Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Operating Systems Linux

Fedora Core May Be Reborn 92

Posted by Soulskill
from the what's-old-is-new dept.
darthcamaro writes "At the first ever Fedora Flock conference this past weekend, a proposal was put forward by developer Mat Miller to re-architect Fedora with a core distribution, surrounded by layers of additional functionality for desktop, server and cloud. It's a proposal that Fedora Project Leader Robyn Bergeron is interested in too. 'How can we make Fedora be something that is modular enough to fit into all those different environments (device, desktop, server & cloud) , while still acknowledging that a one-size-fits-all approach isn't something that draws people into the project?' Bergeron said. 'People want something that is specifically for them.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fedora Core May Be Reborn

Comments Filter:
  • Arch Linux (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mfwitten (1906728) on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @11:11PM (#44561135)

    Hasn't Arch Linux already solved this problem (for at least x86)?

    Hasn't Gentoo already solved this problem for [almost] all architectures?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Hey, wakeup. This is about Fedora restructuring itself, not about other distros.

    • by tapspace (2368622)

      I exclusively run Gentoo on my servers!

    • by CAIMLAS (41445)

      No, these distros have solved nothing other than the problem of things being too straightforward and consistently manageable.

      That's where Arch and Gentoo fall flat. If you want to be able to consistently manage things from one machine to another? You've got a headache in front of you. This stems from the fact that they use packaging techniques which are only marginally less cumbersome than flat ZIP files with README.txts.

      In other words, Arch/Gentoo solve the problem only slightly more thoroughly than manual

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Is a stable release, so I can actually use it. The sandbox style of Fedora and over stable style of Red Hat just doesn't cut it. It seems as though Fedora changes too rapidly and breaks stuff often and Red Hat is so "stable" that binaries lag far behind.

    • by techno-vampire (666512) on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @12:22AM (#44561501) Homepage
      Fedora is all about being a testbed for new programs, new technology, new ideas. It's not about being stable, it never has been and it probably never will be. If you want a RedHat based distro with community support that's stable, you don't want Fedora, you want CentOS.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Did you even read the parent post? He said that RHEL/Cent OS lags too far behind. There needs to be a happy medium between the too unstable Fedora and the Jurassic RHEL/Cent OS. Good luck getting the stable version of chrome to run on Cent OS. The current release is so far behind that Google dropped support for it.

        • by armanox (826486)

          Which is something Red Hat has a solution coming out for - I don't remember what it's called (not awake yet), but they're including optional repo for newer packages with RHEL 7.

    • The sandbox style of Fedora and over stable style of Red Hat just doesn't cut it. It seems as though Fedora changes too rapidly and breaks stuff often and Red Hat is so "stable" that binaries lag far behind.

      I agree. This is exactly why I generally stay away from the Fedora/Red Hat family. I have to say though that I respect Red Hat's stability and would use it over Fedora any day, but really, I think I'll just stick with Slackware and Debian and their derivatives for stability and decently-spaced releases. For a desktop/laptop machine though even they can become quite stale, and while openSUSE is a bit bloated, I do like their 8-month release schedule... because let's face it, the standard 6 months of Ubunt

  • And actually, he goes by Matthew.
  • Quit giving birth to my kittens!!
  • by adosch (1397357) on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @01:00AM (#44561709)

    Man, I am so sick of this 're-birth' crap from Fedora. I liked Fedora 'core' back 7+ years ago before we had to be this uber bleeding edge -slash- agile uber aggressive build cycle that fucks everything up and obsoletes distribution usage to about 6 months.

    When it was 'just' an upstream snapshot look to what RedHat Enterprise was going to be in the future, I was totally cool with that, and it melded nicely in a lot of environments. But that spin-off has become such a damn mess now with developer heavy ideas that, in some case, go against every foundation of a traditional UNIX-like operating system design, I could really give who shits what the do now.

    Making a 'one-size-fits-all' OS is, pain and simple: a horrible idea. I don't want a damn highly integrated OS that I can use for everything. You'll never get that right, and some 'next-in-line' guy they give 5 minutes of talk time at the next conference will say the same thing.

    When you take shit, and try and re-invent it with only shit, I'm sure everyone knows the result you get.

    • by Aighearach (97333)

      I'm still using Fedora 16 with no problems. I don't understand all these people claiming Fedora is "bleeding edge." I guess there are already a lot of different ways to use it. For me it is a fairly stodgy distro with a focus on business and dev tools.

      I'd love a minimized version because right now it has gotten too big to run as a router on very old hardware. I hate having to choose debian in those situations.

      • by donaldm (919619)
        I run Fedora 19 with KDE on my home machines. Basically I set aside about 5 to 6 hours every six months to upgrade and when I say upgrade I mean a complete re-installation of the latest Fedora from DVD. Even though I actually backup my data (over 1TB) progressively I have never had to recover my data since I use LVM to manage my disks and all I have to do is make sure the system volumes including swap and of course the /boot partition are sized properly. Actually the only time I did have to recover my data
        • by Karrde712 (125745) on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @01:45PM (#44566623)

          I run Fedora 19 with KDE on my home machines. Basically I set aside about 5 to 6 hours every six months to upgrade and when I say upgrade I mean a complete re-installation of the latest Fedora from DVD. Even though I actually backup my data (over 1TB) progressively I have never had to recover my data since I use LVM to manage my disks and all I have to do is make sure the system volumes including swap and of course the /boot partition are sized properly. Actually the only time I did have to recover my data when I converted the file-system from ext3 to ext4 and IMHO the performance improvement was worth it.

          I strongly recommend that you try upgrading with 'fedup' next time around. It's far-and-away better than our historical upgrade processes and works in-place. I've personally gone from F17->F18->F19 using it with no ill effects.

          I have actually found Fedora from 10 onward have been remarkably stable although I will admit when KDE 4.0 came out (I think that was with Fedora 15) I actually switched to Gnome util they fixed the stability issues, however that was not a Fedora issue.

          Would I recommend Fedora for the Enterprise? Hell no! since you want any enterprise solution to be supported and in large corporations this usually means a Microsoft OS (this is changing but slowly) for the desktop and a mix of Linux (in my experience Redhat), Microsoft and Unix for the server room.

          That's going to depend on your definition of Enterprise. Would I recommend Fedora today as your long-term FreeIPA or other core infrastructure server? No, probably not. On the other hand, would I recommend it for DevOps and rapidly deployed-used-and-killed VM instances for newer technologies such as Ruby on Rails or Node.js? Absolutely. Fedora's rapid development cycle is much more in line with those DevOps behaviors. It's actually a myth that "Fedora isn't for production". I know a great many DevOps deployments using Fedora successfully.

          That all said, the major piece that was missing from this incredibly (and clearly intentionally) misleading summary is that the purpose of splitting off Fedora into three targets is to provide better support for those who want to use Fedora in production (the cloud image), those who want to develop their layered software so that it will run on the next version of RHEL/CentOS (the server) and people who want a comprehensive desktop for getting stuff done (the workstation/client).

          Stephen Gallagher (Fedora Engineering Steering Committee)

          • by pitonyak (1102049)

            I strongly recommend that you try upgrading with 'fedup' next time around. It's far-and-away better than our historical upgrade processes and works in-place. I've personally gone from F17->F18->F19 using it with no ill effects.

            I had a lot of problems with fedup from 17 to 18. They were fixable after you figured out the issues, but, it caused problems on two systems anyway. Apart from that, the update problem has been pretty tame. Things have been sufficiently stable that I no longer update with a full new install in its own partition while retaining the original so that I can backtrack. I probably should, but I don't.

      • by jon3k (691256)
        systemd vs init, iptables replaced with firewall in fedora19, NetworkManager, etc. Fedora is the test bed for things that eventually roll into redhat. Those are big, established functions that have existed in some format in Linux for well over a decade.
        • by Aighearach (97333)

          exactly! I waited years for systemd, it is newer than SysV but it is sure not bleeding edge.

          NetworkManager, yeah, that is the very first thing I turn off in fedora. I doubt I'll adopt "firewall" either. <3 iptables :) These choices have never been difficult in Fedora. That's what I love about it... I have the new stuff, and the old stuff all still works. Many distros want to force you to change, and then things you opt out of you have to maintain your own WTFs in /usr/local

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      When it was 'just' an upstream snapshot look to what RedHat Enterprise was going to be in the future,

      It was never that. It's the alpha test release for RHEL. It's not beta-quality, because there's a RHEL limited beta program. Fedora is Alpha-test-quality software. Why would you run that on your desktops? At least run CentOS.

      Making a 'one-size-fits-all' OS is, pain and simple: a horrible idea. I don't want a damn highly integrated OS that I can use for everything.

      You are confusing OS and distribution. That's normal because it's kind of a fuzzy and wavy line, but it's somewhere between the kernel, basic userland, and basic libraries, and the full-fledged system. Debian is useful for installs ranging from very small to full desktop because the min

      • Why would you run that on your desktops? At least run CentOS.

        Fedora is too bleeding edge and releases too quickly.

        CentOS isn't new enough.

        I want something in-between.

    • Why are you assuming any given OS comes in only one size? Gentoo is a good example of the contrary. It comes in any size you want. I tend to think the mistake is more one of trying to make the OS fit the roles without any input from the user. There are a lot of assumptions made that really aren't necessary when that happens.

    • I agree with you but Fedora is still less fucked (crazy, non-standard) than Ubuntu, where hostname -f doesn't even work and god-only-knows what they did to standard, core configuration files, like /etc/resolv.conf -- all in the name of making things (superficially) easier.

      I'm sure there's some muti-media app that works better on Ubuntu, but I'll take Fedora on the desktop. For the server, Centos or RHEL.

    • by Karrde712 (125745)

      Man, I am so sick of this 're-birth' crap from Fedora. I liked Fedora 'core' back 7+ years ago before we had to be this uber bleeding edge -slash- agile uber aggressive build cycle that fucks everything up and obsoletes distribution usage to about 6 months.

      When it was 'just' an upstream snapshot look to what RedHat Enterprise was going to be in the future, I was totally cool with that, and it melded nicely in a lot of environments. But that spin-off has become such a damn mess now with developer heavy ideas that, in some case, go against every foundation of a traditional UNIX-like operating system design, I could really give who shits what the do now.

      Making a 'one-size-fits-all' OS is, pain and simple: a horrible idea. I don't want a damn highly integrated OS that I can use for everything. You'll never get that right, and some 'next-in-line' guy they give 5 minutes of talk time at the next conference will say the same thing.

      When you take shit, and try and re-invent it with only shit, I'm sure everyone knows the result you get.

      It's not surprising that you are confused here, since the original poster went out of his/her way to omit all of the substance of the proposal and instead focus on screaming "Fedora Core!". Of the three targets that were proposed, one of them (Fedora Server) is intended to be *exactly* what you just asked for. A clearly-defined server OS that is essentially snap-shots on the road to Red Hat Enterprise Linux/CentOS stability. Then, there are two other targets: cloud images suitable for use in an IaaS or PaaS

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @01:59AM (#44561927)

    Well i like GNOME 3 but the subsequent changes are way too much:

    1. no dock, preferrably configurable one (left or right)

    2. removing F3 from Nautilus

    3. changing gvfs paths every 2nd relaease

    4. moving menu options into the main title bar (like preferences in GNOME)

    I've been using Fedora since the beginning but after F19 I am no longer recommending it to anyone.

    • by jon3k (691256)
      Found your problem, you're using gnome. Switch to dwm and never look back.
  • by marcovje (205102) on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @05:03AM (#44562551)

    Since 18 months updates is simply not enough.

    • by jon3k (691256)
      In place upgrades of fedora when new versions come out is really painless now.
  • I wish they could take the opportunity and do some work on the packaging system.
    Now that systemd has pretty much overhauled most of the user land, and Wayland will be forcing them to write the whole dependencies trees anyhow, and they already have their new installer, I'd like to see something like a cross between GNU Guix and Gentoo Portage be made for Red Hat\Fedora.

    It wouldn't have made much sense a year or two ago to redo everything. But now since they obviously need to clean house, they might as well g

    • by donaldm (919619)

      I wish they could take the opportunity and do some work on the packaging system.

      If you mean rpm's why would you want to install an rpm package using the rpm command unless that package is basically stand-alone? It is much easier using yum which determines all dependences and installs them.

      Now that systemd has pretty much overhauled most of the user land, and Wayland will be forcing them to write the whole dependencies trees anyhow, and they already have their new installer, I'd like to see something like a cross between GNU Guix and Gentoo Portage be made for Red Hat\Fedora.

      You do know that systemd is a system management daemon designed exclusively for the Linux kernel and Fedora became the first major Linux distribution to deploy systemd in May 2011.

  • The purpose of the Fedora Core project is to be a massive, real-world test-bed for software packages based on current versions of software that will eventually find its way into a future version of RHEL (and by extension CentOS and Oracle Enterprise Linux) once hardened. If you view it this way, it makes perfect sense why Red Hat treats Fedore Core the way they do.

In any formula, constants (especially those obtained from handbooks) are to be treated as variables.

Working...