<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Edward Yang wrote: <blockquote cite="mid41F8BB7D.1070807@fastmail.fm" type="cite"> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> 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 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://vpc.visualwin.com/">http://vpc.visualwin.com/</a>. See page <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://vpc.visualwin.com/Notes/FedoraCore.3.Final.html">http://vpc.visualwin.com/Notes/FedoraCore.3.Final.html</a>. 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. </blockquote> Here is number 8! I just found out that on FC3 Borland C++Builder takes more than 400mb memory! While on Windows, it only takes a little more than 60mb.This is making me believe that System Monitor is having a bug about calculating memory size... And number 9: Though I have screen saver disabled, but I still get xscreensaver in my session. :-( </body> </html>