Slashdot Mirror
Linux Distributions Are Too Big
wish bot sent in a link to a ZD Net story that talks about how Linux distributions are too big. Many valid points... of course IMHO my distribution is exactly the right size, and I apt-get all the bloat if I want it, later.
Linux is "too big" is it? And what Linux would that be? And compared to what? Is Slackware "too big"? Has RedHat, the thing presumably most ZDNet readers think is Linux, grown larger than one CD lately? [Last time I looked, the other two CDs in the box were bonus bits and source code] The article mentions SUSE and Debian, but correct me if I'm wrong, but SUSE is a distribution that was developed so that users would have everything available in one package. Calling it "too big" is like saying that buildings everywhere are "too tall" because the Empire State Building has "too many" floors.
And Debian? Another distribution aimed at a particular group of users? How much has this guy had to drink?
What exactly is the point of this article? And why is Slashdot taking any notice of it? Is it time we install Censorware on the Slashdot editor's PCs so they can't see certain sites which are havens for third-rate writers who can turn any observation into a complaint?
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
There's absolutely no harm in packaging as much stuff as possible on the CD. You just have to make the installs easier to manage for the newby user.
That goes beyond nice pointy-clicky interfaces. RedHat (as far as I remember) has the choice between Workstation, Server and Custom install. A good first step. But what you really need is a bunch of tasks, not arbitrary classifications that nobody understands, and not a huge list of applications to choose from.
The install should ask you what tasks you need to perform with your computer:
And should should then install a nice set of applications based on those choices. On top of that, maybe a little guided tour/tutorial that explains what the applications are.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
that article seemed more like a plug for CorelLinux than anything... Oh Corel does this, and Corel does that.. Well that is the one great thing about Linux. It has tons of distributions to choose from. If you are a complete newbie and you are wanting a hand-holding while you install, there is a distribution for you.. Don't come crying when you can't find "foo".
.02
For those of us that want everyting it is there and ready...
My other personal favorite is when they say "Linux is not ready for the desktop yet because of X." Yeah well no shit. They are working on it. Instead of whining about it, do something, that is the wonder of OpenSource...
Just my worthless
This article's author had to write about something and didn't have a topic. So he decided to comment on Linux distributions and their "flaws".
.deb or .tar.gz).
/dev/mouse symbolic link.
/etc/X11/XF86Config and change ONE LINE, which will be a very intuitive process if you know about that file.
So what exactly does he suggest? That we whip out "Debian Lite" and "RedHat Lite", costing $30 each? NO! The distribution's cost is for the support that comes with it, so the Lite version would cost exactly the same as the full one (not counting Enterprise licenses and the like, of course).
He claims Linux gives the user too many options. In other words, to simplify matters the "perfect" distro would give as many options to the user as MacOS or Windows does.
What these people don't usually get (and I'll be writing it in bold) is that Linux is NOT MacOS or Windows. One shouldn't expect a perfectly smooth transition because one isn't possible!
Is it so hard to understand that a perfect transition from Windows to "something else" can only be achieved if the something else is Windows itself?
The virtues of Linux come from variety and configurability. The user, no matter how much computer illiterate, must learn at least what the basic distributed programs do. The user must take a couple of hours out of his life and press '?' to read a paragraph about each RPM (or
This is only my opinion, of course, but I would personally NOT make a Windows equivalent distro of Linux. Even if I or someone else did, complaints would still exist and it installation wouldn't be that much easier anyway because we're talking about a different OS.
Now take a look at these quotes from the article:
And then there's Linux--chock-full of these kinds of peccadilloes and proud of it.
It seems like he's trying to piss us all off. Linux is designed for power and flexibility. If you can't handle it, either ignore the extra features you don't understand (and Linux will still run fine) or shut up about it.
Add a peripheral (or just sneeze, for that matter) and you'll spend a good chunk of time trying to figure out how to recompile your kernel.
Yeah, right. It takes about 2 minutes to teach someone how to recompile a kernel. It's a matter of "make menuconfig; make dep; make clean; make bzImage; make modules; make modules_install" with slight variations.
Yesterday I installed an USB intellimouse in my box. I didn't have USB support, but it took about 1 minute to choose the USB+HID support in the kernel and about 2 minutes to recompile it (I didn't make clean). After that, I edited XF86Config and changed "ms" for "imps2" and changed the
That stuff isn't intuitive, but it can be taught in a matter of a few minutes and is all over the place in HOWTO files.
And there's also KUDZU, which already setup GPM automatically for me the next time I restarted. On the near future, X will already detect USB mice easily.
Now in Windows I had to reboot, see that message that no mice were detected. Then I:
1. inserted the CD that came with the mouse.
2. inserted the Win98 CD
3. restarted
4. inserted the CD that came with the mouse. some software installed.
5. restarted
6. I saw that the software was installed but the driver wasn't, DESPITE STEP #2!
7. reinstalled the driver that supposedly was in the CD that came with the mouse.
8. restarted
9. that INF file wasn't the USB mouse driver, but didn't call any installation program either. I still haven't figured that out and don't want to.
10. inserted the Win98 CD and installed the REAL, correct driver.
11. restarted. it worked.
SEE? The Win98 setup process takes forever and what's worse: you don't know what goes on.
Even something as simple as changing the desktop resolution in X can be quite a chore, depending on the distribution.
False. The distribution has nothing to do with it. Edit
Let's face it, for all but hackers and pros, Linux is too much of a hassle to be of much use on the desktop.
False. You just didn't have anything to write about and spreaded anti-Linux propaganda.
Linux IS harder than Windows to use, OF COURSE. But you don't have the feeling that you're banging your head against a wall when you're installing drivers for a MOUSE!
Once users realise there's something called a "kernel" that holds drivers and there are "configuration files" which you can change with "text editors", everything's fine.
One just can't expect such a major change to be done without some effort on the user's side.
Flavio
> If I have to compile it, I ain't running it,
> and I'm FAR from the only one.
The interesting variation here is that there is no need for you to know that things are being compiled.
Maybe installation takes a little longer, but the package gets built according to your local preferences and installation. This is just a packaging issue.
Whilst I don't recommend this is the right thing to do with large packages like KDE, Gnome, etc. this *is* the right thing to do for plug-in modules (think kernel drivers, X graphics drivers) which have a closer dependency on the app into which they insert.
For many things, source could become the default method of distribution, as long as it is wrapped nicely by dpkg and/or RPM who cares?
Everyone is virtually flaming ZDnet for their article. If Linux is to grow stronger and better we must learn to accept criticism. I have been using Linux for 7 years, and believe I am qualified enough to comment on this. I have to agree with ZDnet. Linux is bloated, My last SuSE distribution was 6 CDs. Is this good? Yes and No.
... insert CD 6.
It was good for me, because my connection at home is 28.8. It is bad for me because when I want to install, I have to go through thousands of packages to find out what I want. Linux needs a desktop standard. This means, a core set of applications. You pop in a CD, you click the giant OK button and it is all done. If you then desire, you can use the other CDs to install your favorite app. If I tried to install SuSE, I would have to insert CD 2, insert CD 3,
I gave a friend SuSE, and that turned him off about it, he wouldn't even give it a try. I am sure that if we came up with a desktop standard for linux that it can be done in a very good 300-400meg for very useable system. I am not asking for a core system with no X, no network, etc, etc.
We must remember that bigger is not necessarily better, more is not necessarily better. KISS is good. Keep it Small/Simple Stupid.
I use BSD as well, and this is why I love NetBSD and OpenBSD. They are very small, whenever I install it, I install just the standard (1 CD). If I then use I can install applications via the ports collection. Let's not let our Linux pride blind us. Happy Holidays.
Cheers
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
- MS Windows - 1 CD
- Visual C++ & MSDN docs - 3 CDs
- Paint Shop Pro | Photoshop - 1-3 CDs
- MS Office - 3 CDs
- Various Drivers for my hardware - 3-5 CDs
In addition, there are a bunch of things that I'd have to download right away. Let's think about those:- ICQ
- AIM
- WinAmp
- PGP
- Putty
There are probably some others that I've forgotten but it's pretty obvious which is easier to be productive at. I'd estimate that this whole process would take me at least 5 or 6 hours by the time that I got everything installed, setup with my ISP and so forth. My last Mandrake install from 2 CDs took me only about 2 hours from inserting the CD to the point where I was using the Linux equivalent of all the programs listed above and that's mostly because I have a slowish CD reader._____________
I don't want free as in beer. I just want free beer.
I tried out mandrake 7.2 just after it was released. It required 2.5 Gb. That's a lot. I'have no idea what they include in their distribution to get to that number but it is almost certain I won't ever use 95 % of it.
:).
:)
The problem is redundancy. For each type of application there are more than one implementation. Take editors for example, the average linux distribution will install at least half a dozen (and probably more) without even asking. Then you usually get both KDE and Gnome, half a dozen xterm apps, a bunch of shells, a bunch of filesystem browsers (all of them crap IMHO), and a zillion other apps. Not to mention apache is installed, an smtp server is launched, you can telnet, ftp and god knows what to your machine while all you wanted is a stupid firewall
I don't want all that, I want a tailored system that only includes what I need, configured in a simple way and preferably not running all sorts of server apps I won't use anyway. In the unlikely case I want to use emacs or vi, I'll install it myself. What the hell am I going to do with programs for faxing and ISDN? I don't have even have a modem! Why waste diskspace on useless apps such as Xroach. It's only a few kilobytes, I know, but all this bloat apparently manages to sum up to about 2.5 gigabytes.
None of the linux distributions I know off meet these requirements and I doubt any distribution will meet them anytime soon. Debian is too complicated, Mandrake is too bloated, Red hat too buggy, Corel is too annoying. It seems that all the parts for making a nice OS are available but nobody has managed to put them together in the right way. Perhaps we do need MS Linux
Jilles