There have been many FC2 reviews, littered all over the net. I thought I would do my own, because I have some things I feel Fedora 2 should be praised for, and a few things I think it should reconsider.
Overview:
Previously, I was using SuSE 9.1 while I was waiting for Fedora Core 2 to reach stable status. At the same time, I made sure to try the test versions and make bug reports accordingly, however, SuSE, as good as it is, had some things that really annoyed me (For example, the screen setting 1024×768 is actually 800×600, and the only way to get the same resolution is to set it to 1280×768 and suffer a 60hz refresh rate) so I eagerly installed Fedora Core 2 as soon as I had the CDR’s ready.
Installation:
Fedora didn’t really do anything here, this is the same installer we’ve been using since Redhat 8.0 and probably prior. I can’t really complain, because it works, so why change it? I did a custom install for a little over 3GB, and it took less than a half hour, so the speed (in my experience) has definitely increased. There was an error message stating something to the effect of “unable to align partitions correctly” but everything is working for me, so that’s a minor complaint.
Software:
KDE 3.2: What can I say, KDE 3.2 is exceptional. I was amazed at how much has improved, even though I tried KDE 3.2 first when I installed it with FC1. (Installing or updating a Window Manager is almost a rite of passage). KDE 3.2 is fast, beautiful and it get’s the job done.
Gnome 2.6: This is the default window manager in Fedora Core 2. My experience with it so far has been much less than KDE 3.2, and I don’t see why they went to “spatial” browsing. Give it whatever fancy term you like, “spatial browsing” is just a fancy term they gave it (Probably to make it sound cool, since it’s been around since Windows 95) to describe “all windows open in new window”. That’s it. I am not sure I understand why they did this.
For those of you that don’t know, with Gnome 2.6 every time you click on a window, it opens in a new window. (This is “spatial browsing”).There is no option (I’ve checked, I could’ve missed it, but I doubt it) to turn this off. No offense to those that like this, but there is absolutely no excuse for it. You could set previous versions of Gnome up this way, the only difference now is that they removed the option to disable it and set it to default.
Aside from how the option to remove spatial browsing was removed, Gnome is pretty solid. For me, it runs 1.5 times slower than KDE, but for those of you who like all the Gnome apps, it will probably fit the bill.
Usability:
When it comes to Stability, for me, Fedora Core 2 is less stable than the original release. With FC1, my system crashed about once a month. Now, it crashes twice a week. For example, last week I was copying a URL into my clipboard to paste in an email, and my system locked up so bad, the only way out of it was to hit the reset button and go through a disk check. A few days later, I had two Mozilla windows open, and my system slowed down so bad that it took me two minutes (yes, two minutes) to move my mouse cursor to the Kmenu to reboot it. At that time, I went and grabbed a sandwhich before it finally decided to reboot. However, this happens very rarely and with these problems, I can’t reproduce them. Most of the time things work, however in some occasions they don’t.
Next, with sound and music (one of the primary things my computer is used for) things aren’t so smooth. The major problem is when I am listening to music, I get a loud, annoying hissing sound in the left speaker and you can’t hear any vocals. When Test 3 was first released, there were at least two bug reports about this, one from me included, that were completely ignored. This doesn’t make me feel so inclined to submit bug reports in the future. Yes, I know the Fedora team can’t fix every problem, but this one is huge, and almost all the Fedora forums I have visited, had a half dozen users complaining about this problem before and after Fedora Core 2 Stable was released. The problem is solved now, but the only way is to disable surround, so now my surround system only uses two speakers. To dive further into my multimedia problem, if I load a Super Nintendo Rom into ZSNES, you have the Nintendo logo as usual, but the “ding” sound the logo makes isn’t heard until two screens later.
Good Things About Fedora Core 2:
Don’t get me wrong, Fedora Core 2 is great. I just feel it has some problems that should’ve been fixed. Fedora is one of, if not the, most supported Linux systems there is, I have no problem finding the software I need from only a minute or two on Google. The screens are smooth and everything runs fast for a Linux distribution. The installation is a dream and runs faster on 3-4 cd’s than Microsoft does with one.
Bad Things About Fedora Core 2:
As much as I hate to say it, FC2 has some major issues. Although it isn’t Red Hat’s fault Gnome went to spatial browsing, it still shouldn’t have. I will say it until I am blue in the face: Spatial Browsing doesn’t give us anything we didn’t already have, it just removed the choice to have it operate different. (Maybe I’m missing something, I hope I am).
Although KDE 3.2 and Gnome 2.6 are great aside from small complaints, these are the same KDE 3.2 and Gnome 2.6 versions you could get with any other distro. All that was done to them was adding in the bluecurve theme followed by a recompile. I feel that since Gnome and KDE are both open source, much more could’ve been done with customization. Gnome now has a neat “Computer” icon which lists your drives, but the same thing should’ve been done with KDE. I mean, I made one myself for KDE just making a directory and putting all my drive icons in it. Why didn’t Fedora?
On the same wavelength, maybe there should have been some more time put into this release. Not much at all has changed from FC1. The only difference now is that all the software is more up to date, and you now have SELinux (Which is really only useful for servers) and X.org instead of Xfree. (Can someone please tell me if this effects performance at all? Both seem exactly the same to me).
My point is that with Windows Longhorn a year or two away, if all Linux distributions release the same thing over and over with only updating the software, Linux won’t even put a scratch into Longhorn. I think all developers whom make Linux distro’s should consider overhauling it, to make it more feature packed in order to combat Microsoft. It’s like Microsoft is giving Fedora a head start in a footrace, and Fedora is just standing there looking at them funny.
Final Thoughts:
This review isn’t meant to make Fedora look bad. With Fedora being all that’s left of the once great Red Hat, I have a lot to expect from it. I feel they could have done a bit better. However, aside from all the letdowns of this release, I will continue using it. Now, if only I can *clearly* get surround sound working again without the static…
i was disappointed by fedora. i am not a new user to unix/linux/others.
i use mandrake for my desktop – as it fits the bill. best tool for the job.
i use other OSes where the focus is more appropriate for other tasks. resecently i wanted to build an internet facing host, and wanted to take advantage of the recent advances in the linux kernel and the better system libraries.
and i thought fedora was suited to server tasks. my initial impression was bad. i had to use knoppix and mandrake rescue to fix items like MBRs etc (how often have i had to do a dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda ?).
then i wanted a minimal install with some initial development packages, but definitwely no apache or X or games or desktop environments… but no. installed fine but if you want to run some of their system-config- commands they’ll fail as you don’t have X.
useless! that really is bad. either (1) don’t provide such tools, or (2) make them work.
now – you may say, if you are such an expert why not just edit files … but the point is that these days with uber-distros patching and hacking and building up all sorts of side-effects, you;d better use their toosl or your changes won’t be parsed at a later date or will be over-written or some intentional side-effect isn’t called.
and this is an area where the BSDs really have a strength. they are kept simple, with no surprises. fancy features are not intentionally added which break the “proper” way fo doing things. and this is a shame as i believe the linux kernel is a marvel of modern engineering
t
As everyone and their dog seems to have an opinion on this spatial arguement, I thought I’d add my own for what its worth (granted not a lot).
Firstly the spacial being ‘realistic’ argument – exactly how do you define realistic, is that realistic as in the latest video games are apprantly realistic, as there’s certainly no direct analogy between folder browsing and the real world that I can see.
Win9x it certainly is not, but unless you’ve had it pointed out to you, it’s really not that different.
The examples most seem to define spatial with are remembering folder size/position icon layout etc.. well those of us from an Amiga background will remember thats how Workbench worked. From my memories spending much of your time arranging commonly used folders into a usable pattern was an unproductive waste of time – infact after many years using that form of browsing finding DirectoryOPUS was a revelation.
Also I really want to echo a few of the previous posts, arguing that its good for novice users is no suitable excuse for an environment that hinders the effectiveness of others; and burying configuration options and helpful usability functionality and instructions in a selective needs-to-know basis is hardly condusive to an effective working environment.
I also find it quite arogant of a number of posters to angrily respond with little more than a URL pointing to some forum explaining how to do x,y or z as if we should all know it already – which just highlights the lack of usability.
Now I’ve go that off my chest I’ll stop as I’m now just ranting.
I can’t stand it when I hear people say that Fedora is just RedHat taking advantage of the community. Do you realize how much work RedHat engineers do on these so-called “community” projects??? Some of the best engineers in the Linux world work for RedHat. I guess some people will bash them just because they are the most successful distro.
-G
You don’t need to explain to a novice user why Windows 2000 is better than Windows 98/ME for business use, any user would see that 2000 is more stable and reliable.
You don’t need to explain why software/feature A is better than software/feature B in order to get some task done, you just _see_ it.
Why you need 100 comments and dozens of links to explain why “spatial browsing” is better?
bluecurve is orrible…
the icons is bad
tha update icon is nonsense
yum (holy god this tool is a mule )
updates (whats? updates ? hahahaha)
this distro is amatorial.
#1
apple spent a cool 50 mil on finder usability. one of the many things that they got out of that is the spacial interface is substancially easier to use and more efficient.
#2
i spent my first decade or so of computer usage on a mac. after that, i switched to windows, after windows, i switched to linux. i have found many strengths and weaknesses using the three. the strength of windows is its software, and its compatibility. however, from an interface point of view at times it seems like it was made by a drunken blind man (no offense to the alcoholic visually impared intended^^ ) what i love about linux is the fact that i dont stop learning, there is no limit to how much you can understand about how things work. to a fan of operating systems in general, thats bliss. but the usability of linux guis makes windows look like a polished, intuitive interface.
all time greats in interface design? apple, beOS, amiga. hands down. nothing else even comes close. all time failures? windows, kde, gnome.
in all fairness, gnome has been making great strides towards usability recently. honestly, i find spatial nautilus a tease, like gnome saying “look what im capable of”, and then getting hit by one of those stumbling blocks, like the lack of “close all windows” mentioned earlier. but gnome is getting there, they are the one free DE who is putting an effort into making a usable interface.
unfortunately, thats not what people want. people want a free windows. “but the windows UI is a royal piece of crap, anyone who knows anything about human interaction interface design knows that!” you say. whats the response? some new usability study you havnt seen yet? noooooooooo. you get “It sucks because i dont understand it” (not in so many words, but it may as well be). or “It sucks, and my proof is all these other people who have never tried anything other then a browser metaphor for managing files (and never questioned the idiocy behind that) are bitching too”.
apple didnt ditch the spatial metaphor because it was any less intuitive or efficient then it was twenty years ago. they ditched it to make sales. another example of that trend in apple is the dock, a low data density control attempting to make up for the loss of three high density controls. the dock and list-view are two of the biggest crimes against usability that has ever come out of apple, and it was to appease the idiots that will never actually realise that windows doesnt represent the pinnacle of efficiency.
so anyways, its ok not to like the spatial nautilus. if you want to complain about it, complain. if you want to argue, thats fine too, just come with something better then i dont like it cause im not used to it. either that or use kde, they seem to be attempting to create a win98 clone. or, just turn it off. just please, stop making yourself look stupid.
I’m sorry, I like it personally and have to give them kudos for trying something new but here’s how user interface design works:
If you have to explain how to use you have failed and your design is obviously crap. Good interface designs don’t need directions, intuitive is the grail.
Now knock back a few pints until you’ve forgotten why you wanted to do it that way and wash the whiteboard, better luck next time.
people arnt explaining how it works because people cant figure it out, they are explaining why it works because the majority of the world is accustomed to the windows way of managing files, and gnome is attempting something pre-windows.
If you have to explain how to use you have failed and your design is obviously crap. Good interface designs don’t need directions, intuitive is the grail.
Cool, so each and every user interface has failed and is obviously crap? I never thought of that!
Neither KDE nor GNOME are window managers. They each include a window manager, but both are a huge collection of many components that go far beyond what a window manager does. Refering to either desktop as a window manager does nothing besides make it seem like you really don’t know what you’re talking about, which gives readers no incentive to continue reading, but instead to just find something written by a more informed and knowledgable author.
Second, the spatial browsing argument is getting old. Yes, as you indicated, you _are_ missing something. Namely that browser mode is still there and can be enabled as default. Spatial mode is kept as the default because, lo and behold, many people who bother to actually learn to use it properly find it better at managing files whereas the browser mode is only decent at, well, browsing. Some still prefer browser mode for things besides browsing, and hey, that’s fine, they can change to browser mode and get on without life with a minimum of whining.
Yeah I agree Fedora really is a pain in the mouse, but riding Gnome without homework removed my interest in the article. I did read it, but you missed every point in the Fedora pile.
To effectively use Fedora it seems the user must set up YUM and the Up2date front end to participate in endless upgrade/install fests. So Fedora really is only for those with high speed internet connections. Also you have to learn YUM and up2date, not hard, but not obvious.
As mentioned software installs are centered around RPM’s. Compiling apps from source usually end in dependancy loops. Hey and the RPM’s are no panacea either.
The Kernel is patched. This makes for issues hard to track. Also the philosophy of turn everything on in the Kernel but the kitchen sink makes for bad linux practice. Even if you want to install the thing on a toaster oven at least make it so the user can remove unneeded code.
Okay we see the 2.6.x kernel has some issues with SCSI support. At least patch the darn RPM to make some thing like K3B give the correct command to call the SCSI device. How is a gnewbie going to figure this out? By buying RHEL probably!
It’s almost like Fedora is the patsy to finally make Red Hat just like Windows. A kernel the size of an SUV that uses as much resource and make it so hard to run that you need a support staff to read PDF’s, burn a cd or listen to an MP3. Yeah I know how to add all this stuff, but I work for the darn support staff.
Going from Red Hat to Fedora is like going from a car to a tricycle(not quite a stone wheel). They just can’t get it together. Hopefully it has pushed people to Debian or Slackware.
But what is the big lesson here? Obviously it takes a lot to release a distro, but with Red Hat as your guiding light, it’s impossible.
G9 out
IMO, anyhow.
I loved fedora 1 and I *really* love fedora 2. I’ve installed it on a half-dozen machines and haven’t had a single issue yet.
Gnome 2.6 is strong (fedora made me switch from KDE to gnome becuase, IMO, Red Hat does a mean Gnome implementation) and the spatial arguement is just tired. By default, if you click the applications menu, old-style, single-window file browsing is right there, with a pretty icon and everything. Right click this, add it to your launcher panel, booyah.
To get the feel for a distro, inside and out, you must spend some serious time with it and use it rigorously. Installing it, finding a few annoyances, and then running off to write up a scathing review is just inaccurate, at best.
Yum works pretty well but I like apt better. download apt & synaptic from rpm.pbone.net and booyah again! You have a pretty sweet UI to pick and choose your packages with automatic dependency detection and resolution.
Case and point, my elderly mother uses it, my computer-challenged in-laws use it, and my picky windows-loving wife uses it, all of them like it and found it just as easy to use as Windows.
Out of the box I’d say this is the best distro out there, and I’ve tried many (including SuSE, Mandrake, Gentoo, etc.) I hear gentoo is great but I ran out of time and patience while trying to install it, after several unsuccessful attempts.
Suse 9.1 is pretty sweet but I found it to be slower, more bloated, and its UI inconsistancies and annoyances turned me off. Also, I had to buy SuSE 9.1 or wait 2 months (or so) to get a “free” ftp install. With Fedora, I could download the ISOs the second they became available.
Just my $0.02USD.
>> Case and point, my elderly mother uses it, my
>> computer-challenged in-laws use it, and my picky
>> windows-loving wife uses it, all of them like it
>> and found it just as easy to use as Windows.
Hehe. “Proof-of-concept” your in-laws?
Spatial?
Simply I don’t like it. I get tired of thousend open windows and is a back step on gnome evolution, back to win95.
First thing I’ve done was to get rid of this damn thing…
For once I was using most of the programs as they were intended, not how some packager at redhat or mandrake thought the package had to conform to their distro.
Surely you mean “as the ebuild author intended” as opposed to “as they were intended”? Or are you not using portage, adn instead just running ‘./configure && make && make install’?
Only a few packages are customised in Mandrake (mainly KDE). All other packages just have patches applied when necessary (ie to compile with newer gcc, or support newer versions of some library or fix bugs, or comply with standards such as FHS etc.).
Trust me, you don’t want a distribution with all the software exactly as the authors intended, since you will end up with thousands of ways of doing the same thing and files and directories all over the place.