This (quite long) article has been written by me for two primary reasons: One, to hopefully save someone else the time and hassle associated with trying out various Linux distributions, and two, to promote some discussion and feedback regarding what a modern Linux distribution should be, and of course to contrast this with what is currently available. I am exploring the offerings of MS Windows, BeOS and MacOSX, and then taking on a number of well-known Linux distributions.
Post a Comment
I see on 7 distros listed in this article. IMHO, you'd need to review at least twice that many to do an article such as this, especially if you plan on recommending one over the others. I notice that Debian, Xnadros, Lindows, Slackware, etc are missing from the list - that's kind of a large ommssion.
what about debian. you need to add a distro with binary package capabilities such as deb/apt-get, the article includes mandrake and redhat, which are both rpm based, and gentoo which is source based, so add debian to make it complete!
First, Mac OS X is not based on FreeBSD. FreeBSD is unix base of Mac OS X's closest cousin but Mac OS X is based on Darwin, a BSD operating system based on BSDLite 4.4 and the Mach kernel. Originally, Darwin also had some NetBSD and OpenBSD in it. Nowaways, Darwin stays in sync with FreeBSD userland commands but the two are distinct, different beasts.
What is the thing about the Mac's one button mous?. You can get everything done with one button on the Mac OS. It was designed that way. Two, three, whatever buttons is purely optional. Any smart buyer will research to see if their mouse work with a new OS before plunging in.
Apple will not go x86. Forget it. Apple's future is sound. They are a healthy, vibrant company. Not like Gateway which is bleeding to death. Apple will almost certainly go with the PowerPC 970, IBM's new 64 bit chip. It is sampling now and will go into production in August.
Mac OS X can run umodified right now on the PowerPC 970 though that would defeat the purpose of a 64 bit chip. Mac OS X will have to have to havesome tweaks but all apps will run unmodified on the new chip since it will handle 32 bit PPC instructions as well. Your hardware wont be obsolete in 6 months.
And that Adobe FUD? c'mon. Even Adobe later expressed regret at posting errant information. They mistenterpreted a study that was showing Photoshop was faster on Mac OS X. They didn' read the fine print.
Obviously this reviewer is biased toward Linux. If you think you have repurchase apps for Mac OS X, wait to see how many won't run on Linux. period.
Well, one can't try all that, it is a HUGE job to do so. Linux is linux, no matter if the flavors are a bit different.
For the most part, Xandros, Lycoris and Lindows have a common goal (the desktop), so their offerings are similar and they were represented in this article by Ark Linux. Slackware and Debian are the geek/dev person's Linux, and were represented by the similar Gentoo (even if they are not source-based exactly).
Overall, I believe that the article had at least one representative of each "Linux category".
I might add I love Linux (Libranet Debian Linux!) and BeOS so don't think I am some blind Mac fanatic.
It seems as though you were looking for the perfect precompiled system - and I'm glad you have found something close to it with Vector Linux.
Had you truly been looking for the perfect Linux System, there should have been only one stop : Linux From Scratch. You could have built yourself the perfect GNU/Linux OS - but then again you did say that you didn't want to get your hands dirty (so to speak) - which is an interesting constrast to the fact that you prefer the extreme (assinine?) configurability of KDE over the elegant simplicity of Gnome. Go Figure.
Oh well.
This guy didn't mention anything about hardware support and getting it to work on their os easily. How good is this in his linux distros? I'd bet it would be horrible. Or did he/she suddenly decided to throw away the hardware support and just depend on the software?
Maybe his hardware was compatible, how do you know?
Show me a site or article where Adobe regrets posting errant information, the only thing they probably regret is that they got thousands of e-mails from Mac users claiming that Adobe is: Stupid, Dont know anything, etc. This was a good article, its a shame tho because of " marketing reasons " the author did not include SuSE, IMHO SuSE is undoubtedly the leader in user friendly linux, I have tried them all, Xandros, Lindows, Lycoris. All of them mind you have their little quirks and annoyances but for me SuSE only has one. SuSE is definately more polished and I think overall it probably would have served the authors purpose than any of the others out there. Pay the $79.00 it is well worth the cost And it is cheaper than most professional versions of Linux out there today.
There is no perfect Linux system. What's perfect for the desktop can be a nightmare for servers. What's perfect for servers can be a blocker for the desktop. What's good for both can be bad for embedded devices, what's perfect for embedded devices may make no sense for the desktop, etc. etc.
Example: high-throughput (for servers) vs low-latency (for desktops). A high-throughput Linux kernel makes the GUI less responsive. A low-latency kernel makes the GUI more responsive, but if you run a benchmark tool you'll see that the system can process less data than a system running on a high-throughput kernel.
Too many things are mutually exclusive. Again: there is no perfect Linux system.
All of his agruments about the Disadvantages where all incorrect. Let's start in order.
Point #1 - Being slow.
True, a dual CPU machine would help immensely with this (XP is SMP-capable!), but we're looking specifically at the operating side here. Multiple CPU's will also help to speed up my Linux box when and if they're added (although Linux would of course require that I build an SMP-capable kernel).
Isn't this actually an agrument FOR Window's XP not AGAINST it!
Point #2 - 3rd party apps
Windows has came a long ways as far as what it allows the user to do, but to still get the most from a Windows system, you have to typically use a 3rd party program. This often requires additional $$, and it often adds another application to those already running in the system tray. This in turn results in more CPU cycles and memory going towards a feature which I for one feel should be included with the OS itself. Virtual Desktops under Windows is an excellent example of this, in that if you want Virtual Desktops, similar to Linux and BeOS, you must run a 3rd party application to provide this functionality.
AHH NO - Microsoft provides virtual desktop capability and it works GREAT, goto the link below to download it:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/downloads/powertoys.asp
Anyone who even wants to claim they know anything about windows knows about all the Power Toys Microsoft provides!
Point #3 - Annoying Event Sounds
I do a fair amount of music composition and recording on my PC, and as such, I strongly feel that a PC should be seen and not heard. I don't need my PC going "beep" in the middle of a recording session just to let me know that an update's available (or for any other reason for that matter!). So I typically turn all the system sounds off on my PC and save that scheme as my default.
Do I really need to say more than just TURN THEM OFF if you don't like them!
Point #4 - Security
It's Windows... It's full of holes, and more are discovered every day. Enough said
And everyday they fix them. I can't count how many times I have read weekly post about how new security holes have been found in OpenSSH, Apache or other Open Source software. Microsoft is the largest software company in the world - of course everyone is going to look for a way to break their software ... it just so happens that people haven't people that same effort into breaking linux
Point #5
Can't optimize core system: By this I'm referring to the fact that Windows is a closed-source system. The users don't have the access necessary to do such things as optimize the kernel for a particular platform. This isn't a major problem, but when you consider all of the legacy applications that Windows supports, you naturally have to wonder how fast and responsive it could be if it was optimized and targeted at modern PC's. Rather than have a kernel that runs on everything, it would be nice to strip out the things that don't apply to my setup and optimize it for the hardware I do have. On the other hand, this is one of Linux's strong points
Your joking RIGHT! How many other OS's out there backword compatibility of up to 8 YEARS (windows 95). Major Linux vendors break compatibility every 4-6 MONTHS. Come on, get real.
----
I'm sorry, but after the first page of his article - I had to stop reading. Now I'm not some Microsoft zealot but you must give credit where credit is do!
He says that with windows you can't customize it enough so he doesn't like it. And what he love about Linux is that you can customize everything to make it work exactly as you want. So you start to believe he would want a source based distro so that he can optimize it for his system. Which is a fair agrument in a sense because he wants to compile explicitly for his hardware to get every last bit out.
BUT then he goes to say:
The biggest problems the source-based distributions face, in addition to the time associated with compiling everything, and the need to manually configure your system, is the fact that you're more or less reliant on its creators in order to keep the list of available software up-to-date.
WHAT DOES THIS GUY WANT THEN. A distro that just happens to be completely compiled explicity for HIS and only HIS system without him having to do ANYTHING. He says he loves how you can configure linux to the extreme but hate to configure it.
This guy DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE WANTS from an OS. He just wants the OS to do anything and everything in the world but if you asked him what the anything and everything in the world was he could tell you. Or, he answer would probably be - "I want it to run fast, on all hardware and to do everything I could every want". Which is the most vague answer in the world!
...which is arguably more alive and more functional on several levels than some solutions he did consider (BeOS).
THANK YOU Anonymous!!!
I'm so glad not to be the onoy person who thinks it shouldnt be necessary to optimise the code for the platform and who belives an app shouldnt need to be recompiled with every subsequent development of the kernel..
One of the biggest bad things in Linux is that you can't reliably build an app to run on any distribution.
BeOS is alive and well through YellowTAB's Zeta product that comes out soon. Get your facts right.
In fact, BeOS is **FAR** easier to install (and cheaper) than eCS 1.1, which I tried to install a few days ago with some unfortunate results.
Review please? ( when it's installed properly :-p )
When and if it will get installed properly (I am still waiting for a newer ISO build that fixes bugs in the PCMCIA code, while eCS 1.0 was working fine on that machine before), yes, it is on our plans to write a review.
The author seems to be very pleased with the speed of Slackware-based distributions. I remember when I used slackware a while ago and it seemed a little faster to me too (compared to Redhat and the others). Is there a special reason for this? Maybe less bloat installed? With all the effort spent by Redhat on kernel development, I would expect it to be the fastest distribution around...
I don´t know how to put this in euphemic terms.
Sorry, pal, but most of what the guy wrote was misunderstood by you.
The author says XP should be fast without SMP and you say this is an argument pro XP!
He says XP is load with legacy problems and you say it´s good for this reason.
Of course, you´re not obliged to agree with him, but you´re acting as if you didn´t understand the ideas.
Excuse me for being blunt, but do try to read more... you´ll may get HUGE improvements on your skills. Heck, I´m not even a native English speaker!
Again, pardon me, my intention is not to be offensive at all.
Oddly I have not had the problems that some people report with backward compatibility. I have RH6.x RPMs of Xanim and RealPlayer for 7.x on my updated RedHat 8 system and things seem to work just fine.
Doesn't the .so library system allow any number of major versions of any library to coexist and be available to the programs that use the specific version? The kernel is also very consistent within each major version. I know someone who regularly swaps kernels from 2.0 to 2.5 and everything in between without effecting userland software.
Is it the package managers (RPM, APT) that insist on creating these compatibility issues? I have at times had to go around a stink raised by RPM when installing an older package.
I don't know what to say except was that a review or a short story about someones dip into some flavours of GNU/Linux? Too many of the reviews I've been reading recently have been too shallow and not going far enough into the testing to give me any usable information.
Anon said: " I can't count how many times I have read weekly post about how new security holes have been found in OpenSSH, Apache or other Open Source software."
Quality and security are measures which only mean something when compared relatively to another.
There is no absolutely secure, therefore you must expect, that once a vulnerability is made known to the vendor, the vendor should do their utmost to close the Window of Exposure ( http://www.counterpane.com/window.html ) as soon as possible.
For example, with the lastest SAMBA vulnerability, once notified, the SAMBA developer owned up to the mistake and the SAMBA project released a patch within 48 hours.Redhat has already backported the patch into their distributions RPMs.
Meanwhile there are currently 14 KNOWN unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft's Internet Explorer ( http://www.pivx.com/larholm/unpatched/ )
Some DANGEROUSLY EXPLOITABLE have not been fixed in over a year ( http://security.greymagic.com/adv/gm002-ie/ ).
Other inherent vulnerabilities, such as the Shatter attack ( http://security.tombom.co.uk/moreshatter.html ), Microsoft has known about since 1994!
Even if the API/call flaw is inherently unfixable, that is plenty of time for Microsoft to implement a safer methord/systemcall/API, adapt it's own applications to use the safer methord and depreciate the unsafe API.
It also appears that Microsoft 's own implementation of SMB is vulnerable and Microsoft has known about it for over eight years ( http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=59960&cid=5681769 ), but Microsoft either choose not to, or cannot fix the problem themselves.
Microsoft is clearly not closing the vulnerabilities they are aware that exist in their products and services.
Even after Bill Gate's Email, Microsoft by choice, remains neither secure or trustworthy.
Microsoft's attitude towards the security of it's products, service and customers is abysmal.
From Jason Coombs' A response to Bruce Schneier on MS patch management and Sapphire ( http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/315158 )
Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer (MBSA) and Microsoft's version of
HFNetChk both failed to detect the presence of the well-known vulnerability
in SQL Server exploited by Sapphire, which is one of the reasons so many
admins (both inside and outside MS) had failed to install the necessary
hotfix. MBSA and HFNetChk are Microsoft's official patch status verification
tools meant to be used by all owners of Windows server boxes
...
In addition to designing MBSA to avoid scanning for SQL Server
vulnerabilities, failing to update mssecure.xml reliably and in a timely
manner, deprecating HFNetChk by pushing the MBSA GUI as its preferred
replacement, and hiding the details of the technical limitations and
internal security assumptions made by design in Microsoft's security
analysis tools, Microsoft pushes Windows Update (windowsupdate.com) as a
safe and reliable way to keep Windows boxes up-to-date. Unfortunately,
Windows Update isn't designed to supply or verify the presence of SQL Server
hotfixes, either.
None of Microsoft's own hotfix/patch status scanning tools designed to prove
"baseline security" were able to help administrators avoid Sapphire. This
entire scenario, this comedy of errors, illustrates the security risk
created by any organization that pushes security around from department to
department, passing the buck and hoping that somebody else will know how to
deal with the problem. The result is a system so flawed that it borders on
the absurd.
Because of this continued inherent attatude to security, Microsoft's products and services should be considered UNSECURE by default.
Eugenia - "For the most part, Xandros, Lycoris and Lindows have a common goal (the desktop), so their offerings are similar and they were represented in this article by Ark Linux"
Oh, so Xandros, which has been repeatedly reviewed to be one of the best linux distros for desktop plus hardware/software ease-of-use (Debian base), is represented by a piece of ALPHA code?
It is represented in the IDEAS and its GOALS, not in the code. Stop being deffensive please.
eugenia: the reviewer did not even install gentoo linux, and i don't think gentoo can be considered a representative of debian, yes they both have a package mangement system which takes care of dependencies, but gentoo takes days to install and get right, debian takes a few hours, and apt-get does not need a whole lot of changing around to install new programs like gentoo's USE variables, which is a blessing and a headache at the same time.
also the reviewer made a big mistake with YOPER, which is based on LFS !!! not slackware.
The article mentions the lack of virtual desktops in XP.....
XP Powertoys.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/downloads/powertoys.asp
Virtual Desktop Manager
Manage up to four desktops from the Windows taskbar with this PowerToy.
too bad this isn't available for windows 2000.
personally, i prefer vern, oneguycoding.com
this is a very powerful multiple desktop program, and you can control as many desktops as you want. it even has a autohide feature. and supports keyboard shortcuts to move between desktops.
Linux has become a pervasive operating system for developing and deploying enterprise applications. But there are many different Linux distributions, available through many different vendors, and so a key milestone for Linux is binary compatibility for its application stack. That is, ensuring that compliant applications will run on conforming distros -- without recompiling.
The LSB was chartered to help insure just that, and Red Hat 8.0 and UnitedLinux 1.0 are now both examples of conformant distributions.
http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/news/binary.shtml
See the Linux Standard Base website for more details.
http://www.linuxbase.org/
Because of the free licensing of the libraries used in GNOME and KDE etc, it is easy to static link or bundle a copy of those and other dependent libraries with binaries.
It will be possible to build entire LSB portable subsystem using The LSB Sample Implementation ( http://www.linuxbase.org/impl/ ) on any Modern Linux Distribution.
computers suck (ALL OSs) go back to using pencil & paper...
From the anonymous post: "Point #3 - Annoying Event Sounds. . .Do I really need to say more than just TURN THEM OFF if you don't like them!"
From the original article: "So I typically turn all the system sounds off on my PC and save that scheme as my default [emphasis added]. . . .So you can imagine how upset I get when I boot up Windows and hear Windows default opening sounds play. This is my cue that something has changed within Windows, and that Windows in its infinite wisdom has reconfigured itself again without asking me."
Since it was a lengthy article, I guess you missed this part.
Read the EULA ( End User License Agreement ) that comes with Microsoft's software and XPs Virtual Desktop. Those licenses are quite a limiting factor incomparison to the flexablity of X11-client-server model using open source ( and even some proprietary linux based software ) licensed applications.
I can view and run my X11/GNOME/KDE applications on any remote PC, X-terminal, Notepad, PDA that has either an X11-server or VNC client and a network or wireless connection. Because of the licensing, I can do so without fear that the BSA will knock down my companies door and demand lots of money. I can host client applications on many remote application servers, to boost security, performance or ease of maintance, without having to renegotiate or buy more per-server, per-user, per-client licenses.
In the future enterprise, such flexability is key.
Allow me to quickly cover a few points that have been made:
Yes, I didn't review a true debian distribution. Regardng the apt-get points however, you can install such a system (apt-get, that is) on a number of Linux distributions, including Redhat, and I must admit that it does make maintaining a Linux installation much easier. Why Redhat and others don't include it in addition to their RPM setups is beyond me.
Regarding the missing distributions, Xandros and Lindows both cost $$ to play with, and thus they fall into my “Suse category” in that they don’t provide a free, downloadable version to try. Additionally, I didn’t care about these as neither provides a KDE 3.1 WM, which is what the article states I was looking for.
Hardware analysis was more or less ignored as all distributions treated my hardware equally (with the exception of the X issues that were noted). None of them saw my scanner (a Visioneer) , and none setup my 7 button mouse out of the box (They all see it as a 3 button wheel mouse). Other than these two issues, one of which is easy to fix (The mouse!), I didn’t feel that hardware was an issue worthy of making the article any longer than it already was.
As for the Anonymous’s Windows comments… In brief, the virtual desktop addon you’re referring to is an add-on! If you’d have read the article, my point regarding Virtual desktops is that they should be built into the system. Your solution is just another item that should be there when I purchase my copy of Windows as far as I’m concerned.
Similarly, as for the sounds my point was that I do turn them off, but Windows “resets” them on occasion, turning back on the defaults (I honestly don’t care if you read the article, but at least read what I’m saying before taking a sentence or two out of context. Sheesh…). 8)=
I haven’t had a chance to use eComStation yet, but I continue to hear of problems with it, so I’m not in any hurry to try it out either. Eugenia’s install problems seem to back that fact.
As for Yoper being Slack based… It really is. Kinda…
Check out some sources on the web: They did resort to a LFS mentality, but they also based much of their distribution on Slackware (hence why some packages such as Dropline Gnome initially supported Yoper, but have since stopped due to Yopers diversion from the Slack mentality/file arrangements). My opinion’s largely based off both postings on the Yoper site (the original one that was deleted a couple of times), as well as discussions with other Slackware users. If it’s currently incorrect, it just goes to show how much they really have diverged with the final release, which I admittedly haven’t used. As of RC4 however, this was still more or less true, and was a noteworthy point I feel.
By the way, if you like Gnome and are using a Slack-based distro, you should check out the aforementioned http://www.dropline.net/">Dropline . It's very nice, and is a better release than Redhats version IMHO! 8)=
- Tony
This article was great for the most part. Anthony Hicks seems to be a good writer, and (amazingly) I spotted no grammatical or spelling errors in the parts I read!!!
His comments were accurate concerning Windows, Linux, and OSX. I enjoyed it a lot and I think he and I would agree on most everything if we were discussing these issues in person.
Then, for some reason at the end he decided to go through reviewing linux distros. This was an awful idea. As Darius pointed out, it is incomplete. Also he "reviews" distros he hasn't tried, such as Gentoo, and as opposed to writing a real Sorceror review he simply mentions that he used it at one time and that he thinks the terminology they use is dumb (it is).
My reccomendation to anyone who hasn't read this yet, read up until the Redhat chapter, then stop.
It's a frequent claim that "XP is stable".
In my experience XP is less stable that W2K and about on par with NT 4 (yes, even when using XP drivers only on "Designed for XP" hardware) when fresh out of the box and Service Pack'd. W2K is easier to install or change hardware than either NT or XP, by easier I mean likely to suceed without a lot of screwing around.
From my experience, W2K was the pinnacle achievement of the Windows program running on top the David Cutler hacked OS/2 derived code that Microsoft ever sold. Performance-wise XP introduces some severe deficiencies when compared to W2K (even after stripping out all the XP fluff).
Similarly Windows 98SE was the pinnacle of Windows with DOS underpinnings, being a slight improvement over Windows 95 OSR 2.1.
Since W2K and 98SE Microsoft's emphasis has been on drawing more attention to Windows itself as opposed to actually improving it. Simplification of the user interface has made it much harder to configure it.
This has opened the door for truly innovative Operating Systems to make a play for the desktop. I have close personal experience with an OS X eMac that handily outperforms an OEM XP box that has nearly twice the clock speed. Albeit that little raster shift defect took two warranty repairs to correct.
I use and install Windows (all flavors including 95 and later) on a daily and weekly basis and use QNX (6.1) every day. I have installed and use well over thirty different Linux and *BSD distros since OpenLinux 1.2/RH 5.0 (and prefer SuSE 7.3 so far) as well as LinuxPPC (2K), UnixWare (7), NeXTStep (3.1), BeOS (4, 5), Solaris X86 (2.5, 7, 8) as a desktop and/or server and use OpenServer (8), Netware (4, 5) and Linux (RH 7.2) daily as a Server and Windows (NT, 2K) daily as a "Server".
My experience with desktops goes back to daily use of CP/M Z-80 and Apple DOS around 1981 then on to DOS (2 - 5) and Desqview, then DOS 6/Windows 3.11 and then Solaris 2.5 X86, Windows 95, MacOS 8, etc..
Windows doesn't come close to any Server when used as a "Server" but that's getting off-topic.
When using an Operating Enviroment (as opposed to an Operating System thereby including Windows) I want to be able to tell it what to do, not the other way around. Using Windows, this is inherently more difficult with less predictable results.
The DOS based Windows allow for a virtual "smack on the side of the head" to force it into submission, but NT type Windows do not recover as well from brute force. While initially a little stronger, they collapse rather quickly into a steaming pile of P00 when such tactics are employed.
*nix, especially Linux, gives the experienced user the ability to intervene when more knowledgable than the machine itself and has stability to go along with the package. I don't have to guess what answer to the trick question some wizard is asking me to get the desired results. If I know what I want, I get it. Linux hardware support is BETTER than XP and has enough applications (many free) to do most or all of what most need or want to do with a computer.
The author complains about having to compile stuff, this is an option with Linux to gain performance, it's not an option with Windows. You can't optimize Windows for your hardware, you have to use a precompiled system that may be supporting a lot of hardware that does not exist on your system.
While BeOS is wonderful, the shortage of apps (although less so than QNX) is certainly a hinderence in being able to achieve the daily burden of menial tasks. I wish it's IP had been transfered to a more benevolent entity.
As was mentioned, two of the more prominent challengers in the desktop Linux arena were omitted from the review (Xandros and Lycoris). Perhaps even Lindows should be considered as well, despite their questionable ethics.
eCommstation/Warp 4.51 are lacking only one or two things, Crossover Office/Wine and/or X. Or, if project ODIN were to somehow surge ahead in development, it could be a major contender.
With any computer, making sure the hardware and software are well matched is a crucial plan if ease of installation and a stable system is desired (although finding this combination with XP seems to be less elusive than NeXTStep but certainly close to OS/2).
Ecomstation seems a little expensive for my blood, but I always had a soft spot in my heart for OS/2 so I may break down and get it.
I find XP to be remarkably stable, I cannot wait for Windows Server 2003 to be released. I have heard from several testers that server 2003 is da bomb.
Eugenia wrote:
"For the most part, Xandros, Lycoris and Lindows have a common goal (the desktop), so their offerings are similar and they were represented in this article by Ark Linux. Slackware and Debian are the geek/ dev person's Linux, and were represented by the similar Gentoo (even if they are not source-based exactly).
Overall, I believe that the article had at least one representative of each "Linux category"."
Not a chance.
They were all rpm or source based distros.
Packaging (software installation) is a major beef among
many users. There are 13 Distros that use Debian Based
system, including Xandros, Lindows,Libranet,Debian itself, and an entire region of Spain.
Now perhaps one could argue that mandrake has urpmi
available but I saw no mention of it explicity in the
article.
So to not have one Debian Based Distro in the review
is a major ommission and sorry, but not just representative of Linux.
Overall I thought this was a pretty good article. I really think his whole section on Gentoo was terribly incomplete. It almost seemed as if he didnt bother to create a whole system. How can anyone write anything about Gentoo without mentioning Portage. Portage alone sets Gentoo far ahead of all other distros in my opinion. Once the system is built it just ownz. 24hrs is a small amount of time to invest in the big picture of things. When youre done you have a highly optimized system with ULTRA easy install, uninstall, and upgrade capabilities for everything......and the added bonus of never having to worry about rpms or dependecies.....EVAR....no...seriously. :-)
Bay:
The fact that you say that Linux has better hardware support just shows your bias and the fact that no one should even bother reading your comment.
I would like to point out to the people that were complaining about this that if you want a more customizable system you can always install another shell other than explorer.
Take a look at http://www.desktopian.org/ (shell homes section) and you can see that are almost as many different win32 shells as there are window managers for linux :-P. Litestep, object desktop, aston and geoshell are probably the ones to watch out for, 3dtop (a 3d opengl shell) also looks interesting.
Now that was funny!
But seriously, of the Linux distros I like Mandrake for no other reason than it found all of my hardware (ATi All in Wonder Card, Epson Stylus C42 printer, dLink net card, Kyro Video Card, Firewire Card, SCSI card and Soundblaster Card) and even configured them correctly without me having to do anything. Redhat could not even figure out the video card without me having to manually configure it.
Too me this one step alone in the setup is worth my loyalty.
They are coming,slow but steady.
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS7578819963.html
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/04/05/14casecurity_1.html
Big proprietary software companies porting their wares to
the Linux plaftform. Who'ld have figured?
For example, with the lastest SAMBA vulnerability, once notified, the SAMBA developer owned up to the mistake and the SAMBA project released a patch within 48 hours.Redhat has already backported the patch into their distributions RPMs.
Really? Did you just pull that number out of your ass? The patch was written within an hour of it being written, and then released four days later.
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=59960&cid=5681812
is the fact that you're more or less reliant on its creators in order to keep the list of available software up-to-date.
>>>>>>
With Gentoo, this really isn't necessary. Gentoo uses build scripts to download and configure software. The build scripts are very well documented, very short (usually less than 50 lines, most of it boilerplate), and very adaptable. As a result, it's quite easy to write your own scripts when a new version of a package comes out. I don't know bash scripting (what these scripts are written in) and I've still been able to adapt some for new programs. Since it's so easy, the Gentoo forums are full of user made ebuilds for all sorts of software, even for CVS versions. The result is that, although it has a much smaller userbase, Gentoo's software repository is very large and very up to date.
If the guy was leery of spending 24 hours just to get the system up, gentoo also has precompiled binaries. I think that the fact that he didn't even realize this and give it a try shows that he didn't put any really serious effort into finding out about Gentoo.
The fact that you say that Linux has better hardware support just shows your bias and the fact that no one should even bother reading your comment
No, he's right. Pound for pound, linux has support for more hardware than Windows XP. Windows XP probably has more support for new hardware specifically, but if you want to do a piece by piece count, there is no doubt in my mind that linux would win.
That is easy enough to see simply by looking at the number of platforms linux runs on.
I find it funny how people are willing to defend Microsoft on security. Microsoft has come out and stated that it's products weren't designed for security. This was less than a year ago. A tenent of computer science is that a system must be designed for security from the very beginning, or it doesn't work. To believe that Microsoft has turned around a 37 million line (which doesn't include non-Windows MS products like SQL Server) is just silly. Microsoft announced some security initiatives last year. If it can stop the feature kick* and concentrate on security and stability, in a few years you might be able to trust them on security issues. Until then, it's just pointy-haired marketing-speak (like the word "initiative").
*> I honestly thought MS had changed when Win2K came out. Win2K was a remarkable advance in stability and performance. Then XP came out and they backslid again. It's okay on the desktop, but WinXP isn't really suitable for a high-load mission critical server. Now, talks of shoving SQL Server (WinFS) and the .NET CLI into the kernel leave me with little faith that MS will ever resolve it's security/stability issues.
how many viruses and worms have actually penetrated your windows? Personally, I've had 0, and I've been on every version of windows since 3.1. I got a simple free virus scanner, it detected one virus from my roommates computer. How important is security to you? Its only important if you have important stuff to HIDE or if you run it in a high risk place like a web server. You guys really shouldn't be talking about security unless you're doing risky stuff, like going on IRC to get your pirated MS software.
Please. I used them for about 5 minutes before uninstalling them - the PowerToys virtual desktops are awful, little more than an automatic minimize/maximize utility. Compared to any X implementation it felt clunky and unnatural.
Anyway, rant over - I thought this article was fair, nice to see somebody acknowledge the importance of Wine 
[i hack on it]
Just because you've been smart and lucky, not getting any viruses and worms, doesn't mean MS is secure.
The recent slowdown of the internet has proven that Microsoft's most recent full releases of software are NOT secure. The Slapper worm as well as the recent RPC insecurities prove that they aren't secure.
Yes I agree that it's important to note that there have been fixes available, but apparently they aren't trusted by many many IT managers and home users. The SQL server fix was basically backported by later MS updates, why is this? I install a MS sanctioned fix to a critical server and then apply updates later, only to find the vulnerability in SQL back, this is rediculous.
Until MS can produce easily applied updates that don't reintroduce prior security holes, I will deem them too insecure for the server room and leave them behind a firewall for necessary workstations only.
Sorry, it wasn't slapper, it was called Slammer.
My apologies.
To the author:
However much of this customization is handled only by 3rd party apps. Windows has came a long ways as far as what it allows the user to do, but to still get the most from a Windows system, you have to typically use a 3rd party program.
Well, since Linux pundets like to claim that Linux is just the kernel when you mention any time when your desktop enviroment has crashed, isn't it then technically true that everything in Linux is a 3rd party program?
This often requires additional $$, and it often adds another application to those already running in the system tray.
http://download.com.com/3000-2094-1539340.html?tag=lst-0-1
This in turn results in more CPU cycles and memory going towards a feature which I for one feel should be included with the OS itself
I'd like to know which built-in feature (such as virtual desktops) in Linux does not use CPU cycles and memory?
Can't optimize core system: By this I'm referring to the fact that Windows is a closed-source system. The users don't have the access necessary to do such things as optimize the kernel for a particular platform.
Why is it that when people who are used to Windows try looking for 'setup.exe' in Linux to double click on to install something, they are chastized for not 'thinking differently' and are told that you don't do things in Linux like you do in Windows. However, when using Windows, what do Linux users do? They bitch and moan that they can't compile/optimize the kernel. HELLO??? Haven't you learned anything yet? There are PLENTY of ways to optimized Windows - it's just not done the same way as in Linux. Yes, I know Linux has capabilities that Windows doesn't - this, however is not one of them
PS - What is the name of your 7-button mouse? I'd like to check one out
Rayiner Hashem
I find it funny how people are willing to defend Microsoft on security.
I don't defend them and say that it is as secure as Linux is, but I think the problem is blown way out of proportion by some people and made to seem worse than it actually is.
Most of the holes that are found are variants of other holes, most of which have been patched for months. Just because some people refuse to take pro-active measures and continue to double click on any kind of attachment that comes down the pipe, well ... that's basically the same thing as leaving your BMW unlocked with the windows down in a bad part of town, and then complaining that your car got stolen.
No Debian ??? lol
the review >> to the trash...
You've done a great job with this review! The only draw back is the mysterious absence of Debian/GNU Linux. Otherwise, this was a great read.
Good job, power to you!
--Mike.
How can anyone take a reviewer seriously that doesn't even test the products in the comparison? His remarks about doodling with OS X make me believe he hasn't sat behind an OS X for more than a few hours, ever. Get real, this review is a waste of time...back your "review" up with some real data of your own instead of culling a bunch of misconceptions from the web and typing them up as being original and informative.
Nicely written rebuttle, however I must please beg everybody to STOP with the car comparisons! As shown with the recent statement by Gates (I think) about the car industry and development, cars are NOT computers. Car security cannot be compared to operating security. A computer is infinitely more complex than a car in its mode of entry and uses. A car does one thing with no 3rd-party developers: it drives. A computer can be used to do many many things, must be fairly open as a platform (yes, even MS Windows) so that they can be available to 3rd-party developers, and is ever changing. A car is a car is a car. It can't blow up while you're driving it, but that's about it. The developers don't have to worry about being backwards compatible, or anything other than driving down the highway. Please stop it with the analogies.Oh, and it's easy to lock your car, it's not exactly easy and very well-advertised that you have to use Windows Update (wow, I really wish they would pop up windows making people do it, and power users couldn't complain because they're the ones who want computers to be secure). Even an idiot knows enough to lock their car.
Ok, maybe the car is a bad analogy, but ...
Oh, and it's easy to lock your car, it's not exactly easy and very well-advertised that you have to use Windows Update
I don't know about this. Though I have never seen anyone get hacked, I have seen some people get viruses - and most don't install anti-virus software until after the fact, even though they knew better.
Even so, that's not the point. The point is that when an anti-MS zealot tells someone new to computers that 'Windows is prone to viruses and full of seuciryt holes', I doubt very much that they'd add in 'However, if you use Windows Update regularly and install anti-virus software, you will probably deminish your chance of getting hacked or getting a virus by at least 90%.' That is what I mean about people mis-representing the security issue. A little proactivity goes a long way.
Just look at
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/current/README.FTP
and install it with minimal downloading ( no need to get all those ISOs ) FOR FREE !!
Cheers Udo
I use Win 2K, have supported Win NT 4 and Win 95 desktops and have a Mac OS X box at home with marginally better performance on it than I get with my Win 2K box. Surprising since the X box is 5 years old G3 400 MHZ (upgraded slightly) and the PC is a P3 733. The PC actually has more RAM and I give it some credit because my network at work is probably creating some additional load that I wouldn't have at home.
My actual point is that the test of Mac OS X didn't really happen, though I appreciate the writer acknowledging this point, I'm not sure most people read thoroughly enough to notice every detail, some skip to the pluses/minuses and move on with life.
OS X is still maturing, I like it quite a bit and think it could have a chance at a larger market in 1-2 years when the economy and hardware issues are resolved and in the past.
well, i think a desktop linux distro shouldn't just have a nice desktop, it has to be "nice", from the ground up.
there needs to be a system (command line based, with 3rd party gui tools) for installing EVERYTHING. by this, i mean kernel modules (binary), and rpms(dpkg isn't as good as rpm(apt isn't a package, it a package manager).
so i can download an rpm called logitech_latest_drivers.rpm, and after i install it, it will let me use any of logitechs lates mice on my system.
as for the file system, the current hierarchy is a MESS! there shouldn't be /opt, /usr, /dev, /root, /var, /etc, etc etc...there should be /hardware (which has /dev in there), /users(which has /home), and /system, which holds all other dir's, like /etc and /usr. (/usr /usr/local should be abolished anyway!)
Linux distributions need to have a standardised registry system, for reasons of consistency. I should open mozilla for the first time, and it should ask me if i want it to be the default browser. if i say yes, it should set a value/key saying so, and all other apps should look at this key if they need to open a browser window....at the moment, some apps look for known browsers in $PATH. but an app should not have to know about a particular browser, it should read an arbitary list of browsers (that have appended their details to the registry) from /system/preferences/applications/browsers.xml and offer them as a choice to the user.
this should be the same situation for all kinds of apps! dvd players, email clients etc....for example, everyone want mozilla to be able to use Evolution as it's mail client - for this to happen, the mozilla developers HAVE to implement the backend code and the gui for opening the email client. if there was a registry, it would just have to read /system/preferences/applications/email.xml and launch the default mail client. no default? ok open moz mail. when THAT opens, ask me if moz mail should be the default. i say "yes", email.xml is adapted and mozilla and any other app which needs to access email from now on opens mozilla mail to send a message. easy. nice. integrated feeling.
i use linux everyday (redhat 8), and don't have windows on ANY of my systems, but man...sometimes i think it just sucks! we NEED to have a registry....whether this is like windows reg, or gconf, or is xml files accesed with libxml, I DONT CARE, but we need one NOW! freedesktop.org submission anyone?
You can plug an effin 18 button mouse in if you want one! Kenisngten has one near that that is Mac only...
When will people see you can PLUG IN ANY MOUSE, not just the cruddy one button one? Jeebus.
I don't really understand why people are so worried about Apple's future. Let me review their CPU options again:
1) Stick with Motorola - No compatibility issues here.
2) Move to IBM PowerPC - No compatibility issues here because it's still a PowerPC chip Program built for older PowerPCs would still run on it, albeit unable to make full use of the new chip's 64-bit features.
3) Move to x86 or derivative (Opteron) - Only limited compatibility issues here. GUI applications on Mac OS X are, in fact, directories in which are contained separate files for code and resources. It is already possible for a single "bundle" to contain both Classic Mac and Mac OS X code. It would be fairly simple to extend this mechanism to support having an x86/Opteron version of the code as well. Thus to an end user the transition would be completely transparent. Double-clickable applications would work on either platform seamlessly.
mandrake 9.1 is better than rehat 9 as far ease of installation and finding and configuring everything and winxp is great just for all the damn gamez, appz and other warez out there for it...am I the only one that thinks macromedia tools are the shit?
Interesting read and for the most part, at least with the proprietry OS's, true but:
I would not count the descendents of BeOS out of the OS race. Sure, it has been a while since anything has come along since BeOS 5.03 but with the turmultous time that has been had with Be Inc, Palm, and everyone else effected what would you expect.
As an OS it has user functions that I really miss and will appreciate when Zeta is released. I also believe that interest from Steinberg and some other Audio app vendors will be re kindled with Yellow Tab and Open BeOS. At the moment I am stuck with XP but I know that I will not have to deal with this nightmare for too long.
BTW, before the Win XP defenders come rushing in to flame me for my comments I ask you this, have you tried to setup XP and Win2K for professional audio work? If you can honestly say yes to that question then you have the right to comment but if you haven't (and I mean 24/96 recording with multi channel audio capability and running multiple VST instruments) then save your breath.
I run Cubase SX on a SMP system with a Hoontech DSP24 C-Port sound hardware and it took quite a long time to get it running ok. Even then I still get crashes that are just not kosha. Most are to do with the sound driver in some form or other but this should not be happening and it is not just my sound hardware as notice boards will attest, many users with similar sound hardware get the same problems. Have a look at www.cubase.net and read some of the forums to get an idea. One of many forum sites for audio where users are having fun and bleeding to get functionability out of their hardware.
So you want to destroy 30 years of proven and workable Filesystem Hierarchy and bring in something that is completely new? /hardware wouldn't make sense because I know my /dev/null is NOT hardware as well as various tty's...it would make less sense then /dev which is short for DEVICES.
What about already written UNIX software that uses the standard /etc directory for things like configuration files?
This also breaks compatibility for other software that is written with POSIX in mind. There are much better ways of making Linux easier to use, changing the filesystem willy nilly is not it.
I'd support a registry style of system only if it can be changed without the UI...and built for that in mind. I would not support anything that would be built with GUI in mind and then some half assed command line implementation. Build for the command line, then build the GUI around it, or none at all. Too many system admins rely on shell scripts for administration to just remove it. And where linux will shine is the business desktop, where machines are mantained by sys admins, not users.
I would rather see linux falter on the user desktop and stay with the ease of administration than see it shine and have it like Windows, all gui, no real administrative gains.
I am not one to go clicking around, I like to get my work done quickly, editing text files is far more efficient than clicking through screens or menus, especially for administration of large numbers of systems with tiny differences in each workstation...
I would support a darwin/next/os x style of configuration system though, it's easily administered from the command line.
let's see I'm using firewire harddrives, CDRW drives, and usb mice/keyboards and cameras just fine on redhat and slackware systems. All autodetected with no driver installation required.
The driver problem on linux on happens when you buy bad hardware, like winmodems, without ever thinking you might need to use it on an open OS, like Linux. Remember, with linux the source code is available, so any company that wants to keep their drivers closed will not be able to work with our OS.
@Stephan: That actually wasn't a car analogy in the traditional sense. He merely mentioned that if you dont' take care to protect your expensive object, it can easily be stolen. It just happened that the expensive object was a car.
@Idealist: The current directory hierarchy is the way it is for very specific reasons. It makes a great deal of sense, if you get out of your "the desktop is everything" mindset. Just remember that UNIX was designed for a networked, corporate environment, not a home-user's desktop. Everybody keeps suggesting these simplistic Windows/MacOS style directory structures, without realizing that they absolutely don't work for complex networked environments (think: corporate desktop) where access to resources must be transparent and security is paramount. I have yet to see an alternative suggestion that maintains the same level of flexibility or does anything more than change some funny-sounding directory names.
- /etc could very well be named /config. It stores configuration information.
- /boot is for the kernel and boot configuration. This directory is supposed to not even be accessible except during kernel update, because the kernel is such a critical component.
- /bin and /lib are for binaries that need to be present before network filesystems are mounted.
- /sbin is for absolutely critical system utilities that must be seperated and protected from the more often updated utilities in /bin and /lib. It's also for programs that only the system administrator needs.
- /usr/bin and /usr/lib are for the bulk of apps. There needs to be a seperate directory for this, because in a great number of environments, /usr exists on a central network directory. There is really no point duplicating the same applications on every workstation in some sort of /programs directory.
- /dev is just your /hardware with a different name.
- /tmp is for temporary files. Often, temporary files are put on a seperate fast drive to optimize efficiency.
- /var is for logs and other information. Having this be a seperate directory is very important, because some applications throw a large amount of data into /var, and it might need to be on a seperate/fast drive to isolate this data from other files.
- As for the /usr/local, it's hardly useless. What if a user compiles an app and wants to run it? Are you going to give that user write access to a shared /usr directory?
- /usr/share is for non-program shared files like documentation and pictures.
- /home is for user's home directories. Even MS has this, and it doesn't have a stupid long name like "Documents and Settings."
- /opt sucks. I agree. It's there to support self-contained applications that use directory hierarchies from external OSs. These are usually ports to UNIX. Taking a look at my /opt directory (in Gentoo), of the 8 entries in /opt, 6 are ports.
You make a few decent points. Configuration needs to be cleaned up. I really don't like the idea of putting all user-specific configuration into dot-directories in the user's home. A central XML (binary would be worse than the current mechanism) configuration mechanism would be nice. /etc needs more subdirectories. The /usr directory has some cruft in it. /usr/X11R6 should be distributed into /usr/lib and /usr/bin. /usr/man should be in /usr/share/doc. GCC needs to be less psychotic about where it puts it's headers (in /usr/lib!). There is a lot of weirdness in several places, but the core layout is fundementally sound.
Of course, this whole aruement about directory layout is largely pointless. In UNIX, directory layout doesn't really matter to the end-user, just the system admin. People stay in their home directory, and don't wander elsewhere. This makes sense on the network, and makes even more sense for the home user. The only issue is that on most desktops, users are also administrators. This just means that the basic configuration tools should abstract the filesystem as well, not that the filesystem itself should be changed.
If anyone wants to keep their systems secure they just won't be running windows. They won't use it for email, they won't use it for web browsing or downloading viruses. Use Linux and all your virus problems go away.
Security?
One of my linux boxes was rooted a few years ago. I caught the intrusion less than a day after it happened and immediately isolated the box. Since then I have not put another poorly configured Linux box on the internet, and everything runs NATed behind a firewall. I have not gotten a single windows virus (except windows itself) or ever been hacked since. That's security and I doubt you can get that with M$ products. But don't let me stop you from trying. 
"Allow me to quickly cover a few points that have been made:
Yes, I didn't review a true debian distribution. Regardng the apt-get points however, you can install such a system (apt-get, that is) on a number of Linux distributions, including Redhat, and I must admit that it does make maintaining a Linux installation much easier. Why Redhat and others don't include it in addition to their RPM setups is beyond me"
i totally agree with this as someone who has used almost every linux in the top 20 or so at one time or another this would be cool.
one last thing is i would urge the author to try gentoo some time i'm not one of the gentoo junkies out there but i have been using it for a couple of months and i love it "emerge" rules and is by far the best package managment IMHO anyway it would be certainly worth a try when your after a new project.
Use Linux and all your virus problems go away.
What virus problems? You mean the ones I don't have? It's really funny how these zealots make up some imaginable problem you're having (for example, constant blue screens, even though I've been running without a hitch since upgrading to Win2k back in 2001), and then suggest that you switch to Linux to get rid of some issue that doesn't even exist. So to all of you pundets out there, don't try to tell me how insecure or unstable my box is - I'm really not impressed.
One of my linux boxes was rooted a few years ago. I caught the intrusion less than a day after it happened and immediately isolated the box. Since then I have not put another poorly configured Linux box on the internet, and everything runs NATed behind a firewall.
If you have to NAT a Linux box and put it behind a firewall to keep from being hacked, what kind of security is that? Sure, it may be a little more secure than Windows, but the NATting and firewalling goes a long way for any OS.
That's security and I doubt you can get that with M$ products. But don't let me stop you from trying.
Well, so far, it looks like you have been 'rooted' once, so the score right now (assuming the one with the lowest points wins) is You: 1 Me: 0
i didn't find this article very good. it was probably because it was mainly all release canidates or betas that were being compared. i think that was a "dumb" mistake. also some info i found either wrong or misleading, not much information, but their was some...
i realize a review is a someones experience with a particular product, and therefore i won't comment on his experiences. although i definently would have included more distros, or bigger ones. SuSE, Xandros, Lindows, Slackware, Debian etc....just my 2 cents
am I the only reader of this article who noticed the extensive use of exclamation points throughout? It! reminded me! of! an episode! of Seinfeld!
Overall good article, probably the fairest in this genre I've read so far. Only too bad you didn't take the time to try out Gentoo, because judging from most of your comments it's exactly what you're looking for.
I know the installation process looks intimidating. I remember contemplating on installing it several times, only to refrain from it because judging from the installation documents it seemed too hard and tedious a job. But the documentation is very well written and you do seem to have your share of experience, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem. So ...
Go rent a couple of videos, print out the necesary documentation and download the image. Do the basic setup, start the bootstrap script and go watch a film. Same goes for system and xfree; you're system should be able to set this much up in 4 to 5 hours (depending on how fast you can configure a kernel). Run the KDE installation during the night, take your girlfriend (or your dog if you're too geeky for a girlfriend) somewhere the next day and you'll be set when you get back! If you need to install other stuff, run it in the background and give it a higher nice-value; you're system will be more than usable. And the good stuff:
- no more dependency problems, really!
- as fast and bleeding edge as it gets
- all the software you'll ever need in a single, constantly updated repository
- very, very tweakable
Also, try out our new thermal undies; they're very comfy