Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 81

Thread: Fedora 19 Officially Released

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    776

    Default

    [QUOTE=Ericg;340802]No, I'm not related to Fedora. I'm a user. As far as the MS Office reference... If I saw someone on the forums asking about how to install MS Office on Fedora, that immediately tells me a few things about the person-- they are new to Linux, they are probably new to open source, but they are smart enough to go to the forums asking for help. And I would tell them "Install wine" But I would probably walk them through how to do it to get it setup and running, explaining to them that MS doesn't actually support Office on Linux and that this is a workaround-- I'd also mention that they might be able to run some of their other windows apps through wine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    Judging from their release dates on past releases i would say that XBMC has a release schedule of "Its done when its done" Or "Once every 10 months or so" for major versions. As such, given that XBMC 12 came out in January of this year, I would guess 13 to be released this holiday season / early next year. But again, complete guess.
    thanx for that

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    And yes, I do understand how big of a change the 3.10 kernel is. I've got an AMD 5730 in this very computer and I am desperately looking forward to both 3.10 for UVD, and kernel 3.11 for DPM. THAT being said, when 3.10 comes out you won't magically get UVD. UVD requires user-space changes in Mesa that won't hit until 9.2 which comes out in August if i remember. The only distros who will ship 3.10 and Mesa 9.2 any time soon will be Debian SID / Experimental, Arch, Gentoo and Fedora. Maybe not even Fedora as I'm not positive if they update Mesa mid-release BUT Fedora 19 shipped with the necessary changes to Mesa ahead of time so that when 3.10 came out, it WOULD work.
    wrong mesa 9.2 is in fedora 19

    https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/mesa

    enother example that fedora dont only include stable releases. So its not that hard to think they could make a rawhide package of xbmc 13.

    and kernel 3.10 is in rawhide added rawhide disabled then yum install kernel --enable-repo=rawhide done you have kernel 3.10

    So you have it... except the xbmc 12 dont supports it seems... so the only thing you would need is xbmc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    I don't 'compile for fun' either, I compile 3 things on a regular basis: thermald, kmscon and handbrake-- and a kernel for my laptop because it requires an out-of-tree patch to function correctly. Thermald will hopefully be packaged for F20 (fingers crossed), kmscon will be packaged once the VT subsystem is ripped out, and Handbrake stopped supplying packages for Fedora but it is on the Wishlist for RPMFusion, and is marked as "In progress." And as far as your comment about 'make uninstall' not working, thats the fault of the packager. I get its annoying, I'd be frustrated too, but if lets say you compile xbmc and 'make uninstall'-- or their custom equivalent doesn't work... yell at them for screwing up.
    I have then yell at the make maintainer I guess because that issue is basicly with every 100% of all projects using makefile.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    Depending on your desktop environment though man, seriously.. I'm not sure I'd be recommending Arch-- and I love Arch. But the past year or so I've been hitting bugs on Arch that only Arch had in relation to KDE. Fedora didn't have them, Kubuntu didn't have them, openSUSE didn't have them-- only Arch had them and that was using the same version of KDE across them all. Fedora's hit that sweetspot, at least for me, between user friendliness, fast updates, having to compile some things myself, and "new technology."
    I made packages for ubuntu but because I am the developer of it ^^ more or less ^^. did that for one dependency, too. But I will not compile stuff manually I was pretty happy with gentoo some time a few years ago... till I wanted to invest less time for admin my desktop. So Arch hits here a sweetspot for me basicly at least on my desktop its pretty ok. ok there is no kernel 3.10 stable yet that I dont have to compile but at least I can compile it over a aur package so I have to not do much except waiting a few hours ^^ but it sucks because all 7 days there is a newer verison or so, and I dont have some hours all the time... but ok... I dont have to update and I am shure in 2 weeks or so I will get a binary kernel package for 3.10.

    I just thought arch is not so good for a box where not so much have to change all the time... but it does two things server stuff there older software is basicly mostly ok... and xbmc... and there we are ^^. So I have to make that happen at that point I can use more conservative software... and I am ok to wait 2 weeks or so no problems.

    And I am in a phase where I use this 2 distros and I am not 100% shure yet if I am happy with both in the long run, at the moment Arch shines more... except I have the feeling that fedoras gnome works faster but maybe it has todo that on the pc from my dad also with a zacate he has a real desktop ssd here its a slower one... and I start always a video and I have here not yet vdpau setup aktiv ^^ hmm ok here is mesa 9.1 default so yes fedora is basicly more bleeding edge than arch ^^. thats a bit the reason why I wonder why there is not xbmc 13 package. ^^

    mesa is the bigger problem than the kernel, so because 9.2 mesa is in fedora-stable I thought to get it working is easy.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    ok then lets rephrase rpm distros are not garbage per se but because nobody uses them (else there would be ppa like packages) its useless for people who want to have access to most stuff, when its there not 10 months later.
    openSUSE's Open Build Service is like PPAs. Though in your case you're out of luck, as XMBC (and FFmpeg it relies on) is banned from OBS due to it being patent-encumbered. Most of the programs that aren't banned have a plenty of development or git versions in OBS (since it was mentioned, here's KScreen git, LibreOffice unstable, Java 1.8).

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post

    wrong mesa 9.2 is in fedora 19

    https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/mesa

    enother example that fedora dont only include stable releases. So its not that hard to think they could make a rawhide package of xbmc 13.

    and kernel 3.10 is in rawhide added rawhide disabled then yum install kernel --enable-repo=rawhide done you have kernel 3.10

    So you have it... except the xbmc 12 dont supports it seems... so the only thing you would need is xbmc.
    Yes 3.10 would be rawhide, as it was just released. I'm surprised to see that they pulled in all of Mesa 9.2, I was really expecting them to just have pulled in the necessary radeon patches for UVD, but oh well. To be fair enough, Including a development version of Mesa is a lot different than development versions of other projects... You can run Mesa-git everyday for a year and probably only crash once every other month or every third month. Mesa git is VERY stable, probably in no small thanks to the piglit tests.

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    I have then yell at the make maintainer I guess because that issue is basicly with every 100% of all projects using makefile.
    Whats the error you normally get?


    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    I just thought arch is not so good for a box where not so much have to change all the time... but it does two things server stuff there older software is basicly mostly ok... and xbmc... and there we are ^^. So I have to make that happen at that point I can use more conservative software... and I am ok to wait 2 weeks or so no problems.
    I would actually say that Arch would be great for a minimal box... Arch on any given package version would be okay and if you need something new then you just have to update over SSH. No need to reinstall or anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    And I am in a phase where I use this 2 distros and I am not 100% shure yet if I am happy with both in the long run, at the moment Arch shines more... except I have the feeling that fedoras gnome works faster but maybe it has todo that on the pc from my dad also with a zacate he has a real desktop ssd here its a slower one... and I start always a video and I have here not yet vdpau setup aktiv ^^ hmm ok here is mesa 9.1 default so yes fedora is basicly more bleeding edge than arch ^^. thats a bit the reason why I wonder why there is not xbmc 13 package. ^^
    Fedora will, selectively, pull in unstable pieces. They probably made an exception for Mesa because 3.10 was coming out so soon, OR because Mesa 9.2 is coming out so soon (August), that being said its typically core pieces that they ship betas/alphas on (when they ship them at all), not random user apps. Arch on the other hand, will just ship the latest version* and if you want newer then you gotta do that yourself.


    *I add the asterick because there are limitations to that. For example Fedora shipped both Samba 4 and LibreOffice 4 before Arch did (for various reasons) and there's a few packages that Arch can't update for one reason or another.
    Last edited by Ericg; 07-05-2013 at 02:07 PM.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Montreal Canada
    Posts
    53

    Default Fedora 19 is a great linux, both for KDE and for Gnome.

    I started with F19 when it was promoted from F18 to F19 Alpha, as a way to learn much about the preparation for new Linux implementations. I was and am still using Fedora 18, for Gnome, and Fedora 19, for KDE. There is nothing wrong with Gnome for Fedora 19, but like all individuals, I have my preferences.

    One very nice feature of Gnome for Fedora 19, is the facility to handle two windows in the following way. Slam one against the left margin, and the other against the right margin, and the screen will be divided down the middle almost as if there are two physical screens attached.
    When doing coding, you can have your source on one screen and the reference documentation or the compiler errors on the other

    One partial concern that I experience with F19 final release, is than that, there appears to be much more prolonged processing before the logon screen is presented. As if the inits are being refreshed with each boot. I run a 4 disk system with Fedora 18 (2 copies), Fedora 19 (2 copies) , Windows and Mint. (why two copies??) Well... One I test against using relatively unknown software, and the other Fedora version I keep as my day to day version.

    On occasion (about 3 months in), I will redo the F19 version. I would like to keep the F18 version longer, but I know that eventually support will be removed.

    I also have installed a Russian Spin that provides all the stuff that is important to me, such as VLC, Gparted, VIM, Adobe, misc codecs, and workbenches for programming. (I earn my living by programming).

    One computer I use I keep to evaluate 64 bit software, the other, another 64 bit system I use to run 32bit software. Surprisingly, the slower 32bit system actually runs relatively faster that the newer 64bit system (the 32bit system beats the 64 bit system for boot times, compile times, login times)

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kostas View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    Whats your network adapter?
    Quote Originally Posted by finalzone View Post
    @Kosta and Sergio,
    Could you provide the hardware specification of your system?
    I got an Asus K53SM which according to "lspci | grep -i wireless" has an Intel Centrino Wireless-N 100.
    Are you guys still around?

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kostas View Post
    Are you guys still around?
    Yes, I just unfortunately haven't been able to test a 3.10 kernel since Fedora doesn't have it in stable yet to use their config. I've got an intel wireless card as well so once 3.10 hits stable in fedora (currently in testing) it'll be interesting to work

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Santiago, Chile
    Posts
    240

  8. #68

    Default

    blackiwid: FWIW, XBMC is not really a project that works very nicely with distro packaging. It's stuffed with embedded libraries; it's really a whole giant Thing in itself, not a nice neat modular piece of software.

    I actually like XBMC, but I wouldn't entirely see the point in running it on top of Fedora. If I want to play media on a general-purpose Linux distribution I'd use mplayer or vlc or something like that. To me XBMC makes more sense as a dedicated box. I have a Zotac HTPC which runs OpenELEC: http://www.openelec.tv/ . For me, that's the sensible way to deploy XBMC. YMMV.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alejandro Nova View Post
    Thought you were gonna hand me build instructions / tell me to use "yum --enablerepo=updates-testing install kernel" and I was gonna have to sigh exasperatedly and facepalm-- instead, I tilted my head and nodded. Thanks for the link Alejandro, didn't know that repo existed.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamW View Post
    blackiwid: FWIW, XBMC is not really a project that works very nicely with distro packaging. It's stuffed with embedded libraries; it's really a whole giant Thing in itself, not a nice neat modular piece of software.

    I actually like XBMC, but I wouldn't entirely see the point in running it on top of Fedora. If I want to play media on a general-purpose Linux distribution I'd use mplayer or vlc or something like that. To me XBMC makes more sense as a dedicated box. I have a Zotac HTPC which runs OpenELEC: http://www.openelec.tv/ . For me, that's the sensible way to deploy XBMC. YMMV.
    Thank you for someone else with some sanity >< Luckily mplayer supports VDPAU (useful for radeon) UNFORTUNATELY it seems it can't support VDPAU and VAAPI at the same time despite supporting like 10 other video output methods.... seems like an architecture bug to me, but I'm not an mplayer dev *shrugs*

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •