Why I think FC3 sucks!

[Pasha]

Edward Yang wrote:

> After getting so many reply from my last post, I finally understand 
> why the post aroused so much agitation.
>
> 1. It seems for some people, 'FC3 sucks' is the same as '*Linux* 
> sucks'. But I am very sorry, I did not mean that. I just meant FC3 
> sucks or FC3 sucks because it is worse than FC1 based on my personal 
> experience.
>
> 2. Some young guys (mostly students) or even not-so-young guys (what 
> the hell who are they?) like the feel of calling somebody *troll*, and 
> so they seize every possible chance to show off their *skills* at name 
> calling. That's a dark side I already know about Linux communitiy. 
> But, please note I am not saying the *whole* Linux community is bad, I 
> mean a small part of it.
>
> Okay, let me elaborate why I think FC3 sucks or FC3 is worse than FC1. 
> Note that I did not have experience with FC2.
>
> 1. Installation. Well, what can I say? It is not worse, but it not any 
> bettern than FC1. Components selection is still very difficult.

This is a matter of personal preference. For me, FC installation looks 
pretty easy - much easier than any version of Windows i tried.

>
> 2. FC3 could not start into X in Virtual PC. It spews out tons of 
> error messages complaining something that actually should not have 
> caused its failure. So I have to download a temporary patch from 
> http://vpc.visualwin.com/. See page 
> http://vpc.visualwin.com/Notes/FedoraCore.3.Final.html.

Sorry, but this is a problem in virrtual PC and has nothing to do with 
Fedora, no matter the reason. There are a lot of windows apps that don't 
run in wine of Crossover Office. Is it right to say that these apps suck?

>
> 3. After several times of kernel updating (at least 3), I finally can 
> boot into X from the so called official kernel provided by FC3.
>
> 4. It is hopelessly slower than FC1! I could run FC1 with only 128mb 
> memory and don't feel much sluggishness. I now run FC3 with 164mb 
> memory, but it is visibly slower than FC1! Application startup time is 
> almost unbearable.

I didn't try FC1, but on my machine, both FC2 and FC3 run significantly 
faster than RH9. When I installed FC2, it really made me feel that 
somehow it upgraded my CPU. Your problem may be eithere poorly supported 
hardware or, most probably, bad emulation in virtual pc

>
> 5. I am a newbie on Linux, but I already find a few bugs. For example, 
> in gnome-termial, if I set DEL to ASCII DEL in the profile settings, 
> it actualy acts like BACKSPACE. This bug may be specific only to 
> gnome, but since it's bundled with FC3, so I attribute the problem to 
> FC3. It's quite reasonable.

Never had such problem with any version of linux i tried. Either stop 
tweaking options you don't understand or (again) it is an emulator that 
needs tweaking. BTW, in my terminal, backspace is configured to generate 
ASCII DEL, and del to escape sequence and I never changed this. So, you 
probably just configured del to be a backspace.

>
> 6. I have not acurate data to prove this, but I feel the system boot 
> up time is longer than FC1.

Look in release notes how to disable graphical boot.

>
> 7. This is a minor problem - I only installed kernel+gnome, no KDE. 
> Yet it takes up more than 2gb space. What the hell? A normal Windows 
> 2000 installation usually takes only 1.5gb even with all components 
> selected. I forgot how much was FC1, but FC3 apparently is not doing 
> better or even worse.

It depends on what else you chose to install. Win2k is 1.5gb and all it 
provides is notepad. If you learn linux programming, you probably 
installed development tools, and some other tools - depending on what 
you are trying to do - databases, kernel sources, etc. Also, did you 
install stuff like OpenOffice etc.?

>
> 8. I may think of others that attribute to this 'FC3 sucks' topic.
>
> Final words - I am not negating Linux. Actually I think Linux and Open 
> Source has a very good future. That's why I am catching the new waves 
> here.
>
> Thanks.
>