Slashdot Mirror


Fedora Core 4 Available

Limburgher writes "As of a few minutes ago, the torrents listed at duke went live. Nothing on the main site yet, however. The more people get on the torrents, the faster they will be. You all know the drill." Update: 06/13 19:07 GMT by T : Also in Red Hat-related news, halfbyte_hosting writes "CentOS 4.1 is now on the mirrors and ready for download."

550 comments

  1. Fedora Core 4 is great... by coop0030 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I actually just did a new dual-boot install of Fedora Core 4, and Windows XP, and found Fedora Core 4 (the beta is the one I installed this past weekend) about 10 times easier to install than Windows XP. It was incredibly easier to configure after the installation, also.

    Here is that commentary about my process (I am a first-time user of Linux):
    http://www.mygadgetbag.com/MGBCommentary/tabid/183 /ctl/ArticleView/mid/575/articleId/319/Dualbooting WindowsXPandLinux.aspx

    Also, for anyone wondering, here is a link to the newest updates that are in Fedora Core 4:
    http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc4/#s n-new-in-fc

    I am very happy with Fedora Core 4 (beta) after using it for a few days. The only thing I am having trouble with is connecting to the Yum repositories, as described on the Fedora FAQ.

    The main Fedora site is updated now, also!

    1. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Seumas · · Score: 0, Troll

      I don't know . . . I think I still prefer my linux from a non commercial entity that isn't just throwing me bits and pieces to test as a guinea-pig for their corporate product.

      I haven't used RedHat since 1997, but after the whole "enterprise" thing followed by the "fedora" program, I don't think I ever will.

      Besides, there's so many other excellent distros out there, as long as you aren't hung-up with "but red hat is corporate, so we need to use it in our business!" thing.

    2. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Iriel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I can understand the desire to feel a little more control than being a 'test subject', some of that just comes with the territory of Linux/OSS in my mind. While I don't claim to speak for everyone, how often do you use OSS that isn't in some form of testing stage. For me and most of the developers I know, by the time a new stable version comes out, the new beta has about 4 new features, a better GUI, forum threads on fixing beta bugs, or any combination. I like having almost every option at my disposal. Besides, who doesn't like the hearing about someone using a 'new' program and telling them, "Oh I've been working with that since the alpha!"

      --
      Perfecting Discordia
      www.stevenvansickle.com
    3. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes,
      But Windows XP came out (I think) before all of the nForce2 malarky. This gives it a large dis-advantage. Until recently, I would always have a nightmare trying to install debian on to an nForce2 board. I would need to install a separate network card to start it working. I still use the nvidia graphics driver.

      You may correctly claim that this is one advantage that linux distro's have over windows due to the regular(ish) updates. But most hardware ships with windows drivers. The same cannot be said for Linux.

    4. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've been very pleased with Fedora 4t2, which I've been running for a while, with apt4rpm instead of yum as my package acquisition method. My only real complaint is that when they say that you can use reiserfs but they don't support it, they mean that "it doesn't work".

      I figured out some tricks to make it work, though: boot with commandline "linux reiserfs selinux=0". That'll stop the installation of the init package from failing like it would if you left of the selinux=0 line (and no, disabling selinux during the install setup doesn't work). Then, after boot, you'll get a grub error. Boot instead with a boot disk. Copy your kernel image (not move - you need it to be rewritten), delete the original copy, and then copy it back. Your system should be bootable. At least, this all worked for me. :)

      --
      "This wallpaper is killing me. One of us has got to go." -- Oscar Wilde on his deathbed
    5. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by rpdillon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, then Red Hat is taking all the steps you would like! They're slowly (but surely) spinning off Fedora Core into its own foundation, ever more differentiated from Red Hat the company.

      Good for them, I say. I have the opposite opinion to yours, which is I actually *like* having a few corporate desktop-centric distros out there to balance out the huge collection of Free distros. Anyway, give them a couple of years. I expect Fedora will eventually be quite similar to Debian at some point - not nearly as tied up in corporate image as it becomes more the product of a non-profit foundation.

    6. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by LDoggg_ · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't know . . . I think I still prefer my linux from a non commercial entity that isn't just throwing me bits and pieces to test as a guinea-pig for their corporate product.

      Bits and pieces to test?
      Nice troll, the distro has been solid and getting better each release.

      I haven't used RedHat since 1997, but after the whole "enterprise" thing followed by the "fedora" program, I don't think I ever will.

      Well, since you havent used it since 1997, you have no idea what you are talking about.
      You're missing out, I HAVE been using it since 1997. With the exception of a few releases (redhat 6.0 ,7.0,7.1) its been a great distro. I haven't had any problems with the fedora core releases. I was a little upset that FC3 had a few packages removed, but they made it back into FC4

      --

      "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
    7. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by NipsMG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have GOT to be kidding me.

      10 times easier than windows XP?

      I think Windows XP installer asks for a grand total for 3 inputs. Computer Name, User Name, and Time Zone.

      You bitch about having to download SP2, yet you're installing the most recent version of an operating system (Fedora core 4) against an old version of XP (XP sans SP2, yes you can buy xp with sp2 included). If you installed Fedora Core 3 and wanted to update it to the newest version, you'd have a butload of updating to do also.

      If you're not using DHCP, you'd definitely have to manually set up a network connection in ANY OS. Which is very confusing to anyone not familiar with any os.

      The fact that your stuff didn't work off the bat is probably because it's specialized hardware, or something very non-standard that probably came with a driver disk for that purpose. If you lost it how is that XP's fault?

      I'm not saying Fedora Core 4 isn't easy to install, but don't overdo it.

    8. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I have systems running FC3 and OS X Tiger. As easy as Tiger is to use, I can till you i still that Fedora is easier to configure. I still cannot get direct printer support with Tiger with my Samsung Laser Printer. I have to direct it through my Fedora box as a postscript printer. Similarly, the SMB browsing in Tiger is quite clumsy to use. You have to remember the name of the server and shares. I'm surprised apple has not done much in this area.

    9. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Iriel · · Score: 0, Troll

      A couple of years? I thought the only difference between Fedora and Debian was .rpm and .deb?

      --
      Perfecting Discordia
      www.stevenvansickle.com
    10. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      >>10 times easier than windows XP?
      >>I think Windows XP installer asks for a grand total for 3 inputs. Computer Name, User Name, and Time Zone.

      No, really. Fedora only asks for three-tenths of a prompt for input.

    11. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Iriel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, I'll admit also, M$ makes some really simple installers, but there is one point to consider:

      The extra minutes you spend setting up before your first login can help ease the amount of mucking around later to change prefs.

      --
      Perfecting Discordia
      www.stevenvansickle.com
    12. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You conveniently forget that installing Windows does just that, install Windows.

      No apps, no security updates, a lot of drivers missing, etc.

      Now compare that with the install of a modern Linux distro. See the difference?

    13. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by shaitand · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just a note, a glance shows you have a dual boot for WoW. WoW runs flawlessly under Point2Play http://www.transgaming.com/

      Be sure to read the forums. The game will run fine using DirectX emulation, but OpenGL mode is much faster. Using OpenGL mode I get faster framerates than I do on a XP pro system using the same settings and hardware. YMMV.

    14. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well unless you consider SATA to be specialized hardware, Fedora handles it with no problem...with XP you need a driver disk for the SATA controller to even start the install. This was even using a disc slipstreamed with SP2.

    15. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by coop0030 · · Score: 1

      You have to be kidding ME!

      How many people do you know that have access to a new version of Windows XP that have to do a re-install of their software? I am talking about people that have owned their computers for a while.

      If I want to reinstall Windows I can NOT just go download the latest distro of Windows XP like I can Linux (for free to boot)!

      I was using DHCP, I have a very basic setup, with a standard motherboard (nforce, how more common can that get?) and a direct connection from a cable modem?

      Now consider this...If I am a basic computer user trying to install either of these setups, and Linux configures everything for me right off the bat, and I have to spend an hour of searching for drivers (how many Joe Shmoes actually know where all their original discs are?) on the internet with Windows XP...and the Linux install is secure off the bat...which would you suggest to your Mother/Grandmother?

    16. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by udderly · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I hear a lot of people complaining that FC sucks, but that hasn't been my experience. I've been using FC1 since it came out to run backups on an internal network and over vpn. It often has more than 30 concurrent connections. Currently it has been up for 178 days w/o reboot.

    17. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by killtherat · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What is the 'malarky' you speak of?

      I have a nForce2 based mother board. Thing seems stable, right up to the moment you try to install the nVidia drivers, then it doesn't seem to be able to go half an hour without freezing.

    18. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      10 times easier than windows XP? I think Windows XP installer asks for a grand total for 3 inputs. Computer Name, User Name, and Time Zone.

      Sure it does. After two reboots and, as usual with windows, it spreads the questioning half way through the install, meaning that unattended installing is a nightmare. Oh, and if you need to change keyboard/language it's a few more questions than that

      It might not actually be ten times as difficult to install, MS only manged to make it feel ten times as bloody tedious. With Fedora I answer all the questions up front, and then I can leave. If I don't have to change CDs (e.g. network install) I'll come back to a freshly installed machine. Not so with windows. Two bloody reboots.

      And btw that's not just the install, and not just MS but damn near all software that runs on windows. I'll bloody lose it if I have to live through a 'I just remounted the view that you asked me to remount every bloody time I boot the OS and I'll just hang here and wait for you to click "OK" before I'll even continue booting.' I swear I'll take a chair to the helpdesk next time there's an hour long 'update' that requires me to sit at my computer and press 'OK' (often the only choice) every ten bloody minutes, or the install won't go through (including two reboots in the process). I could have actually done something useful with that time, hell I could even have been in a meeting and felt more useful, but no. According to MS we'd all rather be computer operators, sitting attentively at our consoles, answering promptly whenever our service is called for. That's the wrong bloddy way around.

    19. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by ratta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are forgetting that after installing WinXP you will still have to install a lot of drivers, of which many are difficult to find (many computer producers put drivers in the computer when they are selling it, but after that it is difficult to find them in the internet). And let's not forget that installing WinXP is a mess if you hae a Serial ATA or SCSI hard-disk...

      --
      Wondering why i am doing so strange posts? I am trying to get a "+5,Flamebait" or "-1,Insightful" rating.
    20. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by pyros · · Score: 1
      A couple of years? I thought the only difference between Fedora and Debian was .rpm and .deb?

      The administration tools are different, which means in some cases you have config files in different places. The default layout for where packages install their files can also vary from application to application. Different policies on what applications to package as base/core packages also provide a fair amount of difference between the two.

    21. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by doofusclam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It does seem nice, but I can't understand why they have the same samba/firewall problem they had in fc3 (which I run on 2 machines at home).

      http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc4

      Is it possible to install FC4 over FC3 without losing my manually installed additions?

    22. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um, last time I installed Mandriva, I spent 15 minutes downloading updates and patches (many of them fixed security issues) right after the first boot.
      I'm so sick of this "Linux has no security updates!" FUD.

    23. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by naelurec · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have GOT to be kidding me.
      10 times easier than windows XP?


      Sure.. why not? After you install Windows you get umm.. Windows. After a Windows install (even from an SP2 disk) I generally have to go search around for device drivers and install them, do the Windows update, install software (Office suite, good instant messenger, graphics program, good CD burner app, etc..) and during hte process, hunt down a handful of real long alphanumeric strings that I get to enter to apparently show that I am worthy.

      Now Fedora lets see .. install Fedora. Generally hardware detection is much better and my hardware is detected and configured properly (granted this could be due to the fact it is newer, but alias, Microsoft doesn't offer updated ISOs of WinXP for me to download.. so I think its fair .. latest release to latest release). Oh yah, it comes with the apps I need to use ... so perhaps the quick step of updating *ALL* the software on my system to make sure its the latest versions (versus just Windows via Windows update and manually downloading for the rest..) I am pretty much done after installing Fedora.

      I think the distros for quite a while have beat Windows for going from 0 to productive. I can do a full Linux install in well under an hour -- I'm lucky to get Windows installed in an hour before thinking about installing the apps that Linux comes with.

      I think Windows XP installer asks for a grand total for 3 inputs. Computer Name, User Name, and Time Zone.

      Try installing again and let me know how many prompts it takes until you get a useful system where you can get work done.

    24. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when was windows xp released?

      Stop trying to compare some software that was released almost 4 years ago with a brand new fresh release.

    25. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that will give you a basic installation of Windows XP. Next you have to -

      Firstly, install all the drivers. If you have a modern Linux distro and properly supported hardware (if not it's a bastard), then most drivers will be installed automatically. Windows insists you install from the manufacturers CD, and reboot after nearly every driver.

      Secondly, install anti-virus and anti-spyware software. Enable the firewall on XP before even thinking about connecting to the net.

      Finally, run auto-update on Windows (you have to do this on Linux too, but it's not quite as critical). If you have an older XP CD and a slow internet connection, this takes fucking ages.

      Don't forget Nero and Firefox!

      I'm not a Linux zealot, I just don't like Windows.

    26. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by afd8856 · · Score: 1

      No. It means "Linux doesn't have a lot of outstanding security issues because of the many eyes reviewing the code and lots of frequent security updates, and not some black hats debuging the binary image"

      --
      I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
    27. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by seweso · · Score: 0

      Yes, but where can I find a Windows Xp CD with Sp2 without paying for it? And it seems to me it is a trend that hardware 'just works' on linux and not under Xp.

    28. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by erick99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, I really don't. The apps that I use don't come with operating systems so I have to install them either way. I haven't had a problem with missing drivers in XP. I like Linux and I like XP. I don't see the need to live in a black & white OS world where one just has to be better and the other just has to suck.

      --
      http://www.busyweather.com/
    29. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To be fair XP is only a mess with SATA if you're doing RAID, otherwise it's straightforward.

      However it asks you a damn sight more than 3 things. From memory (I deal with unattended installs mostly):

      1) Enter to boot from CD - 1 input.
      2) Disk partitioning alone takes at least 3 inputs and that's only if you're not changing partitions at all and already have suitable FAT/NTFS ones setup.
      3) Product key.
      4) Network setup, if your DHCP then its a bit easier. Computer name, workgroup/domain. Admin pass.
      5) Location settings, if you're not in the US then about 4 inputs for location and keyboard, if you are then 1.
      6) User for windows.
      7) Skip all the end crap.
      8) Activation. Various amounts of input from 0 (corp) to a shitload ending up with phonecalls to MS. Worst case sit around until next day cos their activation servers are down (yes it happens).

      You now have basic XP installed. Even if you slipsteamed SP2 into the build disk you are going to need drivers and apps. So add onto the end hours of buggering about finding good applications.

      3 inputs? I don't think...

    30. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by EvilStein · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, I installed Windows and I got support for my RAID card.

      Tried installing Fedora Core 3 and got absolutely nothing, because apparantly the drivers for the very common MegaRAID Enterprise 1500 card were yanked.
      I'm lucky that I wasn't one of the many people that did a kernel upgrade from RHN/RPM repositories to find out that the box would't boot after a reboot.. :(

      Point is, hardware issues affect any operating system. Fedora isn't a magical OS that just works on everything. :)

    31. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      Now compare that with the install of a modern Linux distro. See the difference?

      One's an operating system, first released several years ago, while the other is a distribution, first released a few days ago?

      That's hardly a fair comparison.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    32. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by gunnk · · Score: 1

      Computer Name, User Name, Time Zone, Partitioning Options, Internationalization, Admin password, User name (but you have to add the password via the control panels later)

      Oh, and a 25 character alphanumeric product key. Do you still have to register it as well? I don't know since I'm under a site license.

      The point, however, is that there really are a lot more questions to answer than the three inputs you mention.

      During the Linux installation you will also be given prompts for installing your bootloader. Of coarse, it's quick and easy since Linux will readily share the drive with Windows. I'd say it's cheating if you don't count configuration of a bootloader as part of a Windows setup just because no one tries to do it that way due to its difficulty.

      Finally, you'll also want to load the basic toolset that completes a decent operating system: a good FTP client, SSH client, web-browser without root access to the file system, etc. which the Linux installation already did for you. Oh, plus an up-to-date anti-virus system for Windows along with your tools of choice for managing spyware.

      --
      Life is short: void the warranty.
    33. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by TheKubrix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      oh come on, now you're just trolling....

      I generally have to go search around for device drivers and install them,..

      I work in IT, and having installed XP on many new/old desktops and many old/new laptops, nothing has ever come close to XP in regards to device drivers, NOTHING. And to compare that to ANY linux OS is ridiculous. I find it rare when a linix distro can locate ALL device drivers and properly set them up.....

    34. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by archer75 · · Score: 1

      After installing any distro of linux it takes me anywhere from hours to days to get everything configured and working properly. Linux is just a pain in the ass for this stuff. In windows I can have it fully installed, patched and all drivers downloaded and installed in an hour.

    35. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you really have DIFFICULTY installing Win XP? You must be some kind of moron. Or a linux zealot, or more likely: both. I can't imagine what MS would do to make Win XP install "10 times easier". And by the way, people beyond the 5th grade don't use terms like "10 times easier".

    36. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by madcat_at_mymadcat · · Score: 1

      Amazing. I didn't know manufacturers (i mean, the majority of us) developped drivers for linux. You mean, it's fabulous, drivers shipped with your hardware works ? So cool.

    37. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by be-fan · · Score: 1

      LOL. It's 2005. Wake me up when Windows isn't the only major OS to still do half its install in text mode...

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    38. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by misleb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No kidding. It is so annoying to install Windows fresh and then have to hunt around for all those little apps and drivers that you take for granted on a standard Linux (or even OS X) installation. It is kind of ironic.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    39. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2, Insightful
      More to the point, the Windows installer can't cope with the idea that you may want to install more than Windows. It took me a while to figure out that even if you were installing Windows to a totally different hard disk, the setup program would give an ambiguous error and refuse to proceed if it saw Linux on a different hard disk.

      The solution? Unplug the hard disks power supply, and Windows setup is now happy. I'll take a non-broken installer with a few more clicks (none of which are hard) over that any day.

    40. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by be-fan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure it's fair. If Microsoft can't keep Windows up-to-date between major releases, whose fault is that? Frequent, free, releases is one of the advantages Linux has versus Windows. There is no point in arbitrarily trying to make that advantage inapplicable, since any given user installing both OSs will experience that advantage.

      I'm already not looking forward to install WinXP on my new all-SATA all-PCI-E computer. I really hope no driver diskettes are involved, namely because I couldn't bear to put a floppy drive in the thing.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    41. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by glenrm · · Score: 1

      Well the Dell PC my brother-in-law bought did not just ask for 3 inputs. The amount of prompts, warnings, yes no ok cancel continues that are needed is way overboard.

      What rules should I give him so yes to EULAs no to strongly worded warnings except strongly worded warnings concerning unsigned drives those are ok. Say no to AOL, stuff, Service Pack 2 combinded with Norton Internet Security stops Office from updating out of the box on a Dell system that is bought with Office Installed, the list goes on and on and on...

      I am a windows programmer and user but it is just insane what goes on when you pull a Dell home system out of the box.

      Guess I should have built him a rig or bought from Alienware...

    42. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by zerocool^ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Troll. Kettle. Pot. Black.

      As someone who used redhat through 6.0, 7.0, and 7.1 in a professional capacity, as well as all of the rest of them since 1999, I can tell you that you either have no idea what you're talking about, or you're trolling.

      7.1 was a perfectly stable release. It was tested before it was released, and it functioned excellently. As did 7.2. But if you've been using redhat, and you think that RedHat 8 didn't suck, you need to have your head reexamined. Versions of software weren't compatible in the release (for example, it included the newest greatest versions of both mod_perl, and php, neither of which were compatible with apache2.0 at the time, which was included). It was pretty much everything from 7.3, brought up to the latest version available, with no regard for what worked with what other programs.

      Also: Redhat had a good business releasing a product for free and selling support and physical media. They weren't terribly profitable, but whatever, they were a good company. Now, their workstation costs $180 PER YEAR minimum. Their server costs $350 PER YEAR minimum. And they didn't even write the software! They just wrote a couple of shell scripts to configure shit for you, and released someone else's work. But, oh wait, fedora's free, and it's pretty good! Yeah, where's the support for it? When redhat 7.1/7.2 etc came out, you could count on several years of software updates for the included packages. Not now - you're lucky to get 6 months out of fedora. And if you need support for Fedora Core1 at this point, the answer is "Upgrade to FC3 or FC4". Well, whatever for your desktop, but for servers? You can't be telling people they need to upgrade their server every 6 months to get updates. And anyone who says Fedora isn't a testbed for Enterprise is delusional.

      Come on, people. RedHat shot themselves in the foot. They can't even compete with *MICROSOFT* on price anymore, hell, when you buy 2003 server, you at least get 5 years (plus or minus) of updates included. When you buy Windows XP Pro, you get the same thing. Not to mention, both come with support (such as it is). RedHat doesn't even make a token effort. And if you can't compete with microsoft on pricing and/or support, what's the point? Before you say stability and security, I'd like to first point you to the BSD's, which are free, and better than redhat at both. Hell, solaris is cheaper than RedHat, and it's significantly more stable.

      Once people let go of the redhat name, it will die off. It's coasting on name recognition at this point. But redhat's "paradigm shift" or whatever has done more negative for the professional linux community than anything I can ever think of.

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
    43. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Quevar · · Score: 1
      I've had a similar experience with Fedora Core 3 and WinXP. I was installing both on 4 computers from Dell. Installing Fedora was very easy and came with a whole bunch of applications, which saves a huge amount of time later when I have to install them. I had it installed (including Matlab and Mathmatica) and fully updated within 2 hours and it only took two reboots.

      On the other hand, actually installing Windows was very easy, but what happened next was where the extra time is. There was no video, ethernet, or sound driver installed. Now, this is the Windows XP disk that ships from Dell for that particular model of computer. I used a different computer to get the drivers and put them onto the machine. Each one required a reboot. It then connected to the internet. As I was downloading the updates, it got infected with a virus. I realized that a firewall and antivirus software should be the first things to install, even before the ethernet driver. Once I got that cleared off, I started installing all the updates - this takes a long time since about 6 of them require that they are installed alone, so I had to reboot the machine another 6 times. So, I finally had the computer updated after about 5 hours, but there was no software installed. It took another hour to get Office, Matlab, & Mathmatica installed.

      So, I don't know if I agree with 10 times easier to install, but I definitely think it takes Fedora about 1/5 the time to install AND setup as Windows XP.

      Also, Fedora iss a constantly updated OS. Windows XP is 4 years old. It's had some massive patches applied to attempt to make it a secure OS, but that is about it. What new features are there? I think this article is right on. He is comparing the most recent version of Windows to the most recent version of Fedora. Why are so many people stuck on a 4 year old OS.

    44. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Way, way wrong. I regularly install Linux, Windows and Mac OS X on machines at work. Trust me, Windows is by far the worst OS to install.

      Windows XP installer asks for a grand total for 3 inputs.

      Yes, and it asks them at random intervals during the installation process, rather than just at the beginning or just at the end. So I can't walk away from the install and leave it running because at some point it will stop to ask me what sort of network I want, so I have to keep visiting the computer to see if it's wasting time waiting for me to answer some question. It's a tremendous waste of time.

      Not to mention that the Windows installer has the worst hardware detection of any modern installer. It asks you to press F6 to supply a driver disk, but gives no acknowledgement when you press the button - you just have to wait to find out if it heard you.

      Occasionally in the early parts of the install process Microsoft has created "dead ends" in the process where the installer basically tells you that you have one option: press F3 to reboot. No "go back and make another choice." Nothing. It's like the programming team had never heard of a menu before. So every time you make a mistake you get the pleasure of starting the installer all over again, and watching the drivers load one by one. And they load slowly.

      The recovery console stinks. It will show you the various installations you can log into to perform diagnostics, and if there is only one you might assume (since you have seen good UI design before) that pressing Enter will get you this windows installation because it is the default. No. There is no default. What actually happens when you press Enter is you get kicked out of the recovery console and the machine reboots. Great. Thanks. Wow, look at all the drivers loading.

      In the recovery console you can't recursively copy directories with the copy command. The option is in Windows with the regular copy command, but is absent from the recovery console. This can lead to major problems if you want to do any data recovery but don't feel like copying each of your ten thousand files independently. (Of course now I just use Knoppix for Windows recovery, and I can drag and drop, so this isn't as much of an issue.)

      Once Windows is installed you will find that it has no idea what kind of chipset, sound card, video card or network card you use. This varies from machine to machine, but pray it ain't network.

      The installer is a major pet peeve for a lot of admins. If Microsoft changes nothing else in Longhorn (and it's looking like that might be the case) I hope they at least change - no, replace - the abyssmal installer. Give it better hardware detection. Make it ask all the questions upfront, followed by a single burst of installation with a nice GUI thermometer to tell you how much time you have to make a sandwitch. And they might as well ditch the recovery console and just distribute Knoppix.

    45. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One's an operating system, first released several years ago, while the other is a distribution, first released a few days ago?

      That's hardly a fair comparison.


      If I asked Microsoft TODAY to sell me their latest released Desktop OS, what would they sell me? Windows XP SP2, with their bundled apps MS Wordpad, Paint, Notepad, WMP. And if I wanted a MS Distribution comparable to a Linux distro in terms of bundled apps, they'd also offer me MS Office, Windows Movie Maker (free), and MS PLUS for themes, for an additional price.

      If I asked the Fedora project TODAY for their latest OS release, I'd get FC4, complete with all their bundled apps.

      Competition isn't always fair. MS hasn't released a new OS for a while, but they still want to compete, so Win XP is what they have to offer. It's perfectly reasonable to compare the two, since they're the two latest OS's from Fedora and Microsoft.

    46. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      Google for Windows Nemesis. It's a DVD image that gives you a list of what programs you want installed, and it installs them. It also tweaks SP2 for P2P.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    47. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by ifwm · · Score: 1

      So you didn't have that ridiculous boot sector problem that came with FC3?

      Everyone else did, but since you forgot to mention it, I'll assume you avoided the problem.

      For the rest of us, that was an incredibly stupid problem that never should have made it into a release. And yes I know it was common to all distros with tat particular kernel, but that makes NO difference.

    48. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Chirs · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, I *own* systems where windows needs special motherboard drivers, but linux just autodetects.

      As the original poster said, you can't download up-to-date WinXP isos. FC4 will have support for newer hardware then a WinXP cdrom.

      Note that there are still classes of hardware (laptops in particular) where linux falls short, mainly due to a lack of documentation. This is however improving.

    49. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by dubdays · · Score: 1

      I think Windows XP installer asks for a grand total for 3 inputs. Computer Name, User Name, and Time Zone.

      I think you forgot about that $150 USD 25 character OEM CD key. That's enough reason not to install Windows.

    50. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by orionware · · Score: 0

      Because don't you understand? Microsoft should be able to write drivers for every type of hardware that DOES NOT YET exist!

      They need to take in consideration that new motherboards are always coming out with new chipsets and XP shoulst just work with them.

      I also call bullshit on this post. First time Linux user? Sounds like a first time computer user.

      --


      Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
    51. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Meh. XP is old as hell now. New motherboard, new graphics card, new sound card...All these things will require downloaded drivers. And some hardware doesn't bundle its drivers with windows for whatever stupid reason.

      I also hate how windows update forces reboots after every download it considers major. Really slows things down, and doesn't continue automatically after the reboot with the other stuff you need to download.

      Then there is all the stupid free crap that ought to be included, but isn't. Winzip, Acrobat, putty, winamp, AIM, Cygwin & Firefox (heh heh).

      Then comes all the paid stuff. And all of that has to be updated. Total pain in the ass.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    52. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by archer75 · · Score: 1

      For some SATA hard drives you must install drivers first. For my SATA Raptor drive I did not have to do this. It just worked.

    53. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by LDoggg_ · · Score: 1

      No I didn't, but I can understand how vocal the people were that this happened to. The list was flooded with it.
      I've installed FC3 on about 6 or 7 machines. I'm a developer, not a sysadmin. One laptop dell inspiron 5150, and a few different workstations. Never had the problem booting that other people came accross.

      --

      "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
    54. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XP might be 4 years old but it is the current release ...

    55. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      So you didn't have that ridiculous boot sector problem that came with FC3?


      That problem was only an issue for people who dual boot. Those of us who don't dual boot never saw it.

      Not to mention that, unlike Fedora which had a single release with a boot loading problem, every release of Windows has a "ridiculous boot sector problem:" They over-fucking-write the boot sector, without asking permission!
    56. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I want to reinstall Windows I can NOT just go download the latest distro of Windows XP like I can Linux (for free to boot)!

      I think you might be mistaken about that one.

      Now, wheres that post anonymously tick...

    57. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by soulhuntre · · Score: 1

      "Yes, and it asks them at random intervals during the installation process, rather than just at the beginning or just at the end. So I can't walk away from the install and leave it running because at some point it will stop to ask me what sort of network I want, so I have to keep visiting the computer to see if it's wasting time waiting for me to answer some question. It's a tremendous waste of time."

      You might want to learn how to do it if your going to do it often. it is trivial to create installer scripts that will keep it from asking any of that.

      It never ceases to amaze me how many people who claim to know Windows don;t have a clue.

      --
      --> Fight tyranny and repression.... read /. at -1!
    58. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by FauxPasIII · · Score: 4, Informative

      > oh come on, now you're just trolling....

      Likewise.

      > nothing has ever come close to XP in regards to device drivers,
      > NOTHING. And to compare that to ANY linux OS is ridiculous.

      Whatever you say. In my laptop bag I am carrying a USB floppy that does NOT work in Windows XP at all (the only driver
      the manufacturer ever released for it was for Win98 and doesn't work.) I have a PCMCIA DVD-ROM that required a hard-
      to-find driver to work in Windows from expnet.com. I have a compact flash bluetooth radio from belkin that doesn't work in
      any Windows OS and NEVER WILL (only available drivers for download are for WinCE/PocketPC and PalmOS.)

      All of these devices _just work_ in Linux.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    59. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by misleb · · Score: 1

      I noticed how you singled out the driver part. What about all the little applications that one needs for a useful Windows system? Not that I can really blame Microsoft for not including many basic applications in a default installation, but that doesn't help me, as a user. After installing Windows, I need to install an archiver, CD burning app, SSH client, PDF reader, a good web browser, updated drivers for sound and video, virus scanner, spyware protection, etc, etc. All this stuff is eitehr included in Linux, or it is not needed. While this may seem like a trivial criticism to you, it is a valid one.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    60. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work in IT, and having installed XP on many new/old desktops and many old/new laptops, nothing has ever come close to XP in regards to device drivers, NOTHING.

      Nothing? Really? have you tried to install Windows XP x64? I have been staring at more blue screens than I think I ever did with windows ME.

      Windows XP sp2 on the 32bit system still gives only stripped down drivers. Such as ATI's All-in-Wonder drivers on windows xp will only let you display video on your monitor, but won't allow any of the TV functionality. Two USB 2.0 cards would only work in USB 1.1 mode until I could find the correct drivers for those. I think you just installed the system and didn't actually use it.

    61. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 1

      Thanks for politely informing me that I don't have a clue, though I should warn you that the giver of that advice is usually the clueless one.

      I work in an environment where I do not supply the machines, so each is slightly different and has different needs / hardware / partitioning / domain membership / etc. I am well aware of installer scripts, but they wouldn't do me much good. Heck, if I had a regular build I'd just image my machines, and not use the installer at all.

    62. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by bflong · · Score: 1

      I *think* this is fixed. When I installed Test 3 I used a reiserfs root and had no troubles with selinux.

      --
      Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
    63. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by smartin · · Score: 1

      You are an idiot. Linux generally requires answering some simple configuration questions, install, boot, update and you are done. Windows requires about the same configuration questions, install, boot, boot, repeat, update, boot.

      A typicall windows install requires on the order of 5 to 10 reboots before you get a working system if it didn't get owned on the way.

      --
      The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
    64. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by ninjakoala · · Score: 1

      Pardon me, but I don't think anyone (in their right mind) has ever claimed that. What's great about open source is that bugs are fixed early (under ideal circumstances) and keeping up to date means a secure system. As secure as things get anyway. Disabling services you don't need is a good way of making sure most updates aren't necessary. This is the case with most linux/bsd distros, OS X - and recently Windows too (SP2 onwards). But updates aren't a bad thing. They are a good thing.

      --
      Against the grain
    65. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by pcmanjon · · Score: 1

      So this this version of Fedora actually better than Debian would one say?

      Did they finally impliment some distributed db like emerge or apt? (Dont give me the RH apt, story, the repo is like 100x smaller)

      Is it as slow as RH has been since RH 6.0? Etc?

      Don't want to try it out unless there are revolutionary improvements.

    66. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1, Informative

      The yum repositories for Fedora Development got hosed up during the delay for the release of FC4. As I understand it, the repositories for FC4testX point to the Fedora development repositories. When the release of FC4 got delayed (lawyer trouble, not technical), development stuff for FC5 started hitting these same repositories. Installing FC4 final should get you pointed to a Fedora 4 update repository.

      I just ran into the same problem trying to do a re-install and finally gave up until FC4 final is out. Way to many dependency problems to try to fight through when the real thing is out now. There is some traffic on the fedora-test-list that indicates that some people are having trouble getting the final to install. I'll know more when I get home from work.

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    67. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by LnxAddct · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... And they didn't even write the software! They just wrote a couple of shell scripts to configure shit for you, and released someone else's work...

      Please tell that to all of the kernel developers they pay, or gnome, openoffice, GNU GCC and Classpath developers. Don't forget the Apache developers, cygwin, X.org, and the many other developers who Red Hat pays their salaries, costing millions each year, to develop free software. Red Hat is by far the single largest contributor of code to OSS, this is one of the main reasons why their distribution tends to integrate seamlessly together. Also note that Red Hat sells support, try buying that from Microsoft and see how cheap it is, it'll cost you $200 a phone call or you can get some package deal for something like $1200 a year. Red Hat is the lowest price point in the server market, even compared to Novell. This is why Microsoft tries to argue facts based on TCO, they can't compete with Red Hat's low pricing and they know it. You can't just compare initial product costs because no serious corporation buys software without support unless of course their IT department is willing to lose their jobs when shit hits the fan. Red Hat's support has also won many awards because of its quality and has always been a pleasure to deal with. Get your facts straight and stop trolling. Michael Dell just invested $100 million into Red Hat, Michael Dell is a smart businessman and wouldn't just throw money around like that. He sees Red Hat going places. If Red Hat sinks like you want it to, you'll see a huge decrease in open source productivity. They literally pay for some of the brightest engineers to work on this software (most notably Alan Cox)
      Regards,
      Steve

    68. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      If Microsoft can't keep Windows up-to-date between major releases, whose fault is that?

      Sorry, but WTF? My Windows XP, which I first installed around 3 years ago, quite happily keeps itself up-to-date with nothing more than an occasional click to approve downloading and installing a security patch. The latest drivers, including those for my video and sound cards, are obtainable through Windows Update just like any other OS patch. Microsoft is perfectly capable of keeping Windows up-to-date, and tomorrow when this month's security patches come out, I imagine they'll do it again. And I don't have to reinstall Windows from scratch every month to do it, either.

      I'm already not looking forward to install WinXP on my new all-SATA all-PCI-E computer. I really hope no driver diskettes are involved, namely because I couldn't bear to put a floppy drive in the thing.

      Since my system doesn't even have a floppy drive, and as noted above it's been running XP happily for years, presumably your concerns will only materialise if your system is poorly set-up and unable to boot from a SATA CD/DVD drive. Then again, if you don't have hardware that's capable of booting from anything other than a floppy drive when everyone else has been doing it for years, whose fault is that?

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    69. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Annoying.Git.Uses.Cliches.

      Fedora IS a testbed for RHEL, even RH states that. However, it's still the one of the best Linux distros out there.

      Solaris is okay, but only if you're running SPARC. It has it's bugs too. Take a look at the stupid fopen() file descriptor limit sometime...

    70. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by reallocate · · Score: 1

      >> fter installing Windows, I need to install an archiver, CD burning app, SSH client, PDF reader, a good web browser, updated drivers for sound and video, virus scanner, spyware protection, etc, etc.

      You're doing things that most Windows users won't do. In fact, most Windows users have no reason to have even heard of most of the things you've listed.

      MS has..what, 50-60 billion in the bank and you guys are saying they've done something wrong?

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    71. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      It's perfectly reasonable to compare the two, since they're the two latest OS's from Fedora and Microsoft.

      No, it's the latest Fedora distro and the latest OS from Microsoft. Please understand the difference.

      Incidentally, I seem to recall a large number of people around here bitching about Microsoft shipping Windows with even basic utility software like Media Player or Internet Explorer installed out of the box, and ultimately being found guilty of anti-competitive behaviour as a result. You wouldn't have been one of the people complaining about that, would you?

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    72. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by GnomeKing · · Score: 1

      I work in IT, and having installed XP on many new/old desktops and many old/new laptops, nothing has ever come close to XP in regards to device drivers


      Funny story...

      I recently had to reinstall Windows XP SP2 for my sister. Once XP was installed, I had the biggest problem I've ever had installing software - the USB cable modem was not recognised.

      When the cable guy installed it, he (apparently) didn't leave them with any drivers, so we were utterly screwed and couldn't download any of the updates / other drivers.

      Thankfully I had knoppix (v3.2 - so not overly new), and it automatically recognised everything including the USB Cable modem. Downloaded the drivers from the website, and we were off again.

      So for me, Linux certainly did autodetect and support vital bits of hardware which Windows XP SP2 did not.
    73. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by ehaggis · · Score: 1

      But I prefer my distro to come with a "Start" button in the bottom left and a stable version of Solitare.

      --
      One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
    74. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahahahahaha. You're funny.

      With Fedora, I had to hunt down wireless drivers, video card drives, monitor drivers, mouse and keyboard drivers...
      Never did find the right sound card drivers...

      On Ubuntu, I just had to copy my wireless card's windows drivers.

      On Windows...everything just worked. Without needing to download new drivers. But I did, and now everything works better.

    75. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by KingBahamut · · Score: 1

      Touche - Fauxpas.

      --
      "God of Rock, thank you for this chance to kick ass. "
    76. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      That's hardly a fair comparison.

      True. And next year the comparison will be even more unfair.

    77. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Rei · · Score: 1

      Really? And init installed without problems (init and one other package, I forget which one, would fail if selinux was enabled). Other people had reported the problem as well. If they actually fixed it, that's great news :)

      --
      "This wallpaper is killing me. One of us has got to go." -- Oscar Wilde on his deathbed
    78. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by LDoggg_ · · Score: 1

      As someone who used redhat through 6.0, 7.0, and 7.1 in a professional capacity, as well as all of the rest of them since 1999, I can tell you that you either have no idea what you're talking about, or you're trolling.

      Well given only those two choices, I guess I'll take the former, as I wasn't trolling in the slightest.
      I'm a developer, and by no means a sysadmin. Most of my experience in with the earlier distros was from a desktop perspective. I first started with redhat 5.1. I didn't really give it much of a chance, but I really started to like the distro when I bought the 5.2 CDs. I put it on an p2 233 and was very happy with it.

      My problems with the mentioned versions are actually pretty simple.
      Version 6.0 pissed me off because it was much more expensive off the shelf than the previous versions.
      I stil think 6.2 is the most stable version I ever used, and I could install it on anything. I got the disks free at an IBM trade show.

      7.0 & 7.1 bugged me because the power management changes meant I couldn't get it to work on my Dell latitude at the time. I probably just didn't know enough about linux.
      7.2 & 7.3 were great, they fired right up on my laptop and workstations and I used them quite a bit.

      As far as 8 being a problem, well I was never a user of mod_perl, and I've only started using php a year or so ago.
      Some people complained about blue curve, but its not like the desktop managers couldn't have their themes changed.

      As far as it being commercial and enterprise, oh cry me a freakin river.

      I'm using it professionaly now to house oracle databases. Guess what, RH enterpise is competing with HP/UX and Solaris, not windows. Oracle isn't something we could easily get away from, and guess what? Oracle support for linux on anything other than Redhat sucks.

      It sounds like you're complaining because they're not competing in the same space as mandrake and suse. So what? I'm happy with fedora as a desktop, the support is a good as anything else that's free. When I need it for "enterprise" support its price competitive enough.

      Again, I'm a developer, not a sysadmin. If I was, and had to roll out linux to a hundred desktops, I'd probably go with fedora/ltsp. If it had to be fat clients, and I needed paid support, I'd probably go with novell/suse.
      That said, fedora currently suits my niche just fine.

      --

      "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
    79. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1

      WoW runs flawlessly under Point2Play http://www.transgaming.com/

      Cedaga costs $5 per month, it seems. Is there a free option?

    80. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by lxmeister · · Score: 1

      You're suggesting Windows users don't tend to use the following programs?

      CD burning app, PDF reader, good web browser, updated drivers for sound and video, virus scanner, spyware protection

    81. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by XPACT · · Score: 1

      I don't want to start a flame or something, but there are just two simple examples from everyday life. I have a machine with XP Pro, and I have a scanner CANON Lide30 and printer Samsung ML-1210. I have to install drivers for both of them. Windows XP does not have drivers built in. These two devices are pretty standard and popular. I never connected the scanner to my linux box, because it has no monitor, mouse or keybord, but the printer runs just fine (I have CUPS installed) and I use it as a network printer attached to my linux box.

    82. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by timmyf2371 · · Score: 1, Insightful
      You conveniently forget that installing Windows does just that, install Windows.

      Exactly, it installs an operating system which I can customise to my hearts content and enough applications for me to run the computer and start downloading/installing other applications I use.

      No apps

      And you promise not to cry foul or complain when Microsoft include a version of every single application type included in a "standard" Linux distro including their own version of OpenOffice?

      Sounds like you would bitch when they don't include applications with their OS just as you would if they did (for monopoly concerns).

      no security updates

      Are you using Windows 95 or something? Or have you merely totally missed the entire concept of automatic updates in SP2 and Windowsupdate website? I actually rather suspect you are spreading untruths merely to try and achieve your agenda.

      a lot of drivers missing

      If you mean Linux then I would definitely have to agree with you. If you are comparing Windows to Linux then you have me lost.

      Now compare that with the install of a modern Linux distro. See the difference?

      Perfectly, I see it like this:

      Windows includes a barebones OS and does not include many other applications due to their monopoly status. Linux distributions have an (unfair) advantage in that they can distribute whatever they hell they want with their OS providing it is done legally under copyright law.

      Windows has much more out-of-the-box driver support than Linux-based OS's and those which do require additional driver support merely require the user to install a piece of software. With Linux-based distros this may still be the case but the amount of hardware supported and ease of installation of hardware drivers can be significantly harder.

      On security updates both sides are generally equal - a good user should keep up to date with security updates in the same way a good driver should make sure he/she has enough oil, gas, tyre-threads etc. Whether you use Windows or a Linux-based distro, the facilities are there for you to keep your system updated.

      --

      Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    83. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a bunch of hogwash and I can't believe some other zealot/clueless user modded you insightful.
      Frequent, free, releases is one of the advantages Linux has versus Windows.
      Win95, 95 gold, 98, 98SE, 98 gold, ME, 2K, 2K Pro, XP, XP Pro, 2003, and others. I think you'll find that about as frequent as many linux distros.
      I'm already not looking forward to install WinXP on my new all-SATA all-PCI-E computer.
      Try that on all of your backwards versions of the "frequent, free, releases" and tell me how many do not support it.
      I really hope no driver diskettes are involved, namely because I couldn't bear to put a floppy drive in the thing.
      Whoever puts drivers on floppies doesn't magically include a CD just for the *nix junkies in the box. If it is floopy, it is floppy with all drivers. Unless it is a NIC you can just ftp the driver down and install it no matter what OS you are on. Floppy....what the? Otherwise download it or copy it to a CD burner. Burners cost about $20 now and you can get stacks of 50 blanks for practically free.

    84. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by TheKubrix · · Score: 1

      How was I trolling? I just don't like people making redundant (and invalid) arguments simply because they don't like a certain company.

      Just because you have some accessory that doesn't autodetect in XP doesn't mean that XP is still dominate in being able to detect the majority of general hardware.

      The point is that in my experience (almot 10+ yrs now) is that XP has been BY FAR the best performer in regards to detecting device drivers......

    85. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      with XP you need a driver disk for the SATA controller to even start the install.

      No, not necessarily.

      I own a SATA mobo with a SATA drive, and Windows XP identified it as a standard PATA disk. It depends on how your BIOS works, how your BIOS reports your drive to the OS, and mine is a regular Phoenix BIOS from 2003.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    86. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by thepoch · · Score: 1

      As someone who used redhat through 6.0, 7.0, and 7.1 in a professional capacity, as well as all of the rest of them since 1999, I can tell you that you either have no idea what you're talking about, or you're trolling.

      OK... professional capacity. I'll bite.

      Also: Redhat had a good business releasing a product for free and selling support and physical media. They weren't terribly profitable, but whatever, they were a good company.

      So I guess by professional capacity, you don't really care if Red Hat is profitable? Business people generally want their "partners" to be profitable. This ensures that everyone stays alive in the long term. Having a "good company" that isn't profitable is a risky venture for those using that "good company"'s products.

      Now, their workstation costs $180 PER YEAR minimum. Their server costs $350 PER YEAR minimum. And they didn't even write the software! They just wrote a couple of shell scripts to configure shit for you, and released someone else's work.

      Right. Professional.

      But, oh wait, fedora's free, and it's pretty good! Yeah, where's the support for it? When redhat 7.1/7.2 etc came out, you could count on several years of software updates for the included packages. Not now - you're lucky to get 6 months out of fedora. And if you need support for Fedora Core1 at this point, the answer is "Upgrade to FC3 or FC4".

      There's also SuSE, Ubuntu, Debian, Mandrake, Gentoo, etc. Whatever fits your needs.

      Well, whatever for your desktop, but for servers? You can't be telling people they need to upgrade their server every 6 months to get updates. And anyone who says Fedora isn't a testbed for Enterprise is delusional.

      CentOS is the first thing that I'd recommend. I've been using it on our servers without any worries. As a troll, you'll probably say, "Well Red Hat can pull the plug on that anytime". So then we'd use Debian, Ubuntu, SuSE, Mandrake, etc.

      Come on, people. RedHat shot themselves in the foot. They can't even compete with *MICROSOFT* on price anymore, hell, when you buy 2003 server, you at least get 5 years (plus or minus) of updates included. When you buy Windows XP Pro, you get the same thing. Not to mention, both come with support (such as it is). RedHat doesn't even make a token effort. And if you can't compete with microsoft on pricing and/or support, what's the point? Before you say stability and security, I'd like to first point you to the BSD's, which are free, and better than redhat at both. Hell, solaris is cheaper than RedHat, and it's significantly more stable.

      Why point to BSD or Solaris when there are other Linux distros out there that are just as good, if not, better than RH? And with RHEL, you get at least 5 years (plus or minus as well) of support and updates.

      Once people let go of the redhat name, it will die off. It's coasting on name recognition at this point. But redhat's "paradigm shift" or whatever has done more negative for the professional linux community than anything I can ever think of.

      Negative for the "Professional Linux Community"? How so? Because of price? There are people willing to pay for RH's price. RH uses that money to pay the salaries of it's employees. It's employees are FOSS hackers, doing stuff a lot of people use, not just with Fedora or RHEL, but with a lot of other distros as well. Where's the negative in that? High prices? In my experience there is this term in business I like to always keep in mind: "You get what you pay for".

    87. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by HappyDrgn · · Score: 1

      "nothing has ever come close to XP in regards to device drivers"

      I beg to differ. A friend recently purchased a Sony notebook, which naturally had Windows XP installed first. A clean install was done, after which the following needed to be installed/configured (we won't even mention the hours of updates):

      - DVD software
      - Office software
      - Wireless network card
      - CD burning software

      These where later installed and working fine under Windows XP. Sometime last week he decided to give Fedora a try. We downloaded the ISOs burned them and installed Linux on his notebook. In the end after a clean install all we needed to do was install the MadWiFi driver for his network card.

      In fact, the same with my personal desktop system. Fedora found and configured everything, right down to those things like dvd drives and cd burners. The only thing I needed to install was my WiFi card, something XP won't detect on it's own anyway. I'd run through an install of a recent Linux distro again before making these claims. It's been my experience that side by side Linux is easier and faster to install than Windows XP.

    88. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      afaik it was fc 2

    89. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by TheKubrix · · Score: 1

      I'm an idiot? Good retort kid....

      Linux generally requires answering some simple configuration questions, install, boot, update and you are done.

      hehe, you obviously havn't done many installs, much less using various distros (at different versions) or on older/newer machines....

    90. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by timmyf2371 · · Score: 1
      Maybe they do, but given 10 minutes I could probably give you a far bigger list of hardware which will not work in Linux, I could probably expand your list for Windows too and give a few more troublesome additions.

      Hardware however should be a defining factor when choosing an OS to use (when we're talking about floppys, DVD-ROMs, etc) as given a particular piece of hardware, if it doesn't work in a particular OS should there not be alternatives you can choose to purchase instead? And I believe in this respect Windows has more choice & options.

      --

      Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    91. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by arkhan_jg · · Score: 1

      I also work in IT, and when I install windows xp, I certainly have to install the video drivers (whether it's nvidia, ati or intel). I often have to install the wireless drivers. I regularly have to install various motherboard drivers, especially sound card drivers. SATA drivers I need to provide on floppy before I even boot. And don't get me started on windows update.

      I can install a linux distro like SuSE, and it's all configured and ready to play, with the exception of wireless.

      Fortunately, I whip up an XP ghost image with all the drivers installed whenever we buy new kit, so I don't often have to install windows off an OEM cd. But the idea that windows xp comes with all the drivers you need is laughable.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    92. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by HappyDrgn · · Score: 1

      "When redhat 7.1/7.2 etc came out, you could count on several years of software updates for the included packages. Not now - you're lucky to get 6 months out of fedora. And if you need support for Fedora Core1 at this point, the answer is "Upgrade to FC3 or FC4"."

      I'm replying to you using Fedora Core 1, which BTW is still updating software every day just fine.

    93. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Bachus9000 · · Score: 1

      What version of Windows were you using? I've never seen this with any version I've used from 98 to 2000 to XP. The most Windows will do is "kindly" rewrite the mbr of the drive it's installed to. Mind you, every time I've dual booted both operating systems have been on the same drive, so maybe it'll act differently in this other case...but I doubt it. Wouldn't be the first time an MS product acted differently for no good reason, though. :)

    94. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      Troll.

      I've *never* seen a desktop that had all of the necessary device drivers included in the default Windows XP image.

      No, I'm not counting stuff people have integrated via Slipstream. I don't have to Slipstream my linux drivers into my favorite distro.

      SuSE 9.3 detects all the hardware on my system, and automagically downloads the only device driver I need that doesn't come with it, nvidia's closed source linux driver.

      XP comes with a bunch of older drivers, many of which are buggy. It's not even reasonably close.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    95. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by eV_x · · Score: 1

      "Sure.. why not? After you install Windows you get umm.. Windows. After a Windows install (even from an SP2 disk) I generally have to go search around for device drivers and install them, do the Windows update, install software (Office suite, good instant messenger, graphics program, good CD burner app, etc..) and during hte process, hunt down a handful of real long alphanumeric strings that I get to enter to apparently show that I am worthy."

      First, your advantage is comparing apples to oranges and you also have a nonsenical arguments thrown in for good measure.

      WinXP installing on a PC has 99.9% of the drivers for most people - maybe not your frankenstein setup, but most boxes are plug and play install. You want newer drivers, you have to upgrade... the last time I checked on my FC3 box, I had to do the same if newer drivers were out. Also, with regards to things like bluetooth, wireless, and legacy laptops, FC is going to be a major pain in your ass over WinXP.

      As far as installing software, what about if the tools you want and need don't come with FC4? What if you want certain products that aren't there? I guess I have to "search around" for them. This is, fundamentally, also a difference between Windows XP and FC4 - one is a distro with apps, and one is an OS. For a more fair comparison, maybe you should compare it to a preloaded software suite with a new box... at least then they tend to come with recovery cds. I'll bet it's really easy then!

      Also, what alphanumeric strings are you referring to? This is BS - you're obviously referring to Activation, but in an uninformed backhanded attempt. In fact, on new machines, you simply have to click activate and hit Next. If you purchase WinXP separately, yes, you must "hunt down" the string from the sleeve of your CD case. Wow, don't hurt your back in the process you lazy bastard. This same process applies to many other software packages, and it's pretty easy/fast - especially if it's a new box preloaded.

      "Now Fedora lets see .. install Fedora. Generally hardware detection is much better and my hardware is detected and configured properly (granted this could be due to the fact it is newer, but alias, Microsoft doesn't offer updated ISOs of WinXP for me to download.. so I think its fair .. latest release to latest release). Oh yah, it comes with the apps I need to use ... so perhaps the quick step of updating *ALL* the software on my system to make sure its the latest versions (versus just Windows via Windows update and manually downloading for the rest..) I am pretty much done after installing Fedora."

      Okay, so when Fedora Core 5 comes out, upgrade to it and let me know how that goes. You know, just update to the latest FC release. That should be easy since they don't test it or support it really.

      Also, with regards to Microsoft not updating the ISOs. SP2 is now distributed as the base version of Windows, and updates over Windows Update is pretty easy. Couple that with Automatic Updates and it's pretty mindless for the average user. Regardless of if you like that or not, it's not "tough"

    96. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by zerocool^ · · Score: 1


      I appreciate your being nice here, and trying to point by point me, but I'd like to rebut quickly.

      I said "not very profitable", I didn't say "not profitable". They were selling books, cd's, tshirts, and support contracts, and they were making enough money to pay salaries and bandwidth costs. And that should have been enough. They don't need to be a billion dollar a year company (in my opinion).

      You also point out "use whatever fits your needs" several times, and I do. I use another linux distro (gentoo) on my server, mainly because I like the package manager. But, it continues to boggle the mind how people can use fedora for professional environments and servers.

      As far as "you get what you pay for", I would say that goes to be more true for CEO's and CTO's perceptions than it is in real life. A lot of people get the "you get what you pay for" confused with "If it costs a lot of money, it must be good", and I see a lot of people falling into that mode of thought with RHEL.

      That's all. To admit my bias, I was working for a company that had about 60 servers running RH7.3 and RH9 when they announced they were end-of-lifing it after it had been out for 6 months, and I had to deal with now learning debian and figuring out ways to either migrate my customers or whatever. It was a major pain in the ass.

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
    97. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Bachus9000 · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, it's not the drives themselves that need the drivers--it's the controller chipset the drive is connected to. I've been wrong before, though. :)

    98. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by richie2000 · · Score: 1
      The latest drivers, including those for my video and sound cards, are obtainable through Windows Update

      Oh, you got Catalyst 5.6 and/or Forceware 71.89 on Windows Update? I don't think so.

      unable to boot from a SATA CD/DVD drive

      I don't think you understand the problem. All the recent VIA SATA controllers need a driver diskette (Press F6 right off the bat when installing XP) to install XP. You can't have the drivers on a CD since the XP installer is hard-coded to look for a diskette. MS decided to not add any new drivers with SP2 so most new stuff is either backwards compatible (some other SATA chips have ATA fallback modes where they look just like an ATA chip) or need drivers. SATA is especially sensitive since when XP boots the first time and loads the XP kernel, it can't find the hard drive it was installing to when it was running the BIOS drivers. If you upgrade your mobo to SATA from a running install you can pre-load the drivers and avoid the issue, but if you're doing a clean install, booting from CD - the odds are quite good that you'll have to have drivers on a diskette.

      It's the good old NT4 INACCESSIBLE_BOOT_DEVICE all over again. :-)

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    99. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not an idiot, but definetly a troll.

      I've done *a lot* of SuSE installs, on all kinds of crazy hardware.

      Ancient stuff, cutting edge stuff. Very, very rarely do I have to add in a device driver. I also don't have to reboot constantly. Like I have to with Windows- 2 reboots for the install, a reboot after the video card driver, a reboot after Via's chipset drivers, a reboot or two after multiple Windows updates.

      XP does *not* come with working drivers for most modern video cards. XP does *not* come with drivers for newer sound cards. XP does *not* come with drivers for most wireless cards. XP does *not* come with fully functional chipset drivers for most SiS and Via boards, especially newer ones.

      XP does *not* come with drivers for the nforce line of boards, some of the most popular 'high-end' boards avaliable now.

      And don't try and tell me its just 'cutting' edge stuff. The original nforce is getting rather long in the tooth now.

      Its just that XP is older. Furthermore, the software issue is a good one. XP doesn't come with a word processor. XP only comes with MSN messaging-- you'll need clients for other messaging protocols. XP does not come with a passable image editor; MS paint doesn't cut it.

      XP does not come with modern printer drivers, either. You'll have to go to the manufacturer site for that, as well. XP's cd-burning is rudimentary, at best. Some people like to do more than just put files on their discs.

      XP come with an ancient media player. Updates are necessary to play nearly any format, and you'll have to go and hunt down codecs to play things like divx.

      Comparing XP and a Linux distribution in terms of out-of-the-box functionality is silly. Comparing XP and Linux in terms of out-of-the-box driver compatability is absurd.

      It's simply no-contest.

      XP, however, crushes Linux in terms of software avaliability, and driver avaliability. This doesn't mean that these apps come with the OS, or are part of the default install. You have to schlep them on to your system one at a time.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    100. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is one of those moments when I wish I still used my nick and had some modpoints.

      From a four-digit uid to a three-digit: tell it brotha. This guy is a moron.

    101. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by homerito · · Score: 1

      I decided to keep a log of applications that i install into windows xp (and also linux). Then when i run into some crap where i have to reinstall (often...). I just go trough the list of programs that i need to install to be where I was before the failure. It takes a couple of days tough. My linux list is a little more complicated. Because its not only install the new application but then check that all the drivers are working, configure it, fix the broken parts, maybe reconfigure and recomplie the kernel. And then if your system crashes and you have to reinstall, the packages might have changed and the list is useless. Somebody would say that is a rapid development enviroment but why do i need to read the 123,322 man pages every time that i need to reinstall? I am to the point that i just want the applications to work so i am runnning more windows than linux than i used to. I really would like to run more linux but expending the whole weekend just to make the computer to be able to run opengl or correct sound does not strike me as fun any more.

    102. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by suitepotato · · Score: 1

      Linux boosters never seem to grasp one very important thing:

      Technically inclined Linux users and other nerds are NOT remotely representative of the majority of PC users in the USA or anywhere else on the planet.

      Do desktop support for any length of time, compare honestly and without fanaticism and blind hatred of Microsoft the actuall requirements of both operating systems (FC4 and WinXP) and you will quickly see that FC4 is far and away the harder of the two.

      I feel like a broken record but I will say it again in case someone is bothering to listen and be honest. Linux is currently about as difficult to use and administer and support as DOS 6.22 with Windows for Workgroups 3.11 was when it was new. Lots of text based configuration, lots of inconsistancies, lots of time taken to do anything, very frustrating for the average user, many of whom find installing AOL successfully on the first shot to be a total mystery.

      These same exact things, even when cut by 5000% with Windows 95 first release were still cause for opprobrium leveled at Microsoft by all the haters. They celebrate Linux for the same exact reasons: hard is beautiful to today's geeks. My generation merely thought hard was a challenge, but should be made easy for others. The result was Windows and Macintosh. If today's geeks have their way, we will eventually be playing Doom 5 by way of a numeric keypad and having to input trigonometric calculations of shot trajectories and our desktop will be green phosphor CRTs.

      Linux also is still relatively insecure by default because many people to avoid problems simply install everything all at once and end up with all sorts of things running that should not. Even a careful install requires good knowledge of TCP/IP-Internet networking and security for it to be proper. This issue of being open by default is what Windows has been time and again excoriated for but the same thing is ignored in Linux.

      Linux is great. FC is wonderful, I use it myself and will install FC4 within a few days when I have time. It is NOT easier to install, it is NOT as well supported, it has TONS of IDIOTS providing a bad image, and those same IDIOTS keep trying to avoid dealing with the fact that they are totally counterproductive to the advancement of the platform and acceptance by society by their dogged refusal to approach Windows XP level of ease of installation, configuartion, and daily usage as well as wrapping it in their inane anti-corporate socialist politics.

      Thankfully, the idiot nonsense about "free, free, free!" has been bypassed, serious analysis done, and corporate America has seen that all the zealot guff aside, Linux does have a place here and there for them. And with Red Hat, IBM, Novell, and others providing professional packages with professional support and well-heeled Unix veterans availible to work the trenches that they can make this work at a cost savings over previous contracts with people like SCO or HP or whoever.

      But the consumer desktop? Please don't make me laugh. People who think an OS with ten thousand text configuration files in ten thousand directories with ten billion chances for fat fingering typos flying in the face of Occam's Razor will overtake an operating system with a major corporation load of support behind it and the most third party support on this entire planet are obviously letting emotion and dreaming get way ahead of logic and reality.

      "Okay, it says back, next, and cancel. Which should I press to go to the next step?"

      (Support tech bangs head on desk and thanks G-d he is not trying to talk this dipstick through configuring SSH...)

      --
      If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    103. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Bachus9000 · · Score: 1

      You really ought to check out this guide to unattended Windows installations. It might save your sanity. :D

    104. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by HouseOfMisterE · · Score: 1

      I have a Dell laptop dual booting Windows XP and FC3, and a homemade AMD-powered desktop dual booting Windows 2000 and FC3, and neither of these machines experienced the boot sector problem. The only installation problems that I ever faced with FC3 was installing on computers that used a Via/Cyrix CPU (I have two). On these, I had to boot from some rescue CD that Redhat (or someone) released, and then swap in the installation media.

    105. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please. You're complaining that Windows doesn't include a lot of bundled software. If Windows came with everything pre-installed, trolls like you would be crying "anti-trust!!! stop bundling software!"

      People bitch about Win Media Player and IE being bundled with Windows, then they bitch about a lack of bundled software. Give me a break.

    106. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by njcoder · · Score: 1
      Red Hat is by far the single largest contributor of code to OSS, this is one of the main reasons why their distribution tends to integrate seamlessly together.
      Uhm... You're a bit off there. Remember, Open Source does not mean just Linux. I'm not sure where you got that. RedHat may employ some people to work on the projects you mentioned but in most cases they are not the majority of contributors. UCB is probably the biggest contributor (remember open source didn't start with linux.) They started BSD, PostgreSQL, vi, tcl, SendMail, a good TCP/IP stack and more.

      Second is probably Sun with their release of NFS As for support costs... RedHat's EULA restricts you from running RHEL or their other Red Hat distros (not including fedora) without a support contract. I think they can do this because of trademark, not copyright. According to the EULA it doesn't seem you can even buy support for RedHat on a production server and install it on a unsupported development server. To abide by their contract you need to have support for every installation.

      Windows is a non issue these days. Any medium to large size company is going to have some sort of support contract with MS that adding a couple more servers is just a drop in the bucket. Sun gives you a free RTU license to run Solaris 10 on any system. If you want support, their pricing is cheaper than Red Hat. A lot of the RedHat users that were running large numbers of redhat servers have either not upgraded to RHES by switching to Fedora, staying with what they have or switching to CentOS or Whitebox as a result of the pricing and agreement.

    107. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by reallocate · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm suggesting a great may Windows users don't use tose programs.

      A great many home users have no need to burn CDs or read PDF files, use the browser that ships with Windows (statistics still bear that out), don't need (or know about) updated audio or video drivers because Windows was installed on the box they bought and both sound and video work OK (they wouldn't have bought it otherwise), and really should have virus and spyware protection but probably don't.

      Office users may or may not have one or more of tose programs installed if their employer deems them necessary for the job.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    108. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 2, Informative
      >No, it's the latest Fedora distro and the latest OS from Microsoft. Please understand the difference.

      I do understand. That's why I tried to include other MS products.

      But here's a revision: "It's perfectly reasonable to compare the two, since they are the latest consumer desktop solutions offerings from Fedora and Microsoft." In any case, they're competing products for the title of "What's the first thing you install on a newly built computer to start using it."

      If you're talking about how easy it is to execute and get through the Win XP setup program vs. how easy it is to execute and get through the Fedora setup program, then, even disregarding the fact that a clean and updated Win XP install is much less complete than a clean and updated Fedora install, Fedora's still easier in that it has a fully graphical UI for the install program, unlike windows which uses command line stuff for partition and EULA.

      As for the monopoly claim...

      http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/04/03/m icrosoft_ruling/

      Specifically, Jackson determined that Microsoft violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by unlawfully "tying" its Web browser to its operating system, and by a series of other anti-competitive acts that included foregoing millions of dollars in revenue through its practice of giving away the browser for free, and applying extreme pressure on Internet service providers and hardware retailers. Jackson also declared that Microsoft's creation of a version of the Java programming language incompatible with Sun Microsystems' Java fit into the same pattern of abusive practices.

      >bitching about Microsoft shipping Windows with even basic utility software

      Bundling Firefox with a distro is not the same as integrating IE into Windows. You can un-check the Firefox box when installing Fedora. You can't uninstall Internet Explorer from Windows.

      For the real details on MS's OS/Browser monopoly actions, read http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm# v , especially paragraphs 90, 91, and 92, and http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm# vf.
      As its internal contemporaneous documents and licensing practices reveal, Microsoft decided to bind Internet Explorer to Windows in order to prevent Navigator from weakening the applications barrier to entry, rather than for any pro-competitive purpose.
    109. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by joel48 · · Score: 1

      Why should they be expected to include services you'd like - they include "comparable" services for their solutions.

      Winzip - "Compressed Folders"
      Acrobat - ??
      Putty - Remote Desktop Client
      Winamp - Windows Media Player
      AIM - you must be joking, we give you Windows Messenger (MSN is seperate)
      Firefox - IE

      Now, I'm far from a Microsoft fanboy, but your argument isn't very valid, as they shouldn't be expected to include client software for dealing with solutions other than theirs. Note that this is different from putting up barriers to OTHER solutions, they just shouldn't be expected to embrace or support them.

    110. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by misleb · · Score: 1
      You're doing things that most Windows users won't do. In fact, most Windows users have no reason to have even heard of most of the things you've listed

      . Perhaps, but that doesn't make the criticism any less valid.

      MS has..what, 50-60 billion in the bank and you guys are saying they've done something wrong?

      And how much of that is from me? None.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    111. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by shadowzero313 · · Score: 1

      When I started using linux a few months ago, I had a second hard drive that I installed linux too, so I could just change the boot device to switch. I had to reinstall windows a couple weeks later, and when I tried to go back to linux, it kept booting into windows. pulled the windows drive, got Windows cannot be found. So I learned how to reinstall grub, and decided windows can fuck off. worse than a malicious website, it hijacked my boot sector.

    112. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Bachus9000 · · Score: 1

      The GP may be a troll, but you're not helping matters much yourself. :) 5-10 reboots? Come on, get serious. I just installed XP on two machines in the past week--a 500MHz P3 and 450MHz (IIRC) P3. Let's count the reboots:
      1. After "textmode" setup (the blue screen of...life?)
      2. After the GUI portion of setup
      3. Connect to Windows update, download updates

      Note that the install disc I used in both cases had SP2 slipstreamed, so that was one less reboot you may need. I also never reboot until I'm done installing all the software that might require it rather than after each piece of software--nothing's ever broken as a result, so why not? :) Either way, we're still looking at 5 or 6 reboots tops. Hardly the 10 you give as the max. :)

    113. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had the same first impression as you did. But for a basic system with a supported chipset, common integrated audio or older SoundBlaster cards, many types of video cards, IDE drives, etc., Linux will recognize it all out of the box. Install Linux and it's ready to use.

      OTOH WinXP will easily install the OS and many drivers, but i've found support for many ethernet chips, video drivers and modems is generally poor. The bad thing about the lack of modem and ethernet drivers is the cruel prompt to search the internet for a missing driver. Windows almost always requires at least a video and ethernet driver to become usable. Is that 10x harder? That's an arbitrary measure... installing Windows drivers usually only takes a couple of minutes, so I don't think so.

      And on both platforms you'll need to install drivers if it's not supported out of the box. In that case, Windows drivers are generally much, much easier to install.

      But for a more complex system with cards and peripherals that only have closed source or not included drivers, or using a less common and supported distro like x86_64, Linux can easily become 10x harder to configure than Windows. You want 3D with that? Install the development tools, libraries and kernel source code! And that's an easy one. The amount of work required to just get a remote control or many TV cards to function is ridiculous -- if it ever works at all.

    114. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by misleb · · Score: 1
      I decided to keep a log of applications that i install into windows xp (and also linux). Then when i run into some crap where i have to reinstall (often...).

      Methinks you might be doing something wrong.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    115. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by vandon · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Now, their workstation costs $180 PER YEAR minimum. ....Come on, people. RedHat shot themselves in the foot. They can't even compete with *MICROSOFT* on price anymore, hell, when you buy 2003 server, you at least get 5 years (plus or minus) of updates included.
      Available in Standard Edition:
      Web and phone-based comprehensive support
      5x12
      4 hour response
      Unlimited incidents

      Try making 1 call into MS about a problem on your server and you'll end up paying more than $180.
      And you can still get updates after your subscription runs out, you just can't use RHN. You have to download and install the updated RPMS manually, just like when everyone used NT4.
      Or better yet, switch to apt-get.
    116. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by reallocate · · Score: 1

      Your criticism is considerably less valid because you were attempting to favorably contrast Linux with Windows by enumerating several applications that a typical Linux distribution installs by default but that Windows users must install later. Your premise assumes that Windows users actually want those programs. If they do not, then you criticism is invalid. The majority of Linux distributions install hundreds of applications that any given Linux user will not use.

      I'm sure you feel better for not having bought a Microsoft product, but that doesn't seem to have affected their success.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    117. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by soliptic · · Score: 1
      You are forgetting that after installing WinXP you will still have to install a lot of drivers, of which many are difficult to find

      Not sure what kind of freaky hardware you're using. I don't think I've installed any drivers on my XP box, ever. Bought an ADSL router - threw the CD away - plugged it in - it worked. Bought a digital camera - threw the CD away - plugged it in - it worked.

    118. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      > Maybe they do, but given 10 minutes I could probably give you a far bigger list of hardware which will not
      > work in Linux, I could probably expand your list for Windows too and give a few more troublesome additions.

      -nod- Hey, my job is to make more hardware work in Linux, so believe me, I know. =) I object to the upstream
      poster's tone, saying it's _ridiculous_ and _obviously a troll_ to suggest that Linux hardware autodetection
      surpasses Windows XP; it's obviously NOT ridiculous, and it depends completely on what hardware you have in
      your system.

      IME, the fact that Linux only looks at chipset, vendor/device ID numbers etc tends to have very good results for bargain
      and generic brand devices. In Windows, the driver for, say, a Belkin rtl8169 network card and the driver for a NetGear
      rtl8169 card are different, and will gripe for no good technical reason if you try to use one on the other. The lack of
      generic USB and PCMCIA device-class drivers also causes lots of breakage, like my generic ide-cs dvdrom, serial_cs
      bluetooth radio and usb sbp2 floppy referenced above.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    119. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by NipsMG · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you're also talking a brand spanking new OS verses an OS released .. in 05-09-2001.
      Yes I know it's the only Windows version available to compare to, but it's still a rediculous comparison. It's like comparing longhorn w/ FC4 when longhorn comes out. Of course longhorn will have support for more devices then than FC4 does now.
      Also, almost all hardware comes with driver disks for this reason. If it's old legacy hardware, usually windows has a driver for it. If not, you can get it from the manufacturer.
      Point is, if you have to go find a driver for windows, it's a HELL OF A LOT EASIER for a newbie to find than if, god forbid, they're trying to get linux driver support for their hardware.
      Disclaimer: I am a windows user. I have to be, especially for work. I hate Windows. I will move to OSX once Mac comes to x86.
      One thing I dislike more than Windows is rediculous claims about linux ease and superiority by fanboys. For the most part, newbies will have a hard time with linux because Windows is easier to use, has MANY more resources on the web for help, and newbies can ask any average joe on the street how to do something without having to put up with RTFM N00B!!!!!!! from linux fanboys.

    120. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      " I find it rare when a linix distro can locate ALL device drivers and properly set them up....."

      You are clearly on crack. When i installed fedora 3 it detected everything. perfectly. XP? i dont think ive ever had it detect everything perfectly. Maybe if your computer is +3 years before the latest release of windows then maybe it will all go fine. Try it yourself since you aparently build many more PC's than I do at my job building PC's. Take a modern motherboard and modern processor with everything on board and let me know how many things get auto configured. Intel, via, sis.. every major chipset is not supported in XP, without manually goign to the manufacturers website and downloading the releases.

      You sure picked a really bad point to argue on because one thing linux has going for it is the sheer amount of built in drivers. XP is at least a few years old, even with SP2, which im pretty sure didnt come with any driver updates. Fedora was released this week. Tell me which one do you expect to have better out of the box drivers?

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    121. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Cat_Byte · · Score: 1

      I'll second that. I'm planning on installing FC4 from scratch tonight. I have had zero problems with FC3 other than the pain of getting wireless to work with it. It is an awesome platform for running mythtv on my widescreen tho :) Uptime is limited only to my last power outage.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    122. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Cat_Byte · · Score: 1

      Hey may be referring to the fact that some drivers such as nVidia require you to compile the kernel to use them. Each time you upgrade the kernel you have to manually run all of these configurations again. If he isn't then thats what I thought of the first time I read it. I have 3 drivers that require me to reinstall every time I upgrade the kernel myself.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    123. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Sleepy · · Score: 1

      >I think Windows XP installer asks for a grand total for 3 inputs. Computer Name, User Name, and Time Zone.

      My version of XP required no less than entering a ~24-digit UID to authenticate my hardware.

      And official XP installation CD's WITH SP2 are EXCEEDINGLY RARE. They may exist (you can certainly create them..) but that's not what the average CD bought new today would be.

      And even with SP2, there's a boatload of security updates and reboots required. I'm sure there's a lot of updates for a fresh FC3 install too. but FC3 is a whole 'nother release, not a service pack.

      XP wouldn't be "easier" just because there's NO free upgrade to the next version, as there is with Fedora. Upgrades on a polished Linux distro are far easier than Windows. I know someone stuck with a $1000 UMAX 17x12 scanner, and they have to keep a Win98 box running for it, because the Win2000 update broke the drivers (manufacturers fault, but still part of the whole user experience).

      XP won't let you download and install ALL updates at once, like Fedora does.

      Most Windows users dont have access to "real" Windows CD's, just "system restore" CD's. Have fun upgrading THOSE systems after a fresh reinstall.

    124. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by AugstWest · · Score: 1

      You don't have to compile the kernel, at most you run an NVIDIA executable that compiles and installs its own kernel module, then installs it for you. ./NVIDIA-yatta-yatta.run ----that's a far cry from having to recompile your kernel.

    125. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Try installing again and let me know how many prompts it takes until you get a useful system where you can get work done.

      Ok, starting from a fresh install of XP, I need:

      1) A JVM
      2) Eclipse

      So that's maybe 4 prompts each. After that, I can get useful work done. Similarly with FC4, I'll need a JVM and Eclipse, with roughly the same number of prompts.

      Hell, at a pinch, I can forgo Eclipse (or JBuilder Foundation, or whatever) and use javac on the command line, old-school stylee. I'll take a lot longer and tear out what little hair I have left, though...

    126. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by koreaman · · Score: 1

      Nice Dave Chappelle quote. I'm glad an actual piece of pop culture mentioned Linux. (Yes I've seen that episode.)

    127. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by NipsMG · · Score: 1

      Windows.

      And I wouldn't suggest my mother/grandmother install either.

      Because after the initial setup, my grandmother and mother will be calling me for weeks on end wondering why they can't run Winzip, and why they can't run Winamp, and why they can't play the game they just bought from the store, etc.

      And because if I'm not around, they can pretty much ask ANYONE with basic computer knowledge for help instead of having to search for some elitist linux user to talk down to them.
      NipsMG

    128. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Colmao · · Score: 2, Informative
      Michael Dell just invested $100 million into Red Hat
      Small correction: Michael Dell didn't invest 100 million into Redhat; he bought 100 million worth of debt from RedHat. The difference being that he expects RedHat to be financially sound enough to pay back his loan and the interest accumulated from it.

      Rather than buying 100 million worth of RedHat stock which would mean, he has faith / believes / or wants to eventually buy out RedHat because he believes this company can grow and create wealth. You have a good argument Steve, this doesn't detract from it much.

    129. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by jlseagull · · Score: 1

      Suse 9.2 Pro worked fine for me, but only after doing the following if dual booting from a single drive:

      1. Enter the CHS (cylinders, heads, sectors) values as boot parameters when starting the install kernel.
      2. Switch the active partition to wherever /boot is, leaving your MBR alone and unaffected.
      3. Install normally.

      This was the key without which Mandrake 10.1, Suse 9.1, FC2, FC3, and Ubuntu would instantly hose your XP boot sector. Suse 9.2 was actually nice enough to back up your MBR for you and add it to the boot menu.

      --
      'Be always mindful, even when ditch-digging.' --D. T. Suzuki
    130. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by pyros · · Score: 1

      You need to look into slipstreaming drivers onto your install CD.

    131. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Incidentally, I seem to recall a large number of people around here bitching about Microsoft shipping Windows with even basic utility software like Media Player or Internet Explorer installed out of the box, and ultimately being found guilty of anti-competitive behaviour as a result. You wouldn't have been one of the people complaining about that, would you?


      Let's say Sony shipped FC4 on some Vaios. If they bundled Opera rather than Firefox & the other browsers included in FC4, do you think that Red Hat would care at all?

      Now, let's say Sony shipped Opera or Firefox with Windows. How would Microsoft react?

      (Actually, for all I know they might not give a shit any more, since they already succeeded at killing Netscape. But, in the era in question the difference would have been massive.)
    132. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I have a nForce2 board. While it is true that Windows XP basically had no drivers for it included, I downloaded the latest nVidia ones and had no problems with them - my computer now is completely stable (a lot better than the stupid VIA based board I had before). The only real issue I had is that Windows managed to find a sound driver that sort of works with the integrated sound, but not very well (for whatever reason, VLC hated that driver). Install the nVidia one, and all is well.

    133. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      That was with XP Home. It definitely barfed when it saw Linux, as unplugging the disk let it continue (so it wasn't a case of the MBR on that drive being funny either).

    134. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Cat_Byte · · Score: 1

      OK so I worded it incorrectly. The point was you have to do that every time you upgrade ther kernel. It always asks if you want to download a kernel precompiled with it (yet it never finds one) during the install.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    135. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but WTF? My Windows XP, which I first installed around 3 years ago, quite happily keeps itself up-to-date with nothing more than an occasional click to approve downloading and installing a security patch.

      We're talking about installer here, not the OS once it is installed. This whole thread has been about the installer, not the OS. Please keep up, m-kay?

      Since my system doesn't even have a floppy drive, and as noted above it's been running XP happily for years

      Did you have SATA hardware when you installed that system years ago? I didn't think so.

      Then again, if you don't have hardware that's capable of booting from anything other than a floppy drive when everyone else has been doing it for years, whose fault is that?

      I don't think you understand the situation here. SATA hardware requires different drivers than IDE hardware, drivers that didn't exist in 2002 when the WinXP was released. The BIOS will happily boot the Windows installer, but the installer doesn't use the BIOS to do the install --- it uses its own drivers. So if the installer can't read from the SATA CD-drive, then I've got a problem.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    136. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      My hint to anyone doing a fresh install of a dual booting Linux-Windows computer is to install Windows first. That way, you have the least amount of problems.

      However, if you want to dual boot multiple versions of Windows, you're probably just screwed.

    137. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Bachus9000 · · Score: 1

      To be fair, Windows spends most of its install time in the GUI portion.

      ...and Debian (and Ubuntu) uses a text based installer for the whole thing. Who cares, anyway? pretty_gui != good_installer

    138. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      To be fair XP is only a mess with SATA if you're doing RAID, otherwise it's straightforward.

      I've never been able to install Windows XP on a computer running a SATA (as the boot drive) without having to use one of those blasted F6 floppies. Seriously, how come the Windows installer can't read the files off a CD, harddisk, USB thumbdrive, or even a floppy disk in the B: drive? Seriously, this has to be one of the most irritating things about Windows (this coming from someone who had it install Windows XP on a laptop that seemed to use SATA internally and had no floppy drive. And Windows set up would not properly detect the USB floppy drive. Needless to say, I now know a lot more about slipstreaming than I ever wanted to know.)

    139. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by misleb · · Score: 1

      Pardon me? Did I say anything about Windows being a universal failure because I, personally, have a problem with the way it is packaged? No. Did I say Linux was objectively "better" because of the contrast? No.

      You know what is invalid? Measuring something's merits by its relative popularity. You might as well say that Britney Spears is good music because it is popular.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    140. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Win95, 95 gold, 98, 98SE, 98 gold, ME, 2K, 2K ro, XP, XP Pro, 2003, and others.

      What the hell are this "95 gold" releases you're blaberring about? Also, the "Pro" releases aren't new ones, they're parallel product lines, featuring the same software support. So in 10 years, Microsoft has released 7 total updates, 5 if you're a home user and aren't using workstation/server OSs like Win2k or Win2k3. At's a release roughly every 1.5 to 2.0 years. Meanwhile, most of the desktop Linux distros make releases very six months to year. Heck, even Apple makes a new release about once a year.

      Try that on all of your backwards versions of the "frequent, free, releases" and tell me how many do not support it.

      Why the hell would I want to install RedHat 6.0 on a brand-new machine? Try to use your head, okay? The reason having frequent releases is beneficial is that its much more likely that your new hardware will be supported out-of-box by the latest version of your OS. Nobody really cares if an older version supports their new hardware, all they care about is if the latest version supports their new hardware. If your latest version dates from 2002, well, that's a problem.

      Whoever puts drivers on floppies doesn't magically include a CD just for the *nix junkies in the box.

      Again, you completely miss the point. We're talking about frequent releases as an advantage. The reasoning behind that is that if your installer CD dates from 2005, its much more likely to have drivers for your circa-2005 hardware than if your installer CD dates from 2002. And burning drivers to CDs is kind of futile if its your CD driver that is the thing that's unsupported!

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    141. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by be-fan · · Score: 1

      The ratio doesn't matter --- the user has to make it through the text-mode part to get to the GUI part. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link...

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    142. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Bachus9000 · · Score: 1

      Hmm..Perhaps this is one of the "features" of Home that isn't in the "Pro" version...

    143. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      That's fine, but every time there's a story about security vulnerabilities, someone drags up Windows vs Linux, pointing out vulns found in (eg) openssl, to which the reply is always along the lines that they're produced by third parties.

      Well, if you* want to count stock apps with FC4 vs stock apps with Windows, then you have to count flaws too, fair's fair. (Of course Windows will still come out worst off, but not by as much)

      (* that's "you" in the generic sense of course, I have no idea if you've ever made the same argument)

    144. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      " Um, last time I installed Mandriva, I spent 15 minutes downloading updates and patches ..."

      ...and boy were my arms tired! Next time have the computer do it for you, much easier.

    145. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by richie2000 · · Score: 1
      I know, but for me it's much faster and easier to simply create the diskette and have it handy. Some of the rest of the drivers (most notably the graphics card drivers) change often enough that including them on the install CD would be more or less meaningless.

      The Via 4-in-1 and soundcard drivers install quick enough from Windows and the rest varies too much from computer to computer (I have three workstations that I try to keep reasonably similar through various upgrades).

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    146. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Bachus9000 · · Score: 1

      You can automate most Linux installers I've seen in similar ways as Windows. That doesn't excuse the abysmal Windows installer. It certainly isn't the user's fault if the installer sucks, either.

    147. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      MS has..what, 50-60 billion in the bank and you guys are saying they've done something wrong?

      WOW. Just because they have a bit of money in the bank doesn't make them the Omnipotent and Infallible Lord and Master of Humankind.

      Just because something's popular doesn't make it good or right.

    148. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by afabbro · · Score: 2, Informative
      Red Hat is the lowest price point in the server market, even compared to Novell. This is why Microsoft tries to argue facts based on TCO, they can't compete with Red Hat's low pricing and they know it.

      Sorry, but this just isn't true. We recently costed out some 4-CPU servers running x86. In both cases, Microsoft was cheaper over five years. Granted, we're a Fortune 500 company with large Unix and Windows support groups, so that part was not factored into the equation...but head-to-head on the same hardware, Windows was cheaper. RedHat ES is $800 PER YEAR forever...Windows is a larger cost up front (around $1200 I think) and then some percentage after that (15% or so).

      RedHat Enterprise is simply not price-competitive at the low end.

      (Yes, I said price-competitive...as always, there are other factors).

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    149. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by muckdog · · Score: 1

      I think you are right if you are doing a full install. However the original poster is either 1. Full of crap or 2. Ran the "install" for his shiney new XP Preloaded PC and went through the few steps of the preload install which may have been 3-4 steps. I just did this recently on a Windows 2003 server that was preloaded. I remember the steps were minimal, could have been three (as they should be if it preloaded). Of course if we are now talking about preloaded installs it no longer a fair comparison.

    150. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      "Exactly, it installs an operating system which I can customise to my hearts content and enough applications for me to run the computer and start downloading/installing other applications I use."

      The average user doesn't care about your geeky OS/app seperation. They want a system that's as complete as possible. Linux provides a much better price/value ratio.

      "And you promise not to cry foul or complain when Microsoft include a version of every single application type included in a "standard" Linux distro including their own version of OpenOffice?"

      No. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, Linux is not. Microsoft cannot bundle everything because it has a monopoly, Linux can because it doesn't.
      It doesn't matter what's "fair", it's the law. And the average user couldn't care less why MS doesn't bundle more apps. Linux can provide them with more apps out-of-the-box, Windows can't. It's as simple as that.

    151. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't imagine what MS would do to make Win XP install "10 times easier"
      It automatically downloads the latest OS version at night without telling you, saves the state of all applications, then restarts with the new OS?

    152. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by reallocate · · Score: 1

      You obviously intended your remarks as somethng other than reflecting only your personal experience since you included n specific disclaimer to that effecct.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    153. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by reallocate · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about MS being omnipotent? Who's talking about something being "good or right"? That impliles a moral component for sofftwware, which is impossible.

      Forego the hyperbole and get to grips with the fact that I said Microsoft's profits are indicative of their success.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    154. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by homerito · · Score: 1

      Yeah, maybe i am doing something wrong... Like last time, my hard drive went into flames (literally). Later my power supply started smoking(literally again). It turned out the power supply was bad from the beginning and it damaged the hard drive. After a new hard drive, the power supply finally went puff.

      Ohh. and before that, i had an nvidia 440 and upgrade to a pro 9800 pro (see the pattern? 9800 pro requires a looot of power) so i had to upgrade the drivers in linux from nvidia to ati and for that i pretty much had to reinstall linux. Then the 9800 went puff. While I was getting the RMA i used the nvidia for a while. I tried to do a quick change to the drivers in linux and i figured that it would be a huge deal so i did not bother and use the generic in the mean time. Switching drivers in windows xp was a breaze compared to linux.

      Now everything is up and running but i ended up with this funky taste in my mouth from reinstalling linux to the point that i wanted.

    155. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can download an ISO, you're not far off from being technically inclined enough to "roll-your-own" Windows XP ISO w/ driver updates for just about any device Windows supports.

      In fact, while it may take a few minutes of reading documentation, most of the comments thus far directed towards Windows setup can be easily resolved by using the unattended setup process (well documented I might add). You can add nearly any program / file / etc. to you liking, so long as you have enough space on your CD (not so much an issue with DVDs)

      Of course, I can't deny to get the same types of applications on a Windows installation, you will probably have to shell out $$$, but thats a personal choice.

    156. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by KingBahamut · · Score: 1

      Absolutist Statements like that are really going to get people to respect you. Not that I respect you, but that probably doesnt matter to a blowhard as yourself. Im just some geek that little if anyone cares about.

      I seem to remember that Gates has done that more than once -- (making broad statements of what he believed to be fact, that were yet again proven wrong IN EXCESS).

      and I quoth --

      "People everywhere love Windows."

      "There are no significant bugs in our released software that any significant number of users want fixed."

      "640K ought to be enough for anybody."

      So, I clearly object to your statements of the absolute. Do you know for certain yourself that this is the case, have you researched it , tride and true? I doubt that quite seriously.

      So until your ready to provide ACTUAL proof for your statments of absolute fact that indeed no OS compares to Windows XP ever in the manner of device driver recognition, id be keepin my opinions to myself.

      --
      "God of Rock, thank you for this chance to kick ass. "
    157. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So you didn't have that ridiculous boot sector problem that came with FC3?"

      To anyone with even the slightest technical knowledge it took less then 20 seconds to fix. Perhaps, if you can't deal with the occasional small simple problem you would be better sticking to Windows and having someone walk you through the installation process. Also, how does it affecting all distros with that kernel version make no difference?

    158. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by misleb · · Score: 1

      That is what you assumed, anyway.

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    159. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "you can't download up-to-date WinXP iso..." Um, yes you can. If you pay for MSDN, you can get ISO images for all of the existing operating systems with the latest service packs slipstreamed onto them. If you do not want to pay M$ for the privelege of downloading ISOs and their development support, then you can search for slipstream in google and you can find out how to make your own slipstreamed CD. Fun!

    160. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      If you want to boot multiple versions of windows you just need to install them in the order they came out. IE Windows 3.1 before Windows 95, etc.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    161. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 1
      And if you need support for Fedora Core1 at this point, the answer is "Upgrade to FC3 or FC4".

      http://www.fedoralegacy.org/updates/FC1/

      That looks like support to me.

    162. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by tyler_larson · · Score: 1
      I recently installed both Linux (FC3) and Windows (XPsp2) on the same laptop. The linux installation was substantially faster and easier.

      Installing and fully customizing FC3 took me 2.5 hours with 2 reboots.

      Installing Windows and bringing it to the same degree of usability as my linux setup on the same hardware took 14 hours and 17 reboots (And if I had "rebooted now" every time it asked me, it would have been in the 50s).

      While I could have reasonably had my wife handle the Linux installation ("Just follow the instructions and use the following password..."), no one I know but me could have handled the windows installation in under 36 hours of work.

      The only reason why I can do it so fast is because I've gone through this process 8 times now, and I know which pieces to install, where to get them, and what order to install them in. The first time I attempted it, it was a week before I had a usable system. The first two times I attempted the installation, I had to reformat more than once to get it right. It's not a simple process by any means.

      To their credit, Microsoft doesn't put much development into the installation process because they don't have to. If you have Windows on your computer, it's because the computer came with it--exceptions to that rule are so rare that they're almost not worth mentioning. The converse is true with Linux--if you use it, you most likely installed it yourself.

      --
      "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
      RFC 1925
    163. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Rethcir · · Score: 1
      and found Fedora Core 4 (the beta is the one I installed this past weekend) about 10 times easier to install than Windows XP

      Wah, wah, wah. Installing XP consists of making a single partition (as opposed to at least two for linux), setting the time and the time zone, and that's pretty much it as long as you are using semi-modern hardware. I don't know about FC4, but FC 2 and 3 have at least the same number, if not more, of steps to install, and it constantly threatens you with the facrt that you are doing something of serious and dire consequence and if you don't know what you are doing, the world will explode.

    164. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by daoine_sidhe · · Score: 1

      I can tell you as a professional screwmonkey who installs windows and reinstalls windows and fixes the most bizarre windows screwups imaginable all day long, every day, that linux is almost universally easier and quicker to install. Must I bring this up again? *Sigh* Try installing Windows XP on a SATA HDD with no access to a floppy drive. There, happy? And once you do pull off that magical trick, make sure (if you're running a D*ll) that you don't ever install the optional hardware driver updates, unless you truly enjoy 640x480 with 4 colors. Be prepared for at least five reboots to install all the drivers on those precious driver disks you mentioned. Try installing windows on my Asus A7n8x based system faster than I can install FC3. In fact, I bet you'd be (probably) still formatting that 160GB HDD with NTFS (PATA, since you don't have a floppy disk drive) when I'm getting ready to boot in for the first time. Go on, try it. I dare you. Specialized hardware my ass. The only standard hardware that typically works right off the bat with windows xp is from just about the time of the 1GHz CPU. And god help you if you're trying to find the drivers for the bastard stepchild versions of hardware a lot of the big OEM's use.

    165. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by reallocate · · Score: 1

      Well, if your words say one thing but you think they mean another, who's mistake is that?

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    166. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by RupW · · Score: 1

      Uhm... You're a bit off there

      OK, what if you read that as "ongoing contributor"?

      Even so, I'm not sure I'd stand behind that but they're certainly one of the bigger players in terms of contribution in the last few years.

    167. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by RupW · · Score: 1

      Also note that Red Hat sells support, try buying that from Microsoft and see how cheap it is, it'll cost you $200 a phone call or you can get some package deal for something like $1200 a year.

      It's cheaper than that (half-price?) if you're happy to deal with them online rather than by telephone. And refunded if you've got a bona-fide bug. And you get free support incidents with the larger developer packages and from the Certified Partner program.

      And, although I've only used the free ones, I'd generally be happy to pay 100 bucks for the service I get, especially considering consultant rates. Now I'm sure Red Hat are just as professional and pleasant to deal with but I wouldn't call MS is expensive.

    168. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Works OK for me now, as long as the video drivers have AGP switched off (this is with an external card, not using the onboard video, which always worked better).

    169. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by tarogue · · Score: 1

      And you promise not to cry foul or complain when Microsoft include a version of every single application type included in a "standard" Linux distro including their own version of OpenOffice?

      Big difference: Fedora Core includes all these apps, *most* of which were not made by the Fedora group, or Red Hat. When MS includes everthing I need, from 3d party vendors, then I'll stop crying foul.

      --
      Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all. -- Thomas J. Kopp
    170. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by cortana · · Score: 1

      So check the source out of CVS and build it yourself. Or subscribe for the minumum time (3 months I think) and cancel. Or get it off a dodgy Bittorrent site.

    171. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Gee, I don't care for Fedora/Redhat. I must be a troll!

      Someone mentioned in another thread that "most slashdotters are over the age of six". Clearly not an accurate statement.

      There needs to be a "-1, Doesn't Support My Favorite Distro" mod.

    172. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by LDoggg_ · · Score: 1

      Don't get mad, I clearly quoted the part that made your post a troll.
      Unsubstantiated claims by someone who admittedly hasn't touched the distro in 8 years.

      --

      "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
    173. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by JebusIsLord · · Score: 1

      Glibc as well (and what runs without glibc?) is a huge undertaking by redhat. And most of the rest of the gnu toolchain. Not to mention a significant portion of the Linux kernel patches are submitted by redhat developers.

      From a funding point of view alone, Linux would have trouble moving along without RedHat's support. I don't use it personally, but I am still appreciative of what they have given me.

      --
      Jeremy
    174. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Yes, it would be a troll, if I hadn't clearly admitted I hadn't touched the distro in eight years.

      And actually, I've been involved with RH a lot in the last few years professionally. But not hands-on.

      If I were a corporation, I'd probably choose Red Hat. Especially if I needed a contract for support and such. But my post was clearly made as an individual who would be choosing distros for desktop/personal/private server usage. And in that regard, there are so many other great options out there that are not hindered or controlled in any way whatsoever. And I don't mean that in some RMS zealot sort of way, either (although I do use Debian almost exclusively).

      I had considered going with RedHat as a desktop awhile back, but they dropped to the Fedora situation almost immediately after that and I decided I wasn't interested. Maybe that will change as things evolve more, but for the time being, it's too tied to RH as an enterprise entity for me to care for it.

    175. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Nermal · · Score: 1

      No. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, Linux is not. Microsoft cannot bundle everything because it has a monopoly, Linux can because it doesn't.

      I wouldn't even put it that way. I think that if Microsoft made deals with external developers to bundle OpenOffice, FireFox or even commercial, closed-source software there'd be no problem.

      It wasn't "including lots of software" that got them into trouble, it was using their OS to give a competitive advantage to their other software ventures, along with a number of other monopolistic tactics that they used to strongarm the market (like threatening to not allow a hardware vendor to ship with Windows if they offered customers the option of another OS), that got them into trouble.

      The attitude toward bundling software with Windows vs Linux is not a double-standard because we're talking about two completely different strategies with completely different motives behind them.

    176. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by weapon · · Score: 0

      Core 4 comes with Eclipse and a JVM
      http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc4/#s n-devel-gcc

      What you end up needing is flash, acrobat (including plugin) mplayer or xine

    177. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by naelurec · · Score: 1

      So much fun. Out of all the posts, I liked yours best, so I felt compelled to reply. ;)

      First, your advantage is comparing apples to oranges and you also have a nonsenical arguments thrown in for good measure.

      I am comparing how long it takes me to install the latest Fedora (or some other Linux distro) to the latest Windows and how long it takes to get to a point of being productive. I firmly believe it is faster and easier to setup the latest Linux distros. Straight forward, less hoops. Easy.

      WinXP installing on a PC has 99.9% of the drivers for most people - maybe not your frankenstein setup, but most boxes are plug and play install.

      If your referring to the WinXP disk INCLUDING those drivers, then I'll happily disagree. If your working with hardware thats OLDER than the WinXP disk, then I'd say that number is close to 80-85% of the time .. newer hardware is probably down to 40-50%, that is, half the time your going to have to get a driver from some other source for some hardware to make it function.

      For a more fair comparison, maybe you should compare it to a preloaded software suite with a new box... at least then they tend to come with recovery cds. I'll bet it's really easy then!

      Well if its preloaded (Linux or Windows) than we really don't have to install it, do we? So then the comparison is useless given it is about INSTALLING the system. jeez..

      In fact, on new machines, you simply have to click activate and hit Next. If you purchase WinXP separately, yes, you must "hunt down" the string from the sleeve of your CD case. Wow, don't hurt your back in the process you lazy bastard. This same process applies to many other software packages, and it's pretty easy/fast - especially if it's a new box preloaded.

      Duh. Again, we are not talking about preloaded systems. We are talking about installing the system on the computer. Sure if someone else installs and configures the software, the installation and configuration TO YOU the enduser is simple because umm.. you didn't do it.

      Okay, so when Fedora Core 5 comes out, upgrade to it and let me know how that goes. You know, just update to the latest FC release. That should be easy since they don't test it or support it really.

      I don't tend to run Linux -- I run FreeBSD and do the upgrade cycle quite frequently -- but if I end up setting a Fedora 4 system and upgrade to Fedora 5 .. I'll be sure to post my results on my blog..

      Also, with regards to Microsoft not updating the ISOs. SP2 is now distributed as the base version of Windows, and updates over Windows Update is pretty easy. Couple that with Automatic Updates and it's pretty mindless for the average user. Regardless of if you like that or not, it's not "tough"

      Its annoying. If you purchased a WinXP disk when it came out, you don't have the option to download the updated WinXP with SP2 and service packs applied. So when you end up reinstalling the system, you have to install XP, SP2, Security Patches, updated drivers, yada yada yada.. thats where I like the distro model better .. get the latest, install it, copy over your user data and umm.. thats it.

      As far as being "pretty mindless for the average user" .. apparently you haven't done tech support.. this is far from mindless for the average user. Granted, I find it easy -- I find both platforms easy to install/use (once you understand their methodology). I find Linux/BSD easier when issues occur (it is much more logical/modular/open) but thats a different topic.

    178. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      If you're not using DHCP, you'd definitely have to manually set up a network connection in ANY OS
      It's funny, but there was a guy who wrote a review of Mandrake10 for amd64 who slammed the distro becuse it didn't pluck the static IP address he wanted from his mind (it didn't exist elsewhere). He just picked DHCP when everything on his network used static adresses, and expected it to work.

      Ease of setup is all relative, the guy mentioned above was aparently a competant programmer but obviously knew almost nothing about computer networks.

    179. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      But here's a revision: "It's perfectly reasonable to compare the two, since they are the latest consumer desktop solutions offerings from Fedora and Microsoft." In any case, they're competing products for the title of "What's the first thing you install on a newly built computer to start using it."

      I'm still not sure I agree with your terminology in the first "" above; Windows isn't a "consumer desktop solution", nor marketed as one, it's an operating system. Either way, the argument seemed to be that Windows was inferior to FC because the FC installation included all sorts of other stuff during exactly the same process. I don't see how that holds at all; I can just as easily download and install OpenOffice or Firefox on Windows as on FC, and indeed I'm typing this in just such a FF installation now. As you say, the comparison is between the first things installed, but the conclusion was as if they had to be the only things installed, and a real Windows installation wouldn't be followed by installing equivalent end user applications right afterwards anyway.

      Bundling Firefox with a distro is not the same as integrating IE into Windows. You can un-check the Firefox box when installing Fedora. You can't uninstall Internet Explorer from Windows.

      I think this is ignoring the case Microsoft made, which regardless of other motivations did have some merit: you can uninstall the IE front-end, but you'll still have the same HTML rendering engine included, as this is a service provided by the operating system's UI libraries, used not only by the IE front-end but also other applications by both Microsoft and third parties. That may not be a particularly good design decision, but it's a credible one.

      In any case, the issues in Europe over Media Player seem a fairer comparison, and in that case Microsoft was basically required to provide a version of Windows without Media Player installed by default, despite the fact that MP isn't anything like as closely tied to the OS as IE was.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    180. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Well unless you consider SATA to be specialized hardware, Fedora handles it with no problem...with XP you need
      It also depends on the BIOS - I was very surpised to see win98 installed onto a bare SATA drive after just changing a single BIOS setting on one board.

      Having the correct driver should make a difference in speed.

    181. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by chochos · · Score: 1
      Point is, hardware issues affect any operating system. Fedora isn't a magical OS that just works on everything.
      yes it is. I just installed FC4 on my watch, my cellphone, my iPod and an old beercan, and it runs just fine on all of them. I haven't been able to set them up in a cluster though. But first I want to install it in my car's spare tire, just in case. And as soon as my dog calms down...
    182. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I asked Microsoft TODAY to sell me their latest released Desktop OS, what would they sell me? Windows XP SP2, with their bundled apps MS Wordpad, Paint, Notepad, WMP.

      Can I just say here that I love that sweet stagnant-ass Notepad they've been bundling in the same form since Win 3.x?

    183. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was wondering too. What wouldn't one possibly don't understand about installing XP? Like it's complicated to click next, next, next, next... As a first time user of linux, I found it clearly more complicated to get it going (how to enable spdif output of a sb live platinum and such) and how to get basic functions I had been taking for granted for ages (play mp3's with xmms over smb just didn't work and more fun stuff like that). I'm sorry, linux just ISN'T easier. Lies and damn fucking lies.

    184. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      You can get Cedegra from a number of warez sites, cvs, or other.

      But someone coming from windows is going to want Point2Play and Point2Play will only download cedegra if you have an account.

      I would recommend signing up for at least the minimum 3 months, you get a vote in what they work on next.

    185. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1

      Either way, the argument seemed to be that Windows was inferior to FC because the FC installation included all sorts of other stuff during exactly the same process.

      I thought we were arguing which offering, MS's or Fedora's, was easier to take a computer from blank to fully ready for use. :-)

      Yes, Fedora's a distribution which means OS+Apps, while Windows is mostly OS with very few (arguably zero) Apps. But I doubt many people use a Windows system without additional software.

      I do see value in having a distribution managed by a single source; especially when it comes time to update all those apps. With Windows on my main PC, I am the person who needs to keep track of the latest releases and bugfixes in every random app on my computer. With Fedora, it's managed for me, though I can still exclude updates I don't want.

      The argument was that while you can download Open Office and Firefox for Windows, it's easier to have it available to you when you first install the OS+Apps onto your new computer, and it's even easier when you need to update them.

    186. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by rastos1 · · Score: 1
      I just read a very cluefull remark on another forum:

      Windows does not support hardware. It is other way around. Hardware supports Windows.

    187. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good on you for documenting your experience. this is what we need to get new people in, others showing them how dead easy a basic linux system is to set up.

    188. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      You were clearly suggesting that just because Microsoft has $50+ billion in the bank, they can do no wrong.

    189. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I *own* systems where windows needs special motherboard drivers, but linux just autodetects.

      Let me guess... You use a Mac?

      AC

    190. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by golgotha007 · · Score: 1

      Ah, there it is. It appears that you have issues with Redhat that are way beyond the scope of "is their product worth using".

      Good job, you just invalidated every biased post you made in this topic.

    191. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

      >Now compare that with the install of a modern Linux distro. See the difference?

      No, I don't.
      Both require download of over 100MB of updates (and the older the Linux, the more updates it needs - SuSE Enterprise 9 probably requires about 200MB of downloads by now).

      And in any case I don't care how long they take to install - big deal, 12 or 42 min, I don't install OS more than once a quarter.
      Which is why discussing time to install is pointless in the first place.

    192. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by golgotha007 · · Score: 1

      If you installed Fedora Core 3 and wanted to update it to the newest version, you'd have a butload of updating to do also.

      Slip in FC4 CD, click on Upgrade, wait and reboot. Yeah, real tough stuff. Windows users better not try this at home.

      One major difference between installers is that with Fedora, your hard drive paritioning is all automatic. Sure you can drop to fdisk and do it manual if you want, but Fedora does a great job and auto-paritioning your drive.

      WinXP makes users manually create and size their own partitions. This is totally unacceptable.

      And last, once winXP is installed, you're only 25% done. Now you get to run all over the internet, finding drivers, rebooting after each one. Wait! There's more! Then you get to run the Updater which will make you reboot your machine an additional 10 times.

      And then, here's the fun part. Then you realize, after all your work of installing winXP, that during bootup, there's an odd pause somewhere during the bootup process. Crap, you probably should have installed Office only after the updates, or was it before the anti-virus/anti-spyware software? Who knows, how about reformatting and trying again. You probably have to do it again anyways, seeing that your machine was infected while downloading the service pack 2 firewall...

    193. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by golgotha007 · · Score: 1

      I'm so sick of this "Linux has no security updates!" FUD.

      One interesting thing to note: You might notice that MS patches stuff only after a known exploit has been found in the wild. With Linux distros, it's usually the opposite. The patching happens before it can be taken advantage of.

      Which do you prefer?

    194. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by golgotha007 · · Score: 1

      Hey may be referring to the fact that some drivers such as nVidia require you to compile the kernel to use them.

      compile the kernel? What the hell are you smoking?

      You need to compile a module that's based on your kernel. Sound tough? Here's the process.

      1. Run executable file.
      2. Click next.
      3. Click next.
      4. Click finish.

      Windows users should be familiar with this method of installing someting.

      (somehow, it feels like MS has a whole room full of hired goons just to sit and troll slashdot topics like these and everything else).

      I used to despise MS and their products. But now it's so strange! Sometimes I'm forced to use winXP (over at a friends, etc) and when I do, I'm feeling genuine pity for MS and the users that have to deal with their garbage products.

    195. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Iriel · · Score: 2, Funny

      I meant that as a joke.

      --
      Perfecting Discordia
      www.stevenvansickle.com
    196. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by zerocool^ · · Score: 1


      Standard Edition costs $299 for the version that you're quoting comprehensive support for. And that's the workstation version, not the server version. Also, that's $299 per year. With the $180/year version, you only get 30 days installation support. Compare to Windows XP Pro, which costs $180 Retail, one time charge.

      For $350 (per year), you get RHEL "Basic Server", which comes with only 30 days of installation support. If you want to jump up to one with better support, it's $800 per year, and if you want 1 hour response, it's $2400 per year.

      I'm not making this up, seriously.
      http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/compare/server /
      http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/compare/client /

      --
      sig?
    197. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by zerocool^ · · Score: 1


      Not redhat.

      There's still a guy out there releasing homebrew service packs for windows 95, but it's not sanctioned by microsoft and not guaranteed to work. Same thing here.

      Hell, there are support groups for commodore64.

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
    198. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by zerocool^ · · Score: 1

      not to mention, isn't it telling of the state of things that there's a project called "the fedora legacy project" when fedora is only 1.5 years old?

      Sounds like abandonment to me.

      --
      sig?
    199. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by avdp · · Score: 1

      Convicted monopolist or not, the point is valid. Microsoft couldn't bundle apps like Linux Distros do even if they wanted to. I think it's a bit unfair to hold this against them.

    200. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1

      I figured you could get it from warez, but do they distribute it any other way besides a paid subscription?

    201. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by avdp · · Score: 1

      The *only* thing on his list that and a regular (non-geek) Windows User won't do/need is a ssh client. Everything else on his list are must haves for ALL users. Based on that, his point is quite valid.

    202. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by avdp · · Score: 1

      Regarding #3. You were able to install all the updates from a fresh install without MANY MANY reboots? That's news to me. Last time I did it (1.5 months ago) there were at least 6 different updates that must be installed by themselves (not with other updates) each one of which requires a reboot. I guess that SP2 slipstreamed disk makes loads of difference. Too bad not many end users can get one of those.

    203. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by reallocate · · Score: 1

      Wrong. I said Microsoft's profits are indicative of their success. Since the objective of a business is profit, that seems rather obvious.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    204. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by reallocate · · Score: 1

      >> ..."...Everything else on his list are must haves for ALL users."

      I agree, but I was talking about what people actually do, not what someone else thinks they ought to do. If the assertion had been about programs users should run, his point would be valid. However, his assertion was about programs that users do run. Wishing for something doesn't make it real.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    205. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Refer to the post you responded to for the answer to that question. Warez was not the only thing I said.

    206. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by avdp · · Score: 1

      I'll venture to say that in this day and age (after all the awareness in the media about fishing, and viruses, etc) that a majority of regular users have at least a virus scanner if not a software firewall. I'll also venture to say that most people also have Acrobat Reader (rather ubiquitous format on the net - even for non-geek stuff) and a CD burning app (since more likely their pc came with a burner). So no, I still disagree with you...

    207. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Cat_Byte · · Score: 1

      You should read the comment just above posted about a day ahead of yours. What are you smoking? The point was that you have to redo these types of installs with every new kernel. Thats the WHOLE POINT. It obviously went over your head.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    208. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by juhaz · · Score: 1

      W2K slipstreamed with two years old service pack, or even just 10 months old XPSP2 are hardly "up to date", in respect to either device drivers (and those that they do include are several months older than the sp itself) or security fixes.

    209. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm suggesting a great may Windows users don't use tose programs.

      Are you just trying to blur the issue with deliberate misleading use of "great many"? After all, there are so many Windows users that "great many" of them may indeed not need any given thing, BUT EVEN MORE DO.

      You're right regarding browser, spyware protection, and audio drivers, but everything else is pretty much needed and generally installed for most of the home users.

    210. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by juhaz · · Score: 1

      3. Connect to Windows update, download updates

      As another poster mentioned, several of the updates in Windows update refuse to be installed at the same time with any others, and these are always ones that require a reboot.

      Note that the install disc I used in both cases had SP2 slipstreamed, so that was one less reboot you may need.

      If we're talking about this from non-geek users perspective, there's about 99.9% chance they don't have slipstreamed install disc.

      I also never reboot until I'm done installing all the software that might require it rather than after each piece of software--nothing's ever broken as a result, so why not? :)

      Non-geek users also wouldn't even think about "rebelling" against the system when it tolds them to reboot, not to mention there isn't "no" button always, and they damn certainly wouldn't go to task manager and kill the setup process.

      Either way, we're still looking at 5 or 6 reboots tops. Hardly the 10 you give as the max. :)

      Add the extra steps from those two to vast majority of people, and it's easily ten, I wouldn't be surprised if more.

    211. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Or most likely he had hardware that's *gasp* made after WinXP. And that isn't particularly uncommon considering how OLD the thing is.

    212. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by juhaz · · Score: 1

      That bond was directly convertible to stock, and he has already done that too.

    213. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by juhaz · · Score: 1

      They just wrote a couple of shell scripts to configure shit for you, and released someone else's work.

      And thus, with this grand gesture, millions of lines of code in kernel, gcc, glibc, gnome, and several other of the most significant open source projects were just reduced to "couple of shell scripts".

      Not now - you're lucky to get 6 months out of fedora.

      More like 10-11 months (stops slightly before two releases after have been made), still nowhere enough for server support of course, but that doesn't make blatant lying any better.

    214. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure how you can consider WindowsXP to be difficult to install. You hit enter a couple times, and you're done. The hardest part is punching in the license code, everything else can be done with the enter key.

    215. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      It doens't matter whether it's fair, consumers couldn't care less.

    216. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by gurumeditationerror · · Score: 1

      The point was that you have to redo these types of installs with every new kernel. Thats the WHOLE POINT. It obviously went over your head.

      Just keep a copy of NVIDIA-Linux-x86_64-1.0-xxxx-pkg2.run in /root.
      Then next time you update the kernel and you meet an X failure on boot it's easy enough to type
      init 3
      sh NVIDIA-Linux-x86_64-1.0-xxxx-pkg2.run
      (batter enter until prompt returns)
      init 5

    217. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by l3v1 · · Score: 1

      The fact that your stuff didn't work off the bat is probably because it's specialized hardware, or something very non-standard that probably came with a driver disk for that purpose. If you lost it how is that XP's fault?

      Well, I have an older miro pctv pro tv+fm tuner card here (yes, before pinnacle). In all versions of windows it is considered an out of planet wierdo. How is "this" xp's fault ? Well, how many times do we here how linux will be going down in hell because crappy driver "support" as you call it. What I see is as long as I care to buy quaity hardware which I know linuxes support (and believe me, there are hell many, believe it or not), I couldn't care less about drivers because it just works. And this is not just a matter of zealot belief, it is a (re-)provable fact.

      Hell, how much trouble I had few (~2) years back when I just couldn't manage to capture in bigger size than qpal (not with the above old miro, but a newer leadtek card). It took about 4 driver trials and a few capture apps till I finally could make it happen. It took me a kernel module compile and a two line config edit (all in a few minutes) to capture in all sizes and shapes with mencoder.

      Something other: I constantly try newer versions of some distros. Many of them (and I mean _many_) get theirselves installed more easy than any windows version up to this day can do. Do you know the fear from the back of your mind that what wil happen if your windows which sits on a sata disk partition besides some other OS will blow itself up and 1). you don't have an fdd for years now (yes, sata drivers), 2). if you manage to reinstall it will blow away your mbr if you aren't smarter 3). you'll have to activate the darn thing, again.

      --
      I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    218. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by bwomp99 · · Score: 1

      I've managed to install WinXP (and FC4) on my new PC, to a SATA hd without any special drivers or discs...

    219. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you would bitch when they don't include applications with their OS just as you would if they did (for monopoly concerns)

      I guess you don't understand the difference between between attempting to dominate the marketplace by bundling *YOUR* products, and encouraging competition by including *SOMEONE ELSE'S*

      If you are comparing Windows to Linux then you have me lost.

      Then you're just an idiot. For most standard hardware, Linux has drivers included with the kernel, *and they just work*. Contrast with Windows, where you have to spend hours digging around on various manufacturer's website looking for drivers (frequently using a different computer, because those drivers are for your network card/modem, and you can't actually browse *anything* without them.)

