Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Begins Testing Core 5
Robert wrote to mention a CBR Online article which reports that Red Hat has begun testing on Fedora Core 5. From the article: "The next version of Raleigh, North Carolina-based Red Hat's enterprise Linux distribution is not scheduled for release until the second half of 2006 but will include stateless Linux and Xen virtualization functionality and improved management capabilities. Fedora Core 5 Release 1 includes updated support for XenSource Inc's open source server virtualization software, as well as new versions of the Gnome and KDE user interfaces, and the final version of the OpenOffice.org application suite."
Doesn't it seem like they're advancing a little fast through the versions here. It won't be long before Fedora Core is beyond RHES in terms of version numbers. The kernel is only at version 2.6. Why is Fedora using a number scheme like this? do they want to make it seem more mature?
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Does anyone know what "final version of the OpenOffice.org application suite" means? Are they simply referring to whatever the current version of openoffice is at the time?
They are actually behind their goals for releases. I've read elsewhere that it should be every 6 months.
"Produce robust releases approximately 2-3 times per year, using a time-based release model: A time for a feature freeze is set in advance, and an expected schedule for test releases is produced before the feature freeze date. (Important feature schedules will be taken into account when setting the schedule for Fedora Core releases.)"
http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html
Fedora uses yum as the backend for up2date for its updates, no accounts required.
But more importantly: can someone expound a little on what "stateless Linux" is?
My experience trying to setup wireless with Fedora Core 4 was brutal. Nothing I needed was in the initial install. With no net connection in linux I had to keep booting into my windows partition to search for any help at all on how to set things up and then download what I needed. And then go back into linux to toil and then fail. And then repeat the process. Eventually I got my card at least detected, but when I activated it the whole machine hung. So I gave up on Red Hat.
Ubuntu detected my wireless card. But has no WPA support.
It seems that Suse will also detect things, but also has no WPA support. They also have no Live CD. Why they can make a Live DVD but not a Live CD is beyond me. Just shave off some crap. All I want to know is if your distro will support my machine or not.
Linux on the Desktop? Not if the user has a wireless card.
The last time I installed Fedora Core 4 off a boot CD I was amazed that to do an ftp install I still had to punch in manually what mirror I wanted to do the install from. Computer games have been grabbing "master server lists" for some time now. Can't something similar be worked into the FTP install?
how is that suspicious? They started in 2004 in October. 4.10 is basedon y/mm. The release schedule is 6 months. They then came out with 5.04. Doesn't this make sense?
As someone who has used FC in production, I can attest to the its stability.
At first glance I thought to myself "wow, for once software is being tested sufficiently long and not just during the last two crunch weeks"... But what is a long testing period for an entire distribution? And what do /.ters think the right testing period is?
Why do a lot of the postings to articles boil down to
/ 1732235&tid=110&tid=187&tid=106
"that is crap use this"
Don't these people realize that no solutions fits every situation? It blows the mind.
Anyway, I love Fedora Core. I use it on my desktop at work, Running FC 4 right now. Stable as can be, gives me the tools I need. See, I'm a system administrator. I have about 7 RHEL systems under my administration that I personally over see. Fedora Core allows me to see what will soon be included in RHEL and get familiar with it.
Why Redhat? If you have to ask, you don't know linux or open source. They contribute millions of dollars to opensource and to linux development. Sure they're making a buck off support and I'm glad to pay it, in return I get a rock solid OS that is guarenteed to be there in 7 years. Oh, and Redhat seems to be doing pretty good finacially too, as seen on Slashdot here recently.
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/15
I just don't understand why they are upbraided for that. They're just trying to make a living at linux, same as me. I mean, if you don't want to pay, RH has even allowed (by the GPL) others to make almost identical OS (CentOS), only thing missing is the shadowman.
I can't wait for FC5 to go live, I'll be upgrading.
This space available for rent.
When you say Universe/Multiverse that means what exactly? Something on the install CDs but not on the Live CDs? Or something that is downloaded?
I can't download when I don't have my wireless working. Why isn't WPA_supplicant included by default at the beginning? It's a 50k file! Couldn't cram it onto the CD?
here you can find some more info on what is likely to go into FC5.
According to the FC release schedule http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/schedule/:
The original article likely meant second month instead.
I know this site is for technically literate people, but really!!
"improved management capabilities" I can cope with, but "stateless Linux and Xen virtualization functionality" and "open source server virtualization software" are worthy of the worst type of social science academic paper or local government policy document!
I think the article is referring to RH Enterprise Linux as being expected in the second half of 2006, not Fedora Core.
One of the problems highlighted with OpenOffice.org is its faster load time. I wonder whether RedHat will do the needful and preload most of the libraries needed at boot time in order to reduce the beast's load time. My hope is that they have not spoiled KDE with the Bluecurve theme.
I understand I need to grab the driver from the manufacturer. But that should essentially be it. Ndiswrapper should be good to go as well as WPA_supplicant. Why should I have to futz around with these things at all?
Shouldn't getting a network up be somewhat high on the list of things a linux system should do automagically at the very beginning? If you don't have the networking then a user is plain dead in the water so far as grabbing updates to get other things working.
and the final version of the OpenOffice.org application suite.
Did I miss some news? Have they actually stopped development of Open Office?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
I disagree strongly with the way "development" is bandied about as if this were some alpha version 0.3. Yes, it is a development version, but it does not infer what you want it to, which is "hey stupid user, can't blame us it don't work." As a development version I would have an even greater expectation of it working since it should include more recent versions of the software needed to get wireless working. But you want me to use the stable whatever last version of Red Hat/Fedora came out. 9.something was it from 1999? Yeh, I'm sure using that will get my wireless working. Stupid me for using a "development" version.
It's the main reason Microsoft went with years instead of versions, but they didn't seem to have a problem starting Windows NT at version 3. And, I think they knew it was going to take an extra long time to get the next Windows out the door, thus they didn't call it Windows 2002, they called it Windows XP.
Windows NT 3.0 = Windows NT 1.0
Windows NT 3.5 = Windows NT 1.5
Windows NT 4.0 = Windows NT 2.0
Windows 2000 = Windows NT 3.0
Windows Server 2003 = Windows NT 3.5
Oh well, sorry for rambling on.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Perhaps you've had good experiences with Fedora Core. I have not, and that is why I question what that site says.
One client had an existing Debian setup on fairly common PC hardware. They wanted to transition to FC4, after hearing about how great it was. So I attempted to install it on one of their experimental servers. The installer started bitching about corrupt packages. I assumed at first that I had gotten bad images, so I downloaded the images from another mirror onto another computer (in order to use a different CD writer), verified the checksums, and burned them again. So I try again, and off it goes, bitching about corrupt packages once more.
At that point I had to tell my client about the problems with Fedora Core 4. We agreed to give Ubuntu 5.04 a try, and it worked fine. We have since transitioned all their servers to Ubuntu, and they have been working fine for a while now. Hence it was not a problem with the hardware, but apparently a problem with the Fedora images.
At the very least I expected the CD images to contain usable packages. It truly made me doubt the quality of the entire Fedora project when I ran into those troubles. As such, I don't think I'll ever be able to recommend its use to clients, unfortunately. I'm considering giving FC5 a try once it's released, but I'm not sure if it'd be worth it, considering that Ubuntu and Debian have always worked far better for me.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Friends of mine had similar experiences with Fedora, and in that time they converted to Slackware and stuck with it. Me? After the headache that was Fedora Core 2, I've been progressing to more and more stable distros on my own personal computer....first Slackware, now Debian, and at the moment I've even been messing around with FreeBSD on a seporate partition in my free time.
I understand you had good experiences with Fedora Core, but understand that not everyone's experiences with all distros have been roses and blue jays.
I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
go something like this...
1) Change the default SSID on your router.
2) Change the default password on your router.
3) Turn off SSID broadcasting.
4) Enable encryption.
And usually under step 4 in parens is (WEP encryption is insecure and susceptible to hacks/attacks/whatever. WPA is better. Use WPA).
I don't know why WPA is better than WEP. Maybe it isn't. But I'm just doing what the checklist says, because I don't want my connection to be compromised. That is why I want to use WPA rather than WEP.
"as clones of a master system"
Hundreds of networked Segas! sweet!
Has that always been true? I thought FC1 / FC2 used up2date be default. I could be wrong.
I would be happy paying RH a one-time fee per box, assuming we get free security updates.
The description and whitepaper on Stateless Linux reminds me of how lab computing used to be back in college (around 1996) where all of our lab computers didn't have harddisks but would boot from an image on a Novell Netware server (via network PROM boot). All the programs and the user's data would reside on the server but the processing power used would be the client workstation's. Seems to me Novell would be one of those companies who'd be interested in this approach and would get on the Fedora Stateless Linux bandwagon. It would be nice if the two companies would actually work on this since the Fedora project is neutral grounds.
I think Stateless Linux is a great idea. In fact, I think Gnome should be extended so that a session can span several computers where the person logs on to. Then we could couple up distributed computing on top of that and make it part of the Stateless Linux-Gnome system.
Exciting times!
Doesn't it make sense it should be included?
"Sorry, the default install only supports UDP. To get TCP/IP working you need to download TCPIP_suplicant."
WTF?
Does that mean the up2date front-end is going to retired in favour of the yum command? Why have two commands that just use the same back-end!
Yeah, I used each new Fedora in production. The only problems I had was.. my own code had to be recompiled. Its be a nice ride.
It is *very* mature and very stable. That is why many hosting companies use it now as well. It has all the greatest tech before everyone else, but it all integrates really well and is really stable. They are releasing their first test release now, and the final product isn't expected to be released for at least 3 more months. That means they've spent about 6 months developing code for the release, and now they are spending 3 months testing and working out bugs, that is a damn good ratio of development time to bug stomping. Better than any distro I can think of.
Regards,
Steve
Give the user a complete non-working system?
At the point where the STABLE system does not detect the networking correctly or cannot configure the user should right then and there be able to grab the UNSTABLE stuff which in all likelihood will get their networking to work, albeit unstably.
up2date is being retired in favor of the yum front-end "pup".
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
I understand where you're coming from here, but I think that this was actually more consistant than it appears.
IIRC, It was Windows version 3 (after Windows 1.0 and 2.0). The NT referred to New Technology (meaning non-DOS based kernel). So the naming did kinda make sense. You could get Windows 3 as layer above DOS or you could Windows 3 with NT kernel. Plus the kernel version starts at 3 for NT. Windows 2000 reports as NT kernel 5.0 and XP reports as 5.1.
"This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
Funny, I had the opposite experience.
We have about twenty FC3 workstations where I work. Nearly all of them used to be FC2 workstations which were upgraded to FC3.
I had to update the yum configuration, but yum update worked fine afterwards. There were some exceptions (mailman was installed on one box, and the configuration broke, but it was easily fixed.)
I think the issue is that each of us uses the systems differently, installs different custom software, and has different skills for fixing issues. A relatively minor yum problem for me might be a major one for someone who isn't really experienced with Linux.
Hopefully the FC3 -> FC4 transition will be smooth. We always run the N-1 release because it usually has most of the bugs worked out by the time N is released.
-Z
There is a very good reason for having to tell the installer where you want to download the files from. In an organisation with several systems, you would be better of copying the RPMS directories from the CD/DVD's to a FTP/NFS/HTTP server on your own network. Point the installer at that resource and you can install the whole lot a great deal faster than over the internet.
Here is what I do.
1) install say FC4 on a server box. Select EVERYTHING.
2) then setup a cron job to do a daily "yum update". Add some logic in the script to detect if there has been a kernel update and reboot if required.
3) Copy the CD/DVD stuff into an FTP/NFS/HTTP accessible place. I prefer NFS as I can then use the X version of anaconda.
4) Setup another cron job to run on a daily basis to package the rpms downloaded to the master system into your very own yum repository.
Then on the other systems, point the installer at the master server and bingo, it all loads quickly. Once your system is booted, point yum at your own repository and update. No traffic over the internet etc etc and its much faster.
This is "REAL WORLD LINUX SYSADMIN". As Fedora is a test bed for RHEL than the majority of users who run FEDORA will appreciate this sort of approach.
The one great thing about Linux is that there is a Linux Distro that will fit the way you want to work. Be it SUSE, Deviant (sorry Debian), Gentoo or DSL.
Finally, 99.99999% of people who do a FTP install of Fedora couldn't care less about the way dumb ass things like computer games work with network master server lists. Again, this is REAL WORLD LINUX Sysadmin. "Welcome To The Machine!"
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
And read up a few threads. This totally validates my point. What is it STABLE and usable? Or unstable and unusable? People are trying to have it both ways.
I keep trying to install linux because I've used it in the past and like it. At this point it's like battered wife syndrome.
You think wireless security is optional and call me an idiot?
I think getting networking working is fundamental. And if that means giving the user the option of using an unstable piece of software then that is what must be done.
On Fedora, both yum and up2date are completely free. Up2date is for a GUI, yum is for command line, yum is alot like apt for debian. Up2date sits in your icon task tray and flashes when updates are available, you double click it, click install, and away it goes. No accounts, no money required.
Regards,
Steve
And as a Fedora Cora 4 user I can attest to this. It's a good OS. Everything is well put together and it's stable as a rock.
In fact, I prefer it over the RH Enterprise stuff, simply because it has been reliable, and it also has the latest set of features, which has saved my butt in being able to get things done. This has happened over and over again. The Fedora folks deserve Kudos for their efforts.
I would also say that the FC releases aren't flawless. But there are always issues with every O.S. release, be it FC, other Linux distros, Windows, OS X, or BSD. The key thing is being able to recognize which OS meets your needs for the work you need done.
For much of my work, FC has been able to meet my requirements betther than the other Distros or O.S.'s, and it's been extremely reliable. As always, YMMV.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
That alone is reason enough to not use it for a server.
I'm not saying to include it in place of manually entering whatever you need, but alongside it.
I don't even think you understood what I said. What are you talking about copying all sorts of junk to a server?
You get a Boot ISO. You boot from it. You choose FTP install. As it exists now you type in some server that you copied down the info for from the mirror list that you grabbed from the web page with mirrors on it.
What I would like to see is simply a list of the mirror sites during the install that I can select from. I believe the OpenBSD FTP install does this, but it's been a while since I touched that.
The game thing was just an analogy, probably a poor one. It's the first thing that came to mind.
1)Is it possible to upgrade from FC4 to FC5 test 1 (I cant seem to find the upgrade options)? 2)Is it possible to upgrade the i386 version to the x64 version? Thanks
Does anyone have it running on your desktop ?
Surely the stability is based around what apps you run on it and the kernel version? Since I was preparing the box for life as a server, I only installed what I needed (cue discussion about what to include, what not to...). So far it's worked fine and the only problems are when I reconfigure (aka screw up) the firewall and my SSH connection dies!
> upgrading from an already unstable FC2 to FC3
/etc/alternatives convention, NVIDIA's drivers are not RPMs etc. There is an absolutely a need for properly packaging these softwares (and there are efforts underway -- JPackage for Java, ATRpms for Nvidia etc).
I admit it is quite easy to break FC and make it unstable (even inadvertantly). In my experience, unstability has been primarily a result of installing software not packaged properly for FC. For instance, DRI nightlies are tarballs and not well built RPMs, Sun's Java RPMs don't use the
I completely agree with you that FC is not perfect, and has fewer software packages than Debian -- thus tempting FC users to install 3rd party packages that haven't received as much attention or testing. But that is quite different from saying that FC itself is unstable. Ofcourse, it would be much nicer if FC included that software in the core system in the first place. Perhaps someday.
I started my Linux Forays with Fedora Core 2. Since then it has given me not a small portion of grief. Yum in paticular is a huge letdown. It is SLOW.
Yum switched to using a different python library for XML parsing, and is using SQLite for storage in FC4. It is much faster and takes much less memory than in previous releases.
Fedora packages are quite simply broken. I'm not even talking about the whole DVD/mp3 issue. Most apps requiring GTK2 won't install as Fedora has labeled it as gtk+.
Fedora Core packages work well with other Fedora Core packages, and packages from Fedora Extras. I've never had problems with package names in Fedora. Are you using some goofy third-party repository, or packages for another RPM-based distro? That doesn't work. If you try to use a Fedora package on Mandriva or SuSE, it's the same problem.
