FC2 versus FC3 -- my own experiences - Linux

This is a discussion on FC2 versus FC3 -- my own experiences - Linux ; First of all, I'm not a troll. I'm a longtime Linux user and advocate. So please don't take my negativity on FC3 as trolling. Anyways, I've had a *lot* of problems using Fedora Core 3 (and CentOS4, which is basically ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: FC2 versus FC3 -- my own experiences

  1. FC2 versus FC3 -- my own experiences

    First of all, I'm not a troll. I'm a longtime Linux user and advocate.
    So please don't take my negativity on FC3 as trolling.

    Anyways, I've had a *lot* of problems using Fedora Core 3 (and CentOS4,
    which is basically RHEL4, and has much of FC3's "stuff" in it)

    Problems with FC3 (and CentOS4) include:
    * Slooooow! Apps open s o s l o o o w l y.....

    * Thunderbird and Firefox crash all the fscking time. I mean, like, five
    times an hour, with no warning and with no error messages, even when run
    from the command line. And these problems occured with the FC3/CentOS4
    supplied RPMs *and* the tar-gz packages from Mozilla.org.

    * I had a weird problem with fonts on CentOS -- I tried the KDE font
    installer and it borked all my Type 1 fonts to the point where they no
    longer were anit-aliased and some other rendering issues. In fact,
    initially programs that depended on Type 1 fonts didn't run at all. Like
    xpdf. But somehow I fixed that. I'll never be able to trust KDE's font
    installer again.

    * Crossover Office ran very very slowly. Quick as a lick on FC2, but slow
    as my grandmother on barbiturates (and, mind you, Grandma died recently)
    on FC3.

    * Awful bug in gamin that prevented one from using removable media (bug
    *was* fixed, but not in the initial wave of updates)

    * Other assorted annoyances, mostly relating back to the aforementioned
    slowness and instability.

    I've cleaned my installation partition and put FC2 back on it. *And* the
    problems seem to have gone away.

    Has anyone else seen problems like mine? I'd really like to see what
    others' experiences have been. One thing I must say, big bugs *do* get
    fixed pretty quickly, such as the gamin bug I mentioned. But I am finding
    myself tired of the FCx upgrade cycle. Enough so that I am considering
    SuSE.

    Okay, enough on that. later...


    --
    JDS | jeffrey@example.invalid
    | http://www.newtnotes.com
    DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/


  2. Re: FC2 versus FC3 -- my own experiences

    On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:26:29 -0400, JDS wrote:

    > First of all, I'm not a troll. I'm a longtime Linux user and advocate.
    > So please don't take my negativity on FC3 as trolling.


    If you're not a troll then you won't have to say anything like that...
    just don't troll.



    > Has anyone else seen problems like mine? I'd really like to see what
    > others' experiences have been. One thing I must say, big bugs *do* get
    > fixed pretty quickly, such as the gamin bug I mentioned. But I am
    > finding myself tired of the FCx upgrade cycle. Enough so that I am
    > considering SuSE.
    >
    > Okay, enough on that. later...


    No, I haven't seen any of those problems. Clearly you are, but I'm not
    sure if they have anything to do with the distro in question.

    Was this an upgrade or a clean install?

    The only Fedora distro I had issues with was FC1.

    --
    Life is short, but wide. -KV


  3. Re: FC2 versus FC3 -- my own experiences

    On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:43:52 -0500, Ivan Marsh wrote:

    > Was this an upgrade or a clean install?
    >
    > The only Fedora distro I had issues with was FC1.


    Clean install on both FC3 and CentOS.

    I've been reading around and no one seems to have had as many problems
    with FC3 as I have; most users seem to like it. I hated it. It was so
    sucktastic that I am afraid to try FC4. Or, maybe, just maybe, "red hat"
    versions alternate good-bad-good-bad. It certainly seemed to be true
    (well, true-ish) for the last few versions.

    RHL8 -- not great.
    RHL9 -- excellent.
    FC1 -- not great.
    FC2 -- excellent.
    FC3 -- sucktastic

    That's all IMO, of course.

    The weird thing was that I was having a lot of the same issues with
    CentOS4 -- basically RHEL4. It makes me afraid to buy RHEL4, and I have
    been considering doing that for my servers. But, once again, not to many
    people have reported the same problems as me.

    later...

    --
    JDS | jeffrey@example.invalid
    | http://www.newtnotes.com
    DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/


  4. Re: FC2 versus FC3 -- my own experiences

    On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:59:00 -0400, JDS wrote:

    > On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:43:52 -0500, Ivan Marsh wrote:
    >
    >> Was this an upgrade or a clean install?
    >>
    >> The only Fedora distro I had issues with was FC1.

    >
    > Clean install on both FC3 and CentOS.
    >
    > I've been reading around and no one seems to have had as many problems
    > with FC3 as I have; most users seem to like it. I hated it. It was so
    > sucktastic that I am afraid to try FC4. Or, maybe, just maybe, "red hat"
    > versions alternate good-bad-good-bad. It certainly seemed to be true
    > (well, true-ish) for the last few versions.
    >
    > RHL8 -- not great.
    > RHL9 -- excellent.
    > FC1 -- not great.
    > FC2 -- excellent.
    > FC3 -- sucktastic
    >
    > That's all IMO, of course.
    >
    > The weird thing was that I was having a lot of the same issues with
    > CentOS4 -- basically RHEL4. It makes me afraid to buy RHEL4, and I have
    > been considering doing that for my servers. But, once again, not to many
    > people have reported the same problems as me.
    >
    > later...


    What kind of hardware do you have? It sounds like you've got some unusual
    device or chipset that uses a driver that somehow got broken in a recent
    kernel.

  5. Re: FC2 versus FC3 -- my own experiences

    JDS wrote:
    > First of all, I'm not a troll. I'm a longtime Linux user and advocate.
    > So please don't take my negativity on FC3 as trolling.
    >
    > Anyways, I've had a *lot* of problems using Fedora Core 3 (and CentOS4,
    > which is basically RHEL4, and has much of FC3's "stuff" in it)
    >
    > Problems with FC3 (and CentOS4) include:
    > * Slooooow! Apps open s o s l o o o w l y.....
    >
    > * Thunderbird and Firefox crash all the fscking time. I mean, like, five
    > times an hour, with no warning and with no error messages, even when run
    > from the command line. And these problems occured with the FC3/CentOS4
    > supplied RPMs *and* the tar-gz packages from Mozilla.org.
    >
    > * I had a weird problem with fonts on CentOS -- I tried the KDE font
    > installer and it borked all my Type 1 fonts to the point where they no
    > longer were anit-aliased and some other rendering issues. In fact,
    > initially programs that depended on Type 1 fonts didn't run at all. Like
    > xpdf. But somehow I fixed that. I'll never be able to trust KDE's font
    > installer again.
    >
    > * Crossover Office ran very very slowly. Quick as a lick on FC2, but slow
    > as my grandmother on barbiturates (and, mind you, Grandma died recently)
    > on FC3.
    >
    > * Awful bug in gamin that prevented one from using removable media (bug
    > *was* fixed, but not in the initial wave of updates)
    >
    > * Other assorted annoyances, mostly relating back to the aforementioned
    > slowness and instability.
    >
    > I've cleaned my installation partition and put FC2 back on it. *And* the
    > problems seem to have gone away.
    >
    > Has anyone else seen problems like mine? I'd really like to see what
    > others' experiences have been. One thing I must say, big bugs *do* get
    > fixed pretty quickly, such as the gamin bug I mentioned. But I am finding
    > myself tired of the FCx upgrade cycle. Enough so that I am considering
    > SuSE.
    >
    > Okay, enough on that. later...
    >
    >

    even though i had no problems with my RH9 install...
    i decided to upgrade to FC3.
    have to say that it works just fine
    with one minor exception:

    CD auto-insertion mount broke within the first week...
    although that has happened with every version of RH I've previously
    used...
    one of these days I may even be able to figure out how to fix it...
    but all in all FC3 works for me

    However I have recently installed SuSE on another machine
    and I'm giving that a test...
    plus I am downloading Xandros right now to give that a try

  6. Re: FC2 versus FC3 -- my own experiences

    On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:24:42 -0500, philo wrote:

    > CD auto-insertion mount broke within the first week... although that has
    > happened with every version of RH I've previously used...
    > one of these days I may even be able to figure out how to fix it... but
    > all in all FC3 works for me


    try upgrading gamin to >= 0.25

    --
    JDS | jeffrey@go.away.com
    | http://www.newtnotes.com
    DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/


  7. Re: FC2 versus FC3 -- my own experiences

    On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:16:41 -0400, General Schvantzkoph wrote:

    > What kind of hardware do you have? It sounds like you've got some unusual
    > device or chipset that uses a driver that somehow got broken in a recent
    > kernel.


    Athlon 2200+, 512 MB RAM, 60GB IDE disk drive

    This machine was built by pogolinux in 2002 and originally came with
    RHL7.3 installed.

    It is not weird hardware, though, I don't think.

    Here is lspci output for more info on some devices:
    [jeff@newt jeff]$ /sbin/lspci
    00:00.0 Host bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8366/A/7 [Apollo KT266/A/333]
    00:01.0 PCI bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8366/A/7 [Apollo KT266/A/333 AGP]
    00:05.0 Multimedia audio controller: C-Media Electronics Inc CM8738 (rev 10)
    00:0c.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corp. 82557/8/9 [Ethernet Pro 100] (rev 0c)
    00:11.0 ISA bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8233A ISA Bridge
    00:11.1 IDE interface: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82C586A/B/VT82C686/A/B/VT823x/A/C PIPC Bus Master IDE (rev 06)
    00:11.2 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82xxxxx UHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev 23)
    00:11.3 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82xxxxx UHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev 23)
    01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation NV18 [GeForce4 MX 440 AGP 8x] (rev a4)

    later, all...

    --
    JDS | jeffrey@go.away.com
    | http://www.newtnotes.com
    DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/


  8. Re: FC2 versus FC3 -- my own experiences

    JDS wrote:
    > On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:16:41 -0400, General Schvantzkoph wrote:
    >
    >
    >>What kind of hardware do you have? It sounds like you've got some unusual
    >>device or chipset that uses a driver that somehow got broken in a recent
    >>kernel.

    >
    >
    > Athlon 2200+, 512 MB RAM, 60GB IDE disk drive
    >
    > This machine was built by pogolinux in 2002 and originally came with
    > RHL7.3 installed.
    >
    > It is not weird hardware, though, I don't think.
    >
    > Here is lspci output for more info on some devices:
    > [jeff@newt jeff]$ /sbin/lspci
    > 00:00.0 Host bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8366/A/7 [Apollo KT266/A/333]
    > 00:01.0 PCI bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8366/A/7 [Apollo KT266/A/333 AGP]
    > 00:05.0 Multimedia audio controller: C-Media Electronics Inc CM8738 (rev 10)
    > 00:0c.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corp. 82557/8/9 [Ethernet Pro 100] (rev 0c)
    > 00:11.0 ISA bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8233A ISA Bridge
    > 00:11.1 IDE interface: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82C586A/B/VT82C686/A/B/VT823x/A/C PIPC Bus Master IDE (rev 06)
    > 00:11.2 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82xxxxx UHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev 23)
    > 00:11.3 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82xxxxx UHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev 23)
    > 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation NV18 [GeForce4 MX 440 AGP 8x] (rev a4)
    >
    > later, all...
    >


    I have had FC3 running on VIA (not KT266) and nVidia chipsets using GF2
    and FX5200 nVidia video cards without issues. T-bird and Firefox run
    fine. In fact, I tried several other distros and kept coming back to
    FC3 for performance and stability.






  9. Re: FC2 versus FC3 -- my own experiences

    JDS wrote:
    > On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:24:42 -0500, philo wrote:
    >
    >
    >>CD auto-insertion mount broke within the first week... although that has
    >>happened with every version of RH I've previously used...
    >>one of these days I may even be able to figure out how to fix it... but
    >>all in all FC3 works for me

    >
    >
    > try upgrading gamin to >= 0.25
    >

    well
    i just updated it
    but still no luck.
    it's not the end of the world...i can mount the cdrom manually...
    but it did work for the first week or so

  10. Re: FC2 versus FC3 -- my own experiences

    "Cal Vanize" wrote in message
    news:ZBD9e.13249$Jg7.12340@fe03.lga...
    > JDS wrote:
    >> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:16:41 -0400, General Schvantzkoph wrote:
    >>
    >>>What kind of hardware do you have? It sounds like you've got some unusual
    >>>device or chipset that uses a driver that somehow got broken in a recent
    >>>kernel.

    >>
    >> Athlon 2200+, 512 MB RAM, 60GB IDE disk drive
    >>
    >> This machine was built by pogolinux in 2002 and originally came with
    >> RHL7.3 installed.
    >>
    >> It is not weird hardware, though, I don't think.
    >>
    >> Here is lspci output for more info on some devices:
    >> [jeff@newt jeff]$ /sbin/lspci
    >> 00:00.0 Host bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8366/A/7 [Apollo
    >> KT266/A/333]
    >> 00:01.0 PCI bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8366/A/7 [Apollo KT266/A/333
    >> AGP]
    >> 00:05.0 Multimedia audio controller: C-Media Electronics Inc CM8738 (rev
    >> 10)
    >> 00:0c.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corp. 82557/8/9 [Ethernet Pro 100]
    >> (rev 0c)
    >> 00:11.0 ISA bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8233A ISA Bridge
    >> 00:11.1 IDE interface: VIA Technologies, Inc.
    >> VT82C586A/B/VT82C686/A/B/VT823x/A/C PIPC Bus Master IDE (rev 06)
    >> 00:11.2 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82xxxxx UHCI USB 1.1
    >> Controller (rev 23)
    >> 00:11.3 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82xxxxx UHCI USB 1.1
    >> Controller (rev 23)
    >> 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation NV18 [GeForce4 MX
    >> 440 AGP 8x] (rev a4)
    >>
    >> later, all...
    >>

    > I have had FC3 running on VIA (not KT266) and nVidia chipsets using GF2
    > and FX5200 nVidia video cards without issues. T-bird and Firefox run
    > fine. In fact, I tried several other distros and kept coming back to FC3
    > for performance and stability.


    Generic descriptions of chips are important but what board brand names?
    There are a lot of cheap MB's out there, not to mention RAM, VGA cards, etc.


    Randy



  11. Re: FC2 versus FC3 -- my own experiences

    Randy McLaughlin wrote:

    > "Cal Vanize" wrote in message
    > news:ZBD9e.13249$Jg7.12340@fe03.lga...
    >
    >>JDS wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:16:41 -0400, General Schvantzkoph wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>What kind of hardware do you have? It sounds like you've got some unusual
    >>>>device or chipset that uses a driver that somehow got broken in a recent
    >>>>kernel.
    >>>
    >>>Athlon 2200+, 512 MB RAM, 60GB IDE disk drive
    >>>
    >>>This machine was built by pogolinux in 2002 and originally came with
    >>>RHL7.3 installed.
    >>>
    >>>It is not weird hardware, though, I don't think.
    >>>
    >>>Here is lspci output for more info on some devices:
    >>>[jeff@newt jeff]$ /sbin/lspci
    >>>00:00.0 Host bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8366/A/7 [Apollo
    >>>KT266/A/333]
    >>>00:01.0 PCI bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8366/A/7 [Apollo KT266/A/333
    >>>AGP]
    >>>00:05.0 Multimedia audio controller: C-Media Electronics Inc CM8738 (rev
    >>>10)
    >>>00:0c.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corp. 82557/8/9 [Ethernet Pro 100]
    >>>(rev 0c)
    >>>00:11.0 ISA bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8233A ISA Bridge
    >>>00:11.1 IDE interface: VIA Technologies, Inc.
    >>>VT82C586A/B/VT82C686/A/B/VT823x/A/C PIPC Bus Master IDE (rev 06)
    >>>00:11.2 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82xxxxx UHCI USB 1.1
    >>>Controller (rev 23)
    >>>00:11.3 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82xxxxx UHCI USB 1.1
    >>>Controller (rev 23)
    >>>01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation NV18 [GeForce4 MX
    >>>440 AGP 8x] (rev a4)
    >>>
    >>>later, all...
    >>>

