Re: Why I think FC3 sucks!

[Vinicius <cviniciusm terra com br>]

Edward Yang escreveu:
> 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.
>
> 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.

"Product Specifications

The Virtual PC application requires a 400 MHz Pentium-compatible 
processor (1 GHz is recommended), and requires approximately 20 MB of 
disk space. It runs on Windows XP Professional and Windows 2000 
Professional. ". These are the hosts.

And these are the guests: "MS-DOS 6.22; Windows 95; Windows 98; Windows 
Me;  Windows 2000; Windows NT 4.0;  Windows XP; and OS/2**"

See http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/evaluation/overview2004.mspx

I suppose GNU\Linux is not supported by Virtual PC, but VMWare does 
supports GNU\Linux.


> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 6. I have not acurate data to prove this, but I feel the system boot up 
> time is longer than FC1.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.