Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Red Hat Software Businesses Software Linux

Fedora Core 2 Officially Available 389

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stress-those-pipes dept.
mkool writes "Exactly on schedule. Fedora Core 2 is now officially available from Red Hat and at distinguished mirror sites near you, and is also available in the torrent."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fedora Core 2 Officially Available More

Fedora Core 2 Officially Available

Comments Filter:

  • So... (Score:4, Funny)

    by PatrickThomson ( 712694 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:17AM (#9184492)
    Anyone got a mirror?

    • Re:So... (Score:3, Informative)

      by danormsby ( 529805 )
      Use bittorrent! It has the weird effect that the more people using it the faster the downloads get.

      • Re:So... (Score:4, Informative)

        by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:34AM (#9184719) Journal
        Not true. It can have this in ideal circumstances, but usually doesn't. Most people have asymmetric connections, which means that they are only uploading a fraction of the amount they download. It does mean, however, that it takes more clients before the server (initial seed in BitTorrent parlance) slows to a crawl. When we get proper multicast support in the Internet, it will become possible for even people on asymmetric connections to upload more than they download.
        • When we get proper multicast support

          Maybe the folks who stole the Cisco IOS code were just sick of waiting for multicast and are planning to hack it in.

          Whatever happened to mbone?

  • Fedora Core 2 (Score:5, Informative)

    by thebra ( 707939 ) * on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:17AM (#9184495) Homepage Journal
    Fedora Core 2 Discussion [fedoraforum.org], I've found that site to be very helpful.

  • Upgrade (Score:5, Interesting)

    by modulo ( 172960 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:18AM (#9184510)
    Any way to update from Fedora Core 1 without downloading the .isos?

    • Use Anaconda (Score:5, Informative)

      by daves ( 23318 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:20AM (#9184544) Journal
      I saw a mention that straight RPM upgrades are strongly discouraged. Upgrade from CDs, or do a net upgrade.

    • Re:Upgrade (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:21AM (#9184552)
      Just mail me your PC and I will upgrade it for you.

    • Re:Upgrade (Score:5, Informative)

      by pyros ( 61399 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:27AM (#9184633) Journal
      Any way to update from Fedora Core 1 without downloading the .isos?

      Yes, but none are supported. With apt, I've done it like this

      1. manually download and upgrade (not install) the redhat-release package (although it may now be called fedora-release)

      2. update the /etc/apt/sources.list file to point to the repo for the new release

      3. apt-get upgrade

      4. apt-get install kernel

      5. reboot

      6. apt-get dist-upgrade

      7. reboot

      8. done

      The first time I did this was with up2date, which is why the redhat-release package had to be done explicitly first, it's probably not necessary with apt. This is not a supported upgrade path, even with yum or up2date (which both have the distribution upgrade feature), but many people do it with much success.

      • Re:Upgrade (Score:3, Informative)

        by Wylfing ( 144940 )
        The first time I did this was with up2date, which is why the redhat-release package had to be done explicitly first, it's probably not necessary with apt.

        Correct, it's not necessary with apt. Just start with step 2 of your procedure and it works fine. Because I got my apt sources from 'mirror-select', I edited /etc/apt/sources.list.d/mirror-select.list and changed all the 1s to 2s in the repository URLs. Then 'apt-get update' and away you go.

    • Re:Upgrade (Score:3, Informative)

      by dirty ( 13560 )
      This has worked for me, dunno about anyone else:

      1) get the new fedora-release rpm from an official download site and install it.

      2) run yum upgrada

      3) take a nap

      4) reboot and hopefully you have a working system

      Or follow the directions here:
      http://www.brandonhutchinson.com/Upgrading_ Red_Hat _Linux_with_yum.html
    • A similar question is whether or not you can upgrade Redhat. I'm running version 9 now (newbie here) and tried in frustration to upgrade mysql and php this past weekend. All I could find was rpms for fedora, not red hat. I know redhat is being discontinued, but it was a nightmare for me. I tried to install from the source code, but got stuck in dependancy hell. Since I have a pretty fresh redhat install, I'm considering dumping it for a different distro. I'm currently debating between debian, fedora c

      • Re:Upgrade (Score:3, Interesting)

        by pyros ( 61399 )
        A caring soul may have ported some of these RPMs to Fedora Legacy [fedoralegacy.org]. But upgrading from official release to official release should be supported*. It's just upgrading to/from beta releases and rawhide which is not supported.

