Re: Why I think FC3 sucks!

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Edward Yang wrote:
After getting so many reply from my last post, I finally understand why the post aroused so much agitation.

1. It seems for some people, 'FC3 sucks' is the same as '*Linux* sucks'. But I am very sorry, I did not mean that. I just meant FC3 sucks or FC3 sucks because it is worse than FC1 based on my personal experience.

2. Some young guys (mostly students) or even not-so-young guys (what the hell who are they?) like the feel of calling somebody *troll*, and so they seize every possible chance to show off their *skills* at name calling. That's a dark side I already know about Linux communitiy. But, please note I am not saying the *whole* Linux community is bad, I mean a small part of it.

Okay, let me elaborate why I think FC3 sucks or FC3 is worse than FC1. Note that I did not have experience with FC2.

1. Installation. Well, what can I say? It is not worse, but it not any bettern than FC1. Components selection is still very difficult.

2. FC3 could not start into X in Virtual PC. It spews out tons of error messages complaining something that actually should not have caused its failure. So I have to download a temporary patch from http://vpc.visualwin.com/. See page http://vpc.visualwin.com/Notes/FedoraCore.3.Final.html.

3. After several times of kernel updating (at least 3), I finally can boot into X from the so called official kernel provided by FC3.

4. It is hopelessly slower than FC1! I could run FC1 with only 128mb memory and don't feel much sluggishness. I now run FC3 with 164mb memory, but it is visibly slower than FC1! Application startup time is almost unbearable.

5. I am a newbie on Linux, but I already find a few bugs. For example, in gnome-termial, if I set DEL to ASCII DEL in the profile settings, it actualy acts like BACKSPACE. This bug may be specific only to gnome, but since it's bundled with FC3, so I attribute the problem to FC3. It's quite reasonable.

6. I have not acurate data to prove this, but I feel the system boot up time is longer than FC1.

7. This is a minor problem - I only installed kernel+gnome, no KDE. Yet it takes up more than 2gb space. What the hell? A normal Windows 2000 installation usually takes only 1.5gb even with all components selected. I forgot how much was FC1, but FC3 apparently is not doing better or even worse.

8. I may think of others that attribute to this 'FC3 sucks' topic.

Final words - I am not negating Linux. Actually I think Linux and Open Source has a very good future. That's why I am catching the new waves here.

Thanks.

Here is number 8!

I just found out that on FC3 Borland C++Builder takes more than 400mb memory! While on Windows, it only takes a little more than 60mb.This is making me believe that System Monitor is having a bug about calculating memory size...

And number 9:
Though I have screen saver disabled, but I still get xscreensaver in my session. :-(



[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux