RedHat 9 - One giant leap

[redhat81]

Backwards.

I was very pleased with Redhat 7.2 (when I first started Linux), 7.3 and 8.0, but RedHat 9 is horrible,

Asian fonts are blurry, applications take forever to load, the system is just slow for no apparent reason--and I've barely modified it from its original install state.

RedHat's really messed up here. Can I conserve what's on my /home and just move to another distro or are differences too large?

[CMonster]

RedHat 9 is horrible,

I guess it's all a matter of what you get used to -but thank you, I concur! The last Redhat I liked was 7.3, before they started deciding what is "best" for desktop users, and also nutering desktop environments.

Some of the other major distributors are not far behind either, SuSE had done things like remove kpackage gui based rpm front end from it's 8.1 product (cli rpm was still there of course), but it seems they are listening to complaints because it is back in 8.2. Mandrake also has removed rpm tools other than their own proprietary software management tools -which are good but I believe they should be optional.

You can probably preserve your /home and use another distro but it is asking for trouble, I think. Maybe it is better to backup your important files to media or another partition and do a clean install.

Give SuSE 8.2 a try -You will either love it or hate it.

[garskoci]

Neutered the desktop...... I was looking for a way to describe RH 8.0. I'm with ya, 7.3 was the last version that I liked. I wanted to stay with RH because it's most widely used by businesses. Maybe I'll give Mandrake or Suse a try.

[randabis]

try the latest kernel update...that increased speed tremendously when I was using red hat

[chatins]

Rehat 9 seems broken out of the box. RPM --rebuilddb, results in an error right after install.

Here is the flame I took when I sounded the junk alarm early.

http://www.justlinux.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=96638

Goto daily build sites... yada yada. Just made my system more unstable.

My advice is to switch back to 8. I love it!

[dmd3x]

I don't think that RedHat came with WindowMaker in this release, maybe I missed it during install, but I don't think it does. PM me if I am wrong.

[dmd3x]

Oh yeah, and blurry fonts must be a pain. See if you can make them any better by going to the "Fonts" option in the menu somewhere.

[Exodus2001]

I see these posts here and there and I have no idea what you guys are talking about. Red Hat works just fine for me and I've had far less problems with RH9 than any other distro I've ever used. I'll enter the stupid name calling game and say it's user error or are you guys just idiots? I know, I know, I'll start a thread called <enter distro here> sucks then I can be cool too.

Q. Why can I install programs without any problems?
A. because I understand dependentcies.

Q. Why did all my hardware work right off the bat?
A. because I can read and made sure I had the right stuff before even trying.

Q. Why doesn't my system run slow?
A. because I have enough RAM and processing power to run a modern OS. I don't use an out dated worn out computer that I picked up for $50 because linux is not good enough for my XP box.

Q. Why doesn't my system ever hang or crash?
A. because I can read, I make sure I know what I'm doing before maddly installing crap from all over the internet and tweeking files to make my porn run faster.

Q. How did I breeze right the the installation?
A. because I can read, I made sure my HW would work before even trying, I read through the steps instead of blindly hitting buttons.

[chatins]

Your P4 is what RH 9 is optimized for. The new glibc does not seem to run well on ancient PIII machines.

There is no user error or idots making the posts. Everyone here can make RH 8 run with
0 problems on older PIII hardware.

I have a Dell 420 Workstation, (2) PIII 733, 640MB RAM, Nvidia ti4200 64MB AGP. All runs perfectly under RH 8.

DVD player - Xine 4x cheapo
48x Burner

[Darksamurai]

I'll admit RH 9 is more resource consuming than previous versions...

Maybe it's 'cause I'm running a 1.53 Ghz Athlon 1800+ as my Linux rig, but I've found RH 9 to be fairly decent. It still runs a bit slow, but it's getting better as I'm learning how to strip it down, resolve issues and work with it.

Hell, I've already decreased my boot time by probably 30% disabling certain features I'll never use...

I think RH9 is a bit like Win XP... everyone wasn't really expectin' it to actually require as much power as it does and include so much bloatware... once you know how to start stripping it down and tweaking it out though, it's one of the best O/Ses MS has ever put out... (I'm a hardcore tweaker... it's what I like doing).

