Fedora 34 To Release Next Week As A Very Exciting Update

[calc]

I'd understand preference for a specific package manager, i.e. the thing a user actually interacts with, but what the heck is the deal with not liking a package format? As a casual packager, I like the .spec file format but whatever the package generator puts out (heck, you can even define .deb packages using .spec files) is completely irrelevant.

There is a lot more to packages than just the package format itself, which gets conflated with the package format. For debs there is the very extensive Debian Policy and related documents that apply to any package that is allowed into Debian. Which means that nearly all deb packages, outside of PPAs, comply with it. That's also one of the of the reasons why people recommend against using PPAs.

There really isn't much on the rpm side enforcing packaging standards to that extent like there is with debs.

https://www.debian.org/doc/

[kapouer]

There is a lot more to packages than just the package format itself, which gets conflated with the package format. For debs there is the very extensive Debian Policy and related documents that apply to any package that is allowed into Debian. Which means that nearly all deb packages, outside of PPAs, comply with it. That's also one of the of the reasons why people recommend against using PPAs.

There really isn't much on the rpm side enforcing packaging standards to that extent like there is with debs.

https://www.debian.org/doc/

Seconded. While i really (really) don't like fiddling with packages (though i'm a debian maintainer), debian has currently probably the best of open source packages.
However i still install fedora on my wife computer, on friend's computers. Why ? Because fedora provides a better user experience. Not a better developer experience, though.

[King InuYasha]

There is a lot more to packages than just the package format itself, which gets conflated with the package format. For debs there is the very extensive Debian Policy and related documents that apply to any package that is allowed into Debian. Which means that nearly all deb packages, outside of PPAs, comply with it. That's also one of the of the reasons why people recommend against using PPAs.

There really isn't much on the rpm side enforcing packaging standards to that extent like there is with debs.

https://www.debian.org/doc/

This is not true.

Fedora has extensive packaging guidelines, and these are supported by tools and services in the infrastructure to enforce that policy. Among many things, there are rpminspect, rpmlint, and others that are run automatically on package builds and reported in every update submission, with gating checks to pass or fail submissions based on that.

Debian mostly centers on the Debian Policy Manual and "ftpmaster" folks checking the lintian output. I think people don't realize how much effort goes in to policy conformance in RPM based distributions like Fedora.

[finalzone]

I spend half my life in pavucontrol trying to get audio to come out the correct output. Sure hope there's a PipeWire equivalent.

PulseEffect is the first application fully supporting Pipewire.

[ix900]

PulseEffect is the first application fully supporting Pipewire.

That's wonderful that applications have to fully support something else now. /s

[jacob]

Although I don't like rpm based systems, It looks very attractive, and I even considered to try it!

I switched from Ubuntu to Fedora a couple of weeks back. Like you I had an apprehension towards RPM but I soon discovered that the issues I remembered from long ago had been solved. As of today it offers a perfectly smooth user experience. On a normal Fedora Workstation there is essentially no difference from a user's point of view; you simply use dnf instead of apt-get. From a packager's point of view they both have their pros and cons although I must say that generally speaking, making a .rpm is easier than making a .deb in most cases.

Personally I eventually moved on to Fedora Silverblue; it sill has a few rough edges but nothing that can't be worked around and its advantages far outweigh them for me.

[jacob]

I'm just waiting for Dash To Dock to support GNOME 40 (it's underway).

[calc]

This is not true.

Fedora has extensive packaging guidelines, and these are supported by tools and services in the infrastructure to enforce that policy. Among many things, there are rpminspect, rpmlint, and others that are run automatically on package builds and reported in every update submission, with gating checks to pass or fail submissions based on that.

Debian mostly centers on the Debian Policy Manual and "ftpmaster" folks checking the lintian output. I think people don't realize how much effort goes in to policy conformance in RPM based distributions like Fedora.

And yet you still can't upgrade between Fedora releases without extra data, and lots of testing, to determine how to do it. And CentOS/RHEL which is based on Fedora barely can be upgraded at all.

With Debian its required that packages actually upgrade properly continuously, and that has been the cases since at least apt came into existence in 1998, when I started as a Debian Developer.

[Turbine]

Funnily enough Fedora 34 is what made me use Windows fulltime again. The Gnome desktop is still missing too many basic features and suffers from bad multi-monitor support and poor performance when you have multiple Windows opened.

All Windows need was a mod to add open in bash shell and removing a bunch of unnecessary items in the right click menu.

I did give KDE a go before switching, but unfortunately it was even worse than Gnome and Windows due to the clutter, even poorer multi-monitor support and bad performance. I have a nvidia 1080 and it feels like I'm running an Intel 4000.

At least Fedora solved my headset no-sound audio issues I had in Ubuntu. And the system hanging for 30 seconds on shutdown.

[hubick]

Funnily enough Fedora 34 is what made me use Windows fulltime again. The Gnome desktop is still missing too many basic features and suffers from bad multi-monitor support.

The one great thing about Linux is that, when things go wrong, if you're willing to do the work (from kernel args to bash scripts to udev rules, etc, etc), you can usually hammer it into submission. That's one area where it seems Wayland has been a significant regression - the loss of the xorg.conf/xrandr hammers to say JUST DO THIS DAMMIT.