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."
... 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?
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
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.
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?
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.
You have GOT to be kidding me.
.. 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.
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
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.
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 ...
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.
$8.95/mo web hosting
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
... 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
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.