Fedora Loves Python

by type0 • 9 years ago

151 83 9 years ago

sagarun• 9 years ago

/rant If fedora really loves python, they should first start showing their love by publishing all their distribution related libraries to pypi. blivet, selinux, none of these are available in pypi. Why do they expect everyone to use rpms?

sigzero• 9 years ago

Is that basically how Linux distros work? Debian has .deb and Redhat has .rpm etc.?

saghm4• 9 years ago

I think GP is saying that they want to be able to install the Fedora/Redhat libraries (like SELinux) on other distros as well

mrmondo• 9 years ago

Personally I can't stand when I have to get language specific packages from one of their many package managers, that's the point of having a distribution - so it can be distributed.

saghm4• 9 years ago

Right, but the issue GP has with this is that the Python libraries that Fedora develops aren't available on other distros, and that submitting them to a Python repository would be an easy way to achieve that availablility

ubernostrum3• 9 years ago

Much depends on point of view.

For the operating system, sure, use the OS packages.

For writing and deploying an application in a language? Never use the OS packages; manage it using the language's tools. My Python applications deploy into a virtualenv and install their dependencies using pip.

kevin_thibedeau2• 9 years ago

In the case of Debian it's an asset since you can run on stable without being stuck with horribly outdated, hard to upgrade Python packages.

lmm2• 9 years ago

OS package managers are so much worse than language package managers though - no ability to install packages per-user or in a "local" environment, difficult to have multiple versions of the same package installed (a huge problem if you have a "diamond" where you depend transitively on two different version of the same library), no IDE integration, limited introspectibility, inconsistent testing standards...

dfox• 9 years ago

At least blivet is normal distutils package that can be installed by pip by providing URL to repository and/or source archive.

saghm4• 9 years ago

Most of this seems pretty standard for Linux distros; python2 and python3 installed by default, ability to install venv through `python -m`, other versions of Python and various packages available in the repositories. Is there something I'm missing here?

lima• 9 years ago

Installing different Python versions is not possible with many distros (you'd have to compile it from source/use something like pyenv):

https://developer.fedoraproject.org/tech/languages/python/mu...

saghm4• 9 years ago

Ah, I missed the "CPython in multiple 3.X and 2.X versions". Thanks for pointing that out to me!

fiddlerwoaroof• 9 years ago

As far as I remember Debian has always been able to support multiple versions of python simultaneously although I think they've dropped packages for <~2.7 now

cbcoutinho2• 9 years ago

OpenSUSE gives you the ability to have both python and python3 installed through the package manager

sudopluto• 9 years ago

um, venv is included by default in python 3, no need to install any package.

Ded7xSEoPKYNsDd2• 9 years ago

It's a subtle stab at Debian-based distributions, where pip and venv are only available as optional, non-default packages. (I think Debian really wants people to use apt to install things.)

kingosticks2• 9 years ago

I don't think python2 is installed by default.

Temasik• 9 years ago

Why should I use fedora on my laptop over Ubuntu? Even on servers?

Does fedora increases my productivity?

pmoriarty• 9 years ago

In my experience most Fedora users are from corporations that want a support contract from RedHat. That's really the only reason. I've yet to meet anyone who uses Fedora willingly otherwise.

tavert• 9 years ago

Fedora (and other rpm-based distros, OpenSUSE in particular) are easier to build/modify packages for than deb-based distros and have easier to use build services with better automation, IMO.

emidln• 9 years ago

Fedora has "just-worked" for awhile and I don't have a particularly good reason to move to Ubuntu. It's nice that Fedora doesn't patch upstream much, and I learned how to build custom RPMs about 20 years ago.

no_wizard• 9 years ago

To counter that I have found Fedora's bleeding edge approach quite usable on my home machine for doing my personal programming. It was also.the first Linux distribution with true (and great imo) High DPI support that to me was very good. Almost as good as macOS in implementation.

dizzystar2• 9 years ago

I use it willingly. I don't work in any place remotely related to RH.

Don't knock it until you try it.

johnny222• 9 years ago

If you want support contracts you don't use Fedora, you use RHEL

coldtea• 9 years ago

You would be surprised.

For one, Fedora is the open, no contract, version. And yes, tons of people use it, including on the desktop.

Second, even for the "enterprise" version, tons of businesses use Centos, which is kind of like RHEL with no contract. It's immensely popular.

SwellJoe• 9 years ago

That's a silly assertion and needlessly hostile to Fedora.

I have tons of experience with all the major distros and Fedora is my pick for desktop use. I don't work somewhere with an RH contract, I just like it. There are other good desktop distros but Fedora suits me. It's a good blend of cutting edge and stability, it has very good docs, has a large community, and it is 100% open source (I can still choose to install proprietary stuff if I need a driver or something, and there are usually already rpms in a repo for it if I do).

So, "hi", you've now met someone who uses Fedora willingly (enthusiastically, even).

meekins• 9 years ago

Are you sure you are not confusing Fedora with RHEL (an excellent server OS for the corporate environment btw)?

Anyway, after years of using different distros (mainly the Debian and Ubuntu family of things and Arch) on different boxes I tried the Fedora KDE spin on my main desktop - mainly because the out of the box KDE 4 experience had been a bit underwhelming on various distros and I got tired of accidentally breaking stuff on Arch due to applying some careless updates. For me Fedora offers the optimum when it comes to the balance between stability and bleeding edge and the availability of packages. Rarely when things break they also get fixed promptly, third party rpms and repos are pretty decent and it's popular enough that even some proprietary stuff (mainly Steam and Sublime Text in my case) are easy to run and well supported. Really excited also to try out Wayland with Plasma soon. For a development box it has been a good choice, lot of the experience applies well also to RHEL and CentOS servers and doesn't suffer from weird decisions by the project maintenance.

blorgle• 9 years ago

I grew up using Debian and later Ubuntu, longer than 10 years on those distros as a kid and into my career as a sysadmin/operations person. Ubuntu LTS was my main workhorse form about 10.04 through to ~14.04.3.

Late 2015 I decided I wanted a "Chromebook" style user experience where I could have a repeatable build of the base OS that could be thrown away plus a backup system based around duplicity to restore my homedir. I had used preseed to deploy large fleets of Ubuntu boxes at work so it was a natural option. But I decided a few things: Firstly, I was sick of LTS 3.x kernel. Secondly, if 16.04 and all other distros were adopting systemd I may as well go to the source and use a RH based distro. Finally, that preseed wasn't as good as Kickstart used in RH based distros.

So I came up with https://github.com/sinner-/kickstart-fedora-workstation to provide repeatable builds of Fedora the way that I like it. I've been happily using it since then (across 2 versions of Fedora and a hard drive failure)! The .ks file will be updated for F26 this weekend as it just went GA today.

HeadlessChild• 9 years ago

Have you looked into the FAI (https://fai-project.org) project? It's like preseed on steroids and very similar to the Kickstart project.

boterock• 9 years ago

Two years ago I was looking for a distro that I'd love, after testing a few I decided on Arch, I liked it's approach for learning how the system works. But one year ago I got tired of it, I wanted a distro that was easy to set up and was between Ubuntu and Fedora.

In the end I stuck with Fedora because I preferred GNOME over Unity, and because it would let me try Wayland before any other distro... I like the "consumer focused bleeding edge" that Fedora offers.

dizzystar2• 9 years ago

I tried Ubuntu back when they were tossing Amazon search ads onto the system. There was also, idk, a million and one things, like games and other junk, that I didn't want. Coming from Arch, this put a sour taste in my mouth.

It would take me 30 minutes to build an Arch the way I wanted it. The install on Ubuntu already took 2 hours, then I would have to spend countless hours uninstalling trash I didn't want.

Maybe this isn't true anymore, but "apt-get [package]" was a game of whack-a-mole. If I ran apt-get, I wanted the latest version, not have to guess, hunt, uninstall wrong versions, etc.

Fedora is a minimal system, very much like I would have on Arch. dnf defaults to the most recent stable version of whatever I want to use, and the entire system is built with that in mind.

It sort of depends on what kind of programs you prefer to use. I personally like to have the most recent "x," though I understand the arguments for not having that preference. However, knowing the default is going to be the most recent, I have no need to think beyond that simple fact if I need to use an older version of a program.

kevin_thibedeau2• 9 years ago

You should have just installed a minimal Debian system and start from that.

vacri• 9 years ago

Ubuntu is a checkpoint distro, Fedora is a rolling distro. There are benefits to both styles. Ultimately I don't think either will particularly affect your productivity, unless they interfere with the software you use.

Fedora, as a rolling distro, is not particularly suitable for (production) servers. You'd use CentOS for that, to keep familiar RedHat-family tooling.

Of course, Debian gives you both checkpoint ('stable') and rolling ('unstable'), so you can use the same thing on both server and workstation. :) Debian's not as warty as it used to be (I came to linux via ubuntu, and have been switching to debian on workstations + servers over the past couple of years)

EDIT: correction, Fedora is a checkpoint distro, but it doesn't support for long. IIRC it has 6-monthly releases with 12 months of support, whereas Ubuntu has 6-monthly with 18 months of support, and every 24 months you get a 5-year version. Basically Fedora needs to be upgraded twice a year, which isn't suitable for (production) servers.

uulbiy• 9 years ago

I have been using Fedora on the desktop for the last 7 years. There are lots of pros like large selection of mostly up-to-date packages, good community, security, sane defaults etc. The cons for me are the below par wiki (so I use the Arch wiki) and the version upgrades. The truth is the last few version upgrades were much easier that the previous ones.

Why would you use it over Ubuntu? Ubuntu has an important advantage over all other distros. When you try to install some not-so-common program that is not in the official repositories, usually the linux instructions assume that you are using Ubuntu. For an experienced user it's not really that important but for a novice it certainly is. Now, Ubuntu had some negative publicity with regards to the [amazon unity search](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_%28user_interface%29#Pri...) and Shuttleworth's response ["we have root"](https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/44512/what-does...). On the other hand Fedora, although sponsored by Red Hat, respects the community, so fortunately there were no incidents like that. Ubuntu also had Unity which users either loved or hated, while other distros focused on either Gnome or KDE.

On servers the options are more or less grouped. So, you should first chose between the group of Debian/Ubuntu, Fedora/Centos/RHEL, etc. Once you chose the group then you can chose the distro itself. The fact that I used Fedora on the desktop for so long made the choice of Fedora on the server much easier.

Finally, will Fedora increase your productivity? No, not really. Your setup will increase your productivity. Choices like using KDE or Gnome, or the setup of (keyboard) shortcuts to meet your needs matter. I hope this helps, have fun!

abarrett• 9 years ago

I distro-hopped a lot before somewhat reluctantly giving Fedora a shot. Turns out it's a fantastic distribution for developers because:

  - You don't have to configure everything from scratch
  - Packages are kept relatively up to date

It's not rolling release (unless you use Rawhide) but software is recent enough for it to be a non-issue.

It's also an extremely well-established project with a huge software repository.

nailer5• 9 years ago

Ubuntu has a history of doing things that don't go anywhere: upstart, unity, their phone thing. Fedora has concentrated on being a solid, traditional Linux desktop. If that's what you want, Fedora could be it.

Longhanks• 9 years ago

Ubuntu also has a history of things that go pretty well: Easy setup for average users including nonfree drivers, reaching a point of popularity where developers target Ubuntu first, PPAs as lightweight repositories for own packages, huge offspring of distros based on it.

Not everything is black and white, and while Ubuntu has failed in some aspects, it succeeded in others. Also, they are not hesitant to admit a failure, upstart is a thing of the past with Ubuntu using systemd, unity and "their phone thing" are being discontinued with focus shifting to the Gnome desktop and the traditional PC/Laptop/server market.

JdeBP4• 9 years ago

That argument would have worked better if it hadn't been the case that Fedora used upstart for a few years.

glogla• 9 years ago

Fedora has concentrated on being a solid, traditional Linux desktop.

If you consider pulseaudio, systemd and not being able to play mp3 traditional. Also, they used to fuck with encryption in some way, not sure if they still do it.

In the end, do you trust more Poettering or Debian or Ubuntu developers?

abrowne• 9 years ago

As long as "[doesn't] go anywhere" means in RHEL for upstart (before being replaced by systemd) and on more desktops than Fedora for Unity.

fundabulousrIII• 9 years ago

Fedora is bleeding edge for RHEL. This is the test distro for enterprise. If you want consistent behavior maybe fedora isn't for you. In general, RHEL has made some controversial decisions for userspace and fedora is the first place you will find these.

proaralyst3• 9 years ago

There've been a bunch of good answers already but I'd like to add another: the package manager (DNF) is _significantly_ better than APT. Parallel downloads, delta updates, automatic cache refreshes, all in one command, fast and with good feedback during updates.

merraksh• 9 years ago

Off topic, but it seems to me that the "Python 3 by default" logo has cobras, not pythons.

Qwertious• 9 years ago

Maybe it's a python pretending to be a cobra?

nippples• 9 years ago

tips fedora furiously

TeMPOraL• 9 years ago

Colorless green pythons tip fedoras furiously.

type0• 9 years ago

Relevant to their "Fedora Python initiative":

https://labs.fedoraproject.org/en/python-classroom/

drcwu• 9 years ago

Fedora can not be python3 only, if you want to have offline documents, e.g.: there is a `python2-matplotlib-doc`, which depends on `python2-matplotlib`, however no `python3-matplotlib-doc` or a generic `python-matplotlib-doc` exists.

On the other hand, ubuntu /debian packages are well organized at this point.

chroem-• 9 years ago

Another fine example of heartwashing. It just doesn't feel genuine when all these companies start plastering hearts all over everything.

hobarrera• 9 years ago

Python 3 by default

Two lines below:

However, /usr/bin/python remains Python 2, [...]

Not sure what they call "default". They seem to quote some PEP that only specified that this was okay during a transition period. I think we're WAY past that. If not, then the first statement is plainly wrong.

proaralyst3• 9 years ago

The PEP does say `should' and that a future PEP will require the python command to be Python 3.x.

Given a default Fedora install does not have the python command but does have python3, I'd say it's 3.x by default.

iamthad• 9 years ago

I read PEP 394 (https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0394) differently. It states

The more general python command should be installed whenever any version of Python 2 is installed and should invoke the same version of Python as the python2 command

Rather than permitting python to refer to python2 during a transition period, that is the recommendation. They later state

It is anticipated that there will eventually come a time where the third party ecosystem surrounding Python 3 is sufficiently mature for this recommendation to be updated to suggest that the python symlink refer to python3 rather than python2.

kingosticks2• 9 years ago

I believe this means that python3 is installed by default and python2 is not. /usr/bin/python is not installed unless python2 is installed.

PEP394 actually states the "recommendation will be periodically reviewed over the next few years, and updated when the core development team judges it appropriate.". You might think we are way past that, but it seems they don't.

Fedora Loves Python

Related Stories