Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Red Hat Software Businesses Software Linux

Red Hat Fedora Core 4 Test 1 Now Available 300

Posted by timothy
from the are-ipods-plug-and-play-yet dept.
krunchyfrog writes "The first test release of Fedora Core 4 is now available from Red Hat and at distinguished mirror sites near you, and is also available in the torrent. New features in Fedora Core 4 test 1 include previews of GCC 4.0, GNOME 2.10, and KDE 3.4, as well as support for the PowerPC architecture. Please file bugs via Bugzilla, Product Fedora Core, Version fc4test1, so that they are noticed and appropriately classified. Discuss this release on fedora-test-list. -- The BitTorrent link is already there."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Red Hat Fedora Core 4 Test 1 Now Available

Comments Filter:
  • PPC (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BibelBiber (557179) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @06:19AM (#11951712)
    Hopefully PPC works as expected. It's a shame that this platform is so poorly supported.
    • Re:PPC (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tabkey12 (851759)
      EVen more important as Yellow Dog Linux [yellowdoglinux.com] is moving inch by inch to a subscription model [ydl.net] for their products.

      (For reference, Yellow Dog Linux is probably the biggest supplier of PPC LInux and the only supplier that sells Mac Hardware with Linux preloaded.)

      • Re:PPC (Score:3, Interesting)

        All the more reason to use Debian [debian.org] on PPC. There is a gentoo port too these days. Personally I prefer OS X on this hardware, but there are still a few linux choices out there.
        • Re:PPC (Score:4, Insightful)

          by codeguy007 (179016) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @08:25AM (#11952052)
          As long as you want either all 32 or 64Bit libs. APT still can't handle multilib installs.

          If you can handle a pure 64Bit distro debian is fine. But man I know I prefer not seeing those puzzle pieces in FireFox when I hit a flash site.
          • by 4of12 (97621)

            As long as you want either all 32 or 64Bit libs. APT still can't handle multilib installs.

            Running Fedora Core 3 on x86_64 I'm not convinced that Fedora has this multi-library 64/32 problem completely resolved either.

            Releasing a 64 bit OS is not difficult at all under Linux; it's been around since the Alpha days. What's hard is managing the transition environment where multiple environments need to co-exist on the same platform at the same time.

      • By the way, I understand that YDL are servicing a niche market, and what they are doing is entirely fair, but I still feel that people need free alternatives to try out Linux. Maybe having an Open Circulation Edition a lá Xandros would be a good idea.
        • You can download YDL iso's free, you just have to wait for Terrasoft to post them a while after the release to the subscribers on ydl.net.

          The YDL yum repository is also free, and somewhat faster with updates.
    • So.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by WindBourne (631190) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @08:09AM (#11951995) Journal
      With Linus now doing ALL of his work on the PPC, and that IBM is making a big move into Linux on PPC, do you think that it will see a massive investment in time? I do.
  • by rimu guy (665008) * on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @06:21AM (#11951720) Homepage

    Just been poring over the new RPM versions [redhat.com]...

    I see FC4 includes MySQL 4.1.10 a nice wee jump [mysql.com] up from 3.23. Apparently RedHat are now happy with the MySQL licensing terms [redhat.com].

    It has Eclipse 3.1 [eclipse.org], dovecot, bash 3 (with debugger), Tomcat 5 [apache.org] (but only 5.0, not the declared stable 5.5.7), Xen 2 [cam.ac.uk]. And that is about all that caught my eye.

    Having just been recompiling the RHEL4 sources [redhat.com] I'm struck by how similar the versions all are. I'm presuming that rhel4 split off fc4 or vice versa a month or two back. I'd be curious how/if they co-ordinate all the patches and source code between the two different brands.

    --
    FC3 (now!) and RHEL4-based (soon!) VPSs [rimuhosting.com]

    • by tbspit (460062) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @06:29AM (#11951739) Homepage
      They seem to have used a 2.0 beta version of OpenOffice.org as well (rpm has version 1.9.83).
    • by Baal Sebub (797455) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @06:48AM (#11951786)
      It's already in DistroWatch [distrowatch.com]. Check it out for a quick overview of package versions.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Having just been recompiling the RHEL4 sources...

      Umm, why bother when you can just grab CentOS 4.0 [centos.org] instead?
      (or one of the other RHEL-rebuild projects like Tao [taolinux.org] or Whiteboxlinux [whiteboxlinux.org])

      • by rimu guy (665008) * on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @07:12AM (#11951856) Homepage

        Presuming you're not trolling...

        But we [rimuhosting.com] will be hosting lots of servers for our customers with some RHEL4-based distro.

        I want to make sure that when an update comes out from the source [redhat.com], that I am not wholly dependant on a middle [centos.org] man [whiteboxlinux.org] that not be able to or capable of a prompt update release.

        I'm still testing our recompile version. If it works out, then great. Otherwise, I'm confident now that even running a non-North American Enterprise Linux Vendor [pnaelv.net] version of RHEL4 I can always compile and distribute the errata udpates I need. (Well maybe except for a few kde packages, dbus and iproute which are spitting out heinous c++ errors at the mo).

    • I'm due to update my home linux server from RedHat 9 and have been debating whether I should put core 4 on it when it comes out or RHEL 4. This machine does file serving, web serving, runs mysql for various small databases, etc.

      Is there any compelling reason to use one or the other for this type of machine?
      • by tux_deamon (663650) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @08:17AM (#11952020)
        If you don't mind re-installing your OS every 6-12 mos, go with FC. It's always going to have the latest features. If you're looking for something with about 5 years of official support go with RHEL or an RHEL clone. For the type of service you're describing, you're probably fine with the present capabilities for some time to come.
        • by LnxAddct (679316) <sgk25@drexel.edu> on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @09:06AM (#11952220)
          Its important to note however that the 6-12 month reinstall cycle doesnt include a full format. Going from FC1 to FC2 certainly caused some minor problems for some folks, but since then I've seen very few complaints about being able to upgrade through yum and/or just inserting the CDs and updating. So in that regards its not too much different then a Service Pack in Windows world, except its a really really effective and useful service pack:) Also, Fedora legacy will support it for 1.5 years at a minimum and possibly more if the community sees interest in it. I'm looking really foward to this release, seems to have a ton of potential (although Core 5 seems like its going to be the big release of this year once Fedora Extras gets all figured out)
          Regards,
          Steve
        • You don't need to reinstall; upgrading works, if you know what you're doing. My fileserver, currently running FC3, started out as a RH7.0 install, and has been upgraded from there to what it is now. The last bunch of upgrades have also been done remotely and "live", since the machine no longer has a graphics card in it. This is not something I recommend for newbies though; complete "distro-upgrades" with apt-rpm don't tend to be trouble-free. If you have the skills to work around the problems, it's quite do
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @06:33AM (#11951745)
    Well, can I update to FC4 test 1 using yum?
    Is it even possible? Since I know everyone will advise me against this, but I just want to know ;)
    • by irchs (752829) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @07:15AM (#11951860) Homepage
      Yes, just update the to the relevent fedora-release rpm and make sure the yum version of FC4T1's version, and run yum upgrade Jan
    • by z1d0v (789072) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @08:02AM (#11951980)
      It seems that there are a lot of people starting to defend the use of the debian package for the easiness of dependencies treatment (and I'm not talking about debian folks like myself). So one might ask: will distros like Redhat/Fedora change the package manager in the future?

      Since I don't use a RPM-based distro for a long time, I also feel the urge to ask: how is the dependencies treated nowdays?

      • by davidkv (302725) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @08:25AM (#11952049)
        Dependencies are handled much the same way as with .debs. You can use apt, yum, up2date or red-carpet for automatic resolving/retreiving.

        I doubt that Red Hat will change to another package manager in the foreseeable future. If something needs to be implemented, they'll change the rpm application/behaviour (as has been done numerous times).
      • Simple answer No definitely not. Though Synaptic is nice, apt cannot handle multilib dependencies like FC x86_64 provide. Yum is getting a graphical frontend (yumex) as well that though not working 100% is looking pretty good and in some ways is a lot nicer than Synaptic.
        • So basically even though the RPM based distros were already using APT for RPM for years, Fedora decides to ditch it in favor of an inferior package manager Yum, and then they continue to update and improve Yum until it actually has some advantage (though tons of disadvantages still) over APT for RPM. It seems like it would have made a lot more sense to make APT for RPM official and simply add multilib support... as opposed to force everybody that was already using APT for RPM to switch to Yum which was sl
          • Come down off your high horse. RH isn't forcing anybody to use anything. Their own tool, up2date, can handle RHN, yum, and apt repositories. Their adopted tool, yum, works pretty damn well. I think the only advantage that apt has is pinning, but so far the only help I've ever received from anybody on how to use it, on #debian, is "don't." Red Hat even hosts the Fedora Extras master repository, which contains apt. So park the whambulance and just use whatever you feel best suits your needs.
      • *.rpm or *.deb.

