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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.)
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!".
although slackware has the bsd init scripts to make editing a bit easier. but that's only a preference.
so, to find out the best one for you: try them all or just go for freebsd (no distros)
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.
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...
I could see wanting the option for a text based install but to specifically NOT want a graphical installer is pretty dumb. Most video hardware from the last 5 years supports framebuffer and for the minority that doesn't a nicely done curses display fits the bill.
A graphical installer is only a liabilty if its done wrong but thankfully most modern distros like Fedora, Mandrake, and Suse happen to do it right.
That's just one axis too. You might have someone who wants to set up a web server but is a complete computer newbie (you wouldn't recommend them to use Slackware.) Or you might have someone who wants to use a desktop who is an elite hacker (you wouldn't recommend them to use Mandrake.)
So there is the axis of purpose, and the axis of experience. And that's just a start. A certain distribution might be perfect for the purpose, perfect for the user's level, but require money.
And so on, and so forth.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
- 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'd like the review to include whether or not it's strictly free/open software of dependant on proprietary components.
...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
"To properly review a distribution probably takes longer than most people who do such reviewing have time for."
Amen. Most distribution "reviews" are one page praise pieces these days, written by people who honestly have no qualifications in the first place to write a distribution review.
Could you imagine reviewing Windows, Office Super-Deluxe, and a hundred other bits of major software in a _day_? Of course not. You'd have to spend WEEKS. Yet, lo and behold, the majority of idiot reviewers do the install on a single machine, blame the distro for anything that goes wrong, and then go nitpicking (or, alternatively, ignore all flaws and praise the distro anyways because they use it). What happened to the rest of the damned review?
I'd also like to see some relatively unbiased reviews. For the love of G-d, please do not write a review if you're in love with the system in the first place, because you use it on your personal box. It just ends up as a piece of evangelism that wastes the three minutes of my precious life.
To summarize:
1. Limit the scope of the review to:
A. Certain users (and do proper and formal usability tests with them).
B. Certain pieces of software within the distribution (but be certain to test them thoroughly!). If this means you limit it to the installer and certain generic OS tasks, than so be it.
2. 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.
3. Don't review the distribution you use and love. Your review will be hideously biased, whether you try to make it fair or not. Example: This is the primary reason why all Gentoo reviews seem to gloss over the horrifying install (in my experience).
4. On a similar note, give every distro a fair shake. The fact that it doesn't work just like your favorite distribution should not be a point against it. I'm sick and tired of hearing "but it doesn't have apt-get, so it sucks".
5. Avoid absolutes such as "this is the best" or "this is the worst". Make note of pros and cons, and let the reader decide. You can give recommendations if you want.
6. If you alter the system by installing non-standard software, make note of this (ie, apt on Fedora or SuSE). If you're doing weird configuration, make note of it on the review, too.
7. Thoroughly inform yourself of the features of the distribution, and make note of the fact that you're not reviewing the distribution on 1000 machines at once (if the distribution was intended to scale like that). Example: This is the primary reason why RHN always seems to get bashed in RHEL reviews - people make believe it's just up2date, and miss the extremely useful remote management functionality.
8. Avoid getting into comparison situations. If it's hard to install software, say so, but don't damn Mandrake for not being Slackware (or vica versa).
Those are some things to look for, anyways. Like I said, too many idiots taking too short a time to review far too much.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
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.
In the software world, it's easier for me to:
In the "other" realm, it's easier to:
For the record, I think you're right.. software SHOULD be easy to use, but I think that there's danger in making things TOO easy -- you trade power for simplicity (the learning curve on Start->Find is much less steep than that of piping stuff through grep, but the grep solution is often much more USEFUL).
S
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.
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.
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?
I'd have to bet Slackware.
:)
That's what I run. If I want something, I usually go to the source, and install what they have to offer, rather than waiting for anyone to do anything for me. Why should I wait for a mainstream distro to patch the hell out of something, and distribute it to me with convoluted configuration options, when I can get it exactly like the author intended it? Slack makes this fairly easy. One of the first things I do when I install a Slackware system, is to download the new kernel sources, and compile it myself. Not that there's anything technically wrong with Slackware's kernel, I just like to know that my system is running exactly the way it should, without any extra drivers, or fluff.
We're building up a distro like this. It's going to be called "LMLinux". There's a really brief overview at http://lmlinux.com . We almost have the first alpha release done, but not quite. Our package management backend is just about complete, which looks rather nice.. Everythings stored in a MySQL database, for easy reference. It will make for very easy work, for anyone to browse to a few lookup pages, or for a package manager to find things.
I'm all about doing things from source, and doing it the way the author intended. But hey, if people like patchwork systems, let them get another distro with a kernel that has various patches reverse-engineered to work in the wrong version, etc, etc..
In our ideal world, you have the option of installing the package from our server, or grabbing it from the author yourself, and installing it yourself, without worrying that the next automagic update will hose whatever you've done.
I've done work for RedHat and Debian people, who absolutely freak out at the idea that I'd even think of downloading something myself, and installing it myself.
With all the complaints I see about x distro not having this, or not doing that, I kinda giggle. My Slackware installs do everything. Farther up in the thread is someone complaining about a lack of NTFS support by whatever distro. NTFS? Mine does it, I compiled it into the kernel, if there will be NTFS drives to read. I watch any video type I want, I've installed xine. It's not rocket science, read the readme.
And, you're absolutely right, you get all the free support you need in the mailing lists for the program, or checking on dejanews (eerr, groups.google.com)
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Rate each of those 7 and you'll have a nice index for each distro you rank.
All's true that is mistrusted
It could be a liability if you're dealing with a headless machine and want to use a serial console.
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 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
Well, now that I have a debian team member in a thread that I am responsible for, I feel the need to quantify my response.
I mean no personal disrespect. None at all. To be honest, despite my tone in the previous post, I actually like debian once it's running. It's easy to install and upgrade, and I appreciate that. Having to deal with redhat day in and day out, I am so sick of RPM dependancy hell that I've pretty much washed my hands of RedHat, and apt-get (as well as emerge and similar tools) are fantastic and much appreciated.
It's just the installer that gets me.
And my problem is that I work at a webhosting company. I have to set debian up on machines fairly regularly. Not regularly enough to justify setting up a slipstreamed automated install, but regularly enough to be annoyed by it. And it frustrates me even more, because I'm usually setting it up on customer machines, so I get to do the grunt work, and then I don't even get to use the computer (to its credit, debian takes little "administration" time (read babysitting)). But that means I miss out on the parts of debian that I like. The saving grace of the install is the local 10/100 mbit mirror.
So, I'm disgruntled with debian's installer. I'm sick of telling it that, yes, I do in fact want a 2.4 kernel because I might want to do something with the lartc (linux advanced routing and traffic control) kernel stuff. I'm sick of having to open the damn case and install an 8139 card in order to download the drivers for the real network adaptor that redhat 9 picked up 2 years ago. Blah blah.
My conclusion has been that Debian is an excellent linux distro with a great philosophy of user control and choice which occasionally leaks over into some places where it's a nuisance.
But, having said that, thank you for your work.
~Will
sig?
Then install a Linux from Scratch.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
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.
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"...
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
The base problem is that those magazines all they want is ride on the hype of novelty. In order for a proper review, the reviewer should have deep knowledge of the distribution. If he wanted to do a fair comparation among distributions, then he should be knowledgeable in all of them or meet with a group of knowledgeable reviewers and good comunicators so they all can write a well ballanced article (one of them talking about one of the distributions).
But then, magazines (either ellectronic or in paper) don't want this, but fill some pages with the latest hype. For this to be acomplished is enough (and cheaper) just test the installers (why they don't say they are testing installers, not distributions?) and give each of them two or three hours of playing around the graphic interface. Obviously this way they won't see or review any long path advantage or defect about their package management tools, or how well "greased" are all parts fitting together, how well their QA resources fit together, or how interesting for each kind of users their objectives or "social contract" are, and how well the distribution fits to those objectives.
Simply put down: doing good reviews is too expensive for the real objectives of the ones doing or founding them.
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."
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'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...