Slashdot Mirror
Fedora Core 2 Test 3 Released
Wee writes "I just got an email from Bill Nottingham of Red Hat letting me know that the third and final test release of Fedora Core 2 is now available. The announcement mentions the big changes are SELinux being disabled by default, that on-and-off problem with install CD1 not booting should be fixed, and anaconda now is sporting 31 languages. The mirrors look like they are opening slowly but surely, and bug reports are always appreciated."
Then use a BitTorrent link to download it.
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
I think that you're seeing a false dichotomy. On the Debian side, you have a distribution that's strongly dedicated to making systems that are easy to admin (e.g. apt for package management) and can be kept very up-to-date by running unstable or testing. On the RedHat side, you have a distribution that refuses to distribute an mp3 decoder or NTFS support because of worries about IP issues. AFAIK, Fedora includes only software that's available under OSS licenses, and is actually quite proud of this fact.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
True, and for good reasons, both are easy to acquire though, so what's the big deal?
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
The difference isn't so clear-cut. Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Red Hat's revenue-generating product, unlike Fedora isn't so "up to date", and Red Hat also is very "religious" about the GPL, up to not including mp3 plugins for xmms. Fedora is like Debian Unstable, not a production system and bleeding-edge, RHEL is like Debian Stable, a seldom-updated except for security reasons distribution for stability.
There are not just two distros, there are over a hundred, and many of the most used ones flourish enough to thrive. Slackware, for example, has been around for longer than Debian and Red Hat, and (except for the period where they had the libc5 problem) has become just as up to date as its competition. It has it's own niche, it's very Unix-like, is not especially bloated (though 9.1 for the first time grew to two installation CDs because of GNOME and KDE growing so big.) and does not have dependency hell by avoiding dependency checking altogeather. (I am posting this in Slackware right now, but I've used other distros so I know their strengths and weaknesses.)
Fedora will never be a for-pay product. It is the community-driven REPLACEMENT for free Redhat. They canned free Redhat in order to better separate RHEL and Fedora. Also, unstable is a relative term. I've been using FC1 for months without any problems.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
You must have timed it really poorly for slackware because releases have been far and few between. 8.1 - 9.0 - 9 months. 9.0 - 9.1 - 6 months. And there has been no new release in 6 months.
Fedora is the beta testing grounds for what will later become a release of Redhat. In other words, you are doing beta testing for a product which you will have to pay for.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Also, just how in the world do you figure Fedora Core users are testing a product they will have to pay for? Fedora Core will always be open and free, and just why would a Fedora Core user pay for RHEL? Most/all RHEL users are not running Fedora on thier servers if they paid for RHEL. Please explain your logic where you think a Fedora user will ever have to pay money? Fedora is geared for home users or users that do not want to pay for RHEL. RHEL is for paying users that want the support. The two are totally different. A Fedora user will never have to pay RH and upgrade to RHEL.
Redhat also has some of their top developers very active in Fedora development. In exchange for the community helping in that development, they get a free OS, called Fedora. Again, Fedora users will never have to pay RH a dime. Your post is way off base.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
The disabled smbfs in the kernel to promote testing the new CIFS module. I don't know if anyoune set up binary RPMs like they have for NTFS, but it would be as simple as 1. install kernel-source 2. edit EXTRAVERSION in Makefile 3. copy the right config from /usr/src/linux-2.4/configs to /usr/src/linux-2.4/.config
4. make oldconfig
5. make menuconfig and enable smbfs as a module
6. make dep
7. make modules
8. copy the compiled module to whatever folder the cifs module is at in /lib/modules
9. depmod -a
10. enjoy
That's what I used to do for ntfs until I found the prebuilt RPMs at linux-ntfs.sf.net.
How well does apt-get for RPM compare with apt-get for Debian?
Are they really comparable?
As a user of yum on FC1, I'd really like to know. Why did I choose yum? Mainly because somebody I know used it and liked it, so I tried it, and liked it so much I set up my own yum repository mirror.
Does using apt-get really offer any benefit over yum? Doesn't apt-get simply mine the same RPM repositories surveyed when doing updates with yum?
Any intelligent response would be highly appreciated.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Ah, jolly good. More drastic changes to the way the kernel works in the middle of a "stable" series. Either kernels should still be being released as 2.5.x or 2.7.0 should have been forked.
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.