Fedora Core 2 Is Crap !!!!

If you are running RH 9 without any problems and you are thinking of
upgrading to Fedora Core 2 , then ***DON'T*** , it's a load of crap !

I had RH 9 running really good and then I did a fresh install with FC 2
about 6 days ago and I have had nothing but problems !!!

Can't get my GF 4 MX video card to work with the nvidia driver , can't get
NFS working properly , can't get samba to work properly , can't get access
to the Gnone samba utility , I have had problems with slow disk reads ,
stalling on boot ups and shutdowns , mainly with NFS and CUPS and the TERM
signal , sluggish response when I access the BIOS at boot up ( yeah that IS
strange ) , some apps don't open when you click on them in the menu ( I
installed everything ) and to frigging top it all off , I just downloaded
80 Mb of updates on a 56 K dial up line and the frigging Up2Date package
installation has locked up on me just when it was about to install all the
downloaded packages.

I had a blank Up2Date package installation screen sitting on the desktop and
the frigging hour glass spinning around for the last 10 minutes , I shut the
thing down and now I can't even re-open the Up2Date package installer to
retrieve the updates .

FC 2 is just a piece of crap and a poor man's version of RH 9 , even some of
the file and desktop utilities are tedious and crappy.

I have spent the last 4 days trying to get FC 2 to work , and I have been
using linux on and off for a while and know how to configure a lot of the
system files , but this crap I have on my machine , it has had too many
different problems from a wide variety of areas to just be a
configuration problem , it's the OS itself that's full of bugs.

I have just now tried to log out of Gnome , and even that has locked up on
me.

My machine is a Intel 866 Mhz CPU , 512 Mb of Ram.

FC 2 is a piece of crap and a Lemon !



--
Sandgroper
----------------------------------
Remove KNICKERS to Email
[email]steveray@KNICKERSiinet.net.au[/email]

Sandgroper wrote:
[color=blue]
> If you are running RH 9 without any problems and you are thinking of
> upgrading to Fedora Core 2 , then ***DON'T*** , it's a load of crap !
>[/color]

Apparently you did not read the README.

The NFS/SAMBA needs to change permissions; also did you enable SELINUX?
I did a complete upgrade from 7.3 to FC2 and not a single issue on a
production graphics workstation using nVIDIA. Every time to upgrade the
kernel (using a nVIDIA driver) you need to re-run the install utility for
your card as it will re-build the nVIDIA module.

Lemon? I do not think so, I actually see it as a great product.

Still using the cross-over office, NFS, SAMBA, CUPS without a hiccup

Look in your /var/log/messages and dmesg to see what the error output
states, This will solve most your issues.



--

E

Fedora Core Linux Development Team
Kernel 2.6.5-1.358

"Egress" <spam@begone.com> wrote in message
news:dr6dnccl2s2gnljd4p2dnA@adelphia.com...[color=blue]
> Sandgroper wrote:
>[color=green]
> > If you are running RH 9 without any problems and you are thinking of
> > upgrading to Fedora Core 2 , then ***DON'T*** , it's a load of crap !
> >[/color]
>
> Apparently you did not read the README.
>
> The NFS/SAMBA needs to change permissions; also did you enable SELINUX?
> I did a complete upgrade from 7.3 to FC2 and not a single issue on a
> production graphics workstation using nVIDIA. Every time to upgrade the
> kernel (using a nVIDIA driver) you need to re-run the install utility for
> your card as it will re-build the nVIDIA module.[/color]

I did re-run the install utility for my video card , there has been others
who have had problems with a GF 4 MX video card.
[color=blue]
>
> Lemon? I do not think so, I actually see it as a great product.
>
> Still using the cross-over office, NFS, SAMBA, CUPS without a hiccup
>
> Look in your /var/log/messages and dmesg to see what the error output
> states, This will solve most your issues.[/color]

I have other problems as well , like the shutdown has hung when using init 6
and shutdown -r now , I have had the whole lot hang , on and off at times on
boot up as well , and to top it all off , the latest problem I am having is
that everytime I go to log out of Gnome ( as root or user ) the frigging
whole lot freezes and I lose the RH menu icon.

