PDA

View Full Version : Fedora 11 Alpha Review



Gaurav Prabhu
14th February 2009, 06:17 PM
Fedora 11 Alpha was finally made available to public last week after the release got delayed by 2 days. On paper, Fedora 11 brings out lot of enhancements over the previous Fedora 10. I used Fedora 11 Alpha for a week and here is my small quick review of the Alpha.

Test Bed Specification:

Processor : Intel Pentium 4 2.0 Ghz
Ram : 768 MB DDR RAM
Motherboard : MSI PM8M – V
Graphic Card : Zebronics 7300 GT 512 MB DDR 2 (8X AGP Card)
DVD Writer : Lite On LH – 20A1P

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/8353/fedora11alphadesktoped8.th.jpg (http://img19.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fedora11alphadesktoped8.jpg)

Installation:

I downloaded the Live CD of Fedora 11 Alpha. After booting from the Live CD, I got the regular option to install it on the Hard disk. I quickly installed it via the Install icon & the install process was done in about 15 minutes.

Booting into Fedora 11 Alpha:

After doing the post install setup, I was forwarded on to the Desktop. The major improvement here is the KDE 4.2 desktop. Replacing the buggy 4.1, Fedora team is in right direction with KDE 4.2. The aesthetic feel of Fedora 11 is awesome with KDE 4.2 together with the Solar theme.

Performing Routine Tasks on Fedora 11 Alpha:

I was able to perform routine task without much of tweaking. I did not updated any software packages, so as to get accurate & unbiased results. I did not even install graphics driver for my Nvidia 7300GT & preferred to run with the default drivers. Fedora 11 performed all the tasks well. I burnt some DVD's, chatted using Kopete, browsed the web via Firefox, performed minor editing via Gwenview & all worked as expected.

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/6906/corruptgfxqd1.th.jpg (http://img19.imageshack.us/my.php?image=corruptgfxqd1.jpg)


But all the while Fedora 11 Alpha seemed laggy to me. If compared with the stable Fedora 10, it isn't so responsive. Another bug I encountered was that of corrupt graphics in system panel. The icons next to the clock in panel used to get corrupt sometimes. I don’t know the reason behind this but it maybe due to absence of graphic drivers. Apart from these, I absolutely felt at home using Fedora 11 Alpha.

Pros:

1) Very stable in Alpha. I had absolutely no crashes or kernel panics during the testing.

2) KDE 4.2 Desktop is awesome. A perfect time to jump over KDE 4 for those KDE 3.5 fanatics.

Cons:

1) Fedora 11 Alpha isn't responsive. One has to wait for a bit after clicking on anything.

2) Strange errors like 'You had a kernel panic' when connecting a USB devices at times.

3) Has minor bugs.


Conclusion:

Fedora 11 Alpha is good in spite of being in its early life period. It is stable and usable. It has long time to come before it is made into a perfect OS. The Fedora community has setup many goals for the 11th version of Fedora. At the moment they are still under progress. The beta should bring out the best of Fedora 11. At present you will just have to wait before the beta comes out. Do come back to read the review of Fedora 11 Beta soon here.

Ecstasy
16th February 2009, 01:45 PM
This version looks better than F10 i must say...

Isaac1357
18th February 2009, 07:08 PM
Keep in mind that alpha/beta releases are going to be a little slower because all the packages are the debug versions.

That may explain the lack of snappy responsiveness you're experiencing.

Everything will speed up when it goes final and the packages are updated with non-debug versions.

blittle
18th February 2009, 07:12 PM
What about Open Change or some of the new features?

GoogleFreak
18th February 2009, 11:28 PM
I didn't like Fedora 11 Alpha KDE, I find it too slow. I downloaded Fedora 11 Alpha XFCE respin it is much faster.

Demz
18th February 2009, 11:40 PM
you'd expect an alpha/beta to be slow though so i cant see what your complaining about why its slow wait for Previeiw or final an then review it ..KDE4.2 startup is a bit slow but i do believe there orking on speeding it up

adevinci
27th February 2009, 08:56 AM
is it the best time to upgrade F10 to F11 despite it being too slow

adevinci
27th February 2009, 09:01 AM
anyone who's been able to install K3b in the genome of F10 u can give the mirrors and even vlc media player

adevinci
27th February 2009, 09:09 AM
Hi Gaurav Prabhu

am a new fedora user a would like to get some some of the rpms of multimedia players like VLC,Amarok,Real player, the default movie player cant play files with .DAT extension.and again i dont have the kde libraries tha can make me install k3b cz am in genome desktop Help plis

Demz
27th February 2009, 09:11 AM
is it the best time to upgrade F10 to F11 despite it being too slowsince your a newb dont upgrade till the Release Candidate


anyone who's been able to install K3b in the gnome of F10 u can give the mirrors and even vlc media player what mirrors are you refering to? only mirros i can think of if rawhide

lmcogs
28th February 2009, 12:32 AM
How about k3b for f11 can we install it, seems to depend on kdelibs3

