Slashdot Mirror
Fedora Core 2 Test 2 Released
Kalak writes "Fedora Core 2 Test 2, part of the project's goal to 'work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from open source software', has just been released - this test release 'is specifically designed for SELinux testing, as well as testing the 2.6 kernel, GNOME 2.5, and KDE 3.2.1.' Get a copy from one of the mirrors or grab a copy via BitTorrent. You probably want the binary only Torrent."
Not for production use. SELinux should create some fun errors.
Maybe this is obvious -- I donno.
If you are interested Fedora, check out:
Fedora News
(unofficial site).
Lots of good stuff there.
I notice they're still using gnome 2.5, not 2.6. I hope they get gnome 2.6 in by the test3 release.
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
They can't include MP3 support precisely because Fedora is non-commercial. (Who would pay the per-copy license fees?)
No, UnitedLinux was formed by Caldera, Connectiva,TurboLinux, and SuSE. SCO is obviously not an active contributor anymore, but Suse, TurboLinux, and Connectiva continue to distribute UL. UL is actually more of a brand that stands for packaging uniformity, since you download (or purchase) the UL version you want based on the vendor you choose. (i.e. You can get UL based on the SuSE, Turbo, or Connectiva dist. of Linux.)
Basically, the UL framework allows the companies to still market their product to corporations while still standardizing the Linux product and giving a (semi) unified front to the Linux world.
- Proofs of Sturgeon's Law Delivered Daily -
No. Fedora is trying very hard to avoid IP issues, so they've deliberately refrained from including things like mp3 decoders and DVD decoders that might get them into legal trouble. Fortunately, Fedora does have apt and yum available, so it's easy to add external repositories, like FreshRPMS or Livna, both of which do include mp3 players and DVD decoders. It's very convenient, and avoids a lot of legal headaches for RedHat.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
It would appear to fill a void that IMHO exists between Debian and Slakware.
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)
I hope their gonna switch to 2.6.4 cuz last time I checked, they were using 2.6.1 and acpi for that is still broken. For some reason, the acpi people don't even support 2.6.3 any more...
When was the last time you checked? FCtest has been using 2.6.4 for a few months now.
But do we really need Yet Another Linux Distro?
As far as I can see, Debian, Gentoo, Slackware and probably others are already
Two of those distros are younger than RedHat (fedora).
Plus none of those offer SELinux out of the box (which FCTest2 does), none of those offer xorg instead of XFree86 (which FCTest2 does).
Many Linux distros include non open source software. SuSE's installer was not open source. I have an old Red Hat distro that includes a proprietary X server (and xfree86 as well, I believe). My memory and rpmfind sugest that Netscape 4 was included in some distros, and it certainly isn't open source.
The commercial / non-commercial isn't the reason - it's that mp3 is a proprietary format, and Fedora is still backed by RedHat. Royalty issues for mp3 have been talked about before on slashdot, and I don't see RedHat giving the nod to distributing mp3 decoders in Fedora any more than in the RedHat Enterprise distributions. It's the same as distributing the NTFS modules. New Fedora releases shouldn't effect this decision.
Just grab XMMS RPMS for Fedora from their home page and let RedHat worry about what they distribute. NTFS module RPMS are available as well.
I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by
This guide to moving FC1 to 2.6 covers all the bases.
I think many people just grab Arjanv's RPMs or whatever, install them, and then wonder why the system blows up in their face, there is no easy answer to moving a 2.4-based box to 2.6 without a few modifications, regardless of distro.
I had alot of problems, the graphic installer would not work for me, it would just lock my mouse up out of no where and I had to reboot. Once I got it installed I could not change my clock out of 24 hour format , the clock applet kept crashing. I tried to open hwbrowser to take a look into setting up my printer, that never loaded. The new nautilus is just garbage imho. I then tried to run yum but that failed as it couldnt reach any servers so I installed apt-get but I could not install any packages due to gpg issues. Sigh... core 1 runs fine on my laptop though.
