Re: Why I think FC3 sucks!

• Previous message: William John Murray: "FC3 memory (evolution)"
• In reply to: Pasha: "Re: Why I think FC3 sucks!"
• Next in thread: Pasha: "Re: Why I think FC3 sucks!"
• Reply: Pasha: "Re: Why I think FC3 sucks!"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:38:19 +0800
To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list@redhat.com>

Pasha wrote:

> Edward Yang wrote:
>
>> After getting so many reply from my last post, I finally understand
>> why the post aroused so much agitation.
>>
>> 1. It seems for some people, 'FC3 sucks' is the same as '*Linux*
>> sucks'. But I am very sorry, I did not mean that. I just meant FC3
>> sucks or FC3 sucks because it is worse than FC1 based on my personal
>> experience.
>>
>> 2. Some young guys (mostly students) or even not-so-young guys (what
>> the hell who are they?) like the feel of calling somebody *troll*,
>> and so they seize every possible chance to show off their *skills* at
>> name calling. That's a dark side I already know about Linux
>> communitiy. But, please note I am not saying the *whole* Linux
>> community is bad, I mean a small part of it.
>>
>> Okay, let me elaborate why I think FC3 sucks or FC3 is worse than
>> FC1. Note that I did not have experience with FC2.
>>
>> 1. Installation. Well, what can I say? It is not worse, but it not
>> any bettern than FC1. Components selection is still very difficult.
>
>
> This is a matter of personal preference. For me, FC installation looks
> pretty easy - much easier than any version of Windows i tried.
>
>>
>> 2. FC3 could not start into X in Virtual PC. It spews out tons of
>> error messages complaining something that actually should not have
>> caused its failure. So I have to download a temporary patch from
>> http://vpc.visualwin.com/. See page
>> http://vpc.visualwin.com/Notes/FedoraCore.3.Final.html.
>
>
> Sorry, but this is a problem in virrtual PC and has nothing to do with
> Fedora, no matter the reason. There are a lot of windows apps that
> don't run in wine of Crossover Office. Is it right to say that these
> apps suck?
>
>>
>> 3. After several times of kernel updating (at least 3), I finally can
>> boot into X from the so called official kernel provided by FC3.
>>
>> 4. It is hopelessly slower than FC1! I could run FC1 with only 128mb
>> memory and don't feel much sluggishness. I now run FC3 with 164mb
>> memory, but it is visibly slower than FC1! Application startup time
>> is almost unbearable.
>
>
> I didn't try FC1, but on my machine, both FC2 and FC3 run
> significantly faster than RH9. When I installed FC2, it really made me
> feel that somehow it upgraded my CPU. Your problem may be eithere
> poorly supported hardware or, most probably, bad emulation in virtual pc
>
>>
>> 5. I am a newbie on Linux, but I already find a few bugs. For
>> example, in gnome-termial, if I set DEL to ASCII DEL in the profile
>> settings, it actualy acts like BACKSPACE. This bug may be specific
>> only to gnome, but since it's bundled with FC3, so I attribute the
>> problem to FC3. It's quite reasonable.
>
>
> Never had such problem with any version of linux i tried. Either stop
> tweaking options you don't understand or (again) it is an emulator
> that needs tweaking. BTW, in my terminal, backspace is configured to
> generate ASCII DEL, and del to escape sequence and I never changed
> this. So, you probably just configured del to be a backspace.
>

What do you define the word 'bug' in software world? In my dictionary,
bug at least means one thing - it does not work as it should to work.
Your above comment is like saying - that DEL option is the ears of a
deaf, don't use it!

>>
>> 6. I have not acurate data to prove this, but I feel the system boot
>> up time is longer than FC1.
>
>
> Look in release notes how to disable graphical boot.
>
>>
>> 7. This is a minor problem - I only installed kernel+gnome, no KDE.
>> Yet it takes up more than 2gb space. What the hell? A normal Windows
>> 2000 installation usually takes only 1.5gb even with all components
>> selected. I forgot how much was FC1, but FC3 apparently is not doing
>> better or even worse.
>
>
> It depends on what else you chose to install. Win2k is 1.5gb and all
> it provides is notepad. If you learn linux programming, you probably
> installed development tools, and some other tools - depending on what
> you are trying to do - databases, kernel sources, etc. Also, did you
> install stuff like OpenOffice etc.?
>
>>
>> 8. I may think of others that attribute to this 'FC3 sucks' topic.
>>
>> Final words - I am not negating Linux. Actually I think Linux and
>> Open Source has a very good future. That's why I am catching the new
>> waves here.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

• Previous message: William John Murray: "FC3 memory (evolution)"
• In reply to: Pasha: "Re: Why I think FC3 sucks!"
• Next in thread: Pasha: "Re: Why I think FC3 sucks!"
• Reply: Pasha: "Re: Why I think FC3 sucks!"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]