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 7 Released

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the get-yer-fresh-bits dept.

Red Hat Software 186

fedoraman writes "Fedora 7 has been released. With Xorg 7.3, KDE 3.5.6, GNOME 2.18, and version 2.6.21 of the Linux kernel Fedora 7 comes with all the latest and greatest open source desktop software. Fedora 7 drops the traditional 'Core' nomenclature, since it includes both what used to be termed the Core and Extra components by default. Fedora 7 is also the first release to be constructed with Fedora's revolutionary new build system, which is designed to improve the ease of developing derivatives and Fedora-based software appliances. As usual, extensive documentation and release notes are available. Torrents are also available and ISO images can be downloaded from mirrors around the world."

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

Nothing to see here? (-1, Offtopic)

Sensible Clod (771142) | more than 6 years ago | (#19338805)

Oh, yeah, gotta wait for it to finish...

Nice but is it bloatware? (1, Insightful)

yog (19073) | more than 6 years ago | (#19338861)

That's nice. I guess I'll try it out on a live DVD some time. I have been a Redhat/Fedora user for 9 years, but unfortunately FC6 was unable to load on my latest PC with an Intel 965 motherboard, so I had to switch to OpenSUSE 10.2 [opensuse.org] .

OpenSUSE has taken some getting used to--YaST admin/update tool, Beagle instead of the locate tool, some interesting tweaks in the UI, European defaults for certain settings such as Ghostscript paper size that I had to track down and adjust. Furthermore, it seems to be a bit behind in its kernel versions. But it's worked great and the functionality is all there, especially after switching YaST's software manager to a set of European archives which include all the multimedia stuff like mp3, full xine codecs, and mplayer. It seems not to have as large a user base as Fedora, also.

I wonder how F7 compares to recent versions of the popular distros like Ubuntu, Kubuntu, etc. It seems to me they've fallen a little behind in the way they integrate the kernel and UI aspects of the Linux system, and Fedora has always required a fair amount of tweaking to get things like multimedia to work up to snuff. It's rather bloated actually. Anyway, will have to give it a spin before drawing conclusions. But I'm staying with OpenSUSE for the moment.

Re:Nice but is it bloatware? (1)

iknownuttin (1099999) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339213)

That's nice. I guess I'll try it out on a live DVD some time. I have been a Redhat/Fedora user for 9 years, but unfortunately FC6 was unable to load on my latest PC with an Intel 965 motherboard, so I had to switch,....

Tell me about it!

I have a PII with 64MB of RAM and, so far, the only hing that works well is RH 8! Which, believe it or not, is still pretty good for what I do - testing my code for my business' website. (All I do is HTML and some PHP nothing major.)

I tried Ubuntu 6.1, but it didn't quite work out - no, I'm not saying more because I don't want to start a distro flame war!

I wish I could run something current on that box.

Re:Nice but is it bloatware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19339305)

Buy some Ram.

Re:Nice but is it bloatware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19339309)

"I wish I could run something current on that box."
There are plenty of distros out there for outdated hardware. Use those. They're "current" in the sense that they'll have the latest kernel. You're expecting a lot out of a relic. Fedora and Ubuntu are not appropriate for that hardware.

Re:Nice but is it bloatware? (1)

iknownuttin (1099999) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339777)

You're expecting a lot out of a relic. Fedora and Ubuntu are not appropriate for that hardware.

I thought that's where Linux excelled: outdated hardware.

Re:Nice but is it bloatware? (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 6 years ago | (#19340017)

Sure, the flavors set up to run on outdated hardware are great at it, and such distros are not only modern but regularly updated and supported to some extent. Hell, you can actually find them.

Ubuntu and Fedora are not, however, such distros.

Re:Nice but is it bloatware? (4, Interesting)

dosius (230542) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339497)

The last version of Debian worked on a 486/133 with 32 MB RAM, I'm sure the current ought to too...

-uso.

Re:Nice but is it bloatware? (5, Funny)

murph (16036) | more than 6 years ago | (#19340809)

When the last version of Debian was new, wasn't that current hardware?

Re:Nice but is it bloatware? (2, Interesting)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339883)

I noticed when I upgraded from FC4 to FC6 a lot of hardware that was recognized in 4 suddenly wasn't in 6. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

I've tried the latest Ubuntu, and it's installing on my laptop (have had it on my desktop for a week now, and am very happy) as I come across this article... I'm going to stick with Ubuntu.

I've used FC for a couple of years now, though, and I have to give it props, they've been excellent, overall. If I hadn't just done all the installing I've done, I'd be willing to give it a shot.