      Windows includes a barebones OS and does not include many other applications due to their monopoly status.

      BULLSHIT.

      Windows incloudes a barebones OS and does not include many other applications *DUE TO MS WANTING TO MAINTIAIN THEIR MONOPOLY*

  2. I beat the Slashdot effect by Nighttime · · Score: 5, Informative

    Managed to snarf a copy over the weekend from an unsecured official mirror. Four CDs, each about 630MB.

    Installed it onto my ThinkPad T23, 733MHz/1.13GHz with 512MB RAM. Familiar graphical installation procedure, auto-detected everything in my laptop. Didn't expect it not to, as previous Fedora Core releases did so. When setting up the soundcard though, couldn't hear the test sounds but booting into KDE produced the familiar jingle. SELinux option during installation is Enabled or Disabled, no halfway house as in FC3. Compiling with GCC4.0 has made a noticeable speed difference, especially in KDE 3.4. Start-up time seemed quicker as well.

    As always, read the release notes. They have taken the decision to move some stuff off into the Fedora Extras project. XMMS was the main one I noticed. And yes, this being Red Hat-influenced, there is no support for MP3 or DVD playback straight off the installation discs.

    If you have a Matrox-based card that requires you to use the Matrox-sourced mga_hal module, you're not going to have much luck configuring X until they release a new version for X.org 6.8.2. I get lovely vertical bars every 1cm on my TFTs using a G550 DVI.

    --
    I've got a fever and the only prescription is more COBOL.
    1. Re:I beat the Slashdot effect by MSG · · Score: 2, Informative

      SELinux option during installation is Enabled or Disabled, no halfway house as in FC3.

      I believe that they've stopped offering the strict policy, so "on" would be the targeted policy that was offered in FC3.

    2. Re:I beat the Slashdot effect by capt.Hij · · Score: 2, Interesting
      auto-detected everything in my laptop. Didn't expect it not to, as previous Fedora Core releases did so.

      I was a very happy RedHat and then Fedora user until I tried to install FC3. I hope that FC4 does better then its predecessor. When I did the install for FC3 it clobbered my system. It appeared that it did not correctly configure itself for my scsi controller.

      All I can say is thank you St. Anthony because my backups saved my derrier that day. I am now a very happy gentoo user who synced and updated my system this morning like any other Monday without tempting St. Anthony too much.

      It is nice not to have to download 4 cds every four months and hope that I won't need the backups!

    3. Re:I beat the Slashdot effect by hey · · Score: 1

      With BitTorrent the slashdot effect actually helps.
      Since there are likely to be more users downloading and they are more likely to be close to you.

    4. Re:I beat the Slashdot effect by Nighttime · · Score: 1

      Bizarrely, I never get good BitTorrent download rates. I'm on a 1Mb down/128kb up cable modem. I can feed people quite happily at 12KB/s yet my incoming is often around the 6KB/s mark. Go figure.

      Using FTP and an uncrowded server, I get to use my full incoming bandwidth, approx. 120KB/s.

      --
      I've got a fever and the only prescription is more COBOL.
    5. Re:I beat the Slashdot effect by caluml · · Score: 1

      Are you behind NAT? Cos if you are, it means you can only download from people that aren't. If you aren't, or forward the ports on, it means you can download from everybody.

    6. Re:I beat the Slashdot effect by aslate · · Score: 1

      If you max out your upload, your download likes to shit itself. I always limit my upload to about 1-2kb/s below my maximum, and get torrents going nicely at a full download. If my upload maxes out, my download halves almost instantly.

    7. Re:I beat the Slashdot effect by PKPerson · · Score: 1

      hmm...

      I have ~7.2 KB/s up and 118 KB/s down on my 1.5Mb/384Kb connection on this torrent. It started really slowly though - problably many leechers just connected form slashdot.

    8. Re:I beat the Slashdot effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ~ Managed to snarf a copy over the weekend from an unsecured official mirror. Four CDs, each about 630MB. ... And yes, this being Red Hat-influenced, there is no support for MP3 or DVD playback straight off the installation discs~ What ? I need to download 4 CDs to not be able to play an mp3 ? lol @ linux :(

    9. Re:I beat the Slashdot effect by 680x0 · · Score: 1

      I'm finally getting 25+ KB/s download from bittorrent. But I'm uploading at 100KB/s (I set that as my limit to not swamp my T1). Of course, I already downloaded all 4 main binary CDs from mirrors.kernel.org, and moved those over to my bit torrent, so I'm now effectively a seed (still downloading the rescue CD via BT).

  3. fedora 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So whats new

    1. Re:fedora 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      not much, just hanging out today, reading /. What's up with you?

    2. Re:fedora 4 by ndtechnologies · · Score: 1

      Where did the DVD iso images go to? I submitted this story about 3 hours ago, but apparently my version wasn't good enough.

      --
      I have nothing clever to put here...
  4. Unless by Arthur+B. · · Score: 0

    Makes me wonder, can a tracker be slashdotted ?

    --
    \u262D = \u5350
    1. Re:Unless by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, it's been done before. For just about every single Fedora Core release.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    2. Re:Unless by Keruo · · Score: 1

      Yes, trackers can be slashdotted too.
      Some trackers went down smoking every week when naruto eps were released on them.
      Just couldn't handle the traffic with the early tracker code, but that was almost 2 years ago and I'd guess redhat has enough bandwidth to handle slashdotting.

      --
      There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
    3. Re:Unless by Klar · · Score: 1

      Can a tracker-less torrent be slashdotted?

  5. Release Notes by WombatControl · · Score: 4, Informative

    The release notes are here. Major changes include:

    • GNOME 2.10
    • KDE 3.4
    • OpenOffice 2
    • Xen Virtualization
    • PowerPC Support
    1. Re:Release Notes by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

      To anyone thinking of downloading this, be warned that these are bleeding edge features! Fedora is the first place they often get tested, and they don't always fit together smoothly. Not to mention that many individual features are not out of Beta testing! So only use this distro if you don't mind getting burned a little bit!

      Otherwise it can be a great way to understand what is coming down the pipe. :-)

      P.S. Parent poster forgot about GCC 4.0. That's a MAJOR feature itself, but also one of easiest to get burned by.

    2. Re:Release Notes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is no OpenOffice 2, it must be a beta 1.99 or something.

    3. Re:Release Notes by LnxAddct · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Considering the intensive amount of quality assurance that goes into each fedora release, I wouldnt worry too much about it. I've been using it since Core 1 and have yet to be burned. Its nice having all the latest and greatest stuff, while also having it all integrate together, but also having an OS that I feel comfortable running on my laptop or servers.
      Regards,
      Steve

    4. Re:Release Notes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Bleeding edge features... and the most recent bugfixes too. I often wonder how much these two things balance out for other people.
      Personally I use the 'not quite bleeding but still rather sore edge' packages from gentoo, and find more recent versions to be more stable. (Except immidiately after a major version 1.x - 2.0 kind of update.)

    5. Re:Release Notes by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Dont forget enhanced integration with SELinux, stateless linux, Eclipse natively compiled, Tomcat natively compiled, the new extras repsoitories, and (although its not technically a part of the OS) the Fedora Directory server. The list goes on much longer though, I recommend anyone who is curious to read the release notes.

    6. Re:Release Notes by Nailer · · Score: 5, Informative
      Fedora is the first place they often get tested

      Er, no.

      Rawhide is where things first get tested.

      After that, Fedora Core 4 beta 1

      After that, Fedora Core 4 beta 2

      After that, Fedora Core 4 beta 3

      After that, Fedora Core 4 beta 4

      After that, Fedora Core 4

      After that, Red hat Enterprise Linux.

      Fedora works. It has a lot of texting. Report a bug, and someone will fix it. That someone probably works for Red Hat.

      RHEL works too. And it's a lot more conservative - which yes, probably means it's a little more reliable, but doesn't mean FC is unreliable or a beta test. See bullet points above. Stability is a yes no thing, it's a more or less thing.

      People don't buy RHEl cause FC is unstable. They buy RHEL so they can install a box this year and get 24/7 support, and training, and not have to upgrade, till 2011.

    7. Re:Release Notes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is anything ever out of Beta on Linux?

    8. Re:Release Notes by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

      Fedora works. It has a lot of texting

      I hear it's got a lot of GUing too.

    9. Re:Release Notes by birge · · Score: 1
      PowerPC Support

      Doh!!!

    10. Re:Release Notes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to say this, but I think this is intentional FUD. AKAImBatman is a very, very prolific Apple advocate/fanboy. His advocacy is usually subtle, though... he tends not to be too obvious in any given post, while trying to shape the tone of a conversation.

      (Sorry, I usually wouldn't directly comment on the integrity of a poster, but his comment is just wrong, and I've noticed a very clear pattern in his previous comments,)

    11. Re:Release Notes by digitalpeer · · Score: 1

      You right. While the splash screen gives the impression it's 2, it's really OO 1.9.83.

    12. Re:Release Notes by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sorry, but you're full of it. There is nothing FUD about my post unless you really think that OOo 2.0, GCC 4.0, and other features are well out of Beta. (Hint: They're not.) Fedora has done a pretty good job of keeping things internally consistent, but that doesn't mean that it's for everyone. Or that all of the features are in place. (e.g. One of the most frustrating RedHat experiences I ever had was when I realized that the GNOME Desktop folders were stored in different places across every version, and that user specific shortcuts either didn't work, or worked in a broken kind of way.)

      While I like Apple's designs, that doesn't meant that I have anything against Linux. Fedora is what it is, and users have a right to be warned when they are dealing with a potentially hot potato.

    13. Re:Release Notes by kosmosik · · Score: 1

      > OpenOffice 2

      AFAIK it is not yet finished. How do they ship 2.0 - it was not yet released...

    14. Re:Release Notes by moranar · · Score: 1

      With backporting of patches and further testing, I seem to recall. It's tested enough, they say.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
    15. Re:Release Notes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People don't buy RHEl cause FC is unstable. They buy RHEL so they can install a box this year and get 24/7 support, and training, and not have to upgrade, till 2011.

      Wow! M$ really is behind if Linux can train System Administrators the right way, give them 24/7 support when they screw up something simple(tm).. still waiting for Longhorn in 2011.

      PS. Windows only takes 38 minutes to install.. according to the timer.. so a year in-comparison.. I see the trade off.. security vs quick install..

    16. Re:Release Notes by shokk · · Score: 1

      So we shouldn't expect to see any patches for any of those over the next few months? Is that what you're saying? Everything has been tested to perfection? Because that's not the reality that we all know and love. They must have really done some bitchin work in FC4 in order to make Perfection a feature. They must have "texted" the hell out of it, eh?

      Seriously, give CentOS a try for a community driven RHEL equivalent with fast patch releases: http://www.centos.org.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    17. Re:Release Notes by Nailer · · Score: 1

      Dear Very Angry Man,

      So we shouldn't expect to see any patches for any of those over the next few months? Is that what you're saying? Everything has been tested to perfection?

      Er.
      1. No.
      2. No.
      3. No.

      I actually said in my post Fedora will have bugs.

      Maybe you got confused by my bad typing:
      "Stability is a yes no thing, it's a more or less thing."

      Which is obviously missing a few words. Like, well, everything, I'm not perfect. The sentence should have been "Stability is *not* a yes *or* no thing, it's a more or less thing."

      Chill out.

  6. Upgrade path by learn+fast · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is it easy to upgrade from FC1 to FC4? I have a semi-production server that's running on FC1, and I don't want a clean install.

    This is not an off-topic question. The response to this question will make a legitimate point about the FC model.

    1. Re:Upgrade path by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 2, Funny
      The response to this question will make a legitimate point about the FC model.

      That is some trust you're putting into the average slashdot response;-)

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    2. Re:Upgrade path by bflong · · Score: 5, Informative

      In short, no.
      There is not even a supported way to upgrade from FC3 to FC4, or even from a FC4 test release. The reason being explained to me was that testing all that upgrading would greatly slow down the release process. Personaly, I'd rather have to wait another month or two for a release then have to fresh install. It's not as big a deal as it is with windows though, since all the user settings are in /home and easy to back up and restore. But for those running servers on FC, ouch.

      --
      Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
    3. Re:Upgrade path by presarioD · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am not sure what you mean by easy. I upgraded last year or so from RH9 to FC2 using 'yum upgrade' and it went smoothly. I still had to do some cleanup by myself since the upgrade is not aggressive and does not change all of the gazillions of .conf files but that was smooth as well.

      My humble suggestion is *not* to upgrade though unless you have too. In a few months FC4 will be obsolete and FC5 will be out and so on and so forth. A recent kernel upgrade that I did (2.6.10-1-771_FC2) broke the ACPI interface on my laptop, so sometimes living on the bleeding edge can be tiresome, especially with your production PCs!

      --
      Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
    4. Re:Upgrade path by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      FC3 to FC4 upgraded fine for me, but FC1 might be a long shot. Alot of quirks have been worked out since FC1, if you have some kind of test environment it might be worth trying out.
      Regards,
      Steve

    5. Re:Upgrade path by digidave · · Score: 1

      Really, running a server on Fedora Core is probably a mistake to begin with. Not just because of stability (which is usually ok), but because of update end of life and lack of an upgrade path.

      Fedora won't get official security updates for long after the next version comes out and you're reliant on the Fedora Legacy project to do that for you.

      IMO, this is why distros such as Debian shine on the server. With a long release cycle (no jokes, please) and official updates and upgrade paths, it allows you to run a server from now until eternity without requiring a re-install of the OS for anything.

      --
      The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
    6. Re:Upgrade path by tuffy · · Score: 1
      In a few months FC4 will be obsolete and FC5 will be out and so on and so forth.

      6 months. It's always 6 months between Fedora releases.

      I've had kernel updates break things also, but typically a new kernel will arrive to put things right before long. It wouldn't be bleeding edge if we didn't bleed once in awhile.

      --

      Ita erat quando hic adveni.

    7. Re:Upgrade path by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know of course that FC1 is no longer supported and what the answer to your question is. It might be possible but nobody is going to reccomend it. I suspect you're a troll.

    8. Re:Upgrade path by pz · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I have a semi-production server that's running on FC1, and I don't want a clean install.

      Let's concentrate on the first part of the quote before going on to the second: A semi-production server running FC1. You're running experimental, development code on a sever? Huh? The primary concern with a server is stability and reliability. Secondary to that is performance (if you have a whiz-bang fast server that goes down once a day, you are doing something wrong). Plenty of web sites are still using RedHat 6.2 because it's so stable.

      What features could you possibly want on a server that you don't currently have (since you apparently have a functioning system) that you're willing to give up stability for? How have you configured your system that it isn't easy to replace the OS if you need to? My guess is that you aren't really serious about the question, or that you aren't really serious about your server.

      So let's try this again: you want to upgrade a system. It has some important stuff on it. And this stuff is so important that you're not willing to back it up (or place it on separate partitions) to be able to do a clean install to ensure you won't have nasty interaction problems between bits of the old OS and new OS plaguing you interminably? You have something important on your computer and you DON'T want to do a clean install?

      It's not an off-topic question, its a question that doesn't make any sense, any way you slice it.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    9. Re:Upgrade path by miffo.swe · · Score: 2, Informative

      If your cheap go for Centos or Debian and if you like paid support RHEL isnt expensive compared to a Windows box with supplemental support. Basically if you want to setup a server and forget it make sure to choose a distribution with a long life expectancy.

      That said most configs is easily migrated unless you have been compiling your own brew and have messed around with loads of configs.

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
    10. Re:Upgrade path by sirReal.83. · · Score: 1

      Upgrading via Anaconda is supposed to work.

    11. Re:Upgrade path by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, under a modern Windows OS all the user-specific settings *should* be in C:\Documents and Settings\, which is just as easy to back up and restore. You can also change that to put it on a different partition (or even a network share, etc) if your Windows-fu is up to it.

      That said though, none of the system-wide settings are in there (but then none of the system-wide stuff is in /home on Linux, of course) and a lot of apps (especially older ones) use the registry for all sorts of things that they shouldn't.

    12. Re:Upgrade path by erroneus · · Score: 2, Informative

      I almost always just do a fresh install. If there's data I want to save, I back it up. With very few exceptions, this has always been the best approach for me. I haven't always found that upgrading packages worked flawlessly every time and in many cases, there is a new way of doing things that you may be missing out on if you run an upgrade. For example, the upgrade will not upgrade you to LVM2 if you aren't already using it. So if you want those features, that's about the only way to get it if you're previously on a previous partitioning scheme. ...even if you are doing an upgrade, it's always a good idea to back up your data first anyway.

    13. Re:Upgrade path by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sorry, but no. Upgrades from any FC release to any newer FC release are supported. Upgrades from any RHL release (well, since RHL 3.0.3) to any newer FC release are supported

      What's not supported is upgrades from tests (like FC4 test3) to stable releases (like FC4). That's it. Tests are not meant for use on production machines, or non-production machines by those who don't want to deal with the pain of actually, you know, testing stuff

    14. Re:Upgrade path by Packet+Pusher · · Score: 0

      It really depends on your usage of the server imho. If you are talking about a home server and you are already familiar with RH or Fedora, why not use it as a server. You are forgetting about the fedora legacy project for community support on older versions if you just don't feel like upgrading it but still need package updates.

      http://fedoralegacy.org/

    15. Re:Upgrade path by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not as big a deal as it is with windows though, since all the user settings are in /home and easy to back up and restore.

      Uh, but that's just a small part of what you need. Your list of installed applications, possible configuration tweeks (like to your apache config), etc. This on a desktop machine.

      It ain't so easy to install fresh. In fact, it's a pain in the ass. Sorry, give me Ubuntu.

    16. Re:Upgrade path by oGMo · · Score: 1

      Since when is a Fedora Core release experimental, development code? This isn't a prerelease, it's the full thing.

      Second, while some servers still run RH6.2, it's mostly because if it ain't broke, don't fix it. You're not going to install a brand new server with RH6.2 unless you've got binary compatibility issues and you're adding it to an existing 6.2 cluster. And if you do, you should be working on porting to a new release by now.

      However, I'd agree that unless there's a pressing reason to upgrade (2.6 could be both a good reason to upgrade and a good reason not to upgrade), don't fix what ain't broke.

      At very least, you should have a separate box to test the install and your setup on before migrating anyway. If it's not important enough to do that, then do whatever, because no one's going to notice anyway.

      --

      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

    17. Re:Upgrade path by pickett · · Score: 1

      Seth Vidal posted instructions on how to upgrade Fedora with yum on the fedoraproject.org wiki earlier today. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/YumUpgradeFaq

    18. Re:Upgrade path by mattdm · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is not even a supported way to upgrade from FC3 to FC4, or even from a FC4 test release.

      That's not true at all. Upgrading from release to release is completely supported -- not in the "call Red Hat and they'll help you" sense, but in the "designed to work and if doesn't it will get fixed" sense.

      Upgrading from test releases to final releases isn't supported (sometimes last-minute back-outs of dead end ideas makes that hard) but generally works.

      And live update of a running FC3 system to FC4 via yum isn't officially supported, but also generally works just fine.

    19. Re:Upgrade path by saur2004 · · Score: 1

      Is there a HOWTO somewhere? Ya I know its probably obvious but it would be nice to have a short HOWTO to list proper precautions other than just backing up, before you start. I have quite alot of data on my harddrive and it would be nice if I can upgrade my FC3 without having to restore it all from my backup.

    20. Re:Upgrade path by modecx · · Score: 1

      What pisses me off about windows, and user directories is that it's so incredibly frustrating to copy a directory over, and have it *just work*.

      No, instead, if that user didn't exist prior, it creates another, brand new directory, called user.computer. Being a long time unix user, it's mind blowingly simple to just untar a backup and have it work compared to all the crap windows makes one go through. It's like dancing with a hippo.

      There's probably some easy enough way to do it that meshes with the thought pattern of average MCSEs, but I certianly haven't found it. It really sucks, because my relations seem to screw over thier computers so often. I'm tempted to buy a bulk liscense of Norton Ghost and be done with it.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    21. Re:Upgrade path by pz · · Score: 1

      Since when is a Fedora Core release experimental, development code? This isn't a prerelease, it's the full thing.

      Since the beginning. As another poster provided a nice description of the release path, RHEL is the real deal, FC is a waypoint. Now, granted, it's a good enough waypoint that most people are happy with FC (I certainly am), but that's not for a server.

      Second, while some servers still run RH6.2, it's mostly because if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

      Exactly my point in criticizing the previous poster's question about upgrading a server from FC1 to FC2. It isn't a valid question. If he had said, "my desktop machine," or, "my grandmother's PC," it would be an entirely different issue, but he did not, he spoke of his, "semi-production server." Servers, especially production ones, do not willy-nilly upgrade to the latest and greatest version of the OS.

      p.s. Nice ID number!

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    22. Re:Upgrade path by pz · · Score: 1

      ... should have said "upgrading a server from FC1 to FC4" ...

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    23. Re:Upgrade path by mattdm · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you have backups already, the HOWTO goes basically like this: boot from install CD, choose "upgrade", hit "next" a couple of times, done. I don't think there's really any other big precautions. If you have any weird packages installed from fringe 3rd-party repositories, you may want to uninstall them first, but all of the reputable ones shouldn't cause any trouble.

    24. Re:Upgrade path by kwalker · · Score: 1

      I hope you see this in the forest of semi-FUD that followed your comment, but I will actually try to answer the question you've asked. The Fedora Core upgrade process is identical to the later Red Hat upgrade process, namely, it checks for previous versions and then shows you a screen asking if you want to upgrade (And providing a drop-down box listing discovered previous versions, usually just one option) or if you want to install fresh.

      That said, FC1 to FC4 will be quite a bit of an upgrade, and while it can be done, it may not be as smooth as you'd like.

      FC1 runs the 2.4 kernel, while all the newer FCs run 2.6. This can break some server-type programs (We're still running FC1 servers in several places here because some of the JRun stuff we run only runs on 2.4 and the dev group is really nervous about trying to upgrade to a 2.6-compatible JRun server).

      If everything you're running came with FC1 (i.e. you didn't install a bunch of third-party commercial software like we did), then upgrading from FC1 to FC3 or FC4 should involve running the installer, picking through /etc for .rpmsave or .rpmnew files and merging them into your regular config files, then running updates (I run this last because it can generate new .rpmsave/.rpmnew files which aren't as important as the ones in the previous step). Most all user-level programs I've run have migrated just fine.

      Now, after having said all of the above, I'm going to hold off upgrading to FC4 for a month. When I upgraded to FC3 on my test rigs, some of their newest features (At the time it was udev and selinux) didn't work so hot, but they straightened those out soon enough and things ran fine after that.

      --
      ... And so it comes to this.
    25. Re:Upgrade path by edwinh · · Score: 1

      What the heck are you smoking? The only RH/Fedora releases since 7.x that's I've done "fresh" are just when I wanted to frag the hard drive partitions...

      Upgrade installs with anaconda work fine, you click one button and go. Check the release notes for new things you might want to tweak afterwards and poke around for .rpmsaves if you really want to update customized config files for new things, but that's about it.

      Try *that* with windows...

      The don't "support" upgrades from beta test releases, and that makes perfect sense. Real release upgrades work fine.

    26. Re:Upgrade path by saur2004 · · Score: 1
      OK thats what I was basically asking. (if there are any special precautions)

      Thanks.

      Obviously I know Im going to have to do a reinstall of the nvidia drivers. Thats a given for any new kernel. One thing that worries me a little is, I'm running Dante socks proxy server. Another thing is I'm running the latest and greatest wine. When I install wine I use the compile method and I'm hoping all goes well under GCC 4.

    27. Re:Upgrade path by darkwhite · · Score: 1

      No, Windows profiles are not as easy to back up and restore as /home/user in linux. The Windows logon manager will refuse to use a profile directory for a user if the GUIDs identifying that user don't match those in the system registry. You have to manually copy the old profile directory on top of the new one, removing or skipping the files containing the GUIDs. Then if you want to restore the HKCU registry hive for the user settings kept in the registry, you have to load and move it manually in the registry editor.

      --

      [an error occurred while processing this directive]
    28. Re:Upgrade path by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      its a question that doesn't make any sense, any way you slice it

      Unless you disavow the myth that Linux is harder or requires more skill and knowledge than Microsoft Windows.

      A semi-production server running FC1.
      Guessing, the configuration etc is something that he stumbled into by trial and error and is currently very unsure exactly how it is configured and a lot of the why. Semi-production means that it is useful, but not a disaster if something crashes, at least not if he can fix it quickly.
      You're running experimental, development code on a sever?
      Looks risky. Nothing but "I told you so" if something breaks, but short of doing rather exotic stuff, the bugs should most all be in stuff you aren't using or that you don't care about.

      If, a ridiculously big if, I have a good handle on my configuration, the optimum choice is to do a clean install and then reapply my configuration. If I have a poor handle on my configuration, I can hope that the upgrade does a reasonably good job of preserving/upgrading my configuration. This is particularly important on all those little things I've long lost memory of. There is a difference between "supported" and "works". There is a lot of stuff that works, or at least works well enough, that noone would claim is supported.

      Again guessing, it's not that he's unwilling to back stuff up, he's not really sure what to back up or how. If he's got just the one computer and everything is on one big root partition backing up isn't exactly trivial. If it were me, I think I'd start by buying a new hard drive, clone the old system, and try my luck with the "upgrade", or for what should be a better system but taking more time, install clean and attempt to get everything back from the old system.

    29. Re:Upgrade path by Rutulian · · Score: 1

      Well, under a modern Windows OS all the user-specific settings *should* be in C:\Documents and Settings\, which is just as easy to back up and restore.

      Uh huh, and have you tried this lately? I've been very painfully learning my way around the multiuser Windows world and have concluded that most software vendors just don't get it. They want to write user specific software settings right to the installation directory. You get mixed luck trying to save them in Documents and Settings where they belong.

      Example: Endnote 8 (the latest version). After manually applying the Word plugins so that the toolbar shows up (installer is broken for multiple users), you might want to create a custom style. Well, change the style directory to your user profile and suddenly, whoops, can't access any of the system styles to base your custom style on.

      Since there is no program directory in linux (except for maybe /usr/share), software vendors have to write for a multiuser environment and correctly put user specific settings in /home. In the Windows world most software vendors are still living in 1998.

    30. Re:Upgrade path by macemoneta · · Score: 1
      Is it easy to upgrade from FC1 to FC4?

      The Fedora developers have documented the yum upgrade process in the Fedora Project Wiki, here.

      Under the FC1->FC4 upgrade the answer is:

      FC1 -> FC2

      Just Upgrade using anaconda - save yourself a world of pain.

      In other words, boot off the FC4 installation disk, and select "Upgrade" as the installation type.

      --

      Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.

    31. Re:Upgrade path by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Someone who specifically goes out of their way to mention that you're reliant on the Fedora Legacy project to do that [security updates] for you. probably DID NOT forget about it's existence.

  7. Re:Yet again... by dbleoslow · · Score: 3, Funny

    Have the editors not learned from all the times they've done this and screwed up in the past?

    You're ID 202812 yet you speak like it's your first time here :-)

  8. the mirrors are populated long time ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/pub/Mirrors/fedor a.redhat.com/linux/core/4/i386/iso/>
    http://ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/pub/Mirrors/fedor a.redhat.com/linux/core/4/i386/iso/
    http://ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/pub/Mirrors/fedor a.redhat.com/linux/core/4/i386/iso/

    http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/lin ux /core/4/>
    http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux /core/4/
    http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux /core/4/

    ftp://ftp.tu-chemnitz.de/pub/linux/fedora-core/4/
    ftp://ftp.tu-chemnitz.de/pub/linux/fedora-core/4 />
    ftp://ftp.tu-chemnitz.de/pub/linux/fedora-core/4/

    and many more....

    dont wait for shitty slashdot to report on old news.

    cuz nothin is older than the news of yesterday/yesterhour/yesterminute...

    1. Re:the mirrors are populated long time ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you! The bit torrent, as always, looked like it would take the rest of the year to finish. It's much better to use a real FTP site rather than that piece of crap.

    2. Re:the mirrors are populated long time ago... by juhaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The mirrors were populated quite a while ago because the original release for FC4 was supposed to be a week ago.

      They were NOT open until today 14:00 UTC however, because there were some stupid legal issues, something to do with legal team needing to check the release name "Stentz".

    3. Re:the mirrors are populated long time ago... by alerante · · Score: 1

      An official list of torrents has gone up at torrent.fedoraproject.org.

  9. Re:Yet again... by Nighttime · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have a email with a date/timestamp of 2005-06-13 15:36 (BST) officially announcing the availability of this release. This story is timestamped 16:11 (GMT), how are /. jumping the gun?

    --
    I've got a fever and the only prescription is more COBOL.
  10. Now that Debian's back in the game.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... what's the incentive of moving to moving to Fedora. I don't mean this as a troll - I like Fedora filling the gaps for people who didn't feel comfortable with Debian Unstable - but it feels to me like Debian's a bigger organization with more resources to handle more packages than Fedora. Especially since red hat left it. Is there reason to believe Fedora can continue competing without it's corportate ties?

    1. Re:Now that Debian's back in the game.... by LnxAddct · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nice troll, RedHat didn't leave it. Infact every core engineer is paid for by RedHat. RedHat simply let the decision making process become a little more open. Fedora is not unstable, where as Debian unstable used to break on me monthly. Fedora is highly integrated and easy to use. The same devs working on Fedora are usually the same devs doing the majority of kernel development, Gnome development, Apache, OpenOffice, etc... so things tend to work real nice together. This latest release only goes to show moreso how great it is working out. RedHat however did not just let them go, Fedora is a huge part of their enterprise offering, RedHat still fully backs Fedora.
      Regards,
      Steve

    2. Re:Now that Debian's back in the game.... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Debian's back in the game for the next year or so, you mean, until the next stable release about 2009 A.D.

    3. Re:Now that Debian's back in the game.... by Zemplar · · Score: 1

      Fedora still kicks Debian butt at *automatically* configuring more strange hardware than Debain - although only important if you happen to have some slightly esoteric hardware. Also SELinux is much simpler to setup in Fedora. A few more things along these lines make INSTALLING Fedora easier for the novice, but Debian still is tops at MAINTAINING a running Linux system IMHO.

    4. Re:Now that Debian's back in the game.... by alue · · Score: 3, Informative
      See here and here.

      Debian and Fedora are different distros w/different purposes. Fedora releases twice a year w/the latest and greatest, while Debian releases far less frequently w/a selection of old moldy stable tested proven software. Whereas Fedora brings the bleeding edge to just a handful of the most popular platforms w/o providing a convenient upgrade path, Debian makes itself available to both more platforms than any other distro and a systematic manageable way to upgrade to future releases. I may as well say this more clearly:

      Fedora
      • released every 6 months
      • latest software
      • supports few mainstream platforms
      • no feasible upgrade path


      Debian
      • years b/w release
      • old stable software
      • supports several platforms
      • well-designed upgrade system


      If you're looking for a desktop distro, Fedora would be an excellent choice. If you're running a server on the other hand, Debian would be the obvious choice.
    5. Re:Now that Debian's back in the game.... by dubious9 · · Score: 1

      I use Ubuntu now and used Red Hat and Fedora through Core 2. To me the biggest reason to move to Fedora was if you wanted the heavy iron features like out-of-the-box selinux support and the virtualization features. It's also what you'd go with with the industry standard (not that I agree it's worth) RHCE. In short you'd probably want it if you're liberal enough not to get a redhat enterprise edition, but conservative enough not to plunge into Debian. Especially if you already have Redhat deployed elsewhere.

      I like Fedora filling the gaps for people who didn't feel comfortable with Debian Unstable

      It seems to me that Ubuntu fills this gap. I don't really know why people would go vanilla debian over ubuntu on the desktop. Servers, of course, but not desktops.

      but it feels to me like Debian's a bigger organization with more resources to handle more packages than Fedora.

      Oooh, I don't know if I agree with that either. Even though it seems Red Hat is loosening it's vice grip on fedora to give the community more control, it's still RedHat's baby. They have a *lot* vested in it. RedHat has a lot of resources and the fedora community is huge.

      Is there reason to believe Fedora can continue competing without it's corportate ties?

      On the desktop? Yes, but there's much more competition there. Still people feel comfortable with it's red hat roots. On the server? Absolutely, and I believe this is more what they are targeting. Workstations? Well there's still not as many tools in Fedora as are available for Windows to manage workstations, but as linux goes, it's probably what I'd deploy.

      --
      Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
    6. Re:Now that Debian's back in the game.... by eldacan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Although Fedora is officially independent, RedHat still contributes heavily to its developement.

      Anyway I don't understand your Debian vs. Fedora view. What about Ubuntu, for example?

    7. Re:Now that Debian's back in the game.... by Synn · · Score: 1

      Debian never left the game. Debian stable has always had about a 2 year release cycle, while Fedora(and Ubuntu) release every 6 months.

      If you want stable and secure and don't need the latest/greatest software, use Debian.

      If you want the latest and greatest software, but stability isn't as important then another distro like FC is your choice.

    8. Re:Now that Debian's back in the game.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... where as Debian unstable used to break on me monthly.

      haha, nice troll. That's complete bullshit and you know it. I have been running Debian unstable for 5 years and with weekly updates it has only broken a few times during that period.

      Plus Debian/Ubuntu have hella more packages than Fedora. Just about any time I need some application I'm almost guaranteed it's already in Debian. No dependency hunting or one-off (ie. non-autoupdating) downloads required.

    9. Re:Now that Debian's back in the game.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "* well-designed upgrade system"

      Actually I find this to be a bit of a myth. Whenever the new stable is finally released from Debian there are always some apps that are so freaking old that a smooth upgrade to the new version just does not go well or in some cases work at all. There is always a list of things that don't work in the upgrade. After all the hype about how supposedly smooth the upgrade is with Debian on those rare years when there is actually a new stable release you find that many things do in fact break and the HUGE version jumps between releases mean your old config files might not work, the app might be totally different, etc.

      So really upgrading debian is not actually as simple as the hype claims. It's sort of one of those unchallenged myths that just gets accepted as "fact" because it gets repeated so much.

    10. Re:Now that Debian's back in the game.... by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Fedora has yum and has a couple thousand applications in its repositiories, no hunting down necessary, no dependency finding either. I used to run Debian unstable on a mini-itx box of mine. I needed unstable for a couple of reasons. People told me that it was quite stable and could be used as a desktop or server easily. Well... thats all great and dandy, but any mildly complex configuration of software that I ran on it would honest to god break something nearly monthly (I did nightly updates). I then told quite a few Debian users about my experience and they more or less all responded "Well its unstable, but its not like it brought your system down. Just revert the package or fix the conf file." This was not acceptable, especially after dealing with Red Hat for so many years and everything being relativly flawless. I can't believe they just treated things like that, like they were an ordinary occurance. Moral of the story, I've since decided to stick with Fedora where things just don't randomly break and where there is a nice community that is always willing to help. In Fedora, things literally just work. I've come to this decision after testing many distros for quite some period of time, including Suse, Mandrake, Debian, FreeBSD, Slackware, and a few others.
      Regards,
      Steve

    11. Re:Now that Debian's back in the game.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2009 aZ - After Zuul

    12. Re:Now that Debian's back in the game.... by mikefe · · Score: 1

      You should compare Debian's unstable with Fedora's rawhide.

      If you had used Debian testing, you would have had far fewer problems, I can assure you of that.

      I have been running my production servers on testing for the last 5 years. There were only minor problems -- and a couple larger problems with libnss-ldap and samba 3.x before 3.0.2 or so.

      --
      There: Something at a specific location.
      Their: Owned by someone.
      Please make sure your english compiles.
    13. Re:Now that Debian's back in the game.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds good except for the fact that there is no guarantee of timely security updates on testing and it is not uncommon to wait 2 weeks for a fix to trickle in from unstable.

    14. Re:Now that Debian's back in the game.... by mikefe · · Score: 1

      I only have a couple servers, so it's not a big deal to pull in a fix from unstable when I need it. Yes, the security fixes for testing is an issue -- I usually pull the package from unstable in that case also.

      My apt setup prefers testing, so the nice thing is that once the packages are in sync in unstable and testing apt will only pull from testing.

      --
      There: Something at a specific location.
      Their: Owned by someone.
      Please make sure your english compiles.
    15. Re:Now that Debian's back in the game.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      better x86_64 system
      when i last tried debien(about 4 months ago) the 64bit lib system it used had /lib being 64 bit, and /lib32 being 32 bit
      in fedora, /lib is still 32, and /lib64 is 64 bit.
      it is much easier to install old rpm/deb files that have no source in fedora because of this.

    16. Re:Now that Debian's back in the game.... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      yes Keymaster, when the Destructor is come!

    17. Re:Now that Debian's back in the game.... by doc_traig · · Score: 1

      I disagree.

      70% of my shop, all servers, runs Fedora. Clusters, file servers, public dev boxes, you name it. Uptime and performance numbers are fantastic, across a wide range of hardware from the very latest going back to pre-2000. For projects using Oracle and other big titles where support is "required", we use RHEL and it's easy as can be to work with both in the same space.

      We do local mirroring of base and update packages, and have kickstart configs for new installs. Fedora's been a terrific server OS for us.

      --
      So long, michael. Don't let the door hit you...
    18. Re:Now that Debian's back in the game.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am in absolutely the same boat. All my servers ( and we're talking hundreds ) run FC1->4. Excellent distro and perfect for server farms, easy to maintain, advanced features. I just wish stupid Oracle would support it.

      Ohh, and the idea of Debian on servers makes me chuckle. With RedHat providing enterprise class volume management, directory services, and SELinux, also and the excellent ability to install systems via the network large installations like mine need RH/FC.

  11. Two major Core 4 fixes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The load times are definitely faster and it's nowhere near as dark all the time.

    1. Re:Two major Core 4 fixes by Nailer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the faster load time is from a new readahead service that starts up on boot.

      On behalf of everyone: what do you mean by dark. I am truly confused.

  12. Best slashdot ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Torrent download rate before slashdot posted the story: 10 KB/s

    After slashdotting: 145 KB/s (flirting with my max bandwidth)

    1. Re:Best slashdot ever by Mr_Icon · · Score: 2, Funny

      /me pours some liquid nitrogen on the torrent tracker server.

      It's a good thing we're housed in Physics. :)

      --
      If you open yourself to the foo, You and foo become one.
    2. Re:Best slashdot ever by EggMan2000 · · Score: 1

      Mine is just the opposite. I'm uploading at 34KB/s and downloading at 4KB/s. So, It's going to take a full 6 days or so at this rate.

      Meanwhile I'm also pulling the iso's off of mirrors.kernel.org at about 125KB/s. Each d/l is runnig off a seperate T1. I'm guessing that the torrent seeds are getting bogged down or something. Any thoughts on this?

      --
      what? what I thought we were in the trust tree in the nest, were we not?
    3. Re:Best slashdot ever by bobaferret · · Score: 1

      I've been having the same problem for the last hour or so. I get nothing but timeouts when connection to the tracker

    4. Re:Best slashdot ever by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Seeds might be getting bogged down, but not that bad. I'm doing about 700k up and 400k down. When it's higher up than down it usually means the network is starved for seeds and it's going to get slow around the end, but we'll see (1 hour to go).

      Once done I'll let my computer seed for the rest of the day and that should help somewhat, it's on a pretty fast line.

    5. Re:Best slashdot ever by EggMan2000 · · Score: 2, Informative

      My rates have increased. I went ahead and upped my u/l rate to 100KB/s my d/l rate is now up to around 80KB/s. I will let mine seed for a few hours as well. (Probably all night) I should be done in about 18 hours I estimate...

      --
      what? what I thought we were in the trust tree in the nest, were we not?
    6. Re:Best slashdot ever by andrews · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised I'm not seeing higher UP speeds.

      I'm seeing 11 mbps up right now although it's been as high as 22 mbps this morning. If there's bogging down going on it's somewhere else, I'm not seeing it.

    7. Re:Best slashdot ever by Phleg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You actually expect torrents to get faster as more people start downloading? If everyone downloading a torrent from a tracker has more download speed than upload, you're going to have to deal with starvation: more download than available upload.

      --
      No comment.
  13. Main Site News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Its on the main site now. They must have waited for /. to post it then they could make it official.

    Thanks slashdot!

    1. Re:Main Site News by m85476585 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was on the main site a few hours before it was on Slashdot. You just had to push refresh.

  14. Minutes ago?!? by programmermatt · · Score: 1

    Try 2 hours ago.

    --
    There are those...
    1. Re:Minutes ago?!? by Limburgher · · Score: 4, Funny

      I submitted it 2 hours ago. :)

      --

      You are not the customer.

    2. Re:Minutes ago?!? by iggymanz · · Score: 2, Funny

      As a dupe?

  15. Installed it already... ;) by prefect42 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The installer couldn't cope with installing into an existing LVM VG which is a shame.

    Switching from init 1 to init 5 requested the root password which was novel. I'll have to track down what that's all about.

    --

    jh

  16. Re:Yet again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    slashdot irresponsibly posts a link to a release before it's officially available. Have the editors not learned from all the times they've done this and screwed up in the past?

    The problem was they broke the main distribution server: the mirrors hadn't gone live yet so everyone went to the main distribution server.

    Here, they're linking to the torrents not a HTTP or FTP download page. That won't crash the Fedora project's server. So what's the problem? Don't you understand bittorrent?

  17. If you don't like FC4 by Goody · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...wait five minutes and Fedora Core 5 will be out.

    --
    Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
    1. Re:If you don't like FC4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...wait five minutes and Fedora Core 5 will be out.

      Many ppl here seem to think Fedora is some beta program that comes out every 3 months.

      FC1 - FC2 had 6 Months between them (nov-may)

      FC2 - FC3 had 6 Months (may-nov)

      FC3 - FC4 had 7 Months (Nov-June)

      These releases are longer or atleast even with Ubunto, Suse, Mandrake, etc, etc.

      everyone shoots for 6 month release cycles this is no less testing than the previous RedHat line got either, its always been 6+ months of devel/testing

    2. Re:If you don't like FC4 by matt+me · · Score: 1

      The development cycle has been upped to 9 months now with the new system (Fedora Foundation), so fc5 won't be ready for about a year.

  18. Tracker busted. by bogado · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The tracker did not handle the masses of people going after him, it is upto now not accepting any conections. This shows that a trackless BitTorrent is really needed.

    --
    []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

    ^[:wq

    1. Re:Tracker busted. by ratpack91 · · Score: 1

      here's an Azureus magnet url for the i386 dvd then: dvd ISO
      magnet:?xt=urn:btih:Q6VZB4EKHWWO7ZU3PYG6CXMI4ID67X G4;2H

    2. Re:Tracker busted. by ratpack91 · · Score: 2, Informative

      oops that should have been magnet:?xt=urn:btih:Q6VZB4EKHWWO7ZU3PYG6CXMI4ID67X G4

    3. Re:Tracker busted. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      Odd, it works for me.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    4. Re:Tracker busted. by bogado · · Score: 1

      You probably got there first and got the tracker before it was overloaded. :)

      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

    5. Re:Tracker busted. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      I saw his message, decided to see if it was true, and downloaded the torrent.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    6. Re:Tracker busted. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      Just re-downloaded the torrent and connected to the tracker using Azureus and it is still working.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    7. Re:Tracker busted. by bogado · · Score: 1

      I'm using the official bittorrent, not Azureus. Is seems that this Azuerus is more advanced. But I need a headless or console-only client. :-(

      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

  19. mirrors.kernel.org by hpa · · Score: 2, Informative

    C'mon guys... mirrors.kernel.org is only pumping 1100 Mbit/s so far... plenty of bandwidth to spare :)

    http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/core/4/
    ftp://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/core/4/
    rsync://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/core/4/

    1. Re:mirrors.kernel.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      how about http://mirrors.playboy.com/? Finally all that pr0n bandwidth used for something :)

    2. Re:mirrors.kernel.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does this compare to bittorrent.... both for total bits sent (I'm guessing it's less), and for total download time (I'm guessing it's the same - both can saturate my DSL).

    3. Re:mirrors.kernel.org by Hobart · · Score: 1

      Holy cow ... 415KB/sec and climbing ... you kinda just blew the .torrent out of the water!

      --
      o/~ Join us now and share the software ...
  20. SELinux by PaxTech · · Score: 1

    SELinux option during installation is Enabled or Disabled, no halfway house as in FC3.

    You have the choice of running SELinux under either the targeted policy of the strict policy. I think targeted is what you are referring to as the "halfway house".

    Targeted only confines certain daemons like Apache and BIND in SELinux domains, the rest of the system runs in an unconfined domain.

    --
    All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
    1. Re:SELinux by mattdm · · Score: 1

      You have the choice of running SELinux under either the targeted policy of the strict policy. I think targeted is what you are referring to as the "halfway house".

      With FC3, you can choose "Warn", which logs violations but doesn't actually stop anything from happening.

    2. Re:SELinux by PaxTech · · Score: 1

      With FC3, you can choose "Warn", which logs violations but doesn't actually stop anything from happening.

      In SELinux this is called permissive mode. You can run either policy type in permissive mode, which will log denials to the system log but not actually block the access. It's meant for developing new policy and troubleshooting policy problems. The normal SELinux mode is enforcing mode, which will actually enforce the policy rules.

      I haven't installed FC4 yet, so I don't know what it defaults to. setenforce 0 at a root prompt should put the system in permissive mode though, assuming you're in the sysadm_r role.

      --
      All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
  21. also listed on http://www.linuxisotorrent.com/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.linuxisotorrent.com/
    http://www.linuxisotorrent.com/>


    http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/
    http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/>
    http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/

    get em torrenz there. dont wait for slashdot to deliver

  22. Re:Linux Trademarked? by SolusSD · · Score: 2, Informative

    no, because its a trademark (tm), not a patent.

  23. Re:Desktop Linux users, don't bother with Fedora by jci · · Score: 1

    I'm a ubuntu convert as well after seeing a couple friend's installs compared to when I was using FC3 at the time. I worked with FC3 for a couple months, and completely borked my install a couple times doing different things.

    Ubuntu immediately has better support for wireless network settings (profiles!), which I need for school/home/etc. That and it isn't the hack of "you've changed your settings, now go restart your network service for settings to stick" type crap that Fedora was.

  24. Re:Desktop Linux users, don't bother with Fedora by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh god no. Thanks but no thanks!

  25. Driver disc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, here we have it. YOU lost the driver disc, it is all YOUR fault!

    If just Linux would have a system to recognise hardware and tell you what module to enable/compile, way more users would start using linux.

    Throw away the driver discs, microsoft doesn't make the drivers, the least they can do is provide them with their os.

    *windows installer is great! Too bad you have to go trough it every 6 months.

    1. Re:Driver disc by RupW · · Score: 1

      Throw away the driver discs, microsoft doesn't make the drivers, the least they can do is provide them with their os.

      They do, sort of.

      The problem is the long release/testing cycle that major Windows releases go through means that all the bundled drivers are six months old. If your hardware is six months older than the latest service pack, and the manufacturer has WHQL drivers, then Windows should automatically recognise the hardware.

    2. Re:Driver disc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is the long release/testing cycle that major Windows releases go through means that all the bundled drivers are six months old.

      Microsoft has a testing cycle? News to me.

    3. Re:Driver disc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there is such a system actually, in a way. You can compile in pretty much everything, and let the module sort it out at boot time. If the device is detected, it's installed and configured. This is the default procedure for all modern distros out there. If there exists a driver for it, it just works.

      The one exception I can think of is the Nvidia/ATI drivers, but it's only that way because, well, they're closed. But they work, and they work well, and it's easy enough to follow the instructions to install them.

      Face it, most users simply do not need to be compiling their own kernels/modules, therefore they don't need to know how it works.

  26. Re:Desktop Linux users, don't bother with Fedora by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoever marked this insightful should be shot on sight.

  27. pre-emptive apt vs rpm rebuttal by pyros · · Score: 3, Informative
    You can't compare apt and rpm (command line tools). These are the only comparisons which are valid
    • command line dependency trackers - apt vs up2date/apt/yum
    • binary package formats - RPM vs DEB
    • command line single package management tools - rpm vs dpkg

    If you make any comparisons which cross the above boundaries, you are either trolling or have a fundamental misunderstanding of what you are discussing and should reald up before posting.
    1. Re:pre-emptive apt vs rpm rebuttal by windex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      rpm = dpkg, yum = apt

      yum is just about as good as apt. it's a little slow on every system i've used it on.

    2. Re:pre-emptive apt vs rpm rebuttal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read the release notes you would know that speeding up yum is a significant feature of this release.

  28. Re:Desktop Linux users, don't bother with Fedora by bogado · · Score: 1

    Have you tried the NetworkManager? It is amazing and beats the crap out of the profile managed network that I saw in Ubuntu. It requires exactly 0 clicks to configure when using a wired network and a few clicks while using the wireless configuration (you still need to choose what net you want to join and configure the keys when it is protected).

    I believe that desktop-fedora will walk toward the NetworkManager while the old static configuration would be more fitted to servers that do need static configs anyway.

    On the other hand, NetworkManager is not ready, yet, it still don't configure NTP automaticly for instance.

    --
    []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

    ^[:wq

  29. Try OpenSolaris. by Martin+Marvinski · · Score: 4, Informative

    OpenSolaris is coming out at the end of June. OpenSolaris is basically Solaris 10 in source code form. The license is the CDDL which is basically the Mozilla Public License with restrictions removed .

    http://www.opensolaris.org/faq/licensing_faq.html

    Anyone can create an OpenSolaris distro, in fact the guy who created cdrecord for linux (Joerg Schilling) is creating one called SchilliX.

    http://schillix.berlios.de/

    The great thing about OpenSolaris is that it is the opensourcing of Solaris 10 which means it has all the features and stability of that Operating system. It also has features that Fedora Core or linux don't have.

    An example is DTrace. With DTrace, one can specify sensors in Solaris 10 and monitor everything. Even user programs.

    You also have Zones in OpenSolaris which are like BSD jails, but are easier to maintain and create. Linux has user mode linux, but that is cumbersome compared to Zones.

    SMF in OpenSolaris is questionable in benefit, but it allows services to be restarted automatically if they fail. Not something I'm interested in, but some people may like it.

    But if you are unhappy with the bleeding edge of Fedora Core, give OpenSolaris a look when it comes out later this month.

    1. Re:Try OpenSolaris. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CDDL seems very liberal, but sadly it's not the GPL (and incompatible with it). I don't mean to debate the relative merits of each, but having multiple open source licenses is clearly a bad thing if they're incompatible; GPL was here first, and is more commonly used, so perhaps Sun should reconsider, if only for the benefits of not having a fragmented world of open source code. Additionally, the GPL is significantly more 'free' with less restrictions.

    2. Re:Try OpenSolaris. by rpdillon · · Score: 1

      OpenSolaris is a big deal.

      I'm very pleased it is being released.

      But let's not get confused: this is an OS that simply doesn't target mainstream desktop. It lacks any kind of credible driver support, and that is a necessary (but not sufficient) element for desktop users. Apple gets around this with OS X by only selling OS X with their hardware, but OpenSolaris doesn't have that advantage. We need to wait a while and let the community build up the driver library for it before recommending it as general purpose replacement for Linux.

      It is VERY promising, and bodes well for open source in general, but we need to see how the community forms around it first. Oh, and the source code hasn't actually been released yet, so right now, you can get a free (beer) copy, so long as you register every installation with Sun. =( We need to at least wait until buildable sources are out there to start working with it in a serious way.

  30. Re:Linux Trademarked? by hpa · · Score: 3, Informative

    The USPTO registration number is 1916230.
    http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=registra tion&entry=1916230&action=Request+Status

    (Note: the mentioned William Della Croce is someone who fraudulently attempted to register Linux as a trademark; he got sued and transferred the trademark to Linus as part of settling the lawsuit.)

    Typed Drawing
    Word Mark LINUX
    Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer operating system software to facilitate computer use and operation. FIRST USE: 19940802. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19940802
    Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
    Serial Number 74560867
    Filing Date August 15, 1994
    Current Filing Basis 1A
    Original Filing Basis 1A
    Published for Opposition June 13, 1995
    Change In Registration CHANGE IN REGISTRATION HAS OCCURRED
    Registration Number 1916230
    Registration Date September 5, 1995
    Owner (REGISTRANT) Croce, William R. Della, Jr. INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 33 Snow Hill St. Boston MASSACHUSETTS 02113

    (LAST LISTED OWNER) TORVALDS, LINUS INDIVIDUAL Assignee of FINLAND 5774 CANNES PLACE SAN JOSE CALIFORNIA 95138
    Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
    Attorney of Record ROBERT T. DAUNT
    Type of Mark TRADEMARK
    Register PRINCIPAL
    Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR).
    Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

  31. FC4 rocks by Nailer · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've been running FC4 (actually Rawhide, the equivalent of Debian unstable) on a Mac mini / Hitachi PJXT100 (yes, my computer is 16cm, my screen is 4m) for a few months here. Bluetooth Apple mouse and keyboard too. A pretty weird hardware setup. Everything works reliably.

    In particular, OpenOffice 2 rocks. In FC it comes as individual packages for each app - ie, I get by with openoffice-core, openoffice-writer, and the English language package. In Ubuntu, I have to install and, worse, update a few massive packages.

    Gnome does cool stuff. Like never stealing focus. An app wants focus, it pulses in the task bar. As it should be.

    Extras now works well, it's easy to get a package into Fedora and there's a lot of useful stuff available. The days of having to go to freshrpms and dag wieers to find your app are numbered - FC4, FC Extras, and Livna for the patented stuff will satisfy most people. Other distros never had this problem, but other distros still don't have decent config tools, and other distros don't install menu items when they install GUI apps. Yes, this means you Debian.

    There's a non-poo directory server that has proper ACL support (unlike OpenLDAP, where they were kept outside the directory), multimaster replication. etc as part of the distro. Combine it with JXplorer and you've got a decent Open Source LDAP server.

    Off topic: once installed, OOo 2 is the first version I'd say would be on par with MS Office. The toolbars are decent - they no longer take up an entire row, and can be edited and docked together at will, like you damn well expect. Spell check can count selections. Floating docks becomes sidebars. And, surprisingly, it can work with MS Offices proprietary XML files. All the usual OOo features are still there

    Other nice things about recent Fedoras:

    FC3 and newer: Partitioning uses LVM by default. Online resizing is supported. Ext3 has signficant speed improvements, bechmarks favorably against Reiser, and unlike Reiser, works properly with SELinux.

    FC3 but expanded in FC4: SELinux is enabled by default. For example, Apache is prevented from reading files who don't have the 'web content' context, and cgi scripts can't access particular device files without the right context either. If someone breaks into apachge, the chances of them going further than breasking into your web site are limited.

    One note: while yum is getting better, I don't use it. Instead, I use Smart Package Manager. A command line and GUI tool from the author of apt-rpm and Synaptic, that replaes both those tools, and works with Yum metadata repositories. It's faster (downloads in parallel from each source), has a better GUI, and simpler error messages than yum and apt (no 'but version foo will be installed'-without-any-explanation type stuff).

    1. Re:FC4 rocks by Nailer · · Score: 1

      Replying to myself:

      A correction: the Broadcom wireless card in the Mac Mini does not work.

      Though Broadcom have Linux wireless drivers for MIPS (my Linksys router uses one of the cards), they illegally do not release the source code for these drivers (though software in the Linksys router is statically linked against the kernel that includes the drivers).

      If Linksys released their full kernel source as they're obligated to do, there'd be ppc Linux Broadcom drivers in no time, and I'd be able to use it with my Mini.

    2. Re:FC4 rocks by TheOrquithVagrant · · Score: 1

      Smart package manager really rocks, and needs more publicity. It blows apt and yum utterly out of the water.

      'nuff said.

    3. Re:FC4 rocks by juhaz · · Score: 1

      In particular, OpenOffice 2 rocks. In FC it comes as individual packages for each app - ie, I get by with openoffice-core, openoffice-writer, and the English language package. In Ubuntu, I have to install and, worse, update a few massive packages.

      Invidual packages or no, does it that really save you from massive updates? At least when updating automatically, considering they're still usually built from same source RPM's, every fix increases version numbers of every OOo package and they all get updated, even if the fix was just for one.

    4. Re:FC4 rocks by Nailer · · Score: 1

      Invidual packages or no, does it that really save you from massive updates?

      Yes, it does. If I use writer, I use writer, core, and English. I update writer, core, and English. Not
      core, writer, calc, base, impress, and a 118MB language package.

  32. Re:Desktop Linux users, don't bother with Fedora by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    heh, there might be other choices out there, SuSE Pro works much more nicely on my desktop & laptop than RedHat or Federo 1 &2 ever did. Mobile wireless with RH or FC sucks too.

  33. Re:Pardon me, why use fedora? by Cutie+Pi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah RedHat benefits but the users benefit too in that they get to try out all the latest and greatest software in a convenient package. RHEL is more stable but it's certainly not on the cutting edge. People have different priorities. And those other distros are nice but the great thing about linux is that each distro has its own style. Some people like fedora's style better than mandriva's, for example.

  34. WM Strife. by ionicplasma · · Score: 2, Interesting

    XFCE has been moved to extras.

    It's funny to see how a lightweight yet potentially pretty WM wouldn't be the first choice for producing a desktop OS. Why not include it with the distro?

    --
    The easy part was getting the brain out, but the hard part was getting the brain out.
    1. Re:WM Strife. by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Because Fedora is a GNOME distribution, with a default application set that depends on the GNOME infrastructure. XFCE is no longer so light if you have to bring in all the GNOME libraries anyway...

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    2. Re:WM Strife. by Jman314 · · Score: 1

      The first choice is the full-featured Gnome. This is a result of the effort to reduce Core to, well, core. You're certainly free to install XFCE from Extras if you like. And by the way, Core + Extras = the Fedora Project. It's still a part of the distro, just not on the CDs.

  35. Only 4 CDs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Managed to snarf a copy over the weekend from an unsecured official mirror. Four CDs, each about 630MB.

    And Debian takes 15! That's like 3-4 times less! Anyone known what's missing from Fedora? Or does it just use better compression?

    1. Re:Only 4 CDs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fedora has chosen to distribute only the Core packages within the CDs. Fedora has the rest of the packages as Extras.

      This has been done for keeping the amount of the CDs as low as possible. I think they are trying to low the amount to two CDs for FC5.

      The philosophy what gets into Core and what not is that there should only be one package in Core which provides certain functionality. The "duplicate" packages are placed into Extras.

      This does not mean the Extras repository isn't part of Fedora. It just means that they want to keep the amount of the CDs reasonable.

  36. Ask and though shalt receive! by Danathar · · Score: 2, Informative

    Magnet URI for Azeurus if you don't want to actually download the torrent file....FC4 i386 binary

    magnet:?xt=urn:btih:3QYOKFWIML7MWVELF36AWWW3VTVL DW 32

    1. Re:Ask and though shalt receive! by bogado · · Score: 1

      I have the torrent, the tracker is not reponding:

      [13:54:48] Problem connecting to tracker -

      What is this magnet? Apart from a comic character ant way. :-D

      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

    2. Re:Ask and though shalt receive! by Danathar · · Score: 1

      You can refer to any torrent (that at least one azureus client is connected to) through the distributed hash table network. Be sure you have the distributed DB plugin (comes with azureus) and make sure you have UDP 6881 available to your client. Fire it up...wait until the "initializing" message is over...you should see a number with around 300,000 to 600,000 users clients.

      Then in Azureus go Open----> location ------> and paste the Magnet URI in the window (omit the space between the last W and 32...slashdot mangled it when I pasted it).

      Give the client at least a couple of min to "gather" the information from the DHT network.

      I think the internet link to duke is saturated...because i did'nt have any problem getting the torrent file over Internet2

    3. Re:Ask and though shalt receive! by bobaferret · · Score: 1

      You got an IP and port number or know a place where I can find one, so that I can reseed mydb...I'm not able to get any contacts at all. Wich seems to prevent me from using the magnet link.

    4. Re:Ask and though shalt receive! by Danathar · · Score: 1

      hmm..you should not have to do that. I'll have to research a little

    5. Re:Ask and though shalt receive! by bobaferret · · Score: 1

      It's very strange. I can download from every where else in the world using torrent, but for some reason, I can't even get a foothold on FC4. Or for that mater the azureus update torrent. I can ul/dl with lots of other stuff though..

    6. Re:Ask and though shalt receive! by Danathar · · Score: 1

      until you can troubleshoot it..I recommend mirrors.kernel.org...either ftp or http. Lots of bandwidth.

    7. Re:Ask and though shalt receive! by bobaferret · · Score: 1

      That's what I'm doing, just rather do the BT thing ya know..

  37. Here's a good question by portwojc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I want to know what hardware Fedora supports. Like which RAID controllers, Ehternet cards, video cards, and Etc are supported. Where do I find this information at?

    Is there a list out there somewhere that is easy to look this up on or do I have to dig around for every little piece?

    I checked the Fedora FAQ and nothing popped out as a definitive list. Just base hardware requirements.

    Thanks

    1. Re:Here's a good question by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Anything support here.
      Regards,
      Steve

    2. Re:Here's a good question by billyj4 · · Score: 1

      google search, as always, comes through... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/HCL

    3. Re:Here's a good question by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      These days, it's almost easier to list what Linux *doesn't* support.

      RAID controllers are a big "if", especially the cheap ones, but software RAID is always doable.

      I don't think there's a single ethernet card that is unsupported.

      Sound cards are generally supported, but if you want to use them for anything serious, you'll have to do more homework than just checking a HCL.

      Video cards, same thing. Most all will "work", but things like 3D acceleration (for games) will likely require extra effort and research.

      Printers: Don't get a "win" printer, like a Lexmark or some of the new HPs.

      Modems: Most are Winmodems, which are mostly unsupported. Anything that connects to a serial port will work. Anything else is suspect.

      WiFi Cards: Also, mostly unsupported without resorting to hacks like using Windows drivers.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    4. Re:Here's a good question by rivimey · · Score: 1

      That link relates to RH Enterprise Linux, not Fedora Core.

      --
      Ruth Ivimey-Cook
      Software Engineer and Author
    5. Re:Here's a good question by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Fedora Core is the base of RHEL, as a result they share the same HCL. You can also get one specifically for Fedora off their wiki, but anything you see in the RHEL link will work in Fedora.
      Regards,
      Steve

    6. Re:Here's a good question by sabit666 · · Score: 1

      It's still under development I guess.
      http://people.ucsc.edu/~maxka/fhp/

  38. Extras by Mr_Icon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Something that's not mentioned -- this is the first release of Fedora Core with the "Extras" repository enabled by default. Fedora Extras is a volunteer packaging project of various software not in Core, and is currently providing additional 1,000 packages ready to install just by running "yum install foo."

    If you don't see your favorite package in Extras, you can always become a contributor yourself.

    --
    If you open yourself to the foo, You and foo become one.
    1. Re:Extras by Mr.+BS · · Score: 1

      ...ready to install just by running "yum install foo."

      If that's all I have to do, then why am I getting the error "Package 'foo' not found"?

      :-)

  39. Re:Desktop Linux users, don't bother with Fedora by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Now this isn't really fair. I'm like Mr. Ubuntu, but I admit that Fedora has some neat things that Ubuntu lacks currently. Xen, SE Linux, a graphical installer, a Usplash, among other things. Fedora is a good distro and does a good job of hammering out the most bleeding edge stuff before anyone else has too...

  40. What about multimedia? by ratta · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The last time i have tries Fedora it was really poor about multimedia... I know about patent problems, but i could barely play an mp3 with the crappy helix player from Real let's not even talk about playing an (undencrypted!) DVD!!!!! I think that been able to play most widespread audio and video formats (with Xine or Mplayer) should be a key point for a moder linux distro.

    --
    Wondering why i am doing so strange posts? I am trying to get a "+5,Flamebait" or "-1,Insightful" rating.
    1. Re:What about multimedia? by bogie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't doubt you tried Fedora but did you even do any searchs on google regarding this? At all?

      All of that and more is explained at several easily findable and popular FAQ and howto sites specific to Fedora and this issue. I'm not even going to list them but just typing Fedora and mp3 or DVD in google is enough to answer all of your questions.

      This isn't a case of me being "shut the f*** up noob! Read the man!" either. Fedora's multimedia policy is easily found and fixed with the most basic of efforts. The fact that you knew about the patent problems and why certain codecs aren't included with Fedora shows your clearly smart enough to figure out the first thing you should have done when you had a question.

      "I think that been able to play most widespread audio and video formats (with Xine or Mplayer) should be a key point for a modern linux distro."

      Right and Fedora and every other distro out there can do that. You already know why that can't be done with a truly OSS distro so why the fuss? Can XP rip to mp3 and play DVD's right out of the box?

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    2. Re:What about multimedia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I know about patent problems, but ...

      Bu... Bu... But what?
      Then you know why you can't play eg. MP3s out of the box.
      You also know that it's a piece of cake to get support for MP3, video players and whatever from places like eg. FreshRPMs.

      Since I download the distro itself and don't buy it on a CD/DVD, it's no problem for me personally to also download the 3rd party apps and media support I need.

      I'm not that fond of the Fedora "GPL or bust" policy, but it's not an obstacle for me.

    3. Re:What about multimedia? by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 1

      "I think that been able to play most widespread audio and video formats (with Xine or Mplayer) should be a key point for a moder linux distro."

      Then join the fight against software patents. Distros like Fedora are only protecting themselves, you know. Multimedia is a patent hell, basically everything under the sun is under a patent, and you need to pay for licenses.

      BTW, it may not be your cup of tea, but Gentoo has none of these problems. You just emerge xine or mplayer or whatever and it comes with full support for pretty much everything.

    4. Re:What about multimedia? by Nailer · · Score: 1

      There's an unofficial repository at livna.org you can add to yum / smart / apt / whatever you use.

      This makes it easy to find and install the packages you want.

    5. Re:What about multimedia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you know about patent problems, why do you keep asking? Did those patent problems go away? No - ergo, the multimedia situation is unchanged.

      Perhaps you don't understand those patent problems, and why it is not any Linux distro's responsibility to handle, i.e. circumevent them.

    6. Re:What about multimedia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This will be an issue with any free Linux distro. There is so much out there we take for granted on Windows and OSX that is proprietary, licensed or basically off limits due to copyrights and patents. This means a free distro will never be able to offer the same level of desktop functionality until the software companies start porting their packages to Linux. And lets face it, it will take Linux desktop use in the 5-10% range overall before these guys will take notice and make the effort. This is where Apple and OSX has a clear advantage.

    7. Re:What about multimedia? by NorthDude · · Score: 1

      Can XP rip to mp3 and play DVD's right out of the box?

      But on the other hand, OSX can.

      --


      I'd rather be sailing...
    8. Re:What about multimedia? by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      I share his frustration. I recently tried SuSE 9.2 (I realize FC4 != SuSE) and was fairly impressed with it. Two things I could never get to work (After HOURS of reading FAQs and help documents and asking for help on linuxquestions.org) were playing video or getting the fonts to not look so damn fuzzy.

      Being able to just PLAY a simple DVD or avi file is something that should just work, or be relatively painless to get working. Faced with this problem on Windows, I'm just a small download and a few install screens away from being able to play video/rip mp3s/burn CDs. On Linux, I can't figure it out for the life of me.

      I'm going to check out FC4 tonight, so I'll see how it goes.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    9. Re:What about multimedia? by MojoStan · · Score: 1
      I'm also planning on checking out Fedora Core (not tonight) and came across a March 2005 TechBuilder | Recipe article that might be helpful. It shows step-by-step how to install MPlayer w/codecs (video), RealPlayer, xine (DVD), and Flash Player on FC2 (using yum):
      Painless Multimedia For Linux: Getting all the needed software can be a hassle. Here's where to look--and how to get it running
      --
      TO START
      PRESS ANY KEY

      Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...

  41. Re:Pardon me, why use fedora? by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

    The devs care alot about the users and they spend quite a bit of resources working with the users and making sure that Fedora follows an effective Human Interface Guideline. Things just work in Fedora, everything integrates well. Red Hat is essentially saying that if it is good enough for Fedora then it is good enough for their Enterprise customers. Trust me, use it and you'll see. Anyone that talks about unstability in Fedora Core most likely hasnt used it all, or for long periods of time.
    Regards,
    Steve

  42. Re:Pardon me, why use fedora? by dieScheisse · · Score: 1

    I suggest you read their About page and Objectives page. FC exists as the "basis" for their commercial products. FC is not a "test bed" as you call it.

    The packages they release are quite stable and are no more buggy than any other distribution. It's not anything like running Debian unstable/testing (which I did for several years before switching to FC).

  43. Yes, the installer is easier than Windows XP. by Nailer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's insightful? Moderators, and the poster above: have you ever done a full install of Windows XP and Fedora?

    Could you explain to me how Windows XP could possibly be easier?

    1. The Windows installer starts as a 32 bit command line application for partitioning, EULA, loading driver disks, with a reboot into a GUI once a base install happens. It uses F8 and F5 to do things. Fedora uses 'next'. Windows is getting a full GUI installer in Longhorn when WinPE comes out. It doesn't have one now.

    2. The Windows XP installer asks for many more than 3 inputs. You forgot partitioning, EULA agreement, that disk thing I mentioned above, and a bunch of other stuff. The things you did mention are weird - eg, I select my time zone by scrolling through a drop down list box of time zones sorted by GMT offset. Not even geography. Not even FC4 'click where you are on this map'.

    3. The defaults are a lot less secure too - non non admin user, Run As doesn't work for all programs, the firewall lets in ports where known worms live by default (see the Register analysis of SP2 for a complete list). Obviously, there's no MAC implementation enabled by default either (SELinux). And most network services still run as SYSTEM. So post-install you're either gonna have to lock it down, or fix up the mess.

    1. Re:Yes, the installer is easier than Windows XP. by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      I hate to nitpick but wouldn't sorting by GMT offset be by geography anyway? I mean most similar GMT offsets are somewhere around each other.

    2. Re:Yes, the installer is easier than Windows XP. by Nailer · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. I'm pretty sure there's parts of Russia that are also GMT +10 like Melbourne, Australia is.

      I wouldn't mind if MS actually had these sorted by location - Europe/Russia/Vladivostok (or wherever), Asia Pacific / Australia / Melbourne. But they don't - just 50 odd timezone entries. How many people have parents that know Australia is GMT +10?

  44. Re:Pardon me, why use fedora? by ehaggis · · Score: 1

    http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/ is the alternate RHEL distro.

    --
    One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
  45. Fedora Core 4 Review by SilentBob4 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Mad Penguin published a "progress" review of FC4 not too long ago and it was a pretty good read.

  46. FC4is okay so far by mauriatm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I used FC4-test3 for about a month just for testing purposes, and from the few hours I have used FC4-final, it doesn't look there are that many significant changes. The Release Notes and the "Installation Guide" are pretty good starting resources for some issues.

    One major trouble I had was GCC4, playing around I found that many had problems compiling under GCC4, so I am wondering if many of the repositories (when they come online) will compile with GCC4 or GCC3.x? ... As a personal choice, I installed GCC3.4 to /opt and found it useful to keep a second compiler around for now. ... If anything, I imagine that many OSS projects will be forced to start looking into supporting GCC4.

    As for speed and amazing things, not much really. I did notice that ACPI worked great on my A7V8X-X, which had been bugging me from FC2,3. I don't know how "amazing" the newer Gnome, OOo and other updates are.

    SELinux took a huge enhancement and is integrated much tighter. No doubt some will find this annoying, but should be easy to disable.

    I was disappointed some things moved to 'Extras' (xmms,xfce), but that's not necessarily bad. I would hate to have 6 cd's to download instead of 5.

    Overall okay release so far. I'm sure there will be plenty of issues soon to arrive! There are some general installation notes I have on my website.

  47. Torrent Speed by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

    The more people get on the torrents, the faster they will be

    That's not true. The more people get on the torrent, actually it could get slower if those people are uploading at very low speeds. To increase speed they will have to finish the download first and stay seeding.

  48. Is laptop support there yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I've been running FC2 & 3 on my Dell 600m and it has never worked 'right'. Thermal/power management have been a pain to setup and never really work properly, and USB device management has always been a pain.

    Does anyone who has been running the Beta's know if the laptop support is better?

    1. Re:Is laptop support there yet? by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      USB should be fine, the only real laptop manufacturer that I've seen good thermal/power management for is Toshiba, the rest of the laptops are kind of cross your fingers and hope. This is true for any distrobution, at least all that I've used which involve Debian, Madrake, Suse, Fedora, and Xandros.
      Regards,
      Steve

  49. Not understanding how Bit Torrent works ... by dougmc · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The more people get on the torrents, the faster they will be.
    This is not true.

    The average download rate of a torrent is pretty much independant of the number of downloaders -- that's what's so neat about it. (Compare to downloading via ftp or http -- double the number of downloaders, and you half the average download rate, assuming that you're out of bandwidth in the first place.)

    If you've got a torrent being seeded by some fast sites, then adding new downloaders on cable modems (fast download, slow upload) will generally slow the average download down rather than speed it up. But it won't slow down to almost nothing, which is what happens if thousands of people are hitting a ftp or http server ...

    Now, if people who are downloading leave their BT clients running after they're done downloading, then the average download rates (of those still downloading, that is) will go up, as there will be more sites seeding at that point.

    But in general, merely having more people using BT to download something will not make the average download rates go up. BT is way cool -- don't get me wrong -- I love it. But it's not magic ...

  50. Upgrading works. by Nailer · · Score: 1

    Yes, it works. The installer has an upgrade mode. You can also use yum (or smart, or whatever) to move between versions. Contrary to the poster above, it's supported. Post on the mailing lists or the forums and you'll get help. But it's not recommended.

    Doing a new install is recommended to see the shiny new defaults Eg, things like LVM partitioning.

    If you're cool with that, upgrade with the installer. If you want to keep your server online during the upgrade, you can even do that, but that's least recommended...

    The reason: the installer does other things than just install new packages. Eg, in FC3 and 4, LVM1 metadata is upgraded to LVM2. In older releases upgrading Ext2 disks to Ext3.

    If you understand this, upgrading with yum and then doing such changes yourself works fine.

  51. Re:Desktop Linux users, don't bother with Fedora by pyros · · Score: 1
    That and it isn't the hack of "you've changed your settings, now go restart your network service for settings to stick" type crap that Fedora was.

    I've never actually rebooted when it says that. I'm also pretty certain it says you "might" have reboot for some applications, rather than flat out telling you to reboot. At most I've only ever had to restart an application, but that's pretty reasonable considering your changes may have just closed a bunch of active connections.

  52. Penn State... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Has had the ISOs for four days. take that Duke!

  53. Early bird or second mouse? by wayward_son · · Score: 1

    The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

    Have fun finding the bugs.

    1. Re:Early bird or second mouse? by caluml · · Score: 1

      That used to be my sig :)

  54. Re:Don't bother with Ubuntu by zootm · · Score: 1
    I tried Ubuntu a few weeks ago. After the install, I got several errors related to the GUI, then I was dropped to a command prompt. Ubuntu was DOA for me. It was a generic, old-ish PC. W2K installed flawlessly an hour later (after an hour trying to dick around to get the GUI to start). Maybe it would've been fun to play with if I had lots of free time. Definitely not functional, though.

    By contrast, my (pretty old) laptop, which was broken by both Debian Sarge and older FC releases, installed and ran Ubuntu flawlessly.

    In the interests of curiosity and fairness I'm getting this new FC release. But mostly for fun.

  55. Re:Pardon me, why use fedora? by Eugene+Webby · · Score: 0

    I used RH9 and fedore in the past, I know all about that. I do have my own opinion however; fedora (from the links you just posted) will be released 2-3 times a year, and have like others posted here what I would consider "bleeding edge" software. It's quite obvious that RedHat uses the fedora project as a way to get input from a large number of beta testers. (well not beta testers per say, but you get it) Whats stable and solid and good in fedora after a while trickles down to RHEL. Supposedly this is good for everybody, but I think RedHat gains a lot more from this then you do. It's just my opinion. (sheesh, is slashdot always like that? first post, just voiced an opinion and specificly said I'm not trying to flame and got bad karma right away because I dared to say that I don't like the distro of your choice)

  56. Re:Pardon me, why use fedora? by EvilStein · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I believe that Whitebox Linux has gone stagnant and has mostly been replaced by CentOS.

  57. Re:Desktop Linux users, don't bother with Fedora by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sorry but ubuntu being neat and novel (no root password or logins) it certianly is not as useful as Mandrake or Fedora.

    Call me when ubuntu is not putting things willy nilly in the filesystem and actually adhering to a standard. (not like fedora adhere's to anyone standard but their own... the downfall of linux, ther are one of 70 different places your config files and apps install to depending on what distro you are using.)

  58. HAY!! by Halvy · · Score: 1

    bittorent is for those who dont'wanna wait for the ftp's 2b updated.. ok?

    it's not for everyone and it's defenitely not for those that are even more anxious than those that use bittorent!!

    My experience with torrent is it is VERY slow in the beggining, but when everyone climes on (like obviously alllot will taday), the service really starts to pic-up.

    Just think of the possitive.. while your waiting for it to speedup, you can troll summore here ;)

    --
    I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
  59. FC5 - with the Fedora Foundation by matt+me · · Score: 1

    fc4 is cool (i'm in in fc3, still downloading torrents), but it's being released before the whole fedora foundation thing gets into action, so the old limits related to red hat mean it can't be shipped, sorry distributed, with mp3 codecs, flash plugin, java etc...

    However, next time, FC5 will be a true (almost) community distrubition, independant of it's Red Hat uncle. This means we should be able to include mp3 codecs etc. Of course, Fedora still aims to be a community Linux distribution to create an operating system entirely from free software. We might have GPLflash or GPLjava in 9 months (longer development cycle now) for fc5.

    1. Re:FC5 - with the Fedora Foundation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. Whether Fedora is community or Red Hat, laws still apply and GPL-licensed mp3 code is still not legal to distribute. SUSE gets away with it only because they're willing to bet Fraunhoffer won't sue, not because it's even remotely legal.

      Also, it has not been decided that the development cycle will be longer. Some have talked about that, but some have also talked about a shorter cycle. Most likely, it'll still be 6 months

    2. Re:FC5 - with the Fedora Foundation by gdek · · Score: 1

      This is not necessarily true. Let's not jump the gun.

      The Fedora Foundation may exist for FC5. Fedora Core is still going to be strongly guided by Red Hat, and mp3/etc. may or may not be in FC5 -- the Foundation will likely be US-based, and may not want to take a chance on patent encumbrance.

      Time will tell. Fedora Foundation is an exciting prospect, but let's not overstate matters yet.

  60. Re:Pardon me, why use fedora? by birder · · Score: 1

    Centos (www.centos.org) is a great replacement for RHEL. I find it's more active than whitebox.

  61. Re:Pardon me, why use fedora? by ehaggis · · Score: 2, Informative

    The latest release for WBEL4 was in May 2005. It is the equivalent of RHEL4.

    CentOS also looks like a good alternative.
    --
    One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
  62. You haven't installed Windows XP... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a tutorial on how to install Windows XP (with screenshots). If you're a new user and you happened to miss that F6 message and don't have your SATA driver disk or something (or don't even know to press F6 since it only mentions to press that key for SCSI drivers), get stuck partitioning your hard disk, or don't know how to install drivers for all the devices Windows XP didn't detect, you'll have a hard time, but these aren't problems in installing Linux.

  63. Re:Pardon me, why use fedora? by EvilStein · · Score: 1

    Well paint me stupid. I hadn't checked the WBEL site in a long time. I thought that it had died. :)

  64. Re:Pardon me, why use fedora? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My issue with going to something based on Red Hat Enterprise is that its not really good for the desktop. The 2 year life cycle of RHEL means that you have to live 2 years with a particular software release. RHEL3 was frozen in summer 2003 so its essentially a RH9 release with a few updates. So software like Evolution, Mozilla, Open Office are essentially locked into the version released prior to summer 03. Since these products are getting updates in functionality every 3-5 months, you really lose out. Fedora has had three major releases in the same time RHEL has been stuck on 3. So with Fedora, you are getting the additional functionality.

    Enterprise is not meant for the desktop but I agree that Fedora often is too quick to release fixes. I've had more than my fair share of issues with bug fixes creating new bugs. As for stability Fedora is not perfect but its better than losing out on 2 years of additional functionality.

  65. Oh really? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    I've installed XP on about 40 computers with SATA drives, including my desktop at work and desktop at home. I have never, not even once, needed a driver disk for the install. Some were done with the Gateway XP media, some with a volume SP2 sliptream disc, some with a normal XP disc.

    So, uhhh, not sure what you're doing or what controler you are using, but the SATA chips on 865/875 motherboards seem to need to additonal driver.

    1. Re:Oh really? by Bachus9000 · · Score: 1

      It depends on the chipset. While I've not tried it myself, from what I've heard from many users with the sata chipsets in nforce boards (among others), Windows setup required those magic driver floppies to work. All I can personally speak to is that Debian picked up my sata drive without any trouble at all. It even automatically loaded the required module(s) for me. I'd see what Windows did with it, but that's my server and I'm not eager to mess with it right now. :)

    2. Re:Oh really? by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 1

      It all depends on what motherboard you are working with.

      I tried to install on a X64 board in a shuttle. It had SATA raid controller. I did not worry about thre drivers because I was installing onto a single IDE drive. The install would run for several minutes get to the install of the drivers and then die because it could not find files..

      I tried XP home, PRO, OEM. MCE. no luck!

      Finally added a floppy drive and loaded the drivers with F6. installed like a charm.

      (Note: I had to leave the floppy drive on the table during the install as it has no room in the case for one)

  66. Re:Trying to catch up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That should take but about 10000 minutes.

    7 days??? That's the best you could come up with? :-)

  67. Will it run on WindowsXP Professional or Longhorn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I am new to the whole "computers" scene, and I am wondering if this "Redhat Fedora Core Linux 4" will run on my windows. I am running windows 98. Will I have to upgrade to windows XP if I want to use "Redhat Fedora Core Linux 4"? Or will I have to wait for microsoft longhorn before I can run it on my computer. Also, does it work with my flat screen monitor?

  68. Re:Don't bother with Ubuntu by concept10 · · Score: 1

    After the one week delay of the Fedora Core 4 release, I made the choice to switch from Fedora Core 3 to Ubuntu. Installed it on my laptop in less than 25 minutes. I must say that is it better for normal desktop computing (and a couple of games).

    All hardware was recognized out of the box. Was able to configure my wireless chipset with ndiswrapper without much effort. I also like the insane amount of packages available in Ubuntu's repositories and who doesn't love Debian based package management? Almost everything you need is also in one central location. (I do applaud the efforts of 3rd-party repos)

    I will install FC_4 on my new desktop on another partition only because Fedora adopts and includes the newest of technology (GCC 4.0, Xen, SELinux, etc.)

    My biggest gripe with the distro is the non-availability of upgrading with yum and not being able to get some mono based apps working.

    Others complaign about the lack of multimedia support but all of that can be easily configured. I understand the decision not to include mp3 and dvd support.

    I used Fedora Core on the desktop for around a year starting with Core 2 but I want a stable and less bleeding edge distro for the desktop and Ubuntu does the job.

    Also, as many people suggest do not use Fedora on a production server. This distro evolves to fast for that environment. Use CentOS (if you prefer Red Hat) or Debian instead.

    Don't get me wrong, Fedora is an attractive distro
    for all purposes, and I like it's bleeding edge nature but in around 4-5 months support for FC_3 will start to vanish and leaving users no option but to upgrade. I rather have the 18 month support of Ubuntu.

  69. Re:Desktop Linux users, don't bother with Fedora by unixfan · · Score: 1

    Guess it just goes to show that not all are as "worldly" as life with the Internet suggests. It's a shame that we still have to see these kinds of attitudes walking around.

    The only good thing about it is it's very obvious when you run into it, so you know with whom you are talking to.

  70. Re:Yet again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're ID 650429 yet you speak like this is the first time you've seen a troll on /. before.

  71. SATA support? by BRSQUIRRL · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if this release has better support for installing to SATA drives. FC3 choked on my nForce3 SATA controller, and I didn't feel like mucking around with a newer kernel at the time.

  72. Re:Linux Trademarked? by concept10 · · Score: 1

    William Della Croce Is this the same guy that was executed in Steven King's "The Green Mile?"

  73. Re:Yet again... by windex · · Score: 1

    BAH! Children these days.

  74. What's the difference of posted ISOs? by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

    Can anyone tell me what the difference between the "FC4-i386-discX.iso" and "FC4-i386-SRPMS-discX.iso" is? I'm anxious to download, but I am not sure which, and don't want to waste time.

    Thanks,
    Inject.

    1. Re:What's the difference of posted ISOs? by Monkey · · Score: 1

      The i386, x86_64 and ppc distributions are the binary relases compiled for the respective CPU platform. You probably want to download one of these distributions based on what you're using for hardware.

      The SRPMS are RPM source code distributions which are obviously platform independant.

    2. Re:What's the difference of posted ISOs? by Bolak · · Score: 1

      the SRPM disk is the source RPMs instead of the binary ones. Get the FC4-i386-discX.iso version for an install.

    3. Re:What's the difference of posted ISOs? by myz24 · · Score: 1

      SRPMs are source rpms. SRPMS contain the source code for what ever software the RPM contains. Also, with an SRPM you can build the RPMs using a command called rpmbuild.

      To actually answer your question, just get the RPM discs

    4. Re:What's the difference of posted ISOs? by Jaelle+Kitty · · Score: 2, Informative

      The one with "SRPMS" in the name is a source CD; the other is an installation CD with binaries.

      ~ Jaelle Kitty ~

      "It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot, irreverence to their studies; they are not here to worship what is known, but to question it."
      - Jacob Chanowski

      --
      In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows or Gates?
    5. Re:What's the difference of posted ISOs? by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      A thank-you goes out to all of you that replied so quickly! It means I only had to wait an extra 18 minutes!

      I have some mod points, and wish I could mod you all up...

      Slashdot is great.

      Inject.

    6. Re:What's the difference of posted ISOs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "FC4-i386-discX.iso is what you want, binary installs. If you want the source use the SRPMS.

      In FC3 recompiling the source requred a SRPMS disk to get the kernel source. I don't know what the FC4
      requirement is.

