Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Releases Version 6.1
RaymondInFinland writes "Red Hat 6.1 appeared on ftp.redhat.com Only a i386 version but the
release also comes as an ISO image. " Its not supposed to be official for a bit yet, and my guess is that it'll be pretty rocky
downloading for a bit, but it is there.
Aaah, Grasshopper: look at the patches inside the SRPM -- both BIND and Sendmail had the security fixes applied before 5.2 shipped. :-)
Remember, when RH 5.2 shipped, BIND 8 was not in very wide use, and Sendmail 8.9 was quite new. Rather than release a new, largely untested version of something with possibly huge new security holes (which thankfully didn't actually happen, but it's a lie to claim that there was no or low risk at that point), they released the old, known-to-work version with a patch for the known security holes.
A lot of stuff RH does may not be great, but don't slam them on this one -- they got it right, for certain. (Now, releasing pre-kernels may be another story, but there's a good argument to be made that said pre-kernel was much more stable than the official release at that point...)
6.1 is a bug fix. That's what the *.* means. The major releases are done re-numbered in the first number. In case you haven't noticed it's pretty much the standard way of nubering programs.
Devil Ducky
MY peers would get out of jury duty.
If I didn't have to constantly be upgrading then I would still be using that "other" OS... It always needs fixed in some way.
Devil Ducky
MY peers would get out of jury duty.
f tp://ftp.ou.edu/mirrors/linux/redhat/redhat-6.1/i3 86/doc/rhinst/figs/cd-rom-gui/
The trick is that any mirror of the actual distro. (an not just the iso file) will have this directory of images of the installer. They are from the installation manual.
I know I will be moderated down for this, but . . . Vincent
I tried to get an early beta to run, but the PCMCIA install was hosed back then, so I never got it going...
Perhaps asking for screenshots is a little lame, but I'd really like to see what the graphical installer looks like. Anyone got 'em?
(Disclaimer: I've had most of my Linux experience with RedHat, so most of my comments about my usage apply to that.)
I've seen a lot of talk about "make a server-only distribution." That's something I've been thinking about a lot lately.
Today, pretty much every Linux distribution uses the same "super duty" philosophy: put every package known to man on the user's computer, start the same set of services, and there you go. Instant server. Instant workstation. Instant anything, Instant everything.
This is troubling to me. I know that for my server installation, I don't WANT X, I don't want Netscape, I don't want GNOME or KDE or any of that other client-oriented, workstation stuff installed. It just wastes space sitting on my hard drive. However, Redhat's server install is the biggest of the 3 options, throwing EVERYTHING on the drive, leaving me with perhaps 300 megabytes of crap I just don't need. I even deselected X, and I still got some of the X11 packages installed!
So why don't distribution makers make server oriented distributions and workstation oriented ones, keeping the 2 separate? Simple. Linux users are stubborn people, perhaps the most stubborn of any in the industry. CUPS comes out, and there is lots of talk about how the current system works fine, we don't need a new system. Berlin is in development, but a mere mention of that brings up the X zealots, ready to kill anyting anywhere close to being modern. About the only thing Linux users will upgrade for is the kernel, and only because it's chic to run Linus' latest and greatest. The current set of Linux users is a rather small subset of all the types of users out there. Mom doesn't need Apache, wu-ftpd, or nfs. Mom just needs StarOffice, X, GNOME/KDE/wtahever, and Netscape. Why force it on her?
The fact is, separating workstations and servers makes a whole lot of sense. A lot of the security holes you see in servers come from client-oriented apps (Some of the GNOME bugs come to mind.) Similarly, for machines that only run workstation stuff, server stuff causes problems (wu-ftpd is an excellent example here). Why install stuff that won't be used?
I wish distribution makers would realize this. The world doesn't need 50 distributions that can do it all; how about one that does one thing really, really well? It seems to me that it would make a lot more sense.
Just think about it...a lean distribution, optimized to do what it does well. Now that would be something.
