F14 Alpha: Laughably terrible

[bendib]

I have recently tried the Fedora 14 alpha, and I laughed so hard I nearly cried.
First, when I booted the thing, it gave me TWO welcome messages. One reporting the version, and one with the classic "welcome to fedora" message. Next, an eight of the start up sequence, the first bit, gives the good old green classic "OK" when services are started. The other portion uses uneven greyscale Oks that often do not even show up on the same line as the service they start.
Next, I noticed the wallpaper was unchanged from Fedora 13 final/rc. After logging in, I attempted to launch the wallpaper changer, "appearances". Right clicking on the desktop and selecting "change background" does nothing, and additionally the appearances item is missing in system > preferences.
I then looked in /usr/share/backgrounds for additional wallpapers, but upon hovering over the "goddard" directory, nautilus as a whole hung. Disconnecting the power cord, I noticed the power icon changed to something completely different from the battery and cord one I saw earlier (that I liked). Shutting down, I noticed three cheap "failed" messages relating to services. I should also mention I was unable to get this release to run in VirtualBox, so I had to put the files on my data partition and add the extlinux bootloader to it, which I then chainloaded in Plop boot manager to get things going.

My message to any fedora developers: Don't give us another fedora 12. We would rather wait a few more days for the final release than have a release made by Elmo. I have never seen an alpha of ANYTHING that was this terrible. Most people know my minimalist linux distro, pipsqueak, is so buggy it has maggots, but I am glad to say that pipsqueak really beats the crap out of this release.

[tox]

I have recently tried the Fedora 14 alpha, and I laughed so hard I nearly cried.
First, when I booted the thing, it gave me TWO welcome messages. One reporting the version, and one with the classic "welcome to fedora" message. Next, an eight of the start up sequence, the first bit, gives the good old green classic "OK" when services are started. The other portion uses uneven greyscale Oks that often do not even show up on the same line as the service they start.
Next, I noticed the wallpaper was unchanged from Fedora 13 final/rc. After logging in, I attempted to launch the wallpaper changer, "appearances". Right clicking on the desktop and selecting "change background" does nothing, and additionally the appearances item is missing in system > preferences.
I then looked in /usr/share/backgrounds for additional wallpapers, but upon hovering over the "goddard" directory, nautilus as a whole hung. Disconnecting the power cord, I noticed the power icon changed to something completely different from the battery and cord one I saw earlier (that I liked). Shutting down, I noticed three cheap "failed" messages relating to services. I should also mention I was unable to get this release to run in VirtualBox, so I had to put the files on my data partition and add the extlinux bootloader to it, which I then chainloaded in Plop boot manager to get things going.

My message to any fedora developers: Don't give us another fedora 12. We would rather wait a few more days for the final release than have a release made by Elmo. I have never seen an alpha of ANYTHING that was this terrible. Most people know my minimalist linux distro, pipsqueak, is so buggy it has maggots, but I am glad to say that pipsqueak really beats the crap out of this release.

the developers dont look at the threads, if you have a complaint click on FedoraProject then to communicate with Fedora have you tried the RC3 of F14 Beta? http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showpost.php?p=1400883&postcount=29

[bendib]

I did not intend to really get the attention of developers, I just intended on sharing my thoughts on the alpha. Thanks though. I will try the real beta when it is complete. Thanks.

[tox]

I did not intend to really get the attention of developers, I just intended on sharing my thoughts on the alpha. Thanks though. I will try the real beta when it is complete. Thanks.

you should find the Beta much better than the Alpha

[forkbomb]

Dude... it's an alpha.

[hephasteus]

Dude... it's an alpha.

This lol. Ya they should test their alphas so they work better before releasing them.

[SlowJet]

I think the main issue was a feature incomplete (systemd) and maybe python -2.7 issues.
systemd was backed out until f15.

The beta-rc3 works great. Barely2 days old.

SJ

[tox]

I think the main issue was a feature incomplete (systemd) and maybe python -2.7 issues.
systemd was backed out until f15.

The beta-rc3 works great. Barely2 days old.

SJ

it works for me but i still couldnt use Desktop-effects in it with the opensource 3D driver

[Boricua]

For me, Fedora 14 Alpha has been remarkably stable, even more so than several Fedora Betas from the past.

[stoat]

Ya they should test their alphas so they work better before releasing them. I thought that's what we were supposed to do with them. Or else, why release them at all?

P.S.: Sorry, hephasteus. That's what you meant. I missed it the first time around. Nothing is funny to me at six a.m.

[starstatras]

That actually sounds fairly complete for an alpha release (in my experience)
Bendib whats your problem with it?
You sure you've ever tried alpha releases before?

[droidhacker]

I've always found EVEN numbered releases to REALLY SUCK. Never had a problem with an odd.

[Simian Man]

Usually there is an *enormous* difference between the Alphas and the Betas. Try again with the Beta and if you still see these problems, please report them as bugs.

I've always found EVEN numbered releases to REALLY SUCK. Never had a problem with an odd.

That's funny because my experience has been the opposite. Except for Fedora 13, which has been a great release.

[beaker_]

+1 for stable evens. Although F13 has been scary stable here.

[forkbomb]

"Evens suck."
"No, no, no, it's the odds that suck!"

Confirmation bias, anyone? :p

[beaker_]

Hahaha... there must be a full or new moon somewhere?

[bendib]

This lol. Ya they should test their alphas so they work better before releasing them.
I agree. It's one thing to put out a testing release that people can use to see how things go, it's another for it to be completely crippled and for the most part unusable.

[forkbomb]

I agree. It's one thing to put out a testing release that people can use to see how things go, it's another for it to be completely crippled and for the most part unusable.psst... I think hephasteus was being sarcastic.

Unless I saw sarcasm where there wasn't any. And I don't even have 6 AM as an excuse.

[hephasteus]

I thought that's what we were supposed to do with them. Or else, why release them at all?

P.S.: Sorry, hephasteus. That's what you meant. I missed it the first time around. Nothing is funny to me at six a.m.

No worries. Should have /sarcasm

---------- Post added at 08:28 PM CDT ---------- Previous post was at 08:28 PM CDT ----------

Hahaha... there must be a full or new moon somewhere?

Full moon. New moon is Oct 7th and it's going to hurt. Really bad.

[smr54]

Well, FWIW, Beta RC3 has been declared gold. I can't get it to install on VBox or KVM--Ananconda never starts the GUI, and they crippled the text install some time ago, but hopefully, it will work for most people.

[forkbomb]

Fedora in general has been a crap shoot in VirtualBox for awhile now, in my experience. Right now my F13 VM won't even load a GUI; X never starts if I have the tools installed.

[droidhacker]

Why would you want to put fedora in a virtualbox? Fedora should be HOSTING the virtualbox.

[forkbomb]

Why? Is it some purity issue? :p

[leigh123linux]

Why would you want to put fedora in a virtualbox? Fedora should be HOSTING the virtualbox.


It runs a lot better it VMware workstation. :)

VirtualBox sucks, it's slower than a dead tortoise .

[forkbomb]

It runs a lot better it VMware workstation. :)
Granted. I also don't have the scratch for a license right now. Between that and VMWare Server 2.0 being a train wreck last time I tried it, I've been sticking with VBox (PUEL release). And FWIW I've not had as many problems getting the Guest Additions to work on other distros - Fedora seems to be one of the only distros I have routine problems getting the additions to work on. They build fine, but half the time X fails to load.

VirtualBox sucks, it's slower than a dead tortoise .
Depends.

VMware Server seems from my subjective evaluation to handle simultaneous virtualization of multiple machines much better than Virtualbox. For virtualizing a single guest, I don't notice much difference between VMware Server and Virtualbox, but to be fair I haven't regularly used VMware Server since 1.x.

Of course, that's all guesswork. I've never done proper benchmarks.

[smr54]

Yup, I can't RC3 to even get past anaconda in VBox, qemu-kvm and vmware-player. In vmware-player, it goes as far as to say there's an error in the kickstart config, so I tried with the netinstall.iso. Same thing.

[leigh123linux]

Yup, I can't RC3 to even get past anaconda in VBox, qemu-kvm and vmware-player. In vmware-player, it goes as far as to say there's an error in the kickstart config, so I tried with the netinstall.iso. Same thing.


Don't use auto-install in vmware as it doesn't work for F14 ;)

[destinatus]

Personally I found F14 Alpha to be pretty stable. Apart from the fact that the Add/Remove Software GUI didn't work at all. Luckily I managed to remember enough yum-fu to get past that.

F14 Beta RC3, on the other hand, won't even install here. The first two times I tried it hung at boot after loading the initrd. The third time I got a Python exception shortly after creating my system's (custom) filesystem layout. I'm guessing there's still a few Python-2.7 related bugs left in this golden beta... Also, trying to edit a NTFS filesystem (to e.g. set the mount point) at that part of the install gives a Python exception, too. Though that bug was in F14 Alpha. *makes note to submit some post-beta bug reports*

Hopefully I'll get lucky on the fourth try. :)

[smr54]

Don't use auto-install in vmware as it doesn't work for F14 ;)

I thought I clicked the other button. Might try again, but at this point, I'm waiting for the next version. (That is, of F14)

<rant or troll, take your pick>
One would think that if they crippled the text version, they'd make darn sure the GUI version would work.<./rant or troll, take your pick>

In fairness, of course, seems on the testing list that a lot of testing *was* done before it was declared gold--not sure if this is a Just Me and a Few Others, or no one checked on VBox/kvm-qemu (and possibly VMware, depending upon if I *did* click the other buttong).

[smr54]

Ok, just tried again with vmplayer, and DEFINITELY chose to not use autoinstall.

Same issue, won't get past a black screen at Anaconda. <insert more snide comments about crippling text mode and breaking a once working GUI mode>

Seriously, I do wonder about priorities--don't know who gets paid and who does it for free, but rather than improve an installer that works, put the energy into hardware support for all the stuff that doesn't work.

[destinatus]

Ok, just tried again with vmplayer, and DEFINITELY chose to not use autoinstall.

Same issue, won't get past a black screen at Anaconda. <insert more snide comments about crippling text mode and breaking a once working GUI mode>

Seriously, I do wonder about priorities--don't know who gets paid and who does it for free, but rather than improve an installer that works, put the energy into hardware support for all the stuff that doesn't work.

Is this with the Alpha or the Beta (RC3)? I had this a couple of times on one of my systems with Beta RC3 (gold), but after a handful of tries, Anaconda did actually kick in here. This is on real hardware, mind, though it does sound slightly similar...

I wonder if the latest RHEL is this crippled. I'm guessing not, considering the amount of time and money Red Hat are putting into virtualisation.

[smr54]

This is with the RC3, the one that's been declared good to go.

RHEL has crippled text install--my pet peeve about it is that they've put a spin on it that reminds me of the one who thought of the name Windows Genuine Advantage

According to their docs, RH 6 has "streamlined and simplified" text install.

I only give it one or two tries, especially on what's a preliminary machine.
I only tested the i386 net install and disc 1 of the CD set. Checksums matched. For all I know the problem doesn't exist on x86_64 but I figured the i386 was more likely to be well tested. I've only tried on one machine, and don't have time--or inclination this time, as I'm in a curmudgeonly mood--to investigate if it merits a bug report.

[destinatus]

This is with the RC3, the one that's been declared good to go.

RHEL has crippled text install--my pet peeve about it is that they've put a spin on it that reminds me of the one who thought of the name Windows Genuine Advantage

According to their docs, RH 6 has "streamlined and simplified" text install.

I only give it one or two tries, especially on what's a preliminary machine.
I only tested the i386 net install and disc 1 of the CD set. Checksums matched. For all I know the problem doesn't exist on x86_64 but I figured the i386 was more likely to be well tested. I've only tried on one machine, and don't have time--or inclination this time, as I'm in a curmudgeonly mood--to investigate if it merits a bug report.

Interesting. FWIW, it was the x86_64 DVD Beta RC3 that was hanging on me... bit of a poor show that the i386 media isn't working for you. :(

I've got a few install-media bugs I need to try and reproduce now that I've finally managed to get F14 Beta installed, which can't really be done on this system now it's actually working, so I'll give VirtualBox a shot. I'll post here if I have any luck.

[smr54]

Ah, glad I didn't download it then. Thanks for telling me. Again, I know they've been testing this in various ways, but it is aggravating. I do wonder what improvements have been made in Anaconda, aside from being able to handle newer filesystems such as ext4 and btfs.

Aside from that, all I've seen are regressions, the killing of the text install, setting up a network disappearing--though that's back in the later versions I think, though with the NM gui interface, which I find a pain to use, seemingly less support for various video cards (and VMs), setting grub to 0 timeout....

Of course, as I type, I have to laugh and say, that for all I know, there were several common machines that couldn't install and they've fixed it--I tend to doubt it though, seems they just like to tinker with something that worked reasonably well, even for newcomers, and make it worse, perhaps because it's more fun than documenting Gnome for instance, or working on support for some tricky wireless cards or printers.

[AdamW]

it really doesn't work that way. The people who work on anaconda are good at working on anaconda. They aren't hardware hackers. Most of them wouldn't know which end of a wireless network driver to start with. Specialization is really pretty standard in software development. And if you really want to know what's being changed in anaconda and why, read the changelogs and git commit messages instead of pontificating: it's open source for a reason.

http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=anaconda.git;a=log;h=refs/heads/f14-branch is the changelog for the F14 branch of Anaconda.

We did extensive testing of F14 Beta - see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_14_Beta_RC3_Install - and didn't hit any of the problems you describe (except possibly for problems with VirtualBox, which are kind of known but which are mostly on the VBox side; Fedora mostly worries about issues with the Fedora virt stack rather than anyone else's, too). We did multiple installs in KVM VMs and did not have any kinds of problems as you describe.

