LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Reviews > Distributions > Fedora Project
User Name
Password

Notices

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

Fedora Core 4
Reviews Views Date of last review
51 143988 07-27-2009
spacer
Recommended By Average Price Average Rating
86% of reviewers $10.80 7.6



Description: Fedora Core is RedHats latest offering at it's Open Source OS. Released on June 13th 2005.
Keywords: fedora core 4


Author
Post A Reply 
Old 06-21-2005, 04:32 PM   #1
BenBot
 
Registered: Jun 2005
Posts: 2

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

Pros: comes on dvd distro, has absolutely everything you'll need, getting idiot proof :p
Cons: didnt have nearly all my drivers for my HP zv6000 laptop



I have been away from linux for a couple of years now, but am glad to be back after the first carry on about drivers. I last used redhat 6 and the project has come along really well.

it doesnt come with my graphics drivers, screen drivers, wireless card drivers or proper sound drivers yet it still works with the generic ones.

It is first set up for the idiot user, but you can go into settings and windows and change it to any way you want.

Just waiting for though drivers now!!!
 
Old 06-22-2005, 02:41 AM   #2
Simon Bridge
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 9,211

Rep: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: $6.00 | Rating: 10

Pros: DVD iso, good documentation
Cons: Red Hat website still a pain


I have just upgraded from FC2, smoothly and with no fuss. Problems experienced by others have been mostly anticipated in the release notes and FAQ which comes with the DVD.

I paid NZ$20 (approx US$6) at an internet cafe (Net Space Waiheke Island) to dowload and burn the DVD and rescue CD ISO's.

All my HW was correctly detected and the correct drivers installed. I chose the option to upgrade since I've never done that before and I wanted to see what it messed up. So far everything is better.

1st days impressions:
  • My custom desktop icons were all 4x the size I was used to - closer inspection showed me this was their 1:1 size. This was easy, if tedious, to fix.
  • The main panel was totally reconfigured. I had to move the tools back to where I'd left them. However, the familiar Mozilla Suite was replaced by firefox.
  • Had to manually add a main menue to the panel - this panel was organised differently so it was initially tricky to find things.
  • The desktops are even more configurable. Most obvious is a selection of background images already there. more themes and the RH Bluecurve theme has a subliminally peaceful makeover.
  • That silly "start" button is now absent. Good to see these windows-isms vanishing. The "Computer" icon is needed and still present.
  • Firefox and thunderbird don't seem to be working so well together - but then I may need to reinstall thunderbird to work with the installation firefox. (url's in emails keep opening a fresh ffox window instead of loading in the active one.)
  • The USB works great. A stick in the card reader is automounted properly, and pulling the stick out will also unmount the volume. My camera (previously a headache) was properly detected, gphoto loaded and my photos come up properly and everything.
  • udev works well and seemlessly.
  • selinux now goes without a hitch
  • I still don't like the default firewall (policy ACCEPT anyone?)

So much for first impressions. each version seems to represent a whole new order over the previous.


Here is the HW installed on:

Desktop PC
Titan 4 Motherboard with SiS chipset LAN, Multimedia etc.
Intel Celeron (Coppermine) i686 2.4GHz
768Mb DDRAM
hda: Maxtor 90432D3, ATA DISK drive
hdb: WDC WD800BB-00JHA0, ATA DISK drive
hdc: LITE-ON COMBO SOHC-5232K, ATAPI CD/DVD-ROM drive



# /sbin/lspci
00:00.0 Host bridge: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] 651 Host (rev 02)
00:01.0 PCI bridge: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] Virtual PCI-to-PCI bridge (AGP)
00:02.0 ISA bridge: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] SiS962 [MuTIOL Media IO] (rev 25)
00:02.1 SMBus: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] SiS961/2 SMBus Controller
00:02.5 IDE interface: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] 5513 [IDE]
00:02.7 Multimedia audio controller: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] Sound Controller (rev a0)
00:03.0 USB Controller: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] USB 1.0 Controller (rev 0f)
00:03.1 USB Controller: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] USB 1.0 Controller (rev 0f)
00:03.3 USB Controller: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] USB 2.0 Controller
00:0a.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL-8139/8139C/8139C+ (rev 10)
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: Silicon Integrated Systems [SiS] 65x/M650/740 PCI/AGP VGA Display Adapter

[root@indigo-prime simon]# /sbin/lsusb
Bus 003 Device 001: ID 0000:0000
Bus 002 Device 001: ID 0000:0000
Bus 001 Device 002: ID 05e3:0760 Genesys Logic, Inc. Card Reader
Bus 001 Device 001: ID 0000:0000
 
Old 06-25-2005, 05:00 PM   #3
michael@greg:~>
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Distribution: SuSE 9.2 Pro / Zenwalk 1.2 / Minislack 1.0.1
Posts: 12

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

Pros: Easy to find ISOs and download them.
Cons: Did not work.


I downloaded four ISOs from 'fedora.redhat.com' and checked my copies against the SHA1 checksums posted next to the links for the ISOs. Each of the four ISOs were perfect copies from the Internet.

I burned the four images onto four new CD-Rs and all four were bad. The burning process for all four FC4 discs gave the same result as when I burned FC3, which worked. I used the same box and the same OS that I used to burn FC3. I am not sure what happened.

Maybe these images should be burned on a 2.4 kernel, but I am not willing to throw away four more discs for FC4 even with a guarantee.
 
Old 06-26-2005, 02:22 AM   #4
TheGiantPotato
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Distribution: LFS, FedoraCore
Posts: 35

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

Pros: Availability, wide acceptance, backward compatability/cross compatability with other RedHat flavors, ease of use (my mother and wife can use it...wow!), well-fleshed out documentation, RHN/up2date updater is great for non-techie users
Cons: A few style glitches sneak in here and there, as with all *ix's not enough real games (though there are more for RH/FC than any other distro)


The only reason I'm rating this a 9 and not a 10 is that there are no Linuxes at the present time that rate a 10 for the home user. I'm reviewing FC4 from a home user's perspective, so let's keep that in mind.

I bought the FC3 disks in Bangkok for a few baht and installed it... little did I know that about a week later FC4 was to come out. I installed FC3 without a hitch on one single-install desktop system (AthlonXP/GeForce2), one WinXP dual-install system (Celeron/GeForce4), and one laptop (Panasonic something-or-other I checked out from work). Everything was correctly recognised and went without any hiccups whatsoever. Network recognition and configuration was the best it ever has been.

I updated everything on all three systems using up2date and had only one issue: The Celeron system had some sort of hiccup updating cups, and whenever cups would try to initialize at boot the system would freeze for a while. That was odd, and I don't have a printer on that computer anyway, so I disabled it and a few other things (such as pcmcia support) at runlevel5 and stopped worrying about it. Other than that, all the systems went without a hitch.

I sw FC4 was out, so I downloaded it from a mirror, burned them and installed them. I updated to FC4 on the laptop and Athlon systems, but performed a fresh install on the Celeron since cups was weird and I didn't know what would happen.

All three systems work just fine. I get the feeling that performing the upgrade did nearly the same thing the fresh install did, but left configuration files largely intact. There were a few inconsitencies in my Gnome preferences on the Athlon and laptop, which were easy to fix (menu bar was at the top instead of where I'd put it), but other than that I have felt absolutely no interruption. Everything on the Celeron system was wiped accept for /home , since I had that set as its own partition on hdb2. I had to reinstall Flash to run systemwide, Skype, Yahoo Messenger (why I bothered installing that is beyond me, as gaim is more capable anyway), Opera (I know, I'm a heretic, so sue me... Firefox doesn't have mouse gestures and I really, really like them... that is my last and single reason to not switch entirely to Firefox), Xine and the myriad of multimedia codecs that do not come with anything RH offers, and Sun's Java sdk. This, in all, did not constitute a very big problem, and gave me a fresh opportunity to clean out some of the old system crap that was orphaned and floating.

Every applicatoin I have tried so far works without a hitch. Sun's JRE talks just fine with Opera and Firefox, Flash does its thing, etc. Nothing is particularly weird so far (a week into things) and I'm having no problems.

The greatest thing about this is familiarity for people still hooked on Windows. Everything from install to update is easy for people with little or no deep technical knowledge (like my mother, for example, who recently committed to a dual-install on her HP P4/geForce3 system at home by herself... successfully! omg...). This represents a huge stride foreward in useability for anything Linux.

SuSE is fairly nice... but its installer and update system has nothing on RedHat.

United Linux is the only other somewhat commonly known Linux flavor with a stake in branding, and its nearly the same (and in some cases is the same) as SuSE.

Mandrake may be a great not-quite-RH alternative, but the real reason for using it is that its not RedHat, and that appeals to the folks who are so terrifyed by anything that makes money (post-MS traumatic stress?) that they can't stomach RedHat anymore.

Gentoo, Knoppix, etc. will simply never get the branding, familiarity, developmental resources, etc. to become mainstream and useable for the non-techhie user at home. FC4 has this pretty much in the bag already, as it rides the RedHat name, but is easily accessible to the home user for free.

Real costs associated with Fedora Core to date are:

-500 Baht for the FC3 disks at Patpong Plaza. It was so expensive (~$12 US) because they thought they were selling me pirated software. I explained this to them and they were a little surprised that it was always free, but everything they sell is 125NTB per disc, no matter what's on it.

-500 yen (~$5 US) for the McGrand meal I bought and ate while downloading and installing FC4. Junk food is a real hidden cost to computing, and shoud always be taken into account!

-5000 yen (~$50 US) for a second 80gig hard drive to dual install FC to on the Celeron system. This can be considered as not at all related to the cost of owning and running FC, but I simply need a Windows system still, as many people do. So I include this here to give people an idea what it will cost them to dual-install without repartitioning with Partition Magic. (Which, by the way, at least used to cost about the same that a 60~80gig hard drive does today... so which is better? Get more storage and a dual install, or the same storage and a one-time-use program?)

FC4, good stuff. Gives you a very good idea of where the Linux mainstream is headed, is stable, widely available, and easily useable by an idiot.
 
