The third and final development release of Fedora Core 4 is now available for download and testing.
Fedora Core 4 Test 3 Released
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
before everyone else did. If you are on the west coast the oregon site seems to be pretty fast. Test 2 would not boot on my machine, it would stop at the grub prompt and you could not enter any other runlevel from there. FC3 works with no problems on the same hardware. Since I like Redhat, I will blame Sun for these problems. It must have something to do with the OpenOffice beta that is included that is preventing the machine from booting. However, if Sun would make OpenOffice work natively on the Mac, I would be inclined to not blame Su n.
Hey, If I have understood it right(and as seen at the screenshots) – Fedora do not use anymore an modified Red Hat alike gnome UI…it uses the gnome from the “orginal” sources(or how you could spell it)?
Cause I didn’t like Fedora, it did have an gnome ui that was modified in some weird way…and it was quite unusable for me (maybe not for others) . The WDM was not stable at all…
But if it’s using gnome from “orginal” sources – then I think I could give it a shot!
However, if Sun would make OpenOffice work natively on the Mac, I would be inclined to not blame Su n.
There is always a reason to blame Sun:-)
My favorite reason is that their java GUI havn’t worked on international keyboards in Linux for more years than I can remember, and their Swedish translation of “Trashcan” translates back to english as “Paper cow”.
Is there a way to upgrade trhouygh yum?
i hate the fact that it is optimized for P4 CPUs. That just sucks on my Athlon 🙁
First, a theme is highly unlikely to be a reason for instability. Second, the theme that Fedora uses (Clearlooks) is based off Bluecurve – the theme RedHat used in previous versions. Clearlooks is likely to become the default theme in Gnome 2.12 and a modified version of it is the default in Ubuntu already. Finally, I think you would be hard pressed to find a distribution that didn’t mess with the Gnome sources. The fact is that you are talking about a dislike of the theme RedHat chose as the default and NOT anything having to do with the code.
Aww man, I was downloading Release 2, and now Release 3 is out. Talk about timing!
EYh buddy..I know that. But I did thought that fedora did some things with the code..that did make some mem leak.
But I do not understand why Fedora sry for the word…sucks.
It make’s me going crazy…And
” I think you would be hard pressed to find a distribution that didn’t mess with the Gnome sources.”
…I have been using slackware since 8.1 ( Not so long time but..) and I haven’t seen any modifications.
And I do know that it do not depend on a theme
As the other poster said, practically no distro ships with “vanilla gnome”. However I think the OP of this topic was referring to the uber-ugly default of RH9 and successors with the big bar at the bottom. Fedora has been shipping with the default gnome “two slim bars” since FC3 if I remember correctly.
Okey…but i’m eagar to get an answer on my question about the perfomance of the fedora distro…
Is it only for me it sucks (sry not ment to hurt developers) or? And yes I have been using it at different platforms, not only one…both Amd and Intel.
btw
It’s a swedish magazine (Datormagazin), and the writer who has the most part of the linux things on that magazine, has always in reviews of Fedora and Red Hat…told as buggy and crap.
Hmm..I’m a little bit splitted..
No, it’s not just you. Fedora performance in general is pretty shoddy in comparison to a lot of things out there. I’m halfway through writing an article comparing most of the popular *nix systems, and Fedora’s default settings made it perform worse than everything else I’ve tried, with the single exception of QNX (which has the slowest file system imaginable: it takes like 6 minutes to untar something that everything else takes about 18 seconds to do >.<).
I’m guessing they build with a lot of “extras” on things, which is the exact opposite from what most “fast” distros do.
But memory usage on it is incredibly high, their default file system layouts are slow/inefficient, their default kernel is slower than others, their default FS type is one of the slower ones. Sure, you can tweak it around if you really like Redhat software, but base install is among the lower performers in about 30 things I’ve checked out. I’m not quite done, something may prove far worse, but so far it’s on the bottom.
Fedora performs on par with other distributions of its caliber. You can’t compare Fedora to distributions like Slackware or Gentoo. You can compare it to Ubuntu. It compares very nicely to Ubuntu. Fedora tends to be very conservative in certain areas (like only officially supporting etx2/ext3). This is a tradeoff. Do you want the most stable filesystem or do you want something faster, but less stable like Reiser or XFS.
Having just installed Fedora 4 test 3 on my dual-booted Ubuntu Fedora system, I see that Fedora automatically prelinks. If you are running applications while it is prelinking (which it has done rather soon after the installation – I noticed it because I was reading and saw a huge spike in my processor frequency from 530MHz to 1800MHz and wondered what it was) you will get lower performance because it is doing something else.
I’ve run so many Linux distributions and even BSDs and there isn’t some amazing performance difference distribution to distribution – mostly because the majority of the stuff is the same. Compiling from source, special optimizations, etc. just don’t have the effect that people think. Now, stripping features can have a huge effect, but I like my features.
Fedora has flaws, but it has some very nice points too. Anaconda is great, they provide new stable packages as they are available (which Ubuntu doesn’t), and more and none of the flaws are that gaping – frankly, any good Linux distribution doesn’t have gaping flaws whether it be Ubuntu, Slack, Gentoo, etc. They do have a different emphasis (for example, Gentoo is for people who like compiling from source and dealing with those things), but there aren’t the gaping holes that people want to levy at them.
That article sounds great – please do post your results, and maybe even make an OSNews article out of it. Some distros are getting so slow and bloated now, it’s impossible to recommend them as an alternative to Windows without disappointing newcomers!
I have only Athlons myself. However, the P4 optimization actually seems to be a win for Athlons as well. There was a lot of discussion about this on the devel list a while back, and from what I understand, the P4 optimization faired well indeed against Athlon optimization on Athlon processors.
I hear you about the P4 optimizations. With FC1 I had no speed problems but FC3, it wasn’t the best. SO I recompiled with a generic kernel, optimized it for Athlon, optimized it for desktop use, stripped the unnecesary services and boom, fast and optimized.
http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=335&slide=3…
Only one problem. It’s GNOME, not KDE. Would have been nice to have screenshots from the other desktop. (Yeah, I know that RedHat/Fedora is GNOME centric, but a good part of the worls doesn’t use GNOME.)
I have to admit that they did get someting right in the login manager – it now remembers the user’s last selected environment rather than forcing users to manually enter it each time they log in if it isn’t GNOME.
I use Athlon on my system. It is fast for my point of view. I have tried the optimized kernel for Athlon and notice not much difference.
”
Only one problem. It’s GNOME, not KDE. Would have been nice to have screenshots from the other desktop. (Yeah, I know that RedHat/Fedora is GNOME centric, but a good part of the worls doesn’t use GNOME.)
I have to admit that they did get someting right in the login manager – it now remembers the user’s last selected environment rather than forcing users to manually enter it each time they log in if it isn’t GNOME.
”
You do realize they included a program called switchdesk (with a gui if you want) where you would select your default DE?
”
Cause I didn’t like Fedora, it did have an gnome ui that was modified in some weird way…and it was quite unusable for me (maybe not for others) . The WDM was not stable at all…
”
The modifications were just reorganisation of the panel and wouldnt bring any instability with the window manager. The “original” sources are usually called upstream sources and Fedora is by design very close to upstream sources. FC3 and above has the default GNOME setup
”
But memory usage on it is incredibly high, their default file system layouts are slow/inefficient, their default kernel is slower than others, their default FS type is one of the slower ones.”
not really true anymore. check out
http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/reservations.png
“i hate the fact that it is optimized for P4 CPUs. That just sucks on my Athlon 🙁 ”
the actual GCC compiler options are a bit more complicated. the optimisations done for P4 shouldnt hurt Athlon. read fedora-devel archives for the huge amount of discussions related to this
I was a happy fedora user for a long time but I didn’t want to wait for kde 3.4 when other distros where already using it but I think I will give core 4 a try when it arrives in june.
Here’s a few major pointers on how to improve performance and RAM usage in Fedora Core (if you feel up for the task, this _ain’t_ a HOWTO=). I’ve used Fedora since FC1, and never had any problems with (or reservations against) tweaking it to my liking.
1) Kill all the _unnecessary_ services that start up by default. RAM can be saved here, as well as small performance gains. For instance, don’t use XFS (can’t believe RedHat still uses this crap!), put fonts directly in /etc/X11/xorg.conf. IMO, FC starts up way too many services by default. Instead, they should be enabled on demand by the system-config* utilities when the user configures stuff.
2) Recompile kernel. I prefer vanilla+Con Kolivas’ desktop performance patches. The difference to plain FC-kernel is amazing.
3) Tune FS options, `noatime’ and `data=writeback’ mount options on EXT3 comes to mind.
4) Use hdparm to make sure DMA is enabled on all your harddrives and DVD/CD readers/writers. Not every device driver will enable this by default for all drives (See /etc/sysconfig/harddisks).
4) Don’t use SELinux. Do you really need it on your desktop PC ?? IMO, this should not be enabled by default. Leave out SELinux when you compile your own kernel=).
5) I usually also disable `exec-shield’ functionality (this must be set up in prelinking-config + kernel proc options).
6) Recompile SRPMs with specific CPU optimizations, probably won’t give you much performance gain, but might be worth it on a few essential system libraries.
8) Disable graphical boot (rhgb).
7) Did I mention turning off unneeded services ??
9) If you’re on a laptop with a CPU capable of adjusting its frequency, tweak cpuspeed to be more agressive in upping the speed, this will give better responsiveness (and shorter battery life).
10) Don’t run kudzu at startup to shave a few seconds off boot time (if you don’t have hardware that changes a lot). Useful for laptops.
11) Disable IPV6: alias net-pf-10 off in /etc/modprobe.conf. This may speed up DNS lookups.
12) If your graphics hardware and Xorg-driver supports it, enabled Render-acceleration in xorg.conf (works fine with radeon and nvidia-drivers).
13) Probably more I can’t remember (been a while since I installed FC3).
This is only for desktop usage. SELinux+exec-shield really should be enabled on server installations. Note that if you have a modern PC w/1GB+ of RAM, many of these tweaks will probably be a waste of your time (I don’t own such hardware). Additionally, tweaking all of this has not given me any instability issues on four different machines currently running FC3. Your mileage may vary.
”
1) Kill all the _unnecessary_ services that start up by default. RAM can be saved here, as well as small performance gains. For instance, don’t use XFS (can’t believe RedHat still uses this crap!), put fonts directly in /etc/X11/xorg.conf.”
remember that people usually point out services like sendmail which are useful for sending out log reports and stuff like that. which distros dont xfs btw?
”
4) Don’t use SELinux. Do you really need it on your desktop PC ?? IMO, this should not be enabled by default. Leave out SELinux when you compile your own kernel=).
”
SELinux is not a server specific security technology and does has zero performance impact on the desktop in the default targeted policy since the deamons covered by SELinux are network facing anyway
“5) I usually also disable `exec-shield’ functionality (this must be set up in prelinking-config + kernel proc options). ”
again. a bad idea
”
6) Recompile SRPMs with specific CPU optimizations, probably won’t give you much performance gain, but might be worth it on a few essential system libraries. ”
not worth it
“SELinux+exec-shield really should be enabled on server installations. Note that if you have a modern PC w/1GB+ of RAM, many of these tweaks will probably be a waste of your time (I don’t own such hardware”
both SELinux and Exec shield wont have a performance impact on the desktop and users should not disable security stuff carelessly
“””
remember that people usually point out services like sendmail which are useful for sending out log reports and stuff like that. which distros dont xfs btw?
“””
I didn’t specifically say “disable sendmail”. My point was that there are potentially many unneeded services enabled by default in Fedora for a normal desktop user, depending on hardware configuration, of course.
What’s the point of XFS ? Handing the font path list to Xorg itself works just as nicely (via xorg.conf). I can’t for the life of me understand why a daemon is necessary for this purpose. I’ve never used XFS, and never had any problems with that. Which distros use it and which don’t does not really matter IMO, it’s not needed.
“””
SELinux is not a server specific security technology and does has zero performance impact on the desktop in the default targeted policy since the deamons covered by SELinux are network facing anyway
“””
This is good news to me =). I assumed the additional security model (which I _personally_ don’t need) would degrade performance and resource usage in general. Probably should’ve read up on targeted policy. I won’t enable it though, simply because I don’t need it.
“””
“5) I usually also disable `exec-shield’ functionality (this must be set up in prelinking-config + kernel proc options). ”
again. a bad idea
“””
From http://umeet.uninet.edu/umeet2003/english/talks/20031223.3.en.html
(talk by Rik van Riel of RedHat)
—
riel on x86 CPUs the page tables do not have an executable permission bit, so exec-shield needs to do really ugly segmentation tricks
riel luckily most other CPUs Linux runs on, including AMD64, have executable bits in the page tables, so the segmentation tricks will no longer be needed in the future
riel hans-> riel: will this proces not bring down the speed of the os?
riel hans: yes, absolutely
riel segmentation makes the program run a little bit slower
riel however, the increased security will be worth the speed difference for some people
—
Not for me. I’ll take my chances (don’t really feel there are any big risks for normal desktop usage).
”
What’s the point of XFS ? Handing the font path list to Xorg itself works just as nicely (via xorg.conf). I can’t for the life of me understand why a daemon is necessary for this purpose. I’ve never used XFS, and never had any problems with that.”
font server. ask anybody who runs terminal services
“Probably should’ve read up on targeted policy. I won’t enable it though, simply because I don’t need it.
”
its a second line of defense. you can shed it on your own risks.
”
Not for me. I’ll take my chances (don’t really feel there are any big risks for normal desktop usage).
”
exec shield has been updated frequently. dont rely on 2003 talks. dont ask users to disable it just because you dont feel that you dont face any risks
“””
”
What’s the point of XFS ? Handing the font path list to Xorg itself works just as nicely (via xorg.conf). I can’t for the life of me understand why a daemon is necessary for this purpose. I’ve never used XFS, and never had any problems with that.”
font server. ask anybody who runs terminal services
“””
So most normal desktop users run terminal services ? On their laptops ? I understand the benefit in such a network environment, but for most people it’s simply not needed, and thus should not be the default.
“””
“Probably should’ve read up on targeted policy. I won’t enable it though, simply because I don’t need it.
”
its a second line of defense. you can shed it on your own risks.
“””
Yep. SELinux, off you go. Used Linux for seven years without it (also for server purposes), never experienced any root-exploits or similar nastiness. Lucky ? Perhaps, but not more than anyone else. Keeping the system updated, having a good firewall config and properly configured (or disabled) services is much more important, IMHO.
No doubt the Internet is getting tougher, so I might enable it if I some day get burned by an exploited system daemon wrecking havoc as root, but it hasn’t happened yet.
“””
”
Not for me. I’ll take my chances (don’t really feel there are any big risks for normal desktop usage).
”
exec shield has been updated frequently. dont rely on 2003 talks. dont ask users to disable it just because you dont feel that you dont face any risks
“””
I mostly agree with you here. In general I shouldn’t have made such broad assumptions about other ppl’s security needs. But I also did not mention specifically how to do it, assuming that those who would, already know what they are doing in general. In my original post I said “if you feel up for the task, this _ain’t_ a HOWTO”. I don’t really feel I “asked” anyone to do it, just by giving a list of pointers about what I usually tweak on Fedora to gain some performance.
Why do people think that filling RAM is a bad thing? As long as you’re not heavily swapping, you *should* be using your RAM. You paid for it, remember? Having 512 MB of it sitting idle while programs starved themselves would not make your system “optimized.”
I am writing to you on FC4 Test 3 so the upgrade went well. I downloaded the ISO’s, burned 4 disks and rebooted from CD 1. The installer came up on the first try. I selected upgrade and let it rip. I checked the major applications I use: Firefox, Nautilus, Open Office, Gedit, Jpilot, Gimp 2, mysql, httpd — they all were working just fine. Quite a smooth upgrade. No problems yet. Even my windows drive was mounted correctly.
I am running an older thunderbird Athlon chip. All this conversation about Fedora not being compiled for Athlon is just FUD. My system is fast and snappy and responds better than when I reboot into windows XP mode.
-mark
Hi. I posted a simple performance comparision between FC3 and FC4T2 on [email protected].
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2005-May/msg00050…
In short, FC4 is a lot better in memory usage. More that 20 MB less that FC3 with an equal desktop setup. I turned off unneeded services with out being paranoic (I left sendmail turned on I swear :-)).
The boot up process is faster too (I guess I wasn’t using early login) and the Gnome login speed seems better. All of this with a not so fast computer, FC4 was on an Athlon 600 while FC3 was on an Athlon 2000.
About xfs, I just checked out top in my FC3 system and it says 3.5MB of VM size and 1.7MB of residen size. That is not a big deal. If you want to save memory you should kill the RHN Applet for good… lots of megs in there.
About SELinux, I just noticed that I consumend a bit more of RAM but everything was fast. During the comparision I posted I turned off SELinux but that’s something that everyone should have enabled all the time.
Finally, remember that the most important thing is to use prelink after installation. It can take about 1H 30Min depending on the number of packages installed. It really makes a difference in start up speed and memory consumption.
Cheers,
-William
Father Baker, It is _always_ good that a developer try to reduce memory usage of a program (without hacks) because of the reason you just said.
The RAM shuold always be full, like you said, but with the OS buffer and cache data, _NOT_ with user space software bloat. That’s the big difference. When you read files or do other operations the OS will cache as many data as it can as long as it has spare RAM. If you start many programs, or use a lot of bloatware, the OS will have to reduce the cache size to give memory back to user space programs.
Another advantege is that smaller programs improve cache behavior on the processor and reduce cache misses making the system more responsive.
Cheers,
-William
I was just saying that memory usage was not a good metric to judge “optimization” of an OS.
<quote>
It would be useful to link to a recent study showing the market share of all main desktop environments on Linux.
Does anyone has such info ?
</quote>
http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT2127420238.html
quote:
There was no such upset or confusion in the realm of windowing environments. KDE — last year’s leader — has increased its dominance, growing from 44 percent to 61 percent of respondants. GNOME took silver honors both years with 27 percent last year and 21 percent this year. Interestingly, KDE’s increase came at the expense of all other window managers except XFCE, which posted a small gain.
I thought the kernel now auto chose what to load and loads optimized binaries for you cpu. I asked about this in the threads the last time I built a kernel, because when I chose athlon as my cpu type, my builds crashed. I was told to leave it set to 686 and the kernel handles the rest automatically.
Am I oversimplifying it?
Just curios what patches does Fedora Core use on top of the vanilla kernel?
“Why do people think that filling RAM is a bad thing? As long as you’re not heavily swapping, you *should* be using your RAM. You paid for it, remember? Having 512 MB of it sitting idle while programs starved themselves would not make your system “optimized.”
Bingo. I just learned this myself recently. I was always getting anal about Linux RAM usage. If I had it running on a machine with 128 megs, it would always be using around 124 megs. If it were on a machine that had 256, it would be using around 248. On a machine with 512, 490, and so on. So this led me to believe that Linux was being inefficient with RAM. I was completely wrong.
This is because the Linux kernel uses RAM intelligently. I caches data files that programs use into memory, since reading from memory is a zillion times faster than reading from hard drive. This speeds up performance of the applications.
Then, when another program, say a big one like Mozilla/Firefox, is launched, instead of going into swap (as one would expect since it appears that it’s at near capacity already) the kernel first goes to the unallocated space, then deallocates the cached data files and reallocates those to the new program. And if the data cache file has been changed, the kernel will “flush” it to the hard drive (saving changes, of course). If the data file has not been changed, the kernel will simply deallocate it.
This RAM data file caching gives the best of all worlds. It speeds up the performance of apps, and efficiently allocates RAM for all apps.
Just type “free” at the command line. It will report total capacity, total RAM usage, buffers, cache, +/- buffers/cache, swap capacity, and swap usage. The total RAM usage does not reflect what the kernel, the services, and the apps are actually using themselves, but what they are using plus the buffers and cache. The actual usage is the +/- buffers/cache figure.
Windows, by contrast, doesn’t do this caching technique (AFAIK), and actually uses lots of memory for the apps and itself (that’s not buffers/cache). Someone who really knows internals of Windows please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
So with this knowledge, if the “total” RAM usage is not near capacity when you type “free”, then you should actually be concerned because that would mean the kernel is not using memory in the most efficient manner possible. But I’ve never encountered this myself.
In short, Fedora, as well as most other distros, is actually quite efficient with RAM usage. Making it faster or use less memory is a matter of turning off unneeded services and/or depricating features.
When I said Fedora’s performance was poor in comparison to other things I didn’t mean noticable surface performance, I meant underlying i/o performance.. base install it’s just slower at many “common” user activities, many things by only a few seconds, a frighteningly sizable sum by several minutes (I’m running pretty small tests first, on a scale of something like full system sources the differences could be a lot more, up to 30-90 minutes, who knows, I haven’t tested anything that large yet due to current time constraints, but I’ll get there).
The one big difference I’ve noticed is bzip2 though. For whatever reason bzip2 in Fedora was seriously about 15-25% faster than in yoper, slackware, arch, etc. Not sure if it’s just some compile option redhat used or what, but aside from that one outstanding case it was pretty sluggish on everything else… after I get a base install data set on everything I’ll try recompiling it myself from clean sources to see if that is in fact what the difference is.
Anyway, what I was saying about memory usage is not that “low memory usage means a system is optimized”, only that low memory usage comes from cutting the frills out. You don’t need 15 extra plugins compiled in/loading with Gaim, for instance. At least I don’t. ispell is about the only thing with it I use, anything else only wastes RAM and increases the program load time. There seems to be a lot of that, though I don’t have the charts handy just now to say exactly what the differences are.
Any attempt at a “One size fits all” approach ends up with bloat, some in HDD space, some in memory, in the case of Fedora it just seemed to be a bit of a mix of each.
Normal users probably won’t really see a difference unless they start going crazy with leaving things open like I do, but I’m not really even concerned with that.
I’ve seen too many “Well that was pretty boring, why doesn’t anyone ever go into the internals” comments on here, so that’s exactly what I’m doing… examining I/O performance, standards compatibility, available software, ease of porting simple applications, a 30000 foot view of the internal design ideas, available performance tweaks, time install/setup takes to get to a workable system, general usablitily, etc… which is taking forever, as I’m not even done getting the ISOs yet for everything.
Any suggestions on tests anyone would like are welcome at this point also, as this is going to be my summer project, taking about 3-4 days with each system to give a full summary of strengths and weaknesses.
“In short, Fedora, as well as most other distros, is actually quite efficient with RAM usage. Making it faster or use less memory is a matter of turning off unneeded services and/or depricating features.”
Which is why I said “It’s tweakable if you want to spend the time.”
I mentioned “base install” specifically…
But given that it’s install takes about 5x as long as a lot of other things, plus having to tweak it to get it to where I want, it’s not for me…
Also, 300MB of memory usage at fresh boot is not “Intelligent use of memory” no matter what. Not when the same kernel and userland systems respond faster on another system with 1/2 the memory usage. In this case it was mere bloat (read: mostly was not cached memory). It was also a test run with FC4RC3, or whatever it was (it’s late, I don’t feel like looking), they may have cleaned it up a bit.
But the point I was trying to make still remains. If I boot a system and it is using the bare minimum of what I need, instead of trying to make sure it can handle every weird thing I might choose to do, then there is more memory available by default. That’s more memory for a system cache, more memory for paging crap it thinks I’m going to use but won’t, more memory to keep me from waiting while it decides to swap it’s cache at the same time it tries to load firefox for me.
And that argument goes both ways… “The main difference between FreeBSD and Linux in this regard is that FreeBSD will proactively move entirely idle, unused pages of main memory into swap in order to make more main memory available for active use. Linux tends to only move pages to swap as a last resort. The perceived heavier use of swap is balanced by the more efficient use of main memory.”
Yeah, that means in your “high cache” machine that when you load up firefox you have to wait for two things. First you have to wait for a disk swap to free up some of your “quick access cache”, and second you have to wait for firefox to actually load into memory. That’s twice as much disk activity that you have to wait for at that exact time…
Which makes the cache a good idea only about 50% of the time, which means more “live” memory usage (non-cache) increases the chances of causing the “cache-and-load” sequence to occur… and Fedora, “base install” has a much higher “live” memory usage than other things I’ve tried.
The “intelligent” memory usage of any system is only a best case idea.
I’m actually going to be doing a bit on Windows 2003 just for comparison sake… in response to your “Windows doesn’t do this caching thing (AFAIK)” comment… on this current W2K3 install I have exactly 237MB taken up by the system cache… yes that’s right, the cache. Every developed OS has some form of the caching scheme, though the ideas behind them vary a bit.
Windows does like paging a lot more than other things though… or so it seems from the surface. I have to wait on firefox to reload from the page file even though I have 200MB of completely free memory at the moment (minimizing tends to == swapping it seems, I’ll look into that more though).
Whoa.
Sit Ubu sit.
Good dog.
I know that RedHat/Fedora is GNOME centric, but a good part of the worls doesn’t use GNOME.
Where is this coming from ? It sounds like an anti-GNOME / pro-KDE statement. If by “the world” you mean your family or friends, then fair enough. But there are more people on earth…
Any statement like that is NOT backed by real data is just FUD.
It would be useful to link to a recent study showing the market share of all main desktop environments on Linux.
Does anyone has such info ?
Fedora Core 3.92 works well on a Mac Mini.
Sound works & X windows works from install with no manual ajustments.
Up2date just stalls. I updated with yum and had no problems.
nels