Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 13th Nov 2003 05:19 UTC
Fedora Core Fedora Core 1 has been out now for a few days now and many faithful Linux fans have already installed it. Red Hat's Linux is still one of my favorite distributions because of one main reason: compatibility with Linux software. Red Hat is a market leader and following the market leader assures the least trouble for most users. But is this the case with Fedora Core?
Order by: Score:
unfortunatly for me
by debman on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:25 UTC

it for some reason will not let my sound work on my laptop no matter what I do. I needed ACPI support in order for sound to work, so I did the acpi=on in the grub.conf and it comes on and all, but the sound just does not work.

I have a zt1130 pavilion laptop, anyone have a similar experience and got it fixed? I really like the integration they have added to this version, very nice.

flash, updating, rhythmbox
by contrasutra on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:27 UTC

Flash is not their fault.

The plugin seems to not work with a browswer that has been compiled with a newer (GCC3.3) compiler.

I had this problem when I recompiled Mozilla w/ GCC-3.3.2 and Flash suddenly stopped working, even though none of the plugin files had changed.

I haven't had this problem w/ JAVA though, it's been trucking along.


On updating, Can't you use Up2Date w/ the free YUM repository for apps like GAIM? Doesnt YUM automatically resolve dependancies?


Rhythmbox: pre-0.6.0 is extremely buggy. Try using 0.6.0, it seems a lot more stable.

Also, build it with the XINE backend,not gstreamer (use --with-xine). Gstreamer itself is really messy, and XINE hasnt given me any problems.

Not the greatest review
by Todu on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:30 UTC

The reviewer's expectations were too high. You're not supposed to compare Linux distributions with Windows or OS X. Comparing Linux distributions with other Linux distributions is the only fair way to review Linux. So I happen to think that FC 1 is a great release. It is much better than Mandrake and SuSe IMHO. I also have high hopes that Linux will be as good as Windows and OS X by the next decade. Open source is the superior development model, it just needs more professional programmers participating.

RE: lash, updating, rhythmbox
by Eugenia on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:30 UTC

I used Synaptic and apt repositories.
As for Rhythmbox, it is my job to review what they offer, not what I can update myself. Their version is buggy, and as such they should have either fixed it, or not include it at all. That's what makes a product good: QA.

>Flash is not their fault.

As a user, I don't give a damn if it is RedHat;s or Macromedia's fault. All I know is, as a user, I cannot use Flash. That's the bottomline.

filesystem & rpm
by raiten on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:31 UTC

they also have forgotten to skip redhat limitation on fs in install: always limited to ext2/3, LVM whereas stock 2.4 kernel also support reiserfs and JFS

rpm also seems broken as
rpm --rebuild, rpm -ba/-ta don't work, need to use rpmbuild ...

i also have trouble with vnc4beta, freeze, bad support of different window manager ...

hope they will change in next release ... if they keep redhat way, have to wait release 2 or 3

I am happy as a pig in mud
by monkey- on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:32 UTC

I was running RH9, I did a clean install of Fedora Core 1 just the other night. I am very happy with it. My Toshiba A10 is very responsive and perfoms as exepcted now... Well done FC team!

My only "complaint" if you will, is boot times.. if they could speed boot times somehow I would be really happy..

Keep it up guys ;)

RE: Not the greatest review
by Eugenia on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:32 UTC

> You're not supposed to compare Linux distributions with Windows or OS X

WHAT? Excuse me, but did you read the goal of Fedora??
To create a good general purpose OS for users to use? Excuse me then, but OSX and Windows are exactly that. Therefore, Fedora and any other such OS WILL be compared to the market leaders. Why? Because it wants people to switch, these people need to know their options and good these options are. And this is exactly my job over here!

Issues with Radeon
by Todd Wittenmeier on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:33 UTC

I had issues getting x to work with my radeon 7000, with works fine with most everything else, so I went back to RH 9.2.. like the bootup though, I do have a VE with 2 monitors attached, so it might have been an Xinerama issue, but I couldn't log into a terminal, and could not restart X..

Oh well
-Todd

RPM locking
by SteveW on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:34 UTC

You can fix "RPM locking" without rebooting - I discovered how by snooping through the init scripts. You need to remove /var/lib/rpm/__db*, and then it works properly again.

v software install problems
by Anonymous on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:35 UTC
v RE: software install
by Eugenia on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:36 UTC
rpmbuild
by SteveW on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:37 UTC

I also had problems figuring out that you needed to use rpmbuild in the latest versions of RPM. They built in support for automatically calling rpmquery, rpmverify, etc. when using the various rpm flags, so I wonder why they didn't make rpmbuild get called in the same way.

Rythmbox
by Anonymous on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:39 UTC

I think it is reallt irrespossiable that they put rythmbox in there. rythmbox is so unstable its not even funny!

I disagree with the gaim problems. Yes there are always problems when you use rpms that are built for different distros. Yes, even version changes like RH8/RH9, if they work, good for you, otherwise, tough luck.
What you should do is wait for fedora to release an updated version, and that should upgrade cleanly. Complaining that you cant compile programs that are not meant to be easy to compile, and that rpms not meant for fedora dont install cleanly is not a fair complaint IMHO.

Can we please also cut the stuff about the Multimedia lacking? Eveyone knows its not there! You didnt even mention http://rpm.livna.org/, which contains all these nonfree packages and were compiled for FC1!

You also compare performance with your self compiled plugins. Try the plugins from livna, or try playing an ogg (so you use an 'official' plugin) and see fi you get the same performance issues.

You want good java rpms? Try these: http://dag.wieers.com/packages/j2re/

Once again though, you can give me third party things that dont work, while I can give you third party packages that do work.

More then half of your article is complaining about third party packages, and how they dont work. Sorry but that really brought down the level of your review. There are many good problems there (like the samba issue, that ximian has gotten right using unholy hacks, but atleast it works), but instead of focusing on them, you focus on the ones that arnt fedora's fault.

Btw, just that people should generally know, most of the problems reported in the article are not distro problems. So you will probably see these problems if you use any other distro too, that dosnt heavily patch (like RH used to do). This is not that fedora isnt good, its just that now fedora dosnt have as much reasources to heavily patch their packages as they used to. This means that the packages are more 'pure', and therefore a tad more unpolished. It is a shame since RH have fixed a large number of bugs with their patchs and most of their patchs got accepted upstream in the end.
Fedora in terms of the important stuff (kernel, initscripts, configurability, how everythings 'fits' together, etc..) is pretty rock solid, waiting to see if this will hold for future releases...

RE: filesystem & rpm
by cybrjackle on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:40 UTC

reiserfs has been there since 8, you just have to type

"linux enable reiserfs"

at the boot prompt during initial install. No one ever seems to mention that.

As far as

#rpmbuild --rebuild

AFAIK, that is because of rpm not RH specific, use any rpm distro that has an updated rpm package and it should be the same across the board.

v RE: software install problems
by SteveW on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:43 UTC
The lesson to keep in mind ...
by Benabdellah on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:43 UTC

Redhat/Fedora developpers/mainteners should concentrate more on FIXING BUGS and stabilizing the system than exhibit each time a new release of Gnome desktop with new features (but with a lot of bugs).

Redhat 7.0 came with Gnome 1.4
Redhat 8.0 came with Gnome 2.0
Redhat 9 with Gnome 2.2
Fedora 1 with Gnome 2.4
...................

Each time the developpers were unable to fix all bugs ..

v Eugenia
by Burbzman on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:44 UTC
Community based
by asimov on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:44 UTC


Fedora is community-based and they welcome bug reports.
If you find a bug, you will do a service to file at http://bugzilla.fedora.us/

Peter

red hat is not responsibel for q-and-a
by frymaster on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:45 UTC

<quote>I wonder, didn't Red Hat's QA actually test common proprietary software that many of its users will want to install?</quote>

no, they didn't. fedora's q-and-a is done by the "developer community" and red hat takes no responsibility for it... refer to this chart:

http://fedora.redhat.com/about/rhel.html


you think having a hard time getting gaim running was annoying? imagine if it was your company's mail server. bottom line: fedora is useless and dangerous for anyone but desktop users and hobbyists. if you've run servers on 7/8/9 do NOT expect to just continue on as normal using fedora.

Yep, agreed
by LinuxBuddy on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:45 UTC

Yes, I just installed Fedora myself and have had a few problems. In general, thinks are working okay, but it definitely isn't as polished as RH9 was.

My first attempt at Fedora was to try to "upgrade" my RH9 installation. Fedora warned that it would do its best but that some RPMs weren't the original versions. I went for it anyway. That installation generally worked, but had some problems with various little things (like my desktop was pretty screwed up, OOo had problems starting up, and some system utility applets didn't work quite correctly).

Anyway, I decided to wipe clean and go for it again. That seemed to work a little better.

But I'm still having problems getting RHN to work correctly. And this on a clean install. I don't get it.

So yes, in general, I agree with Eugenia. Unless there is something you know that Fedora will do for you, I'd stick with RH9 until they get the kinks worked out.

Java Plugin
by Anonymous on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:47 UTC

Eugenia ... here is what I needed to do to get the java plugin to work in mozilla:

http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/linux.html#Java

RE: Eugenia
by contrasutra on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:50 UTC

Well, you're right about Rhythmbox. It's buggy, and they shouldnt have included it on the CDs. 0.6.0 is pretty nice though, if you use XINE.


But you can't blame them for flash. Do you want them to use an old compiler just to get a plugin?

What if Macromedia doesn't update their linux version for another year? Do you want them to stay with an old compiler then?

Open source software can't be held back by proprietary companies. GCC3 is perfectly stable, and is in product use on many distros.

Re: Not the greatest review
by bsdrocks on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:51 UTC

You're not supposed to compare Linux distributions with Windows or OS X. Comparing Linux distributions with other Linux distributions is the only fair way to review Linux.

Perhaps, you aren't too bright or you need to re-read? She has compared with Slackware, YellowTAB Zeta, MacOS X _and_ Windows. She just shows that all others work fine included other Linux distros while Fedora Core has some strange problems. Therefore, I think it's very reasonable for her to compare those.

Fedora Core 1 is awesome
by bullethead on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:52 UTC

I have to say that Fedora Core release "1" is amazing. I have to say congrats to the Red Hat community. I appreciate Red Hat providing yum support out of the "box" so to speak. I don't use the "up2date" util so there is no need for me to complain (plus I have read they fixed this up2date problem about 1 day after it was released). I have also noticed improvements in the stock generic Nvidia support, making me not even having to worry about installing the Nvidia drivers from the site. Well done, a few bugs are expected but that goes with any "freely downloadable" distro. If you want bright polish desktop run RHEL WS. Beautiful, also good job Eugina about your problems, this is definitely not for someone who has not tinkered with linux before. But if you know how to use apt/yum and install rpms this distro is for you.

Re: Not the greatest review
by Jason Lotito on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:53 UTC

Um...it's a good review. As a user of Fedora and SuSE, I can attest to these same problems. RPM locking being the biggest hassle. I like the general desktop feel, however, it's not as polished as I would like.

On another note: How would one go about taking Fedora and repackaging things, and releasing it? For example, with actualy MP3 support and what not? Where could I go to learn about this sort of thing?

 RE: Fedora Core 1 is awesome
by Eugenia on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:54 UTC

>But if you know how to use apt/yum and install rpms this distro is for you.

I wish it was that simple. I use apt and Synaptic. But that does not solve all problems. All problems is not just about software installation, but about simple bugs too.

Eugenia's Right
by enloop on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:54 UTC

I've been using FC1 since t was released. I'm happy so far, but I don't give a twit about mp3s and multimedia stuff.

That said, the issues Eugenia raises have been reported and discussed on the Fedora mailing lists. We will see what happens.

In the meantime, I think what we have here is RH9 with a few improvements around the edges, and, as Eugenia points out, some annoying bugs.

Bottom line: If you aren't interested in multimedia, if you aren't trying to turn your PC into an entertainment center, if you consider the absence of Flash a blessing, and if you avoid installing updates from non-Fedora sources,then FC1 is a pretty slick release.

apt & synaptic...
by filippo on Wed 12th Nov 2003 20:58 UTC

how about waiting a couple of weeks till the repositoties can switch completely to FC1 ???

the situation had drammatically got better in the last two days....

Not ready
by Dave on Wed 12th Nov 2003 21:03 UTC

Eugenia, perhaps this is what RedHat's CEO meant when he said Linux wasn't ready to be a home user desktop system.

Instead of saying Linux, he should have said "Fedora Core 1" isn't ready. Then again, I'm not sure he's actually used it himself.

By the way: Listening to streaming Eurodisco? Eugenia, were you shakin' it to the Cheeky Dance?

Problems
by Man at Arms on Wed 12th Nov 2003 21:03 UTC

I too, had some problems with Fedora 1 which I didn't encounter with Red Hat 9 (and < 9). My Soundblaster AWE64 ISA was not detected and my monitor had its maximum resolution set to 1024*768 (it can do much higher ones).

Of course I could solve these problems in no time, but a more newbie user could not and it is strange these problems were not in RH9. Makes me wonder how much this is based on RH9. All around a very nice distro though.

Flash
by Andy22_ on Wed 12th Nov 2003 21:05 UTC

I managed to install Flash in Fedora Core 1.

"ln -s /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5 /usr/lib/libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so.3"

should do the trick.

Good Points
by Mike on Wed 12th Nov 2003 21:06 UTC

I think the points made were valid. I tried a few different things to get Nvidia's drivers working and it was a no go. Also Ximian's Desktop2 wanted no part of Fedora. I do think these things will change pretty soon.

If the industry looks at Fedora as "Red Hat 9.2" like i think they will, these problems will clear up soon. In the meantime, I've been using Slackware 9.1 and i think it's great.

Works fine here
by heh on Wed 12th Nov 2003 21:07 UTC

AFAICT the review is fine, i.e. the Fedora distribution works mostly fine (whic it does btw). What does not work OTOH are third party rpms - so? Tell the third party developers!

I use apt-get/yum and haven't had any problems at all with flash et al.

rpm locking
by asimov on Wed 12th Nov 2003 21:10 UTC


Regarding RPM locking,
do not "rpm -Uvh" and use up2date/yum/etc
at the same time.

Fedora is not good
by Andre Goddard on Wed 12th Nov 2003 21:11 UTC

Fedora lacks support for my sound card, an onboard
chip on A7V8X-X, even noticed that ALSA does support it.

WHY doesnt Fedora uses ALSA if its a standard???
I am really disapointed, its a very bad distribution and
I agree with Eugenia on this.

When will MDK 9.2 ISOS are to be released?
Nobody is commnenting on it anymore....

Fedora is very bad for me... Did you ever tried MDK?

Custom RedHat Distro Re: Not the greatest review
by Jason G on Wed 12th Nov 2003 21:11 UTC

"On another note: How would one go about taking Fedora and repackaging things, and releasing it? For example, with actualy MP3 support and what not? Where could I go to learn about this sort of thing?"

I've seen docs on who to do this before, try google.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=custom+r...

Too bad
by Paulo Junqueira on Wed 12th Nov 2003 21:12 UTC

I installed it and saw the following problems (I day of use):

- No java support. I installed java and it didn't work with any browser
- Flash. I instlled it using my user in the Mozilla and Nestape place. Didn't work. Install as root didn't work too.
- Couldn't find MPlayer.
- After the installation I don't have an option to reconfigure my video card to support 1024x768.
- My other partitions wasn't recognized.

It seems the this version is worse then 8.0. Too bad.

Some of you can say: It's not their fault!!

Think like a HOME USER!!! All of this stuffs must work without to install anything.

Linux only will be ready for the desktop when this kind of problem is fixed.

I'm thinking about to try Lindows or Xandros...

@Eugenia ...Fedora... why not SuSE review?
by marcm on Wed 12th Nov 2003 21:14 UTC

I've personally tested fedora core 1 on a laptop and desktop, and I must I liked it but it has its issues. Samba 3 is a pain to make work, and all in all I've removed fedora core after a while. They've pushed this release out of the door so that they can keep up with the promissed release date and to satisfy the community.
I'd love to see a review of SuSE Linux 9.0 from you. I must say SuSE Linux 9.0 is a great release, works good out of the box and is very stable. It doesn't comme with gnome 2.4, only 2.2 but stabilitty comes first. Also the difference between 2.2 and 2.4 is not big. KDE 3.1.4 is very polished and has overall hacks and neat stuff compared to the stock KDE.

For production/office/business use I would recommend SuSE Linux 9.0 Pro. Its stable, and we need also stable releases. Having the latest .x releases of software every few months doesn't help. In Linux Land software changes much every once a year, and major changes can be seen every 2 years. SuSE 9.0 is also cool for development.
Maybe we see a review of SuSE 9.0 from you Eugenia:)

Compile problems
by Andrew G on Wed 12th Nov 2003 21:15 UTC

Compiling software for Gnome is generally a nightmare.

Why is it that so many apps fail to compile for seemingly no reason. Every dependancy met, blah, blah, blah. For instance Mono will not compile on Fedora from CVS or tarball.

Is this just Fedora? Has anyone managed to achieve this monumental feat?

The only problem with Flash that I had was that it needed a particular version with libstdc++, which was in an RPM that was not installed by default, namely compat-libstdc++. Java was easy; I installed the RPM from java.sun.com, and in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins, I did "ln -s /usr/java/j2re1.4.2_01/plugin/i386/ns610-gcc32/libjavaplugin_oji.so".

That said, Fedora certainly has its annoying quirks. up2date pops up a dialog to register with RHN; I click "Register with RHN", and it runs up2date without any registration. Eh? The up2date applet also warns that

"The applet has been unable to access the following information sources in its last attempts: fedora-core-1 @ http://fedora.redhat.com/releases/fedora-core-1, updates-released @ http://fedora.redhat.com/updates/released/fedora-core-1"

even though the core up2date app can handle those information sources just fine.

The graphical boot needs to go back to the drawing board. It doesn't hide the kernel messages, which undermines the whole point of a graphical boot, and worse, it breaks support for the Wacom USB Graphire, and temporarily freezes regular USB mice.

That said I didn't find Fedora nearly the disaster that Eugenia did. I may switch myself to Slackware, but that has more to do with wanting a platform that is easier to tweak and "abuse" than any particular problems with Fedora.

Gaim + MSN
by Cebit on Wed 12th Nov 2003 21:18 UTC

I had no luck compiling Gaim(+MSN support) with GnuTLS either. I spent a whole night trying to to that but the GnuTLS project seems to be very messy as far as dependencies are concerned.

On the contrary, Gaim compiled fine using the Mozilla Project NSS/NSPR libraries. More info at: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/pki/nss/buildnss_31.html





Re: Mandrake isos
by jmf on Wed 12th Nov 2003 21:22 UTC

Mandrake wait to reach a common agreement with LG !
The likelyhood is that we will have a 2nd boot cd n°0 with the updates. You will have 4 CDs.

Chears
Jean-Michel Fayard


NB : IMHO, Mandrake should not wait _too much_ that LG wakes up. But, it would be good that LG can find a way to repair the CDROM drives.

RE: Too Bad
by Andrew G on Wed 12th Nov 2003 21:27 UTC

I agree, the liva.something yum repository has Mplayer, but when use 'yum install mplayer' it tells you it is missing a package for dependancy. Thats pretty funny. Why bother putting mplayer in the repository without all the packages needed for it?

Actually that has happened with quite a lot of Fedora packages. Fedora is a huge disapointment for me.

I think its light and fast
by Q on Wed 12th Nov 2003 21:27 UTC

I hate the added bloat to the fedora config so I tried building my system from a minimal install using yum for installs and dependency checks and adding the needed mp3,mplayer rpms after.
"yum install gnome*" installed x, samba, gnome and some utilities and to my suprise after setting the resolution startx loaded me into a very trim system. Then I did yum install openoffice*,xmms*,gedit*,gimp*,gaim*,epiphany*,balsa*,emacs* and redhat-config* and I was pretty much done cept for mp3s:-). Fedora isn't perfect but its an excellent start.

v You still lives in a democracy. Use your rights.
by jmf on Wed 12th Nov 2003 21:30 UTC
Fedora
by Cheapskate on Wed 12th Nov 2003 21:35 UTC

i am using it as i type this, it is not bad, i had a couple of minor peeves but nothing i could not resolve..

First peeve, the option to check thru individual packages was gone from the install, but the grouped package selection seemed a little more improved...

Second peeve, the option to choose LILO and not Grub was gone, i easily fixed this by getting a copy of LILO from Rawhide and making a lilo.conf file from scratch for /etc...

Third peeve, no xmms-mp3 plugin for xmms-1.2.8, not found anywhere on the net as of this post, the one for xmms-1.2.7 wont work in xmms-1.2.8. i gor around this by installing mplayer which can play more multimedia file formats anyway so no real loss...

other than those three peeves i have no problems...

xfce4 that was built for Redhat-9 runs just fine in Fedora Core-1 i did not install or use Gnome or KDE so i can not say anything good or bad about them...

RE: Compile problems
by heh on Wed 12th Nov 2003 21:37 UTC

Mono won't compile on Fedora Core 1?
Strange I just compiled it directly from CVS.

Make sure you install all the development tools you need for compiling mono.

Poor old Eugenia...I didn't have any of her probs!
by Anonymous on Wed 12th Nov 2003 21:38 UTC

Sounds like Eugenia had a torrid time with Fedora Core 1 - with my 2.0Ghz P4 with an Nvidia card, I had no problems at all :-)

Some things I did different to Eugenia:

* I updated to mozilla 1.5 (can't understand why 1.4.1 was shipped with Fedora Core 1) very easily - just downloaded the official RPM from http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/yum/SeaMonkey/releas...

* I searched for Fedora Core Flash RPM (no double quotes) on Google and the second link returned took me to:
http://sluglug.ucsc.edu/macromedia/site_ucsc.html
which had a nice downloadable RPM. It has a dependency on compat-libstdc++-7.3-2.96.118.i386.rpm though, so I had to install that from the FC1 CDs (that should really be installed as part of any FC1 install !).

* I downloaded the Sun Java 1.4.2_02 SDK (big !) and JRE from http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/download.html (you have to run a shell script to unpack an RPM, which then install).
The only "nasty" with Java is that to get it enabled with Mozilla 1.5, you've got to put a crazily-obscure soft-link in (not surprising that Eugenia didn't work this one out):

ln -s /usr/java/j2re1.4.2_02/plugin/i386/ns610-gcc32/libjavaplugin_oji.so /usr/lib/mozilla-1.5/plugins/libjavaplugin_oji.so

* I then downloaded the xine RPMs (following the instructions) from here:
http://cambuca.ldhs.cetuc.puc-rio.br/xine/
and DVDs were playing pretty soon after that (I run them from an icon with the command "xine --auto-play=f --auto-scan dvd --deinterlace").

* Opera 7.21 was then downloaded from http://www.opera.com/ - no problems with the RPM (I hate its default layout - it's ludicrously cluttered and takes ages to get it "slimmed down").

* abiword 2.0.1 RPMs for Fedora Core worked fine from http://www.abisource.com/download/ though be wary that extra dictionary ("abispell") RPMs from Sourceforge install into the old /usr/share/AbiSuite tree from abiword 1.X - you have to copy them into /usr/share/AbiSuite-2.0's equivalent directory.

* Good old Nvidia drivers from http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux_display_ia32_1.0-4496.html worked, but they're not RPMs, so quite fiddly to install (you've got to set something like IGNORE_CC_MISMATCH=1 before you run it, otherwise they complain, plus it's poor the installer doesn't auto-hack your XF86Config for you).

* As a final treat, I added in the Really Slick Screensavers from http://www.gurulabs.com/downloads.html (where you can also get xmms 1.2.8 RPM with MP3 support compiled in, yes, the ones Eugenia moaned and groaned about).

Sort of makes Eugenia look a bit of a newbie really doesn't it? ;) I must admit though, this is all from previous RH 7.2, 8.0 or 9 experiences - if I was starting from scratch, it might take me a few more hours to sort it out.

> The only "nasty" with Java is that to get it enabled with Mozilla 1.5, you've got to put a crazily-obscure soft-link in (not surprising that Eugenia didn't work this one out):

I HAVE DONE this. Please do not get conclusion about me without knowning what I have done and what not.

Good review
by Claus on Wed 12th Nov 2003 21:41 UTC

I'd give the review a 10! It It has length, width and depth. Many other reviews cover only installation. And the author knows the subject. That helps. Hopefully something good will come out of this review not putting the bad stuff under the rug. The review mentions 10-15 commonly-installed popular proprietary applications. I'd like to know what these are if someone would care to list them.

RE: I think its light and fast
by Anonymous on Wed 12th Nov 2003 21:43 UTC

Fedora isn't perfect but its an excellent start.

I think that you just hit the nail on the head. Your statement would be very valid if this was indeed a distro just starting out. But, the reality is that the distro is quite old and should be mature, only the name is new. Fedora Core 1 would have been Red Hat 9.x or Red Hat 10 if Red Hat hadn't decided to abandon support.

With a fairly long lineage of good distributions (Red Hat 7.2, 7.3, 8.0, 9.0) it is not unreasonable to expect the next generation release to improve upon the feature set and quality of its predecessors. But, it appears that Fedora Core 1 is actually a step back in features and quality from Red Hat 9. We can only hope that a scathing review, such as this one, will catch the eye of the Fedora developers and that they will exert greater effort on quality control before the next release.

Everyone is watching Fedora closely. Red Hat was the most popular distribution and, now that they have abandoned support, people are looking to see if Fedora truely fills the gap or if they must look to some other distribution. So far, Fedora doesn't really appear like it will fill the gap left by Red Hat. The next critical mile post for Fedora will be ongoing support. If they fail with on going support, people will certainly look for a new "most popular distro".

RE: filesystem & rpm
by Anonymous on Wed 12th Nov 2003 21:45 UTC

"reiserfs has been there since 8, you just have to type
"linux enable reiserfs"
at the boot prompt during initial install. No one ever seems to mention that."


No one mention this because it's not enough.
1) Why do we have to type in this secret parameter? The choise should be just there
2) This doesn't work with LVM
3) This doesn't work with upgrade

> The only "nasty" with Java is that to get it enabled with Mozilla 1.5, you've got to put a crazily-obscure soft-link in (not surprising that Eugenia didn't work this one out):

I HAVE DONE this. Please do not get conclusion about me without knowning what I have done and what not.


But did you do

ln -s
/usr/java/j2re1.4.2_02/plugin/i386/ns610-gcc32/libjavaplugin_oji.so

or

ln -s
/usr/java/j2re1.4.2_02/plugin/i386/ns610/libjavaplugin_oji.so

The former has a "-gcc32" in it.

v How does the moderating system works ?
by jmf on Wed 12th Nov 2003 21:54 UTC
Re: RE: Too Bad
by J. J. Ramsey on Wed 12th Nov 2003 21:56 UTC

I agree, the liva.something yum repository has Mplayer, but when use 'yum install mplayer' it tells you it is missing a package for dependancy. Thats pretty funny. Why bother putting mplayer in the repository without all the packages needed for it?

Probably what has happened is that the RPM from Livna is expecting an RPM that hasn't yet migrated from Fedora Core 0.95 to Fedora Core 1.

Install problem ...
by CesarA on Wed 12th Nov 2003 22:02 UTC

My first impression of FC 1 were also negative. I had the same problem at my first install as the reviewer: X would die a few seconds after Anaconda would load. I had to reboot and then begin the installation once again. Everthing was smooth after that. Maybe the FC team can look into this ...

Other than that keep up the good work FC!

There are other Linux distros available
by felix on Wed 12th Nov 2003 22:03 UTC

Even if you were not satisfied with Fedora I don't understand why you don't mention other Linux distros like SUSE LINUX instead of writing that people will stick with Win, Mac or FreeBSD.

I mean Fedora/Redhat is not the only Linux distribution out there.

Greetings

Felix

RE: RE: Not the greatest review
by mp on Wed 12th Nov 2003 22:09 UTC

1. Eugenia, you are breaking your own rules:
- no hardware description
2. Samba may not work but VMWare is emulation mode that may or may not work. If Fedora can connect with other smb shares but not with xp on VMWare then it is the least priority. Run tcpdump and other diagnostic tools to see what is going on. Otherwise it maybe your faulf (misconfiguration)
3. This is first pre-release of fedora I would not compare it to gold OS X or xp or final version of any OS in fact. So hold on your horses and wait for final release of fedora and then you can compare it to xp, os x or whatever. Right now it is even not least informative.
4. problems with installation of packages (gaim) only prove that their (fedora) database still needs work. By the way - this proof of the superiority of FBSD packaging system - it will take care of all dependencies needed.

I have got to be one of the dumbest people alive
by debman on Wed 12th Nov 2003 22:15 UTC

the sound did not work on my laptop using fedora because I has the speakers on mute before I installed the system.

RE: RE: filesystem & rpm
by cybrjackle on Wed 12th Nov 2003 22:17 UTC

"No one mention this because it's not enough.
1) Why do we have to type in this secret parameter? The choise should be just there
2) This doesn't work with LVM
3) This doesn't work with upgrade"

I use reiserfs with LVM. Why they don't mention it, no idea.

RE: RE: Not the greatest review
by anyweb on Wed 12th Nov 2003 22:18 UTC

gimme a break,

this is a solid review and Eugenia is explaing the experiences she has had with it and from what she is saying i tend to agree,

rpm package management is broken, why ? this is the 'final' release ? isn't it ? what was test 1,2,3 all about then ?

i don't see 'test' anywhere on this release as was clearly visible on the test 1,2 and 3 releases.

if you mean final as in 'the final release of fedora' then who knows what that is ? fedora 10 perhaps ;)

cheers

anyweb

p.s. good review Eugenia and well written and researched, don't mind the whiners.