    7. Re:What's the difference of posted ISOs? by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Download the 4 FC4-i386-discX.iso files.
      Regards,
      Steve

  75. RPM Working Yet? by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

    Is RPM working yet, or does it still just tell you the .so or .o that it needs, without telling you the last known name and version number of the RPM in which the library can be found?

    I'm being a little facetious, but I have the dubious task of being an unofficial maintainer (ie: it's my responsibility to make them go, but I have no authority to change the OS) of a handful of SuSE ES 9 and RH EL 3 machines. Yast and rc are nice, but it seems a little backward to have to connect to a remote server to discover the meaningful (ie: the actual package and version I should be looking for) dependencies for a package I already have on the local machine. It's a little frustrating to see .dll hell in the most popular version of the OS I keep touting to people. Friends tell me, "Yeah, I tried it. It's impossible to install software." It kills me when I know it can be better. Not trying to evoke a holy war, but .debs include the last known name and version of the .deb(s) on which they depend.

    Or is there something I'm missing in RPM that does tell me these answers (entirely possible - .rpm is not my primary package type).

    1. Re:RPM Working Yet? by thesman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe this can help you: APT-RPM.

      And about some RPM including last known name and version about the RPMs it depends on... it always worked that way, the problem was that you had to solve the dependency tree all by yourself -- something you don't have to do anymore if you use APT.

    2. Re:RPM Working Yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It works that way because a dependency really is on a library, not on a specific version of a package. So at install time the dependency resolver (apt, yast) resolves the dependency against the latest set of packages available. The exact package version may be different than at package build time (eg. security update), or sometimes even the name is different (XFree86 -> Xorg), or the package may have been split in pkg-libs and pkg-bin. An app only needs libXwhatever.so > some_ancient_version, not XFree86-version-to-be-obsolete-tomorrow.rpm.

      Red Hat had an offline solution at some point with a copy of the entire rpm db installed locally, don't know what happened to it. IMHO it was pointless, online dependency resolving was much better.

    3. Re:RPM Working Yet? by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Is RPM working yet, or does it still just tell you the .so or .o that it needs, without telling you the last known name and version number of the RPM in which the library can be found?

      RPM is working, and has always been - the package format and manager support both kinds of dependencies, files or packages. Most of the packagers are just too lazy (or have other reasons) to craft their spec files with the latter, and instead when building packages let the automated system to check what they're linked against, which results in file dependencies.

      Why it does that, I would assume is because it's somewhat more flexible, after all, it'd be quite simple to check at compile time what package the file(s) belong to and make that a dependency instead of the file itself, but there are several cases when that wouldn't work as intended - what if I'm building third party RPM's that work in RH/Fedora, SuSE and Mandrake? I made my software so it works with multiple versions of library, but now all those distros have different names for the package, and my rpm can't be installed even though it would work - but the way it's automated now does let it work in them all, because it doesn't care about package names, only about the library file I actually need being there.

      I don't understand your aversion with needing a "remote server", okay, so what if you need to fetch a small bit of metadata. Debs including the name or no, apt has connected to remote server for aeons to work it's magic and has always been touted as the BIG THING for Debian, now that RPM has nigh itentical systems (yum, apt, yast) it's suddenly a BAD THING instead? Are you really saying that you'd prefer to use dpkg over apt in Debian because latter needs to use remote server?

    4. Re:RPM Working Yet? by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Red Hat had an offline solution at some point with a copy of the entire rpm db installed locally, don't know what happened to it. IMHO it was pointless, online dependency resolving was much better.

      It still exists, as a separate package, or at least it did in FC3, but you're right, there isn't much point in installing it.

  76. three? by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 1

    Three?

    What about the text-mode partition/formating tool, which in the case I didn't say it, it's in text mode? (exactly what people has been saying for years about linux, except that most of linux distros have a graphic configuration tool for that)

    I also remember asking me stupid details of the NIC (set the IP, etc), the product key and asking you to register the product the first time you really boot on it, and since SP2, it asks you to enable the firewall and/or windows update.

    Yes, windows installer doesn't asks you many things. It asks you so few things, that it doesn't asks you if you want to overwrite your MBR. If not asking you permission to do that means being "easier", I (and some of my friends who install linux and know nothing about compters) do like the "complex" linux installers more, thanks.

  77. Quick question by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Do they still cripple the KDE libs? I'd like to try Fedora, but its GNOME-centric nature annoys me.

    1. Re:Quick question by warhoofd · · Score: 2, Informative

      The kde-redhat project usually has non crippled rpms available pretty quickly: http://kde-redhat.sourceforge.net/

    2. Re:Quick question by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 1

      So basically the answer is yes?

  78. Re:Desktop Linux users, don't bother with Fedora by tempest303 · · Score: 1

    Ubuntu is neat, but they have some issues to iron out first.

    First off, about half of their system configuration tools broke/crashed/didn't work as advertised. There aren't enough of them, either. How could they ship without an X config tool!? What if I switch monitors, and Ubuntu can't autodetect? "Edit xorg.conf" is not an acceptable answer here.

    Second, the much yakked about Syaptic's UI and interaction model is so bad I'd almost rather explain the yum CLI to people than torture them with Synaptic.

    Ubuntu seems very cool, and I was impressed by some of what I saw when I tried 5.04, but I don't think it's at all fair to say it's hands-down better for the desktop than Fedora in any way.

  79. Re:someone help me out here... by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    KDE3.4, udev, OOo1.9.xxx

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  80. nForce2 by Klivian · · Score: 1

    Never had any problems with my nForce2 board, it has always worked flawlessly whitout any problems. The only thing was that windows 98 demanded lots of reboots, and manually removal of some drivers when I upgraded to the nForce board. Nothing unexpected there, the Mandrake install only informed me of the hardware changes. Users of older 2.4 kernels (Debian?) and 2.2, may have problems becouse they lack the forcedet(sp) network driver. It's in the 2.6 kernels and backported to the later 2.4 series I think. Besides you can also use the nvidia provided network driver, since already you use the graphics driver there are no reason not to.

  81. Re:FIRST HORSE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, you are an ass.

  82. Boot time by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

    Does anybody know more about the improved boot time in Fedora? How quickly does it boot compared to FC 1/2/3 and an average (not freshly installed) Windows XP?

    1. Re:Boot time by Xner · · Score: 1

      Boot? You mean you do that more often that every few weeks?

      --
      Pathman, Free (as in GPL) 3D Pac Man
    2. Re:Boot time by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      Yes, here's a newsflash for you: most *desktop home users* boot their computer every day!

      My computer is in my room and I don't want to hear the noise when I'm sleeping.

    3. Re:Boot time by Xner · · Score: 1

      Since we're trading newsflashes, there's this thing called "suspend to disk". It works like a charm, and it's quite quick.
      I hardly ever actually "boot" any of my machines (desktops and laptops, windows and linux) unless there is a specific reason. Haven't in years.

      --
      Pathman, Free (as in GPL) 3D Pac Man
    4. Re:Boot time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's also this thing called "ATI video driver" which doesn't come back to life if you do it.
      I hear it's possible to work around, if you can be bothered to rebuild the kernel and faff around with settings for a day or two, but for me it's not worth the hassle. Powerdown is much easier.

    5. Re:Boot time by SirTalon42 · · Score: 1

      Same problem with the proprietary NVidia drivers, thats why I switched to using the 'nv' drivers instead (absolutely no acceleration, but at least now I can use software suspend 2, which is worth it).

  83. Re:Desktop Linux users, don't bother with Fedora by flyfishin · · Score: 1

    I used to use Ubuntu until I discovered that once they do a release they issue only security fixes for 18 months. They might issue a bug fix if it is a huge problematic bug but that's it for bug fixes. Fedora, on the other hand, has constant updates during it's lifetime. Granted, it is only a 9 month life but it is constantly being fixed throughout its life.

  84. Re:Pardon me, why use fedora? by dieScheisse · · Score: 1

    Your comments implied that FC is basically betaware and that FC users are being 'used' by Redhat as free testers...I'm not sure what exactly gives you that impression. Nothing is FC is what I would deem to be 'bleeding edge' (which impies a risk to the user) by any stretch of the phrase. But I also wouldn't go so far as to call it mature or tried and true either.

    Point is, FC makes a great desktop dist. No futzing around with config files, recompiling the kernel, etc. It just works. It's up to date, offers a very friendly user experience and is very stable.

    That being said....

    Welcome to /.

  85. Modded +5 Insightful??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is just trolling?

    Try installing XP on any motherboards made within the last 4 years. Then tell me your results vs. a current Linux distro on that hardware. Without third party discs.

    Way to go, moderators. U R SMRT!

    Btw- ever heard of Knoppix?

  86. Re:Pardon me, why use fedora? by Eugene+Webby · · Score: 0

    Well thanks for the welcome. :) I don't mean "bleeding edge" as in "implies risk to the user" - what I do mean is that the RHEL standards are quite high, I don't think you will find the newest packages in it, but rather things that proved they stand the test of time so to speak. But hey, if fedora works for you then by all means use it. Sorry for not being clear in my post before, too bad I got a bad karma point, thats just bad luck. hehe.

  87. June, but what year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sun has said they will release quote-unquote Open Solaris at some point in the future.

    Nov. 15, 2004, they said 60 days.

    March, 2005 they said 90 days.

    Why should anybody wait for Sun to get their act together?

  88. anti-FUD FUD by OS24Ever · · Score: 1

    Well I happen to be installing SUSE Pro 9.3 at the moment on my IBM Thinkpad T30.

    Through the installatino procedure, right after asking me what password I wanted to use for root it then asked me my networking information, and immediately attached to a nearby SUSE patch server to download all the latest updates.

    This is before the first boot...now my definition of first boot is when it comes up and says 'i'm yours' and asks me some simple registration questions.

    --

    As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

  89. Re:someone help me out here... by HappyDrgn · · Score: 1

    FC3 did udev too... which BTW creates a lot of problems if you run VMWare.

  90. RedHat Professional Workstation is under $90 by doc_traig · · Score: 1


    Annually, and it's the same as WS (updates, packages, etc), just with no support.

    --
    So long, michael. Don't let the door hit you...
  91. For Windows XP drivers, try this: by Mitchell+Mebane · · Score: 1

    No, it doesn't alter the comparison, because it requires extra work, but it's awesome.

    http://www.btsunattended.net/Projects/DriverPacks/

    --

    The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
    --Aristotle
  92. Torrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need more seeds, Scotty!
    I'm givin' you all she's got, Captain!

  93. torrent rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I guess I'm doing my part. Working for an ISP in Liberty Lake, WA my torrent upload rate is pretty steady at around 650KB/s. I'll leave this thing on for a while for you all.

  94. MythTV? by Onimaru · · Score: 1

    So, anyone out there upgrade his or her Myth box yet? Thoughts, if so?

    --
    adam b.
    1. Re:MythTV? by scotch · · Score: 1
      I installed mythtv on FC4 test 2 - never did myth before, so can't give you a comparison. Most dependencies were handled via yum and atrpms or livna. A couple things I build, including mythtv. Had to track down a few compiler errors with gcc-4.0 - pretty straightforward. This is with the head of mythtv cvs - watching the dev mailing list, those things are getting fixed.

      HTH

      --
      XML causes global warming.
  95. I've moved to Suse 9.2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it's a better setup with most things. Nvidia drivers, for one. Kaffeine is loaded by default.

    I'm glad Novell bought them out.

  96. Re:Awesome! will I be able to use the Internet now by erroneus · · Score: 1

    There's no denying that there are times when a Linux installation needs "tweaking" after installation to get everything working. The reasons for this are many depending on the situation with a particular component. I've run into a variety myself and while there are moments when it's simply frustrating regardless of the root cause, I have grown to accept that the problem exists and that it's simply getting better.

    You can thank Microsoft for a lot of issues relating to drivers and availability. Turns out a lot of code for these drivers are being held hostage under an NDA. But it's not only Microsoft. Many hardware makers get their drivers from other sources who restrict the use of the source code as well. That has been a big and common problem especially in light of the fact that a good deal of a "hardware product" functionality is actually written into the driver rather than being implemented by the hardware. The net result is that your hardware expires the moment the manufacturer decides to stop supporting the OS you want to use... worse, when you want to upgrade and the MFG does not want to update driver software to support the new OS and simply leave you out in the cold to buy new hardware when you want to run the latest OS.

    One could blame "crappy hardware choice" but that would be blaming the consumer for being a typical consumer... not a fair charge really. But there is a lot to say about researching the stuff you're buying and planning to implement. This is not only in the PC world either. Let's say you want to buy an after market AC unit for your car. You might have problems if you don't do your homework first -- you might need to upgrade your alternator or other aspects of the electrical system.

    To say that "Linux pisses me off" is a little disappointing. I am not blaming you for your bad attitude in the least, but rest assured that I have seen a lot of change where Linux and hardware support is concerned but there's still a long way to go. I look forward to ACPI that is fully supported on laptops where it matters the most... suspend to RAM or DISK would be great if it would work... damned video driver needs to be fixed.

    All of that said, I still prefer Linux. It's my "home" and it'll take a lot to tear me away from it.

  97. Re:Release Notes -OO 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From what I can tell on the OpenOffice site, OO 2.0 is NOT OUT YET (they indicate 2.0 beta 1.9.m104. Any thoughts on this?

  98. Re:Will it run on WindowsXP Professional or Longho by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

    No, won't run on XP, at least not well. The codecs don't match up properly. Those should be updated in Long Windows Horn when it's released by MS in 2008. And good luck trying to get it to work with the flat screen! I've heard that the electrons spin the wrong way for Linux to run with a flat screen, especially in XP. You're going to need a converter for that, buddy!

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  99. Optical audio out by l0b0 · · Score: 1

    This was the only thing that has kept me from switching to the *nixes I have installed the last three years (Mandrake, FC3, FreeBSD). After looking in a few forums, trying a couple drivers, and generally not hearing anything for a few days, I booted Windows instead. If this is somehow supported in the default FC4 install, that'll most splendidly make my day. That said, any tips to make this work would be highly appreciated...

    1. Re:Optical audio out by TheOrquithVagrant · · Score: 1

      This depends on what soundcard you have. Most should be supported, but there are a few exceptions. The nForce MCP onboard audio, for example, needs a binary driver from nVidia to get sp/dif working.

      Check out the Alsa soundcard matrix at:
      http://www.alsa-project.org/alsa-doc/

      That should let you know what the status of support is for your soundcard.

  100. Fast mirror in Europe by Yenya · · Score: 1

    My mirror has still lots of bandwidth left. Feel free to use it, especially when you are in Europe.

    --
    -Yenya
    --
    While Linux is larger than Emacs, at least Linux has the excuse that it has to be. --Linus
  101. Whew by Smallest · · Score: 1

    Lucky for me, I grabbed my copy of CentOS 3 yesterday. I have a feeling all those mirrors are going to be slow for a while.

    --
    I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
  102. Re:Desktop Linux users, don't bother with Fedora by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

    After the initial 9 month life, it moves to fedora legacy where it continues to be maintained as long as the community is willing to maintain it (ideally 2-3 years) and so far this has been working out really nice.
    Regards,
    Steve

  103. Re:Awesome! will I be able to use the Internet now by toddestan · · Score: 1

    (the extremely rare Soundblaster Live! card)

    I got one of those. Doesn't work completely right in Linux (Mandrake 10) or Windows, though sort of works in both. The Soundblaster Live is a piece of crap.

  104. Fedora 3 to 4? by Dissectional · · Score: 1
    I'm running running Fedora 3 on a laptop ( which actually runs very well ) and I'd like to keep up with what is happenng on the Fedora front via upgrading to 4.

    Is there an 'upgrade' method of sorts that isn't hellish to adhere to, or is my better option a complete re-install?

    1. Re:Fedora 3 to 4? by Kelson · · Score: 1

      Fedora has always offerred an upgrade option as part of the installer. I've got three boxes I've upgraded, release by release, from Red Hat 6, 8 and 9 through Fedora Core 3 with very few problems.

      I'm still downloading FC4 -- the torrent's really slowed down for some reason -- but I plan on going the same route again. After backing up my data, of course!

  105. Re:Desktop Linux users, don't bother with Fedora by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only good thing about it is it's very obvious when you run into it, so you know with whom you are talking to.

    Yup, I agree with you and the grandparent. Naming a Linux distro "Ubuntu", and having a logo that looks like it's from some P.C. government tax-sponsored project, should set off every alarm imaginable.

    Ubuntu might be good technically, but its self-chosen public image is despicable. People don't want their technology to be associated with niggers or Africa.

  106. Re:Will it run on WindowsXP Professional or Longho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard otherwise.
    I heard "Redhat Fedora Core Linux 4" was specfically designed for windows 98, but could also run on xp and longhornay.
    the direction of the electrons is not a problem i guess. i would worry more about the BSOD not displaying properly. this was a problem in fedora core 3, but i am sure since core 4 supports more windows, i am sure they did a good job on supporting the display of BSOD's on flat panels as well.

    good luck.

  107. Wait... by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't that be one hour, 58 minutes ago?

  108. Re:Quick question-- "Crippled"? by waferhead · · Score: 1

    Please define "crippled" in this case.

    The probability of me installing this over MDK10.2//2005 LE which I STILL haven't switched to approaches zero, but I'm sure many folks would be curious.(mythtv/mysql not talking, and 10.1 works fine, + lazy)

    MDk10.1 has always worked VERY well for me, and urpmi tools always seem to work far better than apt or yum. YMMV.

  109. unoffical mirror by MikeFM · · Score: 1

    An unoffical i386 mirror I set up for Fedora Core 4. http://www.linuxfiles.info/

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  110. Re:Pardon me, why use fedora? by krady · · Score: 1

    I'm moving all of our development machines (running FC) and servers (running RedHat) to Centos. I got fed up with the terrible bandwidth available to RedHat up2date users (for $350 per machine per year I expect to get the bandwidth I need to update infrequently) and the lack of cheap centralised mangement.

    With Centos (and other apt/yum based clones) I can set up a local repository and save the network the trouble.

  111. 404's across the board by XaXXon · · Score: 1

    I'm getting 404s on all the links on the duke torrent page.

    Anyone else having problems?

  112. Re:Desktop Linux users, don't bother with Fedora by Suddenly_Dead · · Score: 1

    I must say, when I tried to do a system update of Ubuntu, using the included package-manager frontend, the thing died on me. I could get to the login screen, but none of the window managers would load. Instead X.org just died and restarted.

    I like Ubuntu, but I'm giving Fedora Core a chance after this last experience.

  113. DVD not available yet by Durzel · · Score: 1

    Apologies if this is a stupid question, but since the DVD version is not available yet - can I create my own simply by copying all of the relevant files from the individial .isos into one big one?

  114. Okay, but what about the DVD ISO? by Myria · · Score: 1

    Okay, but what about the DVD-R ISO? I'd much rather burn this thing to a single DVD-R than burn it to 5 CD-Rs.

    Melissa

    --
    "Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
    1. Re:Okay, but what about the DVD ISO? by Starcub · · Score: 1

      I didn't see it on the main page, but I did find it on several mirrors sites. stentz-binary-i386 (includes checksum for DVD iso) or FC4-arch-DVD.iso is what your looking for.

    2. Re:Okay, but what about the DVD ISO? by Foresto · · Score: 1

      Here is an excerpt from the fedora-announce email list: (Take note of the last torrent link.)

      You can get Fedora Core 4 many ways:

      VIA FEDORA.REDHAT.COM

      * http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux /core/4/

      VIA BITTORRENT

      * http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/stentz-binary-i38 6.torrent
      * http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/stentz-binary-x86 _64.torrent
      * http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/stentz-binary-ppc .torrent

      For DVD and other formats, see http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/

    3. Re:Okay, but what about the DVD ISO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you blind or something ? There is also a link to the dvd iso as well.

  115. Re:Will it run on WindowsXP Professional or Longho by bobbomo · · Score: 1

    this brings up a valid question... Does WINE support BSOD? 9x & NT modes?

  116. Re:Pardon me, why use fedora? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
    Yet another RHEL alternative is Scientific Linux.

    If you need to use TeX, BLAS or other things normally used in a research environment, it makes a lot of sense.

  117. You fedora fan boys are wearing me out by santiag0 · · Score: 1

    Don't cheap out and tinker with toys, get an Apple and leave your parent's basement once in a while.

    LOL!

    1. Re:You fedora fan boys are wearing me out by goMac2500 · · Score: 1

      You're calling the Fedora users fanboys and you're raving about how much better the Mac is? This is a Fedora thread, no one forced you to post about the Mac here.

      Kettle... meet Pot..

    2. Re:You fedora fan boys are wearing me out by juhaz · · Score: 1

      LOL!

      Kids, take heed of this sad example.

      If the stupid and offtopic Apple fanboyism isn't enough, LOL's everywhere are a surefire way of recognizing an idiot, or a thirteen year old. In this case, probably both.

  118. Re:Awesome! will I be able to use the Internet now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Errr, no. Drivers are a piece of shite, card isn't. And it DOES work fine in Windows btw, 5.1 works, sound is decent and you don't even have to recompile your f+in kernel. It doesen't work right in linux cuz sound is a mess in linux. I have nforce onboard 5.1 and sb live 5.1 and guess what, I tried a distrowatch of distros and I am yet to hear a non-ear-offending sound out of either one of them on linux.

  119. Kernel Panic on install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just finished downloading the DVD iso and burned to a disk. When I boot up the PC with the disk in the drive and press enter at the boot prompt, I immediately get a kernel panic. I don't think that this is ready for prime time. I will be returning to FC3.

  120. Users Ignore the post above. Debian people: stop. by Nailer · · Score: 2
    See here and here.

    And read the replies - the info in both of those links is false. And was proven to be with +5 moderated replies when you linked to them.

    Fedora...no feasable upgrade path from beta releases. Use stable versions and it's fine.

    Debian vs Fedora as a server:
    • No LVM (just MS DOS partitions) or automation in in the installer (may have changed in 3 - I use Ubuntu - but I doubt it, and hey, at least I have a disclaimer).
    • No SELinux. It's hard to go back to a non DAC system once you understand and use it.
    • No centalized and standard set of admin tools (yay having to mess with nsswitch and two ldap.confs to setup LDAP name service / auth).
    • Less compatibile hardware and staff who know Debian than Fedora, due to RHEL compatibility.
    • Poor file verification mechanisms, requiring something like Tripwire to accurately monitor file changes. May have changed, but also the average Debian package wasn't signed. And apt-get still let servers install unsigned packages.
    • Fedora Directory Server (the only decent OSS LDAP server) probably isn't packaged for Debian yet. Though I'm sure it will be later.
    • A whole bunch of nice things I'm not pointing out because I'm trying to make a point. See below.


    If you want paid support till 2011, buy a support contract for RHEL. Yes, people support Debian too. But none are as large as Red Hat. You'd be better off comparing RHEL with SLES in this regard.

    Debian vs Fedora as a desktop:
    • Gnome 2.8, containing bugs that have been fixed in 2.10.
    • Installing GUI apps typically forgets to add menu options to launch them.
    • Not being able to DCC probe monitors to configure X in 2005. Scary.
    • A whole bunch of nice things I'm not pointing out because I'm trying to make a point. See below.


    Debian vs Fedora on Slashdot:

    • Debian has lots of angsty users who don't use Fedora and then post replies on Slashdot in every Fedora story pretending to honestly evaluate them, but who actually obviously haven't used any release of Fedora, ever, then link to incorrect posts that already have other posts with a score of 5 beneath them pointing out they're incorrect


    Seriously. I have a bunch of mates that use Debian (well, Ubuntu these days) and they're all great guys and very clever admins who use Debian opn servers for their own, good, reasons. But Slashdot Debian users: stop fucking doing this like the above every time there's a Fedora story. We don't do it in Debian stories. It makes Debian and its users look really, really, bad.
  121. are you sure about that? by weighn · · Score: 1

    would that have been a SATA RAID array perhaps?

    I've never needed SATA drivers for a clean install or even when swapping a ATA drive for a SATA drive containing a ghost image of the ATA drive.

    --
    Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
  122. Re:Awesome! will I be able to use the Internet now by deep44 · · Score: 1

    I got one of those. Doesn't work completely right in Linux (Mandrake 10) or Windows, though sort of works in both.

    Funny, I used a SB Live! under Linux for a couple years (mainly because of the SPDIF output). The emu10k1 drivers are extremely well documented.. I never had a single problem.

    What a "piece of crap" card! ^^

    -deep

  123. No MD5s? by trawg · · Score: 1

    Is this the first time they've done a release with MD5s? I'm not sure, but I seem to remember all the last releases they've included MD5s. Now it looks like they're just releasing SHA1 hashes.

    Be nice if they included both, but I guess the time is nigh to move to SHA, or something.

  124. Re:Don't bother with Ubuntu by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 2, Informative
    After the install, I got several errors related to the GUI, then I was dropped to a command prompt. Ubuntu was DOA for me.

    Hello. I am a mod on the Ubuntu Forum and I run into that problem a lot. That means that the install CD you used was bunk. An OS is much more sensitive than a regular CD so try washing it off then reinstalling or burning a new install cd at lower speeds. Thanks for your time.

  125. MOD PARENT UP!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello! Are you moderators sleeping or what?!

  126. SATA support by pkphilip · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know if the new Fedora release supports the SIS965L southbridge chipset required for SATA support?

    Also, what about the support for the SIS 190/900 ethernet?

    I think Linux is a good OS but it really needs a better device driver management layer. Linux needs to come with a facility for easily adding in and removing device drivers without requiring kernel compilation (and by implication, expecting the kernel source code to be present on the machine).

    Yes, I am aware of loadable device drivers (using insmod, modprobe etc), but I am not talking about those.. I am talking of device drivers which I can obtain directly from the vendor in binary form without getting one binary driver for each sub point release of the kernel.

    As it stands, if I want to install a device driver for a new hardware, I will first need to download the kernel source, and compile the kernel after selecting the device driver during the kernel configuration. If the device driver is not part of the kernel source, I will need to get the device driver source corresponding to the kernel release and then compile it (after munging around with some settings).

    This is, ofcourse, far from ideal.

  127. Re:Pardon me, why use Linux? by juhaz · · Score: 1

    Really, every last one of your comments could be made about any of the "bleeding edge" distros, and that covers pretty much EVERY desktop distribution out there - Ubuntu is bleeding edge, they have the same twice a year release schedule as fedora, mandriva and suse don't release quite as often, but they're still very recent and potentially unstable compared to their "enterprise" editions. I don't even go to non-release based debian testing/unstable, gentoo and the likes. But that's not a bad thing, quite to the contrary, "bleeding edge" software is a good thing, as long as we stay in certain limits - these distros may include recent releases of software, but they ARE still releases, nobody is packaging stuff from CVS - since while it may occasionally be bit more unstable, it also has the latest and niftest features everyone has been craving for ages.

    I hate to be the devils advocate, but fedora is being used as a test bed by redhat for stuff it wants to add to RHEL.

    Nobody would deny that Fedora is beneficial to RHEL, but it's not ONLY a test bed, and that doesn't make it any less usable. They just have very different focus and user group, RHEL is a server distro, and it absolutely needs to be stable, and can't afford to include anything that hasn't been tested for years, Fedora is a desktop distro, and while stability is still important, it's less so, so they can important things that are only few months old and can be deemed reasonably stable.

    Basically, you are all testing potentially buggy software

    I'm doing that whatever distro I'm running if I want to keep newest shiny toys.

    and redhat benfit from it.

    I don't see anything wrong with they benefiting from it, it's only fair to help whoever went to the trouble of making the thing, if for nothing else to get the thing fixed in the next release - and it will get fixed upstream too, and help benefit EVERYONE, not just redhat. Beside, I WANT them to benefit, if RH ever goes out of business, Free software loses a major contributor and plenty of hackers who can now concentrate on what they like will be forced to find a new day job and only work on whatever scraps of free time they have left. If someone doesn't care a jack about that... well, don't file bug reports, RH won't even know you're using it, hardly benefits anyone much.

    I used to use RH9, but when they started the fedora thing I went looking else where...

    Well, that's your loss. RHL was a testbed for the enterprise release too, you know, why did you use them? You might want to consider for a moment if anything has really changed, and if you're just having a bad case of kneep jerk reaction.

    if you like fedora why not get white linux (I think that's the name), its basically RHEL rebranded and given out for free.

    Why not? Well, how about because Fedora is better for home user than RHEL. I don't care if it crashes few times a year if that's balanced by having much all the new features that won't be in RHEL clones until after several years.

    Personally I don't think fedora is that great for regular desktop use, ubuntu or mandriva or suse are IMHO have more of the users intrest in mind.

    Really, why's that? Again, everything you said is true for those as well.

    (please don't flame me, I realize redhat contribute a lot of code and time and funds)

    You just made a flamebait, why shouldn't you be flamed for that? But I'll try and not to, everything in that has been given reasons for, unlike your rant.