        Both of these things describe a specification for package file format. The file format specification determines the logistic layout and conventions used in the format of a package file, like header structure, byte boundaries, supported data types for given structure data, etc. The package format is purely data structuring, and actually has very little to do with packages.

        It is important for people to understand that a file format specification has no tangible effect on user experience. A
        • by Coryoth (254751) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @01:39PM (#11954986) Homepage Journal
          So you love Apt or yum. Great. Apt does not mean .deb. Apt can still do its normal great things using rpm formatted packages, so clearly the greatness comes from the tool, not the package specification.

          The fuure of package maangers, like Smart [smartpm.org], make this even clearer. Smart is like apt (but has better dep resolution algorithms) except it supports pluggable backends - that means currently Smart supports .deb, .rpm, and even slackware .tgz. It can manage those from apt repositories, yum repositories, urpmi repositories, re-carpet channels, whatever. You can even do a mix and match between formats and repository types if you want (though that, of course, can get messy).

          The point is that package management and dependency solving are largely independent of package formats (as long as the format contains some dependency information). We can have a global package manager that works everywhere and doesn't care which package format it happens to be working with.

          Jedidiah.
      • So one might ask: will distros like Redhat/Fedora change the package manager in the future?

        No. Because deb isn't superior to rpm there is no reason to change. Both can do few things that the other can't, but mostly offer equal functionality.

        Days of apt being the only capable automatic dependency handler are long past, and the only issue left with yum+rpm is basically not having quite as large official repository as debian.
  • by IDkrysez (552137) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @06:48AM (#11951787)
    Why are the binary torrent images listed as being bigger than the sources?? Er, am I being thick, huh?
  • by magi (91730) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @06:50AM (#11951791) Homepage Journal
    I hope they'll wait for KDE 3.4.1. The .1 releases have traditionally been translation releases (unless something has changed recently).

    It's rather frustrating to do translations, and then notice that they are never packaged in some Linux distributions, because the packagers don't have patience to wait for the translation release. Other than English-speaking people use Linux too, you know.

    Well, probably most of the translations get in time for 3.4, so the problem isn't that big.
    • by Vo0k (760020) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @07:03AM (#11951831) Journal
      Honestly, I'm glad I learned English, comparing to translations.

      Sometimes the translations are okay or nearly okay. Sometimes they are terrible. And worst if you get used to "native" version and then when translation appears, keyboard shortcuts are remapped to match new words. I LOATHE when suddenly aumix stops responding to Q for Quit and I must read help to see that now it's K as "Koniec" (and not W for Wyjdz, Z for Zakoncz, O for Opusc which are synonyms).
      I feel thoroughly lost in "translated GIMP". Suddenly finding an option becomes tricky. "SOTA Chrome" becomes "Krysztal" while "Cristal" is being renamed to something yet different, and only by remembering the position in menu I'm able to guess where it is. Sure it's about "getting used to", but then some things are simply translated incorrectly and guessing their meaning in your native language is just impossible...

      Learn English. It pays.
      • Damn, Poles are everywhere... I fear to open fridge. ;)
      • by kiwibird (148721) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @08:35AM (#11952083) Homepage
        Users: learn English. Translators: keep translating.
        Not just because of the importance of keeping languages alive (which is a controversial and "feely" issue no matter what), but because there'll always be users who don't have that much comprehension of English (and it's better to have some understanding of a program than none), and it'll expand the Linux user base. All of M$' programs are translated into my native language, why should free software be behind there? And users of free programs have the choice of using the original languages, whereas users of say Office buy a version in just one language. Keep translating...
        • by anpe (217106) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @09:06AM (#11952219)
          I wish I had mod points. You're right, both sides are needed.
          Not just because of the importance of keeping languages alive
          I just read an article that correlated the use of a local language (as opposed to english mostly) with the vitality of the local research.
          That is, the more you use your own language for research the more your research field is "creative" in your country.

          • by swillden (191260) *

            the more you use your own language for research the more your research field is "creative" in your country.

            Interesting, but I suspect the causality runs the other direction. That is, if the study of a given field is very active in a given country there is sufficient cross-pollination of ideas nationally to make international discourse less necessary, making local language publishing more attractive.

      • by MrHanky (141717) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @08:47AM (#11952126) Homepage Journal
        Learning English is generally a good thing, but well translated software certainly has its place. The examples you mention show the opposite: remapping keys and translating proper names creates confusion, especially for the bilingual user.

        My impression, however, is that one reason why somewhat competent users don't like software in their native language is because they don't really see that the English words they are already used to are all metaphors, but this becomes painfully obvious -- and weird -- when they see it in their native language. But the metaphor can be important for understanding how the UI is supposed to work. A child learning both computer use and English as a foreign language at the same time might be better off learning the localized metaphor for Firefox's 'tabs' and the everyday meanings of the word 'tab' in English.

        Good translators can be hard to find, though. Especially if they are supposed to work for free.
      • by Linux_ho (205887) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @11:02AM (#11953107) Homepage
        Learn English. It pays.

        Are there a lot of people reading Slashdot through Babelfish or some other translation service?
        • - Immaginez un tas de loups bioniques de ça!
          - Nathalie Portman pétrifiée avec du gruau dans ses pantalons;
          - http://www.SexeAvecUneChèvre.cx
          - 1. Quelque chose de bête;
          - 2. ???
          - 3. Profits! (ceci est en fait bilingue!)
      • I learn Z for Zywiec, damn good beer.
        Mmmmm, thermometer beer (it has one of those color sensors that change color based on temp).

        Yes, I am (part) Polish. I had Zywiec in Zakopane.
    • So KDE shouldn't do an official release until the translations are done. Obviously you consider translations a critical feature, and I'd agree with you. There should be some translations of 3.4.0 available from day one (IMHO). Perhaps with more to follow, but certainly with the same version number for a major release. Don't blame a distro for putting in the latest "official" release.
  • PPC Expectations? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @07:40AM (#11951926) Homepage Journal
    Can i expect the PPC version to run ok on my G3 Bronze?

    What sort of stuff isnt going to work? ( yes, i did RTFA, didnt see what i was looking for )
  • It's a shame that the included GnomeMeeting only supports the first version of the video4linux interface.

    There are a few drivers (like sn9c102) for USB cameras that only support the v4l2 interface. And what's worse, the kernel will support your webcam and will correctly issue no error message; but GnomeMeeting will try to find the device and won't locate it without so much as a warning!

  • by pklong (323451) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @07:59AM (#11951975) Homepage Journal
    Looking at the updates directory of core 3 there are gigs of updates in there. It didn't even install on my nVidia nForce system because of bugs in the SATA drivers in the 2.9 kernel. (It's fixed in 2.10 I believe.)

    Installing the nVidia drivers (because shock horror I wanted 3D) froze then system on boot because of the rhgb red hat graphical boot thingy. The switch to udev caught me out here. Luckily I figured out what was happening and sorted it.

    I also had weird sound corruption in some programs which I tracked down to arts. Turning the sound down in that sorted it but I can't find any kind of a config file, let alone a GUI application that sets a sound level which survives a reboot. I sorted it my adding an entry in rs.local.

    Also why on earth don't they compile NTFS reading into the Kernel. (Captive NTFS would also be nice as an option...)

    Sadly your average tech fiddler on the street would have given up with this pallava and installed Windows.

    XP Installation went without a hitch and worked perfectly first time. It can even play MP3's out of the box ;)

    So for all you Slashdotters out there who think a Linux install is easier than I Windows install, well it can be. Provided nothing goes wrong. Which is unlikely.
    • Of course they will, that's why this is a test version. FC3 had (I think) three test releases before the final released version.

      > Also why on earth don't they compile NTFS reading
      > into the Kernel. (Captive NTFS would also be nice
      > as an option...)

      Just like with MP3 playing, I believe there are licensing/patent issues with NTFS that Fedora/RedHat just avoids by not distributing those functions.

      > Sadly your average tech fiddler on the street
      > would have given up with this pallava and
      > in
    • by davidkv (302725) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @08:35AM (#11952081)
      You can find answers to most of (all?) your problems here:
      http://www.fedorafaq.org

      Shipping NTFS and MP3 is encumbered with legal problems, that's why they're not included by default. Google can tell you that within seconds.
      • I don't think the legal issues can be that serious because pretty much every other distribution out there supports MP3 with their audio packages, and quite a few support NTFS. I think its more of RH not wanting to admit their wrong.

        Regardless I'll go happily along with SuSE. It has new packages, great hardware detection and is usable as an everyday desktop.
    • That doesn't match my experiences at all. Mandrake installation goes without a hitch and plays mp3s fine (I don't think it will encode without an external lame.so or something, but playing is no problem). Drivers were better than on windows (I thought XP had no SATA support at all?). And kmix (the default "sound mixer" program, like you get when you click the speaker in the system tray, just like in windows) restores sound levels at kde login, plus most distros will save them when you shut down and restore
  • Does it install properly on all SATA drives now?!
  • FC4 v Ubuntu Hoary (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lewiz (33370) <purple@[ ]iz.net ['lew' in gap]> on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @09:35AM (#11952362) Homepage
    Not a comparison but a series of questions. I installed FC3 prior to Hoary as it specifically had an Internationalization Project. I very quickly discovered that it did, but getting foreign input working (say Japanese) without running the whole thing in Japanese was not straightforward.

    This didn't seem to be lost on just me either, many people seem to have written it off as a result.

    Hoary wasn't instant but the process of installing the input method and adding two lines to my .gnomerc was very straightforward and almost certainly faster (better?) than sorting the same on FC3.

    So, I'm curious to know how FC4 handles:

    Foreign input,
    Wireless support (Atheros/Madwifi),
    Alternative packages (I know this should be straightforward but I had a lot of trouble trying to install the madwifi stuff without updating the rest of my system to those packages in that repository).

    In fact, now that I remember... FC3's up2date was slow and very buggy. Has this been fixed?
  • by Jagasian (129329) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @10:50AM (#11953020)
    Windows and Linux users can install FC4 test1 on their PC right now without any worry by using the PC emulator QEMU [bellard.free.fr], the free and opensource vmware! Personally, I am already using FC3, and I want to make sure that I like FC4 before I switch. I also want to help find any bugs and report them during the test releases, so that they can be fixed before FC4 goes gold.
  • by theManInTheYellowHat (451261) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @11:06AM (#11953143)
    By now everyone should understand what Fedora is all about. It is not a production distro, it is not meant for anything but getting the new stuff working and stable FOR a production release. Thusly the releases are going to quick and should not necessarily be an easy upgrade. The fact that you can upgrade from release to relaase if you don't break anything yourself with yum IS impressive, and requires extrodanary effort from the team.

    Strong Work Fedora Crew!!! Very wonderful effort.
  • by ylikone (589264) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @11:21AM (#11953249) Homepage
    I mean, why would anybody want to run an OS which is just a test platform for the real, non-free product? I mean, the days of redhat being the obvious number one choice for servers is gone in my opinion... I personally wouldn't think of letting FC getting anywhere near my servers. And why would I want to pay for RHE when I can just install a great and stable product like Debian or Slackware? I don't need RH support or their upgrade hassles and I'm sure as hell not going to pay for them.

    /sorry if this sounds like a troll, but I'm serious
    • I mean, why would anybody want to run an OS which is just a test platform for the real, non-free product?

      If it were JUST a test platform for the real, non-free product, you're right, nobody would want to run it. But since it isn't "just" but "also", I fail to see the relevance here.

      You're right in that FC isn't particularly good choice for servers if updating every year or so is too often, but it is a good and quite stable desktop OS with up to date software and well integrated GNOME desktop. Should I h
  • Yesterday Heise [heise.de] had a stroy about the new Fedore beta and they mentioned, that Mono had been dropped from Fedora Core due fears regarding patent infringments. Read the translated news here [google.com].
    The part that matters ist this:

    "That contains however also the free NET implementation mono, which is probably not taken up to Fedora from fear of patent claims on the part of Microsoft."

    which means sth like this:

    Suse however contains the free NET implementation mono, which is probably not included into Fedora due to f

If it smells it's chemistry, if it crawls it's biology, if it doesn't work it's physics.

Working...