Novell to the rescue....
by Anonymous on Wed 12th Nov 2003 22:20 UTC

.. now where they introduce SUSE to the US of A big time, you need not return to good ole Europe in order to get a working system.. ;-)

For me has been easy
by pasha on Wed 12th Nov 2003 22:22 UTC

Hi, I wanted to tell you my experience with Fedora.
I am no geek. I simply used what comes with the distro (plus what's missing....)
I used RH9, took my Toshiba TECRA 8200 and fresh installed FC-1. After that I have gone to Macromedia site and downloaded the shockwave/flash plugin for Linux. When prompted I told the installer to install in /usr/lib/mozilla-1.4.1/plugins and all went fine. With Java (read Mozilla 1.4.1 release notes) I knew that only gcc32 java plugin would work. For Mp3 I got what I needed from freshrpms.net and so I did for ogle (DVD Player) and Xine+totem. 15 minutes after the end of installation I had a system to fulfill my needs : Office, Browsing, Internet Content (not MS ...) It was a Personal Desktop install. The only disappointment was when I discovered the bug in redhat-config-packages. Filed the bug on bugzilla and 4 hours later I had the patch.
Easy, fast, polished. I am happy with that, it seemed even a little bit more speedy and smooth.
Good work.
I have to say that if a lot of people had a different experience with Fedora, this means that not everything is in the right place and more work needs to be done in the core libraries install and hardware detection phase. We know that XP installs fine on (almost) every hardware but I would keep OS X out of the game, because installs on hardware it was written for. Apple is good, but developing software for a hardware you build is a sort of cheating... On the other side, it's very hard to make an OS that should install on Intel/AMD with a lot of different chipsets/pci cards around.... Even Windows often has troubles with that.

- Regards
- Pasha

It's not bad at all
by Anonymous on Wed 12th Nov 2003 22:26 UTC

My experience with FC1 has been a lot different: I like it a lot better than RH9. OpenOffice starts a lot quicker (thanks to prelinking in Fedora), printer configuration is improved, and most programs seems to launch a bit faster.

And contrary to your experience, multimedia support is a lot *better* on my poor 500MHz laptop. I haven't been able to make XMMS, Totem or Rhythmbox skip yet. Not once.

And installing flash can be quite easy, if you're using apt: "apt-get install flash-plugin" should do the trick (apt from fedora.us is preconfigured with a flash repository).

re: poor old Eugenia...
by enloop on Wed 12th Nov 2003 22:29 UTC

If Fedora is aiming for the desktop market, then anything that requires a user to locate, download and install software is he kiss of death. If it isn't installed by default,
it needs to be as simple as this: "Yum install new-app-that-I-Want". (without telling the user to tweak yum.conf to pull from some non-fedora site.)

Gaim
by waffle on Wed 12th Nov 2003 22:30 UTC

"My disappointment started when I tried to upgrade Gaim 0.71 to 0.72.
...
So I decided to download the source of Gaim and compile it myself.
...
This is a simple user scenario that should have not happened, no matter whose fault really is. Now think what a newbie user coming from Windows-land would think about this whole --literally-- usability fiasco."


I don't picture most users coming from a Windows background would care that much about what version Gaim is, or attempt to update it (with RPMs for another distro at that). Talking about about dependancies and compiling threw any kind of plausibility in the arguement had out the window.

The changes between any version of Gaim are, for the most part, incremental and 0.71 alone is more than aduquate for MSN. I don't see 0.71 to 0.72 being a nessecity unless you're following a bug real closely.

I think that the imperfections in Fedora are a feature, not a bug. RedHat has said (prominently) that Fedora is to be a *community* project, not just a fancier version of rawhide.

RedHat *doesn't care* what you want. They, if they are involved at all, are participating as just a few more individuals in a large project. Fedora is a *fork*. It is not "RedHat's new desktop distro." RedHat is shaping no goals, laying no groundwork, determining no future for Fedora; it is up to the community. It is what we decide to make of it.

The favor that RedHat has done us is this: that now the delineation between proprietary add-on tweaks and true, core OSS project development is just that much clearer. It's $179. If you want the proprietary tweaks and services, spend the cash. Buy RHEL 3 WS. No one's stopping you.

If you don't, then if you want things from a community project, you need to pay the traditional price: participate in the community.

So, in brief, stop whinging and contribute.

Joe

>RedHat *doesn't care* what you want.

If Red Hat does not care and Fedora's community members do not care about the quality of the project, sorry mate, but I don't care either. SOMEONE has to care, otherwise they don't deserve all this publicity and much more it doesn't deserve the # of downloads it had so far.

The project has to become better, no matter who is steering the wheel. Currently, it is a dissapointment, fork or not, gift from Red Hat or not. It just doesn't work as it should.

RE:Gaim
by pasha on Wed 12th Nov 2003 23:00 UTC

I do agree.
We should keep in mind what's out-of-the-box (or out-of-the-distro) and review that, no need to go find the xx.yy release. Let me add that for the same reason it's time to stop complaining about mp3 unsupport in RH product lines: we know that. I have been through many forums and it seems to be not legal in US, so far so good. I do not know why VLC or Ogle or Xine are not there but maybe it is for the same reason (anyone can confirm that ?). EU distros comes with multimedia maybe no legal problems here.
Ogg is good enough if you plan to store your music on your hard drive. Sure is not enough to carry your music with you ... Anybody knows about an ogg player ?

- bye
- Pasha

I was disappointed, too.
by Tor on Wed 12th Nov 2003 23:07 UTC

The installation itself went without any problems, but as a desktop os Fedora is very limited, and it is too bothersome to make those bits and pieces run, which used to work quite well in RH9. Apart from the small evolutionary changes, which are ok enough, Fedora offers little new compared with its predecessor. I therefore re-installed RH9 and will keep it there, for some time still..

No problems here:
by jbett on Wed 12th Nov 2003 23:08 UTC

Fedora is running fine, all hardware has been grabbed and setup fine. I was even able to install the Radeon 9500 PRO drivers from ATI without a hitch. Yum has been a blessing with the new repositories since I've been able to grab all kinds of new software without dependency hell.

All I can say is that if your having problems submit your reports to Fedora's bugzilla.

v WTF Eugenia?
by Alex on Wed 12th Nov 2003 23:10 UTC
Fedora
by Antarius on Wed 12th Nov 2003 23:13 UTC

Todu:
You're not supposed to compare Linux distributions with Windows or OS X

I disagree. Fedora is being touted as an operating system that can stand on its own merits. If it is to be considered an alternative to using Windows or OSX, then it must be compared with Windows or OSX.

It'd be like saying that GEM Desktop is fantastic compared to GEM Desktop, yet giving no comparison. Anybody that wants a GUI would quickly determine themselves that Windows et al offer a better interface than GEM!


Benabdellah:
Redhat/Fedora developpers/mainteners should concentrate more on FIXING BUGS and stabilizing the system than exhibit each time a new release of Gnome desktop with new features (but with a lot of bugs).

That's not part of the focus of Fedora. Quite plainly, they intend to stay closer to the bleeding edge, being aimed at the desktop user (ultimately). For cleaner versions, you're supposed to look at RHEL.

That's why they [RedHat] are not focussing on backporting features into Fedora Core, as they have done historically.

I, for one, actually welcome this. I hate being on versions of Mozilla that are 3 or 4 versions old, or behind the eight-ball with OOo too.


Re: Flash.
Strange to hear that people had trouble; I used the library straight from Macromedia and it worked fine! Of course, I satisfied the dependencies for compat-libstdc++ by hand first. Why? Because at that stage, the RPM GUI wasn't working (as per Eugenia's review.)

Speaking of which, Eugenia, the RPM GUI bug was fixed pretty quickly. Again, I installed it by hand, but I would hope that it has hit a yum or apt repository by now.

I assume that the reason you didn't apply the patch, and thus complained about an already fixed bug, is because you were reviewing it from an average user's point of view. A good distro that is touting itself for a simple point-and-click administration/configuration should not require dropping to a CLI, I agree.

(But you'll have to tear my CLI from my cold, dead claws!)


Cheapskate:
First peeve, the option to check thru individual packages was gone from the install, but the grouped package selection seemed a little more improved...

I agree with the peeve (no tick for individual packages) and raise you an extra peeve:

There is no way of informing the system what CD images you have. To make this worse, there is no way of knowing what CD's that you are going to need until you commit to the install.

Australian broadband is behind that of the "free world" in that we have to shell out for our traffic. I didn't want to use up a whole monthly allowance in the first week, so I only sucked down the first couple of ISOs. (And some kind person decided that the kernel should be on CD 3!)

It took a lot of experimentation to find which groups wanted the third CD and leave them out!

"Easy, just pick some 'bare minimums' and install the other groups after you reboot," you say? Tried it; at that stage, the RPM GUI bug was still there.


(I can't agree on the LILO peeve, though. I really couldn't give a toss about a bootloader that only pops up for 10 seconds whenever I reboot. I don't reboot often enough - and a bootloader is a bootloader ultimately!)


Third peeve, no xmms-mp3 plugin for xmms-1.2.8

Try the livna repositories. They worked for me.


anonymous@gotadsl.co.uk:
Sounds like Eugenia had a torrid time with Fedora Core 1 - with my 2.0Ghz P4 with an Nvidia card, I had no problems at all :-)

Yeah, that's all well and good. I can (and did) install most applications by hand too. (I like control!) New users that are coming to Fedora Core from another OS aren't usually up to this steep learning curve, however. It can be a turnoff.


Anyweb:
rpm package management is broken, why ? this is the 'final' release ? isn't it ? what was test 1,2,3 all about then ?

Bloody oath! There is no way that this glaring error should have made it into the Final release.



My take:
I'm disappointed in not being able to get my Promise ATA RAID going easily. Promise's support is abysmal (they do have native support for RH 8 & 9 which makes life easy!), so ultimately the only option is the opensource ATARAID.

I would like to see Anaconda support installs using ATARAID by default. More and more systems are coming with Promise & HighPoint on-board (mine is an expansion card) and it would be great to use these for a cheap RAID 1.


Big gripe:
I'm beyond irritated at redhat-config-printer which has been shoved down my throat!

I have a postscript 3 printer, which has a fantastic vendor supplied PPD. redhat-config-printer does not support adding third party PPD's. This I wouldn't normally care about...

What I do care about is when said application screws around with my CUPS configuration when it should leave it alone!

I setup my printer using CUPS web interface (localhost:631) with the vendor PPD and things went beautifully - much like all of my experiences with a properly setup CUPS configuration.

Then Gnome's PrintManager fired up redhat-config-printer & it got a hold of my new setups. It changed the "driver" which resulted in all of my printer output being turned into postscript garbage. (This is a known issue, introduced in RH9 - and the easiest way around it is "rpm -e redhat-config-printer redhat-config-printer-gui --nodeps" as Fedora claims that it is a vital component.)


At the end of the day, I have found Fedora to be smoother & quicker than the RH8 system I upgraded from. Besides the above two gripes, I have had flawless operation - far superior to the previous RH8 system. I have yet to have an application crash, even on the workstations (running LTSP).

Of course, I'm using it to run a business network, so multimedia nonsense is not only an issue, but a waste of space for me, sorry.

I LOVE FLASH ANIMATIONS.
I LOVE MOVIES.
I LOVE MP3s.
How could they release this BUGGY thing?

Re: Ricardo
by jbett on Wed 12th Nov 2003 23:20 UTC

You are a little confused my friend. What you listed are features that are not found in this release for good reasons. I can assure you that these things are added easily (maybe not the flash in the future though). Buggy would mean unstable or unfinished. Fedora is not unstable, I have not had one single crash on the R1 release. And as far as hardware bugs have yet to see any on three different boxes I've installed Fedora on.

The question you should be asking is:
"How could they release something so feature incomplete?"

Eugenia,
Sorry to disagree but I think that you are taking all too at heart. Ok, some bugs in final release shouldn't be there, especially in a critical component like the package manager, but maybe this is the price you pay for a free Red Hat community project.
Remember :
"It's unwise to pay too much. . . but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money. . . that is all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot. It can't be done. If you deal with lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run. And if you do that, you will have enough to pay for something better." -- JOHN RUSKIN

I respect Linux and open source community, but I know the risks. It's better that paying $$$ for XP and have all this security holes in return. Maybe Fedora is not ready for prime time on everyone's desktop, but neither RH9 or RH8 were. They lack multimedia, browsing the internet with all its contents (Media Player 9...) and if you look at Slackware or Debian, well newbies would be scared. People want thing easy. I do no need to be a geek to install an OS on my PC I want to use it. Fedora, Mandrake and SUSE did good on that. SUSE wants money for the distro, and you find more things there. Mandrake almost had a financial problem, RH simply decided to move away from a no margin business. Unless the hardware vendors do not write drivers for their hardware Linux will always be as it is today. This maybe is the real problem. The older your pc is, the better. Linux install flawlessy there.

- Regards
- Paolo

Niiiice review
by Joe on Wed 12th Nov 2003 23:21 UTC

I have been reading review after review for Fedora ending each with an uncertainty of what my actual experience would be with the distro. Only now do I feel I can paint an accurate picture of how the distro would perform as my desktop operating system. I would just like to say that it a breath of fresh air reading your non-bias reviews. You seem to call it pretty much like it is. I have been reading osnews for quite a while and there is still no other web site on the net that is as non-bias in it's information, good or bad.

I think it would be more fair to test it out without VMware, unless vmware will cause absolutely zero problems.

Also, why is every comment getting reported?

They are not reported, it is just that the forum is locked atm, and so everything gets screening before going live.

>I think it would be more fair to test it out without VMware

Sorry, but you should not attribute the failures of Red Hat's Samba to VMWare, especially when OSX, Windows, Slackware and Lindows work fine with it. It is just that the patches Red Hat uses for samba, create a new bug that can not distinguish which IP address is which when a machine has two ethernet devices. It is a bug and it should be fixed.

Why bother
by Tom on Wed 12th Nov 2003 23:34 UTC

If Redhat isn't interested in the desktop why bother?

RE:Why bother
by Ricardo on Wed 12th Nov 2003 23:47 UTC

Yes... Why?
Why should I use a distribution that hates videos, games, browser plug-ins?

Well so far I'm very impressed.
by Sandy Pond on Wed 12th Nov 2003 23:56 UTC

<p>Well so far I'm very impressed. And once you setup yum to point to the "legal questionable" repositories you get all of the audio/video tools installed and updated automatically ... including resolving all the dependencies. This is much better that the old up2date.

<p>I see this as a great opportunity for custom repositories. Even Nvidia could set up their drivers in a yum repository so as to ease installation of their proprietary drivers. This may be the future of Desktop Linux.

<p>Next step would be to build a GUI to ease adding repositories to your system or maybe a Mozilla plugin.

<p>Also very impressive is Fedroa's use of BitTorrent, http://bitconjurer.org/BitTorrent/, for downloading. Even though I was getting the ISO at the end of last week, a day after release, BitTorrent kept my connection pinned at 300kBytes/sec. Downloaded all three ISO in a couple of hours.

Re: Eugenia (Re: RedHat doesn't care)
by Joe Kelly on Wed 12th Nov 2003 23:58 UTC

Eugenia,

The "you" in that quote was absolutely not aimed at you. Your reviews and editorial stance are valuable and appreciated. I liked your review, and have liked most of your previous reviews. They are (or should be, if the project participants are listening) of great value to the projects you review. Of course, some projects are run by idiots. (IMNSHO, XFree86.)

The "you" (darned English ambiguity) in that quote was aimed at the collective group of respondents who were misunderstanding at least one of the purposes of a review like yours: to be a thoughtful and well-considered bug report for the project's participants. *You* were participating, and the "you" of your quote were not. *They* were whinging.

"Oh no, my free software isn't perfect without additional effort!" As though perfection was ever a goal of free software, or even possible in our imperfect universe. This was not a movie review, and Fedora is not a detergent.

To them, I say, get over it and file a bug report.

To you, Eugenia, I say thanks, and that I don't think that I know of a harder-working or more evenhanded editor in all of blog-dom. Thanks for your efforts. May you sell a lot of advertising, and become wildly rich.

Joe

v She lies
by Alex on Thu 13th Nov 2003 00:01 UTC
plugins
by nate on Thu 13th Nov 2003 00:26 UTC

Don't understand all the fuss. I had my java plugins and macromedia plugins working fine in less than ten minutes just like in RH9.

I simply su - (the - is important...) and start up the flash installer passing it the /usr/lib/mozilla-1.4.1 argument.

For java I use the ControlPanel app to install the plugins as per the instructions provided by sun. No probs there either.

A nice compromise.
by Bruno on Thu 13th Nov 2003 00:26 UTC

I like Fedora, it does a great job with integrating rpm with apt/yum, gnome with kde, and commercial with community. It is perfect for development: it has the latest stuff, and is nice, easy and fun to use. now I use it in stead of Debian-unstable. I only hope that the apt/yum repositories will get some apps soon, I am getting tired of having to search for the tarballs. Anyway, this is the first redhat-based distribution I like since 5.1!

agreeing with eugenia
by daimoni on Thu 13th Nov 2003 00:27 UTC

Well, I just have to agree with Eugenia on that fact, Slackware still owns "THE distro"-title ;) This kind of crap come and go, Slackware just "is" and always quality releases. Considering the fact that Patrick packages only stable programs to current, I've been running half years slack-current now (updated with swaret) without any hassle or problems, always having _newest_ programs with swaret --update && swaret --up-all -a ... probably these people who got enough about fedora/mandrake/insertyourrpmdistrohere buginess, should really try wonderful world of slackware and non-modified vanilla packages.

Here's a link were I highlight and give tips on Fedora's bugs.
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 00:30 UTC

These are the ones I noticed or heard about. Anyways the whole gcc 3.22 and gcc 3.33 issues is lame IMHO. Either make gcc 3.22 the official complier or compile everything for 3.33. You can't make gcc 3.33 the default compiler and then expect people to be happy when an app won't compile or compiles but does not work with the default gcc 3.22 compiled kernel.

For those having problems hopefully this link that I have provided will help you guys out. I like the way this distro feels on this old 400 mhz pc but the bugs are really annoying IMHO and I agree with Eugenia opinion about this distro. IMHO I see a lot of potential but it's covered under some lame bugs and errors.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=34&threadid=11821...

...
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 00:38 UTC

It's not very easy to download even with a high speed cable modem. For some reason < www.linuxiso.org > doesn't offer new versions of RH or Mandrake for download.

howdy eugenia
by goober on Thu 13th Nov 2003 00:39 UTC

How about a review of SuSE 9.0 pro ? I don't see one anywhere on your site, and it's been out longer than fedora right>?

Redhat always has sucked after 6.x, to me it is the responsibility of a DESKTOP O.S. to include things that any DESKTOP USER would so obviously require. Includes of course, multimedia video and audio. There are FREE and GPL mp3 encoders/decoders, DVD encoders/decoders, etc etc. Yeah no kidding about patents, but in this day and age, as well as the relative CHEAP COST TO LICENSE these things, it is the O.S. Distributor's OBLIGATION to include these things for a DESKTOP system.

Case in point - when Linux Desktop vendor gets knocked on the head enough to come to it's senses and realize this, and comes with WORKING and good performing base, then windows will have no chance.

The means are there, so come off your high-horses dillholes (@distros).

.

v @Eugenia
by hmmm on Thu 13th Nov 2003 00:41 UTC
Flash & Java
by The Thunderbird on Thu 13th Nov 2003 00:41 UTC

Well I got Flash working quite happily, I also got loads of other proprietry software working -- NVIDIA Graphics drivers, Java, Borland C++BuilderX Personal Edition, Winex.

In terms of multimedia -- I have had no problems at all, getting mp3 support was a simples as apt-get install xmms-mp3 from freshrpms.net, in terms of flash, apt-get install compat-libstdc++ and presto flash just worked. What I don't understand is why a user takes makes things hard for themselves, there are hundreds of repositories out there even since fedora was released a few days ago. Next up using Redhat 9 rpms, I installed the RH9 version of Gimp quite happily (latest dev version). I don't use samba so I can't help you there, but using samba in a linux enviroment for me is a load of pants. Next up, at my new job I develop on windows everyday and let me tell you, that I have never had half the problems out of the 6 years that I have been using linux (3 1/2 of which I didn't use windows) and linux kept chugging along windows kept breaking on me, do you know what its like to deal with a memory leak on windows????? Using .NET is even worse!

Overall I have had few issues with Fedora Core 1, the package-manager is a load of arse, (redhat-config-packages) but it has been fixed, if you had a look at the bug database you would find that there are patches out there, no compiling needed, xine, totem and all the rest installed happily, the only thing I did compile since my installation were a couple drivers (NVIDIA, modem etc) the next bit was rhythm box, I got 0.6.0 working with xine, it rocks, no problems, no lag nothing!

My laptop -- perfect aside from an ACPI issue which can be fixed easily enough... (Just can't be arsed at the moment!)

Overall I think that a lot of users are lazy, spend a lot of time complaining about bugs that they themselves don't report! Eugina, I love your reviews to bits, this was (forgive me) crap, all it did was run down an effort to create a cool new distro, and besides remember: It is COMMUNITY MAINTAINED and is above all ONLY VERSION 1 regardless of it being based on Redhat Linux, it will have its own set of teething problems and finally: It is not yet designed for home users, I am a hacker, I use it because it offers everything I need to write my software and do my research, and even play a few games ;) most users can overcome their problems by simply going to GOOGLE.COM! ;) it works for me, oh and reading the mailing lists.

RE: howdy eugenia
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Nov 2003 00:42 UTC

>I don't see one anywhere on your site, and it's been out longer than fedora right?

We have one coming out next week. I am not reviewing as much as I did in the past, so it is up to our contributor editors to submit reviews for publication. I only review OSes that I personally want to use, and not for the sake of reviewing them for OSNews anymore.

v yuk. more moans from osnews.
by George on Thu 13th Nov 2003 00:45 UTC

>I think Eugenia has a personal problem with RedHat, or the community driven Fedora project

No, I have absolutely no problems with any communities or Red Hat. This is a really wrong conclusion you got there. The point of the matter is/was: Fedora is buggy and not ready. There is no way around it, but fix it.

v YOU decide.
by Somebody on Thu 13th Nov 2003 00:52 UTC
Fedore is not ready
by Paulo Junqueira da Costa on Thu 13th Nov 2003 01:00 UTC

As I can see in the comments there's to many people advocating for Fedora. Stuffs like:

"It's not their fault"
"Flash/Java/etc is not installed by default for a good reason..."

The fact is if Fedora wants to be a Desktop distro, it must to do like the Japaneses: Copy what is good and change it to make it better.

They must to see what Mac, Win, Lindows and Xandros are doing.

It's do boring when a home user wants to do some basics and he can't. Doesn't matters where's the problem. To home and corporate users it must work without to know how to install a package or consult FAQS...

I'm a Linux advocate but I think that a community Linux distro only will be ready for the desktop when it stops to think like a geek/hacker and starts to think like a USER.

Wish KDE Had More Coverage In This Review
by Alex on Thu 13th Nov 2003 01:11 UTC

Out of curiosity why was KDE just barely touched on this review? KDE is one of the leading desktop environments for Linux and it comes installed with jsut about any distribution of Linux by default, including in Fedora.

It seems that this review has not even provided a screenshot of a KDE desktop so we can see if there are any changes in look and feel since Redhat 9. The only screenshot that I can find which is devoted to KDE is one that shows it crash.

I think that you prefer GNOME to KDE. Sorry if I got the wrong impression, but you are much more active in the GNOME community, writting reviews of Glabels, Gtodo, Rubrica 2, pointing our more issues with GNOME's UI and how to fix it than for KDE's and in contests prefering the entry use GNOME technology just makes me think so. However, keep in mind while both desktops are good, KDE has significant mindshare too and many of your readers are interested in it and want to see more coverage of it, espcially since Fedora is no longer a Redhat product.

Does anybody have some screenshots of KDE on Fedora?

PS: I softened up my post, please don't mod this down, I have been polite, and patient.

>Out of curiosity why was KDE just barely touched on this review?

Mostly because Fedora's main DE is Gnome and all the tools are written wiht GTK+. KDE is there, but it has a second role, we like it or not.

>I think that you prefer GNOME to KDE.

Yes, I do like Gnome's simplicity better than KDE's bloatware. However, I have said many times, that the development framework of QT is way better and more advanced than GTK+'s. I like KDE for its dev environment and I like Gnome for its simpler and well thought-out usability. GTK+ sucks.

>but you are much more active in the GNOME community, writting reviews of Glabels, Gtodo, Rubrica 2

For a KDE user, you are reading way too much gnomedesktop.org ;-)

>I softened up my post, please don't mod this down,

Indeed. And this is why you got a reply now. Be like that in the future and you will get a reply. Be like you were earlier and you will get mod downs. It's how the game plays.

v Disappointment and bad Review
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 01:23 UTC
Time will tell
by Daniel on Thu 13th Nov 2003 01:23 UTC

So far Fedora is giving me what I wanted..A bleeding edge distro that has a lot of packages. Some may forget the fact that this merger has only happened recently and things are still being figured out and adjusted... Fedora has had a good starting platform to reinvent itself and I see good things coming from them.

RE: Fedora
by dv on Thu 13th Nov 2003 01:27 UTC

> Re: Flash.
> Strange to hear that people had trouble;
Yeah - compat-libstdc++ really should have been installed by default.

> Australian broadband is behind that of the "free world" in
> that we have to shell out for our traffic.
Only the poor souls that can't get ADSL. I switched from Telstra cable to ADSL to escape their restrictive (and expensive!) plans.

> I didn't want to use up a whole monthly allowance in the
> first week, so I only sucked down the first couple of
> ISOs.
You could have downloaded it for free from your ISPs download site. (files.bigpond.com)

> My take:
> I'm disappointed in not being able to get my Promise ATA
> RAID going easily. Promise's support is abysmal ...
They have just recently started helping kernel developers improve the opensource drivers. About time.

> At the end of the day, I have found Fedora to be smoother > & quicker than the RH8 system I upgraded from.
It's definitely an improvement overall.

v Review
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 01:29 UTC
In all honesty...
by jim on Thu 13th Nov 2003 01:35 UTC

I could care less about Fedora. But after hearing about another Anaconda crash, it makes me wonder why the $*#% Debian is going to include it when there's nothing wrong with its own installer.

Wow
by Erwos on Thu 13th Nov 2003 01:42 UTC

My experience on Fedora was completely different. Fast and clean install, and everything worked out of the box except for some of the proprietary stuff. I had to do the most minimal configuration ever - no need to download apt or wireless drivers.

The samba browsing thing - I didn't have any trouble at all, except that I needed to enable the Samba service from RedHat's configuration util.

OK, I had to grab xine and xmms-mp3, which was hardly the most horrible thing ever. I _did not_ have any trouble installing Flash, so I'm not quite sure what Eugenia's problem was. Haven't seen a single RPM lock, and I've been using it since RC3. No MP3 skipping, either.

The fact that you're using VMware is also problematic because most people ARE NOT. I know, VMware is great, but you're adding another layer for things to go wrong. A review is supposed to be representative of an average user, and the average user is NOT a VMware virtual machine.

I don't know what you did, Eugenia, but it must have been different than what I did. There's no denying the release was put on a little too fast, though, and that there was not appropriate QA.

I guess the other problem with the review is that it felt like you glossed over all the good parts of it. The installer is absolutely fantastic, and has features no one else has, such as install using VNC. There's pre-linking. There's new versions of everything. You can drop in a 2.6 kernel.

That said, I firmly believe that the situation will improve, and that Fedora Core 2 will be much better. Your rating of 7.16 is a touch low, but not too far off - it's actually only a .5 difference from SuSE 8.2, which you seemed to rather like.

Give the user community some time to improve - it's rapidly progressing with a merger of four major RPM repositories.

-Erwos

fedora
by nelson@seas.smu.edu on Thu 13th Nov 2003 01:46 UTC

Fedora is buggy but it is the only distro that works with my dell gx270 sata drive. So I install and fix what I can and continue to be happy that I can use linux on my new box.

compatibility
by foo on Thu 13th Nov 2003 01:46 UTC

"Red Hat's Linux is still one of my favorite distributions because of one main reason: compatibility with Linux software"

Uhuh. If there's one thing I hate about other Linux distros, it's that sometimes you just can't run Linux software on them. Uh-huhhhhh.

reviewer did stupid things... then blamed red hat?
by anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 01:48 UTC

Trying to install RH8/RH9 packages in Fedora, and then blaming Red Hat for poor QA? That takes the cake.

C'mon. This is version 1.0 of a new release -- and anyone with even journeyman knowledge of Red Hat can overcome the problems that stymied this reviewer... excepting of course the ones she made for herself!

Gaim CVS builds perfectly on my FC1.0 system, and Flash installed perfectly... of course, I didn't try to install from RPMs. And if you can't build an RPM from a src.rpm, what exactly are you doing running 1.0 of ANYTHING?

Comparing Linux distros to Windows or OSX is perfectly fair, but let's just remember you get what you pay for. If you want something that runs perfectly out of the box, take a look at RHEL-WS. It's cheaper than Windows or OSX.

About mp3 and DVD playback and Movie playback
by Maynard on Thu 13th Nov 2003 01:57 UTC

The dominant operating system in the world comes with neither DVD player, or movie codecs besides Microsoft's own like wmv. It does not come with mp3 encoding capabilities either.

The mp3 playing software you need is so small to be next to insignificant to download. gstreamer-mad is about 17KB and mad, libmad are less than 500KB. DVD playing software you have to get, just like you do in Windows.

Why should Redhat pay for a license when you will not pay for the distro. You want free softwae, you get free software. The mp3 decoder is NOT free software. If consumer pressurized the owners of mp3 enough, there could be a royalty free license to develop decoders at least. Which is non-revocable. If redhat were to become a big enough target, and they shipped this software, Thomson would be on them in a heartbeat. How quickly have we forgotten about the SCO situation.

Flash worked for me
by Robert Lange on Thu 13th Nov 2003 02:06 UTC

I did the workstation install of FC1 and then installed Flash on Sunday (9 Nov) and it worked fine. The installer worked exactly as it had with RH9 for me. In fact, I have Flash open in another tab right now. What is the problem other people had?

Redo the review without using VMWare
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 02:18 UTC

enough said...

not a fair review..
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 02:21 UTC


Did it work before you added a ton of foregn packages to the RPM tree and broke the libaries?

Despite the review it still sounds good. Way to go Fedora.

RE: Redo the review without using VMWare
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Nov 2003 02:22 UTC

Don't be silly please. The OS was running natively, not via VMWare. You mistunderstood it seems.

where do i begin...
by tim pickering on Thu 13th Nov 2003 02:26 UTC

i've liked eugenia's reviews in the past, but this one is much more of a b*tch session than a review. to whit:

gaim upgrade - gratuitious usability gripe about something most users, especially new ones, would never do or would wait until the new version comes out through updates. dependency problems compiling some new version of some app are not unique to redhat. at least mention what problems there are, if any, with the version that's included before ripping on the distro for something you did.

mozilla plugins - news to me. four fresh installs and three upgrades from RH9 didn't break _any_ of my plugins anywhere. probably because i had the compat-stdc++ stuff either upgraded or installed (i always install everything). again, blaming the distro for something that's not part of the distro is not completely fair. would you blame OS X for breaking some fink packages when upgrading to panther? i didn't think so.

redhat-config-packages - i'll give you that, it's shite. but it's been shite for a while and there is an update now in testing to fix the specific problem mentioned in the review. my gripe is that it is totally hardwired to physical cdrom media and can't, TMK, even use .iso images, let alone network repositories. and when i did have cdroms, it wouldn't even let me find or install, e.g., yum even though it's there on disc1. fedora sorely needs something like that, but network-aware that'll know about various fedora repositories and let you pick and choose from them. like synaptic.

rpm locking - god knows that's been a pain in the arse since redhat 8. apparently it's a problem in other rpm distros as well. so far it hasn't done it to me in fedora, though.

samba - i've not seen the problem mentioned. i've been smb'ing fine between a FC laptop, FC desktop, XP laptop, and XP vmware guest. getting XP to work at all with samba is something i never did under RH <= 9 so that's a big win.

perf problems - i suspect that may be a nv driver problem i vaguely recall seeing something about on the fedora mailing lists. i see no such problems on my 500 MHz laptop (with ati video) running GPS mapping software under vmware while playing oggs in xmms in the background. in fact, the performance improvement on that machine of fedora over RH9 is off the scale. i had more or less given up on vmware there, but now it's fine. the drivers from nvidia.com do work fine on my fedora machines with such hardware. they also have shown only vast performance improvements over RH8 and RH9.

rhythmbox - it is crap. i tried pointing it to my 15,000 oggs and gave it an hour to think before putting it out of its misery. amusingly, it was grinding away while the prelink cron job was grinding away while i was also burning a dvd at 4x speed using the newly included dvd+rw tools. after all was said and done, the dvd came out fine in spite of everything going on. wouldn't dream of trying that under XP, though OS X would likely handle it fine.

as for redhat support, read the frigging fedora mailing lists. all the same redhat people who've been working on RHL are there and actually engaged with their users/outside developers rather than working in private. a lot of the real bugs and problems you mention are being discussed there. hopefully with less rigid update policy, the fixes will show up much more quickly through up2date rather than having to wait for the next full release.

personally, i'm migrating all of my linux machines at work to fedora specifically to take advantage of the yum/apt support in up2date (i have a lot of custom software i manage with rpm). dvd+rw support and ruby 1.8 are also key new features as well as samba 3.0. sure, there are bugs, but so far i've seen fewer overall than with RH9 (and a lot fewer than RH8 which a lot of machines still run here).

tim

@heh
by Andrew G on Thu 13th Nov 2003 02:28 UTC

I have installed all the development packages in the install process. Maybe I missed something. Anyway the error message I recieved during compilation seemed to indicate an error in the source. I thought it must be something to do with GCC which I think is 3.3 in Fedora and stricter than previous versions.

Anyway I had other failures in other packages (mono-debugger) . It claimed to be missing binutils-dev (debian package) during configure. binutils is of course installed. I am going to try with SuSE 8.2 and see how that goes.

Ok, fair enough
by Alex on Thu 13th Nov 2003 02:33 UTC

"Mostly because Fedora's main DE is Gnome and all the tools are written wiht GTK+. KDE is there, but it has a second role, we like it or not."

Yes, the DEFAULT is GNOME, but the default can easily be changed and unlike before KDE is installed by default and is not quite as crippled as it used to be. Furthermore, having the tools written in GTK+ is no big reason, Mandrake's tools are also written in GTK+ and they have KDE as their default and GNOME plays second role.

Even if its not the default, I think it deserves more attention.

"Yes, I do like Gnome's simplicity better than KDE's bloatware."

I have to totally agree with you on this, and thats why I was a big advocate of fixing this bug: http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53772 with KDE's super bloated context menus.

KDE's interface is way too bloated in some areas, too many toolbar icons, unsensitive context menus etc. however codewise it is not bloated because it pretty much just uses Kparts and loads on demand.

But, I am very happy to see that KDE developers are more aggresive at quickly fixing usability bugs and adding acesibility features. Competition and its fruits are sweet ;)

However, I think GNOME is too much the opposite of KDE, many of its parts lack essential features to me, thats why I go back to KDE after trying GNOME. For example, I can't even change permissions of a folder and its subfolders, something that takes a single checkbox in KDE is not available in GNOME. In GNOME I would need to click each folder and file to change permissions. Making a usable and friendly desktop does not mean sacrificing such features, a balance needs to be struck and I think that KDE is too heavy on options in somea reas and GNOME is the opposite.
Also, I READ GNOMEDESKTOP.ORG, XFCE.ORG, ENLIGHTENMENT.ORG etc. I like both GNOME, KDE and many other desktops, I will not just stick to one because I like its developers or community, I will stick with it because the alternatives I have tried did not satisfy me.

Out of curiosity Eugenia, do you choose GNOME over KDE jsut because of the reasons you gave me. basically, do you choose it on technical merit only or something more, I am hoping the latter, but we are all people so its hard to jsut choose a preference for a product because it is better. Oftentimes how used someone is to it will be far more important.

Eugenia
by Maynard on Thu 13th Nov 2003 02:35 UTC

Check this story out.

http://slashdot.org/articles/03/11/12/218245.shtml?tid=117&tid=123&...

Big story. You can remove this post here. Just wanted to point it out.

Re: Fedora
by Antarius on Thu 13th Nov 2003 02:36 UTC

Alex:
Out of curiosity why was KDE just barely touched on this review? KDE is one of the leading desktop environments for Linux and it comes installed with jsut about any distribution of Linux by default, including in Fedora.

Erm... Okay. We must be using a different Fedora - I have to specifically choose to install KDE by putting a tiny tick in the appropriate box.

That is hardly what I would consider "by default."

And despite the fact that I was a big KDE fan from 1997 through to 2002, I choose not to install KDE on my Fedora boxen. Why? Because I find that the Fedora/RedHat tools are aimed more towards Gnome. I also find Gnome to be slicker and neater for what I need it for.

One DE on the server makes life a lot easier for my users - sure, they are "unified," however my users are concerned if they have too much choice! ;)

I feel that it is appropriate to only review the Gnome environment if you are reviewing it from a default installation - since it is the default!


Erwos:
Give the user community some time to improve - it's rapidly progressing with a merger of four major RPM repositories.

I agree - the real benefits of the community development has not had enough time to blossom. The Fedora Core release was extremely rushed - probably to make the most of hype and publicity.

The improvements over RH9 were small in number (relatively speaking - I don't want to start a whole RH9 should have been RH8 debate again!) however they are welcome on my box. I find Fedora to be smooth, "pretty" and significantly more responsive than RH8. (Yeah, I bought RH9 workstation, but it never got high enough on my priority list to bother upgrading before FC1 was released!)


Maynard:
The dominant operating system in the world comes with neither DVD player, or movie codecs besides Microsoft's own like wmv. It does not come with mp3 encoding capabilities either.

That's right. It doesn't come with an office suite, tonnes of games, server applications etc either.

The thing seems to be that we [OSS users] have gotten spoiled. We're used to having things handed to us on a platter by the major distros.

I'm not saying this is wrong: I love the way that RH8 through FC1 has slotted right into the enterprise from a default install. Many kudos are needed!

But this efficiency has come at a price; people expect the distro to be everything for everyone.

It's all about the target market - what was the target market of the RH8/9 product offering? The enterprise workstation. Not a games machine. Not a multimedia box. Hell, it's not even pushed for servers, really! (How many serious servers need the footprint of RedHat/Fedora's non-X installations?!)


Yes, in time, I would love to see some of the multimedia offerings available as a choice on the installation.

I've come to grips with RedHat's "OSS Only" policy & can understand their reasoning.

What might be a nice compromise would be an extra (perhaps non-official) ISO (ala Mandrake), or even an option in "first boot" to "Install UnOfficial Packages" with links to the appropriate repositories and packages there. It could easily be integrated to provide the best of both worlds.


dv:
Yeah - compat-libstdc++ really should have been installed by default.

That one has puzzled me since RH8. Was there a rational reason mentioned for this decision? Did I miss something?


Only the poor souls that can't get ADSL. I switched from Telstra cable to ADSL to escape their restrictive (and expensive!) plans.

Try living in "Region 2." Competition hasn't helped ADSL out here - the best plans for metro areas are as much as $50/mth more in Region 2 - if they even have the service available!

But let's not get started on Telstra, shall we? I'll rant too much for the 8,000 character limit! ;-)


You could have downloaded it for free from your ISPs download site. (files.bigpond.com)

Erk! I was unaware of that. Well, lesson learned! (Bring on FC2! ;-)

Actually, if it doesn't count as part of my bandwidth, then the fact that the above option is available makes it viable for me to stay with Telstra. I mean, I don't download mp3's, divx et al.

(Even though I'm into OSS - which seems to be synonymous with piracy, at least to our federal government and ARIA)


> Promise's support is abysmal ...
They have just recently started helping kernel developers improve the opensource drivers. About time.


Hear, hear. Again, I would like, if not beg for, ATARAID support in anaconda. That factor will improve installations dramatically!




RE: @heh
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 02:37 UTC

Dude don't waste your time with 8.2. I would try out 9.0 since I have heard nothing but good things about it. Besides 8.2 rpms are hard to find IHMO.

RE: In all honesty...
by GW on Thu 13th Nov 2003 02:42 UTC

"I could care less about Fedora. But after hearing about another Anaconda crash, it makes me wonder why the $*#% Debian is going to include it when there's nothing wrong with its own installer."

Progeny is the group doing the Anaconda port, independent of what is happening within Debian. Debian will have a new installer with Sarge which is currently in beta, and is not based on Anaconda.

v Re: Fedora
by Cecil Wordos on Thu 13th Nov 2003 02:58 UTC
Valid criticisms
by Trinity on Thu 13th Nov 2003 03:04 UTC

Well I thought that was a pretty good review that showed what were the various fit and finish shortcomings that somehow some Linux people think are quite fine and to be tolerated. It was quite shocking to see all the stupid Linux fanboy criticism on slashdot of this article and Eugenia in particular. Is it any wonder that with attitudes like that Linux doesn't improve in the usability department and that newbie users find it daunting to use? Then they wonder why more people don't try Linux. You have my sympathies Eugenia against all the fanboy idiots on slashdot. Never mind that fact that Linux has a handicap in terms of the tons of commercial software that runs only on Windows, but instead they can't even seem to fix basic OS level things and usability issues.

v Fedora review.
by rwh on Thu 13th Nov 2003 03:19 UTC
RE: Fedora review.
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Nov 2003 03:24 UTC

Sweetie, I should not have to read "unofficial FAQs". It should just work babe, otherwise, it ain't good enough.

v modding
by Robocop on Thu 13th Nov 2003 03:28 UTC
Waaa!
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 03:35 UTC

What a baby. The RPM/Up2Date utility is their for a reason.
Want Gaim? : "up2date -i gaim" BANG! Gaim
Want Video?: "up2date -i mplayer" BANG! Mplayer

Hard huh?

v Someone give the author
by ch on Thu 13th Nov 2003 03:40 UTC
NVIDIA drivers, RPM and boot time
by Zach Anthony on Thu 13th Nov 2003 03:44 UTC

I've been running FC1 for a few days now, and love it. I have had less problems than I have had with any other distro (I've been running with the penguins since '96).

Here's my two cents, hopefully someone finds them useful.

NVIDIA driver:
- Download the latest driver from the NVIDIA site
# export IGNORE_CC_MISMATCH=Y
# sh <Nvidia driver file>
- Just go with the defaults for all the questions. By setting the IGNORE_CC_MISMATCH flag, the installer will be able to compile the kernel module.
- Update your XF86Config file per the instructions in the NVIDIA readme file.

RPMs:
- RPM dependency hell is nothing new to FC1. Except for extremely basic packages, I have found that RPMs aren't worth the time. Worse, they can make your system unstable by modifying files that are shared with other packages.
- For me, I build from source and install everything in it's own folder under '/opt'. Then I create a script or a softlink in '/usr/local/bin' that actually starts the application.

Boot time:
- I was able to speed up my boot-time considerably by turning off unneeded services. System Settings -> Server Settings -> Services will bring up the GUI to edit your services.

Hope someone finds this useful -- Zach

Mildly is being to nice
by Roberto J. Dohnert on Thu 13th Nov 2003 03:55 UTC

I was very dissapointed in Fedora Core 1. I think I will take the CEO of Red Hat advice, I will use Windows for my desktop and Linux for my servers.

Problems...
by Nacs on Thu 13th Nov 2003 03:58 UTC

I can already see a bunch of red flags in that "review".

The box I'm typing on now began its life running Red Hat 4.2. It's been upgraded countless number of times, and it's now on Red Hat 9. And it's rock-stable solid. And the reason that it's stable, and functional, is precisely because what I've been doing, for the last six years, was the exact opposite of what this "review"er did.

Notice that she began having problems when she tried to hack together an upgrade to some application. Lesson number one when running Red Hat: do not install any software yourself. Always use rpm, which checks in, keeps track of, and maintains, all the inter-library and inter-application dependencies. Once you begin flinging random libraries and applications into the system, some of which may or may not overwrite existing libraries or files, you're well on your merry way to Linux's equivalent of Windows DLL hell, when you've got ten versions of the same basic library installed in fifteen different directories, and you now have absolutely no clue whatsoever what you end up running when you start a given application. Which randomly crashes, I wonder why?

By the way, the same also applies to other Linux distros too, I'm sure. They all use some kind of a package management system, be it rpm or apt. The same principle applies in either case.

My box is very solid even though I have plenty of custom software installed which I've compiled and built myself. But the key difference is that all the software was installed by rpm. Rach time I upgraded to a new distribution release, the installer correctly detected that I have an application that has a dependency on an older version of the library. The installer then proceeds to load a compatibility library, in addition to the new, incompatible version of the library. After upgrading, I then recompile all my custom software and install the new RPMs, whenever I have some free time. Everything still works in the meantime, because all the dependencies are correctly satisfied.

Eventually, I get around to cleaning out my box, seeing which compatibility libraries can be removed. When I try to remove them, inevitable RPM complains because I forgot to recompile some application that still depends on the old library. After doing that, and when nothing no longer needs it, it gets removed by rpm without a peep.

I also see that the reviewer grabbed some random third-party RPM from some dark alley (strike 1). Unsurprisingly, rpm refused to install it due to missing dependencies (strike 2). The reviewer tried to fix the situation by, once again, grabbing a bunch of third party libraries, and installing them manually (strike 3). End result: a big, recursive mess (strike 4).

I wonder why?

RPM Locking
by Red Phoenix on Thu 13th Nov 2003 03:59 UTC

# rm /var/lib/rpm/__db*
# rpm -q blahhhhhh (any text will do)
# chown rpm:rpm /var/lib/rpm/__db*

.. Not exactly user friendly, but it will save you a reboot.

RE: Problems...
by Anony... on Thu 13th Nov 2003 04:02 UTC

Thank you for copying and pasting posts from Slashdot.

RE: Alex
by Eugenia on Thu 13th Nov 2003 04:06 UTC

>Out of curiosity Eugenia, do you choose GNOME over KDE jsut because of the reasons you gave me.

Email me if you want a more elaborate explanation.

My impressions of FC1
by Maynard on Thu 13th Nov 2003 04:09 UTC

I think some variables are not in Redhat's hands though. Rhythmbox does have issues, at least, the version they shipped. A new one came out which fixes the issues most people complain most about. Flies with my 4600 song collection now.

For mp3 I nstalled libmad, mad and gstreamer-mad. I have mplayer for movies, although I prefer to use gstreamer-player. Have to get a proper set of gstreamer packages for that, or make my own.

I have learnt to live well with rpm. I used to do the ./configure; make; make install thing, but I hate having to follow apps to uninstall. Now I just use rpm. whether it be by checkinstall or by properly building the rpms from spec files. It help the system be more manageable.

I do not mind too much about bot time. It is not much slower, if at all than Windows XP on the same machine when booting.

Problems? What problems?
by seraph on Thu 13th Nov 2003 04:09 UTC

This is a free distro. Unfortunately, US patents disallow MP3 support as well as xine from being distributed. Fedora is still associated with Redhat, and therefore follows their policy (which has good reason: we don't need to give people excuses to kill Linux companies).

When I installed fedora, the first thing I did was add the third party repositories to my yum.conf. Then yum update. I used yum to install *everything* on my box, except for Mozilla Thunderbird/Firebird ( of which there are third party RPMs that don't need a repo - they're not dependent on anything at install time ).

( btw, right at this moment yum update is running, and fetching new updates:
Dependencies resolved
I will do the following:
[update: libexif 0.5.12-0.fdr.2.1.i386]
[update: perl-DateManip 5.42-0.fdr.2.a.1.noarch]
[update: irssi 0.8.6-0.fdr.13.1.i386]
[update: apt 0.5.15cnc1-0.fdr.3.1.i386]
Is this ok [y/N]: mmmmm yes go ahead my eager slave. )

I have JAVA running Azureus, but not in my browser; I didn't bother. From the last time I installed it though, the instructions on the site are more than adequate (literally copy and paste, or almost). I just don't use JAVA in my browser.

As for the reasoning that this distro is not a new release ... you're all wrong. It is *just* beggining. The fact is that the community isn't, or rather wasn't large enough: Everyone has started rebuilding their repo's for Fedora, and will continue to do so from now. *Now* we have the community needed to make Release 2 good. The MLs are literally exploding now.

We are having several repo's merging into our unofficial solutions. That should solve the shortage of packages. Aside from that, the official Extras and Alternatives repo's are going to rock.

I have to admit though, Release 1 was premature, but they were faced with a problem: There was no community, or not much of one to speak of.

How to solve that? Release 1. Now, our MLs are freakishly active, and we are solving problems quite fast. We even have a (rather extensive) list of packages waiting QA testing.

Btw, most of the redhat-specific config tools will probably be undergoing an overhaul from what i hear: much has changed ( kernel 2.6 etc. ). Perhaps the much awaited GNOME-tools can replace them? ( speculation and preference of my own ).

Oh joy! :
Completing update for libexif - 5/8
Completing update for perl-DateManip - 6/8
Completing update for irssi - 7/8
Completing update for apt - 8/8
Updated: libexif 0.5.12-0.fdr.2.1.i386 perl-DateManip 5.42-0.fdr.2.a.1.noarch irssi 0.8.6-0.fdr.13.1.i386 apt 0.5.15cnc1-0.fdr.3.1.i386
Transaction(s) Complete
[root@aerie kevin]#

Now ... that wasn't so hard was it? And who ever heard of irssi being in Core fedora releases ... And that was the way I upgraded from test 1 -> test 3 -> Core 1. each upgrade was 20 minutes or so. No issues. Just reboot, select new kernel. That was it. Gaim is ... something of a sore point though. I don't find anything new in 72 that i need though, and if i do ... I'll make RPMs and submit it ;) (fedora spec of course)

As for that RPM freeze ... afaik it was fixed. never bothered me. Then again ... i use yum, not the ugly hack that is apt-rpm. yum is clean, and purpose built for rpm. try using it.

A tip: yum -C <operation> will be significantly faster as it relies on local cache; no need to check servers.

The battle of the distros and all
by KottonmouthKing on Thu 13th Nov 2003 04:10 UTC

Does anybody ever actually take the time to figure out why a particular distro runs clockwork on one machine and on another it's a complete disaster? How can there be this much of a discrepancy?

Oh, and btw
by seraph on Thu 13th Nov 2003 04:13 UTC

I have xine/totem, mplayer/gmplayer, xmms-mp3, alsa, crossover-office, vmware, wine, Nvidia drivers, firebird, thunderbird, xmms-alsa etc. all running here.

the hardest of the lot to install was alsa: 15 minutes, mostly spent waiting for someone to get back to me in #fedora while they were doing something.

and alsa works nicely. one bug though: if audio dies frequently, reduce the main mixer's volume to ~80-95% and it works perfect ( i think this is specific to me though - happened on other distros too ).

again ...
by seraph on Thu 13th Nov 2003 04:15 UTC

all the mentioned software was in .rpm format, except for VMWare and Crossover. alsa rpms were not in yum though (i don't have the other repos listed) i am sure they're in other repos.

sorry to post again and again ... keep forgetting things.

RE: Oh, and btw
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 04:20 UTC

What did you have to do to get your Crossover-Office/Plugins to work? It installed perfectly fine, but I cannot get anything to install to it. Even IE 6, which is a breeze to install in RH 9... now hangs and sends the processor to 100% for twenty minutes. I then have to kill the process and I have done this ten or so times.

Any help/suggestions would be greatly, greatly appreciated.

RE: The battle of the distros and all
by Cheapskate on Thu 13th Nov 2003 04:30 UTC

KottonmouthKing; i would imagine the great differences in opinion about a particular Linux distro has many factors from user experience, user discretion, user expectations, and Hardware, OEM manufactured computers were built with Windows in mind, and some OEMs are built with some pretty cheap components, and last but not least FUD is spread in BBS boards...

some of those Slashdot people can me pretty mean and rough around the edges since this review was posted at slashdot i would bet a bunch of em came in and bashed Eugina for it, i won't bash her for a difference of opinion as i respect her opinion and her website...

i am using Fedora Core-1 right now and it runs great for me, my only real peeve is the mp3 issue but since it is a legal issue.....well nothing i can do about it--except install some software to remidy the problem, hopefully a xmms-mp3-1.2.8 plugin will be released soon so users can get the stock xmms-1.2.8 that comes with Fedora Core-1 to play mp3s'...

Linux is not perfict, and there is no perfict and ideal distro, all i can say is if you want to use Linux is just find the Linux distro that works best for you. i been a Redhat user since 7.1 and i think Fedora is a fine distro, Fedora may not work for everybody but it works for me just fine...

if i had to choose between Linux and Windows i would certainly choose Linux (without a doubt)...

HappyTrails :^)

...
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 04:38 UTC

To be fair to Redhat and Linux in general, this Fedora Core is not a product, it's an open source community process. It can't be judged in the same way as you would judge a product.

Flaming
by hcuar on Thu 13th Nov 2003 04:38 UTC

IMHO Eugenia made a great point in her review. Fedora will not make a good choice as anyone's primary OS with these kind of quality problems.

I'm disgusted with the instant flame war that breaks out whenever someone gives a reasonable negative opinion of a Linux distribution. If Microsoft (or to a lesser extent Apple) released such a flaming pile of poo, it would make national headlines. In order for Linux to make a real impact, people will need to be realistic. I'm sorry, but I won't use Fedora, and have no intention of doing so (as long as their releases are so poor). I'll stick to Mandrake and WinXP for my two machines.

Software is imperfect. Period. I realize that. However, it's no execuse to make life difficult. In order for Linux to make it mainstream (Linux being inserted in place of any distribution), it needs to provide simpler interfaces for the common user. I believe many of the current distros are attempting to work on this, however I think they are way behind.

Why do I run Mandrake on my second computer? One, it's free. Two, I like to mess around with a *nix like OS.

So let's give Eugenia a break, and take her review for face value. A subjective review that may not say what everyone wants it to say, but needed to say.

Thank you Eugenia!

Ouch...
by johnfive on Thu 13th Nov 2003 04:47 UTC

Though it hurts... much of what's said here is true. I imagine that with more volunteers these bugs should be worked out soon. If we can address these, then the next Fedora will be amazing. Don't get discouraged!!

Plus, I don't like the fact that Mr. Bruce Perens is now trying to start "Yet Another Rendition of Linux" http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,61166,00.html?tw=wn_.... Why doesn't he just rally all this industry support around Fedora? Fear of a dominant Red Hat perhaps? I don't know what his motives are with this project. It seems counter-intuitive to me to want to start another community desktop project when we already have Fedora, which has a good foundation and good philosophy, in my opinion.

Good review..
by CooCooCaChoo on Thu 13th Nov 2003 04:58 UTC

IMHO, it was a hard hitting but fair review. It is good to see that ELQ is back in her old form, willing to dish out constructive criticism when needed. Although some people are offended, I am sure that if there are some Fedora programmers, they'll take this criticisms on board and ensure that future version don't make the same mistake. With that being said, I have a few other things to say:

1) We have Linux fanboys get all hot under the collar over the fact that ELQ is willing to compare Fedora against Windows, MacOS X and other commercial operating systems. On one hand we have these people who say that Linux is ready to take "Microsoft on", and yet, they want special treatment when there is a review. What is it? is Linux ready to step up to the crease and hit a 6 or is it going to go back to the pavilion? (yes, that is cricket terminology).

2) When I started to use GNU/Linux many moons ago, the main attraction I liked about it was the mantra, "it will be released once it is ready". There has been a move in the opensource community from that goal to one where "release the code on time and at any costs". Fedora should have stayed in beta until January. There should have been atleast another 2-3 release candidates fixes the bugs ELQ bought up. The worst part about these bugs is that they're in VERY common parts and occur in the default configuration. Sure, I could understand if ELQ had configured it way outside the target spectrum, but the fact remains that she is using it, on a standard PC with a default install. These things should not happen.

3) Linux is never going to be adopted as a desktop solution outside the corporate setting until such time we have people who are willing to make constructive criticisms, like ELQ, without the huge backlash we've seen in this forum. It is time for some linux fanboys to realise that GNU/Linux isn't perfect and that what is required is MORE constructive citicism NOT less. By simply ignoring these issues, you make yourself no better than Microsoft or any other commercial software vendor.

RE:CooCooCaChoo
by hcuar on Thu 13th Nov 2003 05:09 UTC

Well Put! I couldn't agree with you more.

....
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 05:10 UTC

Sounds like Eugenia imagines that Fedora is a product, but it isn't. Redhat is not offering a desktop solution at this time, but in the future they probably will and that's why they are supporting this project by hosting it on their server. In this regard Redhat is saying to the open source community that Linux needs stronger infrastructure in order to base a successful product line on the desktop.

Bruce Perens is apparently going to put together a Linux product rather than help strengthen open source infrastructure. So if you are going to judge anything critically than judge UserLinux, but not Fedora because it is not a product and should be classified as an open source development project.

Since it is difficult to support all of the Linux software, a product would only include a subset of what is available. On the other hand, Fedora encourages all of the Linux software as well as development software to be deployed. And let the best ideas compete.

#fedora
by Rex on Thu 13th Nov 2003 05:17 UTC

I had small problems getting my cdrom drive to work, but it turned out the problem was DMA was enabled when it should not have been. To fix this I ran "hdparm -d 0 /dev/hdc". This bug was in all distros I tried, but the people in #fedora on irc.freenode.net helped me find out what the problem was. If you are having any kinds of problems with it you can go in there and get help. The people are very nice and know what they're talking about. They also have links to other site's that may answer your questions.

...
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 05:30 UTC

In order for Fedora to improve, it would have to have thousands of more software applications because it's all about this development software reaching the users that never made it into the distributions. Hopefully Fedora will be judged successful if it encourages more development to take place and more ideas to compete.

Later on some vendor will take a subset of those ideas and create a Linux product out of them.

It works great for me
by Thomas on Thu 13th Nov 2003 05:31 UTC

It's stable and works for me everyday for email, web browsing, irc and playing audio cds I buy from the store.

Apt, yum and up2date are used to upgrade to the latest software with a minimum of fuss.

After downloading the images, mounting them and puting them on an old celron 400 running Red Hat 9, I booted from a floppy and did a graphical network install on a p4 2.4 shuttle xpc box. Everything I've tried so far works great.

For Samba 3,I made manual entries for the other machines on my network in the /etc/hosts file. After that, everything worked great. The hosts file has been around for a *long* time and works well for a small number of machines.

Sounds like Eugenia imagines that Fedora is a product, but it isn't. Redhat is not offering a desktop solution at this time, but in the future they probably will and that's why they are supporting this project by hosting it on their server. In this regard Redhat is saying to the open source community that Linux needs stronger infrastructure in order to base a successful product line on the desktop.

Yes, but on the other hand, people are going to look at Fedora as an alternative to SuSE and Mandrake. The whole point of Fedora is for the community to develop that "core" and for Red Hat to "add value" by creating their Enterprise products on top of it.

Sure, you could say, "who cares if people don't use it", well, if people don't use it, then the whole point of having a community focused core basically becomes meaningless.

There is a difference between making a distribution of a decent quality and making one of commercial quality. What ELQ bought up were VERY obvious oversights that should have been picked up in the QA process. I am sure ELQ doesn't expect perfection but good lord, the problems she experienced should have stood out like a sore thumb during the testing process.

Bruce Perens is apparently going to put together a Linux product rather than help strengthen open source infrastructure. So if you are going to judge anything critically than judge UserLinux, but not Fedora because it is not a product and should be classified as an open source development project.

What? so criticising Fedora isn't fare because it is "community focused"? Look at Debian, and I can assure you, having used it for a while, the chances of getting the problems faced by ELQ on Debian is low to almost non-existant.

Now, I am not saying Fedora should be THAT conservative, however, they should have waited till 2.4.1 and GTK 2.4.x to be released, extensively tested it until the only bugs left are *REALLY* obscure ones are left, aka, "my computer crashes when I hook my toaster up to the USB port".

Since it is difficult to support all of the Linux software, a product would only include a subset of what is available. On the other hand, Fedora encourages all of the Linux software as well as development software to be deployed. And let the best ideas compete.

If they can't support all of it, cut down the package list to something that is more manageable then let the package monkeys out there create the necessary things people want.

It is like SuSE Linux and their 5000 packages. Sure, it is nice, however, how about getting those packages WORKING firt. XCDRoast not properly setup by default, number of games in the games menu not launching. If you do the default "slim" install, you won't have any problems, however, once you do the "everything but the kitchen sink" install, you end up getting into areas that are "uncharted".

RE: The battle of the distros and all
by KottonmouthKing on Thu 13th Nov 2003 05:33 UTC

"Linux is not perfict, and there is no perfict and ideal distro"

Amen. I just think it's curious how emotional people get over all this. I find myself getting annoyed if somebody is ragging on SUSE, but why? SUSE's not perfect. I had a hideous Nautilus crash on SUSE. GNOME literally took over my desktop somehow, superimposed itself right over KDE. I had to uninstall GNOME in between a continuous stream of error messages. I couldn't have made it do that even if I wanted to. And this is my favorite distro lol

Doesn't mean that SUSE (or Gnome or Nautilus) sucks though either.

I guess it's like Pinhead said in Hellraiser II: "...he is in his own Hell. Just as you are in yours."



Fedora Core 1 is the best distro I've used
by Josh P on Thu 13th Nov 2003 05:50 UTC

I've used ASP Linux, RH 8, RH 9, MDK 9.0, MDK 9.1, SuSE 8.2... I've only had Fedora Core 1 on my computer for 36 hours but I've had the chance to do two installs and an upgrade install from RH 9.

Fedora has a few bugs, but with very little effort (apt-get / Synaptic) I was able to do a lot of things that were broken in Red Hat 9. Fedora's Samba browsed my network in Nautilus as soon as I logged into Gnome 2.4, which looks a lot more polished than 2.2. I grabbed MPlayer and Xine in Synaptic and they worked - which they didn't in Red Hat 8 or 9.

I can't stress enough how fast and easy everything is with Synaptic. I noticed a lot of you complained about dependency issues. I didn't think Fedora had more dependency issues than most other RPM distros I've used.

A couple bugs... in gnome the panel applet command line doesn't work. You can't type in the field, so I'm looking forward to an update for that. Also GKrellm has shown my CPU useage spike for one or two 10 minute periods, although my Athlon T-Bird 1.2 system didn't feel like it was under load. My system does feel slightly more responsive than it did with Red Hat 9 (Red Hat 8 felt very sluggish). I was happy to see it load an Athlon optimized kernel in the install.

So far this is the distro that, with the exception of a couple patchable bugs, everything has just worked. I would consider swapping this for any other RPM-based distro out right now a serious downgrade.

Good Article, honest and accurate!!!!!
by gnumber9 on Thu 13th Nov 2003 05:57 UTC

I can comiserate with the article. I've been using Red Hat since Hedwig and cut my Linux gnubie teeth on this distro. Red Hat and now the 'lack of' have always left me feeling a little short every release except for 6.2 and 7.2, but FC1 really dove off the cliff.

I don't have the time to play with a buggy stapled together OS. This is why I left Windows. And to pay for the Enterprise edition, when Red Hat even says Linux isn't ready for the desktop is well uhem ludicrous. I feel my investments into Red Hat software have been fruitless and a WASTE OF MONEY!

Thank heaven for Slackware and I do purchase each release. :-)

Maybe you rated it too high
by theshowmecanuck on Thu 13th Nov 2003 06:32 UTC

By your descriptions, it sounds like you should have given "Ease of use", "Features", and "Credibility" grades of less than 5 instead of the generous marks you did give them.

libgcrypt
by oohp on Thu 13th Nov 2003 06:37 UTC

It's not libcrypt, it's libgcrypt. Gaim can use mozilla NSS as well, provided you set the ld path right. Libgcrypt failed to compile on me too. I thought it has to be a gcc3 problem, but then again. It's a shame gnutls depends on libgcrypt and libgcrypt is spaghetti code which doesn't even compile.

Newbie user from Windows-Land...
by Bilal K on Thu 13th Nov 2003 06:50 UTC

I think a newbie-user from Windows land wouldn't really care between Gaim v0.71 and Gaim v0.72...

Most of the problems you mentioned are related to installing/upgrading packages - something which most Linux newbies are pretty reserved about.

if you have problem with Add/Remove program ...
by chris on Thu 13th Nov 2003 06:54 UTC

.. stop crying and install this :

http://people.redhat.com/~katzj/redhat-config-packages/1.2.7/redhat...

(with rpm -U)

work fine for me and still thinking that FC is a great distrib !

Fedora - works for me
by Cluge on Thu 13th Nov 2003 07:05 UTC

Running Fedora fine, upgraded from RH9. Piece of cake, but then again, I've been useing linux since there was a distro called craftworks and RH was still pre "4.0" series.

Review - typical of the home end user and probably correct. Those of us a little more knowledgable won't have any problems, or when we do, we can fix them ourselves. YUM is a nice addition - and so far the machine has performed well and hasn't required a reboot (In fact it never has).

Since debian is another "community supported project" and it is very stable and useable. I don't foresee fedora as having any more issues than debian, or slackware. Well supported community efforts have put together some very high quality Linux distributions.

Probably a smart thing for the "Fedora" community to do is to create a "bleeding edge/raw hide/don't say we didn't warn you" and a more "mainstream/this will work/the reviewer of this artcile will like it better" version. That way those of us that can handle the quirks that come from being a constant beta tester have something to test, and the community will have a stable release for the rest. The above suggestion will also give redhat an extra layer of testing.

Fedora is good but with 2 personal gripes
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 07:35 UTC

I downloaded and installed FC1 immediately upon release. Previously I used Redhat 9, but I opted for a clean installation rather than an upgrade just to make sure it worked from the start. Like many have reported, I also had the hanging X after installation was completed and had to reset the PC and then it magically worked (must be frightening to newbies who expect stuff to 'just work'(tm)). So far the experience has been good. It is certainly nothing earth-shattering, but the updared packages makes for a very snappy system compared to RH9 and the improve Bluecurve is pleasant to look at. I do, however, have 2 problems:

1. For some odd reason smbclient is not verbose as it has been in all other GNU/Linux distributions I have used. It does not report average throughput on file transfers and does not echo settings when you change them (ie: >prompt does not return "prompting is now turned on/off"). I find this very annoying and have not been able to alter it to behave like previous versions. If anyone knows how to do so I would be very glad for the solution.

2. I have had no success installing Mplayer using YUM and the Livna repository. I see very little mention of this (apart from that someone in this thread also mentioned it) and the suggestion to use "up2date -i mplayer" doesn't seem to work either.

Sorry to hear it didn't work for you.
by Jim on Thu 13th Nov 2003 08:01 UTC

I think your right when you say distro's need to do more testing. Fedora worked well for me & I'll be upgrading to Fedora's next release. I would love to use Mandrake but it doesn't recognise my monitor & gives me blurred fonts. If Mandrake could get the driver support that Redhat has & properly support Gnome I think it could be a winner. Until that day I'll keep using Fedora/Redhat.

v " #@%$ him. #@%$ him right in the ear."
by sanitys3j on Thu 13th Nov 2003 08:12 UTC
My perspective
by Spark on Thu 13th Nov 2003 08:26 UTC

Too many comments to read, so this is a redundancy warning. =)

The article is pretty accurate in stating the most obvious problems. However, after fixing some initial problems, the system runs stable as a rock for me and the performance is just outstanding. I had not yet problems installing third party applications, though I just tried Gaim 0.72 and it indeed doesn't work. I'm sure this will be fixed by the next release of Gaim.
I also have nothing to complain about multimedia. My Vorbis media isn't skipping the slightest and I just did the stress test: Playing both OGG and an MP3 file simultaneously while starting and playing Enemy Territory (which in itself is already stressing my poor P3 1000) and had not a single skip in all of the three sound sources. Now the interesting question would be, whether my or your observed behaviour is the exception. ;)
Oh and Rhythmbox is rock solid for doing what I do with it (playing my ripped music albums). Of course bugs are expected in such an early development version and it's a clear goal of Fedora to be a testbed for such development versions.

I think what we'll have to get used to is, that Fedora, while in fact beeing in direct competition to Windows and OS X, is _not_ a finished end user product but more like a breeding box for developers and users who like to get in touch with latest developments (aka enthusiasts).
The quality assured and (hopefully) bug free versions are the Red Hat Enterprise Linux releases, of which none exist (yet) for the general home user, because Red Hat thinks, that it can't really deliver for this market (yet), to which I would agree (yet). Before it would really start to make sense for Red Hat to develop such a release, I think the software wouldn't just need some more polish (see Gtk still lacking the "real" file selector, see GStreamer not yet beeing ready, etc. You can't release a snapshot of the current Linux desktop and expect it to be satisfying user needs for the next three years. It doesn't "just work", yet) but Linux itself also needs more backing by hardware and software vendors. And to get the latter, the plan of Red Hat is to bring Linux on the corporate desktop (for which it works really well already) with their Enterprise Linux products. We'll just have to see how it turns out and meanwhile, there just isn't any Linux home user product from Red Hat for anyone but developers, enthusiasts and people who want to learn something new.
There are still SuSE, Mandrake, Lindows, etc. I don't think they really deliver to the promise and some of them aren't completely Open Source though (which, to me, elliminates all advantages of using this alternative plattform).

Personally, I love Fedora and I'm very excited to watch it's further development. I also hope that it will contain a few less embarassing bugs in the next releases though. ;) We could all help in making sure this becomes a reality... After all, everyone is the QA of Open Source projects.

My €0.02...
by prometeo on Thu 13th Nov 2003 09:46 UTC

I had many troubles getting a working RH9 installation on my laptop (HP ze4318ea). Then I tried to install FC1 and all I had to modify was the acpi=on setting in grub.conf and removing the speedtch.o driver (which is only half working to to a missing ppp plugin file) and I was set. I don't like the graphical boot, but you can remove it. Being the first release, it is ways better than I thought. YMMV.

RPM Locking Bug
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 10:12 UTC

A fix for this bug has long been available, and I am very surprised that it was not included in FC1.

if you get the problem, it can be fixed by running:
rm /var/lib/rpm/__db*

Bugfixed RPMs are available from ftp://ftp.rpm.org/pub/rpm/dist

Both these solutions are given in this bug report:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97002

Highly questionable review!
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 10:24 UTC

No problems whatsoever with Java (rpms via http://www.jpackage.org), Flash (Warren Togami's semi-official rpms from http://macromedia.mplug.org/), add-ons from http://fedora.us and mp3 and multi-media from http://rpm.livna.org

The way to work-around the IMO rare stale-locks problem with RPM is "rm -f /var/lib/rpm/__db.* ; rpm -vv --rebuilddb" after stopping/killing all package utilities. No reboot required.

Very negative review ¿why?
by ElHobbit on Thu 13th Nov 2003 10:30 UTC

I install Fedora last weekend and i dont have the troubles you explain... I install the flash plugin (the tar.gz) with no problems...
With yum install mplayer and search in google for the xmmms-mp3 plugin, download and all work fine...
I install apt for non-oficial repositores and install more software with no problems and by now all work very very fine.
Are you sure you are not install a beta?

PD: Im from spain and my english is very poor sorry ;)

Don't blame yarrow for your mistakes
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 10:37 UTC

This review is one of the worst I have ever read on OSnews, and I've read some bad ones. First of all, don't install shrike rpms in yarrow. There's a reason for the version change. There are yarrow gaim 0.72 rpms avalable from freshrpms. Look it up!

Please don't blame yarrow for your mistakes. Yes, yarrow has its issues, including a buggy up2date and redhat-config-packages as well as lack of multimedia support. But you create more issues and blame yarrow for your lack of research.

Pfff
by Lennart Fridén on Thu 13th Nov 2003 11:27 UTC

"The reviewer's expectations were too high. You're not supposed to compare Linux distributions with Windows or OS X."

Oh? In that case you can't ever claim that Linux is/will be ready for the desktop.


"Comparing Linux distributions with other Linux distributions is the only fair way to review Linux."

It's also a great way to make the review completely irrelevant to non-Linux (as in would-be) users. This is not a Linux fan-boy site, this is OSNews and it's all about comparing different operating systems.

/Lennart

Seems very nice, but I´ve already jumped ship
by Allolex on Thu 13th Nov 2003 12:15 UTC

I´ve been using Redhat since version 7.1 and immediately decided to jump ship when Redhat split its market. I installed Debian Woody yesterday and I just finished compiling sound and USB support into the 2.4.22 kernel. I´m sure I could have installed Fedora Core 1.0, but I was so irked by the changes Redhat made that I decided to switch to another distribution---at least for my home distribution. (Ironically, I am leaving Redhat on our production machines for the time being.)

I guess I´ve outgrown Redhat anyway. It´s also nice to be able to do: apt-get install openoffice.org There just seem to be more Debian packages out there.

Loving it
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 12:47 UTC

I seem to be having opposite problems. I had a hardrive crash on XP so I bought a new one and found out about Fedora. I have used loads of linux ditros in the past but never considered them desktop ready. This is the first time I have run only Linux and no dual boot.

So far I have had no problems. Installed nicely and most things ran straight out the box (as it were). ONly problems I had were with my ATI card not in 3d acceleration mode, fixed quickly by grabbing ATI's own drivers. I can't seem to get Java working though. OR rather I can't type java at the prompt. ALso I have been using Mozilla 1.5 on XP so I had to remove the 1.4 version and grab 1.5 RPMS (fedora ready) from Mozilla.org. No problems there.

I am running my business on Fedora now. I now have a decent accounts package...my accounting has been terrible. I also now have a project management tool. As well as OpenOffice which I have been using for about 2 years now on Windoze.

I have also downloaded a demo of Crossover Office. So far I have run MS OFfice 2000, Adobe Photoshop, Internet Explorer 6 installed via internet and Dreamweaver MX. All run perfectly. I am very impressed. Would be more impressed if some of these were native Linux. So I shall be purchasing this. It's not a lot. Works out at about £35.

I am also an avid gamer. So for linux games I have installed Americas Army, Wolfenstein: enemy territory and I also have Neverwinter Nights running. All work perfectly. I have also installed Transgaming's WineX but not impressed so far. But for a couple of quid a month it may be worth it in the end. Only game I can run without 3d is Simcity 4.

I think you have to remember with Linux is you get more than just an operating system. If you were to purchase a computer with Windoze don't forget it will be all setup ready to run on that particular machine. Also you won't get any of the extras. It would cost an absolute fortune for the stuff you get with it. I have installed XP from scratch and I have had my fair share of problems. Network cards being one of them. And then you have to install all your applications seperately.

Equally if you were to purchase a computer with Linux preinstalled I would expect it would work without problems.

I can't run MP3 files either but oh well never mind. Trivial really. They can be converted to OGG files if neccessary. I have already converted some of my cds to ogg. The CD Juicer program is excellent for that. Even names the files and creates subdirectories based on artist and album.

As I said I am having the opposite problems and am loving every moment of it. Very impressed. The icons are much nicer than they used to be. So much more professional.

No internet connection
by TAVO! on Thu 13th Nov 2003 12:54 UTC

I think that everyone is forgeting about us poor souls that no have an internet connection.

WE WANT A FULL DISTRO AT ONCE.

with mp3, video player, flash, etc etc etc

Come on! We are the 3rd world too!!!!!

My take
by Joe Gnu on Thu 13th Nov 2003 13:48 UTC

Someone is given a whole operating system for free. Rather than value the thousands of hours that go into making it, this person rants and raves about small issues that are easily correctable. When I started playing with Linux years ago, we had bigger problems than whether a flash animation was working. Yet we march ahead against all odds.

This is our baby. Take care of it and of the developers that make it happen.Many of us still spent coutnless sleepless hours working on this out of the goodness of our hearts. We need constructive criticism, not hystrionics of the kind exhibited by that reviewer.

Thank you for listening and caring.

IMHO FC1 == better RH9.
by gilboa on Thu 13th Nov 2003 13:53 UTC

I've already all my personal dual workstations to FC1, and when I'll finish 24x7xnnn testing it, I'll start moving all my workstations and servers (that don't run Slackware...)

Now.
I've got nVidia drivers working (export CC=gcc32), flash working (rpm -ivh compat-libstdc++* from the *FC1 CD*), java working (Same old JSDK I'm always using), and MP3 working (RH9 rpm), (with Athlon SMP optimized Kernel/Xine/MPlayer/Mozilla 1.5 compiled from source.)
I personally love it and I found all the problems to be minute and easily solved... but that's me.

Gilboa

Fedora
by gmlongo on Thu 13th Nov 2003 14:04 UTC

I have actually had very few problems. Fedora is definitely more responsive and the themes and icons are more polished. I have been using yum and up2date to install and update software without a hitch. Excellent job RedHat!

-G

Good Experience Here...
by techtrucker on Thu 13th Nov 2003 15:01 UTC

Wiped off the RH9 install and did a clean install of FC1. Found all hardware, was easy to get mp3 playback, mplayer, xine etc.
One glitch: The RH9 install would let you change the type of video card and amount of video memory. RH9 always mistakenly detected my nvidia TNT card as having 4 MB, and I would simply change it to 16 MB. There was no option for this during the FC1 install, and therefore it limited me to 1024x768 (I always ran 1280x1024 under RH9). I had to manually edit the XF86Config file, which wasn't a big deal for me but for someone just starting out....

Thanks to Eugenia and to Fedora
by chip on Thu 13th Nov 2003 17:04 UTC

I'm running Fedora 1 now on several systems and do in fact like it quite a bit. Eugenia has pointed out some valid complaints in her review with which I agree.

Fedora Core should "just work". Most of the people reading this site are geeks, not newbies. We geeks are used to dealing with symbolic links and jumping through various hoops in order to make things work on our linux systems.

Look at all the technical advice offered in the comments to Eugenia's Fedora review. One could write a Fedora FAQ based upon the information contained in these comments. But again, most of these things should just work, one should not need to be a linux geek or to consult an FAQ to get Fedora Core to work properly.

That is what I am hoping to see with the Fedora project, more community involvement, and a Fedora Core that will be rapidly improved.

fedora is great.
by Mike Jenkins on Thu 13th Nov 2003 17:33 UTC

i just upgraded from redhat 9 by clean install last night. I am very impressed with fedora. i really like using yum to upgrade. i just entered the livna site into yum.conf and all functionality was back for mp3 dvd etc... and way more than i ever had before. samba worked great for me. i really liked the new config interface and i didn't even have to use swat (which i don't like because you have to start a server to use it). boot time was very fast after i disabled all the default servers that i didn't need (i mean who really needs the chinese letter server ;) except if you are chinese). i use a dual monitor and i didn't even need the special config rpms from matrox to use it now.

the only problem i agree with the reviewer on is rpm locking. while using yum i got locked up a few times and this is a problem which needs to be fixed.

Prelinked KDE?
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 17:50 UTC

How fast do the prelinked KDE applications start?

Mild disappointment?
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 18:25 UTC

Fedora is an incomplete, kludgey, and patched-together POS that is an embarrassment to Red Hat.

No wonder people were so concerned about RH's product when they said they'd be dropping the desktop user.

Happy Xandros User
by UnixGuy on Thu 13th Nov 2003 18:42 UTC

I read about everyone's expectations, that somehow FC1, is a desktop distribution. I don't know if Red Hat ever put any real effort into being a desktop OS. As an individual who chose to pay for Xandros, all I can say is that you can wait, hope, volunteer, and try to get FC1 to be a desktop OS, but in the mean time look at Xandros to see how good it can be with a linux desktop.

Unofficial Fedora FAQ
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 18:58 UTC


http://fedora.artoo.net/faq/

This answers many, many questions I have seen in the article and comments.

If it matters, I have Fedora Core 1 installed with Java, Flash, mp3 everywhere, and zero undocumented problems (yes the gui package installer is borked...a fix is on the way.)

ded

Re: My perspective
by synergy on Thu 13th Nov 2003 18:59 UTC

"I think what we'll have to get used to is, that Fedora, while in fact beeing in direct competition to Windows and OS X, is _not_ a finished end user product but more like a breeding box for developers and users who like to get in touch with latest developments (aka enthusiasts)."

that might be the primary goal, but if it's not usable, it doesn't make sense at all, because i don't think that even the enthusiasts are willingly to bugfix their whole installation to have a usable product.
it as well doesn't rule out that usability (for private users) should play an important role in the development process, also and especially because the red hat enterprise desktop (or suses offers etc.) is certainly not the last word in terms of ease-of-use and features, and also because it might not be clever for red hat to leave that potentially biggest market to players like lindows, xandros etc. as well as, from the bigger picture, linux for the desktop needs the active contributions of big players like red hat to mature-which brings us to the next point:

"The quality assured and (hopefully) bug free versions are the Red Hat Enterprise Linux releases, of which none exist (yet) for the general home user, because Red Hat thinks, that it can't really deliver for this market (yet), to which I would agree (yet). Before it would really start to make sense for Red Hat to develop such a release, I think the software wouldn't just need some more polish (see Gtk still lacking the "real" file selector, see GStreamer not yet beeing ready, etc."

the old henn and egg-dilemma-you might take the lack of polishment as an excuse not to engage in this market, or (like smaller players with much less cash do) as a task that needs to get tackled, as a reason and motivation to change that status quo. with the same reasoning, linux wouldn't have made it in the serverroom also...

"You can't release a snapshot of the current Linux desktop and expect it to be satisfying user needs for the next three years. It doesn't "just work", yet) but Linux itself also needs more backing by hardware and software vendors."

maybe not, but that's not a reason to not even start to work on it (see above). as for the backing, it's the same...

"And to get the latter, the plan of Red Hat is to bring Linux on the corporate desktop (for which it works really well already) with their Enterprise Linux products. We'll just have to see how it turns out and meanwhile, there just isn't any Linux home user product from Red Hat for anyone but developers, enthusiasts and people who want to learn something new."

1. nearly every distro goes in the corporate-market (even xandros)
2. this strategy might well backfire, especially after the announcement of userlinux by bruce perens)

"There are still SuSE, Mandrake, Lindows, etc. I don't think they really deliver to the promise and some of them aren't completely Open Source though (which, to me, elliminates all advantages of using this alternative plattform)."

so help accerlerating the development of app. tools and programs instead of canceling it!

"Personally, I love Fedora and I'm very excited to watch it's further development."

me too!

kind regards.

Fedora Core1 stuff
by alpha99 on Thu 13th Nov 2003 19:34 UTC

Eugenia is (almost) right. Let's see the conslusions:
1. Fedora's role is the public beta testing (of RedHat's tryings).
2. Fedora will be (always) in beta state.
3. We don't know about the updates or security fixes.
4. Future. Next release will introduce kernel 2.6 with the same amount of bugs (beta testing starts again)

So, Fedora is not the right playgroung for you. It's pure RedHat business (ie. community beta testing, which can be sold later as an enterprise product).

v dumb review
by flukester on Thu 13th Nov 2003 19:41 UTC
v poor eugenia
by flukester on Thu 13th Nov 2003 19:48 UTC
Re: My perspective
by WhichDoctor on Thu 13th Nov 2003 20:51 UTC

"There are still SuSE, Mandrake, Lindows, etc. I don't think they really deliver to the promise and some of them aren't completely Open Source though (which, to me, elliminates all advantages of using this alternative plattform)."

Um, just out of curiousity, which of these are you not considering Open Source cause if you're talking about Lindows, then here you go:

ftp://130.94.123.237/

I have no interest on people who try to find excuses for Fedora's poor QA and secondly,. I do not read portuguese, or whatever language that is.

QA
by techtrucker on Fri 14th Nov 2003 00:01 UTC

I'm sure part of the QA problem has something to do with the transition to the community-based model, another couple of releases and we should have a much more refined distro. I'm planning on keeping a close eye on Fedora.

new enterprise linux ??
by Snake on Fri 14th Nov 2003 04:55 UTC

http://www.beau.org/~jmorris/linux/whitebox/


this is intresting would be nice if the guy/gal had more help ??

:)

It is Spanish for your information, I do not speak Spanish but I can see it is by looking at it. I am sure considering that you should be net savvy, with all the information you give on this site, that there are translation services out there. Infact many browsers have options in their menues that say "translate such and such to such and such."

Happy reading:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/tr?url=http%3A//www.li...

I do not expect to not get modded down as I am sure you will wish to after you read what that other person posted, I see you do not like people that do not agree with you. That is fine, I just was showing you that I used common sense and found a way to read what at first I could not. Common sense goes a long way in finding information that you once did not know, works in many situations, including just using a computer.

Operating Systems really are unimportant in learning... don't learn the OS, learn how to use a computer, then the OS doesn't matter. But then again, this is my opinion, others may not share it, oh well.

Another thing, people say "I use a computer as a tool and don't want to learn it." What tools are out there that take no learning? I would not want some inexperianced person using a blow torch or an electric arc welder. I would not want someone who doesn't know how to shoot a gun to use it without being taught. I myself would not want to use a tool without learning how to use it. Even a hammer would need very simple learning, as those without knowing how to use a hammer could potentially smash a finger, or put a nice dent in something on accident. So yes computers are tools, complex tools even, and yes tools need to be learned,

I'd like to see a review of an OS maybe after a month or two of use on a machine sometime, can that be arranged?

6.5 for Security? You never once addressed the issue in your article.
by A.D. Shackelford on Fri 14th Nov 2003 15:43 UTC


Dont know why you gave it a 6.5 for security. Not once through your article did you address the issues of security? Afaik, during the install it prompted (and insisted) the user create their own personal account (non-root). As for the rest of the security, it's appears to be standard like past RH distro's (besides the annoying part of always installing sendmail as a running daemon- grin).

It is not 6.5 JUST for security, but also for bugs and stability, so please don't change the facts. And fedora had a lot of bugs, so even if security might be getting a 9 or 10, the rest of the credibility parts were on the floor.

just one word:
by Ken on Sat 15th Nov 2003 03:15 UTC

Slackware

gdm doesnt list all sessions
by Vijay on Sat 15th Nov 2003 04:05 UTC

After installing xfce4 (redhat 9 rpms), and restarting X-server, I cannot see an entry for xfce in gdm. However, in gdm sessions, there is a script for xfce. Xfce is installed properly as i can open manually from terminal.
Does anybody know a fix for it?

v Eugena
by Nick on Sun 16th Nov 2003 00:08 UTC
v more Red Hat bashing from a Windows-centric viewpoint
by Anonymous on Sun 16th Nov 2003 09:38 UTC
A total newbie
by earlneo on Sun 16th Nov 2003 20:20 UTC

I am a linux newbie and just started using linux about a week ago. Last time (few years back). I did try to install Redhat 5, but failed. As i remembered, the CD dont even have an installer/guide. Then last week, I think back, why not give a try again. Maybe this time its easy already. And to my suprise, Fedora really rocks! It detect all my devices and including my Logitech Wireless Keyboard+Mouse. At first I'm having problem with mp3,divx, and so on, but a simple search on google give me all the solutions. The new GUI is really nice and fast and its all anti alias. Good job for Fedora Team!. Now my Fedora have Crossover with Office XP and Photoshop installed(got cracked version from the net, really easy to use), Sysnaptic, MPlayer, and running FFSearch (SMB & FTP crawling) on Apache,mySQL,and Perl.IMHO, linux is not ready yet for Desktop users (dont care whatever IBM said ;) ). If me as a newbie can settle most of the problem, I dont think why not for the regular linux user. There is still one problem I cant solve it which is Samba. Somehow I can't access any PC sharing on SMB. I did checkthe SMB service, and it running well. Anybody have the same problem with me? Mind to share?

Another attempt to "linux user friendly" :)
by Ramunas on Mon 17th Nov 2003 07:49 UTC

I still don't understand people who make attempts to have one-click-OS without any understanding how it goes. Windows is allready such OS: go and use it. Linux is sophisticated and knowledge based thing. And well documented, too. RPM based distributions are trying to be "user friendly" as Windows is. But on that case it loose on common understanding of linux as operating system. Understanding costs time spending on learning. Easy way is to go on web and put many questions about library dependencies mismatch while the manual for that lays on man pages, howto's, README and etc. I respect people that became into experts trying to describe pictures on desktop, really...

i think you're just a little too frustrated
by Archer on Wed 19th Nov 2003 10:06 UTC

I don't know why you've got so many problems ... I installed Fedora Core 1 yesterday, and everything works fine. Granted, I still need to install a few plugins, but I think the problem might be with your setup.

SMB works faster than anything I've ever seen. If you have problems, try browsing LAN using konqueror and lisa.

I've downloaded NVidia srpms, built rpms, installed them and got it working just fine ... the whole thing took not more than 5 minutes.

I think you should try to write objective reviews and not salt them with your frustration.

Resources for Fedora Core
by J. Jones on Fri 21st Nov 2003 15:27 UTC

I have been using Fedora Core since it first release to the public, and all I can say is it really rocks. I try all of the major distributions when they first come out, and of all I have tried, Fedora Core 1 is the best. BTW, I have Mandrake 9.2 on 3 cd's if anyone wants it. ;)

Installation was very simple, even with a dual boot setup. There are minor problemes, as there are with any OS, You just need to do a little research and fix up the quirks.

The first thing to do is get yum working correctly and do a yum update. The yum repositories were changed so you will need to update your yum.conf file. I have a working yum.conf file on my site at:

http://home.insightbb.com/~jmjones/

Although I do not agree with everything in theis review, I do agree that Fedora Core 1 has some things that could have been more polished, but nothing that cannot be worked around. Overall, it is a great distro.

I wouldn't blame Red Hat
by mishoo on Sat 22nd Nov 2003 12:55 UTC

Let's figure: most (95%) of the applications are not made by Red Hat. It's impossible, for a single company, to create all that. Even Microsoft, with all their money, doesn't have such a huge applications number as can be found on a Linux distribution.

All these apps are buggy (like all software, after all), being in constant development. If by "lack of QA" you mean that Red Hat shouldn't include these apps in the distro, then you're wrong. Including an application in the Linux distribution will firstly improve feedback and bug reporting and ultimately increase the will of developers to continue working and improving the software:

Take Gnome, for example. Do you think it would have reached thus far without being included in virtually every Linux distribution? There are hundreds of developers involved in lots of different areas of the project and they work in their free time and usually for no profit; if their project is not being used, then they eventually lose interest. Really, this is happening. When, on the other hand, their project is being used by thousands of people, then they receive feedback, appreciation, donations maybe and this ultimately reflects in the quality of their software. You can't contradict me on that.

I'm a Linux user for about 7 years now and I have watched the evolution of some great applications and let's be honest, shall we: things are improving. I used Mozilla since 0.8--compare that to 1.4 or Firebird! 0.8 was crashing 5 times per day while 1.4 would stay on for weeks.

Now let's get to the quality of commercial OS-es. And so, let's take Windows. The core itself is okay. Real good multimedia indeed, user interface is stocked in the kernel itself which explains why it is that fast (well also let's be honest about this: probably all hardware vendors favor Microsoft and this explains the good HW support and particularly fast multimedia). However when it comes to application quality, you will find that IE is crashing too (and sometimes, depending on the Windows version, the whole system goes down with it ;-). OutLook is a bunch of security holes and responsible for my 20M daily inbox. Word sometimes wouldn't read documents created with Word, or if you save them as HTML they'll look right only in IE. And almost always (as if some weird mind-reading algorithm has been implemented) it will reformat your documents exactly when you reached a final state, turning hours of your work useless. Where's the big QA?

I think open source is better because developers actually use the software they make. Do you think Microsoft is using Word or FoxPro or even Visual Basic? I seriously doubt it..