On the second criterion, basic system operation, Debian barely garners one star. Let me put the reason into one word: unstable! Once again, I am left in a quandary as to why Debian is such the popular distribution. Oh, to be sure, it's really easy to add packages Debian on fly. And, there are lots of packages available; both created specifically for Debian by Debian, as well as packages from other sources. I found numerous applications available right there as a part of Debian's on-line package setup. Programs for which I had to search under Slackware were there and readily available. This feature is a nice convenience to be sure!
However, when I install an operating system on a computer, I want said computer to OPERATE. I know there is no such thing as flawless operation. Even under Microsoft, I have had more than one computer crash and burn. Even my personal favorite, Slackware has its moments of failure.
With Debian, though, it's like they build crash points into the system. I would be trying do something simple, like mount a CD, and the system would literally go from an operational GUI to nothingness. Sometimes the system locked completely, requiring a push on the rest button. Sometimes there was reboot. Sometimes the GUI would attempt to regenerate, always in an even more unstable state than before the error that sent the GUI packing for parts unknown. A few times, it went directly to the command prompt; a forbidden thing for a default Debian installation. In the time I worked with Debian, the longest time it spent up was when I went downstairs to eat breakfast and watch a bit of Gettysburg with my roommate, Bear.
Amazingly Enough, this time around, Debian found and operated my sound card. That's the first time in three attempts to install the system on the test machine. Therefore, I will have to give it four stars for device support. This is the only criterion that scores a good rating for Debian. I honestly don't know what I did this time that was so much different from all the other times I set it up. Frankly, considering how badly it bombed after the fact, it really doesn't matter. About the only thing Debian did right was find the devices.
On the fourth criterion, look and feel, I give Debian two stars. It came up to the KDE desktop, just like Slackware. However, Debian came up with KDE version 3.3. Slackware comes up with KDE 3.45. One would think the fact that Debian was setup via the net, they'd have provided the newest version of KDE. That could have made Debian even more unstable. While I don't see how that could happen, it's the only guess I offer as to why Debian wouldn't go for the full KDE Monty.
Even though the KDE with Debian was an older version, it looked pretty much the same as Slackware. So why would I rate Debian so low? Because I am not only judging Debian on look, I judging on feel. Considering the longest I could keep Debian up was the two hours between the time I ate breakfast and decided to get back to working with Debian. When actually working with it, I don't think it lasted twenty minutes without a crash. While it looked great, it felt like driving a Yugo: slow, shaky, and prone to die when it's least convenient. Therefore, I just can't give good marks for look and feel.
Finally, for overall impression, I give it a one. I'd have given it a zero, but that's reserved specifically for distributions that simply don't work. If the distribution won't boot, errors out, or otherwise completely falls to pieces before I can get it on the hard drive, then it's not worthy of a one. Debian did install. It did operate. It actually found all the devices and made them work. The on line package installation was a really nice touch. All the packages one could want at one's fingertips is an idea that all Linux makers (like Slackware) should make happen. If Debian had only worked well without crashing every fifteen minutes, I'd have been a lot happier with it.
Crash it did! Considering the time it took to get it setup, and all the other problems I ran into as I worked with it, I hoped it would be a little more bulletproof. When it booted to the KDE desktop without locking up, I figured it would probably get some high marks. After all, it had gone farther this time than it had the two previous times I tried install it.
But it wasn't to be. Too bad, so sad. I heartily recommend the newcomer stay away from Debian in droves. For all its flaws, there are many other Linux distributions out there that install easier, look better, work better, and are less of a pain in the ass over all.
While it's a given that Linux is a buggy system, Debian takes it way far off the beam. I am sitting here right now with my almost month old install of Slackware writing this as I download another ISO for burning. I am linked to my main computer, downloading the ISO, listening to Bear Radio Dot Net, Firefox is up to keep the download going, and the CD burner software is also up in the background just for the hell of it. Other than Firefox losing it's lunch once when I tried to open three tabs at one time, it's been working perfectly. I have been at it for almost an hour and half. Debian would have crashed and burned about an hour ago, with barely two applications up.
