It isn't what RHL 5.2 was

• Previous message: Scot L. Harris: "RE: hack attempt on my server...What do you do about this?"
• Next in thread: Phil Dybvig: "Re: It isn't what RHL 5.2 was"
• Maybe reply: Phil Dybvig: "Re: It isn't what RHL 5.2 was"
• Reply: Rob Brown-Bayliss: "Re: It isn't what RHL 5.2 was"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 03:13:57 +0000
To: fedora-list@redhat.com

> I have to say FC2 has been a disappointment. I have been using
> redhat since 5.2 and this is the most unstable system since I ditched
> win95 over 5 years ago.
>
> --
> Rob Brown-Bayliss
>
>

I think that RHL 5.2 with it's realplayer, netscape 4.x browser,
wordperfect for linux trial edition converted me over from windows
also.

The other thing was that I called my ISP about a w95 problem connecting
to a cable modem. W95 changed all my IRQ's when I inserted a 3com
ethernet card. This messed up my sound and my modem. To solve this for
w95, I had to uncheck for it to not automatically change my IRqs on
working hardware. Linux RHL 5.2 worked right after the installation. My
first RHL version was 4.2, but that was all command line for learning
Unix commands.

The strange thing is that w98 --> current MS operating systems would
recognize this card. How did Linux mess up the functionality of this
NIC. I had to give up the card, held onto since RHL 5.2

But overall, I think that FC2 is a pretty stable OS version. I feel
that the higher complexity that Linux has now, compared to back then
causes more possible problems to arise.

I guess stability also depends upon your hardware chosen. Also, most
prebuild systems have pre-installed MS OS versions on them. The vender
has to do quite a bit of work to get the OS,drivers, etc to work.

I think that vendor support for hardware setup in linux would help
stabalize the OS more.

Even windows claimed that the blue screens were caused by drivers for
hardware, in a lot of cases. If more companies push out systems and
dedicate resources to work on Open source, or at least decent binary
drivers, it would seem more stable.

If people would flag hardware that is either buggy or designed
specifically to hinder Linux installation on it, things might become
more stable in the linux world.

Since hardware choices were important back when RHL 5.2 was released.
Choosing video cards, ethernet cards and non-winmodems was standard
practices. Today, it is more like, we will use it with wrappers or rely
on the company to make a driver for Linux.

I picked the 3com NIC because of confidence that the card was Linux
compatible.

I'd like to see a computer built with functionality as the priority and
with all active components having reliable and unhidden secrets to some
hardware components on the list.

My personal computer systems work well with Fedora. I know of some bugs
with systems at work. But one thing known is, the RHL 5.2 would not be
able to handle these machines hardware.

Just my observation (and a test of the balsa GUI mail program)

Jim

-- 
... when fits of creativity run strong, more than one programmer or  
writer
has been known to abandon the desktop for the more spacious floor.
		-- Fred Brooks
-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

• Previous message: Scot L. Harris: "RE: hack attempt on my server...What do you do about this?"
• Next in thread: Phil Dybvig: "Re: It isn't what RHL 5.2 was"
• Maybe reply: Phil Dybvig: "Re: It isn't what RHL 5.2 was"
• Reply: Rob Brown-Bayliss: "Re: It isn't what RHL 5.2 was"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]