I've used Arch Linux (with Gnome 3, i3, dwm, Xfce, Cinnamon, Mate) for 6 years now and it has (or any of the DE's/WM's have) _never_ bugged out on me (many different laptops and desktops as well). I've only once had a destroyed installation and it was completely my fault. I would actually recommend Arch Linux as a great distribution for getting real work done. I know academic research groups that use it as OS for the boxes in their labs and they've never had problems with stability or things working out the box. Fedora is a great OS, but I just don't really see it having a big leg up on everybody else.
I no longer use Arch Linux due to breakage. In the six years you didn't have a problem when they switched to systemd and bugged all the config files to null? There have been several times when I pacman -Syu and didn't read the front page and there goes 15 minute to 3 hours.
I had several HUGE reports due and I ended up having to go on a different machine and git pull to get them done it time. I never recommend Arch Linux for anything beside personal hobby work.
Yah, agreed. I've used arch for a long time as well, and gentoo before it. I've actually had less breakage with gentoo back in the day.
Their notification system for breaking changes is truly awful (or rather, does not exist). I've been bitten 3 times, each taking a few hours+ and a lot of reading to figure out. I find all of the things you're supposed to "just know" or check before running a `pacman -Syu` to be pretty silly. The official attitude towards these sorts of issues appear to be dismissive, which is what convinced me to finally drop it.
You could set up a nice backup and restore system in less than 3 hours to make sure that software upgrade issues never affect your professional work work. I have that for my personal hobby work even though 6 years Arch have made me appreciate the most stable and predictable system I ever used.
Ugh I remember using btrfs for this. It was never worth the effort and I would have a bunch of little paper cuts or a full drive very quickly.
Its all about the perception.
I've been running Arch on testing repos and with the linux-mainline kernel for years now and haven't experienced any major breakage at all.
I believe its down to the reputation of Arch Linux - people perceive it as a "bleeding-edge" and "breaking" OS and thus every even minor problem they experience is attributed to the OS and this perception is reinforced.
The same people might be scourging for hours on ubuntuforums because Ubuntu filled up their /boot partition with obsolete kernels and won't boot anymore. But its still perceived as "stable".
> The same people might be scourging for hours on ubuntuforums because Ubuntu filled up their /boot partition with obsolete kernels and won't boot anymore. But its still perceived as "stable".
This is totally unacceptable. I started using ubuntu in production thinking it was "stable". After 6 months, the server wouldn't boot because of this reason. I don't think I ever manually installed updates. It just updated itself and broke itself.
You might want to read what Dustin Kirkland wrote here on Hacker News about this about half a year ago.
> I know academic research groups that use it as OS for the boxes in their labs and they've never had problems with stability or things working out the box.
They're been lucky then, but with Arch never say never. I hope more research boxes would run NixOS to ensure reproducible results.
NixOS does not resolve the problem of updates breaking things unless you don't update your system (same with Arch). It does allow you to rollback in case of problems, however the same is true to Arch if you invest in the proper setup (btrfs snapshots for example).
That's fair. I know all these work for many systems and people. Maybe I have different tolerance threshold as to what constitutes "bugginess". Just happened yesterday again with latest suse and antergos on a ~3yo Thinkpad I wanted to freshen up. Just had to shout out my heartfelt props here =)
I think a lot of it is that leaky abstractions don't get noticed by folks with a firm understanding of what's happening under the hood, but present themselves as bugs to folks who haven't spent as much time on lower parts of the stack.
The result is what one person think of as a bug is another person's obvious limitation.
I have OpenSUSE on 6 machines and my milage has been SUSE works great out of the box. Every once in a while I'll have a issue with a Ethernet card, but that is usually a 5 minute fix.
I have to say that Linux seems to be the least frustrating installs I ever do. Apple and Windows still drive me nuts at times.
I'm also a happy OpenSUSE user, have been for almost 5 years now. You're totally right, they're installs are extremely quick and painless
Installing Fedora on my laptop with an nvidia graphics card was a frustrating experience, but I don't know if it's any better for other distros. The install process was insanely slow, but more frustratingly certain input fields would register a single keypress as anywhere from 1 to 30 keypresses.
I knew there was issues with nvidia cards, but wasn't ready for the keypress issue. I was still able to get a basic install done which let me drop to command line mode and change out the driver.
That's not a Fedora's fault though. The OS works perfectly with the open source drivers, both amdgpu and nouveau (which fully supports only older NVidia graphic cards, unfortunately).
