Linked by Dedoimedo on Thu 17th Mar 2011 23:17 UTC
Debian and its clones Writing about Debian is not a simple thing. You know it's the giant that has spawned pretty much every other distro out there. It's almost like a Roman Empire, almost a taboo. Furthermore, it's not a desktop distro per se. It's more sort of a template you use to build your platform. It's also a SOHO server distro, therefore it more fits into the business category, comparable to CentOS and similar.
Thread beginning with comment 466757
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

It's a whiny blog post. This has nothing to do with criticism of Debian.

Let me summarize the article.

"They used old code that works and not new code that doesn't. Massive FAIL!"
"They don't include proprietary blobs. Why isn't my poorly chosen hardware not working?"
"You mean I actually have to config stuff?"
"My network didn't work. Waaa... I quit!"

That is all he had to write.

This is an installation article. Props to the author for using actual hardware rather then a VM, but did the world really need this? What did the world gain by someone whining about a bad installation experience and failing to investigate or provide any sort of analysis of the problem? I may be being too harsh, but I expect technical articles to have technical details in them. I can go read clueless drivel countless other places; it's nothing special.

I think is one of the most accurate summaries of the "review" - who the hell modded it down?

The review fails right at the beginning - the author is confused by the variety of available images. Than he just takes a shot at one of them! Well, you can't get any more clueless than that.. Debian is explicitly aimed at users who are willing to clue in, get the information they need, read documentation, etc. One can stop reading right there, the rest is as expected... A thorough rant about the installation (after choosing not to read up on it at all!)

I'm saying this as someone who doesn't even use debian (in case you were wondering: I'm on Windows 7 now). Installed it once about 7 years ago, on a low-traffic server. The installation was a breeze after reading the documentation. Used a variety of linuces since then, plus FreeBSD for a few years. FreeBSD had the best installer of all (again, after RTFM of course). Arch was the latest. One thing in common in these is that they DON'T promise a fully automated bells-and-whistles installation process. So criticizing them for not doing what they never claimed to do is stupid.

In the case of Debian, even a somewhat informed linux user would know that the first thing to do (if it's your first time) is to get a clue and prepare before you start the installation. I expect more for someone who regularly writes reviews.. Or NOT, actually, seeing how most reviews nowadays are actually installation reviews - as parent points out.

Reply Parent Score: 7