Slashdot Mirror
Linux Distributions Rated on CNet
acoustix writes "CNET.com is running a story on seven different Linux distributions. Corel Linux and Red Hat 6.1 Deluxe came out on top. " I noticed a few technical flaws, but its a decent article as a whole.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
So _now_ they like linux enough to rate it?
Since when would I trust CNet to rate Linux distros? That's like trusting your six-year old kid to rate German sports cars!
But the newbies the article is targeted at probably trust them, and any exposure is welcome, so I'll shut up now..
My little way of starting a flame war: SuSe rocks!
.sig: Now legally binding!
they seemed to award higher points for distributions that were easy to install and with free phone tech support. it sort of sucks that they give debian/slackware a 6 of 10. I guess they are focusing on windows/mac users and not linux users?
ZDNet, CNet, MSNBC! It's not stopping, Linux is going in by STORM! Just today I was asked by my boss "How viable would it be to move over to Linux for our servers?" I mentioned that any new servers running Linux would be GREAT, however, I don't see a need to switch over our Sun Solaris box's considering we already purchased the license and all :)
"Out, OUT! You demons of STUPIDITY!" - Dogbert
I think their opinion of Corel Linux is correct. It is very easy to install, and everything is set up for you...
for power users like the people on Slashdot, you will find yourself limited by it. It didn't even come with a config file for exim, which is ok if you are using Communicator for your mail, but fetchmail + procmail barfed on me.
It's nice to see Linux in reviews but I wish they would give more depth. We all wnat easy to install I guess, but thats only the begining. It seems they did not have problems installing any of the distros. Makeing ease of install such a major part rateings and print space is missing things I find a little more important. Well, it is nice to see Slackware still mentioned along with the others.
I'm getting tired of distribution reviews that seem very centric around newbies.
Yes, it's nice to know which distributions are the most friendly to the new user, which have the most idiot-proof documentation, and so on. But it seems that a lot of the reviews focus on three things exclusively: support, idiot-proof documentation, and how easy it is to install.
How about a distribution comparison that does a little more than that? How about a comparison about which distribution is most conformant to the still-emerging distro standards? How about taking into account what free software is shipped? Or stability? Or how easy it is to configure and maintain for a UNIX-experienced administrator? How compatible it is with the bigger Unices (for instance, in terms of configuration files)?
For instance, Slackware 7 got a '6' rating. Why? It doesn't have a pretty installer. It doesn't come with a book that explains what a shell is and why root is a bad thing to use 24/7. And it doesn't have a toll-free number you can call and say, "Duh, I did 'rm -r *' as root and torched my system. Was that bad?" Yet it is (almost) universally acknowleged as one of the most stable, most carefully designed distributions in existence.
Red Hat is universally praised as one of the best distributions, but most of the ones I read focus on how great the installation process is and how pretty GNOME looks. Swell. Now why don't you tell me something important, like whether it uses beta-level software, dumps cores like its going out of style, or runs like a champ, has its libraries in the right subdirectories, and has the latest stable iterations of all the major software?
I think it's great that Linux is becoming easy enough for newbies to use. On the other hand, with the number of distributions in existence, and being somewhat more UNIX-savvy than Joe Blow, I'd like more meatier information and comparisons than "Well, Red Hat has a prettier installer, so it gets higher marks."
Remember people, this is a good thing for the movement, don't jump down their throat for reviewing OS's for newbies. The Zealots in our group will give us a bad name if we're not careful. and you know who you are. So settle down Beavis.
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
it's interesting that they said both debian and slackware's installations were difficult. Those were (until I installed RedHat on a friend's computer) the only two distros I'd ever installed. I couldn't imagine an install being much easier than slackware's. *shrug* Of course I had plenty of trouble with the RedHat install when it locked up my mouse and then more or less required it to be used throughout the install. *grrr*
I despise these Linux distro comparisons. Because it always ends up with assigning a number to the "goodness" of a distrobution and then showing who "comes out on top".
Maybe this is because they gave Slackware a 6. In the (incredibly short) review they had absolutely nothing bad to say about the distrobution except that one has to be computer savy to install it, and that it lacks written (and they really mean printed) documentation. Well, that's sort of the point. Slackware's for the us who don't like using hefty and involved package formats.
I don't think Slackware should have scored any higher than Debian or Red Hat whose goals are completely different. I'd just like to see a comaprison that says is the spectrum o' Linux and this is where this distrobution falls.
This review doesn't help me pick the distrobution I want if I want the one that's easiest to customize (i.e. in install things out the boundries set my package formats with dependancy checking etc.).
So my point is, this isn't like comparing some piece of software with the same goal. Each distrobution was created because they felt they had something to offer that is not found in the others.
Debian never seems to do well in these sorts of reviews. Debian is difficult to install, but once its set up and running, it is the easiest Linux to maintain, administer and tweak. The runlevel/init configuration is very easy to understand, and all of the administration scripts are clearly written and commented. The system 'feels' very stable, and dpkg make it difficult to create package conflicts. /very/ hesitant to implement a server on RedHat, as I don't feel I have very good control over it.
I get the feeling that comparisons of Linux distributions don't get a lot of time or effort invested in them. This comarison in particular didn't seem to go much further that installing the distro and reading the check lists on the side of the box.
Personally, I would be
AIR, didn't the Linux Journal do the same basic run-down 2 months ago (minus the Corel, natch)?
It seems that C/Net has a different slant, as well as a different criteria for rating (ease of installation, similarity to Windows, and ability to install beside Win), but I'm wondering how much of the 'inspiration' for the article is their own?
--sugarman--
I don't think a review of Linux-based operating systems is complete without a mention of network installs or upgrades.
Network installation is increasingly important. It used to be that Joe or Jane User would never do a network install because s/he only had a dial-up connection, and it would be ridiculously slow or impractical to install that way. Today, however, more and more people have cable modems, xDSL, or other high-speed connections, and delivery of software over the Net is correspondingly increasing. System administrators, of course, love network installs for lots of reasons, one of them being that there aren't any CDs to lose in a messy office!
Upgrades are also of prime importance, especially for security reasons. Linux-based OSes need to make security upgrades as straightforward as possible, and to make a point of encouraging users to do them. This is even more important for Joe and Jane User than it is for sysadmins -- because sysadmins already know to do security upgrades; average desktop users by and large do not.
Upgrades are also ideally done over the network, primarily for speed of delivery: if you have to wait for a CD to ship with your upgrades, you are exposed to security holes for far longer than if you can get the upgrades in real time over the Net.
For these reasons, one of the factors that must be considered in judging Linux-based systems is the quality of their infrastructure for doing network installs and upgrades. There are two components to this: the installation and upgrade software itself, and the presence of sites on the Net to get reliable installs and upgrades from. It is my considered opinion that Debian wins out handily in these departments. The dpkg/apt systemry makes it quite straightforward to do network installations and upgrades; security upgrades are prompt, well-publicized, and well-tested; and the mirror sites are both remarkably fast and available all over the globe.
Like most reviews, this review focuses on either using Linux as a server at work or using it as an alternative desktop at home.
But this whole focus misses out on what I think is going to be a big market for Linux: the complete Linux office. For example, a small office with a single server and 50 workstations would save a small fortune by going with Linux, and would save even more because of the ease of administering that network, not to mention the lack of downtime.
By ignoring which distributions make remote admin easier to set up, and which ones make automated installs simpler, cnet misses some of the main strengths of a Linux installation.
Eventually, small corporations are going to add up just how much money they lose by using unstable and hard-to-maintain software on the desktop. Which distribution is most suited to step into that void?
you'd think a company with a 6 billion dollar market cap (or whatever it is now) would have ranked a little higher.
It just barely works! Sure it's got a decent GUI installer, a GUI boot screen, and a few package management gizmos, but man it's still beta. They released it out of beta when it was time for Comdex, and it's definitely not ready. Not to mention that the download version lacks a lot of packages which you then have to download separately.
In sort, it certainly looks promising, but it needs a lot more debugging to be usable. And what's the deal with the closed debugging anyway? It looks like Corel still doesn't get Open Source.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
It's really disappointing to see Mandrake, the winner of Best Product at LinuxWorld, if I remember right, being blasted for, what, documentation? As I read this article, I wondered whether anyone rating these distros had used Linux before, and whether they actually used the Linii they reviewed, because they talked about nothing but installing and things you could read on the box yourself - do I really need a hardcopy manual, really? Should it completely overshadow the completeness, functionality and speed of a real OS? And, number of "freeware" and "shareware" apps?? It's very misleading to say the free software included in a distro is "freeware," a diminuation of sorts.
Frankly, I haven't seen Corel Linux yet, but if they feel it's so close to Caldera, it will drive me bananas. I expect a distribution to give me everything I need to be productive *now*, and OpenLinux just did not cut it. I switched back to Mandrake w/GNOME faster than you can say "Damn, I see what they meant by gooey."
-bp
In 1993, I had to turn off the monitor to my Linux box so the IT guys wouldn't notice it and take it away. (0.96 slackware -- I think)
In 1995, we had to fight tooth and nail to get our Linux box on the network and actually sign a document saying that we would administer it and if it caused a problem they would yank it off the network without warning. It got yanked four times and it was never the problem -- it was just the first thing they tried.
In 1998, we started developing commercial products that ran on Linux.
In 1999, the IT guys are asking about building Linux machines to do NAT and other things. When I ask why they say "Well, I hear the things never crash."
Boy things change. I've gone from fire breathing infidel hippie to mainstream without changing my stance. Go figure.
You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake -- but you could be if you got off your ass.
...see CPU Review. This guy actually uses the distro and reviews the differences in a comprehensive manner. Just my 2 centavos.
--Somewhere there is a village missing an idiot.
We interrupt this article for an important notice:
The National Flamewar Service has issued a Distro Flamewar Watch on this article. This article has been positively identified as containing the following:
1. A technical product review from a media outlet not known for technical knowledge.
2. (Most important) Comparisons between Linux distributions.
These conditions have been found to lead to severe flamewars. Readers are advised to expect the following:
1. Fanatical defense of favorite distributions.
2. Attacks on C|Net's "idiot" reviewers.
3. Anecdotal stories about individual user experiences with various distributions. These stories may have absolutely nothing to do with anyone else's experience.
4. Long threads of arguments that amount to:
Post: Your distro sucks!
Reply: Does not! YOUR distro sucks!
Reply: Does not! YOUR distro sucks!
...and so on, ad infinitum.
For your own safety, we advise readers to not take comments personally. Please take deep breaths before firing off your reply. If the breathing does not help, consider pouring hot grits down your pants -- this seems to work for several Anonymous Cowards.
We now return you to the article.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
It's pretty clear who this article is aimed at. The first paragraph comes right out and says it's time to hop on the linux bandwagon because everyone else is. CNet's heavily skewed towards the new PC user who's "heard the Linux buzz." *shudder*
Too bad they had to give out number ratings. I'm sure this will steer people away from excellent distributions such as Slackware (my fav) and Debian.
Oh well...gripes aside. It's positive towards Linux overall...I guess that's a good thing.
The kind of technical comparisons you are looking for isn't likely to appear in a c/net article written for mostly Windows users who might consider *upgrading* to Linux, and wouldn't understand the technical info you'd like to see -- which would only scare them off.
Got a beef? Plug a name into the Bizarre Rumour Generator!
But at the same time, you'd have to point out the upgrade path for slackware, the lack of support and poor update speeds, and their packaging scheme (I'm sorry, when maintaining 12 different linux boxes, rpm or dpkg are awesome).
But right there, you proved why a technical review for advanced users would be a difficult sell, at best! because everyone has their own favorite distro. For instance, I'm biased against Debian because I was stranded on Debian 1.3, with no upgrade method to 2.0. Hence, If I was the one doing the advanced technical review of Linux Distro's, I'd most likely let my feelings influence my final rating. Just as you would obviously rate Slackware because you are used to it.
People tend to enjoy what they are used to. I'm used to redhat and Solaris. so OS's that are unlike those two, I tend to get aggrivated when I can't find out where they hardcoded the gate way. hence, bad review. And anyone who is technical enough to do a fully advanced review of Linux distro's knows that different distributions are suited for different purposes, but they are all just an ends to a means to getting the kernel on, and some tools to support the kernel. and after you learn the complicated interface to dslect, you don't care that it's complicated, you know how to use it.
Anyway, getting the idea? However, getting more people to use more distributions is a 'good thing' because (as an example) then eventually the slackware people will realize that 'compile your own' is not always the best option, technically and economically. Just as the RedHat people might realize that the default config is not always a good thing. ("What do you mean sharing out / on NFS is a bad idea?")
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
Redhat has more security vulnerabilities than Windows and it was rated #1 for business. No wonder so many websites are hacked. God uses debian.
t's really disappointing to see Mandrake, the winner of Best Product at LinuxWorld, if I remember right, being blasted for, what, documentation? As I read this article, I wondered whether anyone rating these distros had used Linux
before, and whether they actually used the Linii they reviewed, because they talked about nothing but installing and things you could read on the box yourself - do I really need a hardcopy manual, really? Should it completely
overshadow the completeness, functionality and speed of a real OS? And, number of "freeware" and "shareware" apps?? It's very misleading to say the free software included in a distro is "freeware," a diminuation of sorts.
Who actually needs or reads documentation anyway? I have had considerably experience with clueless people and reading the manual is usually the last thing they do. How many times do stupid forgo the manual because they think they know best? Only really knowledgable people actually read documentation and manuals.
Frankly, I haven't seen Corel Linux yet, but if they feel it's so close to Caldera, it will drive me bananas. I expect a distribution to give me everything I need to be productive *now*, and OpenLinux just did not cut it. I switched back
to Mandrake w/GNOME faster than you can say "Damn, I see what they meant by gooey."
It's interesting I have/used a copy of the first version of the caldera network desktop and saw it in operation. I remember a kid who had apparently little unix experience delete the nobody group in attempting to improve security. Just because you have a GUI dosn't mean that you make it a painless experience.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
with the number of distributions in existence, and being somewhat more UNIX-savvy than Joe Blow, I'd like more meatier information and comparisons than "Well, Red Hat has a prettier installer, so it gets higher marks."
... bitch all you want, but when c|net posts it with an audience of 90% Windows users, they ARE all newbies and don't know a core dump from a bash history so the sort of indepth analysis you are looking for would be wasted on them.
And you're expecting to get that from c|net? or any windows-centric outlet in general?
I agree with everything you've said and would like to see a few detailed comparisons as well but you have to consider the source. If linux.com posted something like this, then yes
It seems like everyone wants linux to take over the world but doesn't expect anyone to have to be a newbie in the process. "Why can't they all just be as smart as me and KNOW linux already?!" I'm sorry, that just doesn't happen and if the world domination plan is to ever come to light, articles like this will need to be spread far and wide.
I long for a day when the word "newbie" isn't a four letter word, rather it indicates someone who is willing to stray from the status quo in search for better solutions than what may be being force fed to them.
But, as far as network installs go, Redhat has kickstart. Do any of the other distro's have different network installs?
