LinuxQuestions.org
Go Job Hunting at the LQ Job Marketplace
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Reviews > Distributions > Fedora Project
User Name
Password

Notices

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

Fedora Core 6
Reviews Views Date of last review
32 166829 10-05-2007
spacer
Recommended By Average Price Average Rating
100% of reviewers None indicated 8.5



Description: After a less than impressive version 5 the newly released Fedora Core 6 is an outstanding move forward. Functioning as a desktop / workstation OS on a Toshiba laptop performance is good with Compiz wobbling the windows and generally looking awfully good. As always a little tuning is required to remove unneeded services, ndiswrapper was the only hope for wireless networking and a kernel rebuild is necessary for Toshiba suspend to ram to work but first impressions are very, very good.
One important fact though - FC6 is faster, more reliable and better looking than Windows Vista. Maybe, just maybe, this distro can open a few more eyes.
Keywords: Fedora Core 6


Author
Post A Reply 
Old 11-05-2006, 08:39 PM   #1
angryfirelord
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Posts: 498

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

Pros: new everything!
Cons: installs i586 kernel by default (on i386 image)



This distro has definately improved since FC5. It does boot faster than its previous versions and actually has been relatively stable so far. All the software is new and nothing has broken yet.

Adding Compiz is easy. Just do a yum kmod-nvidia on nvidia cards and that will get it up and running. Make sure you use livna-testing as the nvidia beta driver only supports it. There actually is an option, "Desktop Effects" that let you turn it on and off.

Yum was supposed to have speed improvements. While somewhat faster, it still insists on checking the repos everytime I wish to install something.

& of course, the usual lack of multimedia support.

The only really big bug is that Anaconda installs a i586 kernel by default. Upgrading to i686 is as easy as rpm -Uvh --replacefiles --replacepkgs kernel-2.6.18-1.2798.fc6.i686.rpm

Other than that, very impressed, especially by the DNA background.
 
Old 11-08-2006, 07:32 AM   #2
kevxh
 
Registered: Apr 2006
Distribution: Fedora Core 6
Posts: 0

Rep: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 10

Pros: As said - everything
Cons:


As an update to my initial review - been playing around and tuning for a week or so now and I'm more impressed than ever. I'm a bit of a newbie really, make my living from Microsoft so Linux has always just been a curiosity to me but no more.

Installed it to a P4 1.7Ghz with just 256mb and 16mb ATI card - NOT a fast machine but after I turned off some services, tuned hard disk parameters and a few bits here and there it performs like a dream. I agree with all comments above although it did install the correct (i686) kernel and yes, updating software afterwards can be a little tedious.

The important thing really is that I've been running Windows XP on this machine with disgusting performance, I know it's old but I didn't want to retire it. Now I can run a modern OS with high performance - I'm so very, very impressed.
 
Old 11-15-2006, 09:23 PM   #3
bswanson27
 
Registered: May 2006
Posts: 0

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 0

Pros: Easy install
Cons: Can't set up networked printer on Windows 2003


It was so easy with FC 5. Now with fc6 I have tried so many combinations that I have given up and looking for another distribution.

http://631
uri: //workgroup/192.168.15.225/HPDeskJe shows a connection but refuses to print.
 
Old 11-16-2006, 07:38 PM   #4
bswanson27
 
Registered: May 2006
Posts: 0

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 0

Pros: Easy install
Cons: Printer


Finally got the printer to work!
Installed without firewall and SELinux.
Use URI: //localhost.localdomain/ipToPrinterServer/PrinterShareName.
 
Old 11-21-2006, 08:09 AM   #5
tamal
 
Registered: Mar 2006
Posts: 13

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

Pros: Virtualisation, frequent upgrade, stable, compact, fast
Cons: need summary in package selection screen


Fedora core is one of the widely supported and FREE Linux distributions.
FC6 now includes kernel-2.6.18 which now supports "pushing the power button of the cabinet to shut-down". I wanted this feature in FC5 and found in FC6.
In FC5, I had a problem with X server. It vanishes here.
 
Old 11-26-2006, 02:17 PM   #6
cyberwere
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Distribution: Fedora Core 6 - AMD64
Posts: 1

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

Pros: Easy install. Easy setup of programs with Yum and Yumex. Nice looking grahical interfaces.
Cons: Problems installing with Nvidia cards. Needs more repositories.


I tried the 64-bit version of Fedora Core 6 and was impressed. It has one of the best looking implementations of the Gnome Desktop that I have seen. Things were pretty easy to set up using command line and Yumex. It could, however, use more repositories. There was only two available from what I saw. I had some sort of bug with my mouse in Fedora: it would pin my mouse pointer to the left side of the screen and the only way to fix it was to reboot. I also couldn't get Cedega running properly under Fedora Core 6.

A word of warning to some users with Nvidia graphics cards: You will have to do a text install on this one. The default drivers don't work, not even the vesa drivers. I had to install the Nvidia drivers via the command line using the Livna repository and then configuring Fedora to boot into runlevel 5. I finally got the Gnome Desktop to boot.
 
Old 12-08-2006, 01:25 AM   #7
Pip
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Distribution: Arch & Slackware
Posts: 9

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

Pros: Easy to use and powerful & stable
Cons: Everthing is less perfect than what you imagine it to be


I changed my linux from Redhat Advanced Enterprise to Fedora Core 6 not long ago. Everything is so smooth and fine because they are relations: )
But FC6 looks more stable than the so called "Stable King".You can enjoy all new releases of free software with the wonderful linux distribution without any installation problems(yum and apt-rpm ,smart etc.).So if you really want have a powerful linux for desktop and servers,FC6 should be your best choice I think.
I am a software developer,so my most important need is "stability",and I got it : )
 
Old 12-13-2006, 07:03 AM   #8
prometheusracer
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Distribution: Mint 7, running on a 1.6GHz centrino duo, 2048MB, 80GB, NVidia 7300 512MB laptop
Posts: 30

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 10

Pros: Easy install, Excellent stability, compatibility, eye candy......
Cons: Took me a while to figure out the NVidia stuff... but I'm a recent M$ convert...


Got really annoyed with sluggish XP, so erased it and installed FC6 in a bid of desparation. Best move I ever made by the look of it.

In the past month, it has crashed once only, and that was because I was using root constantly...

Wonderful wonderful distro
 
Old 12-15-2006, 04:48 AM   #9
Khawk
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Posts: 21

Rep: 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, package management/installation,
Cons: "Select all" option missing during installation, installing packages from CD is a mess


ok, I have been using FCs for a while and found FC6 pretty impressive. But dont know why FC5 is regarded as less stable than FC6, as FC6 crashed a couple of times on PC and laptop (at one time X Server was not running:)). Nothing that happened with me while using FC5

Pros: Hardware recognition is damn impressive. As on a laptop, XP couldnt pick any of the dirvers whereas using FC6 audio, networking and VGA were working perfectly. [I have a history of playing with audio in Linux, so it was impressive :)]

Havent explored all the options in FC6 but a couple annoying things I would like point out.

There is no "Select All" option during Installation, which I really hate. [I guess this option was absent in FC5 as well]

Installing a package from CD after installation is not straight forward as it used to be, without creating yum repository.

KDE Desktop pager seems to have problem with 3D-Desktop, as shows only one desktop on task panel.
 
Old 12-16-2006, 10:29 AM   #10
zoomgofstr
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Distribution: Fedora Core 6
Posts: 0

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

Pros: fast start-up, Ease of installation, Very compatible coming over from Windows XP.
Cons: ATI x1300 video card problems, I586 issues, Mshome Network access is up and down.


I have been using Linux off and on for 8 - 10 years. I have not made it to the "confident user" status yet. Do to complicated installation procedures and incompatibility issues. However, this version of Fedora Core has been the easiest to install and operate.
For the fact that I have been a Windows user for all of those years as well, This version of Linux made the cross-over easy for me.
While I am sure it isn't new "Yum" is an exceptional tool. For searching and installing packages you may want to use and/or experiment with. With FC6 the package updater runs smoothly and provides sufficient detail of the packages available for upgrade.
I previously had Fedora Core 5 running on a Dell-build desktop computer (Dimension 3000). I had Linux and Windows on a hot-swap drive bay. I managed to do the install (GUI) on the on-board Intel video and then it took some manipulation to FC5 to recognize the Ati x1300 video card to work with it. When I reinstalled to FC6 it would not start the GUI and failed to identify the Ati card. I attempted to update the core following the info provided at rpm.livna.org and other recommendations but I was not successful. So I installed FC6 on an older home built machine with a Nvidia Geforce2 MX/MX400 video card without any problems.
Easy access to my Windows Mshome network. As I stated in the cons, it is up and down, when the access is up it is good to go, but for some unknown reason to me it goes down. Rhythmbox Music player requires upgrade to play MP3s, do to MP3 legal issues with Fedora.
If your new to Linux and want to experiment with or experience the Linux revolution I recommend Fedora Core 6.
 
Old 12-26-2006, 03:59 PM   #11
richard wayburn sr
 
Registered: Apr 2006
Distribution: SuSe10
Posts: 33

Rep: 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: easy to install, very stable, easy to upgrade, works great!
Cons: multi media support


Loaded it in, upgraded it, and took off.
No problems, good stable, great for a Linux novice.
Recognized all the hardware immediately, including the printer, with no tweaking needed at all.
 
Old 12-31-2006, 11:22 AM   #12
sujinge9
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Posts: 6

Rep: 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, stable, works well for office tasks, detected hardware
Cons: Lack of drivers or something for ethernet and grx card. lack of multimedia support


I upgraded to this from Redhat 9 because there was no longer support for Redhat. Overall, this works just like redhat but with a few extra commands and stuff like yum. Overall, I liked it better then redhat, but there was something wrong with my ethernet connection. The modem and connection was detected and I could use the internet for about a minute until it would disconnect and I would have to manually disconnect the cable cord then replug it, and it would work for a minute, then disconnect again. I think its just picky about my ethernet port. It also lacked drivers for Geforce 7s but it came out in the early 2000s so I guess thats not it's problem.
 
Old 01-08-2007, 10:14 PM   #13
esdumbo2003
 
Registered: Jan 2007
Posts: 0

Rep: 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: 0

Pros: Stable and works well how database server
Cons: Lack of some importants libraries for 64 bits distro


I use FC4 64 bits in an production environment with Firebird Database Server for one year, with a Dell PowerEdge Server. The installation was easy and the tuning too.
Two weeks ago we upgraded to FC6 64 bits, but this time we have problems because some libraries don't be available. But now the server is running OK. Tree years ago we work for a year with mandrake comunity edition. For desktop I think Mandrake (now mandriva) is a litle better, but for server Fedora is the winner.

Before use linux for database server we used Windows 2000 server with Firebird 1.5. We test and compare for two months in two identical machines with the same database and the performance in a linux was 50% and some cases 80% better than Windows. This was the first reason to change a linux environment, the second was use a complete open source solution (FC4 now FC6 and Firebird Database Server)
 
Old 01-10-2007, 04:48 PM   #14
Lsatenstein
 
Registered: Jul 2005
Distribution: Fedora Core 6 XEN
Posts: 194

Rep: 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: works right out of the box
Cons: In the three months, there have been almost 200 updates


Loaded it in, upgraded it, and took off. Noted the daily 6 or 7 updates that have been arriving since release date.

Stopped applying updates as the sysem was stable before the patches and I was afraid the patches might break something that is working.
Recognized all the hardware immediately. I discovered that if we right-mouse click on some of the selections, then the entire group of objects under that selection would be chosen. (select and right-click on kde, gnome, Postgress etc)
 
Old 01-18-2007, 10:10 PM   #15
rewtedesco
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Distribution: Suse 10.0 /XP/ FC5 & 6
Posts: 93

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?: None indicated | Rating: 8

Pros: clean design and not overloaden with features and candy
Cons: not enough documentation for bailouts if install or update goes wrong


After getting FC6 to work fine on one PC and 2 old laptops, I'm quite impressed with it. It's a lot faster, it seems, than FC5. I had some trouble with the text mode installation, necessary for one laptop. It wasn't clear at all from the installation instructions how to get to a working window system. Without help on the web or from a book it can be quite a pain.

I really like yum and yum-extension. It is very transparent and makes it possible to include other repositories (one should only use one, i chose livna). If one follows the rule - never do modifications other than by yum - it's hard to mess up even with some additional 1200 packages installed. It's a good idea though to have a decent book on Fedora handy (I like the one written for FC6 by Chris Tyler, O'Reilly).
 
Old 01-19-2007, 02:45 PM   #16
newlin
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Distribution: Red Hat 9 FC2
Posts: 50

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?: None indicated | Rating: 0

Pros:
Cons:



downloaded live cd to check after a gap of 2 years using suse and slackware and RH9 which are all excellent ... been using windows 2000 pro sp4 for 2 years for female reasons but hate it so now fedora 6 is good windows is gone now...no problem ..everything works fine..
 
Old 01-29-2007, 03:03 AM   #17
dudeman41465
 
Registered: Jun 2005
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 794

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?: None indicated | Rating: 8

Pros: Ships with compiz, ships with good intel video driver, solid, anaconda problems from before seem to be fixed, rpm based
Cons: still no multimedia support out of the box, some software isn't kept up to date very well(firefox 2.0 still isn't in yum), no compiz configuration utility for themes and such, DMA support was disabled initially so CD-Drive speeds were slow


As a user previously of Fedora Core 5, I moved to Ubuntu on my desktop machine for a while. After a failed attempt at getting the correct video support for my Dell Inspiron laptop in Ubuntu I decided to give FC6 a try. While it didn't automatically select the best driver, the "intel" driver provided by intel themselves was available, allowing me to use a widescreen resolution and take advantage of 3-d acceleration. It ships with Compiz which is a nice touch. However, there isn't much customization for Compiz available out of the box short of just turning off the window wobble effect and the cube desktop switcher. Some of the software also isn't the newest in the world, Firefox 2.0 still isn't in yum as of January 29th 2007. It's also, as with a lot of distros, a real pain to be able to listen to mp3's and watch .wmv videos, however I am aware that Microsoft is to blame for this. I did have an issue with my DVDs jumping and my CD read speeds being real slow, that being because for some reason (something about the type of dvd drive) DMA support was disabled. I managed to find a little hack to fix the issue, so it's not a real big issue. Thank god for things that run on open source text files!

Still, I don't have a lot of complaints personally about Fedora Core 6. It's a very rock solid and stable operating system, with a ton of software choices, and tons of repos for even more software than you can get by default, and it does ship with Compiz so even the casual user can add that little "snap" to their computer. Unless you set it up otherwise, you can install it using only the first two CDs, and it doesn't come with a whole world of software pre-installed, which is good. With a base, 2 CD install, it comes with Firefox, Evolution, Gaim, and all the standard stuff, then it leaves you, the user, to customize and install your software as you need it. Also, unlike I found out in Ubuntu, totem is not required to use Gnome. You can completely remove totem from your system and still use the Gnome desktop, and then use the software of your choice to play videos. It also seems to run faster than some other distros, just overall speed has improved. Plus, it's an rpm based distribution, making it "really" easy to find and install software.

Overall, Fedora Core 6 is a great operating system that runs very clean and has a lot to offer. I would suggest that everybody at least give Fedora Core a shot.
 
Old 02-11-2007, 02:56 AM   #18
pappy_mcfae
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Distribution: Gentoo x86 & x86_64
Posts: 190

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?: None indicated | Rating: 4

Pros: not many
Cons: Too many to name


Considering that Red Hat is a pay-for-it system, I figured the free version, Fedora, would be at least as good as let's say Ubuntu, or even Vector Linux. I was so wrong!

First of all, it took forever to install. For a distribution made up of pre-compiled software, this is inexcusable. It seemed that every step of the install process added another layer of time-eating. From the initial boot to the reboot after install took almost three full hours. The only other pre-compiled distribution to come close was Solaris.

Once installed, I had to stop three separate programs from operating so I could update the system, and attempt to install some other programs, like KDE. Once again, for a system composed of pre-compiled software, it took for ever for things to get done. Once things were done, the irritations just continued.

Samba operated spotty at best. Some times it would connect to my other machines, most times it sat there not connecting, and spewing numerous reasons why.

I didn't keep it on my test system for long. It lasted less than a day. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone for any reason. I'd sooner recommend Debian. At least Debian can eventually be stabilized. It also has lots of packages that don't take for bloody ever to install.

Fedora? Why bother? For what you get, it's hardly worth the effort of downloading the ISO's and wasting six CD's on it (of which, only three wound up being required). There are numerous good distributions out in Linux Land. Steer clear of Fedora! It sucks!

Blessed be!
Pappy
 
Old 02-13-2007, 03:52 AM   #19
yakkmeister
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Distribution: SuSE + Ubuntu + DeMuDi ... whatever does the job :D
Posts: 40

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: 6

Pros: Looks great
Cons: Modem broken


This should be good ...
But it's broken!

I would think that will all the super-cool stuff and superior architecture of linux that the user experience could be much more fluid.
I don't mind tinkering with stuff to get the most out of my box, but it does gripe me when the latest and greatest can't even detect a serial hardware modem enough to use as much as 'generic drivers.'
This should be the kind of thing that gets seen too before the fancy pants stuff.

Having said that, it's the fancy pants stuff I am looking forward to ...

Viva la Linux!
 
Old 02-14-2007, 05:46 AM   #20
the_gripmaster
 
Registered: Jul 2004
Distribution: RHEL, CentOS, Ubuntu Server, Ubuntu
Posts: 356

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: Most popular distro
Cons: Not as polished as OpenSuSE 10.2


My review is just a reply to the review posted by pappy_mcfae

I installed Fedora Core 6 on 2 of my PCs
PC1: 3.0GHz Pentium 4 with HT, 768 MB RAM
PC2: 2.4GHz Pentium 4, 512 MB RAM

I had a "everything" install on both PCs, and it required no more than 30 minutes. I don't know what kind of PC pappy_mcfae used, but his/her review is so wrong.
 
Old 02-15-2007, 08:43 AM   #21
ronpolley
 
Registered: Feb 2006
Distribution: CentOS 3.8,Fedora 6
Posts: 6

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?: None indicated | Rating: 9

Pros: easy upgrade,looks terrific
Cons: auto updater on at boot


I did an update from FC4 full install on one drive and a clean install on another drive,the update took 2 hours but runs flawlessly.Only had to move my modem with auto detect and my Java link.This OS has the wow factor.On the clean install,30 min, the auto updater slows the pc down to much with a modem connection so the first thing I had to do was diable it.This would make FC6 seem very slow to a new user.The updater in manule mode is terrific,well done
 
Old 02-17-2007, 11:23 PM   #22
richard wayburn sr
 
Registered: Apr 2006
Distribution: SuSe10
Posts: 33

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?: None indicated | Rating: 0

Pros: easy to install
Cons: typical linux system, no dvd etc


loaded in about 35 minutes, hardware recognition was superb, even the printer.
Very stable, and secure.
Got the distribution cds with a magazine, Linux Format Special.
it blows the sox off windows!
 
Old 02-21-2007, 01:14 PM   #23
millertime588
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Distribution: Vista
Posts: 14

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?: None indicated | Rating: 9

Pros: Install easy, dual boot with xp, eyecandy.
Cons: No partition resize tool, requires seperate software


Round of applause for Fedora. I'm a complete Linux newbie, but there are so many forums like this site that you can't go wrong (unless you have a modem from a windows computer, in which case Fedora and probably all distros are terrible). The only driver I had to install myself was for my graphics card. I even got Beryl running for some amusment. I think Fedora is a decent distro to start with because of the large user base for support.
 
Old 03-23-2007, 12:34 AM   #24
kamisamanou
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Distribution: Fedora Core 6
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:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 9

Pros: Installation, Interface, and Many others
Cons: Broadcom Air Force One support, missing a few apps in the repository.


I've used:
Red Hat 7 & 9
Ubuntu 6.10
openSuSE 10.1 & 10.2
Fedora Core 5 & 6
Mandriva 2006

I have to say, I loved Red Hat back in the day. I tried all of those distros, but none was as enjoyable as Red Hat until Fedora Core 6. I installed it with no problem. Unfortunately my wireless card didn't work, but I fixed that. I also think the repository is a tad limited(lmms, mythtv and such didn't appear)
 
Old 03-25-2007, 11:08 PM   #25
harrygraham
 
Registered: Apr 2001
Distribution: Ubuntu Gnome
Posts: 153

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?: None indicated | Rating: 9

Pros: Great looks
Cons: a bandwidth hog


To my tired old eyes the new fonts in FC6 look real sharp - almost worth the upgrade for this benefit alone. As well, it detected my cheapo graphics card and monitor flawlessly. The graphics are really eye-popping! I'm not keen on the purple worms graphics theme, though.

Not only is it very spiffy looking, it's fast, too. I can't believe how fast I can cycle through my jpegs and tiffs, and some of them are pretty big.

I like the way it automounts external hard drives and memory sticks as well. Sure works a lot better than the older distros in this respect.

The one thing that bugs me is that it really does not use bandwidth very efficiently. If I knew I wouldn't have need of CD numbers 3, 4 and 5, I could have saved some download time. As well, if you select any of the optional programs available from the EXTRAS repository, it will calculate dependancies and then start downloading for eternity. Why doesn't it take a look for the rpms on the CD's before attempting to download them? I realize that bandwidth is cheap, but there are still a lot of people (like me :)) who don't want to pay for a 3 meg per second connection.

I understand why they keep a clear division between the free and non-free programs - so that they won't get entangled with patent litigations etc. They are looking far into the future and being careful, which I agree with. But it is still a bit of a pain, nonetheless.

Now that it's done, I'm keeping it!
 
Old 03-31-2007, 10:52 PM   #26
ashesh0326
 
Registered: Jan 2007
Distribution: Suse 10.0, FC 6
Posts: 93

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: 10

Pros: Easy installation, speed, looks, stability
Cons: Lack of Intel GMA 900 support


Fedora has indeed come a long way since it's first release, and at no time before have things looked this good.
FC 6 first impresses its users by it's flexible, and highly convenient installation, and then by its performance.
The bootup on this machine was fast, and so far, it's been stable as hell. There have been no software bugs whatsoever.
I use Fedora as a workstation, as well as a server, and things are looking good so far. The server performance is good, and so is the performance as a workstation.
The only thing wrong with FC (and all the other distros that I've tried), is the lack of support these platforms have for the Intel GMAs. I have a GMA 900, and for some odd reason, my system won't let me do anything more than a 1280x1024@60 (trust me, 60Hz is bad for your eyes!). Even after numerous editions of xorg.conf, nothing seemed to improve, and eventually, I had to give up. Still, 1024x768@85 is fair enough.
Lets see when the linux people sort out that problem. And to think of, I don't think that is a problem particularly with FC6, but even with Suse. So, 10 out of 10 for Fedora 6. Go Fedora!
 
Old 04-01-2007, 04:58 PM   #27
dssrjol
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Distribution: F9, FreeNas
Posts: 21

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?: None indicated | Rating: 10

Pros: stable...
Cons: printing


I'm abit of noob, since moving over from windoze 3 months ago; I have dabbled with debian, knoppix and FC5. Once over the bash (command line)learning curve I've really started to appreciate the stable and forgiving nature of FC6.

Now using Beryl 3D desktop with Gnome and wowing all my windoze firends fawning over vista.

On the last point, I gather a number of people have struggled with some linix distros, beryl and their graphics cards. All I can say, with yum I have my old nvidia card working with a 3D desktop very quickly.
 
Old 04-17-2007, 08:57 AM   #28
jbannon
 
Registered: May 2006
Distribution: Fedora Core 6
Posts: 12

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?: None indicated | Rating: 7

Pros: Relatively easy to install
Cons: Poor performance on some products, strange dependencies & some irritating bugs


I have used a variety of distributions (Ubuntu, Mandrake, Gentoo etc) and of all of them FC6 was the easiest to install & set-up, provided one does a minimal install using only the rescue disk and the downloaded DVD iso on a second drive. I was somewhat surprised that all my hardware was recognised considering the fact that my machine is a bit of an "odd ball" gaming machine. Of course there is no hardware acceleration with the open source graphics drivers but kmod-nvidia sorted that.

There are, however, some irritations.

The rpm dependencies can be very strange. E.g. Red Hat LSB depends on pax when it should be the other way round and there are plenty of other surprises. Why, for instance, does removing firefox upset Gnome when firefox is not a Gnome application? This situation is worse with the x86_64 build which seems to install a mirror set of i386 binaries.

Yum performance is awful even with all the recommended add-ons in place and experimenting with mirror lists. Any large update takes an absolute age. However, if one uses smart then these problems disappear. Since I have the same mirrors in smart, it can't just be an infrastructure problem, there is some fundamental problem with yum that is very difficult to get people to recognise and to get some progress on.

The performance of firefox is very disappointing. This can be fixed by using swiftfox with the added benefit that all firefox add-ons are compatible as are the various plugins. Swiftfox does have to be installed by hand but this is no great chore.

Some applications do not remember their own window geometry. This seems to be a characteristic of those applications using the PyGTK bindings, though it does not affect all the applications, smart for example. This is very irritating.

The variety of developer tools available for Gnome is very disappointing and many of them have serious limitations; Anjuta for example is all but unusable. The KDE developer tools are good but this means running KDE alongside Gnome and that has its problems as well - getting a unified look & feel is very difficult for instance. Nevertheless, the KDE applications do work quite well under Gnome if one can bear the difference in looks.

I have played with Beryl and, while there are some quite cool effects, it seems to me that these do not add anything to overall usability of the product. Further they are quite computationally expensive, for instance they cut the GLX performance in half on my machine and I'm not exactly resource-strapped. I have since disabled them.

To sum up, FC6 is a good attempt but it does have its weaknesses. I give it a 7.
 
Old 05-03-2007, 08:11 PM   #29
jmikeneedham
 
Registered: Jul 2005
Distribution: openSUSE 11.1
Posts: 44

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: 9

Pros: Stable Like RedHat Normally Is, Was fairly easy to get up and running
Cons: Does not always detect all the hardware properly


I am a veteran UNIX admin/user. Having cut my teeth on Sun Solaris, FreeBSD and AIX -- I have been following the Linux community since roughly 1991. Up Until this year (2007), I used Windows, Macintosh, and Linux, as well as, a few other retro systems (such as MS-DOS).

I watched distros grow and kept my eyes on Debian, RedHat, and tried a few others along the way. Finally deciding that my favorite distro *was* Ubuntu. I like the distro still, but feel that it restricts your control over the system. This year as Vista disapointed me to the point of deciding to remove it and go Linux now (at least at home). I was told to try Fedora Core 6 because of the stuff I wanted to run. I immediately loved the ease of installation (though for a first time Linux user, I would not recommend it) and the control I have over the items which are on the system. I find the distro a little clunky in how they describe some of the Applications, but basically... Gnome is exactly the same as on Ubuntu, though there was some learning curve because some of the applications were in a different spot in the menus (which you can fix obviously), but that was my only gripe initially. Like Debian distrobutions, you have a nice installer (YUM) which acts like APT in Debian and if you are familiar with apt-- eg: apt-get install foo, you will be able to quickly use YUM.

Overall, the product has the same and expected stability as RedHat has always had. Sure, it has some bugs (what Linux distro doesn't?), but overall, I am very happy with this distro and it has (much to my own surprise) become my favorite Distro! I strongly recommend it to any experienced Linux user -- I have to say this, because if you are just starting out, you may find surprises with Fedora Core! However, coming from Windows to Fedora Core (though it is some work) you can have all that you do in Windows without the high costs. My advice, support the Linux community in some way!
 
Old 05-19-2007, 02:14 AM   #30
Yentor
 
Registered: Apr 2007
Distribution: Fedora 9
Posts: 24

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: 10

Pros: all, yum and yumex, stable, and eye candy
Cons: mp3 and dvd, when install xen it is become fatal...


good hungarian suppor for KDE and GNOME, whith a slower computer don't works properly...<br>sometimes stop with a faster computer, but this is my favourite distro<br>
 
Page:  1 · 2 More Items




  



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:22 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