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?"
Distrowatch
I'll leave the rest up to you.
Oh, and in case you're wondering: Slack rules them all.
I guess you just have to try them all, and then decide which one fits your needs. Just get your hands dirty dude!
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
Firstly, a review needs to identify what the distribution's target market is. It should be reviewed differently based on the goals it's trying to achieve. Too many reviews I've seen seem uninterested in what the distro's focus is, and do the very general review. Instead, an enterprise server-focused distribution review might look like:
1. Ease of installation on a single system.
2. Ease of performing distributed installations.
3. Documentation availability (hardcopy, electronic, online)
4. Hardware detection on a few varied systems (ide vs scsi, raid controllers, gigabit network cards, etc).
5. Server-based applications (database, webserver, mail) and versions.
6. Default security configuration.
7. Software update facilities.
8. If any problems occured during installation or configuration, what the responses of the support options (email, internet forum, phone) was like.
9. Configuring two types of standard enterprise system types (database server, web server, mail server) - any third-party configuration utilities, or wierd/useful ways the vendor has built and layed out the software.
10. Backup and restore software - apart from default options like tar, are there any third-party or vendor-specific options.
11. Any unique software that sets this distribution apart (oracle single-cpu license included for example).
12. Benchmarks.
13. Cost.
This might differ HUGELY from a desktop review. Which might include:
1. Installation frontend.
2. Speed of installation.
3. Software packages.
4. Hardware detection on bleeding edge desktop PC.
5. Organisation of desktop applications (ie, why is Openoffice.org under Applications/Other folder?).
6. Software update facilities.
7. Any distinguishing third-party or vendor-specific software included (free copy of winex or vmware for example).
8. Vendor support responses to common queries.
9. Cost.
Man watching 6 MSCE's around a sun box, looks alot like the opening scene's of 2001:space odyssey...
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.
-JemSpeaking for myself, I have plenty of experience with text installers, and quite dislike GUI installers.
I've got tons of experience with text-based installers, such as all of the BSDs, Slackware, (does Gentoo count?) and literally dozens of others.
Yes, with my experience with installing OSes, I still find the Debian installer quite mystifying. Hundreds of oddball menus, with unusual categories, with mile-long lists of device names, and things like that. I never managed to install Debian properly with the installer, although I've tried a handful of times. It's not a complete show-stopper, because I don't have a problem modifying the system after it has been installed... Still, as far as installers go, Debian is the worst I've ever seen. It may be text-mode, which gives it a plus in my book, but that small advantage is overwhelmed by the massive complexity of the program.
It's been a while since my last Debian install, so it's possible things have changed. But I certainly don't expect they could have pulled off a miracle and made their installer easy to use.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
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
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 :-)
First off, I *personally* think there's big separation between Server distros, and Desktop distros. You _can_ probably make any distro do anything you want, but some distros just naturally lend themselves to one set of tasks or another.
So that is the first thing you should weed out. All of the "niche" distros that are designed for one set of server tasks or another. And there are a ton of them.
Next being that you are a new *nix user by your own admission - you should weed out the distros that don't put emphasis on the Desktop. In my opinion (and this will undoubtedly start a flame war of some kind), but Gentoo, Debian, Slackware, and the like are poor choices for *NEW* users. The learning curve is just too steep. Come back to those later if your curiosity is strong enough.
Now start looking for distros that have a large community following. In my mind, that is Mandrake, SuSE, Fedora Core, and possibly a couple of others.
Now in my opinion, the biggest difference between these "easy", Desktop oriented Linux distributions is really two things.
1. The Installer
2. The System Management Tools after it's installed
For the most part Gnome/KDE is Gnome/KDE regardless. I've used Gnome on a FreeBSD box to check my e-mail and surf the web and it's the exact same.
Once you have the system installed, your Window Manager of choice is going to work the same way no matter what distro you choose. So once the installation is complete, the biggest difference in my opinion (for _*Desktop*_ users) is what System Management tools are available to you.
SuSE has one way of doing it, Mandrake has another, and Fedora Core has yet another. Decide for yourself which you like. It's a waste of time for me to give any advice in this area because everyone who disagrees will just attack me, tell me I'm stupid, tell me how much better SuSE's tools are instead of Mandrake, or vice-versa.
It's unfortunate that Linux users (well, *nix users in general) are so full of zeal, but that's just how it is.
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.
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."
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.
-Jem1. 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?
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
--
Now look. I'm not a Windows fan, I hate XP, and I WANT TO USE LINUX! Unfortunately every time I've installed it on my old laptop (Mandrake 9.1 or Red Hat 9) the onboard sound has failed to configure and work in exactly the way reported elsewhere. I can't afford to dump Windows from my working machine until I get a workable alternative. The most frustrating thing is that I can see how close this is to being viable.
Don't give me all this stuff about apt-get and Gentoo. Make it work first time or Microsoft will win. And we will all lose.
I would say that Fedora has done the graphical install wrong, as it is done in such a way that does not guarantee it staying in synch with the text installer. So critical functionality is missing from the text installer. This means that on the rare occasion that circumstances force you to do a text install, you may find that you can not properly configure the system.
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.
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