distrowatch gave squeeze a poor review :(
 

I was disappointed to read the poor review of squeeze on distrowatch today.

I thought of leaving a comment below the story, but figured why bother. The main complaint appears to be about the appearance of the desktop, and the graphical installer "feels old." Then he goes on to recommend Trisquel instead as a "better Debian-based distribution" than Debian. Huh? What the hell?

... oh yeah... ??!!

I'm Using it... built several packages for it.. so far it performed flawlessly... so FSCK distrowatch... :D

Too bad for the Debian developers, I feel sorry for them. They did a real good job on Squeeze.

I have my doubts about the quality of the review. In the first paragraph he mentions that support for ARM was dropped. Dropped? I think it is one of the hottest ports at the moment.

And the ancient installer... better have a flashy graphic installer, and unstable software? I am happy the Debian developers put their effort in the applications and not in the installer.

Next week I am up to upgrading a HP laptop running Etch. Let s see...

jlinkels

Already gave a comment to them that they should rename the side to either DesktopDistroWatch or WindowsLikeDistroWatch.
But what bothers me more than the poor review are the comments from people that actually give a fsck about software-freedom and spread the opinion that linux will never break through if they try to make free distros. What they want is not Linux, what they want is a free replacement for Windows that is exactly like Windows, but without the malware, and with the geek-factor, so that they can feel "1337".

Windows, and now Ubuntu, support the idea that an operating system should come configured for you. Debian provides a base from which a user can select any desktop environment or software package that they want to. The user does the configuring, not the developers.

It's a shame that DW compared Debian to Ubuntu and Mint. Debian has entirely different goals and frankly doesn't give a flying fsck if they are similar to Ubuntu.

Oh well, it's not my problem that those guys are missing out on one of the finest Linux distro's in existence. :twocents:

As someone who cut his teeth on Slackware, I must say that I really like Debian. It's really different, but it's got the same back-to-basics rock-solid feel to it.

I have two computers that came with factory-installed Ubuntu and Broadcom wireless chips that work with Ubuntu.

I therefore tolerate Ubuntu. Using Fluxbox on Ubuntu enables me to forget that it's Ubuntu until I have to sudo su instead of just su.

'nuff said.

And you have hit the nail on the head with this post. People are now expecting distributions to be fully setup. People used to call it a Windows Mindset, only the other day on another forum I called it an Ubuntu Mindset (and I got in trouble for it to) because people who are used to Ubuntu want Debian to behave the same way. I moved from Ubuntu to Debian because I don't want, correction .... need, a lot of bling. I want a stable system that works for me and uses minimal resources.

so he was missing a desktop firewall, huh ?
wait until he discovers that debian doesn't even have a trial version of norton antivirus pre-installed.
And for the old installer, maybe the debdevs can add some wobbly windows for all those windows users.

But seriously, maybe it would make sense to rename the branches. I think "testing" is a bit misleading and underrating and scares many people, who then install stable on their top-notch desktop and complain about too old software. It would probably be better to name testing "desktop" and stable "server".

There are couple of my reviews of Debian, if you want to lynch me. 8-)

http://linuxblog.darkduck.com/2011/0...0-squeeze.html
http://linuxblog.darkduck.com/2011/0...-with-tux.html

The "review" is fud...

Ubuntu better for servers than Debian..............?

I am not big specialist, but I can advocate Ubuntu (Advocate of Devil? :D). As long as there is Ubuntu server edition, why can't they compete with Debian on server market?

That's not the issue - which is that according to this reviewer 'buntu server is somehow a better choice - when it clearly isn't. If there's one area where debian stable dominates, it's servers.

Simple as that, Ubuntu is made from Debian Unstable (except the LTS versions, they are made from Testing). They collect the software, integrate it, make alpha- and beta-testing, and that all in six months. Even the LTS-versions, and have a look how buggy 10.04 was at release-time.
Would you base your server on this, especially when a downtime costs money? I would prefer a distro that is much more tested, like Debian, RHEL/CentOS or Slackware.

++1

Or Solaris... :)

Really????:rolleyes:

Clearly not, given that you can't figure out how to install aptitude, sudo, and god knows what else. Your review seems to be based more on what You can't do rather than anything about Squeeze.

If the reviwer of Distrowatch comes in Riken at Saitama, I will personally tell him :

"5qU33Z3 7h33Z3 P133Z3..." LULZ

Hard to install? I put the disk in and basically hit enter a few times. Wireless even worked out-of-the-box. I am lazy GUI user the first app I install is Synaptic, followed by running exoodles for all the multimedia apps/codecs. 15-30 minutes later I have all apps I need.

$ inxi -F
System: Host debian Kernel 2.6.32-5-686 i686 (32 bit) Distro Debian GNU/Linux 6.0
CPU: Single core Intel Pentium M (-UP-) cache 1024 KB flags (sse sse2) bmips 1196.24 clocked at 600.00 MHz
Graphics: Card ATI Radeon Mobility M7 LW [Radeon Mobility 7500] X.Org 1.7.7 Res: 1024x768@60.0hz
GLX Renderer Software Rasterizer GLX Version 2.1 Mesa 7.7.1 Direct Rendering Yes
Audio: Card Intel 82801DB/DBL/DBM (ICH4/ICH4-L/ICH4-M) AC'97 Audio Controller driver Intel ICH at ports 1c00 18c0 BusID: 00:1f.5
Sound: Advanced Linux Sound Architecture Version 1.0.21
Network: Card-1 Intel 82801DB PRO/100 VE (MOB) Ethernet Controller driver e100 v: 3.5.24-k2-NAPI at port 8000 BusID: 02:08.0
Card-2 Intel PRO/Wireless LAN 2100 3B Mini PCI Adapter driver ipw2100 v: git-1.2.2 BusID: 02:02.0
Disks: HDD Total Size: 17.2GB (36.5% used) 1: /dev/sda IC25N020ATCS04 17.2GB
Partition: ID:/ size: 16G used: 5.9G (41%) fs: ext3 ID:/boot size: 228M used: 18M (9%) fs: ext2
ID:swap-1 size: 0.51GB used: 0.02GB (4%) fs: swap
Sensors: System Temperatures: cpu: 41.0C mobo: 41.0C
Fan Speeds (in rpm): cpu: 0
Info: Processes 115 Uptime 3:09 Memory 148.7/248.3MB Runlevel 2 Client Shell inxi 1.4.23

Ubuntu can compete on the server market all they want, as long as consumers look past the ad campaign and realize that

-Ubuntu is slower
-Ubuntu is buggier
-Ubuntu is backed by a corporation and therefore subject to bankruptcy

An Ubuntu server has the advantage of being deployed quickly, with GUI tools to help things along. However, a Debian sysadmin should be able to deploy a Debian server just as quickly, and God forbid you have a server run by someone who needs Ubuntu's GUI tools.

I haven't used debian for a couple of years but I know what it stands for. Having read the review I also think that it wasn't fair. Ancient looking installer? Is that supposed to be
a valid criterion? I don't think so.

eveningsky339, Quakeboy02
Thanks for your replies.
I don't deny I am not expert in Linux. I am a starter. If I cannot do anything in Linux because I don't know how, this might be well because it is not obvious. Of course, for gurus like you everything is just a matter of pair of CLI commands. For me - I am looking from point of view of inexperienced user.
When talking about "good admins" deploying Debian or Ubuntu servers, you're absolutely right when talking about Big Guns market. But if we move focus to SOHO market, there is no need in such a heavy weight. If server can be administered by semi-professional using GUI tools, that might be sufficient for SOHO. Why can't Ubuntu compete there?
Ubuntu/Canonical is a corporation. It definitely can go bust. But RHCE, SuSE, Solaris are also corporate products. Why do people still using them?
Then, I told you... I am advocating Devil. 8-)))))))))
Nothing can be more challenging than controversial comment! ;)

There is nothing wrong in using products made by a corporation. If the product fits your needs. If you are happy with Ubuntu server then use it. I am not. I never would use a server OS that is not well tested and is even released buggy only to fit in a release schedule. It doesn't matter if you run a server for a big company or just SOHO, or simply for private use, I want a stable system.
There is also nothing wrong in using a GUI for administrating (besides the security risks), for example Webmin. You can use GUIs on any server system, so there is no need for a Ubuntu server only because of the GUI.

Red Hat is the only successful corporate Linux vendor as far as I know. SuSE is a joke now that Novell has entered several deals with Microsoft and sold itself to a Microsoft-friendly company. Solaris has been forked into a community OS after Oracle's takeover of Sun.

I have no quarrel with you, or anyone who uses Ubuntu. All I ask is that people consider the pro's and con's of the distribution before supporting its use over older distributions such as Debian, Slackware, etc.

http://goo.gl/F02D6

just into the topic...

Yeah, but being widely used doesn't make it better (Windows anyone?).

It is a well-known fact that market penetration has nothing to do with quality, but everything with marketing. What you are demonstrating is that market penetration of Ubuntu server has increased. It doesn't make a statement about quality.

jlinkels

Last time I looked Ubuntu Server Edition (10.10) was released as CLI only.

I realise your being "devil's advocate" and all that but your discussion is flawed simply because you don't seem to know what is actually offered by the different distributions. If you had a better understanding, and I encourage you to read the websites widely but also to test the individual distributions as they are offered (i.e. base install first) so you can see for yourself, your discussion would be much better informed.

Yes, you are right.

By your own admission, you state that you are for all intensive purposes a Newbie

What give you the right to criticize? I have used Ubuntu in the past when it first came out and immediately went back to Debian. I found stability problems as well as deficiencies in speed even at CLI level.

Bill of Rights.
Did I critisize? I advocated for OS, which is not in favour in this sub-forum.
I did not tell "Debian is bad". I told "Ubuntu is not bad either". Feel the difference.

He has the right to criticize by fact of being a human with an opinion and expressing it here without violating board rules. You and others will probably choose to not give those criticisms any weight because by his own admission he is not knowledgeable or credible on the subject and so you will probably not respect his opinion. Which is your right.

You are free to an opinion, but others are free to challenge your opinions. Don't take it personally, us debian users can be a bit grouchy. Water off a duck's back.

I skimmed through your reviews/articles and many of the issues you encountered are extremely trivial. In particular fussing around with sudo; you don't need it. su and enter your password. I would like to encourage you to stick with debian and persevere. You will learn more from debian in a week that you'd learn from years of 'buntu use.

You're partially right. During the Debian install I learnt something which I could not during Ubuntu use. It is described in this post.
But that's not because of Debian. That's because I learn something with every new distro. Just time... time... time... I have started Linux & blog in October. Little bit less than you. ;)

I try not to put much into reviews, after all they are one persons opinion. They do cause a lot of controversy. This is what makes all of the different distros survive. I do not have any servers nor have plans for any. I can see where GUI would not be a necessity, but for everyday use gui is getting more comfortable everyday. My 2 cents.

Distrowatch noted the controversy yesterday and linked to a rebuttal review.

I think the reviewer may have just been trying to generate controversy to get more people talking, and I guess it worked.

After reading the latest DW Weekly, I also came to this conclusion. It is highly unfortunate that the reviewer would purposefully attempt to generate controversy. Then again, DW reviews tend to focus on buggy hobby distro's and legions of generic Debian-based distro's such as Saline OS. Controversy is kind of a nice break from the worthless ramblings about the latest Ubuntu-base distribution for cat-lovers.