Hi
I was wondering what the plan for releasing KDE updates in F22 was following the F23 release?
IIRC, in the past, KDE updates for Fn used to stop when F(n+1) was released, but F22 could certainly do with continuing KDE updates. Its not convenient for us all to update to F23.
Thanks
Roderick
On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 10:32 +0100, Roderick Johnstone wrote:
Hi
I was wondering what the plan for releasing KDE updates in F22 was following the F23 release?
IIRC, in the past, KDE updates for Fn used to stop when F(n+1) was released, but F22 could certainly do with continuing KDE updates. Its not convenient for us all to update to F23.
AFAIK this is incorrect. Updates for Fn stop shortly after F(n+2) is released, as happens with the rest of Fedora.
poc
On Thursday 01 October 2015 12:21:52 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
AFAIK this is incorrect. Updates for Fn stop shortly after F(n+2) is released, as happens with the rest of Fedora.
poc
I think that Roderick is referring to Fedora updates to kde. The kde packages have been updated for both Fedora n and Fedora n-1 at the time where n is new stable release.
In cases n refers to 23. :-)
On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 16:29 +0100, José Matos wrote:
On Thursday 01 October 2015 12:21:52 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
AFAIK this is incorrect. Updates for Fn stop shortly after F(n+2) is released, as happens with the rest of Fedora.
poc
I think that Roderick is referring to Fedora updates to kde.
Of course. I assumed as much.
The kde packages have been updated for both Fedora n and Fedora n-1 at the time where n is new stable release.
I think that's equivalent to what I said.
In cases n refers to 23. :-)
On the release of F23 (or shortly after), KDE updates for F21, i.e. F(n -2), will cease. Are you saying something different?
poc
Am 01.10.2015 um 18:01 schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan:
On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 16:29 +0100, José Matos wrote:
On Thursday 01 October 2015 12:21:52 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
AFAIK this is incorrect. Updates for Fn stop shortly after F(n+2) is released, as happens with the rest of Fedora.
poc
I think that Roderick is referring to Fedora updates to kde.
Of course. I assumed as much.
The kde packages have been updated for both Fedora n and Fedora n-1 at the time where n is new stable release.
I think that's equivalent to what I said
no, the question was about "major" updates not just minor bugfixes to hopefully stabilize KF5 for F22 without require users upgrade to F23
that's a completly different story than the ordianry update policy and lifecycle
Am 02.10.2015 um 00:44 schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan:
On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 18:27 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
no, the question was about "major" updates not just minor bugfixes to hopefully stabilize KF5 for F22 without require users upgrade to F23
That's not what the question said
surely, you just need to think once second about the context the normal Fedora update schedule is pretty clear and no question
On 01/10/15 23:50, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 02.10.2015 um 00:44 schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan:
On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 18:27 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
no, the question was about "major" updates not just minor bugfixes to hopefully stabilize KF5 for F22 without require users upgrade to F23
That's not what the question said
surely, you just need to think once second about the context the normal Fedora update schedule is pretty clear and no question
Indeed, thats what I meant - will there be major updates to KDE in F22 (hopefully to stabilise it) once F23 is released? - sorry to have been unclear.
Thanks also to Rex for articulating the situation even if its not clear whether we will get major updates to KDE in F22 once F23 is released.
Roderick
Roderick Johnstone wrote:
I was wondering what the plan for releasing KDE updates in F22 was following the F23 release?
IIRC, in the past, KDE updates for Fn used to stop when F(n+1) was released, but F22 could certainly do with continuing KDE updates. Its not convenient for us all to update to F23.
We've historically committed to at least one major kde update per release. for F22, we've already done one plasma-5.3 -> plasma-5.4
We can consider doing more (like when 5.5 lands), but that will depend on how much work it is, stability, and if it includes any big UI changes.
So, definite maybe.
-- rex
On 1 October 2015 at 12:32, Rex Dieter wrote:
Roderick Johnstone wrote:
I was wondering what the plan for releasing KDE updates in F22 was following the F23 release?
IIRC, in the past, KDE updates for Fn used to stop when F(n+1) was released, but F22 could certainly do with continuing KDE updates. Its not convenient for us all to update to F23.
We've historically committed to at least one major kde update per release. for F22, we've already done one plasma-5.3 -> plasma-5.4
We can consider doing more (like when 5.5 lands), but that will depend on how much work it is, stability, and if it includes any big UI changes.
So, definite maybe.
