Linux Distributions Rated on CNet 231
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.
Cnet? (Score:2)
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!
ratings (Score:1)
All this media attention (Score:1)
Corel Linux OS (Score:2)
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.
cnet rates distros (Score:1)
Why must these be rated for newbies? (Score:5)
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 (Score:4)
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.
hard installations? (Score:1)
Linux Distro Niches (Score:2)
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.
They didn't like Debian much (Score:2)
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
Linux Journal did the same (Score:1)
It seems that C/Net has a different slant, as well as a different criteria for rating (ease of installation, similarity to Windows, and ability to install beside Win), but I'm wondering how much of the 'inspiration' for the article is their own?
What of network installs and upgrades? (Score:3)
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.
Missing a main market (Score:2)
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?
Corel Linux??? (Score:1)
In sort, it certainly looks promising, but it needs a lot more debugging to be usable. And what's the deal with the closed debugging anyway? It looks like Corel still doesn't get Open Source.
GUI installation (Score:3)
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
Over Time (Score:5)
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.
Re:Corel Linux OS (Score:2)
For In-Depth Serious Reviews (Score:4)
We interrupt this article (Score:5)
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:Cnet? (Score:1)
Re:Why must these be rated for newbies? (Score:3)
Bandwagon hoppers (Score:3)
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.
Bear in mind the intended audience: newbies. (Score:2)
Re:.. (Score:1)
I would assume that it's easier to rate a product that has most if not all of it's bugfixes out. I also believe that 6.2 is already in stores. 6.3 is most likely a European thing still.
Re:Why must these be rated for newbies? (Score:1)
I like articles like this, because the newbies are the ones who _need_ articles the most. That's how the market base (yes, it really is a market base) expands.
That said, I've been fighting with RH6.0, and I don't think it's anywhere NEAR ready for desktop primetime.
Advanced users have opinions (Score:1)
But at the same time, you'd have to point out the upgrade path for slackware, the lack of support and poor update speeds, and their packaging scheme (I'm sorry, when maintaining 12 different linux boxes, rpm or dpkg are awesome).
But right there, you proved why a technical review for advanced users would be a difficult sell, at best! because everyone has their own favorite distro. For instance, I'm biased against Debian because I was stranded on Debian 1.3, with no upgrade method to 2.0. Hence, If I was the one doing the advanced technical review of Linux Distro's, I'd most likely let my feelings influence my final rating. Just as you would obviously rate Slackware because you are used to it.
People tend to enjoy what they are used to. I'm used to redhat and Solaris. so OS's that are unlike those two, I tend to get aggrivated when I can't find out where they hardcoded the gate way. hence, bad review. And anyone who is technical enough to do a fully advanced review of Linux distro's knows that different distributions are suited for different purposes, but they are all just an ends to a means to getting the kernel on, and some tools to support the kernel. and after you learn the complicated interface to dslect, you don't care that it's complicated, you know how to use it.
Anyway, getting the idea? However, getting more people to use more distributions is a 'good thing' because (as an example) then eventually the slackware people will realize that 'compile your own' is not always the best option, technically and economically. Just as the RedHat people might realize that the default config is not always a good thing. ("What do you mean sharing out / on NFS is a bad idea?")
Re:.. (Score: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.
Documentation: who reads it and who dosn't. (Score:2)
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.
Re:They didn't like Debian much (Score:2)
Re:Cnet? (Score:3)
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.
Re:All this media attention (Score:1)
be GREAT, however, I don't see a need to switch over our Sun Solaris box's considering we already purchased the license and all
What actually should be seen is not wheather the thing in question is popular now but wheather it will continue to be as popular as it is now. By that logic I should purthcess a couple million dollars worth of Pokemon cards and keep them in a vault for an investment since everyone whants them now right?
Re: c|net = 90% Windows users which = 90% newbies (Score:4)
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.
Remember your audience! (Score:1)
But, as far as network installs go, Redhat has kickstart. Do any of the other distro's have different network installs?
Re:Cnet? (Score:2)
On the other hand, the commercials weren't that bad.
Re:Corel Linux OS (Score:1)
Unfortunately most people find out that despite various package formats things may not be compatable. Config files may be in different places and an installation may cause perverse mutations in the OS. Just try taking rpm packages and converting them to
this is absurd (Score:1)
A console-based installer is not inherently difficult. That's the most idiotic trend I think I've ever seen in product reviews.
We (Slackware) had a bunch of guys come up to the booth at Comdex and tell us how difficult our install was (or so they'd heard). So we let them install it. After making some cracks about our "outdated" installer, they got it up and running, into KDE and browsing the web (this was a full installation) within 20 minutes. Then they left.
Not once did they look at any documentation... they just stepped through the installer and it told them what to do. There was even a bad read off the disc (we checked after the install...it was dirty), and aside from a warning the system got installed flawlessly.
Yeah, real difficult. We should really slap GTK on top of it; that should make it easier.
Re:GUI installation/Mandrake (Score:2)
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
Re:Corel Linux OS (Score:1)
apt configuration and after that, CDL will look
for the newest version on the CD, then at Corel's
FTP site, then at Debian's site. Word has it,
if you actually get the CD from Corel instead
of burning the downloadable version, then you get
more software on the CD and don't have to suck
it through your phone line. You're still limited
to the packages in Debian slink though unless you
want to download all of potato and migrate.
Glad to hear... (Score:1)
I'm not saying everyone should like Slackware or any another distribution, in fact I would not recommend Slackware to a newbie (PERSONAL EXPERIENCE!!). The point is people should choose their distribution based on what they want to get out of it, not based on the assumption that if you haven't heard a lot about it, then it can't be good.
Re:Corel Linux OS (Score:1)
apt configuration and after that, CDL will look
for the newest version on the CD, then at Corel's
FTP site, then at Debian's site. Word has it,
if you actually get the CD from Corel instead
of burning the downloadable version, then you get
more software on the CD and don't have to suck
it through your phone line. You're still limited
to the packages in Debian slink though unless you
want to download all of potato and migrate.
I am running a system that takes routinely packages from the unstable tree. The whole thing is not very standard if that's what you mean. You can still in debian say just upgrade gnome or just upgrade xemacs if you wish it's not that hard.
Re:Why must these be rated for newbies? (Score:3)
I mean, look at the review of Linux Mandrake, which they say is just as good as Redhat, but the lack of a graphical installer "gives it a back seat to Red Hat for enterprise power". Since when does graphical installer == enterprise power?
The quote that best sumarizes the level of this article is from the Debian section: 'Debian's installation is the most confusing one we encountered. It requires that you understand technical jargon such as "root filesystem" and "non-free, non-US, and local Packages cd.' I am glad that "enterprise power" comes from not knowing what the root filesystem is.
CNET should simply have labeled this review for what it is: a recommendation of distros for true newbies wanting to get on the Linux boat now that its the in thing, but that are too lazy to give a it a real attempt (meaning blood, sweat, and howtos like the rest of us). Of course Corel and RH are going to beat Debian and Slackware in such reviews. In fact, they probably shouldn't even have been included since this is very obviously not their target audience.
Maybe next we will see Quake 3 get a two in a review of productivity software...
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Re:ratings (Score:1)
Re:They didn't like Debian much (Score:1)
Re:Corel Linux??? (Score:1)
(I recommend a ps2 mouse, not serial, and I had
to go tell it I had an eexpress) Otherwise it's
been just fine so far. I'll probably keep the partition.
Re:Bandwagon hoppers (Score:4)
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.
-Brent20 dollar decides a distro? In the enterprise? (Score:3)
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.
hmmm (Score:1)
newbie: What's the best version of Linux?
alinuxuser: It's personal preference.
so doesn't rating them basically defeat the purpose? It's like trying to rate vi, emacs, and Corel word, depends what you like.
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit.
Re:They didn't like Debian much (Score:1)
Slackware isn't for you. (Score:1)
You don't want it.
It's too hard.
Go away.
Re:this is absurd (Score:2)
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.
-BrentOn the Topic of network installs... (Score:1)
Are there any other distributions besides redhat (which has KickStart [redhat.com]) that supports network installs?
Is this a feature when considering which distribution to choose?
Re:They didn't like Debian much (Score:2)
Debian also tries to do things *right*, which also makes it easier to maintain. You won't find executables in
Corel Review (Score:1)
Talk about not being 'In the Zone' -- I can see Tom Christiansen going into fits over this one.
--
But he sure plays a mean pinball.
They missed the fact that Corel IS Debian (Score:3)
Re:Remember your audience! (Score:1)
Re:Why must these be rated for newbies? (Score:1)
The bottom line is, Linux isn't (and probably won't) be for everybody. It's not "A better Windows than Windows" as people are lead to believe, or want it to be. It is a different OS entirely!
