Test 2 of Fedora Core 2 is now available. You can download it from here or, if you want maximum speed, you can grab the torrent from the Duke LUG. BitTorrent info can be found here. Update: [Eugenia here:] Great. Just spent 4 hours downloading the 4 Fedora CDs (md5sum’ed) and the first CD won’t boot on a machine that is fully compatible (apparently it is a new bug, there is already a bug report about it). Fedora’s poor testing before the distribution (even for a beta) continues to amaze me each time a new version is out.
Fedora Core 2 Test 2 Now Available
About The Author
Adam Scheinberg
Technology Executive • Web Developer • Father • Foodie • Music Snob • OS enthusiast
Follow me on Mastodon @[email protected]
Can anyone say if the sound issue has been fixed? I liked test 1 but many (most) people could not load the proper sound modules. Any early testers please post.
No PPC support yet?
Don’t know about FC2 test 2 but i’m running the updated dev version , and my soundblaster audigy 2 works fine ( it didn’ t with FC2 test 1 ).
Yes, it’s out!
I started the download of the DVD iso. It’s reporting that the file size is 10.5 MB ??? Of course, it hasn’t finished downloading since the download rate is about 10kbps.
Does the Audigy use the emu10k1 module like the Live card does?
How’s the Serial ATA support (I’m going nuts)?
yes.
Yes, sound seems to working okay now, I have a sound card that only works with ALSA drivers and it works and is detected okay, although has anyone noticed poor performance with up2date, it is slow and continually crashes.
Excellent, I’ll be trying it later today.
for up2date just use a mirror site instead of the main repository.
how stable is this? Should any ordinary user like me bother to this release at all?? — ~~~~
To all people asking questions about stability, sound problems, SATA and the like . . .
Those questions you will find answered in the Fedora forums and release notes. Take time to read them if you want to install something that is called
Fedora Core 2 TEST 2
Yes . . . TEST. If you’re not sure – wait for the full release. If you want to experiment, then take the leap but make sure you read up on the release notes and forums!
And as for PPC support – the devel branch has PPC support. It always has as far as I’m aware.
Cheers
Duncan
how stable is this? Should any ordinary user like me bother to this release at all??
I wouldn’t worry about it for ordinary use, and probably some server stuff too. Unless you’re running a nuclear power plant or a water supply, I’d say you’re OK.
Interestingly the only X implementation is the X.org X11 one, previously it was reported that both XFree86 and X.org would be included. Technically it’s almost the same as XFree86 4.4, but politically it’s very interesting. I bet we’ll see most distros rally behind X.org (the Freedesktop.org XFree86 fork). Confused yet?
>how stable is this? Should any ordinary user like me bother to this release at all??
Its name is Fedora Core 2 Test 2. TEST… Its a “beta” version,
meant to be tested for the purpose of reporting bugs so the
final version will be stable
Fedora Core 1 = RedHat 10.0?
Fedora Core 2 = RedHat 11.0?
Is that the general idea?
If TEST is beta, how do they call final releases?
“Unless you’re running a nuclear power plant or a water supply, I’d say you’re OK.”
Great answer. Remember if everyone was too chicken too try it there would never be a final release. I don’t mind testing slightly buggy software as long as it has basic functionality. I used Windows for years so buggy software don’t bother me.
You have the general idea. The thing to remember is that the old Redhat as we know it is gone and has been replaced with Fedora. Don’t worry about Redhat 10,11, etc. They are just starting over at one with Fedora 1, 2, etc…
Fedora is a new brand. It is a version of Linux you can get w/out paying for it. Redhat will release Linux products for business which they’ll base on Fedora releases, but these products will cost money to purchase and aren’t targeted for home users.
I hope this helps…
I’ve been trying to finalize the install of a popular source distribution.
That distro works great. Its installation guide has to be read very carefully, line by line, but will get you where you want to go. Almost.
I installed a 2.6.4 kernel, but I have an rtl8150 USB ethernet device. It all runs well for about ten minutes, when it simply quits doing network stuff.
Rolling the box back to 2.4.24 wasn’t too hard, and the wheel on the mouse actually worked.
Overall, good learning experience, but the time saved by paying RedHat for a wrung-out product would have been resources in my pocket.
It’s nice to see a DVD ISO of this release, but what is its exact file size? It’s probably more than 2GB, so it appears that a lot of sites hosting it both can’t list the size of it (yes, even the official Web page for the ISO download can’t list it !) and I suspect many mirror sites have truncated it to 2GB too, which could be a disaster.
For example, I tried the only UK official mirror that had a copy of it at ftp://zeniiia.linux.org.uk/pub/distributions/fedora/linux/core/tes… and let it start downloading – Mozilla reported a file size of 2097152KB (exactly 2GB), which is very suspicious and smells of truncation. I guess I’ll have to see what other mirror sites file sizes are (I wish the MD5SUM file would have the exact byte sizes of the files too !)
…after many, many attempts to connect to the main download.fedora.redhat.com FTP site with a command-line FTP client (important to use CLI “ftp” and not Mozilla…) due to it being overloaded, I finally got onto the master site and can confirm for folks that the size is 4306010112 bytes = 4205088 Kbytes = 4106.53125MB = 4.0103GB for FC2-test2-i386-DVD.iso
The UK mirror site I mentioned has the same ISO size too – I think this may be a bug in Mozilla (not allowing files >2GB to be downloaded), so I would recommend something other than Mozilla to download the DVD ISO. It’s still a bit disconcerting that the Web directory listing of the FTP site can’t display the DVD ISO’s size though!
when I go to download the DVD from the main fedora.redhat.com site as well as from different mirrors – IE is reporting and only downloads a 10.5MB file
Hi
This is the first distro to ship with selinux in enforcing mode which can cause problems with third party packages. if you are unsure on what to do please read the selinux faq
http://people.redhat.com/kwade/fedora-docs/selinux-faq-en/
Rahul
if this was meant for home users… why do home users care about selinux? i’d rather have an mp3 codec… it’s not distro for hime users but a debugging community for RedHat Enterprise! If you want a real home0user aimed distro try Mandrake but if you want somethong more professional like the old redhat try White Box Linux which is built from RedHat RPMs so it is virtually the same thing but beer-free. I quit using Fedora when using ‘yum update’ it updated my xmms so that it killed my mp3 plug-in. Not that it is a big hassle but that miffed me. That said RedHat is a reliable company so if you just want an e-mail internet box this could do fine.
why didn’t they wait until the official release of GNOME 2.6 before they released this (it’s only 2 days from now)?
Hi
Where in the site have they ever talked about home users. mp3 is patented and cannot be distributed by a US based distro. forget it.
it is meant for open source enthusiasts who want fast releases of a completely free product. it has never been advertised as a home user product and redhat has never ever concentrated on the home user.
fedora can be and is being used by me a desktop OS but that doesnt mean its meant for the average home user system
regards
Jess
Hi
“I quit using Fedora when using ‘yum update’ it updated my xmms so that it killed my mp3 plug-in. Not that it is a big hassle but that miffed me. That said RedHat is a reliable company so if you just want an e-mail internet box this could do fine.”
thats a misconfiguration on your part.
just use exclude=xmms in your /etc/yum.conf file and you wont get that problem again.
regards
Jess
Well, they would have to test it before shipping it… And please remember that it’s not the final version but a test, so Fedora Core 2 will probably include it.
Do they expect it to present a strong defense against crackers, or will it be a minor hurdle for them?
Hi
Its a very important part of security in fedora core 2. it basically removes the concept of all powerful root and replaces it with mandatory access controls with each of the several critical software seperated into their own restricted contexts
do this
ssh [email protected]
password is ‘gentoo’
since the context for the ‘root’ user is not system administration you will be very restricted in what you can do with it.
try it
regards
Rahul
Or… you could simply include the freshrpms yum repository so that “yum update” updates xmms *and* the MP3 player.
Question 1: “…Fedora Core 1 = RedHat 10.0? Fedora Core 2 = RedHat 11.0?
Is that the general idea…?”
Straight from their webpage: “The goal of fedora core is to work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from free software…” “…The Red Hat engineering team will continue to participate in the building of Fedora Core and will invite and encourage more outside participation than was possible in Red Hat Linux….”
Basically, Fedora Core 1 /2 is similar in functionality with Redhat 7 / 8 / 9 (obviously with updated packages), but with Fedora Core you can not call up Redhat and get phone support — even for a cost. The idea behind Fedora Core is to test packages first before porting it to their corporate product. Hence, Fedora Core uses many of the bleeding edge opensource technoligies.
My take of Fedora Core is that RedHat needed something to seperate RedHat 8 / 9 from RedHat Enterprise. I imagine Redhat had ‘many a tough times’ trying to sell companies on the Enterprise version while RedHat 9 was available, and fully supported (for a small cost). With Fedora people/companiies can easily understand that Redhat Enterprise is their corporate product. While Fedora Core is their development, and testing platform that Redhat does not provide phone support for.
Question 2: If TEST is beta, how do they call final releases?
Unless things change the final release will simply be called:
Fedora Core 2
Anybody know when the new Redhat/Fedora magazine will be out? It was supposed to be out in March.
Hi
Its already available
regards
Jess
1. Is there a more minimalistic default installation than the previous, FC1 “minimal” installation (around 550M). Yes I know about kickstart.
2. Does it allow installation on vfat partition? (FC1 does not). Yes I know the benefits of non-vfat, but I need vfat.
Yes/No answer sufficient, no explanation necessary.
TIA
Hi
1)Searching for fedora minimal got me this link
http://simpaticus.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-minimal_simpaticus.co…
an effort to create a fedora minimal system. please check that out
2)Not allowed AFAIk
regards
Rahul
if you have to have a vfat installation i would suggest not installing linux at all. i would just use knoppix and be done with it.
Does anyone who’s installed it have any screenshots ?
Fedora isn’t just a “mild” dissapointment after all.
Nice going Red Hat, making us testing animals for free.
so that’s why it’s getting truncated.
Is there a package list for FC2 posted somewhere? Thx.
Come on Fedora! The time you spend writing poetry would be better spent making sure that your cdrom is bootable. I wasted 4 hours and 4 cds, and until I read this I thought I was just doing something wrong so I fiddled with it until I near to went crazy. Does anyone know a workaround? If not, I sure hope when they release a fix I just have to redownload the first iso.
its not only the non bootable cd for fc2 test 2 .
i recently bought the last redhat magazine with the dvd for
fc2 test 1 on it . it doesn’t boot on systems based on intel pentium .
“Due to a mistake made at build-time, the ISO images for Fedora Core 1.90 Test 1 include support for i686-class processors only, meaning that it will not be possible to boot Anaconda on systems with Intel Pentium, older AMD, or VIA processors.”
aaargh…..
Well, as for workarounds: I was screwing around and this worked for me..As far as I know, it only works with 2 cd drives (probably another workaround for that, but I haven’t tried):
On Disk 1, there is an “images” directory, and within that there’s a file named “boot.iso”. Burn it, and then boot from it WHILE Fedora Disk 1 is in another CD Drive.
While booting from the “boot.iso” CD, it’ll detect the Fedora 1 Disk. After that you’ll be taken to the installer. While installing software it’s the same as usual, just replace Fedora Disks when it asks you to.
“Nice going Red Hat, making us testing animals for free. ”
In a way, Debian is at least as bad – look at all the Debian-based distros that are being sold! Mandrake also does this with their “community release”.
I think you’re being unduly harsh. It’s not making you an unpaid tester. You’re getting something – the distribution!
-Erwos
I may have wasted time and CDs, but I knew it was a test release. I’m one of these funny birds that puts up with this torture regularly in hopes of striking gold. I read the warning
(“Fedora Core test 2 is available for
x86 and x86-64
It should not be installed where production is hot;
use it only for test, as we say quite a lot”)
and I downloaded it anyway. Open source is great. Many times I have struck gold. Another workaround for guys with 1 cdrom is to boot from test 1 cd and then switch before you hit enter. I love playing with new operating systems so open source lets me do that.
For the PPC guy. Yellowdog Linux is basically Fedora for PPC
Got it installed but the kernel crashes on boot. Good thing I used a DVD+RW.
Sorry this whole range of IPs is banned. We are sorry if this banning has an impact on other users too who have nothing to do with the offender.
So my IP 217.208.220.147 is banned. Great.
Update: [Eugenia here:] Great. Just spent 4 hours downloading the 4 Fedora CDs (md5sum’ed) and the first CD won’t boot on a machine that is fully compatible (apparently it is a new bug, there is already a bug report about it). Fedora’s poor testing before the distribution (even for a beta) continues to amaze me each time a new version is out.
Yeah, this is my bigest (and probably only real) problem with Fedora; the seeming lack of quality control. They could have so much potential, but interest gets squndered on really badly slapped together and bug-ridden code.
I’ve put together more stable Linux systems (kinda like LFS, but on my own) than these guys seem to do. Sure Fedora is an order of magnitude larger than any of my own Linux systems, but then, how many DEs, office suites, web browsers and text editors really does a Linux distribution really need to cater to a wide audience?
Baffling.
These are not Fedora Core 2 test2 sceenshots, cause appears a screenshots with Kde 3.1.1.
Gutemberg