Technonoid Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 fc2 is a nice rpm distro, but it feels a little slow and i haven't figured out why yet. Yeah it is, compared to MDK. FC2 runs a program called prelink. It takes a while on a full install. Its suppose to help with program loading speed. P.S. I'm still playing around with FC2. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlc Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 RedHat was the first to have prelink so i don't think that is it. # rpm -q prelink prelink-0.3.2-1 Just to give you an idea of why i think they were the first. Look at author & src location http://freshmeat.net/projects/prelink/ B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pain999 Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 Linux.com does not exactly praise FC2 "As I sit before my new installation of Fedora Core 2 (FC2) I'm reminded of the first time I had to put down a beloved dog. FC2 suffers from some fatal flaws. For most people, it will be best to put this malformed whelp out of its misery and wait for the Fedora Project's next litter of pups, which promises some awesome powers." http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=04/05/26/1441241 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
null Posted May 29, 2004 Author Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 ouch. I was downloading FC 2 disc 1 when I read the above, so I cancelled the d/l. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlc Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 Other than some speed issues (i'm used to gentoo/slackware) fc2 is a good release IMHO. From the sounds of it, linux.com doesn't know jack. :o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
null Posted May 29, 2004 Author Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 The things they were complaining about are probably things that 90% of people don't care about. I did like the comment about how FC may screwup your windoze booting. They said "this isn't a bug - its a security feature..." :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plati Posted May 30, 2004 Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 FC2 has been nice to me so far :) A little sluggish at times, but its great while Im working on this gentoo install. /me ges back to hitting gentoo with a hammer to make it work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qchem Posted May 30, 2004 Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 That is a horribly written review, hope they didn't pay this guy for it: Those of us who administer systems need a fast, easy way to edit configuration files. We know where most of those files live, and can usually type them in to the File Open dialog a lot faster than we can get to them via the browsing tool. But my favorite tool, gedit, is no longer suitable for that purpose, because, as you can see from the screen shot at right, there is no longer any way to type a filename into the File Open dialog! Ever heard of a "terminal window" (and vi) Mr experienced sys admin? His criticisms of FC2 seem to be: 1) He doesn't like Gnome 2.6 2) Theres a problem with pdf creation in OOo 3) Bug in rhythmbox 4) Someone hasn't ported his favourite plugin from Gimp 1.2 to Gimp 2.0 Is it just me or are these problems in specific upstream packages and personal gripes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvc Posted May 30, 2004 Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 Is it just me or are these problems in specific upstream packages and personal gripes? it's not just you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priest Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 (edited) We I can say I like Red Hat's blue curve more than the default Gnome or KDE. Blue curve is my favorite desktop environment. I can't comment on the final version of FC2, but I can say that FC2 test2, was horribly buggy and unstable, with SELinux on, it was flat out unusable. I have never used FC2 and I can't base my opinon of it on test2 though. Edit: one major annoyance with FC2 is the lack of native NTFS support. FC is one of the only distros that does not ship with NTFS support. Another major pet peeve about FC2 test 2 was that I still need to manually mount and unmount my CD rom from command line to read or eject it. Writing a CD on FC2 test2 turned out to be a lost cause and I gave up trying. Sound did not work on either computer with FC2, but it didn't with Mandrake either, and rarely ever does, so I can't deduct many points there. Edited June 8, 2004 by Priest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlc Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 (edited) Due to the uncertain legal status of using the NTFS driver, RedHat and Fedora have chosen to leave the driver out of their kernels. http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/rpm/about.html FC 2 should now mount your drives, believe there using submount. Sound should work fine with most cards in final. cdrecord or k3b should work just fine, i use them. No one should run selinux unless they understand it, i don't know what your back ground is, i'm just makeing that statement in "general". Edited June 8, 2004 by cybrjackle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
null Posted June 8, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 (edited) I just got thru reading the FC2 review on Mad Penguin: http://www.madpenguin.org/cms/html/47/1570.html They say to just leave SELinux off (as it already is...) and don't use it till the usability is improved in FC2. For the most part, the reviewer was very pleased with the distro. Edited June 8, 2004 by null Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 I personally feel anaconda in FC2 is set up very well for average joe user and it looks very professional - something which Mandrake doesn't (YET) match that's me... the average joe user Iagree that RH / FC look more professional than, say, mdk. I know its the guts of the OS, not the prettiness of the distro, that does the work, but nice looking distros are just... uh... nicer looking... From what little I used mdk (8.1 & 9.0) I was a little turned off by the rougher look of it. I went from mdk 8.1, to mdk 9.0, then to RH 9, and now to FC 1. I'd like to just stick to one distro to learn everything on, and then maybe check out some others after I know what I'm doing. I think I'll use FC 2 to learn on. LOL This is very true but its funny, its MDK customising KDE and Gnome that makes it look rough! Inverse marketing AGAIN ... like changing the default KDE startup... and logo etc. Oh well! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowFoxLSU Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 The most complaints I hear about FC 2 is that there are no media players. It's an annoyance, but can be easily overcome by adding certain repositories into your yum.conf file and typeing "yum install totem" for example. The last time I used FC was FC2t1 (due to outside circumstances...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qchem Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 Theres a good fedora core multimedia howto over at tldp by ESR (but don't let that put you off), which should enable you to have many multimedia players with loads of illegal codecs - I don't condone any of this behaviour Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.