Fedora: March 2010 Archives

I thought Linux in general and Xorg in particular were throwing those of us with "older" Intel video chips under the virtual bus. I couldn't even get Ubuntu Lucid Lynx (10.04) Alpha 3 to boot on my Intel 830m (aka i830m and in my case Intel 82830 CGC)-equipped laptops, where my old standby of dropping i915.modeset=0 or nomodeset on the boot line would clear things up.

Today I decided to download and burn the daily build ISO of Lucid for March 15.

I booted it, hit Escape as soon as the first screen came up (that's a new one, having to do that), then hit F6 for Modes, arrowed down to nomodeset, hit Enter to select it, then Escape, then Enter again to boot ...

And a short time later I was in the less-brown-more-purple world of Ubuntu 10.04 LTS Lucid!

Never mind that it's ... purple.

It works! Video is perfect on my Toshiba Satellite 1100-S101 laptop with the Intel 830m chipset.

Whatever wasn't working for me in Alpha 3 has been fixed at the time of this daily build.

I'd like to thank any and all developers who were able to make this happen, and I'd also like to let the rest of the Intel 830m-using community know that the following WILL work if you turn off kernel mode setting with nomodeset in the boot line:

Ubuntu Lucid 10.04 (as of this 3/15/10 daily build)
Fedora 12
Sidux 2009-04

I have an alpha image of Fedora 13 but haven't yet burned it, and I have heard that Slackware 13 runs with no problem.

So the future for the older-Intel-video-using world is looking a whole lot brighter than it did a few short weeks again.

At this point I have no comment on purple or the window buttons moving from the right side of the window to the left. I have no comment because I DON'T CARE. I HAVE WORKING VIDEO AND THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS AT PRESENT.

I'll address purple and window buttons at a later time. One thing I can say for sure is that this ain't the usual orange/brown.

Before I go, I've been testing Firefox 3.6 on the Mac OS X and Windows XP platforms, and this instance of Ubuntu Lucid is the first time I'm seeing FF 3.6 in Linux.

My first impressions are that not much is different in the PowerPC build for OS X, but I'm seeing huge improvements in the browsing experience in terms of speed in both Windows and Linux.

I can't say for sure, but I think it all boils down to a faster Javascript engine in 3.6 vs. 3.0 (and also 3.5 perhaps).

Getting back to Intel 830m for the moment, this means I'm upgrading my Debian Lenny laptop to Squeeze as soon as possible.

Never mind that one of my two Debian Lenny Xfce installations is seriously ailing at the moment. I'm not letting that dampen my future enthusiasm for the Xfce spin of Fedora 12, which I downloaded last night via torrent. (It's my first torrent download; luckily Debian Lenny is set up to do this automatically).

One thing you can say about Debian's default Xfce install — it's small and to the point. Aside from GDM, there's no GNOME in it (and my mixing of GNOME after the fact probably is responsible for my ailing box's troubles, but I digress).

Fedora's main desktop, like Ubuntu and Debian, is GNOME. But the project sponsors "spins" that include KDE, LXDE, games and a few more, including one focusing on education and the aforementioned Xfce.

In contrast, Ubuntu's Xfce version, Xubuntu, has quite a bit of GNOME in it, and while I think it looks fabulous and has a lot of functionality, I've actually found it to be slower/more sluggish than the standard GNOME-powered Ubuntu.

In Debian and Slackware, you definitely enjoy a speed boost with Xfce instead of GNOME or KDE. I'll be looking for the same thing in Fedora (and I wish there was a Fedora Xfce spin for PowerPC because the last time I ran Fedora on my Mac G4, it was super-sluggish and beaten in just about every way by Debian Etch for PowerPC — both using GNOME if that means anything).

More on torrents: I've never downloaded via torrent before, but since I seemingly have no choice, I'm doing it now. I guess I've never done it before because I really don't understand it. However, since I'm already set up to do it, it wasn't hard to figure out.

So what do I think of the Fedora 12 Xfce spin? I burned my image (to DVD — and now is as good a time to mention that burning CD images to DVD media definitely works, and it's a good thing, too, because my Toshiba Satellite 1100-S101 laptop hates CD-R but loves DVD+R discs) and booted into the Xfce desktop.

Just as in the GNOME-powered Fedora 12, adding nomodeset to the boot line got X working.

I really like the look and feel of Fedora 12's Xfce spin. There's no top panel but a very useful lower panel with application launchers plus a few little icons. Unlike the stock Debian Xfce desktop, in Fedora Xfce the GNOMEish NetworkManager is installed — just like in Xubuntu.

I used it to configure my network, and it does work.

Fedora 12 Xfce spin has a nice mix of applications. It has the usual Mousepad text editor, Thunar file manager and Terminal (that's its name, capital T) terminal emulator.

One of my favorite "development" editors, Geany is installed by default. I didn't make a note of everything in the menus, but I did notice GIMP and Inkscape.

I didn't expect OpenOffice, but I also didn't expect the "GNOME Office" apps AbiWord and GNUmeric. No matter. They're both extremely light on resources, although I'm not as much of a fan of AbiWord as I once was. I've found that OpenOffice does more and doesn't really lag as much as you'd think, although with really old computers AbiWord is measurably better.

These days I try to use "office suite" apps as seldom as possible, preferring text editors on my local machine and Google Docs for everything else.

I meant to check the package-management choices in the Xfce spin but forgot. I'll run the live environment again soon and report back.

I did find the Fedora 12 Xfce spin appreciably "fast," not that the GNOMEversion was so terrible. But Xfce is pretty smooth.

Two things that bothered me a bit in the Xfce spin — and which are the same in the regular GNOME Fedora 12 — are that scrolling in Firefox seems smooth but slow, and the fonts look a bit more blurry.

I can't say for sure exactly how different the fonts looked. Now that I'm back in Debian Lenny with GNOME, things aren't all that different, but I did notice something in Fedora. I played with hinting, dots per inch, anti-aliasing, etc. I really don't understand any of that. In Debian and Ubuntu, things seem to look fine without me doing anything.

Something's different in Fedora about font rendering on this particularly troublesome graphics platform. It's not a deal-breaker by any means, but I'd like to somehow figure it out. I'll have to run more tests and do a bit of Googling. A preliminary Googling didn't enlighten me at all.

My quick verdict: Fedora 12's Xfce spin offers a nice, fairly complete environment. You might want to add OpenOffice if you're into that sort of thing. But you could get along quite well with the stock lineup of applications in this well-thought-out spin on Fedora.

I'm not ready to move from Debian to Fedora just yet (after all, I have everything set up pretty darn nicely on this Lenny install), but it's nice to know that I could.

At the recommendation of reader David Gurvich, as well as the enthusiastic endorsement of "Linux Outlaws" co-host Fabian A. Scherschel and Larry "the Free Software Guy" Cafiero, I burned my first Fedora disc in some time and am testing Fedora 12 in the live environment.

My latest foray into distro-hopping — live CD/DVDs only at this point — is prompted by this week's total fail in turning off kernel mode setting and getting the screen to work in Ubuntu Lucid Alpha 3. That method (turning off kernel mode setting) worked like so much magic in Ubuntu Lucid Alpha 2 and Sidux 2009-04 (basically Debian Sid in late 2009).

But that hack did nothing for me in Ubuntu Lucid Alpha 3. Yes, dear readers, I know you hate to hear me whine and complain and would rather I file a bug report. I will do so, using my ever-loving Launchpad account, rest assured.

But in the interim I'm looking for any and every solution that will carry my now-two working Intel 830m-equipped laptops through the next year.

I'm crossing my fingers (but have nothing concrete at present) that Debian Squeeze will accommodate Intel 830m, and I'm hopeful that Ubuntu Lucid will work this out (although a regression between alpha releases doesn't bode well).

I've also established that PC-BSD 8.0 (and by extension FreeBSD 8.0) has no problem whatsoever with Intel 830m video.

And today I burned a Fedora 12 live image and am running it right now. Yes, I turned off kernel mode setting with this parameter in the boot line:

nomodeset

And I was off to the races. I did screw a bit with the font rendering under System - Preferences - Appearance - Fonts, ticking the box for "subpixel smoothing," changing the resolution to 90 dots per inch with full hinting (these settings are totally "negotiable" at this point, as I've pretty much never needed to mess with them). I'm not 100 percent happy with the look of the video. I'd say I'm 90 percent happy.

And that 90-percent happiness is in contrast to having no video at all and being 100 percent unhappy.

Thus far here's my verdict on Fedora 12: I like it. I'm extremely glad it's a viable choice for my laptops. I've always admired the documentation that the Fedora team produces. And rather than acting like the testing ground for Red Hat Enterprise Linux that it pretty much is, I'm finding this build to be extremely stable.

I have run RHEL clone CentOS on the desktop (and still have it installed on my daughter's Gateway Solo 1450 with Intel 830m video where it dual-boots with Ubuntu Hardy) but never Fedora.

The main advantage of Fedora over CentOS is the huge, up-to-date repository with just about every desktop package you'd ever need.

I know there are alternatives to get more desktop packages into CentOS/RHEL. But if you can get Fedora to work and keep it working, I believe it's a much better choice for the desktop (except in cases where you specifically want a limited number of applications and don't want to do a lot of updating).

At this point, every Fedora release receives 13 months of support (the time during which there are two six-month releases plus an additional month). Potential users will want to factor that into their distro decision-making; you can certainly upgrade every six months but really don't have to.

As you might have gathered from my last few posts, I'm relying heavily on live CD/DVDs to test which operating-system distributions/projects I will be using on my various laptop and desktop computers over the next six months, year and couple of years.

Since my Xorg problems have been so pervasive over the past year and a half, at this point I need to figure out how the display is working (or not) before I commit to any major upgrades or reinstalls.

Fedora 12 and Mono: I'm sure this has been written about before, but in case you missed it, the Fedora 12 live CD, and possibly the default installation itself, does not contain Mono — the controversial open-source implementation of Microsoft's .NET technology that enables developers to use C# in the creation of applications for Linux and other systems.

You can still add Mono to your Fedora installation after the fact, but unlike in Ubuntu, it's not in the base install.

I've written more than a few times that I'm not completely against Mono but am not all that comfortable with Microsoft's different levels of patent promise to users of Novell-sponsored distributions (Suse) and everybody else. And if the Mono apps aren't better than the non-Mono alternatives, what's the point?

Fedora 12, like Debian Lenny, installs with the Gthumb image viewer/editor, not F-Spot. Gthumb is so good, it's pretty much my default photo editor in Linux and just about my most-used application.

Also in Fedora 12, Gnote replaces the Mono-powered Tomboy Notes. I don't have much use for either of these applications, although I do have Gnote installed on my Debian box, and I replaced Tomboy with Gnote on my now-dead Ubuntu Karmic laptop. Why use a Mono app coded in C# when somebody creates a C++ app that appears to do the exact same thing?

And as I said, there's nothing in F-Spot that's better than what's in Gthumb, and there's plenty F-Spot lacks that Gthumb offers.

That's enough Mono talk. Sorry about the tangent.

Let me wrap up by saying I've liked CentOS in the past, and I'm very happy with the performance of Fedora 12's live CD on my Toshiba Satellite 1100-S101, a 2002-made laptop with a 1.3 GHz Celeron processor and 1 GB RAM. I could easily see moving to this distribution for my daily work.

How is Fedora different from Ubuntu? I'd like to start both myself and all of you thinking about the differences between Fedora and Ubuntu. I'm not just talking about the technical merits and choices each project makes, but about audience and mission for each project/distribution.

I'd like to spin this into a separate entry, but for now I'll start it here:

• Ubuntu's motto is "Linux for human beings," and while it wants to accommodate the so-called "power user," the focus of the project is to make the transition from a proprietary operating system to Linux as seamless as possible. Fedora exists as a community project that aims to feed the latest technology to Red Hat's enterprise products and serve as a test bed for Red Hat Enterprise Linux while offering users a "free" version of Linux that's aimed at developers and "power users."
• The Ubuntu project is a community endeavor, with the distibution "controlled" by the for-profit company Canonical that is bankrolled by Mark Shuttleworth while it seeks revenue through support contracts and services. The Fedora Project appears to be a nonprofit entity, "controlled" (to an extent I don't quite know at present) by Red Hat. The Fedora Project itself isn't interested in revenue, but Red Hat's enterprise products/services are a proven source of revenue for the company.
• Ubuntu is based on Debian. Fedora is pretty much its own project, on which Red Hat Enterprise Linux is based.
• Ubuntu's community of users is huge and growing. Its community of volunteers is also growing. Excitement around the project is extremely high. Even though Canonical is a for-profit entity, many think its mission is to spread free, open-source software and gain share for Linux on the server and desktop. I'm unsure of the size of Fedora's user community. I'm similarly unsure of the size of its developer community, although like Ubuntu it actively seeks new community members (both projects are very, very proactive in this regard; and that's something I really like). Many Red Hat developers do extensive work on Fedora. While Fedora is doing well, you don't see levels of enthusiasm as high or widespread as with Ubuntu. Ubuntu seems "cool," while Fedora seems to be a niche offering for developers and power users.