        * - technically there is no 'official' support from Red Hat for Fedora. But the fedora-list and fedora-test-list mailing lists, as well as bugzilla.redhat.com will get you direct contact with the Red Hat engineers who will gladly help out.

      • *Theoretically* you can use the above suggestions to upgrade via yum or apt. I'd suggest using the boot.iso to use anaconda to install over the network, since it is supported. I haven't done any of these though, so YMMV.
    • All i had to do was

      1. wget the latest "yum-2.0.7xxxx" rpm from the fastested mirror
      2. wget the "fedora-release"

      rpm -Uvh yum*
      rpm -Uvh fedora-release*

      yum update
      yum upgrade

      and i rebooted

      Ofcourse, i have serial access into the server so i could watch grub and bootup process, so if you don't have direct access just be carefull.

      I've upgraded from RH9, FC1 and FC2 RC2,3 and now FC2 all this way.

  • Codename? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Rinisari ( 521266 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:19AM (#9184531) Homepage Journal
    Okay, can someone explain the release name "Tettnang?" Is it just some crazy made up name or does it have significance?

  • Dont anyone try getting it (Score:5, Funny)

    by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:20AM (#9184535)
    till I have finished downloading the DVD iso on my dialup connection.

    I will find anyone who does and make them install Win ME as retribution.

  • unofficial mirror (Score:5, Funny)

    by happyfrogcow ( 708359 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:20AM (#9184540)
    is here [slackware.org] ;)

    go ahead! mod me offtopic, but we'll see who laughs la&^&!71&$@*[NO CARRIER]

  • Leaked .torrent Matches (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kalak ( 260968 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:21AM (#9184547) Homepage Journal
    The md5 sums match the "leaked" torrent [slashdot.org], so if you have that, there is no need to re-download even to join the official torrent by getting the .torrent and renaming your directory appropriately.

  • Fedora (Score:5, Insightful)

    by VAXGeek ( 3443 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:21AM (#9184553) Homepage
    Say what you will about Fedora/Red Hat, but I've set up 2 Fedora boxes recently for 2 people who have never used Linux, and they've both remarked how well it looks and works. Keep up the good work guys!

  • Fedora Core 2 is FAST! (Score:5, Informative)

    by nsandver-work ( 91781 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:21AM (#9184554)
    I downloaded Fedora Core 2 using the .torrent that was posted yesterday, and it's fast. Very fast. The combination of the 2.6 kernel, and updated GNOME flies on my P-III 600 compared to FC1. Menus appear in probably half the time they did before, as do Nautilus windows. Download and enjoy! And 'thank you' to the crew who work on Fedora!

    • Re:Fedora Core 2 is FAST! (Score:4, Funny)

      by Dunkirk ( 238653 ) <{david} {at} {davidkrider.com}> on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @12:47PM (#9185952) Homepage
      And I lost 20 pounds by using it! You can too! Here's how...

  • Bench marks? Reliability? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by www.sorehands.com ( 142825 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:22AM (#9184571) Homepage
    Have there been benchmarks done between Federora and RH 8/9? Is so, where are they? How is reliability as compared to RH 8/9?


    The key question is why switch if it is working? And if there is something worthwile, how long should one wait (when things are considered stable) until they switch?

    • Re:Bench marks? Reliability? (Score:5, Informative)

      by ChangeOnInstall ( 589099 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @01:08PM (#9186307)
      My primary work use of my computer is Java development, typically using Eclipse+Tomcat, but with a reasonable chunk of general purpose stuff (web/email/office) too.

      RH8 was very good to me, very few problems. I was surprised given the amount of new stuff that went into it.

      RH9 was okay once I figured out that somehow my Athlon 1100/motherboard/memory had bit the dust. (It was crashing every night at 4:02am running updatedb until then).

      FC1 is about the best Linux I've ever used. The only problems I've encountered are: Nautilus likes to crash way too often. Evolution is a little more unstable then I'd like (I almost think it's annoyed at some of the wacky things spammers stick in messages). The updater didn't work out of the box. Work machine has a 174 day uptime (meaning it hasn't been rebooted since it was installed). Home machine's uptime indicates day I moved into current residence.

      FC2 is now running on my laptop. No problems yet, but i've only used it for an hour or so. I will say that I'm quite pleased to see that when I plugin in my USB flash card reader, an icon shows up in Nautilus' "Computer" folder. When I unplug it, it goes away. It seems to at least run Java and Eclipse with no issues yet.

  • too bad no firewire (Score:5, Informative)

    by treat ( 84622 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:25AM (#9184611)
    Too bad there is no firewire. Although in bugzilla it was marked as blocking the release, clearly someone thought that it was more important to stick to the schedule than to have working drivers. Firewire worked fine for me with vanilla 2.6.0, so it is quite sad to not see it working in the Fedora release.

    Especially since 2.6 fixes a lot of hot-swap problems, I'm worried how many new Linux users will try this out and be quite disappointed when firewire does not work at all.

  • Bug When Dual Booting Windows XP and Fedora Core 2 (Score:5, Informative)

    by cbowland ( 205263 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:27AM (#9184641)
    Be sure to watch out for this one [redhat.com]. It has already caught some folks here unaware. http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?i d=115980

    • Re:Bug When Dual Booting Windows XP and Fedora Cor (Score:5, Funny)

      by GundyRage ( 611514 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:45AM (#9184868)
      This can be avoided by not dual booting to Windows. Not booting to Windows is also known to have other positive side effects. ;)

      Lighten up - Its a joke.

      G

    • Re:Bug When Dual Booting Windows XP and Fedora Cor (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @12:40PM (#9185849)

      You can joke all you want about not caring about windows booting, but the bug is potentially more serious than just not booting windows. It is very likely that bug is the same as this one:
      Bug 113201 [redhat.com]


      Basically, you can get a screwed up partition table. It appears this is due to changes in the way that the 2.4 and 2.6 kernel reported hard disk geometry. These changes were not account for yet (to my knowledge) in parted, which is used in the FC2 install. This results in inconsistent (between FC2 and other OS'es, perhaps more than just windows) entries in your partition table.



      I don't know how likely it is that this will cause a problem on any given machine. Perhaps for smaller disks the way the 2.4 vs 2.6 kernels report geometry will be the same, and there will be no problem. You might want to try to boot into a 2.6 kernel based live CD and compare values to what you see in a 2.4 kernel before installing FC2. For more information on this, see this thread:


      This is a very serious problem, which sadly appears to have been known about for some time, and no warnings have appeared in any release notes (much less delaying releases to fix it). You can note the distress of some reporters in the bugzilla comments. I am distressed that the problem has gone unfixed this far, and more distressed about the very little attention it has gotten. I am not going to install FC2 until this is dealt with.

  • Mod story +1 Funny (Score:5, Interesting)

    by menscher ( 597856 ) <[menscher+slashdot] [at] [uiuc.edu]> on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:28AM (#9184644) Homepage Journal
    mkool writes "Exactly on schedule.

    Yes, exactly on schedule. Right. Did you not notice that their schedule was revised about 5 times along the way? I remember the release date being for May 3 at one point.

    Or perhaps this was a subtle attempt at humor?

    That said, I'm really looking forward to trying it out. It's a real mess trying to decide between RH9+legacy, FC1, FC2, RHEL, and WhiteBox. Oh, how I long for the simple days of RH9!

  • Two things worth noting.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by HunterWare ( 128177 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:28AM (#9184645)
    a) Per bugzilla bugs 113202 and 115980 people are getting corrupted partition tables after installing FC2 (and the previous test versions). This is a known bug, but the release shipped anyhow... (wierd)

    b) NVidia drivers don't work with this release do to a kernel patch (the "4K Stack" patch). Seems to be an even split on who should fix this, but the end result is no nvidia drivers for people using this release (at the moment).

  • Matrox users beware... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:30AM (#9184672)
    I don't believe they fixed the bug that affects users of Matrox dualhead users (read: lots of us in industry).

    See this link [redhat.com] for details.

  • How reliable is Bittorrent? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RichiP ( 18379 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:33AM (#9184703) Homepage
    my bittorrent download of the leak a few days ago kept going up and down. Sometimes I'd kill -9 the python process. I'm just wondering if there's a chance I might have corrupted my copy in this way (it's still downloading so i can't MD5SUM it). Also, if one of the machines on the bittorrent network have a corrupted copy, how will this affect others downloading it? Are there partial checksums?
    • Just let it finish. Check the MD5SUMs when you are done, but they shouldn't be wrong, even if you've "kill -9"ed it. If, on the off chance they are, just run bittorrent again, and it will automatically find the corrupt chunks and redownload them.

      Bittorrent is very good at ensuring the downloaded files are correct.

