Home > Fedora Core > Fedora Core 3 Test 3 Now Available Fedora Core 3 Test 3 Now Available Submitted by spank_da_monkey 2004-10-11 Fedora Core 53 Comments Red Hat’s Fedora Core 3 Test 3 is now available. Release notes can be found here, torrents can be found here. About The Author Adam Scheinberg Vice President, Information Technology at Massey Services, Inc • President, Board Member, The Mockingbird Foundation • All Things Web, Umphrey’s McGee • Web Developer • Father • Foodie • Music Snob • OS enthusiast Follow me on Twitter @sethadam1 53 Comments 2004-10-11 3:34 pm Cool – coming together nicely – thanks to the devs/others 2004-10-11 3:44 pm http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2004-October/ms… 2004-10-11 3:53 pm Interesting, because the release schedule is posted on the fedora site. So you’re really trying to tell us you don’t know how to tell time? 2004-10-11 3:54 pm Does anyone know what I have to change in my sources.list to upgrade from Fedora Core 2 to Fedora Core 3 Test 3 using apt? 2004-10-11 3:58 pm and switched to Fedora. Come on ! Fedora 3 : – Fully udev (/dev is a tmpfs) – Fully Hal/g-v-m – Fully SeLinux (new ‘targeted’ policy) – Gnome 2.8 – lwm during install – evolution 2.0 – Firefox 0.10.1 – thumderbird 0.8 – gcc 3.4 (default) – gcc 4.0 (preview) – KDE 3.3 – ext2online (grow an existing ext3 file systems online) – Linux 2.6.9-rc3-bk7 – vino (remote desktops with VNC) – and more 🙂 2004-10-11 4:00 pm Please, burn the CD and let anaconda do the update. Updating with apt (or yum) is not supported (even if sometime it works). 2004-10-11 4:05 pm Gentoo is great and all but Fedora has got to be the best thing this side of BSD….does anyone think it’s best to wait til this goes final? 2004-10-11 4:12 pm IMHO, compiling in Gentoo makes me tired waiting more quickly than waiting for a release every 6 months. But what I’m really waiting for is Debian Sarge to get released, with the new installer. re: rcikc288 Yeah always wait for the finals. The test releases are never that stable. Sometimes the finals even aren’t (like that kernel boot bug last time, not Fedora’s fault, but still). 2004-10-11 4:13 pm FC3T3 means Fedora Core 3 Test 3 . It up to you to install FC3T3. 2004-10-11 4:15 pm Nice to see what the Fedora team comes up. But then, I already made the switch. I had a dilemma these past months on whether to wait for FC3 or consider another distro, esp Gentoo, as I was using RH9 upgraded partly to FC1. I know Fedora’s release schedules. I’m not trolling here but then in my personal humble opinion, I dont quite like the approach: too-frequent-release-vs-short-lifetime of fedora. I know fedora is bleeding edge, meant for that approach. But then I have to move on. I might switch back if I feel that “old magic” again. oh well, it’s just me. Kudos to the team again, even with the short delay, 2004-10-11 4:19 pm Downloading now, and even with ports open the torrent is dreadfully slow.. I’m already yummed up to test3 but the installer needs testing.. plus I’m bored. 2004-10-11 4:43 pm have you tried abiword or LyX? 2004-10-11 4:52 pm http://ftp.funet.fi/pub/mirrors/ftp.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/cor… Happy ? 2004-10-11 4:54 pm Gentoo is the only OS i’ve ever seen with a 100 page installation manual. Do they really expect you to print the whole thing out?? 2004-10-11 4:58 pm An *Official* installer for Gentoo is coming soon. A beta for X86 should be done in a few weeks and the final (/w support for all other archs) will be ready by the time Gentoo 2005.0 is released. 2004-10-11 5:02 pm You haven’t seen FreeBSD then I see, it comes with probably one of the best free UNIX books, covering every single aspect of the OS. But Gentoo’s install guide was 11-12 pages last time I checked, the rest are guides for setting up various bits and pieces which you can do without for the install just fine, just read them online afterwards. 2004-10-11 5:08 pm should the article summary be changed to say FC3T3 instead of just FC3? It could cause a bit of confusion at first. As for the FC rapid-release cycle… I think I’ve moved to the point where I always want to have my system updated and don’t want to wait for CDs since that kind of upgrade can cause problems. I’d switch to Debian on my desktop but their patent puritanism annoys me and I don’t want to do everything likeMP3s of xvid by hand. 2004-10-11 5:17 pm Why does _every_ Fedora release story turn into “It’s okay but I like —– much better because…” What is so bad about someone using Fedora that people feel compelled to advertise their distro? I’m glad we got a test 3 out there I’m going to grab the DVD so everyone join the torrent! This is my fav distro cause you get the new fun stuff without any compiling mess, once the repo’s catch up (which unfortunatly takes a while) It gets really cool. Looking forward to using the new X and learning SElinux. 2004-10-11 5:19 pm Oddly enough Fedora doesn’t install MP3 out of the box either, but your point is still taken… When is the best time for a desktop user to upgrade from FC2 to FC3? I love having the newest stuff, but sometimes I jump the gun and try the new releases before they are stable enough, or have good support. 2004-10-11 5:21 pm I was a mandrake fan, but switched to Mepis and was happy again. Even with urpmi I never liked rpms. So I am reluctant to go back to an rpm-based distribution. Still in doubt, maybe someone can convince me? 2004-10-11 5:39 pm > Still in doubt, maybe someone can convince me? Wait for FC3 _final_ : http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/schedule/ Burn the iso and install. Read this (will be updated for FC3 when it’s out): http://www.fedorafaq.org/ 2004-10-11 5:45 pm “Oddly enough Fedora doesn’t install MP3 out of the box either” Actually, Debian has no problem including MP3 *players* in main, they’re just wary about including encoders such as LAME. 2004-10-11 5:52 pm In particular wg311. (ignore if the info is in release notes. Didn’t read it yet!) 2004-10-11 6:19 pm I’ve been running off rawhide (which has been suprisingly stable, but I still wouldn’t recomend it) lately and I’ve been impressed with it. I don’t think it is going to become my main distro, but it is nice. THE GOOD: Bluecurve theme and icons. They’re beautiful. Other distros try to do things like that, but they fall flat. Bluecurve is both professional and pretty and reminds me a lot of Mac OS 9. Hardware support. I find that RH/Fedora has better HW support than most distros. It’s the only major distro to work with ACPI on my laptop. Tools. Gnome 2.8 is supposed to have much more tools for doing the things that are a pain, but RH/Fedora has had them for a while and they are still good. Anaconda. The best installer for many years in my book. Easy and pretty. THE BAD: Updating and Installing Software. This is always a sore spot for me. The standard repositories and even add-on repositories don’t match the Debian repositories. They also aren’t kept as up to date. Only rawhide has Firefox. The standard one doesn’t. DAG has it, but it is version 0.8. Rawhide is up to date, but it isn’t stable and really shouldn’t be used for anything serious. I’m not a big fan of large upgrades every 6-12 months. I like the incrimental upgrades that you can constantly get. Fedora doesn’t offer a good way of doing that. Also, someone said just to upgrade using Anaconda rather than yum because it can cause problems. If that is the case, it really needs to be fixed. MP3, etc. I guess I shouldn’t criticize RedHat for obeying the law, but it’s a true pain. 2004-10-11 6:38 pm For those of you installing it, how does it work. I know it’s not enabled by default, I mean when you turn it on. 2004-10-11 7:03 pm >For those of you installing it, how does it work. I know it’s not enabled by default, I mean when you turn it on. Its an amazingly thing for having totally useless bells’n’whistles, just for wasting time(its slow) and using ram. 2004-10-11 7:03 pm Are the Nvidia drivers working in this release? 2004-10-11 7:14 pm For a while, I truly ignored all the warnings about Fedora being a test bed for new technology and that it does not come with any support. I treated it as a RedHat release, like Redhat 7.3, 8, 9, etc. However, I am really considering giving up on Fedora. I installed Fedora Core 2 on a production email server and automated the update of the distribution. Then all of a sudden I started getting random crashes. It had long uptimes before and then it started crashing after a few hours or a few days. I was able to trace the problem to the newest kernel and rebooted the machine into an older kernel. The problem then disappeared. But this left a very sour taste in my mouth. I realized that Fedora is truly just a test distribution and it will never receive the testing that other free OS, such as Debian and FreeBSD, will get. Fedora is now in the same category as Mandrake, another distribution that had pathetic uptimes. I will now continue my migration of servers to Debian and FreeBSD, two extremely stable distributions. 2004-10-11 7:15 pm If you like Gentoo’s portage system, but prefer a different distro use emerde. http://emerde.freaknet.org/ I use it on Slackware and get Gentoo ports+Slackware goodness! It should work on Fedora too, though I recommend sticking to one package system, otherwise things can get horribly out of sync. 2004-10-11 7:33 pm True for Fedora ? test ? . Otherwise it’s false. 2004-10-11 7:49 pm well, I run urpmi.update -a and urpmi –auto-select -v every day, and when I see an update to kernel-source coming through I check the changelog and then do urpmi kernel-2.6. That about takes care of the updates. oh, the pain, the pain… 2004-10-11 8:10 pm Yes, this is slightly OT, bun only slightly. Ubuntu is the Fedora niche killer for me. You get a pretty similar setup as far as software versions go, with the addition of (unsupported) Debian Sid packages. Lots of them. I would choose Fedora if 1) I was a RHEL admin 2) I absolutely needed a supported KDE Actually, Fedora is a pretty good disto but Ubuntu just does everything (apart from KDE) better. 2004-10-11 8:30 pm Fedora is a community based test distro designed to work with the latest and greatest new technologies and is not designed as a server environment. This being said though Fedora Core 2 did in my opinion have a lot of problems between SELinux and the 2.6.x kernel switch. Fedora Core 1 was a kinda new thing too where in my opinion wasn’t bad but still lacked the polish that most new projects seem to lack. Fedora Core 3 though is from my own results much better off than FC1 or FC2. FC3 is what RHEL4 is going to based off of and will for obvious reasons be more stable and did not have to deal with any kernel moves or any drastic chances to the system as SELinux has been more updated and fixed than be implimented. While Test 3 will obviously have a lot of bugs still i am pretty confident that FC3 Final will be a very good and stable distro for people to use. 2004-10-11 8:33 pm Ubuntu! : – No Xorg – No KDE – No SeLinux – No raid/lvm at install – No server – No system-config-* – No network install – No … > Ubuntu just does everything (apart from KDE) better. Everything ? Compare Ubuntu to Xandros or Linspire. Not to FC. 2004-10-11 8:50 pm > blahblah SELinux blahblah SELinux From the release note for FC2 : [i]Fedora Core 2 includes an implementation of SELinux. SELinux represents a major shift in the way users, programs, and processes interact. By default, SELinux is installed — but disabled — in this release. 2004-10-11 8:55 pm “SELinux has been more updated and fixed than be implimented.” That is what I said. I never said it wasn’t installed. I simply stated that it has been fixed. 2004-10-11 9:14 pm Slash, although I now run the desktops on Fedora, you should never use Fedora on a production server. Unlike in the old Red Hat releases, bugfixes are not backported to the current used versions of the release. Instead, Fedora packages are updated to the newest version. This means that when, for example, one of your services changes its configuration files, you’re in big trouble. You could run White Box Linux instead, but I’d always recommend Debian Stable for a (production) server. Actually, I’m also moving my desktops over to Debian Testing soon. 2004-10-11 9:19 pm >Compare Ubuntu to Xandros or Linspire. Not to FC. Ubuntu is a distro that has a 6 month release cycle, is based on cutting edge software, and seems to have a home/business desktop focus (although you could run servers with it [Why not just use Debian?]). I think it compares very well to Fedora, both in scope and in organizational structure, and it comes on 1 [one] CD (with more software than you can shake a stick at in Universe). 2004-10-11 9:29 pm Don’t get me wrong. I don’t say Ubuntu is bad… Ubuntu is not like Fedora. Fedora does not have “a home/business desktop focus”. From http://fedora.redhat.com/ : What is The Fedora Project? The Fedora Project is a Red-Hat-sponsored and community-supported open source project. It is also a proving ground for new technology that may eventually make its way into Red Hat products. It is not a supported product of Red Hat, Inc. The goal of The Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from free software. This is why Fedora need 4 CD and Ubuntu 1. 2004-10-11 9:37 pm I’m sorry, I lied. From: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=8286 1. What is the main scope of Ubuntu’s market? Business or home? Jeff Waugh: Desktops, laptops and servers for business and home. Although a lot of the interesting stuff we’re doing relates to desktops and laptops, Ubuntu is a fully supported server distribution too. 2004-10-11 11:23 pm “Bluecurve theme and icons. They’re beautiful…pretty and reminds me a lot of Mac OS ___9___. ” I almost expected an X there, but then I realized this is Linux we’re talking about 2004-10-11 11:46 pm Just a few answers… – No Xorg Coming in our next release, six months from now. It wasn’t released early enough for 4.10. – No KDE It’s available in universe, though it is unsupported. – No SeLinux Not of huge interest yet. It’s not very high on the priority list, but will be looked into for the next release. – No raid/lvm at install Ubuntu has RAID/LVM support at install. – No server Ubuntu is *definitely* a server OS, and supports a huge array of the usual server software (plus, you have universe should you need it). All the Ubuntu servers run Ubuntu. – No system-config-* There are other tools available in Ubuntu, but not as wide ranging as system-config-*. Perhaps that’s a good thing. 😉 – No network install Ubuntu supports network installs. 2004-10-12 12:00 am Jeff’s already pointed them out, i have a server running ubuntu w/ lvm and the SELinux packages are there along with 13000+ others, true not all are “supported”, just like Fedora’s packages. system-config = whats the point? Even when i use fedora i still don’t need system-config, doesn’t work right, you edit by hand and system-config doesn’t show the changes, got a winner there sysadmins best tool = vi 2004-10-12 12:09 am Fedora and Ubuntu have some common history. Just as Fedora was inspired by Debian, Ubuntu is inspired by Fedora. Their release cycles are both 6 months, have a similar focus (except for KDE), and both rely heavily on external repositories. That’s about as far as the similarities go. From what I understand, the universal repository is equivalent to SID. From Debian’s FAQ, SID can and will break from time to time. SID is like RedHat’s Rawhide — the place to go if you want to have the latest and greatest and don’t mind a little breakage. The key Fedora 3rd party repositories have stable/unstable/testing levels and the stable version is pretty up to day. From what I understand, Ubuntu can use the stable Debian repository, but the stable version of Debian’s repositories seem extremely out of date. From where I sit, the difference is simple. If you want to have the latest and greatest GNOME and like that fact that most other packages are time-proven and being out of date on those packages is actually a feature for you (the less that changes between releases, the less the chance that a 6 month upgrade will fail), then Ubuntu is for you. If you want the latest and greatest of all key packages and you like the fact that cutting edge ideas and packages are regularly stabilized then integrated into the distribution, and you don’t mind the occational surprise (like VMware not supporting the new cutting edge of the next release of the distribution for a while), Fedora is for you. 2004-10-12 12:40 am The only problem I’ve had with Fedora is the up2date application; it seems that no matter what I do, the damn thing freezes up and crashes when downloading updates. Could the Fedora coders *please* rip it out and replace it with something reliable; sure, I use yum and find that perfect for the job, however, it would be nice for the gui based tools to work as expected. 2004-10-12 1:12 am Regardless of distribution, why would you even consider doing automatic updates of a production server? Did you imagine that blindly installing unknown updates to unknown programs with unknown changes to your configuration would actually make the machine more reliable? 2004-10-12 1:14 am Does it have wireless support built-in for common cards? 2004-10-12 3:18 am I was thinking about trying a recent fedora. But, I’m confused which torrent I should get. What’s the difference in the binary and source torrents (x86). I’m relatively sure that the binary torrent would be the one that I want. But, if you download the src’s torrent, surely you don’t have to compile everything, do you? 2004-10-12 3:44 am OK I have the zv5260us AMD 64 still searching for a method to boot fedora core in init 5 after installing nvidia driver. What is pathetic here is the Linux vendors are so nearsighted there are merely 5 – 10 64 bit notebooks HP e-machines et al now except Suse none support it out of the box. This is nothing but opportunity being lost to Windows. 2004-10-12 4:30 am The only problem I’ve had with Fedora is the up2date application; it seems that no matter what I do, the damn thing freezes up and crashes when downloading updates. Your problem is that you are not using the mirrors. 2004-10-12 11:39 am Is FC3 any faster than the bloatfest that was FC1/2? I swear to the gods I’m not trolling. FC was one of the slowest distros I’ve ever used, even after several tweaks to cronjobs and turning off “extras” like icons in the menu. I’m dirt poor, running a P3 933 w/ 384MB of RAM. I don’t have overhead to spare for my operating system. (And before someone spouts off with the obligatory Fluxbox or IceVWM comment, I think I should be able to run Gnome or KDE without it chugging along like FC1/2. After all, Slax runs a full-blown KDE 3.3 and it’s a speed demon.) 2004-10-12 2:02 pm I installed FC2 on my Athlon 600MHz 384MHz. It’s snappy, very fast. OOo is always slow but even so I find it fast enough. I’m looking forward to install FC3 in my home and office. Please people refocus on the subject and those who have tested FC3T3 please post comments, screenshots, whatever. Thanx. 2004-10-13 3:32 pm Just installed FC2 on a K6-450. Speed is pretty good. Have you upgraded from FC1? I think this will slow down things a little bit. Because i got a system where i updated from RH8 to RH9 to FC1 to FC2. It is a little bit slow. I will do a fresh installation of FC3 when it is released.