Reviews of Fedora Linux

1. 
   marty

   Reviewing 19 Alpha (Apr 23, 2013)

   This is an excellent distro - but only if you have a very uncomplicated partitioning setup. I defy anybody to tell me how you could setup a RAID5 for examp[le - especially with other OS's on the disks. I need to take an upgrae path form FC17-Fedora18 (and maybe the Alphia if I can). This was very easy in Fedora 17. So because of he new Anaconda installer it gets a 3 (but for me a 0)
2. 
   Music4Ever

   Reviewing 18 Final (Jan 15, 2013)

   A good distro & well worth a look.
3. 
   -Lord-

   Reviewing 17 (May 29, 2012)

   krakokainer: was your review in Engrish or something? Didn't they do away with ebonics? Yo, mofo, ENGLISH... do you speak it???
4. 
   FatBastard

   Reviewing 17 (May 29, 2012)

   I love Fedora with LXDE but it's sad they don't bundle VLC.
5. 
   krakokainer

   Reviewing 14 Final (Nov 5, 2010)

   fedoras be a cool cat and i likes linuses cause it be one of my favorites; all up and at it with this stuff and it be all good if you wanna try it out and hang with some yos while u chill wit it
6. 
   egg83

   Reviewing 13 (May 26, 2010)

   Works like a charm on my 2 yr. old laptop, no issues whatsoever. Did the job where Ubuntu could not, esp. with wireless drivers. A great distro!
7. 
   some guy

   Reviewing 12 Alpha (Aug 26, 2009)

   good stuff, to the Mac fan boy try ciaro dock, if you want eye candy, you can even make Linux look like your mac,,,Let see your mac do that..
   http://i29.photobucket.c...ark761/Screenshot-8.png.
8. 
   alshawwa

   Reviewing 11 (Jul 8, 2009)

   the finest distro until the moment , iv been using it since it came out , tried it with the applications that i usually use on ubuntu 9.04 , and it shocked me with the stability , its fast and stable , never crashed " i play alot with the system settings and configurations" .
   
   gnome kde , kde gome , its a matter of taste , you can do everything using both but in different ways and shortcuts.
9. 
   mflip

   Reviewing 11 (Jun 9, 2009)

   Finally, full EFI support for AMD64 platforms. There's still no Linux distribution that can hold a candle to Mac OS X. Mac OS X has better graphics than every Linux distribution and is much more stable. It is harder to crash Mac OS X than any other operating system.
10. 
    renegadeviking

    Reviewing 11 Preview Release (Jun 9, 2009)

    After I installed the Nvidia driver for F11Preview via Yumming it, it eventually booted up after I forced my PC to shut off. I like KDE 4.2.2 a lot, but I also like Gnome 2.26, yet I got the wireless icon on the taskbar on both. Yeah, it's stable. I have 2.6.29.3 kernel. EXT4 is about time! Needs extents badly. I used EXT4 in Fedora 10 as well.
    
    I'm actually giving F11 Preview a 9.5, because I had to use the basic video driver for Geforce 8800 GTX like in OpenSuse 11.1. OpenSuse 11 and Fedora 10 didn't have these normal install problems. I am fair where Wine isn't avaliable, because it puts Red Hat's butt in the court room vs. Microsoft. They could finally add Linux unified kernel though! I wish KDE or Gnome made a desktop screen recording application into x264. Neither Fedora and OpenSuse package install DVD with Mediacoder!
11. 
    Sabz

    Reviewing 11 Alpha (Feb 6, 2009)

    bout time BETANEWS gets a New Picture of Fedora on this link..an by the way Fedora rocks :)
12. 
    zridling

    Reviewing 10 Preview (Nov 5, 2008)

    I've always appreciated Fedora for its broad hardware compatibility, especially compared to the ubuntu family. And this Fedora 10 preview is very stable.
    
    However, like DudeBoyz, unless you're constantly updating your system, OpenSUSE (or SLED) is likely a better (RPM) option than Fedora for most users. At the least, you'll get the best graphics -- better than Mac IMO -- a system that plays well with Windows, and extreme stability.
13. 
    improvelence

    Reviewing 10 Preview (Nov 4, 2008)

    KDE is buggier than gnome (though its much more configurable). This distro is not as good as ubuntu.
14. 
    DudeBoyz

    Reviewing 10 Beta (Oct 1, 2008)

    Pretty decent product, but I think I would take SUSE Linux over this for business and Mandriva Linux for home. Both of those apps are updated pretty frequently and do a better job of keeping up with the small business / consumer market.
    
    Not bad, but nothing special either, imo. In fact, the dumbed down config stands in the way of making the environment fit the preferences of the users. I do not think it holds up well against the competition.
15. 
    karljkr

    Reviewing 10 Beta (Oct 1, 2008)

    Question: is it possible to install network drivers without being wired? That is great with Ubuntu, it's easy to install the gcc+ with the aptitude command. This should be possible in any modern distro - why not include the packages in the dvd-version? Since most people now a days is connected through wifi.
16. 
    DaMiEn™

    Reviewing 10 Alpha (Aug 16, 2008)

    Sweetest distro I've tried so far.
17. 
    war593122

    Reviewing 8 Final (Nov 9, 2007)

    If only it worked with more wireless hardware and printers...
18. 
    zridling

    Reviewing 8 Final (Nov 9, 2007)

    LOVE the newest artwork, the pulse audio, and as always with Fedora, everything works 'out of the box,' including my Vista-dead HP printer — woohoo! Ubuntu's nice, but Fedora has really got some great coders right now.
19. 
    Paul Skinner

    Reviewing 8 Final (Nov 8, 2007)

    Personally, this is the best distro I've found.
20. 
    hondaman

    Reviewing 8 Final (Nov 8, 2007)

    The very first disto of any flavor to work out of the box on my laptop (HP dv9548)
    
    Everything works without having to track down a how-to, readme, etc. Just as it should. Great Job!
21. 
    Artem S. Tashkinov

    Reviewing 8 Final (Nov 8, 2007)

    If you want to play mp3's or DVD discs then visit this page and follow the given instructions http://rpm.livna.org/rlowiki/
    
    Also read a very useful Fedora FAQ http://www.fedorafaq.org/
22. 
    zridling

    Reviewing 8 Test 1 (7.90) (Aug 13, 2007)

    This version along with the coming Global Desktop version will be another strong advance for Linux on the desktop. This version makes it easier to setup using a simple or full install. Fonts look great, too.
23. 
    empress101

    Reviewing 7 (Jun 4, 2007)

    I have VMWare Workstation 5.5.4 and atmepted to install Fedora 7 on top of it. It installs, but some quirky behavior. First the GUI on boot up in the VMWare window is half the size it should be and after its done booting up it switches to huge oversize for logging on. After I log on the resolution switches to the 1280X1024 in full screen just as I wanted.
    
    I have had success with other versions, but this one a little different.
    
    I tried different settings on install such as using IDE instead of SCSI. That seemed to get it installed, but it has the quarky behavior.
    
    Anyone share there settings how to install it correctly?
    
    Any help much appreciated.
    
    I have founds tons of information on how to install VMWare on top of Fedora, but scares on Fedora on VMWare.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Emily
24. 
    zenarcher

    Reviewing 7 (Jun 2, 2007)

    Fedora 7 installed flawlessly for me. Took awhile to download, but the torrents were loaded down. Took about 3 hours or so to get.
    
    My Nvidia card works great with the driver from Livna and all multimedia functions are working great. Likewise, my HP multifunction printer was automatically recognized and working, as was my 19 inch wide screen LCD display.
    
    Also, no problems with the KVM switch....working fine between my box with Fedora 7 and my other with SUSE 10.2. I'm really more familiar with SUSE, but the Fedora 7 installation was a snap...and it boots quickly!
25. 
    zridling

    Reviewing 7 (May 31, 2007)

    Holy cow, am I glad I found Fedora! If you're not a n00b stuck on Ubuntu yet, check out Fedora 7, which really expands your desktop options. The graphics and UI alone are incredible (kinda puts Vista to shame, really). And it's fast even on old machines. Comes in 32 & 64-bit versions. Even if you're using a Linux machine for background tasks, Fedora 7 is rock solid stable, and unlike a few distros, it's very easy to update and upgrade.
    
    New to this release is the Revisor Tool, which is a graphical application built on top of Fedora's other build tools that allows you to quickly build an ISO, live CD, etc. This is truly Fedora's advantage. Also, its Kernel-based Virtual Machine (KVM) technology has been integrated with the Fedora graphical virtualization manager tool. Unlike some, KVM provides a full virtualization solution, and users have a choice between KVM and Xen, along with Qemu, in version 7.
    
    Unlike Vista, which does not recognize my new monitor or my new HP printer (both manufacturers told me to wait till SP1 for drivers), Fedora_7 recognized both. I've got all my TrueType fonts installed by merely click-n-drag, loaded Opera and WinRAR in less than a minute, and my system will hibernate properly — again, unlike Vista. Go figure. Then go get Fedora.
26. 
    zridling

    Reviewing 7 Test 4 (6.93) (Apr 28, 2007)

    I really like Fedora, even more than Ubuntu. It seems more refined (of course), but this version installed in less than 20 minutes on my machine.
    
    Umapathy, you're right, it's a slow download here in the US, too.
27. 
    Umapathy

    Reviewing 7 Test 3 (6.92) (Mar 30, 2007)

    Fedora is quite Impressive. I have been using this I am quite satisfied with Fedora. I really like the Live CD so that we can have idea about Hardware compatibility before installing the OS. It would be great if Microsoft follows these setps. I am a Sri Lankan Tamil I have seen built in support for Tamil via UNICODE :). I noticed the download speed is lower than Bittorrent based download via http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/ may be because I am in Sri Lanka.
28. 
    Saad_alshawwa

    Reviewing 7 Test 2 (Mar 1, 2007)

    iv included fedora 7 test 2 on my vmware collection , looks promising , faster than older version , and even faster and more stable than other distros such as opensuse 10.2, but there is one little thing i like in Ubuntu , you have to download a single cd to run the system with minimal set of applications and then you can download the packages you want using apt-get, i hope if i see fedora going that way , it will be much easier for us to download fedora's versions , so we dont have to download a 3.xGB dvd or a 5 CD images to get the system run.
29. 
    robmanic44

    Reviewing 7 Test 1 (Feb 13, 2007)

    I wonder why this cannot see my SCSI drive. I still use scuzzies on most of my systems for the speed advantage. SUSE sees the drives but the graphics are horrible. I've also noticed that some distros have problems with kvm switches.
30. 
    Banquo

    Reviewing 7 Test 1 (Feb 1, 2007)

    Nice
31. 
    ds0934

    Reviewing 7 Test 1 (Feb 1, 2007)

    The last test build (ok, beta) was very nice and very solid. I'm looking forward to this.
    
    Everyone, please THERE IS NO MORE "CORE" Fedora 7 will just be called "Fedora 7". Trivial, I know, but seems like people are getting bent out of shape over the name change.
    
    https://www.redhat.com/a...7-January/msg00091.html
32. 
    Sabz

    Reviewing 6 (Oct 25, 2006)

    excellent Distro, just keeps getting better an better,, now to wait for Fedora Core 7 :)
33. 
    hondaman

    Reviewing 6 (Oct 25, 2006)

    Ive been an exclusive RH/Fedora user since I bought my first copy of RH 5.0 from a retail store. Since installing FC6, Ive uncovered 3 bugs, and it ALREADY has 12 updates (at the time of this writing) available for download. No show stoppers, but still it begs to ask if this wasnt pushed out a bit too early.
34. 
    twanj

    Reviewing 6 (Oct 24, 2006)

    metalinks for faster and verified downloads are available at http://www.metalinker.org/samples.html#isos
35. 
    Banquo

    Reviewing 6 (Oct 24, 2006)

    It's called Fedora Core now, and that picture is REALLY ancient. How about updating it.
36. 
    rkapp

    Reviewing 6 Test 2 (5.91) (Oct 21, 2006)

    Give me a break. This is a beta version of Linux. How about trying to help out the developers and give constructive advice how to make it better.
37. 
    ds0934

    Reviewing 6 Test 1 (5.90) (Jun 22, 2006)

    I'll defer to FC5 and yum to pull updates rather than download this behemoth "test" candidate. I've got a lab full of machines running various flavors of linux and windoze, keeping up is getting to be a full-time job.
38. 
    osric

    Reviewing 6 Test 1 (5.90) (Jun 21, 2006)

    Oh darn! This is what is really frustating about Linux. Things are moving so fast, its easy to be left behind. I just finished downloading and installing Fedora Core 5 yesterday and today I see there's a new version out.
    I am shifting over from Mandrake 10 and I must say that Mandrake was a lot more user friendly than FC. However, I guess once I figure my way around here, its gonna be a much more thrilling experience.
39. 
    spiked

    Reviewing 6 Test 1 (5.90) (Jun 21, 2006)

    The biggest new feature in Fedora 6 is support for Intel-based Macs. Other than that, it's just a bunch of incremental version updates (for example, Gnome to 2.15 and KDE to 3.5.3). There are some minor improvements which may important to a tiny number of people, such as IPv6 support during install, but for most existing Fedora 5 users, just run yum instead of wasting the bandwidth to download Fedora 6.
40. 
    surfbum4fun

    Reviewing 5 (Mar 22, 2006)

    utomo, how much easier do you want? Suse is the best,when it comes to install.fedora is very easy.of course if you are new to linux,in your case that what it sounds like.
41. 
    HelgeFossmo

    Reviewing 5 (Mar 22, 2006)

    If you want to try out linux, I recommend trying out Fedora as your first distro. It is very easy to install and use, and it works with alot of different hardware
42. 
    veeoh

    Reviewing 5 (Mar 22, 2006)

    Xilon.
    
    If you have not used the disto then DONT REVIEW IT!
    
    Jesus - why do people do this.
43. 
    Xilon

    Reviewing 5 (Mar 21, 2006)

    imo it's the second best distro in terms of ease of use. I haven't tried Fedora Core 5, but I doubt that it has changed significantly enough to beat Ubuntu which is just great and I prefer the deb packages and apt-get/synaptic instead of the RPMs which kinda suck. Still for n00bs this is a pretty good distro.
44. 
    utomo

    Reviewing 5 (Mar 21, 2006)

    Linux need to improve:
    1. make it more easier to install.
    2. standarize all applications, so it is not a distro limited.
    3. Easier to update kernel
    4. More user friendly
    and others, look at the critics to Linux, and try to reduce it
45. 
    AlanS2001

    Reviewing 5 (Mar 21, 2006)

    Best all round distro IMHO - Use what you like.
46. 
    mo_mo

    Reviewing 5 (Mar 21, 2006)

    I LOVE LINUX =)
    even though i still use Windows most of the time
    but i still love LINUX ^^
47. 
    dvferret

    Reviewing 5 (Mar 21, 2006)

    Nice build. Keeps getting better and better.
48. 
    Banquo

    Reviewing 5 (Mar 21, 2006)

    Nice, never had any problems with 4 and 5 is looking to be a big improvement. Oh and snowflake, take your childish vulgar remarks and trolling somewhere else and stop being a moron.
49. 
    GravityFX3

    Reviewing 5 (Mar 21, 2006)

    This is the best linux distro available today =) When I found out at late night that they already released FC5-DVD. I've imidiatly started downloading it from torrent, and burned the dvd version in 3hr. Next day I've installed it ;-) That is how happy I am to see this release =) Long leave FC5 !
50. 
    ds0934

    Reviewing 5 Test 3 (Feb 21, 2006)

    Anyone had any troubles installing Test 3 on Vmware 5?
51. 
    Sabz

    Reviewing 5 Test 3 (Feb 20, 2006)

    Awesome Distro, they just keep improving it each release,
52. 
    sn0wflake

    Reviewing 5 Test 3 (Feb 20, 2006)

    If I had to run Linux this would the distrobution I'd choose.
53. 
    surfbum4fun

    Reviewing 5 Test 2 (Jan 18, 2006)

    tipsyboy --- it's only crap to you, because YOU don't know how to install it.go to the web-site and READ how to do it. i would walk you thur it but you would most likely screw it up. http://www.pcbsd.org/ oh btw ,Fedora is a nice o/s but redhat(paid version) is the way to go..
54. 
    tipsyboy

    Reviewing 5 Test 2 (Jan 18, 2006)

    Sorry, guys, I have to answer to the so called "review" of "funcheung" -->
    
    Tried your suggestion and burned two "PC-BSD" CDs - and could not even start, because in no way I was given a list of my partitions. Only 1 "extended" and the first Primary partition was revealed.
    
    So - anyone who reads here:
    
    Keep away from "PC-BSD". It is crap.
55. 
    Sabz

    Reviewing 5 Test 2 (Jan 17, 2006)

    Excellent Linux Distro, but aint it about time betanews updated the screenshot of the gnome desktop?
56. 
    joesnow

    Reviewing 5 Test 2 (Jan 17, 2006)

    no problems on install, some ppl have to understand, it's a Devel "TEST" version, stability shouldn't be expected @ 100% w/ this particular release, duh.
57. 
    funcheung

    Reviewing 5 Test 2 (Jan 17, 2006)

    try PC-BSD
    
    C-BSD has as its goal to be an easy to install and use desktop OS, which is built on the FreeBSD operating system. To accomplish this, it currently has a graphical installation, which will enable even UNIX novices to easily install and getup and running. The system comes loaded with the "K" Desktop Environment (KDE), which lets users immediately sit down to a familiar interface. Also developed exclusively for PC-BSD is the PBI system, which lets users download and install their applications in a self-extracting & installing format, similar to InstallShield® on Windows®.
    
    http://www.pcbsd.org/
58. 
    thezelda

    Reviewing 5 Test 1 (Nov 26, 2005)

    Installer crashed. (Build 4.90) This continues the legacy of Fedora being crap. Check out CentOS instead. They change compilers and libraries for no reason, its just a pissing contest between SuSE and RedHat to make things a higher version number, no one cares if your stuff actually works.
    
    Why compile with GCC 4.02-beta-99-daily-snapshot-uber-10-build-secret444 when 3.4.x can do most of 4.x can do save autovectorization, but you give up stability?
    
    Given the horribly fragmented state of Linux, I can only hope people continue to learn more of CentOS, FreeBSD and Solaris/OpenSolaris.
    
    It really gets tiresome to see the Linux kernel implemented 800 different ways, from Gentoo, to Slack, to RedHat, to Fedora, to SuSE, to list goes on and on. I can generally master each fairly quickly, but most of them dont "self heal," like RHEL or CentOS with nightly up2date/yum checks.
59. 
    Sabz

    Reviewing 5 Test 1 (Nov 24, 2005)

    Excellent Distro, iv'e tried Suse also, didnt cut it with me. i'd recommend this to anyone
60. 
    ryws

    Reviewing 5 Test 1 (Nov 24, 2005)

    Wake up Fedora. It's not more 1990's. People want performance + user friendly GUI = what people demand.
61. 
    k3of4

    Reviewing 4 (Jun 21, 2005)

    Obviously, what makes "the best" distribution is largely subject to personal preference, so these ratings are fairly pointless. But this is a solid Linux distro I would recommend, with a straightforward installation and a good set of packages. Updating it is even more simple. Because it is Red Hat based, there is a wealth of documentation sources online if you run into any snag.
62. 
    jordenpro

    Reviewing 4 (Jun 14, 2005)

    I suggest Gentoo. However, Fedora is my second favorite!
63. 
    AlanS2001

    Reviewing 4 (Jun 14, 2005)

    Ubuntu isn't bad, but I prefer Fedora.
64. 
    5ketcher

    Reviewing 4 (Jun 14, 2005)

    Fedora isn't bad but I prefer Ubuntu. It's my favourite linux.
65. 
    cooldude7273

    Reviewing 4 (Jun 13, 2005)

    One of the best Linux distros! :-)
66. 
    kmleow

    Reviewing 4 (Jun 13, 2005)

    How come the size is displayed as 635,000 KB? I suggest Betanews point to the DVD version, to show the actual full size, should be around 2.7GB
67. 
    Prospero424

    Reviewing 4 Test 2 (Apr 11, 2005)

    The most impressive thing about Fedora 4 is its installer, at least on the DVD version, dunno if it's different when installing from CDs or not. It's absolutely amazing and has to be seen to be believed. However, the environment itself leaves a few things to be desired. It just seemd a bit buggy and is some ways incomplete to me, especially when compared with Ubuntu right out of the box.
    
    It's a good distro, but it really is a "test" and shouldn't be expected to operate properly, as far as my experience with it goes.
    
    Gonna give it a 4 because it's not release software and the installer really is impressive.
68. 

    Reviewing 4 Test 2 (Apr 11, 2005)

    Shouldn't this be listed under desktop management/operating systems??
69. 
    Squire72

    Reviewing 4 Test 1 (Mar 16, 2005)

    I'll have to give this a try (haven't yet)
    
    The Core 3 cooked my video card, and fried a buddy's monitor, so we both switched to Ubuntu... which is a much nicer distro IMHO.
    
    That being said - this is downloading now, and I'll install it tonight :)
70. 

    Reviewing 4 Test 1 (Mar 16, 2005)

    Fedora is definitely one of the best linux distributions, but since I have come across Ubuntu linux I don't think I will switch back...
71. 
    morganevans

    Reviewing 4 Test 1 (Mar 16, 2005)

    To be honest Linux Distros are still a mixed bag in my opinion. I've tried SuSe which worked fine on my old Advent Laptop up to 8.1 Pro, then I switched to Mandrake 10.1 on my new Toshiba laptop and wasn't that inpressed by any of the GUIs on offer.
    
    Spend helf a day downloading Fedora Core 3 and found out that sound no longer worked so switched back to Mandrake 10.1 and updated to 10.2 and sound didn't work again. What's the deal? Sure Gnome is looking a lot more together (I prefer Gnome over KDE but there's just so much garbage included and so many dependancies that Linux still just comes across as a geek toy for people who like to spend hours trying to fix things that should work fine in the first place.
    
    I might download this distro but Linux is fast becoming my least favourite OS of all time. Don't get me wrong - I'm not a MS fan and practically all the software I have running on my Laptop is either Open Source or Freeware. It's just Linux is still so ... naff.
    
    4 stars because I don't want to scupper the rating based on a non-direct review of this distro.
72. 
    kmleow

    Reviewing Core 3 (Nov 11, 2004)

    Very good product. Need more mirrors outside US.
    
    Lacks MP3 player, NTFS support.
    Unless one downloads these addons separately.
    Not very suitable for Linux newbies who expect this O/S to be a complete one.
    
    I hope that the installer allows further customization, such as allowing the choice of removing PCMCIA, ISDN support, etc.
73. 
    fedorafreak

    Reviewing Core 3 (Nov 8, 2004)

    The Best free Linux Distro that there is 5 stars Perfect
74. 
    Grandpas

    Reviewing Core 3 (Nov 8, 2004)

    Running FC3 (beta) for months without any problem. I give only 4 stars because there is no MP3 codecs in FC builds: by default, no MP3 compatibility .. you will have add MP3 codecs by yourself.
75. 
    kernelsn

    Reviewing Core 3 (Nov 8, 2004)

    Finally , FC 3 released. !!!
76. 
    jordenpro

    Reviewing Core 3 Test 2 (Sep 24, 2004)

    Fedora is great! I still prefer Gentoo, fully customized per my hardware specs.
    
    Fedora @ work , Gentoo @ home.
    
    rgr
77. 
    robmanic44

    Reviewing Core 3 Test 2 (Sep 22, 2004)

    I'm currently running Mandrake 10 on my desktop. At this juncture RedHat is just too difficult for an amateur like myself. Getting sound is my biggest problem. If RedHat, Mandrake and SuSE could get together, they would have a helluva product.
78. 
    lordcyber

    Reviewing Core 1 (Nov 6, 2003)

    we have been using the fedora core betas for some time now. very stable, with only minor problems. I am very happy to see that the code has finally gone gold. Downloading it now via bittorrent.
79. 
    tasty

    Reviewing Core 1 (Nov 6, 2003)

    TylerRuleZ: filesizes are irrelevant, use the md5sum
80. 
    rwabel

    Reviewing Core 1 (Nov 5, 2003)

    I installed the severn version and even this beta version worked very well. This distribution looks very promising. I recommend it to newebies like I am one. Don't know how good it's for experienced users.
    @TylerRuleZ did you check it witht he checksum verifier file? file size isn't the only thing that shows you if the file is correct. Don't blame the distro when there was maybe problem with the download. I verfied my severn version with the checksum and it was fine. after burning I did the check of all 3 mediums and no problems. I advice you to verify with the checksum file and to redownload the wrong isos, maybe from another mirror.
81. 
    TylerRuleZ

    Reviewing Severn 0.95 Beta (Oct 17, 2003)

    I have downloaded the i386 ISO images (Discs 1-3). However, during installation when the media (CD) integrity was verified, it advised the CD FAILED the test. I compared the data size of the ISO image I had to the FTP server's one and it's correctly at 666,861,568 bytes. Even I slipped the test and "install anyway" it will still stop at one of the file - advised sth like corruption, etc and dropped out of installation. What to do??
82. 
    AlanS2001

    Reviewing Severn 0.95 Beta (Oct 15, 2003)

    A very fine version of Red Hat Linux.
83. 
    William H Gates

    Reviewing Severn 0.95 Beta (Oct 15, 2003)

    Why would anyone use Linux when my OS offers greater connect-ability, greater compatibility and easier usability. Linux is dead, let it be. My OS is so much better and gives you everything you need without the hassle of all the confusion of Linux.
84. 
    BillBraskey

    Reviewing Severn 0.95 Beta (Oct 15, 2003)

    Did AOL ever buy Red hat? Anyhow this is one of the worst Linux distributions and I would recommend it to anyone who uses Linux just because they heard it was the OS that smarter people and techies use so they can use words like "noob" and "leet" (Most of the linux userbase, sadly). I personally recommend BSD, but for Linux, go Slack-ware all the way.
85. 
    geminiz

    Reviewing Severn 0.94 Beta (Sep 26, 2003)

    I agree with whatever_-_ . People need to grow up and really think before giving rating.
    I've seen too much unreasonable score like one star just cuz the particular user can't install it properly (while everyone else rated seems fine). anyway,
    I like Mandrake's gui better than Redhat.
    but Redhat is still a decent distribution nonetheless.
86. 
    whatever_-_

    Reviewing Severn 0.94 Beta (Sep 26, 2003)

    batjohan & eletrik: I'm sorry, but I was under the impression you were supposed to review Red Hat, not Slack nor Deb. Some people would say you should take your troll carsas and hit the road, for that's what your comments constitute (trolling), but not I. Me? I would advise you to review Red Hat on its own merits and rate it thusly (on its own merits). Sure, *mention* Slackware and Debian if you think they're better, but it is the height of irreponsibility to give Red Hat a low rating, and use the privelidge of posting as an opportunity to shill a personal agenda. Personally I was going to give this release a 3 (3.5 if I could), because everything is still too slow and resource intensive relative to Windows. Sure Red Hat is no different that the others in this regard; however, Red Hat *does* contribute code and can otherwise influence the community toward the right direction vis a vis their role as a leading Linux integrator. I *was* going to give a 3.5, but thanks to the two "gentlemen" below, I will give a 5 to counteract their irresponsibility.
87. 
    batjohan

    Reviewing Severn 0.94 Beta (Sep 26, 2003)

    debian > slackware > redhat
88. 
    eletrik

    Reviewing Severn 0.94 Beta (Sep 25, 2003)

    Slackware for life baby!
89. 
    ezh

    Reviewing Severn 0.94 Beta (Sep 25, 2003)

    Is the Fedora the post RH9 distro or what?
90. 
    digi_crane

    Reviewing Severn Beta (Aug 5, 2003)

    After reading most of the posts, most of you do not realize that you can get most anything running on a Linux system. I install it, and it is pretty much the same as all the other distro, it just has more hardware support and gui enchanments. I would like to say that I was able to compile a mplayer that was able to play mp3 on 9.
    Also for most of you, that think Linux server are the way to go, need to wake up and get up to date on there news able how more Linux server are successful hack then 2k servers.
91. 
    xebra

    Reviewing Severn Beta (Jul 24, 2003)

    I installed it and everything worked. Ethernet card, video, sound, network printer (even though the printer is on a Windows 2000 domain it still worked after I supplied the proper username and password.) I installed Synaptic (which uses apt-get) and then got Xmms with mp3 support, mplayer etc. I turned on vsftp and ftp worked. What can I say? Everything just worked for me. This is the first distro I can say that about. I like Mandrake and SuSE also but this is the first time I didn't have to tweak a single thing to get it to work. Just got lucky I guess.
92. 
    jarek99

    Reviewing Severn Beta (Jul 22, 2003)

    Slackware > Redhat
93. 
    TomekLutel

    Reviewing Severn Beta (Jul 22, 2003)

    Since version 8.0 it has broken RPM support. This serious bug (it can broke whole RPM database) is ignored by RedHat. If you are serious about running servers on RH stay with 7.3 or go with better distros (I recommend Debian).
94. 
    samsonleung2000

    Reviewing 9.0 (Apr 15, 2003)

    I had been used Red Hat Linux for quite a long time. But I just upgrade my RH to version 9. However, I discover that there is no reasons to upgrade or install this version. First, most of the software it provided is almost the same with version 8.0. The most disadvantage is Red Hat Linux 9 cannot play mp3. I don't know why Red Hat use such reason(Due to the license reason) to said remove the playback decoder from Red Hat Linux 9. I don't LIKE it.
95. 
    tvaccari

    Reviewing 9.0 (Apr 8, 2003)

    Red Hat is a good distro however I just wish they wouldn't use blue curve to mess up the desktop.
96. 
    whatever_-_

    Reviewing 9.0 (Apr 8, 2003)

    Maybe if you have fast cpu (and to a lesser extent video) and lots of fast RAM it's more responsive than 2K/XP, but that doesn't do very much for people that have slower machines that can still run 2K or XP quite fast (when compared to Linux). You see, anything can be fast when you cache *everything* in RAM (imagine if you have 20 GB of RAM and used it as a harddrive...) Linux on the desktop still has a long way to go to outperform NT (2K/XP), never mind W9x (but then you can't really compare the two, though I have seen a lot of Linux people try to claim Linux+GNOME or KDE is as fast or faster even than 9x. Yeah right). Make all teh claims you like about GNU Linux being faster/more responsive than 2K/XP, it simply is not true *yet* (on lower end hardware anyway). Until GNU Linux can hold its own against *any* hardware that runs 2K/XP well (not just high-end hardware where, like I said, you can cache everything), it will not win me over (never mind all the other areas where Linux falls short in terms of user-friendliness, hardware comptibility, etc).
    people here can judge for themselves: try Linux. Red Hat 9 *is* the best distro release atm imo. If you have faster hardware and don't mind holding your OS's hand a bit, maybe you'll lke it. I encourage those with medium-lower end hardware (that nevertheless still runs 2K/XP and its apps just fine): try this newest Linux distro release, and tell me whether or not the hype is true. Are the Linux zelotes selling you a "bill of goods", or does it really perform as good or better than NT? No doubt lots will reply and say it does, but try it for yourself and make your own determination.
97. 
    veeoh

    Reviewing 9.0 (Apr 8, 2003)

    been using Redhat as my main desktop OS for the last couple of months, most recently RH9 (Thanks BitTorrent).
    
    It is fantastic - totally tweakable - does all I need to never have to use windows again..
    
    VNC - Remote Desktop - etc etc - and it is soooo much more responsive than 2k/2k3 :)
98. 
    cmw6988

    Reviewing 9.0 (Apr 8, 2003)

    It installs easy, but broken libraries. It laggs a bit and Openssl is broken (yes I ran the redhat updater). Anything I try to compile with ssl support that worked fine in 8 wont compile. They need to spend less time on eye candy and more time on making it work better.
99. 
    michap

    Reviewing 9.0 (Apr 8, 2003)

    "We've also included some of the world's most popular Internet applications, Apache and Sendmail"
    ----
    Oh, how original! No one else does that, huh? ;-)
100. 

     Reviewing 8.1 Phoebe Beta 3 (Feb 19, 2003)

     zeio, you and CarlsonJF are both guilty of the ad hominem fallacy, so both of your previous 'arguments' are pretty much irrelevant.
     
     If you don't like RHL, don't use it. Plain and simple.
     
     It is NOT the best for a server system, and they do NOT follow standards. This is pretty common knowledge. Since they have such a huge market share of Linux, they feel that they can do whatever they want. If they want to put all of the system configuration files in /root, they will. This is why so many people say that they are the 'Microsoft of Linux'. (Even though the problem lies in the OSS nature of the program. Different distros can't even agree on configuration file names and locations.)
     
     That said, the 8 series is buggy and this release is no different. The 7 series was buggy also. The last version that was truly viable for a server was 6.2, although one could make a case for 7.1 or 7.2.
     
     No matter. If RHL 8 were not so multimedia-crippled it would have been the first release to stand a chance against Windows as a desktop system. That seems to be more of the goal of RHL nowadays. More money to be made on the desktop than in the server room.
101. 
     zeio

     Reviewing 8.1 Phoebe Beta 3 (Feb 19, 2003)

     Carlson, please. MS owned? I am not, we use all Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris machines at the place where I work. I find you offensive and rude, and unable to be technical. I don't know what the 8.1.b3 is like, but I can tell you about 8.1 in general. And if 8.1.b2 and 8.1.b3 are so different then something is broken, bad. . .
     
     Anyways, I track RHN, Bugtraq, rawhide, so don't you even dare call this a troll. I also have valid problems with Redhat. So to answer your stupid, arrogant know-nothing comments: 1) I am commenting on 8.1.bx, 2) not relevant anymore because I didn't DL 8.1.b3, 3) again irrelevant. You amuse me, you make 3 points out of one, you snark, that means you have to try and expound on NOTHING. Did you fail the bar exam? That is what a bad lawyer would do. 4) Design flaws tend to last the lifetime of a product, see Windows NT for an example. Some of the same problems exist today as they did when NT 3.1 was released. My preference for things other than RedHat (eg FreeBSD)are completely valid. You know dumb you look? You are the troll here. You cannot engage in a technical rebuttal of why I prefer say, FreeBSD, and you use amateur flak such are accusing me of Microsoft zealotry which is baseless and unfounded, and you suffer from the same zealotry that you accuse. I have legitimate critical problems with RedHat 8.x. Most everyone I know who uses RedHat linux as a server is using 6.2 or 7.1, and 6.2 and 7.1 are available for far more machines/architectures than is 8.x. You are offensive, baseless and if you think you are doing combat with someone who supports Microsoft, you are dead wrong. It was once said: BSD is for those who love Unix, Linux is for those who hate Microsoft. I will not subscribe to blind love, and I for one think Debian and Gentoo, and things like Open/Free/NetBSD deserve a *lot* more airtime than RedHat/SuSE/Mandrake get. Especially RedHat. If you really worked with Unix or supporting a Unix infrastructure or programmers you would know what I'm talking about. And I would like to add that we use Solaris for the NFS/home directory server. Why? RH/Linux NFS is broken as an NFS server. Today. How about 'dem apples?
102. 
     CarlsonJF

     Reviewing 8.1 Phoebe Beta 3 (Feb 19, 2003)

     Ingredients
     ------------
     1) Zeio "reviewed" said product the day it was released.
     2) Must have 2 650MB+ iso's to do any sort of install. After install you can begin testing.
     3) No way you got them today my friend. The servers that have it are swamped.
     4) Zeio is quoting postings from Jan, 2001. This is a lifetime ago by technology standards.
     -----
     Stir vigorously. Heat for 5 minutes on 450.
     
     There are two possible outcomes for this recipe, a troll or a MS / MS "owned" company employee with too much time on their hands.
     
     No one is interested in the FUD or the creative spelling.
     
     Redhat is not the best Unix / Unix variant in the world, but they do seek a broader appeal than most. The 8.1 beta 3 does have some issues I am sure. Hopefully a few less issues than 8.1 beta 2, which I have been using exclusively on my laptop since it was released. It has not given me any troubles and has been fun to use for development and for productivity work. Nothing you would not expect from a standard beta. Much more stable that production released operating systems from our friends to the upper right.
103. 
     Jeffsoft

     Reviewing 8.1 Phoebe Beta 2 (Jan 21, 2003)

     that's kinda their unique naming scheme..
     when the final Redhat 8.1 comes out, it is called Redhat 8.1 , so anything before that can't be higher than 8.1 hence starting from 8.0.9x
     
     since Redhat 7 they have intensive beta releasing thro..
104. 
     jrepin

     Reviewing 8.1 Phoebe Beta 2 (Jan 20, 2003)

     I can't wait for the final. Beta 2 works quite well and it can only get better. Just keep the bug reports comming so they can fix all the bugs.
105. 
     llamalover

     Reviewing 8.1 Phoebe Beta (Dec 24, 2002)

     BetaNews/FileForum does it again!
     
     It is not 8.1 BETA. It is 8.0.92 BETA.
     
     Get it right, or stick to your windows only mumbo jumbo.
106. 
     AlanS2001

     Reviewing 8.0 Beta (Jul 5, 2002)

     Given that it has KDE 3.0.2, Gnome 2.0.1, GCC 3.1 amd Mozilla 1 that would probably justify nameing it Redhat Linux 8.0 once it's out of beta. On the otherhand though, it's useing version 2.4.18 of the kernel just as 7.3 did, so maybe they might name it Redhat Linux 7.4 when it get's out of beta. Over on Distrowatch they're calling it 7.4 Beta.
     Personally I would of liked Redhat's next Distro to have version 2.4.19 of the kernel (once it's released), to make it really worth the download of the ISO's.
107. 
     llamalover

     Reviewing 8.0 Beta (Jul 5, 2002)

     I believe from what I have read:
     
     GNOME 2
     KDE 3.0.2
     
     Red Hat is only shipping Mozilla 1.0+ aswell, and have removed Netscape from this release.
108. 
     andrey

     Reviewing 8.0 Beta (Jul 4, 2002)

     Which version of KDE and Gnome does this version come with?
109. 
     ditoa

     Reviewing 8.0 Beta (Jul 4, 2002)

     look promising!
110. 
     parkerbp74

     Reviewing 7.3 (May 8, 2002)

     Who said Linux never chashes? Sorry folks, this distro, like Linux (in general) is just not quite ready for Prime Time.
111. 
     zeio

     Reviewing 7.3 (May 7, 2002)

     They removed linuxconf (good text console based configurator) and still haven't learned to use real GCC release and instead they continue to use that lame 2.96. (so you will have to get 2.95.3 for linux 2.5 kernel compiles (per the directions in thier docs) and get GCC 3.0.4 for evrything else. This is getting ANNOYING.)
     
     KDE3/ XFree 4.2 had some video corruption for me on a cheesy ATI card in a server, but no show stoppers.
     
     Other than that its a routine upgrade.
     
     Good - they use glibc 2.2.5 - a standard GNU release, but they compiled it with the LAME 2.96 compiler. We shall SEE if they got the compiler right, its typical that if a broken compiler compiles a library the library can be strangely broken. Now that 2.2.5 can be compiled by GNU GCC, as well as KDE, RedHat is just being spiteful and not propelry deprecating GCC 2.96X.
     
     I give this a 5/5, because its not a bad system.
112. 
     errderr

     Reviewing 7.3 Beta 2 (Apr 8, 2002)

     Oops. I don't think the review referenced this by name, sorry. Skipjack is the name of this release, which btw is not 7.3 beta 2. The release is 7.2.93.
113. 
     womp

     Reviewing 7.3 Beta 2 (Apr 8, 2002)

     All well and nice but does anybody have anything to say about REDHAT's beta?
     p.s. Any admin can make or break a system. so don't be stupid and make uneducated remarks about things you just don't know about,it just makes you look dumb
114. 
     Jedi Knight

     Reviewing 7.3 Beta 2 (Apr 8, 2002)

     I hope in the final version of 7.3, Red Hat will include KDE 3.0, Gnome 2.0 as well as Mozilla 1.0. :).
115. 
     orfie18

     Reviewing 7.3 Beta 2 (Apr 8, 2002)

     Not bad, the guy a few below should get a life though. DOn't push Windows, I've always used windows, but it's not the best thing out there, it's just one of the easiest and widest known OS's out there, and being on so many PC's, it's quite hard to just switch over to something new for some.
116. 
     ManiaXe

     Reviewing 7.3 Beta 2 (Apr 8, 2002)

     Decent distro, that's all I have to say.
     
     And wasabi; use XP if you like, just don't try to shove it down other peoples throats like that.
117. 
     acidpad

     Reviewing 7.2 (Oct 27, 2001)

     Anybody out there that thinks that windows is the future, or that windows is more secure or stable than linux is on crack. Sorry. I am not saying that man can live on linux alone - you need both. for your servers dont think of running anything but linux (maybe novell if you arent savvy enough for linux) and even professional workstations should be running linux for cad programs or graphics design. there is only one reason you should be using windows, as a secondary operating system to boot into to play games, put hey Quake III runs on linux so you shouldnt have to swith THAT often :).
118. 
     errderr

     Reviewing 7.2 (Oct 25, 2001)

     Some people just have no clue. About anything. If you are ignorant about a product or anything associated with it, best to keep your opinions to yourself. Don't open up your mouth and prove to the world that you are, indeed, ignorant.
119. 
     plunneberg

     Reviewing 7.2 (Oct 25, 2001)

     I think the "keys to the car" idea is being used a little backwards. OpenSource means you have the keys to your own car... you can take out the stereo and put in a new one if you want. While with MS Windows its more like asking your parents to have the car for the evening and them saying no all the time.
120. 
     Tux_Racer

     Reviewing 7.2 (Oct 25, 2001)

     This is awesome. Both KDE and GNOME setups in this version look wonderful, much better then WindowsXP imho.
     
     "Program Type: Shareware"
     lmao, RedHat Linux is not only "freeware" but it is totally open source. Who labels these things anyways?
121. 
     aeroe

     Reviewing 7.2 (Oct 24, 2001)

     Run-of-the-mill linux, only thing special are the RPMs. Pros and geeks hate them, newbies love them.
     Other than that, some new software and a somewhat newer kernel. They could have put a much newer one in at this time.
     Newbies get Mandrake 8.1, then move on to better things...
122. 
     ditoa

     Reviewing 7.2 (Oct 24, 2001)

     all software will have bugs, it is a fact. all operating systems will have bugs as they are software! Now *NIX and Windows and Novell are all good. they are good indifferent ways tho. I like Novell as the other guy said, it runs prefectly, runs ASP just fine ;) and i have never had any security problems with it that i cant fix very quickly. Windows has Service Packs every 6 months or so and hotfixes to fix any problems that are considered a major problem by the computer community (well that is how it works according to MS!) Linux is kinda bad here, if there is a problem because it is open source it can be exploited to teh full, programmers can analyze the source so they know how it works 100% and take full advantage, something they dont have with Windows. Like the other person said it is kinda like giving someone a copy of your car keys! Linux is nice but it is the most unsecure OS unless you know how to make it secure! if you install Windows and Linux Windows is more secure "out of the box" than Linux is anyday! I like Windows, my Windows 2000 Adv. Server systems are running just fine and always have been. if there is a security patch i need to put on that requires a reboot then the clustering works just fine and shares the load that the servers have. i just reboot one at a time. At the end of the day it is up to you (or your boss i guess!) what server OS you use. in my opinion i would use Windows or Novell and leave Linux alone. but that is just my 2c
123. 
     fewt

     Reviewing 7.2 (Oct 24, 2001)

     What many of you don't realize is that all "big iron" systems run Unix. Linux is just another Unix. Most shops do NOT "go back" to Windows or even Novell (which happens to be a great NOS) once they have dabbled with Mission Critical Enterprise grade systems (Read: Unix). Anyone who claims otherwise can continue to flip burgers while IT departments everywhere leave them behind. Novell makes an excellent File and Print server, there is no denying that, NDS leaves AD in the dust. Windows may make a great desktop O/S for many corporate and even most non technical home users, but to say that it can oust Unix (or Linux) is a joke.
124. 
     Mastertsung

     Reviewing 7.2 (Oct 24, 2001)

     What many of you forget is the fact that many people have tried unix in the business environment and have then afterwards gone back to Windows NT or Novell based Servers. Why? Because NT and Novell systems can be as solid as you claim linux to be. It all depends on which 3RD PARTY apps you add. Just like in Linux, if you add a program that is known to cause issues (AOL for example) then your stability goes to the crapper. Of course not all apps cause lack in robustness.
125. 
     Maxwolf

     Reviewing 7.2 (Oct 24, 2001)

     Free is always a good price for a server you know.
126. 
     Rick7165

     Reviewing 7.2 (Oct 24, 2001)

     Ok... I always see people going out it about OS's... Well here is my 2 cents...
     Yes Unix was the first 32 bit OS. Linsux is for hackers I personally will not use any "OS" that is open source because it's like giving the keys to your car to a thief then asking where did your car go? LOL Now don’t get me wrong… I run Open source software, but refuse to for a OS. As for MS it's ok.. has bugs.. has holes they do work pretty fast to fix anything that is found. This code red was a mess, but linsux has issues too... Most of the server guys I know removed linsux do to security holes and hacking. We can all sit here and b**** out each OS just like I did, But all in all... The top OS is ... NOVELL. What's funny is all these virus’s running around and security holes in other OS's but my Novell Server has been up and running for over 2 years now... no crashes... no reboots... no hacking... no patches. Just solid as a ROCK. You guys might want to talk a real good hard look at Novell 6 :) Someone told me the other day when they seen the 6 IBM Netfinity 5600 Server I have running with Novell on them... his words were.. ewwwwww... My reply was look at the up time and show me a virus wrote for Novell. Needless to say He shut up quick and 2 days later wanted my help to remove his MS and linsux OS's and replace it with Novell and enrolled in class to become a Novell CNA/CNE.
     I guess we all can b**** and complain, but take the time to look over Novell's new OS version 6. And for the most popular question I get asked… YES Novell does handle ASP.
127. 
     someguyinuk

     Reviewing 7.2 (Oct 24, 2001)

     Hmmmm Red Hat Linux has never bettered its 5.2 release after that they becasme very buggy and horrible. All u nixers out there take my advice use debian! Yes and for all you windows users hate to tell you this but MS stole the entire Http stack from another Unix based OS that being Free BSD. Ms have stolen other things as well the list is to long to mention here so likeit or not ur using a little be if Unix all the time MS steal it! Now you know why win Me is so bodged most of its cut and paste from win 98 and free BSD!
128. 
     eradda02

     Reviewing 7.2 (Oct 23, 2001)

     lol, dude you got some nerve... xp sucks, they only changed the stability of the os not so much the security.
129. 
     DigitalSin

     Reviewing 7.2 (Oct 23, 2001)

     Arcane999 - Here's my IP: 24.178.192.196
     Just running XP, no special protection other than what comes with it. Bring it if XP is so unsecure.
130. 
     Magus

     Reviewing 7.2 (Oct 23, 2001)

     I agree there. For server and critical system components of a network, Linux is unsurpassed. For the home user...
     can you really imagine an 80 year first time user using Red Hat? Thought not. XP is user-friendly for that sort of thing.
131. 
     daern

     Reviewing 7.2 (Oct 23, 2001)

     Hmmmm, nice Windows XP vs Linux discussion. Just like being back on /.
     
     Linux has its place and so does WinXP. But Linux *still* has a long way to go before it achieves the "slickness" of Windows XP for the everyday user, which *does* make day to day tasks easier, rather than more difficult.
     
     Daern's "uses both, but likes XP more" Instant Fortress
132. 
     follerec

     Reviewing 7.2 (Oct 23, 2001)

     for those that "can't believe" how anyone can choose winxp over linux, here's a little insight... noone is alike. there are those that choose linux, there are those that choose windows, there are those that choose mac. can you blame anyone? of course not. it's their choice, because what they choose simply feels better for them. instead of trying to compare linux with windows, why not compare linux with the older version of linux.
     now the review, redhat linux 7.2 is definitely an improvement over 7.1 and more so over the horrible 7.0 release. is it really that good? if you do not want to update all the packages one at a time, then this is the solution, just download the iso. if your system is already working properly, then don't bother. if you're looking to compare redhat with other distros, go look at www.distrowatch.com. i assure you, this site has the info you're looking for, more or less.
133. 
     Arcane999

     Reviewing 7.2 (Oct 23, 2001)

     I still cant believe people are even willing to use winXP, and comparing it to ANY unix system??? There is no comparison, XP is the mose unsecure thing m$ has ever made...I use redhat as my server, i would not trust XP to run a chat client
134. 
     H8TEIRIS

     Reviewing 7.2 (Oct 23, 2001)

     Windows XP is the last word, case closed!, im sorry but im giving up on Linux
135. 
     XanTium

     Reviewing 7.2 (Oct 23, 2001)

     Hehe .. another nice upgrade of Red Hat. Still 1000times more stable the any Windoze release and nr1 of servers (with Solaris and FreeBSD). Red Hat isn't my favorite rls tho ... I prefer Suse for personal/Office use and Slackware for shells/servers.
136. 
     bfuzz

     Reviewing 7.2 (Oct 23, 2001)

     Linux and Unix is good, but I don't think it is some much better than Win2k or XP. They all have a core that is unstoppable. Sure Win9x is bad and that's what give Windows (And Microsoft) a bad name. The move with XP to get all OS's of NT is the best they have done, Their Stability has just increased 100 times that of 9x.
137. 
     Lupo

     Reviewing 7.2 (Oct 23, 2001)

     just dl-:))
     wanna compare it with mandrake 8.1, which is the best distri i have ever had....
138. 
     mf4

     Reviewing 7.1 (May 5, 2001)

     Getting better, my monitor is dim with a Voodoo4 4500 PCI (32MB) and monitor is a Dell E550. I'm pretty sure it's just the version of XFree86 it comes with, /me waits for 8.0, then it has to support all my hardware :)
139. 
     kojax_neonix

     Reviewing 7.1 (May 4, 2001)

     Linux Rocks... don't care who's distrib... the kernel hard as a rock... Any one who disagrees can just go use windows ME or XP... your loss
140. 
     PakkMann

     Reviewing 7.1 (Apr 21, 2001)

     Linux is ok, just something I learned earlier in life though....stick with standards or get it in the ass.
141. 
     madkiller

     Reviewing 7.1 (Apr 20, 2001)

     linux is for critical system only like server and stuff and not for home user for game

Discuss Fedora Linux

No comments yet