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?"
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.
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'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.
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
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.
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?
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
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.
-JemPersonally, I don't trust myself to do the job right!
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
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.