OSNews Rates Fedora Core 1 Mild Disappointment 510
JigSaw writes "OSNews has reviewed the Fedora Core 1 Linux distro, but the author personally found lots of usability problems and bugs with the distro, making Fedora Core a trying experience. The writer puts the blame on poor QA of Fedora Core 1 done by its community, since Red Hat has shifted focus to Enterprise, with Fedora serving merely as a testbed for them."
bummer (Score:2)
I have been with RedHat since 5.1, and so the question becomes: Debian or Suse?
I need a very stable predictable platform, so maybe Debian, now it has a better intaller for a non-ubergeek like me, is the way to go.
Re:bummer (Score:2)
I have ran debian in the past but have had problems with Java running w/out segfaults on it without manually updating some of the base libraries, etc. Maybe it's better now, but I might just jump ship from redhat to SuSE for all my needs.
From what I have seen , SuSE doesn't lack anything redhat has, just free downloads. I guess it wouldn't hurt me to have to cough up money for a base release.
mandrake just doesn't seem like a reasonable option to use for work/
Re:bummer (Score:2)
Re:bummer - Just Say No to being RedHat's Testbed (Score:2)
Re:bummer - Just Say No to being RedHat's Testbed (Score:3, Informative)
They're new -and looking to add mirrors.
They seem to be focused on testing and integration - with caveats and solutions for problem dependancies.
You're running Debian stable, because you prefer the stable Debian tree. It runs great, there is just one problem: the software is a little bit outdated compared to other distributions. That's where backports come in. Backports are recompiled packages from testing and unstable, so they will run without new libraries (wherever it's possible)
Re:bummer (Score:2)
For less expereienced users, I'd say go SuSE. Pay a few dollars and get a slick easy to use product.
For folks with more compiles under their belt and who don't mind getting dirty hands, Debian is pretty sweet, and Gentoo is a very cool option as well.
Re:bummer (Score:2)
I got it up and running on an old dual-proc scsi machine I keep around
for experimenting. The amount of time spent compiling some of the bigger
packages is insane, but since it's not my primary computer, I've been
content to let it compile while I do my work. The results have been
acceptable for the most part except that mozilla and MozillaFirebird
won't run correctly. They both exit with return value 1 immediatly after
they're started.
So far my
Only to be expected, really (Score:5, Insightful)
Simon.
Re:Only to be expected, really (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought one major advantage of free software was that we could afford to release only when ready, rather than when the marketing department demanded? The article wasn't demanding "perfect". Some RPMs included in the distribution that wouldn't install!
I'm not anti-Linux. I like it so much that I want us to use on it the same (or higher) standards we judge software we pay for.
Re:Only to be expected, really (Score:3, Informative)
Sigh. I know I shouldn't feel the trolls, but what the hell. Repeat after me: Debian has exactly the same dependency problems as every other distribution. Exactly the same. Anyone who believes otherwise just doesn't understand the issues. It comes ab
They've gone elsewhere (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They've gone elsewhere (Score:5, Funny)
Funny, my girlfriend also rated me as a "Mild Disappointment". I too, cited a lack QA testing, but she just wasn't hearing it.
Man... if only I could find a whole community of QA testers...
Re:They've gone elsewhere (Score:2)
--
Re:They've gone elsewhere (Score:3, Interesting)
(Whatever, it didn't solve the problem that I was trying it for, so I'm back to LibraNet Debian... with renewed appreciation.)
OTOH, if it works on your hardware, and i
Re:They've gone elsewhere (Score:4, Interesting)
Hell, the other day I reported a bug in anaconda that causes every single raid5 installation to be suspect to corruption, and so far, not even a reply. The most I've seen is that they added someone else's e-mail address to the bug.
Maybe it's not that no one files bugs. Maybe it's that people learned that filing bugs with RedHat was futile.
Re:They've gone elsewhere (Score:5, Interesting)
Look at what's happened over the last year - besides the Fedora merger, FreshRPMs, ATRPMs, NewRPMs, and Dag have combined to ensure consistent policy across their repositories. Yellowdog is now likely to become Fedora PPC too.
Developers who work on server software in particular (according to Netcraft and IDC Red Hat dominates in this area) might also be attracted to the 6 month release cycle of Fedora versus the perpetually updating and more bleeding edge testing or unstable.
unofficial #fedora FAQ (Score:5, Informative)
I highly suggest browsing through the various issues others have had, before you decide to upgrade from RH or try a fresh install.
fedora.artoo.net [artoo.net].
Re:unofficial #fedora FAQ (Score:3, Informative)
You'd think the guy would at least try RedHat's suggested support mechanism: irc://irc.freenode.net#fedora [irc] where we link to this unofficial FAQ and will help users solve these problems.
Folks there have been solving these questions as they pop up. Sometimes there is no fix, sometimes it turns out to be something stupid in FC1 that shouldn't be that way, but it is a
Problems? Well yeah.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm having code compile issues because of the new linking setup myself. Code the compiled perfectly under RHL 9 blows up on FC1.... Can't say I didn't expect this to be a problem free migration. Reminds me of when RH first kicked out the glib updates... Code all over the place blew up left and right until everything else started updating.
Not bad for a V1... (Score:2, Interesting)
What a shock (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What a shock (Score:2)
Personal feelings aside, criticisms of this article should not exceed it's scope.
Re:What a shock (Score:2)
Re:What a shock (Score:5, Insightful)
The message consisted of little more than gibberish.
This was supposed to be a distribution review, and yet the first thing that the reviewer did was circumvent the included packaging system. Fedora uses yum by default, not apt-get and synaptic.
The entire review essentially consisted of a large rant about how hard it is to compile software from source. No duh Sherlock! That's why the distribution comes with a packaging manager and a set of RPMs that have been tested together. The whole point is that you shouldn't be compiling packages unless you know what you are doing (which she clearly does not, otherwise she would have been able to build the packages in question).
In short, the article was not a review of any part of Fedora but the install. After that the article degenerated into nothing more than a public expose of the author's shortcomings as a systems administrator.
Re:What a shock (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't trust Eugenia either. She seems much more obsessed with screenshots and themes than anything else(such as usability).
Re:What a shock (Score:5, Informative)
Soko
So what's new? (Score:4, Insightful)
> since Red Hat has shifted focus to Enterprise, with Fedora serving merely as a testbed for them.
That was kinda my impression of RH9, for that matter.
Corporate Improvements! (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, Red Hat Enterprise Linux will be all but bulletproof and stable, but what about those of us who aren't using linux to displace Solaris or NT Servers?
What about those of us who want to do a little Gimping or serve our home LANs? At the risk of drawing the fire of the distro zealots, this is the precise reason why I switched to Mandrake at about the same time as RHAT's IPO.
LK
Re:Corporate Improvements! (Score:2)
You beat me to the change to MDK; I've only done it recently now that the whole focus change is appropriately official, and hobbyist versions are being EOL'ed Real Soon Now. I staved off the need to change by not wanting to really learn new quirks in a new distro. (what the conf file is called, where it is at, how the libraries are named/located, what nifty
Re:Corporate Improvements! (Score:2)
No it won't. It wasn't any more stable in the first place. But now they're losing a HUGE base of testers. What is going to make RHEL stable? It is going to get LESS stable!
Forget about using gnuPG for gaim... (Score:4, Informative)
Now, if anybody could find out how to compile galeon 1.2.x with Mozilla 1.4 or, better, 1.5 I'm all ears, I've tried the CVS version and no dice (and no, I'm not moving to Galeon 2, which is FAR less useable than galeon 1.2, I'm wondering if the developers actually -use- the thing)
Ok, she lost me here: (Score:2)
Really putting that distro through the paces huh...
-dameron
Fedora Fine for Me (Score:5, Interesting)
I just want to give a big THANK YOU to the whole Fedora team. The release had its problems but I am happy with my setup!
Re:Fedora Fine for Me (Score:3)
Why not? Think about what you're saying for a minute. Perhaps if you quailified this stupid statement, e.g. "Moderm Consumer OS", or "Modern Commercial OS", you might make a little sense. Fedora is a community project, if you don't want to be part of the community, use some pre-shrunk or pre-installed Product. Don't be an asshat.
No offense to Eugenia (Score:5, Interesting)
But I wish there were more people writing distro reviews. OSNews seems to be one of the few sources that get any play on here, ( heck, they may be one of the few sources full stop ), and it would be nice if we could get some variety of opinion / requirements / analysis from a variety of different viewpoints.
The gaming, productivity and utility software industries have hundreds of review sites spanning all over the web, and while I recognise that individual distro releases rarely represent as big a market impact to Joe Public as, say, the latest iD game, it would be nice to see a bit more heterogeny.
Just another thought - these reviews all seem to have to rush themselves, and rarely have time to evaluate long term issues or strengths that arise after a bit of persistant use ~ an example has been the recent rave reviews in the print media of Panther, which I adore, but had several showstopper bugs in .0 which nobody seemed to pick up on until they starting munching on user preferences for breakfast.
YLFIp.s. Worst run on sentance ever.
Use it properly. (Score:5, Interesting)
a) So, the first thing she does is install a third party RPM and then wonders why it blows up in her face? How about the RPMs that came with the distribution? So, the install is brand new already broken in a VMWare installation.
b) Why is she using apt and synaptic? They don't even come with Fedora.
c) The RPM from Sun installs the JVM in all the Mozilla browser's (I didn't install KDE so I can't speak for Konqueror) and even integrates into the GNOME menu.
d) The well known limitations of Fedora's multimedia capabilities plague every linux distribution. It's not Fedora's fault that US laws suck. It's as easy to add multimedia in Fedora as it is in debian, you add one non-free source and you're done.
Here's a hint, if you're the kind of person that worries about moving from gaim
Re:Use it properly. (Score:2)
uh, yes it does [fedora.us].
Re:Use it properly. (Score:4, Informative)
There's no need for apt on a Fedora installation at all.
Thank you (Score:3, Informative)
She was also told that she should use official RPMs and yet she continues to ignore thsi.
I used to look at OSNews occasionally, but I think I just won't bother as it's irritation without information.
(Oh yeah
Re:Thank you (Score:2)
Alright. Fine. How about Fedora however? Is it really a community distro or just a puppet of RH's commercial interests?
Re:Use it properly. (Score:4, Informative)
If you need help installing it, checkout the #fedora unofficial FAQ [artoo.net], it answers 90% of people's questions, and if you're new to Linux, we have thread [infopop.net] at Ars that should help you along.
If you want to know how Fedora is, you should probably ask people that use it, it's unfortunate that such a good release is mired with the typical anti-Red Hat sentiment. What's next? "OMFG Red Hat is sleeping with my wife!"
Re:Use it properly. (Score:2)
Where does she say she is? She says in one spot that using them "wouldn't have helped in this situation", which is true in that case (the Flash install), but they *would* have helped her with most of her other problems. Or at least helped her avoid them.
And yes, apt comes with Fedora, and Synaptic has already been adapted for it. It works fine - see my last post.
Oh, and I'm running Flash fine on my Fedora - carried over from my R
Gaim (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Gaim (Score:5, Informative)
This is why it's good to ask. We don't bite.
How will IBM deal with it if Fedora is a dud? (Score:4, Interesting)
Small site typically equates to "we want it cheap, we want it reliable and we want it now. Even though we're part of a big company, head office says we have to keep our costs very low. If we don't we shut up shop". Once you add up lots of small sites, they actually carry a bit of clout in a large organization; you'd better be able to deliver a solution that fits their needs if you want to retain that customer. Quite often, a small site exists solely to service one big customer; global HQ wants to keep that small site happy.
Non-enterprise RedHat fit the bill perfectly for small sites, but SuSE might be too expensive given the lack of a download-only release. I'd assume IBM was hoping Fedora might be a good substitute for non-enterprise RedHat, but if not, which way will they turn?
Re:How will IBM deal with it if Fedora is a dud? (Score:3, Insightful)
It would behoove IBM to support a community distro that they can have some influence over and that won't disappear randomly. That influence comes simply by helping out to improve it as needed to better meet their customers' needs. Debian is the la
Me too... (Score:2)
Go easy folks! (Score:5, Insightful)
Fedora represents a shift to a new development model which is more community centric; of COURSE there are going to be problems with the 1.0 release. Is that a reason to bag the whole thing and declare it dead? Please!
I'm running Fedora 1.0 on a couple of machines. While there are a couple of quirks, I'd say that overall it's a fine distribution, and an improvement from RH 9.0. I'm certainly going to give it more than a week before I condemn the whole project! Meantime I'm going to reflect on the fact, that people seem to like to forget, that the whole OSS community owes a debt of gratitude to RedHat. RedHat has consistently failed to live up to conspiracy theories about "betraying the community".
Re:Go easy folks! (Score:3, Insightful)
Fedora should never have been started. It's redundant. It's a waste of people's talents. There's no need for multiple community projects packaging the exact same software. Debian and Gentoo already fill this need. And even Gentoo is probably redundant, though at least it brings something
Suse and Redhat (Score:2)
However, for the office workstation, I went for RH WS. Why? I like the blue curve interface, and I like the promised performance improvements. Further, Suse seems a little bit behind on security (passwords of 8 characters and a more limited character set).
I would have liked it if RH had maintained a decent, not sup
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Why not just use RHEL? (Score:2)
There _are_ ISO's of RHEL floating around, you know...Nobody has to settle for Fedora.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (Taroon) ISO images here." [google.com]
BTW, please stop sucking immediately, Red Hat. Seriously. You're starting to piss me off.
Cheers,
Re:Why not just use RHEL? (Score:2)
Screenshots (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.dark-hill.co.uk/fedora/ [dark-hill.co.uk]
http://anyweb.kicks-ass.net/linux/fedora/index1.h
Hybrid RH 9 / Rawhide / Fedora (Score:2)
I don't like the gui services boot - which I know can be disabled. The only other honking issue I've run into is external FireWire drive support. Apparently there have been some issues with that lately, altho, it worked perfectly in 9.
I prob won't move to Fedora just yet until I read some better things about it. But my hybrid
fedora = cannon fodder for MS (Score:2)
Remember, this article is a User Review only.
An extensive security audit should be made immediately to help bolster the distro.
I'd bet MS has downloaded the sources and is completing it's own security audit of Fedora with the intent to hoist it on a petard.
My take... three gnome bugs, otherwise good so far (Score:3, Informative)
Now for my three issues:
#1. GTK/Gnome file selector *still* sucks. We all already knew that, and yes it's going to be fixed in the next GTK. But I wish RH had seen fit to do what the folks at Ximian did, and at least pretty up the existing one and make it somewhat usable. Those "Home" "Desktop" and "Documents" quick access buttons in the XD2 version make things much nicer.
#2. No menu editing. Again, it's a Gnome problem, and is due to be fixed in the next Gnome (2.6), I believe. Unfortunately I just read a mailing list posting indicating that they while they were fixing the menu architecture, they weren't all that concerned with providing editing capability. I'm not certain I understand what's going on here though, as I wish RH would just support the same menu-editing functionality found in Ximian Desktop 2. It's not great, but at least it's possible.
#3. Using the RedHat network configurator, I changed the hostname of the machine from localhost to something a little more personalized. It failed to add the new hostname to the
Other than that though, it's very nice. As far as I can tell, it's an all around improvement over RH9. I can't wait till these last few rough edges get smoothed out.
Solution: Use apt! (Score:2)
Why does Eugenia think that she has some say?? (Score:2)
Besides, who made her *the* expert.
Bah.
GJC
Know what you're doing, first. (Score:5, Insightful)
The box I'm typing on now began its life running Red Hat 4.2. It's been upgraded countless number of times, and it's now on Red Hat 9. And it's rock-stable solid. And the reason that it's stable, and functional, is precisely because what I've been doing, for the last six years, was the exact opposite of what this "review"er did.
Notice that she began having problems when she tried to hack together an upgrade to some application. Lesson number one when running Red Hat: do not install any software yourself. Always use rpm, which checks in, keeps track of, and maintains, all the inter-library and inter-application dependencies. Once you begin flinging random libraries and applications into the system, some of which may or may not overwrite existing libraries or files, you're well on your merry way to Linux's equivalent of Windows DLL hell, when you've got ten versions of the same basic library installed in fifteen different directories, and you now have absolutely no clue whatsoever what you end up running when you start a given application. Which randomly crashes, I wonder why?
By the way, the same also applies to other Linux distros too, I'm sure. They all use some kind of a package management system, be it rpm or apt. The same principle applies in either case.
My box is very solid even though I have plenty of custom software installed which I've compiled and built myself. But the key difference is that all the software was installed by rpm. Rach time I upgraded to a new distribution release, the installer correctly detected that I have an application that has a dependency on an older version of the library. The installer then proceeds to load a compatibility library, in addition to the new, incompatible version of the library. After upgrading, I then recompile all my custom software and install the new RPMs, whenever I have some free time. Everything still works in the meantime, because all the dependencies are correctly satisfied.
Eventually, I get around to cleaning out my box, seeing which compatibility libraries can be removed. When I try to remove them, inevitable RPM complains because I forgot to recompile some application that still depends on the old library. After doing that, and when nothing no longer needs it, it gets removed by rpm without a peep.
I also see that the reviewer grabbed some random third-party RPM from some dark alley (strike 1). Unsurprisingly, rpm refused to install it due to missing dependencies (strike 2). The reviewer tried to fix the situation by, once again, grabbing a bunch of third party libraries, and installing them manually (strike 3). End result: a big, recursive mess (strike 4).
I wonder why?
Sheesh, what exactly are the qualification to be an "OS reviewer", these days???
Re:Know what you're doing, first. (Score:3, Insightful)
I found a bug yesterday (Score:2)
Disabling Kudzu service solved the problem. Apparently I'm only one of dozens who has encountered this. The same issue does not appear in any of the half-dozen versions of Linux I've tried before on that particula
Been using it for a few days now.. (Score:2)
A little bit TOO Dumbed down.. buggy in spots..
*shrug* I'm going back to old reliable GENTOO...
Redhat-Config-Network & Flash (Score:2)
When I setup flash on one of my systems here I had no trouble. Just downloaded it, ran the install, and it just worked.
Regarding Redhat (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft has, in essence, infinite money to put into anything it wants. It currently wants the server market, badly. If they can control this then they will can make communications propriety and fulfill their dreams of world domination, thus have a total monopoly over the desktop and server as they can make them integrate seamlessly and become the sole designer of all applications that require the server-client model and beyond.
Linux currently has a fabulous market share within servers and the fight must continue to make these numbers higher. Spending all the time and resources on desktop issues, such as ease of use just is not the fight to be in right now. It's a fight that really, at the moment or any time soon, cannot be won. The fight for servers can be won.
The developers and contributers to Linux and Linux applications should be doing everything we can to make Linux the de-facto standard on the server. It would be foolish to not recognize our great fortune with our position in the server market. This is why I think Redhat is not only making a wise business move, but also one that will help Linux in general.
Fedora works great (Score:5, Informative)
I've been running Fedora Core 1 on my Thinkpad A31 laptop since last Thursday and I'm quite pleased. There were some hiccups because the upgrade from RH9 crashed hard, mainly because I had two many external RPMS installed (had previously upgraded to gnome 2.4 on RH9). So, after moving some data, I did a fresh install and it appears to work just fine.
Some of the great highlights of the distro:
Sleep on the Thinkpads work. I don't have to do the funky virtual terminal dance after my monitor goes off.
Speedstep stuff is part of the distro. This is also nice to not see my battery get sucked to nothing when I unplug it.
The wireless support is improved. Redhat-config-network works quite well for switching profiles between home and school.
Although it doesn't ship with stuff like MPlayer and a good MP3 player, rpm.livna.org has YUM and APT repositories to fix this no problem.
The revisions to blue curve are quite nice, it gives it a nicer look that isn't so sterile.
Supposed the NPTL backport improves Java app performance. Ecplise seems zippier, but it could be delusion. Actually, most everything seems a bit zippier, probably because the OS is no longer compiled for 386s.
Flash installed without a problem, no idea what Eugenia is complaining about.
Java works just fine in the browser too. Maybe she didn't read any of the documentation that came with her Whizbang GeneroBrowser 0.1rc2 or whatever she uses.
The issue is that Fedora isn't meant to be bleeding edge and she is thinking that it is. If you want bleeding edge use Gentoo. Personally I can deal with a nice middle ground between Debian and Gentoo and Fedora fits that nicely.
Dissapointment? Fedora runs great on the laptop (Score:5, Informative)
My laptop has been a PITA with Mandrake 9 and 9.1 SuSE 8.2 and Redhat 8x and 9..
Install Fedora
ACPI works
Mouse works and it's shutoff button above it.
Broadcom 54G wireless works with Linuxant's driver
I couldnt be happier with this setup.
Now my only concern is one email on the list about patches for security will not be high priority and if you want quick patches to purchase RH WS or ES..
We'll I'm not using it for work just personal. And frankly redhat should still provide fedora patches especially security ones ASAP. Otherwise it will give MS more fuel for their security FUD.
now to order a pizza from the couch via my linux laptop!
Fedora has some great technology (Score:3, Interesting)
...whatever supposed usability problems Fedora has, there's some great new technology behind it.
For example: they've got a new and shiny version of the glibc & NPTL. This threading support is worlds better than anything I've seen in other distributions or most other operating systems. I wrote a small test [slamb.org] for C++-safe thread cancellation support. It failed on pretty much every system I tried. Only Fedora Core 1 and Tru64 passed. This is a behavior more hinted at than mandated by the pthread standard at this point, but realistically, no one would ever use thread cancellation in a C++ program if it didn't work the way it does in Fedora.
There are lots of architectural improvements like that always thrown into a new RedHat release, and I think Fedora will be no different. It leads to their problems with x.0 releases, but I think it's worth it.
In my mind, Fedora Core 1 is RedHat 10 - the name + the community. It even upgraded from my RedHat 9 installation. That's a dead give-away.
FC1 clearly needs work, but it is moving along. (Score:5, Informative)
I find that FC1 is not yet ready for the masses, but I arrive at that conclusion from a different angle than Eugenia Loli-Queru's--I'm using nothing on the system but what was supplied to me on the FC1 discs. I have no interest in doing things I can't do with non-free software (and a lot of things I can do with free software don't interest me either). I don't care about Flash or Java, and I'd rather play Ogg Vorbis files/webcasts than MP3s. I'm testing this on a 840.015MHz Pentium III (according to /proc/cpuinfo) with 768MB RAM.
Unfortunately, FC1 is still not something I can fully recommend to my friends who aren't so technical. I don't think it was a good idea to release the OS with the Add/Remove Software panel program not working and the RPM database being flaky. I keep bumping into problems with these two aspects of the system when I try to fix something in a way that can be easily removed or upgraded via RPM.
Some things I wished were a part of the default install for a workstation user include an OCR program (GOCR [sourceforge.net], for instance). I think OCR support is important and I'm not wedded to any particular OCR program, but GOCR (or JOCR) seems to be compatibly licensed and offer easy-to-use CLI access. With more users and more programmers, GOCR will become a better program for OCRing. The Add/Remove Software panel problem and the RPM database problem Loli-Queru mentioned make installing additional packages more difficult than they should be.
Other parts of FC1 I find mildly annoying, but not showstoppers: the up2date registration screen seems pointless to me now that it appears you don't need to register to get FC1 updates from the default location. I'm not sure why I was asked to supply an extant RHN ID or create a new one. To the uninitiated user, this could come off as peculiar to the point of wondering if their system is legitimate (at least until they see that updates are available to them). Focusing unfocused windows by clicking on their titlebar seems to make the window stick the mouse (and the cursor turn to the plus pointer). This was unexpected and not pleasant; because of this behavior I inadvertantly move windows a lot.
Unlike Loli-Queru, I would not have expected other packages to work seamlessly with FC1 out of the box (as Loli-Queru expected Flash to work). I figure those packages will come along as more people use the system.
One thing that could make bug reporting easier is if there were simpler categories in which to report errors. Novices are unlikely to know that something odd on the display (like the visual noise I get when moving windows around) is an XFree86 issue as opposed to a Linux kernal issue or a GNOME issue. To get helpful commentary from users, I think it would help to not have to know all the layers of a typical GNU/Linux installation. But this means more people crawling through bug databases reassigning bugs to the proper place. I'm not sure how to best handle the problem, but I think making bug database entry simpler and easier to do ad hoc is a step in the right direction.
Overall, it's an interesting system and I plan to give FC some more tries before I decide to go with another distribution. I'll continue to use RH9 or Debian as my day-to-day GNU/Linux distribution until FC3 or FC4 is out.
Happy hacking.
I installed Fedora over RedHat 9, here is my story (Score:5, Informative)
Here is what I found:
First the good things:
- The installer is much better and gives you the option to upgrade from RedHat 9 to fedora.
- The Video configuration is much more responsive. It got some problems with my NVidia drivers, but it managed to start again without much effort (though the acelerated drivers were deactivaded).
- The OS is much responsive. The Java apps ran faster and i was able to run more things at the same time using the same equipment (Its an old 800Mhz 512MB of ram Dell desktop machine).
Now the bad things:
- I had to reinstall the OS without upgrading; Upgrading broke my printer support (though it got fixed after the reinstall). Also my old GNOME desktop configuration broke. If you can, install from scratch (I have my home directory on a different partition so it wasn't that bad).
- GCVS doesn't work with Fedora. There is a nasty compilation error that prevents it from compile.
- Mozilla is pretty unstable. It crashed today at least four times.
- Firewall builder has some compilation problems.
Luckily I'm the type of user that doesn't need the RedHat support for trivial problems, so their support is not appealing to me (I can survive buyin the WS edition for $179). But now with RedHat saying that they will not support RedHat on the desktop (use Microsoft Windows they say) makes me wonder how good will be WS for application development without an appropiate desktop support (how good or bad the GUI support like GNOME or KDE will be there?).
I'm used to browse the web, chat and read email from Linux; At my work I don't use Windows at all (got OpenOffice, evolution, Jedit and Vi to do all the stuff I require). It is sad to install a Windows license to later log on your Linux server to do development or to administer it.
Don't get me wrong here; I've been a supporter of RedHat in the past (bought their CDs, become a RedHat Certified Engineer), but what incentive I have to report bugs / contribute code / support a 'beta' distribution like Fedora if I'm not going to receive security updates (they state that kind of support is not guaranteed and if the broken app doesn't get a patch then it is removed from the distro).
RedHat needs to come with more information about WS on the desktop, a better support structure for Fedora (security patches, quality control) or their user base will probably move to another distro (why support two flavors of Linux, lets say RedHat and Suse / Debian when they offer support for the desktop and the server).
I wish Mac OS X boxes were cheaper, probably that's an option to consider
Re:Usability Issues (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Usability Issues (Score:4, Insightful)
I have never had any trouble finding pre-compiled binaries for gaim. Not when I was running SuSE, not now that I'm running Mandrake.
But no, I was wrong. You, with your two hours of NetHack, you have brought me to the light. It's back to Windows for me. Thank you, oh gods of astroturf.
My interpretation? Not having software installed != usability issues. Last time I checked, Windows didn't come with a compiler installed either... and to run AIM, you had to install pre-compiled binaries. But Linux must be unusable if your demo CD doesn't have everything you ever wanted to use pre-installed.
Doofus. Seriously. Your logic sucks ass. Think before you troll^W^W^W^W^W post, OK?
Re:Usability Issues (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't brush off criticism like that. Whether he's trolling or not, this "no no it works just fine!" attitude is one of the reasons I don't want to switch to Linux. I don't like being treated like a lying asshole because I have a problem with a solution that's disgustingly obvious to everybody who's climbed the Linux learning curve.
Re:Usability Issues (Score:2)
Re:Usability Issues (Score:3, Insightful)
I, for one, wouldn't consider someone with a problem to be lying or an asshole. I've had plenty of problems with linux, and have clawed my way up the learning curve slowly but surely, and I still don't consider myself to have everything `working'.
But all things considered, I'm happy with my current setup. I don't use XP for anything except to boot up if I need to call my ISP for support (they don't know how to help you if you're using linux). But that's just me.
(
Re:Usability Issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Strike 1: Pre-compiled binaries. Two words which mean nothing to the average windows user.
Strike 2: Well. Good thing you finally told me. Here I've been running Linux on my desktop for years, thinking it worked. Silly me. etc. An asshole atittude instead of trying to offer the least bit help. Most people who've seeked assistance on an IRC channel is used to this.
Strike 3: Last time I checked, Windows didn't come with a compiler...M/i> For average Windows functioning, no compiler is needed. However for many basic operations in *nix, one is needed. Many programs are not distributed in binary, including drivers which are often required before the OS can even go online. Without a compiler being provided by the distro, the situation becomes irritating.
Strike 4: Doofus Insulting the potential *nix user. That's right, wonder for years about why no one switches, then when someone tries, insult them.
People, try to remember that the alternative environment is so mindblowing that problems which appear easy to you are brick walls to others.
Re:Usability Issues (Score:2)
Re:Usability Issues (Score:2)
I'm looking forward to a nifty Linux distro that's easy to use and that I can sink my teeth into without having to jump through hoops. It
Re:Usability Issues (Score:3, Informative)
I would suggest you try Mandrake 9.2. It is by far the best linux distro I've ever used. It is extremely powerful (software installation is made easy by urpmi and urpmi-based tools, similar to apt-get), and it can run de facto "industry-standard" RedHat software with ease (since it was originally based on RedHat). And, as of the latest version (I've been using it for a coup
Re:Usability Issues (Score:2)
Thanks for the helpful advice.
Re:Usability Issues (Score:2)
It's a valuable lesson of why to use the official kernel and not one with a bunch of random patches.
Most distributions have this problem. I don't know why even supposedly "stable" distros have nonstandard kernel patches. It just happened to bite Mandrake in a hardware-damaging way. Random crashing can easily cost more than a CDROM drive.
Re:Usability Issues (Score:4, Informative)
You'll have alot more trouble finding an apt repository for Mandrake as well. If you actually read through the book that comes with it and attempt to follow along step by step you'll soon find many things don't work as described, everything from packages that aren't in the default install to commandline switches/flags that are incorrect or don't exist. 90% of the howto documentation out there that applies to redhat stuff (which is a VERY significant portion of all documentation onthe web that is not maintained at the offical sources) DOES NOT apply as is in such a manner it can be followed by someone who does not already know the material or know which outside sources to go to for the correct info.
Lots of things won't work out of the box, the hardware detection is HORRIBLE, the installer is primative. Oh yeah, and the control applets are user friendly, but only because they offer so few options that 90% of users will never be able to get what they want working correctly.
Other than that, Mandrake kicks ass! Seriously RH9 was thrice the beginner distro that Mandrake ever was!
Re:Usability Issues (Score:3, Informative)
On the subject of filesystem "standards": Mandrake has always followed the RedHat "lump-everything-under-/usr" "standard" :).
On the RPM issue, I meant third-party, NOT system RPMs. RedHat's system rpms don't really work because it seems Mandrake has gone to a much saner Debian-style naming system for their packages, which basically makes urpmi (an apt equivalent) work better
Re:Usability Issues (Score:2)
Fedora (and RH) were never made for such people. Try Mandrake.
Re:Usability Issues (Score:2)
Besides that, redhat always did have a more intuitive (in the sense of you fil
Re:Usability Issues (Score:2)
Well, it's good to see you've reached the same conclusion that I did, but it's sort of stating the obvious, no?
Re:Usability Issues (Score:2)
Re:Usability Issues (Score:2)
Many of your complaints don't seem to affect Knoppix which is a live cd distro that includes KDE and gaim and gcc as well. If you want to go the other way, well, I believe they make a version of nethack that will run on windows
Oh and I think RedHat was plenty ready for desktops. I just don't think they would have made money
Re:Usability Issues (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Usability Issues (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, why were you trying to compile? SuSE has binaries of gaim. Just start up YaST, go to the installer, and install the gaim program.
Re:Usability Issues (Score:2)
This is what I do when I install a linux distro:
(a) install *everything* -- disk space is not a big issue, and most services are typically not on by default
(b) whenever I need something new that I didn't do with linux (e.g. linux exploring Windows neighbourhood -- like Windows' "network places"), I do a quick search on google groups, get some answer in a minute, look at the menus, and it's almost always there
(c) most of the important software is avaliable pre-packaged from
Re:Usability Issues (Score:2)
A friend got me turned on the Debian a few months ago, and now I'm a true linux convert - I run Debian and even have WINE for things I can't live without like War3 and Photoshop.
Debian makes installing almost entirely painless - you just type "apt-get install packagename" and that's it. Such a joy - it figures out your dependencies and
Re:Usability Issues (Score:2)
Apt for Redhat (and fedora) is available [freshrpms.net].
As for compiling... almost every package I've compiled (a lot) (except GIS GRASS, which isn't exactly popular) was compiled with:
./configure
make
su root
make install
That said, I'm considering switching to deb for some of my machines now that I've learned the joy of apt-get (when I tried deb before I only knew about dselect)
Re:Usability Issues (Score:2)
Re:Usability Issues (Score:2)
I tried to install it on my old IBM Thinkpad 600 and it failed to automacically recognize both my sound card, my screen, and my network card. All of them was identified perfectly in Fedora predecessers RH 7.2, 7.3, 8 and 9.
Now I finally got it to work, but it requred some tinkering that a newbie p but robably wouldn't have figured out how to do. In all fairness
Re:Usability Issues (Score:5, Insightful)
So lemme get this straight.. you grab a SuSE LiveEval CD and are able to boot up, use it, play a game, toy around with the interface and decide within two hours that Linux is not right for you and are able to boot back to your previous OS without any distruption.
I am surprised that Windows people don't find this simply amazing. Seriously. Lets say you were running umm.. Win98 or W2k
Don't like it? Hehehe.. good luck getting back to your previous system.
In anycase, there are a lot of people that try out Linux and do not really seem to have a REASON to switch over. As a result (as in your case) there was absolutely NO effort to try and find out what differences there are between the two systems. You expected to boot into Linux and have essentially a Windows knock-off.
Needless to say, it takes much more than 2 hours to really understand a new system and start to really appreciate its unique features (and yes, a KDE based FOSS OS/distro has a LOT of great features) but for most people, there is a lack of acknowledgement on how long it truly took them to master their current OS due to the simple fact that MOST started out on some Windows variant and gathered knowledge over a long period of time.
Re:It's bad because... (Score:2)
Re:It's bad because... (Score:5, Informative)
Fedora's leadership page [redhat.com] clearly lists redhat employees as technical lead, and taking up all the positions on the technical committee. Just because the slashtrolls say redhat's ditched it doesn't mean it's true.
Re:Expected Outcome (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering the manpower that Red Hat has devoted to Fedora (Which has gone UP vs. RHL), and the fact that they're trying to get "the community" involved more, this could actually be a good thing for Red Hat users.
They're not abandoning the enthusiast market, they've just spun it off into a not-for-profit so they can write off what isn't making them money. Think of it as RedHat Edge.
Re:Expected Outcome (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think this is quite true... the "enterprise" includes desktops.
As a "enterprise" user I can say that RedHat isn't targeting us. A few weeks ago, looking forward, I would have liked to tell our IT guys that we could migrate off our dog slow HP and Sun boxes to new faster commodity hardware running RH. They might have bought into it for the $50/year or so that the personal "non-enterprise" RH editions cost, but not anymore. RH doesn't have personal editions anymore, it has "enterprise" with a bunch of server crap that we don't need or want (no we don't need 500 workstations each running an apache server, we just need a base workstation OS).
Sure RH has a workstation enterprise edition, but on the new 64-bit AMD hardware it rings in at $792/box!! Check it out [redhat.com]
Sorry but at $792/box we are not even going to touch it. At $50/box/year mabye, over that - forget it. Not only that I wouldn't want to touch RH given the rate they EOL their OSes. Heck, I thought I was relatively ok with the 7.2 box I was testing stuff on. Like a blur here comes RH8 (which was a radical change), then RH9, then whoops EOL, sorry you missed it...