Linked by Fabian M. Schindler on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 18:53 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y Linux distros are advancing everywhere. Not only servers but also on the desktop pc and notebooks. There are wild discussions, if Linux-Distributions are ready for serious business work or personal use. This critical review will deal with two long awaited Linux-distributions, Fedora Core 3 and Ubuntus Warty Warhog. Why these two? Because both feature Gnome 2.8 and it would not be a comparision on equal terms to compare Gnome to e.g KDE. Also, both use kernel 2.6.8+ and have their very own theme for the default desktop. Bluecurve for Fedora and Human for Ubuntu.
Order by: Score:
Ubuntu vs. Fedora?
by SadUbuntuUser on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 19:06 UTC

Ubuntu vs. Fedora?

It's easy to sum up for me:

Ubuntu randomly crashes on my box.

Fedora does not.
-----------------------------

Evolution doesn't work properly under Ubunt (AMD64), but it does under Fedora.

------------------------------

Lots of software is far more up to date in FC3 (having come out after Ubuntu), so...

It's pretty cut and dry for me personally. I can't use Ubuntu (because of the random hard locks only it has), don't want to use it (because of problems with evolution and some outdated packages) so it's easy for just to use FC3...

Some days I wish for the Ubuntu polished Gnome desktop with Fedora's update to date and polished in other area feel, and it's RPM package userland (much easier for developers like me to deal with).

RE: ReiserFS on Fedora
by Andrew Robert on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 19:09 UTC

Sorry guy but you can install Fedora with the ReiserFS on a clean system.

All you need to do is enter in

linux reiserfs

at the installation prompt.

No fuss. No muss.

RE: Ubuntu vs. Fedora?
by Eugenia on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 19:12 UTC

Ubuntu is a nice distro, but I found it buggy. I filed more than 10-15 bug reports last 2 months, most of them critical. I still can't use my mouse with it without removing the mouse from the PS/2 connector and place it back in immediately. Other distros on the same machine have not the same symptoms.

On the other hand, Fedora is even more buggy. And slow. And a memory hog. And irritating. But it has more preference panels to setup things and that's nice.

For me, the winner, between the two, is Ubuntu (in general would be ArchLinux or Slackware). For a newcomer, Fedora might be better, because of all the pref panels.

Ubuntu for me
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 19:12 UTC

Having just installed both FC3 and Ubuntu myself I have to go with the Ubuntu side. No problems with install / stability with either, but the messing around to find/add sources for audio/video to fedora was annoying, where as Ubuntu has the full range of debian packages available. Tracking Hoary rather than Warty as well and you get all the freshmeat you can want.

Media Advantage
by SadUbuntuUser on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 19:13 UTC

It is unfair to try to say "well, this distro includes media support and therefore it has an adavantage" when Ubuntu is not US based, while Fedora is.

Because of the legal problems surrounding MP3 patents, and other things it is very wrong to try to compare distributions based on which one decided to deal with a legal gray area and which one does not.

Instead, the fact that Fedora respects the laws of the country, and tries to not to entangle it's users in legal troubles is a better advantage to me.

Additionally, you failed to mention that all the patent covered things you installed in Ubuntu are only through the unsupported restricted repository.

As it is, there is a legal risk for them even providing that.

Whether or not you agree with the laws or the legal problems, they exist, they are there, and many distributors are starting to be be careful about them.

So, with that in mind, this review would come out 5:5, a Draw.

...
by Thom Holwerda on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 19:13 UTC

For me it's Ubuntu all the way-- I find Fedora a mess-- too many packages. And, I've said it a million times, Fedora has a 19-item menu. That's insane. When I install my operating system I don't wish to spend hours on making the menu at least a bit useable.

And I don't really get why Ubuntu is the winner in multimedia support-- both do not support mp3 and dvd out of the box, so it's a draw for me.

RE: Ubuntu vs. Fedora?
by Eugenia on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 19:14 UTC

Forgot to mention, Ubuntu wouldn't even install on my other PC, a Linuxcertified laptop. Its new installer would freeze with a black screen. That's obvious an installer bug that needs to be fixed...

@SadUbuntuUser
by Joe on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 19:15 UTC

"So, with that in mind, this review would come out 5:5, a Draw."

Hey, it's his review, stop being a bigot.

RE: RE: Ubuntu vs. Fedora?
by Thom Holwerda on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 19:16 UTC

Mmm guess I'm one of the lucky ones again-- Ubuntu installs without problems on both my x86 and my iMac...

Why am I always lucky? ;)

Another Loser Review
by Anon E Moose on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 19:24 UTC

Im really starting to hate these reviews, that makes the decision based on the reviewers PoV. Ubuntu coming on a single CD is not a bad thing for alot of people. So basically banging it for that and a restricted list of first install programs is moronic. Why you ask? Because that is the GOAL of the distro in question. It was put together that way, so then saying yea but you dont get everything and the kitchen sink option at install is just stupid.

Ubuntu can be used as a server but from a user standpoint you can see that wasn't the first place that it was being aimed at. Its setup to be a more desktop centric distro, that means I dont need all the server stuff installed at that get go. Just like it was designed to be.

Instead of comparing two distros that have totally different goals, it might have been nice to see a review about what each one offers and let the reader decide which better fit them. Instead we get another reviewer telling us how "HE" thinks these distros should act and which one "He" thinks is better.

Of course the above is just my pov too. So most likely meaningless to all but me.

And RE: SadUbuntuUser if they switched to RPM I wouldnt be using Ubuntu anymore .. thats one of the reasons I switched to it .. apt-get and .debs. Again personal likes and dislikes. Sorry Ubuntu didn't work for you, but I never had anything but problems with the Fedora's while Ubuntu works without a hitch. Again personal opinions and machines differ =)

My take is use what works for you. Nice to see FC3 move to a standard Gnome desktop config though.

Anon E Moose

RE: Media Advantage
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 19:25 UTC

The patent arguement isn't very strong. If patents really were an issue Fedora wouldn't contained tabbed interface due to Adobe's tabbed palette patent, which they have used against Macromedia in 2000.

Media Support
by thrift on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 19:28 UTC

While I will agree that the media support of Fedora out of the box is not great, Ubuntu's is not a lot better. Many of my music files did not work with Ubuntu out of the box, and none of my video files did.

Luckily Ubuntu has a faq on their website that makes everything work geat real quick. My main question is why would Ubuntu pull out the media support on their default install, when they know most of their users are just going to install it anyway. Seems to me like a few idealist are hurting their main user base.

Fedora 3 vs. Ubuntu
by Greatoak on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 19:33 UTC

I have not tried Ubuntu, so I can't compare them BUT...

I have tried and used Fedora 3 for the past week and let me tell you something. This is the MOST successful install, easiest to use Linux I have tried yet. I have tried Xandros, Lindows/Linspire(whatever), RH, SuSE, mandrake, and lycoris. Fedora 3 KILLS them.

The ONLY problem I had, and it is QUITE a problem... Samba did NOT want to work correctly. I could not browse, I could not set up shares. It seemed to me to be TOTALLY busted. Which confused the hell out of me. I have used and worked with FC2 for a bit now and that NEVER had a problem with Samba. Usually, I have problems with hardware, NOT Samba.

I did download the latest and install that. I was then able to setup shares but I still could NOT browse my local servers.

It was very irritating.

The coolest part of the experience for me was that it recognized ALL my hardware. (USB, Wifi, etc.) This was on a LAPTOP too... The wifi didn't work, in terms of, being used but it did get recognized by kudzu, installed and init'd, BUT it would not locate my linksys WAP. This was not a big deal 'cause I think Wifi still sucks and is in it's "growth" spurt. So, when it settles down, I'll join. Till then I can run wire with surprising speed.

Can you tell I was impressed. ;)

Later,
G

I am a debian guy
by modman on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 19:33 UTC

I can not stand the idiot-syncracies of an RPM based distribution. I tried to love fedora wit apt, but it was not the same.

thank god Ubuntu has brought modern packages to Debian.

now if Ubuntu would just work out a few usability kinks it will be awesome. I think though that it is a Gnome issue more than a distro issue,

oh, BTW
by modman on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 19:36 UTC

it helps that ubuntu is single CD oriented

net installs are much better than cd installs. you only get the software you want or need.

yes., I know fedora has some kind of net install function, but i is hardly meant to be a primary way to install the system.

your comments
by the author on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 19:38 UTC

okay, to the ReiserFS: how shall i find out that it can be used in the fedora-install if i cannot read it anywhere before installing? not the best option for a newb. I searched for this info but never found it. sorry.

as to your personal installation problems: i know that the one or the other distro might not work perfectly on your boxes, but i ONLY give comment on the hardware i have used for this review. do not expect me to try every piece of hardware there is for computers. ;)

also keep in mind that i have taken a deep look into the forums in order to see where most problems arose.

the mp3 thing: yes, you are right, mp3 is now unavailable on both, fedora and ubuntu. ubuntu only removed it from its main packages recently but you can grab it immediately from the mirrors. in fedora it is a bit more tricky (3rd party). so it is still a slight advantage for ubuntu. especially because of the audio-cdrom stuff.

to the legal-issues: not everyone who uses fedora lives in the us. so if there are people who are allowed to use mp3 and/or other stuff, why is it all kept from them and not even available from the mirrors. this is kinda weird imho. ubuntu has a better approach to this.

just my two cents. ;)

RE:2.6.8
by Garret on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 19:41 UTC

Seemed like it took me forever to convince people there was a problem with the 2.6.8 kernel. As soon as I loaded it on a machine on our network I we saw issues.

sysctl -w net.ipv4.tcp_window_scaling=0

that takes care off the imediate problem, and

echo "net.ipv4.tcp_window_scaling=0" >> /etc/sysctl.conf

at a root prompt should take care of it for good. It's been working for us. :-)

Garret

Fedora 3 vs. Ubuntu
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 19:41 UTC

The ONLY problem I had, and it is QUITE a problem... Samba did NOT want to work correctly. I could not browse, I could not set up shares. It seemed to me to be TOTALLY busted. Which confused the hell out of me. I have used and worked with FC2 for a bit now and that NEVER had a problem with Samba. Usually, I have problems with hardware, NOT Samba.


I think this is a GNOME/Nautilus problem. If you have KDE installed you CAN browse the network.

. . .
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 19:41 UTC

Fedora is nice out of the box. So is Ubuntu. Ubuntu uses deb packages. Fedora uses rpm.

Ubuntu is everything you loved about Debian only with more up-to-date packages and built for the desktop.

Also, if you want updated packages in Ubuntu, just use the hoary repositories. Hoary isn't like rawhide. It is much more stable. For those that know Debian stuff, when people from that community say "unstable" you know that means "packages are updated a lot" more than "your computer will crash a lot". In 5 months, when both will probably be looking at releasing an updated version in a month, a computer kept up to date with Ubuntu hoary will look a lot better than one left with the packages included in FC3.

Most importantly, the Fedora people have complained about the reviewer bashing them over not supporting things like MP3. Newsflash: Ubuntu doesn't support MP3 either (although it can be installed from the multiverse repository).

I also like the emphasis that Ubuntu has on reusable work. Fedora really likes making its own tools. Ubuntu seems more committed to contributing to tools like Gnome's new networking conviguration program. Being led by a group of Debian and Gnome developers, that sense of cooperation was probably a given.

There are nice things to Fedora. New users will appreciate the graphical installer (which is very comforting), graphical boot, and RedHat sponsorship (many people know the name RH and will be more comfortable with it than just any Linux distro). Fedora also has bluecurve (which I have installed on my Ubuntu installation). I <3 bluecurve. It reminds me of the Classic Mac OS with its platinum interface with blue/purple accents. RH also did a very good job with their icons. They're beautiful.

For me, Ubuntu makes better decisions than Fedora. Deb over RPM. Standard tools over seperate ones. Maintenence of an up-to-date branch vs. upgrading only when a new release is ready. Things like that. Fedora/RH aren't bad. In fact, compared to most Linux distributions which do little to nothing to give back to the community, RH/Fedora has given a lot back and generally supports better policies than most (like not including MP3 support).

@SadUbuntuUser
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 19:51 UTC

"So, with that in mind, this review would come out 5:5, a Draw"

Ubuntu won 6:4. If you remove Ubuntu's point for better media support it doesn't add a point for Fedora. So in your opinion, Ubuntu still won 5:4.

IMO there is no comparison between the two in respect to media support. With Ubuntu I had support for dvd/mp3/Xvid/win32codecs in just a couple minutes thanks to apt-get. With Fedora I spent hours trying to do the same thing with marginal success.

re: thrift
by Jack on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 19:57 UTC

Most of the media formats that are left out by default are restricted formats, IE: WMV, MOV, MPeg Layer 3, etc ... Also keep in mind that not everyone needs to play media, some want a small server setup, or a plain vanilla workstation to run development off of. Like you've said adding support for restricted media formats is trivial, granted that you have internet connection.

I've tried Fedora and Ubuntu and I can say that Ubuntu wins hands down thanks to it's debian roots. Fedora is great but it's package manager coupled with it's bloat really kills the whole experience for me. Ubuntu on the other hand is showing great potential for it's rather young age.

ubuntu? ? what is hype about ?
by Cool Guy! on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 20:11 UTC

Why I see so much about this out of sink season distro somuch these days ? what is ubuntu a rip off from debian ? ? Why would someone prefer Ubuntu over say Fedora/Mandrake/Suse/gentoo/Debian(I use Debain) ? ? I fail to understand so many such postings about every other distro that rolls out!!! DSL, MEPIS, UBUNTU, a b c de ....it goes on tired. Can these people put more effort in creating and managing current linux instread of forking out and wasting their time and effort. Talk realistically, do you think these ever evolving distros can achieve major market desktop share ? No not at all if they create so many distros, it is hard to patch, maintain for them. Given it is debian and you can use apt-get but why you need it ? You can just do sid install or upgrade woody to sid/sarge!!!! Dont get me wrong but I dont see any point in comparing all these distros with every new one that comes out unless it is *REALLY* something different like knoppix(when it came out it had extra ordinary support for hardware and live cd was cool!!!)

RE: ReiserFS on Fedora
by Simon on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 20:26 UTC

Andrew - where did you find that feature documented? The only way I could find was to use the rescue mode of the CD to get a command line, and manually fdisk/mkreiserfs, since it respects (albeit grudgingly) an existing reiserfs partition.

re:2.6.8
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 20:31 UTC

"Seemed like it took me forever to convince people there was a problem with the 2.6.8 kernel. As soon as I loaded it on a machine on our network I we saw issues.

sysctl -w net.ipv4.tcp_window_scaling=0

that takes care off the imediate problem, and

echo "net.ipv4.tcp_window_scaling=0" >> /etc/sysctl.conf

at a root prompt should take care of it for good. It's been working for us. :-)
"

this is due to broken routers. not a kernel problem

http://lwn.net/Articles/92727/

@Cool Guy!
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 20:31 UTC

Ubuntu is based on Debian Sid. Any patches that go into Ubuntu are also given to Debian maintainers.
As to why would someone prefer Ubuntu over (some list of distros), read the article Cool Guy and you'll see why.

From http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/relationship/document_view:

"Many Ubuntu developers are also recognized members of the debian community. They continue to stay active in contributing to debian both in the course of their work on Ubuntu and directly in debian.

When Ubuntu developers fix bugs that are also present in debian packages -- and since the projects are linked, this happens often -- they send their bugfixes to the Debian developers responsible for that package in debian and record the patch URL in the debian bug system. The long term goal of that work is to ensure that patches made by the full-time Ubuntu team members are immediately also included in debian packages where the debian maintainer likes the work."

free CDs
by Ben on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 20:32 UTC

I ordered some free ubuntu-CDs weeks ago. Does anyone knows when they will be shipped?

Want to test it... But my traffic-limit doesn't allow me to download it.

Ahh yes, I understand this, but while everybody is fighting trying to force the router people to make the change, the end user suffers . . . hence the small fix.

Garret

RE: Cool Guy : Ubuntu
by Anon E Moose on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 20:36 UTC

Because I for one tried Debian and didn't find it to be usable for me. It was stable after I waded through the long install. And telling people that going to an unstable branch isnt going to win people over.

Ubuntu is debian unstable based .. but its been stablized I guess you could say. It has polish without feeling ancient. Its a personal thing I would guess for most. This is the first distro I found that I liked enough right after install to say "OMG someone has got a clue" because it really is the distro I (notice I said I) have been looking for.

That said its not for everyone. Its not straight debian, its do have KDE but its not really supported and its not installed by default etc etc etc. There are alot of distro's out there, because there are alot of different people out there that have different needs and wants.

Don't get bent over why there is so much hype surrounding it. It feels revolutionary to alot of people that try it. Yes its just another distro but it doesn't feel that way to those that love it. Embrace it just for the fact that everyone one of those users is also using a distro that gives back to debian. Its that many more users that learn the joy of .deb and apt-get. Rather than see it as a bad thing, try seeing it as yet one more way that debian is a great distro that has other great distro's based on that foundation.

Anon E Moose

RE: free CDs
by Andrewg on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 20:37 UTC

If your traffic limit does not allow you to download it, then keep in mind that you are probably going to be downloading a lot of additional packages because Ubuntu is only 1 CD.

BTW RE: 2.6.8
by Garret on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 20:38 UTC

I guess I should have stated the issue more clearly.

An issue arose with the arival of the new kernel. Not that is was the kernels fault.

Garret

Fedora Speed
by Andrewg on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 20:43 UTC

I really don't see how Fedora is slow. Seems faster than Ubuntu to me. Just use the prefs panel to diable services you don't want running. I turned off the Postgresql server, apache, sendmail, etc, but never even noticed a speed up. I was very happy with the speed though.

@simon
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 20:45 UTC



There is a installation guide currently being reviewed in the docs list.

my issues with fedora...
by synergy on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 20:49 UTC

i've tried several other distros (suse, xandros, mandrake), but i find myself returning to fedora sooner or later for various reasons.
i've used red hat since v.8, and no doubt it is progressing!
however, there are still the following issues i want to see fixed soon:

- cleaning up/consolidating the menus.
- speed of openoffice
- booting time (afaik in progress)
- amount of memory needed (still too much compared to win xp)
- consolidation of the install tools (yum, apt, rpm, cd-installer, up2date)
- consolidation of the var. repos (the new install/updatetool should automatically choose the needed and working repos and mirrors near you!)
- the annoying fact that my pccard-cdrom still doesn't get recognized although it did in rh8
- breaking up fedora in subsets, like 1 or max. 2 cds needed for a typical desktop installation.
- a live cd!
- acpi finally fully working (suspend etc.). in this regard, fc3 is def. a step backwards, because trying to install with acpi enabled gave me a kernel panic! now i have to use apm, and every time i pull out or plug in my power chord, fc3 simply crashes/freezes!
- well, and then there's the notorious plugin-issue, but given red hats reluctance regarding this issue, i frankly have given up hope to see mp3, dvd etc. working right out of the box in fedora at all!
- oh, and the strange habit of the gnome people to remove or change features which worked well for most of the users (btw, could red hat pls return to their modified panel instead of the 2 geeky and unpractical default gnome panels!)

so in short, i would like to see more emphasis on quality/focus than on quantity - faster progress!
i hope ubuntu and others will increase the pressure for red hat in this regard!

Fedora Core 3
by my_name on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 20:52 UTC

> The only thing that surprised here was the partitioning tool. On distrowatch, ReiserFS was mentioned as a supported filesystem. But the partitioning tool does not offer the option of using ReiserFS but only gives you the option of using ext2 and ext3

FC3 _support_ ext3. Red Hat have developers which really understand ext3 and can _really_ support it. btw, Red Hat add ext2online_resize and ext3_reservation to Linux 2.6 . Again,

You can install FC3 with reiserfs with :
- "linux reiserfs selinux=0"
reiserfs does not support extented attribut.
Jfs :
- "linux jfs"
xfs :
- "linux xfs"

Do you think it's a good idea to propose many FS to a new comer ?

> Ubuntu comes with a text-install (same as the "new" Debian text-installer) which is not bad at all.

Have you try the "expert" method ? It's "horible" and not user-friendly (it the standard debian-installer) :
http://people.debian.org/~madduck/d-i/screenshots/

> You definitely get a bit more control in Ubuntu than in Fedora

Ubuntu does not provide grub password, changing disc order and no lvm support.

> Ubuntu definitely boots faster.

Does Ubuntu support zero-conf ?
Does Ubuntu mount nfs partition ?
Does Ubuntu probe new hardware ?
...

> OpenOffice starts a bit faster in Fedora and features a nice bluecurve splashscreen.

Fedora use ooo-build from ximian :
http://ooo.ximian.com/

> Fedoras OpenOffice crashes the whole (!) system everytime you start to use the spellchecker.

?
Not here.

> A look on the net revealed that the popular apt-get tool of Debian

apt does not handle epoch and does not support bi-arch (amd64 i386, needed for FC3 AMD64).

> it is quite annoying for end-users who always have to tweak teir box in order e.g. to hear their mp3 collection. Many standard-rpms need to be replaced with the freshrpm repositories in order to use any media.

False for gnome 2.8 (which use gstreamer).
You only have to install gstreamer-plugins-mp3 (rpm.livna.org).

> why does Fedora ship with tools like Totem or Rhythmbox at all, if they are almost completely useless?

Totem and Rhythmbox use gstreamer.
Need ffmeg and dvd plugins for gstreamer (Totem) ?
http://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/pkg/fedora/3/i386/gst/RPMS/

To be honest, it does not work very well right now. It's work in progress.

> Both distributions come with some gnome-tools for system administration.

False !
Fedora doesn't use gnome-tools for system administration.
Fedora use its own system-config-* tools.

> Thus they are easy to use and no big differences will show up.

Are you serious ?
Fedora :
system-config-bind
system-config-nfs
system-config-boot
system-config-packages
system-config-date
system-config-printer
system-config-printer-gui
system-config-display
system-config-httpd
system-config-rootpassword
system-config-keyboard
system-config-samba
system-config-kickstart
system-config-securitylevel
system-config-securitylevel-tui
system-config-language
system-config-mouse
system-config-services
system-config-netboot
system-config-soundcard
system-config-network
system-config-network-tui
system-config-users

This tools are Fedora specific (gtk+ and python). All these tools are in the "applications"->"system parameters" gnome menu.

> Adding users in Fedora worked one time and didn't work the next time.
> No real solution was available here.

There are two updates for system-config-users. Have you try them ?
http://fedoranews.org/blog/index.php?p=65
http://fedoranews.org/blog/index.php?p=99

> it would be nice if Fedora would switch to apt-get in the future, as most users prefer it to yum and install it on their system.

Not me.

> In the Gnomes networking-tool, there is a checkbox to deactivate ipv6.

Witch does not exist in Fedora ...

How many CDs does a Fedora install require?
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 20:54 UTC

I haven't used redhat/fedora on the desktop since back in the dependency hell days, but I always hear that the installer requires you to have all 3 CDs (or however many there are).

Now I have broadband, but I don't want to download 3 freaking CDs. Fedora is a Gnome desktop, so at least give users the option to install with one CD and apt-get/yum (whatever redhat people use) into whatever system they want.

I can't compare to Fedora 3 or any other Fedora for that matter, but Ubuntu is the best desktop distro I've ever used.

Why Ubuntu?
by Jayclark on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 20:57 UTC

The reason I dropped Debian for Ubuntu was its clean and polished. It has a 6 month release date. It stable on my pc. Its simple but yet you can do a lot of tweaking. Thats everything I want out of a distro. Now if its only possible to at least have new packages in the repos the same month they was released, then I will be 100 percent happy. I used FC2 so I can't comment on FC3. But I would be biased anyway since I can't stand rpms. And apt4rpm sucks for the lack of packages.

RE: Fedora vs. Ubuntu
by Abel on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 20:59 UTC

I found everything works great on Ubuntu, i haven't run into any real bugs (and might I mention, i run Hoary Development) everything... just... worked.

I think one thing you failed to mention was that... yeah... fedora has 5 cd's... but Ubuntu installs in ~15minutes, and you get a great "Home" users desktop.

The article was VERY well done, not putting a favor on one distro or another. Very good job!!

Ubuntu CD's (Osnews needs an edit option)
by Jayclark on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 21:00 UTC

For people who just order cds don't expect them anytime soon. I order mine maybe a week after they was offered and mine jsut shipped 3 weeks ago and haven't seen them yet. It took a while to fine someone willing to stamped that many cds.

Re: How many CDs does a Fedora install require?
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 21:00 UTC



Personal desktop requires 2. the rest depends

fedora ?
by mark on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 21:05 UTC

ubuntu win against fedora 10 0
fedora have a bad name
it's not good for office desktop
isn't well supported and the community is simply virtual
on fedora you can't decide how implement something
(for example mono ) simply you must accept what the redhat's
employer want.

Ubuntu - great, but not all roses
by Mike on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 21:06 UTC

Ubuntu doesn't include MP3 support by default either. Ubuntu is also a minimalistic distribution, which means you have to install a lot of applications over the web to match what you get on the other Fedora CDs. It's six and two-threes....

Ubuntu is great, but it's not all roses.

Sick of packaging wars....
by SadUbuntuUser on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 21:09 UTC

I can guarantee you that if you stuck someone with a Debian box that only had *dpkg* (the real Debian package manager) and debian packages, they would be just as frustrated as they were (apparently) with a RedHat system that only had RPM packages and the rpm package manager to manage them.

Now add apt4rpm to the RedHat system, and apt back to the Debian system? Guess what, they're both just as freaking easy to use!

It is such a pathetic and tiring argument to say that Deb is better than RPM or RPM is better than Deb.

Both posess disadvantages and adavantages.

In fact, the *only* disadvantage that either *package format* has that actually effects the user is the fact that Deb doesn't support bi-arch packages (AMD64/i386 as mentioned earlier).

From a user standpoint, once you have a frontend program like apt using the underlying package manager to manage packages on the system there is no *difference* as far as the package format itself is concerned and no real effect on the user.

The only difference lies in the contents of the packages or the distribution itself, and has absolutely nothing to do with the package format.

So, no more pathetic packaging wars please. Neither format ulatimately effects the user in any significant way.

RE: Cool Guy : Ubuntu
by Derek on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 21:11 UTC

You are also getting a very current and stable distro with upgrades every six months.

Also weather you use it for personal or business use its the same stable distro.
Besides the great free support you have the option for paid support as well.

And as was already brought out it basically is Debian.

@derek
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 21:14 UTC

"Also weather you use it for personal or business use its the same stable distro. "

if this is a comparison to RHEL its invalid. RHEL has ABI guarantees and updates for 7 years

Re: Abel (IP: ---.lncstr01.pa.comcast.net)
by the author on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 21:15 UTC

The article was VERY well done, not putting a favor on one distro or another. Very good job!!

thank you. ;)

MEPIS works for me...
by Obwan... on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 21:19 UTC

I had Ubuntu installed and found it to be quite nice. It also worked perfectly with my AMD64 processor. I have not tried Fedora Core 3, however after using Ubuntu for awhile, I read a raving review about MEPIS on DesktopLinux.com and I had to give it a try. I believe that review was posted here at OSNews as well. While MEPIS is not a part of this review, it flat out rocks. It comes with multimedia support on install, and everything I've installed works perfectly including Opera. ;D

I found MEPIS to be tremendously better than Ubuntu in many ways. As I said, I haven't tried Fedora Core 3 but I really have no reason to do so because MEPIS does everything I need it to do and more. It would be very hard for Fedora to be better than MEPIS from what I've seen so far.

The review I read can be found here if anyone is interested.

http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT3135712364.html

ubuntu
by mark on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 21:22 UTC

with only $100 you have complete coverage support just like
RHEL
http://www.ubuntulinux.org/support/paidsupport

RE: Fedora Core 3
by Cosmo on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 21:22 UTC

> Ubuntu does not provide grub password, changing disc order and no lvm support.

The Ubuntu installer (d-i) does provide lvm support at install time.

> Does Ubuntu mount nfs partition ?

Certainly, but not by default of course!

> Does Ubuntu probe new hardware ?

Yes, via hotplug. That actually takes longest during bootup.

@Andrewg
> I turned off the Postgresql server, apache, sendmail, etc...

Fedora doesn't run Apache by default, does it???

My take on Fedora Core 3 vs. Ubuntu 4.10
by Chris Dunphy on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 21:24 UTC

As taken from a recent blog posting (November 22nd) I made on my site:

http://www.nerdsyndrome.com

I have been doing a lot of experimenting as of late in order to determine which flavor of the Linux operating system that I wish to run for the next six months on my workstation PARSEC. The two main contenders were Ubuntu Linux and Fedora Core 3. Both are based on the new GNOME 2.8 desktop and both include a lot of bleeding edge open source technology. However, Ubuntu Linux proved to be a vasty superior OS for workstation use.

It is worth noting that this comparison between Ubuntu and Fedora is with regard to desktop/workstation use. Ubuntu probably won't make a good server. For that, check out Debian Sarge, soon to be released, at http://www.debian.org. In fact, Ubuntu Linux is based on Debian, and uses Debian's awe inspiring apt package management tool. Besides the reiserfs problem I had (see below), most of the problems I had with Fedora would not apply to a server system. In fact, Fedora may be much better as a server than it is as a desktop operating system.

Fedora does include newer technology for the most part, such as Xorg 6.8, Linux 2.6.9, and SELinux. Fedora also has a graphical installer called Anaconda which is nice to look at. However, there are two main problems when it comes to Fedora. The software repositories that feed it are nowhere near the same as the Debian-based repositories that are used by Ubuntu. Not even in the same league. Thus, especially when installing non-free packages, like nvidia drivers, libdvdcss, flash, java, mplayer, and mp3 support, Ubuntu Linux is a lot friendlier. We are not just talking a little easier, but orders of magnitude easier.
Penguin Power Redux

Fedora desperately needs an up-to-date non-free yum or apt repository that at least contains things like mp3 support and nvidia/ati drivers (within a few days to a week of a release, not a month later). I don't mind fishing for DMCA (in the US) infringing packages like libdvdcss, but come on, make it easier to install non-free drivers. Considering that Ubuntu ships with the nvidia drivers in their restricted repository, and they also have a great Restricted Formats Wiki Page which has easy to follow instructions to install the other stuff you need for multimedia. To give you an idea how bad this is, consider that it took 30 minutes to get Ubuntu fully usable, wheras it took days to figure out how to get Fedora there, and I never fully did (see java and mplayer bugs below). This was the first big advantage that Ubuntu had over Fedora. Even with free packages, Fedora was missing applications like Bluefish. Inexusable.

Ubuntu is so successful this way, because they have many levels of repositories:

* main - the core Ubuntu distribution goes here.
* restricted - nonfree drivers and core libs go here
* universe - unsupported packages from the larger debian tree go here.
* multiverse - other non-free packages go here.

Fedora really needs to have something like this setup. The only nice thing about Fedora package management is up2date. This program will actually create a flashing red icon on your panel when there is security updates for the base Fedora distribution. This is a nice feature.

Ubuntu has inherited from Debian the best GUI front end for package management ever, Synaptic. With Synaptic, installing new packages is so easy that a computer novice could do it. Outside of the base Fedora system, the same cannot be said for htat OS. There is no GUI front end for the yum package installer (at least none that shipped with Fedora).

The other big problem area for Fedora was stability. Trying to install the nvidia drivers from the nvidia installer on Fedora Core 3 resulted in a hang. This required a workaround, which did solve the problem, until up2date installed a new kernel revision. Mplayer wouldn't play Quicktime movies with the proper audio. I couldn't get java to work with Firefox at all, it would crash the browser as soon as a java page was opened. When trying to use Reiserfs, a fresh install ended up with a corrupted /etc/passwd and corrupted /etc/group file, which meant I couldn't create a non-root user. This OS was just plain buggy. This was annoying to no end.
Penguin Power Plushtux

I really wanted to like Fedora. I am a fan of their Bluecurve desktop theme. They have a nice bootsplash screen at bootup. They use all of the latest technology (especially Xorg). It has a lot of polish, as well as bells and whistles. Fedora supports KDE as well as GNOME, whereas Ubuntu includes KDE in its universe repository, but it is not integrated or supported. However, in the end, Fedora just isn't as usable as Ubuntu is. This is unfortunate, because Redhat (the sponsors of the free Fedora project) have had three releases to get it right, whereas Ubuntu is still on their first release.

For those who may be wishing to try Linux, it is helpful to choose a flavor of the operating system that is relatively friendly to beginners. Despite the fact that Ubuntu has a text based installer, it really is one of the simplest versions of Linux that I have ever setup for desktop use. Check it out at http://www.ubuntulinux.org.

The only major problem I have with Ubuntu, is the long standing bug wheras K3B will only run with root permissions. Thus I have to launch K3B from the command line using sudo. I can live with that. I would also prefer to see Xorg as the XServer as opposed to XFree86. Ubuntu does use the new Debian text installer, but while some see this as a problem, I don't. With its superior package management system, good documentation, and overall stability, Ubuntu is a winner.

hmm
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 21:30 UTC

:Fedora doesn't run Apache by default, does it???:

if you install apache it then it does run. you will have to choose server setup to enable this. the default is personal desktop which doesnt have apache. hope that answers you

"with only $100 you have complete coverage support just like
RHEL "
for 1 year. no lifecyle specified.

Re: My take on...
by SadUbuntuUser on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 21:37 UTC

@Chris Dunphy

Fedora desperately needs an up-to-date non-free yum or apt repository that at least contains things like mp3 support and nvidia/ati drivers (within a few days to a week of a release, not a month later). I don't mind fishing for DMCA (in the US) infringing packages like libdvdcss, but come on, make it easier to install non-free drivers. Considering that Ubuntu ships with the nvidia drivers in their restricted repository, and they also have a great Restricted Formats Wiki Page which has easy to follow instructions to install the other stuff you need for multimedia.

Unfortunately, that too is a legal gray area. Which is why Fedora (being RedHat sponsored) will never be involved in it, and I am very greatful for this. People need to get through their thick skulls that there is a legal danger in doing what many distributions do, even hosting or giving instructions on how to use software that may be considered illegal or patent infringing (with prior knowledge, don't give me the, well this could infringe, because that doesn't legally count...) opens up a legal can of worms.

Just because Distro X does it, does not mean it's ok. RedHat being a large corporation is like a giant legal bullseye, especially with SCO and Microsoft roaming around looking for Open Source companies to make an example out of. They're smart to keep far away from anything legally questionable.

To give you an idea how bad this is, consider that it took 30 minutes to get Ubuntu fully usable, wheras it took days to figure out how to get Fedora there, and I never fully did (see java and mplayer bugs below). This was the first big advantage that Ubuntu had over Fedora. Even with free packages,

It took me 30 minutes to get Fedora fully useable, so pish posh. It's different for everyone.

Fedora was missing applications like Bluefish. Inexusable.

To you maybe. In my case Ubuntu constantly randomly hard locked on my AMD64 system while Fedora does not. That's inexusable to me, especially when the resolution to my bug was to basically wait for the next release (since "X.org fixes that").

Besides, almost every distribution is missing someone's "favourite" piece of software. So let's moving on to the real problems and ignore pithy things like this.

Nevermind the fact that it's call Fedora *Core* for a reason. They do not intend to provide as many packages as other distributions.

why compare a beta vs a non-beta
by maceto on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 21:46 UTC

www.distrowatch.com have a look at redhat vs Fedora packages hmmm why is that the the beta of redhat is moving slower..... hmmm..
So when all you clowns are done testing it, I can pick up a fresh copy of redhat that just works

Point I was trying to make was that
by Cool Guy on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 21:46 UTC

Ubuntu is great and everything. And as all of you said, it sends patches,updates etc back to original debian. But the thing is do we really need ubuntu as a different distro ? that work could have been done with debian too! With it's new installer it works great as an install. Nothing just curious instead of helping maintaining new distro(argree which is debain at heart) why not maintain the original it self and get more done rather than diverting efforts somewhere else. why not make debian more useful to others by giving it polish and other stuff that people said here they wanted and is not in it.