RH 9 is gettin' faster and better every day I play with it (although today's effort yielded a blown video driver)... I'm thinkin' after I get good enough with Linux, I should be able to tweak the crap out of it, and make it run like I want to...

I also think RH 9 is an important stepping stone towards the future... As a Windows user (I'm migrating over slowly) I know I can go out, buy an Audigy 2 sound card, a Ti-4800 GF4 card and an Nforce 2 motherboard and not have to worry about compatability... yeah, I'm probably on the phone filling MS'es need to annoy their customers with ineffective anti-piracy procedures, but at least I know the drivers will load and I won't have to hunt down experimental stuff that doesn't support all of a rather expensive card's features. (no, I'm not pushing MS... keep reading before you flame me)

I say RH9 is an important stepping stone because it resolved my long-term fight with just getting SOUND out of my speakers.
I've toyed with Linux for a long time... I've never got deep into until now because Red Hat 9 picked up all my hardware without me having to get into advanced troubleshooting before I was ready... this means I can learn at my own pace (nobody I know in RL is into Linux, so it's not like I can have someone sit down and show me how to do these things).

When I learn a new O/S, I load up a bunch of MP3s, maybe a game or two, and have fun with it so I keep wanting to do more... RH 9, I almost jumped for friggin' joy (literally) when I got a .wav file to actually PLAY right off the bat... without my having to figure out (as a TOTAL newbie) how to compile my kernel after trying to figure out which ALSA drivers I needed.

Maybe it's because I AM newer to Linux, but starting off without having to fight my way through hardware setups made me want to sit down and get serious about learning Linux...

Hell, as it is, I'm planning on taking the Linux+ test in the next month or two (I'm a VERY serious/*****ious self-managed student) and maybe going for an RHCE later.

[Exodus2001]

Originally posted by chatins
Your P4 is what RH 9 is optimized for. The new glibc does not seem to run well on ancient PIII machines.

There is no user error or idots making the posts. Everyone here can make RH 8 run with
0 problems on older PIII hardware.

I have a Dell 420 Workstation, (2) PIII 733, 640MB RAM, Nvidia ti4200 64MB AGP. All runs perfectly under RH 8.

DVD player - Xine 4x cheapo
48x Burner

See it's not that Red Hat is "junk" like you guys stated. The problem is your hardware can't keep up. So instead of babbling about how Red Hat is "junk" why can't you just say it doesn't run well on my old computer? Like Darksamurai said Red Hat was a bridge for him getting more involved with Linux. Every time you blurt out stuff like this distro is crap or this distro sucks, try to be more objective and say Red Hat only runs well on P4's. All your going to do is drive people away. What would you think if you wanted to give Linux a try and the first post you read was something negitive about the most popular distro? I would think Linux was crap. I ran Red Hat phoebe 3 and Slackware 8.1 on my recently deseased 400Mhz P2 with 192 mb of Ram and I saw absolutely no difference in speed. I was even using KDE with both. I accually got a stop watch out and the programs were loading at the same speed. I also compiled wine in both and timed them. Slackware was an entire 2 minutes faster. That's not much of a difference when it took about 45 minutes on the old machine. Most of this speed thing just depends on how well you know how to run Linux in the first place. Red Hat runs more programs in the back ground. Shut them off untill you are running the same amount as Slack is. WOW!!! they now run at the same speed. If you are using the same libs, the same programs, and the same Kernel version the only thing that separates any distro from the other is the package management system and how will that control the speed? If you want to run a truely slow distro on an old P2 or P3 machine run Yopper, now that's slow, but it's very fast with the right machine.

I'm not being bias tworded Red Hat or any other Distro. It just erks me when people slam on other people's hard work. I would bet none of you guys ever paid a dime or contributed anything for the RH9 release so all your *****es are baseless anyway. One of the things that surprises me the most is how some Linux users gripe about stuff they received for FREE!!! It's perfectly OK to say this program runs slow or it crashes, that's productive. To use words like "junk" that is just ungratefull.

