Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Linux Shootout: 7 Desktop Distros Compared (InformationWeek)

(1/2) > >>

zridling:
InformationWeek reviews and compares 7 desktop distros:

"We tested openSUSE, Ubuntu 8.04, PCLinuxOS, Mandriva Linux One, Fedora, SimplyMEPIS, and CentOS 5.1. All performed well, and each had at least one truly outstanding feature. Ubuntu 8.4 remains one of the best desktop distributions for many good reasons: it works with almost any hardware you throw at it, and has tons of features for both existing Linux users and prospective converts from Windows."



The author also gave openSUSE points for ease of use on the desktop, and Mandriva kudos for ease of administration.

Gothi[c]:
What I don't understand about these reviews is that they judge whatever is the "best" Gnu+Linux distribution by whichever is most intuitive(to them) to use, and since intuitive is pretty much a different way of saying familiar, it ends up being which distribution is most like Microsoft's Windows operating systems, meaning, GUI for everything etc...

Call me crazy, but what makes a particular Gnu+Linux distribution 'better' is not how many GUI tools it has to configure what you can already configure in the first place via text configuration. So what does make a Gnu/Linux distro better?


* Package management, package management and package management!!

This is very important as it will determine which packages/programs you can install. While the number of packages in the package management system is important (more packages = more programs you can install without having to manually install, which is always more maintainable) it's flexibility and ability to customize the packages you install is also important. This is why I usually prefer package management which compiles from source. This allows you to enable/disable specific compile-time options which may not be enabled in the default binary builds of a binary-only package management system. Ubuntu wins in terms of pure number of packages available, followed closely by gentoo. As far as customization and flexibility goes, I'd say Gentoo wins by a long shot.


* /etc layout, filesystem layout in general, ease of customization.

A tidy and logical organisation of configuration files, init scripts, etc,.. is important as it will save you time configuring things. From all distro's I have tried, I'd say gentoo wins again. It's layout is very logical and has great toolsets for customizing init scripts etc...


* Userland utilities

Command-line configuration and helper utilities shipped with the distro.


* Updates

How long after some vulnerability is discovered in a package will you get the patched version in your package management's repositories? VERY important.


* Documentation

I find gentoo's documentation wonderful, it has wiki pages with install guides for about any linux application out there, and their installation manual is easy to follow even if you don't know much about linux, despite what people say about it being for 'expert' users, yes, you do have to type in a lot of manual commands, but it is all explained in a very understandable and readable way in their documentation, and in the end is a great way to learn more about the way Gnu/Linux works under the hood.
Ubuntu's documentation is also fairly good, but I find it harder sometimes to find information about the more advanced subjects in the ubuntu docs.

I'm sure there's plenty more points that one could come up with that make a Gnu/Linux distribution "better", and maybe I'm a bit biased towards Gentoo, but that's not the point. The point I'm making is that there's more than just familiarity and eye candy to what makes a 'good' Gnu/Linux distro. Things which almost every single one of these reviews totally ignore.

Lots of them also focus on hardware support and how things work "out of the box". Don't even get me started on how ludicrous that is. All Gnu/Linux distributions have the same amount of hardware support because they all use the Linux kernel. Hardware support is in the Kernel, not the distro. The only thing a distro can do is things like automatic detection. Having installed countless distro's and compiled plenty of custom kernels, I'd say, once you got it down, it won't take you more than 5 minutes to compile the correct modules for your hardware. This is completely irrelevant. Install and configure any recent kernel for ANY distro and it will support everything your "best" linux distro supports.
Whatever works out of the box will only save you a little bit of time in the beginning. It does NOT make any difference in what makes a good distro imo.

urlwolf:
Wow. Gothi[c], Great post. This should be framed somewhere.
I agree on all points.

zridling:
Excellent points, Gothi[c]. The variety of available distros belie the very nature of what is "best." I can easily see myself using a different distro every year (it's the same OS under the desktop environment). And in this shootout, he compared the newest Ubuntu with older versions of most of the other distros. Is that fair?

Also, I wouldn't call this a review, but rather a quick summary. DC does reviews!

Gothi[c]:
DC does reviews!

--- End quote ---
Yeah!  ;D  :greenclp:

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page