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. :-(
|
