Fedora Core 5 review

[tajidinabd]

was looking around and came accross this review for the latest FC to be released on Monday. Anyhow I am still quite excited about the release. Im sure alot of what he said maybe true. However I will be there Monday downloading the iso's. he seems to be very lukewarm about FC5 and especially the performance of GNOME 2.14 in FC5

[crossmr]

I just read that review and I'm curious how the community or more specifically those working on it would respond to this. It doesn't really endear me to upgrading from FC4. While I've been happy with FC4 on my laptop I'm looking to put FC on my desktop on a spare partition and I was thinking of using FC5, but I may just stick with FC4. I guess I'm feeling a bit put off by the review.
Does anyone have any other independent reviews or previews?

[Finalzone]

First, the author did not mention what test version of Fedora Core 5 he used.
Second, the final release is not out yet so some issues will be solved already. Check out the status.

I suggest to read the comments that pointed out author's mistakes and RahulSundaram comments .

[Flyboy917]

From the http://distrocenter.linux.com/distro....shtml?tid=107 "FC5 is a lumbering giant of a distribution."
suggest a minimum of 256 megabytes of RAM for a graphical system, and recommend 512. Even a command-line system requires 128 megabytes.
n other words, FC5 is not a distribution for beginners or those whose only interest is a desktop for everyday work.
FC's position as a showcase for the latest in GNU/Linux comes at a high price in system resources

This review is a joke right?
From: http://fedora.redhat.com/
Fedora Core is a free operating system that offers the best combination of stable and cutting-edge software that exists in the free software world.
And
At Tiger direct 128Meg of ram is $14.99 USD. 256Meg is $19.99, and 512K is $41.99
How dare cutting edge distros test on any significant hardware!
Ok, serriously, there are plenty of micro and live distros out there, to fault Fedora for needing 512Meg ...well...is about 512 Meg miss-informed!

[Flounder]

In other words, FC5 is not a distribution for beginners or those whose only interest is a desktop for everyday work. However, even moderately experienced users should seriously consider installing it to a spare partition or computer.

I guess I can challenge him on that on monday.

[RedFedora]

I'm running FC4 on 256MB of RAM without any problems. Surely the requirements
haven't doubled in the last six months?

As already pointed out, the reviewer was looking at a test release. I think we should wait
for FC5 Final reviews before making an decisions.

[thugpoet22]

It truly all depends on what you want to do on your system. If your running 6 applications and also playing a dvd and on the internet then 256 will not work well with your computer needs. But if you dont mind using a few apps at a time or the apps that you do use aren't resource hogs then there aren't any worries But i kinda glad that this new distro requires more memory. I think its important to always have more then whats required anyway. But i cant talk. I have almost 3 gigs of memory on a custom system.

[Owy]

I gues its a showcase of bugs...

Sorry for being so rude but I'm having a LOT of problems with it and I'm a little mad at the moment (like kernel not compiling or nVidia not installing)

[Flounder]

Currently on leaked version of core 5 it's working beautifully. Haven't done any yumming yet will do tomorrow when this is supported otherwise looks so much better gnome 2.14 got to say excellent work. Can finally customize gnome without having to edit files the manual way. I think it's converted me from kde now we'll see how that goes too. Install went smoothly, it seems easier than with core 4 to be honest. But I guess tomorrow we'll get a better feel for the bugs other than that so far no complaints.

[snoze]

I guess I can challenge him on that on monday

I will wait and watch

[snoze]

Install went smoothly, it seems easier than with core 4 to be honest. But I guess tomorrow we'll get a better feel for the bugs other than that so far no complaints.

I also have same feeling about fc5. Lets see

[taurus]

I keep telling people around here at work that the best review is the one you do it yourself. Just install, play around, and judge it yourself...

exactly.. and whats this was easier to install then core 4.. as if it was hard? :P

Does anyone know particularly as to which bits of SELINUX he was refering to that caused gnome to slow down?

[rappermas]

I think that I just decided to go every OTHER version. So, since Fedora Core 4 was my first distro, the next one I'll install is FC6. But who knows? One of these afternoons when I have nothing to do, I might get that Linux itch and I just might go ahead and slap FC5 onto my box.

[tajidinabd]

seems as though this reviewer is being proved wrong at least with one thing how GNOME would be 60% slower on FC5. I seen some users tell me the speed is much improved compared to FC4. So one his arguments goes flushing down the toilet.