Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sun 20th Oct 2002 17:14 UTC
Debian and its clones "This is a critical review of Debian 3.0, but I want to say right from the start that I'm not trying to bait anyone. However I feel that reviewers often root for Debian as the open-source underdog, and give it marks which it doesn't deserve. If RedHat 8.0 came out with installation software like Debian 3.0 it would be savaged. I think it's time for an honest review, to spur the Debian developers into making the best possible distribution. I really want Debian to succeed. I want to use it daily, and recommend it to my friends. But I can't do that right now and I think it's important people understand why." Read the review and its (already long) discussion at DebianPlanet.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by Adam Scheinberg on Sun 20th Oct 2002 18:26 UTC

It's clear that an OS should be optimized for its tasks, and therefore, a server OS and a desktop OS should have significant differences.

Unfortunately, Linux pundits very rarely acknowledge a simple point. That ain't how it works in the real world, right or wrong. People tend to use what they are used to. Windows servers are successful because people know how to use it already. SuSE, Mandrake, and Red Hat have market share and they're getting used on servers regularly and the admins can take it and use it as their desktop OS as well.

If Debian wants to have any significane in the future, they'll aim to make themselves some desktop presence - even a little. Right now, it's pathetic. Please don't tell me it's because it's not for newbies - neither is Gentoo, but it's getting along. It's not just the installer - it's the whole kit and kaboodle.