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 282072 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 11-11-2004, 04:37 AM   #1
HeatFire
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Distribution: Ubuntu 8.04
Posts: 5

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

Pros: fast, stable, easy to use
Cons: big, no MP3 and bad video support, glib wanna mess, no NTFS



After installing from the DVD( atleast one release that you can get on DVD) the typical fedora look and gnome said hi to me so after changing the theme on fedora to somthing more gnomy i found out that it's alot of uptodate stuffs (well atleast more then some other distros).

I must say that i recommend using gnome when it seems like gnome takes alot less from the comp, my fps in glxgears lowerd with 300-400 when i used KDE. but hmm that might just be somthing else.

Best linux i've tried so far, after finding an MP3 rpm to XMMS 1.2.10 (and fedora core 2) i got the music up,
later i installed NVIDIA display drivers (6629) but fedora kept deleting the /dev/nvidia* folders. found out on just this forum how to fix it.
(by doing $ cp -a /dev/nvidia* /etc/udev/devices
$ chown root.root /etc/udev/devices/nvidia*)
installed VLC for better video support.
i cant say i had any problems with this realse yet more then the glib problem.
installing NTFS support from linux-ntfs.sf.net/ made the system (almost) complete and i must say i love it, works great and very fast.
If it would come with support for MP3, NTFS it would be the best distro out right now, well, havent tried much but i've tried , slackware 10.0, mandrake 10.1, suse 9.1, fedora core 1 and 2.

thx for reading=)
 
Old 11-12-2004, 08:22 AM   #2
tddlard
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Distribution: Gentoo, Fedora, Debian,
Posts: 31

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

Pros: Kernel 2.6.9, Gnome 2.8, Firefox
Cons:


I found Fedora Core 3 extreamly easy to install thanks to anaconda. I installed by network install, which resulted in a very fast install.

I did not do an upgrade, however I did keep my /home partition, so I was pleased when my desktop stayed the same after installing.

A very good idea to have firefox installable by the setup process.

After installing apt for rpm from freshrpms.net there was already updates available. This gave me the chance to install other things like xmms-mp3 and xmms-crossfade, but this has been the case since Redhat 8.
 
Old 11-16-2004, 09:03 PM   #3
kt_leohart
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Distribution: Switched back to good old SuSE 9.1 :D
Posts: 30

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

Pros: Really easy newb -> happy
Cons: Hmm, can't find one


First of all, FC was the first distro I have ever tried when I started using Linux. I tried FC1, FC2, switched to SuSE and now back to FC3.

I have to say that FC3 is really user-friendly. For a newb like me, it took one night without much (or at all) extra info to set up Linux dual boot on both my desktop and laptop.

I downloaded the DVD ISO from BitTorrent with the speed of 500kb/s (well, direct download can't even beat that).

Then, the installation was the smoothest of all. It is very similar to SuSE and with the same simplicity (next, next, next, next, next , keep hitting next :D)

The comp boots extremely fast and so is the shut down process. Connect to the internet was automatic and I get the newest version of the number 1 browser as default (Firefox, yes baby. Love Firefox ^_^).

The interface: truly simplistic (or even minimalistic). Auto-mounting USB drive : -> now that is what I call 'life'.

Gnome does not have as much capacity as KDE (as I read in recent news and review) but partly because of that it runs much faster. I have not tried playing any serious game on my Athlon XP 3200+, Nvidia GF4 5700LE yet, but I know for sure that it is gonna run faster than SUSE Pro 9.2 with a sleek interface.

A great distro for new starter although improvement can be made on the file browser. Now I have one more thing to be proud of.

(Yes dude, I have nix on my laptop) ^_^
 
Old 11-18-2004, 06:45 AM   #4
caps_phisto
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: FC6, FC1-4, RH9, Gentoo 2006.0/1, Slackware 10.1/2,11, Vector SOHO 5.0.1
Posts: 237

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

Pros: XFCE; USB pen auto mount feature
Cons:


I'd have to say without a doubt it is about time FC came out with a smaller, and less bloated GUI. I work with many older machines and having a smaller, but still fully functional GUI is a definate plus. Don't get me wrong I am still a command-line user at heart, but I was getting a bit tired of KDE and GNOME. Fluxbox is alright, but not my cup of tea. For those who haven't tried XFCE give it a go. It is very small, and easy to pick up.
 
Old 11-22-2004, 08:52 PM   #5
nemy
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Distribution: Vector SOHO 5.1 and Suse 10.1
Posts: 25

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

Pros: Looks good, feels like a product that people still hooked on Windows could almost relate to.
Cons: It'd be nice if Nvidia drivers were included


As I'm truly a noob with Linux I can honestly say that FC3 made it easy to switch over from M$ (although I did configure dual boot with XP). FC has made it easy for me to learn a bit more about Linux and that, I feel, could make it truly appealling to more people.

My only complaint would be that the drivers for my Nvidia card aren't pre-installed. I understand this has to do with licensing, but why I'm not sure. I know that the drivers are available, but I'm still working on figuring out how to install them.

Other than that, FC3 (from which I updated from FC2) has been great.
 
Old 11-24-2004, 09:02 PM   #6
winsnomore
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: #1 PCLinuxOS -- for laughs -> Ubuntu, Suse, Mepis
Posts: 315

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? no | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 1

Pros: Thought it was an improvement over FC2
Cons: Worse than FC2


FC3 has a bug in the installation, I have reported it in th bugzilla. FC2 installed on my machine fine.

I tried installing FC3 on the SAME partition .. and it won't.

Apparently the FC team failed to fix the known problem of device geometry calculation. This problem was widely reporated and had workarounds and in the process introduce some more.
The brilliant folks at FC have manged to mess it up "more" than it was before .. now I can' t install it!!
(I have a 120G disk that CHS reads 80G)

(briefly it fails in the disk_commit() routine, throws exceptions like nuts when it seems heads >0 or sectors >=63 .. well sectors are ========================= 63 )

I am sure others had better luck with it .. but I didn't.

joy .. joy .. glory to the lord
 
Old 11-27-2004, 03:44 PM   #7
sdat1333
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Distribution: None right now :(
Posts: 149

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

Pros: Easy install; easy updates
Cons: won't work with my thumb drive; some errors occur when I try to install certain programs


This was one of the easiest linux installs I have ever seen. The only other distro IMO with this easy of an install is Mandrake 10.1. I switched from Mandrake so that I can get Free updates rather than have to pay for them. All in all, I recomend FC3 to anyone new to linux, or to anyone who needs a quick easy install.
 
Old 12-05-2004, 06:07 PM   #8
tisource
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 322

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 7

Pros: Decent selection of software, Gnome 2.8, KDE 3.3
Cons: Lacks MP3/NTFS support


Upon the recommendation of an associate, I downloaded the 3 FC3 ISO images and, after burning them, began my installation.

I selected a custom install (as always I always do), and found I lacked quite a bit of control over the install (in comparison to Mandrake or SuSE). It wasn't that different than any other Redhat or Fedora install. For the few packages I selected, I felt that 2 GB was a pretty bloated install.

Setup was easy and straight forward. All my hardware on this desktop PC was detected and installed, including my gigabit ethernet card.

Once the desktop was up and running, I logged in to find Gnome 2.8. The Gnome configuration was pretty clean. KDE, on the other hand, lacks a clean configuration, and wasn't very stable. It consistently locked up on me.

I run Redhat up2date, and downloaded the latest package updates, which fixed my KDE issues (stability problems).

The biggest problems with this distro is the lack of MP3 and NTFS support. I was able to find 3rd party NTFS support for FC3, but getting MP3 support isn't quite as easy.

I tried installing Firefox using the installer, but I got C++ runtime errors. Thunderbird failed to run also.

Overall, I felt Fedora's desktop lacked when compared to other desktops (SuSE and Mandrake, in particular). I was disappointed not to find amaroK or Juk included with FC3 (if they're there, I couldn't find them).

Fedora Core 3 is probably the best Fedora to date. It was much more stable for me than earlier Fedora releases. When compared to other user-friendly distros, however, like Mandrake or SuSE, Fedora lacks in configuration and availability.
 
Old 12-09-2004, 02:45 PM   #9
gruiz001
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Distribution: Almost all
Posts: 4

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? no | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 4

Pros: Gnome 2.8, Firefox (lovely), New KDE, USB pendrive support
Cons: KDE unstable, no MP3, bad video support, glib messy, no NTFS, no nvidia support, LVM sucks


I tried FC3, it's supposed to be great, but i've got a dissapointment...

The installation works fine but I'd like to pick packages one by one 'cause sometimes the system install packages I never use and I can take'em out (something like yast would make life easier).

Installation enables lots of daemons you'll never use, so, edit the init levels...

The firts time I install fc3, installation uses LVM for partitioning, but it lacks a lot my computer (I got a Celeron 2.8), so I reinstall and use ext3 and typical partitioning (i got to make it manually...worse)

I tried Kde first, but it compsumes all my RAM, then several segfaults makes me change to gnome which compsumes less ram. I've got to look for some packages separatelly (ntfs, mp3, video core, codecs for divx, and other formats) and i tried to reconfigure it to make my machine faster but the system config is so lacky that it makes it disgusting...

Now the daily lesson: go back to SuSE.
 
Old 12-13-2004, 04:15 PM   #10
JeanBrownHarrel
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: Ubuntu Linux 12.04 [64-bit version] THE BEST!!!
Posts: 50

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? no | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 1

Pros: Newer than FC2, Firefox browser & that's all!
Cons: Absolutely NO GOOD!!!-Went back to FC2 which is MUCH BETTER!!!


I downloaded Disc 1, a perfect download. Discs 2, 3 & 4 & rescuecd all downloaded corrupt. After 6 corrupt downloads of Disc 2, I lowered the speed of my RAM from 400 to 200 MHZ and disabled DMA on my hard drive. Finally was able to obtain a good download. After a few more corrupt downloads and trying again, I finally got all discs downloaded perfectly and did an install. I first tried it on my Dell Latitude C600 laptop but it botched the install as it misconfigured the display screen. I had a double/ghost image on the screen and couldn't even see the screen clearly enough to configure the display. I had to do a fresh install of FC2 and the double/ghost image thing was nowhere near as bad. I adjusted the resolution to thousands of colors from millions of colors and made sure it was 1024x768 and FC2 displayed fine. I then did an upgrade and it FINALLY worked. Then I went and upgraded my FC2 installation on my main computer to FC3. [I had tried FC2 the 64-bit version but I had too many problems with it and I have a 64-bit AMD Athlon64 3400 processor. The 32-bit version worked much better and there was more software available and the 32-bit software worked better.] It seemed to do good but I had even more problems. It configured my LCD monitor fine but with the 2.6.9 kernel it would not even burn a CD or even a DVD. I had to login as root to do it. Then there were even more problems with other programs and I did NOT like the look of the new gnome desktop. The new Gnome desktop STINKS!!! It then would not do other things and was getting steadily worse. I had enough and just finally wiped my hard drive clean of FC3 out of pure frustation with the many problems I was having with it and I did another fresh install of FC2 again and it is working fine. Did the same with my laptop and it is working fine. Oh man, what a headache FC3 is! I think I will bypass FC3 and upgrade straight from FC2 to FC4 when FC4 comes out in May 2005 (?). Till then I will stick with FC2. Even FC1 was better than FC3 and I love Linux. I even still have Red Hat Linux 9 on my hard drive ready to burn to CD when I need it. Maybe someday when they come out with a 64-bit version that works OK, I will try it. Till then I will stick with the 32-bit version as it works much better. I think they should send FC3 to the junkyard or the graveyard and proceed straight to FC4. Thanks but no thanks. I could never recommend FC3 to anyone; only FC2, FC1, and Red Hat Linux 9 and Knoppix 3.3, 3.4, 3.6 which I have. I am now downloading Knoppix 3.7 & expect to enjoy it!
 
Old 12-13-2004, 09:15 PM   #11
cwlee
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Distribution: Fedora Core 3
Posts: 10

Rep: 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: Works ok with my Triplex Silver Millennium video card
Cons: Couldn't get past the Disk Partitioning Stage


Downloading of the DVD ISO was good. Didn't have to use 4 CDs and risk them being corrupted during burn.

Installation hit a show-stopper which turned out to be a bug (found the solution at bugzilla @ Redhat) during the Disk Partitioning Stage.

Dislike the part that the kernel source was not included.

Dislike the fact that FC had no freely available documentation specific to its distro.

Gave me lots of headahe trying to get my USB wireless lan adapter MA101 & Belkin F5D6050 working.

In the end, I swapped to CentOS 3.3.

Have FC2 installed on my laptop & CentOS 3.3 on my PC (dual boot with Win2K).
 
Old 12-14-2004, 01:22 PM   #12
jollyjoice
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Distribution: Gentoo 64
Posts: 383

Rep: 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: Smooth install, fast, GNOME, FIREFOX!!!
Cons: Nvida drivers a bit fiddly to install - Updates listed but not downloading


Ok, install went fine (in text) and when I got into Gnome for the first time there were 70 updates, (thank God for broadband). Comes with more software than I will ever need, just not everything I actually want, i.e. XMMS. had to install that from a fed1 RPM. This leads to a problem, the redhat update thingy tells me there is an update for it, ok up2date says there isn't. Also with grep.
Gnome 2.8 is nice, change the default theme tho, Its horrid. XFCE is useful on the 300 mhz desktop i'm (trying to) use as a server, KDE is also quite nice but I'd say use GNOME and don't bother with KDE and save some diskspace and downloads (I installed it later and now can't un-install it, argh!)
As for custom installs if you click "details" you CAN select
individual stuff.
Inclusion of firefox was an excelent decision, its the default browser, but it will need updating.
Downloaded fed CD ISOs as a torrent, took a few days - can't remember exactly but about a day and a half, no probs with curruption here.
Over all a very nice distro.
 
Old 12-16-2004, 05:11 AM   #13
ashwin_cse
 
Registered: Jul 2004
Distribution: arch, rhel
Posts: 132

Rep: 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: easy to use, install
Cons: memory hungry


My first Linux distro was RHL9, since then i have been a fan of redhat distro. Its easy to use & has good hardware detection. All my hardware was detected during the installation process. If u want to run X then its definetly mem hungry. Especially evolution & openoffice (i think redhat cannot do anything about these b'cos these r app. specific issues). The firefox is included by default. Firefox is great. On the bad part they have enabled SELinux by default for clean install. AFAIK SELinux could cause problems. Nvidia users may face problem (b'cos of its closed source drivers), i am not sure about it since i don't use Nvidia. Overall i like it.
 
Old 12-20-2004, 04:56 PM   #14
midgcool
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Distribution: Ubuntu 5.04
Posts: 77

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: 9

Pros: Fast, Stable, up2date, Yum and Apt
Cons: Problems with USB devices


Hello

Having changed from Mandrake 10 to Fedora Core 3, I am plesantly suprised considering some of the reviews on here, I was a KDE man but now definatly prefer Gnome. Fedora is fast and stable. Installing was quick and easy and once done you are left with many applications ready to use.

Im not sure what peoples problems are with mp3 support, just download Xine and its its various plugins and your sorted, and for video grab mPlayer and its plugins, again your sorted, would be nice if it came with native mp3 support but its no biggie.

Yum is a great feature, and I would definatly reccomend grabbing Apt, command line program to find and download applications, Even better get Synaptic, this is a GUI frontend for Apt and is briliant, this is one of the best features of Fedora Core.

My major problem so far has been with mounting USB devices, my external USb cd-rw could not be found and thus I couldnt mount it, and im having problems using a pen drive, hopefully some sort of fix will be released.

Fedora core is also the first Distro that I have got my iPod to work with, using the ipod software avaliable form sourceforge, this is really usefull.

As for NTFS support, a download can fix this, search for it on sourceforge and then edit the /etc/fstab files and your away.

So Fedora Core 3 is fast, stable, loaded with apps but less user friendly and more complicated than Mandrake.

Chris
 
Old 12-29-2004, 02:41 PM   #15
jimispier
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Distribution: Fedora Core 3
Posts: 8

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: 10

Pros: Just works...
Cons: I can't kill it! (It won't play DVD's, not a biggie for me)


The best Distro of linux I have ever encountered.. I was using Lycoris 1.4 Eval until I found that I could get a FULL version of Fedora for FREE!! Plus unlike most of the others I have tried Fedora picked up my wireless net card during the install process.. I didn't even have to go through any long annoying process to get it to work.. I have had bad experiences with redhat in the past but that was mostly due to my inexperience and linux still being too young for newbie to play with..
This release of Fedora Core is the best thing since toilet paper and sliced bread.. Especially since I am using a Laptop..

Laptop Specs:
Hp Pavilion ZE1115
20GB HDD
256MB Memory
Linksys WPC11 Wireless card
DVD Rom
 
Old 12-29-2004, 06:25 PM   #16
kevinatkins
 
Registered: Jan 2004
Distribution: Ubuntu Hoary
Posts: 605

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: 6

Pros: Smooth installation; good looking desktop; cutting edge
Cons: Cutting edge; Horrid software installer; mediocre performance; buggy



I installed this from a magazine cover DVD.

The installation went well - surprised to find no means of resizing partitions, but other than that, pretty good.

To my eyes, the standard Gnome desktop looks great - in fact, from boot up onwards, this distro just looked sooo slick.

I wasn't particularly impressed with the config tools - rather scattered. And the standard 'Add / Remove Programs' app was absolutely cr*p - yes, I know Synaptic is available, but the standard issue is truly hopeless...This distro really could do with a centralised config application, such as YaST (recently GPL'd, hint hint FC3 developers...!)

Unfortunately, a few problems cropped up - the cutting-edge DBUS / HAL proved problematic, completely freezing out access to CD-ROMs.. The same problem occurred for me with UBuntu Warty. Googling around, it would appear that the HAL developers are aware of the issue, and in truth, there may be a hardware problem with my particular machine, but HAL overall seems a wee bit too immature at the moment...

So that's where my journey with FC3 ended - shame, because it looked really promising.

I shall wait six months or so and try again - hopefully by that time, HAL will be more stable, and when it is - it's going to be a force to be reckoned with!!
 
Old 01-07-2005, 05:53 PM   #17
d0g
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Distribution: Fedora 7
Posts: 35

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?: D/L | Rating: 9

Pros: Fast, stable, RPM and yum, Anaconda complaining about hard disk geometry, GNOME 2.8, X.Org 6.8.1
Cons: No MP3 support, GStreamer based Totem, parted unable to resize FC3's ext3 partitions, Anaconda complaining about hard disk geometry, GNOME 2.8, default Add/Remove packages tool, Java WebStart not working


FC3 is better than FC1 and waaaaay better than FC2 - faster and more stable than any other *NIX i've used, including FreeBSD.

The installation took more than two days because Anaconda was complaining about my HDD geometry. The previous versions had an option to ignore it, on FC3 it caused installation to abort. I take this as a pro because it really was a time for me to correct it. The bad thing is that Anaconda doesn't say which hard drive has incorrect partitions. So it took a lot of time to me to realise that the second hard drive i used for backups has this issue too. The installation went perfect after i unplugged the second drive.

At the package selection i noticed that Totem was available and i thought - w00t, this is really cool. But it turned out that Totem that comes with FC3 uses GStreamer and GStreamer has never worked for me, so i had to install one with Xine.

RH/FC has always lacked MP3 support but as long as you have yum and internet connection this is no more an issue.

X.Org 6.8.1 are another thing i like about FC3. I've always liked Metacity but unfortunately Metacity without GNOME is too bare and there are things in GNOME 2.8 i dislike very much (spatial Nautilus - luckily i can turn it off, managing removable media from "Computer" instead of right-click desktop menu etc). But i still think GNOME is better than KDE and ROX, and has more functionality than XFCE.

Unfortunately parted can't resize ext3 partitions created by FC3, so when i decided to get rid of WinXP and it's NTFS partition to give more space for / and /home, it caused my brain to think a bit ;)

The default package management tool currently is useless and really needs some improvements. Luckily there is Yum Extender, a nice yum frontend that does the job.

I was pretty well informed how to get nVidia drivers working with udev so it was as easy as usual.

Since i installed FC3 i've had no issues with it, maybe because i'm just lucky, maybe because i prefer to read release notes and FAQ befor installing new version of FC.
 
Old 01-11-2005, 04:09 AM   #18
cydermaster
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 5

Rep: 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: Friendly Install, Plenty of community support
Cons: No mp3 support 'out of the box'


I've been running FC2 for six months. Put FC3 on, last night. Used a new, fresh hdd. It didn't like my Intel 815 graphics card, but a quick google produced a workaround. Mp3 support had to be downloaded seperatly, but again google helps with that.

Not so sure about having the 'top & bottom' bars in Gnome, but we'll see how it goes.

Apart from the graphics trouble; the hardest part of loading it was looking for my little bag of comp-screws to put the new hdd in with!
 
Old 01-16-2005, 11:41 AM   #19
antidelldude
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Distribution: Fedora Core 3/Ubuntu (debian)
Posts: 103

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?: None indicated | Rating: 9

Pros: Program Packages and Server Configuration
Cons: Installer has a few bugs, bit unstable


I don't know what everyone is complaining about. the imstaller has a few bugs, so what. What do you expect if you click auto config. I personally like to manually tell it what to do. The packages are very nice and are very easy to administer. Especially the server packages. I had hell with samba on suse and with FC3 I got it to work first try. I really have nothing bad to say that is just horrible and annoying.
 
Old 01-17-2005, 07:53 PM   #20
wellander
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Distribution: Too many to list.
Posts: 48

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?: $15.00 | Rating: 10

Pros: I love it all.
Cons: No Netscape Communicator and Mozila app suite.


Hi,
I love it all.
Except for no Netscape Communicator and Mozilla Suite.
I bought it from a third party distributer.
 
Old 01-19-2005, 12:30 PM   #21
Barry Bingham
 
Registered: Jan 2004
Distribution: Fedora Core 4
Posts: 45

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? yes | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 9

Pros: Stability, new packages, choice of yum & apt
Cons: Lacks coherent gui configuration utilities


Bit of a revelation. I'd tried FC2 but found it unwilling to work with too many things for me to make the effort to make it work - so I had low expectations. Previous experience of Mandrake - 9.2, 10 & 10.1 - SuSe - 9.0 and Ubuntu/Warty - all of which are , imo, easier to set up in the first place than FC.

But FC3 rewards persistence and I now have the most stable Linux system since I first dipped toe outside of M$ some eighteen months ago. It also does everything I need it to without resort to an M$ partition - so I now have two M$-free PCs. And it wasn't THAT hard to set up - just requires a bit more thought and application than the likes of Mandrake - which looks deceptively easy but all too often crashed as though it was M$ Windows ME on a bad day.....

I have to say that Ubuntu was both faster and easier to set up - and apparently as stable - on my old PIII-600. But the Athlon 64 was a different ball game and here only FC3 delivers.....
 
Old 01-24-2005, 11:07 PM   #22
JonVO
 
Registered: Dec 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:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 8

Pros: relatively easy install, lots of "stuff", stable and fast
Cons: way too big (7.6G full), no MP3, no Nvidia, no NTFS, update issues


Been using Linux since RH5.2, my verison 7.2 RH release just worked, everything was smooth. This FC3 release is my first 64Bit, overall is stable and there is a fair amt of help to get the install running. For me, it appears one needs to just install everything, as I have had lots o' problems with an earlier limited install - that means 8GIG of stuff, much of which I just don't need or want. Plus I'm still struggling w/ java and mplayer and NTFS support. Overall tho, would recommend this on the AMD64 espec over the alternatives.
 
Old 01-26-2005, 01:38 PM   #23
woranl
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Distribution: Fedora Core
Posts: 119

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?: D/L | Rating: 8

Pros: tons of rpm packages on the net, fast, easy to configure
Cons: selinux is still buggy


you probably hear a lot of good thing about FC3. So I won't bother saying any pros anymore. In my opinion, seLinux is still buggy. When operating FC3 as webserver (with PHP, MySQL, & Apache) I've to disable seLinux to actually let PHP and MySQL work together; which totally destroy the whole meaning of seLinux

Maybe seLinux is more secure. But does it really worth that much time to make it actually work?
 
Old 02-03-2005, 11:33 PM   #24
DJOtaku
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Distribution: Fedora 20; Arch; Kubuntu; Debian
Posts: 710

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?: D/L | Rating: 10

Pros: Latest and Greatest stuff
Cons: No out-of-"box" mpeg support


If you like the latest stuff together with a lot of stability you could do no better than the Fedora Cores. Released at a dizzying pace of 2-3 releases per year, it always has the latest versions of everything. Of all the current distrobutions it is the only one using the 2.6 kernel, giving your computer speed improvements. They have the latest KDE and Gnome and life just can't get much better in the world of Linux Distros.

Additionally, it recognizes a lot more sound cards and other peripherals from being so up to date.

Oh yeah and one "joke" benefit -> if you are a publisher of Linux distrobutions such as Sams Unleashed, you get to sell books to people like crazy - assuming they buy one every core. I have one from Core 1 because it came with the CDs back when I was a newbie and wanted to have a reference book instead of scouring google for every little query I had. However, I haven't bought any others and may or may not buy FC 4 book depending upon whether they have a lot of different information or if it's mostly the same.

Now the cons, but they are so trivial to me that I still give Fedora Core 3 a rating of 10.

No mpeg support. This is, at first, a huge pain in the rear. But once you realize that all you have to do is download the xmms-mp3 rpms or the kde rpms from kde-redhat.sourceforge.net which reallow mpeg support, everything is great. So you can't dump it on the computer and play mp3s instantaneously, but after about 5-10 minutes you'll be fine.

A semi-con -> if you have an older computer (I'm running it on a P2 and a P3) this distro can be a bit on the slow side. For me, everything functions fine but Openoffice.org is a little slow to start. It takes 1-2 minutes to start up (think Office 2003 on Win 98). But once the program is up it works just fine. If you have a computer 4 years or newer it should work just fine.

Only one other con -> to me this isn't a con, but for some people, especially SOHO group, the rapid development cycle can be a bit much. As soon as you think you have everything figured out, a new core is out. You don't HAVE to upgrade, and in fact they recommend upgrading every other time, but then you lose on one of the best features of FC. However, having worked internships in Fortune 500 companies, I know that glacial pace at which the IT department functions. Additionally, training people and upgrading all of the terminals can be a real pain.
 
Old 02-04-2005, 07:35 AM   #25
db0
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 10

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: 9

Pros: Large Community with great support, Bleeding Edge Technology
Cons: Resource Heavy, Some Configuration Problems


I'be frank here. I haven't tried any non-RH distributions, mainly because I didn't feel the need.
Fedora has everything I need.
I've gone from RH 7.3 to 9 to FC 1-3 and I've learned all I know from Linux from them.
Fedora is quick to install, with options to help you choose the quantity of packages and applications you want to install (there's quite a lot of them too).
You can also choose between KDE and Gnome as desktops or you can have both of them to get the best compatibility.
Once the system is set-up, you are ready to go since it tends to recognise almost all hardware on the first time and it rarely requires any more configuration.
Fedora can use 3 different update systems: Up2Ddate (graphical GUI), yum (command line) and apt-get/synaptic (text with an optional graphical gui). The repositories have the most bleeding edge updades you will need (with a sore spot being the dependency conflicts between apt-get and yum/up2date repositories) and you're just a few clicks or letters away from an update to the newest versions. However that may not always be possible due the sheer quantity of stuff you'll have to update (On a semi-full install expect something like 400-500 MB of updates)

Fedora does seem to be a little resource hungry however since it tends to get a little sluggish once many programs are open at together, even if those programs are not very heavy.

I recommned fedora to everyone who wants an relatively easy-to-use system as well as great community support (The mailing list generates hundreds or mails per day and a response to a problem usually comes within minutes)
 
Old 02-04-2005, 08:57 PM   #26
neoAThome
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Distribution: K-Ubuntu (64-bit) and FC4 which messed up kubuntu also
Posts: 31

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?: D/L | Rating: 9

Pros: Fast, Kernel 2.6.9, DVD-RW probs
Cons: Touchpad and nVidia problems


Well,
i would say that its a lot better than Mandrake 10.1 OE.

the wireless network was up and working in 5 min.
sound in another 5.

but it didnt detect my touchpad !!! (my roommates mouse came in handy)
having problems with the DVD writing it might be k3b

After all these years REDHAT is still dependable. :)
 
Old 02-07-2005, 05:08 AM   #27
johnnydangerous
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Distribution: Fedora Core 4 Rawhide
Posts: 431

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: 10

Pros: ALL-IN-ONE like Firefox, relatively new kernel, single DVD instal
Cons: no support for ATI Radeon yet :(


great performance, nice and clean distro :) great included apps, so far no sign of the "unstable" flag exept occasional window failure which is easily managed with the click-to-force-quit tool and not by any means caused by the distro itself :)
 
Old 02-09-2005, 06:22 PM   #28
bafisk
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Posts: 2

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: 8

Pros: Installed on my Compaq EVO perfectly
Cons: no NTFS, bloated install, wireless tricky


All CD's downloaded perfectly and quickly, installation is bloated and package controls needed for more granular control, in particular, dev tools. Recognized all my hardware including my Linksys WC11 wireless card, but would not function stable until after all updates applied. PCMCIA hotplug working great after updates. Overall a very good product and I like much better than FC1. However will never be preferred desktop for average home user until browsers improve and plugins install transparently. Sun's java plugin's haven't caught up with latest glibs and don't work for most applets. Oh well, still worth while.
 
Old 02-09-2005, 06:23 PM   #29
mebrelith
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 342

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?: D/L | Rating: 10

Pros: Easy safe install, Firefox
Cons: None I can think off


Im a complete noob in linux, less than a year and Ive tried every distro I could until I found FC3.
From the get go FC3 and I had no problems worked just fine from installing, tweaking, customizing and everyday using. Had no problems about MP3's since I'm an OGG user and even if I had to the mp3 issue could be solved. NTFS access was easy to find and install so no problems there either.
One thing Ive noticed is that a lot of people say that Gnome is better in FC3 while KDE is unstable and resource-hungry; well, let me tell you I think is the other way around, I got tired of Gnome pretty fast and use KDE as my default desktop with only two g-apps in my menu: firestarter and gaim.

To wrap this up: I totally recommend this distro for anyone out there, specially if you're a noob like me you'll find this distro to be the best.
 
Old 02-22-2005, 08:50 PM   #30
DoubleOTeC
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Distribution: RedHat, FC1, FC3, FC4
Posts: 266

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?: D/L | Rating: 5

Pros: Great Hardware recognition, Technological improvements
Cons: Imcomplete


I installed FC3 after great trials and tribulations.

First it complained of my partition table problems, then i got the fix for that, and the first install attempt wouldn't boot.

I got it installed, and found that my fomer dual monitor capabilities had been sacrificed in the upgrade. This, in my opinion, is only a M$ method of upgrade - breaking something that works in an effort to improve.

Several changes were made, some sensible. I do, however, find it ridiculous to change the device names at the OS level and mount them in diferent places, without making allowance for the software.

The changing of permissions on the devices on every boot is annoying.

In short while I use FC3 and it has recognised my hardware better than any of it predecessors, I believe it was released prematurely it is some thing of a beta. I can't give a newbie FC3 to run and tell them how great Linux is, when some thing as simple as playing a CD didn't work when my installation was complete. A few things had to be tidied up before release.

I hope and expect FC4 to be much better.
 
Page:  1 · 2 · 3 More Items




  



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:15 AM.

Main Menu
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