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.

Comments

Why must these be rated for newbies?

[Shadowlion]

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 your audience

[GoNINzo]

The first step in writing any sort of article is to remember your audience. This is not an article for the linux converted. It's for the people who've heard of linux, and don't want to blow up their win98 box. I most likely will use this article to give to people when they ask me 'what is easiest'. Hell, the charts of what kernel they are using, number of discs, etc, that's useful info! But you don't give a copy of 1.3 debian to a newbie PC user and expect them not to blow up their machine.. heh (from experience)

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.

Over Time

[Dasein]

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.

For In-Depth Serious Reviews

[ripcrd]

...see CPU Review. This guy actually uses the distro and reviews the differences in a comprehensive manner. Just my 2 centavos.

We interrupt this article

[DonkPunch]

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.

Re: c|net = 90% Windows users which = 90% newbies

[|DaBuzz|]

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."

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 ... 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.

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.

Re:Bandwagon hoppers

[bmetzler]

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 I don't think so. It's like my friends trying to get me to get into snowmobiling. They build their snowmobiles, but don't expect me too. I'll buy a snowmodile fully assembled, play around with it, and then when I get more comfortable with it perhaps then I'll build my own.

It's the same with Linux distributions. For newbies, they aren't interested in assembling their own Linux system, like you and I are. Instead, they use Corel, learn about it, and then when they know more, they will be interested in checking out more "flexible" distributions.

Just like if I had to assemble my own snowmobile, I wouldn't do it, so would exposing newbies to Slackware and Debian would turn them off. There's just something for everyone here.

-Brent

The Cambrian Explosion of Linuces

[Tom Christiansen]

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.

Are those necessarily the orthogonal axes to guarantee viability of new species? Will any species that excel is areas outside of those survive?

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.

Ultra quick distribution review:

[Inoshiro]

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 :-)
---