Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Red Hat Software Businesses

Red Hat 8.0 For KDE Users (And Newbies) 435

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the simple-is-better dept.
pantropik writes "OSNews has been giving quite a bit of bandwidth to Red Hat's newest offering lately. This article, which generated quite a bit of controversy in the comments section, detailed a new user's 'frustrations' with the new release. The latest article, written by yours truly, is rather lengthy, explaining such things as adding 3D drivers, missing MP3 functionality, DVD decoding, using APT with RHL, and customizing Red Hat's modified KDE. At the end, I wrap up with my impression -- as a simple user -- of this 'crippled' KDE implementation. Of course, you can also check out this story, which takes a look at RH 8.0 from 'Joe and Jane User's' perspective."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Red Hat 8.0 For KDE Users (And Newbies)

Comments Filter:
  • Crippled? (Score:5, Informative)

    by jaavaaguru (261551) on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @11:09AM (#4409843) Homepage
    I used it at work yesteday and all the functionality that I would normally use in KDE was there. It's only a desktop environment, and that's all I expect of it. The Window Manager works fine, the UI is clean and easy to use (just as it was before RH played with it) and the file manager/web browsing works just fine. The first difference I noted was that the links on the panel went to Mozilla and Evolution instead of Konqueror and KMail. I have my links on RH 7.3 at home set to do that anyway.
    • Re:Crippled? (Score:5, Informative)

      by maloi (175772) on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @11:19AM (#4409911)
      And anyway, they don't actually link directly to the browser, but to a utility called "htmlview," which can easily be configured either system-wide or on a per-user basis to use any browser you choose.
    • Redhat 8 KDE (Score:5, Informative)

      by iamacat (583406) on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @02:21PM (#4411354)
      That's really all there is to it :-) Some of the damage can be undone, but it seams a lot of effort to bring in dozens of small things that made KDE look so high-class compared to gnome. You can turn on icon scaling but the ones provided by RedHat will not not scale. Gone are the soft sounds when you do things with windows and menus. You don't even get konsole on the default taskbar and you have to hunt for it in an obscure menu! And no easy way to download mp3 plugins for various KDE media players.

      The distribution is also buggy in other ways:

      - If you have an NVIDIA card with a DVI cable to the flat panel monitor, you will get nothing but blue static when you run the installer. Since there is no way to run anaconda with VESA or good NVIDIA driver and text based installer is not complete, I ended up undusting my old CRT monitor to get through this stage.

      - The provided kernel source is broken and you will not be able to build modules (such as NTFS or the working NVIDIA driver), unless you include rhconfig.h into modsetver.h. You also need to run genksyms by hand because Makefile somehow will not get the compiler name right.

      - Redhat can't decide on which encoding to use for a locale. Try to login with russian language if you can. Now half of the programs will come up with a bunch of blank squares where text should be and "man ls" is not a pretty site. That's because they switched to UTF8 encoding but most programs and man-pages-ru still use KOI8 encoding. Basically, logging in with russian language is unusable. Even with English login, man still displays garbage instead of dashes. The only cure is alias man='LANG= man'.

      The sad thing is, you will probably swallow those things (if you can use English desktop anyway). Part of it is because of smooth fonts, up-to-date packages (it's no fun to download new versions of gcc etc over dialup) and a subdued look of Bluecurve which is pretty easy on the eyes. Mostly though, it's rpmfind.net, since most of the things just work with RedHat without having to install tons of support packages.

      This are the same reasons as to boot into XP though. Any suggestions are welcome :-)
  • As if it isn't hard enough trying to download the ISOs as it is now everyone who was about to lay off the mirrors just got another reminder 8.0 is out. Thanks a lot /.!
    • USENET (Score:4, Funny)

      by KelsoLundeen (454249) on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @11:23AM (#4409936)
      Ever heard of usenet?

      Last I looked the RH ISOs were on nearly every CD group, just waiting to be snagged.

      This is off-topic, but lately I'm finding that more and more people have absolutely no idea what usenet is. I mentioned this to one of our new IT guys here -- a so-called "hot-shot" just out of college -- and wondered if usenet "sells DSL because he can't get it through AT&T."
      • Whoops.

        I forgot the word "he" in the sentence above.

        "... *he* wondered if usenet 'sells DSL'."

        *sigh*
      • Re:USENET (Score:5, Funny)

        by bsharitt (580506) <(moc.ttirahs) (ta) (nodnarb)> on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @11:47AM (#4410104) Homepage Journal
        and wondered if usenet "sells DSL because he can't get it through AT&T."

        Well do they? I can't get it from Bellsouth either.

        (Note: I'm only pretending to be someone who doesn't know what usenet is. I'm well aware that it's an operating system, not an ISP)
      • Re:USENET (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Garfunkel (3569)
        USENET is not well advertised by providers because it's a huge bandwidth and storage hog. In fact a lot of people aren't able to get USENET at all except through some pay services and Google News which doesn't carry everything (especially binaries) and takes forever to update sometimes.
        It's really not surprising people don't know what it is or how to use it. Anyways, much of the functionality is being replaced by web boards and the binary part is being replaced by the multitude of P2P apps.

        I just discovered the other day that my provider does have a full feed available for free to it's subscribers, but I sure couldn't find mention of it anywhere in their literature or on the website.
      • > This is off-topic, but lately I'm finding that more and more people have absolutely no idea what usenet is. I mentioned this to one of our new IT guys here -- a so-called "hot-shot" just out of college -- and wondered if usenet "sells DSL because he can't get it through AT&T

        Because increasingly, Usenet servers are not being provided by ISP's. My last two ISP's didn't provide Usenet servers, and I was unwilling to buy access to one. My ISP right now (my college), has a usenet server, but they don't provide much of the good parts of the alt. tree.

        And for regular discussion, first mailing lists, and now web boards/forums have replaced parts of USENET (not established ones). I like web forums because you can access them from anywhere with a web browser, and they usually have much more adminning capabilities and posting capabilities than USENET can.

        And finally, p2p networks have replaced USENET/ftp for non-hardcore (and some hardcore) leechers.
    • Re:Just great! (Score:2, Informative)

      by bassman2k (409481)
      Try rsync'ing it from a mirror. Find one that supports rsync on http://freshrpms.net/mirrors/psyche.html, then do:

      rsync -Pzrv --size-only rsync://(rsync site you found)/(path to site's iso dir)/ .

      to download all 6(?) ISOs under the local directory.

      For example, to download from mcs.anl.gov, type:

      rsync -Pzrv --size-only rsync://mirror.mcs.anl.gov/redhat/redhat/linux/8.0 /en/iso/ .

      If the download is interrupted, just enter the command again from the same directory and rsync will continue where it left off. Another advantage is rsync will compress the download on the fly.

      (I hope I didn't just start the first rsync DoS from /.!)
  • by Coplan (13643) on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @11:14AM (#4409875) Homepage Journal
    It sounds to me that the problems are the same problems held Linux-World wide. These are common, and not necessarily specific to Red Hat 8.0. I'm a firm believer in using the best OS for the task.

    As the writer wrote:
    I was excited to see all the positive, glowing reviews of the latest version of Red Hat Linux. I thought, "finally, I can get away from Windows 98." "It just works" is the mantra. Unfortunately, this was not the case for me.

    If the goal is to simply get away from Windows while still maintaining functionality, and you're just a hack user, I would recommend Mac OS X. If you don't have the money to buy new hardware...then I don't know what to tell you.

    At this point, Linux is still not going to replace Windows or Mac OS X. And you can't expect REd Hat to solve all the problems in one release. It's a step in the right direction, but this isn't the miracle that Linux needs to attract joe-user.

    Don't be so critical.

    • Macos x doesn't run in i386, and it is very limited as far as hardware is concerned (compared with i386 arch).

      The "it just works...NOT" issue exists because the hardware existing for i386 is so vast you just cant take everything into consideration. It's a bloody mess.

      Now, on the other hand... if you can tell me why STILL after so many years i have to configure my awe64gold by hand...
    • by bricriu (184334) on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @11:41AM (#4410053) Homepage
      Does OS X run on the guy's Celeron? What about his Toshiba laptop?

      I have an old 233 mHz Dell kicking around. It runs the most blessedly stable Win95 install you could hope for, courtesy of 2 intentional drive-wipes right after purchase. It is my general backup computer. I've played around with Linux, and having put Mandrakes 7.2, 8.2, and 9.0, and Lycoris Amethyst on, I can safely say that none of them 'just worked' (so far, only Mandrake 7.2 worked with my sound card without a hassle). I was thinking about RH as the next test distro, but no longer.

      Anyway, the point is that OS X seems like a great system. I would love to run it. But I'm not going to go out and drop $1000 on new hardware from Mr. Jobs. I have hardware. I want to get away from running Windows on it for purposes other than games. Linux made much of its name by supporting older systems. It shouldn't be too much to ask that it 'just works' on these systems.
      • It shouldn't be too much to ask that it 'just works' on these systems.

        Unfortunately, it is still too much to ask. You can get lucky if it likes your hardware, but as always YMMV. I've got about 20 years in development and admin, and I still find myself scratching my head sometimes when trying to get the system configured, or do some major maintanance task. Mostly it's because I'm tinkering around with the stuff I already have laying around, or trying to save a step or two or do something a bit odd.

        The truth is that things aren't that much better with Windows. A friend just got a new XP box and there was no way to repartition and reload XP with the stuff the vendor supplied. Long story short, it took about a week and to visits from another friend that had more Windows related tools and such to get it up. He ended up with a different (and better) video card and a new sound card and running on Windows 2000.

        Admin is hard for any OS unless you run exactly the configuration that some vendor has implemented and verified. We even went back to the store considering returning the PC and getting a Mac, but it was beyond his budget. I can't say from personal experience but Macs are probably better, but the vendor closely controls the configuration, don't they.

      • "Linux made much of its name by supporting older systems. It shouldn't be too much to ask that it 'just works' on these systems."--

        Linux still DOES work on older systems im on a 233 with 64 of RAM running RedHat 8.0 right now. But im not triple clicking open office and evolution. Im using Opera, wmaker, sylpheed for e-mail. RedHat cant do everything by default thats what CHOICE is about, they provide the user with choices its up to lazy ppl to configure it themselves if they dont like the "default" c'mon ppl what the hell has happened, we use to understand this, now we want a mac os X to tie our shoes for us!
    • Have to agree. If you actually just want it to work (and get away from Windows), use your x86 architecture as a server/firewall/router and go out and buy a Mac. Short term investment in long term functionality, ease of use and underlying power.
    • by brad-x (566807) <brad@brad-x.com> on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @12:06PM (#4410226) Homepage

      I really can't say MacOS X is a more attractive commercial solution than XP is. I hate to buck the anti-Microsoft trend, but the purchase of a G4 that ships with DDR RAM it can't use just to use a closed UNIX variant because it has throbbing default buttons doesn't strike me as a smart plan.

      I don't think MacOS X is the best OS for the task.

      I think RedHat and other distributions like SuSE et al who are making an effort at user interface usability and flexibility are on the right track. Get adoption first by office users and non-gamers, and as the userbase grows, the applications will come. It is becoming a better OS for the task.

      • by ajs (35943)
        I really can't say MacOS X is a more attractive commercial solution than XP [...] a closed UNIX variant

        Wowza! I need to start paying attention. Last I knew, Darwin (the OS part of MacOS/X, not to be confused with the proprietary GUI, Aqua) was an open source project! Man, am I behind the times!
    • If the goal is to simply get away from Windows while still maintaining functionality, and you're just a hack user, I would recommend Mac OS X. If you don't have the money to buy new hardware...then I don't know what to tell you.

      I buy all the parts for a brand new system every five years. About every 12-18 months during that span, I upgrade the hardware and software piecemeal. What I upgrade and when depends on my needs. Games or a new kind of CPU seem to be the most common reason. Although I grant that gaming probably wouldn't be as much of an issue on a Mac.

      The trouble with paying for Apple hardware and software is that you will always have to pay for Apple hardware and software. I buy high-end components and build my own systems. Everything "just works" fine for me. If Apple decides to change a EULA in Mac OS X what happens? If iTunes or the iPod incorporate DRM crap, what does everyone do? If they release a system that can't be sufficiently upgraded, what then? None of the cost-of-ownership stuff I've seen covers having to replace an aging iMac.

      I don't want to start a flamefest or a religious war, but for me the right OS is Linux (and Win98 for games). You make a good point, however. Mac OS X passes the "Mom Test" with flying colors.

      -B

  • Same here (Score:5, Informative)

    by rash (83406) on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @11:16AM (#4409884) Homepage
    I had the same problem as the author of this article about the slowness.

    My computer has a xp 1600+ processor, yet gedit for example took 16 seconds to start (time gedit, then close the window as fast as possible).

    Some comments in the article suggested that he should change the hostname. It was possible that X didnt get it correctly, then the apps hadto wait for something to time out.

    I saw that the hostname when I typed hostname in the terminal was green.rsn. But in the more standard hostname config files it was localhost.localdomain.

    So I changed the hostname from green.rsn to localhost.localdomain

    Problem solved. Gnome was now very fast.

    So if anyone else has speed problems with Redhat 8.0 this might be worth looking into.
    • woah, excellent doscovery! I'll give it a try on my R&D pc's here... I recently started to revier RH8 for deployment to start upgrading the RH7.3 machines here.... and I dismissed it as gone-horribly-wrong being well over 50% slower than RH7.3

      I'll try that this week! Thanks!
    • Re:Same here (Score:4, Informative)

      by GypC (7592) on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @12:23PM (#4410380) Homepage Journal

      The best solution is to alias whatever hostname you want to localhost. So if you want the hostname to be Cooter.Graw you would put this is your hosts file:

      127.0.0.1 localhost Cooter.Graw Cooter

      Cooter.Graw and Cooter will then just be aliases for localhost. (You can get rid of localhost.localdomain, but you need the initial localhost there.) So, in your case you would need to change the localhost line to:

      127.0.0.1 localhost green.rsn green

    • This was interesting timing... I'm trying to get an 8.0 box up on our network (issues with the autosensing switch), and it just wouldn't come up on the network.

      So, imagine my surprise when I saw this box pop up:

      Could not look up internet address for mycomp.
      This will prevent GNOME from operating correctly.
      It may be possible to correct the problem by adding
      mycomp to the file /etc/hosts.
      (Log in Anyway) (Try Again)

      So, they're aware of it. But why does it act this way? Wouldn't that effectively penalize anyone not on an active network? (i.e. dialup, etc)
  • Slowness (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Vinum (603982)
    The comments on OSNews refer to the RH8.0 and KDE combo to be extreamly slow. I wonder why that is? Maybe Redhat screwed up some things with changing KDE around?

    Maybe the guy turned up the specicial effects knob all the way? I dunno, either way the guy did use a slow machine in the review (500mhz celeron). But I am typing on a p233 mmx right now running FreeBSD/KDE3.0 and it is incredibly fast. (Except Mozilla basically refuses to run on this machine, waaaayy slow. Mozilla runs slower than the Java apps I run on this machine (IDEA, TCC, etc)).
  • by carlmenezes (204187) on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @11:17AM (#4409893) Homepage
    Sorry to say it, but it's high time the KDE - Gnome squabble stopped and both teams started concentrating on a unified desktop.

    Consider this : given the fact that both are so refined already, if both worked together, you'd have a UI that easily bypasses anything MS can come up with and Linux becomes a viable desktop for Joe and Jane user (it already is for Joe and Jane techie).

    Again, Linux NEEDS a unified desktop. I can't say it more. It may sound sad, but it has to be done.
    • Consider this : given the fact that both are so refined already, if both worked together, you'd have a UI that easily bypasses anything MS can come up

      I agree - But it would be essential that the two groups have a unified vision and focus as they progressed. Otherwise, the project could easily become bogged down as each group argued feature X versus feature Y, or how the project was deviating from "the way it should be" ...

      After all, it is not possible to just "stick products together" like this and come out with a product equal to the sum of its parts.
    • I kind of agree, but on the other site you can't just take both KDE and Gnome, throw them together and get something out that is nearly double as good as one of the two alone. It would require quite a huge amount of work to bring both closer together and to unify the code base, it would also mean that large parts of code need to be thrown away, since they are redundant. After all you can't force programmers of Free Software to do what would be good, but instead they will do what is fun.

      KDE and Gnome should make sure that they are compatible with each other and that things like Drag&Drop work in both directions and as far as I know, both sites already working on such compability things.

    • Another thing :

      If you look at how long it has taken Linux to evolve versus how long it has taken MS to evolve Windows, I think everyone will agree that the pace has been faster on the OSS side.

      The moment you can get the average joe to move to a free OS like Linux, and the moment you can do it on a large scale, you're also fighting other MS technologies like DRM and other "customer experience enhancing" technologies because they get lower acceptance.

      Now, don't flame me yet. This is looking at the long term and unifying KDE and Gnome is one way to really accelarate it. It'll take some time to do it, but if you really look at it, it just might be for the better good.
    • All that this effort would need is common theming and common app/config launchers.

      Then Gnome and KDE would be very similar, but would also remain separate. KDE would use Konq for file/web, Gnome would use Nautilus/Mozilla respectively, etc.

      Then users could mix and match components, developers could choose which development architecture they want, and users would see a consistent desktop with common themes and fonts.

    • Again, Linux NEEDS a unified desktop. I can't say it more. It may sound sad, but it has to be done.

      I don't think that is going to help as much as some other features might.
      I recently began tinkering with RH7.0, happend to have a copy kicking around. And ran into a huge mess.
      My intention is to get it up and running as both a Web and Mail server, its not going to be the most powerful server in the world, but its mostly going to serve only me. Well enough, this is the type of thing *nix OS's are for right? They make good servers, right? Well, I'm not sure yet, I made the mistake of buying a Linksys NIC.
      Alright, install hardware, boot machine on CD, install OS with server packages, and... Hmm, not getting a IP address from the DHCP server. Ok, check network settings in linuxconf, looks Ok. Check cable, try NIC in another machine, works there.
      After a bit of web searching I noticed that there seems to be a bit of a problem with this generation of card, and the default driver. No problem, there's a new driver out, all I have to do is install it and I'm off to the races. Better yet, its on the driver disk that came with the card.
      Ok, copy the driver over to the HD, and try to compile it. (Some gcc -blah -blah -blah command.) Ok, open the man page and try to figure it out (BTW I am not, nor do I have any wish to be a programmer.) After about 15 min. I close the man page and go back to the web. (10 trying to figure out what the hell I was being told, and 5 searching for the asparin bottle.)
      Thank God, there are poeple out there with knowledge, who are willing to share. Ok, run the command as I found it on a message board. Hmm, says something is missing. Go back to message board, and look for more info. Ok, got it, this is a common problem too. Get more files, and try to compile those, damn something more is missing. At this point it was 1 in the morning, and I gave up and went to bed, I've not been back to it yet.
      The moral of all this is that driver installation in RH seems to be hell if you are unlucky. This is not the way to attract users. Before Linux has any hope of becomeing the mainstream desktop OS, it needs to handle drivers in a better way. I can see 2 things that would have to be done.

      1. If a driver is going to have a dependency that may not be in the OS by default, include it with the driver. Sure, it'll bloat the download a bit, but it will save the user from a headache. People like simple things, that's the draw of Windows, simplicity. Consider the last time you updated a driver in Windows, how many dependancies did you have to pull down off the web, do I hear none? This is one area where MS has done a pretty good job, there isn't the need to go running down dependecies, they are just there, and like most users want, "it just works."

      2. Click, Click, oohh pretty pictures, hey cool its installed. Yes, its brainless, yes it puts stuff on which you have no clue about, but its what the end user wants. This is what is needed for both programs and drivers, simplicity. Again, this is somthing that MS has exceled at. Though it is partly why people hate Windows, no control, and no clue what is going on. Probably the best thing to do would be to have a "pretty picture" setting as default, and then let those people that want to, switch over to the full control interface. Again, it goes back to what the author of one of the articles said, "it just works". That is what Linux is going to have to acheive if it wants to be the desktop OS of choice for Joe and Jane user.

      In closing, as much as I hear about it on slashdot, I don't think that the OSS community really wants to make a desktop for the average user. They want to have thier own "Uber-Desktop" (what is with the German usage anyhow?). They want to live in thier ivory tower and proclaim the rest of the world idiots for not joining them, but at the same time making it impossible for the average user. It reminds me of a time not long past, and an OS that has come and almost gone, DOS. The DOS aficiandos adopted an elietist attitude, and so the average home user bought a Mac. It wasn't until Windows that the basic home user started buying PC's. This is about where Linux is now, its like DOS with Win 3.1 as compared to Mac. Except, in this case its Linux and KDE/Gnome trying to oust Windows. Its not there yet, and won't be without some serious dumbing-down tools built into it. And, from what I have heard from the OSS community, they just aren't interested in doing that, so it will remain an OS for geeks and programmers, and will remain as nothing more that a footnote in computing history.

      P.S. Flame away, though I challenge anyone to post a good couter argument.

    • It's high time people stopped complaining about what people do in their spare time and give away for free.

      The only way you'll stop people from working on either desktop is if they wanted to. Because they want to work on their respective systems, they will not switch, they don't want to.

      Should we stop developing FreeBSD, NetBSD and all the other free operating systems? I'd say no, because all you're trying to do is create a dictatorship.
    • by FattMattP (86246) on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @01:00PM (#4410691) Homepage
      Again, Linux NEEDS a unified desktop.
      Linux needs a unified cut and paste first.

      And 'select + middle mouse button' doesn't cut it (no pun intended). When I select something doesn't mean that I want to blow away what's in my copy buffer. I might just want to delete it or replace it with what is in my copy buffer.

  • That last page.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @11:18AM (#4409896)
    ..about RedHat made the article truly worth reading.

    I've got to say, right on, man.

    I'd also like to tell detractors to go look into what RedHat has done for Linux and Open Source.

    Evil and corporate? If all corporations were evil, we'd do well to have them all under RedHat's brand of evil. Are some of you people capable of understanding how much money RedHat has sunk back into the community? It is, quite frankly, staggering.

    Anyway, the bottom line is this: If you don't like it, compile KDE yourself, or switch distributions. Distributions should not be carbon copies of each other, nor should they include every piece of software imaginable (Yay 7 SuSE discs!)..
  • So what (Score:2, Insightful)

    by conduit4 (589726)
    I havent really read much about this whole RH changing KDE thing but I say so what. So many Linux users bash windows users for not wanting to switch because they dont want something different or cant handle adjusting to how Linux does things. And here you are complaining because you have to adjust to something different. I'm a windows/Linux user and I use Gnome and KDE at times. I think it would be great to have one single GUI for Linux but I dont mind trying something different. Things are going to change and who knows, Gnome and KDE could both lose the GUI battle to something greater.
  • by Lumpy (12016) on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @11:20AM (#4409918) Homepage
    Yes, Linux is becoming bloatware. there is not one of us who can deny it. A Celeron 500 with 64 meg of ram is more than enough to run an OS, X server, desktop and browser+office suite. Why it doesnt? the only reason is feature bloat.

    I just recently tried RH8.0 (I support RH in a corperate environment) and liked how it looks, but am appalled that in order to deploy it I have to replace all the workstations with new just to keep everything feeling right in speed. (WE have aincent P-III 866's here with a paltry 128 meg of ram... I know... I should be killed and eaten for using such old and outdated hardware.)

    Redhat 7.3 is the last stage here.. and if Linux desktops in general keep getting feature bloat and exrta slow-down added... I may have to stand up with egg on my face and reccomend that we switch back to Microsoft in a few years.

    KDE and Gnome... they need stop all development and focus on getting a 50% speed increase. If they have to cut and slash to do it, then do it. Mozilla needs to do this as well as Open Office.

    everyone is sitting behind the excuse that "processors are ultra fast now and ram is cheap." Linux is not the big fish... we must be faster and sleeker than the big fish to survive and overcome.

    • That brings a whole new perspective for me to the article. I'm kinda spoiled, as I run my computers personally, and I don't use them in a corporate environment.

      I agree with you on the efficiency thing. KDE is nice and all, but do we really need another mail checker to nest in the bar?

      KDE, Gnome, X -- whoever, should seriously consider your words and put them into actin. Never Mind the big/small fish concept...it just makes sense to have an efficient system anyhow.

      How do other distributions compare? Are they more efficient?

    • Linux is not getting bloated, some distros are. I use Debian and can fit my entire os and every app I need on one CD. I put a PGI installer, which was trivial to do, and started handing it out. People have been loving it. Not to mention that you can just download a net installer which is alittle over 150 megs and let the installation process download just the packages you want.

      Or you can go the http://www.linuxfromscratch.org route and kiss a social life goodbye.

    • Well I hate to be one of those "it works fine for me" types, but... it works fine for me on my p3 700 thinkpad with 256 meg ram. Not a powerhouse, and I tell you, beOS ran much much faster.

      For a little reference, seeing BeOS was a sinking ship, I knew I had to find a new development platform. So I tried several distros, before settling down. Redhat, consistently (version 6.2, 7.0 and I think 7.1 or something) was slow as molassas. I tried SuSE, and it hauled a** relatively speaking. So I moved over to SuSE for about a year, before trying slack 8, which became my favorite. Slack made my "meager" p3 run like BeOS used to, and was so well designed, layed out, and documented that I didn't need YaST just to change my default runlevel.

      Then, I found gentoo, but frankly gentoo isn't noticeably faster than slack. The only reason I'm sticking with gentoo is that its init system is the most utterly beautiful system I've ever worked with. And, because my work, which required under slack about 20 minutes to build after a "make distclean" builds now in about 7 to 10 minutes, which is a very nice thing.

      So, what I'm getting at is that yes, mainstream linux is bloated. Sure. But I'm sure you can either turn off a lot of the nastiness redhat defaults to, or you can install a lighter system.

      That's why we have options and competition people. Stop bitching.

      Oh, and one more thing -- I do run kde, and on a well tuned system it hauls like a bat out of hell. You don't need to sacrifice functionality for performance. And yes, BeOS was fast, but BeOS didn't do 10% of what Gnome2 or KDE 3 can do ;)

      • I'll have to be one of those "works great here" types.

        PII-266. 224 MB RAM. 6.4 GB HD.

        Runs fine.

        Balsa starts up fast. Galeon starts up fast. Mozilla starts up fairly fast. The only thing really slow starting up is OpenOffice. Hell, I have less trouble running DivX videos on this than on my folks' Celery 500 with 256 MB RAM.

        Got the httpd running. Got named running. Got sshd running. Nautilus sits in the background doing Kosh-knows-what.

        Distro? Red Hat 7.3. May go to 8 or Mandrake 9 if I can get my hands on some CDs.

        I couldn't imagine running WinXP on anything less than a 600 MHz box with at least 256 MB ram.

        But, that's just an anecdote...
    • by Ektanoor (9949) on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @11:49AM (#4410114) Journal
      Bloatness on Linux is a question of administration and not a distro problem. Distros are for features and for the laziness of building everything nearly from scratch. On Celeron 500 + 64Mb maybe RH 8 will slow down as you may have installed everything you could... On PIII 866 + 128Mb? Well I've just 2 months ago switched to 256 and I don't get where you could have had problems. For a simple office task the machine was ok. However it was hard to work on a destkop and having 3-4 servers working on background for good. Yes, for good, as one of them was no one else than the video broadcaster from mpeg4ip which loads the machine very well.

      On what relates to Windows. Do you wanna tell me that you can find a Windows good enough to hang on the configurations you pointed? Even NT had trouble working on the Celeron you pointed out. With only a browser it managed to eat up all memory and permanently require some 20Mb swap.

      Or are you talking about the "new" Windows? This new XP crap needs no less than 256 megs to live relatively well on a PIII 900MHz. On that same machine I'm able to use a full-featured Mandrake 9 and have always some 100Mb free for something else, Quake III for example...

      Keep the FUD for yourself while you can't switch from Windows Help to man rtfm
      • I have to support several W2K boxes on the same type of hardware for the production department.. (Linux CANNOT do video editing... no way no how.. it ain't there and wont be for years... I wish it would be, but there is no demand for it.) and they all run fine on a 866PIII with 128 meg. and they use Open office + Mozilla on it. RH8.0 should be at least 20% faster than W2K on the same hardware... no if's and's or But's.... there is no excuse. Yes, I can get a Slackware distro and hand roll it to fricking scream like a raped ape on that hardware... but I dont want to custom roll a distro for every machine here... and then how do I get Paid support for that? Redhat sells me paid support.. that is 1/2 of the battle in getting in the door past the suits... they will not support my self rolled version.. so in a corperate setting I HAVE to use default RH setups... no choice in the matter. and EVERY corperation on the planet will demand the same.

        so Yes you are right, linux is faster and the distro is fat... but guess what... the world doesnt see what it can do.... the world sees what it does out of the box.
    • As far as I can tell, none of the bloated Linux applications is worthwhile. (The possible exception being Mozilla, and that's just because Netscape 3.0 doesn't really work these days, leaving you without a web browser if you try to avoid all of the bloated software; Mozilla seems to have worked a bit on performance, according to people who have een following it, so they've probably gotten the message already.)

      The real advantage to Linux is that, if you think RedHat is too bloated these days, you can still run 7.3, and you'll probably be able to run it without being unable to get security patches for years to come. There aren't forced upgrades to versios which are worse. We're still using RedHat 6.2 at my work, because we haven't seen a compelling reason to switch to anything newer. Stand up and recommend that you leave the damn computers alone and let people get work done with them.

      The real issue with feature bloat is that the interface gets more crowded and harder to use. Even though processors are ultra fast and ram is cheap, that's no excuse for making each version more confusing than the previous one.
    • Feature bloat starts the minute that they include a feature that you don't use. Everything up until that point is great.

      The problem is that not everyone wants the same features.

    • > A Celeron 500 with 64 meg of ram is more than enough to run an OS, X server, desktop and browser+office suite.

      Sure, Windows98 runs on this hardware very well. You can also run KDE 1.2/Gnome 1.2 on it very well. WindowsXP and KDE 3.x and Gnome 2.x would not run with this little RAM or a Celeron 500. Perhaps a p3 or athlon 550, but not a Celeron 500.
  • I'm using KDE w/ redhat 8 right now, changing everything around and getting rid of that ugly bluecurve theme wasn't that bad. I'm even using KDM. The only thing that I had a problem with was removing that pam icon from the kde taskbar. I ended up renaming the binary... It's /usr/bin/pam-panel-icon if anyone is interested.

    I think creating a common theme isn't a bad idea... The feel isn't my cup of tea though, since I don't like gnome. Changing everything wasn't that hard as long as you're familiar with the basic inner workings of the system
  • by zerofoo (262795) on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @11:21AM (#4409926)
    Bought RH 8.0 Professional expecting to get support people that could actually speak English...no luck there. Four calls to tech support and I've yet to find any tech support person that could spell my email address correctly or understand English.

    So I post to the Bug-Grub bug reporter thing....no answers yet.

    Funny how other OSes(and their respective boot loaders) have no issues on this hardware....but Grub throws an "Error 28....cannot fit selected item into memory" and lilo just hangs or gives me a "CRC error".

    I understand, nothing in the IT industry is perfect, but when I pay for support, I expect to get my problems resolved. (That's a stab at RedHat, not the Grub maintainers.) Other commercial OS vendors are quite responsive...I've even had MS tech support people on the phone for hours on end on a Saturday fixing an Exchange problem!

    These bootloaders and Redhat's support system need a lot of work before corporate America commits time and resources to their products.

    -ted
  • Growing pains (Score:2, Insightful)

    by lpret (570480)
    I've been hearing some really mixed messages about Red Hat and this can mean only one thing: Red Hat is growing and is poised to be a major player. I know I'm preaching to the choir a little, but I think these differing reviews help to bring Red Hat to the forefront. As the guide for John and Jane user showed, Red Hat 8.0 is going to allow new users an opportunity to jump on the linux wagon because of it's simple setup and use. And the amazing thing is that us nerdz can still micromanage to our heart's content.

    I think as a whole community we need to show more support for Red Hat because once people see the advantages of Red Hat, it's not a big jump to find your favorite distro (SuSe for me :-) ) and isn't this what we're wanting to happen?

  • by forevermore (582201) on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @11:23AM (#4409937) Homepage
    Thompson Multimedia, holders of the patent in question, have not unilaterally stated that Linux distributors are exempt from the licensing fees associated with providing MP3 decoding functionality in a non-free product.

    It's my understanding that RH removed mp3 functionality because of GNU GPL issues, not Thompson's licensing. Apparently, the GPL prevents including code from patented, non-open/free protocols (I don't know the exact clause, but I'm pretty sure it's true). This means that all of the mp3 players out there are actually in violation of the GPL.

    • by be-fan (61476) on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @11:47AM (#4410102)
      The relevent clauses are 7 and 8 in the GPL [fsf.org] Interestingly, the MP3 situation seems a bit fuzzy. They say that if you cannot redistribute the source freely (because of patents), then you cannot distribute the program at all. This does not necessarily mean that a GPL program cannot implemented patented non-open/free protocols. It just means that it can't implement such protocols if they require a license fee per copy, which until recently MP3 did not. Also, since most MP3 players are distributed mainly as source, it is questionable whether they violate the GPL. After all, FreeType includes the bytecode interpreter in the source, but that doesn't violate Apple's patent unless an actual product (binary) is generated with the bytecode interpreter enabled.
  • OSNews had a similar article yesterday with similar complaints.. I thought it was strange that they ran almost the same story today as well. Im running a Cyrix 6x86 at my house and Red Hat 8 with KDE as my desktop runs great. Not as fast as a Windows 95 setup on that box, but much faster than a Windows 98 setup. My KDE response time is pretty decent with this setup. Im running a custom kernel of course, since this box doesnt have half of the stuff that comes pre-compiled or modularized by default. In fact, Im pretty satisfied with Red Hat 8.0, although I wouldnt go so far as to say its noticable faster than 7.3 was, or if there are any noticable improvements other than the included OpenOffice, Evolution, and Synaptic (I use apt-rpm for package management off fresh-rpms). I didnt experience any of the complaints that were described in the article...
  • by iamwoodyjones (562550) on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @11:29AM (#4409980) Journal
    Man, I skipped them and ended up getting burned bad! They made it where you can't enable Direct Memory access on your dvd player unless you modify /etc/modules.conf and put a options line in it. I banged my head on my desk for hours wondering why I couldn't get my DVD player to work right until I read a note on Ogle's FAQ. So, just a reminder to all you DVD playing cats out there, read the release notes!

    DMA is disabled on CD-ROM drives in this release in a different but more reliable way than previously. If you are sure that your CD-ROM drive is capable of IDE DMA, place the following line in the /etc/modules.conf file:

    options ide-cd dma=1
  • by bogie (31020) on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @11:40AM (#4410041) Journal
    Let's see if RedHat 8.0 works as a business desktop, its STATED target.

    Easy for admin to deploy. check
    Easy to use desktop even for a windows user. check
    Comes with a great Office Suite and email client. check
    Comes with a fast stable web browser. check
    The best fonts and font tool ever for a linux distro. check
    Absolutly 100% free to download ISO's. check
    A billion times more secure than Outlook/IE. check
    Responsive on modern(1GHz 256MB) machines. check
    Companies has given/gives back a LOT to the community. check

    I've been using Redhat since 5.0 and I've also pretty much every distro under the sun. For desktop linux this is a high wark mark. It still has a few rough edges when it comes to consumer usage, but really for the business desktop this is deployable NOW. If I were starting a company today there is not doubt RH 8 would be my choice regardless of cost. Also remember this is Redhat's FIRST attempt at the desktop. I can only imagine how good Redhat 8.1 or 8.2 is going to be.
    • I'll agree with your points, I've been a RH fan since 5.2 (moved from Slackware).

      However, my biggest complaint is that RH lacks the capabilities of 'apt-get dist-upgrade'. I've been using apt4rpm on all my RH boxes, but trying to move from RH 7.3 to 8.0 failed.

      I looked around at what RH had to offer and what was available on the net, as it turns out, the only 'safe' way to upgrade a RH box from 7.x to 8.0 is to reboot with a bootdisk (install, kickstart, whatever) then perform the upgrade, then reboot to the working system.

      This is unacceptable if you have a ton of racked boxes. I need to be able to remotely (scripted is even better) be able to upgrade those boxes, reboot and be ready to go. Having to physically install the media (even for an NFS kickstart) upgrade is a major PITA. It's one of the main reasons I'll never convince the deb-heads I work with to move to RH.

      I really like RH, I do a lot of business and enterprise app development and deployment, and RH has consistently provided everything I need to do my job sanely. This one issue is really killing me though.
  • by cr@ckwhore (165454) on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @11:40AM (#4410044) Homepage
    me me me ... I've been using RH80 for a few days now. I was initially a bit scared of the XP-ish UI, but I found it to be quite pleasant and non-annoying like the real XP.

    There are a few things that initially annoy me, but these are relatively minor and I'm sure they'll be addressed in the next point releases ...

    1. The lack of MP3 support in XMMS is retarded. Supposedly, they were going to provide an alternate XMMS plugin that would at least inform the user about MP3 support, but somehow that didn't make its way into the final release. So, try to initially play an MP3... doesn't work, no information about *why*. (not a problem for me, because I just went and compiled up my own xmms, but for an average joe, this would be a problem).

    2. I'm sick of Mozilla being included in these distros without any plugins! For christs sake, at least throw some java in there by default!!

    3. Logged into gnome as a regular user, there should be some way to supply a root password into Nautilus to be able to manage files in restricted folders, such as /root. Most commonly, the end user is root, but probably runs as a normal user most of the time. I don't want to log out, and log back into the GUI as root, just to perform some basic tasks.

