Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 19th Mar 2006 22:02 UTC
Fedora Core Fedora Core 5, 'Bordeaux', has been released to mirrors. The release notes [.html download] are posted, along with sets of screenshots of the installation procedure and the resulting desktop, by Linux-Noob, so boys and girls, rejoice. The main new features of Fedora Core 5 are the latest GNOME and KDE desktops (2.14 and 3.5 respectively), integration of early work on the Fedora Rendering Project, Mono installed by default, new pakage manager front-ends, better sleep/hibernate support, and much, much more. Update: Screencast and screenshots.
Order by: Score:
torrent?
by ziggamon on Sun 19th Mar 2006 22:20 UTC
ziggamon
Member since:
2005-07-06

Give us a torrent!
It's not nice to just waste their bandwidth like this before all the mirrors have synced...

Oh, and gimme gimme gimme!

Reply Score: 3

anyweb
by anyweb on Sun 19th Mar 2006 22:28 UTC
anyweb
Member since:
2005-07-06

heres a torrent
torrent=http://betraktelse.org/FC5-DVD.torrent

cheers
anyweb

Reply Score: 5

RE: anyweb
by nii_ on Mon 20th Mar 2006 04:56 UTC in reply to "anyweb"
nii_ Member since:
2005-07-11

" torrent=http://betraktelse.org/FC5-DVD.torrent "

Thanks, now downloading from this torrent, but wait a mo... Is that the i386 version or the x86-64 version?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: anyweb
by vikramsharma on Mon 20th Mar 2006 05:18 UTC in reply to "RE: anyweb"
vikramsharma Member since:
2005-07-06

It is the 32 bit version, you can go to http://betraktelse.org/ and check it out too, there are two torrents available one is for i386 and the other for x86_64.

Reply Score: 1

rklrkl
Member since:
2005-07-06

...but as usual OSNews has jumped the gun! Notice how all the release links are to an unofficial site and yet the official locations at places like:

http://fedora.redhat.com/
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Distribution/Download
http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/

all fail to mention Fedora Core 5 final at all (as of 22.30 GMT on Sunday evening)! Know why? Well, the official release date is Monday (20th March) and it's pretty poor of OSNews to post this up without bothering to actually even go to the project home page to confirm whether or not it had been released. Shame on you, OSNews!

Reply Score: 5

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

We discussed this before. The simple thing is: if it's downloadable, it's released. Period. Please continue discussing the release or I'll have to resort to moderation for the first time in ages.

Reply Score: 5

blah_ect Member since:
2005-07-26

Osnews is wrong to post these links. Your wrong to go around threatening to stomp on anyone disagreeing with you Thom.

Mod away.

-blah_ect

Reply Score: 5

senornoodle Member since:
2005-07-12

Because dispite being publicly available they're somehow not ready yet? Because noone else would know about them if they weren't posted on OSNews? Just because it's not officially out yet?

Reply Score: 3

Zoidberg Member since:
2006-02-11

"The simple thing is: if it's downloadable, it's released."

Going by that logic Windows Vista is released also. Something being leaked does not mean it's released, and it does seem a bit on the side of abuse of power to threaten to mod someone because they disagree with you.

I'm very much looking forward to trying this out, but I'm going to wait until tomorrow when it actually is released.

Edited 2006-03-19 22:59

Reply Score: 5

ziggamon Member since:
2005-07-06

Nah, you shouldn't have to go that far...
Just join the torrent - where's the harm in that?

To Thoms defence: it is in deed downloadable from an official mirror. However it is bad journalism to say something is "released" and then link to some forum called linux-n00b where some n00b (not just an insult, it's actually true this time) found a mirror that had the release out.
One thing is being first with the news. A totally different thing is to report news before they happened.
What would have been cool is if OSnews carried the story the second FC5 was released! THAT would be being first with bringing the news...

Reply Score: 1

anyweb Member since:
2005-07-06

ziggamon said "To Thoms defence: it is in deed downloadable from an official mirror. However it is bad journalism to say something is "released" and then link to some forum called linux-n00b where some n00b (not just an insult, it's actually true this time) found a mirror that had the release out. "

hey, i'm PROUD of being a linux noob, and proud to use linux and particularly Fedora, for the last few releases of Fedora Core, the iso's have been on some of the official mirrors a day or days before the official announcment, whether that's an error on those mirrors or not is not of my concern (quite likely the mirror admin didnt chmod the directories properly...).

and as I stated in my Evolution of Fedora Core linux article, http://linux-noob.com/review/fedora/fcrh/

"I won't hesitate for a moment, to say that Fedora Core release linux is my absolute favorite linux distro, I love the way it is developing with the times, I love the consistency with the releases (lots of new stuff!), and I love the way it has matured from the first release. I aim to be first in line to download the ISO's when FCR5 is released next month and I hope that you will join me. Fedora Core linux is maturing faster than my home brew wine ! make sure you don't miss the boat. "

was I first in line ? not quite, but one of the first quite possibly :-) !

cheers
anyweb

Edited 2006-03-20 07:55

Reply Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Going by that logic Windows Vista is released also.

Tell me where you can download Vista-final and I'll be sure to report its release.

Something being leaked does not mean it's released

This release isn't leaked. It's been posted on official Fedora mirrors by official Fedora people. There's no leak ANYWHERE, so cut the nonsense.

and it does seem a bit on the side of abuse of power to threaten to mod someone because they disagree with you.

1) It's off-topic,
2) We've discussed this ten million times already, and our standpoint don't change.

Every reason to moderate, I'd guess.

Reply Score: 5

thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

Perhaps in future news articles you should use "Fedora Core 5 available" instead of "released". People have a point, FC5 hasn't been released officially yet.

Reply Score: 5

ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

Perhaps in the future RH should not put out the ISO on their FTP until they release it officially?

Reply Score: 1

thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

They don't.

Reply Score: 1

mmebane Member since:
2005-07-06

So is it just supposed to suddenly appear on all the mirrors at the exact same instant the release announcement is made? I'd like that connection.

Reply Score: 1

Nathan O. Member since:
2005-08-11

Perhaps, but Red Hat's uploading-without-announcement doesn't mean it's released. What if this is an almost-final version? What if they're really still testing a couple things "just to be sure" before they call it "released"?

Fact is, it's been made available. It may be taken down any minute now. That's happened before with other releases of other distros. It hasn't been released until the maintainers say so.

Reply Score: 1

mjmwired Member since:
2006-01-01

Do you understand how the mirror system works? Official builds are made by Redhat/Fedora. Once done they get pushed out to mirrors several days before the official release. This much time is allocated to allow all the supported mirrors to sync up. There are other considerations as well such as official 'yum' respository mirrors etc. After all that is done, usually based on some common time (usually GMT) most all mirrors are opened at the same time (not 100% sure?). Often some are delayed, but some accidentally open early which leads to these "leaks". ... If they waited till the "official release date" you would actually be waiting days past that.

In any event I think it was silly for OSnews to post this as "Released" when in fact it wasn't. Not only do those few mirrors or open sites get pounded, but the torrents work very poorly (some people claim to have better luck). It is better to use the official torrent when available so everyone can help eachother out. Additionally 'yum' won't work and bugs can't be filed till the release day (which due to a kernel problem in FC5 is VERY relevant).

I have some notes I've made for FC5 (based on test3) that I will be updating this day:
http://www.mjmwired.net/resources/mjm-fedora-fc5.html

Reply Score: 2

jaykayess Member since:
2005-09-28

They have to seed the mirrors some time before the official release date, so that all the mirrors are ready when people start downloading.

Reply Score: 1

d0nk3y Member since:
2005-12-15

But it is the 20th of March here in NZ........

Reply Score: 2

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

We discussed this before. The simple thing is: if it's downloadable, it's released. Period. Please continue discussing the release or I'll have to resort to moderation for the first time in ages.

Really, can you post original MD5 sum files from RH for FC5?

1. It is not the official mirror.
2. As much as one could know, this could be a tampered distro. And it wouldn't be the first.

The only people that are harmed by this are those jumping a gun. And you as news staff member should know at least this much.

Reply Score: 5

jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

It is unbelievable that you people are even wasting the bandwidth to post comments like this. Released/available/who cares! Until someone from Red Hat posts something here wagging a finger at OSNews, it's open season on downloading the new release. Just enjoy the bits and stop posting this nonsense (or go start your own news site and post about "official" releases).

Reply Score: 2

miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

It's not a matter of being or not being allowed to post it on a news site. It's a matter of being kind enough to wait till the new release hits all the mirrors. There is a reason that there's still no official announcement. Manners, people, manners!

Reply Score: 5

jaykayess Member since:
2005-09-28

I don't think it would be outrageous for OSNews to include a caveat in its posting ("Official release date is Monday the 20th.") That just seems respectful of the Fedora project's leadership.

Reply Score: 2

RGCook Member since:
2005-07-12

Get a freakin life for crying out loud. OSNews notified us that it is coming in hours, if not minutes. What the hell is wrong with that. Some of you folks need to find something valuable to do with your time.

Reply Score: 2

dark child Member since:
2005-12-09

Osnews is wrong to post these links. Your wrong to go around threatening to stomp on anyone disagreeing with you Thom.
I agree with you. There have been complaints about this kind of behaviour by some release managers
(not specifically aimed at OSNews) because it puts unnecessary strain on servers when they are try to sync them for the official release. Yeah its nice to have breaking news, but patience is also a virtue. There is nothing wrong with waiting for the official release announcement.

As for threatening to use moderation powers, I think this is unacceptable. People don't always see eye to eye so just because someone doesn't share the same point of view as yourself does not mean that you have to use your "powers" just because you can.

Reply Score: 5

Fedora 5 x86_64 + SB X-Fi = crash
by jokinin on Sun 19th Mar 2006 22:48 UTC
jokinin
Member since:
2005-11-07

I've tried to install Fedora 64 bit on an Athlon64 with a sound blaster X-Fi, and it crashes in the post install process.
I reboot and crashes again. Seems like it's a kudzu bug, trying to detect the soundcard.
Any suggestions?

Reply Score: 2

pzad Member since:
2005-12-23

X-Fi is not supported in linux, and probably never will be.

Reply Score: 1

Sweet!
by mkuredji on Sun 19th Mar 2006 23:03 UTC
mkuredji
Member since:
2006-03-17

I've been waiting for FC5 quite some time now. This release looks like it's gonna be great, certainly a more important release than FC4. Any news regarding the GPL-kernel issue being in this ISO?

Reply Score: 1

A little tip
by porcel on Sun 19th Mar 2006 23:44 UTC
porcel
Member since:
2006-01-28

Here's how to use the python ncurses interface, which is the most reliable one, to download this torrent. First, go to the directory where you want to store your torrrent file by doing cd /home/user/mypathtodirectory/

Then:

/usr/bin/btdownloadcurses --url http://betraktelse.org/FC5-DVD.torrent

Good luck

Reply Score: 4

Check out the SELinux reference policy
by hustomte on Sun 19th Mar 2006 23:47 UTC
hustomte
Member since:
2006-01-07

The SELinux' reference policy configuration included in FC5 rocks. IMO it is a huge step forward in the area of MAC (Mandatory Access Control) since it is much more modular and easier to tweak than the older/traditional ones (pure strict and targeted). It even supports Multilevel security (MLS), something that has been missing in all setups so far (at least a working one). But I guess X.org does not include user space conformance to the policy just yet.

Reply Score: 2

Geez!!! :(
by somebody on Mon 20th Mar 2006 00:13 UTC
somebody
Member since:
2005-07-07

Can't you at least wait for the official release?

You can't compare MD5 against official release. You could download ISO images for pr0n. And most importantly, your distro could be tampered with.

This goes against all assurances of distro integrity.

Is OSNews really so desperate for news or what?

Reply Score: 5

So there is no way to install nvidia driver?
by Dias on Mon 20th Mar 2006 00:28 UTC
Dias
Member since:
2006-02-20

So there is no way to install nvidia driver?

Reply Score: 1

aaronb Member since:
2005-07-06

A update will be posted in the next few days. (Hopefully)

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=14009

Reply Score: 2

Dias Member since:
2006-02-20

But how there are going to fix this problem? Are there're going to release another ISO or the fix will be avaible in Update Manager?

Reply Score: 2

rdoggsv
Member since:
2006-03-19

Well and just when u think the weekend is over something like this comes up !!

thank u for the torrent and for the news !!!

Reply Score: 1

Bordeaux ?
by BrickCaster on Mon 20th Mar 2006 00:59 UTC
BrickCaster
Member since:
2006-03-20

There are legal issues with names like Bordeaux or Champagne, these french products are registered trademarks.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Bordeaux ?
by JLF65 on Mon 20th Mar 2006 01:49 UTC in reply to "Bordeaux ?"
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

There are legal issues with names like Bordeaux or Champagne, these french products are registered trademarks.

Except that trademarks only apply when they can cause confusion in the market. Calling a completely different product in a completely different industry by the same name is quite legal in the US. No one is going to mistake Champagne computer software for Champagne alcoholic drink, and that's all that matters as far as the law is concerned.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Bordeaux ?
by BrickCaster on Mon 20th Mar 2006 05:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Bordeaux ?"
BrickCaster Member since:
2006-03-20

May be legal in US but illegal in Europe.

Some years ago a reknown mark initiated a very costly marketing campaign for a new "sparkling" fragrance named Champagne. The campaign was a succes but demand could not be satisfied: the product has been retired for trademark infringement. The motivation behind is otherwise you could sell dung and call it Champagne, that would attain the prestige and value of the name. So here in Europe trademark names benefit protection for the whole market.

Here is a list of products named Champagne that have been ruled out of the market:

http://www.maisons-champagne.com/orga_prof/defense_appellation.htm

This list includes the web site wwww.Champ-pagne.com being closed plus a fine of 15.245

Edited 2006-03-20 05:45

Reply Score: 2

RE: Bordeaux ?
by rm6990 on Mon 20th Mar 2006 02:24 UTC in reply to "Bordeaux ?"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

Trademarks are specific to a certain field. Unless these are trademarks for computer software, Red Hat has nothing to worry about.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Bordeaux ?
by maxx_730 on Mon 20th Mar 2006 14:29 UTC in reply to "Bordeaux ?"
maxx_730 Member since:
2005-12-14

Dude, you do know that Bordeaux is actually a city in the west of France, right?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Bordeaux ?
by Anonymous Penguin on Mon 20th Mar 2006 15:37 UTC in reply to "Bordeaux ?"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

They have just given it the name of a city (location), as they did with previous releases.

Reply Score: 1

Nvidia and FC5
by jonsmirl on Mon 20th Mar 2006 01:01 UTC
jonsmirl
Member since:
2005-07-06

I have FC5 down and I am trying to get it to work with Nvidia. It is a pain. I had to put an ATI card in to get it to install. Then I had to rebuild my kernel and nvidia driver with GCC 4.1 instead of 4.0. Next you have to move the driver files to the right places in the tree. Now I need to rebuild my xorg.conf file since I accidentaly stomped it with the ATI one.

I'm writing this from Nvidia on FC5, but don't try installing it unless you know what your are doing.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Nvidia and FC5
by berzerko on Mon 20th Mar 2006 01:22 UTC in reply to "Nvidia and FC5"
berzerko Member since:
2005-11-11

it wouldnt even install without using the "nv" driver(gpl driver)? or vesa?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Nvidia and FC5
by jonsmirl on Mon 20th Mar 2006 01:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Nvidia and FC5"
jonsmirl Member since:
2005-07-06

For Nvidia, when the Xserver started I just got a screenful of yellow garbage. You can't control the Xserver since it is starting off from the DVD.

I would have thought that it would try to use nv or vesa but whatever it used it didn't work. Having experience in situations like this, I popped out the nvidia card and replaced it an ATI 9000 rather than messing with it.

I am still having significant problems since something in my preexisting user directories (created under FC4 or FC3) is messing up gnome. Newly created user directories work fine. Of course I get no error message or Xsession log, it just reverts back to the login screen.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Nvidia and FC5
by chuck on Mon 20th Mar 2006 02:57 UTC in reply to "Nvidia and FC5"
chuck Member since:
2006-03-20

I have FC5-test3 installed and running with the Nvidia drivers. I am still using the old 2.6.15-1.2041_FC5 kernel instead of the latest 2.6.15-2054_FC5 version that has the GPL problem. There was no problem with the install itself, but don't install the Xen kernel, the Nvidia script won't recognize it.

To get the Nvidia driver working I had to unpack it and then patch it following the Nvidia instructions at http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=62021 . Everything was fine after that. I think atrpms also has the patched drivers. The nVidia site seems at bit busy at the moment and I can't check to be sure I got the right link;)

Edited 2006-03-20 03:06

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Nvidia and FC5
by Finalzone on Mon 20th Mar 2006 07:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Nvidia and FC5"
Finalzone Member since:
2005-07-06
FTP Install
by karl1 on Mon 20th Mar 2006 01:09 UTC
karl1
Member since:
2005-06-29

[edited]

Everything seems fine with the above mirror. My apologies for previous comment that was in this block.

Edited 2006-03-20 01:15

Reply Score: 1

Upgrade path.
by w00dst0ck on Mon 20th Mar 2006 01:34 UTC
w00dst0ck
Member since:
2006-02-01

Ever since the past days with rpm based systems I have stayed away from everything rpm...

How have things changed since then? I understand that there are things like apt-get, yum and whatever for rpm now, but does that mean its just as simple as Debian/Arch/Gentoo/FreeBSD to upgrade from one release to the next? If so, I might give fedora a spin, if not I'm quite happy with the so called "less user-friendly" distro's as they provide me with less hassle in the long run.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Upgrade path.
by jaylaa on Mon 20th Mar 2006 02:42 UTC in reply to "Upgrade path."
jaylaa Member since:
2006-01-17

does that mean its just as simple as Debian/Arch/Gentoo/FreeBSD to upgrade from one release to the next?

I've seen several warnings about how you shouldn't try to upgrade from 4 to 5. Which is dissapointing. I had also heard that maintaining an RPM distro was now as easy as a deb one.

Does anyone know if there are plans to make an upgrade to Fedora 6 from 5 more straightforward?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Upgrade path.
by Finalzone on Mon 20th Mar 2006 07:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Upgrade path."
Finalzone Member since:
2005-07-06

It is possible using yum but it is not officialy supported. You will need to get fedora-release-5 package, update yum first, use the command "yum upgrade" to retain some old packages. You will need to remove all third parties packages before proceeding to the update. Once you did, try to use "yum update".

Reply Score: 2

RE: Upgrade path.
by spotter on Mon 20th Mar 2006 02:51 UTC in reply to "Upgrade path."
spotter Member since:
2005-07-06

Generally speaking, pretty easy to update/upgrade. If you set up your yum repositories correctly, you can do:

yum install <foo>

to install <foo>

yum upgrade <foo>

to upgrade to the newest release of <foo>

and, if you change your yum repositories to point to the new distro version, you can do

yum upgrade

to upgrade the entire distro.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Screenshots
by aliquis on Mon 20th Mar 2006 10:21 UTC in reply to "Screenshots"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

OMG! It looks just like Gnome!!!"!

Reply Score: 1

Video Screencast
by chrishaney on Mon 20th Mar 2006 03:00 UTC
chrishaney
Member since:
2005-11-15
nvidia and fc5 work for me
by cybrjackle on Mon 20th Mar 2006 04:00 UTC
cybrjackle
Member since:
2005-11-20

Grab the 2059 kernel here

http://people.redhat.com/davej/kernels/Fedora/FC5/

You can make a repo for it

cat /etc/yum.repos.d/dave-kernels.repo

[dave-kernels]
name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Dave's Kernels
baseurl=http://people.redhat.com/davej/kernels/Fedora/FC5/RPMS.kernel/
enabled=1
gpgcheck=0

Reply Score: 2

Question about non-GPL Drivers
by Don T. Bothers on Mon 20th Mar 2006 04:15 UTC
Don T. Bothers
Member since:
2006-03-15

It was previously reported that you cannot install nonGPL'd drivers on the CD release of Fedora Core 5. The solution was that Fedora would release a new kernel that has this fixed. But does this make it impossible to install Fedora Core 5 on a RAID controller that requires you to provide the drivers during installation?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Question about non-GPL Drivers
by gilboa on Mon 20th Mar 2006 12:40 UTC in reply to "Question about non-GPL Drivers"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

"It was previously reported that you cannot install nonGPL'd drivers on the CD release of Fedora Core 5. The solution was that Fedora would release a new kernel that has this fixed. But does this make it impossible to install Fedora Core 5 on a RAID controller that requires you to provide the drivers during installation?"

Yes.
You'll need to remaster a new fixed kernel into the ISO in-order to install FC5.

Gilboa

Reply Score: 1

Don T. Bothers Member since:
2006-03-15

"Yes.
You'll need to remaster a new fixed kernel into the ISO in-order to install FC5.

Gilboa"

How difficult is this process of remastering the ISO's? Is there a page that has directions to do so?

Personally, I think this is more than just a small minor bug on the Fedora's Project part. I hope they have the sense to remaster the CDs. While it might not be too difficult to remaster the CD's, I can't imagine it making sense for millions of people to do it after downloading the full isos versus the Fedora Project doing it once and allowing people to download fixed isos.

Reply Score: 2

cybrjackle Member since:
2005-11-20

Why would you need to remaster the ISO's?

This kernel doesn't stop the open source xorg modules nv/ati from working.

This is only when you want to install the closed source drivers, after your install is done later on.

Long before you remaster an iso, the updated kernel will hit the official updates tree.


I think folks are taking this way out of context.

This doesn't not stop you from installing FC on a box that has an nvidia or ati card. This only breaks the ability to install the closed source 3d drivers after you have it installed and logged in.

Some people go there whole life with out installing these drivers so it really has no affect on a day to day use with out closed source drivers.

Reply Score: 1

Don T. Bothers Member since:
2006-03-15

"This kernel doesn't stop the open source xorg modules nv/ati from working.

This is only when you want to install the closed source drivers, after your install is done later on.

Long before you remaster an iso, the updated kernel will hit the official updates tree.


I think folks are taking this way out of context. "

This thread is not with video drivers. Our original discussion is about RAID controller drivers, SCSI drivers, etc. that are not supported in the FC5 release. Usually you can just copy these drivers to a floppy and include them during the installation. Alas, with this blunder, it seems to have become far more difficult to install on any new controllers that will be released or old controllers that are not natively supported.

Reply Score: 1

Links to NEW FC5 Kernels
by chr1skearney on Mon 20th Mar 2006 04:33 UTC
chr1skearney
Member since:
2006-03-20

After some google investigation, I think i stumbled accross what the Fedora team plans to release in order to fix the kernel module problem introduced in a stock FC5 installation.

check out:

http://people.redhat.com/davej/kernels/Fedora/FC5/RPMS.kernel/

You will notice a new version of all the kernels. I am about to download and install on my FC5 system to see if it alleviates my problems with loading modules such as NVIDIA's. I also hope it fixes my Sound Blaster Audigy card problem. FC 5 doesnt seem to play well with it. Funny considering I've used it on a whole slew of other linux distros.

ck

Reply Score: 1

RE: Links to NEW FC5 Kernels
by chr1skearney on Mon 20th Mar 2006 05:53 UTC in reply to "Links to NEW FC5 Kernels"
chr1skearney Member since:
2006-03-20

After installing the new kernel (2059). The nvidia package from nvidia.com fails to build. From what I have read you need apply a patch or two in order to make it work. I applied those patches, and the module compiled and isntalled fine. However when starting the xserver it still complains about not being able to find the nvidia module.

In short.. what a pain in the ass. It makes me wonder why I have to go through so much hassle to run Fedora. I hate to say it but when I install Ubuntu "stuff just works". I have been a long time user of red hat (dating back to redhat 4.0). I am becoming increasingly frustrated with how behind the times redhat is with package management, and simple things like sound card support. My sound card from 2002 just plain will not work. Very frustrating. Come on redhat, lets get it right, please remind me why I used to defend your distribution till the point of death.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Links to NEW FC5 Kernels
by rockwell on Mon 20th Mar 2006 17:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Links to NEW FC5 Kernels"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

// Come on redhat, lets get it right, please remind me why I used to defend your distribution till the point of death.//

Uh ... because you're insane?

It's an operating system. Calm down.

Reply Score: 1

chr1skearney Member since:
2006-03-20

Uh..... Sadly

Work is a large part of my life.

Red Hat is a large part of Work.

Therefore Red Hat is a large part of my life.

Its what puts food on the table.

Perhaps you should calm down and think for a second that I might be exaggerating when I say "till the point of death".

Thanks,

You are an idiot.

Reply Score: 0

Just one question
by joelito_pr on Mon 20th Mar 2006 04:48 UTC
joelito_pr
Member since:
2005-07-07

Has system administration improved on this new release?

At least to install/remove applications (GUI method not yum directly) because the default system that came from RH9 to FC4 was a real headache to me and was the thing that made me start using debian based distros.

But if this PUP is as good as I've read taking care of dependencies, then I might end up going back to Fedora(maybe)

Edited 2006-03-20 04:49

Reply Score: 2

RE: Just one question
by chuck on Mon 20th Mar 2006 05:23 UTC in reply to "Just one question"
chuck Member since:
2006-03-20

PUP just does updates. Pirut is the default for gui software installation but, IMHO, yumex is better, so just do yum install yumex to get it from the extras repository.

PS, The 2059 kernel referenced above works fine for me. Thanks.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Just one question
by joelito_pr on Mon 20th Mar 2006 16:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Just one question"
joelito_pr Member since:
2005-07-07

I knew of the existance of yumex. My question was about comparing the old system including up2date/Redhat-Config-Packages vs pup/pirut

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Just one question
by Finalzone on Mon 20th Mar 2006 16:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Just one question"
Finalzone Member since:
2005-07-06

Pup/Pirut uses yum as backend while Redhat-Config-Packages can only be updated from CDs. In other word, Pirut/Pup is way better than the latter as you can also use third parties repositories.

Reply Score: 1

Better sleep/hibernate support!
by bouh on Mon 20th Mar 2006 04:52 UTC
bouh
Member since:
2005-10-27

I would like to test that, as a linux user on laptop, an ACER, with a buggy DSDT as many, I can't wait to see the improvements that have been made in this domain. Currently, due to the very hacking nature of project like ACPI4Linux, a good ACPI mgmt is the very last thing I envy to windows and mac laptop users.

I cannot try FC5 before at least one week. But I would be gratefull if some of you that have tried it on a laptop could give us some feedback about that.

P.S: as the time of my writing the "release notes" link of the topic seems broken? Isn't it?

Edited 2006-03-20 04:55

Reply Score: 1

dang, I just switched.
by SEJeff on Mon 20th Mar 2006 05:50 UTC
SEJeff
Member since:
2005-11-05

I've been using Linux on the desktop for a considerable time now. It's too bad that I switched my parents from Fedora to Ubuntu tonight. If I had have known that FC5 was released today, I would have yum updated my way to fc5 like I did from fc3-->fc4 when it came out.

They are very happy with Xgl/compiz and all of the new tools. My dad really likes Sabayon and that was funded by redhat (mark m. and alex larson I believe). I'm sure this is a super polished and streamlined distro. Redhat > 9 has never let me down.

Reply Score: 2

'Bordeaux' is not the name
by mkone on Mon 20th Mar 2006 06:29 UTC
mkone
Member since:
2006-03-14

It is a release name. Like FC4 is Stenz, and FC3 was Heidelberg. The name of this release is "Fedora Core 5".

Reply Score: 2

blah blah,
by netpython on Mon 20th Mar 2006 07:07 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

The flesh tastes better than 10 bones in the air.. or i'm downloading an dvd-iso right now,congratsz.

Reply Score: 1

official
by netpython on Mon 20th Mar 2006 08:43 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

In time before the official release the mirros are being synced gradually.Thus it's not a suprise to find some *official* mirrors who are in sync a couple of days before the official release announcement.

Reply Score: 1

NVIDIA + Fedora
by jkroon on Mon 20th Mar 2006 10:08 UTC
jkroon
Member since:
2006-03-20

Why don't you people just use the NVidia RPM provided using the livna repo ?

http://rpm.livna.org/

That way you get updates for free with "yum update", and you don't have to mess with patching the stock driver from nvidias website.

Use Core+Extras+Livna repos and you pretty much have everything you need.

Reply Score: 1

cybrjackle
Member since:
2005-11-20

Once you get the updated kernel, nvidia not working is not Fedora's Fault, be WARNED!

2.6.15-get4ish created a problem no matter what distro you are on.

Many people have already posted how-to's and patches you need to do for nvidia,


SO STOP BLAMMING FEDORA!!! This is a vanilla kernel / closed source nvidia problem, not fedora.

The best thing to do is get the nvidia/ati rpm's from livna. They are clean and don't crap up the kernel.

I've been using them for a month or two now because I always run rawhide.

Have a good day and enjoy feodra!

edit: I forgot to also pass the blame to modular Xorg path change and nvida ;)

Edited 2006-03-20 13:04

Reply Score: 1

mjmwired Member since:
2006-01-01

"SO STOP BLAMMING FEDORA!!! This is a vanilla kernel / closed source nvidia problem, not fedora."

According to the fedora-test mailing list the nvidia driver problem in the released FC5 kernel is in fact Fedora's fault, but it was too late to fix since the release was pushed to the mirrors before it could be fixed. A yum kernel update after release should fix the problem.

Reply Score: 2

cybrjackle Member since:
2005-11-20

Apparently you didn't read my whole post,

I said after you update!

You still need a patched nvidia module and you need to tell nvidia were modular xorg is,

The nvidia patch is not fedora's fault and either is modular xorg

I've been running rawhide since the dawn of time, and using nvidia drivers the whole time too, so I know how the process works.

Thanks,


edit: It's even in the title "UPDATED Kernel" ;)

Edited 2006-03-20 14:33

Reply Score: 1

ra2500 WLAN driver?
by raluke on Mon 20th Mar 2006 12:55 UTC
raluke
Member since:
2006-03-20

Does anybody know if the ra2500 wireless driver was included in FC5? If not, I'll grab the driver elsewhere but, since Ubuntu has it in the default install, I'm hoping FC5 does too.

Life is good!

TIA,
-Robert

Reply Score: 1

RE: ra2500 WLAN driver?
by hollovoid on Mon 20th Mar 2006 13:13 UTC in reply to "ra2500 WLAN driver?"
hollovoid Member since:
2005-09-21

Nah the driver has not been included, mostly because the rx200 project does not currently compile against current fedora kernels, and im not sure if the devs have even been looking into its inclusion or not. Its quite unstable to be available in a distro that is final and stable.,, something about fedora using 2.6.16 patches but not changing version numbers, so the build fails out. Waiting for the next kernel update then im posting a bug if it isnt fixed, because my other machines running 2.6.15 compile and work fine.. so this is definitly fedora issue.

Reply Score: 1

Wrong md5sum ISOs at ftp.rediris.es?
by userhome on Mon 20th Mar 2006 13:01 UTC
userhome
Member since:
2006-03-20

The ISOs at ftp.rediris.es seem to have wrong md5sum :-(

Reply Score: 1

vikramsharma Member since:
2005-07-06

The checksum is for sha1 and not md5, try doing the sha1 checksum. I just performed checksum for 3 iso files I downloaded for PowerPC, it checksum's compared right for me.

Reply Score: 1

chr1skearney Member since:
2006-03-20

I have downloaded all cd images, and the dvd images from the ftp.rediris.es site.

I can not verify the checksum, as I am at work.

But they all burned, and installed just fine.

Reply Score: 1

nvidia how-to
by cybrjackle on Mon 20th Mar 2006 14:49 UTC
cybrjackle
Member since:
2005-11-20

Here, I wrote this up, test it out and let me know if it works for you

http://fedoraforum.org/forum/showthread.php?p=475547#post475547

If it breaks blame yourself, I didn't make you hit <enter>


;-)

Reply Score: 1

Now publicly available on primary mirror
by bamb8s on Mon 20th Mar 2006 15:12 UTC
bamb8s
Member since:
2005-07-06

The FC5 directory and its contents on http://download.fedora.redhat.com at http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/5/ now appear to be publicly accessible.

Reply Score: 1

Torrent on torrent.fedoraproject.org
by bamb8s on Mon 20th Mar 2006 15:22 UTC
bamb8s
Member since:
2005-07-06

On another note the torrent on the Fedora Project tracker is now up at http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/.

Reply Score: 1

tracker's dead
by simo on Mon 20th Mar 2006 16:31 UTC
simo
Member since:
2006-01-09

i'd hardly call this a release, fedora.redhat.com only got updated at 4pm gmt and the *official* tracker doesn't even work:

http://torrent.linux.duke.edu:6969/announce 404

in fact my local iso mirror doesn't even exist apparently:

http://www.mirror.ac.uk/sites/fedora.redhat.com 404

Reply Score: 1

anyweb
by anyweb on Mon 20th Mar 2006 17:13 UTC
anyweb
Member since:
2005-07-06

it's officially released now

check it out

http://fedora.redhat.com/

http://fedora.redhat.com/download/mirrors.html

http://mirror.linux.duke.edu/pub/fedora/linux/core/5/

etc...

cheers
anyweb

Edited 2006-03-20 17:18

Reply Score: 2

Official CD Cover?
by letni on Tue 21st Mar 2006 06:12 UTC
letni
Member since:
2006-03-21
RE: Official CD Cover?
by tdehoog on Tue 21st Mar 2006 12:56 UTC in reply to "Official CD Cover?"
tdehoog Member since:
2006-03-21

Gnome 2.4...?

They're running ahead of things...

Reply Score: 1