Linux.com

Feature: Linux

First look: Fedora Core 5

By Bruce Byfield on March 15, 2006 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

The Fedora distribution is one of the most widely used GNU/Linux distributions. Although non-users sometimes dismiss it as too mainstream to be of interest, those familiar with it appreciate that it uses only free software and showcases the latest programs. Fedora Core 5 (FC5) is slated for release next week. Like earlier Fedora releases, it includes both recent versions of desktop programs and maturing software that has yet to be included in most other distributions. Although the default install fails to include many standard applications, FC5, from its installer and desktop to its package management and administration and security tools, is one of the most complete snapshots available of the state of desktop GNU/Linux.

The first thing FC5 users will see is the Anaconda installer, which has been used in Red Hat and FC for so long that you might think it has little room for improvement -- but FC5 tries. Throughout the installer, the left pane that displayed help in earlier releases is gone, and help notes are placed at the top of the window instead. Advanced options, too, are tidied away. The partitioning window is reorganized, and both the firewall and Security-Enhanced Linux (SELinux) configuration are given more emphasis by placing them in the First Boot Wizard, which starts when the system is loaded for the first time. The overall result of these changes is largely cosmetic, especially since anybody doing an install is likely to be famililar with the basic steps. In terms of interface design, at least, improvements to Anaconda may have reached the point of diminishing returns -- the effort spent on an already polished program doesn't seem worth the minor improvements that result.

Behind the scenes, however, improvements continue. In FC5, Anaconda uses Yum for the first time to resolve dependency problems. The rendering of screens has been improved in the installer, and remote logging via syslog is enabled. In a sign of changing hardware standards, serial mouses are no longer officially supported, although the rumor is that they can still be used.

Despite this flurry of changes, two longstanding problems remain. First, instead of being available during disk partitioning, the Reiser filesystem is only available if you enter it as a parameter when you start the program. Second, if a CD needs cleaning, Anaconda may give you another chance to insert it, or it may crash altogether. This inconsistency is mitigated by the fact that you can check your install media shortly after Anaconda begins, but, like the filesystem support, it is still overdue for correction.

Desktop and software selection

FC5 runs on a 2.6.15 kernel and uses a branded version of GNOME 2.14 as its default desktop. Although GNOME 2.14 is roughly twice as fast as earlier versions when installed in other distributions, little of this acceleration is visible in FC5. A large part of this relative slowness is due to the default enabling of SELinux -- turn it off, and GNOME is as much as 60% faster.

For those who prefer, FC5 also offers the KDE 3.5 and XFce 4 window managers. Both are branded and tweaked to resemble GNOME as much as possible.

FC5 includes recent versions of standard software, including Firefox 1.5 and the GIMP 2.2.10. Instead of Sun Java, it installs the GCC 4.1 and tools built with it, such as Eclipse. This decision allows FC5 to use only free software, but often at the cost of slower performance. In OpenOffice.org, for instance, Java-based features such as the basic document wizards open so slowly that you may conclude that the program has frozen before anything happens.

FC5 is selective about the GNOME applications it includes. Although the usual panel applications and utilities are installed by default, along with accessibility programs such as Gnopernicus, many standard GNOME applications are not, including the AbiWord word processor and Gnumeric spreadsheet. Even some programs new to GNOME 2.14 are excluded, such as Pessulus, Sabayon, and the AlaCarte Menu Editor. In fact, Pessulus, for one, is not even in the package repositories.

The GNOME programs that are included are used economically, sometimes with surprising results. For example, if you select Office -> Notes from the stripped-down menu, you don't get a small program for jotting down a reminder. Instead, FC5 starts Evolution in the new Memo view, which seems far too large a program to open for such a simple task.

Another set of default programs requires Mono, the free software community's answer to Microsoft .Net. Among these programs are Beagle, a search tool for home directories; Tomboy, a note-taking application, and FSpot, a photo album. Each seems a typical program of its kind, if somewhat slow to respond, but interesting less for its features than for the fact that it depends on Mono.

Other software that is not new, but is still not common in the installation lists of other distributions includes Xen, the virtual machine monitor; Festival, a free speech synthesizer; drivers for the Linux Wacom Project, which enables the use of drawing tablets; and Ruby, the popular programming language, which replaces FC5's GCC-based Java applications if installed.

Package management

At the command-line level, FC5 uses Yum. Like Debian's apt-get, Yum automatically resolves dependencies, taking the pain out of installing new packages. Its command structure is similar to apt-get, and both programs give similar information about what they are going to install, update, or remove. Yum has the advantage over apt-get in that it automatically removes package files once the software is installed. In addition, all installations are cryptographically checked, a feature that is just being introduced into apt-get. However, try to update with Yum a program currently in use, and, unlike with apt-get, the program crashes. Some users, too, may miss apt-get's recommendation of additional packages. Even more importantly, while Yum itself seems well-designed, some of the compilers of RPM packages apparently need to learn more about listing dependencies, since several updates I tried resulted in broken systems. All the same, Yum is a vast improvement over RPM for package installation.

On the desktop, FC5 introduces two new tools: Pirut, a general package manager, and Package Update or Pup. Both tools offer simple and attractive interfaces, but neither functions as well as it might. Pirut offers three views: Search, which has filters for all, installed, and available packages; Browse, which, like the installer, groups packages into categories such as Desktop Environments or Languages; and List, which displays packages alphabetically. However, by default, Pirut doesn't display the dependencies that will be installed -- a piece of information that is often essential in package management. Moreover, once you begin an install, it has the annoying habit of giving you 20 seconds to change your mind before it starts. Similarly, Pup (which has the cutest logo this side of Microsoft's Clippy), is clean in design, consisting of a list of selectable items, but moves with such glacial slowness that experienced users may think twice before using it.

If you want to manage packages from the desktop in FC5, Yum Extender (yumex) seems the best choice. Although not installed by default, yumex gives far more of the control that package management needs than either Pirut or Pup, and is just as well-designed. In fact, considering that yumex packs more functionality into a single window, it is actually better designed. With basic views selectable from a toolbar on the left, a search function on top, and package information arranged in tabs, it is a model of compactness. It even has an editable queue for multiple operations and an output view for troubleshooting. Unless you prefer a desktop tool to the command line in every circumstance, none of these tools has any advantage over Yum, but if I had to pick one, my choice would be unquestionably be yumex.

