Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Fedora Core 2 Test 2 Released

simoniker posted more than 10 years ago | from the e2e4 dept.

Red Hat Software 264

Kalak writes "Fedora Core 2 Test 2, part of the project's goal to 'work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from open source software', has just been released - this test release 'is specifically designed for SELinux testing, as well as testing the 2.6 kernel, GNOME 2.5, and KDE 3.2.1.' Get a copy from one of the mirrors or grab a copy via BitTorrent. You probably want the binary only Torrent."

cancel ×

264 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yes! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706048)

This is now officially the BEST MONDAY EVER!

Careful - lots of experimental stuff (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706059)

Not for production use. SELinux should create some fun errors.

What's the point ? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706538)

Linux doesn't even support USB. The graphics blow. And you can use AOL. Why bother ?

OT: NCAA SURVEY FOR SLASHDOTTERS (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706060)

I'm thinking of placing a wager, and wondered who's Slashdot's favorite to win it all?

Ga Tech? [calcgames.org]
Duke? [calcgames.org]
UCONN? [calcgames.org]
Okla St? [calcgames.org]

Re:OT: NCAA SURVEY FOR SLASHDOTTERS (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706126)

If you're asking this crowd for advice (especially on something like sports), you deserve to lose a large sum on the bet.

Re:OT: NCAA SURVEY FOR SLASHDOTTERS (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706343)

Not necessarily. He could bet on the team that gets the fewest votes.

easy answer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706221)

Budweiser.

linux sucks! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706065)

windows xp r0x0rz j00r b0x0rz

windows xp sucks! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706211)

Linux r0x0rz j00r b0x0rz

Now this comment should be +5 insightful

FIRST POST BABY (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706067)

HELL YEAH

Re:FIRST POST BABY (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706842)

You. Fail. It.

Postgresql & Linux (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706082)

Postgresql.com Postgresql is most excellent as a relational database on Linux!

Any reviews of its performance on Fedora?

Not the first project to do this? (0, Insightful)

bigirondawg (259176) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706084)

One of the goals is to "work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from open source software"

Pardon me, but isn't that what UnitedLinux was supposed to do? And doesn't UL have far more vendors participating than Fedora?

Re:Not the first project to do this? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706113)

Key words: "was supposed to do" :/

Re:Not the first project to do this? (4, Insightful)

aeoo (568706) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706139)

You mean "UnitedLinux" started by Caldera?

Is UnitedLinux still alive in a more than a symbolic way?

Re:Not the first project to do this? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706208)

yup. from their faq:

What is UnitedLinux?

UnitedLinux is a standards-based, worldwide Linux solution targeted at the business user and developed by Conectiva, The SCO Group, SuSE, and Turbolinux.

and since Suse was bought by Novell, and United Linux was really 99% Suse...can we say "poof" UL is no more.

Re:Not the first project to do this? (2, Interesting)

bigirondawg (259176) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706448)

Seeing as Suse hasn't ceased to exist since Novell bought them, I don't think you can say UL doesn't exist.

TurboLinux is one of the most popular distros in Asia, and Suse is the most popular distro in Europe, in addition to being the #1 Linux distro on the mainframe platform.

I think if Red Hat really had the best interests of the Linux community in mind, they would have joined the UL project at the beginning, anyway, instead of trying to "go it alone" with their own marketing and distro environment. Then they start the Fedora project as yet another offshoot in a community that has lots of them already... when is it too much?

I mean, nerds like us /. readers can keep all these distros separate, but the business users out there (which really keep Linux alive) like to be able to see a strategy... some sign that your company is willing to work with other companies for the good of your customers.

Re:Not the first project to do this? (4, Interesting)

Coneasfast (690509) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706141)

Pardon me, but isn't that what UnitedLinux was supposed to do?

look at the united linux [unitedlinux.com] page. looks very 'commercial' to me, you can't even find a download link easily, or can you even download it?

while the fedora page has a nice and simple download link.

Re:Not the first project to do this? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706145)

Except one of their members wants $699 per seat.

Re:Not the first project to do this? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706150)

I think the correct question is what happened to United Linux... and I think we all know what happened there.

*SCO!* *cough* *cough* *SCO!*

So the previous distributions weren't.... (4, Insightful)

millahtime (710421) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706172)

So are you saying the previous distributions of linux weren't general purpose operating systems or that they weren't completely from open source software. Was say redhat 9 not general purpose??? Isn't FreeBSD general purpose and all open source??

What defines general purpose???

Re:So the previous distributions weren't.... (2, Informative)

Crispy Critters (226798) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706477)

"So are you saying the previous distributions of linux weren't general purpose operating systems or that they weren't completely from open source software.

Many Linux distros include non open source software. SuSE's installer was not open source. I have an old Red Hat distro that includes a proprietary X server (and xfree86 as well, I believe). My memory and rpmfind sugest that Netscape 4 was included in some distros, and it certainly isn't open source.

Re:So the previous distributions weren't.... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706539)

What defines general purpose???

Dictionary.com for most of us.

Re:Not the first project to do this? (5, Funny)

SquadBoy (167263) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706179)

Debian you were thinking of Debian

UL still alive and widely used (5, Informative)

bigirondawg (259176) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706313)

No, UnitedLinux was formed by Caldera, Connectiva,TurboLinux, and SuSE. SCO is obviously not an active contributor anymore, but Suse, TurboLinux, and Connectiva continue to distribute UL. UL is actually more of a brand that stands for packaging uniformity, since you download (or purchase) the UL version you want based on the vendor you choose. (i.e. You can get UL based on the SuSE, Turbo, or Connectiva dist. of Linux.)

Basically, the UL framework allows the companies to still market their product to corporations while still standardizing the Linux product and giving a (semi) unified front to the Linux world.

Is it secret! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706086)

SELinux, is it secret, is it safe. (NSA you know!)

Agent X

Yipee (4, Interesting)

altaic (559466) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706110)

Now we can use the lk 2.6 without having to add homebrew packages (yeah, I know there's some guy who provides a yum-able package tree). Anyway, this release should be an excellent updgrade. I'd be very interested to hear of the pre-release stability. Anyone care to comment?

Re:Yipee (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706155)

Debian unstable has all the latest 2.6.x binary kernel images available through apt-get.

Re:Yipee (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706157)

Yeah... Kernel 2.6. w007. New process scheduler... ALSA using OSS emulation. No WineX compatibility.

How is this any good?

Re:Yipee (0, Troll)

swillden (191260) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706721)

Now we can use the lk 2.6 without having to add homebrew packages

Yeah, well, if you were using Debian, you'd have had apt-get installable 2.6 kernels since the late pre-releases six or seven months ago.

Why do you guys insist on using such an ancient, out-of-date distribution, anyway? ;-)

Re:Yipee (2, Informative)

justi9 (545090) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706828)

And a 2.6 kernel has been yum and apt-get installable on FC1 for some time as well. Y'all are silly.

Re:Yipee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706841)

You mean like Arch Linux, CRUX Linux, Debian, and Gentoo (to name a few)?

Meh.

Fedora Core and (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706115)

my fleshlight [fleshlight.com] make the perfect hackers toolkit.

Re:Fedora Core and (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706286)

The fun just gets bigger with the NSA up youre a*s*s

Bueno (4, Interesting)

WTFmonkey (652603) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706118)

I'd heard great things, but then I wasted one hard drive trying to make kernel 2.6 work with Fedora 1. I mean, it worked, but only by stretching definitions.

I'm not horribly ign'nt, but I'm obviously no genious either. Somewhere along the line /dev got all dicked up and stuff stopped working. So to stop the bitching, it's great to see a faster-than-average turnaround by the Fedora guys. Will be installing this (and checking config files to see where I went wrong-- LEARN from your mistakes, people) tonight.

YMMV (2, Interesting)

captain_craptacular (580116) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706333)

I got 2.6 working with Fedora 1 in about 45 minutes a couple weeks after it (lk 2.6) came out. I had no problems whatsoever, so I'm not sure what your problem was... I ran it that way for about 3 weeks with no hiccups and then switched back to the regular 2.4.x kernel so I could get hassle free updates...