-- rex
Will the time/calendar representation be fixed in 5.5? Are we stuck with am/pm without some locale hack? That is pretty much the only reason I am stuck with F22.
Thanks, Orcan
On 3 October 2015 at 17:34, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On 1 October 2015 at 12:32, Rex Dieter wrote:
Roderick Johnstone wrote:
I was wondering what the plan for releasing KDE updates in F22 was following the F23 release?
IIRC, in the past, KDE updates for Fn used to stop when F(n+1) was released, but F22 could certainly do with continuing KDE updates. Its not convenient for us all to update to F23.
We've historically committed to at least one major kde update per release. for F22, we've already done one plasma-5.3 -> plasma-5.4
We can consider doing more (like when 5.5 lands), but that will depend on how much work it is, stability, and if it includes any big UI changes.
So, definite maybe.
-- rex
Will the time/calendar representation be fixed in 5.5? Are we stuck with am/pm without some locale hack? That is pretty much the only reason I am stuck with F22.
Oops I did it again. I meant I am stuck with F21.
Orcan
Rex Dieter wrote:
We've historically committed to at least one major kde update per release. for F22, we've already done one plasma-5.3 -> plasma-5.4
We can consider doing more (like when 5.5 lands), but that will depend on how much work it is, stability, and if it includes any big UI changes.
So, definite maybe.
IMHO, we really need to track upstream closely at this time, as we did in F9 (and 10 and 11).
Kevin Kofler
Roderick Johnstone wrote:
Its not convenient for us all to update to F23.
After having read of all the troubles you guys had for the past six months ;-) and in view of the great experience, stability and polish I have experienced with 23ß so far, a clean install (what I always do) would be worth setting an evening aside for.
On 03/10/2015 20:40, P. Gueckel wrote:
Roderick Johnstone wrote:
Its not convenient for us all to update to F23.
After having read of all the troubles you guys had for the past six months ;-) and in view of the great experience, stability and polish I have experienced with 23ß so far, a clean install (what I always do) would be worth setting an evening aside for.
Thank you for the F23 endorsement. (I do always do fresh installs rather than upgrades).
I'd need to review and test the other changes in F23 before deploying to the research group (probably more than an evenings work).
Unfortunately the F23 release comes just at the point when I have many other commitments with all our new students (hence I had planned to deploy F22 then F24).
When the student commitment finally quietens down I guess I'll have to look at F23 more closely if major updates to F22 KDE cease.
Roderick
Am 03.10.2015 um 21:40 schrieb P. Gueckel:
Roderick Johnstone wrote:
Its not convenient for us all to update to F23.
After having read of all the troubles you guys had for the past six months ;-) and in view of the great experience, stability and polish I have experienced with 23ß so far, a clean install (what I always do) would be worth setting an evening aside for
a clean install? are we now on windows?
sorry, but if a Linux system needs a "clean install" there is something terrible wrong, that said from a machine installed in 2011 with F14 now on F22 as well as a ton of production machines installed with F9 currently on F21 with online dist-upgrades all over the years
Reindl Harald wrote:
a clean install? are we now on windows?
It's how I like to do it [tips fedora]
I have never had problems with clean installs and I have formatted my drive so that there is always one spare partition available to use as root (ok, two, since I like to keep the previous Fedora, just in case something ever goes wrong).
There is less configuration and fiddling with a clean install than with an upgrade, in my opinion, while, reading these lists, I see again and again mention of problems others have had with conflicts, unresolved dependencies, lingering outdated configs and whatnot.
As soon as a problem arises, the first advice one receives will be to back up the home directory and start with a clean one. So, what is to be gained with an upgrade over a clean install? Time? Negligible, I think, and what gain there might be will be spent many times over comparing old and new configuration files.
Am 04.10.2015 um 00:25 schrieb P. Gueckel:
Reindl Harald wrote:
a clean install? are we now on windows?
It's how I like to do it [tips fedora]
I have never had problems with clean installs and I have formatted my drive so that there is always one spare partition available to use as root (ok, two, since I like to keep the previous Fedora, just in case something ever goes wrong).
There is less configuration and fiddling with a clean install than with an upgrade, in my opinion, while, reading these lists, I see again and again mention of problems others have had with conflicts, unresolved dependencies, lingering outdated configs and whatnot.
As soon as a problem arises, the first advice one receives will be to back up the home directory and start with a clean one. So, what is to be gained with an upgrade over a clean install? Time? Negligible, I think, and what gain there might be will be spent many times over comparing old and new configuration files.
that only works for users just browsing the web, reading some emails and using a random instant messenger - not if you *really* use your computer
for me it takes 3-4 days to get configurations and customizations back to a fresh install, besides i am responsible for around 35 Fedora installs which would mean 105 days of work - that would be finally a half release cycle
a fresh install because unresolved dependencies is laughable, the time of the fresh install you could learn to deal with them once instead burry the head in the sand
Reindl Harald wrote:
that only works for users just browsing the web, reading some emails and using a random instant messenger
Pretty close :-) Add some YT, offline video and audio, games and other fun stuff. This is my home computer and my laptop is a smaller version of the same fun for the road.
On Oct 3, 2015 18:35, "Reindl Harald" h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 04.10.2015 um 00:25 schrieb P. Gueckel:
Reindl Harald wrote:
a clean install? are we now on windows?
It's how I like to do it [tips fedora]
I have never had problems with clean installs and I have formatted my drive so that there is always one spare partition available to use as root (ok, two, since I like to keep the previous Fedora, just in case something ever goes wrong).
There is less configuration and fiddling with a clean install than with an upgrade, in my opinion, while, reading these lists, I see again and again mention of problems others have had with conflicts, unresolved dependencies, lingering outdated configs and whatnot.
As soon as a problem arises, the first advice one receives will be to back up the home directory and start with a clean one. So, what is to be gained with an upgrade over a clean install? Time? Negligible, I think, and what gain there might be will be spent many times over comparing old and new configuration files.
that only works for users just browsing the web, reading some emails and
using a random instant messenger - not if you *really* use your computer
Off the high horse. You're not elite or special just because you customize things.
for me it takes 3-4 days to get configurations and customizations back to
a fresh install, besides i am responsible for around 35 Fedora installs which would mean 105 days of work - that would be finally a half release cycle
I can't image how many changes you make to a default install to require 3-4 days o.O I do quite a few modifications to the defaults and even I can get mine from fresh --> my defaults in an evening. Hell that's exactly why I don't mind doing fresh installs every release. Personally I like seeing the new defaults, see what the developers have changed that I otherwide wouldn't notice.
And if you're really maintaining 30+ computers then why aren't you using kickstart files and centralized configuration management? That right there would cut down most of the downtime, if it would ever be needed.
Am 04.10.2015 um 06:18 schrieb Eric Griffith:
On Oct 3, 2015 18:35, "Reindl Harald" <h.reindl@thelounge.net
that only works for users just browsing the web, reading some emails
and using a random instant messenger - not if you *really* use your computer
Off the high horse. You're not elite or special just because you customize things.
i am just tired of the "in case of troubles just install from scratch"-attitude as the holy grail to solve problems when it's coming from users with 5-minutes setups where i live-CD with a external USB disk as storage would be enough for most cases
for me it takes 3-4 days to get configurations and customizations
back to a fresh install, besides i am responsible for around 35 Fedora installs which would mean 105 days of work - that would be finally a half release cycle
I can't image how many changes you make to a default install to require 3-4 days o.O
well, than you can't imagine complex network / testserver / development setups with a cloned and mirrored setup on two locations of people doing 5 fulltime jobs........... ___________________________
Filesystem Type Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/md1 ext4 29G 7.0G 22G 25% / /dev/md0 ext4 485M 55M 426M 12% /boot /dev/md2 ext4 3.6T 1.9T 1.7T 53% /tmp
/dev/md0: Version : 1.0 Creation Time : Wed Jun 8 13:10:48 2011 Raid Level : raid1 Array Size : 511988 (500.07 MiB 524.28 MB) Used Dev Size : 511988 (500.07 MiB 524.28 MB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 4 Persistence : Superblock is persistent
Update Time : Sun Oct 4 01:31:03 2015 State : clean Active Devices : 4 Working Devices : 4 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0
Name : localhost.localdomain:0 (local to host localhost.localdomain) UUID : 1d691642:baed26df:1d197496:4fb00ff8 Events : 922
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 49 0 active sync /dev/sdd1 5 8 33 1 active sync /dev/sdc1 4 8 1 2 active sync /dev/sda1 6 8 17 3 active sync /dev/sdb1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /dev/md1: Version : 1.1 Creation Time : Wed Jun 8 13:10:52 2011 Raid Level : raid10 Array Size : 30716928 (29.29 GiB 31.45 GB) Used Dev Size : 15358464 (14.65 GiB 15.73 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 4 Persistence : Superblock is persistent
Intent Bitmap : Internal
Update Time : Sun Oct 4 10:51:20 2015 State : clean Active Devices : 4 Working Devices : 4 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0
Layout : near=2 Chunk Size : 512K
Name : localhost.localdomain:1 (local to host localhost.localdomain) UUID : b7475879:c95d9a47:c5043c02:0c5ae720 Events : 20084
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 50 0 active sync set-A /dev/sdd2 5 8 34 1 active sync set-B /dev/sdc2 4 8 2 2 active sync set-A /dev/sda2 6 8 18 3 active sync set-B /dev/sdb2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /dev/md2: Version : 1.1 Creation Time : Wed Jun 8 13:10:56 2011 Raid Level : raid10 Array Size : 3875222528 (3695.70 GiB 3968.23 GB) Used Dev Size : 1937611264 (1847.85 GiB 1984.11 GB) Raid Devices : 4 Total Devices : 4 Persistence : Superblock is persistent
Intent Bitmap : Internal
Update Time : Sun Oct 4 04:00:51 2015 State : active Active Devices : 4 Working Devices : 4 Failed Devices : 0 Spare Devices : 0
Layout : near=2 Chunk Size : 512K
Name : localhost.localdomain:2 (local to host localhost.localdomain) UUID : ea253255:cb915401:f32794ad:ce0fe396 Events : 1297383
Number Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 51 0 active sync set-A /dev/sdd3 5 8 35 1 active sync set-B /dev/sdc3 4 8 3 2 active sync set-A /dev/sda3 6 8 19 3 active sync set-B /dev/sdb3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Personalities : [raid10] [raid1] md2 : active raid10 sdb3[6] sda3[4] sdd3[0] sdc3[5] 3875222528 blocks super 1.1 512K chunks 2 near-copies [4/4] [UUUU] bitmap: 4/29 pages [16KB], 65536KB chunk
md1 : active raid10 sdb2[6] sda2[4] sdd2[0] sdc2[5] 30716928 blocks super 1.1 512K chunks 2 near-copies [4/4] [UUUU] bitmap: 1/1 pages [4KB], 65536KB chunk
md0 : active raid1 sdb1[6] sda1[4] sdd1[0] sdc1[5] 511988 blocks super 1.0 [4/4] [UUUU]
unused devices: <none> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ___________________________
/usr/bin/netstat -u -t -l | wc -l 388 ___________________________
/usr/sbin/iptables --list --numeric --verbose | wc -l 1500 ___________________________
br-guest: flags=67<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING> mtu 1500 inet 192.168.10.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.10.255 ether 28:10:7b:ca:be:52 txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet) RX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
br-lan: flags=4675<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,ALLMULTI,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet 192.168.2.2 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.2.255 ether 28:10:7b:ca:be:51 txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet) RX packets 98246 bytes 38137395 (36.3 MiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 88602 bytes 95382215 (90.9 MiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
br-wan: flags=67<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING> mtu 1500 inet *** netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 255.255.255.255 ether 00:50:8d:b5:cc:de txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet) RX packets 30942340 bytes 16917315819 (15.7 GiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 9653778 bytes 5392391601 (5.0 GiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
lan-guest: flags=4099<UP,BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether ac:16:2d:a1:74:ec txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) RX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 device memory 0xf7980000-f79fffff
lan-phone: flags=67<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING> mtu 1500 ether ac:16:2d:a1:74:ef txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) RX packets 30263 bytes 4638478 (4.4 MiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 18584 bytes 5417664 (5.1 MiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 device memory 0xf7800000-f787ffff
lan-spare: flags=4099<UP,BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether ac:16:2d:a1:74:ed txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) RX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 device memory 0xf7900000-f797ffff
lan-tv: flags=4099<UP,BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether ac:16:2d:a1:74:ee txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) RX packets 1615 bytes 318635 (311.1 KiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 6266 bytes 1047090 (1022.5 KiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 device memory 0xf7880000-f78fffff
lo: flags=73<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING> mtu 65536 inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 255.0.0.0 loop txqueuelen 0 (Lokale Schleife) RX packets 1849151 bytes 488603436 (465.9 MiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 1849151 bytes 488603436 (465.9 MiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
vmnet1: flags=67<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING> mtu 1500 ether 00:50:56:c0:00:01 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) RX packets 122387 bytes 0 (0.0 B) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 16067305 bytes 0 (0.0 B) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
vmnet8: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet 192.168.196.2 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.196.255 ether 00:50:56:c0:00:08 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) RX packets 4177935 bytes 0 (0.0 B) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 8242146 bytes 0 (0.0 B) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
vpn-client: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1472 inet **** netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 10.0.0.255 ether ca:4e:dd:1e:0c:b3 txqueuelen 100 (Ethernet) RX packets 11596618 bytes 11890829528 (11.0 GiB) RX errors 0 dropped 71133 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 7260877 bytes 537925416 (513.0 MiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
vpn-server: flags=4305<UP,POINTOPOINT,RUNNING,NOARP,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet 192.168.11.1 netmask 255.255.255.255 destination 192.168.11.2 unspec 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00 txqueuelen 100 (UNSPEC) RX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
wan: flags=67<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING> mtu 1500 ether 24:be:05:1a:c0:27 txqueuelen 100 (Ethernet) RX packets 31334579 bytes 17691695681 (16.4 GiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 11496591 bytes 5562580615 (5.1 GiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 device interrupt 20 memory 0xf7c00000-f7c20000
wlan0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether 28:10:7b:ca:be:51 txqueuelen 50 (Ethernet) RX packets 66356 bytes 34555486 (32.9 MiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 100630 bytes 94422191 (90.0 MiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
wlan1: flags=67<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING> mtu 1500 ether 28:10:7b:ca:be:52 txqueuelen 50 (Ethernet) RX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
And if you're really maintaining 30+ computers then why aren't you using kickstart files and centralized configuration management? That right there would cut down most of the downtime, if it would ever be needed.
because that computers need to be online 365/24 and host services?
On 10/04/2015 05:52 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: <snip>
because that computers need to be online 365/24 and host services?
Then Fedora is probably not the distribution for you. Most people would use something like CentOS in this case.
kde mailing list kde@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kde New to KDE4? - get help from http://userbase.kde.org
Am 04.10.2015 um 12:35 schrieb Patrick Boutilier:
On 10/04/2015 05:52 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
<snip> > > because that computers need to be online 365/24 and host services?
Then Fedora is probably not the distribution for you. Most people would use something like CentOS in this case
that must be the reason for https://getfedora.org/de_CH/server/ i guess...
most people need something like CentOS because they host random crap like PHP applications breaking with new versions
the downside is when you host your own developments you stick with outdated software for years and *then* you can't upgrade your system because the difference between CentOS releases is way too big for a online update
after 12 *online* dist-upgrades over 7 years taking around 2-5 minutes per virtual server and we talk here about any service you can imagine i can assure you Fedora was always suitable for hosting and given that when somebody tals about "install from scratch" he still lives in the windows world
On 10/04/2015 07:44 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 04.10.2015 um 12:35 schrieb Patrick Boutilier:
On 10/04/2015 05:52 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
<snip> > > because that computers need to be online 365/24 and host services?
Then Fedora is probably not the distribution for you. Most people would use something like CentOS in this case
that must be the reason for https://getfedora.org/de_CH/server/ i guess...
most people need something like CentOS because they host random crap like PHP applications breaking with new versions
the downside is when you host your own developments you stick with outdated software for years and *then* you can't upgrade your system because the difference between CentOS releases is way too big for a online update
after 12 *online* dist-upgrades over 7 years taking around 2-5 minutes per virtual server and we talk here about any service you can imagine i can assure you Fedora was always suitable for hosting and given that when somebody tals about "install from scratch" he still lives in the windows world
Perhaps. But if I were to use Fedora as a server then I wouldn't be using a desktop GUI at all so the changes to KDE and even Gnome would not be an issue.
kde mailing list kde@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kde New to KDE4? - get help from http://userbase.kde.org
Am 04.10.2015 um 12:49 schrieb Patrick Boutilier:
On 10/04/2015 07:44 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 04.10.2015 um 12:35 schrieb Patrick Boutilier:
On 10/04/2015 05:52 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
<snip> > > because that computers need to be online 365/24 and host services?
Then Fedora is probably not the distribution for you. Most people would use something like CentOS in this case
that must be the reason for https://getfedora.org/de_CH/server/ i guess...
most people need something like CentOS because they host random crap like PHP applications breaking with new versions
the downside is when you host your own developments you stick with outdated software for years and *then* you can't upgrade your system because the difference between CentOS releases is way too big for a online update
after 12 *online* dist-upgrades over 7 years taking around 2-5 minutes per virtual server and we talk here about any service you can imagine i can assure you Fedora was always suitable for hosting and given that when somebody tals about "install from scratch" he still lives in the windows world
Perhaps. But if I were to use Fedora as a server then I wouldn't be using a desktop GUI at all so the changes to KDE and even Gnome would not be an issue.
boah who talks about a GUI on a production server? they are stripped down to 750-900 MB sysfs
but that don't change the fact that anything which is used in production is as identically as possible configured on my development machines which for sure have a GUI and serve a lot of other things for the internal network (in fact at home there is a single machine connected directly to a cable modem acting as router, switch, NAT, WLAN-AP and what not else) and such a setup simply takes some days to be the same
given that this machine was installed in 2011 with F14 (before systemd) and surivived the systemd/grub2 transition *anything* what now would require me to reinstall is simply broken proven by the history of the setup and so hardly can be called a improvement
Reindl Harald wrote:
when somebody tals about "install from scratch" he still lives in the windows world
I haven't used Windows since the turn of the century and I have forgotten just about all of the Windows commands. I was away from home recently and had to check some system settings and I couldn't even remember how to display the running processes. What was that program called and where in these danged menus is it, I kept asking myself :-)) No exaggeration, I'm sure I spent 20 minutes looking before I was finally able to abort the runaway process.
Am 04.10.2015 um 17:02 schrieb P. Gueckel:
Reindl Harald wrote:
when somebody talks about "install from scratch" he still lives in the windows world
I haven't used Windows since the turn of the century
and in more than 10 years you did never dig deeper in your system?
well, and i finally switched all my personal from Windows to Fedora in 2006 and all servers 2008-2010 from Apple to Fedora and guess what - i never installed any Fedora from scratch, frankly i move my 4 RAID10 disks from one machine to the next including the WLAN/network cards and so the machine just boots without waste any time
the time it takes re-install can also be spent to learn how not have the need to do so
Reindl Harald wrote:
and in more than 10 years you did never dig deeper in your system?
I'd be years younger, if I hadn't ;-)
I can't tell you how much time I spent poring over man and info, reading online manuals and forum posts, hand editing config files hidden in sub-sub directories, etc. I know lots about the system. I do most of the maintenance tasks on the command line. I've written my own scripts to do a lot of stuff, too (I took two years at university in Computer Science in the mid- to late '80s, where I learned Assembly Language, Fortran, Pascal, C and Lisp, as well as lots about machine architecture, discrete mathematics and more---and I've forgotten most of it, but I still know enough to feel at home poking around in the system).
Reindl Harald wrote:
a clean install? are we now on windows?
sorry, but if a Linux system needs a "clean install" there is something terrible wrong, that said from a machine installed in 2011 with F14 now on F22 as well as a ton of production machines installed with F9 currently on F21 with online dist-upgrades all over the years
+1.
A clean install is only needed if YOU, the user, screwed up your installation (e.g., by installing some proprietary driver through some broken vendor script). It should NEVER be needed otherwise.
Kevin Kofler
P. Gueckel wrote:
After having read of all the troubles you guys had for the past six months ;-) and in view of the great experience, stability and polish I have experienced with 23ß so far, a clean install (what I always do) would be worth setting an evening aside for.
Sadly, Fedora-23 is completely unusable on my ThinkPad T61 with NVIDIA G86M [Quadro NVS 140M] chip. Fedora-22 is only just usable, with Plasma "unexpectedly closed" every 5 minutes (or less).
I shall have to reserve this machine for Windows, which runs perfectly.
Timothy Murphy wrote:
Fedora-23 is completely unusable on my ThinkPad T61 with NVIDIA G86M [Quadro NVS 140M] chip.
Sorry to hear that :-( I know what a frustration it can be, trying to get hardware to work.
I've been in the Linux circus since the late '90s :-) and I have intentionally chosen all of my hardware to just work. While there is little need to fret anymore these days, graphics is the one remaining major hurdle. For those who are mega-gamers, high-powered graphics can be enticements, even necessary ones, but I buy only computers or mainboards with Intel.
I used to be a GeForce fan, but one day I realized that I don't need the extra power, since the kind of things I do with my computer get by splendidly with Intel graphics. It was the retailers that wanted to get me to spend a few hundred more on an extra board, not my actual need that determined it. Installing those drivers and reinstalling them with every new kernel was a headache I forgot years ago. Is Intel inferior? I wouldn't know, since my graphics works flawlessly and I have never experienced deficits.