Re: Fedora Core 1 vs. Mandrake 9.2
From: Richard R (richard.reynolds1_at_NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 11/16/03
- Next message: Jim: "Re: Breaking one of the few games for linux."
- Previous message: Mark Rush: "Re: Fedora Core 1 vs. Mandrake 9.2"
- In reply to: Ed: "Re: Fedora Core 1 vs. Mandrake 9.2"
- Next in thread: Douglas Clinton: "Re: Fedora Core 1 vs. Mandrake 9.2"
- Reply: Douglas Clinton: "Re: Fedora Core 1 vs. Mandrake 9.2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 23:57:51 GMT
Ed wrote:
> Mark Rush wrote:
>
>> I know a lot of people are upset with Redhat over what they're doing (or
>> not doing) with Fedora, and many of those people are looking for
>> alternatives. Since Mandrake 9.2 is fairly current and was just
>> released in iso, I thought I'd give it a test drive and see how it
>> compared to Fedora - and if it was good enough, I'd stay with it and
>> leave Fedora to those who will put up with its irritations.
>>
>> First attempt at installing 9.2, it got to about 66% done and then
>> something happened with the X server; it went down and the installation
>> crapped out. Second time around, though, everything went fine and
>> install completed.
>>
>> If you've done Mandrake before, you pretty much know how they are. Lots
>> of great multimedia ready to go - in fact, they included a nice little
>> app called Totem which they've got serving as an all-purpose media
>> player. And it works: find an mp3 and it starts right up, no
>> configging, and you even get a nice little visualization with it. (I
>> didn't try it with any movie files, but it uses xine libraries and it
>> probably works as well as xine does.)
>>
>> Display drivers are the standard nv for my card, Geforce FX 5900, so
>> they're not hardware accelerated. Even using the 'export
>> IGNORE_CC_MISMATCH=true' trick wouldn't get Nvidia's accelerated drivers
>> installed, like it does in Fedora, so that was a drag. I looked in the
>> lone mandrake newsgroup - funny, nothing about it. Maybe 'cause not
>> enough people have got their hands on 9.2 yet, who knows. Maybe
>> something I did wrong, but I don't think so.
>>
>> My ntfs SATA drive with XP and my mp3s was picked up nicely and made
>> accessible at /mnt/windows, without me having to do anything. That was
>> appreciated. It also found my TV tuner card, which to Fedora doesn't
>> exist.
>>
>> This was an odd thing: no list of screensavers on the display
>> configuration "control panel" module. The place where the list was
>> supposed to appear was blank.
>>
>> I looked in the release notes on Mandrake's website for anything about
>> native posix threading library usage in 9.2, and from my impressions of
>> its overall responsiveness and "feel" I'd say it's not using it.
>> Compared to Fedora, 9.2 feels a little sluggish. I definitely missed
>> the improvements to mouse responsiveness that were made in Fedora.
>> While some of the "feel" could be the difference between KDE and Gnome
>> (I use Gnome with RH/Fedora and KDE with everything else), I'd used KDE
>> before in Fedora and it was very responsive and zippy. I've got a
>> rather fast system (3.0G P4 w/hyperthreading 800MHz FSB, 2G PC3200 fast
>> ram, Asus P4C800-E Deluxe mbd, Geforce FX 5900), so I want to see it
>> give me my money's worth!
>>
>> I also noticed that 9.2 uses an earlier, 2.x.x version of Samba, while
>> Fedora uses 3.0.0. I've found Samba 3 to be a significant improvement
>> over previous versions, so I was missing that, too.
>>
>> That's by *no* means a comprehensive review, but I think overall it
>> comes down to this: do you want stability and ready-out-of-the-box
>> multimedia (Mandrake), or do you want performance and the latest
>> technology (Fedora)? I'm sorry - I'm a sucker for performance and I
>> don't mind doing a little work to get my system up and running how I
>> like it. I'll stick with Fedora for now - it's got a few bugs and
>> irritations, but overall it's pretty nice. I'm just glad I don't really
>> have to depend on it for anything important.
>>
>> Mark
> For some reason I think the choice is kind of pot luck. Some distros run
> better on the home box of a particular user than others. I have always
> had better luck with RH especially in font rendering (even with
> antialiasing).
> Suse has been nothing but a pain in the ass for my system. I like Fedora
> it seems fast and easy to use. I especially like using Yum to update.
> Havee used Apt in the past but Yum does have some commands I like ie
> "yum-list".
Same here. I was a little sceptical about Fedora thinking that it would be
unstable compared to Redhat, but it isn't. If anything it seems to me to be
more solid on my system. Also, in RH9 I used to get choppy mp3 playback and
jerky video whilst updatedb was running, but in Fedora this doesn't happen.
I tried Suse 8.2 a while back, but didn't find it to be anywhere near as
good as RH, but I guess it has alot to do with what you get used to. As for
multimedia support, it really isn't that difficult to install the various
plugins especially when it you have apt or yum .
- Next message: Jim: "Re: Breaking one of the few games for linux."
- Previous message: Mark Rush: "Re: Fedora Core 1 vs. Mandrake 9.2"
- In reply to: Ed: "Re: Fedora Core 1 vs. Mandrake 9.2"
- Next in thread: Douglas Clinton: "Re: Fedora Core 1 vs. Mandrake 9.2"
- Reply: Douglas Clinton: "Re: Fedora Core 1 vs. Mandrake 9.2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
