Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Red Hat Software Businesses

Fedora Core 2 test1 Released 369

Posted by CmdrTaco from the many-eyes-make-shallow-bugs dept.
GerritHoll writes "A test release of Fedora Core 2 is now available from Red Hat and at distinguished mirror sites near you, and is also available in the torrent. Fedora Core has expanded in this release to four binary ISO images and four source ISO images. This test release is specifically designed for testing the 2.6 kernel, GNOME 2.5, and KDE 3.2. Please file bugs via Bugzilla, Product Fedora Core, Version test1, Architecture i386 so that they are noticed and appropriately classified. Discuss this test release on fedora-test-list."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fedora Core 2 test1 Released More

Fedora Core 2 test1 Released

Comments Filter:
  • I know Fedora is supposed to be bleeding edge, but isn't including GNOME 2.5 (a development version) a little, un-savery? I would imagine they'd want to wait for the first release of 2.6, and go with 2.4 till then.

  • Huge (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 12, 2004 @02:49PM (#8260233)

    Fedora Core has expanded in this release to four binary ISO images...

    Ugh. Looks like my modem will be getting a workout again soon. Wouldn't it be easier to skimp on some of the apps, and provide separate links to them so we can reduce download times? Four ISO discs is hella big.

    • Re:Huge (Score:5, Informative)

      by theIG ( 647290 ) <kyle@interstellarglue.com> on Thursday February 12, 2004 @02:52PM (#8260278) Homepage
      you don't need to download all of the isos to install fedora. Probably the first two at the most. Just do a minimal install, and then use aptforrpm or yum to install all of the software you need from the internet. -kyle

      • Re:Huge (Score:2, Informative)

        by shaitand ( 626655 )
        If it's like fedora 1 you need all the iso's. minimal install STILL requires like 30mbs off of disc 3. There is plenty of room for everything and then some on disc1 but due to poor structuring and layout of the cd's.
      • that's what they said about mandrake 9.1 . then those bastards put all the modem stuff on the 3rd cd. i think i had a similar problem with redhat 9, now that i think of it

    • Re:Huge (Score:2, Informative)

      by DAldredge ( 2353 )
      If it is like Fedora Core 1 just download the first ISO and select the base install. The base install in Fedora Core 1 was just on the first cd. You can download the rpms for anything else you need later.
    • Allegedly you can download just the first disc and choose a 'minimal' install, then use yum or apt-get* to install the packages you want.

      Can anyone confirm this?

      * only yum is installed by default, apt-get you have to snag from http://freshrpms.net/

      • Re:Huge (Score:3, Interesting)

        by GerritHoll ( 70088 )
        If you fetch almost everything from the internet, what's the point of downloading an iso at all? If your uplink is fast enough to do 'yum install <very-long-list>', I don't see why it isn't fast enough to perform 'minimal install' through FTP.

    • Re:Huge (Score:5, Informative)

      by rodgster ( 671476 ) <[moc.oohay] [ta] [retsgdor]> on Thursday February 12, 2004 @02:55PM (#8260314) Journal
      I installed it last night via ftp and the boot.iso

      Nautilus crashes on logoff, and I seem to have some acpi issues on my laptop, but it looks really cool. A lot of New stuff and much better GUIs.

      Just my 2 cents.

  • apt-get and yum? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by anthonyclark ( 17109 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @02:49PM (#8260241)

    So how do I add a magic line to my sources.list or yum.conf to allow me to upgrade to this 'release'? Will upgrading be as easy as apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade ?

  • Would it not be (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 12, 2004 @02:50PM (#8260252)
    more prudent if slashdot made some kind of ticker on the website of software releases?

    • A ticker for linux distros? Shit, that'd be longer than NYSE on the bloomberg channel. I just hope they don't also delay the "quote" 15 minutes or else we might miss one.

  • What about (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 12, 2004 @02:51PM (#8260260)
    Mandrake 10.0 beta 2 is out also! Why no posting about that, hrmmm?

    • Re:What about (Score:3, Funny)

      by Mateito ( 746185 )
      > Mandrake 10.0 beta 2 is out also! Why no posting
      > about that, hrmmm?

      Because Mandrake, like BSD and Apple, is dying, and will continue to do so for the next 20 years. :)

  • Silly question (Score:3, Interesting)

    by baryon351 ( 626717 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @02:52PM (#8260279)
    Is there a version for PPC machines?

    thanks

    • Re:Silly question (Score:3, Informative)

      by teh*fink ( 618609 )
      try yellowdog linux [yellowdoglinux.com]; it may not be entirely up to date but it's mostly there. i regularly rebuild fedora source rpms to use on my ppc linux box and they also have a 64-bit version for the g5 ready.

  • Use a mirror (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 12, 2004 @02:53PM (#8260281)
    Come on editors. Why did you link directly to the full isos?!?!?! Use a mirror [redhat.com].

  • i386 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by truthsearch ( 249536 )
    Why is Fedora/Red Hat still compiled for i386? Can there be many 386 or 486 users? I would think it better to make it for Pentium I or II to get a nice performance gain while not abandoning many users. I realize they probably do it because Linux's oldest supported Intel chip is the 386, but it seems much more practical to compile higher. This was the reason I switched to Mandrake years ago, to try a distro compiled for Pentium.

    • Re:i386 (Score:5, Informative)

      by chez69 ( 135760 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @02:57PM (#8260329) Homepage Journal
      If you read the mailing lists, you'll realize that the parts that benefit (kernel, glibc, openssl) are compiled for i686.

      anthing else is a exercise in gentoo masterbation.
    • There is that much performance difference, but I still agree. I wish there was an i686 version of both Fedora and Debian.

      i686 should be the default build and special low-end builds could be made for i386. I'd say i386 is more the exception than the rule.

    • There is a reason. (Score:3, Informative)

      by ZuperDee ( 161571 )
      The important parts of Fedora for which CPU-specific optimizations do make a difference are already offered in i686 versions. The most prominent examples are the kernel and the glibc libraries.

      For the rest, I believe it was found that compiling general user-space applications for i686 makes only a miniscule difference, if any.

    • Some misconceptions (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Rascasse ( 719300 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @03:02PM (#8260379)
      Fedora/RH compiles their distributions so that they only use i386 instructions. However, if I'm not mistaken the binaries are optimized for i686 class CPUs. In other words, the instructions are scheduled optimally for an i686 class CPU, but they only use i386 instructions. In fact, in some performance critical components, the binaries are both scheduled for i686 and use i686 instructions. One example of such a binary is glibc.
    • I remember reading somewhere that they optimise builds for i586 while keeping binary compatibility with i386. The exception being the packages that need optimisation, like glibc and the kernel.

    • Re:i386 (Score:5, Informative)

      by zoloto ( 586738 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @03:03PM (#8260395)
      the performance gain you get is almost nill.
      I know because I've tried both.

      • Then why... (Score:2, Informative)

        by truthsearch ( 249536 )
        Then why is Gentoo so much faster for me than Mandrake or Red Hat on the same computer? And I don't just mean launch times or graphics drivers or a pre-emptive patch. I mean everything is faster. I've checked the kernel compile flags and other things and can only attribute the huge gain to being native compiled to my Pentium III.

        • Not sure... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by justMichael ( 606509 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @03:53PM (#8260940) Homepage
          I just finished testing Fedora Core 1, RedHat EL WS 3 and Gentoo 1.4 as I am about to build a new server and am curious where I should go now that "RedHat" is defunct for the free stuff.

          My results show that there was no significant difference between the 3 of them (No, I didn't do a stage 1, I did stage 3 and even that took longer than I wanted).

          The interesting thing was that RHEL WS burned through the RAM and started swapping a LOT sooner than Fedora or Gentoo, I was able to apply 4 times the load before Fedora and Gentoo started swapping.

          RHEL was slightly faster 1-1.5 transactions/sec. But as we know once your web server starts using the swap you might as well pull the plug.

          Dsiclaimer: I should have tested Gentoo using a Stage 1 install and I may do that before I make a final decision.

          The test consisted of a production environment as I would normally use, the load was applied using siege [joedog.org].

          And to avoid the flames, if someone has tuning ideas for either Fedora or Gentoo for a general purpose (apache/php/db) box I'll be more than happy to listen.
    • Especially since Fedora has very agressively defined itself as the bleeding edge distro. I can understand debian stable and Red Hat Enterprise being compiled for i386 but not Fedora.

    • Re:i386 (Score:3, Informative)

      by shaitand ( 626655 )
      My system is 100% optimized for my athlonXP, yours can be too, just pick up a copy of gentoo and do a stage1 install.

    • Re:i386 (Score:3, Informative)

      by Spoke ( 6112 )
      While Fedora still compiles with the i386 instruction set for maximum compatibility, they do optimize for the i686 cpus using the following compiler options: "-march=i386 -mcpu=i686".

      I'd be interested to see if specifying -march=i586 resulted in any significant speed increase. I doubt it would be significant. For code which does appear to be sensitive to optimizations, they do provide -march=i686 compiled RPMs as well as i386, glibc is a good example, openssl is another.

      If you want an OS totally optimiz

      • Re:i386 (Score:2, Informative)

        by Brandybuck ( 704397 )
        If you want an OS totally optimized for your CPU, use Gentoo.

        Or any other OS that allows you a complete source build, such as FreeBSD.

    • Re:i386 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ctr2sprt ( 574731 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @03:11PM (#8260485)
      I suspect the cause of your confusion is that many people insist on referring to Intel's 32-bit instruction set architecture by the name of the first processor to support it. The proper term is "IA32" (for "Intel Architecture, 32-bit").

      My campaign for IA32 Awareness continues. If only I could persuade some actual developers to use the right term.

    • it's been my understanding that i386 is a rather generic term that describes the intel platform (instruction set) that started with the 80386, as opposed to 'alpha' or 'ppc'.

      eric

    • Re:i386 (Score:5, Informative)

      by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @03:23PM (#8260594) Journal
      Oh, the Red Hat engineers aren't stupid.

      The Pentium ran stuff compiled for the 386 rather slowly, and you could get significant performance improvements by using stuff targetting the 586.

      The Pentium II did a much, much better job of running 386 code quickly, which is why folks mostly stopped worrying about doing processor-specific builds.

      There are certain packages for which the processor type makes a significant difference. Red Hat builds multiple versions of those few -- the kernel, glibc, etc.

      Furthermore, as others have pointed out, Red Hat already aligns the code for i686 by default. This is where most of the improvements come from.

      If you're really curious, I have tried rebuilding most of Red Hat for a couple versions for the i686, just for the hell of it. One gets no noticeable improvements. It's really a waste of time to spend time building differently. There are a couple programs that use arch-specific assembly (SDL, for instance), but in general, very few software packages are faster when built specifically for a given processor.
    • They have it compiling to i386 instructions, but optimizing for i686. Plus the kernel has cpu detection, so in many places it will use i686 instructions when built for i386. I haven't been able to find benchmarks, but I suspect that for most apps the performance hit is minimal, with the exception of those that rely heavily on floating point or 64 bit math.

      Though you do have a point that they really don't need to do that anymore. If someone wants to put Linux on a 386, they shouldn't use the newest Redhat a

    • Re:i386 (Score:3, Informative)

      by noselasd ( 594905 )
      Fedora is compiled mostly with -march=i386 -mcpu=i686, except atleast glibc and the kernel which for one comtains lots of arch specific assembly so it makes sence to divide it up in more arch packages.

      If you read the gcc manual, -march=i386 -mcpu=i686 optimizes for i686, but only uses the i386 instruction set.(Hint: there is _alot_ more to optimizing than the instruction set..)
      Anyway there isn't that many speedy instruction present in i686, atleast not since gcc doesn't generate mmx or sse automatically.
      An

  • bittorrenting now (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stephenb ( 18235 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @02:54PM (#8260305) Homepage
    Please join me:

    btdownloadcurses.py --max_upload_rate 350 \
    --url http://torrent.dulug.duke.edu/FC2-test1-binary-i38 6.torrent

    Thank you, and goodnight! :)

  • fedora.org (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hallow ( 2706 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @02:54PM (#8260308) Homepage
    And since there was no link to the fedora website, I went to fedora.org. Whoops. Guess I'm gonna get fired (it's not a work friendly image, not nearly in goatse's league though). Apparently they forgot to register the names before they announced the project name.

  • Already using it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZuperDee ( 161571 ) <[moc.oohay] [ta] [eedrepuz]> on Thursday February 12, 2004 @02:55PM (#8260309) Homepage Journal
    I've been following its development by using Rawhide on my system. Yeah, call me crazy and stupid, but the reason I'm doing it is that I *MUST* use the kernel 2.6 now, since 2.4 does not support the onboard SATA controller on my VIA 8237 southbridge. (It'd be kind of a nuisance not being able to use my hard drive under Linux, you know.)

    To me, the 2.6 kernel is really almost the ONLY reason to use FC2. Yeah, GNOME 2.5 might have some nice refinements over 2.4, but they're mere incremental improvements that for the most part, I don't even notice.

    The 2.6 kernel also finally has ALSA support built-in, which is another good reason to go with FC2. I find it has *MUCH* better sound support as a result. (I could never get the stock OSS drivers working satisfactorily.)

    Just my 2 cents, for what it's worth.
  • ...this new test release will be the bee's knees? I have to really wonder why it is that the releases for Fedora are coming out so quickly? Most of the other distros that I have been using have had a fairly regular release schedule? I have not used Fedora yet, but I feel like I am being thrown a bone, in hopes of getting the new kernel tested and patched.

    • Re:So, what you are saying is... (Score:5, Informative)

      by pyros ( 61399 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @03:30PM (#8260663) Journal
      The aggresive release schedule is one of the project goals to keep it current with OSS projects. Debian Unstable is updated rather frequently too, as is Mandrake Cooker, and Ark Dockyard, not sure if Suse has anything similar. The difference is that Fedora is actually a released distro, with official ISO images and everything. If you want a slower schedule and more tested software, you need to go to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. If you want a something that's updating daily, and don't care about and actual releases (ala Debian Unstable and friends) use Rawhide.
  • Now I'll need a comparison between this and Mandrake 10.0 Beta 2. Maybe I'll try Fedora Core 2 on my wife's comuter and Mandrake 10.0 Beta 2 on my computer. Anyone know where the package specification is for FC2? I assume kernel 2.6.2, and the versions of KDE and GNOME mentioned, but what about XFree? 4.4pre or 4.3? Too... many... distros... to try!
    • Is it that difficult to look?

      kernel-2.6.1-1.65
      XFree86-4.3.0-45.0.1
      Full list is almost linked right to it from the post
      ftp://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/ core/test/1.90/i386/os/Fedora/RPMS/

  • DAMMIT... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by JoeBaldwin ( 727345 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @03:00PM (#8260356) Homepage Journal
    Just after I switched to Knoppix.

    And to be honest, I don't really want to switch back.

    I had a load of fun and games trying to get Fedora to share my internet connection (coming in through one ethernet card) to the Windows XP computer in the other room used by my family (on the other one). Despite following a nice tutorial I found through Google, I couldn't get it to work.

    Knoppix, on the other hand, stormed in and kicked the fuck out of Fedora, and with a few mouse clicks internet connection sharing was set up. A bit of wrangling with apt-get and one command in Konstruct and I had a full KDE 3.2 desktop set up and running. I'm using it now (very slick). It's the power of Debian with the simplicity of XP, and I wouldn't think twice about setting one of these up for a friend. It's just a perfect system.

    Fedora seemed bent on making everything I need to do hard as hell and putting things out of the way. Most irritating was GDM, which decided that if I pressed Ctrl-Alt-Backspace I really didn't want to kill X so I could install the NVIDIA drivers, I just wanted X to restart. It shipped with a broken kudzu meaning that hardware detection didn't work properly...gah.

    Just my two pence (for Brits) :)

    • Re:DAMMIT... (Score:5, Informative)

      by IamTheRealMike ( 537420 ) * on Thursday February 12, 2004 @03:40PM (#8260774)
      Most irritating was GDM, which decided that if I pressed Ctrl-Alt-Backspace I really didn't want to kill X so I could install the NVIDIA drivers, I just wanted X to restart.

      Um this is the correct behaviour in almost every circumstance. If you want to install the binary drivers you're supposed to drop to runlevel 3, this is even documented.

      The alternative is that if the X server crashes, you get thrown to a blank text screen - I'd much rather be put back at the login screen. GDM is designed this way for good reasons, you know - in fact I think most display managers do this.

  • Net install? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Cthefuture ( 665326 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @03:03PM (#8260386)
    Does Fedora have a net installer?

    You know, I small ISO that I can bootstrap the install from. That way I only download what I need.

    Maybe I'm just too used to non-Red-Hat based distros but I rather prefer net installers.

    • Re:Net install? (Score:5, Informative)

      by CMonk ( 20789 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @03:09PM (#8260457)
      Sure does. RH has had it as long as I can remember. If you install via floppy you'll need the second net.img (or something like that) as well. If you want to install via CD image they have boot.iso which is about 4MB, if I remember right, which has everything you need for a net or PCCard install.

  • Check the EULA carefully (Score:5, Funny)

    by ahodgkinson ( 662233 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @03:08PM (#8260449) Homepage Journal
    And by the way, there's been a small change to the EULA, which means you have to register to download one copy for every single CPU that you plan to install it on! Don't worry, it's still free, you just have to (re-)regester each time. This is so that RedHat can keep it's statistics up to date. They claim that since it's a GNU license the download registration information will be placed in the public domain.

    Also, download soon. Because the all the script kiddies planning to run Fedora based password crackers on their Beawolf clusters will be clogging the mirrors. :)

    Did you read this far? Are you smiling at the joke? No? Sorry.. ah.. nevermind.. I guess I better get back to work before my boss catches me on /. again.

    • Informative? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Come on moderators, stay awake. Fedora doesn't even have a EULA.

    • Re:Check the EULA carefully (Score:4, Funny)

      by mahdi13 ( 660205 ) <icarus.lnx@gmail.com> on Thursday February 12, 2004 @03:31PM (#8260667) Journal
      CodeWeavers had a simular joke in their EULA for the CrossOver Plugin
      YOU REALLY WANT TO READ THIS, ESPECIALLY THE PART ABOUT
      YOUR FIRST BORN CHILD...

      If you don't like this EULA:
      a) Let us know, we'd appreciate the feedback.
      b) Stop right now, and ask for a refund. We'll cheerfully do so.

      Then at the very end
      OKAY, WE WERE JUST KIDDING. THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE ABOUT
      YOUR FIRST BORN CHILD. BUT YOU REALLY SHOULD READ THESE
      THINGS, YOU KNOW.

      Full EULA can be found here [codeweavers.com]

    • PLEASE RE-MOD PARENT (Score:3, Informative)

      by ajs ( 35943 )
      Please re-mod the parent as funny. It is most certainly not "informative". The word "joke" should have tipped off moderators. :-(
  • Fedora is Red Hat minus the Red Hat corporate backing, which is really the main reason for using Red Hat. Mandrake has a better installer and urpmi has been used for years now. Mandrake is completely agnostic about which window manager you can use. The Mandrake Control Center rawks and covers 99% of the typical user's needs. And Mandrake has been down with BitTorrent since before it was cool.

  • DVD wish list (Score:3, Interesting)

    by heroine ( 1220 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @03:15PM (#8260519) Homepage
    Someday some bright Indian is going to supply DVD's of this software so we don't need to keep swapping CD's.

  • A total of 8 CDs? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by k98sven ( 324383 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @03:17PM (#8260540) Journal
    Ok.. can someone tell me why it's named "Core"?
    To me, that seems to imply that it'd be a bare-bones system, like the kernel+GNU utilities..

    This is obviously not the case.. but, seriously, why the name?

    • Re:A total of 8 CDs? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jokkey ( 555838 )

      "Fedora Core" distinguishes the current, core distribution from various add-ons and alternatives (Fedora Extras and Fedora Alternatives) and from software packages for older distributions (Fedora Legacy). See here [redhat.com].

      (There don't seem to be any packages released yet under Fedora Extras and Fedora Alternatives, but there's no harm in planning ahead, I guess. Fedora Legacy is alive and active and has already released several updates for Red Hat 7.2/7.3/8.0.)

  • where is the minimal boot.iso? (Score:3, Informative)

    by honold ( 152273 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @03:29PM (#8260648)
    i see people mentioning booting off of 'boot.iso' and doing minimal ftp installs, but i don't see it on their ftp site.

  • Fedora, public sentiment, and actual impression (Score:5, Interesting)

    by poopie ( 35416 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @03:33PM (#8260692) Journal
    I like many people here, felt that Redhat made a giant PR mistake (for the opensource commmunity which got Redhat where they are today) when it turned redhat into fedora. The perception was, "Redhat needs to make money, so we're only supporting the enterprise versions. You'll need to pay for our software. You'll need to pay for binary patches, and you'll need to pay for support. No more free lunch. See ya' later."

    Okay, so... I got over that (sort of...) and tried a whole bunch of different distributions, including Fedora core 1.

    What I found was that I really like the fedora model, and can see that with just a little more momentum, it could become something far better that the original free redhat releases ever were.

    If you are like I was, and have sworn off redhat for hacking/non-work purposes for whatever ideological reasons, I urge you to read the unofficial Fedora FAQ [artoo.net] and actually give it a try.

    I have been quite impressed with Fedora and with yum for updates. Make sure to get a new yum.conf file from the unofficial faq site before you try to update your system -- redhat's patch sites are almost always flooded. Then try adding in some of the development channels and do "yum install $package1 $package2 $package3".Add yum to run from cron/as a daemon to update your system.

    I just wish now that *someone* would release a version of fedora core that includes support for mp3 and various popular video formats so that it would make a usable desktop for most people out of the box. What's to stop someone from releasing ISOs of feature-overloaded-fedora that would include most of the stuff that the repositories are currently building to "fix" fedora?

    But back on the topic -- Before you swear off Fedora, give it a try with an open mind.

  • Does ACPI power management work? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cheezus ( 95036 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @03:55PM (#8260955) Homepage
    The only reason I'm running xp on this laptop is so i can put it to sleep.
    • The only reason I'm running xp on this laptop is so i can put it to sleep.

      Hmm? I thought you'd be running xp on it so that you can launch your applications...

      Otherwise, leave it off... problem solved! ;)

      Cheers
      Stor

  • Fedore UML Server/Minimal Images Available (Score:3, Informative)

    by william_lorenz ( 703263 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @04:07PM (#8261102) Homepage
    Somewhat unrelated but nonetheless on-topic with the Fedora release, Fedore Core 1 server/minimal UML images are available at http://myturl.com/000pz/ (Linux Users Group site) [myturl.com] for public consumption. I'm going to try to wait until the official Fedora Core 2 (not a test Core 2 release as this is but rather the real thing) is available before making UML images for that, as well. But using this UML image provides a good way to test and play with Fedora without reinstalling your system, just so you can see how much you like it. More info on UML in general can be found a the User-Mode Linux [sourceforge.net] website on SourceForge, of course.

  • AMD64 Fedora (Score:4, Informative)

    by kisak ( 524062 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @05:07PM (#8261804) Homepage Journal
    Anyone knows if the AMD64 version of Fedora will contain most of the same programs as these i386 iso's when it is released? (AMD64 Fedora is still beta [redhat.com] it seems) or are there still significant amount of programs not ready for AMD64?

    Thinking seriously about buying an opteron machine...

  • SELinux? (Score:3, Informative)

    by PineHall ( 206441 ) on Thursday February 12, 2004 @05:11PM (#8261876)
    Will this have the Security Enhanced Linux? RedHat is suppose to be moving in that direction [slashdot.org]

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker

Close