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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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'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.
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...
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'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
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.
"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.
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
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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...
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 :-)
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.
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
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?
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 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.
-JemComment removed based on user account deletion
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
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.
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