Fedora Core 3 -vs- RedHat - Linux

This is a discussion on Fedora Core 3 -vs- RedHat - Linux ; I stopped using RedHat when Redhat 8 made my machine too slow to be usable. I switched to Suse 8.2, and have been pretty happy ever since. But, since I always like to try all the distributions, I thought I'd ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Fedora Core 3 -vs- RedHat

  1. Fedora Core 3 -vs- RedHat


    I stopped using RedHat when Redhat 8 made my machine too slow to be usable. I switched to Suse 8.2, and have been pretty happy ever since.

    But, since I always like to try all the distributions, I thought I'd ask: How does Fedora Core 3 compare to RedHat when it comes to speed (i.e. does the GUI make the box come to a crawl)?

    -Dave

  2. Re: Fedora Core 3 -vs- RedHat

    Up spake David Frascone:
    > I stopped using RedHat when Redhat 8 made my machine too slow to be
    > usable. I switched to Suse 8.2, and have been pretty happy ever since.
    >
    > But, since I always like to try all the distributions, I thought I'd
    > ask: How does Fedora Core 3 compare to RedHat when it comes to speed
    > (i.e. does the GUI make the box come to a crawl)?


    Distributions do one thing -- integrate software from different groups.
    This consists primarily of creating binary packages[1]. Sometimes this
    will require changes (patches) to the source code, but if the vendor
    honors the spirit of open source, it'll make an effort to get the
    changes to the program's maintainer.

    So you see, once you've successfully installed an application[2], there
    shouldn't be any significant difference in HOW FAST it runs[3].

    What you SHOULD be asking, in order of importance, is

    - What desktop environment am I running (GNOME / KDE / Other)?

    - What services (daemons) are running?

    - Is my kernel optimized for my hardware?

    - Has the system in general been optimized for my hardware?
    (e.g. are hard drives using DMA?)

    [1] Or writing what amounts to makefiles, in the case of Gentoo et al.

    [2] Which is where distributions REALLY differ.

    [3] One notable exception is the kernel, which has a lot of compile-time
    options that trade-off between speed and portability.

    --
    -trent
    I [don't] need to sabotage anything. Not being around to say "No that
    won't work" or "you can't do it that way" is more than enough damage.
    -- Graham Reed, on job endings

  3. Re: Fedora Core 3 -vs- RedHat

    In article <20050219175459.77061b46@g40.frascone.com>,
    David Frascone wrote:

    >But, since I always like to try all the distributions, I thought I'd
    >ask: How does Fedora Core 3 compare to RedHat when it comes to speed
    >(i.e. does the GUI make the box come to a crawl)?


    It makes Windows look fast.
    I installed FC3 on a not so old machine (1200 bogoMIPS, 128MB), and
    with the default GUI, you can't do anything else without thrashing.
    E.g. a simple network update took 15 hours, of which less than one
    hour was downloading, and the rest was thrashing between the GUI and
    the rpm dependency calculator.

  4. Re: Fedora Core 3 -vs- RedHat

    David Frascone wrote:
    > I stopped using RedHat when Redhat 8 made my machine too slow to be usable. I switched to Suse 8.2, and have been pretty happy ever since.
    >
    > But, since I always like to try all the distributions, I thought I'd ask: How does Fedora Core 3 compare to RedHat when it comes to speed (i.e. does the GUI make the box come to a crawl)?
    >
    > -Dave

    I like Fedora 3, vs Windows or the older redhats, my experience has been
    that if you are concerned about the thrashing you should complete things
    like system updates when the system is idle just like you do im the real
    world, I also use the xcfe desktop (www.xfce.org) because it is easier
    on the video subsystems and don't have the overhead like kde and gnome.

  5. Re: Fedora Core 3 -vs- RedHat

    On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 07:00:21 GMT
    Trent Buck wrote:

    > Up spake David Frascone:
    > > I stopped using RedHat when Redhat 8 made my machine too slow to be
    > > usable. I switched to Suse 8.2, and have been pretty happy ever since.
    > >
    > > But, since I always like to try all the distributions, I thought I'd
    > > ask: How does Fedora Core 3 compare to RedHat when it comes to speed
    > > (i.e. does the GUI make the box come to a crawl)?

    >
    > Distributions do one thing -- integrate software from different groups.
    > This consists primarily of creating binary packages[1]. Sometimes this
    > will require changes (patches) to the source code, but if the vendor
    > honors the spirit of open source, it'll make an effort to get the
    > changes to the program's maintainer.
    >
    > So you see, once you've successfully installed an application[2], there
    > shouldn't be any significant difference in HOW FAST it runs[3].
    >
    > What you SHOULD be asking, in order of importance, is
    >
    > - What desktop environment am I running (GNOME / KDE / Other)?
    >
    > - What services (daemons) are running?
    >
    > - Is my kernel optimized for my hardware?
    >
    > - Has the system in general been optimized for my hardware?
    > (e.g. are hard drives using DMA?)
    >
    > [1] Or writing what amounts to makefiles, in the case of Gentoo et al.
    >
    > [2] Which is where distributions REALLY differ.
    >
    > [3] One notable exception is the kernel, which has a lot of compile-time
    > options that trade-off between speed and portability.
    >


    While I agree with everything you've stated, I would still, in most cases, like a distribution to give me a decent GUI (I prefer KDE), and not have the system crawl. Remember, I'm not comparing apples to oranges here. In the particular slow case I'm talking about, it was the RedHat gnome-kde-unified-desktop mesh vs the (whatever was new at the time) kde implemented in the Suse distribution.

    So, I know it's not the distribution itself that is running slow, but I am still interested in "user perceived" slowness of the UI. And, from a couple of other responses, it seems like FC3 isn't much better than RH 8 was. Guess I'm still in the Suse camp for a while longer.

    Later,


    -Dave


  6. Re: Fedora Core 3 -vs- RedHat

    David Frascone wrote in
    news:20050219175459.77061b46@g40.frascone.com:

    > I stopped using RedHat when Redhat 8 made my machine too slow to be
    > usable


    What kind of machine "crawls"? Processor type and speed, amount of RAM?

    --
    ~Ohmster
    ohmster at newsguy dot com

  7. Re: Fedora Core 3 -vs- RedHat

    On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 01:55:23 +0000, David Frascone thoughtfully wrote:

    >
    > I stopped using RedHat when Redhat 8 made my machine too slow to be
    > usable. I switched to Suse 8.2, and have been pretty happy ever since.
    >
    > But, since I always like to try all the distributions, I thought I'd ask:
    > How does Fedora Core 3 compare to RedHat when it comes to speed (i.e. does
    > the GUI make the box come to a crawl)?
    >
    > -Dave



    I just read an article in a UK Linux magazine that ranked distros.
    Mandrake was #1, RHEL3/FC3 randked #2 but the author expects FC4 to
    come in #1. Other distros were mostly in double digits. I didn't notice
    the ranking for SuSe.

  8. Re: Fedora Core 3 -vs- RedHat

    Up spake David Frascone:
    > > Distributions do one thing -- integrate software from different groups.
    > >
    > > So you see, once you've successfully installed an application[2], there
    > > shouldn't be any significant difference in HOW FAST it runs[3].
    > >
    > > What you SHOULD be asking, in order of importance, is
    > >
    > > - What desktop environment am I running (GNOME / KDE / Other)?

    >
    > So, I know it's not the distribution itself that is running slow, but


    Forgive me; it's difficult to judge correspondents' level of experience
    and experience has taught me to underestimate a little, lest confusion
    arise.

    > I am still interested in "user perceived" slowness of the UI. And,
    > from a couple of other responses, it seems like FC3 isn't much better
    > than RH 8 was. Guess I'm still in the Suse camp for a while longer.


    I can't really comment on that. I've used FC2 and 3 a little, but the
    boxes I babysit run Debian. I've NEVER used SuSE, come to think of it.

    --
    -trent
    Welcome to Global Warming, everyone. It appears to be globally
    warmer, and if that isn't Global Warming, then What The Fsck Is?
    -- Mike Andrews

  9. Re: Fedora Core 3 -vs- RedHat

    Up spake noi:
    > I just read an article in a UK Linux magazine that ranked distros.
    > Mandrake was #1, RHEL3/FC3 randked #2 but the author expects FC4 to
    > come in #1. Other distros were mostly in double digits. I didn't notice
    > the ranking for SuSe.


    Distrowatch concurs. Remember that quality and popularity are not
    congruent.

    --
    -trent
    Och Aye. Twa pounds ten, and that's cutting me puir wee throatie. Would
    ye want that haggis supersized? -- McDibbler

  10. Re: Fedora Core 3 -vs- RedHat

    On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:59:37 +0000, Trent Buck thoughtfully wrote:

    > Up spake David Frascone:
    >> > Distributions do one thing -- integrate software from different
    >> > groups.
    >> >
    >> > So you see, once you've successfully installed an application[2],
    >> > there shouldn't be any significant difference in HOW FAST it runs[3].
    >> >
    >> > What you SHOULD be asking, in order of importance, is
    >> >
    >> > - What desktop environment am I running (GNOME / KDE / Other)?

    >>
    >> So, I know it's not the distribution itself that is running slow, but

    >
    > Forgive me; it's difficult to judge correspondents' level of experience
    > and experience has taught me to underestimate a little, lest confusion
    > arise.
    >
    >> I am still interested in "user perceived" slowness of the UI. And, from
    >> a couple of other responses, it seems like FC3 isn't much better than RH
    >> 8 was. Guess I'm still in the Suse camp for a while longer.

    >
    > I can't really comment on that. I've used FC2 and 3 a little, but the
    > boxes I babysit run Debian. I've NEVER used SuSE, come to think of it.



    I can. FC3 is light years ahead of RH8. (Ok a couple of solid releases)
    I've used RH since 5.2 and FC3 has is definitely better than RH8 unless
    you're running on a Celeron 533 or less with 128 mb Ram or less. Even
    then I bet FC3 non gui performs better.


  11. Re: Fedora Core 3 -vs- RedHat

    On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 08:09:53 +0000, Julian Bradfield wrote:

    > In article <20050219175459.77061b46@g40.frascone.com>,
    > David Frascone wrote:
    >
    >>But, since I always like to try all the distributions, I thought I'd
    >>ask: How does Fedora Core 3 compare to RedHat when it comes to speed
    >>(i.e. does the GUI make the box come to a crawl)?

    >
    > It makes Windows look fast.
    > I installed FC3 on a not so old machine (1200 bogoMIPS, 128MB), and
    > with the default GUI, you can't do anything else without thrashing.
    > E.g. a simple network update took 15 hours, of which less than one
    > hour was downloading, and the rest was thrashing between the GUI and
    > the rpm dependency calculator.


    it makes windows drawing windows look fast... no doubt windows has
    responsive screen interface.

    need 512mb ram to have gnome and most of the services running along
    with user apps without using the page disk.

    can get by with 256mb

    ran like a slow running thing when I tried it with only 128mb ram.

    they recommend 192mb for GUI I think.

  12. Re: Fedora Core 3 -vs- RedHat

    Up spake Lander:
    > it makes windows drawing windows look fast... no doubt windows has
    > responsive screen interface.


    IIRC a lot of the low-level GUI code is in the *kernel* in NT.

    --
    -trent
    Clearly, what is needed here is a careful blend of strategy, and extreme
    violence. -- Gary S. Callison

+ Reply to Thread