In future, it would help if you could test this stuff before the beta is declared gold, and contribute results to -test list and the test matrices (like that page I just linked), because that's where the actual validation process happens. I try to check this forum when I can but it's definitely far below either of those in priority and I simply didn't have time to check it much during the validation process for this release.

[smr54]

A few posts ago, I did have the statement beginning with, "To be fair.." where I freely concede that it was heavily tested--as I mentioned on the testing list, I've only had time to try on one machine, so really don't know if this is a just me and a few others thing or not.

Looking through the Anaconda changes, though, I think it would just become a bikeshed argument, but that's a whole different thread.

Thanks as always for comments--you're quite right about the ideal case (testing before it goes gold and so on) but unfortunately, real life frequently gets in the way and I usually don't even start trying it till it goes beta.

[robert-e]

Adam, Scott, et al,
Firstly Adam, you have brought a lot of improvements to the Fedora project, and I commend all your efforts. My daughter's job is head of software development and she tells me that coordinating and scheduling of programmer's work is quite difficult, even with administrative control of the process. I imagine that your job is that much more difficult give that Fedora's programmers are either volunteers, or in the case of Redhad employees, you are on a peer level with them. You must be an extraordinary personality that you get the results that you have had. Your situation would be my version of a "private hell"...lol.

I would say that the description of Scott "pontificating" is a bit on the strong side. If users do not make note of their concerns (not perhaps bugs) with Fedora, then there is virtually no chance that the developers (when did we stop calling them programmers?) might know that something is problematic? I have always found that Scott's posts to be polite, and well thought out. He was of great help to me during my problems with Atheros wireless chips. He and others like him helped me during my attempts to get serious about Linux, and do keep me coming back to this forum, at a time when my use of Fedora has declined to the point that I have only one hard drive with a Fedora (12) system currently installed. I do not want to get into details now why, but it has to do with PackageKit, PulseAudio, and the general attitude of "you have to do it our way...because WE know what is good for you...read here..root login issues, LVM defaults..and such.

Now I will get out of here, ducking the flying horse apples and Texas bullets.

My best regards to both of you.

Bob

[smr54]

@Robert--firstly, many thanks for the extremely kind words.

I don't think Adam meant his remarks in a very cutting way--I think he knows (I hope he does anyway, I've said it frequently both here and on the testing list), that he has my utmost respect, and is one of the Fedora people who is on the side of the users.

I was venting a bit--I think that both Adam and Rahul, who also has my utmost respect and also hopefully knows it--sometimes feel it is a good thing to put my rants into their proper perspective, and think it's good to point out, for the sake of others reading too, that the only way things will get done is when bugs are filed. In this case, I don't feel too guilty, I think Adam missed my earlier post, where I did make an effort (well, sort of) to point out that it had been tested and there was a chance that I was unlucky.

Again, I very much appreciate your words, and it is good to know that I help some folks here, (though probably nowhere near as many as Adam helps), but in this case, I don't think he was really attacking--if he was, well, I've been married for awhile, so criticism just rolls right off me anyway. :D

[AdamW]

What I described as 'pontificating' was the discussion about anaconda changes (like "seems they just like to tinker with something that worked reasonably well, even for newcomers, and make it worse, perhaps because it's more fun than documenting Gnome for instance, or working on support for some tricky wireless cards or printers."); it just seemed a bit absurd to suggest that the Anaconda developers would spend their time changing stuff for no good reason. I mean, if Red Hat considered that a good way of spending developer salaries, I doubt we'd be around any more. =) No, really, changes to anaconda do happen for really good reasons, and it's not at all hard to find out what these are, hence the git link.

I did see your earlier post, Scott, I just wanted to reinforce the point; whatever bug you're hitting, we (both RH and community Fedora QA) did test this thing quite a lot and didn't hit it.

Network configuration in installation has changed to use nm-c-e, yes. The reason for this is pretty obvious: maintaining two different network configuration interfaces (well, actually, about four, but hey, we're working on it where we can...) is a silly way to spend resources, and just leads to unnecessary work and the situation where you fix a bug in one but not in the other. nm-c-e should be the canonical network configuration interface, hence we integrate it in the installer and get rid of the installer's home-grown network configuration interface.

The text installer was simplified in Fedora 13; the main reasoning is that it actually requires a lot of duplication of work to maintain the text installation UI (it shares very little code with the graphical one) and that was tying up a bunch of resources for an install method which is pretty rarely used. Streamlining the text install interface allows us to keep it around for the cases where it's necessary but not use up a whole lot of resources on it. Ideally, every machine should be capable of using the graphical installer; cases where this doesn't work usually aren't actually Anaconda bugs, but bugs in X, and it definitely helps to report them. It's always a good idea to try 'basic graphics mode' if you have trouble with the default.