Old 07-09-2005, 12:46 PM   #5
TruongAn
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Distribution: Gentoo (desktop), Arch linux (laptop)
Posts: 725

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: $1.80 | Rating: 10

Pros: pretty look, easy to use, greate sound card detection, excellent software
Cons: too big, lack in entertainment tool


Among all of linux distro I have tried so far, this is the best.

- It has the most beautiful GUI among all of fedora series.
- It is so easy to install and use, even with linux newbie.
- It is the first distro, except Knoppix, can detect my crystal sound card.
- It is stable, I have tried to install it on an 350MHz CPU, which is not fit its system requirement, it also work well without any crash.
- It come with thunderbird, my favourite e-mail client.

And here is some non-technical reasons:
- It is the cheapest distro, which I can buy, in vietnam (only 4 CD when Mandrake require 5 and Suse require 6).
- It has vietnamese interface both in the installer and the after installed UI.

However, there are some negative aspects, It cannot play either mp3 or wma or wmv, which is a half of my media collections. It is quiet slow on my old computer. Nevertheless, Any distro can detect my sound card, I will rate it with 10 mark.
 
Old 07-11-2005, 04:33 PM   #6
LinuxStart
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Distribution: Shrike
Posts: 55

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

Pros: Beautifull interface, very easy to use, simple to install, great support
Cons: very bulky, slow at times, no mp3, wma and wmv support


This is a Very nice release, FC4 so far has worked flawlessly for me. Since i'm a linux newbie, this has been godsent, it has encouraged me to actually learn more about linux rather than be scared away by it.

I would recommand it for any linux user. The problem with it is that its very bulky and even slow at times, but i guess thats what comes with it since it is very user friendly.
It cost my nothing as I downloaded the CDs from the net.
 
Old 07-17-2005, 03:30 PM   #7
ride153
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Distribution: current is PCLOS (server) and Suse (desktop)
Posts: 102

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 2

Pros: It never would install so no comment
Cons: Install failed twice, so i gave up


this review is for the x86_64 version.

First off the install takes 5cds thats a lot IMO

I tried to install FC4 64bit but it would fail every time.

what a waste of 5 CD-Rs oh well
 
Old 07-26-2005, 11:55 AM   #8
scorpio1883
 
Registered: Jul 2005
Distribution: Fedora
Posts: 1

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

Pros: DVD iso, GUI Installer, KDE Default Fix on Core 4
Cons: Corrupted Cds check md5sum before burning cd!


I've tried different distros, Mandrake, Suse, and a few others, but Fedora is atleast an 8. Shame on you people above for such poor reviews, just b/c you dont know how to burn a cd and/or the cd was corrupted don't blame Fedora. Stuff Happens. I had similar cd problems. Even if the Test CD part in the begins says your disk is Bad. You can still install Fedora, I was able to awhile back. Anyways it has the same stuff as the other Linux distro with some acceptions in different areas. I'd recommend it just b/c of the DVD iso and GUI installer. A monkey could use their installer, and get it to work.
 
Old 07-27-2005, 08:19 AM   #9
biophysics
 
Registered: Jan 2002
Distribution: Kubuntu
Posts: 444

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

Pros: Good selection of packages though yum, nice installer
Cons: Still no unified control center like Yast


DVD download and burned it at 2x. I agree with the earlier poster that people fail to burn dvd's properly or fail to do md5sum check and then complain about FC distro.
Anyways booted with DVD Anaconda installer is quite good and fast. Partitioning is also quite easy. Selected Desktop for package installation. Recognized a wide range of graphic cards for X.org server. Nice thing I noticed was the booting was quite fast... see: http://www.mjmwired.net/resources/mjm-fedora-fc4.shtml
 
Old 07-30-2005, 02:53 PM   #10
fearofcarpet
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Distribution: Gentoo, FC4, FreeBSD
Posts: 34

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 6

Pros: Easy installation, everything is configured/installed hands-off, great for Windows users curious about Linux
Cons: Bloated, bleeding-edge software can be buggy


I am (or rather was) a long-time Red Hat user who made the switch to Fedora. I think Fedora, like Star Wars, peaked at FC2. The bleeding-edge testbed nature of Fedora can be frustrating when trying to find support. Anyone who has tried using an existing Fedora-created ext3 partition with a more "standards-complient" distro knows what I mean (though RedHat does make a convincing argument there). I don't mind the bloat so much when I'm installing FC4 for other people who want to learn Linux, but personally I find the Fedora philosophy turning very Windows-like. As an example, the default KDE configuration basically hides the terminal from the user, putting inside a couple of submenus as if "you're never going to need this with Fedora!". On the other hand after a default FC4 installation on a work computer I was rather shocked when Konqueror popped up with the contents of a thumb drive moments after inserting it in a USB port.

The installation process is slick... When it works. I've found Fedora installations hit-or-miss in that respect; sometimes it just doesn't dig your hardware. Once you get everything installed it works great though. I like the idea of choosing "laptop, workstation, server, everything" and then customizing the packages a bit and hitting "go". I don't like the idea of having to run the installer to upgrade from Fedora n to Fedora n+1. I like even less the Fedora suggestion that you do a fresh install to "take advantage of all the new features", again very Windows-esque.