Re:YMMV (4, Funny)

SuiteSisterMary (123932) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706452)

and then switched back to the regular 2.4.x kernel so I could get hassle free updates...

Might have answered, in part, at least, your own question there, boyo.

Re:YMMV (0, Redundant)

WTFmonkey (652603) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706463)

Yeah, I've done successful kernel upgrades on various other distros, but I think I just bonered the X config getting the "new mouse" to work and continued to knee-jerk my way through the upgrade rather than stop, take a deep breath, and think about it.

It probably also had to do with the fact that this was the first one on this particular computer, so I wasn't entirely sure which modules needed to be built, things like that. *shrug* No skin off of my ass, and now I know better.

Re:YMMV (2, Informative)

reaper20 (23396) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706528)

This guide [altervista.org] to moving FC1 to 2.6 covers all the bases.

I think many people just grab Arjanv's RPMs or whatever, install them, and then wonder why the system blows up in their face, there is no easy answer to moving a 2.4-based box to 2.6 without a few modifications, regardless of distro.

It just worked... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706349)

I just installed it on a Compaq Armada M700 laptop..it just worked(tm) fine (typing on it now) with the exception of configuring sound and the ltmodem, which I have to do myself...

Re:Bueno (2, Informative)

Spoing (152917) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706657)

My custom 2.6.x kernels work well with Fedora test 1. The only thing I really did was;

  1. Update all the user space packages as decribed in the kernel README.
  2. Grab the .config file for one of the Fedora binary 2.6.x kernels (in /boot if it is installed, the RPM if not).
  3. Copy it to the 2.6.x kernel source directory -- where ever you put it -- and run "make oldconfig".

Tweak and modify the kernel as you see fit. Otherwise, compile as-is.

That said, there are customized parts of the official Fedora Linux kernels, so some of the .config options will be tossed out during "make oldconfig". Look for error messages to see what you'll be missing.

ACPI and kernel (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706119)

I hope their gonna switch to 2.6.4 cuz last time I checked, they were using 2.6.1 and acpi for that is still broken. For some reason, the acpi people don't even support 2.6.3 any more...

Re:ACPI and kernel (1)

prisen (578061) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706345)

One of the RPM's I find in the release:
kernel-2.6.3-2.1.253.2.1.i686.rpm

Well, there's a good chance it might be patched with newer ACPI, but I haven't had trouble with it on an nforce2 system. If there are problems, I'm sure it'll be fixed pretty quickly.

Re:ACPI and kernel (4, Informative)

prockcore (543967) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706395)

I hope their gonna switch to 2.6.4 cuz last time I checked, they were using 2.6.1 and acpi for that is still broken. For some reason, the acpi people don't even support 2.6.3 any more...

When was the last time you checked? FCtest has been using 2.6.4 for a few months now.

Re:ACPI and kernel (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706578)

How can that be if 2.6.4 has only been out since 3/11/04 [kernel.org] ?

Re:ACPI and kernel (1)

cgh4be (182894) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706610)

Uh, 2.6.4 hasn't been out for months.

From www.kernel.org:

"The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.4 2004-03-11 03:16 UTC"

This is all wrong, (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706140)

we all know that p2p programs are only used by pirates!!

Trusted Computing ? (-1, Offtopic)

drfindley (657462) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706174)

Does this mean that we are having linux trusted computing?

How is TC implemented under linux vs. Micro$oft?

hmm.

Exciting stuff going on at Fedora (5, Insightful)

capz loc (752940) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706181)

I installed Fedora Core 1 when it first came out and I was very impressed. It included some stuff that wasn't in RH9, including a very pretty graphical boot. If Fedora continues on the path that it is on now, it could become a worthy competitor with SuSE and Mandrake on the home user front.

The community projects like Fedora and Debian tend to innovate more than distros that are managed by companies because they can get away with the "if it breaks, you keep both pieces" warantee. Distros used in enterprise scenarios (generally) offer a more stable product, at the cost of innovation.

Re:Exciting stuff going on at Fedora (-1, Troll)

Crispy Critters (226798) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706582)

"I was very impressed. It included some stuff that wasn't in RH9, including a very pretty graphical boot."

(Emphasis added.) I can't think of a single comment about this statement which isn't egregious raging flamebait.

To be fair, I am sure this reads differently from what the poster intended.

MP3 support? (5, Interesting)

IO ERROR (128968) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706210)

Is Fedora Core 2 going to re-enable MP3 support now that it's no longer a "commercial" product?

No (4, Informative)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706293)

They can't include MP3 support precisely because Fedora is non-commercial. (Who would pay the per-copy license fees?)

Re:No (1)

Abjifyicious (696433) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706494)

But doesn't Debian have MP3 support?

Re:No (1)

ajs (35943) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706711)

If Debian has MP3 support, then they are violating the patents. Debian can do this just as long as the holders of said patents let them get away with it, but I don't recommend it. FAR more importantly, I don't recommend that anyone attempt to "keep up" with other platforms that violate patents.

Re:MP3 support? (5, Informative)

rgmoore (133276) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706340)

No. Fedora is trying very hard to avoid IP issues, so they've deliberately refrained from including things like mp3 decoders and DVD decoders that might get them into legal trouble. Fortunately, Fedora does have apt and yum available, so it's easy to add external repositories, like FreshRPMS [freshrpms.net] or Livna [livna.org] , both of which do include mp3 players and DVD decoders. It's very convenient, and avoids a lot of legal headaches for RedHat.

Re:MP3 support? (5, Informative)

Kalak (260968) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706488)

The commercial / non-commercial isn't the reason - it's that mp3 is a proprietary format, and Fedora is still backed by RedHat. Royalty issues for mp3 have been talked [slashdot.org] about [slashdot.org] before [slashdot.org] on [slashdot.org] slashdot [slashdot.org] , and I don't see RedHat giving the nod to distributing mp3 decoders in Fedora any more than in the RedHat Enterprise distributions. It's the same as distributing the NTFS modules. New Fedora releases shouldn't effect this decision.

Just grab XMMS RPMS for Fedora from their home page [xmms.org] and let RedHat worry about what they distribute. NTFS module RPMS [sourceforge.net] are available as well.

re: NTFS (4, Interesting)

bani (467531) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706640)

and what exactly is preventing redhat from distributing NTFS like everyone else, commercial or not?

i've asked redhat repeatedly to explain, and they have refused to give a straight answer. first they claimed it was "stability issues", claiming NTFS would "corrupt memory", but wouldnt give any examples and clammed up when i asked for clarifications. then they suddenly changed their story to "legal issues", but again clammed up when asked to explain. patents? copyrights? trade secrets? no answer.

it ain't legal issues -- unless you can point to NTFS patents. and it ain't copyright issues either -- because the code was written from scratch. the codebase for NTFS was developed much the same way as the codebase for SAMBA -- from publically available documentation and reverse engineering. if redhat has a legal problem with NTFS then they shouldnt be distributing SAMBA either.

it also strikes me very odd that they would include FAT filesystems which DO have patent issues, but exclude NTFS which does NOT.

Fedora News (4, Informative)

hey (83763) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706236)

Maybe this is obvious -- I donno.
If you are interested Fedora, check out:
Fedora News [fedoranews.org]
(unofficial site).
Lots of good stuff there.

Re:Fedora News (4, Informative)

prisen (578061) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706382)

Fedora Forum [fedoraforum.org] is also a good resource, which the "unofficial" fedora.artoo.net FAQ/Forum recently merged into.

Re:Fedora News (4, Informative)

geirt (55254) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706464)

and Fedorazine [fedorazine.com]

Goddamnit. (4, Funny)

el-spectre (668104) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706237)

As I type, one of my machines at home is downloading FC2 test 1. Guess I'd better check the timeline next time...

Gnome 2.5 (2, Informative)

nycsubway (79012) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706260)

I notice they're still using gnome 2.5, not 2.6. I hope they get gnome 2.6 in by the test3 release.

Re:Gnome 2.5 (5, Funny)

daemonc (145175) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706353)

This not surprising, considering Gnome 2.6 will not be released for another 2 days. Unless you have some method for pulling tarballs from the future that you'd like to let us know about.