I'd like to take the opportunity to say that Linux has come a long way, and I really believe that users that'd need to stick with Windows are more the exception than the rule... gamers and people that need very specific software. Otherwise, I think most people would be pretty happy with one of the more popular Linux distributions.

Re: Nice but is it bloatware? (1)

Dolda2000 (759023) | more than 6 years ago | (#19341131)

If you don't actually need Linux specifically, there is always the BSDs. They tend to have quite a bit more modest requirements, while still being current. Otherwise, did you try Gentoo?

Re:Nice but is it bloatware? (2, Insightful)

jmyers (208878) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339253)

"It seems to me they've fallen a little behind in the way they integrate the kernel and UI aspects of the Linux system, and Fedora has always required a fair amount of tweaking to get things like multimedia to work up to snuff"

I don't think they have fallen behind at all. The lack of mp3 support and other non-free software is a policy decision and I think it is a good one. I have tried Ubuntu and the only difference I can tell as an end user is the inclusion of the non-free software and drivers. This is very convenient for the free as is beer crowd but does is detrimental to free software in general.

One nice thing about Fedora7 is the buildtools (5, Informative)

crush (19364) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339335)

The complete build process is FL/OSS!

The tool for taking all the RPM packages and composing them into an installation tree is pungi [fedoraproject.org] . It's FL/OSS.

The tool for taking source from CVS and turning it into packages is Koji [fedoraproject.org] and it's completely FL/OSS too

The tool for producing updated packages is bodhi [fedoraproject.org] and is FL/OSS

Be happy. The Fedora Project yet again has made major contributions to FL/OSS which can be enjoyed and improved by everyone. It means that Fedora is completely independent of Red Hat (apart from Red Hat's very generous donation of hardware and developers) and that anyone that wants to can easily produce a specialised "spin" of Fedora suited exactly to their own needs. That's one of the main innovations that Fedora is pursuing with the above: instead of being stuck dependent on the choices of a distributor you can benefit from the patched sources, even their packaging, yet diverge when needed. This should be the goal that every distribution follows, and the only thing that is similar in terms of flexibility is Gentoo, but that IMHO fails to provide an easy path for those that are happy with a distributor making the decisions for them.

I'll freely admit to being a Fedora and Red Hat fan, but I hope that the significance of the release of these build tools is not overlooked by people using other distributions.

Re:One nice thing about Fedora7 is the buildtools (2, Informative)

crush (19364) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339551)

Even if you're not interested in using Koji locally for your own purposes and just want to find out what the status of your favorite package is you can look at it on Fedora's Koji server. Click a package name on the left and you can see what patches have been applied according to the cnangelog and whether the package is being rebuilt, or waiting on review or whatever. It's superb.

Re:One nice thing about Fedora7 is the buildtools (2, Informative)

crush (19364) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339609)

That would be here [fedoraproject.org]

Re:One nice thing about Fedora7 is the buildtools (1)

yog (19073) | more than 6 years ago | (#19340159)

I'm very pleased to hear about these packaging tools, and overall I really respect fedora. Unfortunately, I did have a hardware problem with FC6 and was forced to try a different distribution, just to get my workstation up and running. I have heard of many others with similar issues over at fedoraforum.org. I hope F7 has fixed this because I like the fact that they tend to have the latest and greatest kernel releases and the whole Fedora system just feels well laid out (after years of familiarity of course).

Re:One nice thing about Fedora7 is the buildtools (1)

ericrost (1049312) | more than 6 years ago | (#19340321)

Isn't Debian's (and thus Ubuntu's) packaging system also F/LOSS? (honestly a question, don't know and feeling lazy) I would be surprised if Free as in Freedom Debian was using something proprietary to spin packages/distros.

Re:One nice thing about Fedora7 is the buildtools (1)

crush (19364) | more than 6 years ago | (#19340805)

There's something called the Common Debian Build System (or was a year or two ago) which doesn't seem to make it as easy and straightforward as the Fedora tools.

Does it use a "hacked" kernel? (-1, Troll)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 6 years ago | (#19338915)

I'm not accusing Fedora here because I don't know, I've never used it. Do they use their own special kernel version?

It annoys me that of the big distros (hello Suse) seem to think that the standard kernel isn't good enough for them. So if you want to upgrade your kernel you can't just grab the source and use /proc/config.gz from your current setup because a dozen options won't be valid. Is there a good reason they seem to think they know better than Linus and all the other devs working hard on the standard kernel or is it just an ego trip for the developers at these distros?

Re:Does it use a "hacked" kernel? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19339083)

While Linus and the rest of the Kernel's (play on "Peanuts") gang adhere to GPL, many distributions do not, and they patch the kernel with non-GPL patches or configure the kernel to work with old and outdated "drivers" from hardware manufacturers who refuse to open up their source.

Additionally, the big distros are usually some of the main contributors of code to the kernel. Sometimes they have modifications to the kernel that they feel should have been included in the mainline. Sometimes it turns out that they were right but that the changes haven't been tested thoroughly yet.

Lastly, some stuff, like Bootsplash, could easily remain a project on its own without having to be part of the mainline kernel.

-Benjamin Vander Jagt

nothing a recompile won't fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19339117)

The first thing I do after installing any distribution on any of my machine is to download a vanilla kernel and compile it specifically for my machines. I've got a whole database of different .config's sitting around for each of them (and of course they change pretty often as my machines change).

Re:nothing a recompile won't fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19339823)

Yeah, I'd post that anonymously too.

Re:Does it use a "hacked" kernel? (1, Troll)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339137)

It annoys me that of the big distros (hello Suse) seem to think that the standard kernel isn't good enough for them.

It annoys me that you don't know that this is the official method for distributing kernels today.

The same is also true of glibc.

Is there a good reason they seem to think they know better than Linus and all the other devs working hard on the standard kernel

You may choose the distribution you want to run. You could choose one without a pile of patches to the kernel. Several of the features of many of these distributions depend on those kernel patches. If you don't want those features, don't run those distributions.

You might just as well ask why Linus thinks he knows better than the users, who want those drivers.

Re:Does it use a "hacked" kernel? (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#19340333)

You could choose one without a pile of patches to the kernel

It's called Slackware. Works pretty well for me.

Can you say Xen? (4, Informative)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339143)

> Is there a good reason they seem to think they know better than Linus and all the other devs working hard on the standard kernel
> or is it just an ego trip for the developers at these distros?

Yes, there are lots of good reasons. We can start with Xen. All of the big distros support it but it isn't in the mainline kernel tree. So right there you blow away the ability to run the mainline kernel without breaking things. The list goes on from there. The latest device drivers that haven't yet made it upstream, bug fixes that are working their way upstream, etc. There are lots of other good reasons why a distro kernel gets patches.

SUSE, like RHEL is longterm stable. That means bug fixes and security issues get patched into the same base kernel that originally shipped with that version of the distro because revving the whole kernel would be a nightmare.

That said, Fedora does have a policy of trying to stay close to the upstream kernel, pushing their patches upline wherever possible and not being afraid to revv the whole kernel in the lifetime of a 'stable' release. But when it comes down to big patchsets like Xen that they really want to ship but that neither Xen nor Linus appear interested in seeing merged they don't really have much of a choice. Longterm, just as an interested bystander, I'd suspect Xen to disappear from Fedora once KVM gets stable enough to totally replace it for the non-enterprise workloads Fedora is aimed at.

Re:Does it use a "hacked" kernel? (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339145)

I don't know about you, but all distro's I worked with, I have been able to compile a custom kernel. To make it really easy, usually they have the 'kernel-sources.rpm' (for SuSE and Fedora/RedHat) but you could just as well download the latest from kernel.org. The problem is usually, that when YOU compile a kernel, that YOU don't know which options should be turned on to make that particular distro work again (like SELinux or JFS/ReiserFS) but I have not heard yet that they develop their own kernel extensions.

Fedora use a hacked kernel? (3, Informative)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339163)

Ummm.... The short answer is yes. The long answer is that there are a gigantic number of patches, but they seem to miss out on a lot of the key patches out there and I'm not impressed with some of the stuff they've included. In order to do a lot of useful things, I've got to roll my own kernel, but because the patchset provided with FC is so convoluted, I can't use any of their patches. Which means I lose all the functionality that actually is provided and actually is useful.

What I'd like is for Red Hat to build better diffs, develop some alternative scheme for merging in new code, or get as many of their patches rolled into the -mm tree as possible, then use the -mm tree exclusively. It may not be a true vanilla kernel, but at least -mm is openly maintained, heavily used, popular and actively folded into the mainstream.

Re:Does it use a "hacked" kernel? (2, Insightful)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339321)


Is there a good reason they seem to think they know better than Linus and all the other devs working hard on the standard kernel


Linus and the other kernel devs have different, but partially overlapping goals. Distributions value stable, well tested kernels with new features as a secondary goal. Kernel devs want new features, increased performance, etc, with stability perhaps a bit less of a priority.

So it's not that Redhat/SuSe/Ubuntu "know better", it's that the distributions work on kernel stability a lot more than the kernel devs. This is NOT anything new. The days of thinking you should go get "the latest kernel from Linus" and just expect everything to work properly went away years ago. Did I used to go re-compile my kernel from the vanilla source? Sure. Do I do it anymore? Hell no, and without a good reason to I never will. If you want that sort of thing, pick a distribution that values the vanilla kernel. Otherwise stop griping.

Un-hacked kernels (Slackware) (4, Informative)

spaceyhackerlady (462530) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339537)

So it's not that Redhat/SuSe/Ubuntu "know better", it's that the distributions work on kernel stability a lot more than the kernel devs. This is NOT anything new. The days of thinking you should go get "the latest kernel from Linus" and just expect everything to work properly went away years ago. Did I used to go re-compile my kernel from the vanilla source? Sure. Do I do it anymore? Hell no, and without a good reason to I never will. If you want that sort of thing, pick a distribution that values the vanilla kernel. Otherwise stop griping.

Slackware (my favourite distro) uses utterly vanilla kernels. Want a new one? Download it from kernel.org, untar it, build it. No sweat.

I consider building a custom kernel to be an integral part of an installation: all the distro kernel does is bootstrap building the production one. All my systems run kernels that are a precise match to the hardware and my needs, with no superfluous junk. No superfluous security holes, either.

...laura

Re:Does it use a "hacked" kernel? (1)

Akaihiryuu (786040) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339489)

Afaik, all distributions (except possibly Slackware, which I haven't used for awhile) have their own kernel patches. I use Gentoo, and gentoo-sources does have a lot of patches. I've never had any luck with any of the distro "custom" kernels. I've had stability issues with every one of them, Gentoo included. I've been running Gentoo as my primary OS on 4 computers for 4 years now, been using vanilla-sources (stock kernel) the whole time, without missing out on anything except possibly bootsplash, which I don't use.

Developers decided this (1)

Builder (103701) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339553)

The Linux developers decided that all distros had to stabilise the kernel for them when they moved to the insane method of developing in the 'stable' kernel.

So if you want a stable API / ABI, you're forced to have some very hot staff on the payroll who can backport all fixes and drivers.

Re:Does it use a "hacked" kernel? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19339571)

Actually, it's the *job* of a distro to make choices about what to include, and to adapt what they include to meet that distro's particular goals. That's not an ego trip.

That said, for the most part Fedora's mantra is "upstream". If you read the devel list, they frequently push away patches to the kernel that are not upstream.

Re:Does it use a "hacked" kernel? (2, Insightful)

lcapitulino (894287) | more than 6 years ago | (#19340559)

Yes, Fedora and any sane distribution will have its own version of the Linux kernel.

No one think they're better then upstream developers, the point is that *this* *is* the recommend way to work, for several reasons:

1. Some patches that are important to customers, may not be in mainline yet due to the long process submit-review-fix-submit process (eg, xen) or even because no one cared of submitting it

2. The kernel is changing very fast these days, while distros usually has a longer release process. Then you end up by freezing an 'old' kernel that works for your distro

3. If you freeze a kernel, you'll have to backport things making the original kernel looks quite different

  Also, forks in the Linux kernel is not seem as a bad thing. On the contrary, forking is the recommended way to work: you fork the Linus' tree, work on it locally and then submit your changes. That's the way GIT works.

  And you CAN use /proc/config.gz from a modified kernel. The kernel build system will just discard any invalid symbol on a 'make oldconfig'.

Re:Does it use a "hacked" kernel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19340653)

The only thing added to a stock kernel by SuSE is apparmor and the bootsplash patch. Who knows what the hell Fedora/Red Hat puts in theirs. Every time I tried to compile a kernel on a Red Hat boxed it would bomb because of missing patches. Granted that was a long time ago I'm sure things have improved with Fedora.

Re:Does it use a "hacked" kernel? (1)

Craig Davison (37723) | more than 6 years ago | (#19341405)

Considering the 2.6 kernel releases are just one long string of development releases, I would hope that Fedora would ship with a patched and tested kernel.

If you want to update your kernel in distributions like Fedora and Suse, use the update manager. They're very quick to release security updates. If all you want is driver updates, you can build those outside of the kernel source (for example, Intel's e1000 driver).

WOW Xorg 7.3?! (4, Funny)

isa-kuruption (317695) | more than 6 years ago | (#19338935)

Not even x.org has 7.3 yet! Fedora is really on top of things!

Re:WOW Xorg 7.3?! (1)

Delirium Tremens (214596) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339363)

From X.org's wiki [x.org] :

The current development release is 7.3, currently scheduled to be released in May.
Well, end of May is kind of today. So it is theorically possible that Fedora 7 ships with it.

