Slashdot Mirror

Here is an excerpt from the fedora-announce email list: (Take note of the last torrent link.)

You can get Fedora Core 4 many ways:

VIA FEDORA.REDHAT.COM

* http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux /core/4/

VIA BITTORRENT

* http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/stentz-binary-i38 6.torrent
* http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/stentz-binary-x86 _64.torrent
* http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/stentz-binary-ppc .torrent

For DVD and other formats, see http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/

Core 4 comes with Eclipse and a JVM
http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc4/#s n-devel-gcc

What you end up needing is flash, acrobat (including plugin) mplayer or xine

http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc4/er rata/#id2503640

Fedora Core 4 users are advised not to use the Java RPM provided by Sun. It contains Provides that conflict with names used in packages provided as part of Fedora Core 4. Because of this, Sun Java might disappear from an installed system during package upgrade operations.

Fedora Core 4 users should use either the RPM from jpackage.org or manually install the Sun Java tarball into /opt. Sun Java 1.5+ is recommended for stability purposes.

Anything support here.
Regards,
Steve

I suggest you read their About page and Objectives page. FC exists as the "basis" for their commercial products. FC is not a "test bed" as you call it.

The packages they release are quite stable and are no more buggy than any other distribution. It's not anything like running Debian unstable/testing (which I did for several years before switching to FC).

I suggest you read their About page and Objectives page. FC exists as the "basis" for their commercial products. FC is not a "test bed" as you call it.

The packages they release are quite stable and are no more buggy than any other distribution. It's not anything like running Debian unstable/testing (which I did for several years before switching to FC).

It does seem nice, but I can't understand why they have the same samba/firewall problem they had in fc3 (which I run on 2 machines at home).

http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc4

Is it possible to install FC4 over FC3 without losing my manually installed additions?

The summary is wrong, the Fedora website does mention it.

Fedora Core 4 Available!

Fedora Core 4 is now available from Red Hat and at distinguished mirror sites near you, and is also available in the torrent. Fedora Core is available for x86-64, i386, and ppc/ppc64. Please file bugs via Bugzilla, Product Fedora Core, Version 4, so that they are noticed and appropriately classified. Discuss this release on fedora-list. - Source

http://ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/pub/Mirrors/fedor a.redhat.com/linux/core/4/i386/iso/>
http://ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/pub/Mirrors/fedor a.redhat.com/linux/core/4/i386/iso/
http://ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/pub/Mirrors/fedor a.redhat.com/linux/core/4/i386/iso/

http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/lin ux /core/4/>
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux /core/4/
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux /core/4/

ftp://ftp.tu-chemnitz.de/pub/linux/fedora-core/4/
ftp://ftp.tu-chemnitz.de/pub/linux/fedora-core/4 />
ftp://ftp.tu-chemnitz.de/pub/linux/fedora-core/4/

and many more....

dont wait for shitty slashdot to report on old news.

cuz nothin is older than the news of yesterday/yesterhour/yesterminute...

http://ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/pub/Mirrors/fedor a.redhat.com/linux/core/4/i386/iso/>
http://ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/pub/Mirrors/fedor a.redhat.com/linux/core/4/i386/iso/
http://ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/pub/Mirrors/fedor a.redhat.com/linux/core/4/i386/iso/

http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/lin ux /core/4/>
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux /core/4/
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux /core/4/

ftp://ftp.tu-chemnitz.de/pub/linux/fedora-core/4/
ftp://ftp.tu-chemnitz.de/pub/linux/fedora-core/4 />
ftp://ftp.tu-chemnitz.de/pub/linux/fedora-core/4/

and many more....

dont wait for shitty slashdot to report on old news.

cuz nothin is older than the news of yesterday/yesterhour/yesterminute...

The release notes are here. Major changes include:

• GNOME 2.10
• KDE 3.4
• OpenOffice 2
• Xen Virtualization
• PowerPC Support

I actually just did a new dual-boot install of Fedora Core 4, and Windows XP, and found Fedora Core 4 (the beta is the one I installed this past weekend) about 10 times easier to install than Windows XP. It was incredibly easier to configure after the installation, also.

Here is that commentary about my process (I am a first-time user of Linux):
http://www.mygadgetbag.com/MGBCommentary/tabid/183 /ctl/ArticleView/mid/575/articleId/319/Dualbooting WindowsXPandLinux.aspx

Also, for anyone wondering, here is a link to the newest updates that are in Fedora Core 4:
http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc4/#s n-new-in-fc

I am very happy with Fedora Core 4 (beta) after using it for a few days. The only thing I am having trouble with is connecting to the Yum repositories, as described on the Fedora FAQ.

The main Fedora site is updated now, also!

Unlike Debian, Red Hat doesn't care if their distribution runs on anything other than x86 so they can target making an X11 install that looks pretty.

You know, your comment started out ok, then it went downhill pretty unquick. The above statement is easily disproved just by looking at RedHat's website:

http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/configuration/

Let's see, support for the following architectures:
x86, Itanium 2, AMD64/EM64T, IBM POWER, zSeries, and S/390 Systems.

What was it you were saying about x86 again? Sorry, but you're just trolling...

Never link to glibc statically.

iptables -A OUTPUT -p TCP --sport 6699 -j REJECT

iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p tcp --dport 31337 --sport 31337 -j DROP

So, are they releasing it as an actual product that can/will be supported by Red Hat's support & support contracts, or are they just saying "Ok, Fedora project, you can have this. Have fun!" and letting it go at that?

Go read the docs, you'll find it is released as both Fedora-DS and RH-DS. I'll leave it to you to figure out which is a supported (as in pay and get a tech) and which is not.

yeah, I know, the "if you had competant admins you wouldn't need support" line,

Do you know the "yeah if you read the website you'd have known the answer" line? ;^)

http://www.redhat.com/en_us/USA/Home/Company/News% 2Band%2BEvents/Red%2BHat%2BPress%2BRelease%2BArchi ve/2005/Red%2BHat%2BAnnounces%2BDirectory%2BServer .html

They did both. That isn't difficult to understand.

I think this move by Red Hat is trying to lock-out free-as-in-beer Linux.

Before I get modded down:
-Red Hat will continue to contribute to Linux.

-Red Hat will still promote most things good for Linux as in patents and other IP issues.

I think they are becoming as proprietary as possible. For example, they recently open-sourced the Fedora Directory Project. http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Main_Page

I (boldly/foolishly) predict the administration tools won't get open-sourced. Because there is way more value (to PHB's) in delivering point-and-click GUI admin than just foo.conf admin. That there might really be IP issues will be the official reason for keeping it proprietary.

Redhat still trying to figure out how to lure the opensource community back.

Are you talking about the open source community that includes people like Alan Cox, Ingo Molnar, Havoc Pennington, and Owen Taylor? It never left.

Are you part of a new, anti-RedHat OSS community? What have you written?

Redhat still trying to figure out how to lure the opensource community back.

Are you talking about the open source community that includes people like Alan Cox, Ingo Molnar, Havoc Pennington, and Owen Taylor? It never left.

Are you part of a new, anti-RedHat OSS community? What have you written?

Redhat still trying to figure out how to lure the opensource community back.

Are you talking about the open source community that includes people like Alan Cox, Ingo Molnar, Havoc Pennington, and Owen Taylor? It never left.

Are you part of a new, anti-RedHat OSS community? What have you written?

Wasn't Fedora Core 4 supposed to be released today and taken out of beta?

At one point, yes. But the date's been pushed back to next week.

It was delayed a week.
Here's the public release schedule.

This licence, contrary to LGPL, explicitely lists the Approved Interfaces in a file named EXCEPTION.
So if external code is linked to code not declared in this file, it is covered by the GPL.

Where the LGPL-like freedom stops is here: "Only Red Hat, Inc. may make changes or additions to the list of Approved Interfaces." So if you (assuming you are not Red Hat) want to add interfaces to a fork, they will be covered by the pure GPL as the exception clause will not apply.

Looks like you can pull it from anonymous CVS, though the build procedure looks to be quite complex, but I don't see why you can't do it on Gentoo. There may be valid reasons to choose another LDAP implentation, but this one should at least build on any Linux.

http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Building

Have you READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE?
In case you haven't, I'll save you the pain of clicking on 3 links and point you directly at http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Annotated_ GPL_Exception_License#Special_Exception

Unfortunately, this will probably mean OpenLDAP will fade into insignificance, but I may be wrong !

Why? KDE vs gnome? freebsd vs linux? It's not going to dissapear...

Same happened to QT vs Harmony if anyone remembers (Harmony died when QT went for GPL if I remember)...

In order to make the Directory Server software available as soon as possible, some components will not be released as open source in the first release. Initially just the LDAP server itself is being released. The administration server and end-user console are not being released as open source at this time. However, the binaries will be available for those other components, so the full console, management, and web based applications will be available, just not the source code

It's basically a half way point between the GPL and the LGPL.

For most Open Source developers the easiest thing to do is to just use the software under the GPL.

However, if you use the software as a library, and only make use of the specific APIs that Red Hat has listed, then it effectively becomes like the LGPL. You are not obliged to release your code under the GPL.

But unlike the LGPL, the set of allowed APIs is fixed, and defined by Red Hat. In a LGPL program you can open up new APIs and change existing APIs and as long as you release your changes to the library, you don't need to GPL your program. With the Fedora Directory Server, you can change the APIs all you want, but the new APIs you create can only be used under the GPL - i.e. you have to release your program under the GPL too.

It's covered at on the wiki.
As for evil/not evil, I'd say "not evil". It's seemingly designed to allow existing closed source software that used the NS directory to keep doing the same thing with FDS, but they've done a good job of preventing those users from getting a free run. They get to keep using the same APIs that they've always used, and now they have the freedom to fix bugs in the directory, but they don't get all the freedoms that GPL developers will get.

Here's an annotated version of the license:

http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Annotated_ GPL_Exception_License

The Exception is explained here

It states:

GPL Exception License Text
From Fedora Directory Server

This is the text of the Licensed used in the Core of the Directory Server code. For more of an explaination, please see the annotated license text for a more in-depth description.

This Program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; version 2 of the License.

This Program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this Program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA.

LC:here it comes

In addition, as a special exception, Red Hat, Inc. gives You the additional right to link the code of this Program with code not covered under the GNU General Public License ("Non-GPL Code") and to distribute linked combinations including the two, subject to the limitations in this paragraph. Non-GPL Code permitted under this exception must only link to the code of this Program through those well defined interfaces identified in the file named EXCEPTION found in the source code files (the "Approved Interfaces"). The files of Non-GPL Code may instantiate templates or use macros or inline functions from the Approved Interfaces without causing the resulting work to be covered by the GNU General Public License. Only Red Hat, Inc. may make changes or additions to the list of Approved Interfaces. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of the Program code and other code used in conjunction with the Program except the Non-GPL Code covered by this exception. If you modify this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the file, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to provide this exception without modification, you must delete this exception statement from your version and license this file solely under the GPL without exception.

I will let others decide on its evilness factor.

Not true. Fedora Test releases are like Betas. Actual Fedora releases are rather solid. Specifically, FC2 & FC3, which I've used exclusively on all my servers, home systems, and work laptops in the last year.

fc release schedule

Not true.

Free RedHat doesn't exist anymore.

http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/compare/client /

As you can see, the cheapest version of RedHat is $179, but that only includes patches for one year. After that, it's another $49/year IIRC.

This is where the cost argument of Linux falls down somewhat. You basically have the 'wobbly' support of the community (FedoraUpdates for example) who provide a superb service but you couldn't run a critical business on it, simply because it is run by volunteers and you don't know if they'll have the resources or admin in the next 1, 2 or 5 years time.

Then you have Ubuntu which looks extremely promising - 18 months of guaranteed updates, but that pales in comparision to Microsoft's 10 and RedHat's 5.

I will be using Ubuntu for all my new installs now simply because it's a superb distro and I know that the maintainers of it care about having things just work, and don't expect me to jump through big hoops to upgrade it.

But really, Microsoft is the best deal when it comes to pricing for long-term. 10 years of upgrades for as little as $50 (if you got your license bundled with a Dell or similar) is a superb deal for client licensing.

However, for Linux I think Ubuntu or Novell/SUSE is a superb option. RedHat really do look insanely expensive.

They sell stuff. Specifically, RHEL, and support for it.

Interesting choice of release date, with it scheduled as the released date of Fedora Core 4. Fedora. http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/schedule/

I sure its just coincidence...

Fedora Core 4 is also scheduled for June 6.

This post was surely inspired from this message to libc-alpha.

He's curt to the point of being rude, and I'm surprised anyone wants to develop on anything he's involved with. I wonder if the more social glibc developers like Roland agree with his position?

I've never used Knoppix but either you need to try a different distro or your modem came with a disc or a CD in which you can install the driver for it. Some hardware does actually come with drivers for linux while others are already supported by linux. Make sure there arn't any disks that you left in the box and try to use something like Debian http://www.debian.org/ or Suse http://www.novell.com/linux/suse/, Red Hat http://www.redhat.com/, Ubuntu http://www.ubuntulinux.org/, or maybe even a smaller distro like Ark http://www.arklinux.org/.

Knoppix is not the only Linux out there and by no means is it the best nor most popular. Hell I just gave you the better known ones. You could also try BSD. Just go to google and type in "BSD". Try dragonfly, Free, Net, or open BSD. Don't think that because one distro doesn't work that the others won't either. Each distro is very different.

Hope that helps, cause you don't seem to know about to many distro's.

Take Pound, a few web server machines, a database server and a NFS server (no Coda, AFS or GFS needed in most cases) and you should be set. This is a setup that I installed for a high traffic website and it is very stable.

Red Hat will provide maintenance for RHEL for 7 years after General Availability. I agree with you that Red Hat charge too much for RHEL - a less expensive version with no email or phone support would be great. As it is, there is always CENTOS.

Where are the other bits of software that once was Netscape Suitespot?

Netscape Calendar was not actually developed by Netscape, but was a version of CS&T's CorporateTime system. CS&T later renamed to Steltor, and is now part of Oracle, CorporateTime forming a large part of their colloboration suite.

Both Netscape and Sun got copies of everything when iPlanet split. Sun still develops and sells them, first as Sun ONE, now as Java Enterprise System. Netscape tried to keep development going for a while, but it kind of stagnated (much in the same way that the Netscape browser stopped moving after the AOL aquisition).

Redhat also got Certificate Server and Enteprise Server (the web server) as part of their deal, see http://www.redhat.com/software/rha/netscape/ for more.

So where is the other Netscape software? I'm mostly talking about Messaging Server, which is an awesome piece of software, and Collabra Server, which .. isn't. Presumably they're still kicking around in a CVS in the depths of AOL somewhere. Anybody else know anything?

First off, it's the "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE", not the "Gnu Protective License". This mistake casts doubt on your knowledge of the subjects which you are discussing.

Aside from the fact that ext2 doesn't need to be defragmented in the first place ( https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2003-D ecember/msg04120.html ) - which makes yours an understandable mistake, considering that you are used to working with a system as horribly untidy as Windows - there are indeed tools for doing just that ( http://e2fsprogs.sourceforge.net/ext2.html ).

Second, you need only make code changes available if the binaries are distributed - your lawyers are obviously not doing their job properly. Perhaps you hired divorce lawyers instead of ones trained in IP law? ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt ) Aside from the fact that you don't have to in the first place, sharing your alterations with those who provided you the original source is still nothing more than a nice thing to do - If you put your changes in, and your competition does the same, then who comes out ahead?

If your lawyers were competent, they would realize that the GPL does not require that program output - such as a program compiled by GCC - be open sourced. ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt ) It would appear that you are getting your information on linux and open source from Microsoft's propaganda campaign. Do you feel stupid for expecting the truth about linux from a competing vendor?

Microsoft's "Shared Source" license is one of the most draconian pieces of trash I'ce ever seen, and the GPL is Linux's strength. As for your mistaken claim that no companies use linux, I would like to cite some examples:

IBM and their linux initiative
Sony chose linux as the OS of choice for the PS2 AND PS3
Pixar uses Linux for it's rendering clusters
Chrysler is using Linux to simulate vehicle crashs
Linksys routers run Linux

Should I continue to cite examples from the endless string of major companies that rely on linux for matters critical to their very survival?

You, my good man, are both misinformed and completely lacking in a desire to learn the truth.

So you maintain your own repository. Is there software to auto deploy updates to tens of thousands of machines based upon their machine name, location, role or other details? And maintain an inventory of what machines need updating, and what machines have what software?

Linux is very ad-hoc. It just sort of "grew." It was developed in many places by many people, few of them working together with the big context of "the Linux system" in mind.

This is the typical response of a BSD fanboy when comparing his/her BSD with "Linux", not with a Linux distro. Let's do a real comparison. I'll use RedHat Linux and Debian in most examples.

OpenBSD is the opposite. People working on OpenBSD core packages have a specific kernel, userland, config script, etc., etc. in mind. There is a concept of "the OpenBSD system" and it is fairly consistent.

You can say EXACTLY THE SAME about the Linux distros I mentioned. Both RedHat and Debian have their own "generic kernels", core pkgs, etc.

The fact is, OpenBSD just does things the Right Way. People say OpenBSD's big strength is security, but that's slightly missing the point. OpenBSD's strength is correctness. From correctness yields stability, security, and all around ease of use.

Well, let see where's the hype...
Google, one (if not the most) popular search engine in the planet depends on Linux. So does Amazon.com, Earth's largest library, and MerrylLynch, one of the world's leaders in financial investments. In all cases, the stability and performance required are state of the art, and needless to say, these 3 institutions have more things to keep secure and more things to worry about than all institutions using OpenBSD combined. Just take a look at the testimonials in the OpenBSD website: http://www.openbsd.org/users.html

Now it's time to use the 2nd most popular argument of the fanboys: they use linux because of the hype.

Let's assume that three of the most powerful companies on the internet invest millions of dollars in a technology fad. Let's see what the experts are using:

The University of California, Berkeley, the alma mater of the BSDs does not use OpenBSD. Actually, they barely use FreeBSD because most computers use Debian Linux. So does the MIT, which uses mostly Red Hat Linux and Athena, its own distro. Same thing in Stanford and CMU.

NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory uses Linux to build better spacecraft and make accurate calculations, such as the on-board navigational computers of space probes and airborne Scanning Radar Altimeter to study hurricanes. http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3936. They use it in the Institutional Navigation System Software (INSS) in all flight projects (Galileo, Cassini, Mars, DS1, Stardust, etc.) It contains 4.5 million lines of source code. Guess what? They use RedHat.

The U.S. Army manages personnel records for 1.2 million U.S. Army soldiers, and they access those records reliably and securely anytime, from any place via a Web interface. They use RedHat, not OpenBSD. http://www.redhat.com/solutions/info/casestudies/u sarmy.html

I can go on and on forever, but this is useless. Most of the OpenBSD fans are amateurs reading crypto books, not security professionals.

I was wondering what Kudzu had to do with decreasing drinking? I'd think that if Kudzu didn't find your new hardware it would actually have the opposite effect.

Re: software patents, there's a whole lot going wrong. More to the point, just about everyone knows it's wrong -- except for IP lawyers, for whom this is all a tremendous boon, and who will fight tooth-and-nail to keep the system that way. It's just a matter of:

1. Understanding why it's wrong;
2. Formulating a clear position;
3. Taking that position to your congressman;
4. Over and over and over.

Did you know that the USPTO has a public advisory board? Did you know that it's populated almost entirely by IP attorneys?

http://www.redhat.com/magazine/007may05/features/p atents/

Or Mandrake package repository, or yum server, or a dir full or packages (which up2date can use) or so on. I've done that before, and it works pretty well.

Problem is, the logic about what's going to be installed happens on the clients (fine, you'll have a meta package opn the server descriving client config). And if a change pisses you off, you've got to have a rollback method (okay, you'll code that yourself). A profiling (you'll do that yourself too). And a auto deployment system to create custom kickstart files so you can deploy new machines quickly (yeah, this is starting to look like serious work).

Management Satellite is a centralized web based config and deployment system. Add a few hundred machines to a group, work with a set of groups (ANDed and ORed and so on), create a config profile (perhaps from an existing machine), then change what's in that package/config profile and watch from the web based GUI as the couple of hundred machines make the change happen (using the Jabber protocol). Revert the change.

Boot a clean machine from the network and watch as the distro, all third party software, your custom configuration, and attaching to the Management Satellite server for future config/package changes happen for you. See a new machine on the server added to the group, with it's IBM or Dell or HP asset tag and a bunch of hardware info included so you can use it for asset tracking (there's room for arbitrary notes about each box).

Works with Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Solaris clients.

http://www.redhat.com/software/rhn/provisioning/

http://www.redhat.com/software/rhn/tour/

Two things to keep in mind:

1. Linux system management offerings across the board are a *ton* cheaper than their counterparts for other OSes -- largely because the mechanisms for installing and uninstalling software are integrated much more tightly into the OS. RPM is built into SuSE and Red Hat in a way that installshield never will be. But hey -- price it out and see.

2. This kind of service is *precisely* what an enterprise customer pays for. The ability to roll out hundreds of packages to thousands of systems, on demand, is what differentiates a large enterprise, that can pay a lot of money, from a small mom-and-pop. Small moms-and-pops? Install an apt server for your Ubuntu packages, or whatever. Growing company? You can spend a year's salary on a sysadmin who build and run your package distribution infrastructure for 200 systems, or you can pay a fraction of that for a system built to do that in 10% of a sysadmin's time. Like, say, Red Hat Network.

Well-meaning nitpick from the peanut gallery: the red fedora is trademarked, not copyrighted.

In fact Red Hat, Inc. has actually gone to some effort to clarify things here and/or here.

Well-meaning nitpick from the peanut gallery: the red fedora is trademarked, not copyrighted.

In fact Red Hat, Inc. has actually gone to some effort to clarify things here and/or here.

This is an annual subscription. You get automatic updates via RHN (plus a lot of other crunch RHN goodness). I believe you might even be able to set up a local satellite server for updates. It's quite a good deal.