Comparing Distributions - with what features?
 

Hi,

If you would make a list of all features that matters for comparing all the distributions out there, what would you chose? I mean what are the features that really matter? Security? GUI? What else?

I really want to know your opinions.

If you want to make a comparison that's useful to all I would suggest you search the LQ fora, make a list of the ten most common problems and measure how one would solve that problem per distro using only the packages and HOWTO's provided by that distro (and as a last resort one means of community help, email, channel or forum). Some examples:
- getting alerted for security risks using say RSS,
- finding updates and updating software,
- verifying each file after an OS install,
- host and network hardening the machine,
- adding the machine to an AD domain,
- installing and configuring Apache, PostGresQL and Zope for CMS use (instead of AMP),
- installing djbdns (to name just Something Completely Different),
- getting Wireless to work (two different chipsets),
- getting a graphical card like Nvidia to work,
- upgrading to a new release,
- installing browser plugins like Flash and Java.


A distributor just provides the icing on the cake. In some cases the icing is applied mimicking an authoritarian system of government under absolute control of a single person, in some cases the icing is so "bleeding edge" you start bleeding five seconds after it's applied, in some cases the icing requires you to agree with some "Contract" which basically allows the distributor to rape FOSS as they see fit coming up with spin-offs like HeatedCobra or RabidMongoose, in some cases the icing can be found in /places you would never look and in other cases the icing will be 3 microns thin unless you pay a periodical fee.

Take for instance the "security" stuff. Unless the distributor rigorously audits any included software, provides secure (or secured versions of) software themselves, tries to actively incorporate truly security enhancements like Gentoo (GRSecurity-enabled kernels and a cornucopia of really good HOWTO's), Red Hat (SELinux in FC and RHEL) and Novell (AppArmor) and provides default installation settings that enhance security in a measurable way you can't really say that "security" is the work of the distributor, that is: apart from shipping up to date software versions and timely releasing notifications and updates.
Too easy. Some distro's are way far ahead of the pack.


So picking ten common problems would be a qualitatively good, Real Life comparison. You'll find gems like lack of documentation, no support, problems with availability of packages or dependencies, dependency hell in distro's that just won't do any dependency resolving, applications that won't work or are either too unstable or outdated, configuration problems and misguided users who will just reply "use distro X" and nothing else.

Here the list I've made so far (thanks unSpawn for the suggestions. It's a matter of yes/no/other features :

Architecture support

(with a list of architectures)
File Management

• Default file manager
• Default file system

Install

• Verify of each file (?)
• Apache Configuration (?)
• Data Base Configuration (?)
• Hardware conflicts
• Wireless conflicts
• GUI installation procedure

Packages

• Default online update tool
• Default package management
• Number of packages
• Package Format
• Updates

Security

• AppArmor
• Bounds Checking
• ExecShield
• GrSecurity
• PaX
• RSBAC
• SELinux
• Systrace
• Alerts

Technical

• Compiler
• Default desktop environment
• Default window manager
• Linux kernel

I'm not sure that the installing features cover all the issues and I'm pretty sure there are plenty more to add. If you think the list should be more precise, please help me with some hints

Wow, you got quite a few there, add Backup, Multimedia support (i.e. codecs, player) Window managers and Desktop enviroments (KDE, Gnome, XFCE, Fluxbox, Beryl, Compiz, etc.)

Configurability and Useability are my two biggest concerns. I don't want to use your disto, I want to use my distro. With that said there are plenty of distro to choose from. Not just Gentoo.

If you want just a single feature. The package manager or lack there of is probably the number one thing I look at. Apt is okay for binary distros. On the same hand I think that pacman will be better once it has come of age. When it comes to source distros portage doesn't really cut it in my opinion. So I use Paludis instead.

You might also consider performance in regards with difficulties to obtain that performance (usually more performance comes with more difficulties to obtain it : the best perf is obtained by compiling one by one every package, but it's a lot of work)

There is also philosophy (if it something important to you) : a full Free Software approach like Debian can seduce some, and I know some agreements between Novell (SuSE) and Microsoft made some people mad ... (just to give some examples, there are plenty)

There are also defaults supported (example : Fedora offers no support at all for NTFS)

List is endless ...

That's only one fifth or less of the story, think standarisation, maintainability, configuration and security.


So what about ntfs-3g then?

At least, when I tried FC5, there was no native support for ntfs (there were roundabouts available, but from third parties)

I can not put "maintainability" as a feature because it's matter of yes/no/other. Have any other ideeas guys? I want this to be a complete list so that all distributions get a fair comparison.

ntfs-3g is in fedora extra:
This is all you need to mount an NTFS partition on FC 5,6,7