Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fedora Core 3 Test 1 Released

Posted by michael on from the i-feel-lucky dept.

Gudlyf writes "Notice just went out to the Fedora Announce List about the availability of Fedora Core 3 Test 1. Things expected in FC3 include Linux kernel 2.6.7, GCC 3.4, GNOME 2.8, KDE 3.3, and Evolution 2.0. As always, you can get Fedora Core test releases at redhat.com, specifically here and (for a torrent) here."

19 of 318 comments (clear)

  1. Bittorrent by StarHeart · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Always have the cd isos and working on the dvd iso with a 10mbit pipe. :)

    Suprised to see FC3 Test1 so soon.

    --
    Havoc Penington, the bane of my Linux desktop.
  2. Will this break Windows XP installs too? by strictnein · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Will it?

    --
    Casual Games/Downloads
    1. Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too? by verbatim_verbose · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not every distro with a 2.6 kernel has this problem. I dual boot with gentoo and have installed every 2.6 kernel version, and it's never had trouble like this.

    2. Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too? by verbatim_verbose · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've yet to hear one person complain that it was, so I think it's quite likely that it just didn't happen on Gentoo. (I spend quite a lot of time reading the forums and bug database.)

  3. WMP54G by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Will this work out of the box with the Linksys WMP54G 802.11G wireless card? Or will I still have to fsck around with ndiswrapper?

    Anyone?

  4. Re:Try Gentoo by DaHat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's true to the idea of free software (everything from the source, man!) and a joy to upgrade

    Personally... I can't stand building from source... yes building from source may result in a faster binary which is custom tailored to my system... but building can be a nightmare in terms of time! Recently I built kDevelop 3.0.4 from source and it took 3 hours and 45 min... all because I could not find a suitable RPM for my system.

    --
    Help Brendan pay off his student loans
  5. Upgrading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With releases coming out this fast, what's the best solution for upgrading? Does it work like you expect? What about going from Core 1 to Core 3?

    1. Re:Upgrading by Kainaw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      what's the best solution for upgrading?

      I tried the YUM upgrade from FC1 to FC2. It worked the first time on a dirt-old Dell Optiplex, but I had to reinstall the printer, sound, and fiddle around with the X config file to get the optical wheel mouse to work. That X config stuff can easily be blamed on the jump from X11 to Xorg.

      I tried it again on a newer Gateway E series. I couldn't get X to work no matter how much I fiddled with it. I eventually gave up, backed up my data files, and installed FC2 from scratch. It came up working just fine. The sound even works. This is the first time I've ever been able to have sound in more than one program at a time. Previously, nothing ever worked as advertised. I'd be listening to xmms and then a term window would want to beep and all sound went to hell.

      Because much of the problem of going from FC1 to FC2 was with the X configuration, I expect that using yum to jump from FC2 to FC3 will be easier, but I wouldn't want to try jumping from FC1 to FC3 that way.

      --
      The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
  6. What are the chances! by Goyuix · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I got in on a sweet AMD64 deal last week, the hardware will be arriving Thursday, so deciding to be proactive I go check the torrents at Duke to get FC2 for x86_64, but no - there is FC3 test 1. When I started I was about the only peer, getting about 150K/s (maxed my line) from I guess the torrent host. Very nice.

    For once the slashdot effect might actually work in my favor!

  7. Time Travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Looks like they live in the future. They included Gnome 2.8, which is not even out yet at this time.

  8. Fun stats on the BT tracker by ScytheBlade1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Fun stats on the BT tracker --> http://torrent.linux.duke.edu:6969/

  9. Re:Anybody else have problems? by ROOK*CA · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Could just be my take on it, but isn't that the whole point of Fedora ? more a less the "unstable branch" for RHEL ?

    One would think that they would want to move the Fedora "branch" as far along as possible (and field test as much as possible) in between RHEL releases in order to incoporate as many stable features & fixes as possible into RHEL.

    I'm not a big Red Hat user (prefer Gentoo myself) but that was my take on the Fedora projects goals.

  10. Please Fix FC2 instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Please don't do this. Please fix what's wrong with FC2 before you make us all erase and install FC3.

    Reminds me of Microsoft, when there was a fault in Win95, and the "fix" was "upgrade to Win98".

    "[foo] is broken in FC2" "Fixed in FC3"

  11. Fedora Core 3 Schedule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Posted at http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/schedule/ is a preliminary draft of a schedule for Fedora Core 3, reproduced below.

    - GCC 3.4 - those that have looked at rawhide will have noticed this
    - GNOME 2.8
    - KDE 3.3
    - SELinux, yet again. This includes a new 'targeted' policy that monitors specifc daemons with less intrusion than the strict policy in use before.
    https://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-selinux -list/2004-May/msg00096.html
    - IIIMF - continued evolution of the new input framework
    - Indic language support
    - Various desktop-related features, including, but not limited to:
    - Pango support for Mozilla
    - Remote desktops using VNC
    http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-desktop-list /2004-June/msg00007.html
    - Printing improvements
    http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/ 2004-June/msg00370.html
    - Evolution 2.0

  12. Too Fast For Me -- Moved To Debian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I had to upgrade a few RedHat 9.0 internal development servers. I thought the Fedora release cycle was too rapid and Redhat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was too expensive for internal development servers. I plan to use RHEL for the production machines. But for internal use I decided to use Debian instead for the following reasons:

    * slow stable release cycle
    * easier upgrades
    * server management and configuration tools

    One drawback of the slow release cycle of Debian is that software versions are somewhat old. If you need a newer version of a particular package Debian Backports can help with using newer software with stable Debian releases.

    1. Re:Too Fast For Me -- Moved To Debian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually I hate to say it but upgrading between stable releases in debian isnt that painless.

      It happens so rarely people start to think it is. I used to think so to until I had to do last release.

      There was a list of various things that had bugs and needed to be fixed by hand. The excuse of course was, but this is debian you only have to do this once in a while, no biggy. Well, maybe so but it certainly blows up the myth that debian upgrades are painless. When was the last time you did one between stable releases? Have you forgotten all the stuff that was screwed up? It's impossible to avoid since with 2 yeras or more between releases the software changes so damn drastically its impossible not to break something.

      I mean debian isn't bad but I feel I have to be honest and say the upgrade really isn't "painless". It may not be torture but there is some pain there for sure.

  13. Re:Anybody else have problems? by hawkeyeMI · · Score: 2, Interesting
    From my experiences with Fedora Core 1 and 2, and with RHEL 3.0, I would say the reverse is true -- RHEL is a stripped-down vesrion of FC. FC is the testing ground and they sort of pick one of each thing that works best for 'standarization' purposes, and ship it out with support as RHEL.

    We had problems with RHEL (which came with our dells) and replaced it with FC2. Things have been working great, actually.

    Note, I'm not sure this is the exact or actual process. It's just from my experience with the products.

    --
    Error 404 - Sig Not Found
  14. Fedora Can Go As Fast As They Want IIF by EXTomar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Fedora Crew can go as fast and agressive as they want if and only if they provide smooth upgrade paths by yum/up2date/"insert your favorite updating method here".

    My FC2 install is only 1.5 months old. It took me that long to decide to upgrade since the old software was working great. When I did finally buckle down to do it I had to do a CD install. I would rather do a "yum upgrade-distribution" or something else entirely.

    Between Debian's slowness of "it will be done when its done" and the neckbreaking speed of Fedora I keep hoping to find some sort of middle ground. I like software to be as progressive as anyone but upgrading is a major pain. If they solve that problem, then the world will beat a path to their door.

  15. Re:OSS Development too fast? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's more to do with the way people build RPMS than anything specific to Linux - it's perfectly feasable to build RPMs for Fedora Core 1 and have them install into FC2 (or indeed, build packages that can be installed into distros going back several years). Doing so is something of a black art though currently so nobody does it.