Submitted by Many Fedora users are anxiously waiting for the Fedora Core 5 release, scheduled for Monday, March 20. Be warned that some of you may have to wait a little longer, however: the kernel shipped with FC5 effectively disallows the loading of any non-GPL modules. That behavior was a mistake, and a fix has already been made, but it is too late to get that fix into the initial FC5 release. So binary module users will want to wait until the first errata kernel is released (a few days, at most) before upgrading. Update: Elsewhere, an interview with Greg DeKoenigsberg who presently serves as Red Hat’s Community Relations Manager and is on the Fedora Extras Steering Committee.
I call that a feature. As long as FC5 doesn’t have the 3d desktop enhancements yet, who really cares? The only binary only modules I have ever used with Fedora were the great Nvidia drivers.
who really cares?
The ones with NVIDIA card maybe? lol
> I call that a feature.
Ah, interesting. You call it a feature.
I call it digital restrictions management and nothing else that a plain, illegal GPL violation.
Did you ever read the GPL? There spirit of the GPL is actually very clear: Users can do *anything* they want with GPL software. *Anything*. Yes, even stuff that combines GPL code with proprietary one. This is called “freedom zero” – look at gnu.org what it means.
Restrictions only apply when *distributing* GPL code, not when *using* it. I am explicitly allowed to load whatever I want into my kernel any *nobody* can stop me from doing that. Any attempt to do that is not a GPL enforcement, it’s actually a GPL violation.
@egarland:
> This seems like a clever way to remind people
> that they should only be loading gpl libraries
> into the kernel
This is the result if people try to misinterpret the GPL in a “clever way” instead of actually unterstanding it. Learn something about freedom zero before talking about free software. A free kernel is per defitionem a kernel that allows me to load *anything* into it.
A kernel that does not allow me to do so is a non-free kernel. Only *distribution* of a free-kernel with non-GPL modules may be restricted without making the kernel non-free. Usage *must* be unrestricted.
Please tell me exactly which section of the license makes this a violation of the license. You claim they are doing something illegal, yet you don’t cite the exact section of the license that says it is illegal. All you claim is it violates the spirit of the GPL. That is a ridiculous claim, that would be laughed out of court. Upon my reading of the license, I find nothing stating that what Fedora has done is illegal, or in violation of the license.
> Please tell me exactly which section of the
> license makes this a violation of the license.
I don’t need to do so because you *must* read the GPL *yourself* before using GPL software like Linux-based operating systems.
> You claim they are doing something illegal, yet
> you don’t cite the exact section of the license
> that says it is illegal.
You are still refusing to read the license we are talking about? Read this:
“To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.”
=> Red Hat or the Fedora project simply *cannot* deny me the right to do anything I want with the Linux kernel. They cannot even ask me not to do load binary-drivers.
> That is a ridiculous claim, that would be laughed
> out of court.
No, it is not ridiculous. The only ridiculous thing here are statements like “this is good because one day it will force ATI and NVidia to go open source”. It will not. It will only impose restrictions and inconveniences on the users, nothing else.
> Upon my reading of the license, I find nothing
> stating that what Fedora has done is illegal, or
> in violation of the license.
You don’t seem to know GNU principles very well. Please begin reading here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html
Most imporant sentence:
“Free software is a matter of the users’ freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).”
Read the word “any”.
I don’t need to do so because you *must* read the GPL *yourself* before using GPL software like Linux-based operating systems.
You said yourself that the GPL doesn’t cover use. It therefore does not need to be agreed to in order to simply use the software. Refer to section 5 of the GPL.
On your main point, the developers of Fedora have the right to modify the code–including removal of features. They are only required to offer you the source code, and you can put the features back in if you wish.
Actually, I have read the GPL. They are talking about people denying you rights legally, not technically. For instance, I could modify OpenOffice.org so that it requires you to input an activation key to work. That would be denying you rights using technological measures. However, I cannot deny you the right through legal measures to remove that portion of the code, ie enforcing a EULA that forbids it.
For one thing, pulling text out of the preamble of the license, which is not the part that places restrictions on redistribution, just makes you look like a fool. Furthermore, taking a sentence out of the middle of the paragraph and the surrounding paragraphs to quote it out of context makes you look like more of a fool.
The preamble is not enforcing on you, it is merely a bunch of text that the authors of the license wrote to explain why they are writing the license, and what their goals are. You could remove this whole section, and it wouldn’t matter.
Go to this web page: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
Click on : TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
It will take you about halfway down the license. Tell me which section (in case you don’t know what that is, it will have a number and a period before it) AFTER this heading (which is where the actual terms of the license are) that says that Fedora is currently breaking the law. Please let me know which section and sub-section you are talking about.
Pulling secttions of text out of the preamble and other random webpages scattered across the GNU server just shows you don’t know how copyright licenses actually work.
I don’t need to do so because you *must* read the GPL *yourself* before using GPL software like Linux-based operating systems.
Excuse me, nothing in the GPL prohibits the inclusion of DRM technology in a GPL product – what the GPL does prohibit is the actual product being licenced under GPL by DRM’ed as to inhibit free movement of the changes and the original source code – that is what the GPL prohits.
DRM, by its very nature is used to control how information is used, and hence the GPL prohibits the use of DRM to prohibit or circumvent the ability of one to share the original or changes to others.
DRM isn’t the villin in the current situation, the villin is its use to unfairly prohibit the sharing of source code, which no one has to have done.
So next time, get a clue on the GPL and DRM; and shock bloody horror, one can create a GPL version of DRM if they want! they just can’t distribute it using DRM technology!
> Restrictions only apply when *distributing* GPL code,
> not when *using* it. I am explicitly allowed to load
> whatever I want into my kernel any *nobody* can stop me
> from doing that. Any attempt to do that is not a GPL
> enforcement, it’s actually a GPL violation.
But it’s a chicken-egg situation – you can do what you want as a user, but in order to give you the binary gpl-violating module someone would have had to “distribute” it. If you downloaded it from somone, that’s still an act of that somone facilitating the distribution.
You’re looking for the “defivative” clause in GPL to argue for the case of binary modules. No one can argue that the Nvidia graphics driver is derived from Linux because the driver also works on Solaris and FreeBSD and provides the same functionality.
As long as you can show the kernel module working on a different operating system platform you are reasonably safe from GPL “kernel derivative” violations.
you can do what you want as a user, but in order to give you the binary gpl-violating module someone would have had to “distribute” it. If you downloaded it from somone, that’s still an act of that somone facilitating the distribution.
If person A distributes a module under a closed license WITHOUT shipping the kernel with it, he is not violating anything at all. And, when the end-user combines the closed module with the GPL kernel, no one is at fault either. So how the word ‘violation’ got tangled in this rather simple situation is beyond me.
Is someone who legally sells a knife to someone who then uses it to kill a person, responsible for that murder?
> Is someone who legally sells a knife to someone who then uses it to kill a person, responsible for that murder?
This is more like selling stolen goods = receiving stolen goods. Both of you are in the same pickle.
This is more like selling stolen goods = receiving stolen goods. Both of you are in the same pickle.
How is writing a closed piece of code even remotely related to stealing?
Exactly. Loading a proprietary (non-GPL) module into the kernel “taints” it. That in itself is not illegal. What is illegal is distributing such a tainted kernel (never mind the fact that it is usually illegal to redistribute proprietary modules in the first place).
> Loading a proprietary (non-GPL) module into the
> kernel “taints” it. That in itself is not illegal.
Right. And this “tainting” thing is a very good example how to deal with proprietary drivers correctly: Identify them and disclaim any support for using them (that’s what this “tainting” thing is primarily intended for).
> (never mind the fact that it is usually illegal to
> redistribute proprietary modules in the first place)
At least in the case of the ATI driver, redistribution is actually possible. ATI allows it under certain conditions in order to allow customized installers.
> But it’s a chicken-egg situation
It is not.
> you can do what you want as a user, but in order
> to give you the binary gpl-violating module someone
> would have had to “distribute” it.
No, you have ATI and NVidia drivers in mind, but that’s only a very narrow part of the problem. For example, I could have developed a module myself. Am I required to place it under the GPL? No, of course not. And I *still* can’t load it into this broken Fedora kernel. That is not OK!
Furthermore, a driver binary is a derived work of the kernel only if the *binary* part of it uses kernel interfaces. You know that ATI and NVidia drivers are made up of two parts: A binary component and a wrapper which is distributed as source code.
You simply cannot know if the binary-only part of the driver is derived from Linux because you don’t know its source code. The part which is distributed as source code becomes a derived work if it’s compiled because the #include directives instuct GCC to copy Linux headers into this part of the driver during the preprocessing. But that affects only the stage where the user compiles the source code. If the user does that himself and doesn’t distribute the result after the compilation, it’s covered by freedom zero.
The only way the binary-only parts of these drivers could violate the GPL is if their source code, which nobody of us can now, #include’s Linux headers. Do you really think that it does? I don’t think so, that’s what these wrappers are for.
I guess most of the people excited are having PC’s, I own the oldest G5 Apple released. X11R7 had got me pretty excited, finally there would be an OS besides OS X I can use. Should I be expecting performance gains using FC5 on G5 compared to using FC4 (performance gains only with respect to the GUI performance, response and stuff)
It depends. Do you use GNOME? If so, you’ll find that the GNOME desktop (version 2.14) is much faster than the previous version. I’m not sure of the status of KDE.
This seems like a clever way to remind people that they should only be loading gpl libraries into the kernel (at least I prefer to think of it as that and not just a dumb mistake.)
Well, world have some useful non-GPL modules, e.g. nvidia drivers. Should we totaly abolish their usage?
Should we totaly abolish their usage?
They should probably tie into the kernel differently and have a strong, consistant, kernel-version independant interface. The current situation isn’t good for Linux or for the hardware vendors.
Well, world have some useful non-GPL modules, e.g. nvidia drivers. Should we totaly abolish their usage?
No, you should update kernel:)
Load only GPL libraries into the kernel? No thanks, no need for such restritions on my machine. I’ll load whatever libraries that make my system run better, GPL or not. As a non-coder having open sourced vs. closed source libs doesn’t mean much to me. Can’t say I have ever had a problem with non-GPL’d libraries.
I assume you meant modules, not libraries…you can’t load a library in the kernel.
I was wondering why it is too late for inclusion? I see that the error was detected on the 15th. Now, I assume spinning up an ISO (they’d only have to redo one of them) couldn’t take more than a couple hours, so that can’t be the limiting step; it’s the mirrors, obviously. So why does it take more than 5 days to sync up the mirrors?
I’m just wondering in a day of rsync and BitTorrent, why the mirrors take so long to be populated. Really, why?
Fedora should have done that from a long time now. It is a feature and gives you more freedom if you can load propietary modules as you please. All of us aren’t extremist that don’t use nvidia driver because it is propietary, if NVIDIA want it that way as long as it is high quality like always and with no cost I will keep supporting them. Propietary is good when it is a non-microsoft way. Just like XGL was propietary until it reached it’s goal. Open you mind.
Fedora should have done that from a long time now. It is a feature and gives you more freedom if you can load propietary modules as you please. All of us aren’t extremist that don’t use nvidia driver because it is propietary, if NVIDIA want it that way as long as it is high quality like always and with no cost I will keep supporting them. Propietary is good when it is a non-microsoft way. Just like XGL was propietary until it reached it’s goal. Open you mind.
What are you talking about… Fedora has always allowed nonGPL modules in the Kernel. They made a mistake and disabled it before creating the ISO so they have a fix that is going to be sent out promptly?
So to recap, Fedora has done that “from” a long time and they do understand we are not extremists…
EDIT: added quote from parent
Edited 2006-03-17 21:22
Just like XGL was propietary until it reached it’s goal. Open you mind.
Use your mind. Please! XGL was NEVER proprietary. There was a short period of time where Novell worked on the project behind closed doors but that does not qualify it as proprietary. They weren’t selling it, it wasn’t even a product. In fact there is little difference between XGL before Novell, and XGL after it was released. Nothing Novell did made XGL proprietary at any time.
Xgl was never proprietary. The development tree was done locally on someone’s desktop but that doesn’t make it any less open soruce. I develop a lot of open source projects, but as I’m the main contributor, the source code isn’t viewable until the time of a release. The developments that I receive from other people dont’ warrant the inconvience of having to access an external versioning server to make changes.
So as I understand XGL is not proprietary standard, is it included in FC5. I have a G5 with Radeon 9600, and I could really use 3D Graphics Accleration on my Linux box, would come in handy playing movies, and overall GUI response. I haven’t installed YDL 4.1 although I downloaded it as it would not have 3D Graphics Accleration.
Edit: Are the release notes available for FC5 PPC release where I could check out the changes made since the release of FC4. Thanks.
Edited 2006-03-19 18:57
So now Linux has DRM built in long before MS give us Longhorn etc… so much for freedom to use.
I would say this actually violates the spirit of the GPL.
Binary only drivers violate the spirit of the GPL. In fact they might even violate the words of the GPL too. A lot of people believe that.
Linus and other kernel developers basically said they wouldn’t sue anybody. But he doesn’t own the copyright to all of the kernel. It’s very sketchy legal ground.
I’m pretty sure they violate the GPL. There is a reason we also have an LGPL licence.
Binary-only drivers distributed separately to the kernel don’t violate any provisions of the GPL.
End users linking code into their kernels where no code modification, or distribution occurs, doesn’t run afoul of any of the GPL’s provisions.
I suppose next you are going to say I probably shouldnt compile any non-GPL apps on top of a GPL kernel, especially where those apps use kernel interfaces like video4linux, the input subsystem etc. either.
The GPL is supposed to guarantee your freedom to use the software, and placing artificial limits on how you can use the software is not what I see as a move within the spirit of the GPL.
Still, I guess the people shipping DRM-encumbered distros like Fedora have every right to do so, it just means I won’t even bother trying them.
I understand the argument against binary-only drivers, but the GPL has teeth only as far as copyright law applies, and attempting to extend its ‘protections’ beyond that by placing DRM measures in to stop people using the kernel in ways that the developers consider wrong is veering into the realm of politics instead of engineering.
I guess competitive pressure between DRM and non-DRM kernels will illustrate which approach is preferred by the users.
If this is a good, workable approach, why are they removing the DRM for the first errata release?
> The GPL is supposed to guarantee your
> freedom to use the software, and placing
> artificial limits on how you can use the
> software is not what I see as a move within
> the spirit of the GPL.
This statement is incomplete. It is not only “not a move whithin the spirit of the GPL”, it is a GPL violation and a move against THE most important principle in GNU philosophy, freedom zero.
> Still, I guess the people shipping DRM-encumbered
> distros like Fedora have every right to do so, […]
No, they don’t have the right to do so. Distributing GPL software under restrictions that go beyond the restrictions laid out in the GPL is a copyright infringement. The GPL clearly says that such software cannot be distributed at all. These ISO images have to be pulled immediately. Offering errata updates is fine, but insufficient here.
> […] the GPL has teeth only as far as copyright
> law applies, and attempting to extend its
> ‘protections’ beyond that by placing DRM measures
> in to stop people using the kernel in ways that the
> developers consider wrong is veering into the realm
> of politics instead of engineering.
You don’t seem to know parts of the Linux community very well. Parts of the Linux community are an aggregation of people that don’t even care about free software at all and want to force their ideas upon others without even thinking before. The first reactions here are good examples.
The worst thing about it is that some people think that this is an enforcement of the GPL without realising that it is actually the exact opposite.
To all people who think that this is a “good thing”: Please get informed about the free software definition and *read* the GPL instead of “interpreting” it. If you think that binary-only drivers are something that must be fought against, do it without violating the copyright license under which the Linux kernel is distributed, e.g. by explaining why binary-only drivers are worse than free and open source ones instead of trying to force your ideas upon others.
Using DRM methods is like pacifists fighting for their ideals violently…
LOL, I cannot believe this comment got modded up. Please, OSNews readers, never try to become lawyers, you will fail miserably. You are all rallying around this idiot, who has yet to give me the section (and sub-section if applicable) of the license that supports his position. And to reiterate, the preamble doesn’t count, plain and simple, as I said in my last comment.
Maybe you should read the GPL, and specifically the section about how the license is supposed to guarantee free use of the software.
I also said it violates the spirit of the license not the wording – i never claimed anyone has done anything actually illegal.
So instead of calling me an idiot, why dont you *read* what i wrote, and then try to understand where i’m coming from instead of jumping to wild conclusions and throwing around insults.
I don’t mind if you disagree with me, and I don’t think youre an idiot for doing so, why all the vitriol?
Wasn’t replying to you, unless you are G.W. under a seperate login. Click on the link on my last comment that points to the comment I responded to and you’ll see it wasn’t your comment I was responding to. And if you are G.W. under a seperate login, then why would you say that the ISO images are in violation of the GPL and need to be withdrawn immediately if that’s not what you meant to say?
>I suppose next you are going to say I probably shouldnt compile any non-GPL apps on top of a GPL kernel, especially where those apps use kernel interfaces like video4linux, the input subsystem etc. either.
Don’t put words in my mouth. Userspace programs don’t need to use GPL code to run on a linux kernel kernel. Binary modules often do. Userspace programs don’t link to the kernel to run on linux. Binary modules do.
>Still, I guess the people shipping DRM-encumbered distros like Fedora have every right to do so, it just means I won’t even bother trying them.
Don’t make stupid extrapolations about fedora. Why are you going on like an idiot about DRM? Fedora has no DRM. It’s just a damned bug with kernel tainting.
The kernel marks its state as tainted when it’s not running GPL code. This is so they can tell people not to come to them when binary code breaks the kernel
Some userspace programs do need GPLed kernel code to run on Linux, many applications, especially video, audio and other IO apps use kernel headers because there is currently no other way to write them.
Of course, the idea that APIs are not copyrightable and thus you are free to implement software using them is valid, but this goes, broadly, for binary drivers as much as userspace apps.
This is not a kernel that marks its state as tainted when its not running GPL code – this is a kernel that will not execute non-GPL code, because it doesn’t conform to some arbitrary license requirements, even when loading such modules is perfectly legal.
I’m going on about DRM because thats what a restriction on loading non-GPL drivers is, you idiot.
This couldn’t have been intentional, or else they wouldn’t be releasing an update a few days later that allows the kernel to load non-GPL drivers. It’s as simple as that. An error in the kernel that prevents certain drivers from loading, that is fixed a few days later to allow these drivers to load, is hardly DRM. Talk about sensationalism. You’re being ridiculous.
Edited 2006-03-18 11:14
You’re accusing fedora of implementing digital rights management. You are being an idiot and spreading FUD. They did absolutely nothing in order to protect “digital rights”. They have a simple bug and they’ve fixed it.
Accuse them of distributing shoddy software if you will, stop accusing them of having a drm enabled distro just because some jerk on OSNews made a bad joke.
Edited 2006-03-18 17:00
They are implementing digital rights management by shipping kernels that impement digital rights managements systems, you idiot.
How is this not DRM?
I understand fully it’s not something they intended to do in order to gain some kind of commercial or community advantage, but the point is that DRM measures (so often painted as the bogeyman) are being used by the Linux kernel developers and distributors to enforce their policies.
Feature Request for OSNews.
When you mod someone down, put a “Yes, This User is Retarded” option. Thanks.
A bug is not digital rights management. Please name one example (other than this one, since it has been explained to you numerous times that this is a bug) where “DRM measures are being used by the Linux kernel developers and distributors to enforce their policies”. Thanks.
Here is a post from Alan Cox about the subject
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0511.0/0900.html
It’s a hazy topic at best. For user space programs that need to include linux headers there is a special COPYING file that comes with the kernel sources that explicitly says it’s ok. There is no such file for binary modules.
A feature? all you people are crazy. If OSS is about choice, how can any distro limit my choices? This is a big, not a feature, and I am glad it will be fixed
If nvidia stops working on Linux, helloooooooooo Solaris or helloooooooooooooo FreeBSD.
If Vmware stops working, helloooooo Windows or hellooooo Solaris
If Open Sound stops working – helloo FreeBSD, Hellooo Solaris
If Win4Lin stops working – damn I got nothing
If nvidia stops working on Linux, helloooooooooo Solaris or helloooooooooooooo FreeBSD.
It won’t
If Vmware stops working, helloooooo Windows or hellooooo Solaris
You could still use QEMU.
If Open Sound stops working – helloo FreeBSD, Hellooo Solaris
ALSA is in kernel and combined with Jackd:) OS is just the old framework, except if you’re thinking about 4Front Open Sound System because you own some unsupported card? In that case start buying supported hardware, what can I say.
If Win4Lin stops working – damn I got nothing
But you found the time to bash over the project?
I think you should move on to one of those. Even more, linux community would probably benefit from this fact. People jumping to conclusions without any merit don’t bring anything but bad publicity anyway.
It is a bug, not the end of the world. But since your comment was moded up I’m seriously reconsidering my “end of the world” part of the comment.
In a more serious fashion, but not connected to previous comment:
What it is interesting though is that changing the kernel is presented as hard task. Didn’t Anaconda move to yum (meaning no more package versions, just names and dependancies)? If it has it is just a matter of replacing kernel. And since they know this one doesn’t work… Well… replacing is needed anyway. This sounds to me more or less like: We know it is broken, but it is not broken enough to stretch our legs. Fedora should simply delay those 3 days and roll out release without bugs, I think more people would be happy that way. Some people can’t just download updates and they rely heavily on the distro as it is rolled out.
Damn me, as a Fedora (and Ubuntu) fan, I can’t help my self, but I’m dissapointed with the decision to roll out bad release, just for the sake of time schedule.
1) This is Fedora Core 5, not Linux
2) It’s a temporary mistake
3) It’s been fixed already
If you use FC and depend on binary modules, just don’t upgrade yet. Simple as that.
Fedora core release 5 will rock, I can’t wait to install the final release, and this minor annoyance will be easily fixed via yum.
It reminds me somewhat of what happened in Fedora core release 2 with the 8k stack affecting nvidia drivers,
that was fixed very quickly too – http://linux-noob.com/review/fedora/fcrh/#fcr2
cheers
anyweb
Just to clarify the situation: It’s not that I accuse Fedora of doing something wrong intentionally. If they made a mistake, no problem: A fix will be released, period. Mistakes are made all the time and everybody will be happy with the fix: binary-only driver users will be able to use the drivers they prefer and all the others will be able to execute their right to use free drivers only.
The problem is the storm of “hooray, this should have happened much earlier and should become ‘our’ (i.e., the community’s) default policy” statements. It would become a really serious problem if it really happens that way because we would have to seriously reconsider the free software definition in that case.
If Microsoft had put in any disabling code, people would have been all over MS asking for 1billion. I am infact inclined to sue Redhat (and by that extension Fedora core developers) for libel (since your OS is saying that my binary module taints the kernel). How can it taint the kernel when the module has been developed using Linux kernel and system calls. The Linux developers are basically saying, play our way or guido (erm Linus’s henchmen) come and break your legs.
Edited 2006-03-17 23:14
I think that you are interpreting the meaning of the phrase incorrectly. The warning is to state that you are tainting the kernel with non-GPL code, at which point it can not be distributed freely, etc, etc.
It is not to insinuate the code is subpar, unstable, or anything of the sort. It would be wrong to take that away from the message.
There is a message on the devel mailing list stating that there is a new kernel (2059) that resolves this issue. It is available here at the moment:
http://people.redhat.com/davej/kernels/Fedora/FC5/RPMS.kernel/
http://conspiracytheory.warnerbros.com/
Ok, how many people here have watched this one to many times?
The joke about it being a “feature”, was sort of just that, a JOKE!
More than that, RH/Fedora has been blaimed for more “Nvidia” problems in the past, while this one can be put on an “ACCIDENT” (yes, it was) — (which is also very east to fix) the majority(everyone but this one) has been because the KERNEL has implemented something that they can’t and just aren’t going to test against closed source drivers, basically just like this.
anyway, i think it is pretty funny and there will be an update following the release.
Please don’t use my name in VAIN. lol
ftp://mirror.switch.ch/mirror/fedora/linux/core/5/i386/iso/FC-5-i3…
ftp://mirror.switch.ch/mirror/fedora/linux/core/5/x86_64/iso/FC-5-…
a number is just a number.. wow initial release, not like they ship this in retail boxes.. or do they
It is sad that we have to wait more. I am quite anxious about Fedora, but I wouldn’t distribute such binaries that have such a problem. Imagine a ordinary user downloading Fedora and unable to install Nvidia drivers. That will be frustration and will draw back that user from Fedora …
Yes, I do play UT2004 on Linux and I do need 3D now.
Edited 2006-03-18 08:02
If it is not possible to respin the isos as long as they haven’t been distributed, then they should promptly release a 5.1 version with a kernel with the bug fixed. They just make it clear that the only thing that has changed is the default kernel, and everything else is exactly the same. It would make it easier for some if they could be sure that the default installation works well with the proprietary drivers. Sometimes access to the internet is not readily available to update the problematic kernel.
It’s is me only or the following mirorr is already open?
http://ftp.rediris.es/mirror/fedora.redhat/5/i386/os/
I’m just downloading the isos right now…
mirror=ftp.rediris.es
torrent=http://betraktelse.org/FC5-DVD.torrent
local: FC-5-i386-disc1.iso remote: FC-5-i386-disc1.iso
227 Entering Passive Mode (130,206,1,5,189,8)
150-Accepted data connection
150 671128.0 kbytes to download
226-File successfully transferred
226 1074.475 seconds (measured here), 0.61 Mbytes per second
woohoo @!!
cheers
anyweb
http://linux-noob.com
Edited 2006-03-19 15:40
release notes here
http://www.linux-noob.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2173
installation screenshots – http://linux-noob.com/screenshots/fedora/5/install/
post installation screenshots – http://linux-noob.com/screenshots/fedora/5/post/
The new distro is called bordeaux
The kernel is 2.6.15-1.2054_FC5
oh and its lovely