RE: Fedora Core 3
by my_name on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 21:49 UTC

> Yes, via hotplug. That actually takes longest during bootup.

It's not the same thing.
Add a new network or sound card and kudzu will configure it.

btw, Fedora also use hotplug.

Legal can of worms
by Chris Dunphy on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 21:54 UTC

Unfortunately, that too is a legal gray area. Which is why Fedora (being RedHat sponsored) will never be involved in it, and I am very greatful for this. People need to get through their thick skulls that there is a legal danger in doing what many distributions do, even hosting or giving instructions on how to use software that may be considered illegal or patent infringing (with prior knowledge, don't give me the, well this could infringe, because that doesn't legally count...) opens up a legal can of worms.

This is sad, and represents the sickening hypocrisy of laws like the DMCA (which, happily doesn't apply north of the 49th parallel, yet). Still, Canonical supports Ubuntu, and if they thought that the restricted formats wiki would cause them grief, I am certain their lawyers would have squawked by now.

I can only speak of trying to use each distribution as a desktop, and because of the superior nature of Ubuntu's repositories, it is much easier to get up and running.

@marceto
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 21:55 UTC

"www.distrowatch.com have a look at redhat vs Fedora packages hmmm why is that the the beta of redhat is moving slower..... hmmm..
So when all you clowns are done testing it, I can pick up a fresh copy of redhat that just works"

spin it the way you want. real reasons are given elsewhere

redhat el was previously based on redhat now its on fedora. no difference there
http://lwn.net/Articles/104318/?format=printable

thing is
by pmx on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 22:04 UTC

ubuntu is still a fresh new distro. this is the first release.
and everything just seems to work.
itll only get better lol ;)

...
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 22:05 UTC

I've tried both, to me Fedora was Faster and I was able to find more packages to install in the repositories, by the other hand, Ububtu was more stable than FC3, but I wasn't able to install the packages I needed because the repositories are to limited.

In my opinion FC3 wins by an inch.



Re: Cool Guy
by Chris Dunphy on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 22:07 UTC

Ubuntu is great and everything. And as all of you said, it sends patches,updates etc back to original debian. But the thing is do we really need ubuntu as a different distro ? that work could have been done with debian too! With it's new installer it works great as an install. Nothing just curious instead of helping maintaining new distro(argree which is debain at heart) why not maintain the original it self and get more done rather than diverting efforts somewhere else. why not make debian more useful to others by giving it polish and other stuff that people said here they wanted and is not in it.

Easy. Debian tries to maintain too many architectures and this slows its pace down far, far too much. Debian is also too general purpose to rapidly innovate in the desktop space. Ubuntu is focused on providing an up-to-date GNOME desktop that has many of the advantages of Debian, but with more focus. This is a niche that has a market of users... one that Debian cannot fulfill given their current goals.

Re: My take on Fedora Core 3 vs. Ubuntu 4.10
by my_name on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 22:13 UTC

> The other big problem area for Fedora was stability. Trying to install the nvidia drivers from the nvidia installer on Fedora Core 3 resulted in a hang.

It's a NVidia bug. Period. Update Ubuntu to 2.6.9 and you will have the same problem.

> Mplayer wouldn't play Quicktime movies with the proper audio.

Update to the cvs version of MPlayer. Not a Fedora bug.

> I couldn't get java to work with Firefox at all, it would crash the browser as soon as a java page was opened.

Java bug (something related to PIC. Not sure). Again, not a Fedora bug.

btw, Fedora is _FREE_ and does not depend on proprietary software. Never Fedora will adjust to proprietary software. The evolution of Linux does not have to depend on proprietary software. Think about 4kstack.

> When trying to use Reiserfs, a fresh install ended up with a corrupted /etc/passwd and corrupted /etc/group file, which meant I couldn't create a non-root user.

A reiserfs bug (reminber that Red Hat only support ext3).
Reiserfs does not provide extended attribut. jfs, xfs, ext3 provide extended attribut suitable for SeLinux.
Again, not a Fedora bug. It's a Reiserfs misfeature.

> This OS was just plain buggy.

It is not. Try to run Linux programs on Windows.
Fedora push SeLinux and does not support Reiserfs nor proprietary software. If you don't like this, use SuSE.

> Ubuntu is still on their first release.

Ubuntu have Xorg ?
Ubuntu have SeLinux ?
Ubuntu have all the tools to support ACL ?
Ubuntu support UTF8 ?
Ubuntu have ext3resize_online ?
Ubuntu have ext3 reservation ?
Ubuntu have KDE 3.3 ?
Ubuntu have zero-conf ?
Ubuntu use pam_console ?
Ubuntu use gcc 3.4 ?
...

No, no, no, no, no, no, ....

Ubuntu is not Fedora. Ubuntu is fare behind Fedora.
Compare Ubuntu to xandros or Linspire if you like this kind of distribution.

ubuntu =>fedora
by ykpaiha on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 22:19 UTC

Having tried both distros I may say, at least for me, yes they are close but:
Fedora: need realy tools to easy setup additional logs (mp3 etc..)after a week and a half I still have problems to set up proper mp3 and dvd read.
The forum is a mess, proper informations are delayed in a middle of thousands (try to find out witch repos. for yum, up2date or synaptic and the advantage of each-one..by the way why three???).
Ubuntu: Still a bit as a beta most probably a conjonction of prob with gnome 2.8 (most prob they released too fast) and the fact to use only and exclusivly this WM, a mix of the available tools on both kde and gnome would have my preference (k3b by exemple where Ubuntu have G..???, don't talk please on Nautilus cd copy it's a joke).
To be short both have some work to do to convince me.
Back to a proper debian Sid.

Re:
by my_name on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 22:22 UTC

> for 1 year. no lifecyle specified.

https://www.redhat.com/security/updates/errata/
- "Details

For a period of 7 years from initial release (General Availability), Red Hat will provide errata maintenance for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. To facilitate the rapid adoption of new enterprise hardware and software yet retain the high standard of stability inherit in the Red Hat's enterprise products, the 7 years is divided into three phases of maintenance."

>Ubuntu have Xorg ?

Yes, I'm using it right now.

>Ubuntu have SeLinux ?

Yes. It's listed in Synaptic. Buggy SeLinux made me move from Fedora Core 2 to Ubuntu.

>Ubuntu have KDE 3.3 ?

It's Gnome distro, if you want KDE, you wouldn't use it anyway. But, KDE is listed, dunno which version... don't care.

>Ubuntu use gcc 3.4 ?

Yes.

I'm using Hoary.

ha
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 22:27 UTC

"Yes. It's listed in Synaptic. Buggy SeLinux made me move from Fedora Core 2 to Ubuntu. "
non integrated...
"https://www.redhat.com/security/updates/errata/
thats for EL. i was talking about ubuntu

Re: My take on Fedora Core 3 vs. Ubuntu 4.10
by my_name on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 22:45 UTC

> > Ubuntu have Xorg ?
> Yes, I'm using it right now.

Ah Ah....
Your are talking about development.

> > Ubuntu have SeLinux ?
> Yes. It's listed in Synaptic.

SeLinux without policy, support, is nothing, 0, nada.
Does the Ubuntu ls support "-Z" option ?
The anwers is No.
Does dpkg support SeLinux ?
No.
Does the Ubuntu find support SeLinux (--context context, SELinux only) ?
No.
....
....

$ rpm -q --whatrequires libselinux.so.1 | wc -l
47

47 direct dependancy.
Direct dependancy mean this :
$ ldd /bin/rpm | grep selinux
libselinux.so.1 => /lib/libselinux.so.1 (0x00168000)


47 package build specificly for SeLinux :
SysVinit-2.85-34
anaconda-10.1.0.2-1
at-3.1.8-60
busybox-anaconda-1.00.rc1-5
coreutils-5.2.1-31
dbus-0.22-10
findutils-4.1.20-7
gdm-2.6.0.5-6
hal-0.4.0-10
...


Do you need to install Selinux if you install gdm ?
No, Ubuntu use a gdm that don't care about SeLinux. That's the point.

> > Ubuntu use gcc 3.4 ?
>
> Yes.

No, because Debian SID (sarge) use gcc 3.3.

btw, development branche of Fedora use GCC-4.0 by default.

RE: my name
by Chris Dunphy on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 22:47 UTC

btw, Fedora is _FREE_ and does not depend on proprietary software. Never Fedora will adjust to proprietary software. The evolution of Linux does not have to depend on proprietary software. Think about 4kstack.

The idealist within me wants to believe you. However, the realist within me realizes that the rest of the internet makes heavy use of mp3, flash, java, etc.

The realist within me realizes that my computer is far less usable without the nVidia closed source drivers.

Do I wish things were different? Absolutely. However, in reality, I use Linux as my primary desktop, and for the forseeable future I depend on the use of some non-free add-ons.

ubuntu beats fedora for destkop use
by cendrizzi on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 22:58 UTC

It's plain to me, ubunut is a much neater desktop setup. It doesn't even attempt things like SELinux, etc. It doesn't even install SSHD. Instead it does the bare minimum that all users of desktop linux would pretty much want. It's very nice.

I have defenitley switched to Ubuntu on my desktop but will stick with Fedora for server use.

