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)
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 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.
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.
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.
Well, it depends. Let's say the magazine your six-year-old kid is rating the german sports cars for happens to be a magazine targeted at six-year-olds. If the readership is all six-year-olds, then your six-year old would be in fact _very_ qualified to write the article, since he will base his ratings on issues important to six-year-olds, such as "shiny", "red", and "vrooooooom". Whereas a forty-year-old would ignore these issues and concentrate on meaningless [to a six year old] things like transmission and price.
Look at it that way, only replace "six year old" with "windows user" and "german sports car" with "linux". Hmm.
Meanwhile, i can't wait for the next issue of "Highlights". I hear they're going to rate different high-end stereo systems.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
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.
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.
Corel is a Debian derivative. They entirely missed that fact.
Bruce Perens.
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.
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.
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.
But does the expert guitarist want to spend an entire weekend tuning up the guitar so he can play properly to begin with.
If you walk into a music store and observe for some time, you'll notice that the experts aren't buying the crap guitars.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
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.