Demz
28th February 2009, 12:40 AM
How about k3b for f11 can we install it, seems to depend on kdelibs3

yes you can, just download its deps also

lmcogs
28th February 2009, 01:06 AM
Had to remove kdelibs3 for latest system update because
"kdelibs3-3.5.10-5.fc11.x86_64 conflicts with file from package kdelibs-common-6:4.2.0-16.fc11.x86_64"

emoving:
kdelibs3 x86_64 3.5.10-5.fc11 installed 43 M
Removing for dependencies:
k3b x86_64 1.0.5-6.fc10 installed 25 M
k3b-extras-freeworld x86_64 1.0.5-5.fc11 installed 174 k
k3b-libs x86_64 1.0.5-6.fc10 installed 2.4 M
kaffeine x86_64 0.8.7-2.fc10 installed 6.0 M
kaffeine-libs x86_64 0.8.7-2.fc10 installed 104 k
kdnssd-avahi x86_64 0.1.3-0.6.20080116svn.fc9 installed 126 k
kftpgrabber x86_64 0.8.1-7.fc11 installed 2.8 M
klamav x86_64 0.44-3.fc10 installed 1.6 M
konversation x86_64 1.1-1.fc10 installed 11 M

Now if I try yum install k3b and deps I still get the error
"kdelibs3-3.5.10-5.fc11.x86_64 conflicts with file from package kdelibs-common-6:4.2.0-16.fc11.x86_64"

Also on latest update I lost PulseAudio Sound Server.

Demz
28th February 2009, 01:11 AM
my guess is check bugzilla out, this aint bugzilla so its best to look there while testing a release

AdamW
28th February 2009, 01:21 AM
That will be fixed with tomorrow's Rawhide update.

lmcogs
28th February 2009, 02:02 AM
PulseAudio is fixed, k3b may take some time. F11 is shaping up to to be pretty good, kde environ

scottro
28th February 2009, 03:14 AM
Well, the current ISO, released Feb 2, seems as if it will break future upgrades. This has to do with a change to rpm. Install. Upgrade. You'll see a bunch of cpio: md5 mismatch errors. For some reason, the document --nomd5 doesn't seem to work with rpm. The suggestion is to get the rpm from koji, but as it requires bash and coreutils, two of the broken packages, it's a bit difficult.

Where's that QA guy? I'd give him a piece of my mind--except..... (wait for it...) I don't have any to spare. :)

I'm not convinced I'm right about this problem, but I have been able to confirm it in two quick, relatively minimal installs. I'd love someone to confirm or correct.

EDIT: I should add, that as far as I can tell from the few mentions of it, if you did install the ISO towards the beginning of its release, and upgraded at least every two days, the problem was avoided. As I didn't do that, I can't tell if that's correct or something that I misunderstood from grouchily pouring over the devel list.

Demz
28th February 2009, 03:33 AM
what rpm version do you have scott? i thought they pushed out 4.6.0-11 ?

scottro
28th February 2009, 03:43 AM
Hi Greg. The iso that I have has something like version 4.6.0.0 or 01 or something like that. Looking at another machine, where I made my upgrades frequently, it looks like 4.6.0-8, the magic fixit one, came out on the 25th of Feb.

I think I'm going to try another minimal install and this time, grab the koji rpm and install it before running yum update. Hopefully, that will fix it.

Demz
28th February 2009, 03:52 AM
try that rpm, from what i see, others are using that one to

scottro
28th February 2009, 06:25 AM
Well I did. But it needs other files which get hit by the md5 thing. I can't just download them because rpm is ignoring the --nomd5 flag. If I try to install rpm I get that it needs rpm-libs and others, if I try to install rpm-libs first, I get that it needs rpm. I'd forgotten how bad rpm dependencies are done--yum has really spoiled me, because as a rule, it works so well.

I've forgotten all my little tricks to get around these things. If I install rpm with nodeps then try to install rpm-libs, it segfaults. I'm out of practice, I used to be quite good at doing this, which is, in the end, a compliment to the yum people. Hrrm, maybe it was put them all in a local directory and rpm --nodeps -Uvh *rpm. I'll figure it out, I'm just rusty.

Demz
28th February 2009, 06:30 AM
scott. this is a long shot but what if you did a local install of the rpm's in question or wget each file an then use rpm --Uvh (packagenames) ?

scottro
28th February 2009, 06:34 AM
Ah got it--didn't even need the --nodeps just put 'em all together and rpm -Uvh *.rpm

Sigh.
Still the fact that such major breakage, temporary though it may be, isn't mentioned in any obvious place---well, that's not that unusual with Fedora, I fear.

The trouble is, it's probably typical of all of them. A friend in more or less the reverse situation says the same about Ubuntu. He uses Fedora on occasion, sticking to defaults and does his tweaking and specializing with Ubuntu frequently having problems.

I just throw Ubuntu on something, sticking to defaults, and it works well. I do my real work (at work and in many ways, at home) on Fedora, so I run into far more problems than I would if I just threw it on and didn't customize it.

scottro
28th February 2009, 06:37 AM
@Demz--the trouble with the localinstall option (as I said, yum's generally smooth working has spoiled me) is that it then tried to pull in various things that it claimed to need, such as bash, and I'd get the checksum error. See post above, though, almost what you suggested. I just put the koji rpm, rpm-libs and rpm-python in one directory. I then did rpm -Uvh *rpm. It stopped because it needed db4-utils. However, that was one that installed smoothly with yum. So I installed db-utils, did rpm -Uvh *rpm and it worked.

Yours was a good idea though, and in theory would have worked. :)

Demz
28th February 2009, 06:39 AM
i think Ubuntu is more or less becomming an unstable distro, iv'e heard its not as stable as it once was,
@Demz--the trouble with the localinstall option (as I said, yum's generally smooth working has spoiled me) is that it then tried to pull in various things that it claimed to need, such as bash, and I'd get the checksum error. See post above, though, almost what you suggested. I just put the koji rpm, rpm-libs and rpm-python in one directory. I then did rpm -Uvh *rpm. It stopped because it needed db4-utils. However, that was one that installed smoothly with yum. So I installed db-utils, did rpm -Uvh *rpm and it worked.

Yours was a good idea though, and in theory would have worked. :) in theory it would of worked but then i thought of the rpm --Uvh command which would of worked

scottro
28th February 2009, 06:53 AM
It did, and I may have been unclear.

Here's what happened. At first, I put the rpm, rpm-python and rpm-libs in one directory. Then I did rpm -Uvh rpm-blah.rpm. It said it needed higher versions of libs. THEN I tried rpm -Uvh rpm-libs. Same deal, IT needed a higher version of rpm. As I said, I was rusty with this.

So the only thing that didn't work was doing them separately. As soon as I did rpm -Uvh *rpm, everything was fine. It was trying to do them one at a time that caused the issue.

Hope that's a bit clearer, but it's REALLY late here. So, if you're still confused at what I'm writing, I'll fix it tomorrow. :)

Demz
28th February 2009, 07:00 AM
yeah i would of thought doing them 1 by 1 would of caused the issue, but yeah you explained yourself clearly.

scottro
28th February 2009, 11:40 AM
Well, you thought right. Doing it one by one was the problem. At any rate, we've been discussing it on the testing list, and apparently, rather soon, just doing yum update rpm will work. As this is a minimal test install that I redo frequently, I'll be trying that soon.
I suggested on the testing list that they put a mention of it by the links to the mirrors, to avoid people being surprised, together with instructions.

Although I haven't tested this EXACT method, until that fix is in, I believe this will work--being posted for reference if the issue comes up before then.

EDIT: THIS WON'T WORK RIGHT NOW.

yum -y install yum-downloadonly

That should install without problem.

yum --downloadonly upgrade rpm

That should (I think) pull in db4-utils and rpm-libs and rpm-python

cd /var/cache/yum/rawahide/packages

rpm -Uvh db4-utils

That one should install without a problem

Move that one out of the packages directory, which should leave you with rpm rpm-libs and rpm-python

rpm -Uvh *rpm (Actually, probably don't even need the rpm after the *)

That should work.


THIS WORKS

yum --downloadonly db4-utils

After it leaves it in /var/cache/yum/rawhide/packages file

rpm -Uvh db4-utils
(Don't install anything else it pulls in, it might not work)

Then go to http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=83804

Get rpm, rpm-libs and rpm-python
That 4.6.0-8fc11 version is the last that will install without the md5 mismatch error, so hope that they get it fixed quickly or that those packages remain. :)
THAT will work.

scottro
28th February 2009, 01:04 PM
OOPS. I was wrong. You need the koji rpm versions. Doing yum --download only brings in later ones that won't install due to the md5 mismatch. I'm editing my previous post about that.

scottro
28th February 2009, 01:20 PM
A quick PS. If anyone gets bitten by this before the fix gets done, post in this thread. I have the three rpm-<whatever>.rpm files saved. (db4-utils should work with the yum --downloadonly.

scottro
1st March 2009, 06:05 AM
Lastly--today (Saturday, March 1st), there was a massive rawhide update. It's possible the rpm fix was in there, so before going through the solution above, first try doing yum -y update rpm.
If it goes without md5 errors for itself and all dependencies, it's fixed.

What's going to happen of course, is that people who do this all the time are first going to install, then run yum update, and have a massive update fail. But, some will read this thread first.

scottro
2nd March 2009, 08:25 PM
Further update on this. According to Seth Vidal, it should now be easily fixed by, after installation, just doing yum update rpm.

This has been added to the wiki.