Fedora 2, memory requirements

[The JoJo]

Check this story out:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7324

Recommended 256MB for graphical use??? The fella is getting real big now, overwight I'd say. These new WM's are getting pretty fat.

Downloading the DVD iso today (2 failed attempts from a local site).

Cougtek, how has it been working, FC2?

 

[CougTek]

The ride is very smooth. I've had no issue worth being written here so far in something like two or three weeks. I only use small games (like Mah Jongg) and internet, so I'm not a very demanding user. I don't mind not having access to the latest drivers for my hardware. Those provided by the distro are working just fine for my needs.

...and F@h works just as well as on Windows (I think the performance discrepancy between the Linux and the Windows client is history).

I'm very satisfied. I converted all my systems except one to Linux since Fedora Core 2 arrived. To Hell with Microsoft and their overpriced/spyware-ridden operating systems.

One thing I'll have to learn though is how to secure my Linux boxes. I'm very unfamiliar with the firewall that's coming with FC2, just as well as ways to clean possible spywares and virii. There's a lot less shit spreading on Linux systems than on Windows systems, but knowing how to prevent the blows would still be useful.

 

[CougTek]

Oh yeah, just one thing : I haven't figured out how to configure the back/forward/menu buttons on my Logitech MX700 mouse. Logitech doesn't provide drivers for Linux and I haven't found (maybe because I haven't searched) a driver letting me use the additional functionalities of my rodden under Linux.

 

[blakerwry]

i've been usign core2 for about a month now I think... runs pretty welll... I like dovecot.... I dislike how they removed kpackage...

 

[CougTek]

A good read :

Linux has become too fat.

 

[The JoJo]

Isn't that the same link as....never mind...

 

[blakerwry]

i dont think it's all that bad.. 256MB has been standard for atleast a year for most mid-range systems. I havent built a new computer with less than 512MB for about 2 years now I think...



my FC2 server has been getting my hand me downs and only has a single stick of 256MB. It runs with about 64MB left open for buffers and doesnt touch the swap for than a couple MB after weeks of uptime. My biggest memory offenders are the 9 apache2 processes that are always running along with mySQL.

I agree that gnome and X are pretty bloated and slow.. but gnome always has been that way. KDE offers much the same features with more snap and if you want you can always give up features and move to something lighter.

 

[CougTek]

Isn't that the same link as....never mind...

Ah Tabarnack! I only read the part about Fedora in the first post of this thread, but I didn't follow the link. Criss d'ostie de ciboire de calice.

 

[e_dawg]

Well, I have never run a Linux distro yet that wasn't significantly slower and less stable than my Windows OSes, so I'm not surprised. Who knows, maybe next time I try it they will have sorted things out enough to be able to compete with Windows. Then again, Longhorn will be probably be out by then, kicking ass and taking names (and the taking names part can be taken literally, too, with full DRM, DMCA, and government accessible backdoors built-in)!

 

[blakerwry]

stability I've found is more a matter of what programs you run ontop of your OS. I've found both linux and NT to be extremely stable, win9x is also usually pretty stable if you dont install too many programs and don't run buggy software ontop of the OS. Even still it'll ocasionally have a glitch, but is probably good enough for the average user(does a desktop system really need months of uptime?).

I still stand by my opinion that winNT 4 and win98 are great GUI operating systems with a polish and feal that linux cannot match and they run faster and with less resources as well.

 

[e_dawg]

I notice you didn't mention W2k, my all-time favourite OS. 98SE was good to me, but I realized how truly outclassed it was when I started using NT4, and especially W2k. The best multitasking OS I've ever used was NT4 Server, which seemed gracefully responsive no matter what I did -- even more so than 2k. But 2k combined the stability and robustness of NT4 with the universal driver, application, and gaming compatibility of 98 and a fast, responsive, and slick interface... that sealed the deal for me.

 

[blakerwry]

yeah, NT 4 had some terrible terrible faults. like having to have your NT CD(or original installation files) to change simple settings like your IP address.... and having to reinstall your service pack whenever it required your CD for system changes... and the lack of plug and play.


win2k offered some major advantages, but on the other hand uses something like 8 times more memory just to boot. It also seems to have more security vulnerabilities than either 98 or nt4.

So while it did offer an incredibly attractive package, it still has some downsides.

For a desktop OS you simply cant use nt4 anymore.. so many programs refuse to run on it and so little hardware manufacturers still support nt4. Additionally, with MS not supporting nt4 anymore bugs don't get fixed.