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
Alright, I'm gonna say this and then I'm gonna go away (unless someone addresses me directly, of course).
A console-based installer is not inherently difficult. That's the most idiotic trend I think I've ever seen in product reviews.
We (Slackware) had a bunch of guys come up to the booth at Comdex and tell us how difficult our install was (or so they'd heard). So we let them install it. After making some cracks about our "outdated" installer, they got it up and running, into KDE and browsing the web (this was a full installation) within 20 minutes. Then they left.
Not once did they look at any documentation... they just stepped through the installer and it told them what to do. There was even a bad read off the disc (we checked after the install...it was dirty), and aside from a warning the system got installed flawlessly.
Yeah, real difficult. We should really slap GTK on top of it; that should make it easier.
Its really distressing in that they didn't really explore the virtues and/or weak points of any of the distributions.
The review's not bad, but its much, much too shallow. One would never expect to see (or tolerate) a review of a commericial OS that's so thin on content
--srj/mmv
Does anyone else have this fear? Probably I'm just paranoid... But then, as far as I'm concerned, it happened to the internet.
-AC
with a more limited set of default packages and a few GUI thinks frosted on top of it. I'm pretty sure you can set your /etc/apt/sources.list to point to the debian archives on the web and go nuts.
I find it very satisfying to read all of these comments and see that many people mention other distributions besides Red Hat as being their favorite. My personal favorite is Slackware, although I have toyed with Caldera and Red Hat in the past. As far as those two go, I think they don't hold a candle to Slackware for stability and administration. Also from all accounts I've heard Debian is very nice. In the past I just get the feeling that distributions other then Red Hat get the shaft when people talk about how good they are (case in point this review on C|Net).
I'm not saying everyone should like Slackware or any another distribution, in fact I would not recommend Slackware to a newbie (PERSONAL EXPERIENCE!!). The point is people should choose their distribution based on what they want to get out of it, not based on the assumption that if you haven't heard a lot about it, then it can't be good.
Project Steve
Would you believe it? A quick past from the Suse review:
SuSE is more difficult to install than Red Hat, but its phone support option makes it a viable choice for businesses looking to use Linux,
especially since it costs $20 less than Red Hat's.
The mind boggles. Is this review aimed to inform businesses about Linux as an alternative to, say, NT or Solaris? Who are you kidding? I honestly don't know what to make of this.
Isn't the point of having many flavors of Linux that you can base it on personal preference? It's the first thing that happens when a newbie goes on IRC for Linux:
newbie: What's the best version of Linux?
alinuxuser: It's personal preference.
so doesn't rating them basically defeat the purpose? It's like trying to rate vi, emacs, and Corel word, depends what you like.
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit.
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit.
jdube is who I am
CNet is right: Slackware is bad.
You don't want it.
It's too hard.
Go away.
Are there any other distributions besides redhat (which has KickStart) that supports network installs?
Is this a feature when considering which distribution to choose?
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
I'm actually kind of scratching my head over the Corel review. Do you know anyone who edits text files with Wordperfect?
Talk about not being 'In the Zone' -- I can see Tom Christiansen going into fits over this one.
--
But he sure plays a mean pinball.
Corel is a Debian derivative. They entirely missed that fact.
Bruce Perens.
Before you ready the flamethrowers of BFGs, Take into consideration that I am a newbie. I have some experience using Linux (RH5 w/ KDE) and am thinking about purchasing a disrto, installing it, and actually learning how to use, maintain, etc a working desktop computer. I also want it to work as a print and file server for a couple of Macs. I know how everyone feels about their fave distro (of course yours is the best :), but short of this c|net story, there is LITTLE to be gleaned from reportage on Linux for newbies. Most of my information comes from the (admittedly bad) stories on c|net and from places like slashdot. I really value the commentary here, and am learning much. So, pat selves on back for a bit. I know I am opening a large can of worms here, but you are the experts...so why doesn't slashdot rate the distros. Provide reasons for/vs. Make it comprehensive; cover install, tech support, packages, stability, speed, etc etc etc. Just a thought. I know it is something I would like to read. Cheers, Tom
anyone else?
interesting that there is no such note pointing out that the actual current release of debian is 2.1r3, not 2.1r2. granted the difference in the two releases is mostly fixes, but important fixes none the less...
--Siva
Keyboard not found.
Keyboard not found.
Press F1 to continue.
While the typical home user probably doesn't know enough to care about a buffer overflow exploit in syslogd, they DO want the latest cool software. They want to be able to install it easily, with the shiny GUI-front-end package manager, or a simple command. That's where Debian wins.
.deb for almost all software locally, so it's easy to find what you need. Capt and gnome-apt are super-easy to use. When you want to upgrade your whole dist, the only thing you have to do is change "slink" to "potato" (for example) in your FTP list, and:
Got RedHat 5.2? There's lots of RPMs of new software that you can't use, because they're compiled for glibc2.1, or for newer versions of libraries, the RPMs for which are only compiled for glibc2.1....
Right, so you use the "upgrade" feature. And everything probably works. But you still have to go find and download the packages yourself, and worry about any dependencies yourself. Plus, you have to figure out how to configure the package after you install it.
Debian takes care of dependencies for you, gets the packages for you, asks you configuration questions as the packages are installed, and cleans up the package files for you. Also, they have a
apt-get update
apt-get dist-upgrade
Machine is upgraded while it's running, and again, configuration questions are asked on the fly. Much more sane, IMHO.
What I'm saying is that the article focused on the present, and immediate future. It didn't mention what would happen if you want a new package a year after you install Linux. That's an important thing to know--we want to prove that Linux is better than Windows, and knowing which distros do the best job of upgrading without reformatting (something which is fraught with peril in the Windows world) seems very important.
--Ray
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
The last distribution I put on my system was RedHat 5.0. Being a "non-newbie" user, if I would upgrade my system, I would lose all my customizations. Upgradeing to RH6.1 would upgrade all the apps and libraries that I recompiled using pgcc to be optimized for my dual P2. I only upgrade what I need too, I don't do the whole system or a complete re-install. Things like glibc, X, my windows managers were not installed via an rpm, but by a "make install." RedHat upgrades don't like this, they like to install their own i386 optimized version, which sucks. Heck, I've even optimized "vi".
So, why aim at the newbies? Because they are the ones installing a new system for the first time.
Actually, the article is helpful at a couple of levels.
1. As stated, for a non-linux user who has never gone through a text based X windows installation only to find they need to know what their graphics card's clock is, then this was a well targetted piece.
2. For those who have tested the waters with only one distribution, this is an ok article for stating some surface level differences without going into great detail.
3. For the developer, this is a honest look at what warm fuzzies appear to be important to those who will never look under the hood. It does not take a rocket scientist to use a word processer and spreadsheet, but it people equate *nix with rocket science then it will be a hard sell to get it out as a desktop solution for office staff.
In a place beyond time and space, in a land far better than this, look for me there...
If we are to recommend Linux-based OSes such as Red Hat and Debian to desktop users, then we need to be certain that they can and will keep their systems up to date. Otherwise we are not only exposing them to insecurity, but we are increasing the overall insecurity of the Net.
It is a far more straightforward process to do upgrades over the Net than to ship out CDs to all the users with the upgrades; this is even true for commercial products (like antivirus software -- virtually all antivirus upgrades are over the Net) and even more so for free software. For this reason, the network-upgrade process needs to be made an obvious and simple part of the use of the software distribution.
Debian has both network installs and CD installs (as well as hybrid installs booted from CD but using HTTP and FTP mirrors to get the files), and has the most simple and effective network upgrade process of any I've seen. apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade (or dist-upgrade to go to a new version.) This kind of functionality needs to be acknowledged in any comparison of Linux-based OSes.
C|Net really blew it this time -- again. They really need to get their act together and do a little bit of research before reporting things as fact.
How many errors can we find in these reviews? Debian is not $15, it's free; and Debian does not provide toll-free tech support for $34.95 per incident. It sounds like the reviewer bought a box that said "Debian" on it (probably next to the word "unofficial") and decided that that was the true product. Debian does not push GNOME with E, as was suggested in the screenshot (which could have been made with *any* Linux system).
Debian also did not release slink (2.1) for PowerPC, though the review lists PowerPC as a supported architecture.
C|Net is not supposed to be traditional media. C|Net is supposed to be enlightened. C|Net needs to remember this.
You know, CNet was great when it was the 'cool' thing. I think they are finaly getting thrown out on their cabose's and they need somewhere to go. Get ready Linux users, another bandwagon jumper is walking this way. Personal opionion of the review aside, they suck.
If you lika me like I lika you...
Perhaps I didn't read the article thoroughly,
but it seems that CNET equated being "new to Linux" as being new to COMPUTING.
I was a Linux newbie, and was able to install Debian with reasonable ease.
Prior experience with DOS, Windows whatever, and Netware is what helped. One can know about concepts like networking, partitioning, programs depending on libraries, using a command line, etc - and have never used Linux or any Unix for that matter.
Granted that those that are comfortable with their own abilities might not be swayed by such an article. And the others might need a push in the "easier" direction.
But had I read this article prior to using Debian, I might have been steered in the other direction, and missed out on some learning opportunites.
(distro flame in any direction not intended)
yea... i agree... slackware is awfull.... i mean, you get to play with config files, and make things work how you want!? .tgz source tarballs ACTUALLY WORK RIGHT?! but i ENJOY screweing up RPMs when i compile upgrades from .tgz!
and WTF, no RPMs? you mean that those
I agree... Slackware is WAAAAAY to hard.... go play with RedHat, and all it's GUI glory...
-- Slackware user sense '96... and stuck in RH right now (OMG!! NOOO!!!)
"If we are unwilling to be aware of the dark, we cannot see the light" -- John Cowan
I was under the impression most internet servers ran some derivation of unix, Linux being the most popular.
So before you lame again...
"Your message made possible by: The Letter L"
These businesses are clearly looking to cut costs and every dollar counts, so RedHat (which got a top rating, and allows you to repackage their OS and resell it) is your target distro. Download the ISO. Burn it, label it "My RedHat 6.1 OS," and sell it for $1 less than what they're currently selling it for. Don't provide support or make it easier to configure or anything; companies are only concerned about that $1 a copy. You'll be a multimillionaire in no time the way these companies are cutting costs. One wonders how Microsoft sells any of those $1000 Windows NT Server licenses. Must be to newbies.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
The Screenshot that's supplied for Slackware 7 complains about not having a GUI automatically set up for you, and that you have to do it yourself.
Why are they showing a shot of XF86Config running in a KDE Konsole? Isn't that in a GUI?
Sure, I have a thankless job. That's okay. I have a lot of (non
However, you guys have got to wake up to the fact that we NEED newbies. Do you want more people using Linux, or what? Do you want to kick M$'s ass, or what? Do you want World Domination, OR WHAT? If so, we need new people using Linux. For that to happen, it's got to have all those ease-of-use/graphical features. Just accept it, OK?
Anything that gets more people using Linux is a Good Thing.
I'm getting increasingly confused by this whole enterprise thing. I really thought I started to know what it meant. Now I'm further behind than I was. My working definition was "enterprise=big".
I'm starting to think it has more to do with computing systems managed by business majors or something. Or data processing stuff, punch cards for the new millennium. It's a big word. I thought it meant big, or dumb, or turn-key, non-technical, or expensive, or something. Now I've no idea.
Dang it. What did people call this enterprise thingie ten years ago? What's "for the enterprise"? What's "enterprise class"? What's "enterprising businesses"?
Debian can install via FTP, HTTP, NFS, and so on. Not only that..it can upgrade over them to!
They gave Redhat 6.1 an 8. They gave Mandrake 6.1 a 5. WTF? Mandrake is build off of Redhat. Their almost the same distrobution. Now I admit that CNet may have found differences with the quality of documentation or support, but 3 points? That is a hugh difference.
Also, they only reviewed the Deluxe version and then complained about the high price. They could have at least mentioned that their is now a $20 version of official Redhat without support.
Oh well, I'll leave the rest of the CNet critizism to everyone else.
Got HTML? Want LaTeX? Try html2latex
Now every little lamer will be able to install and use GNU/Linux... I think distros should keep Linux difficult to install and configure so that only elite poeple will be able to use linux ;)
It is ok that Linux is associated to geeks or nerds but it will be associated to nothing when everybody will be able to use it!
Definately anyone who is a genuine Linux user would never look at these ratings seriously. But I think the article is perfect for its target audience, Windows users. I use Slack, and I think it is a hell of a lot better than what they saw it for. Definately not rated based on all of its features, looks like they focused mainly on install, and some other minor things.
Why is it that the primary quality reviewers look for in an install program is ease of use? As if, the more automatic the installation process is, the better it is for newbies? I mean, Win95 has a relatively easy install, when all goes well, but when it's done installing, you have no idea what it's done. Almost all of these reviews seem to want a black-box install where you power on the machine, tell it your name ("What are you doing, Dave?") and walk away for 20 minutes while it finishes up. I haven't adequately surveyed the installation packages that are out there - only used Slackware and Redhat - but it seems to me that the ideal installation would provide you with the opportunity to see what it's doing; to actually learn something about it while it's working, and to use that learning to make informed decisions, but always provide a working default if you don't feel like learning.
And believe me - I know that this goal is to some degree addressed by most Linux installs out there - I just don't know why it isn't addressed by these sorts of reviews, or the comments about them.
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
The reason these things are rated for newbies is because the more advanced users are going to have reviews of this stuff already. Look at you. You've already used Slackware 7, and you've got your own very strong opinions on this.
However, Joe Moron (aka, any business executive) who had no idea what the hell Linux was 6 months ago, and probably still thinks it's like Windows. (only having one basic "flavor"...namely "crap".)
This is an attempt to give them a chance to pick up an alternative to Windows. Linux will never succeed on the support of the intelligentsia and wannabees alone. (If you don't believe me, then explain why is AOL still around. Hmm?!) The public has to have a dumbed down introduction to the product in order for them to begin to embrace it. For now, if you want knowledgeable advice on which version of Linux is best, talk to people here, or read any of the plethora of "power user" magazines in existance.
But it's not just OS reviews that get dumbed down. Look at game reviews. So many of these sites are afraid to say anything bad about big games that they just parrot out the company line. (I've seen sites/mags that liked MK Gold for the DC.) Look at the best selling games of all time. Myst and Riven. Do people that are versed enough in the game world like these games? No. But the sheep do. And it doesn't stop there. Music, movies, tv, everything is dumbed down to "lowest common denominator" in order to rake in the almighty buck. (If you don't agree on this, just look at the Spice Girls. They inexplicably got into all 3, without having the talent to do any one of them!) That's why CNET has reviews for Joe Shmuck. Because there are more Joe Shmucks out there with more cash than there are shining beacons of intelligence cutting a huge swath through the morass of ineptitude, a la myself. (Me being a beacon, not part of the morass...)
Anyone else notice that they didn't rate the LinuxOne distibution? I guess, in a way, it ended up winning, though...seeing as how it's just Redhat with a different logo.
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
with an awful lot of this review.
One thing in particular that annoys me is that it keeps reccommending that "Linux experts should stick with RedHat", because of support. WHAT!!? I don't call myself a Linux "expert"; I've been using it for a little over a year, but I've learned a lot since that whole time has been spent as a sysadmin (if you're the only one around, that's how it goes) for a >100 userbase. I've NEVER called tech support; I never even really though about doing it. All the info you need can be easily gotten from HOWTO's, included documentation, and mailing lists. Most things can be done by using the comments in the config files! PLUS, if you need support, VALinux gives the best support anyway, and it's distro-agnostic. This whole angle was utterly stupid, IMO.
The only problem with installing Debian is that they want you to use dselect. I can't for the life of me figure out why. Capt is several billion times better than dselect; it's totally intuitive, and has a MUCH nicer interface. The most difficult (if you can call it that) part is getting your FTP sources correct; after that, everything is a cakewalk.
Also, they seemed to ignore that RedHat has things like incoming telnet connections enabled by default. The defaults in RedHat frighten me, if it's supposed to be for server use; Debian's defaults are MUCH better. RedHat does allow you to switch to MD5 passwords at installation time, but this operation is so trivial (edit 2 files and put "md5" in them, oh no) that it certainly doesn't make up for everything else. Personally, I would not reccommend RedHat as a server platform. It's got a lot of good things going for it, and I use it at home...but the servers are Debian.
I do admire things about each distro, such as Slackware's "backwards compatibility", and at the other end, Corel's SAMBA interface. And I make my reccommendations from my own (limited) experiences and observations. However, this review went about things the wrong way in a big way (IMHO). We really need to de-emphasize this idea of phone support, if we want people to really know what Linux is all about. It's about a community, helping one another at LUG meetings and on email lists; getting your own club along with the OS is part of the charm.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
What annoyed me most was that they changed their category weighting for every review. I wouldn't care if the review was for newbies or not, but I somehow felt that they had preselected the rankings and used the reviews merely to justify them.
Case 1) SuSE is marked down for having too large of a manual. Mandrake is marked down for having too small of a manual.
Case 2) SuSE is priced at 50$. Mandrake at 55$. The first is called inexpensive and the second is called overpriced.
Case 3) Slackware is said to only have a
skimpy documentation, yet in fact the first thing that happens after installation is that the user receives a message pointing them directly to the megabytes of installed docs.
Case 4) Redhat and Mandrake are virtually similar in terms of installation, configuration and maintenance. But Mandrake gets marked down severly for not having installation phone support so that Mandrake ends up with a 5 and Redhat with an 8.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I can't help wondering why reviewers have a tendency to label Slackware as "difficult to install." My experience with it is that if you do as you are told in the README files everything goes smoothly. Not quite the same is my experience with Red Hat, purportedly easier to install.
Reviewers seem to be captivated by installations with a lots of bells and whistles in the way of GUIs. I don't really see much added value in that.
Has no one heard of kickstart before? heh You build one floppy before you rebuild your linux box, put it in, if you ever want to reformat etc, you just pop in the floppy again. it's great. `8r) and for any network admin, it's great because you don't have to make choices on the fly, you make them all in advanced.
Sorry, I guess I've confused a lot of people today with this question.
BTW, Redhat also allows network updates as well. rpm -Uvh ftp://ftp.cs.wisc.edu/pub/redhat/i386/RedHat/RPMS/ example.rpm or rpmsrelay, freshrpms, or autoupdate. and RedHat supports local disk, ftp, http, nfs, smb, and cdrom. I'm not saying use redhat all the time, I just encourage people to try new distro's least they become that slackware advocate that ignores reason. ('Pre-compiled objects are bad! I compile everything I use by hand!') don't knock it until you've tried it, ya know?
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
Isn't ease of installation a red herring? Here's my thinking: you get a professional to install a professional system. No big deal. Don't ask you grandma to do it; it's not fair to either of you. Long-term stability and integration seems far more important, because its the quotidian use not the one-off installation that will take its toll.
Right now, we're seeing a phenomenal genetic diversification of Linux operating systems. We see lean Linuxes and porky ones. We see hybrids and half-breeds. Speciation is at the Cambrian level.
Cool.
But how long does this last? Please think back to all the different kinds of microcomputer operating systems that used to exist. Or, think of all the different kinds of minicomputer operating systems. Heck, at one time, we even had fair handful of supers, or at least, minisupers, running different operating systems.
Problem: ubi sunt?
In each category, through attrition, acquisition, or complete incompetence, we've been reduced to just a couple or so instances of each. There is every reason to believe that the virtually innumerable Linuces in the world today will, one way or the other, eventually become countable again.
So, which will these be? I'm not looking for names. I'm looking for which concepts will prove critical for clustering. Each cluster will, I believe, turn into one or at most two individual versions of Linux, the others having gone the way of all things.
You named a few criteria. Those are certainly important considerations for one cluster. What other loci will form clusters? What will drive them? I easily can see a slackware or debian style OS that caters to programmers forming one cluster, a Corel or Caldera another (there will eventually be an MS-Linux there, tool; mark my words) for the current turnkey consumer crowd, and possibly a Redhat or SuSE another for somewhere in between.
Will the idiot-proof MS-style Linuces prove expert-proof as well? Will the SlackDeb be idiot-hostile and expert friendly?
What are the affinities? How will the clusters clump?
Right now, we're experiencing a speciation explosion in Linux OSes that will someday become known as our "golden age", much as we've seen occur biologically as well as vis-a-vis other operating systems groups. Where are we going? When will the die back happen? Which OSes will we be left with?
Something to think about.
I patented the concept of rating Linux distributions on the web. I'm gonna sue, darn it!
:)
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Alright, for a first time Linux user, the ease to install is very important. I know a lot of people who've given up on Linux entirely because they tried to install Slackware or Turbo as their first distribution and couldn't figure out what was going on. So, for a new user, I suppose that Corel just might be the best.
But I hardly think this is the case for most users who want a lot of versatile software from the start. Red Hat comes with a decent amount of software for this task, and I think Caldera and Debian are pretty good about this as well. I don't think setting up a system with any of these is a very difficult task.
I'm a Red Hat user myself, not that it is the best (Red Hat is probably far from the best), but it is the one I'm most familiar with. We use Debian at work because it was the Distro our SysAdmin is most familiar with. I think that a lot of users have different tastes when it comes to distributions. So, it isn't very rational to just give something a straight rating, especially one based primarily on installs.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Instead of ignoring the advanced user, include them in the review and help the newbie at the same time. Rate stuff according to installation, ease configuration, package availability, security, etc. Then weight each category differently for different users. For example:
EpicureanLinux = 9 (newbie), 4 (expert)
or
StoicLinux = 2 (newbie), 8 (expert)
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
for instance, i have a cable modem and IP masq running on my redhat 6.1. the only time it ever goes down is when the power goes out or when i recompile the kernel...my main complaint was that so many services were turned on by default...
Think for a moment -- What are the odds that reviewers that a year ago scoffed at Linux possess enough Linux knowledge to give a relevent review?
If you have to review hundreds of products every year, what are your requirements going to be?
If it provides a mindless install with a windows GUI, looks cool, has a big book and has a lot of stuff in the "start menu" it gets a good review.
I too had heard rumours of Slackware installation difficulties. But I installed it for the first time when 7.0 came out. I was very surprised. It was the *easiest* installation I have ever done, and I have tried all of them.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Let me sum up what I think about this article.
Debian 2.1r2 got 6 of 10. They called it hard to install, cryptic, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Corel Linux was prased as the best for the home user. Easy to install, blah, blah, blah.
Raise your hand if you know that Corel Linux is based on Debian 2.1(r1, I think) and the only thing they really included *was* the installer.
*Grey raises his hand.*
'nuff said.
-- Grey d'Miyu, not just another pretty color.
Only if the GNU/Italian Sausage is licensed under the General Pizza License created by the Free Crustware Foundation and not a different Open Sauce license. :-)
Just a suggestions: while you are researching the various linux's check out the bsds too. http://www.freebsd.org http://www.openbsd.org
I installed Redhat 5.1 a year ot two ago, with no prior knowledge of Linux/UNIX/anythingbutWindows. I was thirteen of fourteen at the time. The only problem which I ran into was that the install would usually crach, but I am fairly certain that that was due to some strange problem with my hardware (gcc had problems, as well). On an unrelated train of thought, I am very dissapointed with C|NET. They recently ran a review of the G4, in which they state that the G4 has "...Disappointing speed; same cutesy mouse and keyboard as the iMac...". Here's a link. They apparently used an office application to benchmark the speed, which gave lower preformance in the G4 than uin the G3. (I find it rather ironic that they also list the G4 in the top 5 leading edge PC's). I thought that someone might find this interesting. ***disclaimer: I have no opinion as to which distro is best***
from the article. 7. How Can I Make Linux More Like Windows? Hmmm. Rebuild the kernel to use every memory-hogging feature you can find. Reboot every couple of days whether you need to or not. And every 18 months or so, send a check for $99 to Bill Gates. That should do the trick. thought i'd post it for people who didn't read the whole thing.
"as plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee" - Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz. (One man's humorous is another mans flamebait)
Since when is an "easy" installation worth 4 points? Slackware (zipslack to be exact) was my first linux distro and it got me hooked. The installation for that was, of course, easy. Pretty much unzip and type loadlin. I recently installed slackware 7, switching from redhat, and it works beautifully. But while we're on the subject of installation woes... what about the horrible SCSI problems so often encountered when installing redhat linux? That sure isn't easy.
NOTE: I am a slackware zealot. At one point I grew so sick of packages that I formatted redhat while in search of a less package-oriented distribution. My qualm with the redhat package system is that it installs things in non posix-standard places usually. which means that when I upgrade to a new version of... say apache... i now have two copies, and I can't find where to go to uninstall the old one. Other than installation I never used rpm. Anyway my rant is over, now as long as no one decides to pour hot grits down my pants and turn my girlfriend into a statue i'll be fine.
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
I can't beleive that nobody has figured out why the installation process is so heavily weighted by the c|net reviewers. Coming from a windows centric outlet such as this, it is obvious. If you have ever used windows of any sort you would realize that the OS installer is probably the most frequently used application!! c|net just doesn't realize that for a linux distro, the installer is only used once per machine.
I agree with the criticism for basing ratings on things like the prettiness of the installation process.
What would be really useful is a simple (long!) list of packages and version numbers included with each distro.
Also, a comparison of what you get by buying the "official" (boxed, manual...) distribution, versus the download version for $1.95 at Linuxcentral
Please don't. I installed Slackware 7 one evening between coming home from work and going out to dinner (using the expert mode, no less). It has been the leanest, most rock-solid, trouble-free Linux install I've ever had the pleasure of using.
I like controlling what goes on my hard drive. I know what I want my system to do (hint: most Linux-for-everyone distros install TOO MUCH, not too little).
I'm not real interested in package systems. I've learned the virtues of downloading tarballs and building from source (thank you, FreeBSD, for showing me the light). I want to control WHERE those files go and WHAT libraries they are linked against.
Am I an expert? Not really. I'm a decent programmer, but my Unix admin knowledge is pitiful. At least with Slackware, stuff works how I expect it to. No funny distribution-specific symlinks and directories for me to track down.
IMHO, the Slackware team has done a great job with 7.0. There's not much that could improve. Thanks.
What's the big idea tossing out a screenshot of different linux distributions? There is no "standard" look and feel for any linux distribution I've ever used. They all seem to have multiple options. And of course you can always use your own window manager/desktop suite. I use enlightenment. I find it stable, fast, and clean. And it looks the same when i'm done configuring it, whether I did it in redhat or slackware. (the two distributions i've had much success with, currently using Slack 7.) I don't like the slackware screenshot either. It's a shot of the konsole with xf86config (i'm pretty sure.), saying that slackware doesn't configure the gui by default. This make any sense to anyone else, running xf86config from X in this context? I don't know about how easy it is to take a screenshot without being in x (btw how do I take a screenshot from x? i'd like a comprehensive manual that tells me all about this. bwahaha) but it makes no sense to take a screenshot of configuring x from x. I could see reconfiguring it but that's it.
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
>hey, I'm new to linux and all those big nasty insalls are mean, I stick to redhat for now and go to slackware in a while
Sounds reasonable to me. Start easy, and move up to the big guns. Is there a problem with that? Obviously, for the moderators, there is.
Hurd
The best looking or the "easiest" to "boot up" might not be the optimal long term choice.
Problems I found:
/usr/src/linux/include - Oooooooops.
Try make menuconfig to compile a kernel... And wait... and wait... and wait forever!
Try finding the kernel sources on a fully installed system. I couldn't... In fact, I don't even think they included the sources. That oughta suck when you install hardware that requires itself to patch into the kernel libraries...
Which I tried next. I plain gave up trying to get my Rainbow Runner working in Corel linux because:
A) Can't compile a new kernel. xconfig doesn't work well, I ain't even gonna try config on a 2.2 kernel, and menuconfig doesn't start.
B) Include files are not located in
oh, and I couldn't get mpg123 compiled on it - why? Missing include files and libraries again.
Nothing sucks worse than a Linux system missing libraries!
C-net has a responsibility to state the context in which it rated the distributions; within newbie circles Slackware is probably not the best choice for "My First Linux", but that in no way makes it a bad distribution. All C-Net has done in their article is give Slackware a bad name because they failed to distinguish the best Linux distribution with the best linux distribution FOR NEWBIES. Boo c-net. Boo.
Did anyone else notice how they mixed up what versions of distributions they were reviewing?
:-/
:-)
Here is their review of Slackware [4.0|7.0]. It's hard to tell which they meant, until you see it came with 2.2.13 (7.0).
They also claimed that Slackware 7.0 didn't come with the video card setup by default. This is a bald lie. It's setup to use the Vesa framebuffer by default. As for the install routine, if you're not using expert install (like I do), you can be queried about each of the (relatively few) packages you want to install. Just choose the disk series you want (networking? X? KDE? etc), and then choose yes or no based on the detailed description of each package that comes up.
The only problem I've found with the Slackware install is that going to current step - 1 is very hard. You have to restart and do most of it over
But then -- you only install once
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Well, I tried Debian here. Debian was an interesting experience after my Slackware youth. Needless to say, I gave up and went back to Slackware. Debian's install process is convoluted, in my opinion. Would it be so hard to use a mini-distro with only a few select libs to bootstrap Debian packages onto a formatted partition, ala Slackware?
:-)
As for the info. 2.0.36!? Dear lord, when was the last time the stable branch had a release!? Slackware 3.4 or 3.6 uses a comparably old set of kernel and libs.
Perhaps a stricter release shedule, ala OpenBSD, would be good. Heck, even good ol' Slackware has 2.2. & glibc2, so they must be stable
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Caldera OpenLinux 2.3: "If it's Tetris-like or business-like, we put it in."
:-)
Red Hat Linux 6.1 Deluxe: "If it's eyecandy, we put it in."
Corel Linux: "If it's for adults only, we put it in."
Debian GNU/Linux 2.1r2: "If it's free as in freedom, we put it in."
Linux Mandrake PowerPack 6.1: "If it's in Redhat, we put it in."
Slackware Linux 7.0: "If it's stable, we put it in."
SuSE Linux 6.2: "If it exists, we put it in."
Thanks for your time
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Unfortunately, Linux Mandrake doesn't come with Red Hat's best element: its new graphical installer.
I guess this was supposed to be a praise for RedHat, but IMHO it turned out to be an insult. Come on, the _best_ a certain distro has to offer is the...installer?
I've been using various distros for about three years now, and I've been using Unix systems for longer than that. I'm currently a successful Unix systems administrator. I've tried at least two or three times to get a Debian install up and running, and I simply can't figure out dselect. Has it been replaced by apt-* now, or is there some other package maintainance tool?
I'd really like to start using Debian, because from what I've heard, its at top-notch distibution for advanced uses, but I just can't wrap my brain around that fscking package tool.
--Alex
Causation can cause correlation
What is the point in comparing the distros out there? People use the distro they use because it fits their needs or maybe it was referred to them by a friend. What they should be rating is stability, the packages included, security.. etc. Every review seemed as if the install was the most important thing that mattered to them. You don't have to be a UNIX buff to install Linux, you just have to be patient and read the directions on the screen. More worthwhile issues like security should have been stressed more.
Phuk CNET !!! Red HAT and Corel suck shit, and they know it. SuSE Rulez ! SuSE is the best distro as far as linux is concerned, because it's the most secure, and that's what matters. Red Hat has nothing but flawed crap, old init scripts, misconfigured programming, and a pack of REDNECK RETARDS running the company. Corel...well we know that Canadians are good at nothing but freezing, so let them be. I'm sorry to see that there is such sharp favoritism going for Red Hat, and such hate for SuSE.
Cut this guy some slack, moderators... I find him occasionally humorous...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They sad that only "Linux buffs" should install Slack.. I figured it out no problem. And I don't know anything about Linux. I mean, I can login, start x, and recompile the kernel if I have to, but that's about it. :/ Installing Slackware isn't hard and whenever a magazine like that uses words like "hardcore Linux buffs" to describe the people that should attempt a Slack install, it makes me think they know less about Linux than me, which is scary.
-Warren
Corel's OK, as far as free lunches from the Debian project go, but what about the real corporate muscle behind Debian (read VA Linux, SGI). Sure VA's about to explode all over creation. SGI on the other hand is a bit under-appreciated. Jesus but that's another explosion just waiting to happen--especially if it's true (as I think it was Linux Magazine who reported) that VA's thinking about buying SGI if the VA IPO goes well.
I started using linux about December of last year, and it was pretty rough going. However, after a year of fiddling (and reading every newbie-oriented linux book I could get my hands on), I now feel comfortable with linux. I'm also beginning to be unsatisfied with the level of customizability or RedHat, and I'm planning to install Debian over this summer. So yes, I think that for newbies, RH is a good thing; for me, it's a stepping stone.
Corel Linux was _NOT_ a novice install. Corel Linux failed to even configure my 3com 509 ISA ethernet card. It was simple work to get it going, but I am not a novice. OpenBSD's installer is easier (OpenBSD it very simple) I have not used another Linux distro (I have used all the cnet reviewed linuxen) and none have messed up on hardware support Corel did. The graphics were pretty, but not functional.
This graphical install craze is a farce. I think that it is cool, but far from necessary. It certainly does not make things easier. -Peter
Speaking of missing libraries, how come does that happen? I mean, I've NEVER had an error saying I was missing something (other than hard drive space :) in Windows, yet I get them quite often in Linux, especially when I compile stuff from source. It's quite fustrating. So how come it happens a lot in Linux, yet never happens in Windows?
I installed it with the "advanced" option, which BTW is damn cool because it gives you a tree and lets you pick categorically what packages you want.
/usr/include, no biggie just untar the 2.2.12 headers and make a couple of symlinks).
./dists/corellinux-1.0/corel/binary-i386/kernel-so urce-2.2.12_corel.1.0_all.deb
Anyways, make menuconfig etc works fine on my Corel install. Of course I rebuilt the kernel many times to get my TV card going on 2.2.12. Yes, they did mess up a few things (2.0.36 includes in
My downloaded CD has kernel sources, see:
I tell ya I love this distro. It's a kick-ass Debian system that lets you hit the ground running!
I am curious to know if the version sold by
Corel blows the partition table as well as
the iso version released on the net.
I don't know if it does it on all the large
hard disk but I know of at least the 8.4G from
WD (1027 cylinders in LBA) as well as the 14G
from IBM.
I had to recreated a blank partition table using
fdisk on SuSE CD and reinstall everything. It is
lucky that I had backed up my valuable data.
I wrote to Corel about it and they have never
responded.
I find it very irresponsible to release such a
trojan horse and rather amusing that CNET makes
asses of themselves by listing this trash as
the best distribution.
If you want a good distribution look at SuSE
6.3. Take note that the graphic install is
buggy but the good old yast works and doesn't
crash as the graphic install does when you
want to put lilo on the root of the partition
instead of the MBR, the moron team of that
graphic install might be related to that
of Corel's team. Aside from that SuSE 6.3 is
great.
Thanks for the propz, homie!!
I just never understand when people complain about Debian's difficult installation. I was a Macintosh user, addicted to my point and click GUI when I first got the idea of trying Linux a year ago. I got a reject 486 from my brother and a set of Debian Hamm cd's from Walnut Creek. I didn't know anyone who used Linux, so my only source of information was the web. Debian's website was the best source of information I found at time. I've never regretted it and now I don't have to even turn on my old Mac. I'm might not be the dumbest guy around, but a little patience and a small amount of planning with a bit of information from a website was all I needed to get Debian up and running on that crappy Packard Bell. Now I'm running Debian's potato on a nicer newer computer. It's not that hard! (and I think I'm still pretty much of a newbie - I still have to stop and look for info to read before I change anything, but I can usually find what I need right on my own hard drive thanks to Debian)
JeffersonQ
JeffersonQ
What we need are some good Slashdot polls with reviews of why each distribution is good or bad with respect to these items of importance. I wouldn't want to see any "but KDE's not REALLY free" or "the installer sucks" comments. More like "Redhat doesn't offer a 'remove all beta software' option" or "Slackware's hard to upgrade" or "Redhat replaces configuration files and its hard to migrate ..." etc.
A real distro discussion would be welcome, I'm sure.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Tom gets a rating of 5.
/., you might want to consider reading further down for the "Micro$oft Sucks!" posts.
The Cambrian Explosion reference would most likely be lost on newbies or anyone who has not spent hours in the company of Larry Wall. His post was to loaded down with big words that make his post difficult to install. Also, his use of plain text for the message format makes the installer none too pretty to look at.
However, for the power user, he makes over 5 points throughout the article while keeping the post lean and stable. But at a price of $8.75 for all of the 25 cent words in his post, this brings him in as one of the more expensive posters in our roundup.
The Bottom Line: For the truly knowledgeable, this post offers the most bang for the buck, but if you prefer the skript kiddie approach to
~Jason "Karma Whore" Maggard
"You can learn Perl "small end first". You can program in Perl baby-talk and we promise not to laugh."
~The Camel Book
P.S. We can also let people learn Linux small end first, you can start with Corel and wind up with Debian. It is really part of the natural evolution of the user. It is most important that we nurture the newbies like children speaking Linux Baby-Talk, that is how we will grow mature Linux adults.
I'm finding it harder and harder to deal with the general bitter tone here on Slashdot, not just on this article, but in general. This one is particularly bad, though. Unfortunately I don't have anything positive to add here either, other that I for one was actually pretty happy to see a C-Net article that begins with 'It's time to make the leap to Linux'.
But now I'm pretty down again, after reading all the complaints on here. Kinda sad to see people stating that 'real Linux users' use Debian or Slackware or whatever. Even more extreme folk might say real Linux users don't trust any distribution, they make their own. Personally, I thought Linux users were people running a Linux kernel.
This article is obviously aimed at people who aren't running Linux yet, or haven't in the past, i.e. pretty much none of y'all, so why do you people feel so insulted when your particular distribution doesn't score as well as others. Would you honestly be happier if your distro would've scored well? Sometimes I get the idea a lot of my fellow Slashdotters are mainly into Linux to be different from the unwashed masses. Now that you aren't getting your exclusiveness quota anymore, it's time to partition yourself off into a smaller subgroup again?
Unhappy,
Florin
I'm finding it harder and harder to deal with the general bitter tone here on Slashdot, not just on this article, but in general. This one is particularly bad, though. Unfortunately I don't have anything positive to add here either, other that I for one was actually pretty happy to see a C-Net article that begins with 'It's time to make the leap to Linux'.
But now I'm pretty down again, after reading all the complaints on here. Kinda sad to see people stating that 'real Linux users' use Debian or Slackware or whatever. Even more extreme folk might say real Linux users don't trust any distribution, they make their own. Personally, I thought Linux users were people running a Linux kernel.
This article is obviously aimed at people who aren't running Linux yet, or haven't in the past, i.e. pretty much none of y'all, so why do you people feel so insulted when your particular distribution doesn't score as well as others? Would you honestly be happier if your distro would've scored well? Sometimes I get the idea a lot of my fellow Slashdotters are mainly into Linux to be different from the unwashed masses. Now that you aren't getting your exclusiveness quota anymore, it's time to partition yourself off into a smaller subgroup again?
Unhappy,
Florin
The review has been there for nearly a month!
Once Debian stable is released, updates are only made for security fixes or other very good reasons. It's based on the same principle that keeps many Unix sites running ancient versions of SunOS or the like: it works so don't try to fix it.
Debian users often recompile new versions of popular programs for the stable version, so it's entirely possible to run stable with the latest X, Gnome, KDE, and kernel. All you have to do is check the debian-user mailing list archives to find the addresses.
Debian potato will be released soon (the installation floppies still need work), with glibc 2.1, a 2.2 kernel, and everything else up-to-date and rock-solid stable. Maybe even KDE, if the licensing gets fixed in time. If you're willing to risk something breaking, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from upgrading to potato (the current unstable version). In actuality, few things break that can't be fixed by putting things on hold and waiting a few days or so.
"It's time to make the leap to Linux. Everyone else is. In fact, in the past month alone, mainstream tech companies Intel and IBM have invested in the open source operating system."
They could as well said "It's time to jump. Everyone else is."
It's the same thing that happened with the DOS-Windows transition and most other transitions on the x86 family. They think people need to be scared into doing the same.
Are we sheep or what?
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
The only reason Mandrake did not win is because they did not "dumb" down the installation process. It still requires a person to do a modicum of study and learning.
If the average intelligence is supposed to have increased, what scale are they using? Thousandths of a percent?
People suck. Kill a friend today.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
If that's not what you meant, kindly elucidate. If that is what you meant, then I've two serious doubts regarding your suggestion. The first doubt is your apparent assumption that the very same group of folks will necessarily advance through all of these stages--or even that they ought to do so. Why would they change from what they know? Seems to me that the only someone who wasn't happy with what they had would try something else.
The second doubt is one of focus. I remain convinced that this is the only axis about which the different flavors of Linux will cluster. But even if it were, I certainly wasn't intending to pronounce some kind of critical judgment upon this scenario. I was merely attepting to elicit opinions regarding where this inevitable clustering might eventually occur. My doubt on your content stems from being unsure whether this idiot-or-expert-friendliness really the most appropriate and likely criterion for how this will all settle out.
As for your condemnation of "big words", I find your standards of what counts as "big" to be surprisingly low. Here are all the words I used that had double-digit lengths, arranged by descending length. (Perl script available upon request :-)
I think you'll agree that those are, all in all, pretty simple words, words that any Junior High School student should find completely accessible. I was unaware that Slashdot had become a forum in which one's writing should be restricted to fifth-grade reading levels, or below. Should this be the case, please do me the kindless of informing me of this sad state of affairs, so that I might solicit the consider opinion and acute reasoning of the nearest fifth grader when I next wish to contribute.
Let me take issue with two likely sources of your apparent malaise.
Much as a writer, who, referring to a "sea of troubles", calls up for the reader Hamlet's famous quandary, I in both those particular cases above specifically elected turns of phrase that evoked connections back to a larger world, a richer and deeper and older world, that, while existing outside of our current discussion, remains nevertheless intimately associated with it through the interconnections of the Human Experience.
I should like, please, to cite for you two passages that seem of particular relevance here:
Or, if Buckley's politics blind you to his words, then here is shorter quotation:I think your right on the money on this. This was definately aimed at the windows crowed. I think the reason they concentrated so heavily on the installation and desktop stuff is that these were some weak points on linux. When I "talk up" Linux most times I hear from windows users "but isn't it hard to install?" and "how easy to use is the desktop?". I think for getting windows users to try Linux and possibly completely switch these reviews are good. It gets them to at least TRY Linux. After using one distro and get comfortable using Linux they may decide they want a more reliable or more powerful version of Linux. And that's where we as the Linux community come into play. We can give them REAL world use answers to which distro they might want to try next. Now most of us will are particularly slanted towards one distro or another. This is ok! That's becuase we have a CHOICE! There are more Linux distros than ever and we have a choice which one to use. heck there are some I know that try a new distro every month. I think this is not a bad idea though. This gives you the chance to try each distro and see which you like best. I think the CNET review is good for the targeted audience. It will help them make the decision which distro to try first. While the review may not be as "fair" or "well done" as we would like as the Linux community. Look at it this way, at least the major players are starting to say more about Linux and do better reviews of it.
Just my $.03 worth (inflation you know).
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Here's the corrected passave:
It seems to me that 80% of the postings here assume that one must be either a complete Unix-illiterate or an experienced user. Well, I'm sorry to inform that things are not that black or white in the real world! There is a wide range in between, where I believe most people fit into, and these people may feel a lot more comfortable running through an easy and well documented install process instead of, say, being prompted with a list of 50+ card drivers to choose from (btw, i know what card I have in my machine).
My first computer (back in '83) was a Sinclair with 2k of RAM (no typo here), then an AppleIIe, then a 286 and so on. I can code in 4 languages and have run a BBS at home in 94/95. I had no previous experience with Unix before installing Linux in my home computer other than using CATIA/AIX on IBM-RISC6000 for a couple of years. Now, am I a geek or a newbie?
Because of messy documentation (or my lack of previous experience) it took me 2 hours to install Linux last weekend (dual boot with Win98, suit me...). One hour and a half were spent trying to figure out how to do one single critical task, the rest went on painlessly. What distro I was using doesn't matter, I want to keep the personal-preference component out of this.
The point is: one should think twice before using terms like "idiot-proof" and "bandwagon hoppers", for this is the kind of thing that communicates that if you are not an Linux expert already, then you are not welcome.
An easy and somewhat guided installation is very important for some. I am glad the install process made a lot of choices for me, because in many cases I wouldn't know what to choose anyway. Then, in one year from now, maybe I'll switch to Slackware, and not be an AC anymore.
Anyone guesses what that single task was?