    4. Some bugs... don't leave any non-gnome apps open when you log out, such as xmms or gkrellm. If you do, when you log back in, your session will be f*cked and for some odd reason, you won't be able to log out. The fix (if this happens to you) is to go to one of the many setup menus and find the "sessions" admin app, and clear the non-gnome apps from the current session and save. Then, you'll be able to log out and return to normal.

    5. FIRSTBOOT!! There's a daemon that runs on the first boot, and it uses X. Sometimes, at least in VMWARE, X fails to load for firstboot, and hence, it gets skipped. Without going through the firstboot process, certain parts of the distro get broken, such as the hostname, and thus, gnome runs like crap with hostname problems.

    6. Too many setup menus!! There are just too many menus for configuring the system. Seems kinda redundant, and silly to have to search through multiple menus to locate a single app because the user can't remember whether the item is in "preferences" or "system settings".

    7. Get rid of the "extras" menu... just move those apps to their appropriate menu items. For example, the x-chat IRC client is located in the "extras menu" beneath "internet"... well, it should be in the real "internet" menu.

    --------

    Thats it from the complaint dept. Otherwise, even as an experienced linux user (and a CLI oriented programmer at that), I find the RH80 gui environment to be extremely nice to usem, wihtout many annoyances.
    • by cr@ckwhore (165454) on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @12:05PM (#4410217) Homepage
      One more thing to add to my list...

      Regarding browser plugins, the default netscape location for plugins (/usr/lib/netscape/plugins) should be a symlink to the mozilla plugins directory. When some popular "netscape" plugins are installed, such as realplayer, it automatically puts itself in the default netscape location.

      For a "joe user", this would probably be a big problem because after installing a plugin, realplayer, flash player, etc... it doesn't work unless the user manually copies the files from the netscape plugin directory into the mozilla plugin directory.

      Huge problem, with a simple solution.

  • I've noticed that a lot of Linux distribution reviews from people who have little experience with Linux say it's slow.
    I don't get it. Why? An earlier RedHat 8.0 review from Eugenia says that RedHat 8.0 is *faster* than previous versions. GNOME 1 users reported that GNOME 2 is a lot faster (and I agree with them; GNOME 2 IS a lot faster, especially Nautilus).
    I have an Athlon 1.4 Ghz with 128 MB RAM, and running on GNOME 2. It's very usable (I use Linux as my primairy OS) and fast. Compared to Windows ME, there's not much difference.
    Yet the article says everything is slow as hell, even the one with 128 MB RAM.

    Why? Why is it half of all reviews say that the desktop is slow while the other half say it's fast?
  • by tanveer1979 (530624) on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @11:52AM (#4410135) Homepage Journal
    Well, many ppl would have already discovered this, but for others, this could be useful.

    RedHat says there is no mp3 support, but surprisingly there is! ;-) The trick. Mozilla :). They have by default added a plugin(plugger).
    Plugger can play Quicktime, mpg and mp3 in the browser window. Well not many of us like to listen to mp3 in mozilla, but this completely refutes Red Hats claim about not including mp3 support coz "We dont want to be the first to be sued". To be frank, wether the support is in mozilla or xmms, if hypothetically there was a case of patent violation, it wouldnt really matter. Well now that the roayalty has been removed it dosent matter, but my guess is that this hindsight was there mostly due to lack of knowledge... or mebbe there is some developer sitting with a sense of humour!

    • Plugger uses other apps to play content. So if you want to play MP3s using plugger you still need an MP3 decoder which Plugger supports, like mpg123.
    • Plugger doesn't magically play content by itself.

      In order for it to play content for MP3 files, it needs mpg123 or something similar. If mpg123 and it's ilk aren't included on RH, plugger can't play MP3 files. I don't know if RH has omitted mpg123 or not, but I suspect so.

  • by imr (106517) on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @12:00PM (#4410188)
    nor suze posts because I've setup filters to trash them.
    Why ?
    Because many of those many posts come from users having difficulties with choices the heavy thinkers of those distros made. And I got fed up of reading the same problems all over again. And the same answers, to the point that some day those lists look like a big huge faq.
    "This a suze related problem. The solution to this problem can be found on suze forum "...etc ...etc...
    Most of the times, the initiative was good and those people are quite eager to do the right thing, they just seem unable to do it THE RIGHT WAY.
    In the KDE case, it would have meant in order to do the right thing (desktop appearence unification): to talk with KDE people to warn them and have feedback from them, to show respect for their work and project (leave the small about kde box in the app they put aside anyway) and to show that they have heard their concerns about a supposed preference toward gnome and that they're not funded (because they are not, right?).
    But NO, they had to push it under the hat(!) and suddenly, flamewars everywhere, like we need them.
    And in order to do it the right way for end users (because they are target for desktop unification, right? I mean, who ELSE need it?), that would mean a little less twinked systems which will behave a little more like everyone else's. If you don't believe me, go and check last transgaming release and see what systems have kernel related issues with last winex release.
    If the real issue behind all this was to do the best desktop for end users, they certainly did it the wrong way.
  • Maybe it had something to do with my hardware, but there was no option to test my X setup while in the installer. I absentmindedly picked the wrong monitor (mine is old and wasn't properly probed) and my setup was screwed.

    Now, I am the type of guy who doesn't mind editing some config files by hand and has plenty of Big Heavy Books about *nix. However, almost every piece of documentation on configuring X recommends using Xconfigurator. I naively believed what I read and never bothered with manually editing X's config files. Big mistake. Xconfigurator does not come with Psyche. I poked around for a few hours before getting so furious with the thing that I simply repartitioned and started from scratch. This time I picked the right monitor.

    I know that people with a higher wisdom stat than I would have been just fine in this scenario, and I never claimed to be an expert, but the simple ability to test my X setup in the installer would have turned this 3 hour hangup into a 10 second goof. But like I said, this option might be present for people with more up to date hardware. (Doh, I use linux partially because my hardware is older.)

    Other than that, I love Psyche. Mostly I'm enamored with the latest versions of all the included software, but the sum is composed of the parts.

  • I just wanted to say that was a really great, well-written and informative article. Thanks!
  • I have been thinking and gathering additional packages in anticipation of going to Redhat 8.0.

    I have been using SuSE which is really nice but the deal clincher for me has been the fact I use Gnome and the integration of Gnome and the System Tools used by Redhat are much better than the integration of System Tools into Gnome that SuSE provides.

    I want a unified look and feel and use almost entirely gtk/gnome apps except for OpenOffice of course.

    BTW, when I say this I must mention and no one else ever does that SuSE does an excellent job of integrating its System Tools into KDE. Just go to the control center in KDE and you can get to every System Function provided by Yast2. If you use KDE SuSE is the winner. I just hate the look and feel of KDE. Its just me.

    Anyway, I am still waiting though. Why? The main reason I will probably wait until Gnome 2.2 and the release of Redhat in a few years considering Redhat's release schedule than includes that version of Gnome by default. The reason is the fact that until Gnome 2.2 most apps I know and love and will not be ported over by default. I have compiled them one by one on my SuSE box and do not care to repeast that move.

    On the whole desktop issue I will say that it is entirely possible to create a good desktop for linux using the currently available tools. However, there are still too many downloads -- ltmodem, Nvidia drivers, i8kutils for the laptop users, core MS fonts and other things (even more for Redhat 8.0, too much preparation needed (checking for hardware compatibility with current hardware for example) and too much after work needed to set the desktop up in a usable state.

    BTW, does anyone else hate that extras submenu everything else gets installed under for Redhat 8.0 it sounds nasty. SuSE solution of the all-encompassing distro menu is equally evil though. With linux, the problem is quickly becoming not too few options but too many options for a newbie to sort through.
    ________________________________________ _________
  • A problem in Gentoo-land that's coming up is that none of the big Java vendors ship JRE's that are compatible with Mozilla compiled with GCC 3.2.

    From the review it sounds like Java is working fine in Mozilla on this new Redhat. Does Redhat use a Mozilla compiled under the older GCC, or did they get a JRE compiled with GCC 3.2. If the latter, anyone tried installing it on Gentoo?
  • I'm one of those guys that just can't resist installing a fresh new copy of the latest version of RH the day after is is released. With all the hype surrounding 8.0, I was stoked to start running this OS. Truthfully, I was less interested in the GUI and more focused on the integration of Apache 2.0, gcc 3.2..etc. The install was quick, AND painless. BUT, the damn installer would not allow me to "deselect" the base DBMSs and install MYSQL alone unless I "selected all packages individually".

    Seems ODD to me....

    Other than that...the only problems I had was with my own PHP code being incompatible with the latest version of PHP 4.2.x (which also annoys me). Oh, and P.S. don't try to "dump your data" out of your old phpMyAdmin, and try to import it in to the new version. IT NADA WORK.

    But I must say, RH 8.0's interface is perty. Sucks there is no MP3 support..Unless you go HERE [gurulabs.com]
  • RedHat 8.0 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by suman28 (558822)
    I read the OSNews article about "Joe and Jane User" and I have to say, no matter how much you pretend that you are a newbie, unless you really are one, then I feel like you can't understand our frustration. I am just getting my feet wet in Linux and it has been a little hard since I don't know the difference between GNOME and KDE except that they have different background and act a little differently and overall are slightly different. Having been a long time Windows user, I don't really care about the differences. So, I think that RedHat has done a great job of combining the two destops into one to ease confusion for oridinary users like myself. Way to go RedHat.
  • by dgenr8 (9462)

    I built a new flex ATX box this past weekend and, after discovering that the world of Red Hat mirrors goes far beyond those listed on Red Hat's official page, downloaded 8.0 and installed it.

    I use Linux on servers heavily at work and also have a web / imap / general purpose Linux (rh 7.2) server at home. However I have not used a Linux desktop very much.

    After exploring GNOME, KDE, etc. for a few days, I have come to the conclusion that, for an administrator today, a Linux desktop is a good way to host multiple terminal sessions but the GUI is of little help.

    What happened to linuxconf? Am I now supposed to begin the nightmare of configuring sendmail completely by hand? It looks like Red Hat has ripped out linuxconf completely and replaced it with the Helix stuff for SOME of the functions.

    Does GNOME/Nautilus have a CD icon at all?

    Why is there no applet to that centralizes metacity settings? Yet we have whole applications to manage a single binary switch.

    The Mac and Windows do a lot more to let the administrator stay in the GUI for many simple tasks. Linux is definitely not there yet.
  • I just now installed and booted Red Hat 8.0 on this Dell Dimension 4300 Win2k machine here at the office, went to Slashdot, and found this story. Red Hat 8.0 flawlessly detected the Rage 128 and SyncMaster 570V flat screen, the sound card, the Ethernet connection, the network structure, the printer -- it just works.

    Now, it set up Gnome by default. I've been going back and forth between Gnome and KDE, and I'm a KDE guy on this particular week. I was prepared to be annoyed when it booted into Gnome, but you know what I realized? I don't care. It's a desktop. It looks great. I don't give a damn what desktop environment that it's running, at least while I have my worker-bee hat on.

    I'm just happy that I could open up OpenOffice and pick up my work where I left off on the Win2k side of the machine with Word, Excel, Acrobat and G3 fax image files, and everything just works. The rest is all details beyond my current interest.

    -Waldo Jaquith
  • by div_2n (525075) on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @02:14PM (#4411300)
    Regardless of crippled this and not included that, I was damn impressed with the driver support. I got tired of my Windows 2000 installation on a Compaq Deskpro and installed 8.0

    There were some suprising results and not so surprising results. The most surprising was that my Firewire PCI controller and Iomega Predator Firewire CD-R/W drive was supported. The not so surprising result was that my USB Alcatel DSL modem was not supported out of the box.

    Overall, I am impressed. Since my first RedHat installation was 5.2, 8.0 is eons ahead of my original RedHat experience.
  • by g4dget (579145) on Tuesday October 08, 2002 @04:35PM (#4412334)
    I have found that KDE has become less and less interoperable with other desktops: it uses its own audio output, Gnome and other applications that were formerly listed in its menus seem to have disappeared, KDE's drag-and-drop does not interoperate fully with non-KDE apps, and KDE flaunts many X11 conventions. If you try to start up a KDE application under a non-KDE desktop, it starts up big, noisy background processes. Under Debian, installing KDE automatically made kdm the default on my machine.

    The KDE attitude seems to be that there is a war to win for the Linux desktop, while other efforts are more geared towards providing interoperable toolsets of which you can reuse as much or as little as you like. Fortunately, KDE code is open source, and it is entirely appropriate for RedHat and other developers to pick apart the KDE distribution and code and reuse whatever parts are useful. That's how open source works: if a project fails to meet the needs of its users, it gets cannibalized and its parts reused. KDE is probably due for a lot more cannibalization in the future.

The test of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. -- Aldo Leopold

Working...