Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Linux 7.3 Released
qurob was the first of many readers to submit
that Red Hat 7.3 has been released.
Press release doesn't contain any surprises, just lists a bunch of stuff thats
included with the dist. (Evolution, Mozilla, Apache). So go find a mirror if
you're a Red Hat runner. Update: 05/06 14:05 GMT by T : christooley helpfully points out this list of mirrors.
you'd think they would have touted kde3 a bit more instead of putting it at the bottom of the list. isn't this the first major distro to ship with the newest version of kde?
With up2date, how much longer can RedHat release CDs?
It has been our policy at work for some time now to grab whatever the latest release is, run up2date on it, and modify a CD image of the old CD so it has the new RPMs.
Is this prevalent? Will it become more so?
Jouster
Thankfully their "New Features" page is wrong. It lists the new Mozilla build as 0.9.2 but the RPM for the installation is for 0.9.9. On the other hand I notice that the page title still reads "New Features for RedHat Linux 7.2" so it's probably not done yet. :)
This may be a minor point, but Red Hat deserves credit for calling this release "7.3" instead of "8.0". Especially when their pattern for years now has been x.0, x.1, x.2, x+1.0..., it shows admirable restraint for them to break the pattern and resist the temptation to call this a major-version release, when it is in fact an update release. Let's hear it for truth in advertising!
I've noticed a serious improvment in kernel interactivity. GUI applications on the 2.4.9-ish kernels that Red Hat was shipping for 7.2 ran like a dog whenever I tried to run a build or two of a large software project in the background.
I had been applying the preemptive kernel patches, which improved things a little, but still left GUI response jerky (completely subjective on my part). The 2.4.18-ish kernels in the 7.3 beta didn't have this responsiveness problem at all.
So, if you aren't into rolling your own kernels, and you frequently find your CPU load higher than 1, the upgrade may be worth it for you for that alone.
emacs-21.2
Is is possible (and easy) to use up2date to upgrade from 7.2 to 7.3, at least for certain packages like KDE?
I've been meaning to upgrade to KDE3, even have the RPMs, but up2date works so much better.
Does anybody know which VM (AA's or RvR's) is used in the accompaning 2.4.18 kernel? Alan Cox is using the RvR-VM in his ac-branch, so Red Hat Linux 7.3?
7.3 is apparently still packaged with the vulnerable zlib 1.1.3 version.
Red Hat release numbers indicate the version of the C library (for binary-compatibility) - like so:
OpenOffice 1.0 was released way too late to get through the QA process (can't reveal the schedule of course, but take a look at the changelogs in packages to get an idea about when the release had to be deep-frozen
There are a couple of other things that prevent it from getting into Rawhide at the moment.
Off the top of my head (there are probably some more):
These are all fixable because it's Open Source, but they require a considerable amount of time.
Also, the database application is missing (because it couldn't be relicensed), and some people depend on it.
I'm expecting OpenOffice in the base distribution in the next release... But this is not an official statement and much less a promise.
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
Didn't Mandrake ship with KDE 2.2.2, saying that KDE 3 was too unstable? And if Mandrake thought it was unstable, do you really want to use it?
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
There's not much of a problem with 2.96.
Earlier versions than 2.96 are not an option because they don't do real C++ (see http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html).
3.0.x releases are rather broken and don't have any real advantages over the current builds of 2.96.
gcc 3.1 will be a very good release, even better than 2.96. It is what we're likely to use in the next major release (unless, of course, gcc 3.2 comes first and is good).
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
The part I'm referring to is this:
2. License to Distribute Software. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including, but not limited to Section 4 (Java Technology Restrictions) of these Supplemental Terms, Sun grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license to reproduce and distribute the Software, provided that (i) you distribute the Software complete and unmodified (unless otherwise specified in the applicable README file) and only bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Programs, (ii) the Programs add significant and primary functionality to the Software, (iii) you do not distribute additional software intended to replace any component(s) of the Software (unless otherwise specified in the applicable README file), (iv) you do not remove or alter any proprietary legends or notices contained in the Software, (v) you only distribute the Software subject to a license agreement that protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms contained in this Agreement, and (vi) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software. (vi) include the following statement as part of product documentation (whether hard copy or electronic), as a part of a copyright page or proprietary rights notice page, in an "About" box or in any other form reasonably designed to make the statement visible to users of the Software: "This product includes code licensed from RSA Security, Inc.", and (vii) include the statement, "Some portions licensed from IBM are available at http://oss.software.ibm.com/icu4j/".
IANAL, but for me, this implies:
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
First of all, don't use 2.4.7-anything.
It has some major problems including a remote root exploit. Please upgrade to either the 7.2 errata kernel, 2.4.9-something, which fixes all known security problems, or the 7.3 kernel.
So there are two possibilities:
1) fsked up my 2.4.18 config, and thus ended up compiling a really crappy kernel. But I've been compiling kernels since 1.2.13, and have yet to have one behave anywhere NEAR this badly.
2) RH have significantly hacked 2.4.7 to make it useful. Does anyone know whether the same hacks have happened for the 7.3 kernel?
2, and possibly 1 as well.
Red Hat kernels are always patched quite a bit to make them more stable/usable, but 2.4.18 doesn't look THAT bad for me (maybe related to different hardware or different setups).
Since kjournald appears to be the culprit, the Red Hat version of 2.4.18 is likely to fix the problem because it uses a newer version of ext3 and everything related to it.
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html