Red Hat Linux 7.3 Released

qurob was the first of many readers to submit that Red Hat 7.3 has been released. Press release doesn't contain any surprises, just lists a bunch of stuff thats included with the dist. (Evolution, Mozilla, Apache). So go find a mirror if you're a Red Hat runner. Update: 05/06 14:05 GMT by T : christooley helpfully points out this list of mirrors.

KDE3

[magicslax (532351)]

you'd think they would have touted kde3 a bit more instead of putting it at the bottom of the list. isn't this the first major distro to ship with the newest version of kde?

Re:KDE3

[GrenDel Fuego (2558)]

Suse 8.0 includes KDE 3.0, and was released last month.

Re:KDE3

[Mandi Walls (6721)]

eh, they're a buncha crazy gnome freaks.

bastards like python, too.

may as well just put hot pokers in my eyes.

--mandi
(fan of purple linux...)

Whats new Link

[bruceg (14365)]

HERE [redhat.com] is a link to whats new in this release.

Re:What's new?

[Delirium Tremens (214596)]

Alright, it is probably a typo in their release notes. The full package list [redhat.com] says Mozilla 0.9.9 . Way better.

Nice spoiler, jerk!

[PD (9577)]

Press release doesn't contain any surprises, just lists a bunch of stuff thats included with the dist. (Evolution, Mozilla, Apache)

Well thanks a lot, jerk. Some of us in California haven't even had a chance to read it yet, and you've given away the ending. Didn't the negative feedback from the Lone Gunmen snafu teach you anything?

Sheesh!

A Question

[Jouster (144775)]

With up2date, how much longer can RedHat release CDs?

It has been our policy at work for some time now to grab whatever the latest release is, run up2date on it, and modify a CD image of the old CD so it has the new RPMs.

Is this prevalent? Will it become more so?

Jouster

Re:A Question

[tuffy (10202)]

With up2date, how much longer can RedHat release CDs?

As long as the majority of RedHat users don't have high speed internet access, CDs are still a viable method of distribution. The bandwidth of a box full of RedHat CDs in the trunk of my car is a helluva lot more than anything a measly 56k modem can provide, that's for sure...

Re:A Question

[stilwebm (129567)]

I remember in 1992, even as late as 1994, many people said "individual telephone lines will never allow data transfers faster than 28800bps".

Of course DVD-ROMs (or another large capacity, inexpensive medium) will be more popular by the time bandwith makes a 650MB download seem trivial.

Mirrors are found :-)

[French Thias (188992)]

I've put up a list of mirror servers that are known to be fully synced with the release here :

http://freshrpms.net/mirrors/valhalla.html [freshrpms.net]

I've also already rebuilt a pre-configured apt and its reposiroty for use with Valhalla, as well as many custom packages (lame, gkrellm, glimmer, nessus, xmame...)

Having already tested it a bit, I must say this release looks darn good and stable so far! Maybe it's because there are fewer changes than usual (which explains this being 7.3 and not 8.0).

Matthias

x.3 release

[Goronguer (223202)]

This may be a minor point, but Red Hat deserves credit for calling this release "7.3" instead of "8.0". Especially when their pattern for years now has been x.0, x.1, x.2, x+1.0..., it shows admirable restraint for them to break the pattern and resist the temptation to call this a major-version release, when it is in fact an update release. Let's hear it for truth in advertising!

Re:pattern also seems to follow kernel versions

[Papineau (527159)]

Don't forget the version of the C++ compiler. I don't have the different version numbers shipped with the different distributions, but from one version to the other the ABI (application binary compatibility) is not guaranteed, if not plain absent.

IE, you can't link some part of a C++ program compiled with gcc-2.95.3 with some other compiled with gcc 3.0, although you can do the same thing with a C program.

I think the compiler thing will be one of the major compatibility changes for RH 8.0.

(And damn them, I left my dorm room last week!)

From looking at the release notes

[wiredog (43288)]

It seems that if you have RH7.2 and you have run up2date weekly you have everything except for Moz, kde3, Evolution, and some gnome collab app. Since I've been running kde 3 since the release and have Moz 1.0-RC1, I see no need to download the ISO's.

Re:Kernel hacks, kjournald

[bero-rh (98815)]

First of all, don't use 2.4.7-anything.
It has some major problems including a remote root exploit. Please upgrade to either the 7.2 errata kernel, 2.4.9-something, which fixes all known security problems, or the 7.3 kernel.

So there are two possibilities:
1) fsked up my 2.4.18 config, and thus ended up compiling a really crappy kernel. But I've been compiling kernels since 1.2.13, and have yet to have one behave anywhere NEAR this badly.
2) RH have significantly hacked 2.4.7 to make it useful. Does anyone know whether the same hacks have happened for the 7.3 kernel?

2, and possibly 1 as well.

Red Hat kernels are always patched quite a bit to make them more stable/usable, but 2.4.18 doesn't look THAT bad for me (maybe related to different hardware or different setups).

Since kjournald appears to be the culprit, the Red Hat version of 2.4.18 is likely to fix the problem because it uses a newer version of ext3 and everything related to it.

Try it in Test Drive

[Test Drive (236441)]

I have our Red Hat Test Drive system updated now to Red Hat 7.3. As always, accounts [compaq.com] with us are free, and you get access to a number of different systems [compaq.com]. Try out the latest releases of operating systems on our hardware before you commit it to your own!

Re:Try it in Test Drive

[Test Drive (236441)]

Sure. Test Drive is mostly intended for developers who want to port or test their code on platforms to which they might not otherwise have access. However, it is open to anyone. When you sign up, you get a free shell account on our systems which, so long as you obey the rules [compaq.com], you should be able to use indefinitely. We try to keep all our offerings [compaq.com] up to date, and we're generally pretty responsive if you let us know about something you'd like to see in the program. You may also want to check our FAQ [compaq.com], or get in touch with us [compaq.com] if you have more questions.

Re:Does the distribution still include Netscape?

[bero-rh (98815)]

It's still included.

Both Konqueror and Mozilla are better for most stuff by now, but unfortunately, Netscape 4.x is still the only browser that does Java without the need of shipping a not legally redistributable JDK.

Re:Does the distribution still include Netscape?

[bero-rh (98815)]

There are several problems in the license.
The part I'm referring to is this:

2. License to Distribute Software. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including, but not limited to Section 4 (Java Technology Restrictions) of these Supplemental Terms, Sun grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license to reproduce and distribute the Software, provided that (i) you distribute the Software complete and unmodified (unless otherwise specified in the applicable README file) and only bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Programs, (ii) the Programs add significant and primary functionality to the Software, (iii) you do not distribute additional software intended to replace any component(s) of the Software (unless otherwise specified in the applicable README file), (iv) you do not remove or alter any proprietary legends or notices contained in the Software, (v) you only distribute the Software subject to a license agreement that protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms contained in this Agreement, and (vi) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software. (vi) include the following statement as part of product documentation (whether hard copy or electronic), as a part of a copyright page or proprietary rights notice page, in an "About" box or in any other form reasonably designed to make the statement visible to users of the Software: "This product includes code licensed from RSA Security, Inc.", and (vii) include the statement, "Some portions licensed from IBM are available at http://oss.software.ibm.com/icu4j/".

IANAL, but for me, this implies:

• non-transferable -- we can't allow anyone else to copy our CDs
• bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Programs -- we don't write anything in Java, so we'd be shipping it for a different purpose, e.g. to view someone else's Java applets -> we'd violate the license.
• You do not distribute additional software intended to replace any component(s) of the Software -- while this is probably meant to say you can't require someone to install JDK and then remove javac to replace it with something else, it can be interpreted as "If you ship JDK, you may not ship any replacements for parts of it [such as GCJ, Jikes or Kaffe]". We ship gcj.

up2date from 7.2 to 7.3?

[ceswiedler (165311)]

Is is possible (and easy) to use up2date to upgrade from 7.2 to 7.3, at least for certain packages like KDE?

I've been meaning to upgrade to KDE3, even have the RPMs, but up2date works so much better.

Re:up2date from 7.2 to 7.3?

[Menthos (25332)]

Some say it's possible to use up2date for upgrading by tweaking /etc/redhat-release to the new value, thus tricking up2date in the next run to upgrade the whole distro. I haven't tried it myself.

The easiest and supported way of upgrading from one release to another is of course using the installer. Just get the cd:s, pop them in and select "upgrade existing install". This is supported and will also take care of interrelease changes (like boot loader change, ext3 migration etc.), which most hacks for upgrading that only updates packages won't. Granted, there seems to be few of those changes this time, but I'd recommend the CD upgrade method any day.

How is KDE3 running?

[ChrisWong (17493)]

I have been underwhelmed by Red Hat's packaging of KDE in the past. For example, in a boxed release (either 7.1 or 7.2), kdehelp's "back" and "forward" buttons didn't work. When KDE 2.2.2 RPMs were released, they helpfully included (and required) a version of Qt that froze the desktop: I had to disable klipper. The current KDE3 RPMs for RH 7.2 from Red Hat have their own glitches: ksplash goes kblooie at startup, and konqueror seems to have this big memory leak that bloats its footprint over time. I wonder if anyone at Red Hat even tries to use KDE.

How is KDE3 running on RH 7.3? Does Konq still have that memory leak?

Instant ISOs available

[neuroid (6952)]

If you shell out some cash for RHN [redhat.com], they have 'Instant ISOs' available.

Much faster than the mirrors I've tried - check it out.

yeah redhat network...

[Polo (30659)]

So I guess joining the redhat network worked out pretty well. I'm downloading the iso images in parallel at the capacity of my cable modem.

Re:Something's broken...

[Ankou (261125)]

Hey I have no problem running apt-get on RH. If you cared to search enough you would have found you can get apt-get for Red Hat 7.X from:

http://freshrpms.net/apt/

Re:Don't think I'll go that way again...

[spongman (182339)]

why wait?

seriously, Woody is more stable than most other distros even before release. Yes, it's still got a few critical bugs, but they're mostly for non-x86 platforms. it's not like getting the final bits is going to be any harder than typing 41 characters.

Re:Old version of Mozilla?

[bero-rh (98815)]

Error in the announcement. It's actually 0.9.9.

Re:Old version of Mozilla?

[bero-rh (98815)]

It's not.
OpenOffice 1.0 was released way too late to get through the QA process (can't reveal the schedule of course, but take a look at the changelogs in packages to get an idea about when the release had to be deep-frozen ;) ).

There are a couple of other things that prevent it from getting into Rawhide at the moment.

Off the top of my head (there are probably some more):

• It doesn't build without Sun JDK. We're looking into porting to gcj, but it's quite a way to go. Since gcj in any gcc prior to 3.1 is rather sucky, this was not even possible for a 7.x release.
• The UNO stuff requires a specific version of gcc, and it's not the "right" one.
• The installation process is not suitable for packaging. (Try building an RPM of something requiring GUI input during installation...)

These are all fixable because it's Open Source, but they require a considerable amount of time.

Also, the database application is missing (because it couldn't be relicensed), and some people depend on it.

I'm expecting OpenOffice in the base distribution in the next release... But this is not an official statement and much less a promise.

Re:gcc-2.96

[bero-rh (98815)]

There's not much of a problem with 2.96.

Earlier versions than 2.96 are not an option because they don't do real C++ (see http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html [bero.org]).
3.0.x releases are rather broken and don't have any real advantages over the current builds of 2.96.

gcc 3.1 will be a very good release, even better than 2.96. It is what we're likely to use in the next major release (unless, of course, gcc 3.2 comes first and is good).

Re:RedHat and licenses

[Lac (135355)]

Sorry for replying to myself this quickly. But you really have to look at this document. Look at the first part, that talks about the auto-signing "feature" of the EULA.

By installing any or all of the software included with this product, you agree to the following terms and conditions.

Now, I really love and respect Red Hat. I haven't lost any respect for them since they started making it big and I am sure that this is just a big, big mistake. Really./P>

But think about what they are saying! If I use the SRPM to compile and install the source code for kernel, or Emacs, or any GNU tools, I am agreeing to this? Has someone gone insane at RedHat? That software is covered under the GNU GPL. Slapping a EULA on it isn't even remotely legal!

Putting a EULA on a distribution is one thing. Putting one on "any or all of the software included" with it is another entirely. I hope this is just a big mistake, or that I just misunderstand this whole issue and am blowing it all out of proportion. Anyone at RedHat care to comment?