    >>
    >>I have had FC3 running on VIA (not KT266) and nVidia chipsets using GF2
    >>and FX5200 nVidia video cards without issues. T-bird and Firefox run
    >>fine. In fact, I tried several other distros and kept coming back to FC3
    >>for performance and stability.

    >
    >
    > Generic descriptions of chips are important but what board brand names?
    > There are a lot of cheap MB's out there, not to mention RAM, VGA cards, etc.
    >
    >
    > Randy
    >
    >


    For my part (favorable report), I was running ASUS A7V880 and A7N8X boards.



  12. Re: FC2 versus FC3 -- my own experiences

    philo wrote:
    > JDS wrote:
    >
    >> First of all, I'm not a troll. I'm a longtime Linux user and
    >> advocate. So please don't take my negativity on FC3 as trolling.
    >>
    >> Anyways, I've had a *lot* of problems using Fedora Core 3 (and CentOS4,
    >> which is basically RHEL4, and has much of FC3's "stuff" in it)
    >>
    >> Problems with FC3 (and CentOS4) include:
    >> * Slooooow! Apps open s o s l o o o w l y.....
    >>
    >> * Thunderbird and Firefox crash all the fscking time. I mean, like, five
    >> times an hour, with no warning and with no error messages, even when run
    >> from the command line. And these problems occured with the FC3/CentOS4
    >> supplied RPMs *and* the tar-gz packages from Mozilla.org.
    >>
    >> * I had a weird problem with fonts on CentOS -- I tried the KDE font
    >> installer and it borked all my Type 1 fonts to the point where they no
    >> longer were anit-aliased and some other rendering issues. In fact,
    >> initially programs that depended on Type 1 fonts didn't run at all. Like
    >> xpdf. But somehow I fixed that. I'll never be able to trust KDE's font
    >> installer again.
    >>
    >> * Crossover Office ran very very slowly. Quick as a lick on FC2, but
    >> slow
    >> as my grandmother on barbiturates (and, mind you, Grandma died recently)
    >> on FC3.
    >>
    >> * Awful bug in gamin that prevented one from using removable media (bug
    >> *was* fixed, but not in the initial wave of updates)
    >>
    >> * Other assorted annoyances, mostly relating back to the aforementioned
    >> slowness and instability.
    >>
    >> I've cleaned my installation partition and put FC2 back on it. *And* the
    >> problems seem to have gone away.
    >>
    >> Has anyone else seen problems like mine? I'd really like to see what
    >> others' experiences have been. One thing I must say, big bugs *do* get
    >> fixed pretty quickly, such as the gamin bug I mentioned. But I am finding
    >> myself tired of the FCx upgrade cycle. Enough so that I am considering
    >> SuSE.
    >>
    >> Okay, enough on that. later...
    >>
    >>

    > even though i had no problems with my RH9 install...
    > i decided to upgrade to FC3.
    > have to say that it works just fine
    > with one minor exception:
    >
    > CD auto-insertion mount broke within the first week...
    > although that has happened with every version of RH I've previously
    > used...
    > one of these days I may even be able to figure out how to fix it...
    > but all in all FC3 works for me
    >
    > However I have recently installed SuSE on another machine
    > and I'm giving that a test...
    > plus I am downloading Xandros right now to give that a try



    Not quite as bad as yours, but I have had also had better luck with FC2
    than FC3, in fact that's what I'm using now since my Windows box died.

  13. Re: FC2 versus FC3 -- my own experiences


    "JDS" wrote in message
    newsan.2005.04.20.16.26.26.786322@example.invalid...
    > First of all, I'm not a troll. I'm a longtime Linux user and advocate.
    > So please don't take my negativity on FC3 as trolling.
    >


    Are you on a network? Try changing or removing or disabling
    (if not on a network) your ethernet card if you have one installed.



  14. Re: FC2 versus FC3 -- my own experiences

    On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 05:36:10 +0000, Stephen Harris wrote:

    >
    > Are you on a network? Try changing or removing or disabling
    > (if not on a network) your ethernet card if you have one installed.


    I am on a network. Network connectivity is crucial to making my computer
    useful, however. Why do you suggest disabling the NIC?

    --
    JDS | jeffrey@example.invalid
    | http://www.newtnotes.com
    DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/


  15. Re: FC2 versus FC3 -- my own experiences

    "JDS" wrote in message
    newsan.2005.04.21.15.12.56.552181@example.invalid...
    > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 05:36:10 +0000, Stephen Harris wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Are you on a network? Try changing or removing or disabling
    >> (if not on a network) your ethernet card if you have one installed.

    >
    > I am on a network. Network connectivity is crucial to making my computer
    > useful, however. Why do you suggest disabling the NIC?
    >
    > --
    > JDS | jeffrey@example.invalid
    > | http://www.newtnotes.com
    > DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/


    He wants to help you track down your problem.

    By removing variables you can often resolve problems.

    When you have a computer that randomly fiails it is best to strip it down to
    the minimum (both in terms of hardware & software) and start adding things
    back until it fails. He is recommending the reverse to start removing
    things until it works reliably.


    Randy



  16. Re: FC2 versus FC3 -- my own experiences

    On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:47:39 -0500, Randy McLaughlin wrote:

    > He wants to help you track down your problem.
    >
    > By removing variables you can often resolve problems.
    >
    > When you have a computer that randomly fiails it is best to strip it down to
    > the minimum (both in terms of hardware & software) and start adding things
    > back until it fails. He is recommending the reverse to start removing
    > things until it works reliably.
    >
    >
    > Randy


    Hmm. Actually, I knew that. I meant, more specifically, is there
    somthing he had in mind by targeting the NIC? Some hunch or guess about a
    specific service or app or whatever.

    Thanks.

    --
    JDS | jeffrey@example.invalid
    | http://www.newtnotes.com
    DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/


  17. Re: FC2 versus FC3 -- my own experiences


    "JDS" wrote in message
    newsan.2005.04.21.15.12.56.552181@example.invalid...
    > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 05:36:10 +0000, Stephen Harris wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Are you on a network? Try changing or removing or disabling
    >> (if not on a network) your ethernet card if you have one installed.

    >
    > I am on a network. Network connectivity is crucial to making my computer
    > useful, however. Why do you suggest disabling the NIC?
    >


    Since most people have no problems with FC3, even on crumby machines
    it suggests that you are making mistakes or, that the FC3 distro recognizes
    or uses the wrong hardware drivers for your machine. Another problem
    could be that the hardware is going bad: memory, hard drive, video card,
    ethernet card, cpu or most expensively the motherboard. I am not a linux
    guru, but I am a computer tech and hardware failures cause the same
    basic failures in any OS.

    Your latest post tends to support a hardware failure hypothesis for
    troubleshooting. Your computer is a machine. A new install will put
    a lot more stress on ram memory and the cpu than ordinary working
    conditions and will demonstrate just beginning to happen hardware
    failures. So look at it logically.

    Since most everybody can use the FC3 distro, the problem is either you
    or the hardware itself, or the drivers your your hardware which is part
    of a distro problem. For instance, when I installed Redhat 9, it misread
    my video chip to be a KM133. I could not do a graphic install, nor a
    text mode install and then switch to graphic mode with startx, because
    my XF86Config file was set to use the wrong driver. I tried using the
    new drivers that were supposed to fix the problem and that didn't work.
    Finally I found if I edited the XF86Config file --> Option "usebios" "no"
    it disabled the video bios.

    There are mistakes you can make if you do not read the directions
    carefully. One can download the wrong .iso files. The url below is
    about a dual boot system, but contains a useful warning.

    http://stanton-finley.net/fedora_cor...ion_notes.html
    "As you continue please keep the following in mind: You should not
    use the livna.org/fedora extras repositories in conjunction with
    the dag/freshrpms/dries/newrpms/PlanetCCRMA (RPMforge) collection
    of rpms in your configuration files for automatic updates. Use one
    group or the other but not both. You should be made aware that there
    are two "schools" of rpm packagers for Fedora Core extra applications.
    One group consists of the livna.org/fedora extras repositories and the
    other group consists of the dag/freshrpms/dries/newrpms/PlanetCCRMA
    (RPMforge) repositories. One of the most common causes of errors and
    failures in a new Fedora Core installation is the mixing of these two
    incompatible repository collections for automatic updates.

    These two groups of rpm repositories are, for the most part, mutually
    incompatible and in some cases will cause serious errors in your
    installation if used together."
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    http://www.mjmwired.net/resources/mjm-fedora-fc3.shtml
    Sometimes there are hidden configuration files that need to be deleted
    if you are not doing a fresh format. For instance, I think KDE works
    that way. The directions need to be read and followed precisely.

    The wrong driver can produce a memory problem which is cumulative.
    It will make your system respond more slowly. If you have Firefox open,
    the network is downloading data/images and sending them to your terminal.
    A network card misconfigured or not working right can slow down data
    transfer so that it seems your computer is working slowly.

    So after you make sure that you are not the problem by reading and
    following the directions carefully one needs to troubleshoot. One way
    is to setup a barebones system that works ok and then add devices
    one by one until the problem reoccurs. Then you can try a new piece
    of hardware or find a better driver. Video cards, and then network
    cards can cause failures. So you can just try substituting these cards
    which will then normally use different drivers to localize the problem.
    Running a thorough memtest, which may be the best place to start
    since one doesn't need to open the machine may reveal a problem.
    The problem with diagnosing is that different causes hardware or
    hardware drivers (or misconfiguring) can cause similar symptoms.
    So you try to eliminate the probable sources of the problems one
    by one in a logical manner which is often the frequency of finding
    the memory or a video card as the culprit for instance.

    FC3 uses various packages created by other maintainers. Sometimes
    a new version of a package will have a poorly made driver or that
    interacts differently with your hardware then the previous version of
    that package. So you need to isolate the problem. Since FC3 works
    for nearly everybody, the problem is you not following directions, or
    faulty drivers/configuration for your particular hardware, or your
    computer hardware, some device, is starting to fail. Programs that
    don't release memory will get progressively worse as all the working
    memory gets used up. When cpus get hot after awhile, they will then
    exhibit problems. Hmmm, memtest is easy to run, and easy to fix
    and fairly cheap. Or you can just try fresh ram and see if the problem
    goes away. I find it easier to extract video cards rather than memory
    so I start there. I did a search on "FC3 problem" and found a system
    with a network card causing a problem like yours. But there is nearly
    always more than one possible cause. It is very unlikely FC3 itself.
    To recap: the problem is you, your hardware drivers, your hardware...

    Somebody else mentioned drivers; I'm leaning towards hardware itself.



  18. Re: FC2 versus FC3 -- my own experiences

    On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:42:36 +0000, Stephen Harris wrote:

    > Somebody else mentioned drivers; I'm leaning towards hardware itself.


    Thanks. I actually did clean things up as best I could before intalling
    FC3. However, I have a /home partition which I keep unformatted for new
    installs (thus saving all my files!). Even so, I deleted ~/.kde and
    ~/.kderc and ~/.config before I used the new FC3 install. I also
    reformatted /, /boot, /var, /tmp, before installing FC3 -- and yes, those
    are all separate partitions.

    Well, I just bought a 160GB USB drive. I think I will back everything up
    onto that and then do a really, really, clean and fresh install.

    Unless I can get a working Gimp2.2 on FC2. That's all I really want FC3
    for, anyways! Gimp 2.2 is by far the best version of Gimp to date. BY
    FAR. They have fixed a lot of little things that used to be quirky
    annoyances. Now, Gone! Fixed! Plus other New Features(TM)!

    Allright, thank you all very much. moo cow grassy ass.

    --
    JDS | jeffrey@example.invalid
    | http://www.newtnotes.com
    DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/


  19. Re: FC2 versus FC3 -- my own experiences

    Stephen Harris wrote:

    >
    > There are mistakes you can make if you do not read the directions
    > carefully. One can download the wrong .iso files. The url below is
    > about a dual boot system, but contains a useful warning.
    >
    > http://stanton-finley.net/fedora_cor...ion_notes.html
    > "As you continue please keep the following in mind: You should not
    > use the livna.org/fedora extras repositories in conjunction with
    > the dag/freshrpms/dries/newrpms/PlanetCCRMA (RPMforge) collection
    > of rpms in your configuration files for automatic updates. Use one
    > group or the other but not both. You should be made aware that there
    > are two "schools" of rpm packagers for Fedora Core extra applications.
    > One group consists of the livna.org/fedora extras repositories and the
    > other group consists of the dag/freshrpms/dries/newrpms/PlanetCCRMA
    > (RPMforge) repositories. One of the most common causes of errors and
    > failures in a new Fedora Core installation is the mixing of these two
    > incompatible repository collections for automatic updates.
    >
    > These two groups of rpm repositories are, for the most part, mutually
    > incompatible and in some cases will cause serious errors in your
    > installation if used together."
    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >


    Thanks for posting that. I knew I read something like it somewhere but
    couldn't locate it.

    So... I made that mistake and now a lot of my automatic updates won't
    work. How do I unscrew this? Anything short of a re-install?

    Rod

  20. Re: FC2 versus FC3 -- my own experiences


    "Rod Engelsman" wrote in message
    news:iImdnU2aRa5Kg_XfRVn-1A@news.ruraltel.net...
    > Stephen Harris wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> There are mistakes you can make if you do not read the directions
    >> carefully. One can download the wrong .iso files. The url below is
    >> about a dual boot system, but contains a useful warning.
    >>
    >> http://stanton-finley.net/fedora_cor...ion_notes.html
    >> "As you continue please keep the following in mind: You should not
    >> use the livna.org/fedora extras repositories in conjunction with
    >> the dag/freshrpms/dries/newrpms/PlanetCCRMA (RPMforge) collection
    >> of rpms in your configuration files for automatic updates. Use one
    >> group or the other but not both. You should be made aware that there
    >> are two "schools" of rpm packagers for Fedora Core extra applications.
    >> One group consists of the livna.org/fedora extras repositories and the
    >> other group consists of the dag/freshrpms/dries/newrpms/PlanetCCRMA
    >> (RPMforge) repositories. One of the most common causes of errors and
    >> failures in a new Fedora Core installation is the mixing of these two
    >> incompatible repository collections for automatic updates.
    >>
    >> These two groups of rpm repositories are, for the most part, mutually
    >> incompatible and in some cases will cause serious errors in your
    >> installation if used together."
    >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>

    >
    > Thanks for posting that. I knew I read something like it somewhere but
    > couldn't locate it.
    >
    > So... I made that mistake and now a lot of my automatic updates won't
    > work. How do I unscrew this? Anything short of a re-install?
    >
    > Rod


    This looks like a question for Nicholas Andrade since I haven't fixed
    this problem. It seems that an rpm with a query option might find
    the record or history of your rpm package installs. The mismatched
    ones need to be replaced, but I am not sure how you identify them
    by repository origin. I haven't used more than one repository.
    http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-ve...to-verify.html



+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast