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

Whats new Link

[bruceg]

HERE is a link to whats new in this release.

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!

Re:KDE3

[GrenDel Fuego]

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

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...

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: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.

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!

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.

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.

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: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: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: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: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.

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: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.