'work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from open source software'
Wait a minute! Isn't Fedora directly derived from Redhat? And wasn't it Redhat who smugly proclaimed their superiority over certain other distros because they didn't use ANY proprietary software? Was Redhat lying to us?
No. I think it may make more sense to you if you put the emphasis in a different place:
'work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from open source software'
In other words, it'll be just like Red Hat except they'll be working with the Linux community more.
bp
Most rpms built for RedHat 7.3 - 9 should work without a problem in FC1 and FC2. With Linux, you can easily build binarys that will only work on one version of one distro, it takes a little more work to make it generic.
Tweak and modify the kernel as you see fit. Otherwise, compile as-is.
That said, there are customized parts of the official Fedora Linux kernels, so some of the .config options will be tossed out during "make oldconfig". Look for error messages to see what you'll be missing.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
fedoraforum.org has a wealth of info in the FAQs and Forums.
For the newest issues, jump on IRC: irc.freenode.net #fedora
The answer depends on if you want it included in the Fedora Extras repository or on the distribution disks. You might want to visit http://fedora.us and http://fedora.redhat.com (under participate).
2 004-March/msg00539.html
Here is an extended discussion from the devel mailing list. The link is to the question; just follow the links within to read the discussion. http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/
-Norm
And a 2.6 kernel has been yum and apt-get installable on FC1 for some time as well. Y'all are silly.
However, in looking through the messages, I found that there is a document on how to use mirror servers as a source for updates. I'm surprised that Fedora doesn't have a system for balancing clients to different mirror servers, a la Gentoo, but now that I've picked a few mirrors, things have been a lot smoother.
Your reality is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. - Baron Munchausen
Interesting. Gentoo's the obvious one, but which one of Slackware (July '93) or Debian (August '93) is younger than Red Hat (October '94)?
(Not that I'm saying we don't need Fedora or, for that matter, Gentoo)
This is a test of the distribution. This way, they get to test the ISOs, as well. You CAN apt-get upgrade or yum update your older release installation if you want to. Not everyone has an older installation and for those people, they'd rather download the new distribution rather than an old one and the upgrades.
Would've been logical if you thought it through.
This is still pre-release so your comments aren't too unreasonable, but just so that people understand that this isn't always the right way to look at the problem:
The way version numbering works in Red Hat (and by extension, Fedora), is that the package version number is the version of the software that the package STARTED from, but it may have little to do with the state of the software as installed.
For example, you might have openssh version 3.1 on a box, but if you look at the SRPM for that package, you will find security bug-fixes applied from all of the openssh versions between 3.1 and the current day.
The SRPM is essentially three things: A tar-ball(s) of the original source as shipped by the developers; a set of patches or add-ons that the vendor has decided to include and a Makefile-like thing that RPM knows how to read called a spec file.
Thus, FC2 might ship with Linux 2.6.4, but that doesn't mean it lacks a feature or bug-fix from 2.6.5... you have to check the patch-set in the SRPM to know that.
Every time the contents of that SRPM are updated, the RPM version changes, so you'll see something like "foo-1.2-2", where 1.2 is the version of foo that the SRPM was based on, and this is the second build from Fedora.
You mean SuSE 9.1, not Mandrake.
As for FAT, from what I've read the patent (patents?) doesn't cover the way Linux uses a FAT filesystem.
How hard is that? No need to yank out the pre-packaged Gnome installation and install everything from scratch just because you feel it's "crippled".
Damn my modpoints ran out just as i was reading the article =)
"think if Red Hat really had the best interests of the Linux community in mind, they would have joined the UL project at the beginning, anyway, instead of trying to "go it alone" with their own marketing and distro environment."
Do you think this has anything to do with it? A clip from a ZDnet Germany interview with Red Hat:
Were you asked to be part of the UnitedLinux team? Were there any negotiations?
We were asked to be a part of UnitedLinux team hours before their public announcement.
If Red Hat got together with mandrake, developed a standard that is 99% red hat, Calls SuSe the day before its released and says. Hurry up and be a standard, you have 9 hours! Think SuSe would do that?
-- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller