LinuxQuestions.org
Support LQ: Use code LQ3 and save $3 on Domain Registration
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Reviews > Distributions > Fedora Project
User Name
Password

Notices

Search · Register · Submit New Review · Download your favorite Linux Distributions ·
 

Fedora Project FC3
Reviews Views Date of last review
67 286599 04-12-2006
spacer
Recommended By Average Price Average Rating
88% of reviewers $8.50 7.7



Description: The Fedora Project is a Red-Hat-sponsored and community-supported open source project. It is also a proving ground for new technology that may eventually make its way into Red Hat products. It is not a supported product of Red Hat, Inc.

The goal of The Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from free software. Development will be done in a public forum. The project will produce time-based releases of Fedora Core about 2-3 times a year with a public release schedule. The Red Hat engineering team will continue to participate in the building of Fedora Core and will invite and encourage more outside participation than was possible in Red Hat Linux. By using this more open process, we hope to provide an operating system that uses free software development practices and is more appealing to the open source community.
Keywords: fedora core redhat red hat


Author
Post A Reply 
Old 02-24-2005, 06:13 PM   #1
carlosinfl
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 2,905

Rep: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 8

Pros: Fail Proof Install, Everything is GUI, Multi Language Support, Great Community
Cons: Holds your hand, Some *nix cmds are missing, tries to think for you



Fedora 3 is a great distro to start using Linux. I have never seen any problems installing FC3 on any system. They detect everything on my system and it is very smooth.
Things I love:
-YUM
-You can use APT-GET RPM
-Fedora Community is great
-GUI installer does everything for you and even the text mode installer is error proof.
-You can install Apache right out the box as a fully functional web server in 5 minutes!
-SELinux is supported

Problems I had:

-Firefox is very very slow for some reason and I think it has to do with the DNS lookup in FF on FC3.
-Why they decided to mount drives at "/media/cdrecorder" is beyond me.
-For the love of Linux get rid of Up2date! Its slow if it works and usually never connects.

Overall:

Fedora is groing string and found it nice overall and would recommend this over Mandrake. Once you install FC3 and get some basic functional understaning of Linux, I would recommend you try Debian and or Slackware Linux.
 
Old 02-26-2005, 11:06 PM   #2
aznboi12321
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Distribution: Fedora Core 3, Damn Small Linux 0.93, Ubuntu 5.10, Mandrake 10.1 Official, Linspire 4.5, SuSE 10.0
Posts: 77

Rep: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 8

Pros: easy to install, lots of fun games!
Cons: sometimes is a bit slow


I highly reccomend this. I've been a Windows user for all 15 years I've been here, but when i switched to Fedora Core 3, it was very wasy to convert to. And if you miss some of the Windows progs you can use WINE. And because of thier boot loader you can have both OS' and have both.
All in all get this OS!!!!!!
 
Old 02-27-2005, 04:26 PM   #3
Lintux
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Distribution: Slack
Posts: 35

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 9

Pros: Fast, New Packages, Great hardware detection, Up 2 Date, RPM's
Cons: Testing base for Red Hat


Fedora Core 3 is probably the best Linux distro I've used. I've been using Linux for around a year, and have used lots of Distros such as: Slackware, Gentoo, Debian, Vector Linux, Yoper, Ubuntu, Mepis, Suse, Mandrake, Arch Linux, etc..

Fedora Core 3 recognized all of my hardware, including my printer which in other distros could never be detected properly. I really like the Up2Date feature, which updates everything, easily, even easier than Microcrap Windoze, and the updates are usually every day. Fedora also has both KDE and Gnome.

Fedora is fairly fast, and is well organized. I highly recommend everyone to try it.
 
Old 03-04-2005, 11:44 AM   #4
Mmc245
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 21

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 10

Pros: Everything :O
Cons: There arent any!


As for instalation (because everyone seems to think that its important that it installs fast......) about 20 mins it took for me, very very simple.

Windows XP (pardon my language there..) took about 40 mins to install... in comparason..

It is really as complicated or as simple as you want it to be. you dont have to be a linux buff to use it, but if you are you can go nuts should you feel the need.

If anyone is running windows and is reading this SWITCH TO LINUX! you can get emulators to run windows products, you have no excuse! DO IT NOW!!!
 
Old 03-24-2005, 08:38 AM   #5
jaws_tas
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 25

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 9

Pros: runs on slow systems, hardware support, easy install, and more
Cons: NONE!!!


Fedora Core 3 is the best distro of Linux I have seen. It supports all the features of my Dell 8200 laptop, PLUS it also installed and runs on my old pentium 233 that I configured as a server and firewall (with X-Windows!). I have ditched Windows entirely and now have two exclusive Fedora 3 systems and I haven't looked back.

It has exceptional hardware support, even correctly detected/configured my external (gawsh!), firewire (shock!), dual layer DVD burner (WOW!). WINDOWS XP couldn't even do that!

The only drawback is the removal of mp3 support, but i found that by googling and downloading 3 rpms I could restore kde/arts, gnome and xmms support to their original mp3 playing glory.

I've also tested Fedora with my non-linux-savvy friends. They have very few problems and most have made an ethusiastic permanent switch.

Overall:
- Easy to install and use.
- Best hardware support I've seen.
- Easy to keep up to date.
- finally a real substitute for expensive commercial OS's for Newbies while still maintaining all the traditional RedHat/Fedora Linux feel for power users.
 
Old 03-27-2005, 03:49 PM   #6
JimBass
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Distribution: Debian Sid 2.6.32
Posts: 2,100

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 8

Pros: Well documented, large # of apps, wide variety of options
Cons: up2date, mp3/nvidia issues


I've made FC3 my main distro, using it both at home and at work. It does an awesome job detecting hardware, and the install is fully GUI, yet you can see a wide range of options. I had no trouble getting KDE installed instead of gnome. It is getting ever-closer to being a distro even a non-technical user can install.

The main problems I've had are that fedora pushes up2date as the updater, but it is slow and buggy. Yum and the apt-get updaters are much more streamlined. The mp3 support and lack of (functional) nVidia drivers is lame, but I can understand their position on not wanting closed source info to be included with their product. Fortunately you can get the rpm to support mp3 and the nvidia stuff easily within moments of getting the machine up.
 
Old 03-28-2005, 03:54 AM   #7
60s TV Batman
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Distribution: Ubuntu 12.04
Posts: 60

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 8

Pros: Best installation experience to date
Cons: None (compared to other distros I've tried)


NOTE: This review is written for people considering Linux for the first time, and who are currently shopping for a distro. I am such a person, and have just had my first 100% successful experience with Linux.

When I started looking for a distro, I was swayed toward SuSE and Mandrake based on the distro reviews I read in these forums. I got the impression that SuSE and Mandrake would be more suitable for a complete novice than Fedora.

In fact, the reverse has been true. And the thing that made it so is the fact that Fedora 3 can be purchased with the Fedora 3 Bible by Christopher Negus. This book is well written, by a professional author with many titles to his credit. If you're a first-timer like me, the availability of this and other books is the main reason why I think Fedora 3 is a better choice than SuSe or Mandrake for first-timers.

Fedora 3 is my most successful installation experience of the 3 distros I've tried.

In particular, I was delighted to see that Fedora 3 installed a driver for my Radeon 9200SE.

Neither SeSE 9.2 or Mandrake 10.1 community loaded with drivers for my Radeon 9200SE graphics card, forcing me to run with a sub-standard 1200x1024 VESA (generic) driver. This left Linux looking primative on my flash new CRT (compared to flicker-free Windows at 1600x1200).

Fedora 3 is running a flicker-free 1600x1200, and looks every bit as good as Windows.

I'm sure SuSE and Mandrake can be finessed to run a Radeon 9200SE driver, but if you're a first-timer like me, you'll know why that's not the point.

I run a dual-boot system with Windows XP. Naturally, I was concerned about the impact of partitioning my hard drive. The installation process was approached with some dread! Having the Fedora 3 Bible was a great help, because it contains a detailed explanation of every stage of the install. This removes some of the mystery from the process, and provides information on how to fix common problems that may occur.

I suppose knowing that problems can occur added to my fear, but at least I had some positive steps to take if I'd suffered the absolute worst-case scenario of losing my Windows install. Naturally, I backed up my Windows data...but who wants to reinstall an operating system and several years worth of software? The book pointed out that there are often much simpler (and quicker) fixes, and gives instructions should you need them.

As it happened, everything went like clockwork (just as it did with SuSE and Mandrake). Windows still boots as my default operating system, and I didn't have to do anything tricky with the master boot record.

I gave up on SuSE and Mandrake when I couldn't get my Speedtouch 330 USB modem working. I ran various scripts, followed various instructions (usually with no idea what the instructions meant), and generally had a miserable time trying to get online. Eventually, I gave up.

It took about 20 minutes to get online with Fedora 3. I used the instructions on this page...
http://speedtouchconf.sourceforge.net/

The script installed, told me my modem was working, but pointed out an error with a particular file that was missing. Thanks to Fedora 3 Bible I was able to find out what that file did, and actually create it (just 2 lines). As soon as I created it, I was online (no reboot necessary).

I'm sure the information is available online, but I'm not sure I'd have found it. I'm sure someone in these forums would have told me, but it may have taken several days. With the Fedora 3 Bible on hand, I was able to sort it out immediately, and had the satisfaction of doing it myself.

The point of this review is to make a case for Fedora 3 over SuSE or Mandrake as the distro of choice for first-timers. The ready availability of books like the Fedora 3 Bible is the key reason why I think Fedora 3 is the distro first-timers should go for.
 
Old 03-30-2005, 09:52 AM   #8
fearofcarpet
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Distribution: Gentoo, FC4, FreeBSD
Posts: 34

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 9

Pros: Nice balance between power/flexibility and noobie-friendliness/auto-configuration
Cons: Stigmatized as a "noobie" distro, somewhat bloated


I always encourage Windows users to get their feet wet with Knoppix, then move on to a dual boot with FC3 when they're ready to modify their hard drive. The reason, because FC3 does such a good job of hand-holding through the GUI installer, dual boots with Windows quite well, and supports NTFS (read only naturally).

That said, I run FC3 stand-alone on most of my computers, including my work laptop. The Linux community at large, however, seems to have stigmatized Fedora as a "noobie" distro, which is unfortunate because it is a great platform for the hard-core Linux (ab)user too. I think the myth that a Linux distro must be impossible to install to be a "real" distro needs to die. It took me all of 30 minutes to modify FC3 to the point where it is not recognizable, yet it supports all my hardware beutifully, and retains power under the hood and the pre-patched FC3 kernel, which I like.

I've used RedHat (before the Fedora days), Debian, Slackware, Mandrake, various embedded kernels, and played with Linux from scratch. I think FC3 balances all the 'nice' features without giving up too much ground on performance. The addition of a light weight GUI on top of KDE/Gnome is very nice too as it allows FC3 to run on older hardware. There are oodles of command line utilites and configuration scripts unique to Fedora that simplify my life (I tend to spend most of my time on the command line) without hiding anything that would impeed the learning process... And I'm always learning new shortcuts and tricks : )

It has been my experience that FC3 is also perfectly suited for laptops. I have taken to running Windows-only work related applications inside a virtual PC (instead of dual-boot) on my Latitude D600 because Windows feels like a three-legged dog after booting Fedora on my laptop. Slack, Debian, and Madrake all left soemthing to be desired laptop-speaking.

I have also used FC for four servers running everything from Apache, to sendmail, to samba, and everything in between. While I'm no computer professional, it has, especially with the inclusion of the new SE features, performed admirably.

What about multiple-user environments? Well, I dumbed FC3 on a lab computer where a bunch of my fellow scientists (the most computer illiterate people I have ever met) who hadn't heard of Linux before I joined the group, use it almost daily. Most of the time they sit down, dig around KDE's menu, and are up and running with practically no questions. Best of all, the sleek look, ease of use, power, flexibility, free software, and speed have lead to people asking me if they can ditch Windows and run Linux on their laptops and home PCs... Wow : )

In all, I'd like to see the stigma of "noobie" distro shifted to "do-everything" distro. That is, while FC3 cannot compete with specialized distros, it is extremely versitile. FC3 does everything you ask of it in a variety of settings and does it well. Best of all, if you want something added or fixed, just join the mailing list, make a suggestion, and hold your breatg, because the update cycle is crazy-fast (which isn't always a good thing) and the on-line community is huge.
 
Old 03-30-2005, 01:54 PM   #9
tetanus
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Distribution: Yoper
Posts: 4

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? no | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 5

Pros: Auto hardware detection
Cons: Freezing, slow, no mp3 support, no ntfs (although easy to install).


Ok, since I have noticed how many different opinions are on Fc 3 I have decidet to share my experience with you.
Fedora core 3 install was very easy and it has autodetected all my hardware. And it worked out of the box on my amd athlon 2000+, 768 ddr, via kt660 system with geforce mmx 440 grapich card.
And that is where my pleasent experience ends.
After installing nvidia drivers I had video issues in gnome, but that is not really the distros fault. FC3 freezed on me a few times too.
Overall experience was bad, I am just trying out Yoper and I heard a few times that Yoper is low quality distro( although it has a few bugs I disagree and find it very decent distro), but to be honest with you i find it much less buggy than FC3 and it runs really faster too.
I am afraid I can not recommend FC3 . I dont say it is a bad distro, maybe it just doesnt like my hardware or me :), but still I belive there are much better distros out there, they might not be so user friendly but much more reliable and much faster.
 
Old 04-03-2005, 04:45 AM   #10
nathanmoorehead
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Distribution: Suse 9.1 Personal
Posts: 22

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 10

Pros: Very Customizable, Stable, Polished, Updated, Happy Medium
Cons: 4k stack, no biggie


Fedora is a truely excellent distrobution of the Linux kernel. What I like the most about Fedora Core 3 is the ability to easily customize your installation up from major catagories (like Audio/Video and Office) down to individual packages (like ooo-en). I am very impressed with the polished feal of this Fedora release, and how stable it is. Fedora Core is like the happy medium between eye candy drag and drop and guts and bolts command line. Imagine the ease of Suse with the light flexible feal of Red Hat. That is Fedora.

Fedora comes with as many or few packages as you want it to, but the major catagory selection easily takes care of the average user. FC3 also cators to the power user, by easily allowing fine tuning of the system.

To top it all off, free semi-automatic update system! How cool is that, just like Red Hat but without the RHN obligation.

I gave Fedora a 10/10 because it lacked nothing, and getting down and dirty was painless. Programs just work with Fedora, (like we all wish Ndiswrapper "just work" with RH) and crashes are extremely rare, making it a top choice for both business and pleasure.
 
Old 04-04-2005, 02:39 AM   #11
t3gah
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Distribution: SuSE, RedHat, ubuntu, Debian
Posts: 734

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? no | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 3

Pros: XFce is included in this release.
Cons: OpenSSL was not secure (known exploit), USB mouse disappeared intermittently, SATA (worked on and off), udev (caused problems with CD-ROM drives and WinModem), HCL: None Found or available from redhat.com


This release of Fedora was just "ok" and not fantastic just like the other releases of FC. RedHat needs to make this "infant Linux distro" more reliable.

Security: The OpenSSL that was included was not the secure verions RedHat.com stated was installed. The OpenSSL that was in there by default had a "known bug and exploit" that even RedHat published a series of articles on when they had this issue over a year ago with RedHat 9's OpenSSL. FC4 has since fixed the issue and the update is available for FC3 at download.fedora.redhat.com but since it's an older version of OpenSSL you have to know that first so you can set yum or up2date to get it. I got hacked a number of times and had to changed many passwd's because the exploit lets the attacker get all passwds from your FC3 system. The SSH server was on by default and allowed root login's and the old unsecure protocol 1 by default. rkhunter and chkrootkit were not part of the packages but at least nmap was.

Install: I had problems with my SCSI controller and the boot preocess for FC3 stating there was a "Extremely Broken BIOS Detected" issue. This turned out to be false. The software engineers at ISOLINUX stated that they el-torrito boot emulation was changed on alot new Linux distributions including Fedora Core which did away with floppy emulation which the Bootable CD-ROM option for SCSI controllers relied on. There was no notice at RH.com that stated this which cost me months tracking down the cause and money laid out buying IDE CD-ROM drives and different SCSI controllers, buying an unneeded BIOS upgrade, etc.

3D Acceleration: It was ok but not fantastic. The ATI driver for my Radeon always seemed to be updated with more features and more 3d Acceleration but it wasn't more than what FC offered. DRI worked out and was better than FC and ATI.

SATA: My installs worked sometimes and at other times they did not. I finally opted to use UDMA100 instead of patching the kernel all the time.

WinModem: No support for it and then udev caused a problem because the hardware profile list for FC didn't include LinModem's so the driver kept being unloaded, which they who created the driver found out through many forums and then they created a new driver for the Lucent WinModem, but that was months later.

USB: There was no support for my Lexmark Z600 Printer and my Kensington Expert Mouse would intermittently be lost in FC3. In PS/2 mode the mouse worked perfectly and there were no IRQ/Memory address conflicts as many other people are having the same issues with their USB mice.

SCSI CD-RW: The SCSI PlextorCD-RW could sometimes not be access which had to fixed by changing the permission from "disk" to "users".

WEIRD: There was a constant vesafb0 error message, also a FailedOpen for CD-ROM during boot and the kernel forced my 8x ATI 9200 128MB DDR AGP card into 4x mode no matter what kernel was being used. (all the way up to 2.6.11.6)

KDAT: The tape software worked nicely with my Seagate STD224000N DDS3 4mm DAT drive with tar but KDAT freaked out and I lost 1.8GB that I downloaded with my 56k WinModem.

Cross-app Window Managers: GNOME had some KDE applications on the Application Menu but KDE did not if you installed them both from the FC CD's.

Final: There are many many applications that are on the (4) FC3 CD's but with all the problems that I have gone through and the many other people I see on this forum and fedoraforum.org, RedHat needs to make a decision to either support the people they are catering to or forget FC completely because NO ONE should have to go through what the many have gone through. The worst customer experience ever and making a bad name for Linux at that!
 
Old 04-06-2005, 01:27 AM   #12
kalman
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Distribution: ubuntu 7.04 /centos5.0 / mephis 6.5 / winxp
Posts: 33

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: $6.00 | Rating: 9

Pros: easy install,newer kernel,highly stable
Cons: sometimes update is slow,some upgrades make it worse


pro's are easy to install,many packages to choose from,I had it installed on 2 machines,the 2nd machine a duron 1300ghz with 512meg of ram. The cons,2nd machine had a few gitch's, the montior became out of range,I think a driver had a malfunction. The
machine didn't play music cd's, till I updated it. The kernel didn't work after about 5 months. I could use live cd's to get on line with knoppix 3.3,3.7,berry .052. The first machine a 1.33ghz thunderbird with 768 meg of ram, at first can't play music cd's,fixed it, 10 days ago I can't get online(cable) nic works with live cd's only, this happened after newest updates installed. I installed lineox 4.0 linux and onboard nic works fine,now no music cd's again!
Over all fedora core 3 works very well,just a few gitches for new bee's...
 
Old 04-12-2005, 01:03 PM   #13
Nathaniel Firet
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Distribution: Fedora Core 4
Posts: 39

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: $10.00 | Rating: 8

Pros: Easy install, has non-CUPS printing options
Cons: Install kernel-panicked at first


After an unfortunate foray into Ubuntu and CUPS, I decided to upgrade my RH 7 distro to FC3. Got through the update, without apparent trouble -- and then kernel-panicked on the next boot. Seems the /boot partition was big enough for RH7, but not for FC3. Got that fixed, and the install went fine.

Now, for the usual fun (setting up the modem, printer, mail, Web browser...)
 
Old 04-14-2005, 02:22 AM   #14
mrchaos
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Distribution: Slackware current, Fedora Core 5, SuSE 10.1 OSS
Posts: 298

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 5

Pros: Great for a bridge for Windows users to cross over into the Realm of Linux. GUI install and GUI operating environment.
Cons: Not really linux? I dunno, but it seemed that FC3 has some bugs to be worked out. Guess I'm a true Slackie.


Can you actually pay for FC3? Anyway, this was my first Linux OS, and it suited my needs for running Linux programs, but it didn't really immerse me in learning the infamous "command line architecture." You can install and extract packages simply using the GUI and you can probably do anything you wanted in Linux using the GUI. To me that doesn't really feel like linux. For that reason, I switched over to Slack. I would recommend FC3 if you don't really want to learn Linux command structure (but you'll be basically screwed if it crashes on ya, which it shouldn't since it's linux). If you're someone who's experienced with Linux, I would no recommend FC3, b/c it's a waste of time; but it's probably nothing you've not heard before :P
 
Old 04-18-2005, 09:29 PM   #15
ride153
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Distribution: current is PCLOS (server) and Suse (desktop)
Posts: 102

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 9

Pros: easy install, GNOME 2.8.0 is nice, clean looking OS
Cons: nothing major yet


installed a week ago and have been very impressed much better than my old linux os SUSE

i was even able to install ATI graphics driver it took me of awhile but thats cuz im kind of a noob

im not sure why other ppl complained about mp3 problems i can play audio and video fine as long as real player supports the file.

fedora ownz u all w00t
 
Old 04-22-2005, 01:02 AM   #16
genixpro
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 22

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 10

Pros: has yum, rpm, anaconda, other food Redhat things
Cons: Lacking in good gui maintance applications (update programs)



I started using linux when i was new. I started with debian, and moved onto Fedora. Now, being in Fedora, i like it. Fedora has many good features. When initialy i was a noob, i have matured, intime, and can function well ona linux OS, and have noticed that there is nothing specific directly to Fedora that is bad about it. Things like bugs in x windows system isnt fedora, its xorg, and often people complain to fedora about it when it isnt fedora's problem. But, installers like annaconda work foir me and i haven'[t had any bugs. Fedora's hardware detection is nice, although it isnt perfect, but it does lack a little in maintance applications.
 
Old 05-15-2005, 02:51 AM   #17
jeevanullas
 
Registered: May 2005
Distribution: Fedora Core 3
Posts: 2

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: $10.00 | Rating: 10

Pros: kernel, xfce, kdevelop, gtk+2.0 lib
Cons: xmms mp3, ntfs, xine, mplayer, apache


It was the best of all the distro I had ever tried.
The negative aspects have been eradicated completely.
I got the mp3 plugin for xmms, NTFS module support in the running kernel also I got apache running on it.
Xine and Mplayer got installed succesfully.
My tv-tuner card of pinnacle worked well.
Connexant Modem is working very well.
Yahoo messenger for linux got installed very easily on it.
It was a complete fun to work on fedora core 3 / GNU.
 
Old 05-16-2005, 10:12 AM   #18
whistl
 
Registered: May 2005
Distribution: Ubuntu, CentOS
Posts: 37

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? no | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 5

Pros: lots of pkgs available, as close to a "standard" linux as you can get
Cons: flakey quality, no mp3, dvd, annoying updates


I used to be a paying Red Hat Linux 8 and 9 user. After feeling abandoned by RH, I kept running RH9, until Fedora Core 3 came out. I bought a new hard drive, and gave it a try.

Install worked as painlessly as any normal Red Hat system. Out of the box, everything worked the way I expected. No MP3, DVD playing, NTFS or any other support that RH avoids, but fixes for all these problem are available on the net.

While I was able to use Kismet (wifi sniffer) under RH9 (after replacing the kernel with 2.4.19), I have never been able to get either my cisco or orinoco wifi card to work properly in promiscuous mode under any more recent kernel. In FC3, it was very difficult to get either of them to work AT ALL.

While the update manager works, most of the time, many of the mirrors are slow to download new updates, so while the little icon will tell you updates are available, many times you have to wait an additional day or two before you can actually install them.

Installing updates is a real pain. The update manager requires a button be pressed after downloading all the patches, before installing them. Since the downloads are always very very very very slow (like 25Kbps max), it usually takes many hours to download. I would end up leaving my PC on overnight to do the downloads. Then I would have to wait to use the PC in the morning, after clicking "proceed", waiting for the updates to install, and rebooting the OS.

What made me give up completely on FC3 was that the updates kept breaking things. At one point, logging in and out started taking forever. I decided to start using KDE, but the login manager would always default to Gnome, so every time, I would have to type my login id, password and select KDE as the window manager, otherwise it would start to login with Gnome, which would hang for 3-5 minutes.

When an update broke all ALSA sound on my laptop, is when I gave up on FC3 and began searching for another distro.
 
Old 05-17-2005, 08:39 PM   #19
Email-Guard
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Distribution: Red Hat 9.0
Posts: 1

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 4

Pros: Supports 64-bit, fast, recognized video and sound
Cons: needs alot of tweeking


Definatly have mixed feeling about this distro. I need to add mp3 and ntfs support myself. And i had major problems with GRUB. After an hour of messing around i figured out that to boot windows you need to remap the hard drives, and the automatic configuration is no good with more than one drive.

But on the other hand i runs FAST. Its the only stable 64-bit os i could download and it came with full support of my ATI card so it runs really fast.

Overall though I am not too impresed and i dont recomend it for linux noobs
 
Old 05-18-2005, 07:34 AM   #20
Inhuman!!!
 
Registered: May 2005
Posts: 4

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 7

Pros: easy to install,
Cons: no mp3 and video codec, no NTFS support, serious problem installing Fonts


Its a fedora distro I like most, it's much stable than previous ones and good looking by KDE3.3 ang GNOME 2.8. It tries to be be easy to use for newbies but I dont recomend it for portion to Linux, it has so many lacks for users.
 
Old 05-19-2005, 04:42 AM   #21
Fordor
 
Registered: Jun 2004
Distribution: Slackware/Crux/SuSE
Posts: 84

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? no | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 2

Pros: Beautiful GUI
Cons: mp3 not working/ full of bugs/no ntfs/no reiser/slow updates/desktop icons dissapear/slow gui


I have 2 days ago installed Fedora core 3 on my brother's PC, and I am very dissapointed in the OS. I don't know why so many use it, but the quality of this product kind of reminds me of windoze: I have found more bugs, then I find in M$ products.

So first of all the bug reports are always the following: an error has occured and the OK button. That is just not very clear. I consider myself an advanced linux user and have used many distros: slackware/gentoo/college/crux/suse and freebsd, and I have never seen this type of thing.

Also mp3's are not working, this sucks, because I am not just using the system for development, but like to hear my music collection.

Also during install there is no reiser/xfs support in the kernel, of course I can then manually recompile the kernel and get it working, but changing the root fs is not too pleasant.

The update server is very slow, I can dl sometimes only at 7kB/s and I don't have the nerves to wait for open office to dl at 7kB/s.

Sometimes the icons on the desktop just dissapear and that's not the window manager fault, because I use the same version in suse and it works flawless.

The gui is very slow and full of bugs. For example the downloads window takes 10 seconds to get into foreground from background, that's just impossible, in suse yast loads on the same machine 90% faster.
Also there are download bugs: when the downloads are finished and you click continue nothing happens: the nutton get's disabled and nothing. Also the up2date windows size doesn't fit into my resolution and is fixed width.

I don't know, maybe I could have found more, but I just don't have the tolerance to use this OS.
I wouldn't advice it to anyone: if you are advanced user use gentoo or crux(lightning fast, but requires strong linux knowledge - I use it for my server and works great), if a novice use SuSE (suse as fc also has reduced performance due to a lot of features).

Forgive me if I am wrong, but FC is considered to be easy-to-use and setup, but please...if a novice uses the auto-partition option on a 400Gig drive he will end up using ext3 on / and /home and /var, /tmp + ext3 on 400Gig is MADNESS. That's just an example: ext3 is not recommended for partitions > 6GB.

Ok, so I am very confused why this OS is so popular...maybe Red Hat was once good....
 
Old 05-21-2005, 04:24 PM   #22
comptiger5000
 
Registered: May 2005
Distribution: Fedora Core Since version 3
Posts: 193

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 9

Pros: Works great, very compatible
Cons: lack of mp3 out of the box, samba share connection doesn't work


FC3 works great, never had any problems except that the built in utility to connect to a samba share doesn't work, and you have to add mp3 support (reasonably simple)
 
Old 05-25-2005, 12:48 PM   #23
TruongAn
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Distribution: Gentoo (desktop), Arch linux (laptop)
Posts: 728

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: $1.50 | Rating: 9

Pros: Easy to use, stable, many great programs
Cons: Big, Slow


Have you seen the price. It 's average software price in Vietnam
1/2 bucks one CD.

The installion instruction was clear, anyone can intall this OS easily.
When linux first start, it recognize my modem eventhough windows need driver on CD. On the other hand, I don't recognize my soundcard.
I pleased that firefox and thunderbird is included. They are great.
The new configruation of gnome panels make the desktop clearer.
I choose Gnome because it run faster than KDE although Gnome is new to me.

In conclusion, this is a good distro for anyone who is new to linux
 
Old 05-27-2005, 09:59 AM   #24
kcpavan
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Posts: 7

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 7

Pros:
Cons:


Excellent.Only problem comes when we are using the ASLA which is sound system to records my beautiful voice:-).But somehow I am having problem in getting that.Other than that..Its excellent distro.

----My System Details------
DELL INSPIRON 600M
DUAL BOOTING WITH WINXP PROF.
 
Old 05-31-2005, 03:11 AM   #25
saneax
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Distribution: Gentoo, Suse, Fedora, Debian
Posts: 86

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 3

Pros: The Installation is smooth and has more to it than meets the eye
Cons: The biggest imperative, is the long time it takes to boot


The following points are good in fedora...
1) easy installation
2) many drivers and a probably best when you are installing on to a laptop or VM
3) RPM selections for the different installation types ... also perfect, which means generally you have all that you need.

The following I would say is deterrent...
1) no console management interface, because not all love the X (they should have had come up with something like yast done in ncurses)
2) The Package selection is very simple... more controll on package selection would be appropriate
3) package dependency problems, while all the rhel products suggest what's required to meet the dependencies. Also, redhat-config-package does a poor job in resolving dependencies
4) no support for other file systems like JFS, XFS or Reiserfs. Even if they have, there is no option at installation point to change the File Systems. Why so much partiality to ext3 ?
5) the default installation loads in the libgcj which really effects novices in getting there java code running... I guess they should have that optional.

probably many more... but definitely there management tools are a big downside... it rarely lets you configure nething, yes definitely breaks the config files..
like if I manually edit the ifcfg-eth0 file the redhat-config-network wouldnt start, it hangs...


 
Old 06-03-2005, 09:01 AM   #26
meverhagen
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Distribution: fedora core 3
Posts: 6

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 9

Pros: A easy to update. Fast program execution.
Cons: The missing codecs. Some programs take some time to start up.


I like fc3.

I am using the gtk things like gimp and glade, the newest version seem to work with warp speed and without any faults.
The programming evirionment is cool. There are lotīs of cool libraries and other programming stuff.
There is also a gtk library for my 12 x 12 inch drawing tablet. So I can write codes for my newest precision instrument.

I like the newest blender too. I like new export scripts.
A minor point is that fc3 doesnīt use the hardware rendering of my radeon 7000 video card, so 3d rendering is slow. (About 5 secs per picture, this isnīt bad. But I think it could be less than a sec with the hardware rendering. I think I will dump the radeon 7000 card.)

The open office evironment is great. I use it to create docs, html pages,administrative spreadsheats, presentations and a lot more.
I use scribus to create folders and namecards.

With lives I edit my home videoīs. I use mplayer to watch these. I use realplay to listen to the internet radio. The video thing isnīt good yet. I hate the codecs. To be able to watch or edit the avi videoīs created by my video camera I had to install dllīs. I think the dll codecs lead to the dark side.

The internet part is cool.
I have got my own apache prive server running. With php5 and mysql4. And mailman (for future use, I see mailman as a marketing tool).
I am working on a new 3d site. It will use the new x3d format in combination with php5 and mysql4
For the updating of my public website I mainly use firefox. My website is easy updateable with a browser. This is a thing I did when I designed the architecture of the site. But sometimes I use kbear and quanta.

To communicate I use kmail, firefox, chatzilla, thunderbird and skype (experimental phone).

So I think the fc3 is pretty good.

Marcel

Itīs ashame I still have some cheap hardware in my pc. This means fc3 freezes sometimes on overheating hardware.
 
Old 06-25-2005, 01:22 AM   #27
newuser455
 
Registered: May 2004
Posts: 277

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 8

Pros: Very easy to install
Cons: Kills RAM when used with GNOME


I am relatively new to Linux, and have so far used RH7.1, RH9, and FC3. Out of all of them, Fedora Core 3 has been the best for me. I had absolutely no problems installing it. Just don't try to run GNOME on a junky computer.
 
Old 06-25-2005, 02:49 PM   #28
thandermax
 
Registered: Jun 2005
Distribution: OpenSUSE 10.3 , 11.2 , Solaris 10, Ubuntu 9.10
Posts: 84

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 9

Pros: Very Stable and xServer dosent becomes sluggish when running many processes / program at once
Cons: No MP3,MPG,DIVx support, php is version 4.x


First sriking feature of this distribution is : it is Very stable even running about 300+ processes (yes i tried it) ,shows no sign of sluggishness when starting an application . Uses 2.6.9 version kernel. Task Shedduling algo is very good. You can keep running the Linux/XServer even if some programs hangs.

Has a problem It completely hangs when running KDE and then OpenOffice Writer and after writing few wrong spelled word and then right clicking any of the wrong spelled word. It's memory usage keeps incrising and after some times it hangs completely. Even after closing the OOWriter dosent help !

Good for avarage user and developers and software tester and first time user.
 
Old 07-05-2005, 07:19 AM   #29
rylan76
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Distribution: Fedora 17 - 3.3.4-5.fc17.x86_64
Posts: 1,477

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 8

Pros: Easy install, nice extra packages, easy to recompile / upgrade kernel
Cons: Doesn't allow GUI choice in installer, NO DMA on GA8-TRS350MT mobos


This is a great FC distribution - my only real problem was getting DMA to work on my GA8-TRS350MT motherboard. Eventually it neccessitated a download of the 2.6.12 kernel, lots of rooting around in the .config file for it, and then recompiling and installing a new kernel to get DMA.

Another small gripe is that the installer does not let you choose if you want to run KDE or GNOME if you choose not run in RL 5 - after installation, starting X manually in RL 3 gives you a really ugly terminal, and that's all. I had to hand-edit /etc/sysconfig/desktop to contain KDE to get KDE started.

Otherwise, great!
 
Old 07-14-2005, 09:40 PM   #30
ewaltd
 
Registered: Jul 2005
Distribution: SuSE 9.3 Pro and FC3
Posts: 17

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 5

Pros:
Cons:


Not too bad of a distro.

Some problems with up2date. I would suggest using yum instead.
 
Page:  1 · 2 · 3 More Items




  



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:10 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement

Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration