Slashdot Log In
How Should One Review a Distribution?
Posted by
Cliff
on Mon May 03, 2004 10:30 PM
from the getting-the-full-picture dept.
from the getting-the-full-picture dept.
Chilliwilli asks: "Why are are good distro reviews so few and far between? Every review I've read recently seems to follow this unoriginal pattern. Big cheers about a nice easy graphical install followed by one or two driver problems blamed on hardware manufacturers. Then the rest of the review seems to be everything worked out of the box. Menus contained usual items. Software versions are X, Y and Z. See OSNews for many examples of such reviews. From the reviews I've currently read all distros seem pretty much the same, is there a reliable source for interesting, impartial and full reviews? Are there any guidelines for distro comparisons? What should people really be looking at when reviewing a distribution? I guess the broader question is what sets distros apart?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Easy! (Score:5, Funny)
License / open-source / free software philosophies (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:License / open-source / free software philosoph (Score:4, Interesting)
Are there actually any distributions other than Debian which make this [anal] distinction?
I mean the current issue at least for recent desktop machines, is that you probably can't play any games without installing at least one proprietary component.
Parent
Re:License / open-source / free software philosoph (Score:5, Informative)
If you want the full review, it's here [slashdot.org]. Reviews for Mandrake and SuSE are also in my journal [slashdot.org]. Hopefully I'll have time to do a writeup of Java Desktop System very soon here.
Parent
Re:The main problem: Drinking the Kool-Aid (Score:5, Interesting)
When was the last time you tried to install fedora, suse, or mandrake? Maybe it's just me, but the last time I tried to install any of these the install was FAR easier and faster then even the XP install.
First, there's no 25 character product key you need to enter (after you find the key hidden on the bottom of the machine already installed under your desk). I honestly find the fedora install much more intuitive then the XP install, and the funny thing is, is that fedora (or any other distro) doesn't just install the OS. It installs pretty much ALL of the applications you will need to use.
The XP install includes the OS, a primitive browser, a DRM'd media player, and a very vulnerable web server. After that you still have to spend 5 hours installing graphics programs, an office suite, anti-virus, security patches, etc.
So I might agree with you on some of your other points. But the windows install is by no means better than the linux install.
Parent
Re:The main problem: Drinking the Kool-Aid (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:The main problem: Drinking the Kool-Aid (Score:5, Interesting)
With WinXP home (same machine), I had to find a floppy disk to make a driver disk to allow me to install onto the SATA hard drive (the only drive), then it took roughly two hours to do the full install, and then another 4 hours to do the service packs to get it to a stable position. Then there was adding in programs to get it to basic functionality.
And before anyone throws cost of ownership, ummm, Slackware was free. Well, I paid for the CD's, but that was nothing compared to buying WinXP.
The beginning of the WinXP is anything but pretty. It's the same text (with some colors) interface that WinNT used.. Amazing. State of the f***in' art..
I've installed plenty of other distros too. Very pretty installers, that all work. I've only hit the rare error, but nothing compared to the last WinXP install that I did. 5 minutes in, for the first couple tries, and then it stops because it doesn't believe there's a hard drive in the machine..
Freakin' SATA. It's been out for a few days now, maybe someone at Microsoft has heard of it. {sigh} Ok, I'll be willing to say that maybe it was the controller, but hey, it's a name brand controller, built into a name brand motherboard, and hey, Linux saw it. Linux, you know, the one Microsoft bashes for being just a bunch of hobbiests doing it. Well, why can the hobbiests do what the multi-billion company can't??
I tried to install the same copy of XP on the *SAME* machine, into a VMWare virtual machine (booted to Linux). Nope, no-go.. I know, it looks like a different machine.. But, why? Because I may be an evil software pirate? Or I may be Joe-user who changed his mind about the hardware I was installing, and swapped it all around.. I've been known to build a machine, and when I'm done, swap video and sound cards, or even motherboards. Oh, no, that's not permissible in the wonderful world of Microsoft. I have to call and ask for permission if I do that. I opted to *NOT* call Microsoft, and beg for permission to use software I paid for in a perfectly legitimate fashion. I installed an old copy of Win98, which is no longer used on any PC's here (*MY* copy, that *I* paid for), which doesn't bitch, and threaten to not work if I don't pay for extra licenses.
This particular machine happens to be my girlfriend's machine. She wanted Windows, so she could play "The Sims". I have to honestly say, Slackware ran a whole lot faster than XP, and this isn't a slow machine. AMD 2800+, 1GB ram, 200GB SATA drive. If only we could get game companies to recognize Linux is better, faster, and more stable, she wouldn't have even wanted Windows.
And, no, "The Sims" doesn't work under wine.
Parent
Re:The main problem: Drinking the Kool-Aid (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm wondering how you think Microsoft could possibly support hardware (SATA) that came out after XP was released on the boot CD. Likewise, I can't use a 2001 Redhat/Debian/SuSE/whatever CD to install onto a SATA drive. Be happy they at least included a way to load the drivers for new/non-standard storage hardware during the intial install.
The only advantage of linux in this case is more frequent updates, nothing more.
And frankly, if it took you 4 hours to install the "service packs," all one of them, you either have no idea what you're doing or a slow connection, neither of which are Microsoft's responsibility.
I'm all for pointing out real problems with MS and Windows, but lets stick to real problems, or we all just look like zealous idiots.
Parent
Re:Easy! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Easy! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Easy! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Well (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well (Score:5, Funny)
- Set aside 60 minutes per operating system.
- Install everything as fast as possible, making sure to select the default options.
- Comment on how pretty each installer is
- Comment on how many clicks are required to complete the installation
- Compare installation times
- Comment on what hardware was automatically detected
- Make sure to include a screenshot of each OS running their default window manager immediately after the install is done
Have I missed anything?
Parent
What sets distros apart? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What sets distros apart? (Score:5, Funny)
To minimize nerd politics, go with BSD. In general there isn't as much zealotry going on in BSD movement.
Plus it's a solid operating system that provides you with over 10,000 ports that just work. 'make install clean' and *BANG* your done.
Parent
In other words... (Score:5, Informative)
Distrowatch [distrowatch.com]
I'll leave the rest up to you.
Oh, and in case you're wondering: Slack rules them all.
On distros. (Score:5, Insightful)
On a side note, what sets distributions apart is different for every experienced user, I think. For example, I run Linux on my desktop, because I'm a hobbyist. As such, I constantly remove and install lots of different packages, and so Debian happens to be the right distro for me. Apt-get allows me to search through a huge archive of binaries and install fun things, then remove them cleanly because of reverse dependency checking. Gentoo, on the other hand, is right for the user who has more time than I do to play around, and wants the very latest versions of software, as well as the coolness factor of having compiled it oneself. Fedora or Mandrake is targeted towards the user who has -less- time than I do to play around, and just wants a nice, workable system right out of the box. Basically, there's nothing that sets distributions apart for everybody. It depends on your specific needs.
Re:On distros. (Score:5, Informative)
1. Ease of installation on a single system.
2. Ease of performing distributed installations.
3. Documentation availability (hardcopy, electronic, online)
4. Hardware detection on a few varied systems (ide vs scsi, raid controllers, gigabit network cards, etc).
5. Server-based applications (database, webserver, mail) and versions.
6. Default security configuration.
7. Software update facilities.
8. If any problems occured during installation or configuration, what the responses of the support options (email, internet forum, phone) was like.
9. Configuring two types of standard enterprise system types (database server, web server, mail server) - any third-party configuration utilities, or wierd/useful ways the vendor has built and layed out the software.
10. Backup and restore software - apart from default options like tar, are there any third-party or vendor-specific options.
11. Any unique software that sets this distribution apart (oracle single-cpu license included for example).
12. Benchmarks.
13. Cost.
This might differ HUGELY from a desktop review. Which might include:
1. Installation frontend.
2. Speed of installation.
3. Software packages.
4. Hardware detection on bleeding edge desktop PC.
5. Organisation of desktop applications (ie, why is Openoffice.org under Applications/Other folder?).
6. Software update facilities.
7. Any distinguishing third-party or vendor-specific software included (free copy of winex or vmware for example).
8. Vendor support responses to common queries.
9. Cost.
Parent
What I'd like... (Score:4, Interesting)
Software should be easy to build and run from the moment you download. It shouldn't be a big deal which distro you're running, what cpu arch you have, or what libs you have installed. Software should be smart and just work. If you don't have the right shared libs, the app in question should get/provide them itself. That sort of thing. Just make it EASY to install useable programs.
The whole point of the GPL is that you're free to share each other code. Instead of requiring your users to install package X which has 20 of its own dependendcies, just provide package X in case its not there already. Problem solved.
At any rate, this is the approach that we're taking with slimserver [slimdevices.com] and our users, both geek adn non-geek, seem to be quite happy with it.
Re:What I'd like... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the software world, it's easier for me to:
In the "other" realm, it's easier to:
For the record, I think you're right.. software SHOULD be easy to use, but I think that there's danger in making things TOO easy -- you trade power for simplicity (the learning curve on Start->Find is much less steep than that of piping stuff through grep, but the grep solution is often much more USEFUL).
S
Parent
Re:What I'd like... (Score:4, Interesting)
This sounds all well and good, but it ignores one simple fact -- software is dumb and doesn't do anything "by itself." If your software does anything, it pretty much does it with the help of the OS, and whatever package management system(s) it chooses to provide. If your software seems "smart," it's probably the result of some good design and well-defined standards on the OS end. This is why distributions are important.
Proprietary OSes have it easy, because they can define a single, uniform standard for installing software, and vendors have no choice but to meet this requirement, which is ultimately great for end users. Unfortunately for Linux users, the standards that are available on every system -- gcc, make, the standard file structure -- make for a comparatively difficult and slow (unless you're a Gentoo user) installation experience, and make it impossible to install binary-only software (if you're into that sort of thing).
Distributions exist, in large part, to provide a similar uniformity of standards (like apt-get, portage, rpm, etc.) that users of proprietary systems get. But since you can't force people to adhere to a single standard, as proprietary OSes can, we've split off into different factions depending on what we prefer as individuals. This is a feature, not a bug!
So, in essence, expecting software to "just work" on all distributions makes about as much sense as expecting Windows software to work on a Mac. The whole point of having distributions and package systems -- indeed, of having an OS at all -- is internal cohesiveness, not interoperability. If you want the latter, I refer you to the aforementioned gcc/make. But if you want the former, your choice of distribution is important.
Cheers,
IT
Parent
Who is your target audience? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then, you can find out what factors might be important to that target group. Say, you're reviewing distros for Joe Noobie. Using this, you might concentrate on things that might be important to that class of user. (How to get up and running. Such as, where can the distro be obtained? Is it downloaded, purchased, or does it come on a computer you can order? What's your prior experience with this distro, if any?) Then, you would concentrate on things that your class of user might want to accomplish. (Email, text messaging, browsing, watching movies, downloading and properly installing spyware, to make their computer suck, making them feel right at home, Windows-style, etc.)
Finally, to make the review interesting, different, and thought provoking, I would detail the steps I took to get form point A to point B in the review (special commands you might have had to type, or insights you have on how to get something done), and explain it in such a way that will encourage feedback, further experimentation, other reviews, and maybe even (hopefully) improvements in the product.
Many Different Aspects (Score:4, Interesting)
You would need to do seperate reviews, such as one for best distro to be used as a web server, or best distro to be used on the desktop in place of windows.
Otherwise you'll just get a bunch of people screaming at you :)
Re:Many Different Aspects (Score:4, Insightful)
That's just one axis too. You might have someone who wants to set up a web server but is a complete computer newbie (you wouldn't recommend them to use Slackware.) Or you might have someone who wants to use a desktop who is an elite hacker (you wouldn't recommend them to use Mandrake.)
So there is the axis of purpose, and the axis of experience. And that's just a start. A certain distribution might be perfect for the purpose, perfect for the user's level, but require money.
And so on, and so forth.
Parent
Distros (Score:5, Insightful)
To properly review a distribution probably takes longer than most people who do such reviewing have time for. If you need to write something in three days, you've got time to install a distro, but not enough to fuck with it for three months and see how easy it is to keep it running and happy when you are adding weird custom shit, new versions of important system files, and applications that the distribution vendor never intended to integrate.
I am distro-shopping myself right now. Not sure what I'll do.
Re:Distros (Score:5, Insightful)
Amen. Most distribution "reviews" are one page praise pieces these days, written by people who honestly have no qualifications in the first place to write a distribution review.
Could you imagine reviewing Windows, Office Super-Deluxe, and a hundred other bits of major software in a _day_? Of course not. You'd have to spend WEEKS. Yet, lo and behold, the majority of idiot reviewers do the install on a single machine, blame the distro for anything that goes wrong, and then go nitpicking (or, alternatively, ignore all flaws and praise the distro anyways because they use it). What happened to the rest of the damned review?
I'd also like to see some relatively unbiased reviews. For the love of G-d, please do not write a review if you're in love with the system in the first place, because you use it on your personal box. It just ends up as a piece of evangelism that wastes the three minutes of my precious life.
To summarize:
1. Limit the scope of the review to:
A. Certain users (and do proper and formal usability tests with them).
B. Certain pieces of software within the distribution (but be certain to test them thoroughly!). If this means you limit it to the installer and certain generic OS tasks, than so be it.
2. Make sure you are _qualified_ to write the review. This should involve some formal educational background in usability engineering at the very least. No one's interested in uninformed opinions.
3. Don't review the distribution you use and love. Your review will be hideously biased, whether you try to make it fair or not. Example: This is the primary reason why all Gentoo reviews seem to gloss over the horrifying install (in my experience).
4. On a similar note, give every distro a fair shake. The fact that it doesn't work just like your favorite distribution should not be a point against it. I'm sick and tired of hearing "but it doesn't have apt-get, so it sucks".
5. Avoid absolutes such as "this is the best" or "this is the worst". Make note of pros and cons, and let the reader decide. You can give recommendations if you want.
6. If you alter the system by installing non-standard software, make note of this (ie, apt on Fedora or SuSE). If you're doing weird configuration, make note of it on the review, too.
7. Thoroughly inform yourself of the features of the distribution, and make note of the fact that you're not reviewing the distribution on 1000 machines at once (if the distribution was intended to scale like that). Example: This is the primary reason why RHN always seems to get bashed in RHEL reviews - people make believe it's just up2date, and miss the extremely useful remote management functionality.
8. Avoid getting into comparison situations. If it's hard to install software, say so, but don't damn Mandrake for not being Slackware (or vica versa).
Those are some things to look for, anyways. Like I said, too many idiots taking too short a time to review far too much.
-Erwos
Parent
Good things to review (Score:5, Insightful)
I also like to see you easy it is to install "non-standard" software, such as MP3 players on RedHat, etc.
But all in all, the only real way to do a review is the way the car magazines sometimes do: run the distro for a few months as your main machine. Then all problems will become clear.
Another caveat is to have more than one person review; for example, a Macintosh user may expect a computer to work much differently than a Gentoo user would. Many different opinions need to be taken into account; it is unlikely that there is a one-size-fits-all in the distro department.
Skip the installer (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead I'd like to see reviews that focus on how easy it is to administrate the system. Is there a wide variety of prebuilt packages? Are they easy to install? If I'm new to linux, what tools are on the system to assist me? What hardware does it support? Those sort of things.
What sets distros apart.... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) They should be easy to set up.
2) They should work as close to 100% out of the box as possilbe
3) Their inner workings should be nearly invisible to the regular person
Basically, these distros should be compared to OS X and Windows on their installation and hardware detection. It should drop you into Linux easily, and with a fully working machine within an hour.
Next, you have the more hardcore user that you are aiming at with distros like Gentoo, Slackware, and Debian. These tend to be a little more difficult to set up (in comparison to the previous group). If a regular person picked up a copy of one of these at CompUsa and went to install it, they probably will be scratching their heads a bit, and they also probably will get some sort of error. The goals of these distrobutions tend to be the same, yet with a much higher emphasis on the customization factor. That's pretty much the tradeoff a distrobution makes. Ease of use vs. Customization. As one goes up, the other tends to go down. That's what makes Linux great. It's the fact that I can control how exactly how my machine is set up. Either I choose to do it all on my own, or I choose to let someone else decide for me what is installed on my machine and how it is configured. I have installed Mandrake, Fedora, Debian, and right now am waiting on the compiling of my first ever Gentoo install. I think each has their own sets of plusses/minuses and I recognize that.
(Yes, I also realize that each one of these distrobutions has various "flavors" that break the stereotype of that distrobution, such as live cd's, etc.)
Dumbing down Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd love to see some consideration given to the following:
1) Feature bloat in the default kernel.
2) Helpfulness of the installer.
3) Advantages of the particular packaging system used.
4) Default security levels.
5) Detailed review of the hardware detection capabilities.
6) Is the graphical desktop logically arranged? Do the menus make sense, and do they make your life easier?
7) An important one: how easy is it to reliably upgrade to the distro from an earlier version?
In my mind (5) and (7) are often sadly neglected by reviewers. In the case of hardware detection, reviewers often only test the distro on their own hardware. Now, this is great if their hardware works, but not so great for users whose hardware won't be auto-detected. Surely the reviewers could do a bit of legwork and scan the mailing lists to point out any particular hardware pitfalls.
Another important point is (7), the ease of upgrading. The one major lesson I learned when trying all those different distros was, once you find one that does what you want and is easy to update, stick with it. There's nothing worse than having to spend a week restoring your configuration by hand when you upgrade to a new version of a distro that doesn't support intelligent upgrades.
Re:Dumbing down Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a big one to me. I absolutely hate patched up kernels that are really just jacked up kernels.
2) Helpfulness of the installer.
A minor point to me since you so rarely install a system, and if you isntall one regularly (say a server or something) you typically have some tool that allows you to do a mostly hand free install. Of course, lacking such an option is a turn off.
3) Advantages of the particular packaging system used.
No argument here.
4) Default security levels.
You really shouldn't leave anything at default security levels, but this is a good place to start I agree.
5) Detailed review of the hardware detection capabilities.
Why should this differ from distro to distro? Hardware detection is done by the kernel, and they are run pretty much the same kernel, unless it's one of those uber-patched piles of dung.
6) Is the graphical desktop logically arranged? Do the menus make sense, and do they make your life easier?
IME I haven't seen one that really wasn't, except for RedHat's bluecurve. For the most part the window managers and DEs get the menus right. A distro that doesn't screw around here gets it right too.
7) An important one: how easy is it to reliably upgrade to the distro from an earlier version?
This is of prime importance for some distros, and not so prime for others. Case in point. Administering a RedHat 7.2 machine today is a big pain in the ass. It's even worse for the 6.2 machine I have to mess with. Adminstering a Slackware 8.0 machine or 7.1 though, is pretty damn easy, including rolling your own security updates from source code. It's just not that big an issue.
Parent
Re:Dumbing down Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a big one to me. I absolutely hate patched up kernels that are really just jacked up kernels.
What annoys me is when a distro ships with a kernel that's so highly patched that it makes switching to a vanilla kernel later on a pain in the ass. Red Hat and SuSE are particularly guilty of this, while Slackware ships a kernel so pure that it could have come from Linus himself.
2) Helpfulness of the installer.
A minor point to me since you so rarely install a system, and if you isntall one regularly (say a server or something) you typically have some tool that allows you to do a mostly hand free install. Of course, lacking such an option is a turn off.
This point was more aimed at bad design decisions in installers. For example, until 10.0 was released, you could perform a (supposedly) complete installation of Mandrake but the kde-network packages wouldn't be installed. When you consider that a lot of people still use dialup and therefore require kppp to be available, this seems like a stupid decision.
I don't think we need to have Debian-style package selection overkill, but several distros could do with a rethink on this front.
5) Detailed review of the hardware detection capabilities.
Why should this differ from distro to distro? Hardware detection is done by the kernel, and they are run pretty much the same kernel, unless it's one of those uber-patched piles of dung.
IANAC (I am not Alan Cox) but I believe that hardware detection isn't really rooted in kernel space. I've certainly seen different distros installed on the same box, with the same kernel, have differing results with hardware detection.
6) Is the graphical desktop logically arranged? Do the menus make sense, and do they make your life easier?
IME I haven't seen one that really wasn't, except for RedHat's bluecurve. For the most part the window managers and DEs get the menus right. A distro that doesn't screw around here gets it right too.
I think a bit of work always needs to be put into the menu system. As an example, I recently installed KDE 3.2.1 from source on an old machine and was genuinely horrified at how clumsy the default layout is. On the other hand, Mandrake 10, which is my current distro, is an absolute dream to use.
Parent
Does it fit? (Score:4, Insightful)
You should look at how the distro follows the Linux way (or the Unix way). For example, look for the odd little things that someone added because they thought it was a good idea. Maybe it was or maybe it isn't. For example every major distro now aliases "rm" to "rm -i" which isn't the unix way (at least according to Kernighan). The real unix way is alias "del" to "rm -i" and teach people to use del if they want to be asked so they don't learn bad habits.
Another thing is does the keyboard short cuts work? If I have a windows theme, does the keyboard work that way and if I select a mac theme, will it work that way too? Can I mix and match so it looks like Windows and has mac bindings? Is there clear help showing new keyboard options if I pick a better theme?
Remember computers are a tool. They are there to serve a useful role. It doesn't matter how nice they look or work if they don't end up getting the job done. After an upgrade, I should be able to get my work done faster however my tests show that isn't going on.
Reviews should reflect the ability of the distro to work as the tool its suppoed to be.
Don't take OSNews "reviews" seriously (Score:5, Interesting)
There was one time she couldn't get some Python application(s) working under Slackware, so I tried them on my box. I followed the directions and got them working just fine. It turns out she didn't have her paths set properly. I told her what needed to be done and explained that she failed to set her path properly, so she modded my comment(s) down, continued blaming Slackware for her problems, and pretty much insisted that I shut up. That particular exchange is here [osnews.com]. (Be sure to check the "moderated down [osnews.com]" comments for that thread as well.)
OSNews is most definitely not the place to go for reviews of any sort.
No need really, distro's are just... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you prefer a restaraunt meal, served up by chefs with their own ideas; you pick redhat or suse or whatever...
If you like to potter in the kitchen with "meals in a bag, just add vegetables", then use Debian...
If you like to spend 4 hours at the market choosing meat, vegetables and spices to cook your own killer meal to your taste; pick gentoo (gee, guess my bias
If you are a survivalist or a mad hippie who likes to farm it, grow it and kill it yourself; then slackware is the choice for you; this used to by my distro of choice...
But, like food, you need to try it yourself to see if you like it... reviews rarely help unless the reviewers come round and tear your tasting apparatus out of your head and jam it in their own before they go off to eat...
just my pointless $0.02...
err!
jak
Distribution reviews (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess the broader question is what sets distros apart?
After numerous installs, the only one that gets my hardware right is SuSE (YaST). I don't have the time anymore to dick around with hardware settings. In other words, build your own Linux box if you want too. Use SuSE if you want it to work out of the box (I'm sure other readers will disagree). Out of the box solutions still suck. SuSE still allows me to select XFCE for the desktop or WindowMaker for my older laptop.
Enjoy,
Factors for me (Score:4, Interesting)
The ones I tried were Redhat 9, Mandrake 9.1, Suse 8.2 and Debian Woody. Two other distros I'm curious about but won't probably ever install are slackware and gentoo. It just sounds like they like things more minimalistic than me (just get that feeling of it sounds difficult).
The install is often mentioned because unlike windows, it's not preinstalled. And if you can't install it, then you can't use it! Debian has the hardest install of them by far. I have tested the new Sarge installer and it's much better, but still more difficult than the other distros. Suse required FTP install since I didn't have the boxed set for any but I could download the latest Mandrake and Redhat ISOs.
Second main factor is default interface. Redhat uses GNOME while the other three go with KDE. While there are some things I like about gnome, I'm a KDE guy and I just feel out of place with Redhat. That's a very subjective thing. personally, I don't mind running gnome apps in KDE or vice versa, but running in KDE just feels more comfortable with me. Recently, I had to use a friend's Fedora core 1 which didn't have KDE and I felt so lost. Gnome's terminal is different enough (especially shortcuts) that I was unproductive. I couldn't figure out how to sftp folders when I'm so used to using fish and the windows explorer like interface through Konqueror. I'm sure there are equally effective methods in each interface, but I find one more comfortable than another and you can only learn your preference through experience.
The third main factor is package management. This probably may be more important than #2, but with the advancements in each system, it may be more of a wash. I used to be accustomed to Redhat's Package Manager (RPMs). I hadn't experimented too much with urpmi (in Mandrake) so I used rpms for mandrake as well. Suse has YAST (which is more of a control center as well) which was easier than both. Debian has apt-get method.
Rpms are often better than just get source and compiling but sometimes you have dependency problems and you cant find versions you're looking for or they conflict. I hear that Redhat and Mandrake have improved their handling of this and is easy as apt-get. In Debian, there are package repositories. You can tell the computer where to look (there are defaults) and it gets a list of possible applications. You can do apt-get (or use the graphical version through Synaptic) and install any app there. The program handles dependencies and tells you what else it needs and asks if it's okay to install them. Suse also uses rpms, but through YAST, it gave a synaptic like interface and allowed you to install from ftp apps. It is fairly easy to search for apps through categories or search by name/description.
Rpms have the benefit that they're popular and if you have problems, you can tend to find others that have had the problem and solved them. In Mandrake, I didn't like how it often felt that some place would allow rpm download, but sometimes there would be a conflict and I'd need to find the rpm-mdk version. I believe if you are part of Mandrak-club or whatever, you can more easily download newer apps or maybe the same with urpmi.
I started flirting with linux around Redhat 5.2. I mostly stayed testing with them until Mandrake 7.2. I decided to test the distros last fall and I'm sure my previous experiences bias my preferences somewhat. Given what I was used to with Red Hat and Mandrake, I didn't experiment with them as much as I did with SuSE and Debian and came away more impressed by the latter.
The fourth main factor is system administration. I know Mandrake as its Control Center and SuSE has YAST, but I'm not sure of anything for Debian or Redhat. Well, I used linuxconf, but I wonder if
Don't just review the installer! (Score:4, Insightful)
Most Linux distro reviews I've seen go like this:
To review a distro properly, you need to use it for at least a month, IMHO. You need enough time to discover that security updates are a pain to install. Enough time to find out that installing third party packages is impossible because the distro uses a beta version of GCC.
In other words, you need to give more than first impressions: anyone can do that, and it's not terribly helpful.
What about user experience? (Score:4, Insightful)
I never saw a review that gave a certain appreciation (or rating) for a certain type of user...
A distribution review.. (Score:5, Interesting)
There's linux. There's a kernel. Then there's a bunch of other software out there, like openoffice, xmms, eclipse, ad nauseum. Just about every distribution comes with the same basic set of software. Reviews certainly should assess whether it works on all sorts of hardware, whether tricks need to be made for raid to work, and if applications are in spots that make sense (OpenOffice.org under Productivity or somesuch instead of under CoffeeBeans in the KlutterDE menu).
However, the first and foremost item that should be reviewed: what makes this distribution different from the plethora of other distributions, and does this exalted feature work as specified? Gentoo's emerge. Debian's apt-get. Lindows' litigation magnet. To this -day- I do not know what makes RedHat preferable to Mandrake in terms of feature set, and RedHat's main offices are not ten miles from my house. I know that RPMs are a pain in the butt to work with, and that with a few tricks just about any other distribution can use them - so what makes it tick? Every once and a while I hear something float around about it being more stable: compared to a self-built slackware machine? compared to an optimized Gentoo build?
That's what a review should focus on: what (if anything) a distribution can deliver that no other distribution can. And if it can't, tell the reader that it doesn't. That's what I look for in other reviews (will this book actually cover what I need to know? does it provide a unique entertainment value? what makes this game stand out from the other games just like it, and is it good or bad features that make it stand out?), and truly what needs to be covered in distribution reviews. If it's ease of use, I want comparative studies with noobs. If it's stability, I want comparative studies with expert installs of other distributions. If it's package delivering tools, I want it compared. First and foremost do I want features to be compared: because even if they run, if they don't run as good as something else... why should I be running it?
Re:Easy Answer: (Score:5, Interesting)
I care and I _still_ don't know the basic differences between Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, SuSe, Mandrake, Slackware, et cetera.
The main reason is that I can't seem to find a site that lays out those differences in any meaningful way AND I simply do not have the time to install 12 different distros and become technically familiar with each one.
Right now I am running a mix of SuSe and FC1 and exploring the differences between them as a relatively new *nix user.
I wish more technically proficient people would review the various distributions with write-ups geared toward the new but technically bent user.
Parent
Re:Easy Answer: (Score:5, Funny)
Debians the squiggly line, Fedora's the hat, Gentoo's the weird looking bird, SuSe is the lizard, Mandrake is the star, Slackware is the uhh...series of letters that spell out Slackware.
Understand now?
Parent
Re:Easy Answer: (Score:5, Informative)
So that is the first thing you should weed out. All of the "niche" distros that are designed for one set of server tasks or another. And there are a ton of them.
Next being that you are a new *nix user by your own admission - you should weed out the distros that don't put emphasis on the Desktop. In my opinion (and this will undoubtedly start a flame war of some kind), but Gentoo, Debian, Slackware, and the like are poor choices for *NEW* users. The learning curve is just too steep. Come back to those later if your curiosity is strong enough.
Now start looking for distros that have a large community following. In my mind, that is Mandrake, SuSE, Fedora Core, and possibly a couple of others.
Now in my opinion, the biggest difference between these "easy", Desktop oriented Linux distributions is really two things.
1. The Installer
2. The System Management Tools after it's installed
For the most part Gnome/KDE is Gnome/KDE regardless. I've used Gnome on a FreeBSD box to check my e-mail and surf the web and it's the exact same.
Once you have the system installed, your Window Manager of choice is going to work the same way no matter what distro you choose. So once the installation is complete, the biggest difference in my opinion (for _*Desktop*_ users) is what System Management tools are available to you.
SuSE has one way of doing it, Mandrake has another, and Fedora Core has yet another. Decide for yourself which you like. It's a waste of time for me to give any advice in this area because everyone who disagrees will just attack me, tell me I'm stupid, tell me how much better SuSE's tools are instead of Mandrake, or vice-versa.
It's unfortunate that Linux users (well, *nix users in general) are so full of zeal, but that's just how it is.
Parent
Answer to your answer (Score:5, Informative)
I read your post and then wrote this article [thejemreport.com] to try to fill that gap.
If you still have questions, let me know how I can improve it.
-JemParent
Re:Two words: package management. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's what I run. If I want something, I usually go to the source, and install what they have to offer, rather than waiting for anyone to do anything for me. Why should I wait for a mainstream distro to patch the hell out of something, and distribute it to me with convoluted configuration options, when I can get it exactly like the author intended it? Slack makes this fairly easy. One of the first things I do when I install a Slackware system, is to download the new kernel sources, and compile it myself. Not that there's anything technically wrong with Slackware's kernel, I just like to know that my system is running exactly the way it should, without any extra drivers, or fluff.
We're building up a distro like this. It's going to be called "LMLinux". There's a really brief overview at http://lmlinux.com . We almost have the first alpha release done, but not quite. Our package management backend is just about complete, which looks rather nice.. Everythings stored in a MySQL database, for easy reference. It will make for very easy work, for anyone to browse to a few lookup pages, or for a package manager to find things.
I'm all about doing things from source, and doing it the way the author intended. But hey, if people like patchwork systems, let them get another distro with a kernel that has various patches reverse-engineered to work in the wrong version, etc, etc..
In our ideal world, you have the option of installing the package from our server, or grabbing it from the author yourself, and installing it yourself, without worrying that the next automagic update will hose whatever you've done.
I've done work for RedHat and Debian people, who absolutely freak out at the idea that I'd even think of downloading something myself, and installing it myself.
With all the complaints I see about x distro not having this, or not doing that, I kinda giggle. My Slackware installs do everything. Farther up in the thread is someone complaining about a lack of NTFS support by whatever distro. NTFS? Mine does it, I compiled it into the kernel, if there will be NTFS drives to read. I watch any video type I want, I've installed xine. It's not rocket science, read the readme.
And, you're absolutely right, you get all the free support you need in the mailing lists for the program, or checking on dejanews (eerr, groups.google.com)
Parent
Re:These features aren't best (Score:4, Insightful)
Debian doesn't currently have a pretty graphical installer...
*sigh*
When will people get this? It's not the lack of a "graphical installer" that keeps people from wanting to install debian. It's seriously not. I don't use debian, and mostly because of the installer, or issues that arise from the installer. But, hell, I installed redhat 6.0. It didn't have a graphical installer. I've installed gentoo on many boxes, from stage 1 to stage 3 installs, and that's certainly not graphical, and I actually enjoyed it. I've installed solaris 5.7, 8, and 9, on a variety of SPARCs and x86 boxen, and survived without blowing my top.
The thing people hate about the Debian installer is that it's annoying as all holy fuck.
Even if you choose the "install the standard system" options, it still asks you fourteen million questions, such that, after a few minutes, you just start accepting the default answer. It wants you to baby sit it, to set up a support group for it and walk it through in 12 steps. I can't even count the number of times it was all "read this page of information", and then, at the bottom, it tells me "i'm going ahead with this", and it's not like you have an option, so why the fuck read the page?
Not to mention the damn thing talks to you as if the computer is sentient! "I'm going to go ahead and try to detect your network", "Would you like me to install the development packages?", "I have a terrible itch right under PCI slot 3, can you scratch it with your tounge for me?"
I know the whole philosophy of debian is built around CHOICE and FREEDOM. But, at some points, just make a fucking decision for the consumer, will you? You're probably not going to alienate any zealots if you just go ahead and autodetect the network adaptor without creating a committee and waiting for someone to second the motion.
Everytime someone brings up the graphical installer vs. the world arguement, the test case is always Debian. It's unfair; Debian's installer sucks for completely autonomous reasons. If you'd like to see a relatively well-done command line installer, look at RedHat 6.x, or even the ansi installers for redhat 7.x, or Solaris' install, which is perfectly functional without being annoying.
~Will
Parent
Re:These features aren't best (Score:5, Interesting)
The worst part of installing Debian is setting up PPPoE.
You choose to install the daemon, but the installer thinks you want to set up a dial up modem and won't let you install pppd without configuring a dial up! I don't have a dial up, I have PPPoE! Just install the package and that's it...or even better...install the package and then let me configure it for DSL! So basically I have to install it by hand...which isn't a big deal but if you are going to claim to have this installer that is so fantastic that it just can't be changed and then it can't handle setting up a nic and/or pppd to use PPPoE, well that's bull.
When I asked in a Debian forum if there where plans to make the installer less of a bitch to setup PPPoE they said that PPPoE was too much of an obscure system for them to worry about supporting it!
This from the distro that supports 11 different architectures half of which were last relevant in the early 90s! Guess what just because you're ivory tower
But instead of fixing this the developers argue over what is the true meaning of freedom and what the definition of is is! And then push back the already slothlike release schedule by another year!
Who wants to put up with that shit! Apt-get is hardly unique these days there's no reason to put up with the idiocy of Debian any longer. Shit, the Gentoo install is better since you know from the start you are going to be configuring it all by hand instead of having some clunky antiquated installer getting in the way and producing a bunch of funked up configs all over the place that you have to go back and sort out after the fact like Debian does.
Parent
Re:d-i and PPPoE (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean no personal disrespect. None at all. To be honest, despite my tone in the previous post, I actually like debian once it's running. It's easy to install and upgrade, and I appreciate that. Having to deal with redhat day in and day out, I am so sick of RPM dependancy hell that I've pretty much washed my hands of RedHat, and apt-get (as well as emerge and similar tools) are fantastic and much appreciated.
It's just the installer that gets me.
And my problem is that I work at a webhosting company. I have to set debian up on machines fairly regularly. Not regularly enough to justify setting up a slipstreamed automated install, but regularly enough to be annoyed by it. And it frustrates me even more, because I'm usually setting it up on customer machines, so I get to do the grunt work, and then I don't even get to use the computer (to its credit, debian takes little "administration" time (read babysitting)). But that means I miss out on the parts of debian that I like. The saving grace of the install is the local 10/100 mbit mirror.
So, I'm disgruntled with debian's installer. I'm sick of telling it that, yes, I do in fact want a 2.4 kernel because I might want to do something with the lartc (linux advanced routing and traffic control) kernel stuff. I'm sick of having to open the damn case and install an 8139 card in order to download the drivers for the real network adaptor that redhat 9 picked up 2 years ago. Blah blah.
My conclusion has been that Debian is an excellent linux distro with a great philosophy of user control and choice which occasionally leaks over into some places where it's a nuisance.
But, having said that, thank you for your work.
~Will
Parent
Re:These features aren't best (Score:5, Informative)
Speaking for myself, I have plenty of experience with text installers, and quite dislike GUI installers.
I've got tons of experience with text-based installers, such as all of the BSDs, Slackware, (does Gentoo count?) and literally dozens of others.
Yes, with my experience with installing OSes, I still find the Debian installer quite mystifying. Hundreds of oddball menus, with unusual categories, with mile-long lists of device names, and things like that. I never managed to install Debian properly with the installer, although I've tried a handful of times. It's not a complete show-stopper, because I don't have a problem modifying the system after it has been installed... Still, as far as installers go, Debian is the worst I've ever seen. It may be text-mode, which gives it a plus in my book, but that small advantage is overwhelmed by the massive complexity of the program.
It's been a while since my last Debian install, so it's possible things have changed. But I certainly don't expect they could have pulled off a miracle and made their installer easy to use.
Parent
Re:These features aren't best (Score:5, Interesting)
The first time I tried Linux was Mandrake 7. That was quite some time ago, and there was a large gap between then and my current linux usage - primarily because I couldn't figure crap out. Mainly because I didn't know how to use documentation. It's a little bit different now.
My reintroduction to Linux was by a friend off of irc. He suggested I use Debian. I said 'hey, sure, why not.' I had a spare computer, so I did. Install went off without a hitch, he told me to not install any extra packages with tasksel or anything, and helped me through figuring out apt-get. After that, I was home-free. I loved it. I set up gnome 2.4, learned how to recompile my kernel.
In the High Performance Computing course at school, we use strictly Red Hat machines. I tried to work through the graphical install. I really did. I got frustrated at their hard drive partitioner because it wouldn't let me decide where on the hard drive the partition was going to go (Beginning or end of free space, etc). And then when it prompted me for a root password, it wouldn't let me type anything in (the box was ghosted). I will never use a graphical install again.
Since my reintroduction to linux via debian, I have installed debian on four different machines. Most recently on a cdrom-less laptop with three diskettes. I'm not the smartest guy out there - I go to a community college, I get pretty average grades, and I watch porn like everyone else. If I can figure out the debian installer.. why can't other people?
Most of the menus aren't useful if you aren't running a special type of system that needs special attention. If you don't know what a menu is, look at the documentation. If you don't know what device name your hardware uses, try googling for it before hand (or during if you have a second computer). More recent installers (even the three-diskette one) auto-detected my hardware very accurately. My last install (knoppix-based, for fun) never did get x video acceleration working with the neomagic chipset - but the real debian installer did.
I'm just a freshman community college kid. I don't understand what's so hard about the debian installer... will someone enlighten me with specific problems they've had?
Parent