Get the negativo repo. That's the most painless experience.
OpenSUSE gives you the option to use the blobs or the opensource drivers. I use the evil blobs which will never be officially supported on Fedora.
i3 with Fedora runs flawlessly for me out of the box:
dnf install i3 i3status dmenu i3lock
try rofi instead, it has dmenu mode (rofi -dmenu) and so much more
On what version of Fedora? Wayland has been enabled by default since F25 and i3wm does not work in Wayland... nor do the Nvidia drivers last I tried it...
There is Sway, which is i3 ported to Wayland.
You can still run an x session out of the box. Wayland is just the session it defaults to when you load GDM for the first time.
Try out Manjaro, especially the i3 edition
Major props to the Fedora project, really gotta get this off my chest as I had Yet Another "distro-hopping just still ain't worth it even in 2017" moment yesterday.
Somehow I have accumulated 4 laptops still-in-running-condition currently. Every rare once in a while, on a lazy weekend or when caught with a cold, I feel I should experimentally check out other distros and/or DE/WM combos than the singular one that has proven time and again for me to work-out-of-the-box, on any machine, after a swift painless install, without headaches hickups or troubles: Fedora with Gnome 3 (manually tweaked down to ultra-minimalism later on of course --- wouldn't mind i3 but guess what, it just freezes out-of-the-box, and the others seem to be abandonware).
Whether it's some some Arch or some Suse, Xfce DE or i3 or other WM.. it always either bugs out severely right in the live environment or during their install, or immediately after.
Great for tinkerers, but my reasoning always immediately jumps to "meh I have enough own code-bases to tinker with --- I might wanna tweak a properly running system but not trouble-shoot its setup" and so I just restore Fedora+Gnome3 and think, "ah well, maybe in another year from now".
We're talking bog-standard laptops here: an XPS, 2 older ThinkPads, a very budget Asus.
I'm quite grateful someone pointed me to Fedora when I got over my 3D gfx fascination phase and was more than ready to ditch Windows again "stat". Really stands on its own. (Granted, Ubuntu also seems to work well for many but I don't see any benefit over F now that I know about it =)
I don't understand SELinux and I have not found a document that explains for the average Joe like me what it is for and why doesn't my qemu-libvirt work when it is enabled, which is the default. It took me two nights to figure out that SELinux prevents qemu-libvirt to read certain ROM files that I need.
So after scratching my head, I just turned it off altogether. Other than that, Fedora has been really rock solid, great distribution for me at home. I'm still using Ubuntu on my laptop and desktop at work, though. Ubuntu has been really good as well.
>I don't understand SELinux and I have not found a document that explains for the average Joe like me
This could help: https://people.redhat.com/duffy/selinux/selinux-coloring-boo...
>It took me two nights to figure out that SELinux prevents qemu-libvirt to read certain ROM files that I need.
That is not too hard to imagine. Basically, the rationale is that if qemu/libvirt can read your ROM file, it can probably read other files too, some of which might be sensitive. So the defaults are conservative. Unless your rom file is in a standard location where it expects, it won't read even if the permissions are 644.
>So after scratching my head, I just turned it off altogether
selinux is annoying, but it is worth persisting. Nowadays, most things work well. I think things are bit more stable in RHEL/CentOS than Fedora by definition. So maybe you can try that if you are getting too many selinux related problems.
I am mostly on board with this, actually. The experience with machinectl and systemd-nspawn is also completely broken because there are no sane default SELinux rules for it.
However in my experience so far, the defaults do not get in your way during regular usage. You typically only encounter such issues when you're also in the position to fix them. And I think in general it's a great idea to have default deny policies for containers and VMs.
> So after scratching my head, I just turned it off altogether.
Please don't do this. It's not worth disabling an entire security system if you can just spend some time to figure out a command to make the system work for you. Fedora even has gui tools that notify you when you encounter an SELinux issue. See stopdisablingselinux.com.
> Please don't do this. It's not worth disabling an entire security system if you can just spend some time to figure out a command to make the system work for you. Fedora even has gui tools that notify you when you encounter an SELinux issue. See stopdisablingselinux.com.
Uh, SELinux is next to useless on a typical desktop as all the applications which really concern you are running in the unconfined domain.
In a nutshell, SELinux controls how applications can interact with the filesystem, network, and OS.