[Hayl]

Originally posted by randabis
try the latest kernel update...that increased speed tremendously when I was using red hat

have any of you guys taken a look at the options for a red hat kernel?

they basically just turn on every single option in the kernel. it's quite sad really.

[Exodus2001]

Originally posted by Hayl
have any of you guys taken a look at the options for a red hat kernel?

they basically just turn on every single option in the kernel. it's quite sad really.

They turn most of them on as modules. So what? They won't all load unless you tell them all to load. Take at look at the bare.i kernel that slackware uses. Same thing, so what difference does that make? All modules do is take up disk space and not very much.

[RWiggum]

Originally posted by Exodus2001
See it's not that Red Hat is "junk" like you guys stated. The problem is your hardware can't keep up. So instead of babbling about how Red Hat is "junk" why can't you just say it doesn't run well on my old computer?

Okay, Red Hat 9 doesn't run well on my 1.53 GHz Athlon with 512MB of RAM - not exactly an "old" computer. It takes apps longer to load on RH9 on this rig than they do on my Celeron 550 laptop with 256MB of RAM running RH7.3. If I have to buy a 2-3GHz machine just so my harware can "keep up" with Red Hat, I'll find another distro. Oh, wait - I already have.

[chatins]

Exodus, not everyone wants to give intel money for a 3.02 ghz P4 just yet. I'm not in a race to beat anyone.

The reason why I choose linux is because it is supposed to run better than Windows. I don't even think Gnome 2.2 was finished when they released it. I had a whole thread on a spelling
error in file management prefs.

For now I have everything I want with RH 8.0.
Although my next distro may be Debian 3.0.

[RWiggum]

Originally posted by chatins
Although my next distro may be Debian 3.0.

:D You have chosen . . . wisely. Exactly what I meant when I said "I'll find another distro."

Apt-get says, "You have selected packages. They depend on other packages. I will acquire and install everything you need, if you so choose, and inform you of the total installed size before I begin."

Rpm says, "darrr - files? down load? whut's that, Cleetus? um, uh - no, you kint do that... jest simmer down, fer I loose muh dawg on you..."

[Exodus2001]

Originally posted by chatins
Exodus, not everyone wants to give intel money for a 3.02 ghz P4 just yet. I'm not in a race to beat anyone.

The reason why I choose linux is because it is supposed to run better than Windows. I don't even think Gnome 2.2 was finished when they released it. I had a whole thread on a spelling
error in file management prefs.

For now I have everything I want with RH 8.0.
Although my next distro may be Debian 3.0.

Exactly my point. Red Hat 9 is for faster computers. There are Linux distros that will work just fine for your set-up and there is nothing wrong with that. If Red Hat 8 works better by all means use it. But calling 9 "junk" is a little childish just because it won't run well on your machine. I bet when the new Debian comes out they will be using the same programs, libs, and kernel version Red Hat is and it will run just the same. You watch. I have an old P90 at work that runs Win95. So Windows XP must be junk because it won't run on that machine. Right?

Red Hat is the distro that is shelling out the money and taking the chances so they are bound to have problems because they have the balls to release it in the first place. Go over to distrowatch.com and compare what Woody has and then compare what Red Hat has. No wonder Debian is so stable and fast everything is old and totally debugged. Well, why wouldn't it be more stable? If you like apt you can download the RPM and have apt in Red Hat too. Works just fine for me.

I remember your spelling error thread. You first said it was a Red Hat's fault. Then when I pointed out that it's the same in all distros that use Gnome 2.2 you changed your tune. Well I got news for ya. Any distro that uses the same Kernel, Libs, and programs Red Hat uses is going to run at the same speed. And if it does run faster it's because it's running less stuff in the background. You can turn off services in any distro.

[redhat81]

I isolated the problem to GNOME. I've switched back to KDE and everything is running perfectly.

I have an AMD k-6 450 MHz that RedHat 9 works fine on, it's all a matter of not starting unecessary processes.

Kernel, Libs, Programs: They all vary from distro to distro. They're not identical, and the problem I found in RH9's GNOME is a perfect example of that.

Exodus: It's really hard to take you seriously when you aren't making too many points. Please try to elaborate a bit further on your point of view, I'm interested.

[sayitfast1]

I just installed RH 9 on my Athlonxp 1500 with 512mb ram. I have no issues as far as speed goes. I did however just convert this box from windows XP pro ..... and I can honestly say I was having speed issues with windows.

It could be I just was never exposed to RH 7.x and don't know what I'm missing.

I would like to hear some others chime in... I was really close to going with SuSE but chose RH.

[MB[DK]]

I like Red Hat 9, works perfectly on my laptop -- hate debian, works like crap on just about everything I've tried it on....

[trib]

I've got to agree with Exodus - understand what you're up to and little will go wrong with an RH9 install. I have rpms installed from a number of sources:

* RH9 CDs/Red Hat Network
* via Red Carpet (for Evolution Beta)
* from Fedora
* from freshrpms
* others (VMware, OpenOffice, Mozilla, Crossover Plugin)

I make sure I understand the dependencies and what's likely to crap out what. My machine runs very nicely, thanks, even though it's a three-year-old Dell Inspiron 7500 (P3-650, 512Mb RAM) notebook. Hardly Exodus' bleeding edge beast.
The only time I get crappy with it is when VMware is running W2K (dev work) and I'm also trying to do stuff in the host Linux system. Sometimes then, it'll run like a dog. Frankly, that's to be expected given the age of the machine.
I'd love to spend the time trimming it down to the bare bones I need to run it, but I don't (anyone want to send me some advice, I'll welcome it).

Like any software project this big (M$ isn't the only guilty party), things are going to go wacky. For example, when I run XMMS (BTW, check their site (http://www.xmms.org) - hacked?) with the crossfade plugin installed, and I pause the player, it takes over Mozilla until I un-pause. Weird.

My advice:

* take a long, hard look at your set-ups and make sure you aren't having any compatibility issues;
* update everything to the latest stable releases, then move on to unstables if you like, and;
* experiment mercilessly until you understand (I still have a way to go).

Trib

[Exodus2001]

Originally posted by redhat81
I isolated the problem to GNOME. I've switched back to KDE and everything is running perfectly.

I have an AMD k-6 450 MHz that RedHat 9 works fine on, it's all a matter of not starting unecessary processes.

So what is your point? I thought Red Hat was slow. Now it runs fine? So Gnome 2.2 is the problem not Red Hat. Red Hat doesn't make Gnome!!! Gnome 2.2 runs slow on my computer too.

Kernel, Libs, Programs: They all vary from distro to distro. They're not identical, and the problem I found in RH9's GNOME is a perfect example of that.

Isn't that what I said? So once agian it comes to Gnome 2.2 being the problem. Debian uses old super debugged Libs and programs. Like Gnome 1.4. If you think Red Hat goes through and totally rewrites the libraries and programs, your wrong. Mozilla 1.0 is Mozilla 1.0. So Red Hat shouldn't stick their neck out and help develop new technogies? I know, lets sit back and wait for Red Hat (IBM) to take the chances and invest the time and money, then add their debugged versions to our opensource distro for free!!! What the heck do you think Mandrake is doing? Mandrake and Debian have superior package management systems, but that all they have to work on. Red Hat and the program authors are doing most of the leg work.

P.S. Gnome 2.2 runs poorly in Slackware 9.0 too. With all the same errors that Red Hat 9.0 seems to be having.

Exodus: It's really hard to take you seriously when you aren't making too many points. Please try to elaborate a bit further on your point of view, I'm interested.

Red Hat and Debian use almost the same packages, but in different versions. Look at how close Woody and RH7.3 are. See the pattern? Go to Distrowatch.com for further study if you got time. Look at what the beta versions of Debian are using. The same stuff Red Hat is now only released as stable at a later date after Red Hat exposes all the holes. That will be Debian 4.

Debian 3.0 = D
Red Hat 7.3 = R7
Red Hat 9 = R9

D bash: 2.05a
R7 bash: 2.05a
R9 bash: 2.05b

D gcc: 2.95.4
R7 gcc: 2.96
R9 gcc: 3.2.2

D glibc: 2.2.5
R7 glibc: 2.2.5
R9 glibc: 2.3.2

D gtk: 2.0.2
R7 gtk: 1.2.10
R gtk: 2.2.1

D libgnome: 1.4.1.4
R7 libgnome: --
R libgnome: 2.2.0.1

D linux: 2.2.20
R7 linux: 2.4.18
R linux: 2.4.20

D modutils: 2.4.15
R7 modutils: 2.4.14
R modutils: 2.4.22

Linux distros have more in common than you might think.

Conclusion: Older programs, libs, and kernels run faster, but they do allot less. Debian and Red Hat 7.3 run faster because they are using older stuff that was designed for the limitations of older computers. Red Hat 9.0 is designed for the limitations of a 3.06 Ghz processer with 1000 MB of ram. Can my set-up do more than Red Hat 7.3 with a 1 Ghz machine? You bet because I'm taking advantage of the latest bells and whistles with the right equipment.

[redhat81]

Distro's like to tweak things a little, and because of the dependencies that you talk of, things might act a little different.

The problem was that RedHat released a buggy GNOME, something that should have been caught during beta testing (which they seemed to have rushed through). Slackware also should have caught this problem. They both messed up.

[Exodus2001]

So did SuSE, Mandrake, Gentoo, Yoper, etc... They all are using Gnome 2.2, idiots, they're all idiots, I say.:p

I guess this is my point to the entire conversion:

Lets say somebody that knows little or nothing about computers is running Windows XP. They download 5 Gigs worth of Gator, Trojans, and Virii. Then they say "Windows sucks man, I'm going to Linux. My computer runs like crap!!!"

They then download a Linux distro like Mandrake. Everything is working perfect... They then find out they can't play certain MP3's so they download an alpha driver or they want to add crossfade alpha. All the sudden they start to have these little problems popping up all over. (Remember it does say these alpha releases contain bugs) Then comes the all too famous post about how terrible Mandrake or Red Hat is.

Bottom line: They did not know what they were doing in Windows and they don't know what they were doing in Linux. It's their fault. Why do people always blame the distro they are using for problems with 3rd party software like XMMS or Gnome 2.2? Gnome 2.2 works the same in all distros. Red Hat only tweeks minor details like the login manager, colors, or window decorations. It's not like they modified the core.

That's my point. It's user error. Some poeple just don't know what thier computer needs to run smoothly or how much effort it takes to manage 500+ programs in one distro and keep them happy living together. So Gnome has a spelling error big woopy crap.

[RWiggum]

Originally posted by Exodus2001
Red Hat 9.0 is designed for the limitations of a 3.06 Ghz processer with 1000 MB of ram.

That's got to be one of the more remarkably stupid comments I've heard. Consider that easily less than 5% of the PCs in the world have >3GHz processors and 1GB of RAM. Linux of all flavors, not just Red Hat has a 5% market share, meaning that 0.05*0.05 = 0.25% of the PC market would be running Linux and have a 3GHz processor. If I'm producing a product and want to maximize sales, why would I cater only to 0.25% of a potential market?

The current typical PC is probably around 1GHz with 256MB of RAM. That should be more than enough to power any modern OS. If an OS doesn't run well on 1.5GHz with 512MB, it doesn't mean the computer is too slow. It means the OS is bloated. Simply because you have a machine that can compensate for the bloat doesn't mean they designed it just for you. It means RH didn't optimize their product like they should have.

You argue that all the latest versions from the OSS/GNU/Linux parts bins makes RH difficult to run without a processor as great as your mighty P4. Why then, does Slackware 9, using all of the same pieces, run beautifully on my lowly, old, obsolete 1.53GHz Athlon? Because Patrick Volkerding didn't monkey around with everything like RH did. So please stop waving your processor around like an extension to your manhood now.

[Exodus2001]

Your points moot because Red Hat Phoebe 3 and Slackware 9.0 ran the same speed on my 400 Mhz PII once I spent 5 minutes shutting down 1/2 the services in Red Hat. The only reason I brought my computer up in the first place is to demenstrate that Red Hat 9.0 runs fine with all it's bloat's glory. If a person wants to run a bloated system with 100 services running they can with the right computer. I'm just saying shut them OFF. That's all it takes. Maybe Red Hat should just turn everything off like Salckware does so it will run the same speed.

That's got to be one of the more remarkably stupid comments I've heard.

That's got to be the most remarkably childish comment I've heard.

[redhat81]

You say the problem is with Gnome and not with Redhat, but RedHat endorses the use of Gnome and without Gnome, you'd really have no way of even using your RedHat installation, right?

[bwkaz]

Fluxbox, Blackbox, Openbox, twm, icewm, Enlightenment, etc., etc., ad nauseum, don't apparently count?

[robagen]

After wrestling matches with Mandrake 8.2 AND version 9's koo-koo date/time applet I reluctantly went back to RH8.
Now, I'd posted here several weeks ago after trying RH8 on an amd300 with 256megs of ram (33mhz ide bus..agh, I know)--and said "Where's the 'alter window resizing thingie?'?" On this install I got my answer..you make sure you add, er, configuration tools among the groups of things RH's graphical installer asks you to check..I'd done it 'text' and either ignored it or I forget. But the amount of packages CAN be controlled..somewhat..on 'this' install, the one I'm using to write to JL,I went down the list, clicked on the package listings and took out stuff I know I don't touch. Trimmed off er about 200mb that way..there's still extras I rarely touch, but there it is.
RH8 seems to run OK on this venerable IBM 6589 with dual pentium pros and 96mb ram(it uses the 3.3 168-pin stuff..I priced it at my favorite computer fair, resisted blurting out an expletive to the helpful memory guy who told me what he had and for what price, and..well, I'll have to save up.)

Also, I've been lazily using the RH graphical package manager..works fine, it seems. But as far as compiling a kernel, I'd have to devote an evening to it, tho I'm a fan of hot-rodded, yet complete OS'es.

[Exodus2001]

Originally posted by redhat81
You say the problem is with Gnome and not with Redhat, but RedHat endorses the use of Gnome and without Gnome, you'd really have no way of even using your RedHat installation, right?

I don't why Red Hat endorses Gnome so much? I'm not a Gnome fan by any means. I know for a fact that you can install a working version without anything Gnome. Go into custom set-up and uncheck the Gnome box and select KDE. Nothing Gnome will be put on your system. I went though and hacked all my scripts and you can barely even tell I'm running Red Hat. For the few extra minutes it takes to do some hacks on some scripts and shut down some services the easy installation of hardware, network, and printing is worth it because getting things to work is always harder than getting them to stop working.:p All I know is I can get a fast totally working Red Hat set-up alot faster than anyother distro I've used. I must be one of the lucky ones because I have not found one serious bug (except words spell Colour and then Color somewhere else in Gnome) in Red Hat 9.0 and nothing has ever crashed including mozilla. The only problem I have with Gnome is Nautilus is slower than Konqueror for browsing files and lacks usefull options like the terminal emulator instead of typing CD and LS all the time and the "right click and extract here option" for tar.gz files.

Personally I'm not 100% happy with any Linux distro that's why I'm currently making my own. I just think RH and adding Apt-get is just the easiest to get working right now and I really can't find anything broken or unusable.

[redhat81]

From my understanding, no gnome = no gtk+ which means you can't run half the programs out there

[bwkaz]

No, I have Gtk+ installed, and no Gnome.

Gtk+ is merely a library. Gnome is an entire desktop, that does use the Gtk+ library, but just because that's true does NOT mean that skipping Gnome won't let you install Gtk+.

Does skipping OpenOffice prevent you from installing Mozilla? Didn't think so. OO depends on Mozilla, just like Gnome depends on Gtk+.

[Dodj]

well i had mandrake 9.0 on my comp for over a month and still could not get the network card to work, so i couldnt get on the internet, i couldnt get my usb standard issue mouse to work, i couldnt configure my sound card 7.1, and on top of that had to reinstall it 3 times because of horrid performance.

now i get a copy of redhat 7.3 the internet and mouse worked straight away, and i updated my nvidia drivers, and managed to get 5.1 sound......all by the time it was night time.

I dont know much about the history , or how old 7.3 is, but it is hella better than mandrake 9.0