Granted, it's good to see that a preview is rated for newbies, but where's a preview for someone who want's their box to do IP Masq, serve up a webpage, run Samba, etc???
I won't go into the review of Slackware 7, I don't want to start a flamewar...
Mike
Re:Linux Distro Niches (Score:2)
In their defense most people dont' have an extra couple of years to evaluate each and every choice. I chose debian because I heard about it and looked at the web site and decided it was for me. If I buy a car I look at consumer reports, my parents, my friends and then make a purtchess. I don't go to a university for 10 years getting a degree in mechanical engineering and electrical engineering to pick the car for me.
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 started to use slackware but they just didn't get it. I mean the programs that were included by default were nice and 3.4 was a good distribution. Man if anyone really cared about keeping package size down and you could especially use a stack of floppies to install the system. I felt real magic then. What they didn't do was allow for any sory of timely upgrade method as you mention. Their packaging system was barely an upgrade from some of the more hackneyed things out there that other independent authors have done and just a little above making your own distribution. Sure I could compile xemacs, the kernel, xwindows, gcc, gimp, and every other package that I want to use but the time (not to mention the disk space that I lack) disuade me from doing it.
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.
Goals are important. And people have many different goals for themselves however I think that many of the goals that people have could be solved by one distribution that simply had many, differnt settings that could be used for different things. This would allow for considerable power and such. For this I recommend Debian. Since they actually care and don't make me compile my own stuff and spend 2 hours trying to get it to work myself. Believe my stress is not my strong point.
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.).
To my knowledge no distribution actually does this. Many distributions will allow you to retain files that are associated with the package from being blown away but there is not integration with what you did to the package. They just expect people to have some knowledge about the programs that they are configuring.
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.
Correct. But I still think that the goals of someone using linux (for the most part) usually overlap for most things. Most desktop users actually have a pretty clear idea of what they want.
what about debian? (Score:1)
--Siva
Keyboard not found.
Audience... (Score:1)
Got RedHat 5.2? There's lots of RPMs of new software that you can't use, because they're compiled for glibc2.1, or for newer versions of libraries, the RPMs for which are only compiled for glibc2.1....
Right, so you use the "upgrade" feature. And everything probably works. But you still have to go find and download the packages yourself, and worry about any dependencies yourself. Plus, you have to figure out how to configure the package after you install it.
Debian takes care of dependencies for you, gets the packages for you, asks you configuration questions as the packages are installed, and cleans up the package files for you. Also, they have a
apt-get update
apt-get dist-upgrade
Machine is upgraded while it's running, and again, configuration questions are asked on the fly. Much more sane, IMHO.
What I'm saying is that the article focused on the present, and immediate future. It didn't mention what would happen if you want a new package a year after you install Linux. That's an important thing to know--we want to prove that Linux is better than Windows, and knowing which distros do the best job of upgrading without reformatting (something which is fraught with peril in the Windows world) seems very important.
--Ray
Re:Cnet? - audiance (Score:2)
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.
I was talking about desktop users! (Score:2)
If we are to recommend Linux-based OSes such as Red Hat and Debian to desktop users, then we need to be certain that they can and will keep their systems up to date. Otherwise we are not only exposing them to insecurity, but we are increasing the overall insecurity of the Net.
It is a far more straightforward process to do upgrades over the Net than to ship out CDs to all the users with the upgrades; this is even true for commercial products (like antivirus software -- virtually all antivirus upgrades are over the Net) and even more so for free software. For this reason, the network-upgrade process needs to be made an obvious and simple part of the use of the software distribution.
Debian has both network installs and CD installs (as well as hybrid installs booted from CD but using HTTP and FTP mirrors to get the files), and has the most simple and effective network upgrade process of any I've seen. apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade (or dist-upgrade to go to a new version.) This kind of functionality needs to be acknowledged in any comparison of Linux-based OSes.
C|Net, do some research! (Score:1)
How many errors can we find in these reviews? Debian is not $15, it's free; and Debian does not provide toll-free tech support for $34.95 per incident. It sounds like the reviewer bought a box that said "Debian" on it (probably next to the word "unofficial") and decided that that was the true product. Debian does not push GNOME with E, as was suggested in the screenshot (which could have been made with *any* Linux system).
Debian also did not release slink (2.1) for PowerPC, though the review lists PowerPC as a supported architecture.
C|Net is not supposed to be traditional media. C|Net is supposed to be enlightened. C|Net needs to remember this.
Re:All this media attention (Score:1)
CNet sucks and so on... (Score:1)
Re:On the Topic of network installs... (Score:1)
FTP Install over my cable modem worked just fine.
Any other dists that allow this? I really wanted Slackware to be the same as my other boxes, but..
Re:They missed the fact that Corel IS Debian (Score:1)
"Corel is based on the Debian distribution of Linux, but you'd be hard-pressed to tell."
What should they have said to not have "entirely missed that fact"?
"new to Linux" != "new to computing" (Score:1)
but it seems that CNET equated being "new to Linux" as being new to COMPUTING.
I was a Linux newbie, and was able to install Debian with reasonable ease.
Prior experience with DOS, Windows whatever, and Netware is what helped. One can know about concepts like networking, partitioning, programs depending on libraries, using a command line, etc - and have never used Linux or any Unix for that matter.
Granted that those that are comfortable with their own abilities might not be swayed by such an article. And the others might need a push in the "easier" direction.
But had I read this article prior to using Debian, I might have been steered in the other direction, and missed out on some learning opportunites.
(distro flame in any direction not intended)
Slackware == bad (-1, stupid) =) (Score:1)
and WTF, no RPMs? you mean that those
I agree... Slackware is WAAAAAY to hard.... go play with RedHat, and all it's GUI glory...
-- Slackware user sense '96... and stuck in RH right now (OMG!! NOOO!!!)
Re:I was talking about desktop users! (Score:1)
The way it works is a server listens on the net for ARP requests. when it gets those ARP's, it returns with a machine name and the ability to give it a boot block. hence, you have a centralized server that you can have a standardized, customized configuration of the RedHat linux distribution.
Anyway, we were just talking about two different things, there isn't any reason to get all uptight because you think i'm attacking debian. oh, and upgrading redhat is just as easy with freshrpms, rpmsrelay, and autoupdate. And i'd prefer redhat's 1 or 2 floppies to debians 6 floppies, if you want to get technical. But I think debian has it's own strengths.
and just because you havn't played with all the unix distributions yourself doesn't mean that the functionality isn't there.
How about making some money? (Score:1)
Re:They missed the fact that Corel IS Debian (Score:1)
The page for the full Corel review is:
[cnet.com]
http://home.cnet.com/software/0-3721-7-1477828.
The first new paragraph starts with:
Corel is based on the Debian distribution of Linux, but you'd be hard-pressed to tell.
That doesn't make the review any more useful to us that already use linux, but they DO say that Corel comes from Debian.
Enjoy.
-molo
Maybe it's just me. Did anyone else notice this? (Score:1)
Why are they showing a shot of XF86Config running in a KDE Konsole? Isn't that in a GUI?
Re:They didn't like Debian much (Score:2)
Re:They missed the fact that Corel IS Debian (Score:1)
I have to admit that I'm a big fan of debian, but... yah, cnet does have points. Debian does presume that you know some unix, and it doesn't come with any non-digital accessories.
Their review giving it a 6 is totally on the mark. The fact that Corel (ie- debian) got so highly rated makes me smile on the inside. Corel has addressed a lot of their concerns- easy install, reliable tech support, and printed materials.
One thing which cnet doesn't seem to be taking into account yet is maintainability. Give them 3 months to a year, and then you'll see the well-designed and well-planned distro's start to take the lead in reviews.
--Robert (rames@utdallas.edu)
Re:Why must these be rated for newbies? (Score:1)
I am an experienced Linux user, and I would love to see a review like ShadowLion proposes. I don't have time to try out every distrobution. I use Debian and it, like Slackware, was given a 6 rating. The review gave Debian points for its huge package collection but it lost out for its apearent lack of newbie documentation, and its confusing installation. There was no mention of its excellent packageing system or maintainability. Nor was there any mention that the version reviewed, Debian 2.1r2 (slink), is a year old and dosen't have much of the more recent software found in other distrobutions. There are all points that should be objectively covered. There is no reason why a review can't cover topics for both newbies and experienced users.
Energize! (Score:2)
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... (Score:2)
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.
The Cambrian Explosion of Linuces (Score:5)
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.
A solution for future reviews (Score:2)
EpicureanLinux = 9 (newbie), 4 (expert)
or
StoicLinux = 2 (newbie), 8 (expert)
Re:I agree (Score:2)
Re:Slackware isn't for you. (Score:2)
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 [152.7.41.11].
Re:Energize! (Score:2)
The definition I'm familiar with is that an enterprise system is one in which a single failure will (in general) cost more than the system itself cost.
In other words, many Linux boxes are already enterprise servers (0.5 wink).
I'm serious, BTW, and I think that's a good definition. What it implies is that you'd better take plenty of time choosing your system, and price is literally not an issue.
-Billy
Re:Why must these be rated for newbies? (Score:2)
Personally, yes, I'd like one. I could find the time to test the installation programs on each distro, it would take maybe an hour each. But I'd like to know things like: how easy is it to script an install/upgrade, how clean is the upgrade path, are all the libraries stable, how easy is it to make changes in the source and re-install, is the default security reasonable, am I locked into the GUI admin tools, or are the
I'd have to spend a lot of time with each distro to figure those things out. The c/net review isn't bad just because it caters to newbies, but also because it's lazy. It's obvious they just read the docs and did a quick install of each; that doesn't tell what it would be like to live with that distro on 20 machines for the next two years.
Not that most Linux pubs are much better, though, admittedly. LJ is just as bad as c/net when it comes to quality of reviews, to be honest.
Slackware 7 = 6? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Why must these be rated for newbies? (Score:3)
It's time to make the leap to Linux.
Later:
Many Linux newbies now want to use Linux at home and at work, so we kept a special eye out for distributions that are easy to install and use.
So, it is all about how easy it is to install and how nice it looks. Good to see large sites like cnet are telling people about Linux. But I'm still not sure if it's the right thing for your average Windows user. I don't want to sound elitist, but on a home computer you'll always have to be the administrator of your system as well as the user, so with Linux and its (wonderful) modularity and support for a gazillion different configurations you won't get away without sitting down, reading manuals, getting into the details. I stopped giving recommendations about OS's and software in general to people a long time ago. Never would I tell a clueless person to use Linux - you always end up getting tons of questions, frustration etc. But I also won't tell them to get that other OS... Or an iMac... Someone should make clear to the public that computers aren't toasters, whatever Apple, Microsoft and the like might promise.
Re:Easy=Good (Score:3)
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.
Re:Bandwagon hoppers (Score:2)
My first Distro was Slackware too, and I was a MS-lovin Windows bigot.
UNIX hasn't changed much, but are today's newbies different from the newbies we had four or five years ago?Yes they are. Newbies today that the CNet article is focusing on are those how think/or heard that Linux is important. They don't "learn" Windows, so why should they learn Linux. 5 years ago, anyone who used Linux would be interested in learning all about it.
We shouldn't assume that all newbies are stupid.Of course not. There'll always be people who really want to learn Linux. But as Linux becomes more popular, there'll be people wanting it use it without knowing what a kernel is.
But again, the most hack-inclined will climb up to different distros, pretty much like natural selection.My point exactly. Something that is dumbed down is going to cause a motivated hacker to look for something better. But something that is a little more challenging will just scare those who don't want to learn off.
-BrentScreenshots? (Score:2)
Flawed reviews. (Score:2)
Here [cnet.com] 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
---
Debian seems to be stagnating (Score:2)
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
---
Ultra quick distribution review: (Score:5)
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
---
Re:They missed the fact that Corel IS Debian (Score:2)
The fact that Corel Linux is based on Debian should be put on the front page and right below the words "Corel Linux" not in some obscure appendix. All that corel linux is
Also on distro ratings/reviews, I think the community on it's own would do a better job than some junior journalist at C/Net. What I propose is that C/NEt and other present distributions (maintainser/user-community) with a document to list pros and cons of their own distributions. In this way the distribution creators would get to rewiew their own distros and give their own views on what is good with their distro and what needs work on. After that C/Net or who ever is in chrage of the reviewing process can collect all the self-reviewed stuff and put it on a web site. (Also the reviews could be exchanged between distributions so that they could peer-review and make sure that no microsoftish claims are in).
That would be the honest way to do it.
--
Re:A solution for future reviews (Score:3)
If you walk into a music store and observe for some time, you'll notice that the experts aren't buying the crap guitars.
Re:Cnet? (Score:2)
The biggest problem I have with so many of these reviews, is how much they concentrate on the installation. Yes, I'll admit that getting Linux installed is the first hurdle, and often one of the more difficult ones. However, it's still only the first step, and it's not impossible. With a helpful friend or two, or an IRC channel, or even some good documentation, your average person can usually install Linux without too much trouble.
I have yet to see a review that even comments on upgrades. What happens when I want to upgrade my FooLinux box from version 4 to version 5? What is involved? How stable is the upgrade? What are the chances of it keeping my box down for an extended period of time? Does it require a reboot? Multiple reboots?
Not only that, but how about some reviewing of their utilities? Do they use some sort of package format? How compatible are the packages with other distro's using that same package format? How good are their package management utilties? Administrative utilities?
Perhaps someday someone will get it right.
Re:Over Time (Score:2)
Unless they got their support for RPMs better, fixed the numerous bugs in COAS (having it set your keyboard repeat rate to "slow as molasses" every time you boot, and crash when you try to change it back, is not fun), and included a usable console text editor besides vi, when they went from 2.2 to 2.3, it's not the distribution I'd want to end up using.
Maybe they did do all that stuff. I never found out because when faced with the choice of (a) paying for a newer version of a distro I decided I didn't like, or (b) downloading an ISO of Mandrake, I picked the obvious choice.
--
Re: Tech ratings (Score:2)
A real distro discussion would be welcome, I'm sure.
Review this post! (Score:3)
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.
Re:Why must these be rated for newbies? (Score:2)
In the context of the C|net article, I think slackware and debian definitely deserve what they received. There's no point in complaining when they are catering to their audience (well, the majority of it at least). I know a lot of people who are willing to try linux now, but *really* do need that support or toll free number. There is nothing wrong with that. I'd need a toll free number if I was trying to install a stereo in my car.. so what?
Regarding Redhat, I never experienced much instability with Gnome. It was slow, yes, but not particularly instable. The only application that I found annoying was LinuxConf. This was because it often didn't work as it was supposed to (well that and the incredibly ugly rc file setup). It's not so bad as a workstation though. I'm not really into tweaking workstation setups anyway.
I like Corel Linux too. In fact it is my current favorite. Now, when people ask me to install linux, I install Corel Linux. It has a pretty good installer, kde + some proprietary applications of their own, and some application frontends to debian. I've ran into some installation difficulties in the 10 or so systems I have installed, but it hasn't acted up much.
Slackware though? I can't stand having to compile half the applications that I install (well that or having fun setting up RPM). The debian package and freebsd ports collections are what I use because I really don't like wasting my time when installing applications. The installer is 'OK, but not that intuitive -- there is also no net install a' la Redhat or freebsd et al. It's a pretty good distro only if you enjoy endless hours of tweaking. Well, unless you only want a basic system install.
For the more technically inclined (or those willing to spend time learning things instead of just giving up), I'd say Debian is king. I was amazed the first time I used dpkg. The system setup was also elegant to me, because it matched my mindset. I think it's the closest to a standard system setup than any other distro available. It feels good to actually have a system where you know where everything is. The DOS install was also cool. I didn't even have to go find some old floppy disks to initiate an install
Really though, I find installing and playing with each distro fun, even if i find it's not what I like. That's why, right now, I have about 8 systems between work and here, each with something different on it. Heck, I'm even playing with windows98 + X-win32 [starnet.com] on remote FreeBSD + wmaker and various X apps running on Linux to Solaris to HP/UX all on my win32 desktop (hey, I've got to use Symantec V. Cafe). It's pretty nice [home.net], except for the 3-8 weekly reboots due to various unknown OS problems
Most people don't have that many systems to play on though, so I do understand that you may want more advanced reviews; but understand that C|net isn't the right forum for that. Maybe someone will answer your plea now, and do as such -- though the more technically inclined and more experienced with a system people get, the more opinionative and tending to like particulars, soo
On clustering and writing (Score:2)
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:Re:On clustering and writing (Score:2)
If you mean in the same sentence, then yes, perhaps so. But the average person of my acquaintance certainly employs those words. But in any event, I make no apology for their use. Reread the Buckley excerpt for why.
I don't have any particular issue with $_. It's remarkably convenient. You just have to remember to localize it when used in most subroutines, since it's a global variable. Curt? If that was your idea of a posting marked by ``excessive brevity'', than I'm really quite astonished.One of my hot buttons is being derided for my pronounced inability to restrict myself to monosyllabic grunts, or any suggestion that one should do so.
As I said right at the start:
So I found it somewhat funny, but I didn't understand it. I guess you noticed that part.