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.

Comments

KDE3

[magicslax]

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?

Re:KDE3

[GrenDel Fuego]

Suse 8.0 includes KDE 3.0, and was released last month.

Re:KDE3

[Mandi Walls]

eh, they're a buncha crazy gnome freaks.

bastards like python, too.

may as well just put hot pokers in my eyes.

--mandi
(fan of purple linux...)

Re:KDE3

[Diabolical]

Actually, SuSE 8.0 ships since a couple of weeks with KDE3. So, no, Red Hat isn't the first one to ship with KDE3. I don't know if there are other distro's shipping with KDE3...

Re:KDE3

[odaiwai]

RH's autoconfig is pretty good. I can only recall one case of needing a driver because the supplied one didn't work, and that was something relatively unusual like a specific gigabit ethernet card. Otherwise, the stock kernels and installs have been fine.

dave

Re:KDE3

[HiThere]

Yeah, but the python seems to be stuck at 1.5.

I know they include python2, but I assume there must be some reason for this. The first time it happened it was because of a licensing problem, but that's been solved (so now they *do* distribute python2).

Perhaps they're just being conservative, but the bug list on Python 2.2.1 (and 2.1.3) didn't list any bug that is obvious to me as a reason to stick with 1.5. I'd sure like to know what it is.

Re:KDE3

[johnnyb]

Simple - it's not backward-compatible. In order for backward-incompatible changes to go in, they need to release a new major number (i.e., 8.0).

Whats new Link

[bruceg]

HERE is a link to whats new in this release.

Re:Whats new Link

[christooley]

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. :)

Re:Whats new Link

[Zeio]

They removed linuxconf (good text console based configurator). You can get it here. RedHat still hasn't learned to use a real GCC release and instead they continue to use that lame 2.96. (so you will have to get GCC 2.95.3 for Linux 2.5 kernel compiles (per the directions in their docs) and get GCC 3.0.4 for everything else. This is getting ANNOYING, RedHat. ANNOYING.) "kgcc" (gcc 2.91.66-egcs.1.1.2-release)is still there for 2.4 builds.

KDE 3/ XFree 4.2 had some video corruption for me on a cheesy ATI card in a server, but no show stoppers. Seems like more goodness from the KDE team.

Good - they use glibc 2.2.5 - a standard GNU release, but they compiled it with the LAME 2.96 compiler. We shall SEE if they got the compiler It has been said that if a broken compiler compiles a library the library can be strangely broken and very difficult to debug. This goes to show RedHat why they shouldn't do this, and properly couple GLIBC 2.2.5 with GCC 3.0.4 as intended by GNU. Bero seems adamant about maintaining a 2.96 fork, which is costing time and resources and annoying users. I wouldn't care so much if 1.1.2, 2.95.3, 3.04 and RH-BROKEN.296-special were all included, but such is not the case. Lame.

Now that 2.2.5 can be compiled by GNU GCC, as well as KDE, RedHat is just being spiteful and not properly deprecating GCC 2.96X.

I give this a 5/5, because it's not a bad system, but it will require a man's touch. Mandrake and SuSE are starting to give this a run for its money, for sure.

NOTE: RedHat, please, just make it easier to play with the system and include the stuff that we all will go and download 20 seconds after install. Please. This compiling compilers like 2.95.3 and 3.0.4 is a waste of my time.

All in all, its good to upgrade at this point if you run a server to not have to do all the updates.

Note: About my insinuations about GCC 2.96 brokenness, I work side by side with a person who used to be on the GCC/GNU team, and has found strange bugs in certain version of the glibc that has been compiled by the 2.96 series. It went away when using release glibc compiled by release GCC. I personally have seen evidence that this is not FUD concerning GCC 2.96 - so please, all the flaming Bero zealots explain why is it now better to have a kluged compiler when the GCC team has far superceded it?

Re:Whats new Link

[Tet]

RedHat is just being spiteful and not properly deprecating GCC 2.96X.

No, Red Hat are just following their published policy of maintaining binary compatibility between releases with the same version number. Sure, they *could* have upped the version to 8.0, but then they'd have had to bump it up to 9.0 once gcc 3.x reaches sufficient stability, and that would have alienated a whole bunch of people a lot more than their current strategy. Whatever you may believe, gcc 3.x isn't yet ready for prime time. Remember that a company like Red Hat have to devote significant resources to support, and they will (as they should) follow whatever strategy leads to the most stable system, and hence the one that sucks least resoruces from the company. Red Hat aren't perfect, and have screwed up in various ways in the past. However, on this issue, I'm 100% behind them...

Re:Whats new Link

[Zeio]

I do not deprecate RedHat, and I use them - they are to me decidedly not evil.

However, why did gcc3 appear in 7.2 and not 7.3? All I ask is that yes, they can compile how they see fit, and so can I. My only request is to for them to provide the rest of the compilers for me that have been cleanly installed "their way," so that I don't have to go through the same shenanigan every time I upgrade or change a system or install a new one, etc.

On a side note, as far as GCC 3.X not being prime time, for C is surely is, I don't know about the rest, but for C its, as far as I can see, quite useable, stable and reliable with some interesting new optimizations. I also like ICC, from Intel, but they have very strange and frustrating licensing weirdness, and the kernel can't be compiled with it.

A lot of the GCC 3 is broke with regards to the C++, that's a crock. Both sides blame the other, but from what I have seen, most of the crap that doesn't compile right on GCC 3.x is the writer's fault, not the compiler. Think, what is harder, writing hello world or writing a compiler to compile hello world. I'm more inclined to believe the compiler guy that has to work on the project.

I see the reason to maintain binary compatibility to a point. For their manageability it makes sense, to some degree. So if its easier for them to put stuff out, go ahead.

I think that GNU has been a great force in the world, and to uselessly outpace them or point fingers at them is frustrating and bad for both sides of the camp.

One more note on RedHat, I am what would be the "customer," I do buy the media and get RH with new systems, etc. "Customers" who use this as a server don't like things being out of whack. I wish I could make it a requirement that the EGCS 1.1.2 release, 2.95.3 release, GCC 3.0.X release be included already to make things easier. It was there in 7.2, and then yanked out. I didn't hear the pissing and whining from the usual suspects about why this was done, but, I can only imagine they went off in some strange direction and have to dig themselves out quietly and slowly form this bastard fork, which, NO "readme," or "install" doc *EVER, EVER* requests. Face it. 2.96 is some RedHat only (Not Mandrake, Not SuSE) strange kluge. Programmers ignore in favor of GNU releases. Debian ignores it. It's a strange wart that needs wart removing acid, now. ;p

Re:Whats new Link

[Papineau]

A lot of the GCC 3 is broke with regards to the C++, that's a crock.

There you have it! The C ABI is pretty standard, and doesn't change between compiler releases. But the C++ side does. That's why you need a different libstdc++ for each compiler release. It's possible to upgrade the C compiler of a system easily (ICC, the Borland one, GCC). The C++ compiler is a bit more work, and RH prefered to not do it right now, but when GCC 3 will be ready for prime time (whether it's 3.0.4, 3.1, PI or 3.2 is not really relevant to the discussion).

Your suggestion of having 3 or 4 different releases of the same program is not a good idea: do you really expect users and developpers to choose between the different compilers dependant on the project they compile? "Do sdjy 0.58 needs EGCS 1.1.2, or is it safe to use 3.0.4? Oh right, it's 2.95.2." The goal of RH is to have only one: for the time being it's their own release, tagged 2.96-110, but it should evolve to a 3.?? based compiler for 8.0.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the gcc they ship now in 7.3 is tagged 2.96-110. Which means there's been a lot of patches applied since the beginning! When people grunt against gcc-2.96, they seldomly mention the RPM release. So yes, probably the first ones had a lot of problems (which explains why they shipped a kgcc in 7.0), but the current version works quite fine for me, even for kernel compilation (which explains why kgcc disappeared).

Re:Whats new Link

[Zeio]

RedHat develops for RedHat, no one out there develops OSS stuff for RedHat, more like GNU/Linux.

So, for RedHat internally, RedHat can use RedHat compilers.

For everyone else, there is GNU.

I have never used RH compiler for anything that I have done, and have compiler .SRC RPMS with the RELEASE compiler of my choice with no problems.

If I was actively developing, I would probably use Debian, or something far more conservative that what RedHat is right now.

This seems to be coming down to an interesting point in my mind; is this a server or a kiddie's workstation? Seems to me the motivation behind this deviance from release was to compile KDE, and arguably there were problems in KDE, because I never saw something like mozilla not compile, or any other convoluted and hairy C++ projects.

I think empirically coming up with opinions based on actually using a system is a valid way of doing things. Being "strategic" is not really imperative for RedHat's survival with regard to B2C. Most people who use RedHat still get driver RPMS in binary form from the vendor, don't compile anything and are GNU-impaired.. They do what MSFT has done, Dell is going to gleefully take and use your newest version. You don't really have to research your B2C commerce when you brokered large B2B deals. I would imagine that if RedHat was still more a B2C company, they would take this seriously.

About developers, they can read. If something calls for a compiler, you have to go install it anyway. You can compile with runtime specificity anyways, so more than one GNU compiler is easy. Case in point the 2.5 kernel. Boy, if I was a kernel hacker it would sure be nice to not have to go and install 2.95.3 RELEASE in usr/local.

The goal of RedHat is to make B2C customers happy, within reason. By the way, kgcc is still there in 7.3, and 90% of vendor supplied drivers, such as the e100 driver, check for kgcc and use it, because 2.96 is broken. I have all the updates, and the latest and greatest, and I can not for the life of my find valid reasons why RH avoids even putting in gcc3, like they did in 7.2 (that was a kluge by the way, it was a CVS checkout and not a release)

By the way, I don't think it's a good idea to comment about things, particularly kgcc, when its there in 7.3. That's like spreading FUD directly. I will proceed to show the audience that its still there, to date.


[root@rh73 root]# uname -a
Linux rh73 2.4.18-3 #1 Thu Apr 18 07:37:53 EDT 2002 i686 unknown
[root@rh73 root]# cat /etc/redhat-release
Red Hat Linux release 7.3 (Valhalla)
[root@rh73 root]# rpm -qa | grep cc
gcc-java-2.96-110
gcc-g77-2.96-110
gcc-2.96- 110
gcc-c++-2.96-110
gcc-chill-2.96-110
gcc-obj c-2.96-110

[root@rh73 root]# rpm -qa | grep compat
compat-glibc-6.2-2.1.3.2
XFree86-compat-l ibs-4.0.3-2
compat-egcs-c++-6.2-1.1.2.16
compat- egcs-objc-6.2-1.1.2.16
nss_db-compat-2.2-14
kde1 -compat-devel-1.1.2-11
kde2-compat-2.2.2-2
compa t-egcs-6.2-1.1.2.16
compat-libs-6.2-3
XFree86-co mpat-modules-3.3.6-44
compat-libstdc++-6.2-2.9.0. 16
compat-egcs-g77-6.2-1.1.2.16
kde1-compat-1.1. 2-11


And there you have it. So much for ONE compiler. EGCS 1.1.2 *AND* 2.96-110.

Like I said, I'm not RedHat's enemy, but it would be nice if they explained to people why (and did this with updated information and not the same old same old), and listened to my requirements, which are shared by everyone I know, particularly the OSS developers I know, who liked to use "matched sets" when possible.

Also, reader's note. In RedHat 7.2, Full Install, egcs 1.1.2, 2.96 and gcc 3.01(CVS) was included. That's 3 compilers.

You could have egcs 1.1.2 (for kernel-2.4 only), gcc 2.95.3(+CVS-stable if you are really picky) (this is what kernel 2.5 wants) and GCC 3.04 and *everything* I have ever used will compile, properly and cleanly. That's 3 release compilers, and it will all work.

To date there is a standing warning on using RedHat compilers by the kernel team. On several occasions I have seen posts to the kernel mailing lists with dmesg that indicated rh gcc was used, and the kernel hackers wont help them unless they use the proper compiler.

All in all this kind of argument makes it clear why SuSE and Mandrake and Debian and Slackware and TurboLinux have a place in the world today. They are all x86 primary, all backed by some major OEM in one way or another. RedHat could have wiped the floor, but technically, they have shortcoming that the others can address in one way or another.

It's times like these where I wish a big commercial entity put out their own dist from scratch, say IBM. Most of the Immunixes, HP-secure-linuxes ,etc, are rehashes of RedHat. Most notable what is different is the compiler ;p

Re:Whats new Link

[Papineau]

I see you have gcc-2.96 for C, java, C++, FORTRAN, objective-C and chill (although I don't know that last language). I also see you have egcs-1.1.2 for compiling C, C++, FORTRAN and obective-C code for a RH-6.2 target. You also have the libs to run those. If you check the 6.2 release, you can probably find some compat packages for targetting RH-5.2. And you can even install them if you want to target such an old release. You can probably even find some compat-libc5 rpms in RH-5.2. But in day to day use, or for compiling something for a RH-7.3 system, I don't see why you'd use egcs-1.1.2.

Back to kgcc... I don't see a kgcc in your rpm -a. By checking on a RH mirror, the only distro I can find with kgcc-1.1.2-40 is RH-7.0. After that, they always shipped only gcc-2.96-something (and it has been used extensively for kernels), except in 7.2 where gcc3 was also included. Unless you call kgcc something packaged as compat-egcs, there's no kgcc in 7.1, 7.2 nor 7.3.

Regarding the presence of gcc3 in RH-7.2, wasn't it meant as a technology preview only? Which explains both it's absence of 7.3 and the fact that it was a patched CVS checkout...

Of course, the other distributors can put whatever they want in their distros. The same way that some prefer CUPS and others LPRng. As long as they do the same thing...

Re:Whats new Link

[Zeio]

compat-egcs-6.2-1.1.2.16

So yes, there is a kgcc. Try it, kgcc -v.

Want to see the manifest for that?

The RPM is not called KGCC.

/usr/bin/egcs
/usr/bin/i386-glibc21-linux-gcc
/usr/bin/kgcc
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux
/usr/i386-gl ibc21-linux/bin
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/bin/i386- g libc21-linux-env.sh
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/inclu d e
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/lib
/usr/i386-glibc21- li nux/lib/gcc-lib
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/lib/gcc-l i b/i386-redhat-linux
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/lib/g c c-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96
/usr/i386-glibc21-li n ux/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/SYSCALLS.c.X
/ usr/i386-glibc21-linux/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-lin ux/2.96/cc1
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/lib/gcc-lib/i 3 86-redhat-linux/2.96/collect2
/usr/i386-glibc21-l i nux/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/cpp
/usr/i 3 86-glibc21-linux/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.9 6/cpp0
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/lib/gcc-lib/i386-r e dhat-linux/2.96/crtbegin.o
/usr/i386-glibc21-linu x / ib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/crtbeginS.o
/us r / 386-glibc21-linux/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2. 96/crtend.o
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/lib/gcc-lib/i 3 86-redhat-linux/2.96/crtendS.o
/usr/i386-glibc21- l inux/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/include
/ u sr/i386-glibc21-linux/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linu x/2.96/libgcc.a
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/lib/gcc-l i b/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/libgcc.map
/usr/i386-gli b c21-linux/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/specs
/ usr/i386-glibc21-linux/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-lin ux/2.96/tradcpp0
/usr/lib/gcc-lib
/usr/lib/gcc-l ib / 386-glibc21-linux
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-l i nux/egcs-2.91.66
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-li n ux/egcs-2.91.66/SYSCALLS.c.X
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i38 6 -glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/cc1
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/ i 386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/collect2
/usr/lib/ g cc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/cpp
/usr/l i b/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/cpp0
/u s r/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/crtb egin.o
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2 . 91.66/crtbeginS.o
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-l i nux/egcs-2.91.66/crtend.o
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-g l ibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/crtendS.o
/usr/lib/gcc-l i b/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include
/usr/li b / cc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/REA DME
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91 . 66/include/float.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21- l inux/egcs-2.91.66/include/iso646.h
/usr/lib/gcc-l i b/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/limits.h
/ usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/in clude/proto.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux / egcs-2.91.66/include/stdarg.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i3 8 6-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/stdbool.h
/u s r/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/incl ude/stddef.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/ e gcs-2.91.66/include/syslimits.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/ i 386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-alpha.h
/ usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/in clude/va-arc.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linu x / gcs-2.91.66/include/va-clipper.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib / i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-h8300.h
/ usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/in clude/va-i860.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-lin u x/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-i960.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib / i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-m32r.h
/ usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/in clude/va-m88k.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-lin u x/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-mips.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib / i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-mn10200 .
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66 / include/va-mn10300.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc2 1 -linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-pa.h
/usr/lib/gcc- l ib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-ppc. h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.6 6 / nclude/va-pyr.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-lin u x/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-sh.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i 3 86-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-sparc.h
/ usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/in clude/va-spur.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-lin u x/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-v850.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib / i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/varargs.h
/ usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/li bgcc.a
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2 . 91.66/libgcc.map
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-li n ux/egcs-2.91.66/specs
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc 2 1-linux/egcs-2.91.66/tradcpp0
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i3 8 6-redhat-linux
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux / egcs-2.91.66
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/e g cs-2.91.66/SYSCALLS.c.X
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-red h at-linux/egcs-2.91.66/cc1
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-r e dhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/collect2
/usr/lib/gcc-lib / i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/cpp
/usr/lib/gcc-l i b/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/cpp0
/usr/lib/gc c -lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/crtbegin.o
/u s r/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/crtbe ginS.o
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2. 9 1.66/crtend.o
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/ e gcs-2.91.66/crtendS.o
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redha t -linux/egcs-2.91.66/include
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386 - redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/README
/usr/lib / gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/flo at.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91 . 66/include/iso646.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat- l inux/egcs-2.91.66/include/limits.h
/usr/lib/gcc-l i b/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/proto.h
/ usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/inc lude/stdarg.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/ e gcs-2.91.66/include/stdbool.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i3 8 6-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/stddef.h
/usr / lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include / yslimits.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egc s -2.91.66/include/va-alpha.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386 - redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-arc.h
/usr/l i b/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/v a-clipper.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/eg c s-2.91.66/include/va-h8300.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i38 6 -redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-i860.h
/usr / lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include / a-i960.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs- 2 . 1.66/include/va-m32r.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redh a t-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-m88k.h
/usr/lib/g c c-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-mi ps.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91 . 66/include/va-mn10200.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-red h at-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-mn10300.h
/usr/l i b/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/v a-pa.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2. 9 1.66/include/va-ppc.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redha t -linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-pyr.h
/usr/lib/gcc - lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-sh.h
/ usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/inc lude/va-sparc.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linu x / gcs-2.91.66/include/va-spur.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i3 8 6-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-v850.h
/us r / ib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/ varargs.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs - 2.91.66/libgcc.a
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-lin u x/egcs-2.91.66/libgcc.map
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-r e dhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/specs
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i3 8 6-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/tradcpp0
/usr/share/d o c/compat-egcs-6.2
/usr/share/doc/compat-egcs-6.2/ C OPYING
/usr/share/doc/compat-egcs-6.2/COPYING.LIB
/ usr/share/doc/compat-egcs-6.2/README

Explain this, for example, in the e100 driver:
(e100-1.8.38)

# pick a compiler
ifneq (,$(findstring egcs-2.91.66, $(shell cat /proc/version)))
CC := kgcc gcc cc
else
CC := gcc cc
endif
test_cc = $(shell which $(cc) > /dev/null 2>&1 && echo $(cc))
CC := $(foreach cc, $(CC), $(test_cc))
CC := $(firstword $(CC))

Re:Whats new Link

[Zeio]

As a reply to myself, I'd like to point out to all the Zealots who support the broken 2.96, why does GENTOO completely compile from SOURCE, and support all the major packages RH-7.3 does using, the OH GOD, 2.95.3 COMPILER?!?!?!!?!!!!! I can't believe the FUD that gets spread about this compiler war that doesnt exist, only in RedHat's mind.

Gentoo Linux 1.1a

Gentoo Linux 1.1a features Linux 2.4.18+ and a modern GNU development environment (glibc-2.2.5, gcc 2.95.3), XFS, ReiserFS, ext3, LVM, ALSA, pcmcia-cs support, "vanilla" (stock) kernel compatibility for those who prefer unpatched kernels, Xfree86 4.2, OpenGL, KDE 3.0 and GNOME 1.4/2.0, tcp-wrappers, xinetd, iptables and Linux QoS tools, modern qmail (with optional mysql and LDAP support), postfix and exim MTAs, GRUB boot loader (LILO is still available if you need it), 1500+ up-to-date ebuild scripts of your favorite apps, an innovative dependency-based startup script design, and of course Portage, a completely open design and a great developer and user community.

Re:Whats new Link

[Zeio]

I think it might be Gentoo time.

As a reply to myself, I'd like to point out to all the Zealots who support the broken 2.96, why does GENTOO completely compile from SOURCE, and support all the major packages RH-7.3 does using, the OH GOD, 2.95.3 COMPILER?!?!?!!?!!!!! I can't believe the FUD that gets spread about this compiler war that doesnt exist, only in RedHat's mind.

Gentoo Linux 1.1a

Gentoo Linux 1.1a features Linux 2.4.18+ and a modern GNU development environment (glibc-2.2.5, gcc 2.95.3), XFS, ReiserFS, ext3, LVM, ALSA, pcmcia-cs support, "vanilla" (stock) kernel compatibility for those who prefer unpatched kernels, Xfree86 4.2, OpenGL, KDE 3.0 and GNOME 1.4/2.0, tcp-wrappers, xinetd, iptables and Linux QoS tools, modern qmail (with optional mysql and LDAP support), postfix and exim MTAs, GRUB boot loader (LILO is still available if you need it), 1500+ up-to-date ebuild scripts of your favorite apps, an innovative dependency-based startup script design, and of course Portage, a completely open design and a great developer and user community.

Sounds like RedHat minus the cruft and haphazard stuff. Funny how everything INCLUDING KDE 3.0 compiles.

Re:Whats new Link

[Menthos]

Gee, could you please stop the trolling? There's no reason to call a compiler broken just because you think it is (without proof). And this article was about Red Hat, not Gentoo.

Re:Whats new Link

[Zeio]

While I may not be able to say QED, I have personally seen evidence that leads me to believe there is something going on. I was merely pointing out that if Gentoo can compile essentially all of GNU with a "broken" and "heinous" compiler (with regards to 2.95.3), and producing a working dist (I have evidence, not proof that this is true as well), why RedHat chose to continue with his particular compiler.

I like RedHat, I aprecate them and wish them the best, but no one is without faults. Criticism can be constructive - and at this point, even if they are correct, the crap that has been said about 2.96 would have me running away from it to make the customers happy, or at least give them alternatives to suit their bias.

If a discussion of a feature in a distribution that's being announced isn't relevant to you and you refer to it as a troll, I'm sorry, Mr. Orwellian thought police brave new world prefect. You will not suppress me or my opinions or my experiences simply by trying to pass off an argument as a troll.

Re:Whats new Link

[Menthos]

While I may not be able to say QED, I have personally seen evidence that leads me to believe there is something going on.

So where is this "evidence"?

I was merely pointing out that if Gentoo can compile essentially all of GNU with a "broken" and "heinous" compiler (with regards to 2.95.3), and producing a working dist (I have evidence, not proof that this is true as well), why RedHat chose to continue with his particular compiler.

Ever heard about binary compatibility? The major version number of 7.x is there for a reason.

I like RedHat, I aprecate them and wish them the best, but no one is without faults. Criticism can be constructive

Well, your's isn't. You've been saying over and over in this thread that you think it's a broken compiler, but without ever mentioning why you think so. Thus it most certainly isn't "constructive criticism" because it lacks the fundamental part with the facts that would make it constructive.
Without it it is only seemingly pointless bad-mouthing.

and at this point, even if they are correct, the crap that has been said about 2.96 would have me running away from it to make the customers happy, or at least give them alternatives to suit their bias.

If you believe everything that people say, I wish you the best of luck.

If a discussion of a feature in a distribution that's being announced isn't relevant to you and you refer to it as a troll, I'm sorry, Mr. Orwellian thought police brave new world prefect. You will not suppress me or my opinions or my experiences simply by trying to pass off an argument as a troll.

Well, 1) you are not argumenting since you don't have any arguments besides "there are some other distributions that use some other compiler version" and 2) you aren't anything new that hasn't been carefully explained over and over on Slashdot and Bero's site for the last couple of years. Thus, unless you haven't been around for that long of a time and taken part in those discussions or read the explanations, you must be trolling.

Re:Whats new Link

[Zeio]

1) We compiled something here with 2.96 (C) it did not work. We compiled with 3.0.1 and it did. Since I cannot release our source code to the public as it isn't my property, you won't be seeing. We now use ICC because of the performance boost (that is considerable.) If RedHat took it upon itself to actually optimize the compiler, rather than what they have done, maybe I would use it.

2) I'm not inclined to believe what he says due to where he works - kind of simple.

3) Yes it is. As I am the one using the software, anything I say should be considered. Your snarky attitude will not help gain industry support for GNU. It's kind of amusing how large companies have to sugar coat this stuff because people like you won't even listen to someone's opinion. (Case in point: The fact Cobalt exists is a testament to customer requirements not being thoroughly evaluated by the likes of RedHat, there should have been NO room in the market for boxes like that.)

4) I believe what I see. I also want a choice. RedHat can compile anything it wants to with whatever compiler it wants to. I want to grab SRC RPMS or source packages and compile with what I want to.

5) Been around long enough, and Bero's site hasn't been updated in ages, that site was there before GCC 3 came along. He added a few uninspiring things about GCC 3 when it came along. Its funny, when that little tirade began it was RH-SECKR3T compiler vs. 2.91.66 and 2.95. It's like he did a replace with VI wherever there was 2.95 he put 3.01. I'm not inclined to believe the compiler hasn't been "fixed," because I don't consider the people working on GCC retarded, as you seem to.

While I don't claim to be an expert, or much of a contributor, lets just say this and a few other things makes me more interested in SuSE, Gentoo, Debian and Mandrake. Competition is good.

RedHat, prepare to lose market share. Shitting on people wit valid complaints and going against the grain doesn't win you friends or customers.

Thanks for trying to police my thought. As I had seen those pages before, and read them in their entirety, you have done nothing whatsoever to disarm my thinking about the RedHat compilers. I will continue to avoid them. You are way too evangelical, holding this Bero URL, a man with stock in the company being criticized, and holding it as gospel. It isn't.

Re:Whats new Link

[Menthos]

1) We compiled something here with 2.96 (C) it did not work. We compiled with 3.0.1 and it did. Since I cannot release our source code to the public as it isn't my property, you won't be seeing. We now use ICC because of the performance boost (that is considerable.) If RedHat took it upon itself to actually optimize the compiler, rather than what they have done, maybe I would use it.

So you are saying it doesn't work but you cannot reproduce it with any free sample code test case. Why on earth should I believe you? A test case shouldn't be that hard to produce, and you'd have to do that anyway if you wanted the alleged compiler error to get fixed. But there isn't a free test case. Only God knows why...

2) I'm not inclined to believe what he says due to where he works - kind of simple.

Understandable. He works at Red Hat and can be believed to have opinions in favor of Red Hat, so everything he says should be taken with a grain of salt. But you're not prepared to discuss anything he says. He brings up a lot of reasons for going with gcc-2.96-rh but all you say is "he works at Red Hat so I will completely ignore anything he says" instead of debating the individual points. Me thinks it's easier for you to dismiss him altogether rather than actually debating individual claims. Maybe because he actually brings up valid points?
Also, what you asked here was why Red Hat includes this compiler in their new version. I find it kind of natural that the full answer to this question you will only get from people working at Red Hat. But you won't accept an answer from a person working at Red Hat?!

3) Yes it is. As I am the one using the software, anything I say should be considered.

Maybe if you are paying for the software. I don't know if you or your company payed for your Red Hat boxes. But I can tell you that this "you should damn well listen to me when I say you suck" policy otherwise wont get you anywhere in the free software world. It's terribly rude and people (including developers) tend to avoid and ignore people that are rude, regardless of what they say have merits or not. There's only so much crap a single individual can take.

Your snarky attitude will not help gain industry support for GNU.

Who has the snarky attitude? In any case, I neither work for Red Hat nor speak for GNU.

It's kind of amusing how large companies have to sugar coat this stuff because people like you won't even listen to someone's opinion.

Not if they cannot provide valid criticisms in a polite manner, no.

(Case in point: The fact Cobalt exists is a testament to customer requirements not being thoroughly evaluated by the likes of RedHat, there should have been NO room in the market for boxes like that.)

This is getting terribly off-topic.

4) I believe what I see. I also want a choice. RedHat can compile anything it wants to with whatever compiler it wants to.

I'm happy that you give them that freedom.

I want to grab SRC RPMS or source packages and compile with what I want to.

Well, noone says you aren't allowed to (except for maybe support issues but I take it that you can live without that).

5) Been around long enough, and Bero's site hasn't been updated in ages, that site was there before GCC 3 came along. He added a few uninspiring things about GCC 3 when it came along. Its funny, when that little tirade began it was RH-SECKR3T compiler vs. 2.91.66 and 2.95. It's like he did a replace with VI wherever there was 2.95 he put 3.01. I'm not inclined to believe the compiler hasn't been "fixed," because I don't consider the people working on GCC retarded, as you seem to.

No I don't. And out of the core GCC developers, many of them are actually employed by Red Hat. Go figure. So Red Hat obviously knows something about compilers.

While I don't claim to be an expert, or much of a contributor, lets just say this and a few other things makes me more interested in SuSE, Gentoo, Debian and Mandrake. Competition is good.

Fully agreed. But your right to use anything else that you want to use doesn't give you the right to bad-mouth others without reason.

RedHat, prepare to lose market share. Shitting on people wit valid complaints and going against the grain doesn't win you friends or customers.

Now here is that trolling part again. You extract your discomfort with the Red Hat compiler into some holy war against Red Hat, and claim that a secret "Red Hat wants no customers" conspiracy exists. That's totally unfounded, irrelevant, and brings nothing to the discussion except for a lot of hot air. Trolling.

Thanks for trying to police my thought.

I'm not. I'm just trying to bring some sanity into your rants. It seems I have failed, because you are obviously still not prepared for having a serious discussion.

As I had seen those pages before, and read them in their entirety, you have done nothing whatsoever to disarm my thinking about the RedHat compilers. I will continue to avoid them.

You are free to.

You are way too evangelical, holding this Bero URL, a man with stock in the company being criticized, and holding it as gospel.

I'm not. I just want to have a serious discussion about compiler choices instead of one persons unfounded rant and bad-mouthing. Given this, it is only natural to start the discussion with debating some of the topics regarding Red Hat's compiler choice that Bero brings up. Debating individual claims and whether they are substantiated or possibly unfounded. But it seems that you are still not prepared to have that discussion; you are still continuing your rants and bringing them into more off-topic areas.

Also, I'm not sure Bero even has stock in Red Hat, or where you got that from. It was always my impression that he joined Red Hat rather late.

It isn't. Some say time is the fire in which we burn. My time is running out.

Well, go on with your life then instead of spending it ranting on Slashdot. But I must say that I'm quite disappointed that you are not prepared (and seemingly never will be) to have a serious discussion about the topic at hand.

Oh brother...

[Linux Freak]

Just great, now my LAME Guide is even _MORE_ out of date. ;^)

Nice spoiler, jerk!

[PD]

Press release doesn't contain any surprises, just lists a bunch of stuff thats included with the dist. (Evolution, Mozilla, Apache)

Well thanks a lot, jerk. Some of us in California haven't even had a chance to read it yet, and you've given away the ending. Didn't the negative feedback from the Lone Gunmen snafu teach you anything?

Sheesh!

A Question

[Jouster]

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

Re:A Question

[tuffy]

With up2date, how much longer can RedHat release CDs?

As long as the majority of RedHat users don't have high speed internet access, CDs are still a viable method of distribution. The bandwidth of a box full of RedHat CDs in the trunk of my car is a helluva lot more than anything a measly 56k modem can provide, that's for sure...

Re:A Question

[stilwebm]

I remember in 1992, even as late as 1994, many people said "individual telephone lines will never allow data transfers faster than 28800bps".

Of course DVD-ROMs (or another large capacity, inexpensive medium) will be more popular by the time bandwith makes a 650MB download seem trivial.

Re:A Question

[richie2000]

The bandwidth of a box full of RedHat CDs in the trunk of my car is a helluva lot more than anything a measly 56k modem can provide, that's for sure...

But the latency, the latency... You need a bike. :-)

Re:A Question

[HydroCarbon10]

I remember in 1992, even as late as 1994, many people said "individual telephone lines will never allow data transfers faster than 28800bps".

In many places, those people are still correct.

Thank you Sprint...I wish you did.

Re:A Question

[Bios_Hakr]

There are certian packages you will never be able to just upgrade. If I am not mistaken, gcc is linked, at compile time, agianst your installed kernel. For more information on what it takes to build a linux system, go to linuxfromscratch.org. Basicly, even us guys building linux from the ground up have to rebuild our systems on occasion. Not mutch of a prob when you just need to pop in a mandrake disk, but a real bitch when you spend 10+ hours compiling linux/x11/kde/mozilla/other assorted things. Not to mention configuring...

What's new?

[Delirium Tremens]

Mozilla 0.9.2 !?

Isn't that a little conservative?

Re:What's new?

[Delirium Tremens]

Alright, it is probably a typo in their release notes. The full package list says Mozilla 0.9.9 . Way better.

Mirrors are found :-)

[French Thias]

I've put up a list of mirror servers that are known to be fully synced with the release here :

http://freshrpms.net/mirrors/valhalla.html

I've also already rebuilt a pre-configured apt and its reposiroty for use with Valhalla, as well as many custom packages (lame, gkrellm, glimmer, nessus, xmame...)

Having already tested it a bit, I must say this release looks darn good and stable so far! Maybe it's because there are fewer changes than usual (which explains this being 7.3 and not 8.0).

Matthias

Re:and is not nor will be downloadable for a while

[Lumpy]

Ack ,call me stupid and beat me over the head...

Where I looked I didn't see it but it's there in my face... Valhalla is the name of it..

Yes it's there on msu.edu so the redhat ftp server it must be lurking somewhere...

Re:Something's broken...

[Enry]

Depending on how Debian works at times, that's not exactly a problem...

-Enry
Running Debian unstable and RH 7.1 servers

Re:What, no Red Hat 8.0?

[Nighttime]

Redhat only increment the major version number if the release will break binaries compatability.

x.3 release

[Goronguer]

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!

Re:x.3 release

[anthony_dipierro]

They just realized that most people hear ".0" and think "unstable".

Re:x.3 release

[newbiescum]

Doesn't Red Hat only increment the major version number when there is a "major" compiler version change? If so, then they're just following their normal practices which I suppose is a good thing.

Re:x.3 release

[Darren Winsper]

Red Hat change the major version number when they break binary compatibility. Since 7.3 is binary compatible with 7.0, they didn't go to 8.0

Install apt4rpm

[gatesh8r]

and watch it go away

That review is ridiculous

[Apostata]

Regarding that review, the guy may have some salient points (XFS), but he goes about it like an absolutely elitist asshole. Half the time he doesn't explain what kind of errors he's experiencing, nor does he attempt to troubleshoot. Lastly, and most clearly, his level of professional journalism is revealed in his childish anti-Gnome rant which - to this - reader dropped any respect I had for his article down 10 places.
Mandrake 8.2 is not the Grail, but to call it a f'ing disaster is just juvenile.

Re:What, no Red Hat 8.0?

[Burnon]

The story (as I've heard it, mostly just speculation) is that 8.0 will come when there are enough changes to justify some major breakage in compatibility. I guess the new version of gcc isn't where it needs to be for Red Hat to switch to it, nor is GNOME 2 ready. No kernel 2.6.x, no new glibc, etc... Everything else (even KDE3 I guess) is considered to be more evolutionary, rather than revolutionary.

From looking at the release notes

[wiredog]

It seems that if you have RH7.2 and you have run up2date weekly you have everything except for Moz, kde3, Evolution, and some gnome collab app. Since I've been running kde 3 since the release and have Moz 1.0-RC1, I see no need to download the ISO's.

Re:From looking at the release notes

[Burnon]

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.

Re:From looking at the release notes

[ralzod]

7.3 is apparently still packaged with the vulnerable zlib 1.1.3 version.

Re:From looking at the release notes

[antdude]

You can use red-carpet if you are GNOME user to get Mozilla, Evolution, and other updates.

Re:From looking at the release notes

[Kynde]

It seems that if you have RH7.2 and you have run up2date weekly you have everything except for Moz, kde3, Evolution, and some gnome collab app.

That's not entirely true...
The 7.2 is aka "Enigma" where as the 7.3 is a lot cooler "Valhalla". If that's not a reason to upgrade then nothing is.

(I'm still sad that I had to update away from the "Guinness")

Remember folks!

[gatesh8r]

If you can bet better than bitrate on a mirror; it's not there!

Who cares?

[glrotate]

They could call it 7.2345346 or 56.8. I think most Gnu/Linux users try to be a bit more rational than to worry about whatever version number they decide to slap on it.

I think Red Hat should be given credit based on the quality of the release, not the version number.

Re:Who cares?

[Arandir]

It may not make a difference to current GnuLiX users, but it does to those who aren't.

I remember thinking Patrick Volkerding was a schmutz for coming out with Slackware 7.0, until several months ago when I heard at Fry's: "No dude! Get this Manhat 7.1, it's newer than that Redrake 7.0 you've got in your hands."

Re:Is This a Stable Release?

[ispel]

I thought RedHat's stable, production level releases all were *.2 (i don't remember a 6.3, and 6.2 was the release for a while). Is this considered a stable release that can be used in production systems?

The 7.3 version number indicates that the release is a incremental upgrade from (the excellent Redhat 7.2), w/o major feature changes.

It's my understanding that Redhat considers all their numbered non-beta releases to be stable and production ready. Their 7.0 release had some major component upgrades which gave their x.0 releases a bad wrap for some people, however, the issues (with GCC, security fixes) were fixed timely in the form of downloadable upgrades. The 7.x series has been great and rock-solid on the desktop (I've been using 7.1 and 7.2 as my desktop at home), and I'm looking forward to trying 7.3.

Re:Don't think I'll go that way again...

[spongman]

why wait?

seriously, Woody is more stable than most other distros even before release. Yes, it's still got a few critical bugs, but they're mostly for non-x86 platforms. it's not like getting the final bits is going to be any harder than typing 41 characters.

Try it in Test Drive

[Test Drive]

I have our Red Hat Test Drive system updated now to Red Hat 7.3. As always, accounts with us are free, and you get access to a number of different systems. Try out the latest releases of operating systems on our hardware before you commit it to your own!

Re:Try it in Test Drive

[Test Drive]

Sure. Test Drive is mostly intended for developers who want to port or test their code on platforms to which they might not otherwise have access. However, it is open to anyone. When you sign up, you get a free shell account on our systems which, so long as you obey the rules, you should be able to use indefinitely. We try to keep all our offerings up to date, and we're generally pretty responsive if you let us know about something you'd like to see in the program. You may also want to check our FAQ, or get in touch with us if you have more questions.

Re:Old version of Mozilla?

[bero-rh]

Error in the announcement. It's actually 0.9.9.

Re:Gnome programs

[Enry]

Red Hat effectively started GNOME, or at least was heavily involved with the beginning of it. There were a few releases where they did not distribute KDE because it was not GPL'd. Red Hat has a very long history with GNOME, and so it doesn't suprise me that they would emphasize their GNOME apps over the KDE ones.

Re:Excellent

[gatesh8r]

Beat my uptime!

Wow; 10 days on Windows XP!? You mean you either didn't have to reboot or have to put in a security patch in a 10-day span?

My longest uptime on my personal box was 4 months. Then my uni cut the power -- damn them, and I didn't even have a good UPS.

And including the new Emacs!!

[xiox]

emacs-21.2

Re:So...

[Jouster]

If you do just a "standard" (workstation) install, you only need Disc 1.

If I remember correctly, server installs require more than that.

Personally, I just get Disc 1, and use rpmfind.net whenever I need a given server.

Jouster

Southern California Mirror

[schmutze]

If someone could help me check out my bandwidth that would be great:

http://toughguy.caltech.edu/pub/linux/redhat/lin ux / .3/

thanks,
chad

Re:Something's broken...

[Ankou]

Hey I have no problem running apt-get on RH. If you cared to search enough you would have found you can get apt-get for Red Hat 7.X from:

http://freshrpms.net/apt/

Does the distribution still include Netscape?

[pomakis]

I know they've switched over to Mozilla (a move I wholeheartedly agree with), but I was wondering if they still ship with Netscape as well (at least for this release).

Re:Does the distribution still include Netscape?

[pomakis]

Good, because until Mozilla bug 58554 is fixed, I think I'm going to stick with Netscape 4.x!

Re:Does the distribution still include Netscape?

[bero-rh]

It's still included.

Both Konqueror and Mozilla are better for most stuff by now, but unfortunately, Netscape 4.x is still the only browser that does Java without the need of shipping a not legally redistributable JDK.

Re:Does the distribution still include Netscape?

[bero-rh]

There are several problems in the license.
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:

• non-transferable -- we can't allow anyone else to copy our CDs
• bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Programs -- we don't write anything in Java, so we'd be shipping it for a different purpose, e.g. to view someone else's Java applets -> we'd violate the license.
• You do not distribute additional software intended to replace any component(s) of the Software -- while this is probably meant to say you can't require someone to install JDK and then remove javac to replace it with something else, it can be interpreted as "If you ship JDK, you may not ship any replacements for parts of it [such as GCJ, Jikes or Kaffe]". We ship gcj.

Re:Does the distribution still include Netscape?

[FredGray]

So is RedHat not in a position to negotiate a special license with Sun for the JDK? If I recall correctly, they were willing to grant Debian explicit permission to distribute it in non-free, but the sticking point was a requirement that Debian "indeminfy and hold harmless" Sun against any claims. As a nonprofit, Debian (i.e. Software in the Public Interest) wasn't willing to accept that level of liability.

Re:Does the distribution still include Netscape?

[m_evanchik]

Hilarious.

Bugzilla is blocking links from slashdot!

Re:Does the distribution still include Netscape?

[subsolar2]

Could Redhat do what the people at CodeWeavers do with their CrossOffice product? Microsoft does not allow redistribution of the free web fonts, but what they do is allow the user after installation to automatically download and install the free web fonts so the system has the "standard windows" fonts available for windows applications.

I would think you could do the same thing with JDK and just ship a simple downloader and installer program to automatically download and install Sun's JDK.

Re:Does the distribution still include Netscape?

[kryps]

Like Bero said, the above would appear to state that because RedHat ships gcj they cannot ship JDK.

I am quite sure that the paragraph in question is not aimed at other packages such gcj or kaffe but rather disallows that a vendor adds classes intended to replace core classes of Sun's Java implementation thus creating an incompatible version of Java.

May be so, I'm not a SuSE user, but in that case I'm guessing SuSE doesnt ship gcj, Jikes nor Kaffe...

Enough guessing ;-)

SuSE 8.0 ships with Sun J2SE 1.3.1, IBM JDK 1.3.0, jikes and GCJ according to their package list at: http://www.suse.de/de/products/suse_linux/i386/pac kages_professional/index_all.html.

-- kryps

Re:FTP download help

[gergi]

run it in the background with &

wget [f,ht]tp://path_to_iso_1/disk1.iso &
wget [f,ht]tp://path_to_iso_1/disk2.iso &
etc
logout

up2date from 7.2 to 7.3?

[ceswiedler]

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.

Re:up2date from 7.2 to 7.3?

[Menthos]

Some say it's possible to use up2date for upgrading by tweaking /etc/redhat-release to the new value, thus tricking up2date in the next run to upgrade the whole distro. I haven't tried it myself.

The easiest and supported way of upgrading from one release to another is of course using the installer. Just get the cd:s, pop them in and select "upgrade existing install". This is supported and will also take care of interrelease changes (like boot loader change, ext3 migration etc.), which most hacks for upgrading that only updates packages won't. Granted, there seems to be few of those changes this time, but I'd recommend the CD upgrade method any day.

Re:up2date from 7.2 to 7.3?

[Kynde]

Some say it's possible to use up2date for upgrading by tweaking /etc/redhat-release to the new value, thus tricking up2date in the next run to upgrade the whole distro. I haven't tried it myself.

I've upgraded an abundance of boxes that way, although no tweaking necessary. I've just fetched the redhat-release .noarch.rpm from some ftp site and the let up2date take over.

There have been minor issues here and there, which have forced me to download and upgrade some of the new rpms manually, but it's been really nonissue. I've done this since 7.0beta and as soon as the up2date is open for non subscribers loads of boxes here will go from "Enigma" or "Skipjack" (7.3beta) to "Valhalla".

That way you'll avoid letting their installer do it's trickery. I've had few pretty fscked-up experiences with the cd upgrades.

Re:Differences from Beta?

[GrenDel Fuego]

Here's a big difference between the beta and official releases:

Official support.

I find up2date a very useful tool. I don't know how cleanly it'll support the beta if at all. Also, you can't really know for sure that all bug fixes that come up later will apply cleanly.

Best plan is to just get the final release.

Which VM?

[tholti]

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?

How is KDE3 running?

[ChrisWong]

I have been underwhelmed by Red Hat's packaging of KDE in the past. For example, in a boxed release (either 7.1 or 7.2), kdehelp's "back" and "forward" buttons didn't work. When KDE 2.2.2 RPMs were released, they helpfully included (and required) a version of Qt that froze the desktop: I had to disable klipper. The current KDE3 RPMs for RH 7.2 from Red Hat have their own glitches: ksplash goes kblooie at startup, and konqueror seems to have this big memory leak that bloats its footprint over time. I wonder if anyone at Red Hat even tries to use KDE.

How is KDE3 running on RH 7.3? Does Konq still have that memory leak?

Re:How is KDE3 running?

[HiThere]

Bill Gates will be ice skating with the Devil the day Redhat decides to give KDE some respect and ship RPM's that haven't been deliberately broken.

Ah! These must be good then.

Re:How is KDE3 running?

[bero-rh]

I have been underwhelmed by Red Hat's packaging of KDE in the past. For example, in a boxed release (either 7.1 or 7.2), kdehelp's "back" and "forward" buttons didn't work.

This must be related to your setup. It doesn't happen here, and it doesn't happen to anyone else, at least not to anyone who cares about it enough to report it (as always, I can't fix problems I'm not aware of).

Even if a problem seems obvious to you (say, a crash on startup), go ahead and report it because chances are it happens only on your setup or your hardware. If it were really as obvious as it seems to you, it would have been fixed.

When KDE 2.2.2 RPMs were released, they helpfully included (and required) a version of Qt that froze the desktop

Also, for your setup only. Worked perfectly here.

The current KDE3 RPMs for RH 7.2 from Red Hat have their own glitches: ksplash goes kblooie at startup

This is a known problem. It only occurs on first startup though, which is why I didn't notice it before uploading the packages to kde.org.
It has been fixed since, and is fixed in 7.3, along with several other problems we've noticed.

and konqueror seems to have this big memory leak that bloats its footprint over time.

Not reproducable here. Report details here or here.

I wonder if anyone at Red Hat even tries to use KDE.

Yes. Plenty of us do. I haven't seen any other desktop running on any machine in our .de office for quite some time.

The only two desktops I ever use are KDE and text mode. Konqueror and lynx are my favorite browsers.

Re:Don't Give Into The Darkside

[gatesh8r]

If we can him to the darkside... ;-)

Re:Don't think I'll go that way again...

[jdavidb]

I use woody on my blueberry ibook, with good results. I'm a little peeved that I'm still running a 2.2.x kernel, though when I tried to compile my own 2.4.x I trashed everything. (Should have used the 2.4.x maintained by the PowerPC Linux porting guys.)

wait for version 8 if you want gcc 3.0

[gimpboy]

since redhat increments the major version number when they break binary compatability, i would expect we will have gcc 2.96 until version 8.

Re:Features....

[teg]

Should be mozilla 0.9.9, which is what is included.

Instant ISOs available

[neuroid]

If you shell out some cash for RHN, they have 'Instant ISOs' available.

Much faster than the mirrors I've tried - check it out.

Re:Instant ISOs available

[jmorris42]

So did it actually work for you? I tried twice with Skipjack and would get a hundred or so megs into it and it would fail. I'm guessing Moz is loading it into ram before saving. Wish they would offer up their ISOs via ftp with my RHN userid/password.

Re:So...

[yobbo]

1 cd only for mandrake? you have to be kidding me.

I tried getting away with 1 disc on the latest release - then i realised packages such as half of the freakin gnome control center were located on disc 2.

pattern also seems to follow kernel versions

[GroundBounce]

Might just be coincidence with the compiler/binary compatability thing, but it seems that major RH releases also track kernel versions:

RH 5.x - kernel 2.0.x
RH 6.x - kernel 2.2.x
RH 7.x - kernel 2.4.x

Re:pattern also seems to follow kernel versions

[Fabian Kroenner]

Both of you got it wrong!
Red Hat release numbers indicate the version of the C library (for binary-compatibility) - like so:

• 4.x - libc5
• 5.x - glibc2.0
• 6.x - glibc2.1
• 7.x - glibx2.2
• 8.x - go figure!...
  

Re:pattern also seems to follow kernel versions

[Papineau]

Don't forget the version of the C++ compiler. I don't have the different version numbers shipped with the different distributions, but from one version to the other the ABI (application binary compatibility) is not guaranteed, if not plain absent.

IE, you can't link some part of a C++ program compiled with gcc-2.95.3 with some other compiled with gcc 3.0, although you can do the same thing with a C program.

I think the compiler thing will be one of the major compatibility changes for RH 8.0.

(And damn them, I left my dorm room last week!)

Re:FTP download help

[Papineau]

wget [f,ht]tp://path_to_iso_1/disk1.iso & wget [f,ht]tp://path_to_iso_1/disk2.iso & etc logout You may want to use nohup wget ... rather than wget directly if you intend to logout while downloading.
Or wget -b ..., which sends it to the backgroud. Along with -o file, it enables you to have it in the backgroud and still have a log of what happens.

Don't forget that some FTP servers will limit the number of concurrent connections a single host can sustain at a time. And if you download more than one image at the same time, you'll (likely) prevent somebody else from getting his.

Seems fast from here

[Wee]

I'm on a Road Runner cable modem in San Diego. I'm getting ~80Kb/sec pulling down all three simultaneously.

Not bad. Thanks for the mirror!

-B

Re:KDE3 -- and may I add (spoilers)

[Laplace]

I installed SuSE 8.0 on my PII Celeron 333. KDE3 rocks on it. I installed Mosfet's Liquid theme (http://www.mosfet.org/liquid) and I just love it. Snappy, fun, all that. Like having Aqua without the need for expensive hardware. Yummy.

More Project Management under Linux

[GroundBounce]

Although it's not open source, another program to check out is Intellisys Project Desktop. It is Java-based, so it is cross-platform, which can be useful in some environments. It is also more mature than MrProject or Toutdoux (sp?).

Mandrake too...

[EvilAlien]

Mandrake unleased their crazy KDE lovin' upon an unsuspecting public on April 23rd. Red Hat is just following the trend.

Its not that big of a feature to the GNOMEish, but I 'll give KDE 3 a shot when I rebuild my dev box with RH7.3 today. I'm not a big fan of KDE, and each time I try it, I fail to be suitably impressed. Maybe 3 will change all that =)

Re:Mandrake too...

[Cro Magnon]

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?

Re:Mandrake too...

[EvilAlien]

Yes, 8.2 didn't ship with KDE 3. They have recently released packages for KDE 3 separately. Personally, I don't want to use it for a production workstation, and I don't intend to. I tend to stick to GNOME/Sawfish or GNOME/Enlightenment.

Re:Old version of Mozilla?

[bero-rh]

It's not.
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):

• It doesn't build without Sun JDK. We're looking into porting to gcj, but it's quite a way to go. Since gcj in any gcc prior to 3.1 is rather sucky, this was not even possible for a 7.x release.
• The UNO stuff requires a specific version of gcc, and it's not the "right" one.
• The installation process is not suitable for packaging. (Try building an RPM of something requiring GUI input during installation...)

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.

gcc-2.96

[Jacek Poplawski]

When RedHat will switch from gcc-2.96 to something else? That's the only reason for me to install Slackware instead RH/MDK.

Re:gcc-2.96

[Papineau]

Probably in their next revision (8.0). Actually, they ship it right now, as gcc3 packages rather than gcc-3. So if you want to use it, you can. Their testing must have shown that gcc 2.96-RH is the one they want to ship right now.

If they change their default compiler to gcc 3.x, then they'll up the version to 8.0 because that new compiler (mostly the C++ compiler, but maybe the Java one also) won't be binary compatible with the previous one.

And if that's the only reason for you, why don't you give it a go yourself? It's pretty easy to do, especially if your second choice of distro is Slackware rather than say Suse or even Debian.

Re:gcc-2.96

[bero-rh]

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).

Re:gcc-2.96

[tempest303]

except their 'proprietary' compiler is the only one that's not broken.

With RH 8, (the next major release, no doubt) they'll surely use gcc 3.x and be in line with the rest of the world.

Hopefully it'll include Apache 2, Gnome 2, OpenOffice 1.x, and Mozilla 1.x! That'd be a lot of milestones in one release... It'll be an interesting Fall/Winter when 8.0 ships.

Re:gcc-2.96

[MSG]

one ships in binary

I was about to suggest that you include a copy of libstdc++ with your application, but I just noticed that the RPM package and serveral files in the CVS repository all bear the GPL. That would make it illegal to link proprietary applications against libstdc++, wouldn't it? :( I think I'm going to bring this up on the redhat-list and see if anyone has anything to say about this...

because you continue to use a proprietary compiler version?

It's not "proprietary". All of the code is available. It's Free Software.

Is it worth getting 7.3 from 7.1 and 7.2?

[antdude]

I am happy with my 7.1 and 7.2 installations. I do a lot of updating with programs I use like OpenOffice, GKrellM, Lopster, GNOME, KDE (KDE3 now) etc.

Are there anything in 7.3 worth that will want me to upgrade? From what I saw, nothing is really new except updated components. I will install 7.3 from scratch if I ever had to reinstall due to a HDD failure or something.

Thank you in advance. :)

Re:Is it worth getting 7.3 from 7.1 and 7.2?

[Micah]

I haven't upgraded to 7.3 yet (will do today if I can manage to get the ISOs) but for all previous versions, the upgrade has been nearly perfect. No worries.

yeah redhat network...

[Polo]

So I guess joining the redhat network worked out pretty well. I'm downloading the iso images in parallel at the capacity of my cable modem.

my mirror of the iso's

[gimpboy]

hey..

i just got mine. if you need to feel free to suck them down here.

the md5sums all check out.

have fun.

This is simply amazing

[rosewood]

I have a strange track record. I don't *need* a linux box but I like to keep one running for web serving, ftp, a router, etc. This means that some times I have to pull hardware from the box for other necesities. Well, yesterday I finally got the box back up and running (and much more powerful then it was in its last conception). I installed and have throughly updated Redhat 7.2. Now, 7.3 comes out.

This has happened to me for every major . release since 6.0! I sware, if you want the next version of redhat, I just need to install it and update it. Pfft!

Re:This is simply amazing

[moosesocks]

odd... the same thing seems to happen to me with every distro execpt for debian (maybe if I try now, a new version will come out. the last time I tried was about a year ago).

Or it could simply be because of the absurdly large amount of time it takes a 56k user to download 1.2 gigabytes of ISO images

no, it's patched

[halfelven]

It's based on 1.1.3 allright, but it's patched against that bug.
They just ported the patch from 1.1.4 to 1.1.3

Re:Valhalla?

[Russ Steffen]

More imporantly, what is the relationship between skipjack and valhalla? Red Hat codenames have been linked by double meanings since the 3.0.3 release (Picasso).

Great for geeks

[horza]

I have to admit I'm quite excited about installing Gentoo (just waiting for my new gfx card to come through the post) and will install it instead of Mandrake 8.2. Red Hat was my first exposure to Linux and serves well as an eye opener. I tend to stick with what I know but on a spare machine I tried a couple of other distros. Mandrake 8.1 instantly converted me. Now I want a fast desktop, no worries about keeping my software up to date, and want to get rid of the bloat. The two most attractive distros are Scorcery and Gentoo, with the latter appearing much better supported. This is for my desktop machine. I'll keep Red Hat on my production server as I like the fall-back of business support, even though I never have and probably never will use it.

Phillip.

Better Kernel?

[antdude]

How is that? I usually use Linux as a workstation and play Q3A and RTCW.

Getting slower....

[Wee]

I was at ~80KB/sec, but it seems to be leveling out at around 40KB/sec. Which is still not too bad.

-B

Mirror in Europe

[Yenya]

My mirror still has some 30 Mbps of free bandwidth, so if you are in Europe, you can try to download from it.

Kernel hacks, kjournald

[jovlinger]

I have had exactly the opposite experience. RH 7.2 (2.5.7-10 IIRC) with ext3 is snappy and responsive, even under the heavy cpu and i/o load of a background kernel compile.

But I wanted ALSA, so I grabbed 2.4.18, and installed that. It is absoultely HORRIBLE. With any sort of i/o in the background, the mouse is laggy, GUI latency can be measured in large fractions (and sometimes numbers of) seconds. top This is for exactly the same setup otherwise. Low latency patches don't help much. maybe a little, but it still is unacceptably laggy. Forget xmms + pan (one program to feed the other :-)) at the same time.

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?

Thoughts?

Re:Kernel hacks, kjournald

[jovlinger]

Oh just to add:

It appears to be orthogonal to memory pressure, but related to i/o. Running top suggests that kjournald is the culprit, as it both sucks up a (comparatively) large fraction of cpu time and % (low single digits under i/o load), in addition to bing near the top of the runq when UI lag sucks most.

Re:Kernel hacks, kjournald

[bero-rh]

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.

Re:Kernel hacks, kjournald

[jovlinger]

Thanks.

A net search indicates that I may be the only person to get crappy ext3 / i/o performace under 2.4.18, which suggests I'm incompetent to compile my own kernel, and should just use someone-else's.

So I guess I'll be experiencing the excitement of a semi-backed-up (my mp3s are living on borrowed time) upgrade over the weekend. woo hoo!

Re:Differences from Beta?

[Bilbo]

> That means that there will never more be updates or any kind of even the slightest security fix ...

Good point! I was assuming I could install the Beta, poke around a bit, and then just use red-carpet or up2date to get all my RPM's up to current releases. However, since RH specifically avoided calling the Beta "7.3", I don't know if even the "free" update services would know what to do with the release. (Red Carpet has specific "channels" for each release, probably because of dependency issues.)

Any way you look at it, you're probably going to have to do a clean install of any system you install the Beta on, once you get past the poking around stage and want to put it to real use.

Sigh... Good thing CDR's re still cheap... ;-)

ah, sigh...

[darkonc]

I've been trying for the last hour to connect to my favorite mirror for a couple of RPMs that I need, and it keeps coming back full... but that's never happened in recent memory. My favorite server's almost always completely unloaded (that's why it's my favorite!). Then I think: "This feels like a slashdot. I wonder if the 7.3 release has just been announced?".

Sure enough.......
Maybe I'll get my RPMs tomorrow (or tonight at 4am).

Re:Is This a Stable Release?

[dananderson]

Yes it (RH 7.3) is a stable release intended for production systems. RH 7.3 has been through beta.

That said, I always wait at least a month (sometimes several if there's nothing in it I really need) for the "users" to find the more obscure bugs.

Also it gives time for the early adopters to post any problems and workarounds on the various mailing lists for me to search in http://google.com/ and http://groups.google.com/ (USENET news)

RedHat and licenses

[Lac]

This is really weird. Browsing the left navbar on the release notes, I just discovered that Red Hat Linux comes with a fancy EULA. Yes, the type that you are assumed to agree to by installing the product. No, I am not making this up. Read for yourself.

http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhl_standard_us.htm l

Now, I have not read the EULA. Perhaps there is nothing sinister here. They probably have a very valid reason for doing this. I suppose the lawyers insist on it. But I had never heard of this practice and I doubt many here have. To me, it seems inconsistent with RedHat's reasonable, pro-open source, transparent attitude.

I mean, the document says that this applied to 7.2 as well. I installed 7.2 on quite a few machines and never once did the installation program warn me that I was simultaneously "signing" a legal document. Even if that EULA really is harmless, I should be told about it.

PS: I love Red Hat, bot for their product and their attitude. It is an amazing company, but this comes as a shock to me. And the more I think about it, the weirder I feel about it. Which probably explains why I have been editing this post for 15 minutes now.

Re:RedHat and licenses

[Lac]

Sorry for replying to myself this quickly. But you really have to look at this document. Look at the first part, that talks about the auto-signing "feature" of the EULA.

By installing any or all of the software included with this product, you agree to the following terms and conditions.

Now, I really love and respect Red Hat. I haven't lost any respect for them since they started making it big and I am sure that this is just a big, big mistake. Really./P>

But think about what they are saying! If I use the SRPM to compile and install the source code for kernel, or Emacs, or any GNU tools, I am agreeing to this? Has someone gone insane at RedHat? That software is covered under the GNU GPL. Slapping a EULA on it isn't even remotely legal!

Putting a EULA on a distribution is one thing. Putting one on "any or all of the software included" with it is another entirely. I hope this is just a big mistake, or that I just misunderstand this whole issue and am blowing it all out of proportion. Anyone at RedHat care to comment?

Re:RedHat and licenses

[Lac]

Replying to myself again. This is really a weird document. They have this little bit of sanity in there, which voids part of what I have said.

Most of the Linux Programs are licensed pursuant to a Linux EULA that permits you to copy, modify, and redistribute the software, in both source code and binary code forms. However, you must review the on-line documentation that accompanies each of the Linux Programs included in this product for the applicable Linux EULA. Review these Linux EULAs carefully, in order to understand your rights under them and to realize the maximum benefits available to you with Red Hat Linux. Nothing in this license agreement limits your rights under, or grants you rights that supercede, the terms of any applicable Linux EULA.

But then they have this part again.

CAREFULLY READ THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS BEFORE INSTALLING ANY OF THE SOFTWARE PROGRAMS. INSTALLING THE SOFTWARE PROGRAMS INDICATES YOUR ACCEPTANCE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THIS DOCUMENT AND OF THE END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOFTWARE PROGRAM. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, DO NOT INSTALL THE SOFTWARE PROGRAMS.

So it is not clear to me that this EULA is not adding restrictions on top of all software packages includet with RHL, including the GPL ones. One particular problem is that you have to agree to this license before you can install the software and review individual licenses to see which rights you have.

Perhaps I'm freaking out needlessly here. I just find it _so_ weird that Red Hat has a EULA. Oh well. I'll get over it. It's not like I'm a license freak or anything.

Re:RedHat and licenses

[ainsoph]

I like Redhat. A bunch of years back I got paranoid about that stuff, similar stuff with the company and stopped using it. I went back to Redhat for 7.2, and I actually feel really good about them. You know why? Cos I trust Alan Cox. He works for them and as soon as they did some shit that was questionable, he would be the first to jump ship. I trust that.

Can I upgrade from Beta 1?

[KidSock]

I installed Beta 1. Can I safely run the installer over that? Or perhaps I can just to the uptodate business?

Works with Ximian? (wasRe:Old version of Mozilla?)

[morris57]

Bero, hopefully you will see this and be able to answer...(I always appreciate seeing your answers whenever a new Red Hat release comes around.)

Can users of Ximian Gnome desktop upgrade to RH7.3? I've been keeping up to date with Red Carpet, so I didn't upgrade from 7.1 to 7.2, but I'd like to try Valhalla. Any known problems between Red Hat's packages and Ximian's?

Thanks!

Re:Interesting

[Isaac-Lew]

Not all of the software that ships with RH 7.3 is released under the GPL (XFree86, apache, perl, mozilla & openssl/ssh are the examples I can think of right off the top of my head).

Re:My experience with Dead Rat Linux 7.2

[Sj0]

1)Use Grub, or rather, don't change the setting in the first place, because lilo isn't default in RedHat 7.2. It was set as default when you installed the thing, don't complain when you mess with settings you don't understand and you break the OS.

2) No comment -- I didn't even know this existed.

3)So is Windows XP. It's a grim fact of life that if you want to run a modern OS, it will be slow. Ask anyone using Windows XP on 64 MB of ram about that. On the other hand, Linux can be made to run fairly lean, and I've had it running on a p133 without too much trouble.

4)Hit ctrl-esc to bring up the KDE equivilant to the task manager, click on "tree view", and kill the applet. It's sitting right under the "kicker" item. No matter which OS you are running, there will sometimes be applications which have lousy interfaces. Linux has quite a bit better fidelity when you want to kill these applications.(ie. you don't need to hunt around for a utility on the internet to uninstall it, like some Windows programs)

5)No comment. I may have a comment the day I find a manual which actually helps me do something. So far, intuition gets me further than that, so I usually need to surf to find my answers.

6)You'd be suprised how easy it is to exist without ever needing to re-compile. I had the same sort of problem (sis AC97 sound on a sis 735 mobo), but downloading the latest kernel from RedHat fixed it. Downloading 7.3 would likely fix both our problems.

7) There are two possibilities in this case, and I'm inclined to go with the first: Odds are, your networking never worked. Since you were booting off the floppy, it's possible that your interfaces never came up. The other possibility is that you were mucking around with something you didn't understand -- even at high security, the firewall doesn't block outgoing communications. It blocks incoming communications(like hackers trying to hack your box).

One tip: When you paid that 60 dollars for RedHat, you weren't paying to have to hack around to get things working; Calling tech support was an option, and they likely would have talked you through an installation which wouldn't have had the same problems.

I would have agreed with you if we were talking about RH 5, because it's UI was an embarassing attempt at cloning the windows gui. I would have agreed with you if we were talking about RH 7.1 even, because the threat of data loss from a single power outage was too great to recommend it. RedHat 7.2, on the other hand, is the version I believe is ready for prime time, and I am quite excited about trying out RedHat 7.3, with even more hardware support, an even better UI, and more graphical tools to make the world an easier place to be for a mouse user.

Re:Works with Ximian? (wasRe:Old version of Mozill

[bero-rh]

Remove Ximian first. They're playing the rpm Epoch game, so installing their packages breaks updates unless they are removed prior to updating.

dead already...

[bani]

nicely 404-compliant

Use the upgrade feature

[Wee]

I installed and have throughly updated Redhat 7.2. Now, 7.3 comes out.

Sounds like a great time to see if the upgrade install feature works. Since you only recently installed, there can't be much custom (non-RPM I suppose) stuff to break. If the upgrade goes well, nothing more to do except remember that when RH 8.x comes out, you can sdafely upgrade instead of re-install. If the upgrade fails, then you can submit a bug report and install freshly. Either way you have a 7.3 install.

-B

Re:Use the upgrade feature

[rosewood]

Since this does not have Gnome 2.0 or anything big, and I just got done installing Ximian - Im just gonna stick with 7.2

Also, Ive always been early adopters of the . releases and stuff is always broken

Re:Differences from Beta?

[Papineau]

Once you burned the images to CDRs, you can use rpm -Fvh * on each CD. It will upgrade only the packages that are present on your system.

Or you can loopback mount all the isos, then symlink all the packages in a single directory, and run a single rpm -Fvh *. That way, if a devel package is on another CD, it won't matter.

Another thing I always do before an upgrade is use the same command with --test. If there's a dependancy problem, I can see it before anything bad happens.

Good luck with up2date: I never used it myself (prefer ftp+rpm).

i'm not dead yet ; )

[gimpboy]

i just had to shut it down for a bit to set the max connections limit for that directory.

Re:Junkbuster deprecated?

[ChrisWong]

Junkbuster does not support HTTP/1.1, so a lot of browsers have problems with it. There is no ad-blocking proxy "supported" by RH as far as I know. The apparent successor to Junkbuster is Privoxy: it's not yet officially supported but it seems to usable now.

imlib and enlightenment

[AstroJetson]

Careful anybody out there running enlightenment. I upgraded (via up2date) my imlib a few weeks ago and suddenly enlightenment would not start up. When e started up it would get to 91% and just die. Backing up to the previous imlib rpm fixed the problem. Don't know if this problem still exists in 7.3, but I'd be careful if I were you.

Well, just like it always has

[Nailer]

The current KDE3 RPMs for RH 7.2 from Red Hat have their own glitches: ksplash goes kblooie at startup, and konqueror seems to have this big memory leak that bloats its footprint over time.

I've installed them on six different red Hat 7.2 machines and not encountered this, and so have most Red Hat users I've spoke to who installed KDE on Red Hat 7.2. Personally, I just duped Red Hat's packages in a local apt repository and then apt-get installed kdebase. I had to uninstall some minor stuff (like switchdesk-kde) that wasn't yet ported to KDE 3, but other than that, everything went AOK. There appears to be something amiss with your system - try visiting irc.openprojects.net #redhat for a hand.

Re:Something's broken...

[198348726583297634]

Also, slackware is very nice.

I am chicago-style. Mama mia! I have-a no pants!

CLI remote administration

[LinuxHam]

Webmin still works very hard to be very usable under Lynx. Just ssh into the box and point Lynx to localhost:10000. You can firewall off port 10000 if you don't want to admin from a remote browser. Works great for me.

Re:enlightenment

[analog_line]

Maybe no one you personally know uses Enlightenment, but I know a whole lot of people who do, myself included. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean everyone doesn't like it. Blah blah no man is an island blah blah.

You need more sleep

[ChrisWong]

I think you need more sleep. Do you even realized what you typed?

• Kdehelp back button not working: you reported this bug! You filed it as bugs.kde.org: "Bug#31123: Back button in khelpcenter has no effect". There's no denying the bug reported by someone as dependable as your honorable self.
  
• Bad version of Qt: the KDE 2.2.2 release page explicitly tells you not to use Qt 2.3.2. Guess which version of Qt you decided to use with the Red Hat RPMs? Yup: qt 2.3.2 and it's an RPM dependency. The frozen desktop bug is documented at bugs.kde.org as bug 34949 ("system freeze on KDE startup").
  

So: get some sleep and write again when your fingers are resynced with reality. I want my KDE to work. "Not reproducible here" does not sound like a good excuse at this point.

Is FTP or HTTP better?

[LinuxHam]

Speaking of which..

I always thought HTTP traffic was much easier on servers than FTP traffic, yet 95% of the mirrors are FTP servers. Am I correct in that thinking? Maybe the thought comes from the relative apparent ease of load balancing web traffic vs FTP traffic.

And as far as maxing out the connection on just one download, many mirror-oriented servers limit transfer rates. I often find that multiple downloads each get the same rate as just one download from the same server.

Re:Kernel hacks, kjournald (use hdparm)

[jovlinger]

Thanks for the info, but I get much better performance with the RH kernel than my own -- ALL else being equal, including hdparms.

Or am I misunderstanding something here? Are you suggesting that hdparm tweaks are part of the kernel?

Re:My experience with Dead Rat Linux 7.2

[Sj0]

#1 I actually did use the default one (I forgot whether it was GRUB or LILO).........but when I'd try to log in.........no Windows (or DOS) option. Only Linux.
That's wierd.

#4 -- o.k., i'll try your advice on that one, but I still think it is dumb that you can add an applet so easily, but can't take it away via the same method.
I just installed 7.3 last night, and now that feature exists in both KDE and Gnome...

#5 -- you are lucky to have your intuition, because the little two books they give seriously aren't worth a damn. It seems thrown together by like one guy. I resorted to buying a book (Running Linux, o'reilly) which has helped.

To be honest, for something as big as Linux, it's probably best that you just go out and buy a book on the subject anyway.

#6 -- well, I hope you are right, and the 7.3 kernel will support my (very common) soundcard. But won't I still need to re-compile, and answer lots of obscure hardware questions? Not for the faint of heart.

Nope, no re-compile, no questions, nothing. The installer will take care of it, and if you upgrade the kernel seperately, Kudzu will take care of it. Driver support in Linux (and more importantly, the ability of the end user to install drivers without knowing about the underlying OS) is getting really good.

#7 -- with the "lokkit" thing, there are only like 3 options, low-medium-high (and then a short custom list), so I still don't think it was my fault there. (also found a couple of other similar testimonies on the Net) My networking was working okay till I messed with that damn thing.

Again, I'll have to take your word for it.

so all in all, not the best experience. I'm leaning toward trying Mandrake now, but I damn sure won't pay for it. I'm a fool for having done so with Red Hat.
Live and learn, I guess...

oh, one more aside before I bore you to tears -- when I went to register for my "support" (which only covers basic installation questions - no soundcard stuff allowed) - their site said my product ID did not exist. Imagine my anger; already I was pissed off and frustrated! To their credit, they responded promptly to my indignant e-mail with a working number. Alas, by then my mind had been made up.

My bad. I never used their tech support, so I didn't know how it was.

there is one thing all this has made me realize, though. "Free" software like Linux still has an amateurish, non-integrated feel to it. Windows 98 seems fairly tight by comparison; it even plays my mp3's! (I still despise it of course.) Maybe OS-X?

Er...We are in disagreement there. I am finding that over time, Linux as a whole becomes more professional, and at this point suprises me sometimes by what it can do. Even the utilities it comes with are getting better, to the point where I can use a machine without having a terminal open 24/7.

P.S. I'm not flaming you, I'm trying to help -- but after a hard day as a computer tech, my diplomacy is all gone. :)