redhat's problem is to have a lot of supports and his objective to achieve more users at once, the newbies and the experts.

In Linux we have a lot of choice but, we want some, default programs that we can use them for our day use.
For an example, we have any media player in KDE or Gnome that can play divx, dvd, movies ... thats the problem, we have too many choices, and "redhat" wants to have that all and that is a bad choice for our community.

I just wanted a linux with only the bases to work and to compile, with no dependecies (all programs have to have that) and fast.
if you want to use an ftp server , we had to install the proftpd program or other... for an example.

REDHAT with the passing years is decreasing quality and putt more "garbage" in that 3 cds, that put the system so slow that we cannot work with them, or we've just to have a great machine with a great memory ... that's my opinion

I disagree!

That's a rather strong position to take for your first post. Yes there are a lot of programs out there, maybe too much, but you do have the option to install a more or less minimal install. If you do a minimal install don't complain if all your programs don't work as planned because they probably won't. Only an experienced user or one that can read a man page will be able to get it running. If you can get it running from scratch I'd suspect you'd know how to do a minimal install too.

As far as having every program have pre-compiled dependencies, I'd have to pass on that too. First, nobody would want to program every single bit code that is required to make a useful program. Secondly, every program would be HUGE!!! Thirdly, programmers especially open source programmers assume that a user can do his fair share to get a program compiled and running. They spent their time programming it, can't you spend 5 minutes reading up on how to compiling it? Lastly, who would guarantee that the library compiled into program A is still compatible with the same library that was installed by program B. Talk about a nightmare! RPM is as close as you'll ever see to taking care of your issues. For better or worse, I'd suggest learning to love it.

what i just wanted to say is that REDHAT ' s distributions are becoming slow , very slow, with my PIV 2,6 compared with the other distributions like mandrake , slackware , SuSE and i just wanted to discusse this ... WHY redhat is becoming like that ??

Build a distrbution like redhat will only have less users , as everyone knows redhat is very popular because of his pass and all of company's support...

My previously reply may have come out crappy sounding, but it wasn't meant to be.

I would say it's not the programs fault unless you have them actively loaded and running, but that the kernel is not as compatible with your system as the others. You can either recompile your kernel and take out some unneeded features while adding other needed ones, or switch to something else.

One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that some distros are phasing out older hardware support to help keep the kernel size in check and to support newer programs. If newer programs were guaranteed to run fast on old hardware, then my old TSR-80 would still be top of the line. That's right a Trash-80 was once top-of-the-line!!! Some distro's (like Slackware) stick closely to their Linux roots and will probably always cater to older hardware.

Personnaly, I think Redhat's speed is more than acceptable!
Nautilus open folders in less than a second, etc...

I concede that Redhat needs ressources to run well, but once you have that, it's a wonderful experience.

Monterio: do you notice a BIG difference in 9.0 from 8.0 ? i think not.

redhat is getting very sloppy. Their skipping 8.1 to 9.0 just because they feel their behind in version numbers ?! Whats wrong with them ? versiov numbers dont make a distro more superior, look at debian.

they didnt even update KDE to 3.1, even though they had the time to do so, they felt they needed to release it ASAP. "Forget about updated software, we need to catch up with version numbers ! That is our goal !"

no offense to any RH users, my friend is one, and i used too be one also.

Well, that's not really true (although it is convenient). They went to 9 because they changed to a newer non-compatible library version. This did not allow them to maintain its backwards compatibilty so they were forced to go to the new version number. That's what they say atleast and upon further review, it does warrant a new release. But again, I do see how this helps them in more ways than one. According to them they were at the mercy of the new library programmers.

Very true, what is debian at, 3? Suse just came out with 8.2, and it isn't outdated, it's new. As for superiority in numbers, Netscape is at 7 at mozilla just released 1.4 alpha. Is Netscape tremendously better?

http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_9.html

With regard to the general slowness some of you are seeing, this is certainly not normal and not the expected behaviour. Find out whether there is anything that occupies processor power at run-time. Check the logs on whether any hardware causes trouble.
For an Aprils-fool joke you're late.
NTFS? http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/info/redhat.html
What "garbage" in particular?
KDE 3.1 is included. If you mean KDE 3.1.1, is it just that you want a newer version or does anything not work for you?
The KDE 3.1 version they shipped has been (beta-)tested and QA'ed for a long time. The same cannot be said about KDE 3.1.1.
I don't see where that would be true.
Mozilla 1.2.1 is the most recent stable release and has been tested for Red Hat Linux 9 for some time. Mozilla 1.3 (a lot less stable) was released around the same day the Red Hat Linux 9 distribution went gold. It is beyond me how you would expect Red Hat to ship Mozilla 1.3 without any testing at all.

i just installed suse 8.2, they reallly made a lot of changes as far as the graphical look, and on the postive side. so far i really like what i see in 8.2, had 8.1 and did not like it as much as 8.0.

mandrake 9.1 is nice too, like the kde menu, they have somewhat made it user friendly.

Hello all,

I run both RedHat 9 and Mandrake 9. Oh man, RedHat is just wayyyyyyyyyyyyy slower than Mandrake. I have used older versions of both distributions in the past and Mandrake has always worked better for me: faster and more compatible. I get the impression that people think Mandrake is for newbies only and if you are an experienced user, you should go with RedHat. I wonder why that is? Is there something that RedHat does better than Mandrake or are they (people) just sadomasochists?

Red Hat 9 is slower than Mandrake 9, I've tried both, Still seem to like Red Hat more though, dont know why, maybe because Red Hat was the first distro I used. I find it better when it comes to hardware support and bugs, but thats just my opinion, no offense on mandrake users

I can confirm that RH9 runs like an absolute dog. I thought it was just me and my naff install skills. Webmin is unbearable. I have two boxes, the more powerful box is running 9 and the other is running 7.3 and 7.3 is much faster. I'm now into my third build on one machine so not sure I can be bothered to change again!

Been down the mandrake route and not sure I can face it.

Some applications run much slower due to Unicode. Consider choosing a non-UTF-8 locale and try your application again. You will notice a significant performance increase.

I must admitt that after trying MDK 8.1, I realised than RH was slow...
MDK is blazing fast!!!!!
I'm impressed, so I'll upgrade to MDK 9.0 as soon as possible.