Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review)

Posted Nov 8, 2006 22:50 UTC (Wed) by davej (subscriber, #354)
In reply to: Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review) by horen
Parent article: Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review)

The way it reads to me, the reviewer would clearly like Fedora Core 6 to function -- during and after installation -- as well as s/he finds the Ubuntu distribution to function. No mystery here.

Here's how I read the 'review'.

"binary drivers for my hardware work in ubuntu but not in Fedora. wah wah wah".

Fine. Go use Ubuntu.

Fedora never has, and never will bend over and grab its ankles for the benefit of furthering binary drivers. If they work for you fine, otherwise, I have no interest whatsoever in "fixing" anything to make them work. We have enough real problems in code we can fix. I won't waste my time changing code for the sole benefit of people interested in stealing my work.

There seems to be this misconception that Fedora somehow has to play 'catch up' with Ubuntu's "lead" in making binary drivers work. For as long as I'm involved with Fedora, that isn't going to happen.

Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review)

Posted Nov 8, 2006 23:42 UTC (Wed) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link]

> There seems to be this misconception that Fedora somehow has to play 'catch up' with Ubuntu's "lead" in making binary drivers work. For as long as I'm involved with Fedora, that isn't going to happen.

Thank you. This is exactly the kind of forward thinking we need. Let others stay back in the realm of proprietary drivers, while practical distributions like Fedora and gNewSense and Debian forge ahead into a free future.

Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review)

Posted Nov 8, 2006 23:46 UTC (Wed) by bronson (guest, #4806) [Link] (4 responses)

Um, doesn't the two month delay to shore up nvidia/ATI problems count as "grabbing your ankles"?

http://lwn.net/Articles/195351/

Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review)

Posted Nov 9, 2006 0:27 UTC (Thu) by ofeeley (guest, #36105) [Link]

Not entirely. As someone that was irked by the presentation of this and would rather that it had been handled otherwise there was a definite reluctance by the Fedora Board to simply prostitute the distribution to the whims of proprietary hardware purchasers and the Board was divided on the issue. The statement issued on whether or not an update of the Xorg packages was warranted clearly noted that there was a balance between slightly increased functionality for Free Software users versus avoiding breakage for those unlucky enough to be saddled with proprietary hardware.

I think that the discussion around this issue showed that the Fedora community and its representatives on the Fedora Board are doing anything but bending over in the way that the short-sighted reviewer would like. I'd like to add my thanks to DaveJ and others for having the clarity of thought to resist the impulse to go the Ubuntu root.

Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review)

Posted Nov 9, 2006 0:28 UTC (Thu) by davej (subscriber, #354) [Link] (2 responses)

ATI/Nvidia problems was never a reason for slipping.
The delays in getting FC6 out were completely unrelated.
(Largely due to Xen)

Fedora Core not bending to proprietary drivers

Posted Nov 9, 2006 13:38 UTC (Thu) by rvfh (guest, #31018) [Link] (1 responses)

That's not what the poster meant: Xorg 7.1 was released back in May and did not appear in FC until months later (September?), because proprietary drivers from ATI and nVidia were not ready for it.

Fedora Core not bending to proprietary drivers

Posted Nov 9, 2006 19:28 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (guest, #2330) [Link]

But there was no delay: the very next major Fedora release had 7.1.

The only thing Fedora chose not to do was to upgrade the Xorg in the already shipping Fedora release, and I think that this was the right decision.

Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review)

Posted Nov 8, 2006 23:46 UTC (Wed) by Ed_L. (guest, #24287) [Link] (4 responses)

Well, as long as DaveJ is on this thread and I don't have mail access at present to use Bugzilla, I'd like to add my two cents r.e. FC6.

1. I *do* use FC6 in a production environment. Of course, my personal idea of *production* is HPC code development. Which means mixed C++ and hoary-old-fortran. Which also necessitates the very latest from gcc.org. Which in turn either means Fedora *or* interminable rebuilds of gcc to /usr/local, matching libraries in makefiles, etc. Which is certainly possible and I've certainly done it in the past. But keeping Fedora uptodate is certainly easier.

2. I noted two installation issues:
(a) If I configured and enabled the network during installation (a good idea, thanks) AND enabled "extras" during installation, Anaconda would crash -- apparently because we use static IP addressing on our LAN and the "extras at install time" feature had only been tested with DHCP. I'm not really complaining, as *I* didn't do that testing either. Nor could I figure out why on earth I needed "extras" at install time, for this installation (due to previous hard disk failure under FC5) was a fresh install rather than an upgrade).
(b) Due to aforementioned hard disk failure, the new install was to a raid 1 array. I configured a software raid because, while I'm brave, I'm not so brave as to trust my data to some jive ATi hardware raid controller. (I don't care how fast it can scramble my bits...) The Anaconda/Disk-Druid disk partitioner/raid-conjuger worked well enough, but I couldn't help but notice a certain, er, lack of editing capability for raid paritions once they had been entered: I either got them all right the first time (hah!) or started over from scratch. This is purely a human interface issue in the installer. What it does, it does fine. Would like a raid apparition editor, though.

And those were the only problems I saw, both on new Anaconda features. On some positive notes: (a) the Xorg 7.1 works fine. When I built it last March I configured this workstation with an Abit AT8 mobo and PowerCooler x700 video card 'cause I read somewhere (prolly LWN:) that a free driver was well underway for the ATI r300 chipset, and in FC6 that native radeon driver works just great: first time I've ever gotten Xinerama suppport from dual-view on a single graphics card with a native driver. (I've run triple-head Xinerama for years on an old FC-1 box, but that was with three vid cards.) I don't miss nvidia or fglrx one bit. (b) GCC/Gfortran/Gdb play together just great, which is what I need this box for. (The RealTek ALC 882D ALSA support is sure nice, though.)

The only repos I enable are fedora-[core-devel-legacy-updates-extras] 'cuz so far them's all I's needed. Yum has kept them all straight enough.

So yeah, I'm satisfied with FC-6. Happy, even. Thanks, props, kudos, etc. to all concerned.

Ed Leaver

Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review)

Posted Nov 9, 2006 0:34 UTC (Thu) by davej (subscriber, #354) [Link] (3 responses)

2a is very strange. As long as the static IP you give it is valid, along with the right gateway/nameservers, the package install phase should be completely ignorant to whether you're using static or dhcp.
If packets get from a to b, it should work, why would it care how you were assigned an IP ?

2b yes, the raid interface is a bit icky. I'm not a big fan myself either. I Believe the phrase the anaconda team uses is "Patches welcomed" :)
(however, kernel folks writing python is a scary thought, so I should probably stay away).

Glad you're happy with the dual head working. It's always good to hear that the radeon driver is actually working for a change :-)

Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review)

Posted Nov 9, 2006 3:29 UTC (Thu) by Ed_L. (guest, #24287) [Link] (2 responses)

"the package install phase should be completely ignorant to whether you're using static or dhcp."

And I've no doubt the package install is so ignorant. If it got that far. The problem appeared to be with the anaconda gui (python code?). I regret to have misplaced/pipe-13'd my install notes, I had intended to send them to Fedora, but couldn't get into Bugzilla without a mail account, which our IT guy seems to have managed to disable. My recollection is it appeared the gui form code itself choked. Do wish I could find my notes of the exact error message. If they turn up I'll let you know.

Yeah, I realize I lucked out on the radeon driver. But I took care to enable no options that the X --configure script didn't set, save xinerama. I only require a stable multi-monitor development environment, and 3D performance isn't an issue. Proprietary blobs cluttering up kernel space are, and I hope competition from INTEL will prompt DAAMIT to release (or at least give data spec support for) FOSS drivers for their integrated graphics and similar low-end discreet cards.

Anyway, its back to the code mines. Thanks again for all the ~~fish~~ cool tools.

Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review)

Posted Nov 9, 2006 13:29 UTC (Thu) by skvidal (guest, #3094) [Link]

The issue in the installer with using a static ip is known.
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212018

thanks,
-sv

Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review)

Posted Nov 12, 2006 6:06 UTC (Sun) by routester (guest, #41631) [Link]

Incidently, error (failing install process, again no trace available but appeared to be from gui\python code) also occurs if dhcp is selected but dhcp is unavailable (ie - some coffee lacking individual failed to connect the cable at patch panel). Admittedly, this is a user issue, but imho it should not bail install completely but gracefully state something to the effect of "dhcp assignment unsuccessful, would you like to try again?" or perhaps "dhcp assignment unsuccessful, please beat the individual responsible for cabling the machine".

Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review)

Posted Nov 10, 2006 9:24 UTC (Fri) by tajyrink (subscriber, #2750) [Link] (1 responses)

> Fedora never has, and never will bend over and grab its ankles for the
> benefit of furthering binary drivers.

It's not the binary drivers - Ubuntu does come with a few wireless firmware blobs, but eg. closed ATI/NVIDIA drivers are not used by default (though kernel modules are installed). I myself run Ubuntu with the "restricted"-component (about 5 packages all in all) removed, because I don't want to have any non-free software.

Ubuntu is IMO at least currently quite finely committed itself into Free software, while making it a not-too-hard to install proprietary addons for those lazy people who need them - but they are not including those proprietary software pieces in Ubuntu. The proprietary software they include is exactly limited to have install working on machines where it wouldn't otherwise work - basically the idea of "no harm done" I think, though of course one might disagree. And with the door to "restricted" open in Ubuntu, one has to always be vigilant for any possible cases where Ubuntu would be travelling to non-free paths.

The only thing currently I think Ubuntu could improve on this front, would be not to enable restricted component when installing on a computer where none of it is needed for the installation. Of course, if those are not needed, they are not used for anything either - those few firmware blobs are just lying around in some directory.

Fedora Core 6 review (Software In Review)

Posted Nov 10, 2006 15:44 UTC (Fri) by davej (subscriber, #354) [Link]

This is the case _now_, but wasn't always the case.
I was unaware that this policy had changed in edgy.

binary-only wireless daemons are just as bad as binary-only drivers however, which continue to be shipped in edgy.