For example, It can control whether an application can bind to a privileged network port (below 1024) or whether an app can write to areas other than its default working directory.
And it is not immediately obvious when it's causing issues, just because it's not used as strictly or at all in other distros. I was having trouble connecting to a service I started in Fedora, even though I disabled firewalld. Turns out it was SELinux.
It should be noted that there are booleans associated with selinux, the defaults have quite a few booleans that make it easy to allow commonly requested behaviour.
`getsebool -a` and `setsebool` are your friends.
What do you use Gnome Boxes for exactly.. is it for running a Windows instance?
Yes. When you install the VirtIO guest additions in Windows it works really great and uses memory ballooning to significantly reduce taxing of system memory.
I've switched to Fedora with version 26 (from Ubuntu and some dabbling with Manjaro) and really enjoy it. SELinux gave me a few headscratchers in the beginning but once you know how to deal with it it's great to have a distro that is both a great user experience and has some nice hardening/dont-shoot-yourself-in-the-foot features.
The best thing for me about this release is better support for shared folders in Gnome Boxes (Ubuntu 17.10 and other distros with Gnome 3.26 have this too). This was the only thing holding Boxes back from firmly beating VirtualBox for desktop virtualization. Boxes is already a better user experience and uses superior libvirt/KVM tech for virtualization, but the shared folders UX was not up to par with VirtualBox before now.
What did you dislike about Arch? I made the opposite move years ago: I went from Fedora to Arch, and it was possibly the best choice I could have made.
Not OP, but I value stability over having the latest version. Fedora is fairly bleeding edge compared to other fixed release distributions, but also tested.
Fedora is also easier to install. The older I get, the less hassle I want.
I had a similar view towards Linux at first, preferring Fedora to ArchLinux for stability. But after switching back to Arch and sticking with it I've learned stability is a matter of software choice and experience with Linux, it's not necessarily more or less stable at the OS/package manager level.
Using AUR/user-style packages or non-mainline packages (beta, unstable) is always a risk in whatever distro you use and stable packages in Arch are as stable as elsewhere... depending on the type of software you choose.
The power of ArchLinux makes the learning curve worth it IMO. Plus the minimalism of the base system is a good way to become intimately familiar with Linux.
The other major factor is what laptop you are using. Since switching to a Thinkpad (or Dell XPS) which has good hardware support in Linux I've had zero problems at the graphics/network/external monitor level which is typical source of issues with new distro releases.
I cannot disagree more. 90% of the most obnoxious issues I deal with on linux are related to nasty driver incompatibilities, and you will not convince me that I should have had more experience with linux. I want my drivers to work on install. I shouldn't need a second computer and a usb drive to get my system working.
... which is why I noted the importance of using well-supported hardware, ie Thinkpad or Dell XPS which are both very well documented in the ArchLinux wiki and well supported by the community with drivers. This solved a big chunk of the issues I was experiencing.
I've found the people who attack Linux for lack of graphics/network driver support are people who haven't used it in recent years. This was a far bigger problem in the past than it is today. But if you're planning to use Linux for your desktop, with the latest software, not 2yr old distros, it's essential to purchase a laptop with Linux in mind. Much like how MacOS is limited to particular hardware, it's good to view Linux for desktop similarly.
Fair enough, I mostly meant that certain distros are more likely to support your hardware out of the box.
I have had Arch break on numerous occasions. This is especially true if I am compiling things from scratch frequently. I've had Fedora break as well, but less so and generally it's easier to find my way out since I can refer back to the release notes.
I haven't really found anything I'd want to do that I couldn't do in Fedora. It's well documented, it's close to upstream, it's got a large community and it's linux. I don't feel I have any less power from using Fedora than from using Arch. Other than the rolling release and installation process, there's not much to separate them in day to day use.
I too went from Arch to Fedora and life is easier now. It's astonishing just how well Arch works, but maintaining it is still a lot of work.
I'm pretty busy and spent too much time fixing my Arch machine, which outweighed the time I was saving.
I still have an Arch laptop and many Arch virtual machines for playing CTFs and HAM radio stuff.
Flatpak is a fine replacement for AUR in many cases, and it's more secure, too (if you keep an eye on the permissions set in the manifests - many specify --filesystems=home).
(do not use rpmfusion for VLC and the like - use Flatpak instead!)
I'm surprised you prefer arch linux for amateur radio stuff. Hamlib, wsjtx, and fldigi are packaged and in the main repositories on fedora, but the same is not true for arch linux. What software are you using that you find easier with arch linux?
Most important reason is that I haven't actually tried.
Shack laptop is running Arch and a bunch of custom stuff that happened to compile fine on Arch.
Your comment made me check, and even GNURadio and osmosdr is packaged in Fedora. Huh. Time to re-visit that decision :-)
Fedora is THE distro for radio enthusiasts :-)
Those are all available in AUR (source packages / recipes), both latest release and -git versions.
I'm not using Arch, but do like reading Arch wiki quite often. Also you asked what is to dislike on Arch. It's just I don't see any value running bleeding edge. Looking at gnome changes for example. Don't mean, they're not doing great job, but I can safely skip many versions to see any significant difference. Reading Changelog for Gnome 3.26 keeps me convinced it's not something I'll rush for. Same with kernel (with some exceptional releases and CPU support).
Rather wait for those small changes to accumulate and then reinstall my fav distro (let's say every 2 years). But I understand that we're all different and have different needs.
I absolutely loved AUR repository and I wish Fedora had something similar. However, with rolling release, something has always been broken: Gnome, GDM, Wayland session, suspend/wakeup, bluetooth. Update would often fix one thing and break another.
Nix/Guix as a better AUR replacement is something I want to try in the near future (maybe even pkgsrc if that's still a thing on Linux). Right now, I just compile myself and "stow" stuff (and sometimes use AUR for the build recipes).
I have experimented with Arch at times, but I didn't have a great experience with the package repository. It seems like I had to go to AUR for a lot of packages that were in the default repository (or at least RPM Fusion) for Fedora.
Isn't having to go to RPM Fusion for a package effectively the same as having to go to the AUR?
No, copr is to Fedora as the AUR is to Arch, and as PPAs are to Ubuntu.
RPMFusion a very longstanding and trustworthy repository for software that fedora/RedHat can't/won't distribute. Many of the RPMFusion maintainers are also maintainers for fedora packages in the official repositories. RPMFusion is of very high quality and doesn't often break . You don't really have to worry about some Joe Shmoe putting together a rpm spec that backdoors your machine, just add the RPMfusion repository and you can forget about it.
That type of attitude should not apply to things like PPAs, the AUR, and copr. Anyone can put anything up and you're trusting random people online to not bork your machine. With RPMFusion you're still trusting internet strangers, but they have a solid track record of many years and it's effectively no different from trusting the maintainers of official packages.
In the past, I might have said that there were some major similarities, but not so much now. The issue that I see with AUR is that each one is really independent and there isn't much of an assurance as to how well updated it would be. In the past, RPMFusion was also too slow to update for me, though, and I would frequently deal with update failures because of it.
But that changed a few releases back. I literally just updated from Fedora 26->27 and all of the RPMFusion packages were automatically upgraded along with it. I have also found that the repo maintainenance is exceptional at this point.
I think that the Fedora equivalent of AUR is probably COPR, but COPR probably isn't as good as AUR overall.
I switched from Arch to F25 and stuck through F26 as well. It was nice going into something that "just worked" but so many little issues I have with GNOME are starting to make rethink. Toast that doesn't autohide and oh you updated yesterday but too bad here's a toast to remind you to update today too! Here have toast about your battery! Toast about your GNOME extensions! Toast for everyone! And then disabling night light until tomorrow literally means the calendar day, not the next night light cycle, so if you are watching movies late and 12am hits then your night light turns back on. Wtf.
I should switch back to i3 or sway. There are just too many inconsistencies and little details or issues missed in GNOME that I feel should never make it into a release. Hopefully I don't break anything. I guess that's the advantage of Arch, I know what I'm getting into and there are decent docs for those kinds of changes.
I used Fedora for over a year until very recently and loved it for the same reason: rock solid. However, I recently made the move to Manjaro, an Arch variant with stable releases. Manjaro's definition of stable is not as stable as Fedora's, but the big draw to Arch for me is the AUR, which I think is even better than the Ubuntu's PPA system. COPR just doesn't have the breadth of software as the other two. If Fedora could expand their community to get more software available through COPR, or if they set up something similar to AUR, I would be back in a heartbeat.
>I wish other popular distros would do the same.
You don't have to wish. There are distros they're doing same. Won't name them, because names would make look biased.
Debian is one. Them most popular one (Ubuntu) does not do that.
I highly recommend Fedora 27. I have been using beta for the last few weeks. I switched from Arch and I am very happy with how well everything works and how stable it is.
Fedora team has a release schedule for every release. However, they don't release until they are sure everything works as expected (27 was delayed by a few weeks). That really makes the stable release rock solid. I wish other popular distros would do the same.
Congrats to all involved, I’m especially proud that the choice was made to delay the release in favour of quality. To me that says so much about the motives and dedication of the people working on the project(s). Compare this say to Debian when they released Jessie - it wasn’t at all ready for release, missing packages, a broken SELinux ecosystem and some of these they classed as release critical - apparently not when it came down to it.
Anyway, fantastic work all - a fantastic distro that I believe in many ways sets an example for others (especially security wise). I look forward to all the hard work making its way into RHEL & CentOS in time to come.
This is exactly what I'm waiting for. The moment it's stable in a reasonable distro, I'm trying it on one of the fancy 8th gen Intel laptops with it and if everything works as expected, I'll get my first non-Mac computer in over half a decade.
It exists in Gnome 3.26 (IE Fedora 27) with an experimental flag. It works well, with the exception of some blurry text in random apps.
The biggest change I'm waiting for is fractional scaling support for Gnome under Weyland. This is achievable under X using some combination of integer scaling and xrandr, and Ubuntu 17.04 had support for it out of the box via the gui (not sure of the underlying implementation).
Fortunately this change is expected in Gnome 3.28, which is only a few months away. Having that will mean a lot to those of us using HiDPI displays that aren't quite pixel dense enough for 200% scaling.
> I experienced those crashes few times out of the blue
... which happens to be the exact opposite of what you want if you’re into deep learning.
Can one productively use a video card in a laptop or even in a high-end desktop for machine learning? At work we use a special workstation-type box with 4 NVidea cards. It is not connected to any display and we do not run any remote graphical sections on it that could have used graphical cards. Still it is slow at learning. If not the size of datasets (video in lossless compression), we would use cloud solutions.
Yeah, you can actually do it. Just run desktop in your integrated Intel GPU and CUDA in NVIDIA discrete GPU.
This is with Intel-only laptop (Dell XPS-13).
You may have hit some Skylake GPU bugs, mostly of those are fixed in kernels 4.12+.
Gnome Shell is supposed to show case Wayland. Yet apparently it got fundamental architecture wrong to the point of Fedora documentation issuing an apology. From Common Fedora bugs page :
> Otherwise, we advise that you may wish to consider using the GNOME on Xorg session (see above) rather than the default Wayland session; this should at least prevent the crashes from ending your GNOME session when they occur. We do apologize for any inconvenience and/or lost data caused by such Shell crashes.
In Fedora 26 I experienced those crashes few times out of the blue. It is annoying to say the least.
 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F27_bugs#Wayland_issue...
The big change will come with Gnome 3.28 - real fractional scaling. You can test early version of it on 3.26  (experimental).
That's very cool.
For users of older Gnome versions, note that you can change both the font scaling (text-scaling-factor) and global UI scaling factors.
If you, like me, have a screen that needs 1.5 scale, you can either set UI scale to 1 and font scale to 1.5, or UI scale to 2 and font scale to 0.5.
That's almost as good as real fractional UI scaling.
I have the same problem - 14 inch WQHD screen. I use 1x UI scaling, 1.6x font scaling. I also made a custom css for GTK that resizes window decorations/buttons that make them more usable. The solution is not perfect though. I am having some problems with Qt apps.
Fractional scaling on 3.28 will allow you to have different scaling for each display. Will also be more consistent across different apps (Gtk, Qt, electron, etc.).
Same, 2560x1440@14" scaling at 1.6.
Numix window decorations scale (where Arc doesn't) - I use Numix anyway so it works out, can't wait for proper fractional scaling since I'm a cinnamon user we'l likely get it around the same time.
Qt works fine for me. Have you set your Xft DPI?
$ cat .Xresources
Thanks lima. .Xresources does not work on Wayland. In my case Qt apps work ok until I connect an external display. Here's before/after: https://imgur.com/a/bJb0J
Ow. Can't help with Wayland :(
It does work with X11 for me.
It's almost as good for office work but it will completely tank your graphics performance.
Playing with it now and it works awesome for GTK apps. Sublime Text fonts get a little blurry when using a fractional scale though which is a little annoying.
Can you verify that the resolution picker is no longer ordered by total number of pixels? How anyone ever thought this was a good idea? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7p7ellIIAAbSHX.png:large
Here are the instructions how to upgrade using dnf if you have Fedora 21 or newer:
Looking forward to the new display settings in Gnome 3.26
Pick whatever the most competent and helpful Linux-user around you uses...
The distos are pretty much all the same, just different in the details.
This is really good advice. I'm a Fedora user who has set up several "non-technical" users (quoted because I have qualms about that term) with gnu/linux. At first I was giving them Ubuntu since it's the most common and supposedly "regular person friendly". After multiple experiences struggling to provide advice or support, ended up switching them to what I use. It's just easier when I already know the ins and outs of the system.
I still recommend Xubuntu for new users since they can leverage the massive package base and stable releases of Ubuntu and move to something like Fedora (or Arch or whatever) later.
Unfortunately, all the "distro picker" resources I have seen so far are of questionable quality. They either are too opinionated (use my favorite distro) or not opinionated enough (listing super niche distros for no good reason).
That said, I agree with what jononor said. Using something similar that what your most helpful Linux-using friend uses trumps picking the most ideal distro and as long as you pick something relatively mainstream there isn't going to be that big of a difference anyway. In my experience, the choice of desktop environment (GNOME / KDE / MATE / etc) is actually more impactful than the choice of distro.
They might benefit from checking out https://wiki.installgentoo.com/index.php/Babbies_First_Linux - includes a nice though two years out-of-date flowchart from /g/.
That might just be the most controversial post on the internet, if indeed it exists.
Is there a curated up-to-date list of reasons somewhere on the internet that explains to a naive end-user why he/she should pick a given distro?
[keith@localhost ~]$ locate mp3 | grep lib
Most major Linux distros have become quite similar and the differences are mostly superficial.
It shocking to see the huge number of reports here complaining of breakages compelling preference to Fedora since most provide a near similar out of the box experience for both desktops and servers.
I also left Ubuntu recently, so I'm a bit of a Fedora noob but the KDE spin has been amazing, not sure if that's got more to do with KDE or Fedora though.
The partition manager has an annoying bug hen opening in 26 so I'm hoping that got fixed. And I think the new Firefox will come packaged or at least part of a normal update, so good times.
HP Pavilion and it works completely fine.
I had the opposite experience. Could not install Fedora 26 on a HP machine alongside Windows 10. I was ready to pull my hair out... Ubuntu installed fine. Never did find out what the issue was.
Fedora 26 came out a bit late so Fedora 27 had a shorter release cycle to compensate.
That's not the real reason.
I'm mostly still using Ubuntu, but I did install a Fedora 26 box to see how well it works these days. I've been pretty happy with the results. Ubuntu is just a little too conservative with their package management sometimes and Fedora seems like a decent answer to that problem.
Not the most exciting release, but boy am I glad Fedora exists. I switched over from Ubuntu around this time last year and it's been so much better, more stable, better packaging, more up-to-date packages by default. A really great OS. And on my Thinkpad it runs flawlessly.
Great to see!
After spending a week trying to get various OS's to play nice on my PC, everything "just worked" in fedora. And worked well - apple polish level experience. Now, i use it over debian as my main dev VM.
It's a great OS for getting out of the way and letting you get stuff done.
Fedora has been by far the most perfect out-of-the-box experience for my thinkpad machines: t460s and e430. It is stable, lightweight and it doesn't get in the way. I mainly use for python and go development, docker and browsing.
This is supported by GNOME Shell 3.26 which I'm currently running under Ubuntu 17.10.
What's the HiDPI situation (with KDE or Gnome) today?
Last I checked, I could drive an HiDPI display without problems, but not the LoDPI display by its side, because you couldn't do independent scaling of the displays.
Has that changed, yet?
May be https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=788931 (half a dozen crashes a day here too). Regarding "No idea where the fault is", check journalctl, the crash should be logged here.
I'll be also trying this on xorg, see if that helps any.
Gnome-shell keeps crashing due to a libgobject segfault. About 4 times a day. No idea where the fault is, and even more amusingly, my other laptop works fine on the same settings.
Price of complex software, I suppose.
I’m running into issues with the upgrade from 26. “Offline” kept giving me an error about distro-sync being and invalid argument. Online mostly worked but I stepped away and came back to the terminal window just being gone. Now I’m at this stuck spot where the fedora-upgrade says “Can’t upgrade from version 2627” which I assume is some in between state?
Didn’t have any issues with the 25-26 upgrade fwiw.
For those of you with older macbooks, here's how you can try fedora.
Try `free -m`
Linux tries to use as much memory as possible for buffers/cache. When a program requires more memory the cache is freed up automatically to be used.
Right now my laptop is using 2G and has 1242 "free" but as you can see the buffer's cache count toward available memory.
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 7678 2089 1242 307 4346 4963
Swap: 3711 0 3711
How is memory consumption on Fedora 27? I am using Fedora 24. When I check with 'free' after it boots, slightly more than half a GB is used on my laptop. In any case, thanks to the team for a very fine open source OS from RedHat.
It's pretty good supported with Firefox. The flash package is part of rpmfusion-nonfree: https://rpmfusion.org/Configuration
I'm using it to play videos on some sites that still use Flash.
Fedora doesn't include any nonfree or patent encumbered software by default (for legal and project policy reasons). But if you really need flash you should be able to get it from 3rd party repositories.
Is Adobe's Flash product supported? I use a Flash-based tool for Remote Desktop (400+ systems under management) and difficulties getting Flash to work caused me to give up on Fedora 26. Mint has Flash support from the start...
Fedy looks interesting, but I couldn't figure out how it works.
Is it like another package manager, or can I use dnf to manage/update the packages it installs?
Worse, it's just a collection of shell scripts:
It does no signature validation whatsoever or dependency tracking.
Don't use it if you care about security or a clean system.
How is a collection of scripts for which you can easily read and edit the source code "worse" than installing a rpm package or a compiled program?
The thing about signature validation can be easily resolved with a simple text replace. About dependency tracking: as I said, it is not a package manager and it uses dnf under the hood, which already does that.
Unless you only install open source software AFTER doing a full source code audit. You are blatantly overreacting just to look as "security conscious".
For disclosure: I don't have anything to do with the project other than the fact that I have been using it for years without any issue.
I know plenty of folks who've ridden motorcycles helmetless for years without any issue.
It's a collection of script written in a non-idempotent manner, and run in an uncontrolled, undefined environment. The benefit of binary packages is that you have a reasonable idea that the package will consistently build in a well defined environment (the base build chroot for the OS + the defined dependencies in the package). The result is a consistent reproducible binary that means when you run version x.y.z it's the same as version x.y.z that I'm running, and the same as version x.y.z that the package maintainer is running.
When software is "packaged" via install scripts that fetch and build from the internet on the fly with loosely defined versions, you stand a lot of risk of breaking your environment. If you only spend time in toy environments playing games and looking at cat pictures, that's fine.
If you rely on the tools you work with to be stable, perform in a consistent manner, and not accidentally leak information about your environment (you'd be shocked by how many test suites will post your local environment variables out to arbitrary metrics collection points), then pre-build binary packages are a safe and reliable way to operate.
You can have fun letting the wind blow through your hair; I'll keep my helmet on, thanks.
I made it 10 lines into the very first plugin before hitting a point where the installer script is downloading a file over an insecure connection, and treating it as a list of trusted URLs.
And look where those nefarious links are pointing!! developer.android.com and dl.google.com...
As I said, if you feel safer because you run all those commands manually, it is ok...
You stripped the most important part from links, the thing that the comment you replied to was pointing out.
You are changing your argument... You were originally talking about security and whatever you define as a "clean system" not about stability and robustness and on that regard my point remains valid:
Binary packages are not intrinsically more secure that plain text scripts that you can easily audit.
If you feel safer because you are executing by hand a bunch of commands that can be automated with a script that's ok.
In my case I rather spend that time doing something more productive.
Build integrity is inherently a security issue.
You're replying to the wrong person.
After initially recoiling in horror at running a `curl|bash` installer, I opened the installer in a browser planning on reading the install script. "Helpfully" the script is served up as `binary/octet-stream`, so instead of looking at it in the browser, I got to open it in an editor.
From there, it looks like the script does little more than add the `rpmfusion-free-release`, `rpmfusion-nonfree-release` and `folkswithhats-release` repositories. Of course since we started the install process through a shady insecure means, we should add the repos the same way. So every repo gets added via `dnf -y --nogpgcheck install https://url-to-repo-release-package`.
I went to browse the `folkswithhats` repo, but found it's hosted on AWS S3 and doesn't provide a directory index.
You are overly paranoid... The GitHub repo is literally the first thing that shows up when searching for "Fedy" on Google:
If the "--nogpgcheck" bothers you, a simple text replace over the source code solves it.
Same with the "curl|bash" thing, you are not obligated to run it that way, you can just clone the repo and run it however you want, it is open source!
It is funny the way people overreact with things like this with projects that are open source but are ok installed closed source software and feel safe because they got them from the official repos...
Your suggesting a solution for a very common use case many Fedora users have (i.e. installing skype, viber etc) in a New Release thread on a highly visible forum. This means many people could find and run this code, so I think its warranted to analyze its security instead of dismissing it. I agree it has some bad security practices, which are hard to trust in this day and age.
I don't mean to dump on this project or the people behind it, fair dues to them for putting it together to make peoples lives easier. But widely used software must be built and distributed securely.
Since it is GPL3, I wonder why the authors don't build and distribute it from COPR directly from github? It would solve the same problems, and make it easier to trust.
It is not another package manager, it is an utility to automate the process of installing/uninstalling software that normally won't be available under the software manager application that comes with Fedora.
It will add the repos, dependencies and execute all other steps that you will have to do manually otherwise, to have any of the programs supported installed on your PC.
After that you can manage any of them with dnf.
It is a great utility, extremely useful.
Here is a bunch of screenshots of all the things you can install with one click using Fedy:
If you are planning to try Fedora, here is my recommendation to get an astonishingly great set up in no time:
- Do a fresh install
- Use Fedy  install with a single click pretty much any development IDE you may need plus other must-have tools (Skype, Dropbox, VirtualBox, TeamViewer, etc...)
- Install the "dash to panel" Gnome extension 
- Use Fedy to install Numix or Arch as themes and "pimp" your GUI ;)
Here is how my desktop looks with the described set up: https://snag.gy/F6SM4L.jpg
It seems kinda odd to me, that it's released as an update today.
I download the image, install it in a VM, and there are ~289 package updates on a fresh install.
Yes, it is.
EDIT: And CSD works! Instructions to enable it are in a video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rz_mPVwhDg (I recommend to mute sounds).
I'm guessing this doesn't apply to those who are on KDE?
KDE handles Gtk3 CSD well. I think that might work. I haven't tried it on KDE though.
Is Firefox 57 already out in Fedora 27, by any chance?
On Gnome with Wayland, it works, but only with integer multiples. Gnome 3.28 (which will ship in F28) will have full fractional scaling support if you need that.
How's the HIDPI support in Fedora these days? That's the #1 deal breaker for me and every single Linux distro.
It will not.
The location of the F27 bits are separate from the F26 bits, so you'll have to manually add a new remote and then rebase to that new remote.
$ sudo ostree remote add --set=gpgkeypath=/etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-27-primary fedora-atomic-27 https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/atomic/27
$ sudo rpm-ostree rebase fedora-atomic-27:fedora/27/x86_64/atomic-host
And here's a handy upgrade guide: http://www.projectatomic.io/blog/2017/11/fedora-atomic-26-to...
Does anyone know if the Atomic Host will auto update from 26->27 or is it a manual process?
I hope so. On Fedora 26 I still have to drop back to X11 in order to get my XPS13 to properly detect my external monitor (DisplayPort), Wayland will only allow the default lowest resolution with no option to increase it, which is very sad on a 28" 4K screen :-(
Will give Fedora 27 a go this evening and see...
I have a very similar setup: a Dell m3800 and a 4K external monitor.
Wayland, or rather gnome-shell, seems to do EDID detection a bit differently than Xorg. Getting a higher quality DisplayPort cable fixed it for me. The earlier cable did OK at 30Hz but freaked out trying for 60 Hz. X11 must retry more times, because it would usually manage to make it work for a while on the bad cable, although it still could randomly flicker off and reset the connection.
That's what is the issue with my set-up: EDID detection fails, so it defaults back to 1024x768 max resolution, with no way (that I can figure out) to manually override the resolution and refresh rate on Wayland. Tested with Fedora 27 yesterday after upgrading, still not working so back to X11 for me :-(
Wayland is the default display server since Fedora 25.
Yeah but frankly its been kinda beta, not quite "it just works" so far.
Especially for those of us with Optimus systems (shared frame buffer between intel and Nvidia graphics systems.)
Additionally, some laptops have external displays wired to Nvidia, making it impossible to use intel-only graphics with external displays.
Is this true on spins as well, or just the default gnome install?
Wayland out of the box?