Both of these are fine, and I've used them both, but:
1) The public betas don't give us any of the information I was referring to in my first post. I'd like to know why they choose what software they include and why they ignore others. If/when things like next-generation subsystems might be integrated. Why they stick to old versions of certain software. Why do they choose to add certain patches, and what their rationale is in their directory structure (which I personally happen to like for the most part). That's what I mean when I say I'd like to know where the development is headed.
2) Rawhide is a good effort, but it really seems a bit haphazard at time (look at the kernel packages right now). The SRPMS often don't match the RPMS (or extra SRPMS are left around), and it's just not the same as having a group of packages that Red Hat endorses as being "reasonably tested and approved" for use by users who want/need newer software.
3) Even if Lorax and RawHide did solve the problems of open development and new packages, I would still prefer two branched distributions. I'd rather see more server-side stuff on a Server Distribution CD when I'm installing the servers (optional PAM and apache modules, maybe a choice of databases, etc), and more client/workstation packages (where to begin) included on the Workstation Distribution CD.
Am I way out in left field on my thinking?
--
--
Redhat releases a new update every 6 months. They always have, they probably always will.
Hmm, yea 100KB/s that must suck..
Languages that feature overloading.. Usually something that is widely embraced in the programming world. How ironic. ;)
~ Kish
It was B0redAtWork. He once made a comment "Wow, first post again!" and it went down from there.
did you mean this as a joke? Ternary is a word.
as in Primary, Secondary, Ternary (look it up at dictionary.com)
If your refering to the Tertiary age, which was part of the Cenozoic era, I don't quite get the joke.
I hereby decree that from the moment Slashdot contains an article detailing a new program, new version, etc, be it free software or commercial, software or hardware, every single person viewing said article MUST, under penalty of going to Windows, download, install, purchase, and use for no less than fifteen minutes per week said software. There will be no exceptions no matter what the reason.
.. now at least there is a reason for people to bitch and moan about every article on here. "Boo hoo, I use Debian so I'm not going to load Redhat." "Waaa, my mommy said C rules and Delphi is for losers." "Oracle is made by Satan and is demonstrative (notice that word!) of the fall of Linux and mankind." "Rob/Hemos/Roblimo/Katz/etc are lamers because I don't find this topic interesting." "My ftp program beats anything else, so you all can go to hell! You go to hell and you die!" Is there any point to any of these people posting other than to whine? If it doesn't apply to you, just move on with life already!
There
In closing, I'd like to say, "Sheesh."
I would wait a minimum of 30 days before I installed a new release anyway, to see whether the post-release updates were going to come as a trickle or a flood.
And probably 90 days for a production system.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You're crying wolf. Linux and the associated softwre surrounding it are continually evolving. The kernel release schedule should make that patently obvious. RedHat is keeping as close to up as possible without losing some stability.
.98p11 SLS distribution, AIX for about the same ammount of time) I'm perfectly happy to upgrade my servers when they need it, no matter *which* OS or vendor I happen to use.
Yes, they've made mistakes in the past, so what?
You're free to create or use another distribution, fact is that RH's model is working for RedHat, why snivel about it?
Any company large enough to support AIX environments will have at least one person with enough of a clue to (a) wait for stable releases, and (b) FTP. RedHat's done a great deal over the last year to legitimize what we used to have to _sneak_ onto machines. The value in that alone is worth the rest of it to me in my daily job.
Having just gotten capital approval to replace some AIX boxen with both Linux and *BSD machines, and having played the patch/update game for quite a while in both environments (Linux since a
If you've paid for AIX and AIX support, you'd know there's no comparison in cost.
I actually tend to buy more CDs personally than we do at work because the release cycle isn't long enough to match my work maintenance cycle. But then I buy more FreeBSD CDs too. FTP installs work just fine from work too, multiple DS-3's make it satisfactory to do.
RedHat also makes updates available for the last couple of releases. Nobody's "forced" to upgrade for bugfixes if they're running a relatively new version-- even if they don't understand that they can apply the patches themselves and compile their own packages.
If you want to complain about people being uninformed, educate them, if you're just whining because RH is being successful, you're more than welcome to try to build your own brand.
RedHat isn't Linux. Linux isn't RedHat. Time you opened *your* eyes to that fact.
Paul
http://www.pauldrobertson.com
You'd think after the mandrake fiasco people'd learn to wait for official announcements.
I know that it's where were were told it was, but it's possible Red Hat are waiting for a reason.
News sources vying for market share may have a reason for being first with every story, but you'd think slashdot'd be above that sort of thing.
Any attempts to log onto ftp.redhat.com before typing this are purely hypocracy on my part, but should not invalidate my point.
It appears that the student is teaching the master.
Free Mac Mini. Yes, I'm
Not really. I mean this *is* a .1 release. nothing major. Basically this is just a "service pack" release, or as our arch enemy at Redmond calls it, the "Second Edition".
i would have hoped redhat 6.1 would have waited until Xfree86 4 or something a lil more worth the version # change would have come out..Yes, but Linux 2.4 and Xfree86 4 are pretty radical changes. Don't you think that should get a version 7 number? That won't be for a few months yet anyways. Certainly way to long to wait to upgrade something that was released even longer ago.
-Brent--
I see that many people suggest rpmfind. So let me point out the differences (and inferiority of the rpmfind aproach) 1) Debian's dselect and apt not just download the package that you need, they also solve the dependencies and conflicts automatically (apt-get) or interactively (dselect) and download or remove the packages that depend or conflict. 2) apt-get and dselect do not just download packages, they also install them. 3) This is the biggest difference. Debian package management was designed with network installs/updates/upgrades in mind. If a program is a free program (GPL, BSD, etc) then it is most likely a part of the OFFICIAL main Debian distribution. This means that you don't have to look in various places for packages, everything is in one place. Second, the packages are usually of higher quality, since they are a part of distribution and they MUST meet all the guidelines of the distribution. If a package is buggy, the distribution will not release until it is fixed (or removed from main tree if it is too late)
Really nice guys, those RedHat people, huh? If they can't ripoff the end users, they'll get the businesses instead. I think maybe I'll just switch back to an all-AIX environment. At least AIX doesn't come out with bugfixes daily then say 'oh, screw you. Here's a new version you have to buy.' They can sit on a version, release bugfixes, and integrate them into the next version, a year or two down the road.
Pfah. RedHat. It's sad to see what Linux has become.
Redhat is NOT Linux!
There are many GNU/Linux distributions Redhat is only one of the many, don't like thier attitude then use one of the others. Anyone can make a GNU/Linux distribution and not all are going to be wonderful. so what? there are plenty of others that are great distributions.
If you want to abandon GNU/Linux thats your choice, but don't abandon it just because of one distribution/distributer is not to your liking.
Ethan
Ethan
Wow.. looks nice.. i'm going to burn my copy of the iso and see these for myself now. :)
æeee!
ISO image as their names imply are universal :-) :)
i already burned iso of debian from a mac and it worked very well!
---
Redhat offers the - Red Hat Member More program.
= /more_rh_rhmembermore.html
http://store.redhat.com/commerce/store.cgi?page
Includes the following:
1 Membership Card
Each release of the Official Red Hat Linux Box Set for one
year
8 Update CD shipments
Quarterly Newsletter
1 Red Hat Baseball Cap
1 Red Hat T-Shirt
15% Discount on all Red Hat, Inc. retail products* during
membership
Free passes to all tradeshows Red Hat, Inc. attends during
membership period
Complimentary gifts at tradeshows
"Members only" specials announced on our website
periodically throughout the year for RHMember Program
participants.
Additional "members only" specials reserved only for
RHMember More program members.
Actually you are incorrect. Go to http://www.rpmfind.net or ftp://ftp.rpmfind.net . They have nearly every rpm created with numerouos versions.
---- aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Well, I guess this is wrong place to ask such a question... but what'a hell. :-)
w in32/
:-)
:-)
Moderators, please kill me, cause this is completely off topic.
First, I have no fintest idea about the software to write CD on WinDos. Never seen/used any.
Therefore I'd suggest to go for cdrecord. Nice UNIX command line tool recently ported to NT (alpha stage, but quite stable
Find it at:
ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix/cdrecord/alpha/
Then get your iso image and just type:
cdrecord dev=3,0 -v speed=2 -dao iso_image_name.iso
dev is SCSI number of your CD writer, dao means disk at once, speed means speed. Ah, if you CD writer is IDE, then I don't know. Best woud be to sell it and buy SCSI
Good luck
kovi
PS Sorry for style/typos I had too much beer
As for this release just being an update, that if for the most part true. The main focus of this release was the introduction of the graphical installer. This is and excellent installer, easier than previous Redhat installs and far easier than other Linux distros and Windows installers. (My roommate did extensive testing of it in lorax) Kudos to Matt Wilson for his excellent work.
As for the announcement of this on /. before it was officially released by Redhat, I think a huge mistake was made. /. often warns that downloads may be rocky for awhile when it reports on a new distro release or a new kernel, but part of the reason that this is true is that the mirrors don't have time to get it before /. users start pounding it. I think many of us dislike the "first post" mentality that clouds useful discussion on /. and we should be fed up with /. following the same model for news when doing so is inappropriate.
--
Gregory J. Barlow
fight bloat. use blackbox.
Gregory J. Barlow
fight bloat. use blackbox.
People shouldn't be getting "6.0" training, I'm not even sure they should be getting RedHat training. I would suggest teaching on two levels:
- Administrators: Learn the core system of Linux, a typical layout of files, runlevels, daemons, etc. Then learn how some distros organize those files differently. I administer a company with Debian and RedHat systems, I know this works.
- End users: End users don't care what distro they're using. Seriously. They barely care if they're using Gnome or KDE, but that's what they should be taught, because the theory is that's all they'll need. Gnome apps, KDE apps.
Errata is released almost constantly as bugs of a sufficent severity are found. But that doesn't help people who buy RH on CD and don't have the bandwidth to be downloading big binary patches like the updated X packages.I would tend to agree that jumping to 7 over a window manager and kernel would be silly, but nobody's doing that.
--
--
Check out http://www.rpmfind.net/ for a nice rpm repository.
They have a web index, but the easiest way to use the database is with the 'rpmfind' command. For more info on that go to http://rufus.w3.org/linux/rpm2html/rpmfind.html It has some nice options, including downloading dependencies for rpms, checking for upgrades, etc.
Emre |=)
I really wish Red Hat would open up their development process a bit. Or, at least tell us some of their plans. I realize they don't like to pre-announce features and be accused of vaporware, but it would be nice to know what their thinking is in terms of when packages get updated and when they don't. Or when/why major version numbers increase.
I also know Red Hat is trying to strattle the line between stability for servers and functionality for users, so maybe it's time for two development tracks? One that has a smaller, with a core set of sever-type packages and an server-centric installer. This distribution would get the current treatment of quarterly, well tested updates, and emergency security patches.
But then there should also be a second distribution that is more of a "rolling release" system that maybe gets a bi-weekly set of updates. I think this second distribution is needed to keep up with the active development in the area of user applications.
Both packages would have a lot of overlap, in fact the RPMS should generally usable on either distribution. But for example, we don't need GIMP and the latest version of XBill on servers, but it might be nice to have newer version of GNOME for the desktop distribution since there is such a big difference in the software in four months.
I realize this may not be the ideal way of doing things, but we need to keep two things in mind:
1) Linux is still under heavy development on the client end. In one month, Linux has gnoe from completely unusable on my brand new laptop to almost fully functional thanks to new releases of software. We need this kind of functinoality in the biggest distribution.
2) Microsoft has shown what kind of a mess you can get into when you try to maintain everything from the consumer-level system all the way up to the highets end server-level systems all in one bundle. You get a compromise that doesn't work well for either.
So, at least for another couple years while Linux is in such constant development, wouldn't it make sense to treat Linux distributions a bit differently?
If you've actually used Red Hat, or Linux for that matter, I wouldn't expect you to make comments like "suckers who got 6.0 training need 6.1 training" - that's just not the way it works. If you know how to use Red Hat 5.1, you can probably do just fine with 6.1. Linux changes every day. Red Hat rolls up those changes every 6 months or so, with their new features as well.
:-)
And of course, anyone trained on 6.0 who thinks 6.1 will be confusing (!) well - they can just keep running 6.0.
Gnome 1.0.50 (which is a major-effort coordinated release) is *almost* ready to go - so I'm surprised that they didn't wait a week or so for that. Ah well. Easy enough to upgrade. Or maybe it's already in there?
Redhat 6.1 has an upgrade option. I tested it in the beta of 6.1 on my home pc, and it worked great. It checks the rpm install log, and then just Upgrades everything that you had installed. Not everything will need to be reconfigured, some things might but not everything. Make sure you are not using a USB Keyboard of Mouse, or the cool installer will not start.
No, RedHat 6.1 is _not_ an unstable release!!! RedHat does not use the kernel version numbering system for it's distro. Some non-kernel space does use even/odd, but not all of it, and certainly no distros that I am aware of!
--
I love the fact that Linux is constantly being improved and new releases coming out, but I worry that the early announcement of Mandreake 6.1, and now RedHat 6.1, could hurt the community. Or, rather, the world's perception of the community.
a nd-it's-mine-because-it's GPL'd-right-now people. Yes, the stuff's on a public FTP server. But it has yet to be announced as officially released.
Things like this could very well foster the idea in the media and the "mainstream users" that Linux users are greedy, immature, impatient, I-want-it-all-screw-you-hippie-gimme-what's-mine-
If RedHat felt that the time was right to tell the world, they'd tell the the world. But announcing the release before the mirrors are ready, and before RedHat is ready (if they were ready, they'd make the announcement themselves) is bordering on irresponsible, IMHO. The whole thing isn't even posted yet, just the i386 binaries!
But: They left their FTP servers open for public downloads of the RH6.1, which does not make sense for me (they have a separate host rh-mirror.redhat.com for mirrors downloading).
Does anybody have an explanation for this?
-Yenya
-Yenya
--
While Linux is larger than Emacs, at least Linux has the excuse that it has to be. --Linus
LSL updates their GPL RedHat CD constantly. From their web site:
-Brent--
RedHat doesn't use the even/odd convention. Mainly, because that would be very confusing in a retail environment (no distribution uses this method AFAIK).
:) There will probably be another public beta in 5 months or so that will be 6.1.X, and it will be followed by 6.2 (which consequently should be out in 6 months +/- a few weeks).
5.9 prior to RedHat 6.0 was Starbuck and the beta for 6.0. 6.0 is Hedwig. Lorax is 6.0.50 and 6.0.55 and is the beta for 6.1. 6.1 is an actual stable release (no, I'm not saying what it is
--
Jeremy Katz
Well, yea they have got a few more million in their pockets, not to mention the fact that 6.1 being an odd number probably means its an experimental release. (BTW, now that linux is gaining popularity.. do we need to start teaching the PLBs about odd/even releases, if we don't we'll have problem on our hand we the boss starts telling us to upgrade to such and such x.3 or whatever.) Anyways yes, I would hope 6.2 would come out soon, just like 6.0 came out shortly after 5.9 (which was really not 5.9 and geez I've already forgotten the name) Personally I thought that lorax was 6.1 and 6.2 would be the next release.. guess I was wrong.. btw.. whats the name on this release... is it still lorax?
I've been beating pretty hard on the 6.1 beta (lorax) since it's release.
:) :)
To say that at first there weren't any bugs would be a lie of course, but I've seen _great_ leaps ahead over the course of it. At the beginning, it took some work to get it to work.
But, through lots of beta testing, and lots of late night hacking by Matt Wilson, it's now to the point that it's the easiest installer I've seen. Much easier than Caldera's graphical, in large part, because it gives you a lot more freedom in the install. The GUI install works for CDROM installs, NFS installs, and (untested, but should work I believe) hard drive installs. If the GUI installer doesn't work for you (or you don't want it even), never fear. There's still a text-based installer for low-ram machines, and ftp or http installs.
Other nice neat things in 6.1 (for those wondering)
- kudzu: kudzu does hardware detection and will start the appropriate configuration tool. Very neat
- an interactive startup option (disable-able) ala choose what you want to start during startup for Windows 9x and DOS; so for when you screw up your sendmail config, you can still start without taking ages
- up2date: service to give access to a priority server upon registration and then will give you the new rpms in updates and give you the opportunity to install them, just download them, few other options
- fsck has a progress bar
- rp3: an easy-to-use ppp configuration tool. I haven't actually completely tested this one being on ethernet and all, but it appeared to work
- XFree 3.3.5, 2.2.12, GNOME 1.0.40 stuff (newest when it mastered...), KDE 1.1.2, glibc 2.1.2
Think that's most of the good interesting stuff. As I said, it's shaping up to be _really_ solid from what I can tell.
--
Jeremy Katz
re rpm:
RPM uses -i for install, -U for upgrade, and -F for freshen. Have a bunch of RPMS, and you just want to install the updates for what you already have? Freshen them (rpm -Fvh *). Unfortunately, I have seen this break down, especially with kernel rpms. As for the central depository, anything that comes out of redhat proper doesnt depend on anything not in the distribution. 3rd party RPMS are different, but I have never had a problem finding requirements at freshmeat.
re: flakiness.
6.x (i am currently using rawhide), gnome issues aside is quite stable for me, and is current as far as i know. And actually, even gnome is decently stable now.
I like redhat myself, but I havent tried debian yet. One of these days, when I have an extra machine to play with, i might.
It would have been more polite to wait for the
answer on the mirror list.
This was a goof on redhat's part... they were
going to keep it restricted until Monday.
Anyway this is a much better state of affairs
than the 6.0 release, which leaked from a few
mirrors before it was available on redhat and
before other mirrors had a chance to get it.
Our mirror completed around midnight. I'm not
eager to hose our bandwidth quite yet, so I'm
keeping it private til Monday.
Every time RHAT drops to 70% of its highest value they announce a release. On 8/23 they were at 63 after an opening week high of 89 and they announced a beta. That got them to 123. Now they're at 87 and sure enough, they announced a release although not an official release for a bit yet. I predict their stock will have another peak and drop back to 70% at which time an official release is announced. Red Hat is very into pushing software releases according to market value and using high version numbers to instill confidence. They rarely get on portals unless they bump up the version numbers and bump up the version numbers they do, with a vengence.
Cheers,
J. Rodd
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
I'm sticking with Mandrake, you fscking lusers! Er..
Joke!
One good thing does arise from all of the bitching, whining, first posting, and other offtopic idiocies.. These morons make it quite clear who is and is not worth listening to, as they all lump themselves quite neatly into.. that's right.. the latter.
I want some filters that make it to where I can't read posts from certain users. Blocking out articles isn't very exciting. Filtering out those with very, very low signal/noise ratios would be a Good Thing, especially since more and more people who you'd think would stick to AC trolling are actually getting accounts. At least those without accounts are easily filtered (and yeah, hard thresholds of 1 are highly recommended.. every once in a while I look to see what the ACs have to say about my comments.. talk about unfounded, uncreative, unintelligent deragotory flames that could only be unleashed from the mind of an impotent psychopath with so low self-esteem as to validate the notion of pressing various baseless insults, biggotry, and other "high-minded" prejudices upon a person solely for the purpose of cracking their self-confidence and/or ego.. it's kind of sad, really, especially because these "brave" souls can't even log in to say those kinds of things.. they have to snipe from the sidelines like good little cowards.. ;).
~ Kish
The update agent does require registration (and is one of the perks of buying the boxed set from what I understand). It basically allows you to have "guaranteed" bandwidth for updating without relying on ftp.redhat.com, which does get very bogged down. I still need to check if it has to update itself off of the priority.redhat.com servers or if I can get it to get information from other ftp servers (aka my local mirror...)
--
Jeremy Katz