Fedora Core 3 Test 1 Released

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."

Comments

Bittorrent

[StarHeart]

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

Suprised to see FC3 Test1 so soon.

Re:Bittorrent

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Suprised to see FC3 Test1 so soon.

No kidding, I'm just now getting my FC2 install properly broken in. I'll probably wait for FC4 to upgrade..

Re:Bittorrent

[aztracker1]

I wouldn't mind seeing Mono1.0 with the FC3 release...

Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[strictnein]

Will it?

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[Orick]

Yes, just install it and select the option to overwrite all existing partitions, assuming you want the "Break XP" option.

--
Kirby Reviews

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[infernux]

We can only hope... ;)

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[Alex Brasetvik]

It's test1.

If you're afraid of it breaking anything at all, you probably don't want to use it.

If you on the other hand want to help the developers find the bugs at an early stage so they can squeeze the bugs, download it immediately, start testing and report bugs.

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[AlexMax2742]

Since I depend on both Windows XP and Liunx, this kind of attitude saddens me greatly.

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[thenextpresident]

Aren't Windows XP installs broken by default?

=)

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[claar]

It's funny; laugh.

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[Jahf]

You should have expected at least 1 response like that.

A) This is /. ...

B) It is a -test1 release ... it breaks EVERYTHING ...

C) This is /. ... if it had been the other way around (will XP SP2 break my Fedora install?) you'd still have had an equally brattish response.

Don't let it disappoint you ... just move on and read the better comments.

My personal feeling ... if you are at all worried about breaking something, you should wait until it is final, not in any form of test release. Otherwise, you're just asking for problems.

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[Orick]

I know.

I was just telling the questioner how to make sure the feature was preserved in the new version.

You wouldn't want the new version to be less feature-rich than RC2, would you?

--
Kirby Reviews

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[AlexMax2742]

The joke got old for me about a year ago.

And by the way, I installed Fedora Core 2 on both my work and home machine, both of which had Windows XP installed (and I had taken care of making room for it beforehand in both cases) and everything was A-OK. I don't think I should have a problem should I want to try out Fedora Core 3 at home...

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[Pros_n_Cons]

Mandrake had that bug.
And SuSe also had that bug.
If you mind not spreading fud and educating yourself have a look at This Page Which tells you how to not only recover the problem, but avoid it all together.
This crap is really getting old, stop trying to place blame only on Fedora dev's when every distro with 2.6 kernel has this problem okay?

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[Silvers]

Not all.

I run Gentoo, upgraded to 2.6 and it booted just fine.

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[0rbit4l]

This is an important question and a serious problem - it needs to be addressed *now*. For the previous respondents: you can't just blow this problem off as a "beta" bug and blame the user for using test software - this bug was RELEASED in Fedora Core 2 (along with many others, including a buggy version of gcc that dies on large functions unless you throw it -O0).

Also, all the links describe how to recover from & avoid this bug by manually entering hard drive geometry information for import into the partition table - uh, isn't it obvious then that there's a bug in the code that generates the partition table? A person is not a troll nor are they spouting "FUD" when there is a genuine issue that needs to be resolved. This needs to be resolved so that your average Linux newbie (who presumably is half-following the manuals correctly) or even a CAREFUL Linux newbie doesn't hose their system and give up.

Finally, the take that I've seen on the mailing lists that this isn't really a bug is really quite pathetic - quit shifting the blame. I don't care if "it's really Microsoft's fault" or not. If you know there is a compatibility issue and you can work around it, then you should. Step back for a second - Did Redhat9 have this problem? No. Did previous distributions with different tool versions have this problem? No. The problem exists *now* - ergo, this is a bug, and quite clearly (by virtue of functionality of previous versions), it is possible to release software that does not exhibit this behavior. Fix it and quit arguing.

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to be cynical, because I really like FC2, but most of the major bugs that plague FC2 were found a long time before release and duly reported. The developers did nothing about them, releasing anyway. So don't really expect them to fix any bugs you find.

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[verbatim_verbose]

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.

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Does it also sadden you when Windows screws up your Linux bootsector? At least most Linux distros try to cooperate with other bootloaders which may be installed.

For FC2, it was a case of perhaps being a bit too anal about making the bootsector technically correct*, which broke Window's nonstandard usage of the bootsector.

* Which is the best kind of correct.

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[hdparm]

That's an undocumented option. Proper one is

yum -y --breakXP upgrade

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[Bob The Cowboy]

Little testy.....

Slackware didn't have it. (Yes, Slack10 comes with 2.6, its just not defualt)

Bill

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[Mold]

It's not a universal bug. I've got four FC2 systems up right now, and none of them were effected.

I don't know a whole lot about it (since it didn't effect me, it mostly just passed by me), but just because your gentoo system wasn't effected, doesn't mean someone elses wasn't.

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[Cyberdork]

Funny how I installed SuSE 9.1 to dual boot with WinXP without any hitch whatsoever (except not being able to remember my passwords as I don't boot into it too often :P)

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[pseudochaotic]

So maybe, just maybe, he was asking if Fedora's devs have fixed it in this release? After all, looking at the GP, it could just as easily have been meant for linux distros in general.

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[verbatim_verbose]

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.)

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[mikefe]

Did the gentoo installer run on a 2.6 kernel?

If not, then they avoided the problem that way, not by fixing it.

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[mikefe]

My god. Have you seen how big it is?

Yeah, and it's especially painful as it rubs against the zipper when I don't wear my boxers. :-D

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[nine-times]

I thought it had something to do with installing the boot-loader, and what kernel you were running at the time. So, basically, it's not even about what distro you're running. It's about the kernel your liveCD (that you installed from) was running.

If you had a machine where the disk geometry was right (meaning, if you installed Fedora it would cause Windows XP to stop booting), and you installed Gentoo using a liveCD from any distro using the 2.6 kernel, and you installed GRUB (was it GRUB or LILO or both? I don't know) using that live CD, then you'd have a problem. I'm not sure that's right, but that's what I've been given to understand.

So the reason problem has been really rare for Gentoo users is probably just that this would be a rare combination to run in to. On the other hand, Fedora installs from only one install CD, which has the 2.6 kernel, whereas you can install Gentoo from any liveCD, and so you could be using any number of kernels. Plus, Fedora users are a little more likely to install from scratch, which will overwrite the boot record. If you're a Gentoo user, you'd just use portage and recomile the kernel, and alter grub.conf. Anyone who reinstalls Gentoo from scratch because they want to update is an idiot (it takes too friggen long). Whiping your old install of Fedora Core1 and installing Core 2 isn't that insane. And even if you met all of those requirements, you'd still need to happen to have the bad disk geometry, which wasn't that common to begin with.

So, I guess I'm saying that I don't think Gentoo avoided this problem some inherent 'better'-ness. It just so happened that a number of factors made it an extremely rare bug to encounter.

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[Jesus_666]

Yes, but there are various types of brokenness, various... flavors. Your typical fresh XP installation has the "Who is the deranged half-monkey responsible for this so-called UI?!" flavor, while older ones mature and develop unique flavors like "Where the hell did the clipboard functionality go?" or "No free space on target drive? I have twenty goddamn gigabytes of free space on that drive!"

Windows users appreciate the unique flavors their operating system offers them... No, actually they hate every single one, but they do prefer them over "Grub has been loading for half an hour and I doubt it's ever going to finish."

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[Moloch666]

How would the 2.6 kernel have any affect on causing issues with a Windows install? It does not toucht the MBR, now maybe there was a grub or lilo version that has a bug in it, but that is completely independent of the kernel.

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[C3ntaur]

If you know there is a compatibility issue and you can work around it, then you should.

Mmmm... And what happens when you try to install Windows dual-boot alongside an existing Linux installation? What steps does its installer take to preserve your data, or even the MBR?

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[AlexMax2742]

Does it also sadden you when Windows screws up your Linux bootsector?

Actually, yes. But at least something can be done about the Fedora Core 2 side of things.

Re:Will this break Windows XP installs too?

[qtothemax]

If I understand correctly, partitioning using the 2.6 kernel could cause some problems. Simple solution- use knoppix running a 2.4 kernel to partition before you install, then just install onto your pre-made partitions. Knoppix comes with qtparted, a nice graphical partition utility that has been really valuable for me, since I tri-boot and am always trying out new distros and re-allocating space between them. So the point is, I have used it quite a bit, and it has worked flawlessly for me. As a note, i'v been using Knoppix 3.3, but I'd assume 3.4 would work fine also, assuming you boot the 2.4 kernel option. You've gotta love knoppix, it makes so many things easier/possible.

WMP54G

[jeffkjo1]

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?

Re:WMP54G

[Tobias Luetke]

No, There are no linux drivers for it. You can get it to run using ndiswrapper and the windows drivers though ( i'm posting, connected using one

Re:WMP54G

[manifest37]

No it wont' ever work because broadcom will not release docs for the chipset. deal with it or buy a different card. if you want 54g i suggest the prism gt(www.prism54.org) chipset. there are drivers in the 2.6 kernel since about 2.6.5.

Re:WMP54G

[molarmass192]

Looks like you'll need to keep fscking with the ndiswrapper since Broadcom are still being bitches about releasing the chip specs. I've heard rumors of a native alpha driver but I think they're just that, rumors.

Re:WMP54G

[infernux]

Wait and see... too early to say right now I guess. But keep in mind, even if you read that the WMP54G is supported at some point, make sure that it is YOUR revision of the card that is supported because there are at least two with entirely different chipsets (Prism GT Vs. Atheros).

Re:WMP54G

[The Fanta Menace]

No it wont' ever work because broadcom will not release docs for the chipset.

Of course, there's nothing stopping someone clever from reverse engineering it.

Re:WMP54G

[VertigoAce]

If ndiswrapper doesn't work, Linuxant's driverloader might. My laptop has an Atheros 802.11a/b integrated card. The madwifi driver didn't work very well with my card (never could get a reliable connection). The ndiswrapper setup let me connect, but was incompatible with encryption on my card. Driverloader worked flawlessly. The downside is that the license is $20 per card (you can also get a 30 day trial license to see if it works better for you than any alternatives).

Re:WMP54G

[manifest37]

And that has been going on for over a year. There is a sourceforge page for that project but it is rarely updated. If a company is not going to release the specs i'm not going to support that company. Of course they released the gig ethernet controller specs (linux module tg3)

Re:Try Gentoo

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, quite a joy. i always rejoyce when i get to screw my girlfriend for 6 hours while i wait for my PC to recompile the compiler. =]

Anybody else have problems?

[atheken]

No disrespect intended against the Fedora team, but I find that this release schedule is not so hot. There have been A LOT of issues with my installation of FC2 on a standard dell box. Maybe this was just a fluke, but I can't understand the whole idea of a point release every few months. Nonetheless, where's the torrent?

Re:Anybody else have problems?

[Alex Brasetvik]

If you read the release schedule, you'll notice that FC3 isn't due until 18 October.

The link to the torrent can be found in the article text, actually. But since this is Slashdot: http://torrent.linux.duke.edu/FC3-test1-binary-i38 6.torrent.

Re:Anybody else have problems?

[ROOK*CA]

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.

Re:Anybody else have problems?

[kfg]

Maybe this was just a fluke, but I can't understand the whole idea of a point release every few months.

The point is that it's a development version test release, not a point release, in order to find out what all the problems are as quickly as possible so that they can be fixed before the next point release so there can be a next point release someday.

If you aren't interested in testing potentially broken things avoid it.

KFG

Re:Anybody else have problems?

[hafree]

I still have tons of in-house applications that refuse to run under Core 2, particularly those that rely on external libraries...

Re:Anybody else have problems?

[Cat_Byte]

I wish they had just kept Redhat going as well. I had no problems at all with Redhat 9 (aside from up2date wanting a new signature). Fedora doesn't even support my wireless usb card that worked perfectly in redhat 9.

Re:Anybody else have problems?

[Spoke]

Let me guess, you've got an older Dell with the Intel 440GX chipset, and maybe even a DAC960 onboard?

There are many open bugs in RedHat's Bugzilla (just search all open bugs for 440GX) which prevent RedHat 9 and newer (FC1, and FC2 included) from being installed.

The last RedHat I have been able to get installed on those machines is RedHat 7.3. So far the only workaround I have found which should work is to rebuild the installation media with a rebuilt kernel which works with that chipset, but I have not yet tried it myself:

http://www.techonthenet.com/linux/fc2_update.htm

Apparently, the bug which affects the 440GX chipset is fixed in 2.6.7, so possibly FC3b1 will work where previous FCs have failed...

Re:Anybody else have problems?

[black mariah]

You're basically right. Fedora is a slightly stripped RHEL (or more accurately, RHEL is a more featureful Fedora). Fedora is the direct replacement of the older Redhat line, and RHEL is the 'business class' version with better stability and support.

Re:Anybody else have problems?

[hawkeyeMI]

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.

Re:Anybody else have problems?

[beakburke]

RHEL 2.1 or 3.0?

Re:Anybody else have problems?

[hawkeyeMI]

From my experiences with Fedora Core 1 and 2, and with RHEL 3.0

3.0

Re:Anybody else have problems?

[Nailer]

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

No - though that's a widely held misconception. RHEL exists because Red Hat's customers want to install a Linux distro and run it for five years without having to install anything but the odd security update. Its binary compatibility is stable.

Fedora is stable too - in the reliable sense. As with the old Red Hat Linux, you might have to go get a new JRE when it includes a cool new threading model. But Fedora should, and does work, and Red Hat staff are paid to fix bugs in it - otherwise those bugs will affect the next RHEL release.

Re:Anybody else have problems?

[BJH]

I have a 440GX+ machine that ran RH8.0 with no problems... I haven't upgraded it since then because of Alan Cox's comments about IRQ routing issues with that chipset in later releases, but 8.0 should work fine.

Re:Anybody else have problems?

[Spoke]

Yes, RH8 should install, however RH8 was regarded as not being very stable, so I never tried it.

I was thinking about the issue some more, and thought that another workaround to get an already running machine upgraded would be to do a "live upgrade" where you upgrade RPMs manually, and/or let apt/yum handle any dependencies...

Re:That was fast....

[bob670]

Except you don't have to pay $199 for it...

Re:Try Gentoo

[DaHat]

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.

Upgrading

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Upgrading

[Kainaw]

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.

Re:Upgrading

[chadm1967]

Releases are coming out too fast. Read the release schedule. FC3 isn't due out until 18 October. This is just a test release.

Re:Upgrading

[dbIII]

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.

Now that's scary - reformat and reinstall just to get one application (even if the application is X) to run - OK if it's a new install, but nowhere near the way to go if you've actually used the machine for a while. The rpm program makes it very easy to remove and install packages. If the new version of X doesn't work with your old config, the easiest answer is just to remove X, get the old rpms off your old CD or from rpmfind, and install the version of X that worked.

That said, if you have a graphical login, it can be difficult to change things in X.

Sound is a different story, involving fooling about with kernel modules - not as big a nightmare as installing sound hardware in NT4, but it can come close.

What are the chances!

[Goyuix]

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!

Re:What are the chances!

[rwiedower]

Any change regarding the status of SATA support under x86_64?

Re:What are the chances!

[fitten]

I don't boot off an SATA drive, but I have one in my system. It worked under FC2 AMD64 but I was able to move to Mandrake 10 AMD64 recently (which also supports it). I think they both pretend it is SCSI.

Re:What are the chances!

[dbIII]

Any change regarding the status of SATA support under x86_64?

It's been in Mandrake since the 9.2 beta for AMD64, which had a few chunks of the 2.6.* kernel backported to 2.4. I think it's been in 2.6.* for a long time, so if it doesn't work out of the box it is a kernel compile away. In the worst case you may have to boot off floppy as few times until you get it right.

If it works in one distro and not another then compiling a new kernel will make it work in your favourite distro.

Announce Text

[Anonymous Coward]

It's already starting to act slow, so I might as well post it as an AC to avoid karma whoring.

Announcing Fedora Core 3 Test 1

* From: Bill Nottingham
* To: fedora-announce-list redhat com
* Subject: Announcing Fedora Core 3 Test 1
* Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:38:37 -0400

[ witty or not-so-witty reference ]

Yes, it's time for the [number] test release of Fedora Core [number]. Fedore Core [number] includes various new features, such as
KDE [version], GNOME [version], and the [version] kernel.

[call for testing]

[admonition about production use]

Problems with Fedora Core [number] test [number] should be reported via bugzilla, at:

http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/

Please report bugs against 'Fedora Core', release 'test1'.

