Slashdot Mirror
Two Reviews of Debian 3.0
FrankNFurter writes "Debian Planet features a review of Debian 3.0 from a user's perspective. Time for a reality check, debianistas." And twstdr00t writes "Linuxwatch.org has posted their review of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 Woody. 'The package managment system is nice and easy to use. But the lack of good configuration and installation takes that all away from Debian.'"
HA! Debian is The One True Operating System!
apt-get reality!
-D
"What if you don't know the name of the program you want? What if you don't even know what program you want? What if you don't even know what KIND of program you want?"
apt-cache search whatever
War is necrophilia.
Is it me or do most OS reviews these days seem to miss the mark?
I'm sure installers are nice and all, but when it comes down to it that should be the least significant part of actually *using* an OS.
6 months or 12 months down the road if you ask the RedHat reviewer who raved about the installer, or the Debian reviewer who complained about the installer how their systems were doing, i'm willing to guess that the Debian one is
a) still quite up to date and
b) hasn't had any stability problems at all.
Whereas the other one
a) May have been re-installed with a newer release and
b) May be experiencing dependancy hell.
Taking all this into consideration it seems absolutely ridiculus how much attention is paid to the installers during a review. Besides what percentage of Windows users have actually installed their own OS? So if typical end users are not the ones installing it, what does it matter what the installer is like?
I'd like to see reviews based on how well the configured machine operates from the day after the install on. I think that's far more telling about the quality of the product than judging it on the installer itself.