    • Re:How reliable is Bittorrent? (Score:5, Informative)

      by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:42AM (#9184825) Journal
      The .torrent file contains hashes for each of the sections in the file. If you download corrupted sections, you will get them again. If your file is corrupted then the next time you start the client it will scan the file to see which bits have been downloaded correctly and re-fetch the ones that have not.

  • getting around the IP blocks (Score:3, Interesting)

    by novakane007 ( 154885 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:33AM (#9184706) Homepage Journal
    I know there is are several commonly used tools that are ommited from fedora to avoid the IP issues. playing DVDs, Samba and a couple of others. Does anyone have a link to howto on what needs to be installed after the install to make it a regular useful distro?
    • Try here: rpm.livna.org [livna.org]

      If the packages you look for are not there, they may be released soon.

    • Re:getting around the IP blocks (Score:5, Informative)

      by pyros ( 61399 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @12:00PM (#9185134) Journal
      I know there is are several commonly used tools that are ommited from fedora to avoid the IP issues. playing DVDs, Samba and a couple of others. Does anyone have a link to howto on what needs to be installed after the install to make it a regular useful distro?

      Samba is included, as is the new CIFs driver which replaces smbfs. What isn't included is the NTFS read-only driver module, which you can download as a binary RPM from linux-ntfs [sf.net]. As for the other stuff, I like to use the fedora.us [fedora.us] + livna.org [livna.org]* repositories. There is also freshrpms [freshrpms.net], ATrpms [http], Dag Wieers [wieers.com], and Planet CCRMA [stanford.edu]. There are others, and be warned that Dag Wieers and Axel Thim (atrpms) are in a pissing match over Dag obsoleting at least one of Axel's packages for naming it "wrong". (look at the April acrhives of the freshrpms mailing list with some fresh popcorn).

      * - The livna.org front page still says they are down and lists the mirror. The rpm.livna.org repo is actually back up, they just never bothered to update the main page to say so.

  • Google & Fedora (Score:5, Funny)

    by adequacy ( 544972 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:37AM (#9184750) Homepage
    Has anyone else noticed that a Google search on Total Disaster [google.com] returns Fedora Core 2 as the #2 hit? It was #1 last week. Hopefully this release will push us even further away from such an undignified title.

  • nVidia driver HOWTO (Score:5, Informative)

    by DennisZeMenace ( 131127 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @11:41AM (#9184797) Homepage
    There are many forums out there that will explain in great details. For example, see here [nvnews.net].

    The fast version: the Nvidia driver will NOT work with FC2's kernel because of the 4KSTACKS problem. Unfortunately, FC2's kernel no longer has the config option to disable this new "feature", so you will need to :

    - recompile a new kernel (i.e. a stock kernel). For example, 2.6.5-bk2, or 2.6.6-bk4

    - make sure to use Fedora's own config files (from /usr/src/linux-2.6.5-1.358/configs), and turn off the options CONFIG_4KSTACKS and CONFIG_REGPARM

    -DZM
    • ... or just wait a couple of weeks until nvidia updates their drivers. I'm running FC1 at home, and there's no way I'm upgrading it until there has been a bit of "soak time" for new drivers to come out, and for third parties to update their package repositories. I don't really have time to mess around with a broken system (nor would my wife and kids tolerate it.)

  • Another BT (Score:3)

    by bogie ( 31020 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @12:03PM (#9185191) Journal
    http://kuix.de/fedora/

    This is where I downloaded from last night and it seemed to check out fine.

  • Schedule? (Score:4, Funny)

    by jeffkjo1 ( 663413 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @12:05PM (#9185245) Homepage
    "Exactly on schedule..."

    Wait... is this some kind of subtle gesture against Debian or something?

  • No Logitech Quickcam support (Score:3, Informative)

    by TheFlu ( 213162 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @12:36PM (#9185791) Homepage
    If you're using a webcam based off of the Philips chipset, be aware that the kernel shipping with Fedora Core 2 (2.6.5-1.358) has the pwc driver disabled due to bugs, so your camera will not work with this release.

    This issue should affect all of the following cameras:
    Excerpt taken from the linux-2.6.5-1.358/drivers/usb/media/Kconfig file:

    * Philips PCA645, PCA646
    * Philips PCVC675, PCVC680, PCVC690
    * Philips PCVC720/40, PCVC730, PCVC740, PCVC750
    * Askey VC010
    * Logitech QuickCam Pro 3000, 4000, 'Zoom', 'Notebook Pro' and 'Orbit'/ 'Sphere'
    * Samsung MPC-C10, MPC-C30
    * Creative Webcam 5, Pro Ex
    * SOTEC Afina Eye
    * Visionite VCS-UC300, VCS-UM100

    The PWC driver is disabled as noted by the "&& BROKEN" at the end of this line in the Kconfig file:
    depends on USB && VIDEO_DEV && BROKEN

  • anti-slashdotting (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hey ( 83763 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @12:48PM (#9185962) Journal
    I starting download using BitTorrent around 10:00am ET when it was official released but the download rate was horrible (like 5 KiB/s). Then arround noon it got really fast (like 200 KiB/s)!!! What happened?! That was when this article was posted on Slashdot so I had more peers to talk to - maybe the first reverse slashdotting ever.

    • Re:anti-slashdotting (Score:3, Informative)

      by SIGBUS ( 8236 )
      One thing I've noticed when downloading from a heavily-used torrent: the download will start out as a trickle until you actually have a chunk that you can upload to others. This is a consequence of BitTorrent's anti-leeching design; if you don't upload anything, you will get little or nothing in return.

      Sometimes it may take ten minutes or more before you get any real speed from a torrent.

  • A question about torrent (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ajs ( 35943 ) <ajs@ajs . c om> on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @12:52PM (#9186018) Homepage Journal
    In the download instructions it says:
    • Open up ports 6881-6999/tcp so other clients can contact you for bits [...]
    • Once your download is complete please leave your downloader running so it can help upload to the other clients. This is what makes bittorrent efficient.
    This seems to be wrong on a couple of points.

    First off bt is uploading from my machine even if I'm NATed and not doing port forwarding for that range (there must be some sort of push-based-transfer request that the host I'm connected to can issue in the protocol) and second, leaving it up would also seem to be unnecessary to boost efficiency (though it is extra-nice, certainly), as it's uploading during the entire download, and I benefit the community of downloaders as long as I'm downloading.

    So what's the deal here?

  • Wait a couple of months (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Danathar ( 267989 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @02:20PM (#9187302) Journal
    Historically every time RedHat distros have jumped major kernel releases the train wreck after the release took a couple of months to iron itself out. I'd recommend to anybody who wants to use FC 2 (and don't want to deal with the odd kernel problems) wait 2 to 4 months before doing an install. That way the major kinks will be ironed out.

    I did'nt want to upgrade my servers from RH 9 to Rh Enterprise, so I waited until LAST week to install FC 1.

    Regardless of the kinks, Fedora IS a cool distro!

  • Windows killer (Score:4, Informative)

    by irgu ( 673471 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @02:47PM (#9187704)
    Repartitioning on 2.6 kernels can result incorrect partition table for Windows boot and they stop booting. Mandrake 10 and SUSE 9.1 have the same problem. There is more information and potential solutions on this site [rulez.org].

  • boot.iso? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DeadSea ( 69598 ) * on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @03:01PM (#9187918) Homepage Journal
    Does anybody know what the boot.iso file that I downloaded yesterday from bittorrent is? All the other files I got seem to be part of the download and MD5 correctly against the sum file on the fedora servers today, but there is no sum for boot.iso or that file to download there. I'm planning to just throw it out, but it seems to me that somebody could have slipped an extra disc in with the distribution and could get away with it because it doesn't mess up the MD5 but people might use it anyway.

    boot.iso
    FC2-i386-disc3.iso
    FC2-i386-disc1.iso
    FC2-i386-disc4.iso
    FC2-i386-disc2.iso
    FC2-i386-rescuecd.iso

    • Re:boot.iso? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Majix ( 139279 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @03:36PM (#9188486) Homepage
      The boot.iso image is not part of the Fedora Core distribution images and does therfore not have it's MD5 sum listed. It is instead a part of disc1, since you can find it in the "images" subdirectory on the first disc.

      The boot.iso in Fedora is the replacement for the many different boot diskette images that used to ship with distros. Using boot.iso you can perform a fully graphical installation of Fedora using many different sources. For example, you can do a network (FTP, HTTP, NFS..) installation or you can have it use the other Fedora discs (though this is pretty pointless, as disc1 is also a boot disk).

      I prefer to simply burn the boot.iso image to a CD-RW disc with each release and doing a FTP installation with it, thus saving me 4 discs. It's also faster in my case than burning the discs, since my network is ridiculously fast :)

Slashdot Top Deals

"I'm a mean green mother from outer space" -- Audrey II, The Little Shop of Horrors

Close