I guess just because a thing is popular doesn't mean it's good. Debian proves that!
I'm using a Minimac with Mac OS X, Linux 4.8 Build 8L2127. I have yet to have a major system crash, I have rebooted a few times for it to rebuild itself to, what should be, the default system.
One time I went over to a young man who had just purchased a Dell System. As I watched me try to install it, over 30 or 45 minutes, it would freeze up and do other, unwanted things about every 10 minutes. The young man had started out with a Model IV that his mother bought from a Goodwill store.
By the way, I never had a system crash using LS-DOS for the TRS-80 Model IV. CPM on the same computer never crashed. Oh for the good old days.
by
Dale Hill (58 articles, 0 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 347 comments)
on Monday, January 29, 2007 at 4:49:30 PM
...you aren't missing a thing. If you have a Mac running Mac's Linux version, I'd say you are well ahead of the pack. Thank your lucky stars indeed.
As I am continuing The Linux Project, I am noticing one overriding truth: Linux distributions are very different from each other in so many ways, even though, at their heart, they are as similar as Windows NT, 2000, XP and 2003.
There are some folks who set up distributions to be very user friendly, and some who think of friendliness as an afterthought, if at all. There are some distributions that are stripped to the bone to offer blazing speed, though always at a detriment to stability. There are others that offer incredible stability with slight speed and size penalties.
In the final analysis, it's about what you want your computer to do best; ride the bleeding edge, or sit there and be rock solid. As of this time, I have yet to find a distribution that can be all things to all people. Slackware comes close. It's review is the next in the series.
Beyond the actual functionality of the Linux distributions tested, the other consideration in making the switch to Linux is the limitation of available programs. One of my biggest uses for my computer systems is recording, mixing, effecting, and mastering music. I have tried numerous Linux programs that are supposed to perform this task. Not a one has achieved the functionality of the Windows-based program I use. Not one, and I have tested every major free-ware Linux audio program. There are two that come close. However, "close" means more I have to do more work with said programs than what I have to do with the Windows-based program. There is a program that is supposed to do the entire job, but for eighty-five bucks, let's just say I am skeptical that it's anything more than another batch of botched annoyance.
By the way, I never had a system crash using LS-DOS for the TRS-80 Model IV. CPM on the same computer never crashed. Oh for the good old days.
Ah yes, the good old days. My "good old days" began by programming in BASIC on a Texas Instruments TI 99/4A. I didn't get a DOS machine for almost another ten years. That machine was given to me by an old boss. He gave it to me so I could write and then read what I had written.
That machine ushered in my involvement in computer repair. I had to fix the drive unit's power supply before I could even use it. Afterward, I killed it data-wise (my fault). That brought the need for a better machine. That put me in contact with computer shops. That put me in touch with someone willing to let me work on their customer's systems. That brought me to Dallas.
I must admit that by doing The Linux Project, I have re-learned a lot that I had forgotten about working with computers and their operating systems and software. It has also provided me yet another job.
The Linux Project has also proven to be a real time eater as well. Whether it's the research with the actual operating systems, or whether it's my personal research in finding a usable Linux multi-track recording program that doesn't crash, scramble the source waves, or sound like a helicopter stuck in yogurt, it has translated into numerous days strung together in front of a computer.
But it's all good. Not only am I gaining experience in research journalism, I am also refreshing my mind as to the minutia of being a dyed in the wool computer geek. If doing this project also helps out a budding geek who'd like to tread the Linux path, then so much the better. It's nice to offer one's experience to others. Since I am not going to have kids of my own, I have to give away my wisdom and experience to strangers. Who'd have thought I'd be doing so with free, open source operating systems?
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Monday, January 29, 2007 at 11:58:24 PM