Security and administration

The movement of the firewall and SELinux configuration to the First Boot wizard highlights security by placing options where they are impossible to overlook. Both are easy to configure. The firewall configuration window sets which protocols are allowed to run, and does not require more than accepting the default of SSH. The SELinux configuration is more complex, but, since many of the choices involve disabling a default, it is still relatively accessible. However, it desperately needs detailed help so that users are not just placing blind faith in an impressive-looking feature, but rather can learn some of the basics of security instead. Users need this education all the more because the default configuration of SELinux strongly affects performance. Especially on low-end systems, the choice might seem to be between comprehensive security and speed. Knowing which SE Linux settings could be relaxed would help users find an acceptable balance between these two priorities.

To these security features, FC5 adds several new administration tools. The GNOME Power Manager and Sabayon, which sets access to software and hardware, are borrowed from the new GNOME 2.14 release. By using FC5's repositories, you can also add frysk, a system monitoring and debugging tool, and SystemTap, which provides the infrastructure for analyzing the currently running Linux kernel. Another welcome tool, although not new, is system-config-kickstart, an editor for kickstart files that Fedora and Red Hat provide for creating duplicate installations on other machines.

Many of the everyday configuration tools, such as Pirut's Browse view and the date and time tool, closely resemble the corresponding parts of the Anaconda installer. This design choice gives users tools they may already have some familiarity with -- a simple but effective aid.

FC5 does not have a spotless security and administration record. For one thing, several daemons, including one for Bluetooth and another for the Samba client, are installed without any detection of whether they are needed. For another, the graphical package manager's hiding of dependencies makes it difficult for administrators to keep track of what is on the system. Still, FC5 does more than most distributions about alerting users to security needs. It also provides promising new administration tools. It deserves commendation for both.

Recommendations

FC's position as a showcase for the latest in GNU/Linux comes at a high price in system resources. The release notes for FC5 Test 2 (notes for Test 3 are unpublished as I write) suggest a minimum of 256 megabytes of RAM for a graphical system, and recommend 512. Even a command-line system requires 128 megabytes. Compared to the less demanding Debian or Ubuntu default installations, FC5 is a lumbering giant of a distribution.

For this reason, many users will probably prefer to take their time and choose what software to install for themselves rather than accepting the defaults. After installation, they may need to spend time installing some of their favorite older applications, and manually editing and reducing the running daemons and security options.

In other words, FC5 is not a distribution for beginners or those whose only interest is a desktop for everyday work. However, even moderately experienced users should seriously consider installing it to a spare partition or computer. For anyone who wants a broad sampling of the latest free applications, there is no distribution more suitable than the latest version of Fedora Core.

Bruce Byfield is a course designer and instructor, and a computer journalist who writes regularly for NewsForge, Linux.com and IT Manager's Journal.

Bruce Byfield is a computer journalist who writes regularly for Linux.com.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on First look: Fedora Core 5

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

SELinux & GNOME

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 15, 2006 11:23 PM
I would like to see some real benchmarks to backup those claims regarding the performance impact SELinux has on GNOME. Sounds like pure opinion and FUD to me. Do you really think the kernel devs would have accepted something upstream that reduced peformance by 60% in userland apps? Give me a break.

#

Re:SELinux & GNOME

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 12:12 AM
Like many others: you have no idea what you are talking about when you start comparing RPM to yum or apt:

"Yum is a vast improvement over RPM for package installation."

That's wrong - RPM is still used for package installation. But you completly fail the understanding of RPM, and what RPM is:
RPM was never meant to resolve dependency issues like apt - to compare apt with RPM is just dumb,it's like comparing a container ferry with a cargo box. The RPM analogon in the debian world is dpkg!
So when you want to compare RPM to something, compare it to dpkg.

Yum, on the other hand, is around for a pretty long time now, so stop presenting it as a successor of RPM. That's just dumb.
Instead, just compare yum to apt, and that's it.

And, btw.: why don't you show some things which make yum unique? Like on-the-fly mirror choosing with server based mirrors? Try to make this with apt.
Or what about the plugin structure? That's a real improvement. Do not talk about yum as a try to hide the flaws of RPM on the one hand, and as the try to reach out to apt on the other hand, that's just dumb and gives the idea that you do not really know what you are talink about.

Writing such paragraphs is also a disadvantage for the Debian-folks: they miss the opportunity to have a look at tools which are developing much, much fast than apt, and heading away from apt. Have you ever noticed that apt4rpm died? Do not complain, start thinking why: because the competitors are offering more and better services. There is no aptRPM, that's stupid.
But there is apturpmi, there is aptyum, there is aptsmartpm, there is aptredcarpet/yast (the new suse package manager, yet not released as stable), there is...

Please, stop fudding around about RPM.

Besindes that:
You made some mistakes which are a little bit confusing:
- Why do you write that system-config-kickstart is new? It is included in Fedora Core since the beginning.
- Why do you write that Xen would be new? It was already included in FC4 - please be more specific in these cases, everything else confuses users...

#

Re:SELinux & GNOME

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 12:14 AM
Just to make sure: one part of my posting s not displayed as I wanted it to:

"There is no aptRPM, that's stupid.
But there is apturpmi, there is aptyum, there is aptsmartpm, there is aptredcarpet/yast (the new suse package manager, yet not released as stable), there is..."

That should better be something like:
"There is no apt vs RPM, that's stupid. But there is apt vs urpmi, there is apt vs yum, there is apt vs smartpm, there is apt vs redcarpet/yast (...), there is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."

#

Re:SELinux &amp; GNOME

Posted by: nanday on March 16, 2006 02:52 AM
Your comments about Yum and RPM surprise me. It should be obvious from the context that I am talking about the difference between Yum and unaided RPM. Also, from your comments, someone might think that I pilloried Yum in favor of apt-get. In fact, I mention some things it does that apt-get doesn't. Granted, I don't do an exhaustive comparison, but I'm focusing on what a user might notice.

By contrast, you're right about some of the apps called new in the orignal text. Things got conflated in the writing and editing process, so I corrected the wording.

#

Hmmm...strange version to pick...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 15, 2006 11:47 PM
Despite this article being titled "First Look: Fedora Core 5", this is somewhat misleading because he eventually references Fedora Core 5 Test 2! Yep, this isn't the first test release, the latest test release (that's Test 3) or the final release (which he admits it out next week).

I'm a little surprised he bangs on a lot about Anaconda (which has changed a little bit from Fedora Core 4, but not substantially) and yum (which has been around since Fedora Core 2 and has had only minor improvements since then), which are probably not the things I'd consider the biggest changes.

The biggest changes are the slew of Java apps that have turned up thanks to the much-improved gcj environment (e.g. Azureus is finally in Fedora Extras - yay!), the inclusion of Mono (I doubt I'll run much written in that though - slocate [or is that "mlocate" now?] and vi are my preferred apps compared to Beagle and Tomboy) and the latest Firefox/Thunderbird (somewhat ridiculously, the FC4 developers refuse to release Firefox/Thunderbird 1.5 on FC4 - the package is in Rawhide but configured to build on FC5 only).

BTW, Festival and Ruby been around since Fedora Core 1, so I'm not sure why they are considered to be new for FC5!

#

Re:Hmmm...strange version to pick...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 12:37 AM
Fedora Core is a fine distro, for what it is, and that's a technological test bed for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Let's not forget that this is Fedora Core's true purpose.

This is his "first look" at FC5, which is not yet released; he didn't say the "first test version of Fedora Core 5". I don't see it as an invalid title or premise, looked at that way.

#

Re:Hmmm...strange version to pick...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 01:45 AM
The title is misleading and the review writer knows this. And its questionably ethical for the reviewer to not state clearly upfront as to which test release this "review" is based on. I question his motives for being less than forthcoming with regard to exactly which isoset he tested. Shame on him and shame on his editor.

Anyone relying on this review to provide an accurate representation as to which applications are available in fedora CORE 5 or what the default configuration will be.. are being misled. It's impossible to even to peer-review this review for factual errors without knowing which test release he's using. Case in point XFCE 4 is NOT going to be in FC5 and will be in fact a part of Fedora Extras.

Looking back over the daily build reports of the development tree... XFCE was removed from Core in feb 2005.. BEFORE FC4. So how does this reviewer make the claim that XFCE is available IN fC5 similar to KDE and GNOME? Again I have to question the motives of the writer or his competence. Best case, it could simply be that the reviewer has completely missed the fact that Fedora CORE and Fedora EXTRAS are seperate entities. So I'll clear that up:

GNOME and KDE are available IN Fedora CORE 5.. which means available at install time on the iso-media.

XFCE is in Fedora EXTRAS.. which means currently only available via online repositories post-install.

If this article is based on tsst2.. its relevancy to what the final fc5 will look like is questionable at best. At worst its delibrately misleading and designed to give readers the incorrect expectations. This article says...bluntly.. that fc5 will have XFCE... a factual error.

He also incorrectly makes the assessment that the final fc5 release will have a desktop significantly slowed down by selinux. There has been several discussions in the test-list about performance issues in the test releases due to verbose kernel debugging being enabled. Again I question the motives behind this reviewer's choice to not be upfront about using a test release as a basis for the review. You can not take the performance characteristics from a test release and present them as if they are similiar to the final release.

At the very least this reviewer should have filed a bugzilla ticket and referenced the ticket in this review... so that the developers could tell him and every reader of this review exactly why there is a performance penalty associated with the kernels with selinux enabled in the test releases.

This review does a disservice to its readership and to the fedora project. And I question the motivations behind a review of a test release from a reviewer who has not been participating in the testing process, not communicating in the established community mailinglist fedora-test-list , nor filing bug reports. The testing process for fedora is open and I expect anyone who chooses to stand on their soapbox commenting on the testing process while its going -on.. to be actively involved in that process.

It is a HUGE waste of effort for a reviewer to install a test release and have absolutely no intention of providing feedback through the established communication channels so developers can be made aware of the problems the review had.
As community members of a larger open source community we should DEMAND better of every single technology reviewer who steps up and makes a complaint. The fedora development model is open, if you care enough about fedora to write a review about it.. then you should of course care enough to point out your concerns in the established mechanisms to let the developers know what problems you ran into. Problems do not get fixed because reviewers write reviews in the open source world... and I'm pretty sure this reviewer knows that as an established linux user.

Its dishonest... complaining in a review about performance problems associated with selinux in test release without filing a bugreport or attempting to ask the active testing community what's going.. is shameful. Does this reviewer care if this gets fixed or not? If he doesn't care enough about it to file a bugreport as part of the testing process leading to fc5... why does he care enough to write about it here? Again I question his motives. How long ago did he do his test install.. a month before the review was published? A month where he didn't inform the developers who could have reviewed a bugreport from him and fixed a problem if it existed. Seems to me this only makes sense if he interested in making sure fc5 has a large performance problem.

I encourage everyone reading this to ignore this review.

#

Re:Hmmm...strange version to pick...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 03:07 AM
"FC4 developers refuse to release Firefox/Thunderbird 1.5 on FC4 - the package is in Rawhide but configured to build on FC5 only"

Although not recommended, you can avoid downloading extras dependancies with this command:


  yum enablerepo=development update firefox

I am currently using Firefox 1.5 on Fedora Core 4. Be in mind that version is multilingual hence its size.

#

apt vs RPM? Cargo vs Ferry? Solar System vs Earth?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 12:19 AM
Ok, I post this a second time because I unfortunatelly posted this first as a reply to a comment, and I mixed up a part. Here is my critic:

Like many others: you have no idea what you are talking about when you start comparing RPM to yum or apt:

"Yum is a vast improvement over RPM for package installation."

That's wrong - RPM is still used for package installation. But you completly fail the understanding of RPM, and what RPM is:
RPM was never meant to resolve dependency issues like apt - to compare apt with RPM is just dumb,it's like comparing a container ferry with a cargo box. The RPM analogon in the debian world is dpkg!
So when you want to compare RPM to something, compare it to dpkg.

Yum, on the other hand, is around for a pretty long time now, so stop presenting it as a successor of RPM. That's just dumb.
Instead, just compare yum to apt, and that's it.

And, btw.: why don't you show some things which make yum unique? Like on-the-fly mirror choosing with server based mirrors? Try to make this with apt.
Or what about the plugin structure? That's a real improvement. Do not talk about yum as a try to hide the flaws of RPM on the one hand, and as the try to reach out to apt on the other hand, that's just dumb and gives the idea that you do not really know what you are talink about.

Writing such paragraphs is also a disadvantage for the Debian-folks: they miss the opportunity to have a look at tools which are developing much, much fast than apt, and heading away from apt. Have you ever noticed that apt4rpm died? Do not complain, start thinking why: because the competitors are offering more and better services. There is no apt vs RPM, that's stupid. But there is apt vs urpmi, there is apt vs yum, there is apt vs smartpm, there is apt vs redcarpet/yast (the new suse package manager, yet not released as stable), there is...

Please, stop fudding around about RPM.

Besindes that:
You made some mistakes which are a little bit confusing:
- Why do you write that system-config-kickstart is new? It is included in Fedora Core since the beginning.
- Why do you write that Xen would be new? It was already included in FC4.

Please be more specific in these cases, everything else confuses users and falls back on the distribution...

#

relief joint

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2006 01:50 PM
[URL=http://painrelief.fanspace.com/index.htm] Pain relief [/URL]

  [URL=http://lowerbackpain.0pi.com/backpain.htm] Back Pain [/URL]

  [URL=http://painreliefproduct.guildspace.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefmedic.friendpages.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://nervepainrelief.jeeran.com/painrelief<nobr>.<wbr></nobr> htm] Nerve pain relief [/URL]

#

Re: apt vs RPM? Cargo vs Ferry? Solar System vs Earth?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 59.145.136.1] on August 31, 2007 05:28 AM
Perfectly said.

I always find it ridiculous when people compare RPM with Yum.
I have used Debian and Debian based systems for the larger part of my Linux experience and having switched to Fedora recently, but I do find yum to be better than apt.

#

SELinux

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 12:57 AM
The lack of SELinux in other distributions such as Ubuntu will keep at least me from using them. Running a lot of networked services it is not an option to go without. That is one area where Fedora really shines: Pro-active security, implemented in "industry standard" ways. All the way from buffer overlow protection technologies to ACL systems support and to SELinux. It is just plain sweet and no other "free" distro comes even close.

Fedora is about pushing the envelope. Not in the way that any of the software would ever be "unstable" but in the overall features. And it's succeeding very nice. I'd say for instance Ubuntu is lagging in "Enterprise class" (or what more demanding users need/want) features some 1-2 years behind.

#

Re:SELinux

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 08:25 AM
I am sorry, but have you ever tried to use a 3rd party software with selinux? Did you ever try to write a policy for even a simple daemon? Did you review the existing fedora policy to make sure it only includes things needed by the network program in question? Why then do you think that selinux is such a great thing to have?

#

Re:SELinux ick

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 09:32 AM
I guess you haven't tried to use SELinux in a production environment. Or used it much at all! It's a system resource hog, and it's way overkill for most admins. Maybe if you are handling extremely sensitive data it's worth the hassle, but even there it's so complex it's too easy to make mistakes. I'm interested why you think it's so important, with specifics please.

I agree that Fedora is about pushing the envelope, and still being useful. It's a nice Linux, no doubt about it.

#

Re:SELinux ick

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 17, 2006 04:16 AM
<a href="ftp://people.redhat.com/dwalsh/SELinux/ManageRHEL4.odp" title="redhat.com">ftp://people.redhat.com/dwalsh/SELinux/ManageRHEL<nobr>4<wbr></nobr> .odp</a redhat.com>
A good guide about SELinux.

#

Re:SELinux

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 20, 2006 06:59 PM
IMO, including SELinux in Fedora is an unfortunate choice. It slows things down too much, it's very complicated to deal with if things don't work correctly out-of-the-box, and it's generally a pain. And a -total- overkill for desktop usage. It should be *disabled* by default, not enabled. Shame it's still there in FC5<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/.

#

Bruce Byfield = Former progeny exec + Debian lover

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 02:44 AM
I was wondering about the not so subtle bias of this article, I knew I had seen the name before.

Do a search for Bruce, compare his debian/based reviews on suse, redhat, fedora etc.

It is one thing to say any distro is "slow" comparativily to another, it is another thing to use the language he has to get that point a cross.

Not very objective is he

#

silly Fedora fanbois

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 03:25 AM
No one can say anything about Fedora without getting flamed, not even complimentary things. Overall this is a positive review, with some good pointers for possible problems. Why don't you little hotheaded fanbois go pester other people? You're just wasting space and looking like fools, and not doing the Fedora community any favors.... now I get it- you're not really pro-Fedora at all! Very clever, to pretend to support it, but in such an obnoxious way that you actually turn people off of it!

#

Re:silly Fedora fanbois

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 04:56 AM
Um, next time we will not point out errors, ok? So for example that specific programs were already part of FC 1 or FC4, we will not point out this, ok? Or that some things are not as mentioned (think about XFCE here).

Because it is bad to point out mistakes - just imagine, what would happen if the author would correct them! That would be horrible, wouldn't it?

And yes, you are absolutely right, it does not help the Fedora Community if these mistakes are corrected, because a wrong because uncorrected article is much, much better for the community as an later corrected one....

#

Re:silly Fedora fanbois

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 05:49 AM
Politely correcting mistakes is always good. Attacking the reviewer as biased and stupid is childish.

#

First Look

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 02:50 AM
I'm not sure what the purpose of such a generic ambiguous article is. I would recommend looking on google for better reviews of FC5, which still is in beta.