The complete lack of GUI admin tools was also a serious letdown.
Specifics? There are many GUI config tools in Fedora, quite a few added since FC2.
It seems you have formed many opinions from an old versin of Fedora, and never checked newer releases to see if the specific problems you had were solved.
I think the big question is how to get to that nice FC5 from the existing FC3 or FC4. Is there a clean/supported/documented upgrade path? Just get the ISO, burn it, boot from it, and FCN+1 will be smart enough to do that _upgrade_?
Simpy
Is there anywhere that has details about the new features available in Fedora Core 5? I'm definitely happy with Ubuntu right and will just stick with it, but it's always fun to read about Fedora. I think that Fedora definitely pushes the Linux community along and in the end definitely ends up benefitting from eachother deveolopement. AFter using Ubuntu though and coming from a Fedora install, I don't understand much why someone would deal with FC instead of Ubuntu.
--Aaron Marks
> That alone is reason enough to not use it for a server.
Ah, but life-cycle is different from lifetime. Short life-cycle means you get new versions of the OS quickly, new technology etc. You don't have to update, and indeed you shouldn't if you are running a server. You can run the server on the stable ageing FC install for years if you want because the lifetime can be pretty long. RH addresses security issues and critical bugs even after a newer FC is released (for about a year I think), after which point it transfers the maintainance to the FedoraLegacy project which extends the life by a couple more years. Ofcourse if you want more than 3-4 years lifetime for a legacy system, RH will make you fork cash for RHEL; but upgrading every 2-3 years to a new FC ain't bad either.
It is *very* mature and very stable
It has all the greatest tech before everyone else
These statements are contradictory. Pick one.
That's what I thought, too.
So, had you read my post, you would have seen I downloaded them again. I did that on a completely different computer than I used for the first set of downloads and CD burns. The second set of downloads were from a different mirror, and hard drive they were stored to the second time around was different, and the CD writer used to burn them was different. I even went out of my way to select a different brand of CDs, thinking that might be the problem. The downloaded images checksummed too, it should be noted.
Also, I used my original system to download and burn the Ubuntu disc which I have since used. And it worked perfectly fine. No corrupt packages!
The truth of the matter is that, like it or not, the Fedora images contained corrupt packages. And when it comes down to it, that's very unprofessional. Such a distribution is just not suitable for serious work.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Yea, actually, you're not recalling correctly.
.1 revision change - Windows 2003 is almost the same as Windows 2000 and even microsoft only gave it another .1 to make 5.2 - for us, 3.2.
They wanted to start with version 3 because they already had Windows 3.0 on the market and they didn't want people to think this was older, or inferior. However, Windows NT 3 is the first version of Windows NT. It's not just "Windows 3 on NT Kernel" because it was not compatible with a large number of Windows 3.0/3.1 apps and almost no DOS apps. Windows 3.0 was a 100% 16-bit OS, and Windows NT 3 was a completely different and new 32-bit OS. Sure, it looked the same, but it wasn't.
So with Windows NT 3.0 being the first version of Windows NT, Windows NT 4.0 could be considered version 2. Windows 2000 is version 5 for Microsoft, but for us, it's actually only the third major release of Windows NT. Windows XP is almost identical to 2000 besides some UI changes, and only got a
In the end I guess it doesn't really matter what the version numbers are, but it is fairly annoying when you see even larger magazines say things like "Windows 2003 is Microsoft's sixth major release of Windows NT."
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Your both wrong. Windows 3.1 was the Windows version on sale at the time (and had been since April 1992).
The first version of Windows NT was badged at NT 3.1 presumably for marketing reasons - so the suits would see the two as interchangeable.
I'm not the only one who has run into problems with corrupt Fedora Core packages on the installation CDs:
e _frm/thread/6f2c0e2a969d5929/l l/browse_frm/thread/b359bb48f7c60017/e _frm/thread/c53d572d41d7a1bd/
http://groups.google.com/group/linux.redhat/brows
http://groups.google.com/group/linux.redhat.insta
http://groups.google.com/group/linux.redhat/brows
Note that people have run into similar problems with numerous different releases of FC. There are serious quality problems with Fedora, like it or not.
I thought it might be that particular CD writer, too, so I used a different system to burn the second set of CDs. I even used a different brand of CD-Rs, just to be safe. Considering that I have used those same burners for burning numerous other distributions to disk, always without problem, I would tend to blame Fedora for the problems.
I considered filing a bug report, but then I decided not to. If they're going to put out a distribution with corrupt RPMs, I'm not going to waste my time with them at all, be it as a user or helping them fix bugs. I used Ubuntu instead, and did not have any problems.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
The fact that they're basing their releases on yy/mm, and that Ubuntu wasn't around in 2001?
At the rate things get done by the RH people, and by packagers, FC3 should have decent package availibility until FC6. Many sites still have FC1 packages on their servers.
That said, it does give more of a reason to think about an upgrade to FC4, but given the disasters I've heard compared to FC3, I probably will leave FC3 on my boxes for now.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Looks like (for me) that my use of Fedora Core is falling into the same pattern that I always had with the earlier RedHat releases - every other one.
I started on RH 5.1. Briefly hit 6.2 on the way to 7.x. Still have a number of servers running 7.x.
Never touched 8.x, and was moving into 9 when RedHat EOL'd their "RedHat Linux" product.
Now, I'm using CentOS for most of my (smaller) servers, and Fedora for personal use. I used Fedora Core 1, never touched Core 2, now happy on Core 3. Haven't touched 4, but am considering 5.
Why upgrade on each one, unless there's some OMFG Do0d feature you just gotta have...
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Many open source projects become more stable as a result of the testing done in Fedora. The fixes are pushed upstream. I should have worded it as it having the latest stable technology and innovations. Fedora was the first distro with SELinux, Xen virtualization, the newest versions of Gnome and KDE (at the time), GCJ (Eclipse and OpenOffice.Org are both natively compiled, i.e. there is no java virtual machine), now they are leading the pack with Stateless Linux and more technologies. These are all stable yet reletively young technologies, the reason they are not in many distros is simply because Red Hat engineers have done most of the grunt work in getting those features integrated (in particular, Red Hat worked very close with the NSA in getting SELinux working uder the kernel). Red Hat maintains GCC, glibc, and many other open source projects that many other distros rely on. Red Hat usually has the tech first cause they are the ones who developed it, it takes the other distros time to catch up. New software does not necessarily mean unstable, nor does old software imply stable (look at the bugs still being found in various jpeg and compression libraries). When you spend 6 months developing and then 3 months making sure what you developed is quality then it is still new software but probably pretty stable too.
Regards,
Steve
http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/schedule/
FC5 final release is currently scheduled for late February. It may be delayed a week or two in order to get GNOME 2.12 into the release.
Thanks,
Warren Togami
wtogami@redhat.com
Just as a side not to those of you who are unaware, Xen is probably the coolest thing to ever happen to computing evar. It is a paravirutalization system. How many times have you fired up VMWare or VirtualPC and wished you didn't have to run as heavy of a Host OS? Well.. Xen is your answer. Xen is a special kernel all unto it's own that boots directly on x86 and presents a new virtual architecture to the guest OS. This new virtual architecture (think PPC vs. x86 vs. amd64) is called 'xen'. And when your OS is compiled to operate on top of the Xen kernel, you get EXACTLY what was mentioned above: a system that boots a very minimal "OS" that plays host to your VMs. Not only that but at speeds that are near native! So Redhat is making the right move by incorporating this into Fedora (and eventually their commercial offerings). Now, the only other thing that needs to be done is make Xen work for grandma. Then you'll never have to ever worry about fixing people's PCs ever again...
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
http://sources.redhat.com/ecos/ http://sources.redhat.com/redboot/ http://sourceware.org/jffs2/ http://cygwin.com/ http://people.redhat.com/mingo/exec-shield/ http://sourceware.org/insight/ http://sourceware.org/cluster/ http://sourceware.org/systemtap/
and don't forget ext3 is largely bankrolled by redhat.
there's lots more. just because you're unaware of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
why don't you ask them?
why don't you ask them?
yes. sure, redhat employs kernel devs like alan, ingo and arjen. redhat also pays to employ gcc and gdb developers. and others.
yep.
really? who wrote rpm then? should you not then lambast mandrake and suse for using rpm, because they didn't write it?
sure there are legitimate gripes about fedora. that's no reason to make stuff up.
There was about a year though, in which the entire Red Hat world was in limbo. That flushed out a lot of users, like myself.
It's easy to forget, but fedoralegacy didn't come about until Red Hat 7 through 9 were EOL, as in, unsupported by no one other than progeny's pay service.
Thankfully fedoralegacy finally took off, started supporting 7.3, 8, 9 and legacy fedora releases, and the world was OK again.
But people like me that had to make tough decisions about the future direction of my server room... well I started moving some servers to Debian, and the rest to White Box. Now we run a mix of CentOS and Debian.
And to think, before Red Hat pulled all this shit, we paid them $1000+ a year for RHN for our RH 7,8,9 boxes. Now they get nothing from us, and we are migrating mainly to Debian.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Oh, maybe in this release they'll include driver support for the toshiba satellite m40 series.
I tried to switch to linux. I backed out when no versions of linux supported either of my network adapters automagically. No, I'm not interested in figuring out how to recompile the kernel with the stuff I need. Strangely, there were no walkthroughs available on teh web that I could find for what I needed (mostly there were a lot of people complaining about the same problem I had).
Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
Is it necessary for me to back up everything, wipe my hard drive, and install the newer version?
It would be more productive if I can just Upgrade my Fedora distribution like I do with all the other software on my computer without having to find all the extra stuff that I need, reset all the setting the way I like, etc.
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
I recently tried Fedora Core Four - this is on the family PC (we're a 3-comp household) to replace the Red Hat 9 everybody loved. But I don't know if it was the architecture (the family PC got stuck with the Intel Celeron - and Fedora site recommends 386 for it) or I just didn't get it tuned right, but it was Suh-low. Sorry, I don't mean to come off as FUD. Red Hat 9 still on the machine performs like blazes - unfortunately, becoming more and more out of date, difficult to get new software on it, and no yum. Fedora pleased me every other way, at least for the family PC (it's the internet-connected one. Generally, if it supports a web browser and a choice of desktops, it's happy. The other two run Mandriva (for the kids) and Slackware (for hacker dad)). So, is Fedora Five going to move up to 686 (which is the Red Hat I have, and I think that might be the problem)? If not, I think I'll try one of the smaller Fedora-based distros. Mom and daughter insist on their KDE and I don't think they're ready for Slackware...
It really puzzles me why the linux community persists in flaming each other when we should all be pulling in the same direction: KILL BILL ;)
Only recently have I tried out linux, more specifically, Fedora Core 4. And tell ya what: I'm BLOWN AWAY. It rocks the haus. My only gripe is the resource hog that is Gnome and from what I read its being massively optimised in v2.12. I've learnt more about how my PC works from several weekends of installing and tweaking FC4, Samba, FTP, VNC, etc. than years of checking boxes in Windoze. OK my Windows box is still faster, better tweaked and easier to use COZ I"VE BEEN USING WINDOZE FOR A DECADE but at the end, there's almost NOTHING that I want to do that I can't do in linux (except for games, 3D graphics and wireless as many have noted), even if it may involve a bit of googling and forum hunting. I reckon I'm around 1 year from complete migration (ie windows purely for games and proprietary apps I need that don't exist in linux).
So I'm darned keen to check out FC5. I haven't tried any other distros except for knoppix, but seriously, who really cares, if ya wanna apt-get Debian or whatever its all good!!!!! Fedora is stable, its easy to learn if you have half a brain and a grain of effort.... at the same time I'm sure there's lots of other linux distros that are just as good or do some things better etc.... but that's no reason to knock an excellent OS. If the shoe fits, WEAR IT
I am also very interested in WPA and don't know why it isn't included in Fedora by default or even in the extras repository.
Is there a political reason behind this? Most Linux users are very concerned about security and I don't know why this security feature wouldn't be pushed hard and supported.
Not 3.11?
My experience trying to setup *wired* networking and sound with retail Windows XP Professional was brutal. Nothing I needed was in the initial install. With no net connection in Windows XP Professional I had to keep booting into my Linux partition to search for any help at all on how to set things up and then download what I needed. And then go back into Windows to toil and then fail. And then repeat the process. Eventually I got my network card and sound working, but when I activated them, the whole machine got slower over time. So I gave up on Windows XP Professional.
FYI, the machine was an Acer T140 (Athlon 64 3200+) with a (rebadged) Nvidia NForce 4 motherboard inside. Yes, you read that right - the *very popular* Nforce 4's onboard networking and sound are *not* supported by retail Windows XP Professional out-of-the-box (even with Service Pack 2). You can close that gaping jaw now (yes, Acer shipped a pre-loaded XP Home with the drivers in, but no CD of drivers if you wanted to fully re-install Windows). And, yes, Linux worked with everything in the T140 without me needing to do anything extra.
Solaris 2.5.2 was also sunos 5.2. By the time they got to 5.7, they realized that they could drop both the '2' and the (equivalent) '5' which was now smaller, and simply call it solaris 7.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
No, on Fedora up2date uses yum as its back-end.
"
Hence when I go to update in up2date (which I usually don't persnally), in the channel information I get:
"yum channel fedora-core-3 from http://mirror.web-ster.com/fedora/core/3/i386/os/
Knoppix-> Debian installs for me. Forget RH.
lots of newbies try this but knoppix offers no security update service of its own and its based on debian testing and unstable and not very easy to update from those sources either (possible sure, but certainly not easy). Yes i belive getting some hardware working with debian was hard in the woody days but frankly nowadays your better off with a pure sarge or etch install than a knoppix hdinstall.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
It's that sort of an attitude which leads to the problems that I encountered with Fedora Core. You consider my claims "crap", even though I ran into corrupt packages when trying to install Fedora. A real problem arose, yet you do not want to accept it.
I wish I had written down the names of the packages that were corrupt. However, I was so livid at the time that I didn't bother to, and instead used Ubuntu (which worked perfectly, I may add). The Ubuntu developers, maintainers and user community is far nicer and more helpful, I may add. They don't have the ego problem that is prevalent in the Fedora community.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
If we're talking per-month prices, RHEL is more expensive than Windows Server 2003. As a small ISP we're able to buy Server 2003 monthly licenses with no up-front commitment at around the £8 / month mark. A customer asked for RHEL instead of our usual CentOS so we enquired on their behalf: we were amazed by the response. They wanted about £12 / month and a commitment to sell 100+ licenses per year. No thanks guys! They obviously feel they don't need to compete here, but I was very surprised.
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
I agree, there is way too much postured yap about what OS folks use, much less which specific distro, it's not a religion, of which there is also way to much...shut up Matt don't get yourself started. I rather enjoy upgrading or loading a new OS and mostly enjoy setting it up, as long as most stuff works pretty well on a basic level.Sure there are some annoyances but most current Linux do pretty well in this regard.
I have been using Linux on and off for about 10 years (since Caldera 1.0). During this time I ran OS/2 as my primary use OS. I have also ran various versions of Windows as required to keep current with my employers needs. I still do much the same, except that I now use Linux more and more for my personal use. I have moved my wife to Linux, which saves me the pain of reinstalling Windows every few months. I have not chosen to update OS/2 since IBM decided to extract blood via an expensive subscription service. The other so called upgrade path for OS/2, ecOS is also expensive and seems to be quite controversial on Usenet. Since my job no longer requires it I refuse to involve myself in the masochistic endeavor of paying hundreds to upgrade my rarely used copy of NT4 to XP.
On the other hand every few months I can hop onto eBay, and try a new flavor of Linux for chump change. The latest round involved checking out about 20 distros at a cost of less than one sixth the cost of upgrading OS/2 or Windows. I settled on Fedora Core4 for myself, and Mandrivia 10.2 for my wife, and passed several'live' distro CD's around for friends to try. I will definately spend five bucks or so to try Fedora Core 5 and for that fact 6 as soon as it hits eBay! I guess my grandmother was right "the best things in life are free", or at least cheap.
Matthew