Slashdot Mirror
Initial Reactions to Fedora Core 5
Ki writes to tell us that he has put up a short review of Fedora Core 5 which covers the install and general first impressions to the new release. The author highlights several quirks in the installation and a few problems getting down to business, but overall the Fedora team seems to have made some very good progress.
Holy crap! They're up to 5 already? Slow down guys. Nobody wants to upgrade systems they use for actual work that often. There's something to be said for stability.
Can someone tell me what the actuall differences are between the major linux distro's? Really, how could Mandriva, Ubuntu, and Fedora Core be all that different from each other? Wouldn't the developers just take the best parts out of the other distro's?
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Seems to me that the gist of the article is that FC5:
- Has hardware compatibility problems
- Has a pretty new installer that may or may not work properly
- Has the same new versions of programs as the new versions of every other distro
- Isn't setup to be n00b-friendly by default, with the lack of a regular user account and a graphical package manager
Sounds like it's still the same shitty, undertested distro it's always been. I'll be sticking with Ubuntu as my distro of choice and recommendation to new Linux users.
Who wants to hear comments from someone that switches between three distros and two window managers on every release?
Snippets from the article:
"I will say again, Gnome 2.14 has definitely improved in its responsiveness, and is quite a pleasure to use (until KDE 4.0 comes out I will use only Gnome 2.14)."
"Finally, to summarize, although FC5 definitely is not the perfect linux operating system, it will be my primary desktop until Suse 10.1 & Ubuntu Dapper is released."
Sounds like a fair weather guy to me.
...all seems well. The fonts seem a bit nicer, for what that's worth. Not sure about the new eye candy (rotating thingies around the cursor), but, hey.
Mostly I'm hoping that this problem is fixed. We shall see...
The Army reading list
I installed FC1 a long, long time ago... Then I changed my yum repositories over to Rawhide. Since then, the newest version of Fedora is always a "yum upgrade" away.
-=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
I've updated my main development box and I really like it so far. The only issue I had was getting the Nvidia drivers installed, however after a little bit of research even that was quite easy. I'm currently in the process of installing it on my laptop and that has also gone fairly smooth. Practically, everything has worked by default and the only issues on the laptop so far have been that I had to use ndiswrapper to get the wireless drivers working, which I also had to do under Debian and Ubuntu, and the ATI drivers aren't as easy to install as they could be.
If you're a developer or just love tinkering with software and your OS I would highly recommend it. The install is fairly straight forward and it has a lot of bleeding edge software available. The yum repositories are also quite full for it only being released a few days ago.
If you don't have the patience or the ability to install a kernel and the ATI or Nvidia drivers, I would simply recommend waiting a few weeks while the How To's and the repositories get updated with the new packages. If you're new to Linux, obviously, this isn't the distribution for you and you'd probably be better off trying to use something like Ubuntu. In my opinion, Fedora is and always will be for developers and hobbyists.
"A Lisp programmer knows the value of everything, but the cost of nothing." - Alan Perlis
... have been around since before the Fedora split as redhat-config-* (after Fedora, they were renamed to system-config-*).
He is right that they're useful. Ubuntu, Suse, and other distros could really use system-config-samba, system-config-nfs, and others. (system-config-samba alone is about 10 times better than Ubuntu or Suse's Samba utilities.)
-=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
The author seems to have jumped the gun a bit on the install, since the NVIDIA issues were announced almost immediately after the release, and subsequently have been queued for immediate repair.
As for his comment that due to these issues it may not be the best starter disto, I agree, but only because Fedora is a testbed product, created to directly fill the void left by RedHat going to a subscription-only model for RHEL. CentOS is more stable by building RHEL from sources. In Fedoraland you take STABLE releases with a grain of salt.
My FC5 install went without a hitch this morning, and it let me create users after first boot (don't know why his didn't).
I actually like the new fonts and eye candy. The only visual *yawn* is that the Bluecurve icons are still there, and I've never been partial to them.
Compared to RHEL4 on the same system, FC5 is MUCH snapper, but I had my usual issues of smartd failing and having to use a PCMCIA wifi card instead of my built-in Intel (Thinkpad T43p).
Overall, the install worked and the system looks and responds great "right out of the box" (as well as any other distro or better).
If you're half as beautiful naked, you'd be 4 times as beautiful with twice as many clothes on.
There are a few things you need to consider before giving Fedora a try.
1. No NTFS support: If dual boot, you will not be able to read your Windows partitions.
2. No MP3 support (it's been like that for a while.)
3. No support for propietary drivers: I've been told that this is more of a bug than an intended feature, but I haven't heard any certainty to support either side.
4. No ReiserFS
It's also missing the Tango Icons, Anjuta, and a few more apps. They aren't necessarily deal breakers, but with a 5 cd download, you'd expect them to be there. Lack of MP3 support is by design, although a lot of people really aren't aware of it. Items 1,3,4 can all be resolved by compiling your own kernel, but not everyone enjoys doing that, - and with a newly released distro, you probably shouldn't have to. I can understand no NTFS and MP3 support for patent issues, but why no ReiserFS?
Here is a link to one of the reviews that I came across. You should probably check the Forbidden Items List as well.
Sheesh, what else?
An enormous amount of work has gone into it, and it is being given away for free. There might be some issues to get thru, but they WILL be fixed, and the updates made (again) freely available.
The mind boggles that people exist who not only look the gift horse in the mouth, but also denigrate it.
Use the stanton finley install notes here if you want detailed instructions on core 5 setup.
http://stanton-finley.net/fedora_core_5_installati on_notes.html
Oops...better run Windows. Errr...maybe not. Back to UNICS (http://support.internetconnection.net/DEFINITIONS /Definition_of_Unix.html).
That's nothing... Gentoo's already up to 2006.0 .
Has anyone else noticed that yum sucks? It's just plain slow. apt-get or rug are a lot faster. Is there no way to switch away from yum or simply make it do whatever apt or rug do to be so much more responsive? In general it's just not very user-friendly though. Maybe more so than apt is but less than rug. If we're going to use yum then lets make it work a little better.
Of course I wonder why in this day we are still using multiple packaging systems. It'd be great if at least the big two, Debian and RedHat, could get together and merge the best points of deb and rpm into a single package system both would use complete with good package management. Is it really so hard to do that? What issues are keeping these two package systems apart? Unity in package management would just make life easier for users of both family of distros and therefore would make Linux easier and help it grow.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
I stopped with Fedora Core 4, and went on to try Ubuntu 5.10 for my satellite machines that require a minimal disk with OS, and use NFS (for the home directories), NIS (for authentication), email (routing), PostgreSQL, DNS, gateway, etc. from my main server machines.
I usually start with a clean disk and just reload everything (this was one nice feature of Fedora). The last "stable" Fedore was Core 2 though, since then I found that there were just a multitude of little problems getting NIS, NFS, almost anything, to work.
I still like the Fedora way of installing packages and updates, so for a quick or specific purpose machine I will use CentOS, where I can expect updates well into the next decade. Fedora leaves me an orphan after a year or so. So I'm trying Ubuntu, which I have found that things are better tested and integrated. There's still a few "gotcha's" but for the most part I hadn't had to spend hours and hours trying to get NFS & NIS working. However, we'll see the true test comes when the next Ubuntu arrives. Instead of the clean disk approach, I will be using the full update capability, because Ubuntu just installs the minimum and requires me to pick and choose the packages I want or need.
Anyways, the bottom line is that I care diddly squat about how the distribution works! I care how well it integrates with the other Unix services like DNS, NIS, NFS, printing, email, etc.
I hate sigs (especially yours which is a waste of my bandwidth)
"One size fits all" doesn't work for operating systems.
Stuff that works very well for certain types of users may be incredibly annoying for other types.
For example, Ubuntu is designed to be very friendly to new users. As a power user, the first time I tried Ubuntu it was like bashing my head against a brick wall repeatedly. It's a great distro for many people, it's just *not* for me. (And IMHO, not for anyone trying to set up a server machine.)
At the opposite end of the spectrum, Gentoo is an excellent distro for experienced power users, but it's a nightmare for new users. (In fact, it gives those new users more than enough rope to hang themselves. New Gentoo users typically push their CFLAG optimizations to insane and unstable limits because they can and it's cool, in the end breaking their system. Those are the users that the "Gentoo is for Ricers" page targets.) This is why I use Gentoo but would not ever reccommend it to a Linux newbie.
Fedora Core is somewhere in the middle ground between Ubuntu and Gentoo. As such, it tends to be the distro I reccommend to new people who want a system that's reasonably easy to get started with but still allows you to become familiar with the "down and dirty" details of a Linux installation.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
how could Mandriva, Ubuntu, and Fedora Core be all that different from each other?
While it's only natural to think this, the reality is quite surprising. One of the big problems/advantages with Linux is the difference between distributions. Significant differences exist in appearance, behavior, useability and package selection. For example Red Hat users stumble when first encountering SuSE systems and they stop completely when hitting Debianesque systems like Ubuntu. The tools are different, the packages and packagemanagement is different, the versions and configurations are different. Not insurmountable differences but, differences none the less.
But, big differences also affect what and how programs run on the Linux platform. The fact that there isn't much/any binary compatibility from one distro to the next, indeed from one version of a disto to the next, is a major sticking point for a lot of people. Not the least of which are the ISV's that have to support all of the different distros and the versions therein. This is a big part of the reason for the dearth of hardware driver support for Linux. And the problem snowballs from there.
Ah, the classic Package Management Unification topic! It rears its head from time to time, and will probably never be resolved. I've rarely downloaded rpm's from sources other than managed repositories (official or unofficial places like Dag Wieers and Livna), with CodeWeavers' CrossOver Office being one exception. I can't think of many pieces of software which aren't repackaged by Debian/Fedora (the distributions I'm familiar with) besides Helix Player, Skype and CrossOver Office.
Each distribution maintain their own packages and meet the dependencies for their own versions, applying custom patches that work with the custom patch-sets applied to their distribution's kernel. The typical path for these kernel and utility patches to merge is upstream with their authors, and until there is more cross-fertilisation of home-made patches, I can't see everyone adopting even an LSB-compatible package format.
(Incidentally, it's odd how F/LOSS has advocates who recommend people use it to avoid reinventing the wheel, while each distribution has people who reimplement work done by others in their own distributions...)
Fedora Core itself is a *great* distro, imho one of the best, and in many ways *technically* better than Ubuntu 5 (I'm holding out for ubuntu 6 to be THE killer linux - fc5 will hold me tight until then). Unfortunately Fedora's real problems are not bugs on CD, but problems with the project and community. There is none. The official website says nothing, rarely updated more regularly but to quietly change a digit after a new release. Look today and you'd never know a cracking new version was released yesterday. Compare with the GNOME.org page!! That's what I like. Sell yourself! If Fedora Core 6 wants to take back some of the sprawling ground I forsee Ubuntu 6 will have stormed over (perhaps in an early firefox way), the project really needs to pull their socks up in this respect. These are the major gnome distributions equating to the old red hat v debian. Certainly anyone starting with Linux today would choose Ubuntu over Fedora Core. Their website is an friendly warm inviting smile not an empty cold wall. Yes there is fedoraforums and fedoranews and the project wiki, but I don't feel like I'm giving feedback or get any special kick from using this system. So yes I still love my perfect Fedora, but I want more!
Well, I won't contest that he does sound like a switcher, but that's not necessarilly a bad thing. In fact, it's good to always use whatever's best for you instead of getting stuck with what's most comfortable.
I actually liked the review. He was very helpful in sharing what needs to be done to get FC5 working with nVidia hardware. He was also very impartial to distro and desktop environment. The fact that he had a favorite Gnome desktop background makes his "until KDE 4.0" statement sound like he's just being openminded about things.
Kudos to the author! Very helpful article.
Note: I actually have an x86_64 machine with nVidia hardware (nForce4 and 6600GT vid), but oddly enough, graphical installation worked like a charm.
Is it me, or do members of the OSS Community (that I'm proudly a part of) always seem to make excuses for our software shortcommings?
Umm, didn't you notice that Fedora is the development testbed? It's supposed to update quickly so new things get tested before RedHat gives them to paying customers. If you're doing real work on Fedora, I feel your pain.
An enormous amount of work has gone into it, and it is being given away for free.
That is the biggest pile of crap I've ever heard. Fedora having yet another rushed release has nothing to do with it being a "test bed". That's not a testing point, that's a half-assed release. The moment you have an "official" release, you are accountable, regardless of price. The fact of the matter is, if you intend to release a product that is crap, then why bother in the first place? If Microsoft did the same thing we'd bash them until we got corporal tunnel syndrome. The current release of SuSE has had 4 alpha, and 8 beta releases, just so they can give it away for free. The funny thing is, they're not even the richest most profitable Linux company arround - RedHat is.
I'm all for companies making money, but how are they doing this for free, when they're eventually going to sell the bug tested product? You got it backwards - we're doing this for free, "this" being the product testing that companies ususally pay people for.
I tend to disagree - I find those utilities very limiting and rarely have I used any of the daemons they've got those tools made for in the way that they thought I should use them. I've had to hack up the config files just about every time - Samba doesn't work when it's only a few options. There are more for a reason. And CUPS and NFS, and PAM especially.
Ultimately, those utilities and the OS's reliance on them are one of the biggest drawbacks I think.
-N
I've nothing to say here...
Actually, I agree with you... I rarely use the system-config-* programs myself. I'm a CLI junky and prefer to edit the config files myself with vim.
About the only one I use regularly is system-config-samba to add Samba shares quickly and easily. Just a few seconds to add a new share, change it to share-level security, and you're done; Samba picks up the changes immediately. I find system-config-samba much easier to use than editing smb.conf by hand.
Ubuntu has no means by which to change the security level (other than by hand). Suse's YaST doesn't seem to keep the settings when I change it to "security = shared".
Where I can get Samba public-access shares working out-of-the-box with Fedora, it takes a lot of effort to get it working under Ubuntu/Suse.
While I or you may not appreciate the GUI tools (because we're smart and whatnot), by no means does the OS rely on them, they're just available for all the stupid people.
-=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
It's Debian, right?
Join Tor today!
Instead, as with Mac OS X, after the first boot you are *required* to make a non-root user before you can log in and actually use the computer. Apparently his motherboard problems prevented him from reaching this first boot stage.
And forget about the mp3/dvd stuff. Get over it. Fedora will *never* support this stuff without adding a 3rd party repository because of legal reasons. Ubuntu doesn't either, out of the box. Now arguably Ubuntu wins here because it's package utility will give the option to automatically add in the 3rd-party illegal (in the US) repositories straight away. Fedora might want to consider that.
Anyway, I find all the comments about how fedora sucks to be amusing. I find that Fedora fits my needs quite well, thank you. I don't use every version; I only upgrade once a year. I'm typing this on FC3 right now, which is working great. FC5 will go on soon. I'm kind of on an odd-number schedule. In my experience the odd-numbered releases of Fedora Core are the best anyway. I tried Ubuntu recently, and was impressed, but it won't replace FC anytime soon on my box. One good reason for that is that I maintain 10 or 12 RHEL4 boxes, and I need an environment that is similar for development purposes.
Well, for me I'm having to upgrade a machine to FC5. At work we had FC4, but some people had their machines upgrade to hp compaq dc7600. FC4 doesn't like the keyboard; once past grub, the keyboard is unresponsive. However, FC5 works. Probably something with the kernel, but at least the machine is usable now.
Handy tip I learnt the hard way. I had a problem with FC3 (this should really be fixed by now - I did file a bug). The installer allowed me - unfamiliar with linux but confident and willing to learn to partition my system myself to install with / and /swap, WITHOUT a /boot partition. This I later learnt is quite important, and it's absence fucked stuff severely, most noticeably not running the first-boot stuff, meaning I didn't create a user. When I first turned it on and I could not login. I reinstalled.
You could have at least included a link or a quote:
http://funroll-loops.org/
You're just being silly. In my experience yum is easier than apt-get (by a tiny amount), faster than apt-get (often by a large amount, but usually not noticeably so, and there are cases where apt-get is faster), and much smaller than apt-get (I like small software, as it's easier to fix--I once patched an early version of yum to re-add authentication support because I needed it and it took all of two hours to do...I couldn't even begin to grasp the apt-get 200k+ line codebase in two hours...I also suspect there are more bugs in apt-get because there are a lot more lines of codes for bugs to hide in).
To update your system with the latest packages:
yum update
vs.
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade
Why the added "apt-get update" step? Because we need to make sure the repository data is up to date. yum checks for us, and downloads new data if the repository has changed. It only downloads new repodata files if the repository has changed, unlike the assertion of another poster that it downloads it all every time you use it. Software ought to do that extra step for me; I'm clearly connected to the network if I'm doing an "upgrade". It doesn't make sense to make the user do an extra step. yum offers the option of listing repos without pulling down repodata, since that can be done without network access. apt-get doesn't offer the choice of automatically getting new repo data. It seems to me that the edge case of listing packages without connecting to the net trumps the common case of updating or installing software in apt-get. That is a small wrongness that bugs me every time I use it.
That said, they both work amazingly well and I love them both. I am perfectly content to use either one on any system I manage. They far surpass yasts package management tools on SUSE, and many systems don't even have anything remotely comparable. I consider a system like yum or apt-get to be a minimal level of package management capability for any server I choose to deploy. Thus I'd never roll out a Mac OS X server, despite the quality of the hardware and shiny-ness of the GUI. Likewise for a Sun machine: until they have a system like yum/apt-get they're not even in the running. Patching on Sun is laughably obtuse, or it was a year or two ago when I last managed a Sun system. At least Windows allows OS updates to be performed easily and with some automation (but not effectively from the command line, and none of the non-MS software can be updated via Windows Update). But I'll happily deploy Fedora or Debian or CentOS or Ubuntu systems for production use. If up2date fully supported yum repositories (including the authentication support I mentioned needing) I would include RHEL in this list. Kickstart also rocks my socks and I hate not having it, but this discussion isn't about automated installations.
I really wish I'd read this before Sunday.
"There was enough glitches in the second install, that I can say if you have a Nvidia card or a motherboard with the Nvidia nForce chipset, you should look elsewhere for a linux o.s. or be prepared to do a fair amount of tweaking."
I have both an Nvidia graphics card and the nForce chipset, and this was my first Linux install ever. I formatted a 120gb hard drive, painstakingly backing everything up and exporting configs and such, and did the tedious format and install process. Once actually logged on to Fedora, the graphics were horrible and after a vague 15 minutes downloading the results of a "nvidia linux drivers" search (didn't work) I reformatted and put Windows back on (which incidentally, picked up "b4db0yz.exe" within an hour and wouldn't let me use Windows Update due to services failing, so had to be formatted again). If it wasn't for the slow response time due to the graphics issues and the horrible lag and refresh rates I would have kept it installed, though.
Has this changed? I tried it on a Dell Inspiron 5150 laptop. It has a i686 architecture/chipset and nvidia card.
However, while things such as yum are excellent and it had all necessary drivers (except nvidia but that's propietary, have to download, same for all distros) the system is slow and heavy.
I read that that's because the distro is optimized for i386, not i686. Anyone can tell me if this has changed in FC5?
Basically, it's really hard and arbitrary to do OS versioning. In software, there's guidelines in versioning. If the API changes and might break stuff, that's a new major number. Significant features might also get a new major version number. Its not so easy with an entire OS. Fedora doesn't really have an API that would change. A distribution doesn't generally make huge leaps and bounds between releases like a piece of software might either. Sure, the numbers will eventually get up there, but so what? Is "Fifty" that much harder to say than "five"?
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
Start with Fedora Core 4.
Browse to: http://nvidia.com/drivers
Select linux IA32/AMD64 as your platform.
Download, make executable, run. Should automagically set up everything for you.
It worked fine for me...
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
It would be great to have suspend2 (aka hibernate) support. When I'm not using my home computer I want it to use zero power but still be able to leave all my applications and documents open.
Score: 0 (-1 offtopic, +1 interesting)
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Advanced Fedora may be, but Ihope they fixed their installer. I tried it a few weeks ago from the beta, and it took forever to get anything done.
After asking me a lot of extraneous questions (a more confusing install than even Debian's installer), and then afterwards, it would present me with a screen explaining what it was going to do (e.g. generate the package list), and then prompt me to click 'Next' to start it. It would then do whatever it needed to do, and then present me with another screen telling me what it was going to do, and then prompt me to click 'Next' to start that. This went on several times until the installer just locked up (as near as I could tell) and I just gave up on it.
Pretty sad situation. I often say that Microsoft needs to take a lesson from Apple's installer, but it's kind of depressing to say that Fedora needs to take a lesson from Microsoft's.
I see where our mis-communication is now. When I said no ReiserFS support, I meant in the partioner. You can install on an existing ReiserFS partiton, but you can't create one during the install process.
I find samba to be one of the daemons that you really should do by hand. The syntax is easy to read and fairly straightforward, and you just get so much better control from doing it that way. Some utilities are really helpful though. I like the service one since it puts all of the initd and xinitd stuff in one well organized place. You don't have to wander all over /etc to get things set up.
...
Yes, SUSE is now copying Redhat/Fedora's model. I can't believe everyone bashing Fedora. The same thing happened when Fedora 4 came out. People complain about something that is free. Never fails. Why not complain about Xandros, or Yellow Dog, etc.
Check out this page. But yeah, I see what you are saying.
Intel wireless 2100, 2200 and 2915 are working just fine in FC4 and FC5. You only need to download the firmware for it, because it is not legal to distribute with Fedora.
The reviewer was not prompted to create non-root users because he did a text install, which booted into runlevel 3. Runlevel 5 (graphical mode) runs firstboot, which gives you the option to create users, setup ntp and other stuff.
And then you're sorted. The only yum command I know :)
p.s. I actually don't think it's any worse than apt, I'm just using what I'm used to.
When do those pesky MP3 patents expire, anyway? I don't see distros fretting about GIF support anymore..
/another FC3 user
I'm pretty sure the gif patent did expire finally. Unfortunately the mp3 patent probably won't until the format is long obsolete. In the meantime, all my music is in ogg, and I transcode to the patent-encumbered formates for external devices. With high-quality oggs, the transcoding is hardly noticable on most portable devices.
Successfully upgraded from FC3 to FC4 online, one reload of the server to get the new kernel running. Should be the same with FC5 when I decide to take it live.
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
The IP address for them doesn't exist, or at east that is the error all the torrent clients on 4 networks on 2 different backbones all tell me.
I HATE installing an OS on multiple CD's...
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Personally I didn't think this review was worth the read... does this guy actually know anything about linux? Fro example he states:
"Basically a new kernel was required because of a glitch with the default kernel and non-gpl drivers."
Yes - nVidia have non-gpl drivers which is why they're not included in the distro, however a new kernel is NOT required to install them. When installing the nVidia drivers they install script will try and download the driver module for the correct kernel via ftp, if there are no drivers on the ftp site for your kernel then it will compile them. This requires the kernel source, which Fedora doesn't install by default (something I think it should do but anyway). If you install the kernel source rpm the nVidia drivers will install fine with the default kernel.
The MP3 issue is the same, the MP3 format is not free all over the world - therefore it is not included as default. If you can legally use the MP3 format where you are doing a "yum install xmms-mp3" (if you use xmms) is hardly a problem... although perhaps they should have an option during installation asking if you can legally use MP3's and do it for you.
Also there's no mention of disk partitioning, did the user just choose auto partitioning? Someone I know tried FC5 last night and had problems with overlapping cylinders and not being able to create 4 primary partitions. Sounds like there's a few bugs in the version of disk druid - still not a problem if you use the emergency shell (ctrl-alt-f2) and use fdisk and return with ctrl-alt-f7 to tell disk druid which partitions you want as which.
From TFA it seems like this reviewer is more concerned with nice eye candy (downloading a wallpaper etc) than actually writing the review... perhaps he should move back to Windows if that's the case!
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
What are you talking about? Suspend (SWSUSP), the in-kernel version, already supports hibernate (suspend-to-disk), and is enabled on FC5 by default. Coupled with (also in the distro) gnome-power-manager, I just have to hit the power button on my laptop for it to go into hibernation... Or if you're the "do it by hand" type, just run "pm-hibernate" (part of the pm-utils package)
Just installed FC5 last night and aside from the nvidia/ati driver issue it's a great release from Fedora guys. If you're running FC3, now is the time to upgrade. Fedora Core 4 was such a buggy/slow/broken mess that everyone except for the beta testers should've avoided it altogether. Could that be that it had an even number in the release? ;)
Stopped reading TFA on the second page when the reviewer couldn't spell 'lose'. I don't really care if you think this is petty, or I'm a spelling nazi...if you can't spell a 4 letter word, you have no business passing yourself off as any type of writer. And I don't consider myself one...just a geek who can tell the difference between loose and lose.
Okay...went back and read the rest of the "review".
A "review" that spends 3 out of 5 pages on what the installer looks like is...lame. How many times do I have to read about the "Fedora Bubbles"? Is that relevant to how FC5 operates as a system?
I see very little to back up this claim: "But apart from these little details I can confidently say that Fedora Core 5 is the best desktop GNU/Linux distribution available at the moment.".
Really? Why? Because the installer was so pretty?
Canonical Anonymous Coward
Can a sig be more clever than it's creator?
http://beranger.zoom.ro/index.php?article=401
should be changed now for:
http://beranger.org/index.php?article=401
I changed the hosting.