In this multiple disto review: http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20071203#review
Fedora got second worst score, I can't imagine why but still I wanted to share the link.
Valent.
On 12/31/07, Valent Turkovic valent.turkovic@gmail.com wrote:
In this multiple disto review: http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20071203#review
Fedora got second worst score, I can't imagine why but still I wanted to share the link.
Valent.
-- http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic
-- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
looks like author has never installed fedora, just read some 3-d party reviews. :(
Valent Turkovic schrieb:
In this multiple disto review: http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20071203#review
Fedora got second worst score, I can't imagine why but still I wanted to share the link.
Oh well. Giving SuSE 8 for pkg management and Fedora only a 5 is a shame.
But the summary gives an explanation for the final result:
"The bottom line is that you really need to know what you are doing if you want to use Fedora. It is not for novices, although installing this distribution will probably cause you to take a crash course in Linux system configuration, which could result in you becoming a guru, after some considerable frustration. Not recommended for those wishing to convert from using Windows, but developers will probably like the environment."
Some numbers of my latest installs: * Red Hat Enterprise Linux (about 10 minutes - kickstart) * Fedora (about 30 minutes, quite fast machine) * S.u.S.E. (about 1 day - in 1996, "pkg management": tarballs!)
So S.u.S.E. is worse in installation and worse in pkg management. :-P
-of
I smell a bias:
According to the TFA:
1) Ubuntu took 3 attempts attempts to install. But still it got an 8 in that field, compared to Fedora which got 7 2) `System configuration can be fiddly, and configuring wireless Internet often requires some knowledge as you probably have to set up NDISwrapper.`.... wtf? Because ubuntu uses some magical kernel which all wireless drivers work? Notice the `you probably`... ie, he never tried 3) Maybe we should have a `select which services to keep running` as part of the installer? You can't deny Fedora enables a LOT of services, many of which take a bit of time to get going.
On 12/31/2007 10:47 AM, Tejas Dinkar wrote:
I smell a bias:
According to the TFA:
- Ubuntu took 3 attempts attempts to install. But still it got an 8
in that field, compared to Fedora which got 7 2) `System configuration can be fiddly, and configuring wireless Internet often requires some knowledge as you probably have to set up NDISwrapper.`.... wtf? Because ubuntu uses some magical kernel which all wireless drivers work? Notice the `you probably`... ie, he never tried 3) Maybe we should have a `select which services to keep running` as part of the installer? You can't deny Fedora enables a LOT of services, many of which take a bit of time to get going.
Just two weeks ago I have installed Ubuntu on a Dell laptop belonging to a friend. It only took a couple of mouse clicks and no previous knowledge (besides the mere "I know there are some binary drivers needed and they are not included by default"; note the absence of any mention of a specific repository info here) to have ATI (hence 3D video) and Broadcom (hence wireless) to have everything working. Leaving aside any rant or justification about patents and such, from a user point of view I would have noted Ubuntu with 9 and Fedora with 5. As for the difference between "it just works " and "dig on google for what to do in order to add the repository, extract the firmware and install it"
On 12/31/07, Manuel Wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro wrote:
On 12/31/2007 10:47 AM, Tejas Dinkar wrote:
I smell a bias:
According to the TFA:
- Ubuntu took 3 attempts attempts to install. But still it got an 8
in that field, compared to Fedora which got 7 2) `System configuration can be fiddly, and configuring wireless Internet often requires some knowledge as you probably have to set up NDISwrapper.`.... wtf? Because ubuntu uses some magical kernel which all wireless drivers work? Notice the `you probably`... ie, he never tried 3) Maybe we should have a `select which services to keep running` as part of the installer? You can't deny Fedora enables a LOT of services, many of which take a bit of time to get going.
Just two weeks ago I have installed Ubuntu on a Dell laptop belonging to a friend. It only took a couple of mouse clicks and no previous knowledge (besides the mere "I know there are some binary drivers needed and they are not included by default"; note the absence of any mention of a specific repository info here) to have ATI (hence 3D video) and Broadcom (hence wireless) to have everything working. Leaving aside any rant or justification about patents and such, from a user point of view I would have noted Ubuntu with 9 and Fedora with 5. As for the difference between "it just works " and "dig on google for what to do in order to add the repository, extract the firmware and install it"
If you need things "Just to work" and aren't bothered by firmware and other blobs in your kernel why don't you just use LinuxMint?
It is an enhanced version of Ubuntu and it "Just Works".
Your friends will thank you many times...
Valent.
El lun, 31-12-2007 a las 17:56 +0100, Valent Turkovic escribió:
On 12/31/07, Manuel Wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro wrote:
On 12/31/2007 10:47 AM, Tejas Dinkar wrote:
I smell a bias:
According to the TFA:
- Ubuntu took 3 attempts attempts to install. But still it got an 8
in that field, compared to Fedora which got 7 2) `System configuration can be fiddly, and configuring wireless Internet often requires some knowledge as you probably have to set up NDISwrapper.`.... wtf? Because ubuntu uses some magical kernel which all wireless drivers work? Notice the `you probably`... ie, he never tried 3) Maybe we should have a `select which services to keep running` as part of the installer? You can't deny Fedora enables a LOT of services, many of which take a bit of time to get going.
Just two weeks ago I have installed Ubuntu on a Dell laptop belonging to a friend. It only took a couple of mouse clicks and no previous knowledge (besides the mere "I know there are some binary drivers needed and they are not included by default"; note the absence of any mention of a specific repository info here) to have ATI (hence 3D video) and Broadcom (hence wireless) to have everything working. Leaving aside any rant or justification about patents and such, from a user point of view I would have noted Ubuntu with 9 and Fedora with 5. As for the difference between "it just works " and "dig on google for what to do in order to add the repository, extract the firmware and install it"
I install Ubuntu on my Compaq V3000, wireless not work. I follow the ubuntu wiki help. On Fedora 7 and Fedora 8, the wireless work with few steps.
Ubuntu remove my previous grub (never ask me). Fedora ask if you need a new grub.
Ubuntu's installer dont let choose (like Window$)
If you need things "Just to work" and aren't bothered by firmware and other blobs in your kernel why don't you just use LinuxMint?
It is an enhanced version of Ubuntu and it "Just Works".
Your friends will thank you many times...
Valent.
-- http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Eduardo Villagrán Morales -
Manuel Wolfshant -
Oliver Falk -
Tejas Dinkar -
Valent Turkovic -
Zhukov Pavel