If you think I've got anything (or everything) wrong here, or if you have something to add, please let me know.

Perception of the projects must compete with sheer usability for the tasks and on the hardware of the user base. A simpler way to say that is, "Use what works for you." Whether it's Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian, Mandriva, FreeBSD, Arch, Gentoo or what have you, use what works. Along with that admonition, it's a good idea to keep your eyes open for better solutions — that's what I'm doing.

In addition to his first e-mail to me, David Gurvich adds more about his experiences with Intel i830m video in Linux and PC-BSD/FreeBSD:

I did think the problems with FreeBSD were due to using PC-BSD and installing a lightweight desktop on top. After testing with a bare install that turns out to not be the case and the issue is with FreeBSD and has nothing to do with the scripts that PC-BSD uses.

I have not tested OpenBSD but most of the wireless drivers on FreeBSD have been ported from there. I suspect there is a difference between the two that causes these drivers to crash the system on FreeBSD. The primary reason that I was interested in FreeBSD was ZFS support and wanted to setup a file server. The network issue stopped that in it's tracks.

There is a graphical network tool in the FreeBSD ports that seems to work ok but most of my settings were with wpa_supplicant and rc.conf. I believe that PC-BSD has it's own graphical network configuration tool but didn't use that.

Flash does have issues on FreeBSD and I don't recommend installing the linux compatibility to use flash. Instead, use wine with a windows browser. There is a memory leak in the linux flashplugin on FreeBSD that will eventually cause your system to freeze until you kill nspluginwrapper. The same technique may work on OpenBSD.

I have tried Fedora 12 on this laptop and that worked somewhat after tweaking a number of parameters. By somewhat I mean that I had random Xorg crashes and the tweaks simply mitigated the frequency. I gave F12 about 2 months but just could not take the crashes. Fedora 12 is working well on the other systems that I've installed it on but there was a problem with one that had ATI video which required building an xorg module from git.

I am currently using Arch linux on the X30 and, since configuring the boot parameters with 'nomodeset' and locking the xf86-video-intel driver to 2.9.1, have not had any issues with video. The main problem has been with the networking scripts and I am still not sure what the issue is there but installing wicd-1.7 seems to have worked around that. I am impressed with the speed vs Fedora 12. The reason I am impressed is that, prior to Arch, Fedora 12 had been among the fastest distributions on the X30 with a useable firefox in under 2 minutes. The X30 from startup to a working firefox connection takes 45 seconds in Arch.

The main issue I will have with Arch is likely the very reason Arch is so responsive. Rolling releases don't keep old packages around and new versions can cause random failures on working systems. That means that I will need to maintain a list of packages that should not be upraded and be careful on upgrades. Nothing new to anyone who has used Gentoo.

I've currently had Arch installed on the X30 for a month and have had no issues to deal with since the video and networking were fixed. The livecd boots to a text console and I recommend looking at the arch installation guide. Pretty much everything needs to be configured but the wiki makes that simple.

David Gurvich

David, you hit on a number of important points. I will definitely try Fedora 12 to see how it works with i830m, and I agree with you that Arch is an excellent choice. I've written many times about how the Arch community has been a great resource for me in solving my X issues with i830m all the way from Debian Lenny through now.

I neglected to mention ZFS in FreeBSD. That certainly is something to recommend in its favor. There's also a project bringing journaling to soft updates in FreeBSD's UFS filesystem that I heard about in this BSD Talk episode.

I'm not terribly happy about Flash being so problematic in FreeBSD. I forget all the trouble I had with the Opera browser in OpenBSD. That browser and its Flash plugin uses OpenBSD's Linux compatibility layer, and I was eventually able to stop most crashes by changing a parameter in Opera.

Here's what I'm hoping for:

• People smarter than me will figure this out and either make allowances in the kernel and xorg, or will create some other kind of mechanism that doesn't leave users of Intel 830m video chips out in the cold
• HTML 5 will sooner than later take hold with an open video codec and return Flash to what it's good at, which is little applications that I can safely ignore, and stop doing what it's bad at, which is delivering video that can better be handled by a plethora of other formats. The easiest way for this to happen would be for Google to open-source the on2 video codec it recently acquired. (Except that Google already converted the entire YouTube library to the loved-by-Apple patent-encumbered H.264.)

  I've run BSD before, and if Linux/Xorg throws Intel 830m under the bus, I'll be an enthusiastic user of any system that doesn't follow along.