Comments on: `fedora’ responses

By: ajax

ajax — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:05:13 +0000

Yeah, if you configure X from firstboot-tui then it should probably get turned on for you. I don’t know if that code exists in F10 anymore, but I’ll take a look and throw things at clumens as necessary so that works.

By: zucchi

zucchi — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 05:42:51 +0000

ajax: ok, fair enough. I asked for text-mode install just to avoid any possible x glitches – given that after i rebooted i got some configuration box and from that i configured X, i thought it would then turn it on.

By: ajax

ajax — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:47:41 +0000

Regarding the X thing, yes, text mode install will leave you with initdefault of 3. We use the same logic for detecting your video card at install time as at runtime, and we try really really hard to give you graphical install if we possibly can. So if you ended up in a textmode install, it’s either because you asked for it – and are thus the sort of person who doesn’t want X anyway – or because we failed to run X in the installer and thus almost certainly it’s not going to work at runtime either.

It’s not completely clear from this post or the original whether this is what happened to you. If you got graphical install but initdefault 3, that’s a bug. I don’t think there should be any way that can happen, but I’ll give the code another look. If you still have the fedora install around and wanted to file a bug about it (attaching /var/log/anaconda.xlog so I can see what hardware you have) that’d be great, otherwise I’ll just keep an eye open for that issue in the future.

By: bochecha

bochecha — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:01:11 +0000

What are zucchi’s complaints exactly ? That PackageKit isn’t ready for prime time ? Well, maybe that’s why other distributions have not integrated it *yet*. ;)

However, Fedora has always been some kind of a lab for emerging technology. I, as an enthusiastic Fedora user, am thrilled to have PackageKit in Fedora 9 so I can play with it, have a look at what it will become, and help the devs improving it by submitting bug reports.

That’s exactly why I love Fedora, because it’s exciting to test all these new stuff. I can understand that some others prefer waiting for stable and finished apps, but I simply can’t wait with them :)

Go on hughsie, PackageKit is definitely not ready, but (reading from the FAQ), its goal is trully admirable.

By: Christian Dywan

Christian Dywan — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:26:08 +0000

Very nice writeup, I like your way of explaining the issues and actually I do find you keep a pretty friendly tone. I agree with most of your points – that is, I mostly like python, only the fact that it tries to be somewhat much too dynamic can cause a lot of pain. Maybe Genie can become the answer to that problem at some point.

By: Fald

Fald — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:04:49 +0000

Honestly, packagekit’s slowness while it was populating the list of packages available to install surprised me when I first used it with Fedora 9, too. I hope it will improve the speed issue. One of the features of linux desktop _was_ it could be possible to use it on an older box. Sadly, not anymore.

By: Jonas

Jonas — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:11:48 +0000

@Hughsie,

The problem isn’t whether all of the big distros use it or none of them. The problem is that NOW it is not ready for use by everyone and his dog. I hope it will be one day in the not-too-distant future, since I really do like the idea of it. Fedora made a mistake in choosing it at this point, and so would Mandriva, Ubuntu and what not had they already made the switch.

Right now, it belongs in Rawhide and other equivalents of Debian Sid (and maybe smaller distros where the impact of such a big change would be smaller). The lack of speed is one reason, and enough for me to stay clear of it until it has matured (to be honest, the speed is so abysmal that I could checkout the latest Gnome or KDE trunk and compile myself a new DE before PK was finished downloading abiword…okay, a slight exaggeration there but the speed is the MAJOR off-putting thing right now). Only tried PK using Fedora and Foresight though so it might be a flaky implementation on their part.

Still, take this for what it is intended as: not a flame but a hope that you and whoever else works on PK will take your time and make sure PK can become the unified packaging tool Linux needs. It isn’t now but it could become one if it isn’t rushed to be a part of the big distros prematurely. If it is rushed, that will only hurt PK in the long run.

By: Jer

Jer — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:28:52 +0000

I’d argue that f-spot is not a shining example of a Mono app either. Like tomboy it seems like a whole lot of hype for what it actually delivers. Its import dialog is a bit lacking, and the filesystem organization method is painful if you want to share photo libraries between applications. If I’m looking for a picture in Nautilus, I’m going to be looking for the event it was part of, not the exact date it was taken. My options when looking for a photo to send someone should not be “find it in f-spot first” or “trial and error filesystem searching.” But I suppose if you only access your photos from one computer/application, and always use your photo manager for anything image-related, f-spot is nice.

The only Mono app that I’m pretty impressed with is Banshee, but Rhythmbox does enough that I don’t really need to install Mono for one app.

By: Tyrone Rambo

Tyrone Rambo — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:54:05 +0000

Hughsie does not need to listen to criticism, because he already researched everything before he started writing anything. At least that’s what he always says to any criticism.

By: Philip Van Hoof

Philip Van Hoof — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:03:32 +0000

hughsie: no matter how many big-players (for extreme values of big) you convince of PackageKit, if you don’t listen to your users it’ll nonetheless fail.

My advise for you as PackageKit’s maintainer is to at least take note of Zucchi’s complaints.

But you don’t have to take it. Of course.