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 4 Test 3 Available

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the who-doesn't-love-testing? dept.

Red Hat Software 24

rexx mainframe writes "The Fedora Project would like to announce the release of Fedora Core 4 test 3; currently scheduled to be the final test release before Fedora Core 4. Included in this release are many various bugfixes, updated translations, and package updates. Please report problems at: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla Fedora Core 4 Test 3 is available from: http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux /core/test/3.92/ and at the mirrors."

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

Real world vs. fanboy fantasies (-1, Troll)

Mike Bourna (748040) | more than 9 years ago | (#12490629)

Faedora again. Why don't they give up?

I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.

I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:

Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
  • Staffing expenses were 33.5% better.
  • Training costs were 32.3% better.


They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
  • $40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
  • $1.79 per peak request per second.


Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
  • 28.2% less for large enterprises.
  • 25.0% less for medium organizations.


A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
  • Is nearly three hours faster.
  • Requires 77% fewer steps.


Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
  • Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
  • Has 63% better peak performance for dynamic content.


These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.

Who do you think we professionals trust more?
Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???

--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".

Re:Real world vs. fanboy fantasies (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12491286)

i dont know whats scarrier,

MS Office Specialist
Amigan
or sending the post into the future from 2004

Re:Real world vs. fanboy fantasies (0, Redundant)

Just-some-person (878949) | more than 9 years ago | (#12493159)

"Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:

* Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
* Has 63% better peak performance for dynamic content."

IIRC RHEL and Fedora don't use offical Linux releases. And if you think the whole OS is called "Linux", you're wrong.

"that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???"

Apparently, you don't know what a hacker is. What you think is a hacker is really a cracker. Linus is a hacker, or one good at programming/using a computer.

Re:Real world vs. fanboy fantasies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12494961)

The people who modded this as troll/flamebait have no sense of humor. So sad.

Re:Real world vs. fanboy fantasies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12515054)

Check his history, he has posted this same thing (funny or not) 15+ times already.
At the very least it deserves a (Redundant: -1).

can't resist... (1, Funny)

clambake (37702) | more than 9 years ago | (#12490652)

root# emerge fedorea/core4
Calculating dependencies
emerge: there are no ebuilds to satisfy "fedorea/core4".

Damn...

Re:can't resist... (0, Troll)

Esine (809139) | more than 9 years ago | (#12490954)

yes well, you should try # emerge fedora/core-4-test3

Is this site becoming /.Freshmeat? (-1, Offtopic)

mhesseltine (541806) | more than 9 years ago | (#12491283)

Since OSDN owns both /. and Freshmeat.net, why do we get stories about test releases, new betas, etc? Isn't that the point of having two sites?

Oh well, just mod this offtopic and move on.

Re:Is this site becoming /.Freshmeat? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12491425)

Because this is one of the biggest and most popular Linux distros around. You'll see this for Ubuntu, Mandrake, Debian... etc.

Stop being a whiner and put up with the one post every few weeks about a new release of a MAJOR LINUX DISTRO.

Frickin' babies.

handling of 32-bit binaries on a 64-bit system (1)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | more than 9 years ago | (#12491902)

I have an AMD64 system, but I'm on the 32-bit Debian because the AMD64 Debian is a pure 64-bit system. I need 32-bit binaries sometimes and I don't fancy setting up a chroot with 32-bit libraries just so I can use them.

Does the AMD64 Fedora handle 32-bit and 64-bit libraries in parallel? Does yum?

Re:handling of 32-bit binaries on a 64-bit system (2, Informative)

Kelson (129150) | more than 9 years ago | (#12492482)

I haven't worked with 64-bit versions myself, but my understand is that yes, Fedora Core and yum will handle parallel installations.

I checked www.fedorafaq.org and found a link to the following (slightly out-of-date) FAQ for
Fedora Core on AMD64: http://www.linuxtx.org/amd64faq.html [linuxtx.org]

Thanks (1)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | more than 9 years ago | (#12492858)

My search didn't turn that up. Thank you. :)

Re:handling of 32-bit binaries on a 64-bit system (2, Informative)

4of12 (97621) | more than 9 years ago | (#12492862)


Does the AMD64 Fedora handle 32-bit and 64-bit libraries in parallel?

Fedora Core 3 x86_64 seems to, sort of.

My FC3 x86_64 system has both

/usr/lib
/usr/lib64
and other lib64 directories hanging around.

I can't say that I fully comprehend how all this works with ld.so, LD_LIBRARY_PATH,. etc.

That is, I'm occassionally beset with complaints from the loader that look like 32 64 bad interaction (eg, some Python stuff).

Re:handling of 32-bit binaries on a 64-bit system (1)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | more than 9 years ago | (#12492950)

"I can't say that I fully comprehend how all this works with ld.so, LD_LIBRARY_PATH,. etc."

ewwwwwww

I can think of a few ways, but they all make my head hurt.

Well, I don't need to mess with the library paths so whatever hack they have will work.

Thanks you. :)

Re:handling of 32-bit binaries on a 64-bit system (2, Interesting)

Per Bothner (19354) | more than 9 years ago | (#12492903)

IIRC, I did try out an Emacs that I had compiled on 32-bit FC3, as also Sun's 32-bit JDK 1.4. Both seemed to work fine without needing to do anything special on a test install of 64-bit FC4.

apt4rpm (3, Interesting)

stedo (855834) | more than 9 years ago | (#12492773)

Does Fedora Core 4 still use yum or will it move to apt4rpm? I don't mean to flame the yummers, but in my experience, apt4rpm is far better. And, in terms of GUIs, Synaptic works far better than gyum or yumex. Also, does it have NTFS support out of the box? That seemed to be the biggest complaint about FC3, that anyone dual-booting had to download the kernel module, realise you had downloaded the wrong module, check kernel version, download the right module, and finally modprobe it.

Re:apt4rpm: yes. yum: yes (3, Insightful)

rdieter (112462) | more than 9 years ago | (#12492998)

apt for i386-only systems. Only yum is "officially" supported/blessed, but apt is/will-be available in Fedora Extras , but not x86_64 because apt doesn't handle mixed i386/x86_64 systems (yet).

Re:apt4rpm (0)

guacamole (24270) | more than 9 years ago | (#12505897)

For some reason the apt that's distributed with by the Fedora Legacy project can't install the updated kernel rpms which pretty much made me switch back to using yum. Does apt4rpm you're talking about have the same limitation?

Re:apt4rpm (2, Informative)

stedo (855834) | more than 9 years ago | (#12507336)

No, I downloaded kernel 2.6.10 from AtRPMS and it installed fine. BTW I got my apt from the DagApt repo, which might be a different version to the Fedora Legacy project.

How does this run on laptops? (0, Offtopic)

Tim_F (12524) | more than 9 years ago | (#12492981)

Is there any comparison between this and Suse 9.3 (which seems to be the current best ditro for laptops)? I need something for my new Toshiba M40 and am thinking of picking up Suse 9.3 when I'm down in San Francisco seeing as Fedora takes so long between releases...

Re:How does this run on laptops? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12497744)

if you call 6 months too long between releases, troll.

it feels like a long time to me, also, but that's mainly because i'm constantly chomping at the bit for a better gnome =]

(before a kde fanboy pipes up) and no, kde is not a better gnome =]

repository (1)

XO (250276) | more than 9 years ago | (#12493111)

anyone got an apt-repository on this, so I can point my existing FC setup to it?

I have this release install now (1)

hey (83763) | more than 9 years ago | (#12495013)

Runs OK for me.
But I seem to have lost some desktop icons.

i386? Come now... (1)

Heliologue (883808) | more than 9 years ago | (#12522558)

I'd seriously consider using Fedora Core if it wasn't built for i386. Why in the world would I pay for a nice modern processor and not take advantage of it? Otherwise, it's a well-supported distro that looks and works great with some minor tweaking. This is why I use Gentoo.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?