Re:WOW Xorg 7.3?! (1)

isa-kuruption (317695) | more than 6 years ago | (#19340273)

Okay so the main page says "check out the release schedule" and then when I got to the release schedule it doesn't list 7.3 at all. Well, huh, so I am to assume that 7.3 doesnt exist at all let alone about to be released.

I guess I needed to check the 'changes' document which mentions the release schedule, or well, not a schedule but some arbitrary date it could be released.

Looks like Xorg needs to fix and update their documentation!

Re:WOW Xorg 7.3?! (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 6 years ago | (#19342351)

Xorg, as they should, uses the OpenSource Linux format for storing information:

"Say, Paul, where'd you install that software?"
"It's in /opt. No..wait. I put that one in /usr/local. Or did I actually just install it in my home? Which box are you sitting at?"

Not sayin' everyone needs a /programs folder, but it would be nice to have some of the guesswork taken out of things. Then document it in a similar fashion. :-)

KDE vs GNOME (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19338985)

What is the current state of KDE vs GNOME on Fedora? I avoid the desktop on my machines as much as possible due to old history but am considering trying again. What are the diffs? Do these both have the 3D features now?

Look at the article (1)

number6x (626555) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339175)

The article tells the KDE version included.

Both KDE and XFCE [fedoranews.org] have been included in the test version repositories, so they should be in the final release.

I have not used Red Hat since version 4.2, but I think I'll give the live dvd a spin to see what they've changed since then. I'll probably stick with debian and Zenwalk as my main distro's though.

Re:Look at the article (1)

rainman_bc (735332) | more than 6 years ago | (#19341111)

I kinda feel though that Fedora leans towards Gnome as its favourite, as all Fedora/Redhat's management panels and the ilk are written for GTK not Qt... So I figure their more of the Gnome than KDE ilk, but either or should work fine with Fedora.

Then again, SuSE YaST is written in Qt and they favour Gnome, but that's because of a policy shift with the Ximian acquisition and then their acquisition by Novell...

Personally I prefer Gnome on my Fedora box because I don't feel like running Qt and GTK... If you want to run only Qt and KDE without loading any Gtk libs, then You're out of luck with Fedora I guess...

Not quite correct. Still nice. (4, Informative)

c0l0 (826165) | more than 6 years ago | (#19338991)

It's not Xorg 7.3 that's packaged with Fedora, but Xorg 7.2 with the xorg-server 1.3.0 release. It still features very interesting software, like, for example, noveau [freedesktop.org] , a free reimplementation of NVIDIA's hardware-accelerated 3D-drivers (still work in progress, of course), as well as a kernel patched with the all-new and highly anticipated mac802.11 [intellinuxwireless.org] -subsystem that whould yield much better compatibility and performance for all things WLAN. I also like this idea of "Revisor [heise.de] ", an application easily allowing for building customized bootable (install-)media with specific packages only.

Re:Not quite correct. Still nice. (1)

Lockejaw (955650) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339127)

as well as a kernel patched with the all-new and highly anticipated mac802.11-subsystem
I shall have to try this. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a ppc live disk, though I do have a USB drive I could try installing it on.

Fedora Core 7 released... (0, Offtopic)

spungo (729241) | more than 6 years ago | (#19338997)

... with Xorg 7.3, KDE 3.5.6, GNOME 2.18, and version 2.6.21... and many more numbers! More numbers than ever before. If it's numbers you want, you've come to the right distro!

Moonshine? (0, Flamebait)

shinypaper (996018) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339051)

I was all excited (have been using fedora since fc3) until i saw the codename....Moonshine? you have got to be kidding me!

Re:Moonshine? (2, Funny)

businessnerd (1009815) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339257)

Sweeet! Using Fedora 7 is going to be more fun than I expected. Except I probably won't remember much of the experience the next morning.

Re:Moonshine? (1)

shinypaper (996018) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339617)

I preferred the "codename" that it had yesterday.. ??? is a lot more mysterious than moonshine..hah oh well I'll live

Slashdotted already! (0, Redundant)

sconeu (64226) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339061)

Can't find the release notes, they're already 404'ed from slashdotting.

Re:Slashdotted already! (2, Informative)

stoomart (1092733) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339159)

Check here. [redhat.com]

release notes points to a 404 (-1, Redundant)

wiredog (43288) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339091)

Which means, I guess, that they aren't available.

404 Not Found (0, Redundant)

JungleBoy (7578) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339111)

release notes: 404 Not Found

Go slashdot Editors! Way to earn that paycheck! Keep up the hard work.

Enjoy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19339125)

From the Fedora release party in our office in Westford (yes, seriously); get it while you can and ENJOY!

Release notes available (as Beats) (1)

GM_Kombucha (1099529) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339187)

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats [fedoraproject.org] I'm pretty sure those are quite similar to what we would have found on the 404'ed Release Notes page.

What's the story with Extras? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19339193)

I had heard that Extras was going to be included, but the x86 DVD iso is under 3 GB in size. One would think that if all the stuff in Extras was included that it would be bigger. If it's not included, where does one get it? Hopefully not via a remote yum server, as I'd prefer a standard ISO issued with the release.

If anyone can help, it would be greatly appreciated. I can't check the release notes right now, as they are slashdotted. TIA.

Re:What's the story with Extras? (4, Informative)

spevack (210449) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339369)

Core and Extras have been merged into a single repository, so those names no longer exist. But what you are looking for DOES exist. It's all there in the "Everything" version of Fedora. That's an install tree that we provide at (for example):

http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux /releases/7/Everything/ [redhat.com]

Re:What's the story with Extras? (1)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339675)

what was the rationale behind merging core and extras? I've never found it to be a problem as an end user. Is this solely a developer centered thing?

Also I don't suppose anyone knows how many CDs you actually need to download to get a workable OS and just get the applications through yum, for FC6 it was just two... that would be good

Re:What's the story with Extras? (1)

Erwos (553607) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339847)

I think it's because they originally wanted a separation between what Red Hat maintained (packages perceived as important) and what the community maintained (packages perceived optional stuff). But now that they've managed to iron out the problems they had working/communicating with the community, there's no longer much need for those artificial distinctions.

There's also the whole "you can spin your own Fedora variant" that's being pushed in this release, which further blurs the line between what's a core package and what's an extra package. If I've got a Mythdora-esque LiveCD, MythTV is important, but Evolution might not be.

Thanks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19341101)

I appreciate the time you took to clarify my understanding. Thanks!

EFI? (1, Interesting)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339227)

I don't see EFI boot in the notes. Is this really still not supported?

-Peter

just take a look... (-1, Troll)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339259)

Xorg 7.3, KDE 3.5.6, GNOME 2.18... with names like these, it's no wonder Linux is having a hard time getting on the desktop

Distribution Wars? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19339357)

If someone asks me which distro they should try, I don't know what to tell them anymore. Is there a reason why a person might use fedora instead of ubuntu? Is there a website that gives clear, easy to understand comparisons?

Was already 404ed (2, Informative)

stoomart (1092733) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339371)

The release notes page was already hosed before this hit slashdot. Go here. [redhat.com]

you f4il 1t... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19339403)

Anybody knows (1)

Lobais (743851) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339413)

Anybody knows where one can try that "revolutionary new build system"?

Re:Anybody knows (2, Informative)

gdek (202709) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339509)

Check out Red Hat Magazine:

http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/05/31/remixing- fedora-7/ [redhatmagazine.com]

Sad (1)

Lobais (743851) | more than 6 years ago | (#19341193)

Sad, I thought it would be webbased, so I'd only have to download the software I wanted to use.

ISO images? not so much (1)

wmeyer (17620) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339431)

On the several sites I have so far explored, I see no ISO images. Moreover, the folders are labeled up through v6, with v7 apparently in the development folder. Score another point for the sloppiness of Linux distros....

Re:ISO images? not so much (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19339621)

Wait, mirrors aren't just symlinks!? They don't automagically update themselves? Imagine that.

Re:ISO images? not so much (1)

gambino21 (809810) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339751)

Not sure what sites you explored, but if you go to http://fedoraproject.org/ [fedoraproject.org]
You can find the download links pretty quickly "Get Fedora".

You can get the torrents for F7 here: http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/ [fedoraproject.org]
Or download the isos from here: http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/publiclist/Fedora /7/ [fedoraproject.org]

Re:ISO images? not so much (1)

MisterClaw (7624) | more than 6 years ago | (#19340085)

It takes a while for the mirrors to sync. Same thing happens when Microsoft releases new updates too every patch Tuesday. 2.7G files can't be copied instantaneously.

[kernel.org] http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/releases/7/Fedora /i386/iso/ [kernel.org]

Has the DVD iso for x86. I'd feel bad about posting a url to a mirror site if this one didn't have 2gbit/sec bandwidth!

Yay! Fedora 5 is now... (0, Troll)

Builder (103701) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339513)

no longer updated and a liability on every single server that it is installed on.

Let the MS bashing begin... somehow.

Neat!

Re:Yay! Fedora 5 is now... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19339623)

No Fedora 5 gets another month. In fact they pushed out some updates today.

Re:Yay! Fedora 5 is now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19339713)

You want innovation? That's what Fedora is for.

You want long-term stability and updates? That's what RHEL/CentOS/etc. is for.

As always... pick the right tool for the job. To bash Fedora for something it isn't designed to be is intellectually lazy.

Re:Yay! Fedora 5 is now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19339741)

Can you point me to a free upgrade for my Win98 box?

Re:Yay! Fedora 5 is now... (3, Informative)

L-s-L69 (700599) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339759)

With respect you're an idiot. Fedora is NOT designed or distributed as a stable plateform with long term support, if you want that from a Redhat type install use Enterprise or CentOs. Fedora *is* however the cutting edge of Redhat development and I use it across all my (personal) servers and PCs/Laptops ungrading when nessesary.

Re:Yay! Fedora 5 is now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19339829)

If you are putting Fedora on servers, you deserve any upgrade pain you get....

That Isn't Right (1)

EXTomar (78739) | more than 6 years ago | (#19340923)

(Yay! Fedora Core 5 is now) no longer updated and a liability on every single server that it is installed on.

Let the MS bashing begin... somehow.

Neat!
No one may be preparing software for your FC5 server but that is very different than what you are implying. If you still have a FC5 server, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from updating the software today with the latest source. What has stopped is someone doing the work for you. There is no legal or physical restrictions stopping a system engineer from grabbing the source for any software component and trying to recompile it where there is a fairly good chance it will compile "as is" without source modification on a FC5 machine. This seems to be a lot better support than Microsoft offers which is the same "as is support" but with less options because you can't modify the black box they sold you.

Re:Yay! Fedora 5 is now... (1)

hollywoodb (809541) | more than 6 years ago | (#19341365)

Fedora always has been and (looking like) always will be a fast-moving distribution. For servers, if you want the Fedora/RedHat style without putting up the RedHat money, use CentOS. CentOS 5 is also plenty usable as a desktop and there are as many addon repos for RHEL/CentOS as there are for Fedora.

Re:Yay! Fedora 5 is now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19342115)

You fucking dumbass. Same thing's true if someone's running Personal Web Server on Win98, so your point is pretty much...well, pointless.

I assume that was the goal though, make a stupid point in order to draw a response. Are you happy that you got it? Are you satisfied? Is that childish urge in your pathetic excuse for a personality to disrupt appeased? Good for you, little man.

Interesting coming from a guy who apparently has "two open cases with the police at the moment" (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=235551&cid=19 218969)...what did you do, touch a kid in their secret spot?

Misidentification of liability (1)

TheOrquithVagrant (582340) | more than 6 years ago | (#19342227)

I'd say the liability is not Fedora, the liability is the idiot admin who used Fedora on a production server.

Megaraid2 Performance (1)

macaulay805 (823467) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339565)

Does anyone know anything about the horrible performance issues with the Megaraid2 driver in FC6 (2.6.20 kernel performs at about 30% of the 2.4.31 kernel as far as Disk IO is concerned)? It appears to be a driver issue.

The hardware I'm running on is a Dell PowerEdge 2950/1950s with a PERC4 (LSI Raid Controller). Two SCSI drives that are mirroring (forgot which RAID level that is off hand).

I wonder if this issue has been resolved in the 2.6.21 Kernel.

Re:Megaraid2 Performance (1)

EvilRyry (1025309) | more than 6 years ago | (#19340443)

If you're measuring performance with hdparm or dd, check the readahead on both. I noticed a similar drop in performance and it was because of different default readahead values on two distributions.

Re:Megaraid2 Performance (1)

macaulay805 (823467) | more than 6 years ago | (#19340953)

I was measuring the performance with Bonnie++. Below are the results:

Debian Sarge 2.4.31:
          -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite-
512M 30215 99 303716 100 112504 22 (Sequential Output)

Fedora Core 6 2.6.20:
          -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite-
512M 6222 12 4344 1 5066 1 (Sequential Output)

Both have the readahead speed tweaked. Played with different schedulers and their respective properties. Turned off/on Hyperthreading. Write cache settings on the controller itself. Still no go.

Re:Megaraid2 Performance (1)

pp (4753) | more than 6 years ago | (#19341259)

Hmn. Might not be the same, but... We had a PERC5/i SAS RAID controller and the performance was awful, FC6, CentOS4, slow in both. As if "everything" stopped after a disk operation on the system.

Rebuilt the array and everything started working a-ok (300MB/s RAID-5 writes to the array etc.).

Sorry CD Users (2, Informative)

Kainaw (676073) | more than 6 years ago | (#19339739)

Fedora 7 is released with a DVD iso. If you need the set of CD isos, sorry. You'll have to wait to see if anyone is nice enough to create them in the future. You can try to use the rescue cd and a network install, but again, you'll have to wait until the bandwidth opens up enough for that. So, either upgrade your computer or stick with FC6.

Re:Sorry CD Users (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19339991)

They have Live CD's now. You can find them at the bottom of the Fedora 7 torrents on their torrent page

Re:Sorry CD Users (1)

Monkey (16966) | more than 6 years ago | (#19340861)

Can somebody explain what Fedora means by a "Live" distribution?

Re:Sorry CD Users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19341529)

when I see live, I think "like knoppix"

Its probably EXACTLY the same kind of install process as you would see for Ubuntu

Re:Sorry CD Users (2, Insightful)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#19340841)

The LiveCDs aren't CDs?

Re:Sorry CD Users (3, Interesting)

Kainaw (676073) | more than 6 years ago | (#19341129)

The LiveCDs aren't CDs?

No. They are not. I want a set of CDs with all the RPMs on them (just as I had with FC2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). The LiveCDs have a minimal Fedora install. If you want to put it on your computer (and toss out the CD), you need to do a network install. I have 17 computers here. I don't want to wait hours and hours for a network install on each one.

Re:Sorry CD Users (2, Informative)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 6 years ago | (#19341681)

  1. Download the DVD ISO into one computer on your LAN
  2. Mount the ISO filesystem image on a loop device
  3. Turn on an FTP daemon to serve up the DVD files
  4. Tell the 17 computers to do an FTP-based install over your lan
I've done this. It's faster than a DVD or CD install because you don't have to deal with an optical drive's abysmal seek latency. And no swapping CDs for hours.

Re:Sorry CD Users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19341171)

man go out and buy a dvd reader for 15$

What are these CD things of which you speak? (1)

Kludge (13653) | more than 6 years ago | (#19341223)

Seriously, I have one word of advice: NETWORK.
Network installs are so much less painful.

Re:What are these CD things of which you speak? (1)

mauriatm (531406) | more than 6 years ago | (#19342445)

Doesn't that imply one has a network setup that can perform such an install?

I've had a DVD-ROM for years, but I would always download the CD ISO file. I would only burn CD#1 to a CD-RW and load the rest using a hard drive install. Very very fast. It was better back in the days when I could do it with a 3.5 floppy disk. The annoying thing about the testing process for Fedora 7 was that I had to download a DVD image every time and burn it to a DVD-RW (to spare creating a toaster DVD every month, but it toasted a DVD-RW anyways). Yes, I *just* bought my first DVD writer. Personally I found having CD ISO's was just a lot faster and easier than the other choices.

I have done NFS network installs for FC6 on laptops, but all things considered for a novice I can't say this would be easy or painless - IMO.

Re:Sorry CD Users (1)

scottv67 (731709) | more than 6 years ago | (#19342011)

Fedora 7 is released with a DVD iso. If you need the set of CD isos, sorry. You'll have to wait to see if anyone is nice enough to create them in the future. You can try to use the rescue cd and a network install, but again, you'll have to wait until the bandwidth opens up enough for that. So, either upgrade your computer or stick with FC6.

Why not download the DVD ISO and then extract all of the files from that ISO file to a directory on a local ftp or http server on your network? Then use the "network install" CD to boot your system and point the installer to your ftp or http server? That's the method I use when installing Fedora on systems at work. I burn only the small boot ISO to a CD. The rest of the install files sit on one of our servers. I have even installed Fedora on a home system by using the boot CD at home and then pointing the installer program at an http server back at work (we have more outbound bandwidth at work than I have inbound bandwidth at home via Road Runner).

Torrents rock! (0)

thewils (463314) | more than 6 years ago | (#19340341)

The 64bit DVD torrent is going like shit of a shovel right now.

256kB/s as I type this...

Looks like I'll have it in 4 hours.

Re:Torrents rock! (1)

thewils (463314) | more than 6 years ago | (#19340377)

dammit, the correct idiom would be "shit off a shovel"

must...preview...posts.

Yuo Fail it?! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19341253)

to yet a80ther

Tag: notlinux (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19342281)

RedHat is NOT Linux. Fedora is an unstable and low quality product used to make linux newcomers accustomed to a completely non-standard distribution and then become reliant on it and be forced to pay for RedHat should they want to use it in a production environment as they are unable to use a genuine standards adherent Linux distribution.

Fedora is a steaming pile. (Of what? You choose...)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?