On 08/09/2017 09:41 AM, ergodic wrote: > Amen! > Let me further add that neither Fedora 26 Live or Fedora 26 XFCE work. > I had to install Fedora 25 and then upgrade with dnf to Fedora 26. > Nautilus has become so limited that I switched to nemo. Then you didn't do it correctly. F26 Xfce Live 64-bit works fine. I've installed at least 15 systems using it from bare-metal systems to VMs of several types, including the one I'm writing this on. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Gentle People: > > I hate to interrupt your Fedora 26 party, but well here goes a > dose of reality from the > USER's PROSPECTIVE! > > 1) First of all F26's performance is very poor. its a CPU hog and > DRAM ! I installed F26 in a Virtual Box (VBox) > on a two processor machine and it is so slow that it is barely > usable. In the _same environment_ CentOS performs > with quite excellent performance. You have a massive performance > problem here! I don't think so. I use F26 and the Xfce desktop to develop a hell of a lot of code--from kernel drivers to "Hello, world!" apps--and I haven't seen performance or memory issues. I've even got F26 running in four qemu-kvm (libvirt) instances on an F26 host with 8 cores and they're just fine. The Gnome desktop IS a massive resource hog and has been since Gnome 4 came out, but that's ONE desktop environment--not Fedora 26 in general. Gnome 4 tries to emulate a tablet from what I can see, and no one in their right mind tries to develop software on a tablet. Try a different desktop environment. > 2) Your new menu system is a joke. I use the system for application > code development so I want Text Editor > windows and shells. Why did you hide these in the basement and the > very bottom of the menu system? > Also your menus are slow and cumbersome. What was wrong with the > previous menu system? Is this simply > change for the sake of change? Have your group been taken over by > Marketing? On what desktop? Gnome? Xfce? KDE? Mate? LXQT? LXDE? Cinnamon? Heavy software developers fall in to a very limited use case. One has to customize one's menus to get the system the way one wants it (hell, that's what "customize" means). I have no issues with the Xfce desktop after some tweaks. In the same vein, the various IDEs I have to use (Eclipse, Bluefish, Zend, NetBeans, Komodo) all have strengths and weaknesses and I've yet to find a single one that's ideal for EVERYTHING I do, but that's just the way I work and I recognize that. > 3) Look and feel. Why in the name of hell did you want this look and > feel? I use Linux for application code > development. I want Text Editors, shell Windows, gcc, gdb , and ddd. > Why are all the engineering tools hidden? > If I wanted the look and feel of Windows I would buy windows! Again, customize your system! Most users WANT a system like what the default is. 90% of the stuff you want would end up in Xfce's "Development" menu by default (I use Xfce, so that's what I'm most familiar with). Then, if you don't like the layout, tweak it to your desires (and note that I said "your desires"--the way you work is not necessarily the way I want to work). > 4) Text Editor: Go back to the old one it works way better! Absolutely useless comment. Which text editor? Vi/vim? EMACS? Gedit? > 5) Your new Services configuration is a blithering disaster! Please > bring back the configuration GUIs for > Services and Users. Keep in mind here I am not a Linux System > administrator! I am a user! I perform > a complex configuration of user and group numbers to maintain NFS > compatibility with Solaris. > This configuration is difficult even with the GUIs, without them > forget it. Now THAT'S ridiculous. Again, which configuration GUIs? For what services? NFS compatibility with Solaris? Based on NFSv3 or NFSv4? Are you using LDAP or Kerberos or Windows Domains or what for authentication? Do all the systems use the same mechanism? Is that all set up correctly? Oh, wait, you're not a system administrator. I forgot. (yes, that's sarcasm) > 6) Cut and paste: I don't know what you did to that! (Well it use to > work)! P.S. Solaris has a great User I/F > GUI for cut and paste. Then use Solaris. The cut and paste for Fedora that I use works just peachy (Xfce, middle mouse button for paste, works fine). I haven't used Solaris for a long time, but it sure-as-hell had a lot of issues when I was stuck with it. > 6) Yum and rpm: Please print to the screen the directories where S/W > is installed. So that I don't have to > waste time going looking for it. First, that's two item 6s in your list. Second, rpm has a perfectly easy way to see where things from an RPM are installed: rpm -ql name-of-installed-rpm e.g. [root@golem4 tmp]# rpm -ql gcc /usr/bin/c89 /usr/bin/c99 /usr/bin/cc /usr/bin/gcc /usr/bin/gcc-ar /usr/bin/gcc-nm /usr/bin/gcc-ranlib /usr/bin/gcov /usr/bin/gcov-tool /usr/bin/x86_64-redhat-linux-gcc /usr/bin/x86_64-redhat-linux-gcc-7 /usr/lib/gcc ... And why do you really care where they're installed? You can always use "which" to find out what the path of an executable is. Your beloved CentOS (or even Solaris) doesn't spit this info out by default. > 7) Convenience: STOP CHANGING THE CONFIGURATION INTERFACES. Every > time you change the configuration > methodology we the users have to waste hours and even days learning > the new configuration methodology. If you want consistency for a long period, stay with CentOS. Fedora is the cutting edge of Red Hat development and things will change much more often on Fedora (there's a new release every 6 months). Eventually, a given release of Fedora gets frozen and BECOMES the next Red Hat release (and therefore the next CentOS). Thus, CentOS has a much longer life cycle than Fedora so if you want stability, use CentOS. Evenually, it'll get updated too, and you'll have to start your whining all over again because CentOS 8 is so much different than CentOS 7 was. > 8) Are you on drugs? What in the hell gave you the insane idea that > a command line interface for configuration > was some how better that a GUI? Seriously? There are things in configuration files you will NEVER see in a GUI and it's almost impossible to take into account EVERY possibility. The ancient and crusty "system-config-whatever" GUIs had all kinds of issues and often produced invalid config files. > Please consider carefully the possibility that you are going in > the wrong direction! > > Overall I continue to be disappointed in Fedora and thank > heavens for CentOS. As I said above, CentOS is BASED on Fedora. Your beloved CentOS 7 is based on Fedora 18 (I think). The development has to be done SOMEWHERE and Fedora is that "somewhere". There are parts of the system I detest and think were horrible decisions, but I have to live with them. If you want something with a long life cycle, use CentOS but be aware that some of the cutting edge stuff in Fedora may not make it back to the current release of CentOS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital ricks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx - - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 - - - - "I understand Windows 2000 has a Y2K problem." - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
