Slashdot Mirror
Fedora Core 2 test1 Released
GerritHoll writes "A test release of Fedora Core 2 is now
available
from Red Hat and at distinguished mirror sites near you, and is also
available in the torrent.
Fedora Core has expanded in this release to four binary ISO images
and four source ISO images.
This test release is specifically designed for testing the 2.6 kernel,
GNOME 2.5, and KDE 3.2. Please file bugs via
Bugzilla,
Product Fedora Core, Version test1,
Architecture i386 so that they are noticed and appropriately
classified. Discuss this test release on
fedora-test-list."
Fedora Core has expanded in this release to four binary ISO images...
Ugh. Looks like my modem will be getting a workout again soon. Wouldn't it be easier to skimp on some of the apps, and provide separate links to them so we can reduce download times? Four ISO discs is hella big.
Probably GNOME 2.6 is expected to be out by the time the release their final version of Core 2. Then they'll be the first to have it.
more prudent if slashdot made some kind of ticker on the website of software releases?
Mandrake 10.0 beta 2 is out also! Why no posting about that, hrmmm?
Come on editors. Why did you link directly to the full isos?!?!?! Use a mirror.
Please join me:
8 6.torrent
:)
btdownloadcurses.py --max_upload_rate 350 \
--url http://torrent.dulug.duke.edu/FC2-test1-binary-i3
Thank you, and goodnight!
And since there was no link to the fedora website, I went to fedora.org. Whoops. Guess I'm gonna get fired (it's not a work friendly image, not nearly in goatse's league though). Apparently they forgot to register the names before they announced the project name.
I've been following its development by using Rawhide on my system. Yeah, call me crazy and stupid, but the reason I'm doing it is that I *MUST* use the kernel 2.6 now, since 2.4 does not support the onboard SATA controller on my VIA 8237 southbridge. (It'd be kind of a nuisance not being able to use my hard drive under Linux, you know.)
To me, the 2.6 kernel is really almost the ONLY reason to use FC2. Yeah, GNOME 2.5 might have some nice refinements over 2.4, but they're mere incremental improvements that for the most part, I don't even notice.
The 2.6 kernel also finally has ALSA support built-in, which is another good reason to go with FC2. I find it has *MUCH* better sound support as a result. (I could never get the stock OSS drivers working satisfactorily.)
Just my 2 cents, for what it's worth.
If you read the mailing lists, you'll realize that the parts that benefit (kernel, glibc, openssl) are compiled for i686.
anthing else is a exercise in gentoo masterbation.
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
Release date of Gnome 2.6: march 8
Release date of FC2: april 6
so yes, Gnome will be 2.6, and I don't see a problem with test release of Linux using test release of Gnome, because in the end both will be final for release.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Fedora/RH compiles their distributions so that they only use i386 instructions. However, if I'm not mistaken the binaries are optimized for i686 class CPUs. In other words, the instructions are scheduled optimally for an i686 class CPU, but they only use i386 instructions. In fact, in some performance critical components, the binaries are both scheduled for i686 and use i686 instructions. One example of such a binary is glibc.
Its discussed how to automatically update your fedora core through rpm on the fedora-test-list here. Hope that helps.
"Engineers do the work of man, Physicists do the work of God"
Also, download soon. Because the all the script kiddies planning to run Fedora based password crackers on their Beawolf clusters will be clogging the mirrors. :)
Did you read this far? Are you smiling at the joke? No? Sorry.. ah.. nevermind.. I guess I better get back to work before my boss catches me on /. again.
---- It won't be as bad as you fear or as good as you hope, but it will take twice as long as you plan.
Sure does. RH has had it as long as I can remember. If you install via floppy you'll need the second net.img (or something like that) as well. If you want to install via CD image they have boot.iso which is about 4MB, if I remember right, which has everything you need for a net or PCCard install.
My campaign for IA32 Awareness continues. If only I could persuade some actual developers to use the right term.
See this post for why it might not be that easy. Basically, if you upgrade to the test1 release now, you might not be able to then upgrade to -final later. See the whole thread for more information.
That said you probably can do it anyway.
You do realize that Fedora is *exactly* the same system that the regular Red Hat releases have been, ever since RHEL came out, and that the RH marketing people are simply trying to play off image ("Oh, you can use this *enterprise*-class Linux distro, or some thing that only techies that like trying out new stuff use"). If you can handle Red Hat 9, you can definitely deal with Fedora Core.
:-)
On the other hand unlike the final release of Fedora Core 2, this is a test release, and *is* intended for beta testing. If you don't want to beta test, don't install it.
May we never see th
I like many people here, felt that Redhat made a giant PR mistake (for the opensource commmunity which got Redhat where they are today) when it turned redhat into fedora. The perception was, "Redhat needs to make money, so we're only supporting the enterprise versions. You'll need to pay for our software. You'll need to pay for binary patches, and you'll need to pay for support. No more free lunch. See ya' later."
Okay, so... I got over that (sort of...) and tried a whole bunch of different distributions, including Fedora core 1.
What I found was that I really like the fedora model, and can see that with just a little more momentum, it could become something far better that the original free redhat releases ever were.
If you are like I was, and have sworn off redhat for hacking/non-work purposes for whatever ideological reasons, I urge you to read the unofficial Fedora FAQ and actually give it a try.
I have been quite impressed with Fedora and with yum for updates. Make sure to get a new yum.conf file from the unofficial faq site before you try to update your system -- redhat's patch sites are almost always flooded. Then try adding in some of the development channels and do "yum install $package1 $package2 $package3".Add yum to run from cron/as a daemon to update your system.
I just wish now that *someone* would release a version of fedora core that includes support for mp3 and various popular video formats so that it would make a usable desktop for most people out of the box. What's to stop someone from releasing ISOs of feature-overloaded-fedora that would include most of the stuff that the repositories are currently building to "fix" fedora?
But back on the topic -- Before you swear off Fedora, give it a try with an open mind.
Then you take things too personally and feel that people owe you somthing they don't
I am very happy with fedora and am more happy then I was with RHL before Fedora. I get the same updates I used to get, only this time its less of a black box and more of a community thing (and though its still not perfect its getting better)
and its free.
I dont have to install software (like the new GNOME) from scratch or wait a year for them to release a new version.
The whole process is somthing that anyone can join, or see what is going on inside. If a certian package is removed, or if I want to add a package, it is much easier now.
Yes, Fedora is a distribution for the USERS of RHL, and most of the serious ones that dont think Redhat owed us anything, are actally very happy!
Um this is the correct behaviour in almost every circumstance. If you want to install the binary drivers you're supposed to drop to runlevel 3, this is even documented.
The alternative is that if the X server crashes, you get thrown to a blank text screen - I'd much rather be put back at the login screen. GDM is designed this way for good reasons, you know - in fact I think most display managers do this.
sorry to be a Gentoo fanboy, but if you had Gentoo, the command 'emerge sdl-mixer' would get and install it for you.
m l
regards,
CB
bash-2.05b# emerge -s sdl-mixer
Searching...
[ Results for search key : sdl-mixer ]
[ Applications found : 1 ]
* media-libs/sdl-mixer
Latest version available: 1.2.5-r1
Latest version installed: 1.2.5-r1
Size of downloaded files: 914 kB
Homepage: http://www.libsdl.org/projects/SDL_mixer/index.ht
Description: Simple Direct Media Layer Mixer Library
License: GPL-2
free ipod and free gmail!
I'll wager Gentoo will have it first ;)
Yeah, but by the time you're done building it, FC2 will be released.
So, let me get this right... you were running some production systems on a consumer OS that you thought you could get away with paying $50 support for (when the vendor clearly said that you should move to their enterprise product for such support) and... when they said "look, this is really unsupported, 'cause that $50 barely pays for the coffee around here" you get upset? Red Hat provides amazingly good support for Fedora: paid developers; release engineers; security updates; download servers; etc. The only thing they don't provide is a guarantee of support.
I laugh when I hear people talking about switching to Debian. It's not like they provide better support than RHEL. Red Hat provided an excellent upgrade path from Red Hat Linux 1 all the way to the most recent releases of RHEL WS, AS, etc.
Where was the problem? If it was too much money, fine, you can't afford it, I understand. But, don't blame Red Hat for that. We all knew a long time ago that supporting hundreds of diverse projects loosely gathered together into an OS distribution was a mountain of work. No one is shocked here.
If anything, RH took the best road. They provide the business suit set with something they can pay for and they provide a high-quality free version that the community gets input on! I use Fedora every day, and it's a great system. The apt integration is perfect, the compatibility with Red Hat Linux is seemless and the software selection is unrivaled (though it tends to be slightly more conservative than Debian unstable and slightly less so than Debian stable (which always lags unstable by a year or more).