Fedora Core 1 & the AU8810 - Redhat

This is a discussion on Fedora Core 1 & the AU8810 - Redhat ; I bought a "Red Hat Linux Bible" on clearance, which included the Fedora Core 1 three CD set. This is the first Linux distribution that actually completely understood my nVidia TNT2 card. Great graphics. Was able to upgrade the whole ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Fedora Core 1 & the AU8810

  1. Fedora Core 1 & the AU8810

    I bought a "Red Hat Linux Bible" on clearance, which included the Fedora
    Core 1 three CD set. This is the first Linux distribution that actually
    completely understood my nVidia TNT2 card. Great graphics. Was able to
    upgrade the whole install via Redhat's website (which I thought was
    really nice of them) but all is not perfect.

    First, Fedora had trouble with my 3COM network card. I found the "fix"
    on a website somewhere "chkconfig kudzu off" and that took care of that.
    But the sound card problem is a bit more confusing -- at least for a
    Linux idiot like me. I gather you have to download and install "alsa"
    which I've done. But it also appears that I need to recompile my Linux
    kernel to 2.6xxx. That scares me a bit. I was wondering if someone could
    point me to step-by-step instructions for using alsa, and getting my
    AU8810 soundcard to work?

    One other question. I'm running a Celeron 366 computer with 192 Megs of
    memory. Fedora Core 1 runs great on it. I'm thinking about downloading
    and installing Fedora Core 5 -- but not if it slows my computer down
    quite a bit. Taking into account the age of my computer, would I be
    better off sticking with Fedora Core 1?

    Thanks for any advice and pointers.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"


  2. Re: Fedora Core 1 & the AU8810

    On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 00:54:32 -0400, RonB wrote:

    > But the sound card problem is a bit more confusing -- at least for a
    > Linux idiot like me. I gather you have to download and install "alsa"
    > which I've done. But it also appears that I need to recompile my Linux
    > kernel to 2.6xxx. That scares me a bit.


    Good! It should! Your instincts are right about this.

    You do NOT want to do this. The difference between a 2.4 and a 2.6
    kernel are so significant that you also MUST change out the runtime
    libraries for the applications as well as changing out some of the
    kernel assist RPM's such as the modutils -- wait, the name of that
    package changed for the 2.6 kernel -- get the drift?

    > One other question. I'm running a Celeron 366 computer with 192 Megs of
    > memory. Fedora Core 1 runs great on it. I'm thinking about downloading
    > and installing Fedora Core 5 -- but not if it slows my computer down
    > quite a bit. Taking into account the age of my computer, would I be
    > better off sticking with Fedora Core 1?


    Never heard of a "366", do you mean a "i386"? Support for that CPU
    chip has been dropped from the Fedora distro. I don't remember just
    now which version did this and use the one before that. Go to the
    fedoralegacy.org site and check the release notes for FC2 and FC3 to
    find out.

    Also, 192 MB is smallish these days and a graphic environment may
    feel quite sluggish. KDE and GNOME have all gotten bloated, so check
    google for some alternatives: "x11 window managers". I find that
    http://xwinman.org/ is a good place to start.

    HTH

  3. Re: Fedora Core 1 & the AU8810

    Tommy Reynolds wrote:
    > On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 00:54:32 -0400, RonB wrote:
    >
    >
    >>But the sound card problem is a bit more confusing -- at least for a
    >>Linux idiot like me. I gather you have to download and install "alsa"
    >>which I've done. But it also appears that I need to recompile my Linux
    >>kernel to 2.6xxx. That scares me a bit.

    >
    >
    > Good! It should! Your instincts are right about this.
    >
    > You do NOT want to do this. The difference between a 2.4 and a 2.6
    > kernel are so significant that you also MUST change out the runtime
    > libraries for the applications as well as changing out some of the
    > kernel assist RPM's such as the modutils -- wait, the name of that
    > package changed for the 2.6 kernel -- get the drift?


    The only reason I was thinking of upgrading the kernel is because (I
    think) they say alsa requires 2.6xxx. But I'm not really sure about
    that. I'm just trying to get the soundcard to work. It's onboard, but I
    might able to disable and buy another cheap sound card.

    >>One other question. I'm running a Celeron 366 computer with 192 Megs of
    >>memory. Fedora Core 1 runs great on it. I'm thinking about downloading
    >>and installing Fedora Core 5 -- but not if it slows my computer down
    >>quite a bit. Taking into account the age of my computer, would I be
    >>better off sticking with Fedora Core 1?

    >
    >
    > Never heard of a "366", do you mean a "i386"? Support for that CPU
    > chip has been dropped from the Fedora distro. I don't remember just
    > now which version did this and use the one before that. Go to the
    > fedoralegacy.org site and check the release notes for FC2 and FC3 to
    > find out.


    I meant a 366mhz Celeron (Pentium II class) machine. Sorry for the
    confusion.

    > Also, 192 MB is smallish these days and a graphic environment may
    > feel quite sluggish. KDE and GNOME have all gotten bloated, so check
    > google for some alternatives: "x11 window managers". I find that
    > http://xwinman.org/ is a good place to start.


    Actually Fedora Core 1 is running faster on this machine than Windows
    98SE. And I'm currently using Gnome, but I'll look into xwinman. I have
    tried a few of the other Xwindows managers in the past and they were
    leaner. Thanks.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"


  4. Re: Fedora Core 1 & the AU8810

    On Fri, 14 Apr 20060, in the Usenet newsgroup linux.redhat, in article
    , RonB wrote:

    >I bought a "Red Hat Linux Bible" on clearance


    That should have been a clue

    >which included the Fedora Core 1 three CD set. This is the first Linux
    >distribution that actually completely understood my nVidia TNT2 card.
    >Great graphics. Was able to upgrade the whole install via Redhat's website
    >(which I thought was really nice of them) but all is not perfect.


    FC1 came out in November 2003, and was replaced 6 months later by FC2.
    Support moved to the "legacy" channel in October 2004, which means that
    the support is "backports" done well after the "current" distributions.

    >First, Fedora had trouble with my 3COM network card. I found the "fix"
    >on a website somewhere "chkconfig kudzu off" and that took care of that.


    ???

    >But the sound card problem is a bit more confusing -- at least for a
    >Linux idiot like me. I gather you have to download and install "alsa"
    >which I've done. But it also appears that I need to recompile my Linux
    >kernel to 2.6xxx. That scares me a bit. I was wondering if someone could
    >point me to step-by-step instructions for using alsa, and getting my
    >AU8810 soundcard to work?


    Not exactly sure what package you've got, or how.

    >One other question. I'm running a Celeron 366 computer with 192 Megs of
    >memory. Fedora Core 1 runs great on it. I'm thinking about downloading
    >and installing Fedora Core 5 -- but not if it slows my computer down
    >quite a bit. Taking into account the age of my computer, would I be
    >better off sticking with Fedora Core 1?


    Celery 366? Depends on what you try to run. The later distributions add
    do much eye-candy, so some of this is a personal decision. Beginning with
    FC2, the "required" RAM was increased to 192 Megs, and the "recommended"
    was increased to 256 Megs. If you are running KDE in all it's "glory", with
    all the extra trash that includes, things may slow down. Don't install every
    piece of .... or use a less bloated desktop and things will fly. While FC1
    is only 2.4 years old, it _is_ four releases behind the times. Your decision.
    ALSA was included in FC2.

    >Thanks for any advice and pointers.


    http://www.distrowatch.com/

    Old guy

  5. Re: Fedora Core 1 & the AU8810

    On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:08:53 -0400, RonB wrote:

    > Tommy Reynolds wrote:
    >> On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 00:54:32 -0400, RonB wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>But the sound card problem is a bit more confusing -- at least for a
    >>>Linux idiot like me. I gather you have to download and install "alsa"
    >>>which I've done. But it also appears that I need to recompile my Linux
    >>>kernel to 2.6xxx. That scares me a bit.

    >>
    >>
    >> Good! It should! Your instincts are right about this.
    >>
    >> You do NOT want to do this. The difference between a 2.4 and a 2.6
    >> kernel are so significant that you also MUST change out the runtime
    >> libraries for the applications as well as changing out some of the
    >> kernel assist RPM's such as the modutils -- wait, the name of that
    >> package changed for the 2.6 kernel -- get the drift?

    >
    > The only reason I was thinking of upgrading the kernel is because (I
    > think) they say alsa requires 2.6xxx. But I'm not really sure about that.
    > I'm just trying to get the soundcard to work. It's onboard, but I might
    > able to disable and buy another cheap sound card.
    >
    >>>One other question. I'm running a Celeron 366 computer with 192 Megs of
    >>>memory. Fedora Core 1 runs great on it. I'm thinking about downloading
    >>>and installing Fedora Core 5 -- but not if it slows my computer down
    >>>quite a bit. Taking into account the age of my computer, would I be
    >>>better off sticking with Fedora Core 1?

    >>
    >>
    >> Never heard of a "366", do you mean a "i386"? Support for that CPU chip
    >> has been dropped from the Fedora distro. I don't remember just now
    >> which version did this and use the one before that. Go to the
    >> fedoralegacy.org site and check the release notes for FC2 and FC3 to
    >> find out.

    >
    > I meant a 366mhz Celeron (Pentium II class) machine. Sorry for the
    > confusion.
    >
    >> Also, 192 MB is smallish these days and a graphic environment may feel
    >> quite sluggish. KDE and GNOME have all gotten bloated, so check google
    >> for some alternatives: "x11 window managers". I find that
    >> http://xwinman.org/ is a good place to start.

    >
    > Actually Fedora Core 1 is running faster on this machine than Windows
    > 98SE. And I'm currently using Gnome, but I'll look into xwinman. I have
    > tried a few of the other Xwindows managers in the past and they were
    > leaner. Thanks.


    You might want to give FC5 a try. Gnome got faster and less memory hungry
    in FC5 relative to FC4. I don't know how it compares to FC1. If you can
    add memory to your box it will help a lot, I suspect that 384 is the max
    your machine will support.



  6. Re: Fedora Core 1 & the AU8810

    On 2006-04-14, RonB wrote:
    > I bought a "Red Hat Linux Bible" on clearance, which included the Fedora
    > Core 1 three CD set. This is the first Linux distribution that actually
    > completely understood my nVidia TNT2 card. Great graphics. Was able to
    > upgrade the whole install via Redhat's website (which I thought was
    > really nice of them) but all is not perfect.
    >
    > First, Fedora had trouble with my 3COM network card. I found the "fix"
    > on a website somewhere "chkconfig kudzu off" and that took care of that.
    > But the sound card problem is a bit more confusing -- at least for a
    > Linux idiot like me. I gather you have to download and install "alsa"
    > which I've done. But it also appears that I need to recompile my Linux
    > kernel to 2.6xxx. That scares me a bit. I was wondering if someone could
    > point me to step-by-step instructions for using alsa, and getting my
    > AU8810 soundcard to work?
    >
    > One other question. I'm running a Celeron 366 computer with 192 Megs of
    > memory. Fedora Core 1 runs great on it. I'm thinking about downloading
    > and installing Fedora Core 5 -- but not if it slows my computer down
    > quite a bit. Taking into account the age of my computer, would I be
    > better off sticking with Fedora Core 1?


    There are some sites up indicating how to put kernel 2.6 in FC1.
    I did it once. It is not simple and it is not worth it.

    As for sound, the basic 2.4 kernel used the OSS drivers. Many distributions
    used that ALSA drivers but Fedora just used the kernel drivers (OSS).

    One can compile ALSA drivers. It requires a configured ad "depped" kernel
    source tree set up for your kernel (it may be worth it to get the latest
    2.4 kernel source, install, configure it yourself basing at least some
    of the configuration on the FC1 configuration and installing your own
    custom configured kernel, but which will be missing some Fedora patches).
    The alsa ftp site has many versions of its drivers and you can try the
    latest and downgrade to whatever works with the latest 2.4 kernel. If you
    compile the ALSA drivers from source you may be able to do so with a 2.4
    kernel (need the source tree).

    If you want to install the ALSA drivers from RPM (precompiled binaries)
    then, yes, you will need to have a kernel matching that used when the
    RPM was compiled. The latest are for 2.6.x kernels.

    If it were me, I would compile and install the latest 2.4 kernel and
    compile the alsa drivers from source.

    As for what to use ... I am running FC2 (too much of my own configuration
    to upgrade easily) with a Frankenstein version of Gnome (never try to
    upgrade gtk and glib2 and gnome manually - it is just so much easier
    to get a new distribution. I got the gtk and glib2 libraries upgraded
    and gnome still works - with some of its libraries upgraded and some not!
    Little bits and pieces of various versions and it still runs! Amazing.).
    I use a lightweight windows manager (ICE) and have the gtk libraries so
    I can run graphic programmes which rely on those "widgets" (I don't think
    I have ever used any qt/KDE as opposed to gtk/GNOME programmes). You need
    not use memory intensive programmes (well, except for OpenOffice) or Gnome
    or KDE. If you stick with an old distribution, you will either have to
    get source RPMs and build your own binaries to allow the RPM system to
    handle keeping track of versions or compile and install from source for
    new programmes (and watch out for conflicts yourself).

    You can use lightweight windows managers in later distributions.
    Gnome and KDE may be hard. I am using a 933MHz system with 256Meg of ram
    (the BIOS precludes me going to 512Meg). I used to run TurboLinux WS6
    on a 166MHz system with 64Meg of ram.

    If you are going to use it "for awhile" and not do too much to customize
    (compile lots of programmes from source, etc.) it, I would stick with FC1
    but when you find yourself using Linux for most to all of your work then
    before getting too deep into it, you may want to go for a more recent
    distribution unless the versions of the programmes you are using are
    sufficient.

    It will be hard to bring a FC1 system up to kernel 2.6 standards. It will
    be hard to upgrade gtk and qt. A celeron 366 - is that 366MHz? Good luck
    burning a DVD (maybe you can at 1x?). If you use the computer for browsing
    the web and use lighter (than OpenOffice) programmes for word processing,
    etc., then FC1 (you may have to compile a kernel and ALSA from source)
    may be what you want to stick with.

  7. Re: Fedora Core 1 & the AU8810

    General Schvantzkoph wrote:

    > You might want to give FC5 a try. Gnome got faster and less memory hungry
    > in FC5 relative to FC4. I don't know how it compares to FC1. If you can
    > add memory to your box it will help a lot, I suspect that 384 is the max
    > your machine will support.


    I might do that. I've got a big hard drive (60 Gig, which is big my
    standards) on that computer, so I may leave the FC1 installation on its
    partition and open up some more free space from the Windows partition to
    try FC5. That way I can try both. My machine, an early Toshiba V3100,
    will go up to 256 Meg of memory. If it used PC133 I could find it
    everywhere cheap, but it wants PC100.

    Yesterday I went to a local "PC Retro" store (www.pcretro.com) and
    picked up an inexpensive Dell G1 (currently a Celeron 400, 128 Meg RAM,
    6 Gig hard drive and 4 Meg video card). I installed and upgraded FC1 on
    that, which is what I'm using now. Unfortunately it came with a Vortex
    AU8820 sound card -- I'm going to see if they've got a different brand
    today. This is going to be my Linux learning machine.

    My impressions? First, with Gnome, that extra 64 Meg of memory makes a
    BIG difference. There is a lot of "disk thrashing" on this machine --
    and, since it's got an older Maxtor hard drive, you definitely hear the
    thrashing. I'm going to track down another 128 Meg of memory (256 Meg is
    the limit and, like the Toshiba, it uses PC100). The 4 Meg video card
    actually works fine at 32 bit and 1024x768, which surprised me, but I
    may still try to find a better video card down the road (if I can find
    one that works on a PCI slot.) The 6 Gig hard drive is okay for
    learning, but it's not going to be big enough in the long run.

    A quick question (for anyone). This computer can use up to a Pentium II
    500mhz CPU. They're a dime a dozen on eBay. Would it make a lot of
    difference with Fedora Core to upgrade? And would it cause any problem
    with my current installation of FC1 to just plug it in? Not that
    reinstalling would be that big of an issue. Thanks.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"


  8. Re: Fedora Core 1 & the AU8810

    Moe Trin wrote:
    > On Fri, 14 Apr 20060, in the Usenet newsgroup linux.redhat, in article
    > , RonB wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I bought a "Red Hat Linux Bible" on clearance

    >
    >
    > That should have been a clue


    Yeah, but you can still buy the Redhat 9 Bibles for *full* price at
    Borders! :~]

    > FC1 came out in November 2003, and was replaced 6 months later by FC2.
    > Support moved to the "legacy" channel in October 2004, which means that
    > the support is "backports" done well after the "current" distributions.


    I understand. I was surprised that Redhat still let's me download
    updates (a whole slew of them) for FC1.

    > Not exactly sure what package you've got, or how.


    For now, I think it's easier to get another brand of sound card. Any
    suggestions on works best for Fedora?

    > Celery 366? Depends on what you try to run. The later distributions add
    > do much eye-candy, so some of this is a personal decision. Beginning with
    > FC2, the "required" RAM was increased to 192 Megs, and the "recommended"
    > was increased to 256 Megs. If you are running KDE in all it's "glory", with
    > all the extra trash that includes, things may slow down. Don't install every
    > piece of .... or use a less bloated desktop and things will fly. While FC1
    > is only 2.4 years old, it _is_ four releases behind the times. Your decision.
    > ALSA was included in FC2.


    I might try getting FC2, as well as FC5. Thanks.

    > http://www.distrowatch.com/


    I'll take a look.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"


  9. Re: Fedora Core 1 & the AU8810

    Spamless wrote:

    > There are some sites up indicating how to put kernel 2.6 in FC1.
    > I did it once. It is not simple and it is not worth it.
    >
    > As for sound, the basic 2.4 kernel used the OSS drivers. Many distributions
    > used that ALSA drivers but Fedora just used the kernel drivers (OSS).
    >
    > One can compile ALSA drivers. It requires a configured ad "depped" kernel
    > source tree set up for your kernel (it may be worth it to get the latest
    > 2.4 kernel source, install, configure it yourself basing at least some
    > of the configuration on the FC1 configuration and installing your own
    > custom configured kernel, but which will be missing some Fedora patches).
    > The alsa ftp site has many versions of its drivers and you can try the
    > latest and downgrade to whatever works with the latest 2.4 kernel. If you
    > compile the ALSA drivers from source you may be able to do so with a 2.4
    > kernel (need the source tree).


    At this point, all well over my head. But I'm going to go to Linux, so
    I'll be learning. Windows 98SE is finally losing support, no QuickTime
    7, no Acrobat 7 for examples, so I'm going to have to go somewhere. And
    it's not going to be XP or Vista.

    > If you want to install the ALSA drivers from RPM (precompiled binaries)
    > then, yes, you will need to have a kernel matching that used when the
    > RPM was compiled. The latest are for 2.6.x kernels.


    I didn't realize that ALSA had a site. I think I successfully loaded
    ALSA on my other computer -- now it's a matter of knowing how to use it.
    I'll go to the ALSA site for documentation. Meanwhile, on this computer,
    I think I'll just try to find a different sound card.

    > If it were me, I would compile and install the latest 2.4 kernel and
    > compile the alsa drivers from source.


    I'm going to learn how to do this -- but probably not right away.

    > As for what to use ... I am running FC2 (too much of my own configuration
    > to upgrade easily) with a Frankenstein version of Gnome (never try to
    > upgrade gtk and glib2 and gnome manually - it is just so much easier
    > to get a new distribution. I got the gtk and glib2 libraries upgraded
    > and gnome still works - with some of its libraries upgraded and some not!
    > Little bits and pieces of various versions and it still runs! Amazing.).
    > I use a lightweight windows manager (ICE) and have the gtk libraries so
    > I can run graphic programmes which rely on those "widgets" (I don't think
    > I have ever used any qt/KDE as opposed to gtk/GNOME programmes). You need
    > not use memory intensive programmes (well, except for OpenOffice) or Gnome
    > or KDE. If you stick with an old distribution, you will either have to
    > get source RPMs and build your own binaries to allow the RPM system to
    > handle keeping track of versions or compile and install from source for
    > new programmes (and watch out for conflicts yourself).
    >
    > You can use lightweight windows managers in later distributions.
    > Gnome and KDE may be hard. I am using a 933MHz system with 256Meg of ram
    > (the BIOS precludes me going to 512Meg). I used to run TurboLinux WS6
    > on a 166MHz system with 64Meg of ram.
    >
    > If you are going to use it "for awhile" and not do too much to customize
    > (compile lots of programmes from source, etc.) it, I would stick with FC1
    > but when you find yourself using Linux for most to all of your work then
    > before getting too deep into it, you may want to go for a more recent
    > distribution unless the versions of the programmes you are using are
    > sufficient.


    Thanks, all good information. "Frankenstein Gnome --" somehow it fits.
    I know one thing I *can* do with FC1. Learn Linux. At some point I'll
    probably upgrade my hardware anyhow. I asked in another post if it would
    be worth upgrading a Celeron 400 mhz CPU to a Pentium II 500 mhz CPU.
    I'm guessing any extra speed would probably help.

    > It will be hard to bring a FC1 system up to kernel 2.6 standards. It will
    > be hard to upgrade gtk and qt. A celeron 366 - is that 366MHz? Good luck
    > burning a DVD (maybe you can at 1x?). If you use the computer for browsing
    > the web and use lighter (than OpenOffice) programmes for word processing,
    > etc., then FC1 (you may have to compile a kernel and ALSA from source)
    > may be what you want to stick with.


    Actually OpenOffice opens relatively quickly on the 366mhz machine, with
    a 192 Meg of memory. On this machine, with a 128 Meg of memory, it's
    quite a wait. It may be that my speed requirements aren't all that high.
    I'm used to using Windows, after all. Loading Word 2000 (in 98SE) takes
    longer than loading OpenOffice on the Linux side. (I only use Word for
    converting work documents, my Windows word processor of choice has been
    Lotus Word Pro -- but I was so impressed with OpenOffice, that I now
    have the Windows version 2 also.)

    Again, thanks. All good information. I've got a lot to learn, but Linux
    for the desktop has gotten a LOT prettier than it was four (or so) years
    ago when I had 166mhz machine running Mandrake -- especially the fonts.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"


  10. Re: Fedora Core 1 & the AU8810

    On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup linux.redhat, in article
    , RonB wrote:

    >Moe Trin wrote:
    >
    >> RonB wrote:

    >
    >>> I bought a "Red Hat Linux Bible" on clearance

    >>
    >> That should have been a clue

    >
    >Yeah, but you can still buy the Redhat 9 Bibles for *full* price at
    >Borders! :~]


    That is a problem with dead tree books - they take a long time to go from
    the author's desk to the stores, and are usually at least one release
    behind - sometimes two. But it really gets bad with the smaller bookstores.
    I've seen five year old books still offered - and when you hit the bargain
    counter... would you believe "Slackware 96 Unleashed" for only ten dollars?

    >I understand. I was surprised that Redhat still let's me download
    >updates (a whole slew of them) for FC1.


    Current status at 'fedoralegacy.com' is 7.3 and 9 are still supported,
    7.2 and 8.0 errata to May 2004 (5 months after official support ended),
    Fedora 1, 2, and 3 still supported. Fedora 4 and 5 are currently being
    supported. This is also an improvement over past errata sources, as the
    keep all errata, not just the "latest" on. This was a problem on releases
    like 5.2, where (for example) rpm was updated from version x.x.x to x.x.y
    to x.x.z, to x.y.x, to z.x.x (don't recall the exact versions) but the
    preceding update was needed to install the later one - you couldn't take
    an 'out-of-box' install and just grab the latest errata. In a number of
    cases, the new ones wouldn't install because they needed features of the
    intermediate update.

    >For now, I think it's easier to get another brand of sound card. Any
    >suggestions on works best for Fedora?


    The only systems I have with sound have either an ancient AWE64, or
    something built onto the motherboard.

    >> ALSA was included in FC2.

    >
    >I might try getting FC2, as well as FC5. Thanks.


    FC2 isn't that much better (from an updates standpoint) than FC1. Even
    though you have the diskspace, I'd recommend either FC5 or at least FC4.
    Last I looked, the .iso files are available for all on the fedoralegacy
    server, and I _think_ also on the redhat server.

    Old guy

  11. Re: Fedora Core 1 & the AU8810

    Moe Trin wrote:

    > On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup linux.redhat, in article
    > , RonB wrote:
    >>Yeah, but you can still buy the Redhat 9 Bibles for *full* price at
    >>Borders! :~]

    >
    > That is a problem with dead tree books - they take a long time to go
    > from the author's desk to the stores, and are usually at least one
    > release behind - sometimes two. But it really gets bad with the
    > smaller bookstores. I've seen five year old books still offered - and
    > when you hit the bargain counter... would you believe "Slackware 96
    > Unleashed" for only ten dollars?


    I know, I saw some ancient stuff at MicroCenter for full price. There
    doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it.

    >>I understand. I was surprised that Redhat still let's me download
    >>updates (a whole slew of them) for FC1.

    >
    > Current status at 'fedoralegacy.com' is 7.3 and 9 are still supported,
    > 7.2 and 8.0 errata to May 2004 (5 months after official support
    > ended), Fedora 1, 2, and 3 still supported. Fedora 4 and 5 are
    > currently being supported. This is also an improvement over past
    > errata sources, as the keep all errata, not just the "latest" on. This
    > was a problem on releases like 5.2, where (for example) rpm was
    > updated from version x.x.x to x.x.y to x.x.z, to x.y.x, to z.x.x
    > (don't recall the exact versions) but the preceding update was needed
    > to install the later one - you couldn't take an 'out-of-box' install
    > and just grab the latest errata. In a number of cases, the new ones
    > wouldn't install because they needed features of the intermediate
    > update.


    Interesting. Odd the way it jumps around.

    >>For now, I think it's easier to get another brand of sound card. Any
    >>suggestions on works best for Fedora?

    >
    > The only systems I have with sound have either an ancient AWE64, or
    > something built onto the motherboard.


    They sold me a cheap sound card at the computer place. A C-Media with a
    CMI8738 chipset. I was just going to pick up a used Creative Labs
    soundcard, but --no-- this one's newer, therefore better. It supposedly
    came with Linux support -- except I have to compile it, just like I would
    have had to do with the AU8820 (and I don't have all the tools needed for
    that). Fedora *did* see the card and thought it was working, but no sound.
    No big deal. I've downloaded the FC5 CDs, stole 128 Meg of memory from one
    computer, so I've got 256 on the other and I'm installing FC5 now. I'm
    hoping it will see the AU8820. If everything goes well on the test
    computer, I'm going to give Fedora5 25 Gigs on my main computer, give it
    256 Meg and start a new Fedora install from scratch. (Didn't want to mess
    up FC1 if FC5 has problems.)

    >>> ALSA was included in FC2.

    >>
    >>I might try getting FC2, as well as FC5. Thanks.

    >
    > FC2 isn't that much better (from an updates standpoint) than FC1. Even
    > though you have the diskspace, I'd recommend either FC5 or at least
    > FC4. Last I looked, the .iso files are available for all on the
    > fedoralegacy server, and I _think_ also on the redhat server.


    The mirror server I found for the eastern United States, from
    www.fedora.redhat.com, is lightning fast. Each iso image downloaded in
    about 20 minutes. This motel has pretty fast broadband internet, but I
    would still rather be home.

    Thanks for all the advice and for the the fedoeralegacy link. I'll pass on
    my experiences with FC5.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  12. Re: Fedora Core 1 & the AU8810

    On 15 Apr 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup linux.redhat, in article
    , RonB wrote:

    >Moe Trin wrote:


    >> Current status at 'fedoralegacy.com' is 7.3 and 9 are still supported,
    >> 7.2 and 8.0 errata to May 2004 (5 months after official support
    >> ended), Fedora 1, 2, and 3 still supported.


    FC4 and FC5 are _officially_ supported by Red Hat. The support for the
    other versions is unofficial.

    >Interesting. Odd the way it jumps around.


    The rational is "what the people want". 'fedoralegacy' support ends if there
    isn't enough interest in a version. Now, as to the version numbers above,
    7.2 was a good distribution - I think we had as much as a quarter of our
    systems running it. 7.3 came out because they weren't ready to jump to
    "new stuff" six months after 7.2 came out, and this was possibly the best
    release they had. We moved nearly all of our 6.2 boxes up to 7.3, even
    though the official support for 6.2 continued until just before RH9 came
    out.

    8.0 was less popular despite a lot of people chasing version numbers. We
    did evaluate it, and it was a non-starter for us. But X.0 versions have
    been less desirable since, I dunno, 4.0. (There was no 3.0 - marketing
    made it 3.0.3 which was the last of the 1.2.x kernels. And 2.0 was
    essentially the first production release - introduced rpm back in 1995.
    I know that we installed both 2.0 and 2.1 as our first Red Hat releases.
    There was a 1.0 called Mother's Day [1995] that was not much more than
    a beta.)

    9 was even more short-lived than 8.0. It didn't help that Red Hat decided
    to end the Red Hat Linux (originally called Red Hat Software Linux - which
    is where the RHS initials you occasionally find in config files comes
    from), announcing the demise in July only 14 weeks after RH9 came out.
    Again, we had evaluated 9, and actually had plans to install it on the
    last of our outdated 6.2 systems - that went nowhere. We actually
    installed a custom version of Conectiva (a Brazilian Red Hat clone)
    instead, while trying to identify a replacement distribution.

    >If everything goes well on the test computer, I'm going to give Fedora5
    >25 Gigs on my main computer, give it 256 Meg and start a new Fedora install
    >from scratch. (Didn't want to mess up FC1 if FC5 has problems.)


    Good solution. For perspective, we are in a production environment, and it
    takes a minimum of 10 weeks for us to decide what a new install will look
    like, and then test this on systems that mirror representative versions of
    our production systems. Switchover normally occurred on a weekend - with
    everyone in IT installing (we don't "upgrade") systems from a custom CD
    (basically copying the CD to the hard drive, and setting hostnames/IP
    addresses, etc.). Monday morning can be "interesting", but we only had to
    back out once - and that was only on the print servers.

    >The mirror server I found for the eastern United States, from
    >www.fedora.redhat.com, is lightning fast. Each iso image downloaded in
    >about 20 minutes.


    Used to was trying to find a fast mirror when a new release came out was
    a loosing proposition. Once Red Hat started supplying .iso images in 2000
    (RH6.2), the distribution channels would be saturated for the first week
    or two after a new release came out. Prior to that, you had to download
    the binary rpms and an install program and master them yourself, OR do
    a regular install over FTP. Not many people went that route, so finding a
    mirror before RH6.2 was relatively easy.

    Old guy

  13. Re: Fedora Core 1 & the AU8810

    On 2006-04-16, RonB wrote:

    > Now to try FC2, since (I think) it actually includes the codecs and
    > whatever is necessary to play multimedia stuff and, according to one
    > source, it will recognize my AU88xx chips. Apparently FC3 on up doesn't
    > come with the codecs?


    What codecs? Not MP3. Not video. I compiled mplayer from source and got
    their codecs (plus some DLLs from my Win98SE installation, such as some
    older RealPlayer ones) and libmad, mpg321, lame for MP3 support.
    RealPlayer (Linux) can also play MP3s, I believe.

  14. Re: Fedora Core 1 & the AU8810

    Moe Trin wrote:

    > Used to was trying to find a fast mirror when a new release came out was
    > a loosing proposition. Once Red Hat started supplying .iso images in 2000
    > (RH6.2), the distribution channels would be saturated for the first week
    > or two after a new release came out. Prior to that, you had to download
    > the binary rpms and an install program and master them yourself, OR do
    > a regular install over FTP. Not many people went that route, so finding a
    > mirror before RH6.2 was relatively easy.


    Have you ever considered writing a Red Hat history FAQ? (Maybe you
    already have -- all interesting stuff.)

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"


  15. Re: Fedora Core 1 & the AU8810

    Spamless wrote:
    > On 2006-04-16, RonB wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Now to try FC2, since (I think) it actually includes the codecs and
    >>whatever is necessary to play multimedia stuff and, according to one
    >>source, it will recognize my AU88xx chips. Apparently FC3 on up doesn't
    >>come with the codecs?

    >
    >
    > What codecs? Not MP3. Not video. I compiled mplayer from source and got
    > their codecs (plus some DLLs from my Win98SE installation, such as some
    > older RealPlayer ones) and libmad, mpg321, lame for MP3 support.
    > RealPlayer (Linux) can also play MP3s, I believe.


    I guess I haven't used Red Hat for awhile. All the Linux distributions
    that I've installed recently, came "out of the box" supporting MPEG
    players, etc. So, I guess, it's just something I'm going to have to work
    through on Fedora. Thanks. Is any of this stuff included in Red Hat
    itself? If so, it might be worth paying for Red Hat.

    On a side note, my Windows 98SE has a heck of a time burning CDs --
    using Nero. I have to slow the drive way down and *hope* that all goes
    well -- I don't know how many CDs I've had to throw away because
    something screwed up. FC1, on the exact hardware, has *no* problems
    whatsover, working with whatever burner comes with it -- BURN:/// -- at
    full speed?. All that I know about it is that I right click on the ISO
    and it does the rest. I've got the FC2 ISOs now, I think I'll see how
    that works out on this machine...maybe. Either that or figure out how to
    compile a sound card driver. Will a Creative Labs sound card work
    without compiling? Thanks again.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"


  16. Re: Fedora Core 1 & the AU8810

    On Sun, 16 Apr 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup linux.redhat, in article
    , RonB wrote:

    >Have you ever considered writing a Red Hat history FAQ? (Maybe you
    >already have -- all interesting stuff.)


    Actually, there are three of them already out there - one of which is
    on the Fedora web site.

    Fedora Project Download Projects FAQ
    History of Linux at Red Hat

    and:

    For several years, there have been at least two web pages maintaining a
    bit of history of Red Hat Linux, one by Stephen Smoogen and one by
    Matthias Saou that were valuable summaries we used while writing this
    document. Kudos to Smooge and Matthias for maintaining them!

    Stephen Smoogen was/is a Red Hat employee.

    I've also seen a lot of interesting material on mirrors of the old
    linux.redhat* mailing lists. (Background: linux.redhat.$FOO were one-way
    mirrors of mailing lists run by Red Hat - the mirror site was a Dutch ISP.
    Originally, these groups were marked as "moderated" to prevent direct
    postings. In the past seven years or so, the moderation flag was dropped,
    allowing anyone to post to the Usenet group, though the postings did not
    make it back to the mailing lists.)

    Old guy

+ Reply to Thread