Slashdot Mirror
How Should One Review a Distribution?
Chilliwilli asks: "Why are are good distro reviews so few and far between? Every review I've read recently seems to follow this unoriginal pattern. Big cheers about a nice easy graphical install followed by one or two driver problems blamed on hardware manufacturers. Then the rest of the review seems to be everything worked out of the box. Menus contained usual items. Software versions are X, Y and Z. See OSNews for many examples of such reviews. From the reviews I've currently read all distros seem pretty much the same, is there a reliable source for interesting, impartial and full reviews? Are there any guidelines for distro comparisons? What should people really be looking at when reviewing a distribution? I guess the broader question is what sets distros apart?"
Just look around. there are many such review sites. Often times magazines and tech sites will put out their own reviews (PCWorld, Tom's Hardware etc)
They should be looking for the lack of a graphical installer, and a clear set of instructions on how to install the system without one.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Some people have said the best way to "review" a distribution is to make grandiose claims that Gentoo rules all, followed by some mumbling about "emerge sync" or such.
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
One shouldn't.
Seriously, at the present time there is not much reason for Slashdotters to read linux distribution reviews. The distributions vary mainly in philosophy, *not* in software.
Anyone who cares already knows the basic differences between Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, et cetera. The only other details are what software is installed by default. But who leaves the default install in place? Even Windows users install and upgrade software.
nerd politics.
------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
I have seen quite a few distro reviews, and most of them start with either "the graphical installer is nice" or "there's no graphic installer!".
Debian doesn't currently have a pretty graphical installer but I find that it's not necessary because I never need to reinstall, and it's functional and works over a serial console.
I know people who refuse to even give Debian a try because the installer (and the base install) isn't pretty enough.
Anything is possible, except skiing through revolving doors.
Why are are good distro reviews so few and far between?
Summary of review: xyz distro is the best.
Let the flame wars begin.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
here in slashdot people are only going to say one thing is better then the other because it's pretty much their religion. why is christianity better then islam? is it? who is the judge? I think it realy doesn't matter too much until you need some specific features that are only in one distro. it's all a little blurry
The biggest diffrence I've seen between distros is how stuff is configured. Red Hat has shiny gui tools to do its configuration and slackware lets you edit the config files by hand. Of couse there are many distos that are somewhere in between.
That's how these things are.
From the reviews I've currently read all distros seem pretty much the same, is there a reliable source for interesting, impartial and full reviews?
No.
Are there any guidelines for distro comparisons?
No.
What should people really be looking at when reviewing a distribution?How's that again?
I guess the broader question is what sets distros apart?Very little.
Distrowatch
I'll leave the rest up to you.
Oh, and in case you're wondering: Slack rules them all.
Well, from the perspective of a new or inexperienced user, most distributions are more or less the same. It doesn't really matter what kernel you have, or what KDE you're running to such users; they don't really look at what people who are more familiar with Linux might look at. Most mainstream news sources are run by people who are relatively inexperienced with Linux distributions--hence shallow reviews.
On a side note, what sets distributions apart is different for every experienced user, I think. For example, I run Linux on my desktop, because I'm a hobbyist. As such, I constantly remove and install lots of different packages, and so Debian happens to be the right distro for me. Apt-get allows me to search through a huge archive of binaries and install fun things, then remove them cleanly because of reverse dependency checking. Gentoo, on the other hand, is right for the user who has more time than I do to play around, and wants the very latest versions of software, as well as the coolness factor of having compiled it oneself. Fedora or Mandrake is targeted towards the user who has -less- time than I do to play around, and just wants a nice, workable system right out of the box. Basically, there's nothing that sets distributions apart for everybody. It depends on your specific needs.
I guess you just have to try them all, and then decide which one fits your needs. Just get your hands dirty dude!
Is if it didn't matter so much what distro you choose.
Software should be easy to build and run from the moment you download. It shouldn't be a big deal which distro you're running, what cpu arch you have, or what libs you have installed. Software should be smart and just work. If you don't have the right shared libs, the app in question should get/provide them itself. That sort of thing. Just make it EASY to install useable programs.
The whole point of the GPL is that you're free to share each other code. Instead of requiring your users to install package X which has 20 of its own dependendcies, just provide package X in case its not there already. Problem solved.
At any rate, this is the approach that we're taking with slimserver and our users, both geek adn non-geek, seem to be quite happy with it.
Then, you can find out what factors might be important to that target group. Say, you're reviewing distros for Joe Noobie. Using this, you might concentrate on things that might be important to that class of user. (How to get up and running. Such as, where can the distro be obtained? Is it downloaded, purchased, or does it come on a computer you can order? What's your prior experience with this distro, if any?) Then, you would concentrate on things that your class of user might want to accomplish. (Email, text messaging, browsing, watching movies, downloading and properly installing spyware, to make their computer suck, making them feel right at home, Windows-style, etc.)
Finally, to make the review interesting, different, and thought provoking, I would detail the steps I took to get form point A to point B in the review (special commands you might have had to type, or insights you have on how to get something done), and explain it in such a way that will encourage feedback, further experimentation, other reviews, and maybe even (hopefully) improvements in the product.
Instead of "How Should One Review a Distribution?", shouldn't we ask "Should One Review a Distribution?"?
It's like you look at news.google.com, "Bill Gates fined 800000 dollars for merger violation" has 153 related news, I am sure the essence of those news is the same.
However in the world of easy content creation and publication, nobody will stop doing the same things.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
You would need to do seperate reviews, such as one for best distro to be used as a web server, or best distro to be used on the desktop in place of windows.
Otherwise you'll just get a bunch of people screaming at you :)
One thing I keep my eye out for is innovative use of both new and old packages and techniques. For example, does the distro come with the same old flavor of Foo v1.0, or does it have Foo 1.4 with the Bar 1.2 addon? More packages can often lead to more complexity and bloat, but the choice to include the new bells and whistles should at least be available if the software was designed to take advantage of addon libraries and such.
This is why I use Gentoo. I specifically started using it on the server side of things (at the recommendation of the lead developer) because of it's extraordinary ability to compile PHP with the libraries I need for our web apps.
-- Stu
/. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.
...how many ways *are there* to describe a single flower?
Well, in all truth, after you are done with the pretty installer, and you have updated the applications you use to current versions, the biggest difference between distributions is the packaging system and custom graphical admin tools provided by the distro. To a certain extent, Linux is Linux is Linux. This is why developers can write one program that will run on most any distro.
To properly review a distribution probably takes longer than most people who do such reviewing have time for. If you need to write something in three days, you've got time to install a distro, but not enough to fuck with it for three months and see how easy it is to keep it running and happy when you are adding weird custom shit, new versions of important system files, and applications that the distribution vendor never intended to integrate.
I am distro-shopping myself right now. Not sure what I'll do.
First off, I like testing a distro a few weeks after it was released, to see what the update procedure is like.
I also like to see you easy it is to install "non-standard" software, such as MP3 players on RedHat, etc.
But all in all, the only real way to do a review is the way the car magazines sometimes do: run the distro for a few months as your main machine. Then all problems will become clear.
Another caveat is to have more than one person review; for example, a Macintosh user may expect a computer to work much differently than a Gentoo user would. Many different opinions need to be taken into account; it is unlikely that there is a one-size-fits-all in the distro department.
Fellowship 9/11
I suspect a good review of a Linux Distro will not come from any one source any more than the distribution itself. Like Linux, a good understanding of a product's quality must be built upon the efforts of many. While commercial folks like Microsoft can spend the time and effort to test their products on an array of different platforms (do they?) a product review columnist at a tech magazine isn't given 100 different machines from 100 different vendors.
Perhaps some enterprising web-site might begin to compile information on distributions, but it seems unrealistic to find complete reviews of compatibility and usability across the spectrum from a single source.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
You need to put them on the GNU/Linuxy Meter and take a reading.
Some like 'em hot, some like 'em not so hot.
It's personal - don't ask.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you want to try out a distro, really the best way is to download it and try it out. Reviews are going to vary depending on who does the review. You have to realize that most of the good reviews are from people that already have used Linux and are proficient in it and know how to deal with the problems that come up. Most of the bad reviews are by people that really don't understand anything other than Windows and get confused when the distro doesn't work exactly like Windows. I really haven't seen much of a middle ground as far as reviews go.
Review it yourself (it's free, isn't it?) Then decide if learning the differences is worthwhile for the benefits of switching.
This isn't a troll, but, yeah, i know where this is going.
Instead I'd like to see reviews that focus on how easy it is to administrate the system. Is there a wide variety of prebuilt packages? Are they easy to install? If I'm new to linux, what tools are on the system to assist me? What hardware does it support? Those sort of things.
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
It's pretty much in who the distro is aimed towards. You have to review a distrobution based on how well it fits into the the demographic at which it is aimed. To review Gentoo and compare it to Mandrake wouldn't be a fair comparison to either one. Mandrake, Redhat/Fedora, and Suse are aimed more towards the mass consumer market. These distros should have a few qualities:
1) They should be easy to set up.
2) They should work as close to 100% out of the box as possilbe
3) Their inner workings should be nearly invisible to the regular person
Basically, these distros should be compared to OS X and Windows on their installation and hardware detection. It should drop you into Linux easily, and with a fully working machine within an hour.
Next, you have the more hardcore user that you are aiming at with distros like Gentoo, Slackware, and Debian. These tend to be a little more difficult to set up (in comparison to the previous group). If a regular person picked up a copy of one of these at CompUsa and went to install it, they probably will be scratching their heads a bit, and they also probably will get some sort of error. The goals of these distrobutions tend to be the same, yet with a much higher emphasis on the customization factor. That's pretty much the tradeoff a distrobution makes. Ease of use vs. Customization. As one goes up, the other tends to go down. That's what makes Linux great. It's the fact that I can control how exactly how my machine is set up. Either I choose to do it all on my own, or I choose to let someone else decide for me what is installed on my machine and how it is configured. I have installed Mandrake, Fedora, Debian, and right now am waiting on the compiling of my first ever Gentoo install. I think each has their own sets of plusses/minuses and I recognize that.
(Yes, I also realize that each one of these distrobutions has various "flavors" that break the stereotype of that distrobution, such as live cd's, etc.)
I feel that a key component to a distribution is a quality package management. This includes installation, dependency, and maintenance. Though another key component of a good distro should be to have users compile their own kernels. I know this may shy away some n00bs, but it really streamlines the system, and gives the user a much better understanding of how things work. Which makes the install a little harder, but overall use a much more enjoyable experience. Plus think of the geek factor involved, you can impress your friends...
je suis parce que j'aime
By how much they pay you. Duh.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I guess that that is the whole point of Linux - choice. If you want to install the bare minimum system that fits on a floppy disk you can. If you want to install a massive 6 dvd distro including every linux program ever created, you can.
If your particular interest is having a sparklin' clean untainted kernel - go for it. If your not so worried, go install windows media player etc etc.
There are zillions of distros out there - go find one that does exactly what you want. If it doesnt exist, make your own and put it out for the 3 other people in the world who will see it and go "shit, that's EXACTLY what I need! Thanks!".
Availability: Do the mirrors work? FTP, HTTP, ISO, etc...
Install: I recently needed to install linux on a 128 meg drive. Why is it that none of the smaller(size-wise) provide a good install and why do the larger distributions like RedHat require at least 400 megs. I decided to screw all distributions and install everything by hand.
Hardware setups: I love distributions that do it all for me. Just like Windows(I use Mac:-P
Grandmother appeal: Would my Grandmother be able to understand everything? This means less geek talk and more pretty eye-candy that grandma can click on.
Name: Come on... a name is important. I know several people who use Slackware just because it has the name "slack" in it.
logo: That green Gecko is cool, the linux penguin is cool, the BSD daemon is cool, the Debian ?!? WHAT THE HELL DO I DO FOR A SHIRT:-)
standards: RPM, filesystem, standard desktop environments etc... As Linux is pushing more towards interoperability between distributions... Being a rebel amongst the rebels is no longer cool.
Anyways, this is my own personal list... I am sure that everyone else will beat it to death.
I've found that the best way for me to review a distro is to grab people representative of a wide array of user groups (die-hard linux guys, people who have never touched a PC, and in between), and have different members of each group try out different OSes. The results are sometimes surprising.
For a research paper I did once, I made liberal use of VMWare to limit damage, and even had a couple technophobes compare the installation procedures for Gentoo, Redhat, and Mandrake. Unsurprisingly, nobody managed to get a gentoo install working, but much to my surprise, they found Mandrake "easier" and more "friendly" to install than RedHat.
Yes, the die hard linux guys preferred gentoo.
I guess the broader question is what sets distros apart?
;)
The simple answer is that when it comes down to it, there really isn't diddly squat difference between distributions. Perhaps that's why reviews are generally so crap. What are you actually reviewing? You're just looking at how the exact same software has been packaged up by a different group of people. Maybe you're looking at a few custom little GUIs to edit configuration files. Maybe a nice boot screen. The fact is, none of this is of much significance and you can't harp on about it in new or exciting ways. Thus reviews are generally as dull as they are.
It is no wonder that sites like OSnews degenerate into ramblings about menu items and fonts and themes and so forth. There just isn't that much else to talk about. We're all using pretty much the same software. If you're a real sysadmin, stuff like how you keep that software up to date, or how long you can do that for etc. might be significant, but for regular users, it ain't very important and there's not much left to talk about. Differences are so minor, and mostly irrelevant to users with a bit of experience anyway.
This is a bit of a problem with linux right now. How many ways can you package up the same old stuff? Somewhere at sometime, one 'distro' is going to have to forsake some compatibility and look like a bad guy, and actually make a linux *operating system* rather than another linux *distribution*. There's a difference. (Apple did this, for example, with the best linux distro, FreeBSD
It is very easy, really.
A distro is a tool. A tool might or might not cost money. Regardless, the reviewer should ALWAYS compare it to the rest of the market. For example, if you review Debian, you SHOULD review it against Solaris, Win2k/Win2k3, OSX Server, Slackware, FreeBSD etc. If you review Mandrake or Xandros, you SHOULD review it against Windows XP, OSX, BeOS, Lindows, SuSE etc.
The reason is simple: there are many similar solutions on the market. A potential user NEEDS to know if this solution is better than the one he has, or the one the heard about elsewhere.
A distro is a tool. Review it and see if that is the best tool for each job, compared to ALL other tools. If yes, praise it. If not, mark it down.
It's as simple as that.
Maybe Slashdot can have a "Distro Review" section, in addition to it's Book Review.
A review should show how the distro fits comparing it to where its suppoed to go.
You should look at how the distro follows the Linux way (or the Unix way). For example, look for the odd little things that someone added because they thought it was a good idea. Maybe it was or maybe it isn't. For example every major distro now aliases "rm" to "rm -i" which isn't the unix way (at least according to Kernighan). The real unix way is alias "del" to "rm -i" and teach people to use del if they want to be asked so they don't learn bad habits.
Another thing is does the keyboard short cuts work? If I have a windows theme, does the keyboard work that way and if I select a mac theme, will it work that way too? Can I mix and match so it looks like Windows and has mac bindings? Is there clear help showing new keyboard options if I pick a better theme?
Remember computers are a tool. They are there to serve a useful role. It doesn't matter how nice they look or work if they don't end up getting the job done. After an upgrade, I should be able to get my work done faster however my tests show that isn't going on.