For more information on just what the Fedora Project and Fedora Core is, please see:

http://fedora.redhat.com/

For discussion of Fedora Core test releases, send mail to:

fedora-test-list-request redhat com

with subscribe in the subject line. You can leave the body empty. Or see: https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora -test-list/

As always, you can get Fedora Core test releases at redhat.com, specifically: http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux /core/test/2.90/

Or on the following mirrors:

* North America

* USA East

* http://mirror.linux.duke.edu/pub/fedora/linux/core /test/2.90/
* ftp://mirror.linux.duke.edu/pub/fedora/linux/core/ test/2.90/
* rsync://mirror.linux.duke.edu/fedora-linux-core/te st/2.90/
* ftp://mirror.cs.princeton.edu/pub/mirrors/fedora/l inux/core/test/2.90/
* ftp://ftp.cse.buffalo.edu/pub/fedora/linux/core/te st/2.90/
* http://mirror.hiwaay.net/redhat/fedora/linux/core/ test/2.90/
* ftp://mirror.hiwaay.net/redhat/fedora/linux/core/t est/2.90/
* rsync://mirror.hiwaay.net/fedora-linux-core/test/2 .90/
* ftp://ftp.net.usf.edu/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/2 .90/
* http://redhat.secsup.org/fedora/core/test/2.90/
* ftp://redhat.secsup.org/pub/linux/redhat/fedora/co re/test/2.90/
* ftp://fedora.mirrors.tds.net/pub/fedora-core/test/ 2.90/
* http://linux.nssl.noaa.gov/fedora/core/test/2.90/
* ftp://linux.nssl.noaa.gov/fedora/core/test/2.90/
* rsync://linux.nssl.noaa.gov/fedora/core/test/2.90/
* http://mirror.cs.wisc.edu/pub/mirrors/linux/downlo ad.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/2. 90/
* ftp://mirror.cs.wisc.edu/pub/mirrors/linux/downloa d.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/2.9 0/
* rsync://mirror.cs.wisc.edu/pub/mirrors/linux/downl oad.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/2 .90/

* USA West

* ftp://mirror.stanford.edu/pub/mirrors/fedora/linux /core/test/2.90/

* Canada

* ftp://less.cogeco.net/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/2 .90/
* ftp://ftp.nrc.ca/pub/systems/linux/redhat/fedora/l inux/core/test/2.90/
* http://gulus.usherbrooke.ca/pub/distro/fedora/linu x/core/test/2.90/
* http://mirror.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/mirror/fedora/linux /core/test/2.90/
* ftp://mirror.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/mirror/fedora/linux/ core/test/2.90/

* South America

* Chile

Re:Announce Text

[bfg9000]

It's already starting to act slow, so I might as well post it as an AC to avoid karma whoring.

DUDE!!! Why on earth would you AVOID karma whoring? Don't you know there are children starving for karma in China? Waste not, want not, all that jazz? Karma whoring is the noble backbone of Slashdot civilization! It's one of the four holy pillars of Slashdot, the other three being 'In Soviet Russia', 'Beowulf Cluster', and 'Natalie Portman's Hot Grits'. No wonder you posted AC, the outrage of someone AVOIDING karma whoring would follow you for all eternity. You'd have an angry mob of geeks with torches and pitchforks angrily camped outside your castle shouting "Send out the heretic!"

Gandalf should have chosen YOU to carry the ring, you've obviously got a stronger will than Frodo. My God. You passed up a perfectly good Karma Whore! My mind reels. That's the geek equivalent of purposely puking on Pamela Anderson to make sure she doesn't accidentally have wild meaningless sex with you.

It's. Just. Not. Right.

Please, think seriously about what I've said -- Friends don't let friends pass up a good Karma Whore. Don't let it happen again.

Re:Announce Text

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent! I think I'll try using that as a cut'n'paste karma whore in the future. :-)

Time Travel

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Time Travel

[Gudlyf]

Actually 2.6 is what's included. 2.8 is planned for final release.

MYSQL 4

[Enquest]

Fedora still doesn't have MySql 4. I have switced to Mandrake

Re:MYSQL 4

[LuckyStarr]

Take the RPMs from mysql.com. They are really stable and work as expected.

Re:MYSQL 4

[graveyhead]

Mandrake is an excellent choice for MySQL. It works great out of the box. MySQL on Mandrake is actually twice as fast as FreeBSD, Mandrake wins MySQL benchmarks

Did you actually read the rest of that thread before jumping to conclusions?

MySQL Statically compiled with libc_r...

That's your killer. You're using the the single-process polling loop
based threads and comparing it to linux's parallel process based
threads. The moment one thread blocks on disk IO, everything stops.

Re:MYSQL 4

[Donny Smith]

Strange reasoning.
It's easier to install mySQL 4 on Fedora than reinstall OS.

Re:MYSQL 4

[Christianfreak]

Yeah, its weird that they won't bundle MySQL 4 but they only bundle Apache2 with no easy way to get Apache 1.3.x without compiling it or finding a very non-standard RPM.

Not that Apache is hard to compile but it would be nice to keep it up to date with apt or yum like all the other packages. I'm forced to stick with Apache 1.3 until mod_perl reaches a stable version 2 and the Perl modules have caught up with it.

Screenshots

[BaronGanut]

Here are some screenshots i found: http://anyweb.kicks-ass.net/linux/fedora/index1.ht ml

Re:Screenshots

[Random Web Developer]

sure, bombard someone's dyndns url with 1400*1200 screenshots from slashdot and whatch him get kicked by his ISP :)

Re:Screenshots

[davidkv]

The screenshots are from Fedora Core 1, Test 3.
Not Fedora Core 3, Test 1.

Re:Screenshots

[aligas]

I could be wrong, but these appear to be screen shots for Fedora Core 1's Test 3 release.

So these are NOT screenshots of what was released today (Fedora Core 3 Test 1).

Re:Screenshots

[Scherf]

From the page:

" First off, if you can read this then lucky you !, my ISP is logging me off every few minutes so apologies to those of you who cannot see these screenshots. "

I wonder why...

Re:Screenshots

[chadm1967]

And what's up with the 1400x1200 screenshots?

Re:Screenshots

[Random Web Developer]

What makes me wonder is this:
If he is being disconnected and people don't see his screenshots (the position i still seem to be in) they won't see the message neither ;)

Re:Screenshots

[Cyberdork]

That's why he tells those who can that they're lucky :P

Re:Screenshots

[Random Web Developer]

I was referring to the apologies section specifically ;)

At this rate....

[Harbinjer]

They're moving so fast, that I think they pile on more bugs than the rate they fix them at. Its generally pretty good, but still, a slightly slower schedule wouldn't impare them much. There really hasn't been that much new software since FC2 was released. Why not patch FC2, and wait for more stable builds of the next Gnome, like 2.8.2 or something, and KDE 3.3.1. It doesn't seems like Gnome 2.8 is that far along, and will be shipping as RC instead of finalized and tested. And if they do finalize 2.8, will is just be a bug-fix with like 1 new feature?

Re:At this rate....

[Scyber]

If you look at the roadmap, FC3 isn't supposed to be out till the 18th of October, a full month after Gnome 2.8 is supposed to be released.

Re:At this rate....

[nine-times]

Well... this is a 'test', after all. I mean, shouldn't they constantly be testing? If they were releasing FC3 final today, I'd say, 'er, yeah, isn't that a little quick?' But I don't really expect a 'test' to have all stable builds. I expect and hope that they're testing the newest tech they have, and figuring out what's "stable" in time for the final version.

And aren't there updates to FC2? I don't use it, but can't you use yum or something to get patches and bug-fixes? I thought Fedora used yum. So aren't there plenty of updates.

I guess I'm confused.

Re:At this rate....

[magefile]

If it wouldn't boot, why did you care about music and the network?

/me ducks

Re:At this rate....

[Scyber]

There have been a bunch of package updates for FC2. Actually that reminds me that I need to update my workstation at home.

Re:At this rate....

[wormbin]

Fedora isn't supposed to be a stable distribution that lets you get your work done in peace. It's a way for redhat to test the newest features before incorporating them into their stable products.

If you want stability, there are plenty of other distributions that fit the bill.

Re:At this rate....

[AugstWest]

People seem to want FC to be Desktop Redhat, and that just isn't the plan.

A lot of us have built our desktops around Redhat for years, so the transition may seem a bit harsh, but the reality is that Fedora Core point releases will be fairly often and probably not extremely compatible with everything you've got... FC "shipped" without firewire support, and I still don't think it's been fixed... There will be no Ximian Desktop for FC...

What I do really like about it, though, is how quick the community has been with the apt and yum repositories -- upgrades are generally quick and painless.

Re:At this rate....

[Erwos]

It shipped without Firewire because IEEE-1394 is busted in 2.6 right now.

-Erwos

Re:At this rate....

[JanneM]

Firewire access was fixed about a month ago with a kernel update. But yes, in general you are right - this is not the distro for people that want something stable and unchanging. It is bleeding edge, and as always, that means you do cut yourself from time to time.

Re:At this rate....

[xenocide2]

If they go any slower, they jeopordize losing out to another community based Distro infamous for long testing cycles...

Missing links.

[phaetonic]

I would have expected to see a ChangeLog in the article posted, as well as saying if the big bugs in FC2 have been fixed! (Windows mbr breakage and Orinoco wireless PCMCIA support breakage).

Re:Missing links.

[coop0030]

Orinoco wireless PCMCIA support breakage

I don't understand this. I am posting using fedora core 2, and using the Orinoco wireless PCMCIA drivers. Fedora set them up perfectly (other than my compaq laptop hating my pcmcia connection using many IRQ's). This is after I tried setting them up in Mandrake 10.0 with no luck.

Fun stats on the BT tracker

[ScytheBlade1]

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

Re:Fun stats on the BT tracker

[hey]

Well all know GiB is correct but -- really.
Why can't we just agree that GB means GiB.

OSS Development too fast?

[rally_redhat]

Sometimes, just sometimes, I get the feeling that Linux distributions are being released too fast for ordinary users to keep up. I mean, FC2 was released about a month back (roughly), and here we are, talking about about FC3 Test 1 already! I guess FC3's slated to be released sometime in October.

The problem with this is that often, packages (rpms) for older distros are discontinued, thus forcing users to upgrade. I know stuff like Yum solves a lot of these issues, but the fundamental problem still remains.

For instance, I was running FC1 with KDE 3.2 Beta 2, which released sometime in December 2003, and wanted to upgrade to KDE 3.2.3 - but I couldn't find any rpms for FC1 at all, only FC2. Since upgrading was on the card anyways, I did download and install FC2, and all's well that ends well, but it did leave me thinking about whether Open Source software products are being released a tad too fast.

I wrote an essay about technology overload [rahulgaitonde.org] on my website. This news post on /. made me instantly think back to that essay.

Re:OSS Development too fast?

[CharAznable]

Well, no Debian! I suppose the release cycle depends on the developers and what their objectives are. Since Fedora is not supposed to be a production distro but rather a testbed for RHEL, it's natural that they're going to put out stuff as fast as possible.

Re:OSS Development too fast?

[bobaferret]

I think the standard redhat reply to this is " If you want things to slow down, then you need to buy enterprise version" If you have a bunch of servers/systems, it does get a little rough trying to keep up with all of these, but if you've only got a desktop to keep up with it's not too bad. I have an FC1 server, and 2 FC2 servers, and EL3 server plus a desktop system, and 15 out in field stripped down, behind a firewall, vpn boxes. I'm getting tired of trying to keep up on the server side. But my remote clients I don't really care about, since they are for specific tasks and closed up pretty tight, so they can just sort of drift over the years.

back to the point though, I think this is sort of what redhat wants. Spend some money on machines that you don't want to have to bring down for upgrades all the time, or that you want your staff to be standardised on, but the home market doesn't mind playing with new stuff, and wants to be on the edge so theres FC, the applaice market is not cost effective for them to try to hit either since inherant in the very nature of the applaince market is cheapness, so we are back to FC as well. By doing such rapid releases, they are forcing this split.

Re:OSS Development too fast?

[rally_redhat]

(personnally i upgrade out of compulsion ;)

That part really struck a chord! There was no real reason for me to upgrade from FC1 to FC2, or from OO.org 1.1 to 1.1.2, or from Firefox 0.8 to 0.9 or from Thunderbird 0.5 to 0.6 to 0.7, and.... you get the idea. I guess it's purely out of compulsion!

Have bandwidth, will download!

Re:OSS Development too fast?

[HiThere]

I have two standard answers:

1) Debian (I prefer LibraNet as the installer, but the current version is a bit old. Doing the upgrades after the install can take most of a day.)

2) K.R.U.D. Kevin's Red Hat Uber Distribution. This is (currently) a patched and stabilized version of Fedora. A yearly subscription is cheap (a CD a month).

Neither of these are as bleeding edge as Fedora. Debian is a bit more flexible if you have a fast internet connection, but to get the recent stuff you need to take some things from unstable. This is why I prefer LibraNet. They pick and choose among unstable snapshots (and use a lot of testing).

KRUD is a stabilized Fedora. It isn't always perfect (I'm running on an SMP system which may cause some of the problems), but it's quite good. You can usually just update from one CD to the next, which saves a lot of work. OTOH, I'm always finding that the package that I want isn't currently available for the latest version of Fedora...(or I was a couple of months ago). If you don't have this problem, then Fedora (KRUD) may be your best choice. But do be sure to 1) partition your drives so that /home is on a separate partition, and 2) keep the last version of the CDs. Sometimes you need to revert, and that requires an install, not a mere update.

Re:OSS Development too fast?

[Mathetes]

From what I've read one of the core philosophies of Open Source is "Release early, release often!"

Re:OSS Development too fast?

[IamTheRealMike]

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.

Re:OSS Development too fast?

[wobblie]

Debian is a good way out of this, the release cycle is rather slow, most of the more important software is backported to it (like KDE, gnome, mozilla, etc.), and the selection of software is enormous, meaning you won't have to be compiling anything. The software is also far easier to install.

If you want to use and rpm based distro at home you are pretty much going to be upgrading with every point release unless you're perfectly happy with what you have.

Re:OSS Development too fast?

[DeathBunny]

Sometimes, just sometimes, I get the feeling that Linux distributions are being released too fast for ordinary users to keep up.

In case you hadn't noticed, Fedora isn't *supposed* to be for average users. The very first paragraph of the fedora.redhat.com web site says:

The Fedora Project is a Red-Hat-sponsored and community-supported open source project. It is also a proving ground for new technology that may eventually make its way into Red Hat products. It is not a supported product of Red Hat, Inc.

I think the phrase "proving ground for new technology" should make it clear that this is not for ordinary home users. It's for developers and technology geeks.

If you want a distro with a slower, more stable development cycle you should probably look into the commercially supported version of Redhat, or one of the other many fine distro's mentioned elsewhere in this thread (Debian for example).

Re:OSS Development too fast?

[beakburke]

As others have said, FC is not intended to be a stable distribution. It's a bleeding edge "release early, release often" testing distribution. Sure they have releases (think of them as the development branch of RHEL). the test relesases are like a series of alphas and actual releases are more like beta test phase products. If you want stable you use debian, SuSE enterprise or RHEL. (Or maybe slackware. I have a slackware 8.1 box from 2 years ago still running somewhere (still was being maintained as of last month), I'll probably upgrade after 10.1 comes out. Slackware 10 just came out.)

Re:OSS Development too fast?

[alerante]

Fedora Core is not designed for ordinary users. Red Hat states on the Product Relationship page that it is intended for "early adopters, enthusiasts, [and] developers". The release cycle is supposed to be for those who want the latest version of everything and want it now, even if it might break some stuff.

Re:OSS Development too fast?

[MSG]

Backward compatibility is generally pretty good, so building a package on FC1 and installing on FC2 is probably no black art. The reverse may not be true.

I think that the reason you see software rebuilt on every point release is that distros want to take full advantage of the developments in each new release. If that weren't the case, I think you'd see more distros providing a real "core" release with a single repository of software compiled on LSB platforms.

Let's make a bet...

[rulethirty]

Before I was able to fix everying in RedHat 9, Fedora Core 1 came out, and before I could fix everything in Fedora Core 1, Fedora Core 2 came out. I will bet that by the time I fix everything in Fedora Core 2 they will release Fedora Core 3 no later than 2 days afterwards. Any takers?

Re:Let's make a bet...

[maskedbishounen]

You must be slow. ;) I would suggest backing up any custom changes you want/need and merging them into your new install.

That, or quit "upgrading" and start updating your packages instead?

Re:Let's make a bet...

[RichiP]

In my case, what few problems I had with RH9 was fixed in FC1. There was a bug I had with FC1 that got fixed in an update and didn't reappear in FC2.

Using FC2 on 3 of my machines at home and 4 at work. Installed them on one of the workstations at work and now linux is starting to get accepted there. Fedora Core has been great for me and the various installs I've done.

Re:Let's make a bet...

[It'sYerMam]

Except FC3 ISN'T out - the first test release is out.
As already said, the final's set for the 18th of the 10th (8 days after my birthday) and by that time, FC3 should be nice and stable. Ish. Remember that this whole FC thing is a test in itself, so FC3 final will still be a RHEL test 1.

Re:Let's make a bet...

[Pros_n_Cons]

so FC3 final will still be a RHEL test 1.

I don't really think so. RHEL will not be based on fedora, it will be based on RHEL. It will likely 'cherry pick' things from Fedora though, like SElinux, exec-shield, freedesktop, etc; but it might be too much work for the RHEL team to go backwards from Fedora instead of just taking key things out of it. Then again.. see sig.

Re:Try Gentoo

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a girlfriend? Please, do tell... what is it like?

Re:4 CD's

[Anonymous Coward]

In those 4 CDs is the equivelent of windows, Office, Access, IIS, and Visual Studio.

Hope FC3 restores some faith...

[darth_silliarse]

I might just dual boot with Win2K again if Fedora Core 3 proves to be less of a pain in the arse (see FC2 dualboot feature) to install. I was seriously considering FC2 before that bug was discovered, glad I stayed my hand and let others do the testing ;O)

Re:Hope FC3 restores some faith...

[Cat_Byte]

I have dual boot 2K Pro and FC2 on both my laptop and desktop. I never had to do anything weird like this. I'm STILL trying to get my wireless NIC to work in FC2 though....grrr.

Re:4 CD's

[Shoeler]

Are you kidding or just ignorantly looking for karma?

It's got four CDs, einstein, because it's got so damned many apps bundled with it.

Try bundling MS office, MS SQL (two versions of it), exchange, and a few other M$ bloatware apps with XP and THEN come tell me about bloated installs.

You have obviously never installed fedora and if you did you did it to put it on your resume that you are a Redhat expert and have administered it for years.

Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

Fedora Core 3 Test 1. A portal to the future.

[Zugot]

I'm happy with all the enthusiasm for this great project. But can Redhat be so great that they can offer Gnome 2.8 before Gnome 2.8 exists?

Already?

[nurb432]

what is the point of moving so fast...

Are they trying to make up for the old RH servers where releases were far and few between?

At this rate it makes them look unpredictable and unuseable in a business who needs something that appears 'stable.'

Re:Already?

[Syberghost]

Are they trying to make up for the old RH servers where releases were far and few between?

Yes.

At this rate it makes them look unpredictable and unuseable in a business who needs something that appears 'stable.'

They don't expect you to use it there.

Honestly, does nobody read the freakin' FAQ before they post opinions about a project anymore?

Re:Try Gentoo

[no reason to be here]

I believe there was a typo in your post:

you mispelled "masterbate to pictures of techTV chicks" as "screw my girlfriend" and "constantly" as "6 hours".

Re:Gnome 2.8??

[Knuckles]

Ever heard of development versions?

gcc 3.4....that is ballzy

[GweeDo]

I used gcc 3.4 for a while on Gentoo and had no real luck with it. There are a number of applications that won't compile under it or die a horrible death after being build with it. But maybe that was just me. Is it "better" now?

Please Fix FC2 instead

[Anonymous Coward]

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"

Re:Please Fix FC2 instead

[johnnyb]

Why do you think RedHat switched to the Fedora model? Fedora is not meant to be a stable, production distribution. Even the non-test releases are still test releases. That's the whole point. They have "bleeding-edge", Fedora, and "enterprise stable", RHEL. They decided that maintaining a middle category that wasn't providing them with funds was a bad idea. With Fedora, they give a free bleeding-edge OS and get free testing. With RHEL, they have you pay for a solid OS and you get technical support.

It's actually a pretty good model, but not one my company can afford, so we are in the process of switching to Mandrake.

Re:Please Fix FC2 instead

[plj]

It's actually a pretty good model, but not one my company can afford, so we are in the process of switching to Mandrake.

Why? You could have chosen just to use RHEL without support subscription.

RHEL still GPL'd, after all. And as WBL is still RHEL compatible, you can still subscribe later and just upgrade WBL to "real" RHEL, if you wish.

Re:Please Fix FC2 instead

[johnnyb]

Right, but I like more standard distributions. I don't have time to check WBEL's changes to see if they are beneficial, harmful, or neither.

Re:4 CD's

[afd8856]

ok, so let's count:

1 cd (possibly 4) for the Office suite
at least 1 cd for the Mail server
1 cd for the project manager
~5 cds for the development environment
1 cd for the extra stuff (the Plus CD).
no cd for the internationalization

should I count more? You are really trolling.
Compare this to Fedora, and you'll find that it's not so bloated.

Re:SLOW THE FUCK DOWN!

[Alex Brasetvik]

I can't believe that you got moderated "Informative" for such rant.

First of all, it's not about "every X weeks". FC1 was released 5 November 2003, FC2 was released 18 May 2004. FC3 is due 18 October 2004.

Secondly, nobody forces you to upgrade. These people are doing their best to improve free (as in libre) software, while you scoff at them. Give me a break.

Rename it

[chris_mahan]

They should have nicknamed it XPsp2

On the off chance...

Fedora Core 3 Schedule

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Give me a break.

[Run4yourlives]

This is the major problem with Software dev. as a whole... everyone wants the work on the new ideas and features, nobody wants to bother to fix those features.

Why isn't the dual boot bug being fixed for FC2 before everyone moves to FC3?

Am I going to have to live with a dual boot bug in a future version of RH because of this neglect? Odds are, I will.

Re:Give me a break.

[magefile]

It's not RH's fault. It's in the kernel. Meaning it's probably been fixed, or in the process of being fixed. Now, maybe RH/FC shouldn't've gone with 2.6, maybe 2.6 was too young and untested, but it's been done. Don't make this out to be some huge Redhat bug.

New stuff

[Sunspire]

Things that interest me:

- I see the Freedesktop.org HAL code is being included in test1. That will be interesting to see if and how integrated it will be in the final release. We'll probably also see some sort of real udev support this time.

- The timetable for the next official X.org release is planned to sync with Fedora Core 3. I'm a bit skeptical they can make it in time, but it would be really cool if they did. This will be the first X.org to include the new desktop composition extension from Keith Packards kdrive test.

Too Fast For Me -- Moved To Debian

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Too Fast For Me -- Moved To Debian

[DAldredge]

WTF is so hard about Fedora Upgrades?

Re:Too Fast For Me -- Moved To Debian

[khelek]

Why not take a look at CentOS [caosity.org] It's good for those looking for the stability and longevity of RHEL but not the official support from Red Hat.

Re:Too Fast For Me -- Moved To Debian

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Too Fast For Me -- Moved To Debian

[DAldredge]

Then don't upgrade. Security updates are still released for FC1.

Re:Too Fast For Me -- Moved To Debian

[LoveTheIRS]

Yea, seriously. Debian has extremely sloth release cycles. Woody, the last official release has ancient software. For Example, on the desktop kde 2. something. If you don't want to have to do a major system upgrade for a decade, debian is for you.

Re:Too Fast For Me -- Moved To Debian

[AvantLegion]

For how long?

Care to bet how long FC1 security updates will stay current, compared to his Debian installs? Particularly once they get to FC 6 or so....

Re:Too Fast For Me -- Moved To Debian

[juhaz]

From RH, not very long.

Updates will be available for two to three months after the release of the subsequent version; that is, updates for Fedora Core 1 will be provided for two to three months after the release of Fedora Core 2, and so forth.

After that, Fedora Legacy is supposed to provide updates for two additional core releases. So FC1 would be obsoleted when FC4 comes out, so total lifetime would be about 1½ years. Not nearly as long as Debian stable, but not nearly as bad as 6 months either, and after all the nature of FC is to be relatively fast moving, and was from the very beginning. If you're expecting static, you are running wrong distro, if you want slower pace, you can always move to Debian.

Re:SLOW THE FUCK DOWN!

[brettlbecker]

/feeding the troll, but this same kind of thought is appearing too regularly when discussing Fedora

Dude, chill.

As has been mentioned many, many times, and is explicitly stated on fedora's homepage, fedora is not in any way an enterprise-ready distribution. It's not meant to be. It's meant to be a testing ground for RedHat Enterprise Linux.

This comes with all appropriate caveats. No one is forcing you to continually install the most bleeding edge software, and if you are doing so in anything other than a troubleshooting/hobbiest/dick-in-the-wind environment, you are asking for a lot of trouble.

Don't blame Red Hat for your obsession with having the absolute latest software installed all the time. /feed

B.

4 CDs is excessive

[nurb432]

While i totally agree that you are getting much more then just an OS and windowing system, it doesnt take 4 cds to put out an OS+desktop+sql+office suite+devlopment ide.. etc

If you doubt this, look at mepis, or FBSD....

While some choice is good, Fedora is piling on TOO many duplicated items.. Unfortunately this is a common problem with linux distros in general.. Just because its free and you can, doesnt mean you should... Bulk doesnt always mean better..

Re:4 CDs is excessive

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need all four CDs -- each CD only depends on the contents of itself or earlier CDs, and they put the more popular software on earlier discs too.

If you want a "typical" desktop (kernel, mozilla, aim client, a few games, openoffice), then you probably only need the first disc. If you want some really obscure application, you might need to dip into a later disc. (Development documentation, etc.)

Re:4 CDs is excessive

[Kyouryuu]

I think there's a CD swap on Fedora Core 2 when OpenOffice installs. The fourth CD is not really needed for a typical install, but Red Hat's "Typical" install does require the first three CDs.

I agree, when Mepis can cram all of those mandatory apps on one CD, it's silly for Red Hat to make people download over 2 gigs of data for three CDs.

Re:4 CDs is excessive

[dara]

What should be possible is to state that you only have CDs 1, 1-2, 1-3, or 1-4 during package selection time and the installer would only offer you the choices that are available.

I, like others here, would prefer to do a reasonable workstation installation with just CD 1 (currently disks 1 and 2 are required). And links to torrents for individual CDs should be more prominent than they are now.

Mandrake did something like this quite a while ago and it worked fine.

Dara Parsavand

Re:4 CDs is excessive

[Kyouryuu]

I agree. Instead, Anaconda is more of a post-choice arrangement. Once you select all your packages, then it tells you what CDs will be required. The process should probably be reversed.

Either way, what with Knoppix, Mepis, etc., there's no reason why I shouldn't have the essential e-mail, Internet, office productivity, and graphics tools on the first disk alone. It's a win-win for everyone. A win for users because they don't have to download gigs of packages they don't want, and a win for the always-congested Red Hat servers and mirrors.

Re:4 CD's

[magefile]

Just to back you up, my Dell-branded XP Pro was on one CD, but but Office XP took 3, and the Dell driver/utility discs (DVD player, Roxio EZ CD, etc) took 3. That's 7 CDs. And I didn't get anywhere near the variety of stuff I got with FC2, and I only used 3 of the 5 CDs.

Plus, to get my Dell CDs replaced, I had to call in three times, one original call, once because they sent me XP Home, once 'cuz they forgot to send XP Pro. To get all 5 FC2 disks took three hours, and I got the warm 'n' fuzzies of using Bit Torrent and helping others get it too. Don't even get me started on how long it took to install XP versus FC2.

Re:SLOW THE FUCK DOWN!

[Syberghost]

I do NOT need a new OS install every three weeks.

Then go install one of the many distributions geared toward you, such as RedHat.

Fedora is geared toward the people who DO want or need a new OS install every four months.

Re:Discussion Board

[luguvalium2]

The discussion lists you want are listed here.

Now that they have a test release, I would recommend the fedora-test list to track what is going on with FC3 or the fedora-devel list.

Re:4 CD's

[carcosa30]

Yes. And one thing you might note for your simian friend here is the fact that nobody's forcing you to install everything on the CDs. Did this guy install Fedora at all? Ever?

Personally, I love having a full-figured (Don't call it fat!) install. I miss the 6-8 CD SuSe distros. But everything works so nice on Fedora...

Just an example.

[Run4yourlives]

Probably not a good one, by I'm trying to make a point.

The whole idea of Fedora is that it's to be a testing ground for new technologies to incorporate into RH.

It can't do that successfully if it's not taking the time to fully test those technologies, because it's jumping to the "new thing" too quickly.

I don't care if fedora breaks... it's a testing ground.

I do care that RH 10 or 11 breaks, because they implemented an undertested "feature" derived from Fedora. This is the danger I'm talking about.

red hat

[Run4yourlives]

In the future will incorporate these under-tested features from Fedora.

I shouldn't need to worry about fixing them then.

In other news...

[Chuck Bucket]

One of the Fedora developers sneezed! Quickly slashdot his blog now!

(j/k, it just seems like a new test release doesn't warrant a mention, perhaps on OSNews)

CB

Already?!

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell? All I want to know is, will C3 be as bloated and slow as v2, with matching exhorbitant system requirements?

Seriously, I'm not trolling -- Core 2 was thoroughly trounced in a recent benchmark test by Mandrake 10 and Windows XP SP1. This, despite the fact that v2's system requirements are, by far, the richest of any desktop OS on the market ATM. So, not only is it slower than the average, by far, but jacking-up the the hardware it's run on doesn't seem to help much.

i dont believe this

[mattyrobinson69]

im just finishing off a 4.1gb download of fedora core 2, on a 150k connection.

The real BUG problem

[megajini]

It's fairly hard for a "normal" User on the slim line between an fairly actual system and a productive system. Anyway, new stuff always attracts me a lot (another load of hours lost :-)...

But the problem on Linux and especially with distributions a la Fedora is interoperability. Every version demands it's own RPM archive, there isn't just this thing like "xine-0.99xx.rpm" and GO. It's just like DLL Hell on Windows with the difference that it's more complicated to have different versions coexisting (M$ did some tweaks in that area); i know, it's cleaner but under M$ "IT JUST WORKS".

What really needs to get done is a wider adoption of sort of freedesktop.org "standards" like DBUS and a defined versioning System for all those *.so libraries on the system. Apple does some fairly cool tricks in that area with so called "frameworks" which exist as isolated directories and can contain multiple versions of a framework. Combined with late binding, it's just possible to trust a certain frozen API version.

I know it was already a huge step forward that most libraries now feature those xxx-config scripts so that the "user" doesn't have to supply all those directories and stuff for easier building. But let's get serious on that: A "real" user doesn't compile his stuff. And without tackling that matter we won't get serious (and working) package dependencies. And till that doesn't work every distribution is in fact a big bloated testing team trying to figure out the dependencies and building propietary packages that only work with this specific version of the distrib...

BTW I think that's part of the reason why gentoo is so successful...

Re:The real BUG problem

[alex_tibbles]

for me it doesnt just work under MS windows. I have 2 different versions of GKT+ installed, and they conflict - either GIMP works, or GAIM works, not both.
Linux (Unices in general I think) have a fix for these problems: versioned SONAMES. The .so file has a number, and that number changes whenever there is a binary incompatible change. So you have libbleg.so.1, libbleg.so.5 etc. installed at the same time, and the loader gets the right one for you (using the versioned symbols you request).
Look at Debian: there are currently three different versions of the GNU TLS (SSL etc.) libraries, all installable at the same time.
Of course, this is hard work, and works best with a centralized build system and package repository, like Debian has. No chance on Windows, but possible for Fedora...
This all gets more complicated with AMD64, where you can have 32 and 64 bit versions of the same lib installed at once. See this (Debian) packaging document and this discussion of the impact of 64 bit (also Debian).

What's Up With This?

[wbav]

I mean it's on the development schedule that test1 would be released today. This release shouldn't be a suprise for those complaining about installing this new one so soon.

As you can see, the core 3 will be done about October for those using core 2.

Indic language support

[r00t]

Gee, that that get outsourced to, say, India?

gcc3.4

[damballah]

gcc 3.4 is notoriously buggy. The maintainers have advised to upgrade to 3.4.1, I think. Of course, by the 2nd release candidate, they won't be using 3.4 anymore, but why use it at all here?

Re:gcc3.4

[oracleofbargth]

If you check the package lists, you'll see:

gcc-3.4.1-2.i386.rpm

So... problem solved?

Fear not bugs w/ easy fixes!

[like.narly]

Don't let that stupid (KERNEL - not FC) bug scare you. The solution link has been posted. Here's the summary in a few easy steps:

1)Find the drive geometry of your disk (see below).

2)Boot the machine on the install CD.

3)Invoke the installer by typing: linux hda=c,h,s where c,h,s is the number of cylinders, heads and sectors of the disk, respectively.

To find your drive geometry:

1)Boot into linux w/ root (a liveCD is ok).

2)Type: fdisk -l /dev/hda

3)Write down the number of cylinders, heads and sectors. Now just complete the steps above.

Hope this helps...

Egad!

[pr0vidence]

Slow DOWN guys!
You just released FC2 a few months ago. To be honest, it was lackluster. Bugs and problems are rampant. Really guys, fix up FC2, release FC2.1,2.2,etc first. Then move on to FC3. You guys cannot stay bleeding edge, and noone is expecting you to. That kind of thing is better left to the likes of Gentoo. You just worry about staying a version or two behind bleeding edge, and release a really solid OS that people can move into from Windows and have realatively few problems. Remember, the less problematic a first timer's (n00b, whatever) experience is with Linux, the more likely they will be to sticking around and finding out what this "open source" thing is really all about.

Re:Egad!

[bankman]

Slow DOWN guys! You just released FC2 a few months ago. To be honest, it was lackluster. Bugs and problems are rampant. Really guys, fix up FC2, release FC2.1,2.2,etc first. Then move on to FC3.

That's the main problem I have with Fedora.

You guys cannot stay bleeding edge, and noone is expecting you to. [...] Remember, the less problematic a first timer's (n00b, whatever) experience is with Linux, the more likely they will be to sticking around and finding out what this "open source" thing is really all about.

Fedora is advertised as being a bleeding edge distro for techno junkies. I used to be one of them and nowadays find that Fedora just isn't for me anymore. SuSE 9.1 is new enough, while maintaining a very usable system that just works out of the box more or less (for me Debian Stale is too old, Debian Unstable and Testing too unsupported and I really don't understand why one would want to compile a whole system like Gentoo).

I am getting the feeling that the Fedora (RedHat) developers are not interested in providing a decent distro for free (as in beer) to the masses, which is ok, but who is going to do the testing if no one can actually use Fedora Core in a semi-productive environment?

Please, don't misinterpret this as an attempted flame (I still can't get to grips with YaST, but have to say that I dislike the FC/RH config-tools almost as much). I used to love RH6.1-7.3 (apart from the x.0 versions and the braindead idea of supplying different gcc versions with one distro, but I think most agree with me here).

Guys, what was wrong with the old RedHat release cycle? Rawhide installs were often more stable than FC2.

Aaah well, maybe I have just become one of those "Back-In-The -Good-Old-Days"-kinda guys....

Re:Egad!

[Plug]

There are two ways of fixing bugs:

• Finding the exact code fixes for bugs and applying those fixes back to the old packages, and then worrying about maintaining that 'backported' package (what Debian does with security updates, and nothing else
• Pushing out a new package, which has the problem fixed, and more features, and is "better".

While we all know it's not necessarily the case, surely software should tend towards having no bugs (it works with TeX!), and programmers should tend towards being better. This means distros like Fedora are right; they give us the new version of the software, which fixes the bugs in the old one. We all do it with kernels, don't we?

Re:Egad!

[IamTheRealMike]

The reason FC2 is such a POS is because it spent most of its development cycle broken as snot due to SELinux - this time they're learned from their mistakes and are approaching SELinux integration far more slowly. Hopefully the fact that it's not spending all its time unusable due to too ambitious SELinux integration will mean they get a much more solid release out ...

I'd like to try it....

[CoolVibe]

But they'd have to fix the mp3 support... I know, it's easily fixable, but it's so terribly _annoying_

Re:I'd like to try it....

[kidgenius]

They'll fix mp3 support when the MP3 codec is free software. There is an RPM out there that adds MP3 support back into XMMS. Hell, it's at XMMS' site, go figure.

Re:I'd like to try it....

[PhoenixFlare]

It's there, but it's not located anwyhere that is easily (or at all) found from the www.xmms.org page - the place I finally found it by searching on Google is on the site, but doesn't seem to actually be linked anywhere that I can see. And even then it's only for RH 8 & 9.

http://havardk.xmms.org/dist/xmms-1.2.7-rh8-rh9-rp m/

If you have a better link, feel free to share. Personally, this whole mp3 issue may be something silly, but it was annoying enough that i've already switched back to Mandrake (and Gentoo soon, hopefully) before finding this.

Re:I'd like to try it....

[cerberusss]

have to fix the mp3 support...

If you did a bit of background research, you'd knew the reasons. Still, people complain with every release of RedHat or Fedora. I just don't understand this...

Re:I'd like to try it....

[lphuberdeau]

Actually, if you add a few mirrors in yum or apt configuration, you can simply install all those packages. That process is explained somewhere on fedora.us (which I can't access at this time, I would have pasted the exact link).

Firewire

[nycsubway]

Fedora Core 2 disabled firewire by default because of a bug in the firewire modules. Hopefuly 1394 will be enabled in Core 3.

Re:Firewire

[williamhooper]

Firewire was re-enabled in the first kernel update.

Re:Try Gentoo

[bfg9000]

No, I think you've got a Cray supercomputer, and compiling your compiler only takes 3 minutes, and you're STILL done before it is. Heh.

Sometimes jokes are funnier the second time around

[swagr]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=113575&cid=962 0694

Re:4 CD's

[sploo22]

Then just download the first CD, genius.

Re:Try Gentoo

[painehope]

While I generally do RPMs, I do build some stuff from source, and am looking at using distcc for it, check out recent /. story.

fedora change your whole computer...

[josepha48]

... and things stop working....

I just upgraded from 1 to 2 last night. Now things don't work. I got sound to work last night, but had to recompile the kernel. USB now starts, but none of my devices work. Of course these are more 2.4.x to 2.6.x issues than anything else.

I have also noticed its slower than fedora core

xorg takes a while to start, I can actually log in at the console before it starts.....

White Box Linux

[onlyjoking]

Or this: White Box Linux

Good Fedora release?

[anakog]

I for one welcome our new Fedora 3 overlords.

Seriously, though, I think that Fedora 3 stands a chance of being reasonably good for the "average Linux user." By that, I mostly mean going back to the pre-Fedora levels of troubleshooting while improving on the user-friendliness.

I just had a painful weekend trying to upgrade my machines at home. I managed to install FC2 on my desktop without a glitch but the first thing I did (and anyone else would do) after booting up --- trying to update the system --- failed because of two bugs (one of which is in rpm and is supposedly fixed but a new package is not released yet).

My server refused to take any of the newer stuff from Red Hat. It is an VIA mini-ITX box running RH9. I was hoping to update to FC2 but due to a bug in the 2.6.6 and earlier kernels which affects the C3 CPU, the installer can not even start. (Heh! I just found out that there is decent workaround posted for this one. Who says that posting to Slashdot does not pay out?)

I also tried to install RHEL Academic Edition (which looked like closely derived from RH9) only to discover that it does not support this particular machine (too bad --- I was going to gladly pay the $50 for updates).

From the news in the past couple of months, it looks like most of the latest offerings (not only by Redhat) have had too many issues to be considered decent. It looks like the reason for that is that most problems are bugs in the kernel (firewire, VIA C3 support) or are related to the kernel (Windows dual-boot issue).

With the exception of firewire support, however (which I don't know if it has been fixed in 2.6.7), the issues that concern me have been resolved. Also the publicity around some of the issues gives me hope that the Fedora folks will be a little more careful with the next release. This makes me think that Fedora 3 may finally live up to the expectations.

Re:Good Fedora release?

[Jesus_666]

With the exception of firewire support, however (which I don't know if it has been fixed in 2.6.7), the issues that concern me have been resolved. Also the publicity around some of the issues gives me hope that the Fedora folks will be a little more careful with the next release. This makes me think that Fedora 3 may finally live up to the expectations.

The thing is, it's not supposed to. People see Fedora as a differently namend RedHat Linux when indeed it's just the unstable branch of RHEL. There will probably never be a stable and quirkless Fedora.
I think that's too bad, since I kinda like Fedora - not the RedHat Way of Doing Things but little details like yum, which I prefer over graphical apps like YaST.

Fedora Can Go As Fast As They Want IIF

[EXTomar]

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.

Re:Fedora Can Go As Fast As They Want IIF

[JohnGalt00]

Fedora's neck-breaking speed wouldn't be nearly as big a problem if they made a supported, official, seamless method for upgrading from FC(X) to FC(X+1). Yes, I know about downloading the rpm from the new fedora and running yum. It's frowned apon by FC devs, even though yum is supposed to be able to handle it.

I had to go through too many hassles to upgrade from FC1 to FC2 on a server at work. The next time we rebuild that server, it's getting debian or gentoo just because of the seamless upgrades.

Re:Fedora Can Go As Fast As They Want IIF

[wobblie]

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.

Debian already did that, it's called the unstable branch. Having used Red Hat from 5.0 to 9.0, and having used Debian exclusively at home for the last five years, I can safely say that Debian's unstable branch is more reliable than any of Red Hat's releases.

Re:Fedora Can Go As Fast As They Want IIF

[Ronin Developer]

Actually, they can go as fast as they want as the Fedora Core is a proving ground and not a supported distribution. People have a tendency to forget this aspect of the project. If you want slower releases or support, buy the official RHEL package. FWIW, this release has been on the schedule for some time.

I, for one, am in the process of installing FC2 on an old Winbook XL (a real bite given that the machine only has a 2GB drive and 64MB RAM...but it works well as a network scanner). And, I finally convinced my brother (who's essentially computer illiterate) to leave Windows and go Linux via FC2, Firebird and Thunderbird. Aside from him getting used to working with files in Unix, his experience has been a good one. He's not longer worrying about Windows exploits. For me, that's a good thing as I don't get calls in the middle of the night of he worrying about the latest hole in IE. When FC3 is released (Oct 18th), I'll be on the Torrent getting the latest ISOs for sure.

Re:Fedora Can Go As Fast As They Want IIF

[Wesley Felter]

Fedora's neck-breaking speed wouldn't be nearly as big a problem if they made a supported, official, seamless method for upgrading from FC(X) to FC(X+1).

1. Download the FC(X+1) ISOs and burn them.
2. Boot the CD.
3. Choose upgrade instead of install.

Re:Fedora Can Go As Fast As They Want IIF

[JohnGalt00]

But that assumes physical access to the machine.

With Debian and Gentoo, you don't need physical access. You just ssh in, do apt-get or emerge, and reboot. No burning CD's, no physical access to the machine, no running the installer for half hour to an hour from the local console. I'm sure you've heard of long time debian users, upwards of three years, who have only run the debian installer once. That's the real reason why debian's installer is so old, the users only see it once.

Aside from all of those benefits, you have the advantage of picking your upgrades. Upgrades are seamless, so release version numbers are largly irrelevant in G&D. Don't feel safe upgrading the kernel, samba, mysql and apache all at the same time on a production machine? Upgrade them one at a time, and it's a lot easier to recover from mistakes.

What Fedora needs is an officially supported method of upgrading from FC2 to FC3 using yum.

Re:Fedora Can Go As Fast As They Want IIF

[Wesley Felter]

That would be nice, but ultimately I think it's pointless to turn Fedora into a clone of Debian unstable. Diversity is good.

Re:That was fast....

[sparcnut]

Except you don't have to pay $199 for it...

That's right, because the fee is really $699. Pay up, Linux sucker.

-- Darl McBride

Re:Fedora Core 3 Test 1. A portal to the future.

[mrjackson2000]

i don't think anyone else even noticed

Link up or shut up

[3770]

If you are going to say something like this you'd better back it up with a link.

If you can't, then I'm gonna consider it trolling.

Re:Link up or shut up

[3770]

Thanks!

Re:4 CD's

[Cyberdork]

no cd for the internationalization Oh, yes... just get the Windows XP MUI pack (or 2000 or 2003, whichever you use), I think all those are 4 CD's each, dunno how much they cost though (or even if they're available for home users)... I think they'll only install on the English version of each OS (and not XP home at all), so you're out of luck if you have any other language.

Optional

[nurb432]

I have no problem with them offering other CD's for optional parts.. thats the best route...

But, the last time i installed a RH type product, it hit *all* 3 cds...

And yes, i realize i could have paired it down even more, but default options shouldnt be so bloated, when its been shown its not *nessassary* to do so..

Just a personal gripe is all...

Re:Optional

[Jagasian]

If you are only doing one install, then just download the network install ISO. It is only 4MB, but it requires you to have your computer connected to a network during install. You select a site from which to fetch the packages that you want. That way you only download what you need.

Re:SLOW THE FUCK DOWN!

[amitti]

I know what you mean, when ever Fedora is discussed on Slashdot any more it's like: Slashdot == Stupidity in numbers!

I WANT bleeding edge. I crave the next release. I'm more than happy to play around the latest stuff and file away at bug reports. All of my issues with FC2 were fixed within a week, that's not that bad.

If anyone has a complaint that the bugs are being fixed in the latest and not the old one, BACKPORT! If you want it, you do it. Anyhow, kind of my point, this is community software, people here are interested in developing the cutting edge, if you're interested in maintaining by all means contribute!

-Aaron Mitti

Re:Gnome 2.8??

[mrjackson2000]

2.7.x is the dev tree, 2.8.x will be after the 2.7 tree becomes stable

Re:4 CD's

[Jagasian]

Its called a network install. Fedora, as well as most of the other major Linux distros have a 10MB to 50MB ISO that you can burn to CD and boot your computer with. Once booted, you can select from a list of sites that have the software packages for the distro. So you only download what you need.

Better yet, Debian has a ISO that is under 100MB, and you can use it to install a bare bones system without being connected to a network.

Don't be so sure

[oliverthered]

well. I'm running Gentoo, not Redhat.. but I have a hell of a lot of hot and beta packages witout any critical or even anoying problems..(Unless I try to view SVG's in konquror!)
Linux on the desktop is a lot more stable thease days.

I'm a little worries about GCC 2.4, Gentoo hasn't moved to it yet because it's buggy, even though it could make a lot of gentooers compile times much shorter. (new parse, Precompiled headers).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

does anyone still run RH9 or Fedora Core 1?

[Chiisu]

just curious.... I still have a copy of RH9, and while Core 2 and other newer distros have some nice touches, I honestly don't need many of them....

Redhat 7.3. sniff.

[mpcooke3]

I hope supporting all these fedora core distros doesn't mean fedora legacy will give up supporting older redhat distros like Redhat 7.3

Now I see that fedora core is re-released so frequently I am even less enthusiastic about upgrading our Redhat 7.3 production servers to FC.

Oh god I'm going to have learn debian aswell aren't I?

Re:Redhat 7.3. sniff.

[GeoGreg]

When Fedora was launched, they explicitly said that it would be released frequently. It doesn't mean you have to install the newest release every time it comes out, though. Unless you're just a masochist :)

Re:Redhat 7.3. sniff.

[mpcooke3]

I understand that, what i worry about is the fedora legacy release cycle is following a 1-2-3 and out policy with such quick FC releases the total lifetime support for Fedora Core is quite crap when compared to say redhat 7.3

Hey Testers, Menu Edit in Gnome?

[smurfnsanta]

I'm willing to test the hell out of 3 if gnome has a menu editor and it's enabled. No offense, it's a terrific desktop/distro and I love bug hunts, but I've gotta have a better way to edit menus than vim.

htop: top takes a quantum leap.

$0.02

[psbrogna]

As problematic as FC2 is it's the only distro that let me setup a Xeon SMP machine w/> 4Gb RAM, HW SCSI RAID and LVM/ReiserFS the way I wanted. I still wrestle with multimedia & USB problems and periodically have to give the wlan drivers a whack but I don't seem to have any other choice.

FC3 or Solaris 10?

[ader]

Let's see: FC3 is released in October and Solaris 10 is due around the same time. And...I'm more excited about the one I use at work! Something's wrong here.

I mean, Fedora doesn't even have DTrace which, as many here assured us in the recent Slashdot post, isn't a particularly new idea...

Ade_
/
(ha, admire my shiny brass troll balls and tremble!!)

Part of the problem

[gr8_phk]

Part of the problem is that developers update the underlying libraries just as fast as the applications. GTK gets updated and then the next Gnome release uses the update which is then fed into the next Fedora Core release. If libs are updating that fast they aren't really usable. Barring a new widget, GTK should have been done a long time ago. Gnome itself should be stable by now, but they're treating it like a distibution - including a certain list of applications, with each one a moving target.

How hard is it to make a disto? Someone needs to make it easy to create a distribution with nice hardware detection and automatic installation. Then we can all select Gnome 2.8, Kernel 2.6.7 etc and produce our own set of install disks. I see this as the future and it looks like Debian or Gentoo with some added goodies (Knoppix?).

My thoughts as a long-time Windows user

[Jesus_666]

3 Test 1, 1 Test 3 - where's the difference? With just about a year between FC1 and FC3 I bet it's just a service pack. Everyone knows that it takes at least three years to release a new version of Wind^H^H^H^Han OS.

Re:Gnome 2.8???

[Jesus_666]

If FC2 would be released today, yes. That's a list of the stuff they want in the official release in October.

Re:Try Gentoo

[AvantLegion]

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.

There's something very wrong about a programmer complaining about compiling from source...

Redhat Astroturfing again

[ZeekWatson]

The community at large isn't interested in Fedora. That is why redhat is paying Taco and Co. $$$$ to pretend there is a ton of interest. Hence articles about redhat on the front page every day.

That my friends, is astroturfing.

Re:SLOW THE FUCK DOWN!

[juhaz]

2-3 core releases per year was stated goal right from the beginning, and will continue to be so no matter how many nonames whine about it at /.

If that's too fast for you, then it is, use another distro. There's something for everyone from Debian stable moving at the same pace with ice ages to Gentoo.

Re:Why Still i386 RPMS ?

[cowbutt]

Don't let the .i386.rpm moniker fool you; the binaries are compiled with optimizations for i686, but only use the i586 instruction set (so they still run on processors that don't implement CMOV, like (some) Cyrix processors).

That, of course, excludes i686.rpms which use the full i686 instruction set.

--

what software does FC3 hold?

[dankelley]

Unfortunately, the Fedora-supplied notice is long on humour, short on detail. What does this disto contain, e.g. what versions of gcc, apache, openoffice, etc.?

This /. thread has lots of hints, but until the Fedora websites detail the software list, it might be best to stand by and watch others jump in the water.

Or maybe I'm just wary since I spent so many hours getting various FC1 and FC2 test versions to work (or fail).

FC 2.1 etc a great idea

[kjj]

I think doing some dot releases for FC would be great as well, but they probably just won't have the time. It would almost have to be a seperate project. In fact I have found a very interesting project called Up2dateISO

It looks like a nice way to create an iso with all the updates in place. I just wish someone would make premade images available using this. It would make things far easier.

Network Installs

[nurb432]

Most support that these days.. But since i like to carry my files around with me i normally just install a minimal FBSD set, then carry a 2nd cd with just the pacakges i need...

Its a bit more work on my part but at least its not 4 CDS of garbage to lug around ..