Slashdot Mirror
Fedora Core 2 Dud or Dodo?
darth_silliarse writes "Linux.com have posted an interesting review Fedora Core 2, which includes reference to the now famous Windows/Fedora Core 2 dual booting "feature". My favorite quote "Unfortunately, all of FC2's admirable qualities cannot save it from its congenital defects. These range from annoyances such as broken audio drivers to the abomination known as Gnome 2.6, and are serious enough to make the Fedora Project's second litter of pups unsuitable for any use other than as laboratory animals." Quite a indictment don't you think? My fav distro is SuSE but I'm interested to hear others views about this review..."
See post by Mr. Firewall (174989) on 2004.05.28 11:48 (#82188)
A slight correction from the author
"After it was too late to change this review, the Abiword and Quanta packages magically showed up in my package manager! I don't know why I couldn't find them when I looked for them, but they ARE included.
So the only thing still missing from my list of missing packages above is Audacity. My bad."
search google for sfdisk site:redhat.com fedora takes you to the 1st result:
2 004-May/msg00908.html
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/
maybe the topic poster should learn to read a little before going "fedora sucks, i can't dual boot"
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
This bug was in Mandrakelinux 10.0 Community snapshot, but was resolved for the official release. See this comment
Feel free to read past comment 21 on the mandrake bug 7959.
Further comments from users in the same bur report indicate that this bug still exists in the official mandrake release. Perhaps this is a most subtle bug, that both fedora and mandrake believed
they had found a workaround for.
And it you really want to understand whats going on, i encourage you to go searching the parted mailinglists over the last 4 months or so, for a discussion as to where the problem actually lies.
-jef
Personally, I'm getting sick and tired of rant pieces which pass theirselves off as a proper review. The reviewer uses a lot of harsh adjectives to describe the product they're reviewing even before he presents his arguments painting an ugly color of the product even before he gets to the gist.
/etc/sysconfig. I like the use of Python (a great scripting language which works well with modifying text files like config files). It's got the latest and greatest features which make sense for me. And these new features don't mean unstable, either.
He calls Gnome 2.6 and "abomination" and calls FC2 "Fedora Project's second litter of pups unsuitable for any use other than as laboratory animals" without even clarifying why or who his intended audience are. Not to mention his use of puppies in use a lab animals is sickening.
Fedora Core 2, as is Gnome 2.6, has an intended audience. These are first-time users of Linux in Enterprise settings. The aim is to present desktop computing in an easy-to-use fashion without a steep learning curve. Fedora does this well by presenting only the most commonly needed features. Does this mean Fedora or Gnome 2.6 are featureless? Not at all. Most of these features are just underneath the surface, something any geek or tech would be able to find out by RTFM or asking around.
Take his example of the new FileChooser: he says one can't type the file name, but one can just by pressing l, similar to how it is with almost all browsers. You can even do tab-completion with it.
Or take the case of Nautilus spatial browser. I think using it as default is genius! New users don't have folders 5 kilometers deep nor $HOME directories 4 kilometers wide. Most users will just want a place to store documents, pictures and audio/video files. When the time comes that they need to see the folder hierarchy, they can switch to explorer view.
The reviewer's problem is he has a bias for some other distribution and against Fedora (or possibly RedHat), in particular, and continues to paint his review accordingly. Let's leave shoddy journalism like that to Ken Brown.
Then there's the problem of breaking dual-booting when using WinXP. This problem isn't particular to Fedora and, in fact, the Fedora community have already come up with solutions to said problem.
Another issue is Fedora breaking things by introducing technology. Unfortunately, new technology can and most often do break old stuff. If it weren't for RedHat, the widespread use of gcc 2.95 and gcc 3 would've taken months longer.
NVidia is aware of the changes made to the Fedora kernel and are even now in the process of developing new video drivers. Fedora kernel hackers do things for a reason. If people insist on criticizing their choices, at the very least have some technical arguments to back up your case. They (FC devs) don't do things to make life harder for people, you know.
For enterprise users, I think FC2 is a great candidate. It's stable (for all 5 of the different platforms I've put it on including HP Vectras and eVectras which are common in enterprises), feature-complete and simple and easy enough to learn. For technical people (like me), I have to say I like it! I like the way configs are stored in
Hi, joe GNOME developer here. The problem with the file dialog not opening dotfiles correctly is a known bug, not a desing decision, and was fixed in GTK 2.4.1. Unfortunately this package didn't make it into Fedora 2, but you can pull the update from Fedora Rawhide and it will not require a whole new GNOME as a dependency chain.
Might need the gedit 2.6.1 package as well, since gedit does some mods to the stock file dialog. Ciao, don't be bitter now.
That's quite an facile editorial but you can't expect better from normal users. My screenshot looks better than yours. Evolution is better than KMail, GNOME looks more polished than KDE and so on. I do use XChat, Abiword, Rhythmbox.... ...usually you get stuff like these from normal users. And this is ok since you can't blame them for stuff they simply don't know about or don't have a slighest knowledge about.
Such editorials are hard to take serious since they are build up on basicly NO deeper knowledge of the matter. Most people I met so far are full of prejudices and seek for excuses or explaination why they prefer the one over the other while in reality they have no slightest clue on what parameters they compare the things.
If people do like the gance ICONS over the functionality then it's quite ok but that's absolutely NO framework to do such comparisons.
I do come from the GNOME architecture and spent the last 5 years on it. I also spent a lot of time (nearly 1 year now if I sum everything up) on KDE 3.x architecture including the latest KDE 3.2 (please note I still do use GNOME and I am up to CVS 2.6 release myself).
Although calling myself a GNOME vetaran I am also not shy to criticise GNOME and I do this in the public as well. Ok I got told from a couple of people if I don't like GNOME that I simply should switch and so on. But these are usually people who have a tunnelview and do not want to see or understand the problems around GNOME.
Speaking as a developer with nearly 23years of programming skills on my back I can tell you that GNOME may look polished on the first view but on the second view it isn't.
Technically GNOME is quite a messy architecture with a lot of unfinished, half polished and half working stuff inside. Given here are examples like broken gnome-vfs, half implementations of things (GStreamer still half implemented into GNOME (if you can call it an implementation at all)) rapid changes of things that make it hard for developers to catch up and a never ending bughunting. While it is questionable if some stuff can simply be fixed with patches while it's more required to publicly talk about the Framework itself.
Sure GNOME will become better but the time developers spent fixing all the stuff is the time that speaks for KDE to really improve it with needed features. We here on GNOME are only walking in the circle but don't have a real progress in true usability (not that farce people talk to one person and then to the next). Real usability here is using the features provided by the architecture that is when I as scientists want to do UML stuff that I seriously find an application written for that framework that can do it. When I eye over to the KDE architecture then as strange it sounds I do find more of these needed tools than I can find on GNOME. This can be continued in many areas where I find more scientific Software to do my work and Software that works reliable and not crash or misbehave or behave unexpected.
Comparing Nautilus with Konqueror is pure nonsense, comparing GNOME with KDE is even bigger nonsense. If we get a team of developers on a Table and discuss all the crap we find between KDE and GNOME then I can tell from own experience that the answer is clearly that GNOME will fail horrible here.
We still have many issues on GNOME which are Framework related. We now got the new Fileselector but yet they still act differently in each app. Some still have the old Fileselector, some the new Fileselector, some appearance of new Fileselectors are differently than in other apps that use the new Fileselector code and so on. When people talk about polish and consistency, then I like to ask what kind of consistency and polish is this ? We still have a couple of different ways to open Window in GNOME.
- GTK-Application-Window,
- BonoboUI Window,
- GnomeUI Window,
Then a lot of stuff inside GNOME are hardcoded UI's, some are using *.glade files (not to mention that GLADE the interface buil
Freedesktop.org is doing a lot of work on a proper hardware abstraction layer to sit about the OS's and provide the services the GUI layer needs (Gnome, KDE, whoever).
The problem with hardware databases is the issues are frequently combinatorial. So you get bugs like
"PS/2 port with xyz touchpad and the IRQ is shared"
or
"Specific VIA mainboard and >1Gb of RAM and certain PCI devices"
or
"SCSI card A vanishes but only with this BIOS option and this other card present"
and thats the tip of the iceberg.
It isnt "10 mac configurations versus 10,000 PCs" its more like n^lots.
There are other things that make it more complicated - for example installing the Nvidia binary drivers might make you an accessory to a copyright license and patent violation (remember IBM has granted the RCU and other patents for *GPL* use....). There are probably ways to deal with that and keep lawyers happy.
As far as the programs go, kudzu is built on top of pretty portable detection libraries that should be entirely reusable. A lot of the detection has also moved into general upstream kernel handling now that modules has PCI identifier tables. That means the intelligence for a lot of PCI driver loading is now outside vendor tools and extensible.
I'm all for a bottom end free-software cross vendor library to do the work.