But yes, this is just a test release, and the final will include Gnome 2.6 and hopefully will not require time travel.

Re:Gnome 2.5 (5, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706603)

This not surprising, considering Gnome 2.6 will not be released for another 2 days. Unless you have some method for pulling tarballs from the future that you'd like to let us know about.

It's called a subscription [slashdot.org] and it let's you see into "The Mysterious Future" where you should be able to get ahold of whatever tarballs you need.

(Sorry, that was probably lame, but I couldn't resist)

Re:Gnome 2.5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706354)

You know, like, download it and, like, INSTALL it????

Re:Gnome 2.5 (4, Informative)

Skeezix (14602) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706360)

They'll ship Fedora Core 2 final with GNOME 2.6, but GNOME 2.6 isn't due to be released until March 31st...

Great (0, Flamebait)

Blue Master (675893) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706295)

That's great news.

But do we really need Yet Another Linux Distro?

As far as I can see, Debian, Gentoo, Slackware and probably others are already
"working with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from free software."

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706348)

Was this supposed to be an original comment instead of harping on something that has been said 9 billion times before?

Re:Great (3, Informative)

MrIrwin (761231) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706369)

I think it is more a case of RHAT branching into 2 distros, one for hacking and one for data centers (RHAT enterprise).

It would appear to fill a void that IMHO exists between Debian and Slakware.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706411)

Yet Another Linux Distro?

Fedora Core is basically just redhat's free linux distro

I think of Fedora as... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706777)

RH Testing. As such, it's swell, and serves a purpose, and the price is right. I've had a couple of problems with it, but nothing show stopping. Getting xmms to work correctly, and manually doing inet connect with wvdial instead of the GUI network tool which seems to have issues on dial-up, and has since RH 8.0 near as I can tell. Moz 1.6 is another matter, "save to disk" on media files and others is kerflooey. (for me anyway)

zogger

p.s. I agree on the USB comments. I tried plugging in my cheap digital camera (a low end vivitar) and I had enough panic to have the kernel hyperventilitating and the keyboard a kaliedoscope of blinkenlights....

Re:Great (5, Informative)

prockcore (543967) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706426)

But do we really need Yet Another Linux Distro?

As far as I can see, Debian, Gentoo, Slackware and probably others are already


Two of those distros are younger than RedHat (fedora).

Plus none of those offer SELinux out of the box (which FCTest2 does), none of those offer xorg instead of XFree86 (which FCTest2 does).

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706591)

Plus none of those offer SELinux out of the box (which FCTest2 does), none of those offer xorg instead of XFree86 (which FCTest2 does).

err i dont know about the others, but gentoo has both of these :o

Re:Great (1)

cubic6 (650758) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706666)

Gentoo can do security "out of the box." Check out the Hardened Gentoo [gentoo.org] project. They provide install isos and stage tarballs so you can start with SELinux, stack-protection, and a couple of other nice security goodies.

Not "Another Distro" (1)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706717)

But do we really need Yet Another Linux Distro?

Are you going to say the same thing if/when Sarge is released?

It's not yet another distro, it's a new version of Fedora. You know, the one that comes after Fedora Core, get this, ONE.

And BTW, Fedora is a great thing to run while waiting for that Sarge. These Red Hat people (and contributors) seem the have a special knack at getting things done *on time*.

Anyone have any experience with Gnome in Fedora? (-1, Flamebait)

xutopia (469129) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706320)

Has anyone installed a normal Gnome DE to replace the crippled Fedora Gnome?

Re:Anyone have any experience with Gnome in Fedora (2, Interesting)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706551)

How exactly is it crippled?

Re:Anyone have any experience with Gnome in Fedora (-1)

call_me_susan (765345) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706745)

Why is parent troll/flamebait? He's simply asking if anyone has installed the 'pure' Gnome as opposed to Gnome from Fedora with Fedora's hacks, and I for another would be interested in any answers from those that have,

Huh? (-1, Troll)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706341)

'work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from open source software'

Wait a minute! Isn't Fedora directly derived from Redhat? And wasn't it Redhat who smugly proclaimed their superiority over certain other distros because they didn't use ANY proprietary software? Was Redhat lying to us? Or is Fedora not a complete, general purpose operating system? Or have the decided to dump all the Redhat baggage and create a new distro from scratch?

