a bit agressive the hole day

    but still in core my points are true...



    If fedora is kind of the unstable tree to redhat like debian unstable to debian stable... ok then I know that... I thought it would be a real distro.



    K maybe I try just for fun if fedora 18 installer works with that setup... if not its a proof of my bad quality claim.


    btw why are there live-cd-installer for version 18 but not live-cd-installer for 19? why is the live-cd and the installer there seperated? makes no sense.
    Last edited by blackiwid; 06-01-2013 at 08:23 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •