Why I think FC3 sucks!

[Edward Yang]

Vinicius wrote:

> 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.
>
>
Haha, you believe what Microsoft says?

Microsoft or m$ bought Virtual PC from Connectix, which had very good 
support for Linux. What m$ di is remove Linux or even Unix from the 
supported list and added a few buggy features and pack it and sell it as 
Microsofot Virtual PC 2004!  If you use Virtual PC you can find an 
'Other...' option when you create a VM. That 'Other...' is for Linux! I 
don't think m$ took time to remove the already working code for 
supporting 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.
>>
>