Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


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

Fedora Core Release 3 Released 502

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stuff-to-play-with dept.
anyweb writes "Fedora Core Release 3 is out now, Heidelberg, 2.6.9-1.667 kernel, Firefox included ! Gnome 2.8 and more. Here are some screenshots" New release includes Gnome 2.8, KDE 3.3, Kernel 2.6.9, Firefox PR1, Thunderbird 0.8, Ximian Evolution 2.0 and more. Here is a Mirror List and Bit Torrent
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fedora Core Release 3 Released More

Fedora Core Release 3 Released

Comments Filter:

  • fiiiinally (Score:5, Funny)

    by The Other White Boy ( 626206 ) <theotherwhiteboy@gm a i l .com> on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:03AM (#10754971)
    now everybody kindly hop on the torrent so i can have this done by the time i leave work in six hours. =)

    • Re:fiiiinally (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Pros_n_Cons ( 535669 )
      Don't forget about the binary DVD folks, It's much cooler not having to switch CD's during install, or waste 4 CD's

      • Re:fiiiinally (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bobsalt ( 575905 )
        also note that the dvd install seems so much faster than the cd install. Doing a 2gb install seems to take about 15 min with a dvd, and 20-30 min with cd.

      • NFS (Score:5, Informative)

        by soloport ( 312487 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @12:25PM (#10755987) Homepage
        Three easy steps to installation bliss: 1) Put each ISO image into an NFS share on a remote computer. (You don't even have to unpack the images -- as some HOWTOs suggest.)

        2) Burn only the first ISO to CD-R. Upon boot (from CD-ROM), when the "Linux:" prompt appears, enter the following:
        linux askmethod

        3) Profit! Uh... No. Actually, after a: selecting NFS from the list and b: requesting (DHCP-enabled networks) or specifying an IP address, c: enter the NFS server's IP address and the NFS path where the ISO images are located (not the mount point, the actual path from the root -- e.g. /var/local/nfs/fedora/tettnang/).

        And that's it! If you're connecting over Fast Ethernet, your installation will be unbelievably fast -- and you can avoid having to swap CD-ROMs as you go.

        • Re:NFS (Score:3, Interesting)

          by mbbac ( 568880 )
          I choose to install Fedora by downloading the DVD image over BitTorrent on my PowerMac. Mounting the DVD image and dragging the files into ~/Sites/install/. Then I can boot my old Gateway system using a boot CD and install from my Mac's Apache server (i.e. http://192.168.1.2/~mbbac/install/).

  • Time to Upgrade (Score:4, Interesting)

    by a3217055 ( 768293 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:03AM (#10754977)
    I wonder what is the bestway to upgrade to FC3 from FC2 ... Maybe just use apt and yum to upgrade :)

    • Re:Time to Upgrade (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:06AM (#10755016)
      Maybe just use apt and yum to upgrade
      The recommeneded way to upgrade is to use installer (annaconda), some people have reported problems using yum or apt.

    • Re:Time to Upgrade (Score:5, Informative)

      by Oxide ( 92607 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:06AM (#10755025)
      1) Download FC3 ISO images
      2) Burn them to CDs
      3) Put on the FC3 cd and click on upgrade

      can't get any easier than that. I wouldnt want to use yum or apt because of the GCC upgrade.

      • Re:Time to Upgrade (Score:5, Informative)

        by Mr_Icon ( 124425 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:54AM (#10755626) Homepage
        I wouldnt want to use yum or apt because of the GCC upgrade.

        It works very well. To upgrade from FC2 to FC3 using yum do:

        • edit your /etc/yum.conf to point to fc3
        • yum update yum
        • yum upgrade

        Then watch it churn. Of course, if you have third-party software installed, you may want to wait till your vendors catch up with FC3.

        • Re:Time to Upgrade (Score:3, Insightful)

          by rgmoore ( 133276 ) *
          edit your /etc/yum.conf to point to fc3

          Rather than manually editing your /etc/yum.conf to point to FC3, it might be better just to download the fedora-release package from FC3, update that using RPM, and then proceed to update yum and then the whole system.

        • Re:Time to Upgrade (Score:4, Interesting)

          by batkiwi ( 137781 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @04:18PM (#10759186)
          I asked about this on the list for FC1 to FC2, and the developers SPECIFICALLY said DO NOT DO THIS.

          I trust them over you.

  • Competition (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Donoho ( 788900 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:05AM (#10754996) Homepage
    Is it just me or are there enough high profile distros available now to keep them all pushing a little harder to stay current. I like it.

  • So.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by _undan ( 804517 ) <dan@undumb.com> on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:05AM (#10754999)
    Did they fix that little problem of the install process hosing drive geometry tables so that Windows won't load anymore?

  • Enterprise? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Espectr0 ( 577637 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:06AM (#10755014) Journal
    If fedora is the base for which RHEL gets developed, why do they keep releasing new versions? When do they decide which fedora release gets frozen to develop RHEL 4?

    • Re:Enterprise? (Score:5, Informative)

      by mattdm ( 1931 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:21AM (#10755230) Homepage
      If fedora is the base for which RHEL gets developed, why do they keep releasing new versions? When do they decide which fedora release gets frozen to develop RHEL 4?

      What do you mean "why do they keep releasing new versions"? They keep releasing new versions because that's the point of having a distribution. Fedora Core partly exists to support RHEL, but it has its own life as well -- think Mozilla and Netscape, OpenOffice.org and StarOffice.

      And "when do they decide"? Well, market realities mean they need a new RHEL release every certain amount of time -- probably every year and a half or so. So when that "when" approaches, I imagine they look to see what the most solid current Fedora base, and develop along with this.

      In fact, RHEL 4 is being developed in parallel with FC3. See this LWN.net article [lwn.net] for more details.

    • Mu. (Score:3, Informative)

      by pavon ( 30274 )
      That is not how things work. This isn't like debian where after a certain amount of time unstable is simply renamed stable. RHEL is developed completely apart from Fedora and the purpose of Fedora is not to be a testing version of RHEL. The purpose of Fedora is to get the bugs out of the bleeding edge software as fast as possible, not to debug the distro. A release early, release often strategy is the best way to obtain that goal.

  • Great news.

    The dissapointing thing is how often Fedora major releases come out. Makes the lives of those of us who have to keep up with it quite difficult. We just got used to FC2 and now FC3's out! :-)

    • That's the point (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 3770 ( 560838 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:11AM (#10755085) Homepage
      They are using you to test the system so that their enterprise customers will get the quality that they expect.

      It is a really cheap way of doing quality control.

      • Re:That's the point (Score:5, Informative)

        by LnxAddct ( 679316 ) <sgk25@drexel.edu> on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:26AM (#10755295)
        Pretty much any company that releases both consumer and business software uses the consumer software to test the waters and once it seems okay they make the fixes and sell it to businesses along with 5 year contracts. Thats just business, get over it. At least Red Hat isn't ripping off the consumer, the Fedora development model isn't too much different then it was with the RH desktop distro... but the community kept complaining that it wasn't free and Red Hat made very little money (something like 3 million dollars) from its desktop version so they released it to the community as Fedora. Now the consumer gets probably the highest quality linux distribution avaialable, along with a huge supporting community. I use Fedora because it is stable, but has the latest and greatest. It is the only distro that runs on my laptop, and it is the only distro that I have been able to reliably install on just about any machine. If you haven't had the pleasure of using it, I would suggest you do so.
        Regards,
        Steve

      • Re:That's the point (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cpn2000 ( 660758 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:31AM (#10755349)
        Thats one way to look at it.

        The way I look at it is ...
        - I get a free OS (beer & speech).
        - Updates from a source I can trust (Redhat)
        Now, if it does help RedHat get some things done for their paying corporate customers it seems like a fair deal to me.

      • Re:That's the point (Score:5, Funny)

        by gormanly ( 134067 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:35AM (#10755391)

        Hmm, in my case they're using me to test both. Shame bugzilla reports on FC get ignored. As for quality control, Fedora seems to bypass the concept - FC2 sucks worse than any distro I've ever used, and I've been running everything on RH since the 4.2 days. If FC3 doesn't improve things I'll ... bitch some more on Slashdot.

    • Re:Fedora moves too fast (Score:5, Informative)

      by tuffy ( 10202 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:11AM (#10755089) Homepage Journal
      The dissapointing thing is how often Fedora major releases come out. Makes the lives of those of us who have to keep up with it quite difficult. We just got used to FC2 and now FC3's out! :-)

      Six months. It's always six months. [redhat.com] You need to download them sooner, perhaps. ;)

    • They're all getting that way. I just ordered SUSE 9.2, and in my purchase history, I bought 9.1 in May, '04. Prior to that I bought 9.0 in October, '03. Seems like all the distros are shooting for six month release schedules.

    • Re:Fedora moves too fast (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pomakis ( 323200 ) <pomakis@pobox.com> on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:25AM (#10755282) Homepage
      The dissapointing thing is how often Fedora major releases come out. Makes the lives of those of us who have to keep up with it quite difficult. We just got used to FC2 and now FC3's out! :-)

      Then upgrade every two versions (e.g. RH9 to FC2 to FC4). That's what I do. There's no requirement for you to upgrade with every release that comes out.

    • You can't please all the people all the time ...

      There's one group of Linux users (mostly businesses who just want their commodity tools to simply work - sorta like a hammer) who want extreme stability (with lightning-fast fixes for real problems). RH's solution: RH Enterprise Linux.

      There's another group of Linux users (mostly us geeky-types) who want the latest and greatest at all times. RH's solution: Fedora Linux.

      Pick one.

    • Re:Fedora moves too fast (Score:3, Informative)

      by mattdm ( 1931 )
      The dissapointing thing is how often Fedora major releases come out. Makes the lives of those of us who have to keep up with it quite difficult. We just got used to FC2 and now FC3's out! :-)

      Although all Fedora releases are given whole numbers, they're clearly not all going to be huge changes. I think of them like this (and I don't work at Red Hat, so I can, without getting in trouble):

      Red Hat Linux 9: Red Hat Linux 9.0
      Fedora Core 1: Red Hat Linux 9.1 (or 9.5)
      Fedora Core 2: Red Hat Linux 10.0
      Fedora Core

  • Fedora Core Release 3 Released? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:07AM (#10755032)
    Isn't that as redundant as "Hot Water Heater"?
    • The Red Hat Department of Reduncancy Department regretfully regrets the naming of the name given to Fedora Core Release 3 Release. Bye Bye
    • The poster should be ashamed of attempting to mock an English faux pas without first veryfing the veracity of the faux pas.

      Fedora Core Release 3 is a noun. The verb "to release" conjugated into the past tense of "released" was then applied to the noun Fedora Core Release 3. This is entirely correct and non-redundant. The fact that the noun uses the word release in its name has nothing to do with having the past tense action "released" performed upon it.

      Also, a "Hot Water Heater" is non-redundant as well.

  • Released? (Score:5, Funny)

    by RealProgrammer ( 723725 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:07AM (#10755039) Homepage Journal
    Whenever I read that an Open Source package has been "released", I think, "Wasn't it already Free?"

  • firefox pr1 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:07AM (#10755042)
    Why didn't they wait 1 more day for the 1.0 final?

    • Re:firefox pr1 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Soko ( 17987 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:25AM (#10755278) Homepage
      Ummmm...

      After the final of Firefox has actually been released, and been through the Fedora QA process, a simple "yum -y update" will get it for you.

      Everyone has a schedule that they like to stick to.

      Soko

    • Re:firefox pr1 (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Zorilla ( 791636 )
      I still don't think it would have made it. The Linux versions of Firefox seems to be trailing behind the Windows releases as of late. My memory is fuzzy, but I think wasn't able to upgrade to 1.0PR on Linux until a couple weeks later than I did on Windows.

      Unless they're planning a synchonized release of the binaries or something for both Windows and Linux.

    • Re:firefox pr1 (Score:3, Insightful)

      by micromoog ( 206608 )
      For the same reason they didn't wait x more days for the y other software packages with newer versions available.

  • Screenshots? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jukashi ( 240273 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:11AM (#10755087) Homepage Journal
    Whats with all these screenshots for distro releases - what exactly are people looking at? All I see is gnome or kde that could be running on anything. Are the distro-specific wallpapers that intresting?

  • Fedora Core 3 Thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jsav40 ( 614902 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:12AM (#10755104)
    I had all three test versions of FC3 running and am very much looking forward to installing the release version.

    Inpressions from the test releases

    -selinux is enabled by default & *just works*
    -firefox (finally) is included in Fedora Core proper
    -automounting bahavior of usb keys, external HDDs etc. is greatly improved
    -Totem has been added
    -Yum has been greatly improved (faster)
    -works well on the two laptops I tested it on
    (IBM T20, CPQ Armada M700
    -Better wifi support built in

    • Re:Fedora Core 3 Thoughts (Score:4, Interesting)

      by JianTian13 ( 525365 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:35AM (#10755392) Homepage
      -Yum has been greatly improved (faster)
      Really? I'd love for this to be true -- Yum is so dog-ass slow that it makes installing a new Fedora system from scratch a full-day's undertaking, because before it downloads any patches, it insists on separately downloading uncompressed headers for every fucking package in the release. And then it checks for new headers each and every time I tell it to install a new package. If they've fixed this behavior... Well, yum might actually start approaching the usability of apt.

      Yes, that's a flame and a troll. But in all seriousness, can anyone point me to an explanation as to why yum was chosen as the update tool, over say something like apt-rpm? Are there any honest-to-goodness technical reasons why yum is the better choice? Or is it just inertia at this point?

      • Re:Fedora Core 3 Thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Pros_n_Cons ( 535669 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:44AM (#10755504)
        Are there any honest-to-goodness technical reasons why yum is the better choice?

        Because apt for RPM was a hack. Was not built from the ground up to work for RPM where as YUM was. Yum was nowhere near apt in functionality but it is getting there. Maybe Fedora is stubborn in using apt for the same reason Debian was stubborn in using anaconda. It was written by "them".
        • It was written by "them".

          Actually it was written by Yellow Dog [yellowdoglinux.com]. Thus the name "Yellowdog Updater, Modified".

          Yum was nowhere near apt in functionality but it is getting there.

          I disagree. With this release, Yum has surpassed Apt in functionality (mirror lists for example).
        • That is not a technical reason. The "hack" as you call it works perfectly well, has nice graphical frontends and many other associated tools. Anaconda is not used by Debian for a host of technical reasons, mainly being that it does not support all of the architectures that Debian must support.

          Apt for RPM supports everything RPM and Fedora need, so yum is just different for the sake of being different. Yet another Linux distro fork. If Fedora would go apt, then that would do allot to mend the rift betwe

          • Re:Fedora Core 3 Thoughts (Score:3, Informative)

            by mattdm ( 1931 )
            Apt for RPM supports everything RPM and Fedora need, so yum is just different for the sake of being different.

            Well, except apt doesn't support multiarch. This makes x86_64 a pain (if you want the ability to run any 32-bit code at all). That's the main hangup, and it doesn't look like it's going to be fixed any time soon.

    • Re:Fedora Core 3 Thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @01:46PM (#10756917) Homepage Journal
      -selinux is enabled by default & *just works*

      This is the major point that is being missed by many here. Even if you think other LSM systems are better, even if you prefer some non LSM Mandatory Access Control system like RSBAC is better, you have to agree that any MAC system is a huge step forward for Linux security.

      It doesn't even matter that the default SELinux policy for FC3 is very permissive (mostly it only places constraints of various daemons), what matters is that a major distribution has a Mandatory Access Control system in place by default.

      This matter because it helps get developer buy in. That means more applications fixed so they don't do silly things that break under such systems, that means more developers actually using such systems to compartmentalize and strengthen the security of the applications themselves. This matter because right now we already have the architecture - several implementations of it in fact (SELinux, LIDS, RSBAC), what we don't have is applications that respect such systems, nor applications that take advantage of the extra security such system provide. As long as that is the case, we really aren't that much better off. People need to be paying attention to SELinux, and systems like it, and programming to use, or at the very least respect, such systems. Once that happens the difference between security in Linux and Windows really will be a night and day comparison.

      This is a huge win for Linux if we can get it up and running, so let's take the time to make it work! Congratulations to everyone on the Fedora SELinux project! You've done a fantastic job, Thanks!

      Jedidiah.

  • why is it necessary to post screenshots? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:13AM (#10755117)
    when most of the time more or less of all linux distributions look the same,if they are all customized the same. And here on Slashdot I'm sure everyone already know what things look like in almost all the different window managers.

    Despite this, we still decide to slashdot their screenies site!

  • Firewire Support? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by leinhos ( 143965 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:14AM (#10755132) Homepage Journal
    Can anyone comment on the level of Firewire support in FC3? I tried to get FW working with FC2, but eventually gave up...
    • It's been working fine for me since FC2 came out: I don't have to hand-roll my own kernels anymore, and packages for things like video translation libraries are available in RPM form from the "dries" repositories, in yum-compatible mirror shites.

    • Try again (Score:4, Informative)

      by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Monday November 08, 2004 @01:18PM (#10756596) Homepage Journal
      I tried to get FW working with FC2, but eventually gave up...

      There were kernel issues initially that were fixed a while later.

      I installed FC2 from .iso's on a machine last week - no firewire. Did a yum update. Reboot. Perfect firewire.

  • Question: (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RLiegh ( 247921 ) * on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:15AM (#10755148) Homepage Journal
    Is there a way to do a network install of fedora? I'm not sure why, but every cd I download is corrupted and unusable; so installing from cd is pointless for me.

    Thanx. :)

    • Re:Question: (Score:4, Informative)

      by A Boy and His Blob ( 772370 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:25AM (#10755272)
      Yes, you can either download the CD and use it to boot, then do a network install through an FTP or HTTP server (just make sure you find a server before booting because it doesn't give you a list or anything). If you can't even get the CD to boot and you already are running Linux just mount the iso as a "virtual drive." This is how I installed mine. [216.239.41.104]
    • Yeah, you can network install.
      FTP/HTTP always seem to corrupt large files. I have never had a broken ISO (i.e. doesn't match MD5 checksum) via bittorrent, because it has built-in checking of each chunk.
  • What kind of default ACPI scripts do they have, especially for laptops? I'm struggling to get ACPI going on my Inspiron 2600, and a distro that has this working with no fuss would really be something (already tried the liveCD of suse, which surprisingly has the ACPI control panels in it, it works the same as ubuntu so far). Does the kernel have any suspend-to-disk patches enabled/built by default?

  • when will we have FC4? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:18AM (#10755192)
    could it be next week because I'm thinking these guys are a bit too slow. I'd like them to move the pace up a bit that way I really don't have time to get used to their distro before the next comes out.

  • Fedora (Score:2, Interesting)

    by digitaltraveller ( 167469 )
    How do you apt-get dist upgrade with Fedora? --Don't ask.

    Wierd since, Fedora decided to copy Debian's mistaken policy of offering three software troves called stable,testing and unstable.

    When are they going to learn, users want ONE package tree, with the ability to migrate between versions and patches.

    SURE, you'll say. Fedora is just Red Hat's loss leader product to wedge people into RHEL.

    But wait until someone who has a superior understanding of the marketplace comes along and evaporates RH's marketsha

    • Re:Fedora (Score:4, Informative)

      by pyros ( 61399 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @12:05PM (#10755770) Journal
      Wierd since, Fedora decided to copy Debian's mistaken policy of offering three software troves called stable,testing and unstable.

      Uh, no .... Have a look here [redhat.com] and tell me where it mentions stable/testing/unstable. The official Fedora package set contains exactly one version of each application. Third party packagers like Fedora.us and Livna.org have adopted the stable/testing/unstable split, but they are separate entities from Red Hat, and are not official Fedora packages.

      I'll readily admit that I won't use Fedora without adding Fedora.us and Livna.org to my yum/apt sources, but you're either mistaken in your understanding of the Fedora community or spreading FUD.

  • Linux Screenshots (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:20AM (#10755219) Journal
    It's always a fancy desktop with cute icons, a shot of OpenOffice, one of GIMP, and then the rest are all of a thousand xterms opened up.

    They end up showcasing the lack of good linux desktop applications, it's pretty funny if you're not a zealot.

  • Mirror in Europe (Score:5, Informative)

    by Yenya ( 12004 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:24AM (#10755265) Homepage Journal
    Mirror whore mode on:


    If you are in Europe and looking for a fast mirror, try this one [linux.cz] (i386; x86_64 is here [linux.cz]).
    80 minutes after the release and my bandwidth and HDD speed is still not maxed out ...


    (IAAAOTS - I am an administrator of this server).

  • kernel.org stats (Score:5, Informative)

    by hpa ( 7948 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:29AM (#10755322) Homepage
    From this morning...

    570 Mbit/s (about 540 Mbit/s of which are mirrors.kernel.org, i.e. mostly Fedora); load average 232.44.

  • If the kernels are good enough for linus they should be good enough for these guys. 2.69-1.665?? Wtf? These days in any new dist other than slackware I bin the fscked up kernel that comes with it an install a stock one as I don't like surprises from we-can-do-it-better-than-the-main-team hacker code.

    • Re:Time for standard kernels in these releases (Score:5, Informative)

      by Sunspire ( 784352 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @12:09PM (#10755806)
      This is completely the opposite of what Linus himself thinks. We've got a new kernel development process since the last kernel sumit, and the final stabilization is now explicitly left to the vendors.

      2.6 is now both the stable and development branch for the foreseeable future. New features are rapidly integrated and 2.6.x.y versions are optionally released for stability, but a lot of the testing and QA is being offloaded to the distributions.

      I personally want Red Hat to tweak their kernels. That's what a distributors job is in my opinion, pulling software from all sort of sources and integrating them into a coherent product. I want Red Hat to include fixes for ACPI, CD recording, and basically do everything to assure that I don't have to compile my own kernel. Red Hat employs some of the best core kernel developers, over the years they've earned my trust and that of my company's. So in a sense, yes, they can do better, and we expect it of them. Perhaps that's not the kind of vendor you're looking for, in which case just stick to Slackware.

  • 2.3GB? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by thisisauniqueid ( 825395 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:39AM (#10755437)
    Why is this a little over half the size of FC2?

  • Updates available (Score:3, Informative)

    by osvejda ( 799137 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:44AM (#10755495)
    Already! [redhat.com] Announces here [redhat.com].

  • Two things, please answer. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by XO ( 250276 ) <blade@eric.gmail@com> on Monday November 08, 2004 @12:12PM (#10755840) Homepage Journal
    First:
    Slashdot is now using banner advertisements that load Java. This came as quite a surprise to me, as my browser suddenly started paging out to disk, and freaked out for almost 5 minutes while it loaded Java, and ran a component that promptly crashed Java. That's just a comment. If anyone in admin cares, please fix it. Java is bad. Still.

    Second:

    Any suggestions on properly using apt-get to upgrade from FC1 to FC2 or FC3? I finally got apt-get to upgrde from X11 to XORG, and that caused my entire X system to not function.. so, looking for some help with the rest. lol

    • Re:Two things, please answer. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Antique Geekmeister ( 740220 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @12:19PM (#10755925)
      Use yum. Make a copy of your yum.conf called yum.conf.update, and replace the $releasever everywhere with the number "3". Then run "yum clean; yum -c yum.conf.update check-update" to pre-load the header files files, and "yum -c yum.conf.update yum; yum -c yum.conf.update update" to actuall do the updates. The new version of yum has some nice pre-downloading features, which is why I recommend updating it first.

  • Does FC do net installs? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by meanfriend ( 704312 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @12:16PM (#10755898)
    Is it possible to install FCx with some sort of net installer so you dont need to download the full iso set? ie. get a small iso that contains a bare install and download the rest as you go?

    If you want to set up a thin desktop with only a limited number of apps (GUI, browser, openoffice, email client, XMMS), it seems a waste to download 2+ GB of iso's full of stuff you will probably never use. And because FC is so bleeding edge, by the time you do need package XYZ, there is likely an updated version in the repository anyways...

    Other distros (eg. Debian, Suse) do this and it's very convienent. I like to try out different distros but the idea of downloading a full CD set for something I'll only kick around for fun turns me off.

    • Re:Does FC do net installs? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 08, 2004 @12:44PM (#10756215)
      Yes, just get the "boot.iso" (about 5MB) and use that, point it to an FTP/HTTP server with the RPMs, and it will pull them down.

  • Multiple - 8 OC-192's available at SC2004 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Danathar ( 267989 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @12:44PM (#10756221) Journal
    If anybody at SC2004 (Supercomputing 2004) in Pittsburg (currently in progress) Is reading this, get somebody on the floor with a big RAID box and a 10 GigE connection to join the torrent!

    It's like an alignment of stars! SC2004 bandwidth challenge and Fedora Core 3 released at the same time!

    http://www.sc-conference.org/sc2004/bandwidth.ht ml

    yea baby! 8 OC-192s....for a limited time only!

  • Should have seen this coming. (Score:3, Funny)

    by wayward_son ( 146338 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @12:48PM (#10756262)
    I just spend the better part of the weekend installing FC2 on my laptop.

  • New in Gnome 2.8 (Score:3, Informative)

    by houseofmore ( 313324 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @01:22PM (#10756636) Homepage
    For what's new in gnome 2.8 (from 2.6 in code 2), see http://www.gnome.org/start/2.8/notes/rnwhatsnew.ht ml

    Screenshots included.

  • 666 + one (Score:3, Funny)

    by dankelley ( 573611 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @10:12PM (#10773258)
    I notice the kernel is build-number 667, i.e. the number of the beast, plus unity. Any significance to that?

Slashdot Top Deals

Almost anything derogatory you could say about today's software design would be accurate. -- K.E. Iverson

Close