The Fedora Project announces the third and final test release of the Fedora Core 6 development cycle, available for the i386, x86_64, and ppc/ppc64 architectures, including Intel based Macintosh computers. It features GNOME 2.16.0, KDE 3.5.3, desktop eye candy provided by the Compiz window manager using AIGLX, and much more. Get it via BitTorrent, or via http/ftp.
Will/does this support, out of the box, Intel 3945ABG wireless/centrino support? considering the support is opensource, there should be no reason for it not to be included. Any confirm ot deny the presence of support?
Yes. fc6 supports yum repo configuration during install, the Anaconda installer has got a major functionality boost! Add *Atrpms* repo, select your favourite proprietary drivers, and let it go. The driver is in 2 parts (ipw3945 and ieee80211)
Ah, ok, I was hopeing that they would add it to the default installation
I guess I’ll skip on this release then 
It was too late to include it on the core repository. Perhaps someone will bring it to the Extras repository or waiting for FC7.
How do I upgrade to test 3 from core 5 with yum? I tried installing the fedora-release package from test 3 (then do yum upgrade) but it complains about dependencies and won’t install.
I believe the best way to upgrade is with the installer (it will find your FC5 system and ask if you want to upgrade it).
Honestly I’d say the best way would be to back up one’s important data, if it’s not already on a separate partition, and nuke the current install. Fewer potential headaches all around that way, especially considering this is a test release.
Edited 2006-09-14 22:29
Upgrading from a stable release to a test release or vice versa isn’t recommended (or even supported?) by the Fedora folks, I believe – it may or may not work and you’re probably on your own if it doesn’t.
If you’re running FC5 now, hang for about a month or so – FC6 final is due in mid-October (may slip) and that should have had some decent FC5 final->FC6 final upgrade testing done before its release.
Personally, I’m always in the “clean install into a separate partition and copy what you need from the old partition into it” camp myself, but I tend to keep separate /home trees for each version so that if the new install goes horribly wrong, I can just boot into the previous version’s partition and use my previous stable setup before braving another clean install attempt later. If you use a shared /home across multiple distros, you can get into major trouble with config files in your home dir that don’t work nicely with each other.
Besides, seeing how you configure your preferred setup from scratch is often “illuminating”. I usually find some GNOME/app defaults annoying – I like focus to follow mouse, *one* [taller] task bar at the bottom only, a single Start-like menu in the bottom left, never use the Desktop icons [I cover them with terminal windows!], add about 6 or 7 icons to the task bar (Firefox, GNOME terminal [I *hate* that most distros refuse to put a terminal icon anywhere], K3B, grip, xmms, xine, Azureus for example) and Bob’s your uncle…
Of any of the other distro’s out there presently.
Fedora is better than SuSE, Debian, and most of all Ubuntu which is lacking in every area.
It is the standard by which Linux is judged.
…SP…
how long have you been using redhat desktops? that might have been the case back in the redhat 9.0 days. Fedora is leading jack and squat and jack left town.
I used to use fedora 40hrs a week and I can easily say that fedora has nothing on ubuntu’s dapper drake with regards to stability and ease of use. Which lets be honest, thats all that matters.
Stability and Ubuntu? read this
http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=15587 or
http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/08/22/still-learning-what-long-term-sup…
Besides Ubuntu ships proprietary Nvidia, ATI drivers even its main CD and uses proprietary services like launchpad while Fedora is a 100% open source software system. They are not comparable.
Somebody released a bad patch. That is a far cry different from the overall stability of an Ubuntu system.
Also, I’m glad Ubuntu ships with proprietary Nvidia and ATI drivers. I have Nvidia cards and I like Ubuntu for making my life easier. Would I like to see open support for these cards? Of course, but I’m realistic too and I want my cards to work out of the box.
If I wanted to manually get everything to work, I’d run Gentoo. At times, doing so is fun. But it is nice to have it all done for you sometimes as well.
To me, Fedora sits somewhere in the middle. It doesn’t do a lot for you, and yet it does enough that it just isn’t fun.
“Besides Ubuntu ships proprietary Nvidia, ATI drivers even its main CD”
No it doesn’t, that’s just outright FUD.
There are non open source packages available in the repositories, but they aren’t enabled by defautl and they don’t ship with the cd.
“No it doesn’t, that’s just outright FUD. ”
No dude, its not
http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/licensing
http://ftp.port80.se/ubuntu/pool/restricted/l/linux-kernel-restrict…
kernel-restricted package has ATI and Nvidia drivers etc.
I don’t know what you’re trying to prove by posting a link to a package from 2004?
The kernel-restricted package isn’t part of the distribution any more. It’s been replaced by linux-restricted-modules.
The linux-restricted-modules package *doesn’t ship with the CD*, and it’s in the a repository which *ISN’T* enabled by default.
Which is exactly what I said in my last post.
>The linux-restricted-modules package *doesn’t ship with the CD*, and it’s in the a repository which *ISN’T* enabled by default.
After my installation of Ubuntu Dapper the restricted repository was enabled in the source.list and during the installation Ubuntu had downloaded and installed linux-restricted-modules.
I can vouch for that. I’ve done at least 6 dapper installs and the linux-restricted-modules was there, by default, in every one of them. Whether it came from the CD, or gets installed during the first update, doesn’t matter.
Hmm, ok I was wrong sorry.
I’ve always installed my nVidia drivers through synaptic or apt, the installer never installed them automatically, so I thought they were only in the rpository not on the CD.
My bad..
Uh, you’re dead wrong, Dapper comes with both sets iof drivers, you just have to install them, and they are in the repos too
To the OSS, contribution matters. Canonical probably make a distribution better but Redhat has made OSS which includdes Ubuntu better. Take a look at the long list of contributions by Redhat.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RedHatContributions?highlight=%28…
I disagree. Redhat was ahead of the pack back in the 4.x and 5.x era, but I think they took a sharp nose dive when they released 6.0, and they have been recovering from that ever since.
I loved Redhat until 6.0 came out and I suffered it until 6.1. After that, I moved over to Debian and have been happy ever since.
I have tried all of the Fedora releases, hoping that the community stance would produce a better experience. I admit it is a good experience, but just not what I’m looking for. Debian is still my personal favorite, but I like a lot of things about Ubuntu as well.
Holy Flamebait, Batman!
Seriously, I used The old RedHat from 4.2 on. When the Fedora thing came about, I and my clients took that path. Around FC4 I finally got tired of their cavalier attitude toward patches (just upgrade to the latest release and then deal with the new bugs with another set of patches, and then deal with those new bugs with another.) I just installed FC5 for another test. A standard desktop install required 386(!) patches when I ran yum update.
I also got tired of running (and supporting for my customers) a distro with an expiration date only slightly longer than milk.
So I switched myself and my customers over to CentOS and have not looked back.
I tried FC5 back in June, but it refused to put my radeon 9100 into any mode higher than 640×480. (Yes, the xorg.conf is correct and it was using the radeon driver. It was definitely an X bug.)
I contributed debugging data to the existing (3 month old) bug report, which had not been assigned yet. As far as I know, It still hasn’t been assigned. I stopped watching after a couple of months.)
I posted about this on OSAlert earlier, but was pretty much told by the FC fans that if not that many people are affected, it’s perfectly understandable for them to completely ignore the problem.
OK. That’s fine. I can ignore Fedora.
I did do an evaluation of Ubuntu a few months back on my own desktop. I liked it so much that I’m still “evaluating” it. I’ve always been a bit negative on Debian based distros, but Ubuntu, and most especially the Ubuntu user community, have changed my mind.[1]
I still use CentOS at client sites. It just makes sense.
But I’d never go back to Fedora.
No. That’s too final.
If Fedora did more than just make noise about how they are not RedHat’s beta. If they stopped *talking* about their regression testing and how they are *going to* prove to the world that they are not a RH beta branch, and actually put out a couple of releases that did not have egregiously embarrassing bugs for which their response is “wait for FCx+1”, and if their support started lasting at least a *little* longer then the milk in my refrigerator, I would go back. I still evaluate each release. So far FC6t3 is looking OK.
But I’m still skeptical.
RedHat has made it clear that Fedora is too important to their business for them to relinquish control, as they “promised” to do for a couple of years before changing their minds and finalizing the decision to retain control. And they consider Fedora to be their *alpha*. Consider this recent quote from RedHat CTO, Brian Stevens:
“””We’re convinced that there is a better way to develop software, so what we did is we blew up the notion of an Alpha and we use Fedora as an alpha. The engineers are goaled on not just producing enterprise quality software, but driving it through upstream in terms of the community.”””
Quoted out of context? Here’s the link. Decide for yourselves:
http://ipcommunications.tmcnet.com/news/2006/08/25/195490.htm?p=ica
[1] I should note that Ubuntu recently put out an inexcusably bad patch that broke everyone’s X. I make no excuses for that. But at least they are taking steps to see that such a thing does not happen again , and such cavalier handling of patches is not official policy.
Edited 2006-09-15 13:35
What universe do you live in? I’m a dyed-in-the-wool Fedora user, but the only gap I see between Fedora releases and Ubuntu releases are due to their respective release dates. Hardly a gap to be measured in light-years (my preferred unit of measurement is the second). Now, as to whether or not any particular distro plays nicely with your hardware, that’s a different issue.
Fedora is light years ahead of Ubuntu in terms of
functionality and packages.
Multi-media works better in Fedora to.
You’ve just lost all credibility. Are you the same “southern” person that posts crap on ZDnet as well?
Can we filter posts by name on this site?
“Fedora is light years ahead of Ubuntu in terms of
functionality and packages.”
Yeah, sure… Check out the ubuntu repos (about 19k packages)
“Multi-media works better in Fedora to.”
Now it’s clear you really don’t have a clue what you’re talking about…
How is Fedora better than openSUSE or Mandriva? What sort of configuration facilities does it have to put YaST and DrakeConfig to shame?
“How is Fedora better than openSUSE or Mandriva?”
Better Java with things like Eclipse, Java applets etc by default and security features for example
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Security/Features
Better Java with things like Eclipse, Java applets etc by default and security features for example.
Well openSUSE has AppArmor and a integrated firewall for starters. So you cant say that it’s lacking in security. Mandriva doesnt have the first though. Installing Java and Eclipse IDE is pretty simple in either distribution too. I can just search for it in YaST/RPMdrake or Smart then install it.
Perhaps I’ll test drive Fedora Core 6 but it’s going to take alot more than stuff I already have to impress me.
Well openSUSE has AppArmor and a integrated firewall for starters. So you cant say that it’s lacking in security.
Oh, you mean like SeLinux? Which Fedora has had just shy of for-friggin-ever now, as well as an integrated firewall. SuSE is doing good in some areas, but as far as security it’s barely just starting to catch up to Fedora.
Mandriva has RSBAC and a working firewall (shorewall + net-applet for monitoring) included. It is not like a swiss cheese.
Oh, you mean like SeLinux? Which Fedora has had just shy of for-friggin-ever now, as well as an integrated firewall. SuSE is doing good in some areas, but as far as security it’s barely just starting to catch up to Fedora.
I hear that SELinux is difficult to use and many just disable it because the default security policies are to strict. AppArmor has many benefits over SELinux in that respect as well as not being necessary to recompile apps to fully benefit from it. In openSUSE/SLED it is fully integrated in GUI/Ncurses YaST as well as CLI.
I’m not sure about RSBAC though. I dont recall ever seeing a DrakeConfig module for it. Interesting.
with urpmq rsbac you get:
libnss_rsbac2
libnss_rsbac2-devel
librsbac1
librsbac1-devel
librsbac1-static-devel
pam_rsbac
rsbac-admin
rsbac-admin-debug
rsbac-rklogd
I hear that SELinux is difficult to use and many just disable it because the default security policies are to strict.
Only true it the policies are set to Strict mode which is installed by default since Fedora Core 3. The policies are targetted by default and the newest version is modular. Only issues were lack of proper documentation and tools which are now solved from Fedora Core 5. Documentations are available on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SELinux/
AppArmor has many benefits over SELinux in that respect as well as not being necessary to recompile apps to fully benefit from it.
Not true at all because AppArmor will need to be rebuilt as well. Read their faqs and notice how they need to get a special version of Apache for example to applyb the context. In the case of SELinux, very few programs need to be recompiled. Check out the debate on
http://www.linux-magazine.com/issue/69/AppArmor_vs_SELinux.pdf#sear…
and http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/list-archive/0602/index.cfm#14798
FYI, nautilus now provide more details on SELinux context.
Correction to self: Target policies is the default instead of Strict. It should be read: Only true it the policies are set to Strict mode which was installed but disabled on Fedora Core 2.
Is yast still the same colossal pain in the ass it used to be whenever you wanted to edit config files by hand?
If so, you can keep it.
Fedora is better overall in stability, install and KDE most of all.
Fedora will steam roll it.
Fedora is better overall in stability, install and KDE most of all.
Absolutely. Red Hat’s support and implementation of KDE is second only to Microsoft’s.
I have to say that Dapper kicks FC 5, I find it much quicker to build a functional, stable desktop with Dapper than FC 5, and it was the same with breezy, so I kinda have to disagree with you
If you want the best install Fedora it is so much better than Ubuntu which is stripped down linux off debian. Plus, the horrible Gnome desktop in Ubuntu.
Fedora is where it is happening.
Kubuntu is KDE, and one of the best KDE based distros out there, IMNHO
fedora 5 gave me alot of problems it did not want to install on my laptop. I will try fedora 6, i hope fedora 6 works for me.
My personal preference is Ubuntu but I installed the last release of Fedora just to check it out. It looks and seems to work quite well. I’ll be all over this as soon as I find some time.
The great thing about free VMware Server is that playing with new OSes is a breeze!
Yeah FC is pretty nice, has been since core 4 or so, seems redhat and the community finally are getting it together
How does one install this on an Intel Mac that already has Vista installed alongside OS X? I want to triple boot, but I’m afraid Fedora will mess up my MBR as set-up by Boot Camp.
I googled for instructions but couldn’t find any. Anyone have a link?
How does one install this on an Intel Mac that already has Vista installed alongside OS X? I want to triple boot, but I’m afraid Fedora will mess up my MBR as set-up by Boot Camp.
I googled for instructions but couldn’t find any. Anyone have a link?
This might help?
http://wiki.onmac.net/index.php/Triple_Boot_via_BootCamp
I believe xgl and aiglx run under compiz and compiz provides the bling? If I had two machines running, one using aiglx and the other using xgl, would the effects appear the same or would aiglx/xgl have an effect on compiz?
I think there are a few effects that don’t work on AIGLX but that broadly speaking you wouldn’t notice a difference.
All depends which card you’re running though. nVidia cards don’t work with AIGLX yet.
allow you to choose all the packages on the DVD instead of choosing every package or group of packages; I don’t know why they don’t include this in fedora like in RHEL?
Otherwise fedora is the most stable linux I have ever tested, even SLED 10 or mandriva 2006 cannot compete with it; but still I would choose Mandriva 2006 over SLED 10 for the 2nd position.
Same applications (with the same versions) crashed with me on SLED but not at all with fedora and rarely with mandriva. (F-spot photo manager crashed with SLED after a fresh install and repeated it many times until I compiled and installed the newer version)
But mandriva is slower in updating their packages.
Stability is my #1 concern when I use linux, so I don’t want to feel a MS breeze in any of my linux world!
Will the Installer
allow you to choose all the packages on the DVD instead of choosing every package or group of packages; I don’t know why they don’t include this in fedora like in RHEL?
If you mean to get a button that allow to include all package from DVD, then it doesn’t. However, doing that will bring a massive amount of gigabyte of update which will be really painful in the long term. At least the group selection is more flexible and logical.
If you still want the option to include everything, you can make a kickstart file that include everything and execute it from boot prompt:
linux ks=file:/path where path is the file located in the media
Google around to see how to create a kickstart file.
Edited 2006-09-15 09:20
Hello
What about support for IPW2200BG during the installation?
Test 1 and 2 kernel panic’d during the install. With this one I got part way through at least. The network config wouldn’t let me use a static IP unless I specified a IPV6 address as well, so I continued using DHCP just to get through the install. Afterwards I got an error that said “error occurred while unmounting the cd”, which is quite interesting since it was a DVD install. It wouldn’t continue beyond that error so I guess no 6 for me yet.
EDIT: And yes, before anyone says it, I have made the customary trip to bugzilla.
Edited 2006-09-16 01:04
I’ve used AppArmor and I didnt need to recompile any programs to gain the full security it has to offer. AppArmor integreted in YaST is basically wizard driven and far easier to use and understand. I could probably learn how to use SELinux but not without significant time and effort learning the language and CLI tools.
AppArmor does have its benefits just like SELinux:
http://suse.osuosl.org/people/rschmid/SLE10_Transfer/apparmor_overv…
AppArmor might not offer an as comprehensive security solution as SELinux but it still protects your system from buggy exploitable programs by isolating them.
A simple security solution makes it feasible for Joe end-user to secure his system. Whereas SELinux may be so complex for him that he avoids it alltogether. That would mean no added MAC/RBAC security whatsoever.
Edited 2006-09-16 09:42