I am not the only one who has had problems with FC 2 , a friend had a
problem because he the way he had his HDD detected in the BIOS , another
friend had a problem with some Com ports , and he has just passed his RHCE
course.

Selinux ??? , never heard of it , in any linux documentation , and I am
currently doing a part -time college course in installing networks with RH
and the lecturer is a RHCE ,there was also no mention of it anywhere in the
installation process , nor was there any CHOICE as whether to enable /
disable it.


--
Sandgroper
----------------------------------
Remove KNICKERS to Email
[email]steveray@KNICKERSiinet.net.au[/email]

Sandgroper wrote:

[color=blue]
> Selinux ??? , never heard of it , in any linux documentation , and I am
> currently doing a part -time college course in installing networks with RH
> and the lecturer is a RHCE ,there was also no mention of it anywhere in
> the installation process , nor was there any CHOICE as whether to enable /
> disable it.
>
>[/color]


SElinux is standard on FC2.

See the following for information on SElinux..

[url]http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/[/url]
[url]http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/selinux/[/url]


[color=blue]
> --
> Sandgroper
> ----------------------------------
> Remove KNICKERS to Email
> [email]steveray@KNICKERSiinet.net.au[/email][/color]

--

E

Fedora Core Linux Development Team
Kernel 2.6.5-1.358

"Egress" <spam@begone.com> wrote in message
news:dr6dnccl2s2gnljd4p2dnA@adelphia.com...[color=blue]
> Sandgroper wrote:
>[color=green]
> > If you are running RH 9 without any problems and you are thinking of
> > upgrading to Fedora Core 2 , then ***DON'T*** , it's a load of crap !
> >[/color]
>
> Apparently you did not read the README.
>
> The NFS/SAMBA needs to change permissions; also did you enable SELINUX?
> I did a complete upgrade from 7.3 to FC2 and not a single issue on a
> production graphics workstation using nVIDIA. Every time to upgrade the
> kernel (using a nVIDIA driver) you need to re-run the install utility for
> your card as it will re-build the nVIDIA module.
>
> Lemon? I do not think so, I actually see it as a great product.
>
> Still using the cross-over office, NFS, SAMBA, CUPS without a hiccup
>
> Look in your /var/log/messages and dmesg to see what the error output
> states, This will solve most your issues.[/color]

Just another note , I am not the only one that has problems with FC 2 , go
read some of the other Ngs , some have had problems because of doing a full
install , others have had a wide variety of problems , and a lot of these
people are experienced linux users.

I have done a full install on my system , that is perhaps why I am having
all sorts of different problems.
The only thing that FC 2 is an improvement over RH 9 is the downloading of
update packages.


--
Sandgroper
----------------------------------
Remove KNICKERS to Email
[email]steveray@KNICKERSiinet.net.au[/email]

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 06:20:42 +0800, Sandgroper wrote:
[color=blue]
> If you are running RH 9 without any problems and you are thinking of
> upgrading to Fedora Core 2 , then ***DON'T*** , it's a load of crap ![/color]

Sorry to hear you're having trouble.

Works just fine for me.

--
i.m.
The USA Patriot Act is the most unpatriotic act in American history.

Sandgroper wrote:[color=blue]
> If you are running RH 9 without any problems and you are thinking of
> upgrading to Fedora Core 2 , then ***DON'T*** , it's a load of crap !
>
> I had RH 9 running really good and then I did a fresh install with FC 2
> about 6 days ago and I have had nothing but problems !!!
>
> Can't get my GF 4 MX video card to work with the nvidia driver ,[/color]

Don't use the nvidia driver, since it's not ported to kernel 2.6 yet.
[color=blue]
> can't get NFS working properly , can't get samba to work properly ,[/color]
nfs is in version 4 now, did you reread the manuals ?
samba is in version 3.0 now, did you run testparm? Are you using your old
configuration (it usually won't work with samba 3.0)?
[color=blue]
> can't get access
> to the Gnone samba utility , I have had problems with slow disk reads ,
> stalling on boot ups and shutdowns , mainly with NFS and CUPS and the TERM
> signal ,[/color]
I cannot confirm this... wfm
[color=blue]
> sluggish response when I access the BIOS at boot up ( yeah that IS
> strange ) ,[/color]
When entering the bios there is no OS yet. How can FC2 be responsible for that ?

[color=blue]
> some apps don't open when you click on them in the menu ( I
> installed everything )[/color]
try to start them manually on the commandline and watch the error message. The
corresponding command can be found by right-clicking the icon and choosing
"properties".
[color=blue]
> and to frigging top it all off , I just downloaded
> 80 Mb of updates on a 56 K dial up line and the frigging Up2Date package
> installation has locked up on me just when it was about to install all the
> downloaded packages.[/color]
try "man yum". With this tool you can easily upgrade only the important
packages. for example
$ yum update ethereal

Specify a repository not on the default download server but on a mirror close to
you, which increasese update speed enourmously.
The repositories are specified in /etc/yum.conf
[color=blue]
>
> I had a blank Up2Date package installation screen sitting on the desktop and
> the frigging hour glass spinning around for the last 10 minutes , I shut the
> thing down and now I can't even re-open the Up2Date package installer to
> retrieve the updates.[/color]
poor victim !!
[color=blue]
>
> FC 2 is just a piece of crap and a poor man's version of RH 9 , even some of
> the file and desktop utilities are tedious and crappy.
>[/color]

FC2 is faster, easier to install, has many options for upgrading issues (rpm,
yum, apt) it has kernel 2.6 and the newest software.

[color=blue]
> I have spent the last 4 days trying to get FC 2 to work , and I have been
> using linux on and off for a while and know how to configure a lot of the
> system files , but this crap I have on my machine , it has had too many
> different problems from a wide variety of areas to just be a
> configuration problem , it's the OS itself that's full of bugs.
>
> I have just now tried to log out of Gnome , and even that has locked up on
> me.[/color]

Ok, I can confirm this. Try Ctrl-Alt-Backspace
[color=blue]
>
> My machine is a Intel 866 Mhz CPU , 512 Mb of Ram.
>
> FC 2 is a piece of crap and a Lemon !
>[/color]
How much does microsoft pay for such a posting? FC2 is Opensource. If you've got
problems with this distro, refrain from insulting the developers and help
improving it. But the tone you using leeds to this answer: Shut up and go away.

bye

"Boris Glawe" <boris@boris-glawe.de> wrote in message
news:ca50nr$qjg$1@newsreader2.netcologne.de...[color=blue]
> Sandgroper wrote:[color=green]
> > If you are running RH 9 without any problems and you are thinking of
> > upgrading to Fedora Core 2 , then ***DON'T*** , it's a load of crap !
> >
> > I had RH 9 running really good and then I did a fresh install with FC 2
> > about 6 days ago and I have had nothing but problems !!!
> >
> > Can't get my GF 4 MX video card to work with the nvidia driver ,[/color]
>
> Don't use the nvidia driver, since it's not ported to kernel 2.6 yet.
>[color=green]
> > can't get NFS working properly , can't get samba to work properly ,[/color]
> nfs is in version 4 now, did you reread the manuals ?
> samba is in version 3.0 now, did you run testparm? Are you using your old
> configuration (it usually won't work with samba 3.0)?
>[color=green]
> > can't get access
> > to the Gnone samba utility , I have had problems with slow disk reads ,
> > stalling on boot ups and shutdowns , mainly with NFS and CUPS and the[/color][/color]
TERM[color=blue][color=green]
> > signal ,[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> I cannot confirm this... wfm[/color]

My disks reads with hdparm -t shows a wide ranging disk reads from 40 Mb to
as low as 24 Mb , originally with RH 9 I was getting 40 Mb + , not to
mention that at one stage it was down to 445 Kb , yes , 445 Kb /second.
Just about every 4th hdparm test results in a disk read of 28 Mb /second.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > sluggish response when I access the BIOS at boot up ( yeah that IS
> > strange ) ,[/color]
> When entering the bios there is no OS yet. How can FC2 be responsible for[/color]
that ?

Well FC 2 is somehow contolling the BIOS on reboot , when I have gone into
the BIOS after the reboot to change the disk settings from [auto] to [user
defined] or vice versa , I have to wait until the HDD stops spinning before
it writes some of the info on the screen.

[color=blue][color=green]
> > some apps don't open when you click on them in the menu ( I
> > installed everything )[/color]
> try to start them manually on the commandline and watch the error message.[/color]
The[color=blue]
> corresponding command can be found by right-clicking the icon and choosing
> "properties".[/color]

I have tried to do that with the samba server so that I can see exactly what
is in the level 5 settings , it just won't stay on the screen long enough to
see anything , I do get some messages but nothing about the details of the
level 5 settings .
Also right clicking on the Icon shows that the whole lot is greyed out and
nothing can be changed
[color=blue][color=green]
> > and to frigging top it all off , I just downloaded
> > 80 Mb of updates on a 56 K dial up line and the frigging Up2Date package
> > installation has locked up on me just when it was about to install all[/color][/color]
the[color=blue][color=green]
> > downloaded packages.[/color]
> try "man yum". With this tool you can easily upgrade only the important
> packages. for example
> $ yum update ethereal[/color]

I will try the yum update from the command line , but what I really need is
some updates to fix what it looks like problems with the kernel.

Specify a repository not on the default download server but on a mirror
close to[color=blue]
> you, which increasese update speed enourmously.
> The repositories are specified in /etc/yum.conf
>[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > I had a blank Up2Date package installation screen sitting on the desktop[/color][/color]
and[color=blue][color=green]
> > the frigging hour glass spinning around for the last 10 minutes , I shut[/color][/color]
the[color=blue][color=green]
> > thing down and now I can't even re-open the Up2Date package installer[/color][/color]
to[color=blue][color=green]
> > retrieve the updates.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> poor victim !![/color]
Yeah it sucks , I spent 3 -4 hours doing the download and the whole Up2Date
installer stalled on me , I had to do some strange stuff to try and rescue
all the updates , which thankfully I did , but the thing is , is that even
the Up2Date installer has been around long enough for the bugs to be worked
out , or perhaps there is something wrong with the 2.6 kernel.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > FC 2 is just a piece of crap and a poor man's version of RH 9 , even[/color][/color]
some of[color=blue][color=green]
> > the file and desktop utilities are tedious and crappy.
> >[/color]
>
> FC2 is faster, easier to install, has many options for upgrading issues[/color]
(rpm,[color=blue]
> yum, apt) it has kernel 2.6 and the newest software.[/color]

From my first installation doing an upgrade and also after doing a fresh
install , I can seen not that much difference and infact on my first
installation , from an upgrade , I couldn't even load Open Office , it even
took 3 -4 minutes to just get the splash screen to show on the desktop.

[color=blue][color=green]
> > I have spent the last 4 days trying to get FC 2 to work , and I have[/color][/color]
been[color=blue][color=green]
> > using linux on and off for a while and know how to configure a lot of[/color][/color]
the[color=blue][color=green]
> > system files , but this crap I have on my machine , it has had too many
> > different problems from a wide variety of areas to just be a
> > configuration problem , it's the OS itself that's full of bugs.
> >
> > I have just now tried to log out of Gnome , and even that has locked up[/color][/color]
on[color=blue][color=green]
> > me.[/color]
>
> Ok, I can confirm this. Try Ctrl-Alt-Backspace[/color]

Even that didn't work at times !
And even if I did manage to get out of Gnome , when I go to either reboot or
shutdown using either the commands init 0 /init 6 or shutdown -h now /
shutdown -r now , the whole system hangs on either one or two outputs ,
either the "Sending the TERM signal" or "Syncing hardware time".
It has got to the stage that the only way of shutting down is to reboot ,
select my other OS in Grub and then shut down the system in Windows 98.

[color=blue][color=green]
> > My machine is a Intel 866 Mhz CPU , 512 Mb of Ram.
> >
> > FC 2 is a piece of crap and a Lemon !
> >[/color]
> How much does microsoft pay for such a posting? FC2 is Opensource. If[/color]
you've got[color=blue]
> problems with this distro, refrain from insulting the developers and help
> improving it. But the tone you using leeds to this answer: Shut up and go[/color]
away.

My point is that I am real pissed off that I can't get FC 2 to work properly
, I am not a OS developer , just a user that been using RH on and off for a
while , since RH 7.1 , and I am definitely not involved with MS.

Not only that , but there are quite a few others that are having problems
with FC 2 , just go and read some of the other Ngs , some are saying that
doing a FULL INSTALL of FC 2 results in quite a lot of problems that can't
be pinned down to anything specific.
I have done a full upgrade install and a also a full fresh install , the one
that I have all the problems with is the full fresh install.
The only thing that I can do now is to either scrap FC 2 and put on FC 1
with the 2.4.x-x kernel or do a fresh install without installing everything.


--
Sandgroper
----------------------------------
Remove KNICKERS to Email
[email]steveray@KNICKERSiinet.net.au[/email]

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 06:20:42 +0800, "Sandgroper"
<steveray@KNICKERSiinet.net.au> wrote:
[color=blue]
>If you are running RH 9 without any problems and you are thinking of
>upgrading to Fedora Core 2 , then ***DON'T*** , it's a load of crap !
>[...]
>FC 2 is a piece of crap and a Lemon ![/color]

This reminds me in way of what I've seen regaring Windows XP: some
people rave that it's so great, so convenient, so stable, etc., and
yet some people are finding bugs in things that had been working fine
for ages. In Fedora's case, however, don't forget that this is a
development project, not an official commercial product like XP; the
open source developmers can't test on everybody else's hardware, so
when they do something in a new way, it might be mostrously buggy for
a few people even if it works perfectly for others. Hopefully if bugs
are reported they'll be fixed though.

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 at 5:22am, Sandgroper <steveray@KNICKERSiinet.net.au>...:
[color=blue]
> My point is that I am real pissed off that I can't get FC 2 to work properly
> , I am not a OS developer , just a user that been using RH on and off for a
> while , since RH 7.1 , and I am definitely not involved with MS.
>
> The only thing that I can do now is to either scrap FC 2 and put on FC 1
> with the 2.4.x-x kernel or do a fresh install without installing everything.[/color]

You can also try Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) or the freebie clone
version, Whitebox. [url]http://whitebox.inux.org[/url].

I suspect that in your case, you're not happy with the amount of tinkering
required to tweak FC2. These other alternatives may suit your needs.
Neall

"Linux Doctor" <NOSPAMusenet@haughtmail.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.60.0406081817440.14155@unhtugznvy.pbz...[color=blue]
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 at 5:22am, Sandgroper[/color]
<steveray@KNICKERSiinet.net.au>...:[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > My point is that I am real pissed off that I can't get FC 2 to work[/color][/color]
properly[color=blue][color=green]
> > , I am not a OS developer , just a user that been using RH on and off[/color][/color]
for a[color=blue][color=green]
> > while , since RH 7.1 , and I am definitely not involved with MS.
> >
> > The only thing that I can do now is to either scrap FC 2 and put on FC 1
> > with the 2.4.x-x kernel or do a fresh install without installing[/color][/color]
everything.[color=blue]
>
> You can also try Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) or the freebie clone
> version, Whitebox. [url]http://whitebox.inux.org[/url].
>
> I suspect that in your case, you're not happy with the amount of tinkering
> required to tweak FC2. These other alternatives may suit your needs.[/color]

I want to do the tinkering because I am currently doing a part-time college
class of installing and configuring linux networks as part of a certificate
course.

The thing that I had found with FC 2 is that some of the basic things are
not working properly , take for example the shutdown / reboot process , it
hangs on one or two shutdown processes.
I reckon that the problem is that I installed everything and that a few
people have had all sorts of problems after installing all the available
packages on installation.


--
Sandgroper
----------------------------------
Remove KNICKERS to Email
[email]steveray@KNICKERSiinet.net.au[/email]

Sandgroper,

You exhibit several characteristics that make FC 2 unsuitable
to your personality and temperament: You don't read documentation
ahead of time. You get angry and diss the distribution instead
of keeping cool and seeking specific help for specific problems.
You show not even minimal patience.

With those characteristics, there is no way you should be
an early adopter of any technology. FC 2 has been a bit
dicey for some to install and get working optimally because
it includes two major jumps in version and many others under
the hood. The majors: kernel 2.6, gnome 2.6. The others
relate to SELinux, samba, nfs, Grub, etc.

That means that automatically it will have been hard for
all combinations of hardware to have been tested during
the development of the distribtion. That means that young
childish hot-heads should stay away until the adults have
things worked out.

Have a nice day, and OH, BTW, I got FC 2 working wonderfully
in short order. It's faster that RH9, has better integration
and is a joy to use.

"Don Campbell" <don@nulladdress.org> wrote in message
news:10cmgvn8c7h8r21@corp.supernews.com...
[color=blue]
>
> With those characteristics, there is no way you should be
> an early adopter of any technology. FC 2 has been a bit
> dicey for some to install and get working optimally because
> it includes two major jumps in version and many others under
> the hood. The majors: kernel 2.6, gnome 2.6. The others
> relate to SELinux, samba, nfs, Grub, etc.[/color]

FC 2 a bit dicey ? , no , what you really mean is that FC 2 was rushed
through to be completed by a certain date and quite a bit of it hasn't been
tested properly , this has been acknowledged on quite a few websites .
[color=blue]
> That means that automatically it will have been hard for
> all combinations of hardware to have been tested during
> the development of the distribtion. That means that young
> childish hot-heads should stay away until the adults have
> things worked out.[/color]

Fedora Core means that the Core of the whole lot originated with RH , you
have some situations in which hardware/ drivers are compatable with the
2.4.xx-x kernel but is not compatable with kernel 2.6.x.xx-x , by rights an
OS should be BACKWARD COMPATIABLE with older hardware , so why isn't FC 2
backward compatable with the hardware that is compatable in RH 9 and kernel
2.4.xx.-xx.x ?

A good example of this the a video card , FC 2 is not optimised for a GF 4
440MX video card.
[color=blue]
>
> Have a nice day, and OH, BTW, I got FC 2 working wonderfully
> in short order. It's faster that RH9, has better integration
> and is a joy to use.[/color]

You are probably one of the minority of getting FC 2 to run properly first
up , there is quite a few people who have has quite a lot or problems , some
have even ditched FC altogether and changed over to Mandrake.



--
Sandgroper
----------------------------------
Remove KNICKERS to Email
[email]steveray@KNICKERSiinet.net.au[/email]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 19:30:18 +0800, Sandgroper wrote:[color=blue]
>
> "Don Campbell" <don@nulladdress.org> wrote in message
> news:10cmgvn8c7h8r21@corp.supernews.com...
>[color=green]
>>
>> With those characteristics, there is no way you should be
>> an early adopter of any technology. FC 2 has been a bit
>> dicey for some to install and get working optimally because
>> it includes two major jumps in version and many others under
>> the hood. The majors: kernel 2.6, gnome 2.6. The others
>> relate to SELinux, samba, nfs, Grub, etc.[/color]
>
> FC 2 a bit dicey ? , no , what you really mean is that FC 2 was rushed
> through to be completed by a certain date and quite a bit of it hasn't been
> tested properly , this has been acknowledged on quite a few websites .[/color]

I agree with Mr. Campbell. You seem to be a hothead who is upset the world
doesn't run according to your dictates. The Fedora Core info (FAQs,
Objectives, etc.) make it pretty clear to me that Fedora Core is an
ongoing development project that includes new programs and technologies.
By definition, those items will need further refinement before they become
consumer quality, suitable for the hoi polloi.

Red Hat makes it pretty clear that if stability is your primary goal, you
should be using one of the Enterprise versions.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> That means that automatically it will have been hard for
>> all combinations of hardware to have been tested during
>> the development of the distribtion. That means that young
>> childish hot-heads should stay away until the adults have
>> things worked out.[/color]
>
> Fedora Core means that the Core of the whole lot originated with RH , you
> have some situations in which hardware/ drivers are compatable with the
> 2.4.xx-x kernel but is not compatable with kernel 2.6.x.xx-x , by rights an
> OS should be BACKWARD COMPATIABLE with older hardware , so why isn't FC 2
> backward compatable with the hardware that is compatable in RH 9 and kernel
> 2.4.xx.-xx.x ?[/color]

"Backwards compatible" is a nice goal, but is not the only goal there is.
Sometimes choices need to be made. Even Microsoft abandoned some backward
compatibility when they moved to XP. At our office a number of scanners
that ran fine under Win98 became dust collectors when XP machines were
installed. The serial port Visioneer sheet feeders were instantly useless.
We had other devices that could theoretically work, but neither Microsoft
or the manufacturer bothered to release XP drivers. You deal with it and
move on.

There is no shortage of good Linux distributions. Sounds like your better
option would be to switch to one of them rather than continue to invest
all that energy in whining and resentments.



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
[url]http://www.newsfeeds.com[/url] - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On 2004-06-13, Sandgroper <steveray@KNICKERSiinet.net.au> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Fedora Core means that the Core of the whole lot originated with RH , you
> have some situations in which hardware/ drivers are compatable with the
> 2.4.xx-x kernel but is not compatable with kernel 2.6.x.xx-x , by rights an
> OS should be BACKWARD COMPATIABLE with older hardware , so why isn't FC 2
> backward compatable with the hardware that is compatable in RH 9 and kernel
> 2.4.xx.-xx.x ?
>
> A good example of this the a video card , FC 2 is not optimised for a GF 4
> 440MX video card.[/color]

The xorg "nv" driver should work fine for 2d support; the proprietary
nVidia 3d support requires that you rebuild the kernel with 8k stacks
instead of the 4k stacks used by default.

Should RedHat/Fedora be obligated to support proprietary drivers for which
they lack access to the cource code? Why?

--

-John (john@os2.dhs.org)

Sandgroper wrote:

[color=blue]
>
> You are probably one of the minority of getting FC 2 to run properly first
> up , there is quite a few people who have has quite a lot or problems ,
> some have even ditched FC altogether and changed over to Mandrake.
>
>[/color]

Odd,

I installed FC2 on 30+ machines (servers and employee workstations), NOT a
single issue. I found that FC2 is much easier on hardware detection, it
actually installed on a 440GX chipset in which RH8.0-9.0 and FC1 did not
recognize.

Hats off to the FC team!
[color=blue]
>
> --
> Sandgroper
> ----------------------------------
> Remove KNICKERS to Email
> [email]steveray@KNICKERSiinet.net.au[/email][/color]

--

E

Fedora Core Linux Development Team
Kernel 2.6.5-1.358
Registered Linux User #357785

Sounds like your hard drive is about to give up the ghost.
[color=blue]
> My disks reads with hdparm -t shows a wide ranging disk reads from 40 Mb to
> as low as 24 Mb , originally with RH 9 I was getting 40 Mb + , not to
> mention that at one stage it was down to 445 Kb , yes , 445 Kb /second.
> Just about every 4th hdparm test results in a disk read of 28 Mb /second.
>[color=green]
> >[color=darkred]
> > > sluggish response when I access the BIOS at boot up ( yeah that IS
> > > strange ) ,[/color]
> > When entering the bios there is no OS yet. How can FC2 be responsible for[/color]
> that ?
>
> Well FC 2 is somehow contolling the BIOS on reboot , when I have gone into
> the BIOS after the reboot to change the disk settings from [auto] to [user
> defined] or vice versa , I have to wait until the HDD stops spinning before
> it writes some of the info on the screen.[/color]

"Sandgroper" <steveray@KNICKERSiinet.net.au> wrote
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > If you are running RH 9 without any problems and you are thinking of
> > > upgrading to Fedora Core 2 , then ***DON'T*** , it's a load of crap ![/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> I did re-run the install utility for my video card , there has been others
> who have had problems with a GF 4 MX video card.[/color]

So let me see if I understand this... your complaint is not that Red
Hat's OS is broken (I use the native RH drivers fine), but that when
you try to get a third-party add-on driver that you downloaded off the
web to run under the new OS, it turns out they haven't updated it to
work correctly under your configuration with the new X server.... Did
Nvidia tell you that this particular hardware/software combination was
certified under that revision of the driver, or did you just assume
that going from RH9 (XFree86 server) to FC2 (X.org server) would be a
re-compile?

I know that sounds a bit harsh, but I'm seriously asking these
questions. I would never have assumed that Nvidia would have their
stuff working right away, and would have waited a bit to move off of
Red Hat's version.

Don Campbell <don@nulladdress.org> wrote in message news:<10cmgvn8c7h8r21@corp.supernews.com>...[color=blue]
> Sandgroper,
>
> <cut>
> With those characteristics, there is no way you should be
> an early adopter of any technology. FC 2 has been a bit
> dicey for some to install and get working optimally because
> it includes two major jumps in version and many others under
> the hood. The majors: kernel 2.6, gnome 2.6. The others
> relate to SELinux, samba, nfs, Grub, etc.
>
> That means that automatically it will have been hard for
> all combinations of hardware to have been tested during
> the development of the distribtion. That means that young
> childish hot-heads should stay away until the adults have
> things worked out.
>[/color]

Everything you wrote is to the point. However I checked out
the download site for Fedora 2 and while there was a
big warning about how long it would take to download
using a 56 modem there was no warning that anyone
downloading should think of themselves as beta testers.

The whole concept of early-adopters is so much part of
the culture of Linux that people seem to think
that it goes without saying.

Being bleeding edge is exciting when you know what
you hav let yourself in for but extremely frustrating
if you don’t know the score.

Red Hat is at fault to the extent that they don’t
ensure that people do know the score.

David

At the very top of [url]http://fedora.redhat.com[/url]

What is The Fedora Project?

The Fedora Project is a Red-Hat-sponsored and community-supported open
source project. It is also a proving ground for new technology that may
eventually make its way into Red Hat products. It is not a supported
product of Red Hat, Inc.



On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:35:59 -0700, David Barndsale wrote:
[color=blue]
> Don Campbell <don@nulladdress.org> wrote in message news:<10cmgvn8c7h8r21@corp.supernews.com>...[color=green]
>> Sandgroper,
>>
>> <cut>
>> With those characteristics, there is no way you should be
>> an early adopter of any technology. FC 2 has been a bit
>> dicey for some to install and get working optimally because
>> it includes two major jumps in version and many others under
>> the hood. The majors: kernel 2.6, gnome 2.6. The others
>> relate to SELinux, samba, nfs, Grub, etc.
>>
>> That means that automatically it will have been hard for
>> all combinations of hardware to have been tested during
>> the development of the distribtion. That means that young
>> childish hot-heads should stay away until the adults have
>> things worked out.
>>[/color]
>
> Everything you wrote is to the point. However I checked out
> the download site for Fedora 2 and while there was a
> big warning about how long it would take to download
> using a 56 modem there was no warning that anyone
> downloading should think of themselves as beta testers.
>
> The whole concept of early-adopters is so much part of
> the culture of Linux that people seem to think
> that it goes without saying.
>
> Being bleeding edge is exciting when you know what
> you hav let yourself in for but extremely frustrating
> if you don’t know the score.
>
> Red Hat is at fault to the extent that they don’t
> ensure that people do know the score.
>
> David[/color]