Home > Fedora Core > Fedora Core 6 – First ImpressionsFedora Core 6 – First Impressions Submitted by Rahul 2006-08-12 Fedora Core 16 Comments“Overall, FC6 looks and feels like a more solid, polished version of FC5 rather than a wholesale revamp. I look forward to the finished product this fall.” Check the short commentary here.About The Author Eugenia LoliEx-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 16 Comments 2006-08-12 7:33 pm chrishaneyhere: http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=715&slide=3… 2006-08-12 11:18 pm Joe UserLooks good. Looks better than RHEL4. 2006-08-13 7:17 am netpythonVery pleased to see they have finally some feeling for visual aspects.The wallpaper from the screenshot is very nice.All in all a release i’m looking forward to. 2006-08-12 8:12 pm rx182I’m running it since it came out. What an awesome distribution. It’s much better than anything I tried before, even FC5.I simply couldnt wait till october to get the final release. I’m so impressed by the Fedora team. 2006-08-12 10:25 pm simoMUCH better than FC5? I really can’t see it myself.I’ve been a dedicated RedHatter since 6.1, but frankly FC6 has got to be the most disappoint release ever.I really can’t see much of a difference from FC5.It’s got a crippled NetworkManager, a just-out-of-beta Xen and some new wallpaper/fonts.Some newer version numbers but nothing groundbreaking. 2006-08-14 12:10 pm wibbitMUCH better than FC5? I really can’t see it myself.I’ve been a dedicated RedHatter since 6.1, but frankly FC6 has got to be the most disappoint release ever.I guess it depends on your perspective, however when I installed it over the weekend, things seemed significantly smoother, and faster compared to FC5, some of that could just be that it is “new/different”.I certainly couldn’t say that this was more dissapointing that FC2 for example, which was a terribly unstable release (from what I can remember).I really can’t see much of a difference from FC5.That is what the guy was saying, there are no really new wizbangs in this release, they appear to have concentrated more on under the hood improvements. Which is always welcome, I wouldn’t want to see a distribution feel that they had to push out new wizbangs, just to “hide” the under the hood improvements.For example, with the new Evolution it supprots the other users folders on my IMAP system out of the box with out me having to faf about, which was very nice.It’s got a crippled NetworkManager, a just-out-of-beta Xen and some new wallpaper/fonts.How is the NetworkManager crippled?Xen was I believe in FC5 during the testing stages, and I hope it IS in FC6 testing stages, even if they choose not to ship it in final. Where is the problme with that? It is testing.I believe some one from Redhat/ Fedora Community has already comented on the wallpaper/ fonts. I like the default wall paper personally.Personally I really DO like how FC6 looks and feels, just from the surface. 2006-08-12 11:02 pm IronWolveFirst yum upgrade was broken on the first day due to some bad packages, doh.Other than that, few yum issues, network dhcp didnt setup correctly, vmware modules didnt work out of the box.Could be better. 2006-08-13 3:12 pm BerylliumDid you report the bugs and issues, or even check if they had already been reported? Odds are, it’s called “TEST” for a good reason. 2006-08-13 4:09 am hraqThere is something I couldn’t explain in fedora 5 and the upcomming one and possibly in all Linux distros I have used on at least 20 systems of different kinds; It’s that when the system starts to crawl I noticed the tower HDD light starts to flash constantly and then on the CPU monitor the I/O wait becomes >90 %. During that slowness the mouse cursor even suffer acceleration , ie responding to displacement. Mouses are Optical MS with USB and MS laser wireless notebook.My HDD is classified as enterprise running @10,000rpm SATA 74GB raptor from Western Digital coasting 200 $. So nothing bad here to speak of.Now, what is even more strange is that I never noticed this with windows at all, so why is that? I have also noticed that in Mac OSX on x86 hardware too. But again not in windows 2000/xp/2003 server.During that moments of very high CPU the %system and %user and %Nice were only <3% combined.I reached to the conclusion that HDD subsystem access brings linux/Unix in general to its knees, why I don’t know. Even If you use the best HDDs and choose your BIOS HDD choises carefully and correctly.Can anyone give me an explanation for this? 2006-08-13 6:02 am shotsmanHave you collected all the data and filed a bugzilla report yet?IMHO, the SATA interface on many motheboards is a bit of a kludge and could do with a complete overhaul.However, it could be a driver issue. Have you done an ‘hdparm’ to see how your drivers are configured?I get some bad performance from SATA on Windows server 2003 as well as lower than expected throughput on Linux. 2006-08-13 6:23 am hraq“Have you collected all the data and filed a bugzilla report yet?”Actually I don’t know whome to send this info to, which Unix distro and which linux distro“I get some bad performance from SATA on Windows server 2003 as well as lower than expected throughput on Linux.”Actually I was working most of the time with PATA dirves (ie the classical ATA drives which are brand new from Seagate and Western Digital. And still the same issue appeared with me, all the times and in all occasions of heavy HDD access.But performance wise the SATA drives made linux boot and behave faster all over; but felt like dominating and veto the CPU if other processes inturrupt for CPU time, I guess but I am not sure it is related to HDD scheduling kernel code in Unix and Linux, maybe, as MS pay more attention to these things especially with vista where they imply a very good scheduling for HDD time, and they have the so called no new process if the HDD activity is saturated, whereas the running processes that depend on HDD will get 100% guaranttee of uninturruptability.On windows server 2003 with SP1 the problems happen most of the time from udf burned DVD+R disks, which cannot read from it at all, whereas it can burn it; the same issue doesn’t exist at all in any Unix and Linux especially with fedora which is so reliable in this regard.so, I/O access of HDDs are better in windows, whereas I/O access of Optical Drives are better in any Unix/Linux, all obtained from my experience. 2006-08-13 7:44 am netpythonI think it depends as usual on the chipset.Using nforce3 doesn’t give me any problems on whatever linux.In fact the performance of my raid0 configuration is overall better than that of XP. 2006-08-13 8:11 am hraqDo you mean that intel chipsets 865PE and 875 are not that good for linux; I think that intel publish more than nvidia to open source community. But if this is the case I will investigate this claim soon. Thanks anyway. 2006-08-13 7:21 am Bending UnitI can confirm it but not explain it. IO drags the rest of the system down. I have run several distros and two or three motherboards. Two different SATA disks. Everything works as it should in Windows.It is unfortunate that Linux’s faults sometimes seems tabu. The more attention faults and bugs get, the faster they will get fixed. 2006-08-13 7:39 pm rahim123This wouldn’t be updatedb kicking in, would it? Brings my system to its knees. 2006-08-13 7:15 am netpythonThe yum-fastestmirror plugin still corrupts the cache sometimes.However this is easily solved with 1)”yum clean all”, 2)”yum makecache”.//without the quotes.