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.
nerd politics.
------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
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.
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
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.
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
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
"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.
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
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...
*sigh*
When will people get this? It's not the lack of a "graphical installer" that keeps people from wanting to install debian. It's seriously not. I don't use debian, and mostly because of the installer, or issues that arise from the installer. But, hell, I installed redhat 6.0. It didn't have a graphical installer. I've installed gentoo on many boxes, from stage 1 to stage 3 installs, and that's certainly not graphical, and I actually enjoyed it. I've installed solaris 5.7, 8, and 9, on a variety of SPARCs and x86 boxen, and survived without blowing my top.
The thing people hate about the Debian installer is that it's annoying as all holy fuck.
Even if you choose the "install the standard system" options, it still asks you fourteen million questions, such that, after a few minutes, you just start accepting the default answer. It wants you to baby sit it, to set up a support group for it and walk it through in 12 steps. I can't even count the number of times it was all "read this page of information", and then, at the bottom, it tells me "i'm going ahead with this", and it's not like you have an option, so why the fuck read the page?
Not to mention the damn thing talks to you as if the computer is sentient! "I'm going to go ahead and try to detect your network", "Would you like me to install the development packages?", "I have a terrible itch right under PCI slot 3, can you scratch it with your tounge for me?"
I know the whole philosophy of debian is built around CHOICE and FREEDOM. But, at some points, just make a fucking decision for the consumer, will you? You're probably not going to alienate any zealots if you just go ahead and autodetect the network adaptor without creating a committee and waiting for someone to second the motion.
Everytime someone brings up the graphical installer vs. the world arguement, the test case is always Debian. It's unfair; Debian's installer sucks for completely autonomous reasons. If you'd like to see a relatively well-done command line installer, look at RedHat 6.x, or even the ansi installers for redhat 7.x, or Solaris' install, which is perfectly functional without being annoying.
~Will
sig?
Speaking for myself, I have plenty of experience with text installers, and quite dislike GUI installers.
I've got tons of experience with text-based installers, such as all of the BSDs, Slackware, (does Gentoo count?) and literally dozens of others.
Yes, with my experience with installing OSes, I still find the Debian installer quite mystifying. Hundreds of oddball menus, with unusual categories, with mile-long lists of device names, and things like that. I never managed to install Debian properly with the installer, although I've tried a handful of times. It's not a complete show-stopper, because I don't have a problem modifying the system after it has been installed... Still, as far as installers go, Debian is the worst I've ever seen. It may be text-mode, which gives it a plus in my book, but that small advantage is overwhelmed by the massive complexity of the program.
It's been a while since my last Debian install, so it's possible things have changed. But I certainly don't expect they could have pulled off a miracle and made their installer easy to use.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Yes, RedHat Fedora makes that decision. It annoyed me to no end that I couldn't read my NTFS drive so I could play my kid's videos. Even worse, you can't play an MP3 file! The really screwed up part is that there's nothing "non-free" about the NTFS drivers. RedHat seems to be scared of some "IP" boogeyman that's going to sue RedHat for distributing legally reverse engineered wares. Go figure.
If you want the full review, it's here. Reviews for Mandrake and SuSE are also in my journal. Hopefully I'll have time to do a writeup of Java Desktop System very soon here.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I care and I _still_ don't know the basic differences between Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, SuSe, Mandrake, Slackware, et cetera.
Debians the squiggly line, Fedora's the hat, Gentoo's the weird looking bird, SuSe is the lizard, Mandrake is the star, Slackware is the uhh...series of letters that spell out Slackware.
Understand now?
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...
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.
First off, I *personally* think there's big separation between Server distros, and Desktop distros. You _can_ probably make any distro do anything you want, but some distros just naturally lend themselves to one set of tasks or another.
So that is the first thing you should weed out. All of the "niche" distros that are designed for one set of server tasks or another. And there are a ton of them.
Next being that you are a new *nix user by your own admission - you should weed out the distros that don't put emphasis on the Desktop. In my opinion (and this will undoubtedly start a flame war of some kind), but Gentoo, Debian, Slackware, and the like are poor choices for *NEW* users. The learning curve is just too steep. Come back to those later if your curiosity is strong enough.
Now start looking for distros that have a large community following. In my mind, that is Mandrake, SuSE, Fedora Core, and possibly a couple of others.
Now in my opinion, the biggest difference between these "easy", Desktop oriented Linux distributions is really two things.
1. The Installer
2. The System Management Tools after it's installed
For the most part Gnome/KDE is Gnome/KDE regardless. I've used Gnome on a FreeBSD box to check my e-mail and surf the web and it's the exact same.
Once you have the system installed, your Window Manager of choice is going to work the same way no matter what distro you choose. So once the installation is complete, the biggest difference in my opinion (for _*Desktop*_ users) is what System Management tools are available to you.
SuSE has one way of doing it, Mandrake has another, and Fedora Core has yet another. Decide for yourself which you like. It's a waste of time for me to give any advice in this area because everyone who disagrees will just attack me, tell me I'm stupid, tell me how much better SuSE's tools are instead of Mandrake, or vice-versa.
It's unfortunate that Linux users (well, *nix users in general) are so full of zeal, but that's just how it is.
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?
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.
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 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.
-JemI'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.