Is Redhat not releasing 10?

subzero80 · 05-26-2004, 08:49 AM

I just seen that they are no longer supporting redhat 8-9.. I don't see a new release for 10.. Are they coming another MicroShaft??Later

grcunningham · 05-26-2004, 08:50 AM

its now:

http://fedora.redhat.com/

subzero80 · 05-26-2004, 10:45 AM

How good does the new fedora run?

grcunningham · 05-26-2004, 10:53 AM

i havent tried it myself...its a pretty large download,
but i plan on trying it for the alsa sound support

subzero80 · 05-26-2004, 10:55 AM

side question what is the disk name for redhat 8.0 cd 1? I made recopy and forgot what the name was so package program will not recognize the disk.. Thanks

Hammett · 05-26-2004, 11:00 AM

I have tried FC 1, and was horrible....For example, i forgot to install XFree86-devel pakage, so i runned apt-get to get them and install, but i got an error of unmet dependencies, although i had them all covered. It was really wierd. I had to install all FC1 in order to get XFree86-devel. But the problem was when I tried to install anything with apt-get. I always got stupid failed dependencies that were met. So i switched back to RH9.
I don't know how FC2 works, but i don't think i will try.

Blinker_Fluid · 05-26-2004, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hammett
I have tried FC 1, and was horrible....For example, i forgot to install XFree86-devel pakage, so i runned apt-get to get them and install, but i got an error of unmet dependencies, although i had them all covered. It was really wierd. I had to install all FC1 in order to get XFree86-devel. But the problem was when I tried to install anything with apt-get. I always got stupid failed dependencies that were met. So i switched back to RH9.
I don't know how FC2 works, but i don't think i will try.

Hmm I forgot to install it too but I did 'yum install XFree86-devel' and it installed fine... I think I had to have it for mplayer... Guess there is some wierdness...

Lleb_KCir · 05-26-2004, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hammett
I have tried FC 1, and was horrible....For example, i forgot to install XFree86-devel pakage, so i runned apt-get to get them and install, but i got an error of unmet dependencies, although i had them all covered. It was really wierd. I had to install all FC1 in order to get XFree86-devel. But the problem was when I tried to install anything with apt-get. I always got stupid failed dependencies that were met. So i switched back to RH9.
I don't know how FC2 works, but i don't think i will try.

semi simular experiance with FC1, im waiting for a few more before i upgrade from RH9.

for now RH9 serves me well, and will for a while to come. once more bugs are worked out of the FC line, ill move to that, or ill junp distros to slack or debian. by then i may know enough that i can jump in there with those 2 and configure them properly and not screw it up to bad.

php · 05-26-2004, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by grcunningham

but i plan on trying it for the alsa sound support

What does that have to do with fedora? ALSA is in the linux kernel, not distribution specific.

grcunningham · 05-26-2004, 03:14 PM

fc2 comes with kernel 2.6, RH9 has 2.4
it was my understanding that 2.6 had alsa
built in? is this not correct?

Hammett · 05-28-2004, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lleb_KCir
semi simular experiance with FC1, im waiting for a few more before i upgrade from RH9.

for now RH9 serves me well, and will for a while to come. once more bugs are worked out of the FC line, ill move to that, or ill junp distros to slack or debian. by then i may know enough that i can jump in there with those 2 and configure them properly and not screw it up to bad.

Yes, i feel the same. Learning linux with "easy" distro and then switch to Debian or even Gentoo.

Quote:

Originally posted by grcunningham
fc2 comes with kernel 2.6, RH9 has 2.4
it was my understanding that 2.6 had alsa
built in? is this not correct?

You can download ALSA modules and install them. I run a 2.4.25 kernel with alsa modules and they work like a charm,

Samsara · 05-28-2004, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by subzero80
How good does the new fedora run?

It runs very well, actually - none of the troubles that Fedora Core 1 had. The only niggle is that they forgot to include file associations, so your browser will not automatically start up xpdf when you click on a hyperlink to a pdf file. Likewise for all other file types. Haven't yet fixed it on my installation. I may be switching to Suse when 9.2 (10.0?) comes out - I need some decent Novell file share integration, but I also want GNOME 2.6.

Regards,

Samsara

LapisRaven · 05-28-2004, 10:28 PM

Fedora Core 2 is working fantastic for me........only odd issues are, at least at this time you cannot mount any Window$ filesystems (not supported by Kernal 2.6.5.
Kfind crashes when the "search subfolder" option is checked.
as usual Nvidia is behind the ball on getting drivers submitted (they work just dandy in Core 1 BTW)

other than that...I am lovin it!