But at least I now know that Fedora Core 1 is not a complete, general purpose operating system built exclusively from open source software.

Re:Huh? (2, Informative)

Black Perl (12686) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706571)

'work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from open source software'

Wait a minute! Isn't Fedora directly derived from Redhat? And wasn't it Redhat who smugly proclaimed their superiority over certain other distros because they didn't use ANY proprietary software? Was Redhat lying to us?


No. I think it may make more sense to you if you put the emphasis in a different place:

'work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from open source software'

In other words, it'll be just like Red Hat except they'll be working with the Linux community more.

WTF? (0, Troll)

irix (22687) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706645)

Who upmodded this troll?

work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from open source software

That is part of the original mission statement for the Fedora Project. As in:

The goal of The Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from free software. Development will be done in a public forum. The project will produce time-based releases of Fedora Core about 2-3 times a year with a public release schedule. The Red Hat engineering team will continue to participate in the building of Fedora Core and will invite and encourage more outside participation than was possible in Red Hat Linux. By using this more open process, we hope to provide an operating system that uses free software development practices and is more appealing to the open source community.

WTF does that have to do with being based on RedHat? How does it indicate RedHat ever having lied to anyone?

But at least I now know that Fedora Core 1 is not a complete, general purpose operating system built exclusively from open source software.

If you knew the first thing about FC1 you'd know it did.

The email announcement (5, Funny)

afd8856 (700296) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706356)

Anybody else thought their email announcement is extremly hilarious? :)

One bug, two bugs, tar bugs, su bugs,
grep bugs, mew bugs, old bugs, new bugs.

This bug has a little hack,
This bug has a broken stack.
Say! What a lot of bugs to track.

Yes, some are in tar, and some in su.
Some are old. And some are new.

Some in sed, and some in jed.
And some are even in parted.
Why are they in parted, jed and sed?
I do not know. Bugs should be dead!

Some in jpeg, and some in TIFF
This TIFF one has an attached diff.

>From there to here, from here to there
Test release bugs are everywhere.

Fedora Core test 2 is available for
x86 and x86-64
It should not be installed where production is hot;
use it only for test, as we say quite a lot.

If you install with the default
SELinux will be the result
SELinux is a form of MAC
For more answers, check the FAQ [*]
By explicitly stating what apps can use
Unwanted accesses it will refuse

[*] http://people.redhat.com/kwade/fedora-docs/selinux -faq-en/

So please test test2 in this mode;
and please test it with your code.
Plus it comes with a new GNOME;
can you test that in your home?
Also X.org is new,
replacing XFree, test it too.
And 3.2.1 of KDE
We need to test, test, test, you see!
So we will test it on our box.
And we will even test out sox.
And we will test it in our house.
And we will test it with our mouse.
And we will test it here and there.
Say! We will test it ANYWHERE!

Re:The email announcement (3, Funny)

Fisher99 (580290) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706403)

Wow the team seem to of mistaken their sugar for their coffee for some other white power substance.

Re:The email announcement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706543)

The cat in the hat is really a penguin in disguise :)

Re:The email announcement (4, Funny)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706631)

>If you install with the default
SELinux will be the result

Shouldn't that be SeusSELINUX?

Re:The email announcement (1)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706636)

If there was ever a need for a "+10 Funny As Hell" moderation point, this is it! I just about had a convulsion from laughing as I read this. My staff thought I'd had some sort of fit of madness or something, face turning red, tears streaming from eyes, and clutching my sides while I tried to breathe.

"You probably want the binary only Torrent." (5, Funny)

syntap (242090) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706391)

You insensitive clod.

I tried fedora, had a terrible time with it (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706517)

as far as i can tell, its just like redhat, except that it CANNOT use RH binaries, which completely defeats the purpose of using RH in the first place.

so, its a distro of redhat that is not compatible with... redhat

whats the point in that?!? im not trolling here, im genuinely curious.

Re:I tried fedora, had a terrible time with it (3, Informative)

jaylee7877 (665673) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706580)

Most rpms built for RedHat 7.3 - 9 should work without a problem in FC1 and FC2. With Linux, you can easily build binarys that will only work on one version of one distro, it takes a little more work to make it generic.

Re:I tried fedora, had a terrible time with it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706835)

Fedora 1 was for all intents and purpouses Red Hat 10, and now we get 11. I have had no problems using RH9 RPMs on Fedora, but of course you have to take into account things like newer glibc, gcc, NTPL, etc versions, as always. Some things won't work, same as it has always been with upgrades.

The point of Fedora that it is a high quality, very up to date distro. You've got all the same ol' Red Hat staff working on it, Pennington, Cox, etc. Shit, FC1 was probably the best distro I've ever used, and I've used most. Now with FC2 we've got the guy who wrote SELinux doing a full security policy for EVERY RPM. Try that with Debian or Gentoo, sure you can get SELinux up and running by yourself, but you'll spend the next 2 months setting it up.

fedora update (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706526)

this makes me wonder. why would an upgrade require a bittorrent? a new iso? a reinstall? why cannot you just apt-get upgrade? proof of debian's superiority?

Just finished installing on my desktop (4, Informative)

bdigit (132070) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706544)

I had alot of problems, the graphic installer would not work for me, it would just lock my mouse up out of no where and I had to reboot. Once I got it installed I could not change my clock out of 24 hour format , the clock applet kept crashing. I tried to open hwbrowser to take a look into setting up my printer, that never loaded. The new nautilus is just garbage imho. I then tried to run yum but that failed as it couldnt reach any servers so I installed apt-get but I could not install any packages due to gpg issues. Sigh... core 1 runs fine on my laptop though.

I hope its better than Test 1 (3, Interesting)

MajorDick (735308) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706567)

I was horribly disapointed with test 1, WOW , I mean I install it on release day and there are already like 500 megs of updates ?!?! , Not to mention all the menu issues and other buggies, I know its a "test" but wow RH betas were never in such disarray in my experience. On the other hand I was Thrilled with FC1 for my laptop, everything just Worked like it was supposed to I hope FC2 release is as good.

...I hope its Faster (1)

The Angry Mick (632931) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706778)

While I agree that Fedora 1 installed flawlessly (even on my funky hardware), I was more than a little disappointed with its overall speed. RH9 took about a minute and a half to get from power-on to desktop, but Fedora 1 took closer to three minutes on the same box, with the same basic apps. Has anyone else noticed speed decreases from release to release?

Configure Fedora up2date to use a mirror (4, Informative)

Copperhead (187748) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706832)

I was upset that the system pointed to download.redhat.com for updates, which is constantly being hammered. I would get 9k/sec if I was lucky, and the download was constantly freezing.

However, in looking through the messages, I found that there is a document on how to use mirror servers as a source for updates [fedoranews.org] . I'm surprised that Fedora doesn't have a system for balancing clients to different mirror servers, a la Gentoo, but now that I've picked a few mirrors, things have been a lot smoother.

How to get my favorite package in Fedora? (2, Interesting)

ajiva (156759) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706609)

How do I get my favorite package to be in the Fedora install? Personally I'd love to see better wireless support, maybe WLAN or HostAP.

Re:How to get my favorite package in Fedora? (2, Informative)

AFairlyNormalPerson (721898) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706706)

The answer depends on if you want it included in the Fedora Extras repository or on the distribution disks. You might want to visit http://fedora.us and http://fedora.redhat.com (under participate).

Here is an extended discussion from the devel mailing list. The link is to the question; just follow the links within to read the discussion. http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2 004-March/msg00539.html

-Norm

doh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8706668)

and I just upgraded from RH9 to fedora core 1. oh well.

How about giving Fedora its own topic/icon ? (4, Insightful)

phoxix (161744) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706677)

Because Redhat != Fedora.

Sunny Dubey

Live support URLs (4, Informative)

jroysdon (201893) | more than 10 years ago | (#8706688)

fedoraforum.org [fedoraforum.org] has a wealth of info in the FAQs and Forums.

For the newest issues, jump on IRC: irc.freenode.net #fedora [irc]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?