Red Hat Linux 7.3 Released 466
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.
Re:KDE3 (Score:4, Insightful)
From looking at the release notes (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think Red Hat should be given credit based on the quality of the release, not the version number.
Re:Don't think I'll go that way again... (Score:3, Insightful)
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:A Question (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Valhalla? (Score:1, Insightful)
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=Valhalla
See the "Linux is Dying" post plays on this meaning...
Valhalla
\Val*hal"la\, n. [Icel. valh["o]ll, literally, hall of the slain; valr the slain (akin to AS. w[ae]l, OHG. wal battlefield, wuol defeat, slaughter, AS. w[=o]l pestilence) + h["o]ll a royal hall. See Hall, and cf. Walhalla.] [Written also walhalla.] 1. (Scand. Myth.) The palace of immortality, inhabited by the souls of heroes slain in battle.
It's also a place in the state of New York in the United States of America although I wouldn't want to be caught dead there
Re:A Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course DVD-ROMs (or another large capacity, inexpensive medium) will be more popular by the time bandwith makes a 650MB download seem trivial.
Re:pattern also seems to follow kernel versions (Score:4, Insightful)
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!)
Re:RedHat and licenses (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Something's broken... (Score:2, Insightful)
I am chicago-style. Mama mia! I have-a no pants!