RE: FN-FORUM: 'best' linux distro for windows networks

date posted 16th January 2004 02:35

> Liam Proven, quoting me:
> > > > > So use XFree86 3,then?
> > > >
> > > > Not an option on any modern distro.
> > >
> > > Modern distro my hairy cojones - Slackware 9.1 includes it. ;O)
> >
> > [Grin] You vall THAT modern? Doesn't even have a SysV init!
>
> (Checks case)
> Says October 2003, here. Some people think a distro needs a GUI to be
> modern...

1st distro I ever tried, Slack. Didn't get far, in all honesty, but still,
it's worthy of great respect and is probably the most UNIX-like Linux
there is.

But personally, I think that in 2004, Unix should look like Mac OS X, and
even Mac OS X could do with some more work in some areas - tho' that's
mainly replacing lost Classic MacOS features or playing minor catchup
with Windows. Pretty much all the holes can be repaired with free tools
anyway.

When there's a Linux as smooth as OS X, then I'll praise it to the skies
and Switch. Meantime, I have little patience for anything that doesn't
strive towards that level.

> > [DARFC]
>
> Had to look that up, I must confess...

I don't know, these online newbies... [Sigh] ;¬)

> > > (plus, it's not that tough to just *compile* it)
> >
> > It is for a newbie...
>
> Balls. 'make World'. ;O)

If you've got source and are in the right directory and...

Nah. If it wants to replace Windows, it should be as easy as Windows, or
pretty damned close. Look how quickly OS/2 retreated to the addicts and
hobbyists once Win95 shipped. I was a keen OS/2 user - but even by late
beta W95 was so vastly better in every practical sense that I switched
overnight and never looked back.

OS/2 was better than Win3. Win95 was better than OS/2. If you were
serious, NT4 was better than W95. Win2K was conclusively better than any
previous Windows or OS/2.

Now, the challenge is to equal or beat WinXP, in every significant
respect. And of course what is "significant" depends on the individual.
But the point is, whereas 1 user doesn't need fax, many now don't need
printing, some people don't need networking, etc. etc., someone needs just
about everything in XP somewhere.

So to beat XP, the challenging Linux has to beat XP *in every major
respect.*

Better installation, better config, better management, better tools,
better desktop, better device support, better power management, better
networking, etc. etc.

That is a very tall order. Nothing does it yet.

But only a few are close. SuSE 9 & Mandrake 9.2 as generalists. Lindows,
Lycoris and Xandros as desktops. Nothing as a server, seriously,
compared to Widnowes 2003 Server, which is, frankly, a blinding bit of
software, but e-Smith and Trustix are about the only games in town.

http://www.e-smith.org/
http://www.trustix.net/

Red Hat/Fedora are too limited. The golden oldies like Debian and
Slackware are just not in the same game. Weirdos like Gentoo don't reallty
compare. Everything else is beneath the radar, currently.

When comparing to Windows, say on config, what I mean is that if I need to
change the IRQ of a network card or resize my swap file, I do it by
clicking a control in a dialog box. No file editing. None at all, ever. If
you need to edit a file, it's failed, it's broken.

MacOS X passes. It's the only UNIX that does, so far.

--
Liam Proven • http://lproven.livejournal.com