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?"

Comments

In other words...

[pongo000]

...why isn't anybody doing the work you should be doing? Here, I'll do some work for you:

Distrowatch

I'll leave the rest up to you.

Oh, and in case you're wondering: Slack rules them all.

Re:On distros.

[harikiri]

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.

Re:These features aren't best

[evilviper]

I know people who refuse to even give Debian a try because the installer (and the base install) isn't pretty enough.

Speaking 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.

Re:Easy Answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Answer to your answer

[ValourX]

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.

-Jem