Reviewer of Fedora Core 2 compares it to Arch

wdemoss · 2004-05-20 18:47:40

Following is an excerpt:

This is a nightmare. Add/Remove Applications provides me with the original list of applications from the install. If I want Mplayer, Bittorrent, or Xcdroast there doesn't seem to be a way to install them with the default package manager. I am spoiled from using Arch, where I can get just about anything by typing a few commands. I know that by configuring yum or getting apt-get I can do this, but I am reviewing the system as provided. Up2date didn't work for me.

EDIT: and here is another one:

The point of Fedora, I thought, was that I could just use it and not have to think about those things. If I am compiling programs, why not just run Slackware? If I want easy package management with some configuration, why not learn Arch? If I want an easy distro with all of my multimedia needs taken care of, why not run Mandrake. I guess the bottom line for me is: Why should I run Fedora? The new release doesn't answer that question.

Actual review is being /. right now, but a transcript is in the discussion at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=108 … id=9206137

colnago · 2004-05-21 16:48:29

The point is the usability is not the same. I was going to toss FC2 in the first hour until I found the apt rpm. Then I could install many of the tools I use every day. It is incredible that on 4 CDs I find it lacking in apps. Then again, I did not agree with the app changes in suse9.1 (5 CDs) either. I might be biased, as mdk was the first distro I ever tried, so I was pulled to their choices.

The FC2 configuration was not as easy as I would have expected either. I think MDK10 and Suse9.1 are really the leaders in newbie configuration tools. The advantage of FC2 is in the anaconda initial setup, not in the subsequent adjustment. Even cups was harder to configure than in mdk/suse, which may be a kde/gnome criticism more than fedora/et al.

Much is said about the time red hat/fedora spends on tweaking the desktop. I think there is a wholesale lack of tweaking in this release. It seems so much the same as my red hat 9 desktop at work. It is sort of a condem them if they spend too much time on eye candy (like the rh9 release if I remember) and condem them if they don't (this fedora release). ...but compare FC2 to Jollix (gentoo base) 0.3 beta 2, where the desktop is a quite refreshing slant on the all-too-common default kde. I think there are less jollix developers than their are arch ones, but they manage to best FC2 while still providing newbie-usable tools that allow initial (and subsequent) configuration changes to one of the notoriously newbie-unfriendly distros (gentoo).

That said, I do appreciate the work done to bring FC2 forward. I wish it had been around when i was learning linux. It seems faster than suse 9.1-or at least not as bulky. But for new/non-technical users, I don't think mdk10 official can be beat.

Takaitra · 2004-05-24 17:36:07

This is the review I read that caused me to install AL for the first time last weekend. I was about to upgrade my RH9 server to FC2, I had the 4 CDs burned and everything. I had never even heard of AL before but decided to give it a shot after I couldn't find a single negative review for it. Even if that FC2 vs AL review is a little biased, I'm extremely happy with my choice.

xerxes2 · 2004-05-24 19:34:43

Welcome to arch Takaitra.
It seems to me that the guy,who did the review, like arch but he don't dare to say it loudly.
Good to see you saw it anyway.

Zephirias · 2004-05-25 19:05:07

Well, there we have it, straight from the horse's mouth.

Nice to see another Arch fan.

Arch Linux

#1 2004-05-20 18:47:40

Reviewer of Fedora Core 2 compares it to Arch

#2 2004-05-21 16:48:29

Re: Reviewer of Fedora Core 2 compares it to Arch

#3 2004-05-24 17:36:07

Re: Reviewer of Fedora Core 2 compares it to Arch

#4 2004-05-24 19:34:43

Re: Reviewer of Fedora Core 2 compares it to Arch

#5 2004-05-25 19:05:07

Re: Reviewer of Fedora Core 2 compares it to Arch

Board footer