Fedora Core 6 install on Hyper-V


Recently I downloaded and installed a Fedora Core 6 installation on my Hyper-V machine. Actually I have two now. Theres my normal AMD superserver and now theres my Lenovo T61p running Hyper-V. Now I have to say – Im normally a SuSE Linux person. Yesterday though I tried to copy my SuSE 10.0 image over from my AMD Hyper-V box and run it on my Lenovo Hyper-V machine (with its Intel Santa Rosa chipset). It failed. Not only did it not start properly but it peaked the proc in the virtual environment straight to 90%. Lilo failed to start and the whole thing became a sorry mess….eekkk!


I tried a Fedora Core distro awhile ago now on Virtual PC 2007. That was also an unpleasant experience with the thing kernel panicing and promptly dying. So when it came this time around to try it again I had doubts….nevertheless I downloaded the FC6 DVD from Internode’s mirror and started installing. Install went fine – it has the usual selections that have remained fairly consistent now since RedHat 5 if I remember rightly. you partition the disk up, pick your packages and let it go.


The telling point for me was the first boot – and it came up sweet!


Next thing I knew it was wanting to update. At this point I took a step back and rubbed my eyes in disbelief…..it wants to download 264 updates?? Surely not? Surely yes…


Now I know theres supposed to be this thing about Linux having better security and better quality of code requiring less patching and this general perception of it being somehow more professionally done… For me clearly the proof is in the pudding! I dont ever remember having to apply just this many patches in Windows for a recent version – including Office and driver updates etc. And it wasnt a quick or easy process. At one point it threw out an error with one package it had a conflict with (and spat an unpleasant error message) and instead of just proceeding with the other patches and leaving that one to be resolved, it stopped the whole process, waiting for a resolution. I had to wade down the list of patches to manually deselect the one it had the issue with before it was happy to proceed. Surely it could of worked it out right?


 Whinge over….one thing I do like about these modern distros is the use of online package installation. I like to copy files around using Windows so of course in order to do that on Linux I needed to install Samba. This bit was just plain nice.


1. Go to Add/Remove programs


2. Select the package you want


3. It just installs from the internet – no CD’s or DVD’s required.


Nice!


 


In all it seems to be a reasonably quick distro – the only bummer is relearning the location of all the stuff you normally play with. In my case I like to play around with authentication and get it to authenticate to Active Directory through Kerberos 5. In SuSE 10, the pluggable authentication bits (PAM) are located in a bunch of different files. In RedHat (FC) its one file I believe. Thats the pain with Linux in my opinion – its just not a consistent experience and each distro is very different. Ah well…thats what search engines are for right? :)


 


 


 


 


 

Comments (5)

  1. Anonymous says:

    Andy Coates published the latest Aussie blogs Roger Lawrence (Sydney) – our new Group Manager, Developer

  2. Anonymous says:

    Hmm – I thought it was pretty recent. Shows how much Linux stuff I play with :) That said October 2006 was only 18 months or so ago. Dont you think 264 updates in 18 months is still pretty excessive?? Id hate to be patching that all the time…especially with a lack of good enterprise patch management and policy control tools? Unless of course you can educate me on what tools there are for Linux to do enterprise patch management?? :)

    FWIW – I believe Google even have their own software and policy distribution??

  3. Lindsey says:

    264 updates is a lot, but there have been two other releases (core 7 and 8) since Core 6 was released in October 06. In Linux terms, I guess it’s a pretty old release :)

  4. Carl.B says:

    Hi Michael

    Most distros are superseded in 6 months

    major releases annually.

    The patches add up in linux Distros very quickly since they don’t/won’t/can’t get bundled together into Service Packs or single large packages.

    An imposed rule on most software it is broken down to the smallest possible size and packaged as modules.

    Since lots of different people/companies develop each module and they release updates at different intervals. A flaw in Mplayer Core can be patched quickly without needing to update all 7.

    For example Windows Media Player and all functions are bundled in one package.

    Sound Backend/Interface is integrated into windows Core Services?

    However media players in Linux are divided into 7 Packages

    Right here gives you a 7:1 requirement versus windows updates.

    1. Core Player

    2. Player Gui

    3. Sound Daemon (backend)

    4. Publicly free Codecs

    5. Restricted/Proprietory Codecs

    6. DMCA/Illegal Codecs

    7. a package for each skin.

    Picture Windows XP in the form of Fedora

    *I remove/don’t install Windows Media Player, Notepad and Terminal Services

    *I install Powertoys XP and Windows Services for Unix

    Will SP2 work optimally?

    In Linux a Service Pack is not optimal since it will install WMP Notepad and Terminal Services despite user not approving.

    I will still require extra packages for the remainder.

    This shouldn’t be an issue since we don’t actually need to go to Fedora.com and navigate through three pages to download each of 264 the individual patches

    (compare to fetching a KB file at downloads.microsoft.com)

    WSUS will be far better if MS completely overhaul how they package their KB packages Maybe a MSI file or other binary package

    with a header to define what

    *package title

    *version number

    *Operating System

    *Platform(x86 x64)

    *dependancies Package title and version

    and obvisously a front end to decide

    Does this package belong on this OS?

    Does this package belong on this platform?

    Is this package version number newer than the existing %package%?

    Are other package i require already installed?

    Are other packages i require in current directory?

    Are other packages i require in define internet repository?

    Unlike WSUS as you would have noticed the software Update mechanism methodolgy in most Linux distros is very mature, stable and flexible.

    In some distros those 264 updates you downloaded you can share that folder on Samba or NFS and use it as an update server for all like machines.

    i can use \mkleefupdates as my source instead of http://update.server.com

    I really wish WSUS was that simple.

    Current WSUS that has been developed

    was just too over thought, overly complicated and demanding on the central server.