Why I think FC3 sucks!
Edward Yang
neo_in_matrix at fastmail.fm
Thu Jan 27 10:40:37 UTC 2005
Vinicius wrote:
> Vinicius escreveu:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> But the KB has another things to say:
> Cannot Install a Red Hat Linux 6.2 Guest PC in Virtual PC:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;824668
> How to Install a Linux Virtual PC:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;824513
> X-Windows Display Is Corrupted or Does Not Appear When You Install
> Linux as a Guest Operating System:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;825379
>
I did not install RH 6.2. I installed FC1/FC3.
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list