<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Can Fedora be the new Ubuntu? ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-06-18T13:44:09-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: Can Fedora be the new Ubuntu?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3313378]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[No, it can't. They are still a Lindows wannabee.  Failure to install standard tools is symptomatic of an enormous problem.  Someone asked in a previous Tech-Rep post which direction should Linux go.  The answer is all directions!!  But to be a major player you must not ignore the most common usages otherwise you lose market share, usability, and future happiness. Those uses are web development, writing, playing multimedia, and communication. Are they installing on all those pesky platforms that people complained about? like common Walmart WIFI brands or widescreen TV's, no!  Have they installed the tools that most schools would need for classroom use for writing, web development, or program development? No.  Have they built up single user friendly interface for editing code, printer settings, monitor control, keyboard diagnostics, cameras, laptops, etc., hmm. You get the picture. You want to start, start with a simple state of the art text editor with standard keystroke conventions, no more 1980's wordstar yank and block commands, there are a hundred projects on SourceForge that would be better editors than EMACs, VIM, or whatever. For example, you could adapt and use Python's IDLE editor, or cajole Textpad into making its system avail. it's already code integrated, cross platform, unicode capable, and uses std. keyboard commands.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3313378]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Alex@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:50:37 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: Can Fedora be the new Ubuntu?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3310562]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[yes it can!since 2007 i try to achieve this goal with openxange.org a Fedora + KDE distro.and after 500.000 downloads i really think that fedora could achieve it if they change some things un the GUI.apsantos]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3310562]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apsantos2]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 01:11:08 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: Can Fedora be the new Ubuntu?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3310561]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[No, and it better not be! And even though, Fedora 13 has some MAJOR issues. Just to name two - Intel video performance under KDE4 with composting enabled and very, very buggy bluetooth stack. I had the idea of switching from openSuSE to Fedora. When I installed it, I immediately noticed that the KDE4 is so slow, that I whant to trow my laptop out the window, and also my bluetooth mouse had laggy behavior. It just freezes when left alone for more than 30 seconds. I managed to improve the Intel GMA945 performance by installing the messa-dri-experimental package, but had no luck with bluetooth mouse. Now I am back to openSuSE and everything just works.So, no, Fedora  cannot be the next Ubuntu. And by the way, Ubuntu by my humble opinion is Epic FAIL. It works more like windows than like Linux. And it is a major security flaw by using sudo, because by giving admin rights to ordinary users with just one password (no root password at all as we all know) creates single point of failure. If someone manages to guess the user password, he has admin access to the system.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3310561]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Ivailo_JK@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:54:51 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[If I can get a chance... and figure out how, I'll show some examples]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3310468]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Last month I was trying to find a video converter to convert a HD MKV file to a lower definition DivX.  Think I could find one on Linux?Linux can't really game, so its a utility OS, except it has half built utilities.  It's like buying a claw hammer but without the claw...  Sure you can still hit stuff, but more often than not, I also need to pull on things as well.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3310468]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Slayer_]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:31:35 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[searchable descriptions]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3310441]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I've found the descriptions search-able in any GUI package manager I've mucked with. The descriptions are usually pretty clear also. A name is just a name but a description tells you what it actually does regardless of the name. (Turns out Excel doesn't make my computer go faster or smell fresher and Firefox isn't a program for smart analysis of combustion; right there in the descriptions - &quot;spreadsheet&quot; and &quot;internet browser&quot;.   )Once installed, I do like how KDE4 on Debian Testing listed programs when last I looked. The description of programs first and name second though I must admit. You open the &quot;Internet&quot; menu and there is &quot;Read your email; kmail&quot; above &quot;Read your email; thunderbird&quot;. (not exact wording)]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3310441]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Neon Samurai]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:02:43 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[In a way, you are right.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3310360]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[But, (there's always a but isn't there) if you use the Software Manager, that's pretty much what you get. Clearly listed apps in various groups. You simply select what you want and install it. You don't even have to download it separately, as you would in Windows, just click and install. I do agree however, some could do with better title that describes what they do. Again though, Linux is not alone in that. Some Windows apps names are really obscure too.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3310360]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[lastchip]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 14:54:12 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Don't make the mistake of always focussing on new arrivals!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3310229]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Sometimes it's worth putting in the effort to learn to use something efficiently. Auto-cad would be my prime example of a program that becomes a thousand times better once you learn all the right ways of doing things.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3310229]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Kim SJ]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:43:56 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Is an iPod more user-friendly than a piano?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3310226]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Of course that depends on your skill set, the time you're prepared to invest in learning new skills, what exactly you want to do...]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3310226]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Kim SJ]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:39:48 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Like I said...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3310199]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[the analogy isn't perfect. To fine tune it, we would have to envision a world where a dozen different companies all made a vehicle, maybe a few vehicles, all based on a core GM chassis/frame. In this case, imagine GM went bankrupt and their basic frame and powertrain for the Chevy Tahoe slipped into the public domain. In turn, Jag, Mercedes, Fiat, Opel, Audi, Ford, Saab and a half dozen other companies all picked up the basic Chevy Tahoe design and added a little trim and their marquee and called it their own. Each one offers a compelling, interesting feature that none of the others offer, and are missing features that you can get somewhere else. How would the consumers &quot;win&quot; in this environment? Better that Chevy should design their own unique Tahoe, and Ford competes with their own design, Land Cruiser with another, Toyota with another. That is how the auto industry DOES work today, and that works &quot;decent&quot;. But the scenario I describe is a nightmare for the consumer (end user) and it is the model that Linux is built on today.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3310199]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dcolbert@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:04:47 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[SimplyMepis]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3310150]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I've been using Mepis for years now, not only because it is the only major distro that recognizes the wireless card in my old Dell D600, but also because it is clean, quick, and reliable.  No complaints.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3310150]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Spiny Norman]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 08:19:36 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: Can Fedora be the new Ubuntu?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3310123]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Simple question,...  What is required to upgrade from Fedora 12 to Fedora 13?  So far, I think the answer is a clean install...  I do not want to do that.  Backup, re-install, restore process.What was involved with my upgrade from Ubuntu 9.?? the 10.04?  Simply click the network upgrade button.  That is what I call user friendly...Ken C.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3310123]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[kacaudle@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 08:08:13 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I love build to package]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3310011]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[On Debian, it's called Checkinstall. Download and build the tarball then run checkinstall instead of &quot;make install&quot; and it makes a .deb package out of it. If you didn't compile it, checkinstall will do the &quot;make&quot; step also. Anything outside of the X-FI drivers that I build myself becomes a .deb package now before it gets installed.I gotta say that I'm happy to see the same available for rpm based distros. Not everyone is going to be building tarballs but for those of us who can, it's fantastic.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3310011]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Neon Samurai]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 06:06:49 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: Can Fedora be the new Ubuntu?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3310002]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[If you had a user and administrator layout, I would like it if you could make a limited account and if a user were logged in under this account, the administrator menu and tools would be gone.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3310002]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jason.burns@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:40:00 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Since you're asking... No]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3309965]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I am working more and more with CentOS and was looking for a home distro which shared the yum / rpm style package manager to keep the way I worked consistent. After a good stint on fedora 13, I now find myself back on Ubuntu mainly due to the NVidia driver. On Ubuntu support is better, and if you want to play games then the Fedora open source drivers aren't there yet.The driver that I found for F13 needed reconfiguring every time there was a system update, which is a quick and easy task. What I coundn't face was the ordeal of my girlfriend finding a crashed X server when she merely wanted to check her e-mail.It is this 'just works' usability that makes Ubuntu the 'killer-distro' of the moment. Fedora can't be the new Ubuntu because Fedora releases are always open-source, perhaps buggy, yet a state of the art disro best suited for power users and developers.Ubuntu is for human beings (which includes less competent computer users), has a nice button that lets you choose if you want to use the proprietary drivers, and so on.I had a good couple of weeks testing out Fedora to come to this conclusion so I feel the answer 'No, Fedora is not the new Ubuntu' is somewhat justified.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3309965]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[rorie]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 04:25:45 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Mint is great, but the nix programs need a lot of work.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3309880]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[If you look at a package list, its brutal, the same name of software shows up 10 times with 20 different acrnyms appended to it. (verified in Mandriva, Mint and Ubuntu)And finding a program in the package managers is near impossible.  It's sort of like trying to search for an API command on the MSDN website, unless you know the name of the command you want, your hosed.Programs need clear human readable names, remove all dependencies from the list, only show actual programs you can install, and supply some proper descriptions of each program.  Not just &quot;Video editing tool for KDE3&quot;.  And where the heck is the &quot;detect and repair&quot; option on a package.  Verifying packages should be an extremly easy process.  A one button click to check all packages.  The distros might want to leverage a proper search engine or an indexing or something.  So if I search video editing, show me all video editing tools despite their name.And add to that, most programs don't have proper documentation, or require an extra package to be installed (WTF!).  How about in the description of the program, put links to a program details and review website so a user can properly figure out quickly what a program does.  Feature lists and instructions would be nice as well.  Maybe a system like the firefox addons would work good.They have made the OS good, now make the programs worth installing.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3309880]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Slayer_]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:08:25 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[oh please, spare me that junk.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3309844]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[the STUPIDITY of requiring a webserver to be installed just because you want to install an app to edit website scripts makes Novell's product absolutely useless for REAL work.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3309844]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Jaqui]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:04:28 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[why]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3309843]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[do I have to move mouse to a specific location to access the apps?or setting tools?why do I have to have garbage installed that isn't required for the purpose of the system, or for the user?[ if the person using the workstation / system doesn't require accessibility aides, why are they absolutely required? ]why should I be forced into having stupid popup notices or dialogues for things that aren't important?[ I don't need to be told every 30 seconds that some BACKGROUND event has occurred. ]]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3309843]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Jaqui]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:01:47 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Quite right.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3309833]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I use Debian as my main production machine (writing this for example) and have a Debian server that never misses a beat.If you want stability, I doubt you'll beat the stable version of Debian.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3309833]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[lastchip]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:06:42 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Ubuntu done right.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3309832]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Linux Mint 9 is absolutely superb.I don't know how they get away with the licensing issues that seem to worry Ubuntu, but if ever there is a new user distro, this is it!I've used it for a while on my laptop and recently upgraded, or more correctly, did a clean install of 9 and it's magic.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3309832]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[lastchip]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:02:34 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Yep, Mandriva is the same.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3309819]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[current choices are &quot;nv&quot;, &quot;nouveau&quot;, and proprietary. But the KEWL, NEW thing in Mandriva is the fact that betas can be built into fully-compliant packages by &quot;volunteers&quot; with nearly zero effort -- and after that, we just put 'em into some repository which is willing to accept them, and the for the world to get at. All the package manager tools, GUI and command line, are then applicable.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-332074-3309819]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[rickst29]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:58:06 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

