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)
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!
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.
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
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
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?
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!
For those too lazy to look past the first page at CNet here's the reason they didn't use SuSE 6.3:
Editors' note: SuSE released version 6.3 of SuSE Linux too late to be included in this review. According to the company, the new version includes 230 additional software packages, a new graphical installer that automatically detects hardware, and a revised manual. Look for our review of SuSE Linux 6.3 in the near future.
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.
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
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.
I agree with you. Except for one point, and that is that a graphical install allows you to lay out more information on the screen better, say help windows or whatnot.
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.I just installed a Slackware system and *did* have a major problem. I quick the install after selecting the target drive. When I restarted, I started at the source media where I left off, not realizing that the target menu actually mounted the drive. (Silly me!) The install didn't tell me that it failed because the target media wasn't mounted so it took a while to figure out what was going wrong.
But anyways, that has nothing to do with a console based install, so overall, I can't say that graphical installs make a lot of difference.
-BrentCorel is a Debian derivative. They entirely missed that fact.
Bruce Perens.
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.
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"?
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
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.
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
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
Nah, man, after reading their review, I'm switching to Slackware! They say it takes up little disk space, but read the specs they post!
4MB RAM, 20MB Disk Space, Kernel 2.2.13, KDE, GNOME, Enlightenment... Why, I bet it even has X! That's great, since the last few reviews I read forgot that Linux had a GUI like Windows. Boy, those Linux people get things done fast. I'm *amazed* they can fit that into just 20MB of Disk Space, and run in 4MB of RAM. On my machine, the Kernel can take up 2MB of RAM by itself, and X can easily take up more than 4MB! (don't even talk to me about GNOME / Enlightenment...)
(for the humor-impaired: maybe it'd be a good idea if they listed numbers for a default install, or a typical install, or whatever, because all the information they put in their "Quick Facts" is not coherent together...)
Wow, those C|Net people *sure* know how to configure their Linux boxes. Bare-bones and Unix like. Wow, who would have thought. I wonder what was so hard to use, did they make the default editor the GNOME version of ed or something? Oh well, it is the standard text editor and all...
---
pb Reply or e-mail rather than vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
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.
If you have ever seen a Mac install you would realize that Win95 has a crappy installation process. Bringing up a white box under Win95 can be a nightmare because of the lack of self-booting CD ROMS. And then you have to reboot 8 times just to get through to the Internet. And it is nearly blind. Not to mention that it is intolerant of where you install it.
One thing Linux developers have a tendency to do is to fall into the trap of making Linux match Win this or that in certain features. Bzzzt. Linux needs to set HIGHER standards if it is going to achieve world domination.
What you really need is a process that has a multiple levels - a brain dead process for newbies to get them up and running, an intermediate mode with a few options and a chance to override some things, and an expert mode where everything is wide open. RedHat anyway fails on the brain dead mode, and by a lot. It is still amazing to me that they don't have a button you can push that will get you to a setup that will act as a standard home client machine that connects with an ISP with only some basic info - phone number, user name, password...
I love working with Linux - the bang/buck ratio is far greater than anything I have used. But that first week of getting sendmail and ppp up was a killer, and I am very experienced with computers compared to the average user.
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.
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.
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.
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: