PDA

View Full Version : Absolutely amazed by Fedora



PompeyBlue
1st July 2004, 08:31 PM
So, around a year and a half ago, I installed redhat 7.3

Getting my ADSL line to work was a nightmare, most of the apps seemed to be a bit ropey and there wasn't much point to it.

A week or so ago I installed Fedora and I'm literally amazed by the changes. It installed pretty much flawlessly (although dual booting was tricker). This truly is an operating system to rival windows, I'm just stunned that so much progress has been made.

It seems to do everything windows does, but slightly better.

I mean, you install it and you have a full word processor, spread sheet, email.

I'm still working around this system, but the email even tells me the weather in my home town! I was emailed a document that my partner had written in word and the openoffice.org word processor just opened it up!

I truly am in awe, and if I was Mr Gates, I'd be more than a bit nervous....

What's the point of having WinXP ? Maybe for the win games, but that's about it....

fjleal
1st July 2004, 09:15 PM
There are a bunch of Windows applications that you can't replace with Linux equivalents, unfortunately. Like Autocad, like some sound and video applications... To play games, one can just buy a gamebox, a playstation, a gamecube - whatever! But we need companies like Autodesk, Adobe, etc., to start publishing their software to our platform, otherwise many people will continue to be bound to Windows.

And yes, you're right, Fedora is an amazing distribution. ;)

imdeemvp
1st July 2004, 09:59 PM
Let's keep in mind V I R U S F R E E B A B Y.........my main reason why i dumped windozz

ghaefb
1st July 2004, 11:01 PM
VIrus-wormus-spywaerus free :D

rogerdugans
1st July 2004, 11:14 PM
Fedora is excellent in my opinion as well-
I have it running on 4 machines- 2 still on core 1, 2 with core 2- right now. :)

Great installer, excellent hardware recognition....and so on.

Of course, along with the ease of install comes the downside: bloat and running services that are not needed- just one of life's little compromises. ;)

But as I said- I like it enough that it is on more of my own computers than any other OS, and it is likely to STAY on my two most important machines: the compromises I don't care for can easily be changed, after all. :D

But one note to rememember:
Linux is a much smaller virus/malware target than Windows but it still IS a target!
Running linux does not mean you are protected, just that 90% of the bug exploits and malware out there aren't going to work on your machine.
The other 10% may.

ghaefb
1st July 2004, 11:18 PM
Oh really ?
Where did you see this 90% - 10% statiscits ?

Equisilus
1st July 2004, 11:20 PM
VIrus-wormus-spywaerus free :D

Heh. Not wanting to rain on anyone's parade, but Linux distros will be virus, worm, and spyware free only until it becomes popular enough to warrant someone taking the time to hack it up. Windows was the same way, you know. I'm all for Linux distros doing well, but people have to be realistic: all of these problems can occur in Linux; they may just show themselves in different ways. ;)

ghaefb
1st July 2004, 11:29 PM
I know..
But right now it is VIrus-wormus-spywaerus free
:p

foolish
2nd July 2004, 01:25 AM
Not quite true. Because of the user system where only root can edit the system files viruses will have to be root to do real damage. Sure, they can delete your entire home dir *shivers*, but unless you enter your root password, it can't harm the system itself. Besides, much of linux software is open source, security issues can be fixed by anyone able, and a lot of people are. If you keep updated and don't work as root when you don't have to, you will be safer in Linux than in Windows, even when we're the most common OS.

pigpen
2nd July 2004, 01:42 AM
One think which I still find kinda annoying is the sound system in Linux. Can anyone tell me e.g., how to get the flash plugin, realplayer, xmms, licq system messages, etc. to play simultaneously... I understand that the artsd is a step in that direction, but for the flash plugin and the realplayer, there's no arts plugin, or is there?
Sound in Windows XP 'just works'....

ghaefb
2nd July 2004, 01:50 AM
What kind of sound card are you using? Probably some on board...

When I was using my on board soud card I also couldn't play xmms and mplayer sound simultaneously. But I have Creative Live card now, and It's all playing perfect now, so I guess the problem is in (sound driver) support for hardware sound mixing on many "crapy" sound cards.

Alsa can make software sound mixing if configured..

fjleal
2nd July 2004, 01:56 AM
(...) even when we're the most common OS.
Great expectations, foolish?... ;)

David
2nd July 2004, 02:03 AM
There are a bunch of Windows applications that you can't replace with Linux equivalents, unfortunately. Like Autocad, like some sound and video applications... To play games, one can just buy a gamebox, a playstation, a gamecube - whatever! But we need companies like Autodesk, Adobe, etc., to start publishing their software to our platform, otherwise many people will continue to be bound to Windows.

And yes, you're right, Fedora is an amazing distribution. ;)
I wonder how quickly that will happen. As a s/w company you can't just support linux, you have to support all the popular linux distros. I have enough difficulty getting open source software to run on my computer, let alone closed source. The first time I installed the NV driver was via their own installer and my computer crashed badly all the time as a result. I tried to run a Wolfenstein mp game once and that didn't work properly either. I've since come to the conclusion that the only things worth installing on Fedora Core 1 are RPMs compiled for Fedora Core 1. Otherwise you're setting up a very unstable (and in the case of the NV driver, unusable) operating system. If I'd just paid 500 for Cubase I'd expect it to work out of the box. That's just not going to happen right now and Steinberg customer services would be awash with calls of complaints if they tried it. So they have no incentive to support Linux and plenty of reason not to support it.

Imo this is what makes Windows and Mac OS stand apart from Linux. They just work. You don't need to look at log files or adjust conf files just to hear sound. Right now, if a computer newbie asked me if he should buy a system running windows or Fedora I'd recommend Fedora cos it's been preinstalled/setup in the shop and all newbie has to do is run yum update once in a while. But installing it himself? I'd tell him to forget it. Having said that, I agree with the first poster, Fedora is much closer than Linux ever was before. I also hear nice things about SuSE.

Another part of the problem is that the developers aren't very good at writing software to be used by ignorant people. Man pages are horrible things that require an afternoon to wade through sometimes. A newbie is simply going to be overwhelmed. But a simpler example is the rescue CD. If something goes bad in linux and I need to fix it then I must load the rescue CD then type linux rescue at the prompt. As a new user, how am I supposed to know this? Oversights like this reveal a basic misunderstanding about how the vast majority of computer users think. As long as this continues to be the case they will always seek an alternative to Linux.

owakroeger
2nd July 2004, 02:08 AM
Foolish has an excellent point, in that Linux users are not immune to the trash being thrown. But limiting on-line time as root to just the absolute necessity will help. About virus protection, I'm running Clamav, and it seems to work.....it found a virus on my Win98 partition while I was running FC2, and removed it. Just how or when it got there I'm not sure, but that Clamav found it was impressive. I, too, am very impressed with all that I've seen and had time to play with on my FC2 platform. I'm also quite impressed with the amount and quality of volunteer support available. Post a query, giving as much pertinant info as needed, and you'll get a reaponse usually within a day, frequently several responses, informative, and free. The price I feel, then, that I'm obligated to pay is to give back as freely as I received.
LINUX VOBISCUM! et CUM SOURCE CODE TUO!
My two cents worth.
owa

Picomp314
2nd July 2004, 02:21 AM
Microsoft est mortuus tyrannus et vincetur
Microsoft is a dying tyrant and it will be conquered

PompeyBlue
2nd July 2004, 02:39 AM
Fedora is much closer than Linux ever was before

This is the point, given that this progress has been made in a year and a half, if it's repeated in the coming 2 years, then linux suddenly becomes a real contender.

I'm kind of sad to see that source distribution is being retired in favour of binary distribution, but as long as the source code is given as well, with the option to build it, then I don't see the problem....

I guess the source code will start to be distributed less and less though....

Ug
2nd July 2004, 04:13 AM
Moved to Fedora Focus.

rogerdugans
2nd July 2004, 01:43 PM
Oh really ?
Where did you see this 90% - 10% statiscits ?


My apologies:
I should have stated that the figures I used were "pulled out of a part of my anatomy". ;)

They are not based on any fact anywhere, just literally pulled out of thin air to make the point.
Linux viruses DO exist, although they are not anywhere near as common as Windows viruses and malware.

In all the time I have been messing with Linux, I have only had evidence of one on one of my machines.

Jman
2nd July 2004, 03:37 PM
I'm kind of sad to see that source distribution is being retired in favour of binary distribution, but as long as the source code is given as well, with the option to build it, then I don't see the problem....

I guess the source code will start to be distributed less and less though....
It's only being retired in the sense that people who don't want to rebuild the rpms don't download the source.
The Fedora EULA (http://fedora.redhat.com/licenses/eula.html) states that the licenses of the components still apply. Since many of them are GPL, they are obligated to have the source available somewhere. The source rpms will be there, just in case. Otherwise it's not open source.

It is for this reason that I like Fedora. It's features are available for anyone, and they can even change things if they want. I just use it, but it is nice to know I have the freedoms to do what I want with it.

mark
2nd July 2004, 04:16 PM
Microsoft est mortuus tyrannus et vincetur
Microsoft is a dying tyrant and it will be conquered
Microsoftos delenda est?

PompeyBlue
2nd July 2004, 08:34 PM
The Fedora EULA (http://fedora.redhat.com/licenses/eula.html) states that the licenses of the components still apply. Since many of them are GPL, they are obligated to have the source available somewhere. The source rpms will be there, just in case. Otherwise it's not open source.

So presumably the games offered here (http://www.tuxgames.com/) should have the source code available too ?

gonzalocontador
2nd July 2004, 08:49 PM
I have a Sony Vaio laptop and I just installed Fedora However I seem to have no success in making the sound work it rips the music and it plays the music ripped but it doesn't have any sound to just play the CD. Any tips ?

fjleal
2nd July 2004, 09:18 PM
As a s/w company you can't just support linux, you have to support all the popular linux distros. I have enough difficulty getting open source software to run on my computer, let alone closed source. The first time I installed the NV driver was via their own installer and my computer crashed badly all the time as a result. I tried to run a Wolfenstein mp game once and that didn't work properly either. I've since come to the conclusion that the only things worth installing on Fedora Core 1 are RPMs compiled for Fedora Core 1.
Yes, the different distributions may include different libraries and different systems that may or may not allow a software to work. But I don't think things are as bad as you mention. Being a free OS, everyone can do with GNU/Linux whatever may want to do. You can create a new distribution if you like. You won't be forced to follow any standards, but you'll be better off if you do. Efforts from different teams around the world to create standards, like OpenDesktop.org, the Apache Foundation, even W3C and the IEFT, are being taken and implemented in all the most popular distros. So you already have enough quality software to use as a base for your applications, such that they'll run on (almost) every distro. Think about projects like Mozilla - do you ever had any trouble installing it? Companies have to invest in their software's quality. This is not Visual Basic, you know... ;)

By the way, I installed RTCW in a Fedora Core 1 box and it worked amazingly well, very fast and very entertaining! That was the problem... :D


Imo this is what makes Windows and Mac OS stand apart from Linux. They just work. You don't need to look at log files or adjust conf files just to hear sound.
Alsa is a new platform, some problems have arisen, but it'll settle down. Mac is a proprietary platform, you don't have to worry about supporting so many different hardware as we have to. And Microsoft spends billions of $$ in Windows just for it to "be compatible" with the most recent hardware - still sometimes it isn't! And I already had to look at many Windows NT and Windows 2K/XP logfiles to find out why they didn't work as they were supposed to...



Another part of the problem is that the developers aren't very good at writing software to be used by ignorant people.
I understand your point. But do we want our software to go down to ignorant people's level, or shall we do our best efforts for ignorant people to get an education and learn to use a decent OS? Think abut that. Many of the Windows' security flaws are due to allowing people to use an administration account by default, so that their computing experience is easier. It may be harder to explain a new user about root and ordinary accounts, and "su" and so on, but it has its advantages... :)

Equisilus
2nd July 2004, 11:36 PM
I understand your point. But do we want our software to go down to ignorant people's level, or shall we do our best efforts for ignorant people to get an education and learn to use a decent OS? Think abut that. Many of the Windows' security flaws are due to allowing people to use an administration account by default, so that their computing experience is easier. It may be harder to explain a new user about root and ordinary accounts, and "su" and so on, but it has its advantages... :)

To take up this point, as someone new to FC2, and Linux in general, I soon discovered that it can be quite difficult to find information that is applicable to the distro you've installed and that is clearly written with a new user in mind. A lot of information assumes prior working knowledge and/or the use of a particular distro. Remember, too, there was a reason why graphical user interfaces were created: it was to make it easier for the general user to manipulate the computer environment. Linux steps this back by making the "command line" a key interface. When a simple driver install involves obscure commands typed into the terminal/console, a complex configuration setup (still working on the ATI driver mess), and general poor software/hardware support, you can see why it'd drive away the new user. That's not even to mention the fact that a new user has to actively seek out this information, information they may not even realize they need to know until they hit a brick wall and are forced to find it.

Fortunately, most people that want to try Linux are just hobbiests or are those who already know enough (or need to know enough) to get it going. Linux is not as friendly as it should be, and until it is, it'll be relegated to second tier status. I'm all for Linux doing well, and I don't particularly mind it since I'm picking FC2 up as a hobby, but an attitude of putting the onus on the user to do all the work will not get you accepted in the general community. People (ie. the general computer users) have better things to do with their time.

Key words: "ease of use".

David
3rd July 2004, 12:17 AM
Another part of the problem is that the developers aren't very good at writing software to be used by ignorant people.
I understand your point. But do we want our software to go down to ignorant people's level, or shall we do our best efforts for ignorant people to get an education and learn to use a decent OS? Think abut that. Many of the Windows' security flaws are due to allowing people to use an administration account by default, so that their computing experience is easier. It may be harder to explain a new user about root and ordinary accounts, and "su" and so on, but it has its advantages... :)
I think you're missing my point; I wasn't suggesting we rewrite linux to behave like windows. If I wanted that then I wouldn't have migrated to linux from windows in the first place! :P But I found it very difficult to break Linux's skin, so to speak. And I'm pretty computer savvy, too.

It's not about "going down to their level" as you put it. They're not stupid and I'm sure they'd happily learn if there were given an opening, but they're not. Even choosing a distro is hard work. I spent a good week and a half trying to decide which distro was best to install. In the end I settled for Debian Woody, spent a few months trying to make it work, switched to Mandrake, spend a few more months trying to make that work. Then I went back to Debian Sarge, couldn't even get passed the installation process... Finally I found Fedora completely by chance on my uni website. To be honest I didn't have very high expectations of it - it seemed like a testing ground for Red Hat - but I thought, why not? I spent a weekend preparing the installation and then took the plunge. A week later I had a useable system. That's a year trying to make Linux work on my computer. Somehow I think most people would have given up much earlier.

Why do you think I wanted to write a linux manual in the first place? Cos I got sick and tired of arseholes telling me to "RTFM" whenever I asked a question on a BB or in IRC. No I'm not being lazy, I've been "RTFM" for the last hour and a half. Although decifer would be a more accurate description. Worse yet, some idiot actually took the trouble to write a 10 page manual on how to ask a question. What's more, the people around him thought it was a good idea. So not only are you expected to work everything out yourself, but if you do need help you have to go through a training course on how to converse with a geek first. It's pathetic.

Anyway, that's enough ranting for one day.

Actually I will just make the point that the Fedora community is surprisingly free of this elitism. This board is testament to that. The main reason why I am optimistic about Linux is because of Fedora. So I share the oriinal poster's sentiments. But we shouldn't start congratulating ourselves just yet. ;)

ghenry
3rd July 2004, 12:51 AM
Have you got a list of things you wanted to find out, before making your decision? This might be a good chance to update the FAQ.

fjleal
3rd July 2004, 12:51 AM
David and Equisilus:

I understand your point of view. I'm not defending that we shall have an elitist attitude. By the contrary, Linux is often considered the OS of the poor :), probably because it's free. What I was trying to say with that phrase is that it is better to educate "ignorant people" (you wrote it, David, not me!) than to go along with their ignorance. Now, if you're talking about ordinary users, I agree with Equisilus when he says that Linux could benefit from more "ease of use". But that's a problem the graphical interfaces aim to solve, by giving the user appropriate graphical tools to configure the system. Don't you think Gnome and KDE, among others, are doing an excelent job? Windows was born as a "domestic" system, from the single-user machine metaphor. On a Linux system, you have a much higher level of complexity than in Windows - think of everything you can do, for instance, with a FC2 distro "out-of-the-box": it may be a web server, a firewall, a router, a network server (printer and file server, user authenticator), a dhcp server, a dns server, a ... Or it can perform simply as a desktop machine. To be able to fulfill so many roles with a Windows box you have to have a Windows 2003 Server, in the minimum! And if you have, then again, the configuration isn't so simple, and it doesn't need to be, because it's not meant for "ordinary users".

Thinking only from the "ordinary user" point of view, my opinionis that work in the right direction is being done. Working with Office applications, browsing the web, listening to music and videos, you can do all that with any recent Linux distro "out-of-the-box", just as easily as with Windows. But you have a so much powerful world at your fingertips with a Linux box, that the price to pay is necessarily an increase in complexity. Still the "ordinary user" won't probably take any advantage of it - he doesn't with Windows 98, XP Home Edition, etc. Also, the fact that there's no single company to produce a GUI for GNU/Linux makes it more heterogeneous. You have many more different solutions to learn about. But hey, that's where the fun is!!! ;)

Did I write too much?... :o

ghaefb
3rd July 2004, 01:06 AM
I think you wrote just about enough :)

This is great reading, I like your point of view fjleal.
I totally agree with you man. Interesting...

ghenry
3rd July 2004, 01:13 AM
We should make something of this thread via some form of doc here.

Picomp314
3rd July 2004, 03:30 AM
Microsoftos delenda est?

quin etiam cum magna festinatio

Equisilus
3rd July 2004, 04:53 AM
David and Equisilus:

Thinking only from the "ordinary user" point of view, my opinionis that work in the right direction is being done. Working with Office applications, browsing the web, listening to music and videos, you can do all that with any recent Linux distro "out-of-the-box", just as easily as with Windows.

Ah, but that's the thing. Linux distros don't often work "out-of-the-box". Take, for instance, the requirements to get my ATI Radeon 9600 XT working in FC2 (still isn't, btw, but I'm working at it). In Windows, I run the driver/console setup and away I go. After a reboot, it's all installed and all I have to do is perhaps change my resolution and change some display settings. That's it. With FC2, it's a mish-mash of commands, patches, and configuration (that I won't post here) that required me to visit forums and other sites just to get the driver installed let alone working.

I do understand what you are saying about Linux's "out-of-the-box" concept. It is free, afterall, and you do have the option of a number of other free bits of software to go with it. Obviously that's a big plus with Linux. However, is it worth it for the "ordinary user" to go through all the trouble to get basic hardware/software to work in order to use those "out-of-the-box" free bits or is it just easier to pay for the ability to get right into something without spending weeks/months getting your system up to an optimum functionality?

Seriously, seeing what I have of Linux (and FC2) so far, I could only recommend it to someone who wants to play around with the guts of a system and to someone who has a lot of time on their hands. I think people who take that plunge into Linux should be aware of just how much work it can be. Go into it with eyes open, so-to-speak. I did, and that's why I'm not frustrated or otherwise upset with how it is going. FC2 is a hobby, it's secondary to my working system, and it's rather fun to learn something new. But Linux is not for the ordinary general user.


Did I write too much?... :o

Nah. These sorts of discussions are what a community is all about. There are always going to be those speaking out on both sides of the issues. As long as we agree that the "friendliness" of Linux is key to generating widespread acceptance of it as an alternative to Windows, then we have a starting point from which to work. ;)

David
3rd July 2004, 05:27 AM
Have you got a list of things you wanted to find out, before making your decision? This might be a good chance to update the FAQ.
Specifically for me, they were getting my modem to work and making sure my soundcard was compatible, in that order. I wasn't too concerned about reading NTFS partitions because I'd done that before and knew it was possible.

I used this (http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/speedbundle_fedora.html) guide to set up my speedtouch and our very own foolish's guide on getting ALSA working. He also helped me out when I couldn't get it working as per his instructions, for which I'm very grateful. As it turned out there was a conflct with my MIDI/USB device that was solved by unplugging it before start up.

Everything would be fine once I could get online, cos then I could find the info, rpms etc myself. Thankfully the guide I used worked and everything was hunkydory after about a day, except for sound which took a bit of solving.

I did have a problem with the installation itself that held me up for a bit: my monitor wasn't covered in the available list. At first I didn't even think the manufacturer was listed, but I found it hidden in a folder for a computer distro, or something. My monitor's a Belinea, btw. Anyway, I chose the nearest model and then entered in the parameters myself from the manual. After a few tries, that did the trick.

fjleal, I didn't mean anything derrogatory when I used the term "ignorant." I simply meant, people who don't know about it. Like, I'm ignorant about the fishing industry or Mac OS 9. But I can probably find a book on OS 9 and learn about it if I want. I didn't mean ignorant people are stupid, or anything like that. Everybody who's new to Linux is ignorant about it. Even you were once :)

To throw a spanner in the works slightly, I actually prefer the CLI in a lot of ways. In fact, that's one thing I don't like about Windows. It does have its advantages and I frequently work from it. I think it also helps you understand your computer better. So as a learning aid it's actually quite handy. I think I like the idea of having graphical front ends to existing applications, not least of all because it suits the way Linux runs very nicely. But, of course, you have to know about the front end first. For example, I found out about firestarter by chance on IRC, I think. If I hadn't known about it I'd probably be fiddling around with iptables settings instead. But not many people use IRC, nor do many people frequent BBs. In fact, a lot of people don't even use the internet for much other than checking their emails.

If a new user account created a readme file in the home directory, a sort of a welcome program that gives an FAQ, guided tour, web resources (like this board) and so on, then that would be great. It gives the new user resources to find new information on his own. A lot of it could be stuff borrowed from the net already. I'm sure many authors of manuals and howtos would be over the moon if asked permission to include their guides in official Fedora documentation.

fjleal
3rd July 2004, 09:38 AM
Linux distros don't often work "out-of-the-box". (...) With FC2, it's a mish-mash of commands, patches, and configuration (that I won't post here) that required me to visit forums and other sites just to get the driver installed let alone working.
I really don't have that kind of experience. I've installed Red Hat and Fedora systems in a lot of different machines (since Red Hat 5 or 6...), even a few Mandrakes... Maybe I've been lucky, but I never run into such trouble. I use to try Slax or Knoppix on every new platform before installing a "full" distro, that helps... Of course, there are incompatible modems, wireless nics, scanners, etc., but modern distributions (specially FC2) are amazing detecting hardware. For instance, today I installed a new server machine - a Amd 64 bit uP with a SerialATA controller with RAID 0, 1 or 5 capabilities. I was amazed that FC2 x86_64 setup program detected everything, including the Promise disk controller, the Ati Radeon (7000, if I remember), the two Serial ATA disks, the network card... I'm delighted! :) It really worked "out-of-the-box"!

Aren't you, by any chance, talking about proprietary drivers? Because that's another talk...


fjleal, I didn't mean anything derrogatory when I used the term "ignorant." I simply meant, people who don't know about it. Like, I'm ignorant about the fishing industry or Mac OS 9. But I can probably find a book on OS 9 and learn about it if I want. I didn't mean ignorant people are stupid, or anything like that. Everybody who's new to Linux is ignorant about it. Even you were once
I still am!!! That's why I don't like when the world is presented to us simpler than it really is, and I value so much education. I think I used the word "ignorant" in pretty much the same sense as you - please pardon me if, for not being a natural english speaker, I wasn't able to express myself clearly.

I also don't know a bit about the fishing industry! What's a Mac Os 9?... ;)

David
3rd July 2004, 01:56 PM
I think we both like to get similar things from our operating systems, fjleal. I like to know how it works too. It gives me more confidence to know what I'm doing when I press that switch.

Out of curiousity, what would everybody like to see the Fedora community concentrate on improving next? For that matter, what are the Fedora community working on next? What's going in C3?

I presume that Red Hat will want to see the SE security thingy improved. I personally don't care about that cos I don't run a network or server. I think I'd like to have less problems with software crashes, myself. Often when a process crashes it takes the system with it and I'm forced to hard reset. This shouldn't really happen. In fact, I was quite disappointed with the stability of Fedora. In fairness I reckon it's about the same as windows, which is pretty good for a cutting edge wip like this. But I guess all the praise Linux gets for its stability had me naively (or otherwise) expecting more. Obviously I'd also like to see multimedia improved too, especially audio. But I suspect this is already done to a certain extent with the inclusion of ALSA in the 2.6 kernel.

If I had the guts I'd find out and give FC2 a try, but I expect to keep FC1 for quite a while yet. It took me a while to get it working the way I wanted and if it ain't broke don't fix it! :)

fjleal
3rd July 2004, 10:48 PM
I'd like to have less problems with software crashes, myself. Often when a process crashes it takes the system with it and I'm forced to hard reset. This shouldn't really happen.
Do you experience crashes? I don't remember having a program crash that would take the whole system with it. Due to the memory protected operation mode, that should never happen. It's very rare for me to have a program crash (maybe a small, badly written app. once or twice, but that's all). I have Linux boxes woking for months as data backends, running Apache, PHP, PostgreSQL, Samba, mail systems, etc., without a single crash. That I can remember... Are you sure there's nothing wrong with your hardware? A faulty ram module, maybe?... I once had a cdrom that did mess up the disk controller, what caused the system not to run well. I changed the ram, the hard disk, the disk cables, the uP... Took me weeks to find out the problem was the cdrom. Who'd suspect that?

David
4th July 2004, 02:08 PM
I used to experience a lot of crashes. Now I know what programs not to run. :p

My first and most serious problem was with the nvidia drivers. When I first installed them it was via the installer that NV provide. I can't remember precisely what the criteria were, but certainly doing anything involving 3D acceleration would crash the system. After a cold reset it would be a roll of the dice whether or not I'd get as far as the login screen on reboot. I'd often have to restart several times before I was able to log on.

Since then I've installed the rpm and that works much better, but running an openGL visualisation plugin in xmms, called OpenGL Spectrum Analyser, still causes the system to freeze. I haven't tried to play Chromium since a bad crash I had with that, probably related to the graphics driver as well. Finally the bt client, azureus, would do strange things and often caused the system to hang as well. I guess the first two can be attributed to the graphics card, but I don't know what azureus' problem is.

I have other software crashes that don't bring the system down. Most of them are invloving multimedia apps. Realplayer 10 often crashes, but then it's still quite early on in its development. Xine and Totem also crash. In fact, I can't use them at all. MPlayer works, but the audio sounds all weird. I hear pops, clicks and similar artefacts in the audio if I playback avis and dvds.

Otherwise Linux runs as one would expect. I know what software to avoid now and so I don't really get many crashes any more. In fact, the system runs pretty well exactly as I'd like, save a few details. So I think I'll be sticking with FC1 for a while to come yet, now that I've got it set up and working the way I like it.

DirkReiners
21st July 2004, 06:37 AM
Has anybody else experienced and analyzed the azureus problems?

I have them, too, and it's definitely the nvidia driver (running without works fine). Interestingly enough running the GTK version crashes the system after an unspecified amount of time, while running the Motif version crashes immediately.

I'm not sure what to do now... Is anybody else runnign FC2, nVidia 61.06 and azureus 2.1.0.4 successfully?

Thanks

Dirk

DirkReiners
21st July 2004, 06:52 AM
Quick followup: Changing from Jre 1.4.2 to the 1.5.0 beta seems to help, at least the Motif version doesn';t immediately crash anymore. I'll have to see whether it's a real fix by running it a while, but I'm optimistic.

Dirk

DirkReiners
21st July 2004, 07:52 AM
Nope, didn't help. I'll open a new thread.

mikethec
26th July 2004, 09:23 AM
In coming up with something to add to this thread, I've been reading the comments so far and am impressed with the attitudes of the posters here and in the other threads I've skimmed through.

My thoughts:

First, I should start by saying I am a Mac user, not a Windoze slave. I have been since I first entered the computer world in 1986. I have always felt that the GUI was a logical next step in computer user interfaces, and have always respected OSs and programs which provide a really intuitive user interface. Being a Mac user (and I apologize in advance if this sound egotistical -- I don't mean it that way), I have had higher standards than friends and acquaintenances who have used DOS or Windows. I feel it is truly easy to get spoiled when you have something that's simply better.

I think what is lacking in the Linux world is the simple intuitiveness that is such a fundamental part of Mac OS and, to a much lesser extent, Windows. This lack of intuitiveness is what gives people like Equisilus, David, fjleal, myself and many others fits. I think this is what seperates the Mac from Windows. It absolutely is what seperates the Mac from Linux.

The Microsoft theory is to make the interface so simplistic that anyone can use it. The Apple theory is to make the interface so intuitive that it is fundamentally easy to use, therefore causing people to want to use it. Why do you think Mac users have traditionally been so loyal to their computers?

I think the best way to have a compromise between the "it must be secure, efficient, and not bloated" crowd and the "it must be simple and easy to use" crowd lies not in the dumbing-down of any part of Linux, but in making it more intuitive. Making it more intuitive would, in my opinion, make it far more accessible to users than simply adding more eye candy.

What I think a lot of people overlook is that not only can/should the GUI be intuitive, but the CLI could also be intuitive.

Just my .02 intergalactic credits.

siwoods
26th July 2004, 10:15 PM
Like others here I was amazed by the step forward I saw when I installed FC2. The problem we've got is that an awful lot of IT consultants out there find Windows a safe place to be. We have to start documenting set-ups that show how good Linux will be in the business environment. I work between the end-users and the techies (more on the techy side) but I seem to be a rare animal in terms of my Linux preaching. We need to start demonstrating how good the OS is at answering business questions.

Take MySQL for example - it's mind blowing, OpenOffice is a gem and all I ever use at home now etc. etc. etc

Get out there people! Spread the word to the business community. :D