Fedora Core 4 does come with SELinux standard, but that's only useful if you want SELinux, otherwise you'd better disable it lest it become a pain in the backside. It also includes yum, which is a nice way to keep your core system up to date. It is, of course, all built on RPMs, which I like very much. Some would argue that point.

I ran a Fedora server (web, samba, sql, NFS, etc.) for a while that used to be a Red Hat server and found the "server" installation quite nice as far as installing what I needed. The downside was the speed, and I eventually ditched it for FreeBSD, getting a very noticeable speed boost in return. This is where FC4 gets the "6" rating (rather than a 7 or 8) from me. If a Linux distro is going to offer a "Server" installation method, then it had better be a damn good server. Rather, FC4 offers a configuration that is slower than the Slack, Gentoo, Debian, and FreeBSD servers I run/have run. Also, the Laptop installation leaves a pretty big footprint considering laptop HD's peak around 80GB these days. I do currently run FC4 x86_64 on a desktop with tons of RAM/HD space that I'm quite pleased with, but it is not my "primary" desktop (it also is network-only, having no monitor).

So if you want a Linux distro that does everything and is widely supported, by all means install FC4. If you're a hard-core Linux-o-phile that wants a lean, mean, customizeable machine, then go install Gentoo, Slack, or Debian.
 
Old 08-05-2005, 02:51 AM   #11
TruongAn
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Distribution: Gentoo (desktop), Arch linux (laptop)
Posts: 725

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: $3.00 | Rating: 10

Pros: excellent GUI (beautiful, friendly, stable). Good included software.
Cons: lack entertainment.


I 've install FC4 once on an old PC, which didn't fit its hardware requirement, and now on another PC with fit its hardware requiremnet.
I agreed with some people who cannot successfully burn the install. Although I bought the pre-burn diskc rather than download and burn it myself, I 've met bad disc three times. However, you cannot burn the disc does not mean the distro is bad. After I refund the bad disc and buy a new one, Everything is so easy. Due to a slow PC, I install through console interface, not the GUI installer. But it still so easy. You got even more details about what is being installed than the GUI installer tell you.
After a reboot, the GUI appear again, from now, everything look great than it was in the first time I installed FC4. I connected the two PC (old and new one) together into a small LAN but they cannot communicate with each other until I turn off one of the firewall - a little bit annoy but it is good while you are on-line aferward. Then I transfer all document and configure file from the old to the new and restart the PC. All work completed.

Now it's the time for some personal note. Perhaps you will think I am mad due to the double reviews posting. But my will is to tell the user who cannot burn install image should change your my about FC4.Some problems in the downloading and burning cannot deny all the advantages in such a superior distro. This may be rude but I think If you cannot deal with the download and burning problem, you should not write a bad reviews about distro. This reviews is about the distro not the quality of that distro's hosting.
 
Old 08-05-2005, 02:52 AM   #12
TruongAn
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Distribution: Gentoo (desktop), Arch linux (laptop)
Posts: 725

Rep: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: $3.00 | Rating: 10

Pros: excellent GUI (beautiful, friendly, stable). Good included software.
Cons: lack entertainment.


I 've install FC4 once on an old PC, which didn't fit its hardware requirement, and now on another PC with fit its hardware requiremnet.
I agreed with some people who cannot successfully burn the install. Although I bought the pre-burn diskc rather than download and burn it myself, I 've met bad disc three times. However, you cannot burn the disc does not mean the distro is bad. After I refund the bad disc and buy a new one, Everything is so easy. Due to a slow PC, I install through console interface, not the GUI installer. But it still so easy. You got even more details about what is being installed than the GUI installer tell you.
After a reboot, the GUI appear again, from now, everything look great than it was in the first time I installed FC4. I connected the two PC (old and new one) together into a small LAN but they cannot communicate with each other until I turn off one of the firewall - a little bit annoy but it is good while you are on-line aferward. Then I transfer all document and configure file from the old to the new and restart the PC. All work completed.

Now it's the time for some personal note. Perhaps you will think I am mad due to the double reviews posting. But my will is to tell the user who cannot burn install image should change your mind about FC4.Some problems in the downloading and burning cannot deny all the advantages in such a superior distro. This may be rude but I think If you cannot deal with the download and burning problem, you should not write a bad reviews about distro. This reviews is about the distro not the quality of that distro's hosting.
 
Old 08-07-2005, 06:51 PM   #13
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: Reputation: Reputation: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? no | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 2

Pros: Much better than that trash FC3!!!
Cons: FC2 is MUCH MUCH better than FC4-still way too many problems!!!


FC4 is much much better than that trash FC3 but it still has way too many problems. The program gcc-4.0 is blacklisted by K3b and other programs because it is too buggy. K3b and other programs refuse to compile with it as they say it is "blacklisted" and say to use an earlier or newer version. Still a problem with the blank screen on my laptop. Also I did NOT like the new Gnome desktop [it STINKS!!!] with the top panel and bottom panel which did not leave room on screen for windows and web browsers to work. I love the look and feel of FC2 or Red Hat Linux 9 with the new features of FC4 and the stability of Red Hat Linux 7.3, Debian, Ubuntu and FC2 and Red Hat Linux 9. Mandrake also has the blank screen problem on laptops. Only Debian and Ubuntu have no blank screen problem on laptops. However with Debian my sound card would not work and with Ubuntu [a very superior distro], I could not play DVDs. Red Hat Linux 7.3 has no problems with a blank screen on laptops. Red Hat Linux 9? I don't know-it couldn't install on my laptop because of the "Intel 440 x-series chip" bug that made it loop over and over endlessly on my laptop. Shame-would have loved it on my laptop as I love Red Hat Linux 9. FC1 is way too buggy. FC2-the 32-bit version is the most stable and problem-free. FC2-the 64-bit version-Nautilus crashed every time on me and other serious problems so I went back to FC2-the 32-bit version. I fixed the blank screen by disabling ACPI and enabling APM. I think Fedora Core peaked at FC2 like the earlier review said and my brother says the same things I say about all these distros. Maybe FC5 will be better. I am thinking of switching to Ubuntu for good as it is a superior distro. A real shame as Red Hat Linux and Fedora Core used to be good distros.
 
Old 08-15-2005, 09:05 AM   #14
simeandrews
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 341

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:
Cons:



Fedora Core 4 Ė Review

After a few months using Fedora, I guess its time I reviewed it. After all, my experience has been great, so why not encourage others to use it?

So, here goes!

Installation

After I downloaded the DVD off of the website, I put my Mandriva Linux cd in so I could repartition. Mandrva has a great repartitioning tool, and I donít think Fedora can resize my Windows partition without losing my data. I tok that CD out and popped in my Fedora Core 4 DVD. The installer was a bit slow to start, but that was just because it was booting off a CD. Same speed as I expected.

The installer eventually got into the graphical Anaconda installer. The Anaconda installer is really, really nice. It has information on a sidebar on the left, the actual installer on the right, and a nice Fedora Core logo in front of a dark blue fading to light blue line on top.

Setup was quick, except for the half hour when it was actually installing. But that wasnít too bad, after all, it was installing an operating system.

First Boot

Fedora Core booting is pretty quick. After about 10-15 seconds, it starts a splash screen, at least thatís what Iím calling it. I havenít seen this on any other Linux distro, but I havenít tried very many. After the splash screen, I was greeted by a Fedora Core post installation setup utility. It asks you a few questions, like the root password, user accounts, etc., and then it starts Gnome.

The Desktop

The desktop was not as nice as it could have been. The splash screen was boring, the desktop wallpaper was grotesque, and I wasnít very fond of the icons. But the Clearlooks window borders were really nice. So nice, Iím using it on Windows.

So, I opened Firefox and went straight to gnome-look.org. This desktop needed a bit of work. I got nice new wallpaper, a nice splash screen that I had to edit a bit because it said Debian on it, and some new icons. In half an hour, I was finished. Try doing that on Windows? No, I donít think so.

Programs Already There

There was a wide array of programs already there. I had OpenOffice, the equivalent of Microsoft Office, Fiirefox, the equivalent of Internet Explorer, the Gimp, the equivalent of Adobe Photoshop, and a bunch of games. There were also a lot of other things, like other web browsers, office suites, and stuff, but that was what was important to me.

But not everything was there. No problem, I donít have to install very many things from source luckily, because Fedora comes with rpm. And it is well supported, too. I can use yum, which will search for rpmís for me, or use an rpm website. So, for those programs, I went searching. And after about an hour or two, everything I needed was there.

Conclusions

As you can tell, Fedora Core was a very complete and easy to use Linux distro. I may not have many other distros to compare it to, but I give it a 4 Ĺ stars out of 5.

simeandrews
August 15, 2005
 
Old 08-29-2005, 09:54 PM   #15
 
Registered: Dec 1969
Posts: 0

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: $FREE Tweak friendly OS like Gnome ;)not boring XP $$$$$
Cons: Nvidia Drivers have to be recomplied every kernal upgrade :(


Started using at fc3 6months ago. Now running fc4 and I'm hooked. Found Stanton Finley FC4 install page The Holy Grail of FC4 Install Notes ;) (He's always revising it too :)
http://stanton-finley.net/fedora_core_4_installation_notes.html
Runs a boat load of programs and have all the firefox plugins installed and working java,flash,avi,mp3 etc. Even got Shoutcast Internet radio working. Enemy Territory 2.60 ;) . Printer through another computer on my network ;) This took alot of time but it was worth it. I learned alot about linux and Recommend all my XP windows friends to try it. And Use Fedora4 more and Windows Xp less ;). Spread the Word!!
 
Old 09-03-2005, 10:02 AM   #16
beast2k
 
Registered: Jul 2004
Distribution: Slackware 13
Posts: 15

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: 3

Pros: Feels very stable, Yum, Gnome/KDE
Cons: To many things that are required are missing



The best thing about Fedora is it's truely open and unfortunately this is also its weekness.
The apps/progs that come with fedora all work flawlessley and the distro feels rock solid, however with things missing like proper MP3 support and other distros offering nvidia and ati drivers installed out of the box I cant reccomend fedora as a home use distro. Concider that fedora is basicly a test bed for redhat and redhat makes distros for the office/busness environment, in this context fedora is flawless, most offices dont need mp3 support and 3d accelleration they need stability and a good office suite which fedora provides in spades. Fedora will never include mp3 support or nvidia drivers because they are not "open" and with other distros like suse providing 3d accelleration, multimedia support, and everything else you will need for a good home distro I cant imagine why any home user would bother with fedora. Eventually I think most users and especially newbies will realize this and fedora will become a office only distro or if you like "the free version of redhat workstation". If however I had a busness fedora would be my first choice for a workstation or server.
There is just to many critical things missing because of lack of openness, granted things missing can be added but why would you when there's suse and mepis that offer EVERYTHING set up out of the box. and mepis does it all on one cd.
I feel fedora is allready a office environment distro and as long as it remains a testbed for redhat it will always be this way and will never be suitable for home use theres simply to much setup and maintnence. It seems to me that all fedora is doing is keeping redhat stable and doing all their devellopment for free. Office use only.
 
Old 09-12-2005, 12:16 PM   #17
ashattock
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Distribution: Redhat 9 & Fedora 4
Posts: 1

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: 10

Pros: Smother operation than rhl 6
Cons: too many disks and online help files lack sufficient detail


I last used Red Hat Linux 6 some years ago but found it rather technical to set up after dealing with Windoze. Fedora 4 is great in that it sets itself up rather well and finds just about everything in the machines I used. Disappointing ly, setting up web browsing is less simple than one might think at first. IP routing on network card setup should come with the stock standard
0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0/eth0.ip.address.active
255.255.255.255/255.255.255.255/eth0.ip.address.active
on first installation. Silly thing took me weeks to find out. Now I will not change to windows ever again except to watch DVD's. I have had enough of the M$ B$! Viva Linux.

Key things to watch out for are the rpm'ed man/howto html base documents. I miss their help on default installation and were an incredible help to first-time users.
 
Old 09-15-2005, 07:49 PM   #18
MooMooMilk
 
Registered: Jul 2004
Distribution: RedHat, SlackWare
Posts: 13

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: 10

Pros: Easy Installation, Printing, Ethernet; Better KDE stability ie: more eye-candy; Up2date and Yum easy to configure; No major bugs
Cons: difficult nVidia 3d driver setup; sound drivers need work


Installation:
I had the easiest time ever installing FC4, especially since I wasn't using windows on the same computer. It automatically partitioned my two harddrives and used all of there space-potencial combined. Automatic Ethernet configuration.

GUIs:
Gnome appears to be more stable, yet KDE has a lot more configuration options for eye-candy and so forth. For KDE's options, the stability isn't all that bad.

Up2Date:
It worked fine, and I didn't have any problems. I updated Yum manually with extra package respos, so I could install mplayer for mp3 and faad support.

BAD:
I had a difficult time installing my 3d hardware acceleration driver, partially because of my monitor's frequency (it was an old monitor). Although this is mostly nVidia's fault for not providing a less complicated means, RedHat could come up with a better way to allow graphics drivers to be accepted. Maybe a configuration program, so that you don't have to go into the single-usr mode?

Also, the sound drivers work rotten, even though detecting the sound card was a breeze. It took me 20 minutes to get the sound working properly in KDE. There was a huge delay in the sound output. I had to edit my profile configuration file, and install new aRTS and Alsa support with yum, which was better than downloading and compiling them.

I hope everyone eventually switches to the FC's!
 
Old 09-25-2005, 02:04 AM   #19
 
Registered: Dec 1969
Posts: 0

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? no | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 5

Pros: Installs easy.
Cons: Installer has no option to boot to a command line. Poor wireless network card detection.


To put things in proper context, I have never used Linux for more than a day or two consecutively. My interest in it is as an alternative platform for taking computer science classes. (Free compilers, built in servers, free OS, etc.) Also, my experience with This Distribition is limited to installing it about 5 times in one week on the same laptop. (Thinkpad 600e.) That said, most of my impression are based on the installation process alone.

I like the fact that package selection is very clear and simple. It gives you a set of very general yes/no options like KDE, GNOME, office suite, etc, with submenues for inidivual items within each group. It then works out dependancies for itself.
The second thing I like about it is the completeness of the package: compilers (including Java), OpenOffice, mySQL, etc.

That's the good news.

The bad news is more extensive:
1. Lack of support (in either KDE, GNOME or both, wasn't really paying attention) for resolutions above 800x600.
2. Inability to recognize pcmcia devices without crashing the built-in pointer unless "acpi=on" is manually added to the (bootup? kernel?) during install. (pardon my beginnership).
3. Inability to recognize any of my three existing wireless network devices (belkin 7010 pcmcia, netgear ma111 usb, usr 5410 pcmcia). Although it did recognize my wired 3com 3ccfe575ct-d.
4. Horribly difficult to read font in the web browser.
5. Inability to select an option to boot to a command line. I even tried deselecting both KDE and GNOME during the install process. What I got on login was a window with an X clock and another window with a console in it. No true command line, no ever leaving X behind. Considering that one of my reasons for installing Linux in the first place is obsolete hardware (400mhz pII, 160mb max installable ram) the inablity to boot to a command line is a real killer. If my only goal was easy install, I could have stuck with Windows.
 
Old 09-26-2005, 03:43 AM   #20
MasterC
 
Registered: Mar 2002
Distribution: Gentoo ; LFS ; Kubuntu
Posts: 12,612

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?: D/L | Rating: 8

Pros: Fast, Easy install. Great package selection. Easy to start using immediately.
Cons: Weak documentation during install. Defaults to specific Desktop Environment (Gnome) without choice.


I really like Fedora. This is my first install of this (since the fork of RH and Fedora) and it was very intuitive. The DVD-iso was a very nice addition as well (saving me from shuffling 4 discs around).

I would like more choice during the install, although an unattended install was very nice, I think the questions could be asked (and then scripted) before the actual install of the system. One example is the boot loader. Lilo still exists and is a very good contender against Grub; for us old-schoolers not wanting to use something else just because it's there (AFAIK there are not limitations/advantages to using one over the other in their current versions) it would be nice to have the option.

The package selection is great, and I am really liking Yum so far. Coming from Gentoo, the speed of the install and the upgrades is great! I know I have lost some of the hands on with the RPM setup (not completely, but generally speaking), but am accepting of that as long as things don't get too bulky as they were for me with RH.

Gnome vs KDE vs E vs fluxbox vs... 1001 billion options here, I know. But, at the very least, offering KDE as an option for the default DE would be something I'd expect from any Linux distro. I knew before hand this was the case, so I wasn't shocked, I just think it's taking away choice, which is probably one of the biggest reasons I use Linux (I'm not forced to use Xine as my media player for example). If there is something that is obvious enough to warrant a choice (this is a community project after all, therefore it should allow for common sense of what should be choice and what should be default) the option should be given during the install, this would also help for the Fedora customizing of the selected DE (Desktop Environment).

I very much love the simplicity of this all. I was looking for something the whole family could sit down and use. Sure they see it's not Windows, good. But nonetheless, as drone windows users, they can still surf the internet, check email, watch movies, listen to music, instant message... You get my drift. The ease of this system is amazing.

Overall, my impression is that this is certainly one of the top 5 distros available for x86_64 architecture today, and does a great job on utilizing the resources of this arch.

Thanks Fedora for doing such a good job on this project.

Cool
 
Old 10-14-2005, 02:31 PM   #21
zvonSully
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Distribution: Debian maniak(apt-get upgrade)
Posts: 85

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: 7

Pros: latest sofware; good installer
Cons: RPM sucks(compared with .deb)


 
Old 11-01-2005, 03:05 AM   #22
daacosta
 
Registered: Jun 2002
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: Reputation:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: $1.00 | Rating: 10

Pros: Almost idiot proof, detects most hardware without a trouble, very thorough
Cons: Upadtings amount for 350 MB


I am outraged by the vast amount of people that didn't check their CD's before installing their Fedora Core and just wrote a very, very poor reviews with low marks.

I experimented previously with Red Hat 6.0 and wasn't very pleased with it because my taskbar would just disappear, applications would not work properly, sound couldn't be configured, etc. etc. etc. I don't know... It was too much but those were the early days.

For reasons not worth digging into I had to stop using Windows and decided to give Linux another chance by using Xandros... Not the best choice... Those guys are trying to 'Windowize' Linux and though stable and good their Xandros networks to update the software is a total piece of crap. The fact that they distinguish between distros like Open Circulation Edition and Full Blown Business Edition (names might be wrong) gave me a poor impression...

Anyway... This is about Fedora...

Fedora Core 1 was my third distro trial from the book Linux for non-geeks by R. Grant and I fell in love with Fedora Core 1. I was able to update the software using Up2date. Later I spotted FC4 coming with Linux User and Developer magazine so... I purchased it!

I was too used to FC1 and adjusting to FC4 took some time but after updating FC4 using yum and learning how to configure my desktop I was able to function correctly and be productive with Fedora Core 4.

I am happy with the packages included, with yum, with rpm, and with everything.

 
Old 11-05-2005, 08:33 PM   #23
howodd
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: FC4
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:
Would you recommend the product? yes | Price you paid?: D/L | Rating: 9

Pros: ease of use and install
Cons: didn't like the menu layout


I thought the Anaconda installer was excellent, the whole process of installing went without a hitch. All questions it asked were clear. The computer only needed to be restarted once (at the end of the install.) In fact, I seldom to never need to restart my FC4 computer. I have had all four varieties of FC on this computer, updating as each new version comes out. My only negative was that I preferred the Menu layout in the other 3 versions better. FC4 could easily be setup and used by a very novice computer user. The update agent keeps the system patched and up to date against vulnerabilities, and there are widely available RPM package installations for other add-on programs.

For the advanced users, there are numerous configuration options that can make FC4 into whatever you want. I use FC4 as a print and file server for my home computers as well as use it to monitor internet traffic for viruses.
 
Old 11-18-2005, 11:29 AM   #24
 
Registered: Dec 1969
Posts: 0

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: 8

Pros: good installer, excellent gui, works without a hitch
Cons: prefer the debian package management system to redhats


This is for the X86_64 platform. My laptop is a V2000z (Turion ML_37, ATI RADEON XPRESS200M). I wanted to try a 64 bit distro.

I am a debian guy myself so I tried the debian and ubuntu distros but could not get them to work. They kept freezing up at the boot screen. So I downloaded the FC4 64 bit distro.

It installed without a hitch. The installer as always was great. Did not recognize my video card, so I did not get the 1280x768 resolution. But resolving that was easy enough (just download the driver from the ATI site). Also got the wireless card to work in the 64 bit mode (NDISWRAPPER and the driver from the ACER site for 64 bit windows).Have not tried the bluetooth and the card reader yet but I don't think I'll be using them much anyways.

The system is working great. Haven't had any problems so far. The only downside I think is that the repositories by default lack a lot of multimedia packages(Had to add livna and freshrpms). Also you need to install specific packages to get a lot of the common file formats to play(mp3, wma etc). Took me about 30 minutes to get all those packages installed(google).

I'd say its a good start for a linux newbie. Am not sure how good yum is but I think I saw instructions for installing apt on FC4. So am going to do that.

The only reason I am giving it an 8 is because I have not used it long enough to find any major kinks.
 
Old 11-20-2005, 11:14 AM   #25
 
Registered: Dec 1969
Posts: 0

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: 10

Pros: Easy install, Yum, stable
Cons: 4+ CDs


Amazing...everybody crying about KDE, etc.

Take a look on the install CD's - its there - just "unselect" Gnome and select KDE ;-)

Tried both Gnome and KDE and several configurations on multiple PC's - all are flawless. MP3 support can easily be added - no problem that I see. Core4 seems to be a nice improvement. Also...wondering why people say this is not for "serious" Linux users? Use the terminal if you want to be a "serious" Linux user ;-)
 
Old 11-27-2005, 02:09 AM   #26
Armor
 
Registered: Jul 2004
Distribution: CentOS 6 | Xunbuntu
Posts: 55

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: Works very well on Older Dell Laptop;
Cons: Distrubuted Resources on the Net


I am using the FC 4 after using FC2 on a workstation. It is very clean in function. I think it is faster than the FC2/3 builds.
I am using FC4 on a Dell Inspiron 4000, Intel 900Mhz Coppermine, 512MB RAM, WD 40GB Hard drive.
It is a ďdual-booterĒ with MS Windows 2000 SP4 as the other system.
I have a "vfat" slice for moving files between the OSes and sharing ambivalent files (.jpg, .mpg, mp3, .mov... ad nauseum).
It has no qualms using the Touchpad mouse, USB mouse, or PS2 mouse.
It accesses the 1GB Lexar Jump Drive with no errors.
It also does not error on the cable-attachable 3.5" floppy drive.
These are the kind of traits you would like for a portable system and most definitely for a "work station".
I prefer working on this system than the Sun Solaris 9 SPARC workstation I have to work with everyday.
The differences between the C Shells is a bit pronounced, but not to real distraction.
This is a very well rounded distribution. I base this on use of RedHat 8, Sun Solaris 7/8/9 SPARC 8/9 Intel, Corel Linux, and Ubuntu distributions.
 
Old 12-08-2005, 06:19 PM   #27
Lanix1
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Distribution: Slack
Posts: 19

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? no | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 2

Pros: All the software I like to use
Cons: Applicaton installation software is very buggy.


I have paid for full versions in the past, and it wasn't worth it then. I am more convinced now that they still aren't worth paying for. Fedora Core, is supposed to be a well maintained platform, however the media checking software seemed to pop up errors on every iso I checked, despite the fact that the SHA1 sums were perfect to the ones on the internet. Either the media checking software is bad, or the iso's on the internet are bad.

If you are making a decision about a distro, the core determinig factor should be how well it handles packages.
 
Old 01-23-2006, 07:12 AM   #28
Dubious Dave
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Distribution: Fedora
Posts: 108

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: Easy to use and install. Pretty good support from user groups.
Cons: Like any Linux distrobution,... hardware compatibility.


Certainly a good distrobution for a new user to linux like myself. Lots of stuff built in to keep me out of trouble.
 
Old 01-25-2006, 06:50 AM   #29
lucktsm
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Redhat ES4, FC4, FC5, slax, ubuntu, knoppix
Posts: 155

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: Easy to install and configure
Cons: Wireless support is difficult


I love the installation process it was very easy. I installed it first on my Alienware Laptop without a hitch. I then installed in my server and it runs my web server, MySQL and email servers. Very stable. The updates are simple with two choices really yum and the red hat applet that also works well.

I would recommend it.
 
Old 01-26-2006, 12:06 PM   #30
gavinb
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 0

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? no | Price you paid?: None indicated | Rating: 5

Pros: Free; includes latest versions of software
Cons: Install new software doen't work well. Had trouble correctly detecting software


Not bad, but it just isn't as easy to use as Ubuntu. I tried to install FC4 on two different computers. On my 64bit Amd, it locked up during install. On my older Athlon XP the software did install, but required alot of fiddling after the install was complete. Getting my NVIDIA drivers to work was a pain. Yum(the software install system) doesn't work right for many packages. Alot of failed installs because it couldn't handle dependencies correctly. It is the best Red Hat version yet, but Ubuntu has set the new standard. I would recommend Ubuntu instead.
 
Page:  1 · 2 More Items




  



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:03 PM.

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