Why is Fedora a multimedia disaster? - Here is why.

[Rahul Sundaram]

Dotan Cohen wrote:

> I'm being stuborn because I've turned a few people on to Linux, and I
> know that Fedora is a bad first experience. Don't get me wrong: I use
> Fedora at home after toying with SUSE, [K]Ubuntu, and a few others. I
> simply love Fedora. Fedora ships with the latest stable Digikam, KDE,
> etc... everything but Firefox. Therefore Fedora has features other
> distros simply cannot match while retaining Fedora's (relative)
> stability. However, those new to Linux need mp3 support, amoung other
> things that stock Fedora cannot legally provide. Exposing these people
> to Fedora will scare them away from Linux in general.

SUSE or Ubuntu does not play any proprietary codecs by default nor do 
install proprietary drivers. Fedora is very much in par in these cases 
and sometimes a better introduction. Compiz integration for example was 
much better in Fedora which Ubuntu has copied over in their upcoming 
release. At any rate the introduction of live images does not change the 
  composition of software included in this context. Again, What exactly 
is it that you want us to do?

> I was referring to unofficial releases. I wasn't sure if unofficial
> releases could use the name Fedora.

If you redistributing it and if you include third party software you 
have to rebrand your image. Private use is fine in any form.  I think 
live image tools has a feature in it's roadmap to do this easily.

Rahul