I can certainly understand if you're having issues with Ubuntu, if it's not usable it's not usable. Personally I installed FC3 over ubuntu only to go back to ubuntu since Fedora was much buggier for me, I have a newer system too (AMD 64, SATA, NForce 3 250GB, etc). Ubuntu has been rock solid, which surprises me for a first attempt.

I should also say having 15,000 packages is nice too
by cendrizzi on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 22:59 UTC

Totally kills Fedora in this department.

Ubuntu wins
by Willie G on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 23:01 UTC

Having installed both Warty and FC3 in the last month, and using both for at least a week, I must say Ubuntu is a definite winner for me. It is easier to install and use. I don't care about SeLinux or XFree vs. XOrg, I just want a good, responsive, usable OS that lets me get to work. Ubuntu provides this, and Fedora just confuses me and makes me frustrated. I look forward to seeing RedHat loose market share to Ubuntu and other distros in the future. If you ask me, RH has just been going downhill from version 8, and I don't forsee it getting any better in the future.

RE: ubuntu beats fedora for destkop use
by Chris Dunphy on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 23:02 UTC

It's plain to me, ubunut is a much neater desktop setup. It doesn't even attempt things like SELinux, etc. It doesn't even install SSHD. Instead it does the bare minimum that all users of desktop linux would pretty much want. It's very nice.

LOL, not installing sshd was a head scratcher for me, personally. I am a fan of the sudo only root access however.

>Ubuntu have Xorg ?

:Yes, I'm using it right now.

Yes, but thats unstable development version. Not a good idea unless you intend to play.
....

>Ubuntu have KDE 3.3 ?

:It's Gnome distro, if you want KDE, you wouldn't use it :anyway. But, KDE is listed, dunno which version... don't :care.

KDE 3.3.1 works well and in fact the DE i use. I find gnome annoying and featureless so i installed KDE after one week and being happy since. Remenber that this is a gnome based distro so system administration is gnome oriented.

Ubuntu is cool
by VitaminT on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 23:13 UTC

Although it can be lacking in apps as of now, not bad overall. Fedora is getting better with every release, but wouldn't use it as my primary desktop right now.

ubuntu is stracool
by mark on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 23:21 UTC

yes but at the end the big big difference between the to distros,is while
ubuntu is a true desktop stable well supported with bells e whistles,fedora is only an accademic toy developed for sport ;)


What a review!
by Wicked on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 23:22 UTC

One who "has extensively tested and used dozens of different Linux-distributions, like SUSE, Mandrake, Gentoo, or Slackware" should have done better.

RE: What a review!
by the author on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 23:27 UTC

"One who "has extensively tested and used dozens of different Linux-distributions, like SUSE, Mandrake, Gentoo, or Slackware" should have done better."

it would be nice if you would add more substantial criticizm. saying "cool" or "nuts" does not really help. either readers should tell what they like and dislike or spare such rather unproductive comments.

also keep in mind that a too technical review is not what is/can be expected at osnews (just read the submission-policies) and that nobody would read a real in depth 20 page review. ;)

... the fact that running the spellchecker in OO under Fedora crashes the whole system.

Good farking khyrist on a bicycle! And they *ship* it that way?! Or did they never think to pop open OO and see what changes their tweakage wrought?!

Oh, that's right, because OO isn't important at all on a desktop oriented system!

In the meantime I'd like to thank the folks behind FC3 for providing yet another incandescent example of why the rest of us point and laugh at desktop linuxes. I mean, I've like, got this beachfront property in AZ I'd like to sell to them.



hmm
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 23:36 UTC

"However, the realist within me realizes that the rest of the internet makes heavy use of mp3, flash, java, etc"

internet was dependant on proprietary OS'es before. now its freebsd and linux. flash is just a few seconds of auto clicking a prompt in firefox. gcj java will be enabled through fc4. fc3 has valid and technical open source formats like ogg theora and ogg vorbis

hmm
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 23:40 UTC

"Oh, that's right, because OO isn't important at all on a desktop oriented system! "
this is only problematic with internationlised dictionary and doesnt happen on all systems. fedora isnt exclusively or even implictly targetted for desktop systems. prove otherwise if you can

Conversion tools
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 23:55 UTC

Regarding the propritary/patented media formats problem, are there any tools available that can convert these formats to Linux supported formats?

RE:Samba Schmamba, I'm surprised there's no comment on this
by Cheapskate on Wed 24th Nov 2004 00:01 UTC

i left Fedora's build of OpenOffice out of the install (unchecked it) and downloaded OpenOffice from www.openoffice.org/ seems to fix any problems as i have not had any crashes with OPenOffice i use it quite regularly for printing customer recipts and accounting with the spreadsheet. since i dont need all the foreign language support, takes up less diskpace too that way...

Re:Conversion tools
by Anonymous on Wed 24th Nov 2004 00:09 UTC



Yes but you probably lose quality converting from one lossy format (mp3) to another(ogg vorbis). what you can do is record it a non lossy format like flax and then encode it in ogg vorbis

Ubuntu All The Way
by LordRich on Wed 24th Nov 2004 00:13 UTC

I've been using Debian for a few years, and grew to love apt-get. Indeed, most of my servers run Debian. And so Ubuntu was an obvious choice of having a play with. I've run it as a desktop and a dedicated web server with no problems, and the updates are painless.

I ditched Redhat back around 7.1, so it would be unfair of me to comment on Fedora - but what little I've seen of Yum I've really liked. Enough to almost tempt me into trying Redhat again.

Re: Chris Dunphy
by my_name on Wed 24th Nov 2004 00:15 UTC

> the realist within me realizes that the rest of the internet makes heavy use of mp3, flash, java, etc.

Hopefuly, the open source community don't think like you, are not so "realist".

If you don't believe open source, go to Windows or Solaris.

Many people use Fedora because they believe in open source (theora, ogg, gcj, ...).

Unlike you, i don't want a proprietary open source.

Why 2.6?
by dr_gonzo on Wed 24th Nov 2004 00:16 UTC

It seems like it's very unstable. Lots of bugs and it seems that new releases seem to break lots of stuff. Why do distros default install with 2.6? 2.4 is extremely stable and nothing gets broken with new releases.

Every now and then I've thought of upgrading to 2.6 but then I read so many stories of people having so many problems with it.

Do Ubuntu and and Fedora have options at install time to install the 2.4 kernel instead, just like the new Debian installer does?

Re: LordRich
by my_name on Wed 24th Nov 2004 00:20 UTC

> Enough to almost tempt me into trying Redhat again.

Read the (unofficial) FAQ :
http://www.fedorafaq.org/

Re: Why 2.6?
by my_name on Wed 24th Nov 2004 00:24 UTC

Why not ?

> Fedora have options at install time to install the 2.4 kernel instead

No.

> just like the new Debian installer does?

But :
- no acl
- no udev
- no selinux
- ugly hack to keep the thing compatible
- ...

Do you think we can improve Linux if everybody stay with Linux 2.4 ?

RE:Why 2.6?
by Wrawrat on Wed 24th Nov 2004 00:24 UTC

To my knowledge, udev and hal don't work on 2.4, so I guess the answer is no.

hmm
by Anonymous on Wed 24th Nov 2004 00:25 UTC

"Every now and then I've thought of upgrading to 2.6 but then I read so many stories of people having so many problems with it. "

if you want to really know try it yourself. random comments dont really count. 2.6 has been working on our servers and desktop for a year or so now.

RE: Re: Why 2.6?
by Wrawrat on Wed 24th Nov 2004 00:26 UTC

Actually, the 2.4 kernel do have ACL support for ext2, ext3 and NFS.

@sadubuntuuser re packaging wars
by AdamW on Wed 24th Nov 2004 00:27 UTC

amen. Glad to hear someone else preaching the gospel...

@my_name
by dr_gonzo on Wed 24th Nov 2004 00:34 UTC


Do you think we can improve Linux if everybody stay with Linux 2.4 ?


But distros like Ubuntu are more aimed at end users, not kernel hackers. I think most users would appreciate a more stable, less buggy distro. I also seriously doubt that many desktop users would be likely to file bug reports, especially kernel bug reports.

People use an OS or an application in order to do something with it, not improve it. Devs should use the 2.6 kernel by all means.

on package counts...
by AdamW on Wed 24th Nov 2004 00:37 UTC

Just for kicks, I thought I'd actually check MDK's package count. I have main, contrib and PLF Cooker sources defined.

[adanw@htpc upstorrent]$ urpmq --list | wc -l
9489
[adamw@htpc upstorrent]$

That's more than I thought, actually. Getting close to Debian...

kernel 2.6
by Anonymous on Wed 24th Nov 2004 00:46 UTC

"But distros like Ubuntu are more aimed at end users, not kernel hackers"

and they work fine with kernel 2.6. suse a enterprise quality distro already ships with it. novell isnt going to do that if its buggy as you claim. obviously some people have trouble migrating for various reasons. this happens with all kinds of migrations and does not indicate the buginess of kernel 2.6 or whatever

RE: on package counts...
by Wrawrat on Wed 24th Nov 2004 01:02 UTC

Many Debian packages comes from huge packages that were splitted individually. For example, I can select Kopete even if it usually comes with the whole kdenetwork package. There are also some packages with two or three different configurations (like totem-xine, totem-gstreamer, amarok-xine, amarok-arts, amarok-gstreamer, amarok-arts). Furthermore, I *think* meta-packages are included in the package count...

I believe most community-friendly Linux distros that are quite mature have the same amount of applications, programs and utilities.

Re: dr_gonzo
by my_name on Wed 24th Nov 2004 01:17 UTC

> Devs should use the 2.6 kernel by all means.

Linux 2.6 is stable.

Do you know, Ubuntu ship the latest Gnome, hal, OpenOffice, etc...
Is it a problem or it is not ?

btw, Ubuntu use Linux 2.6.
Fedora use Linux 2.6 (and only Linux 2.6) since FC2.
Mandrake use Linux 2.6 since Mandrake 10.0.
SuSE since 9.1.
RHEL 4 will be out with Linux 2.6 in couple of month.

Who still want to use Linux 2.4 ?
- Debian
- Slack

Linux 2.6 is stable.

@my_name
by Wrawrat on Wed 24th Nov 2004 01:33 UTC

Do you know, Ubuntu ship the latest Gnome, hal, OpenOffice, etc...
Is it a problem or it is not ?


Depends for who. For me, it is.

The Ubuntu bootable discs don't work on my laptop. Why? Because it uses the lastest GRUB instead of the tried-and-true ISOLINUX. The Ubuntu LiveCD was not very stable on my desktop. Why? Probably because it uses the lastest Gnome, HAL, OpenOffice... Funnily enough, it doesn't use X.org even if that one is newer and more stable (in _my_ experience, mind you).

I am in favour of progress but a bit of conservatism is always good.

Linux 2.6 is stable.

Technically, you are right. However, the newer releases (.7, .8 and .9) got many changes that brang some stability issues. The 2.6.5 was far more stable to me than the 2.6.9. Unfortunately, I need some bugfixes from the 2.6.9...

Anyway, 2.4 is definitely more mature.

RE: Why 2.6?
by J. M. on Wed 24th Nov 2004 01:48 UTC

I agree that 2.6 may not be stable for many people. I'm one of them, I've been trying to use 2.6.x for at least half a year on several Linux distributions, precompiled and self-compiled, but it was never acceptably stable, it could crash several times a day. 2.4 is perfectly stable, but 2.6, as I see from various comments, has indeed some problems and keeps changing/breaking stuff that was working before.

my take
by Bitterman on Wed 24th Nov 2004 02:55 UTC

I really have a problem with these "comparison" reviews, cause the reviewer is always more confident/educated about one of the distro's, in this case he is a ubuntu user so had many mistakes on his review of fedora like it doesn't have reiserFS, and he gets his 'bug report' from mailing lists.. i mean who do you expect to ask more questions on a user list, fedora users or recent debian converts? From this thread ubunto appears to have many more bugs.

I have to be honest I didn't finish the review after I was aware of his bias knowingly, or unknowingly it's still a waste of my time to expect an informative review.

Maybe take a fedora wizard and a ubuntu wizard and let them write point by point reviews, then maybe we'd get some facts rolling in.

Linux ready for the desktop?
by Anonymous on Wed 24th Nov 2004 03:24 UTC

Didn't I read this article in 1997 then in 1998 and again later in 1998?.. You get the picture.

All About Choice...I Choose Ubuntu
by Kingnubian on Wed 24th Nov 2004 03:35 UTC

Firstly the wonderfull thing and the reason that we are all here posting comments in the first place is beacause of that magic word CHOICE. The beauty of Linux is that this choice is left to the user and more often than not whatever choice you make is a FREE one.

Personally I will go with Ubuntu without hesitation. Out of the box I could be productive and the ease of updates and the excellent online community around it was a big plus. Yes I have tried so many other distros but Ubuntu just gets it right. A friend and I have even installed it on an "Unsupported" old world G3 Mac which now serves as his main machine.

Ubuntu's beauty is in it's simplicity in design, execution and presentation. It is certainly not for everyone but I prefer to start off simple and mold it to what I want it to be rather than start out huge and cut it down to a more managable size. As for stability it has been a rock and was very very easy to integrate it into my mixed Windows/Linux network. Even my wireless card, and you have really got to do your homework before going wireless with Linux unfortunately, works 100% WEP and all. Although I woild prefer a simple WPA solution this isn't Ubuntu's fault.

Package manangement is so simple in Ubuntu, coming from a Debian Apt-Get base, that it's almost a joke.A little tweaking was needed to add repositories for "Special" applications but that was easy as well.

All in all IMHO Ubuntu is the best example so far of Powerfull Simplicity and will stay on my workstation for dayly use.

In the end.....it's all about choice.


RE: all about choice
by Anonymous on Wed 24th Nov 2004 05:03 UTC

And I choose a RHEL rebuild. now THAT is stable and useable ;)

Comment
by Finalzone on Wed 24th Nov 2004 05:42 UTC

Fedora looks like its predecessors and shows a nice graphical boot, while Ubuntu is bare naked. While Fedora looks "sweeter" for most users, Ubuntu definitely boots faster. A first login shows the "personal note" of both systems.

This is a flawed point. Ubuntu boots faster because it has less services to handle than Fedora Core 3. If you set "Install everything" on FC3, the boot time will be definitively slower due the number of services to load. A better comparison would be Ubuntu agaisnt Fedora Core 3 with Desktop configuration similar to Ubuntu.

@Cosmoe
by AndrewG on Wed 24th Nov 2004 06:30 UTC

I never said Fedora installs Apache by default. I selected it and Postgresql, the point is that I did not want those services to run automatically and was showing that it was very easy to turn off any services that are running that you don't need.

Re:By Abel
by greg on Wed 24th Nov 2004 08:14 UTC

Thanks for the tip about Hoary -- i was wondering why i didnt see the x-org packages in apt!

I am going to update my dev machine today.

-best
-greg

@wrawrat:
by AdamW on Wed 24th Nov 2004 08:42 UTC

Same applies to MDK but not to the same extent - KDE in MDK is split somewhat further than stock KDE, and there are a few metapackages. I'm not sure many distros match that kind of pacakge count, though. Fedora certainly doesn't get near that level in its *official* repositories (even including that popular non-free one to match PLF). Does anyone have a figure for SuSE? Ubuntu certainly doesn't have that many *Ubuntu* packages either.

"I really have a problem with these "comparison" reviews, cause the reviewer is always more confident/educated about one of the distro's, in this case he is a ubuntu user so had many mistakes on his review of fedora like it doesn't have reiserFS, and he gets his 'bug report' from mailing lists.. i mean who do you expect to ask more questions on a user list, fedora users or recent debian converts? From this thread ubunto appears to have many more bugs...

in order to clarify some things: i have used redhat 7.2, 7.3, 9 and fedora 2 and three for a considerable time. so please do not tell me that i am biased towards ubuntu. i have tested ubuntu first time in october this year, so how do you get to the conlcusion that i am more ubuntu-biased? i tried to write a review that is neutral and i installed the systems with similar packages in order to be able to write a more or less neutral article. if you do not like the outcome of the test, just ignore it.

just for your information: my main operating system is neither of the two distros but i won't tell you which distro it is. this would start another flamewar. ;)

RE: Fedora Core 3
by Dent on Wed 24th Nov 2004 10:30 UTC


Urbuntu seems to be an interesting distribution.
I have been running Fedora Core 3 for a week (on my Thinkpad
laptop).

I also exprienced the bug in OpenOffice; doing a spellcheck on a Swedish document hangs the whole machine. A reboot is required. It was not even possible to login with ssh from a remote machine.

If I compare Fedora Core 3 with Mandrake 10.1, then Mandrake is a lot more stable.

Cheers,
Tomas

@Chris Dunphy
by Cosmo on Wed 24th Nov 2004 12:35 UTC

> LOL, not installing sshd was a head scratcher for me, personally.

How is that a head scratcher? Just do ``apt-get install ssh'' and you're good. That was pretty much the first thing I did, but I believe that most users do not need to run an SSH server, so why should it be enabled by default?

Ubuntu is silly
by Derrick on Wed 24th Nov 2004 13:02 UTC

Ubuntu is a fad and is silly. There really is no comparison for desktop Linux. MEPIS hands down wins every time. If you haven't tried MEPIS (SimplyMEPIS 2004.01 or higher) then you can't tell me I'm wrong.

fedora 3 vs ubuntu
by lupusBE on Wed 24th Nov 2004 13:20 UTC

I think fedora 3 big advantages at the moment are:

- Networkmanager (easier for wifi)
- easier printer installation
- xorg 6.8
- not vanilla stuff, new stuff ;) (but this can make things unstable)
- zeroconfig/howl
- better internation support (chinese imput, UTF-8, etc)

bad:

- kudzu (fedora only)
- bloated
- 5 cd's
- config tools only working for fedora/Red hat
- not as community based as it should be

ubuntu is working on including the good stuff of fedora and not the bad so ;) ))

if you don't believe me try hoary

More info..
by Derrick on Wed 24th Nov 2004 13:21 UTC

I ran Ubuntu for the past 2 months on a testbox at home. I dual booted it with Gnoppix for something to do. I'd switch back and forth between the two at various times (I have a share partition for mailfiles etc.) The interesting part is...there really was no difference between the two distro's except the graphics. Was one more stable than the other? No. Was one more organized or more suited for desktop use? No. Was one a better Gnome environment? No.

Ubuntu has potential but shouldn't be as hyped as it is right now. Everyone flocked to this distro like it was the holy grail of Linux desktops. I have to disagree on this one. If I can take Gnoppix and find little difference between the two...it isn't revolutionizing crap.

Trying to update Ubuntu for me isn't fun at all. You can't use official Debian repositories for everything so this limits my scope because I don't like to install run of the mill packages. I broke my Ubuntu install about 3 times trying to utilize apt-get. I eventually wanted to compile from source...but DOH! No root Access!!!! I think this alone in Linux is sacreligious. I used slackware from 1996-1999 and before that SunOS 5.3 and Solaris 2.0...not having access to a root account makes me think of Windoze.

Flash backward to June of 2003 when I first found MEPIS. While MEPIS wasn't really fantastic until October of that same year...it intrigued me. It detected everything on my thinkpad. It installed everything on my desktop. It detected all of my networks. It simply worked AND it only got better. With the release of 2004.01 and higher, you can't go wrong. There's a reason that Robin "Roblimo" Miller editor in chief of OSDN group (Slashdot, Linux.com, Sourceforge, Newsforge, etc) carries it with him wherever he lectures to show those new to Linux what a real Linux desktop looks like. He trusts that no matter where he is or what computer he is given...it will detect everything and will show users a well thought out and put to together desktop.

Micheal C. Barnes has stated that MEPIS is "the absolute masterpiece of desktop Linux distributions" in his DesktopLinux.com review. It's because MEPIS truly IS the absolute best. As a Linux advocate since 1995...I truly can say it is the best desktop distribution period. Suse, redhat, fedora, ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, Libranet, Knoppix, Yoper, Mandrake, Kanotix, Vine, Xandros, Linspire, Gentoo, DSL, TurboLinux, Vector, and Lycoris...I've ran EACH one of these distros and found them not even close to MEPIS. Like I said previously, if you haven't tried (truly tried) 2004.01 or above...you cannot refute this.

Derrick

@Derrick
by Lumbergh on Wed 24th Nov 2004 13:34 UTC

So the question then remains, how much of a kickback is the MEPIS guy giving you to advertise on osnews?

By the way, something isn't a "fad and silly" when you've got a billionaire backing it. Of course you could call MEPIS a fad and silly when it's being run out of some kid's garage in W. Virginia.

ADS!
by cvx on Wed 24th Nov 2004 13:51 UTC

wtf is this new ads system ? IT SUCKS IT SUCKS

@Derrick
by Anil Wang on Wed 24th Nov 2004 14:08 UTC

MEPIS is a fine distribution, but some of us just prefer GNOME and the GNOME way of doing things to KDE. If GNOME didn't exist, I'd probably go to XFCE, not KDE.

As for the problems you've experienced, no root access by default (sudo is the default), no GCC (apt-get build-essentials if you need it), and limited services are actually a feature, not a bug. They give you a good slim system and allow you to expand it to your needs. Apt-get or Synaptic will pretty much take care of everything.

I don't *want* a bloated system that assumes that I'll eventually want to use everything so it includes everything by default. That's why I left Fedora. It's a fine distribution that *just works*, but it includes too much stuff that I don't need. I'd rather add stuff that I need than take out stuff that I don't.

The instructions on the Ubuntu wiki pretty much tell you everything you need to know to add whatever features you want:
http://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/
Uncommenting out the universe line in /etc/apt/sources.list should get you most of what you need from the Debian repositories.

If that doesn't help, you can always go to the Ubuntu Forums:
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/

Personally, I recommend the "Unofficial Ubuntu 4.10 Starter Guide" that much covers every concern you raised and more:
http://kitech.com.my/ubuntu/4.10/index.html
This is the /etc/apt/sources.list that they recommend (see below)

Granted, Ubuntu *is* a version 1.0 distro and there is further room for polish, but I like Ubuntu. It's currently the only distribution I feel comfortable recommending to newbies (once I set up the appropriate apt-sources).

========================================================
========================================================
deb cdrom:[Ubuntu 4.10 _Warty Warthog_ - Preview i386 Binary-1 (20041020)]/ unstable main restricted

software from the network
deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ warty main restricted
deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ warty main restricted

deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ warty universe
deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ warty universe

deb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ warty-security main restricted
deb-src http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ warty-security main restricted

deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ warty multiverse
deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ warty multiverse

#deb ftp://ftp.nerim.net/debian-marillat/ stable main
#deb ftp://ftp.nerim.net/debian-marillat/ unstable main
deb ftp://ftp.nerim.net/debian-marillat/ testing main


@Derrick
by follerec on Wed 24th Nov 2004 14:42 UTC

not having access to a root account makes me think of Windoze



That's strange coming from a Linux user. Windows gives you "root"/Administrator access immediately. Not giving it would be the anti-Windows way.

Samba & FC3 -- fix
by Anonymous on Wed 24th Nov 2004 16:04 UTC

for the person who posted near the top of the thread about not being able to use samba to browse network shares --

it's not samba that's broken, it's FC's $#@! firewall -- the default security level that FC sets will make it impossible to browse shares.

Turn off the firewall & you'll see that samba now works.

What's totally retarded about this is that the firewall doesn't explicitly tell you that this is a problem, samba just "doesn't work".

(in the windows world, when you install something like zone alarm, it lets you know about traffic going in & out over each port/service, so troubleshooting problems like this is easy.)

This really needs to be fixed in the next version of FC. Totally user-hostile.

Ubuntu is silly
by rbrimhall on Wed 24th Nov 2004 16:38 UTC

Try installing GNOME on MEPIS. Ubuntu is a much better debian based distro for GNOME users... if you like KDE stick with MEPIS... calling Ubuntu a "fad" is... well... silly.

Why do people still think this about Ubuntu? Are they actually using it or just saying they do?

Root access equals sudo+command and then enter password... command is run as setuidroot. How is this "no root access?"

Why mix Ubuntu repos with Debian repos? Ubuntu has main, restricted, universe, and multiverse. The only things I have found not to be in there are the mariallet (sp?) multimedia repos which work fine with Ubuntu.

Comment on lupusBE (IP: ---.kuleuven.ac.be) post
by Finalzone on Wed 24th Nov 2004 18:53 UTC

bad - 5 cd's

How can that be bad when Fedora Core 3 includes more stuffs that cannot fit on a single CD hence the availability on DVD? Does Ubuntu include KDE, XFCE, development packages, etc on a single CD? You failed to understand FC3 is a general purpose OS while Ubuntu aims for desktop.

config tools only working for fedora/Red hat
???

not as community based as it should be
http://fedoraforum.org

ubuntu is working on including the good stuff of fedora and not the bad so ;) ))
Then it won't be on a single CD anymore defeating Ubuntu goal.

WTF
by Anonymous on Wed 24th Nov 2004 20:37 UTC

hmm must be a glitch Fedora has more hits (1737) on Distrowatch than Mandrake (1518)?

@anil wang:
by AdamW on Wed 24th Nov 2004 20:59 UTC

All the 'big, bloated' distros are perfectly happy for you to tweak their default package selections. A 'truly minimal' (it's a somewhat hidden install option) install of Mandrake fit in less than 100MB last time I checked. When I install MDK I use custom package selection and it usually comes in around 1GB (uncompressed) in size. If you don't want the hassle, that's fine; but please don't suggest that the default package selection is all you get in MDK, Fedora or SuSE.

5 CD's vs. 1 CD
by joe123456 on Thu 25th Nov 2004 00:08 UTC

apt-get is virtually useless if you don't have broadband, which, believe it or not, is still the case for many, many users. Possibly even the majority. For me, it takes 15-30 minutes just to download the package lists (apt-get update) and then who knows how long to download things like Mplayer or Xine. My dialup connection doesn't stay up that long. :-)

SELinux
by x on Thu 25th Nov 2004 07:39 UTC

Isnt the point of fedora 3 supposed to be SELinux enabled? I don't know to many distros that have done such a good implementation, that simply works!

Not bad at all.
by Anonymous on Thu 25th Nov 2004 15:54 UTC

Had to check it out for myself. DL'd ubuntu's live cd and have to say it's really quite good. No way to install from the live cd though, pity. I will be making some space on the HD. This ones's a keeper.

Fedora Real-Life Test Woes
by Brenda on Fri 3rd Dec 2004 18:43 UTC

I have been using Fedora Core 3 since it came out. I some issues with it.

You cannot modify the Gnome Menus! Their menu system does not allow the user to add or remove anything from the menu. This is widely thought to be a Gnome bug, but it isn't

No OpenOffice 1.1.3. The version they have has a wrong-font buf in it. They still haven't rolled 1.1.3 rpms.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=139224

There is no firewall settings which will allow SMB networking without leaving yourself naked.
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/3/i386/os/R...

Yum Rots! I have said it before; I will say it again: give up on this thing. It's too slow to get headers. I have had the packagelist XMLs get corrupted several times, and had to "yum clean all" them.

Installing graphics on Fedora is esspecially tough.
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=40622