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?
HERE is a link to whats new in this release.
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!
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
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
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
Alright, it is probably a typo in their release notes. The full package list says Mozilla 0.9.9 . Way better.
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!
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.
Best Slashdot Co
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.
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!
Error in the announcement. It's actually 0.9.9.
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
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/
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.
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?
Much faster than the mirrors I've tried - check it out.
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!)
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.
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
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
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.
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
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?
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