Red Hat Fedora Core 4 Test 1 Now Available

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."

Quick RPM Version Check

[rimu guy]

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]

Re:Quick RPM Version Check

[tbspit]

They seem to have used a 2.0 beta version of OpenOffice.org as well (rpm has version 1.9.83).

Re:Quick RPM Version Check

[Baal Sebub]

It's already in DistroWatch [distrowatch.com]. Check it out for a quick overview of package versions.

Re:Feedback on Fedora?

[Abasher]

Bad: The upgrade path (which forces you to burn a new CD-set for each new release), lacking multimedia support and confusing extra RPM-repos (these intertwine, since multimedia support can be added quite easily, IF you find the right repos, which doesn't cause version confilcts). Good: Rather stable, bleeding edge, large community and company backing it up.

Re:Quick RPM Version Check

[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])

Re:Can I update FC3 to FC4 Test 1 using yum?

[irchs]

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

Re:Download size question

[lachlan76]

Source code compresses better than binary.

Re:Feedback on Fedora?

[OneSmartFellow]

There is no requirement to burn a new CD, you can easily install over HTTP, or FTP from any up to date mirror.

Re:Feedback on Fedora?

[northcat]

It doesn't lack multimedia support. It only lacks support for mpeg and others which are covered by software patents.

Re:RHEL4 vs Fedora Core 4 for a home server

[tux_deamon]

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.

Re:Feedback on Fedora?

[davidkv]

It replaces packages through rpm. I've upgraded machines since at least RH7 up to FC3 both by CD and by using apt/yum/up2date. No user data is ever deleted.

Usually there are some small stuff that needs to be manually fixed, but it's hardly surprising since there are a few major changes in some upgrades (like SELinux, 2.6 kernel, udev and so on).

Re:When will RPM-based distros change to .deb?

[davidkv]

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).

Re:Feedback on Fedora?

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

Which, practically speaking, is the same thing.

Re:Hope they get more bugs sorted out before relea

[_randy_64]

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
> installed Windows.

Test releases are really not for the "average tech fiddler on the street". If you're not ready to commit a system for testing purposes, then you/they really should stick with FC3 for now. A normal or finished user-based distro (e.g. SUSE, FC3, Mandrake..) would generally not have such problems with the install. FC4 will be the same way when it's done and not in testing.

Re:Hope they get more bugs sorted out before relea

[davidkv]

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.

Re:PPC

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

But man, you will see them no matter what on ppc linux, as there is no flash plugin for ppc linux, whether its 32 or 64bit.

Re:The Big Question...

[k98sven]

The big question is, does it support MP3 out of the box (off the CD?).

No, it does not, and will not as long as the patent is in force.

Red Hat would end up being liable to pay Fraunhofer licensing for RHEL, and possibly for FC4 too.

Are you going to pay for that license? No? Then quit bitching about Red Hat and put that energy towards the real problem here: Software patents.

Re:fedora 4 and filesystems

[lbruno]

try saying:

linux xfs

at the "boot:" prompt (ditto reiserfs)

Re:RHEL4 vs Fedora Core 4 for a home server

[LnxAddct]

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

Re:fedora 4 and filesystems

[alba7]

This is a FAQ. [fedorafaq.org]

Re:SATA Drives

[codeguy007]

Sure. The drives have never been the issue. The SATA chipsets on the other hand are a different story.

Re:Feedback on Fedora?

[ManikSurtani]

You also can upgrade using yum or up2date. yes, you'd need to make sure you've dloaded aind installed the rpms for the latest yum and up2date packages, but after that it should be a snap.

Re:Feedback on Fedora?

[LnxAddct]

You should definitly give it a shot. It is fast, supports SELinux, and comes with all kinds of nice software, and is very stable. Yum is very easy to use and they are setting up an Extras repository for additional packages. Upgrading (despite what the above posters said) is very easy, just grab the newest version of yum and type yum upgrade, or do the recommended thing and download the new cds, and at the install screen hit "Upgrade". Very easy and works really well. Despite the 6-8 month release cycle, after the main Fedora project drops support for it, Fedora Legacy still will support it for 1.5 years and possible longer if the community is interested in providing help. I've been running FC since its very first day and it has since replaced all but one of my Debian servers (which is only still running because I dont want to reset its uptime :] )
Regards,
Steve

Re:RHEL4 vs Fedora Core 4 for a home server

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't mind re-installing your OS every 6-12 mos

False. You can go longer than that if you go with the Fedora Legacy project. It still doesn't buy you as much time as RHEL, but much longer than months.

Install it now on your PC with no worries: QEMU!

[Jagasian]

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.

Re:The Big Question...

[Naikrovek]

distributing GPL software is not against the GPL... if it were the GPL would have died long ago.

its not a GPL issue, its a software patent issue. even if your code is GPL, if what your software does is covered by someone else's patent, you're in patent violation. if you distribute patent-infringing software, you make yourself liable.

that is why redhat won't include mp3 support with their distros. GOSH!

Re:The Big Question...

[k98sven]

Well, how come every other linux distro doesn't have this problem. AFAIK, FC (maybe redhat) is the only distro that doesn't support MP3 out of the box. Doesn't the patent license only cover commercial use of the CODEC? Isn't personal use licensed for free? How come so many other companies give away free mp3 codecs for free?

No, the patent license covers ALL use. However, Fraunhofer says that they won't enforce it against free software. There is nothing written on that, and it is not legally binding.

SuSE and Mandrake think that's enough of a guarantee for them and obviously are willing to take that risk. Red Hat decided differently. (Which is reasonable; they're the biggest vendor, and thus the most likely target, not to mention that they're based in the litigation-happy USA.)

Re:Bug-free Linux distributions

[pyros]

When you install a deb, it goes out and gets any of the dependencies that you may need, RPM makes you go and find them yourself... which really isn't all that bad now, but back in the day, it was a PITA.

You're comparing a dependency resolver (apt) to a package format (RPM). The only things you can compare are DEB vs RPM (formats), dpkg vs rpm (single package installation/removal tools), and apt vs yum/up2date (dependency resolvers included with a standard install of debian and fedora, resp.). Fedora also has apt included in the official Fedora Extras repo on download.fedora.redhat.com.

I want to hear features of the DPKG format absent in the RPM format which make the job of dependency resolvers easier.

Re:Isn't fedora for suckers?

[LnxAddct]

Actually, yes it was. And it is run on many hosting companies as a choice of operating system. I run it on many servers and it is the most stable OS I've used to date. I only have one debian server left running and that is only because it has a very high uptime and I'd hate to reboot it :) Don't make judgements about Fedora without extensively using it. And if you do test it, don't use a test release, use a stable release. Just keep an open mind. I've tried at least 15 or 16 different distriubtions pretty extensivly and I've been by far most pleased with the Fedora series. More so then the older Red Hat line, and signifcantly more pleased then with Suse and Mandrake.
Regards,
steve

Re:Isn't fedora for suckers?

[juhaz]

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 happen to help in testing, that's because it will make FC a better desktop too, not just RHEL. If they happen to make some money out of what is basically supported-for-longer-time version of the same product, I see nothing wrong with that, quite contrary, since it helps them continue giving quite a few gtk, gnome and gcc hackers a day job and thus vastly help development, and whatever else they may be currently funding, it's a GOOD thing.

Bitching about that is just as nuts as going ballistic because Xandros or Lindows benefits from your usage of Debian, so it's basically "just a testing platform" for real, "non-free" product.

Re:Can I update FC3 to FC4 Test 1 using yum?

[irchs]

I have done it before, its really straight forward, just update fedora-release, update to corresponding version of yum, run yum upgrade, and reboot, and enjoy the new version.

I am even confident enough to do it over SSH.

Thanks

Jan