Reviews should reflect the ability of the distro to work as the tool its suppoed to be.
It's all about which is the most wannabe MS Windows... GUI installers for the brain dead people who just want the look and feel of Windows, without the intelligence to know how to use the OS without a GUI... Only a point and click OS. Linux is too much trying to be like MS Windows and copying it too much yet the trend for LUser (Linux Users) is MS Sucks, everything sucks but Linux... Generally, a very childish, immature user base that lacks the intelligence to know of other Open Source OS's and such. Let's all follow the "hype" but not the intellect behind it all or the original goals. Let's all make money off of Linux now and defeat the whole original purpose of it; RedHat and such is no different than MS.
Such a wannabe OS. The MS's of Linux are SuSe (suse me), RedHat (roothat), Mandrake (mandork), etc.
Every review I've read recently seems to follow this unoriginal pattern. Big cheers about a nice easy graphical install followed by one or two driver problems blamed on hardware manufacturers. Then the rest of the review seems to be everything worked out of the box. i guess the real answer is that distros are actually the same. we all knew it. besides a few changed directories here and there, and things put in place to inconvinence you, its all the same.
I've been able to get Slack in under a half gig drive (8.0 on a 486) and Slack-current on a 813 meg drive. Now how about everyone else? Can you cram Gentoo in under a gig of HD space?
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
Hey fuckface, I havent visited this site in quite some time, thought I would look at it out of curiosity and now I remember the reason why I stopped coming. I just thought I would enlighten anyone who was questioning the relevance of this site that it is likened to nothing more than a shit stain in a homeless man's underwear. Nothing extraordinary about it. It's really getting to the point where they should just shut the site down, realize they won't make any money with it, and move the fuck on with their lives.
It also seems like most sources of information are not updated, or don't give actual recommendations or comparisons between distributions.
Does anyone maintain a solid comparison of the top 5 or 10 most commonly used distributions along with criteria to for deciding which would best fit my needs?
Let's face it. One of the main reasons that the specialty magazines and sites that do these reviews exist is to make people feel so good about their previous "purchase" that they'll "buy" more. It was true of the old car (and gun) magazines and is true of the computer mags and sites today. Linux, open source, are being merchandized just as aggressively as the sports car was years ago. So it should surprise no one that there's 'nary a negative word to be said about a particular software product being reviewed, whether an O/S or an application. Although not as easy to navigate as a magazine review, the various mail lists set up to support particular distros are probably the best source of info on them. After browsing the archives awhile for comments, problems and solutions you can get a pretty comprehensive picture of what's what. Of course it also helps to have a few junk boxes around that you can load up with the latest release from each publisher to experience the thing for yourself. *That's* a tradition that comes right out of the beginnings of the personal computer movement...
score: -1 Flamebait
I was just about braindead working on a presentation for a product launch tomorrow and was thinking about working up a set of -real- client distro tests for competitive review.
/. to get the glassiness out of my eyes and this was the first thing on the page. For a sec I thought I was still day(night)dreaming.
Then I started daydreaming about job burnout and possibly looking at becoming a reviewer.
Then just as I had the thought "I wonder what would be needed to write a really useful review" I paged over to
Anyway, I'm awake again, back to work.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
The year: 2019. The pay article on Slashdot: The Last Tribute to the "Commercial."
Today marks the day that the last commercial aired. Of course, it's just a symbolic commercial. No real company cares one way or the other what kind of ratings it gets. Only the National Archival Committee In Preservation Of Commercials gives a rat's ass.
Now that commercials are extinct, the human existence is completely ad free. Quite an accomplishment for the region once called America.
"The tourney is finally at an end," was the message following the final commercial. "We are now ad free."
And with that, the final broadcast signal is given, and the channel returns to static, as it had been in the early 1930's. The old Federal Communications Commission retired, hence and closes yet another federal entity, leaving only two others.
Only thirty six people ever saw the commercial live. They were some fanatics, and some political zealots. Everyone else continued on with their life as though a coup never took place. They were unaware of the significance, as though a misquote finally landed on the dusty ground for the last time.
The Slashdot article ended up receiving a mer 1042 comments before it entered the archive. Some comments asking where the torrent was, some asking what format the torrent was. Most unconcerned to the content, just wanting to use the data to meet the quota of the day before it was lost.
Life resumed as the day before. Content was paid on use. Few even understood what the concept of "ad" ever was in the first place. Some elderly referred to soap, but only because they once traded in old time "radio" broadcasts. Everyone was complacent.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
> is there a reliable source for interesting, impartial and full reviews?
Yes, but it's not OSNews and definately not Eugenia.
There's also the fact that in most OSNews reviews, if the user (read: Eugenia) can't figure out how something is done, it is automatically the distribution's fault. Plus she'll occasionally spout stuff regarding the distro that is flat out incorrect.
There was one time she couldn't get some Python application(s) working under Slackware, so I tried them on my box. I followed the directions and got them working just fine. It turns out she didn't have her paths set properly. I told her what needed to be done and explained that she failed to set her path properly, so she modded my comment(s) down, continued blaming Slackware for her problems, and pretty much insisted that I shut up. That particular exchange is here. (Be sure to check the "moderated down" comments for that thread as well.)
OSNews is most definitely not the place to go for reviews of any sort.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
A (workstation) distro review, in my opinion should involve at least the following:
- Install (ease, hardware detection)
- Out of box security
- Size of final install
- GUI usability (with special attention to menus and organization)
- GUI configurability
- Security updates (immediate, long-term)
- "one week later"
- List of distro-specific software
- Comparison to other distros with the same audience (prefer charts-based comparison)
These are the best reviews money can buy.
I wish some review sites come up with a common rubric to rate OS's. Things like different multimedia files running out of the box, graphical interfaces for system tasks, graphical package manager, ability to install 3rd party applications through windows like mouse click, or simply able to run most, etc. They could have it be an easy checklist where you check which functions it had and in the column next to it what it used to due it. It would make it easier for people to review distributions and if some smart desktop people got involved create a nice roadmap to get desktop linux sealing the final holes consumers notice.
There could even be some sparate ones for advanced users, or for server use. I would love that easy and visual comparison and would love to contribute if I knew what to look for aside from the typical "I liked it, install was quick".
My 4 cents
"I want to die peacefully in my sleep, just like my grandpa did. Unlike the passengers in his car at the time."
one thing i find is distro's such as mandrake/redhat/suse take much longer to startup than distros like slackware/debian/gentoo .. depending on how often you reboot/shutdown this may be a big issue (the longer-to-start distros drove me crazy, and you can only configure it by so much)
for some people they almost never reboot so this is not an issue
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
I find that every distro has it's problems and advantages. For example, gentoo has protage which I find is a easy system to install/update packeges. But it's install could get easier. Then RedHat (or Fedora). I quite like the RedHat Network (is it still up?), but it only gives you critical updates. But on the other hand, it is very easy to install.
Cheers,
RoadkillBunny
Just for reference, a "full" review would take up several thousand pages. Think about what's being reviewed - a full GNU/Linux distribution. Thousands of applications built atop a *NIX workalike. That's a lot of material to cover.
... well, I find most of the stuff OSNews puts out to be pretty crappy. Even if they're the only kids on the block who do regular distribution reviews, I wouldn't bother reading theirs.
;)
So, then, people will tend to focus on the more important things to users new to a given distribution. Which are also the things which tend to differ most from distribution to distribution. Installation, configuration, and applications (or rather, how recently the software included was released). If that isn't "interesting", then maybe you want a review catered to somebody who doesn't already use the software they mention? For instance, I wouldn't expect an MS Office 97 user to be interested in all the functionality that they're already using when reading a MS Office 2000 review.
As far as impartiality is concerned
Oh, right, and that's the other thing - in almost every case you don't need a review. You're not talking about plonking down $300USD for a distribution. In almost every case you can simply download and install the distribution your own damned self. The best review is the one you yourself write
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
congrats. I crammed suse 7.2 in 4mb of flash on an arm and it still did something useful afterwards.
Installing a Distro on multiple machines isn't all that makes a good review. Realizing limitations, general usability, and n00b factor are top priority. I would personally dig a review if it met the following requirements :
1) explanation of package management
2) default install choices
3) details regarding features, and screenshots of each
4) benchmarks of some sort..
5) security
6) perhaps loading a game up on it, just to see what kind of experience one would have with loading up (insert windows based game here)
7) history/background of distro, or company/group providing it
sounds like a decent review to me..
you want a table like those at distrowatch,
but that expands on the initial section, with (subjective) opinions on what each distribution excells at, has trouble with, is quirky about. in a tabel format so you can easily compare the major ones with each other.
does anyone know where such a thing already exists?
.
. hmmm
- Package management: How easy and painless is it to remove/add packages.
- Upgrades: Can I easily upgrade to the next version of the distribution without jumping through hoops or losing my precious data/configuration?
- Does the distribution focus on stability or features?
- Is there a stable and development branch so I can choose between stability and newer software?
- Support: If I have aproblem how easy is it to find someone who can help me?
- Documentation: How well are the distribution-specific tools documented?
- Tools: Are there command-line and gui tools for common (distribution-specific) tasks?
And a lot more I can't think of right now.I know it s a strech but how about AT least
kernel ver #
gcc ver #
xfree ver #
I really wont read one word more unless I see that in there.
I dont really care what wm it comes with & "drivers"
equate to time to make it work
and a nice install does not freze up with no console messages & and tetris still running
Darwin Enforcement Agent
It's official. Slashdot is dying.
Some would argue that Gentoo is a customised distro, because practically everything can be chosen and the bare install is *really* bare (although it has that dependency on Python, since most of its scripts are written in it.) You could use Gentoo's Catalyst to spin off many different LiveCD distributions, one which is a web server, one which is a desktop, one which is a gaming system, etc.
Although it would be much cooler if you could also use it to build every other distro. ;-)
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Eugenia will hurt you and then she make an ugly mock up and then a piss poor website redesign.
I'd like the review to include whether or not it's strictly free/open software of dependant on proprietary components.
One thing that few if any reviews, and few if any pieces of information supplied by the distribution, tell you is exactly what software is installed in a non-customized installation. They'll tell you what office suite they provide and that sort of thing, but I would like to know what you get in, say, a default workstation installation. My own gripe with Mandrake, for instance, is that the default workstation installation omitted all sorts of things that I wanted, including a lot of things whose omission surprised me. Granted, in some cases a custom installation may be necessary, but it would be nice to know when, and to be able to choose distributions in part on the basis of how much work it is to get the kind of software you need.
Don't focus on installing the GNU distro itself. Distros are mostly set apart by package management. A review should walk through installing a couple packages.
The only important difference in my mind is
well you can get and install third party software.
Like webbrowser plugins (java,pdf,mov)
Like comercial database (websphere,oracle)
Comercial developement tools (codewarrior,kylix)
etc etc etc..
Why does that matter? Every distro can package
the latest OS products just like every distro
already does, but third party software shows
how well accepted a distro is in the marketplace.
And shows that when you use distro "X" you
are getting more than just the typical slate
of opensource stuff.
This is a guide for Reviewers writing up a review the various distros:
Redhat: concentrate on how Redhat is becoming the Redmond of the linux world. Don't bother mentioning the massive contributions Redhat has made to open source software and linux.
Gentoo: concentrate on the long compile times needed to install this distro from stage 1. Write up a paragraph of lame jokes about said long build times and forget to mention this distro supports binary packages.
Mandrake: concentrate on how this distro is good for desktop installs. Then get all negative on how it installs far too many packages. Conclude that the recent monetary troubles make this a distro to pass.
Debian: concentrate on how out of date all its packages are. Briefly mention its great stability, the unstable trees, apt-get, the resistance of adding non-free packages into the base distro.
SuSE: concentrate on how this distros HQ is in Europe, like its some kind of revalation. Mention there is no downside to this distro and conclude that its only good for non-North American users.
Slackware: concentrate on the well laid out and trim system a Slack install is. Drop a bogus made up claim about how Slackware was the original distro the author installed and ran it for years before migrating to distro X.
...for the reviews in my journal, I specifically defined what I wanted it for (ability to play cartoons off of NTFS drive) and then went through the different distros to find one that works.
As soon as I manage to get enough time to write it, I'll be adding Java Desktop System to my list of reviewed Linux Distros.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
...flavours of linux. There are philosopical differences, but I would guess most people dont give a flying fuck... my analogy runs thusly:
:)
If you prefer a restaraunt meal, served up by chefs with their own ideas; you pick redhat or suse or whatever...
If you like to potter in the kitchen with "meals in a bag, just add vegetables", then use Debian...
If you like to spend 4 hours at the market choosing meat, vegetables and spices to cook your own killer meal to your taste; pick gentoo (gee, guess my bias
If you are a survivalist or a mad hippie who likes to farm it, grow it and kill it yourself; then slackware is the choice for you; this used to by my distro of choice...
But, like food, you need to try it yourself to see if you like it... reviews rarely help unless the reviewers come round and tear your tasting apparatus out of your head and jam it in their own before they go off to eat...
just my pointless $0.02...
err!
jak
"what sets distros apart?" indeed. This should be the focus of any such discussion. Yeah yeah, this distro has gwhatever at version 3.4.3, but this one only has 3.4.2. Bah. It's only a matter of time before you can update versions of software that you use.
... ...
The important thing is what's different with this distro than with everything else.
Gentoo, from source, custom built, portage.
Debian, follows open stuff strictly, wide range of archs, apt-get.
Knoppix, runs from a cd!
So long as said distro does standard things properly, (like install etc).
-Reid
You have to remember, most distribution reviews these days are done by people who weren't interested in Linux back in 1994 (my first distribution (trans-Ameritech)). None of these people ever compiled Linux on a 386/486. None of the reviewers know what OpenLook is.
I guess the broader question is what sets distros apart?
After numerous installs, the only one that gets my hardware right is SuSE (YaST). I don't have the time anymore to dick around with hardware settings. In other words, build your own Linux box if you want too. Use SuSE if you want it to work out of the box (I'm sure other readers will disagree). Out of the box solutions still suck. SuSE still allows me to select XFCE for the desktop or WindowMaker for my older laptop.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
Blast. Beat me to it. Distrowatch is good stuff though. I've used it before, and it does come up as the first hit on google when you google "linux distribution reviews" (a sensible search, if you ask me). However, the real problem with reviewing an OS is that it's tough to invision what everyone would be using it for, and so any review might only be useful to a small segment of the population. My advice would be to just find somebody who has it already on their computer, or plunk it onto one that you're not worried about if there are problems. Then you can make your own review, and decide for yourself. Sure, it takes a lot of work, but you're guaranteed that the review is accurate. Unless you're a filthy liar.
I once saw a
I should've got a screenshot.
1) Installation -- if there are any WTF options that need to be figured out by joe sixpack (partitioning?)...and any options that don't stick even after you explicitly select it.
2) Hardware autodetection -- this is part of the install but deserves its own spiel. Do I have to dig out the paperwork that came with my computer to find out that I have a ZXG9000 XT BFE3G whatchamahoozit card or can I trust that the distro can figure this out for me? Will the soundcard driver it selects from the few choices actually work or will it autodetect the wrong thing and make me have to change it later?
3) Included software -- does it stick with Mozilla or does it have Firefox and Thunderbird separate? Will it play MP3s out of the box? Will it do DVDs? (ha!) Does it include the latest and greatest of the absolutely needed software? Does it include some of the more obscure things that people MIGHT want and would like an easy install of? (Nessus, Blender, etc.)
4) Ease of use -- does it run "easy" pointy-clicky config tools or are people expected to vi their way through config files? How pointy-clicky is it? Do the GUI tools bork config files if they were previously edited by hand?
Do you get 500 items on the menus? Are they organized well or do you have to hunt through obscure sections to find what you're looking for?
Can you add software easily? Can you add fonts? Can you set up e-mail, web access, and word processing ASAP?
5) Underlying features -- does it run as root automatically or is it more secure than that? What version of the kernel? What version of everything, for that matter? Is it running SELinux? How compatible is it with the old distro you were running?
6) Talk about how Linux is getting better, how it's not quite there yet but almost. Gripe about certain killer apps that don't exist or aren't refined yet. Rag on Microsoft security and warn them that Linux is coming. Promise that year n+1 is the year of Desktop Linux
What sets them apart? .rpm, .deb, .tgz, or source packages; the end result is an installed application in any case.
1. The installer application: some are cryptic and text-based; some are graphical and helpful; some require almost no user interaction; all can be daunting to the uninitiated.
2. Kernel patches: Few distros provide a "vanilla" kernel; patches are used to support additional hardware devices; provide functionality not yet present in the vanilla kernel; address quirks of the software engineers; make each distro stand apart.
3. They use different versions of the gcc compiler and C libraries: the version-of the month-club; newer always equals better!
4. Differnet compilation optimizations: low optimizations to make it run on everything; high optimizations to gain bragging rights and performance.
5. Different packaging management:
6. Different eye candy, modified application defaults, varied application choices; to each his own and nothing you can't eventually do yourself.
7. Different design philosophies, build policies, quality assurance policies, target markets, language and cultural foci, political adgendas, an infinitum. No matter how many ways you cook an egg, it's still an egg.
8. Choice of init process: System V, BSD, or script-based will all get you to the same place in the end.
In the end, they all pretty much accomplish the same tasks. How they go about it (especially administrative tasks) differs, but the basics apply to all distros. Most differences are only as important as the current zealots want to make them, meaning that you can ignore them.
My advice is to try a few of the more poular distros and use the one that installs best (recognizes all you hardware and provides applications you want). Plenty of time - and choices - for later reflection. Above all, have fun.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
1) Feature bloat in the default kernel.
This is a big one to me. I absolutely hate patched up kernels that are really just jacked up kernels.
2) Helpfulness of the installer.
A minor point to me since you so rarely install a system, and if you isntall one regularly (say a server or something) you typically have some tool that allows you to do a mostly hand free install. Of course, lacking such an option is a turn off.
3) Advantages of the particular packaging system used.
No argument here.
4) Default security levels.
You really shouldn't leave anything at default security levels, but this is a good place to start I agree.
5) Detailed review of the hardware detection capabilities.
Why should this differ from distro to distro? Hardware detection is done by the kernel, and they are run pretty much the same kernel, unless it's one of those uber-patched piles of dung.
6) Is the graphical desktop logically arranged? Do the menus make sense, and do they make your life easier?
IME I haven't seen one that really wasn't, except for RedHat's bluecurve. For the most part the window managers and DEs get the menus right. A distro that doesn't screw around here gets it right too.
7) An important one: how easy is it to reliably upgrade to the distro from an earlier version?
This is of prime importance for some distros, and not so prime for others. Case in point. Administering a RedHat 7.2 machine today is a big pain in the ass. It's even worse for the 6.2 machine I have to mess with. Adminstering a Slackware 8.0 machine or 7.1 though, is pretty damn easy, including rolling your own security updates from source code. It's just not that big an issue.
Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
I have seen quite a few distro reviews, and most of them start with either "the graphical installer is nice" or "there's no graphic installer!".
:)
Followed by:
Debian doesn't currently have a pretty graphical installer
Guess you just proved your own point.
I wrote about this some time back, in "It's All in the Packaging". Of course, it was written before there was a Gentoo. Gentoo has policies but not (particularly) packages, yet similar considerations apply.
I kept hearing about other distros so when I got a new HD, I created several partitions on my old hard to test several of them. While you can read about things from reviews, trying each one for a week or so does give you a feel for a difference.
The ones I tried were Redhat 9, Mandrake 9.1, Suse 8.2 and Debian Woody. Two other distros I'm curious about but won't probably ever install are slackware and gentoo. It just sounds like they like things more minimalistic than me (just get that feeling of it sounds difficult).
The install is often mentioned because unlike windows, it's not preinstalled. And if you can't install it, then you can't use it! Debian has the hardest install of them by far. I have tested the new Sarge installer and it's much better, but still more difficult than the other distros. Suse required FTP install since I didn't have the boxed set for any but I could download the latest Mandrake and Redhat ISOs.
Second main factor is default interface. Redhat uses GNOME while the other three go with KDE. While there are some things I like about gnome, I'm a KDE guy and I just feel out of place with Redhat. That's a very subjective thing. personally, I don't mind running gnome apps in KDE or vice versa, but running in KDE just feels more comfortable with me. Recently, I had to use a friend's Fedora core 1 which didn't have KDE and I felt so lost. Gnome's terminal is different enough (especially shortcuts) that I was unproductive. I couldn't figure out how to sftp folders when I'm so used to using fish and the windows explorer like interface through Konqueror. I'm sure there are equally effective methods in each interface, but I find one more comfortable than another and you can only learn your preference through experience.
The third main factor is package management. This probably may be more important than #2, but with the advancements in each system, it may be more of a wash. I used to be accustomed to Redhat's Package Manager (RPMs). I hadn't experimented too much with urpmi (in Mandrake) so I used rpms for mandrake as well. Suse has YAST (which is more of a control center as well) which was easier than both. Debian has apt-get method.
Rpms are often better than just get source and compiling but sometimes you have dependency problems and you cant find versions you're looking for or they conflict. I hear that Redhat and Mandrake have improved their handling of this and is easy as apt-get. In Debian, there are package repositories. You can tell the computer where to look (there are defaults) and it gets a list of possible applications. You can do apt-get (or use the graphical version through Synaptic) and install any app there. The program handles dependencies and tells you what else it needs and asks if it's okay to install them. Suse also uses rpms, but through YAST, it gave a synaptic like interface and allowed you to install from ftp apps. It is fairly easy to search for apps through categories or search by name/description.
Rpms have the benefit that they're popular and if you have problems, you can tend to find others that have had the problem and solved them. In Mandrake, I didn't like how it often felt that some place would allow rpm download, but sometimes there would be a conflict and I'd need to find the rpm-mdk version. I believe if you are part of Mandrak-club or whatever, you can more easily download newer apps or maybe the same with urpmi.
I started flirting with linux around Redhat 5.2. I mostly stayed testing with them until Mandrake 7.2. I decided to test the distros last fall and I'm sure my previous experiences bias my preferences somewhat. Given what I was used to with Red Hat and Mandrake, I didn't experiment with them as much as I did with SuSE and Debian and came away more impressed by the latter.
The fourth main factor is system administration. I know Mandrake as its Control Center and SuSE has YAST, but I'm not sure of anything for Debian or Redhat. Well, I used linuxconf, but I wonder if
In times like these, it is helpful to remember that there have always been times like these. - Paul Harvey
Recipe for happy living in the free software world.
Do not ever visit osnews.com. It is run by someone who does not believe in free speech, someone who randomly deletes the posts of those that she does not like, someone who calls anyone who defends free software a zealot or a fanboy.
In fact, that is the apix of her reasoning power, fanboy and zealot. When she hits a logic wall that she cannot overcome, you will hear it.
Every minute that I used to spend in that place I have now devoted it to working with the folks at Mialug. We have all made a pledge to not engage in needless distribution warfare or senseless dicussions at places like OSNews.com
For all its problems, Slashdot has remained sensible thanks to its moderation system. Clearly, it has its faults but it assures a certain balance in the opinions of posters and it has a far larger democratic appeal for me.
Ps: I am glad that someone had the courage to name by name a site that spouts so much hatred and confusion towards the open source community. Yeah, occasionally there is a useful article, but when you really see Eugenia's true colors shine, you know that she is no friend of ours.
Most Linux distro reviews I've seen go like this:
To review a distro properly, you need to use it for at least a month, IMHO. You need enough time to discover that security updates are a pain to install. Enough time to find out that installing third party packages is impossible because the distro uses a beta version of GCC.
In other words, you need to give more than first impressions: anyone can do that, and it's not terribly helpful.
Pretend that something especially witty is here. Thanks.
One of the most common sources of silly arguments between my linux newbie friends is which distro is "better", whether at a particular task such as installing new software or just in general. Most of the arguments are pointless to someone who understands Linux well. One of the best things about Linux (IMHO) is that you can choose a distro that does mostly everything for you, or a distro that expects you to know what you're doing in return for more involvement in the way the system works. I use both depending on the project at hand.. for example I choose a different distro if I'm building a webserver for a customer than I would use on my personal workstation. When it comes down to it, a sufficiently skilled Linux hacker can make any distro do anything any other distro does. This reduces most valid comparisons to "what tools does distro A provide that make it easier to do X than the tools that distro B provides, and how difficult would it be to just add those tools to distro B." In the end, I think people who really love and know Linux can make any distro into an environment they can thrive in, and those who chose to accept whatever enviroment is provided will always find a reason to switch to yet another distro. Maybe the most revealing reviews would be of the reviewers themselves then, and not the distros?
-Lod
I do agree with OP on the question of the reviews of distros. Even the reviews are good in terms of the distro in particular, they lack the targetting of specific groups. For example, something like, Shrike review for developers. Shrike does install the gtk libraries, but there *seems* to be no IDE like Anjuta. And if you want to listen to your favourite mp3s, well sorry folks, mp3 support is removed bcoz of the patent problems...yada yada yada. Or something like Shrike review for grandma. If you want to listen to songs (the files with .mp3 extensions) then you will need to use the xmms player from Guru labs. And if you want to connect to the new digi-cam that you bought..well..yada yada..
I think reviews like these would be more helpful.
Then this company should have gotten more of a nod then.
They're even getting into the small server market.
From the reviews I've currently read all distros seem pretty much the same
That's because they are. Really there are only about 3 types of distros: those like redhat, those like debian, and those like gentoo.
Declare Gentoo the winner.
YES! I WIN!
comes down to these factors.
Clarity of the install. An installer need not be graphical to be clear. Remember Red Hat's old installer? Not graphical, but clear and easy to use.
Initial setup of hardware. Mandrake does a bang up job of detecting and setting up your hardware. Red Hat did a great job of detecting my hardware as well. Slackware couldn't even set up my USB keyboard.
Install/Upgrading of packages. The first time you run into an issue of dependency that goes more than 5 or 6 levels deep, you'll HATE life. And when you hit lib hell you'll want to murder someone.
After you take the time to get the machine up and running the way you like it, most distros are not much different. (sure different distros put config files and whatnot in different places)
I guess the point comes down to what you want to do. If you want to learn as much as possible and *NIX, use Slackware. If you want to get set up quickly and easily, use Mandrake. If you want to keep your packages as current as possible, use Debian. If you want all of your software to be tuned to your hardware, use Gentoo. If you need something more specialized, look into one of the more specialized distros.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Are there actually any distributions other than Debian which make this [anal] distinction?
I mean the current issue at least for recent desktop machines, is that you probably can't play any games without installing at least one proprietary component.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Why are are good distro reviews so few and far between?
Well, since everybody says every other distro than the one they use sucks, doesn't that mean they all suck and therefore there can't be any good reviews???
I've used Slackware, Redhat, Mandrake, Debian, and Gentoo. The easiest way to differentiate any distribution from another is by the way it installs software packages for you.
RPM drove me to madness. I like to stay current. Source packages allow you to get better *free* support via mailing lists and forums. Can you guess which distro I run with now?
Yeah okay so it's a shameless plug, but I really do listen when readers have corrections or requests, and I work really hard to make my site as excellent as I can.
Lots of my reviews have made Slashdot, and I can tell you that no matter how good you are, people are going to complain that you didn't accomodate them. Generally I offer to run tests for people if they request it, thereby eliminating some of the griping and as an intentional side-effect, it helps people in the process.
I agree; most reviews suck. That's why I started my own site. I could really use the traffic, so why don't you at least come by and check it out? www.thejemreport.com
I have reviews of various versions of many Unix OSes: Solaris, FreeBSD, GNU/Linux (Gentoo, Lindows, SuSE) and a lot of software for x86. More are on the way, as always.
If you think my reviews suck and tell me about it (specifically), I'll do my best to edit the review or improve future reviews.
-Jem"And when do you think Carmen will 'open up her flower' to you?"
"Tonight. Or I will kill her."
Yes, RedHat Fedora makes that decision. It annoyed me to no end that I couldn't read my NTFS drive so I could play my kid's videos. Even worse, you can't play an MP3 file! The really screwed up part is that there's nothing "non-free" about the NTFS drivers. RedHat seems to be scared of some "IP" boogeyman that's going to sue RedHat for distributing legally reverse engineered wares. Go figure.
If you want the full review, it's here. Reviews for Mandrake and SuSE are also in my journal. Hopefully I'll have time to do a writeup of Java Desktop System very soon here.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
here is what i would add to most reviews the installation from source of a window manager, then try to setup X to use it ... this can be a pain sometimes, or it can be as simple as a .xinitrc script
also a way to do this would be to install a newer version of a package (from source prefereably) ontop of the system
"but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
I know there is a general dislike for Linspire on Slashdot, but I must say that if I had to give a total noob a linux distro, it would be Linspire.
/etc/apt/sources.list, and get your apt-get on.
Why?
* The installer (although very limited in versatility) is incredibly simple.
* There are nice tutorials to guide a user around the system upon the first bootup. This is something that is very often ignored (correct me if I'm wrong). Most distros, even the noob ones, just plunk you onto the desktop after an install. How is a noob going to know what to do or what is available for them? Linspire has some very nice audio/visual tutorials explaining the ins and outs of the system and what might be useful for the user.
* CNR - Click and Run is the bane of hardcore linux geeks everywhere, but it is actually quite a nice system, and your $5 a month gets you some great features. Not only do you get access to the standard open source software packages (without fear of compatibility issues), you get discounts on several commerical products as well. Plus, you can set up "aisles", making any reinstalls a breeze. CNR gives even the nooobiest of noobs an easy way to take advantage of the benefits of great pacakage management, without the fear of breaking anything.
And if you don't want to pay for CNR, you just need to uncomment a couple lines in
Fact 1: To adequately judge a distro, one must run it in at least moderate use for an extended period of time.
Fact 2: The minute a new distro is released, people want reviews of it.
It should not be hard to see how Facts 1 and 2 are perpetually at odds.
There is at least one person using any given distribution. (Except maybe Caldera. (Even then.))
If they like it, they recommend it. "Peer review", to coin a phrase...
I'd agree that it's a good question to be raised, but I have this only notion to ponder about: Debian. Debian is released on 10+ platforms. If you do a review for each Debian release, you'd have to at least multiply that review by at least 10+ times just so you can cover all the basis for the distribution branch for each platform.
Just thinking about the scope of that review to me seems incredibly daunting. With that in mind, we wonder why Debian is released in such a slow fashion? Well, I guess we answered our own question.
Though, it would be really a wonderful feat to read the 10+ reviews for each of the platform that the next build of Debian. If anything, the community of readers of the review would be enlightened in the ways/manifesto of the platform that each review was for. Not everyday you read about a PPC68k or ARM review of linux. Well, at least I know I haven't come across them.
So who is going to take on this incredible feat?
Slackware: We tarballed top rated stuff on freshmeat.
Gentoo: We tarballed the internet
Mandrake: We merged hanna barbara and linux.
SUSE: We are not American,, oh, wait..shiza!
Red Hat: If you have to ask, you can't afford it peasant!
Debian: Linus died for your sins you insensitive clod!
Fedora: HAHA this idiot threw away a perfectly good sandwich, want a bite?
This isn't a troll, I just don't think there is as much seperating these distro's as the zealots would like you to beleive. We are almost never encouraged to change from technical merrit. (It's got apt/yast/emerge is not good enough.)
I am for 1 distro, either Fedora or Debian (free as in everything)Great package management, multi-arch support, etc.
And two enterprise distro's Red Hat/SUSE throw everything else away and lets work together.
Why use slackware, its cool name and geek status? stupid...
Why use gentoo, you get 0.03 faster mozilla start time? Not worth losing half of developers who could be helping fedora/debian
Why use Mandrake? Perhaps I shouldn't comment on this, my opinion of it is not very high.
Redhat is the jock of linux distributions. It gets all the women and all the money.
Fedora is the younger brother of Redhat, who is trying to be like his older brother but is awkward with women and mostly living in his brother's shadow. When other OSes come over to visit they pretend they're there to borrow Fedora's features but they're really eyeing Redhat.
Gentoo is the old man next door who keeps talking about how great things were in his day and insists on taking his 30 year old bicycle to buy a loaf of bread from the exact same store at 7 AM each and every day.
Debian is the extreme left-wing version of Gentoo. He pretends he isn't anything like Gentoo but most observers see otherwise.
Mandrake is the quiet neighbour next door that you find out went on a shooting spree overnight.
Slackware is the Sunset Boulevard of distributions. Getting up there in age, but still very attractive to those who knew Slackware when it was younger.
Knoppix is the pimp of distributions -- very flashy and loud.
LinuxOne is the guy at the flea markets who sells burned PS2 DVDs.
If reviewers would admit this then we could all go on with our lives.
All distributions can be for the "power user" What makes them different is availability of compiled binarys, and if they are not available then you can compile from source... which all power users can do anyway.
regards
dbcad7
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
5) Detailed review of the hardware detection capabilities.
Why should this differ from distro to distro? Hardware detection is done by the kernel, and they are run pretty much the same kernel, unless it's one of those uber-patched piles of dung.
On the contrary - the kernel has minimal responsibility for hardware detection. That's the realm of userspace software like hotplug, and the major distros don't all handle it in the same way.
if you got the $$$ and the inclination... OS X.
Well, to Debian users anything released in the last four years looks like bleeding edge...
Since most everyone who uses a computer is using it to get things done, most distro reviews end pretty quickly because there aren't any desktop apps to torture test with. Most major news sources test audio, video, graphics, games, and word processor suites to gauge the seamlessness or work flow of the OS. Linux doesn't really have any serious average-person work apps yet. While the OS might be solid and getting nicer to look at all the reviews end on that anti-climax as the article writer pointed out. It's like reviewing a nice new car that has no tires- you just sit there waiting until the tires arrive to drive it.
Read any reputable site's Mac or Windows review and you'll see that they're concerned with how easy it is to get programs to work together and to get work done easily and quickly. Heck, even Windows has the menus pretty much sorted out and it will run for weeks if you don't launch anything... that's not why people use it.
I was just going to ask the same question. I'm wondering if all the reviews are the same because all linux distros are the same? .. Everything works except for a few things, which is conveniently blamed on hardware manufacturers for not open sourcing all the hardware so places in Taiwan can't make a knock off version for 1/10th the price and put them out of business. Go figure, I think these companies just have a bad attitude.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Many people will spit and hate because of the stuff you've said but mostly because they know it's true, the apps might be good enough for geeks but geeks don't drive the real market we're too small.
Does anybody else remember the dukeofurl? I used to love reading that site. It had some of the best distro reviews IMHO. I learned a lot reading the various articles and things posted there. It helped me to graduate from the newbie state rather painlessly.
100 posts for me. Yay.
t00t t00t
Rate each of those 7 and you'll have a nice index for each distro you rank.
All's true that is mistrusted
Compare to Windows- Installation sucks
When was the last time you tried to install fedora, suse, or mandrake? Maybe it's just me, but the last time I tried to install any of these the install was FAR easier and faster then even the XP install.
First, there's no 25 character product key you need to enter (after you find the key hidden on the bottom of the machine already installed under your desk). I honestly find the fedora install much more intuitive then the XP install, and the funny thing is, is that fedora (or any other distro) doesn't just install the OS. It installs pretty much ALL of the applications you will need to use.
The XP install includes the OS, a primitive browser, a DRM'd media player, and a very vulnerable web server. After that you still have to spend 5 hours installing graphics programs, an office suite, anti-virus, security patches, etc.
So I might agree with you on some of your other points. But the windows install is by no means better than the linux install.
Just like when you review meatspace companies, you really can't tell what they are like until everything goes tits up. Most flag carrier airlines seem largely the same, but when you get stuck with a long delay and British Airways give you $5 for dinner in an airport, whereas Lufthansa give you a hotel room and $35 for dinner anywhere you choose - you can tell the difference.
Similarly my preference for distro choices is based on "how easily i can fix it when i fuck it up". I've screwed up mandrakes package database and it became impossible to install rpms - i never did fix that.
Gentoo is a pain in the ass if you want to add specific patches to an application that they already have in portage - I'm sure it *can* be done, it's just not easy.
All distros work well if you use them the way the distributor intended - but straying outside that is usually the best test for powerusers.
For a new user, I'd recommend they use the same distro their friends have got working. If they don't know what they're looking for (configuration wise), users need someone to point them in the right direction.
While Mandrake, SuSE, and Fedora all have nice admin tools for the basics, they aren't identical. If your neighbour knows how to get DSL working with SuSE, don't get Mandrake just because someone says it's "better". They're all similar enough that a typical desktop user will find equally useful on a day-to-day basis.
I have reasons for preferring SuSE, but I usually recommend Mandrake to new users. My reasons for choosing SuSE aren't based on a desktop user's priorities. If they were, I'd be running Mandrake myself.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Surly you haven't tried running.... I dunno v2OS while being a Zorastrian
They're biased, they're anecdotal, they're worthless.
Just GOOGLE and read the descriptions of the distro's basic components, package management, general community assessment (this one is for power users, this one is for clueless Windows users, this one had better hardware detection, this one has...), pick some and look at their lists of included software (IF you have a clue what any of those package names mean or what they do - more Google).
You have CHOICE with Linux - but nobody said choice was EASY!
You want easy - wait two or three more years and buy all new hardware, then install Microsoft Longhorn.
You'll never be able to buy another OS forever - because you'll be locked in to Microsoft.
Have a nice day.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Are the one's you do yourself. No-one knows what you want, except for you.
Does the user come from Windows (9x or NT), from Mac OS (9 or X) or directly from some other Linux distribution. What are the expectations of these different users? Does the user know what a command line is? Etc.
I never saw a review that gave a certain appreciation (or rating) for a certain type of user...
I tell you one thing that could be left out of just about every distro review...the inevitable "For some reason, they included application XYZ instead of my personal favorite, application ZYX." If someone knows enough about Linux to realize that they prefer GAIM, or hate GAIM, then they probably know enough about Linux to install or remove whatever they desire.
With Windows you don't have all this complex "distro" review process. What sort of creepy non-mainstream people frequent this website? distros? debian? this is gibberish, seriously? -Special Windows User
We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
When reviewing a Linux Distro grade it it based on what the Distro Maker says its strong points are and what jobs it is said to do better. Some Distros are made to be Windows Replacements, Then in this case compare it to Windows check to see how well it handles different drivers and auto detection of hardware. As Well Install ease and ease of use for common everyday actions including but not limited to. Conecting to the internet (including Dialup) Generic Web Browsing compatibility (Does Mozilla have flash installed) Does sound work, Can they view different types of media files and movies, Is the office suit installed configured correctly. Are upgrades easy.
But if you are comparing a Disto that is meant to be a server then see how easy it is to enable the server tools like apache, SQL, LDAP, Email. How easy it is to manage the services and configure them.
Running a Server Linux Distro and saying this Distro Sucks because it didn't find your sound card. Is really unfairly rating it because in a server sound support is usually not much of a priority. And vice versa for a Desktop Distro saying that it is weak in configuring a SQL Server.
As well don't be afraid to say the Distro is bad just as long as you point out it is the Distro and not Linux itself. Just because it is a Linux distro it doesn't always makes it good. Don't be afraid to point out its weak points when they are relevant to the distro, use. Look for annoying things like links to programs that are not installed if it offers support check it out to see its quality, Check to see if it can be easily braked. See if there are a good set of libraries installed so you can compile and run most application.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I read different reviews of any open source software for different reasons, normally separated by source type.
So for instance, if you want to consider usability go to standard business sources (eWeek comes to mind). If you want the finer technical points (sysadminish stuff) go to the Linux user community... or sites meant for them such as Slashdot or similar sites.
I do think the community driven sites, the ones that most frequently review open source products, tend to focus too much on installation ease and not enough on the ease of use or application side of the equation (meaning finished products.)
I think one of the problems of getting Linux out of the data center and onto the desktops is that to this day it is mainly a developers and sysadmins tool. And the development tends to cater to these audiences, not so much to end users that continue to call their computer their 'hard drive'.
Cheers,
SCB
Cheers!
SCB
OpenBSD. Theo's hard-line open source policy keeps even GPLed code out of the kernal, and out of userland as much as possible.
Add in unparalleled documentation and security, and I think your quest for the best Open-Source OS distribution is over :-)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
re 1): feature bloat in the kernel? That might be excellent for a desktop, actually. Memory is abundant enough not to worry, never mind that the features usually are modules.
What I'm missing is a look at general usability. I remember when the backspace and delete keys would work differently depending on the situation (xterm versus gnome-terminal versus console)... a distro should fix problems like that, IMO. Just collecting software is not enough.
Man oh man, I just got KDE on fink (under OS X), here are my impressions so far:
- finkcommander is pretty good, it does just what it says it does and makes finding and installing OSS on OS X a bit less painful.
- information on installation of OSS in general just sucks. Meaning, it's written for people who probably already know how to install it, and the effort would have been better spent in making a better installer, but as this is a common complaint, generally accompanied by replies like "you know nothing bonehead and I'm l33t" I won't go into that...
- KDE under X11, well, it looks pretty, the startup, the first screen, but then everything freezes and I have to quit X11.
So sadly, I don't even have driver problems to report...
Apart from that, I'd say this is just the kind of review this poster was complaining about... mmmmmm, coincidence?
(hey, I warned you it was off topic)
I think, therefore I am...I think.
4) Default security levels.
For me it's crucial to have a healthy server. Let's take OpenBSD, you have under 10 processes in the default install. And practically any dangerous setting is turned off. It's really effort less to install stuff, just turn on what you want. If the default install is not enough for you, then it might have some security concerns. It's so easy to start from a blank page. Ditto for Gentoo, but OpenBSD installs in just 10 minutes, including partitioning and network configuration. I don't know about Slackware, tough.
Now, compare that to RH 7.2 (which was the last version I've installed). I stopped using it because it took me 1h 30m to get an install without adding XFree86! Never mind the amount of unsafe processes running by default. Mandrake was a bit better but was so unprofessional and full of bugs that I've given up.
Ok, this might seem like a biased view of a server admin, but the truth is that security is being _the_ hot topic this last few years.
pick a kernel.. choose your apps.. its all the same.
yawn.. move along.. nothing but boredom here.
GO FLAMES GO
Calgary is going all the way to the cup !!!!!
The new installer will support PPPoE, the problem has been a lack of manpower to do so more than it being too obscure. There is basic support for it in the newest beta of the installer, but it's very basic and I'm not sure if it even works right now. Once again, the problem is lack of manpower to work on the damn thing. If you want to help us out, it'd be much appreciated, we could certaintly use it.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
nerd politics.
To minimize nerd politics, go with BSD. In general there isn't as much zealotry going on in BSD movement.
Plus it's a solid operating system that provides you with over 10,000 ports that just work. 'make install clean' and *BANG* your done.
Give me a break, everybody knows, just freshmeat up what you need and install the friggin' rpm. It's painless, shit if you install apt-get and throw in the plf sources you can probably install it right there - I know the xmms-mp3 plugin was available that way. I never did have any problems with ntfs, so I can't help you with that, but I am sure it is just as trivial.
ymmv
Just out of curiosity, but why isn't hardware detection part of the kernel? If it were all of the distros wouldn't have to recreate different hardware detection and it isn't something like a desktop environment or an editor where people will want it to work a certain way. Its something that could easily be standardized once its in the kernel, no? --HC
So I'm jump'n up and down screaming show me the money.
Not to mention having to beat messenger with a club to kill it. Uggghhh I hate using ie long enough to install firefox - wish windows had apt-get. The updates are the worse. Install service pack, reboot, install open GL, reboot, ie 6 service pack, reboot, install the rest of the critical updates -ugggh. apt and urpmi does it in a single command, and mandrake will prompt you for updates after the install. I love setting my weekly cron for security updates and just leave it be for the most part. The linux install is much easier, just not as pretty and without the background music.
ymmv
should not review the software that comes with it - it should be focused around what is unique to that distribution. Let me explain a bit more:
There's linux. There's a kernel. Then there's a bunch of other software out there, like openoffice, xmms, eclipse, ad nauseum. Just about every distribution comes with the same basic set of software. Reviews certainly should assess whether it works on all sorts of hardware, whether tricks need to be made for raid to work, and if applications are in spots that make sense (OpenOffice.org under Productivity or somesuch instead of under CoffeeBeans in the KlutterDE menu).
However, the first and foremost item that should be reviewed: what makes this distribution different from the plethora of other distributions, and does this exalted feature work as specified? Gentoo's emerge. Debian's apt-get. Lindows' litigation magnet. To this -day- I do not know what makes RedHat preferable to Mandrake in terms of feature set, and RedHat's main offices are not ten miles from my house. I know that RPMs are a pain in the butt to work with, and that with a few tricks just about any other distribution can use them - so what makes it tick? Every once and a while I hear something float around about it being more stable: compared to a self-built slackware machine? compared to an optimized Gentoo build?
That's what a review should focus on: what (if anything) a distribution can deliver that no other distribution can. And if it can't, tell the reader that it doesn't. That's what I look for in other reviews (will this book actually cover what I need to know? does it provide a unique entertainment value? what makes this game stand out from the other games just like it, and is it good or bad features that make it stand out?), and truly what needs to be covered in distribution reviews. If it's ease of use, I want comparative studies with noobs. If it's stability, I want comparative studies with expert installs of other distributions. If it's package delivering tools, I want it compared. First and foremost do I want features to be compared: because even if they run, if they don't run as good as something else... why should I be running it?
Erm, Dear, did you just call me an "average idiot user" on Slashdot?
No sex tonight-
Mrs. fucksl4shd0t
I have found that distros do difference themselves pretty much. Especially those who have a different inheritance like slackware/gentoo/redhat etc. What i find most different between them is how easy it is to install applications, stability and how easy it is to setup things. A good review should look into theese things and the one diong the review must use the dist for atleast longer than it takes to install it.
HTTP/1.1 400
I like Slackware. It's not pretty, but on a brand new machine, it took just about 30 minutes to install, and I was done. Even with adding programs in that I wanted, it was about 45 minutes total.
:( But, it does crash very well after a bit of game play. I suspect problems with the software, not Windows, in this case.
With WinXP home (same machine), I had to find a floppy disk to make a driver disk to allow me to install onto the SATA hard drive (the only drive), then it took roughly two hours to do the full install, and then another 4 hours to do the service packs to get it to a stable position. Then there was adding in programs to get it to basic functionality.
And before anyone throws cost of ownership, ummm, Slackware was free. Well, I paid for the CD's, but that was nothing compared to buying WinXP.
The beginning of the WinXP is anything but pretty. It's the same text (with some colors) interface that WinNT used.. Amazing. State of the f***in' art..
I've installed plenty of other distros too. Very pretty installers, that all work. I've only hit the rare error, but nothing compared to the last WinXP install that I did. 5 minutes in, for the first couple tries, and then it stops because it doesn't believe there's a hard drive in the machine..
Freakin' SATA. It's been out for a few days now, maybe someone at Microsoft has heard of it. {sigh} Ok, I'll be willing to say that maybe it was the controller, but hey, it's a name brand controller, built into a name brand motherboard, and hey, Linux saw it. Linux, you know, the one Microsoft bashes for being just a bunch of hobbiests doing it. Well, why can the hobbiests do what the multi-billion company can't??
I tried to install the same copy of XP on the *SAME* machine, into a VMWare virtual machine (booted to Linux). Nope, no-go.. I know, it looks like a different machine.. But, why? Because I may be an evil software pirate? Or I may be Joe-user who changed his mind about the hardware I was installing, and swapped it all around.. I've been known to build a machine, and when I'm done, swap video and sound cards, or even motherboards. Oh, no, that's not permissible in the wonderful world of Microsoft. I have to call and ask for permission if I do that. I opted to *NOT* call Microsoft, and beg for permission to use software I paid for in a perfectly legitimate fashion. I installed an old copy of Win98, which is no longer used on any PC's here (*MY* copy, that *I* paid for), which doesn't bitch, and threaten to not work if I don't pay for extra licenses.
This particular machine happens to be my girlfriend's machine. She wanted Windows, so she could play "The Sims". I have to honestly say, Slackware ran a whole lot faster than XP, and this isn't a slow machine. AMD 2800+, 1GB ram, 200GB SATA drive. If only we could get game companies to recognize Linux is better, faster, and more stable, she wouldn't have even wanted Windows.
And, no, "The Sims" doesn't work under wine.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I read your post and then wrote this article to try to fill that gap.
If you still have questions, let me know how I can improve it.
-Jem2. Make sure you are _qualified_ to write the review. This should involve some formal educational background in usability engineering at the very least. No one's interested in uninformed opinions.
...or is there some twisted irony in this comment being on slashdot.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
For a buisness, a big name backing the distro means alot. It doesn't mean that "SkippysLinux" can't do everything that they can, it's just they won't be perceived as a "professional" distribution and will not be purchased to run a buisness.
For the average home user, ease of install, and a large base of easy to install programs means more. the help forums mean more as well.. (face it "good" distro support by vendor not gonna happen, even with the big boys, and,, MS is included !) And everyone wants games. some distros support this better. but again it CAN be done on ANY distro.
Any distro can be made to work for any user. You install, and remove programs. tweak it, upgrade this and that.. put in your own background, and system sounds. get the programs you want running. And you will be a happy camper, shouting to the world that the distro you use is the best !
regards
dbcad7
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
My cflags are so fucking hot that all my friends cum in their pants when I do the following:
uber@uber$> echo $CFAGS ...
seriously though, you think i'm kiding, but they splooge their undies when i tell them about the sweet emerge commands i use to update my whole system. When I say spooge, i really mean splooyge. And when I say update, i really ream update. Like fucking "emerge -uD world" does the ho shi man! there's nothing like hivin the hoe system compiled for yo own sweet hardwear!
For example, if you're reviewing a distro that's explicitly aimed solely at the corporate desktop, don't for Christ's sake say something like:
Don't let this happen to you!
Google confirms: Ruby is the world's most beloved programm
1. Package management
This is the essence of a distro. Binary, source; deb, rpm, ports, ebuilds, tar.gz; dependancy handling...
2. Config handling
Possibly related to package management. How are config files updated? Does the distro provide tools that do this "automagically", or does it leave it up to the user? Does it try to hide config files from the user? Does it use revision control?
3. Init and other scripts
What kind of init scripts are there? What other utility/configuration/whatever scripts are there?
4. Package availability
Are there a lot of packages available? Are packages easy to create yourself?
5. Community and support
Are there active forums, chats, etc? Is pay support available?
----
All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
But face it, Linux doesn't come preinstalled. Those who are inclined to try Linux, are usually powerusers themselves and probably wouldn't go to anyone else to make them install it.
Yes, a system that works 100% perfectly, you should hardly ever spend time in the installer again. But did you get it right in the installer? Was there some hardware that plain old doesn't work? Questions you got that you couldn't answer? Or unecessary questions?
Administrating the system is certainly important, once you get it to a usable system that is in "admin" mode, not "I need to tinker with this another week to get everything working" mode. But for many people, the biggest problem is to get there...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The kernel can spit out a list of your hardware, and it can load most of the right drivers, but I think he's talking about automatic configuration.
That means probing your hardware and automatically generating XF86Config, detecting apm and/or acpi support and installing the right daemon, etc.
Some distros do it, some don't, and some do it better than others.
-- . . ramblin' . . .
i've read your reviews..but i wonder: do you really expect that an install doesn't lookup if you use cdrws? There is a lot of hardware that cannot handle this correctly...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I recently upgraded my machine, and guess which OS decided it had a new mouse, router, motherboard, etc? That's right, Windows did. (I gave it a new CPU) It destroyed my network settings, whilst Linux just carried on, but a lot faster.
So for those who complain that Linux doesn't support hardware as well as windows - you've been proved wrong. Games developers seriously need to think about this, because Linux is overtaking windows - fast.
im in ur
Wha..?!!
Windows; comes with a swiss-cheese browser and mail app, an IM client that will not go the fuck AWAY, a media player that can't play most video clips without a codec download, and eight crappy games, of which four existed in windows 3.11.
Oh.. and no firewall. You have about 30 seconds on average to download one before you get infected by the worm-of-the-week.
Linux; most distros install by default; mozilla, evolution, xmms, mplayer, openoffice, at least 5 other 'office' type applications (three word-processors, a spreadsheet, etc), gimp, about 30 crappy games, frozen bubble, tux racing, cd ripping and burning software, a bunch of different IM and IRC clients.. yada yada yada, and that's just the default install. Feel free to add the full 'developer' environment for 20 different programming languades, servers for everything from http to network tamagochi, and god-knows what else.
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
Some distros don't support loading drivers and software too well - so much so that I've changed distros to do what I needed.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
There is a way to get the sims to work under Linux. At least Mandrake managed to do it, they even shipped a ver of Mandrake with the Sims for a while there. You might want to see if you can find out what they did. Of course it's possible some change in wine or some other lib broke it, or one of the sims add-ons if you were using those.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
A bloated kernel is one thing. Building a full-featured kernel is bad, because it'll make the image become ten megs big.
Therefore, someone invented - hold on - modules! Hooray. With modules, you can dynamically load and unload kernel features to memory. Some of them require hooks in the kernel, but they are few and small.
I thought this was old news. Feature bloat is a -nescessity- for larger systems that are supposed to run by default on many systems. If you haven't noticed, even these systems like Mandrake provide different kernels for different systems, where you cannot modularize things - like SMP and >4gb mem support.
I'm wondering how you think Microsoft could possibly support hardware (SATA) that came out after XP was released on the boot CD. Likewise, I can't use a 2001 Redhat/Debian/SuSE/whatever CD to install onto a SATA drive. Be happy they at least included a way to load the drivers for new/non-standard storage hardware during the intial install.
The only advantage of linux in this case is more frequent updates, nothing more.
And frankly, if it took you 4 hours to install the "service packs," all one of them, you either have no idea what you're doing or a slow connection, neither of which are Microsoft's responsibility.
I'm all for pointing out real problems with MS and Windows, but lets stick to real problems, or we all just look like zealous idiots.
Sorry but I had to comment on this one.
I've installed Mandrake 10 on two different machines and started to use it. Very pleased with the setup, the auto configuration and the selection of applications. Also I've noticed quite of a speed increase over 9.2, due to KDE 3.2 and/or kernel 2.6.
However, what you'll inmediately notice is that if you plug a USB disk, a nice icon appears in the desktop. Just unplug it and plug another one. You cannot mount it!!!!.
None of the reviews I've read mentions that, and is what has made me revert to 9.2 again. For me, this sepaks very badly of the amount of time that reviewers have spent with this distro.
--
Lost the URL, anyone know of it? It also had good and reasoned discussions of Emacs contra vi...
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
I run Windows XP on a 900 Mhz Athlon with 704mb PC 133 RAM and 64 Mb graphics card and it works a treat.
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
XP comes with a firewall. I make no claims to its security, but it is there.
To be blunt... The single biggest difference between all distros is whos ego each install of the distro satisfies.
Of course you can look at any two distros and say "look, A-Distro uses RPM but AD-istro uses DEB", or "A-witty-Linux-acronym" uses Kernel 2.4 while "A-wittier-Linux-acronym" uses 2.6. But the sum of all distros all differ in the egos.
In all, most FLOSS development is driven by the wish to become famous (or infamous) within the community. That is maybe also why there are an infinite number of softwares at versions 0.x - it is sexy as hell (and gives a lot of cred) to implement a cool thing, but it is incredibly un-sexy to make it work for everybody and have an intuitive user interface...
Now, don't get me wrong here. Many different and differing distros is a good thing. Not as good as one distro flexible enough to work for everybody, but good none the less. And I am personally very grateful for the variations, as I found a very narrow "distro" called Paul's Boot CD that did exactly what I needed a few weeks back.
But I long for the day when I hear of the Linux distro that promotes itself as "nothing special, nothing fancy, just simple, flexible and intuitive"...
Let's be honest -- screwing people with slow connections because they're morons about security is Microsoft's problem. If you are on dial up, and buy Windows XP, you have to sit there and let it install a lot of patches because... what? That's the users fault, that they're stuck on dial up and Windows sucks?
Yes Linux is better in how it handles hardware(ONE reboot AFTER install is complete is all I ever seem to have to do with a linux install, windows has at least 2 for JUST the os, leet alone dirvers, updates, etc.).
But it's lacking in several other areas that would scare developers away.
The big one is will it run out of the box, right now the way compatability between distros and even versions of the same distro work the odds are against it. The would probably have to ship a game with a spare cd containing all the variations on the binaries needed just to work on most of the mainstream distros.
And as much as I laud and love the way Linux distros install in one go without reboot hell, and deal well with hardware changes, Games need good vidcard drivers and that requires getting ati and nvidia on board with optimized linux drivers Though this last point is somthing of a chicken/egg problem as is the next point.
Linus still does not have installed user base to make porting a worthwile effort for many game/app developers.
The concept behind the LSB was a good one and a step in the right direction even if the implementation had its detractors.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Because different distributions are (ment to be) different things to different people. It's like trying to decide which beer's the best beer; Everyone's gonna have their own opinion. Some just express it in terms you can relate to, and some don't. I hear what your saying about them being boilerplate, but that just tells me your not looking hard enough, or in the right places. The InterWeb's a big thing you know...
Even that's a subjective subject. What's your itch? Desktop usage? Publically facing servers? Trusted systems? Clustering? Embedded? Try narrowing your perspective a little bit when you search... there's a lot of forums and testimony out there.
Are there any guidelines for distro comparisons?
Not that I'm aware of, but things I'd want in a comparison:
For me the two most important things are Drivers and Configuration/Learning Curve, with Package Management a close third. Security, and Desktop is just gravy for me, because I can do thoes myself.
What should people really be looking at when reviewing a distribution?
What they're interested in using the Distribution for. If it doesn't cover it in at least some detail, your reading the wrong review (or reviewing the wrong distribution).
I guess the broader question is what sets distros apart?
The community.
I'm serious. EVERYTHING good or bad about a distro can be explicitly linked back to the community and their agenda.
The good distributions are good because they have a dedicated community supporting (and hopefully advancing) a specific set of agendas.
RedHat happens to be a great middle ground because they target the middle ground of usability vs. performance; their agenda is to provide a ubiquitous distribution which can easily be applied to any senario but is optimized for none.
Debian is great for people who know exactly what they want and are willing to jump through a flaming hoop or two (unlike some earlier posters) to get it; their agenda is to provide a distribution which offers you infinate possibilities without forcing anything on you and making change as cheap and easy as possible.
Gentoo's really fast, I'm told, after you compile everything durring the install(!); their agenda is to make 'the ultimate power' distribution.
Mandrake goes a much more user friendly route; their agenda is to provide a good solid Linux based desktop.
In all these cases, if you run into trouble doing what the distribution community's niche is, your most likely going to have a wonderful experience in fixing it because people will come out of the woodwork to fix your problem (assuming you take the time to ask it properly and do your homework (RTFM) first).
That's why you choose one distribution over another: Because it scratches your itch better than any other.
If this sig is witty, it was probably borrowed from someone else's sig.
Maintainability and TCO issues are highly relevant and yet never reviewed. What is the distro's history of breaking stuff with patches. Do they take care to fix more bugs than they add? If I care about the machine or I'm maintaining more than one, this can be the primary concern. I can't remember the last time a Red Hat patch broke anythins.
Are stock, stable versions of packages
distributed? Or does the distribution include beta versions of software, patches to add features (and bugs), and other nonstandard modifications? In the case of Redhat, this harms reliability/stability, but you gain cool features.
Because we all know there are never patches or new versions for Linux... Right. Lets take a comparison from the Linux world, shall we?
Say I just installed ImaginaryDistro 1.0 a couple months ago, and now 1.1 comes out. There's new stuff I'd like, including some security and stability fixes. I'm on dial-up, so I can do one of two things - wait a long time for the download, or order a CD. The exact same options you have with Windows.
I'm not seeing the problem here... Patches are a fact of life, no matter what OS you're using. Dial-up users can either suck it up and download them, order a CD, or get a buddy with broadband to download the files and burn a CD. Again, the only difference here is Linux distros usually release more often, so the CD you buy/download is less likely to have a bunch of new updates available. Would you prefer MS release more often, and charge a $50 upgrade fee each time?
The only advantage of linux in this case is more frequent updates, nothing more.
You say this like it's no big deal, like "The only advantage of this piece of steak is that it hasn't been sitting in the sun for a couple of days". But this is specifically one of the things that suck about MS. Even a couple of years after XP came out I still can't get a newer install version of XP which includes any of the security patches or updated drivers?
And frankly, if it took you 4 hours to install the "service packs," all one of them, you either have no idea what you're doing or a slow connection, neither of which are Microsoft's responsibility.
Sure it is. They are selling a product which is for all intents and purposes unusable without a massive download. If you were sold any other kind of product which required additional parts, you would never consider getting those parts to you to *not* be the responsibility of the manufacturer. I mean, it's not like Microsoft's margins are paper thin, right?
-chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
"perhaps"
I thought so too, but just the other day I decided to check out the "firewall" features in W2K. You can set ports, tcp/udp, and whatever, but as far as I can tell there's only two possible settings;
Closed - nothing goes in OR OUT on this port.
Open - Open, both for outbound and inbound traffic.
There doesn't seem to be any way of blocking inbound connections but still allow outgoing traffic, which makes for a pretty worthless firewall. I can only hope XP's firewall is not quite so bad.
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
Yeah, its certainly better than that. Still doesn't look too amazing, but I haven't really used it, since all my windows machines are behind a linux router. I've played around with it a bit and it definately doesn't block both in and out traffic on the blocked ports.
How Should One Review a [software] Distribution?
;)
Well, if it has the Microsoft authenticity logo, it's good.
The last time I installed Mandrake 9.1 the installation sucked. The hardware configuration sucked. The fact that my previously-worked-in-Mandrake-8.0 DEC 21141 Network Card didn't work any more, for no apparent reason, sucked.
Sure, frequently released updates can be seen as an advantage. I enjoy trying out new versions of software. But spacing out major updates isn't really a major disadvantage either. Normal people don't like buying/downloading a new cd every couple months. Saying one or the other is preferable is not really truthful.. each can be better in a certain setting.
However, if you bought a XP cd today, it would have probably SP 1 included, unless you bought a copy thats been sitting around in some warehouse for a year or two. Saying something is "unusable" without updates is just plain asinine though. I guess nobody could use those XP boxes for the year or so before SP 1 came out, right?
NO!!! Get an Amiga ! They're coming back!!
Personally I use gentoo and love it, though I started to use Linux more then 7 years ago and already used Linux from Scratch...
:(
So when I installed a distribution on my sisters computer I went for Mandrake 10 (some beta). Even though the installer was easy to follow I was really disappointed with the result.
For some reason her network card did not work (something to do with not detecting the link) then konqueror has _far_ less functionality then under Gentoo. For instance audio-cd:/ did not propose the creation for mp3s but only oggs. Or I can't find the menupoint where to set the identification which is necessasry for some sites she visits...
Next problem was to find some site for updated packages. I thought that every distro works right out of the box with Internet online updates. That was not the case for Mandrake
I really think about installign Gentoo on her box. Even though the installation is harder and takes _forever_ at least everything works.
The only Linux distro I've ever used is Debian, the first time being around July 2001, and I've installed it on four machines. The last time was around two years ago, so I don't remember precise details, but I do remember thinking "why do people think this is hard"? I've also installed FreeBSD a couple of times, and their sysinstall seems to be pretty much equivalent. In any event, the old Debian installer is about to be replaced (the new installer is pretty much done AFAIK at least for x86 but I haven't had occasion to try it) so I don't see much point in debating the old one.
Ah then you may find something of this nature handy. .wsh, that calls wget http://mydomain.com/linux/firefox/version=?latest
No name yet, but it's just a zip file that contains a handly little script
and redirects to grab the latest.
keep this on a floppy or usb drive and you'll never have to use IE again.
pretty cool eh?
Actually, that was a port completely done by TransGaming. They have mention of it on their site. It's only the original "The Sims" game, not all the expansion packs. They clearly say that the expansion packs won't work with it.
:(
:)
The distro was a special gaming edition of Mandrake, which cost $60. It would be well worth it, if she could use her expansion packs. She has all of them, 6 I believe, which at $50/ea makes for a substantial investment in a single game, which she isn't willing to give up.
TransGaming says that you *CAN* use the version of TheSims included with Mandrake on other versions of Linux, as long as you have the right libraries installed, which I can't imagine being very hard, since they're right on the Mandrake disks.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Actually, the disk was WinXP home which included SP1. I don't have the disk or license handy, I think it got filed away with all the other disks and manuals that came with it.
But yes, it did take about 4 hours. And no, I'm not on a slow connection. That day I was on a 768Kb/3Mb DSL from PacBell/SBC. It was 4 hours of download, reboot, lather, rinse, repeat.
The technique for including 3rd party drivers is anything but new. It's exactly the same way I made an Adaptec AAA-130 (I believe) RAID card work on a machine years ago with WinNT 4.0. Far from improved.
Maybe I'm being obnoxious, but I fully expect when they release "better" versions of their software, I expect them to actually improve it. If they're releasing a newer version of XP, they could at least include the current drivers with the CD. It's not like I dug it out of a file drawer where I tossed it back in 2001. I bought it new at the store with the parts for the machine. Right along side it in the store were current copies of RedHat and Slackware (oddly enough), and either of those would have installed flawlessly. Actually, Slackware did.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
We love upgrading hardware on our Linux servers at work. Pretty much, we yank the hard drive out of an old server, stick it in the new server, and turn it on. As long as we're going to newer hardware, it works fine. If the kernel we're running was compiled for a really wrong kernel, it won't boot, but that's easy enough to fix.
/old /dev/hda1 /old /dev/sda1 /old/files /dev/sdb1 /new/ /old /new
/old /new
/dev/sda1 and /dev/sdb1 were the external arrays. They're seen by Linux (or whatever OS) as a single SCSI hard drive. Gotta love it.
We've had the occasional server go whacky with a bad motherboard, and just moved the drives to a new machine, and away it goes.
One server we did recently, we upgraded the machine first, moving the drives to a new machine, and turning it back on. Then we upgraded the RAID on it, which consisted of copying all the files over to the RAID, and rebooting. Painless. The biggest headache with it was having the admin who was local to it wait for all the staff to go home, so they wouldn't bitch that it was down for the 10 minutes it took.
Hmm, what did the copy consist of?
While people were working we did:
(leaving the active mounts in place)
mkdir
mount
mount
mkdir
cp -RPp
Then when we were ready, we locked all the users out, and to sync up all the changes for the last day or two we did:
rsync -av
(or something tremendously close to that)
The
Yes, the OS was on a single IDE drive. That system had grown since it was first implemented, with two IDE drives, and no concept of what it would eventually be used for.
What would it take to do the same thing on a large (hundreds of Gb) Windows fileserver? We didn't touch anything in the process, it all just worked. No redoing user permissions, no headaches. I believe the biggest problem was moving cabling, and changing the terminator on the SCSI chain.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
So you want your software to just work, regardless of unsatisfied dependencies and architecture? Perhaps if apps were compiled to bytecode, that would work. Or maybe it's good enough if they are compiled before running? (As a side note, I am planning a system where apps are distributed as bytecode that easily compiles to native code - for both performance and portability.)
A script that resolves dependencies and compiles things as necessary could do the trick for you. However, putting scripts in every package wastes time and space, and running such scripts poses a security risk. I think it's better to use a package manager to install any dependencies (fetching the ones right for your distribution and architecture).
Debian does this, and the distros that chose to be incompatible with it are beginning to follow the lead. ZeroInstall works with pretty much any distro. Who knows, perhaps someday your wishes will be granted. For me, I don't care if something works with other distros. It all works with Debian, so I am happy (though I think ZeroInstall could be even better, as it allows mortal users to painlessly run sofnware, too).
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
yes patches are a part of life, butunlike windwos linux patches rarely require youto reboot or drop your connection. So that you can download an upgrade one night, instead of spending the weekend in front of your machine hitting reboot every hour or so.
WinXP has some major flaws. is it any wonder why Longhorn is supposed to include a commandline worthy of the *nixs, twisted to the MS way.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
http://www.transgaming.com/sims.php
You realy don't need to go buy the whole Mandrake Gaming Edition anymore to get it. I've bought this, and it works quite well on my Gentoo-based system, thank you very much.
I game, therefore I am...
Don't read reviews. Most of the times the author has an opinion and can influence your choice. If you want to know what distro best suits you, then you (and nobody else) should: - download/buy - install - play with it - remember what you liked about it and what not - rm -rf / - goto first step After i used slackware 3.5 i heard about RH. I installed it, didn't like it, went back to slack, used it until 7.something, heard about Gentoo, installed it, liked it, used it ever since. But hey, that's just me. Maybe you'll stick with RH.
You are smarter than you think. Going to community college is a very smart move. I went to a big city private university... I'm still in debt up to my eyeballs. Community college is VERY smart.
Back on topic... It sounds like your friend was also smart, and pointed you to a Debian cd that uses the new "debian-installer". The old debian installer (aka boot-floppies) really did suck. It had no auto-detection of hardware, and required you to google for every single piece of your computer to figure out which driver would work. It was a pain in the ass, but it was worth it, because afterward you had debian on your machine.
The new installer is at Beta-4 right now, and already works very well. The difference is startling.
As every Debian aficionado loves to point out, Debian had a crappy installer for so long because they have to get it to run on 11 different architectures, not just i386.
And for anyone that wants a pretty graphical install of Debian to i386, there are plenty of unofficial options.
Yes, it does have flaws, and plenty of them. I just prefer to see the complaints which are vaild, rather than made up or exaggerated crap..
Oh, sure. GUI installer. But isn't there a mandatory minimum 1/2 page on how it is the prettiest GUI ever with the best choice of backgrounds ever with the cleverist, cleverist default choice of program icons ever devised?
That's all very well, but lack of NTFS support killed Fedora Core 1 for me.
Why, when I could just download what I needed? Two reasons:
a) I couldn't be bothered, and felt that I shouldn't have to. I expected Fedora to ship with NTFS support, and was irritated to find that it doesn't. That's highly subjective, of course.
b) my ADSL modem isn't supported by Fedora, so I couldn't get it working. It was that that lead me to find that NTFS wasn't supported, as I'd booted back to XP to download the packages to get the modem working. Booted back, and found that I couldn't access the XP partition.
I'm sure Fedora is an excellent system, but for me, it simply didn't fulfill my requirements, so I went back to Mandrake. Your mileage, of course, will vary.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Anybody who thinks Knoppix is the bext obviously hasn't experienced the new LiveNinnle CD!
It's the same for reviews of most products. The reviewer has a deadline to meet, not much free time to spend playing around with the product and not necessarily the detailed knowledge required to make a judgment. The review of "latest gizmo 1.1" has to be out around the time of the release, or you get few readers. So you get no mention of any long-term issues: in the case of distros: reliability, security updates, any package database corruption problems.
The problem is, a lot of the things the reader wants to know require a lot of use to discover, weeks or months. The best place for that kind of information is user forums.
Even worse, you can't play an MP3 file!
a /linux/$rel easever/$basearch/freshrpms
Oh boo hoo. Add these lines to your yum.conf:
[freshrpms]
name=Fedora Linux $releasever - $basearch - freshrpms
baseurl=http://ayo.freshrpms.net/fedor
And for all your patent-encumbered multimedia needs, you just need do:
% yum install mplayer
% yum install xine
% yum install [whatever else you want]
and it'll resolve all dependencies and keep you away from rpm-hell but still within RH's rpm goodness.
Problem is that reviews much be "hot", iow on the site quite quick after the release to be newsworthy.
A good review would cover quite a while, and e.g. describe how the distribution would hold up the first upgrade round or so, or how many times it was routed.
This is often where the non commericial *nix distributions (Debian, FreeBSD) shine.
I know the whole philosophy of debian is built around CHOICE and FREEDOM. But, at some points, just make a fucking decision for the consumer, will you? You're probably not going to alienate any zealots if you just go ahead and autodetect the network adaptor without creating a committee and waiting for someone to second the motion. Han Solo: We don't have time to discuss this in a comittitee, your worship!
Jay | http://oldos.org
What pisses me off about distribution reviews is the emphasis most reviewers put on hardware detection. When is the last time anyone here installed Windows and it automatically came up running with the latest video and sound drivers with all of your USB devices working perfectly? How about never? Why do reviewers, and just new Linux users in general, expect this from Linux? Then, in ignorance, fault the distro for the problem without ever bothering to see if the packaged kernel even comes witha a driver and on top of that, never even bother seeking support or learning how to use fskcing modprobe. If I see one more review talking about "It didn't detect my sound card!! woe is me, Linux sucks.", I might have a breakdown.
The only REAL difference between the big distros is the package manager. All the other stuff is cosmetic or trivial. Comes with somewhat recent GNOME, KDE, blah blah blah, who cares.
Gentoo is probably only mainstream distro out that that doesn't try to spoil the user during install but instead teaches them the fundamentals right off. So once you got the system running, you already know how to do things like mount drives,format drives, install drivers, install a new kernel, configure X windows, etc and your not floundering around like some idiot. All those skills are distro independant and are transferable to any distro you sit down at.
It seems to me that most reviewers just install the distro, and base the entire review on that.
I think this gives the install process a hugely disproportionate weight. Especially since installation is not an everyday thing.
I'm much more interested in how the distro performs after it's installed. I usually have to have a distro installed at least a week before I start catching all the little "gotchas."
Face it, they're all the same.
All dsitributions draw from the same pool of software. If a company writes something unique, it either relaseses it under the GPL, making it available to every other distribution, or it doesn't, and gets pilloried by the True Believers.
Since what's inside the package is all the same, the only thing to be done is to adjust the wrapping. Hence, we get dozens of packaging and updating schemes and dozens of cute installation routines. Some folks tweak the kernel. Some folks compile for a specific platform.
But, that's it. A rose is a rose is a rose...
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Apparently, no one paid attention to the review:
1. I was using Fedora Core 2. There is NO NTFS support for Fedore Core 2. Fedora Core 1 was only recently added.
2. The whole point of the review was that it would work out of the box. Fedora didn't, so I dumped it. Boo hoo.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The CDRWs were used in the same drive that they were burned. There were no software errors related to corrupted data. In fact, most installs were done over the Internet, so it's a bit hard to blame the CDRW disks for anything.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Reviews often mention the distribution's configuration tools. This makes sense, since they're one of relatively few features that really distinguish one distribution from another. But reviews don't normally go into enough depth or try hard enough to see how the distro copes with unusual breakage.
My pet hate is the PPP dialup in Red Hat - it's much too easy to get it into a wedged state by plugging and unplugging the phone line, and the diagnostics printed are very poor if you have something like the wrong PPP password. You can crash the wizard (spewing out Python diagnostics) if you press the Close button on the window at the wrong moment. When things work, it's fine, but when things break it is difficult to recover. These are faults common to many Linux setup wizardy things.
So I think reviewers should really try to mess things up a bit - yank out the Ethernet cable, power-cycle the machine without shutting down, change from one plug-and-play monitor to another and see if the distro correctly reconfigures. Maybe even edit some config files by hand and see if the config wizards can cope - and if they cannot cope, at least give a clean error message.
Reviews tend to give marks for having a long list of features but really it is more important to have a small set of features that are foolproof and rock-solid.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
So when you install Windows, it should come with all the applications you need. Hmmm...
"No one likes working in a hamster wheel, and your shop smells of cedar shavings from here." - TaleSpinner
I'm curious, does the Fedora cd include kernel source? I know it's not the thing to suggest, but you could make menuconfig, check read NTFS, make modules, make modules_install (then modprobe or insmod ntfs.o). Is it possible the module was included and not turned on? (Help me out here, I don't run Fedora-- Slackware all the way here.)
I realize some people (or most if you consider people who just want to install and have everything) don't want to have to "turn things on", but I'd like to know if Fedora doen't include the means to read NTFS, or just doesn't enable it by default.
Acquiescence leads to obliteration
All you need to do is you just pick a distro at random and become religiously attached to it.
That way you can work out the differences easily by only installing a single distro. If you use distro x, and seek to compare it with distro y using criterion F where F C then you only need to consider two different situations:
if F(x) > F(y) then F is valid therefore x > y for all C.
if F(y) > F(x) then F is an issue only for hopeless n00bs. This implies that n00bs(y) > n00bs(x) therefore x > y for all C
As an example: I have hardly ever used SuSe, yet I use gentoo therefore I can tell you the following:
Since SuSe has worse package management than gentoo, package management can be used to measure the entire worth of a distribution. Therefore gentoo is better than SuSe.
Since Suse has a better installer than gentoo, I know for a fact that since I was able to survive without it that this must be a function only useful for n00bs, posers and grandmas. Since I don't respect the judgment of these people, I can safely assume that not only is this installer supremacy irrelevant, it also proves that the users of SuSe are halfwits and therefore have also made a bad judgment about their distribution choice, ergo gentoo is better than SuSe.
This principle can be modified slightly for use in politics, car brands, football teams, religions, ethnic groups and even music. It is a great technique for the times when one needs to know a lot without having to learn a lot. 9/10 distro choices are based on this method, why shouldn't your next one be to!
P.s. despite my jokes made about the mentality of gentoo users, it really is cool provided you know what you are doing. If you feel like a challenge then give it a try!
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
I just installed XP SP1 last night on a new computer. Installation from scratch and all updates took a little over an hour. We had to download the drivers for the SBLive card. The ATI video driver was picked up by WindowsUpdate. Why doesn't Windows make all drivers available? Because they probably can't. There are a couple factors here that I can think of. One is that hardware manufacturers may not want MS to offer their drivers -- they either want people to have the driver installation CD, or they want people to download the drivers from their website. Secondly, even if the drivers were made available to MS, I think MS wants to certify them before offering them, which is probably an arduous task for a mfr. It may be more trouble than its worth for them. These are both areas that OSS has an advantage -- drivers can be freely distributed, and they don't have to pass a certification process by the distributions.
"No one likes working in a hamster wheel, and your shop smells of cedar shavings from here." - TaleSpinner
All I can tell you is that either your machine or your net connection has major problems. Every recent (20+ in the last 2-3 weeeks) install of XP I have performed required approximately 0.5-1.5 hours of post-install operating system maintenance for both discs (SP1 included and not included). The Fedora Core on the other hand... Let's just say that bills to clients listed in days rather than hours are considered inappropriate. Nitpicking here, but there is no longer a current version of RedHat, unless it was enterprise.
What?
Finding God in a Dog
The other distros I've looked at are precompiled
installations, with minimal ability to configure
the operating system. They differ in OS setup,
utilities, and installable packages. Gentoo
allows the user to build (compile) everything
that is installed on the machine and configure
the operating system to any desired degree. I
built a file server for our home network and
I was able to build a linux box without all
the extra stuff it doesn't need and makes it
vulnerable to attack.
-- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
Seconded. OpenBSD rocks!
No, this is a legitimate gripe.
Just because the core OS distribution already went Gold, this is no excuse not to ship a current set of drivers with the rest of the OS.
Microsoft makes you track down drivers. If you are fortunate, you know how to do this and are comfortable with this. If not, YOU'RE SCREWED.
This is a usability issue. Weak excuses simply aren't relevant.
As always, Microsoft has been shown the way by it's competition. All it need do is indulge in it's usual plagarism.
Any driver required to get the OS installed and connected to the net to get the latest security patches should be included in the OS distribution. Microsoft is swimming in cash, they can afford a few extra cents per shipped unit.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I remember reading this review of RH 9, and I wish we could see more reviews of this caliber. Ones that actually go into architectural and technical differences, not just if the colour scheme of the installer was good or not. http://www.gurulabs.com/RedHatLinux9-review.html
I just now tried to install lyx-1.8.5 from the ports on a brand new install of FreeBSD-4.9 and it failed, asking me to manually download db3 and install it.
I love BSD; it feels more mature than linux (I use Slackware on my desktop), I know it runs a good deal faster and the ports do rock. But it's not all lace and pearls. That's OK. It's an awsome OS and I'll keep using, and paying for, it. Just like Slack.
I don't care about these things; these two releases are definitely worth the work to set them up. If a user is sooo stupid that they can't even figure out a Slackware install then they're also too lazy for a *nix. I say give 'em Windows ME. That way they'll learn what Microsoft really thinks of them, once they've handed over their money.
Sure, they follow some tried and true recipes, but at least they have some meat to them... unlike the ones found at OS News. Their review section is here. This site has some excellent writeups if you ask me.
Are you trying to prove that linux is not "user friendly"? Stop that
that I ever had done was Lindows/Linspire 4.5, parts of it are GPL and parts of it are not. So it is a commercial Linux. They worked hard to make it as easy to install and configure as Windows or MacOSX. I can really see Lindows/Linspire as a consumer Linux that can gain some serious marketshare.
Why?
#1 Wal-Mart sells machines for $300USD using Lindows/Linspire.
#2 The $50-$60USD install CD is cheaper than any OS MS puts out. Plus only $25USD for a BitTorrent download of it. Online support only being $5/month. This makes it very affordable.
#3 It is based on Debian, easier to maintain, apt-get works nicely.
#4 The GUI has been enhanced to resemble the Windows desktop. There is a "My Computer" a "My Documents" etc.
#5 Lindows/Linspire tutorial works great.
#6 Lindows/Linspire while not running Windows apps, has custom programs that can work with most popular Windows file formats.
#7 Lindows/Linspire offers great discounts to system builders and OEMs.
#8 Seagate hard drives have Lindows/Linspire preinstalled on them.
#9 Microsoft is suing Lindows/Linspire, this tells me they see them as a threat.
#10 Lindows/Linspire has a built in firewall that is ery conservative in settings, locking out ports that need to be locked out. Also an AOL client, and clients for other ISPs.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
True, but the situation is like this:
I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
The NTFS module is not included at all. RedHat considers it to be "non-free" software and thus refuses to ship it. There is an RPM and SRPM for Fedora Core 1 from the Linux-NTFS project, but FC2 is completely unsupported.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Does it sit around doing word processing and surfing, or do you program, play games, surf, write emails, install huge amounts of software and download all the updates?
This is the type of thing I use my computer for - and Windows seems to have got rather clogged up by it all. If it can't cope with a "power user," I can't cope with it.
Of course, most people aren't power users, but I am, and so Linux is great for me :)
im in ur
I don't get why all the different distos would require different binaries for games. Can someone explain?
Surely if the required libs are present an i386 complied binary should work on any i386 compiled distro?
For example, why does a Fedora RPM package not always work on a Mandrake10 box?
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
Most reviews are clearly written by absolute linux guru's as they, all of them, to a man, fail to mention that getting one of the most critical devices on your system
THE MODEM
to work is nigh impossible.
Linux does not like winmodems. Get a real one.
Great! Why didn't you tell me that BEFORE i spent 300 hours downloading those bloody iso files!
This modem thing a MAJOR issue linuxians. I would say this is the single biggest reason why people, including me, abandon their linux installations after only dipping their toes in.
So please, mention this small fact in your next review.
The parent isn't just talking about the pain associated with having to patch systems. He is talking about the benefit of having current drivers and older patches on the installation CD. It's certainly not a constitutional right, but, yes, it would be very nice if every year Microsoft updated the Windows installation CD to include a few new drivers and all the new security patches.
If this is becoming a distro war, I use Slackware, now probably because of it's lack of a graphical installer and management tools.
Mandrake is highly different from, say, Slackware. One has to take a very different approach to configuring the thing. Mandrake has a vast array of centralized GUI tools for configuring almost everything about your system. I've been using Slack for a few days and haven't noticed any such tool. SWareT makes it a bit like Debian (yet my preferred method so far is finding my own tarballs), but it appears that if you're going to configure much in Slackware that can't be done in the KDE or GNOME control centers, you're rooting around in text files. By now I'm fine with that and for someone like me it's almost better. I try new, more "difficult" distros in order to learn.
My point is this: Distros are NOT all the same. A distro is made because the maker has an idea about how his could be better or different from the others. He has a philosophy about how to do things, what should run automatically, what defaults should be, and where to put configuration tools and what kind to use or whether or not to use them at all. Mandrake wants to cater to the desktop. As does Xandros and Linspire. And trust me, if you were using one of those and tried to pick up, say, Gentoo, barring the install process, you would immediately notice a difference if you tried to do anything more complex than launching Mozilla.
Yet I also agree a little with you--at least in regard to looks. The same X server and the same desktop environments are bundled, as are most standard applications. To a passerby, Xandros is no different from Mandrake is no different from Slackware is no different from LFS. I guess the real differences lie in the mode of configuration and the underlying organization.
Love this...
>4) Default security levels.
>You really shouldn't leave anything at default >security levels, but this is a good place to start >I agree.
What if the default security level is to have all ports blocked or not allow a eth interface to start? I might want change the default then....
This is not going to be a cheap OS review, but it's a thorough one, and if anyone did it this way maybe they'd be taken a little more seriously. . .
Linux distros have the most problems with hardware compatibility, so:
1) Install the OS on at least 4 computers: a couple of different laptop models, a desktop model, and a rackmounted server model, all configured the way they come out of the box, with maybe some weird odds and ends like cameras. They will have some components in common and some different enough to see whether the distro really supports your hardware. Bonus points if some of the systems are brand new and some are a few years old. DO WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO MAKE ALL THE HARDWARE WORK.
2) Select at least two different filesystems between the four computers. Make sure it supports something like a journaling filesystem out of the box.
3) Select at least one each of Gnome and KDE (and maybe non-graphics) between the four computers.
4) Figure out how hard it is to install up-to-date versions of the most common services like samba, apache and postgresql/mysql (you might reasonably restrict this testing to the rackmounted computer). Then configure them. DO WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO ENABLE THESE SERVICES TO MAKE THE COMPUTERS TALK TO EACH OTHER.
5) Then list the major applications that are installed by default and the ones that are available for download using the update tools. Describe the procedure for updating/getting new software. Run no more than one or two of the most common applications; let's face it, it's all open source so at this level anybody can get almost any piece of software to work.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Okay, how's this:
My SATA drivers came on a CD-ROM that came with the motherboard. The only way that XP install would accept drivers was from a floppy. I had to use a Knoppix CD that I had lying around to copy the drivers off of the CD-ROM onto a spare floppy and then boot off the XP CD.
Now that a lot of PC manufacturers don't even include a floppy drive, it's time for Windows to be able to read new drivers off a CD-ROM, not just a floppy.
This document gives a pretty fair set of evaluation criteria if you're looking at a desktop system.
t ml
http://www.xandros.com/products/evaluation_tips.h
Hmm, nice review, you should add it to the Suse reviews at the LinuxQuestions.org wiki.
Saying something is "unusable" without updates is just plain asinine though. I guess nobody could use those XP boxes for the year or so before SP 1 came out, right?
Well yeah. But that was before the Internet had been flooded by exploits for holes which have been patched by SP 1. I *did* say "For all intents and purposes..." which is, I concede, a bit too strong. I just meant for practical everyday use on the Internet it's not safe to use.
However, if you bought a XP cd today, it would have probably SP 1 included
I admit I didn't know that. mea culpa.
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
I may have misplaced some steps (it has been a blessedly long time since I had to do it), but I will never forget having to download Netscape so I could download IE from Microsoft!
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
TZ
That's the problem, often the required libs are not present. The biggest question mark is libc -- a binary often needs a specific version of glibc because the damned thing changes too often, affecting binary stability. Some proprietary software houses are going to be standardizing on glibc version rather than distribution version.
For example, why does a Fedora RPM package not always work on a Mandrake10 box?
RedHat and Mandrake didn't always even agree on the rpm name that housed libraries. They still sometimes don't agree on things like locations of icons and menus. Every time I take a src.rpm from Mandrake and adapt it to Redhat/Fedora, I have to strip out the rpm extensions Mandrake adds that Redhat doesn't support. I would love to see the distributions work together so that packages made for one could be easily installed on another. The situation isn't nearly as bad as it used to be, a lot of work has gone into filesystem layout standards in the last few years, but more work remains to be done.
Try FreeBSD. It doesn't prevent you from doing anything. NTFS, MP3s, cats lying with dogs, it's all there.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
What you want from a distribution and therefore what you want the review to cover does depend on the target audience.
At one end we might have the totally PC-illiterate but more likely is the person who has used a computer that has MS Windows installed, had used Office and IE, but isn't interested in the mechanics of how it all works. at the other end is probably the guy (its usually a guy) who has assembled his own PCs (he has at least 4 at any time) and will insist on using Vi and text-only installs for the basic installation and then compile and install each application by hand.
The newbie probably doesn't want to know the sticky details, just about how easy it is to install without any brainwork on their part (like partitioning and mount points). They want to know how many applications are installed and how easy it is to find them. They may even want to know how easy it is to find other applications and get them working on their PC.
the other guy believes the people who can't use Man pages or install libraries and edit config files shouldn't be banned from using Linux anyway. They want to know about the Kernel and application versions; what libraries are included, etc. Then of course there is the subset of those who want assurance that everything is GPL'd.
A review that satisfies the first type would probably bore the pants of the 2nd type.. Likewise a review aimed at the latter type would be confusing and unhelpful to the newbie.
so maybe the question should be "what range of reviews are needed?"
Paul
www.opencouncil.org
Open
*sigh* Please read the comments on the reviews. I've already addressed the FreeBSD vs. Debian vs. Gentoo vs. Linux for my Dog.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
Well thats certainly a step in the right direction. They don't have to be 100% as fast as the windows versions, (though I would think linux drivers would be easier to write if anything), but they need to be close, and at least as stable.
Now if we can get some coheasiveness on dir structure, primary library versions and stop breaking backwards compatability. On non major releases it looks very beta ware level if every new ver of a semi major lib simply won't run stuff written for the previous versions and you have to re-compile a third or more of your distro if you want to add a piece of software to it.
I like Linux, and would like it to be a valid desktop OS for more than a handfull of geeks. But untill it's possible to write just one version of a piece of software and know it'll run on most (in terms of installs, not distros) home Linux systems, it's not gonna happen, most vendors are not going to take it serious.
Mycroft.
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
You'd have thought those fuckers would have put in a link:
Get newest super-duper version of IE <a href>Here!</a>.
They can take the time to tell you that your browser sucks, and is unable to use their website, but they're clueless enough to not be able to promote their own fucking browser. Morons.
And we let them drive our entire industry...
I've tried many, many different "Linuxes" and have read many, many reviews. I've learned to look for the following when reading reviews: .rpm packages, others use Debians .deb packages, some have package handling apps that can handle both. Some distros have GUI-based packaging handling apps that handle .rpms, .debs, tar files. tar.gz files, etc.. seamlessly.
1) Did the distro detect all the hardware without intervention? Many times a reviewer, if he's a Linux aficionado to begin with, will skim over hardware detection problems, with a sentence like "everything went smoothly, except it didn't detect my soundcard, but I just download, compiled, etc... and all was good...".
2) Was the desktop environment configured logically? Almost all the distros come with KDE or Gnome pre-configured, but the initial desktops can be very different. Sometimes the KDE "start menu" is just packed with redundant applications, and it's not clear where to find things. Other times the environment is set up to look and feel like some version of Windows. Sometimes the environment is stark and a very carefully selected group of applications are configured.
3) What packaging scheme is used? This is a big distinction between distros. Some distros are set up to easily use
4) What version of XFree86 or other X-server is used? This is another big distinction between distros. How snazzy a distribution looks on your box, or whether it has drivers for your video card at all can depend upon this factor.
5) What Linux kernel is used? Again, this can determine just how well the OS works with your hardware and peripherals, and also how much aggravation you'll have to go through to get your system up and running to do everything you need to do.
6) Is the distribution targeted at newbies, Windows defectors, hardcore Linux hackers, Hobbyists, Business desktop users, Developers,--who? The target for the distro is one of the most important things to look for in a review? A distro which might be just what a Business user wants may seem very bad to a Linux hacker.
I've found that understanding exactly who is writing a review is important. I like reviews written by someone who is new to Linux but is computer literate, having used Windows or Macs. A review by someone like that will usually reveal how easy the distro is to install and get up and running doing basic things like e-mail, surfing the web and word processing. I like reading reviews by Linux hackers when I am look for a distro that is good for software development or if I want a flexible distro that I can tinker with and configure myself.
I am actually quite surprised at how different distros can be; not only in "Look and Feel", but in stability and configurability. Personally, I'm not that interested in how easy or difficult the OS is to install. Being a computer professional, I know that I can get "it" installed. I am more concerned about how it runs, what apps I can get, how easy it is to get WINE and SAMBA running, how easy is it to configure etc...
The big one is will it run out of the box, right now the way compatability between distros and even versions of the same distro work the odds are against it. The would probably have to ship a game with a spare cd containing all the variations on the binaries needed just to work on most of the mainstream distros. Different binaries? Linux is Linux is Linux (binary compatible, since it's the same kernel no matter what versions) Maybe different packages (like rpm) but that's just because you want it as a package. Use an installer (nvidia) and it's solved. The conclusion, just how in Windows you use an installer to do things, so can you in Linux.
Fedora Core 2 hasn't even be released yet. NTFS support will be released in RPM format within 24 hours of it's official release.
Patience grasshopper.
There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
I think they should be reviewed on what's different from another popular and similar distro. After all, I think whoever aksed this question is referring more to the desktop themes other than the Operating System itself. KDE desktops look almost the same... no matter which distro of Linux you're using. Same for GNOME.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
It's called Usenet.
Pretend that something especially witty is here. Thanks.
For comparison, give me the warm fuzzy method for transfering all the data from two hard drives, one containing the OS, the other containing all the user files, with only say 10 minutes of downtime, on Windows.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
This is not really true. ntfs is provided in source form with the kernel source RPM provided by Fedora. They didn't remove it from the kernel sources. They just don't build it for you. You can certainly build it yourself if you want though.
See Rick Moen's comparisons of Debian installers.
The best for a typical desktop is to boot Knoppix and tell it to install on your HD. You get a normal Debian system with all your hardware detected, and you can put a nearby mirror in sources.list and install regular Debian packages.
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,
Not only that, but I've been able to get an RPM packaged NTFS driver for every kernel released since I installed Fedora nearly 6 months ago. Someone didn't look hard enough...
seriouslyexcited.net
Oh jeez, the bad memories that brings up! Thanks a lot! I remember laughing when I realized that I had to install Navigator to be able to access the download for IE as well. What a joke!
Thank god that I eventually got a CD burner so I could put SP4 on CD and install it with the OS.
seriouslyexcited.net
Plus about 10 more steps if you were installing the "Option Pack" (IIS), although that at least had IE4 on the CD.
The worst part was, I was trying to use their own browser... the version of IE that came as part of NT 4 . Here was their flagship product (NT), and they made it impossible to use out of the box without downloading the competitor's browser!
Exactly.
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
First, there's no 25 character product key you need to enter (after you find the key hidden on the bottom of the machine already installed under your desk). I honestly find the fedora install much more intuitive then the XP install, and the funny thing is, is that fedora (or any other distro) doesn't just install the OS. It installs pretty much ALL of the applications you will need to use.
This is one of your arguments on why windows is harder to install? How hard is it to type in a product key. If you find it hard, then you obviously have trouble typing. Which in your case is not the fault of windows.
The XP install includes the OS, a primitive browser, a DRM'd media player, and a very vulnerable web server.
Well that depends on the version of windows you are installing. If its windows 2000, then compare that install with a 4 year old install of linux and you'll start to see you get the same kind of software with both.
After that you still have to spend 5 hours installing graphics programs, an office suite, anti-virus, security patches, etc.
Of course you have to, but they are installed properly for you after all, and added to the start menu's list of programs. The reason why linux has to include this in its install is because it doesn't have an easy way for end users to install programs in linux. How many people do you see going with software that was not included with their distribution's install of linux? Not many. Why? Because there isnt an easy way to install software in linux. And by easy I mean as in just the way windows does it. You want to install a program, run the setup file, go through the wizard and it'll set it up for you nice and easily. It'll add it to the list of programs in the start menu too. If you want it gone, go to add/remove programs, select the program and click on remove, follow the wizard and its done.
So I might agree with you on some of your other points. But the windows install is by no means better than the linux install.
Oh sure it is, what if linux doesn't detect a piece of hardware you have installed while its installing. Where does it indicate that? None as far as I can tell. Windows on the other hand has device manager that shows all the unknown devices and if you point it to the directory that has the right driver for it, it uses it. Otherwise it doesn't.
My Gawd WTF...
The KERNEL may be the same in many distro's, but not the rest of linux, different versions of libc, diferent versions of other core libs, some vary thier directory layout a bit (including where X is). .1 difference in distro version. (and no x.9 to x+1 eigther, more like x.4 and x.5)
Short of including copies of the various versions of the libs they need to run (gotta be careful here if they don't want to violate the GPL), or writing thier install to check for all these and install a set of binaries to match the specific collections of version on your distro. or rewriting all the functionality included in the various just for thier one app.
I have no clue where you got the flase impression the only differance in linux distro's that might affect software install was pakage management.
I've had major issues trying to install a pakage that was target to the SAME distro I was using at the time, but a
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
I got the 'impression' because
1) I'm a developer on Gentoo
2) I develop a lot of open source software
3) I've been using Linux since 1997 and started to develop software at that time (I was 11 at the time)
The fact that it doesn't work everywhere is because it's not statically linked (sure it's huge, but it works everywhere). That's a design choice made by the developer.
Try compiling from source too, 1 source package for everything (I tend to never give out binaries except for Windows, no point Linux can compile it's own)
Binary compatible means it runs the same binary files (the same type as in Linux ELF or a.out and Windows MZ and PE so on) The kernel is the same, that's what determines binary compatibility. Libaries have nothing to do with that.
Now.. you also mentioned writing an installer to check for all the libs, I think you've tried the basic GNU configure before. Noone in their right minds is going to bundle binaries for everything, jsut tell you you're missing something. (again configure scripts nothign to rewrite)
Apart from GUI frontends the only real difference is the package management (yeah some scripts too like the init scripts so on, but that isn't pertinent)
The locations of the libs are given by pkg-config and many of them have standard locations that can be probed (again configure)
If you've had issues try debian or gentoo. You'll be pleasantly surprised. (no package management hell)
I'm not shure how to reply to that and not look like I'm bashing or flaming. But you have really gone way out from the original point.
I was specifically talking about Linux on the Desktop with Apps from the big vendors and Games and all the other stuff that tells Joe six-pack to buy windows. I specificaly said I would like to see linux go past being primarily for geeks and big, we can afford an IT department, compainies.
In retrospect I probably shoudn't have wrote that last paragraph, As I can see how it could muddy my overal point a bit whilst I was trying to make a specific sub-point. It was an attempt to show how little backwards compatability is somtimes maintained in linux distros. This looks very bad to anyone thinking of deploying linux or developing a comercial app for it.
Try reading back over this thread. I'm honestly NOT trying to be an ass.
And if you are in the subset who does not want Linux for the masses. Well that's the good thing about oss you can have it that way AND I can have it mine and we both win.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Well that depends on the version of windows you are installing. If its windows 2000, then compare that install with a 4 year old install of linux and you'll start to see you get the same kind of software with both.
Right. So what you're saying is if I were to install windows XP right now I wouldn't have a browser that can't even do tabbed browsing, image resizing, or popup blocking? The media player wouldn't be DRM'd and the webserver wouldn't be vulnerable to say, the "sasser" virus or any other issues. Give me a fucking break.
The reason why linux has to include this in its install is because it doesn't have an easy way for end users to install programs in linux.
No. The reason the distros (not linux) have to include these is to make them different from every other distro. And openning up the add/remove programs tool in fedora which will then allow you to choose from hundreds of different packages, install the package of your choice AND add it to the kde and gnome menus isn't harder then installing software on windows.
If you want it gone, go to add/remove programs, select the program and click on remove, follow the wizard and its done.
Right. Because we all know how well the windows uninstall works. Granted gentoo and debian are the only two distro's that I know of that handle uninstalls very well, at least they can do it. What, a regular windows user is expected to edit the registry to completely remove a program?
what if linux doesn't detect a piece of hardware you have installed while its installing.
If it doesn't then you can almost always find help on the internet. What if, for one reason or another, windows doesn't like a piece of your hardware. Good fucking luck getting it to work, it'll be hell of a lot easier to just go out and buy another. I still have a soundcard that refuses to work with windows (SB Live, btw) but has no problem under linux, I've tried it with win98/NT/2000/XP and no luck with any. Not to mention the fact that my USB doesn't even work under windows. No problems under linux though. So what the fuck am I suppose to do? Nothing. Because if something doesn't work in windows... then it doesn't work in windows, too bad.
I like the background music for the Windows XP install. It's actually not too bad.
Click Here for a Copy (7.79mb)
Solosoft.org - Your Online Resource to Nothing
Right. So what you're saying is if I were to install windows XP right now I wouldn't have a browser that can't even do tabbed browsing, image resizing, or popup blocking? The media player wouldn't be DRM'd and the webserver wouldn't be vulnerable to say, the "sasser" virus or any other issues. Give me a fucking break.
Lets see, windows xp is about 3 years old now. Currently IE cant do tabbed browsing, then again, if u try to compare that with an installation of mozilla and the way it was 3 years ago, u'd get the same thing. IE does have image resizing, its turned on by default. I usually like it turned off though. The drm in windows media player does not prevent you from playing ordinary audio/video files so the drm is nothing but a feature unless you try to play some audio/video that has microsoft drm then it is used. But if it doesn't have it, the player doesn't use it. As for the sasser virus, I do recall a worm was going around a few years ago that would only hit redhat linux servers. It was put out after the patch was available for the redhat servers. Even though any linux server was vulnerable, it chose to only go after redhat servers. Turbo Linux as I know as well is now including a version of media player that has microsoft drm in it. So what you're saying is that a linux distribution from 3 years ago wouldn't need any patches and windows xp would? Quit ur bullshitting already, its getting old.
No. The reason the distros (not linux) have to include these is to make them different from every other distro. And openning up the add/remove programs tool in fedora which will then allow you to choose from hundreds of different packages, install the package of your choice AND add it to the kde and gnome menus isn't harder then installing software on windows.
Then you will tell me that if I install these programs myself like openoffice.org, it'll create all the shortcuts to it in the kde or gnome program menu? I won't have to make any special changes to the source code? Wake up genius. The reason why they're included is because without those changes made, it wouldn't work. There is no program in linux that works with all distro's. As for the add/remove programs in fedora, did you say choosing from hundreds of packages? Why do I want the ability to remove my kernel or libraries that the OS needs? Why do I want to remove anything that the OS needs? Why can't it just hide the ones that don't need to be removed and only show the programs that are installed like windows does?
Right. Because we all know how well the windows uninstall works. Granted gentoo and debian are the only two distro's that I know of that handle uninstalls very well, at least they can do it. What, a regular windows user is expected to edit the registry to completely remove a program?
It handles it just fine for me. Registry changes are automatically done and directories are all removed along with start menu program entries. All done.
If it doesn't then you can almost always find help on the internet.
You never answered my question though. Where can I see in linux where unknown hardware is shown? Then upgrade it using a wizard and not have to recompile the kernel in order to install the driver. Why can't linux handle binary drivers as well? Whats wrong with them if they work? Is seeing the source that important to you? Its not to me if it works. In windows I pop in the driver cd and it installs the driver for me through a wizard and it just works. I want to do that in linux and zealots like you obviously don't help And if it doesn't, then I bitch at the company that made the piece of hardware to get a working driver. Thats called support. I have never had to go out and buy another piece of hardware to replace one that didn't work in windows because I've never had a piece of hardware that didn't work in windows.
What if, for one reason or another, windows doesn't like a piece of your hardware. Good fucking luck getting it to
My Gawd WTF...
google "mp3 xmms rpm"
download resulting rpm.
as root - rpm -i xmmsmp3.rpm
honestly, even a windows convert like myself was able to work this one out in about 2 minutes!
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
A VMWare guest system *looks* like it has different hardware. As far as XP's copy protection is concerned, it's a different machine!
This virtual hardware is the same for VMWare even if the actual hardware is different.
Example: If you have a 3com ethernet card...the VM shows "AMD PCnet-PCI II compatible Ethernet adapter". If you take the VMware disk file and move it to another machine with an Intel ethernet card...the VM shows "AMD PCnet-PCI II compatible Ethernet adapter". Same with other virtual hardware.
Details: http://www.vmware.com/support/ws45/doc/disks_profi les_ws.html
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Ya, I was aware that the Virtual machine is completely virtual.
I was just hoping that they would have put in something to identify that is was a virtual machine on the same hardware, somehow.. There's no way I'm paying for a second license to put it on the same physical computer, especially where I didn't even want to buy the first copy.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Many of the quirks, irritations and nifty features are only discovered after months of using a particular distro. I suspect the kind of depth that the Ask Slashdot question is aking for requires using a distro long enough to become intimately familiar with all the ins and outs.
All the distros handle the standard tasks in a standard kinda way. It's the odd task that the reviewer didn't think of that can make the difference between a really neat distro and a frustrating one.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
Thanks for your reply, I'm sorry if my previous post was a bit snippy. It was early in the morning I think (big mistake!)
Anyway, on looking at the original post I realise that I was implying that my rpm method was somehow better than apt-get/yum etc, which is not really what I meant, merely that there were other easy ways of doing it. I certainly would be using a better way to update packages if I could (which I really should have mentioned in the original post... should have hit 'preview'!).
Also, it's probably around 99% accurate to assume that most people posting to /. are going to be doing so under a real OS, believe me, I would if I could! I actually have an ancient 14.4 hardware modem that used to work, but alas no more. They are actually pretty hard to find, winmodems are ubiquitous these days. Yuck.
Sorry again for the misunderstanding, I'm glad to clear things up. Sorry for posting something that appeared to have issued from a dickwad, hopefully I have proven otherwise. My Mr Polite gibe has indeed proven correct. Thanks!
Cheers!
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather