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?"
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.
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.
I hate to disagree with you, but I am going to. ;-)
I care and I _still_ don't know the basic differences between Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, SuSe, Mandrake, Slackware, et cetera.
The main reason is that I can't seem to find a site that lays out those differences in any meaningful way AND I simply do not have the time to install 12 different distros and become technically familiar with each one.
Right now I am running a mix of SuSe and FC1 and exploring the differences between them as a relatively new *nix user.
I wish more technically proficient people would review the various distributions with write-ups geared toward the new but technically bent user.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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 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.
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
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!
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.
Absolutely!
.edu setup just uses some DHCP over Wi-Fi, well, the so many of the large DSL providers (i.e. 90%) out in the real world where the consumers live are using PPPoE now!
The worst part of installing Debian is setting up PPPoE.
You choose to install the daemon, but the installer thinks you want to set up a dial up modem and won't let you install pppd without configuring a dial up! I don't have a dial up, I have PPPoE! Just install the package and that's it...or even better...install the package and then let me configure it for DSL! So basically I have to install it by hand...which isn't a big deal but if you are going to claim to have this installer that is so fantastic that it just can't be changed and then it can't handle setting up a nic and/or pppd to use PPPoE, well that's bull.
When I asked in a Debian forum if there where plans to make the installer less of a bitch to setup PPPoE they said that PPPoE was too much of an obscure system for them to worry about supporting it!
This from the distro that supports 11 different architectures half of which were last relevant in the early 90s! Guess what just because you're ivory tower
But instead of fixing this the developers argue over what is the true meaning of freedom and what the definition of is is! And then push back the already slothlike release schedule by another year!
Who wants to put up with that shit! Apt-get is hardly unique these days there's no reason to put up with the idiocy of Debian any longer. Shit, the Gentoo install is better since you know from the start you are going to be configuring it all by hand instead of having some clunky antiquated installer getting in the way and producing a bunch of funked up configs all over the place that you have to go back and sort out after the fact like Debian does.
I think the right way to install debian is to tell the installer you don't want anything at all that's not absolutely required, and then install what you want with apt-get.
I'm a realtive noob to Linux. Okay, now that that's off my chest:
The first time I tried Linux was Mandrake 7. That was quite some time ago, and there was a large gap between then and my current linux usage - primarily because I couldn't figure crap out. Mainly because I didn't know how to use documentation. It's a little bit different now.
My reintroduction to Linux was by a friend off of irc. He suggested I use Debian. I said 'hey, sure, why not.' I had a spare computer, so I did. Install went off without a hitch, he told me to not install any extra packages with tasksel or anything, and helped me through figuring out apt-get. After that, I was home-free. I loved it. I set up gnome 2.4, learned how to recompile my kernel.
In the High Performance Computing course at school, we use strictly Red Hat machines. I tried to work through the graphical install. I really did. I got frustrated at their hard drive partitioner because it wouldn't let me decide where on the hard drive the partition was going to go (Beginning or end of free space, etc). And then when it prompted me for a root password, it wouldn't let me type anything in (the box was ghosted). I will never use a graphical install again.
Since my reintroduction to linux via debian, I have installed debian on four different machines. Most recently on a cdrom-less laptop with three diskettes. I'm not the smartest guy out there - I go to a community college, I get pretty average grades, and I watch porn like everyone else. If I can figure out the debian installer.. why can't other people?
Most of the menus aren't useful if you aren't running a special type of system that needs special attention. If you don't know what a menu is, look at the documentation. If you don't know what device name your hardware uses, try googling for it before hand (or during if you have a second computer). More recent installers (even the three-diskette one) auto-detected my hardware very accurately. My last install (knoppix-based, for fun) never did get x video acceleration working with the neomagic chipset - but the real debian installer did.
I'm just a freshman community college kid. I don't understand what's so hard about the debian installer... will someone enlighten me with specific problems they've had?
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?
I totally agree. I think for most of us, Gentoo is easier to install than Debian, even though it doesn't even have an installer. I've built a few LFS systems, and I still found Debian's installer incredibly frustrating. I think dselect in particular is specifically designed to be as user-unfriendly as possible.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
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.
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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