<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=fedora+core+5+test+review" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/search?q=fedora+core+5+test<nobr>+<wbr></nobr> review</a google.com>

#

does it configure the bootloader for other Linuxes

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 03:19 AM
Fedora is pretty nice in whatever incarnation you find yourself using. The one thing I miss from the installer is automatically making GRUB menu entries for all other installed systems on a multi-boot PC. It always finds Windows, but up to FC4 it does not find other Linuxes, so you have to manually edit the boot menu. Not a huge problem, but Ubuntu and others handle this automatically.

#

Re:does it configure the bootloader for other Linu

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 03:35 AM
Do you have a reference bugzilla ticket, where you or someone else in the fedora userbase requested this feature to be added to the installer functionality any fedora core release?

#

Why is lack of the reiser option seen as a problem

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 03:55 AM
I think the reviewer needs to set his personal bias aside when talking about the inavailability of reiser by default in the fedora installer. And if he must talk about it as a failing.. i think its only responsible to counter his personal bias which the fedora project's stated reasons as to why its not available by default. Let readers agree or disgree with which opinion they trust more.

I would encourage the reviewer to take a look at how much effort SuSe puts into downstream patches to keep rieserfs working in their kernels and ask the SuSe developers why they aren't they agreesively moving their patchsets upstream into the mainline kernel. Is the linux community best served by ecouranging the use of a filesystem that does not have robust upstream support in the mainline kernel?

<a href="http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraMyths" title="fedoraproject.org">http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraMyths</a fedoraproject.org>

MYTH - Fedora should use an alternative default filesystem
FACT - Fedora supports ext3 as the default filesystem because it is robust, and provides excellent performance for the normal range of systems and workloads.

Some alternative filesystems are designed to provide specialized management features and optimized performance for large-scale systems, but these do not provide greater performance than ext3 on standard PC hardware. The xfs, reiserfs, and jfs filesystems are available as experimental installation options for those users and developers with advanced requirements. We welcome participation by interested developers to improve support for these filesystems.

The Reiser4 filesystem is still in development by Namesys, and does not currently fully support several key features required by Fedora users, including SELinux, ACLs (Access Control Lists), and NFS (Network File System).

Namesys continues to maintain version 3 of the Reiser filesystem, but development is now focused on version 4. Version 3 of the Reiser filesystem also lacks robust support for ACLs and SELinux.

#

user choice, not Fedora dev choice

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 04:14 AM
The point is not whether Fedora devs thinks it's a good idea to use Reiser. That's up to the user. Why not make it an installer menu entry, instead of an arcane command-line option? Several filesystems are supported by Fedora. They should be in the installer menu.

#

Re:user choice, not Fedora dev choice

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 04:35 AM
New users mostly use the default partition. Given that Fedora Core speciality are mostly EXT3, it won't make sense for them to add other partitions support they aren't focusing on the menu.

#

Re:user choice, not Fedora dev choice

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 04:42 AM
You misrepresent reality when you use the word "support" to suggest that rieser gets an equal priority of developer time inside Fedora Core when compared to ext3. I've seen no indication that rieser bugs get much if any dedicated engineering time from Core developers. Rieser support in Fedora is considered experimental and is delibrately hidden from novice users to avoid unexpected and unsolvable problems.

Be serious. There are several types of users. Exposing novice users to filesystem choices that the Core developers are not focusing their manpower on is irresponsible and you know it.

User's have a choice... they can choose to enable rieser via a cmdline argument at installer boot time. The class of users who know enough to know they prefer reiser can quite easily enabled it by using the associated installer boot time options Filesystem bugs are not shallow bugs.. and its absolutely irresponsible to expose low level filesystem choices by default thatwhich

If Fedora developers didn't want to give users a choice.. they could disable riser support completely... so stop throwing around the insanity that user's don't have a choice. If users want to make an informed choice... its there. If users want to be lazy.. they get ext3.

#

Re:user choice, not Fedora dev choice

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 18, 2006 04:35 AM
redhat is bankrolling ext3 development. they have a vested interested in seeing ext3 succeed and reiserfs fail.

#

Re:user choice, not Fedora dev choice

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 19, 2006 11:08 PM
You are EXACLTY correct in your assessment of RedHat's investment in ext3. This is a matter of business. It has NOTHING to do with performance or stability. Forget about all the hype you see in print and talk to people that have actually used Reiser in a production enironment. In fact, having lots of experience with both etx3 and Reiser, I can say without hesitation that unless you need the features that are unique to ext3, there is no reason not to use Reiser. It's *much* faster (especially if you have directories that contain 100K plus files as I do), and it's been ROCK SOLID on distros that support it (such as SuSE and Gentoo). I've used it for three plus years on SuSE and never had a glitch - on servers that get over 2 million hits/day. By the way, in my case, the absence of support for Reiser was the single prevailing factor in our decision not to use RedHat's Enterprise product. Etx3 was dog slow on any directory with more than a few thousand files. We installed Reiser and the difference was night and day. We actually purchased the RedHat Enterprise Server product but subsequently had to return it because RedHat refused to support Reiser - even though it was included in their commercial distro. We went with SuSE Pro instead. It cost all of $70. Super fast. Never been down. Best decision we ever made. Take it for what you want. These are just the facts as we know them.

#

Re:SELinux &amp; GNOME

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 04:51 AM
Thanks for correcting the mistakes about the versions - can happen<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

But about the rpm vs yum thing: My point is that it does not make sense to have a look at a pure rpm system - would anyone look at debian with just dpkg, without any apt? No one would even bother with such a point of view.

The same should be true for RPM: there is no bigger RPM distribution which just comes along with RPM and nothing else - they all come along with something else. So why should anyone bother with mentioning an artificial setup of a machine without anything comparable to apt/yum/whatever?

It is very, very dissappointing and frustrating to meet people which are comming from sowewhere around debian and have no idea what RPM is but compare it to apt and try to flame about a "RPM dependency hell" without even knowing what this means, where it comes from, why it can also be called deb dependency hell, and why it is only historical interesting.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(

#

Good job

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 04:58 AM
This is a surprisingly insightful review. Good job.

#

Nitpickers' day

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 05:04 AM
- KDE and XFce are NOT window managers. They are desktop managers.

- "Even some programs new to GNOME 2.14 are excluded, such as Pessulus, Sabayon, and the AlaCarte Menu Editor."


    A few paragraphs later:


    "The GNOME Power Manager and Sabayon, which sets access to software and hardware, are borrowed from the new GNOME 2.14 release."


      Uh, oh? Sabayon's quantum superposition?

-- pharook

#

Re:Nitpickers' day

Posted by: Administrator on March 16, 2006 10:37 PM
Between PUP, YUM, YUMEX, I have dumped these all.

KYUM does the total of the three, it allows you to integrate repositories, and you have a historic log file as well as an execution log, all selectable on the screen.

At least, while it executes, you know where you are, and what has been done thus far.

Suprised that no-one but me mentions kyum

Leslie

#

KPackage was the best

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 05:30 AM
What is the problem with Red Hat/Fedora that they can't figure out that being able to see the dependencies and file locations of a package is IMPORTANT?

They had KPackage at one time which was fairly easy to use and extremely well organized. Then they introduced that newer piece of crap that doesn't even allow you to uninstall everything that is "standard", and now they introduce TWO new packages that STILL don't allow you to do everything you need with package management.

RH/FC, get a clue. Stop using the command line package management and start thinking about the end users who don't WANT to use the command line for package management. Bring back KPackage or yumex or something that works.

Why these distros can't borrow from other distros that do it well is a mystery to me - obviously a case of NIH syndrome.

For example, Knoppix has THE cleanest way to get a DSL modem working I've ever seen, and virtually NO other distro has touched this. A few questions you don't even need to answer presented as a dialog and you're on the Net in a minute. With most other distros, it's a chore to get DSL working.

Mandriva 2006's package management is quite adequate - although they could automate the initial setup of urpmi - a major mistake.

#

Re:KPackage was the best

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 05:57 AM
What is the problem with Red Hat/Fedora that they can't figure out that being able to see the dependencies and file locations of a package is IMPORTANT?

They had KPackage at one time which was fairly easy to use and extremely well organized. Then they introduced that newer piece of crap that doesn't even allow you to uninstall everything that is "standard", and now they introduce TWO new packages that STILL don't allow you to do everything you need with package management.


Pirut is the official FC5 package manager that use s yum as backend, it even incorporate some Yumex features. Pup is just the graphical updater replacing up2date. Both are still young and the version that will be included in FC5 Final Release got bugs fixed.

RH/FC, get a clue. Stop using the command line package management and start thinking about the end users who don't WANT to use the command line for package management. Bring back KPackage or yumex or something that works
Yumex is still available on Fedora Extras repository. Command line won't go away anytime soon. Having both graphical and text package manager provide flexibility.

#

Re:KPackage was the best

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 18, 2006 06:08 AM
I sympathise very much with your point re distros not adopting already existing solutions. The whole point of the GPL license is so that people can utilise the work of others and not have to keep reinventing the wheel. But as you point out this still seldom happens.
I think the problem is that too many people get involved in open source for fun, rather than to provide good software for the end user. It is probably more fun to create a new package manager than modify an existing one. But does the Linux world really need so many package managers and formats? Most of the new ones are still playing catch up with apt-get. It is all so very silly.
Sensible approach is to take the best existing software and mod it it you need more features, not keep creating new stuff from the ground up.
One example of this is how Debian/Ubuntu (and perhaps others) are working on building a graphical installer, when Fedora has already got Anaconda, and has had for years. Why not use/mod that?

#

Re:KPackage was the best

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 24, 2006 11:31 AM
The trouble with fedora and redhat itself is they decide something is good or bad , I still prefer redhat 7.1 , The anaconda worked well , It offered good software choices (well the kernel needed update from time to time) see fedora -5 , I installed the fedora choices, Now i have 5 cds and nothing will allow me to install software from that, This Pirut or pup or yum dont even work without an internet connection , So finally fedora has taken us back to the days where you installed software using rpm -Uvh and that too manually from cds ,

#

KDE and XFCE resemble GNOME

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 04:39 PM
This is the primary reason why I hate Fedora. Just because they love Gnome doesn't mean they should make other desktops look like it. You take the shiny, polished look of Kicker and the Crystal icons and then make them into the dull, probably humanised Gnome like version and you go from Kool Desktop Environment to Krappy Desktop Environment

#

Re:KDE and XFCE resemble GNOME

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 17, 2006 02:15 AM
What's the point where you can easily change the theme on each desktop environment.

#

Re:KDE and XFCE resemble GNOME

Posted by: Administrator on March 17, 2006 10:20 AM
The default theme is gay, but it takes one minute to change it you dumbass. Almost any default theme is gay. Here is how you change it so that you can start using Fedora.

Kmenu - System Settings - Control Center - [expand] Appearance & Themes - Theme Manager - [Under "Theme", select] Plastik - Apply

You're all done. See you at the mirrors next week! Thanks for your interest.

#

SELinux Performance

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 17, 2006 01:43 AM
Please explain exactly how you measure this SELinux performance impact.

It's not consistent with anything I've ever seen or heard of, and not consistent with the way SELinux works.

However, if you're hitting something that is causing such a performance hit, it's definitely some kind of severe bug which needs to be addressed.

Any further information on how to reproduce and verify this will be greatly appreciated.

- James Morris jmorris@namei.org

#

Re:SELinux Performance

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 17, 2006 01:05 PM
study more..

#

Re:SELinux Performance

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 17, 2006 01:07 PM
sorry, above replay is for the just below silly replay.

sorry again..

#

Re:SELinux Performance

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 18, 2006 10:21 AM
!!!!

WTF are you talking about guy ???

did your girl leave you??
do you take crack or another substance ??

take care guy!

!!!

#

Re:Nitpickers' day

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 17, 2006 02:13 AM
Latest version of Yumex 0.99.12 does that too FYI.
Pup is just a updater.

#

What a Silly Article!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 17, 2006 06:53 AM
If Fedora 5 is so great why can't you even run it on Windows XP (The latest version of Windows as opposed to Windows 95/98 which had the cool pin-ball game)? --In fact, Windows doesn't even come with a lame-ass Fedora program, you have to download it AND it's huge AND it doesn't even work when you launch it from the Start menu! Let's face it: Linux is dumb...it doesn't even have a registery where you can make super-powerful changes to the OS. Even if they fix Fedora so it runs on the Ultra new VISTA I don't think I will download it.

P.S. I would love to debate any a@*holes out there (you know who you are). I can be reached at IJustSaidUpYours@yahoo.com (if you don't have the b@lls to publicly challenge me).

#

Re:What a Silly Article!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 17, 2006 07:28 AM
I think the whole comment thread just lost about 50 IQ points thanks to this last post. So long and thanks for all the trolling!

#

Re:What a Silly Article!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 17, 2006 09:37 AM
What a Silly Response!
Wow, I had no idea Mr. Ballmer read this site...

#

Re:What a Silly Article!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 17, 2006 10:15 AM
I think either you've missed the point, or you're attempting satire.

Fedora is an alternative operating system to Windows. Fedora has its own 'start menu' to run applications from. It's an environment you run programs in. That's why you can't run it from Windows' start menu, just like you can't run Windows 98 from Windows XP's start menu.

At any rate, I doubt you're for real.
(And pinball came in with win2k)

#

Re:What a Silly Article!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 17, 2006 10:42 PM
I just verified that my windows 98 does indeed have the pin-ball game...so, who the sucka now, sucka?!

#

Re:What a Silly Article!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 21, 2006 04:55 AM
I'm surprised that someone with your IQ was able to install a pinball game (it didn't ship windows 98, regardless of what you say).

#

Re:What a Silly Article!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 17, 2006 10:24 AM
Dumbass!

#

Re:What a Silly Article!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 17, 2006 11:38 PM
Dear I Just Said Up yours [AT] yahoo [DOT] com

You ignorance is outstanding, you ineptitude unmatched. You have managed to, in less then one paragraph, portray yourself as complete buffoon. You have less understanding then the writer of this article has, and until I read your post, I thought he was the most uninformed individual in regards to FC.

First of all, I am currently in the process of using FC to integrate servers directly into a Windows 2k3 domain using Kerberos authentication. Oracle 10g Application and database run around 4 to 5 times faster (according to the developers, not I) on Linux, period. SELinux is not an option as it does not work with Winbind correctly (or I have never gotten it to work, segfualts in glibc).

So before you go mouthing off about something you have no clue about, please spare us you blithering nonsense, make sure you know what you are talking about. You may want to do a little research about the Linux, what it is, where it comes from, what the philosophy is, and then maybe, just maybe, you will understand why, not only is the writer of this article misrepresenting the product, but why so many people are upset about it.

To complete the preverbal nail into your coffin, Linux (Fedora Core 5 for example which is only a distribution of the Linux operating system and other tools) is an Operating System and not a program. You can, if desired, launch a container within windows, which then raps around the OS and gives you its functionality without having to run a completely different instance of the operating system.

My God!!! Now I know why I left computer sciences…. People like you!!!

Bring it on if you got what it takes, and if you really got it, you will post it here, so everyone can see what the difference between pretending to know, and really understanding.

#

Re:What a Silly Article!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 17, 2006 11:50 PM
FYI -- I just sent an email to Ijustsaidupyours@yahoo.com.

The gauntlet has been dropped. Let’s see if he has the …. To respond.

I asked him to post it here for everyone to see, and if he emails me I will post it personally.

#

Re:What a Silly Article!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 18, 2006 01:17 AM
Dear Mr.Rabikkha (I have scrambled your name so as to protect you from public humiliation),

I'm glad somebody finally has the b@lls to challenge me (perhaps a bit of stupidity as you so plainly demonstrated in your email I've cut and pasted below):

Lets do this, and if you've got balls you'll post to site, I want poeple to know how smart you are...PS I'm not from the US and I like to eat my poop.

FYI: I wasn't in the least bit intimidated by your nasty post of Ad Hominem attacks nor your personal poop eating prefrences.

I don't know what country you're from, but here in the democratic US we all have an equal say in things and you're simply being unfair in saying that the Fedora program is faster then the Window's OS. I'd like to balance things out a bit (something you foul communists are opposed to) by stating that if Fedora is fast then so is Windows (pin-ball version and XP). So, who the sucka now?!

Had your posting been a bit more gracious I would have compromised in saying that despite our different "opinions" we could both be right. Infact, little differences needn't get in the way of true friendship.

--But you blew it.

P.S. There's a lot more to an OS then just it's code (the brain/mind analogy comes to mind).

#

Re:What a Silly Article!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 18, 2006 04:20 AM
I’m sorry if you feel offended. But considering the fact that you ripped FC without having a clue as to what it is, I figured a little flaming would do you good. As your latest post again demonstrates, you obvliously have no technical knowledge what so ever, and are trying to impress the readership with flatulence.

O.k. late me put it you this way:

Linux is POSIX compliant operating system. Thus you comment “If Fedora 5 is so great why can't you even run it on Windows XP…” makes absolutely no sense….

FC 5 is an OS distribution, it does not run on Windows, it never claimed to. So you want to get into a serious discussion on this, fine….. Explain to me what you mean when you say commented “If Fedora 5 is so great why can't you even run it on Windows XP…”

If you can explain that single comment I will shut up, and call you genius….

Oh, and by they way stay off the racial comments…. You have no clue who I am, and you have already embarrassed you self enough. I was born in Santa Monica Hospital in Los Angeles California. I’ve been surf’n the pip since I was in dippers, and I love sex, drugs and rock’n roll baby. So give it a rest.

#

Pain relief

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2006 01:50 PM
<tt>[URL=http://painrelief.fanspace.com/index.htm] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://lowerbackpain.0pi.com/backpain.htm] Back Pain [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefproduct.guildspace.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefmedic.friendpages.c<nobr>o<wbr></nobr> m] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://nervepainrelief.jeeran.com/pa<nobr>i<wbr></nobr> nrelief.htm] Nerve pain relief [/URL]</tt>

#

Pain

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2006 02:05 PM
[URL=http://painrelief.fanspace.com/index.htm] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://lowerbackpain.0pi.com/backpain.htm] Back Pain [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefproduct.guildspace.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefmedic.friendpages.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://nervepainrelief.jeeran.com/painrelief<nobr>.<wbr></nobr> htm] Nerve pain relief [/URL]

#

Re:What a Silly Article!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 18, 2006 10:35 AM
!!!!
I'm not Mr. Rabikka, but I read your posts and I have just one thing to say to you:

WTF are you talking about guy ???

did your girl leave you??
do you take crack or another substance ??

take care guy!

!!!!!
!!!

#

Re:What a Silly Article!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 18, 2006 10:45 AM
!!!!

You said:

"If Fedora 5 is so great why can't you even run it on Windows XP (The latest version of Windows as opposed to Windows 95/98 which had the cool pin-ball game)? "

----

WTF are you talking about guy ???

did your girl leave you??
do you take crack or another substance ??

Life is hard, I know, but take care guy!

!!!!!

#

Re:What a Silly Article!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 24, 2006 10:31 PM
Wow, I never had any problems running it in windows 98.... Are you running 98SE?

#

lower back pain

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 30, 2006 12:57 AM
[URL=http://nervepainrelief.jeeran.com/painrelief<nobr>.<wbr></nobr> htm] Nerve pain relief [/URL]

  [URL=http://www.back.painreliefnetwork.net/lowbac<nobr>k<wbr></nobr> pain.htm] Low back pain [/URL]

  [URL=http://blog.gala.net/uploads/painreliefback/<nobr>b<wbr></nobr> ackpainrelief.htm] Back pain relief [/URL]

  [URL=http://www.weblog.ro/usercontent/13155/profi<nobr>l<wbr></nobr> es/kneepainrelief.htm] Knee pain relief [/URL]

  [URL=http://www.info.painreliefnetwork.net/Pain-R<nobr>e<wbr></nobr> lief.html] Pain relief [/URL]

  [URL=http://www.sitefights.com/community/scifi/pa<nobr>i<wbr></nobr> nrelief/painreliefpreved.htm] Pain relief [/URL]

  [URL=http://www.info.painreliefnetwork.net/Medica<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> ion-Pain-Relief.html] Medication pain relief [/URL]

  [URL=http://www.info.painreliefnetwork.net/Natura<nobr>l<wbr></nobr> -Pain-Relief.html] Natural pain relief [/URL]


  [URL=http://painrelief.fanspace.com/index.htm] Pain relief [/URL]

  [URL=http://lowerbackpain.0pi.com/backpain.htm] Back Pain [/URL]

  [URL=http://painreliefproduct.guildspace.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefmedic.friendpages.com] Pain relief [/URL]

#

FUD and BS

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 17, 2006 10:14 PM
"However, try to update with Yum a program currently in use, and, unlike with apt-get, the program crashes."

This is not true. The act of dropping files over the files of an already running program is the same whether it's done by yum(rpm), apt-get, or manually. I do this on a regular basis and have never seen it cause problems - and I bet nobody else has either.

#

Re:Nitpickers' day

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 18, 2006 11:22 PM
Smart (from atrpms repository) is far superior. I know there's been some debate about it's appropriateness and I don't wish to start a flamewar, only saying, IMO it is, and it works very well for me.

One thing I really like is when selecting a package to install/update/remove, Smart provides instant feedback of the consequences. Some packages may be needed and it will gather them, some may need to be upgraded and it will include them, some may need to be downgraded and it will provide that detail. It shows this while selecting packages, not during the update process, which I find very helpful in managing the various repositories offerings.

YMMV...

#

facts?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 20, 2006 08:50 PM
well actually the article has up and downsides.

Upsides are that a few things in the article are correct.
Downsides: guess<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

Actually from the fud that an application crashes when its running while yum updates the package is e.g. complete bull to turning off selinux doesent give me 60% more performance either. Actually id love to see some real benchmarks of ya.

rpm/yum support gpg checking of packages since ages already. not a new feature

ruby doesent replace neither gcc or gcj (note... the frontend for compiling java code to native is called gcj...) nor java applications.

and so on.

Oh well actually i love to read reviews of end users and this one isnt that bad for an end users "view" but still i miss lots of technical details and see lots of guesses and untrue fud.

#

Fedora Foundation Response

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 20, 2006 11:47 PM
Rahul Sundaram from Fedora responds to this 'review' here: <a href="http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-marketing-list/2006-March/msg00113.html" title="redhat.com">http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-marketing-l<nobr>i<wbr></nobr> st/2006-March/msg00113.html</a redhat.com>

Rahul shares some good information and asks more than a few pertinant questions about this review.

#

Don't you linux.com guys speak Unicode?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 22, 2006 08:13 PM
Linux.com guys, are you aware of this thing called Unicode? I tried to type in Unicode, but your stupid perl script tells me that it found lameness and caps. I don't use "so many caps"!

#

Fedora + 64bit + SELinux

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 23, 2006 12:07 AM
I have FC4 on amd64, and everythings works fine.
I had looked for other distributions, and clearly fedora is one of the best for its 64 bit support.

I just had to add "notimer_check" to kernel boot line to avoid a 50% cpu usage and a clock too fast.

SELinux has NO impact on gnome. I would be curious to see more details about that 60%.

#

Fedora core 5

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 23, 2006 05:53 AM
Running Core 5 on a 600Mhz Celeron with 128meg ram( YES 128 MEGS), and I don't know if it's just Gnome or Fedora as a whole, but, The machine now starts up and lanches programs almost as fast as Windows 98.

Fedora really made a jump here....
(Using it for web surfing, networking, petty gaming, and wine experimentation)

This is really an improvement over FC4.....right out the box...

#

Flame On

Posted by: Administrator on March 16, 2006 01:06 AM
Thanks for the article. As mentioned somewhat unkindly by others, there are some bugs in it. However, I found much of the article helpful.

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya