As with Severn beta1 (RH 9.0.93), Fedora Core (RH 9.0.94) did not install until after three attempts. Previous betas (wolverine, etc) always installed on the first attempt.
Download ISO's:
Bittorrent was *disappointingly slooooow*. I could have latched on to a mirror and gotten the three CD's much faster using mozilla.
Run md5sums, ISO's check out OK, burnt 'em with K3b. Burn successful _no error_ messages whatever.
Boot, check media = OK, proceed ... and THEN --->
With Fedora, my first install resulted in a kernel oops (evinced by my flashing keyboard lights. Because it refused to create the boot disk (two previously used 1.44M diskettes in my LS-120 drive aka /dev/hdb).
Second try: "Install Everything": "error installing ncurses 5.3.9 ... you may have insufficient space [on a 20 Gb drive!!!??] or this might indicate a hardware defect" ... hmm, maybe my] Quantum is failing?
Third try: "Custom" ... <*WHEW*>!!! finally, success!
Old or previous bugs resurface: 1. Install "all packages" fails, as before: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101078
2. In KDE, the Start Here folder is a "malformed URL"
2. My beloved RFE is still a RFE. I had to configure the scanner. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80613 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101078
3. After installing, redhat-configure-packages, keeps insisting on "install disk". Install only works from the console window or by clicking on the icons in the nautilus CD window.
4. Autologin dialog "unreadable" https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101511
5. Kmail still misbehaves: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102532
6. Since the Start Here is malformed in KDE, I can't add startup programs. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102533
Graphical boot is indeed faster. Should I remove sendmail to speed up things? During installation, I'm pretty sure I saw something mentioned about a joystick configuration applet, but I find no such item.
Elton
On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 01:01, Elton Woo wrote:
Bittorrent was *disappointingly slooooow*. I could have latched on to a mirror and gotten the three CD's much faster using mozilla.
You use *Mozilla* instead of a proper FTP client or a downloader like wget to download ISOs? Wow. You must have a really reliable connection :)
Regards,
Michel
On September 28, 2003 10:52 am, Michel Alexandre Salim <Michel Alexandre Salim salimma1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 01:01, Elton Woo wrote:
Bittorrent was *disappointingly slooooow*. I could have latched on to a mirror and gotten the three CD's much faster using mozilla.
You use *Mozilla* instead of a proper FTP client or a downloader like wget to download ISOs? Wow. You must have a really reliable connection
I'm on cable, and in addition, I usually pick one of the European or Far East sites when the ones in the West are busy. With moz, I'd have gotten all three CD's within (at most) 3 1/2 hours, compared to about 5 hours with Bittorrent (ver 3.2).
Elton ;-)
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 11:54:29AM -0400, Elton Woo wrote:
On September 28, 2003 10:52 am, Michel Alexandre Salim <Michel Alexandre Salim salimma1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 01:01, Elton Woo wrote:
Bittorrent was *disappointingly slooooow*. I could have latched on to a mirror and gotten the three CD's much faster using mozilla.
You use *Mozilla* instead of a proper FTP client or a downloader like wget to download ISOs? Wow. You must have a really reliable connection
I'm on cable, and in addition, I usually pick one of the European or Far East sites when the ones in the West are busy. With moz, I'd have gotten all three CD's within (at most) 3 1/2 hours, compared to about 5 hours with Bittorrent (ver 3.2).
For me, Bittorrent was much, much faster. I got all three CDs within 45 minutes, compared to an average of 3 hours or so with FTP. And with FTP the mirrors are sometimes full.
Ah, cable. So no doubt your upload speeds are much worse than your download speeds, yes? Bittorrent's algorithm effectively penalizes your download speed for that, since your download speed ends up being proportional to your upload speed in the end. The computers with very fast upload speeds won't want to share with yours that much, since they can't download from you that quickly, AIUI.
BitTorrent is much closer to Pareto optimal overall, though. The process would be eased the more mirror sites (and completed downloads) stayed connected to be used as seeds for everyone.
John Thacker