Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fedora Core 4 Available

Posted by Hemos on from the here-comes-the-flood-again dept.

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."

106 of 550 comments (clear)

  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 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
    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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
    9. 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?

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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.
    15. 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?

    16. 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.

    17. 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.

    18. 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/
    19. 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...

    20. 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. :)

    21. 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.....

    22. 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
    23. 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.

    24. 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...
    25. 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?
    26. 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.

      --
      $8.95/mo web hosting
    27. 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.

    28. 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.
    29. 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
    30. 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

    31. 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.
      --
      $8.95/mo web hosting
    32. 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.
    33. 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.

    34. 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
    35. Re:Fedora Core 4 is great... by Iriel · · Score: 2, Funny

      I meant that as a joke.

      --
      Perfecting Discordia
      www.stevenvansickle.com
  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. 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.

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    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 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.

    5. 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.

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
  4. 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 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
    5. 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.

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
    6. 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.

    7. 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

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

  5. 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 :-)

  6. 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 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".

  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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 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.
    3. 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?

  10. 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.

  11. 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: 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?
    3. 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.
  12. 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

  13. 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/ .
  14. 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: 2, Informative

      oops that should have been magnet:?xt=urn:btih:Q6VZB4EKHWWO7ZU3PYG6CXMI4ID67X G4

  15. Re:Minutes ago?!? by Limburgher · · Score: 4, Funny

    I submitted it 2 hours ago. :)

    --

    You are not the customer.

  16. 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/

  17. 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.

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

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

  19. Re:Linux Trademarked? by SolusSD · · Score: 2, Informative

    no, because its a trademark (tm), not a patent.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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

  23. 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).

  24. 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.

  25. 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.
  26. Re:Minutes ago?!? by iggymanz · · Score: 2, Funny

    As a dupe?

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. 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.
  30. 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...

    --

    Open Source Sushi

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

    --
    Linux Resources
  35. 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 ...

  36. 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.

  37. 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.
  38. 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?

  39. 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.

  40. 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?
  41. 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.

  42. 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/

  43. 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.
  44. 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.

    --

    Open Source Sushi