“eWeek Labs’ tests of SuSE Linux Inc.’s SuSE Linux 8.0, MandrakeSoft SA’s Mandrake Linux 8.2 and Red Hat Inc.’s Red Hat Linux 7.3 revealed that the penguins have made some great strides in usability—to the point that users unfamiliar with Linux could comfortably find their way through a machine installed with any of these Linux variations.” Read the review at eWeek.
Three Distributions Power Up Linux
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
“Linux is much more fragmented than Windows…”. What! Do you smoke crack? How many incompatible versions of Windows are there? “And unlike Windows, which tends to make convenience the top priority in its design…”. To me, convenience is when I tell the software what hardware it is sitting on and I don’t get backtalk. A few days ago I installed Win 98 SE on a Compaq EVO D300v, total time 12 hours. In between reinstalls, I put in SuSE 7.3 Personal. Time 50 minutes, no drivers to find on the internet and test if they work. Windows = 63 reboots, Linux = 1 reboot. I install Windows 12 times more often than Linux, I am quite adept. With Linux, I don’t have to #$%^& with the machine, it just works.
“Linux is much more fragmented than Windows…”. What! Do you smoke crack? How many incompatible versions of Windows are there?”
Come on.. This is a very true statement. Looked at the XFree86 instructions lately? They gave up trying to tell you how to configure xdm on Linux and just tell you to see your Linux documentation because different distros have different init methods. Linux is quite fragmented when it comes to things like this. This is also why commercial apps generally only support 2 or 3 distros.
“A few days ago I installed Win 98 SE on a Compaq EVO D300v, total time 12 hours. In between reinstalls,”
Yeah… Now tell me how long it REALLY took and how many times you REALLY had to reboot. I used to work as a computer technician / builder. I’ve installed Windows 98 literally thousands of times. I have NEVER had an install require more than 4 reboots or take more than 2 hours.
>How many incompatible versions of Windows are there?
None recent that I know of.
Do not put on the same sack the WinNT kernels with the Win9x/ME ones. They are based on different technologies, even if they share the same product/family name. It is like saying “the Unix family” and then saying the “Windows family”. But when you break down these families, to the NT and 9x kernels (as you break down the Unix family to the BSD, Linux etc), you will see that they are not nearly as fragmented or lacking standards as Linux has. For example, Win95 is largely compatible to Win98/98SE and ME and even Win3.1. In the same manner, WinNT is largely compatible with 2000 and XP.
Yeah… Now tell me how long it REALLY took and how many times you REALLY had to reboot. I used to work as a computer technician / builder. I’ve installed Windows 98 literally thousands of times. I have NEVER had an install require more than 4 reboots or take more than 2 hours.
This was long time agoo…
today you probably need to reboot about 4 times bevore you get win98 working. but after you connect to ms-web-update, you will boot again serval times (direct x update, ms ie updates, all the 10’000 security updates, etc…)
linux on the other hand, does not require you to reboot that much (mostly you don’t need a reboot).
about linux fragmentation:
linux is just the kernel! and the kernel is not that much fragmentet at all! (one stable and one development tree)
maybe you are missunderstanding what a distribution is and what linux is?
cheers
steve
“about linux fragmentation:
linux is just the kernel! and the kernel is not that much fragmentet at all! (one stable and one development tree)”
I know what the difference is. And here, it is not important. No one runs a Linux kernel. They run a Linux distro. And obviously, this is what we are refering to when we talk about Linux being fragmented.
“but after you connect to ms-web-update, you will boot again serval times (direct x update, ms ie updates, all the 10’000 security updates, etc…)”
Maybe two more reboots if you install the Microsoft recomemend updates. And maybe this is where he is getting his 12 hour install. He probably included download time for the updates over a 9600bps connection to the internet.
>linux is just the kernel! and the kernel is not that much fragmentet at all!
Oh, yeah, when we do not like the other people’s arguments, we start the classic “linux is just the kernel” business. Of course and we are talking about the whole Linux experience, and not just the kernel. Joe User does not give a monkey for kernels, sources, and PIDs. Joe User only cares about his/her desktop experience, and that’s that.
Simba: there is no reason to make jokes about reboots in win98. the ms-web-update forces you to select “special” updates only one by one and then to reboot!
12 hour install sounds to much for me, but if he says he had 12 hours then he had it…
Eugenia:
i 100% understand that linux (the distros) are very fragmented. and i don’t have anything to say against it (i’am not making a war out of this! it’s 100% true! distors are very diffrend and for alot of ppl very hard to keep up with the diffrend distros. eaven if kde/gnome/etc takes/hides alot of that “diffrency” in the distros away and tries to simplify the “desktop experience” for Joe User. it’s still a big, big mess!)
cheers
steve
The problem with Linux fragmentation is the damn distros fault.
Redhat, Mandrake, SUSE, Debian etc they all are trying to make their version of the same thing somehow different and better. All they end up doing is making it impossible to have a consistant Linux
system. Do we want rpms or debs or how about tarballs?
Sys V or BSD init?
Gnome or KDE or maybe xfce, no ice, no …………………..
The only real way to fix the problem would to have just one version of Linux or to make the distro makers follow the standards.
They never will follow the standards because its to tempting to force people into their(the distros) way of doing things and thus make more money.
If they followed the published standards then every distro would be identical except for kernel versions
and extra admin tools. If every distro is identical its hard to make money and get product differentiation.
The only distro I know of that makes a vanila version of Linux thats easy to use and follows all of the standards is Slackware.
A few days ago I installed Win 98 SE on a Compaq EVO D300v, total time 12 hours.
…maybe Mr.bayerwerke used a 5,25″ floppy set.
Windows is difficult to maintain. Unfourtunately, I am also the LAN admin in my office. Do you know how many man-hours it takes to keep all the computers updated? Do you know how many reboots each system takes? I love XP and IE, so don’t go thinking I am a classic windows-basher. But you need to really WORK with windows to see what a nightmare it can be. By “work”, I don’t mean doing stuff on your bedroom pc, I mean doing real work on real work-machines.
> A few days ago I
> installed Win 98 SE
Win98 isn’t a good example of Windows anymore, but yes, if you are unlucky, you could do that many installs before you get it working. You could get it working in a snap of course, but computer technicians learn to choose their hardware carefully. Precisely becos, you never know what the OS is going to through up.
Windows installs suck a lot in my opinion, especially if you install office, do all the updates, install a virus scanner and update that, and the same for all your other applications. 63 reboots might be close to the truth. 12 hours though…thats just silly.
As for linux I’ve heard that rpm’s are going to be standardized pretty soon. Not that this will make configuration any easier, but at least it’s something to look forward to.
difficult? i don’t think so!
windows (the os) it’s very time intensive to maintain, but not difficult!
if your talking about software-distribution/installation, then i take my word back and i’am 100% on your line!
cheers
steve
people can get everything he could woant from most of the distro out there, what is wrong?
Suse looks good as MDK or RH, but debian, gentoo, slack aren’t worser
they are even simpler if you are used to use your mind and have enough attention to follo the instruction step by step.
gentoo is less than simple 10 step to get a complete distro from the nothing…
gentoo is less than simple 10 step to get a complete distro from the nothing…
maybe eaven less steps, but the time you need to install everything is amazing! it took me some hours to get xfree86, kde and gnome to compile on my ibm thinkpad a22p (1ghz, 384mb).
this is not something Jon User is ready to do
“Do you know how many man-hours it takes to keep all the computers updated?”
There are (expensive) solutions to this problem that can automatically push updates onto clients from a central server.
Linux has the same problem unless you have a similar system that can automatically push updates onto clients from a central server. Of course, a shell scripting wizard could probably come up with a system like this for free on Linux clients, whereas it would require commercial software on Windows.
Of course, another way around it in Linux is thin clients that network boot. But of course, that creates a pretty heavy load on the network.
Now Gentoo really is the complete opposite of a BeOS installation then – 10 minutes vs 10 hours!
hmmm… Gentoo install (>10 hours) vs. BeOS install (<10 minutes)?
what about: Gentoo (>10’000 applications) vs. BeOS (<100 applications)? (i don’t know realy how much BeOS applicatons are available, but they are sure less then for Linux. I wait now for Eugenia to kill my post [i readed on her page, that she likes BeOS])
cheers
steve
Of course, a shell scripting wizard could probably come up with a system like this for free on Linux clients, whereas it would require commercial software on Windows.
Well, with Debian it’s just one line:
apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade
Gentoo is similar. BSDs also.
There are about 2,500 applications for BeOS. The rest are themes, icons and other garbage like that.
Yes, there are more applications for Linux. However, funnily enough, there are more server software and libraries and JoeUser-wise useless stuff like that, than sound manipulation applications etc. In fact, BeOS has more of these, than Linux has, even if Linux outnumbers overall BeOS in the application base. So, each OS has its goods and bads.
Gentoo Linux is the Linux of my choice. This is what I primarily use, when I am under Linux. I also have a Red Hat partition and a Lycoris one. I used to use Mandrake, but I can’t get any more of their bloat.
Anyways, bottom line is: Gentoo IS NOT for the end user, Joe User. Gentoo never pretended to be one of these distributions that are for the desktop and for Joe and Mary. Gentoo is primarily a developer’s distribution.
BeOS on the other hand, was destined for the desktop or workstation, from Day 1.
Eugenia: thx for the clarification on the application issue.
i know BeOS. it’s a nice os, but nothing for me. not that it’s not good for me, but i need windows for work (ahhh.. how i hate this! but since lotus notes client is only available on windows [mac support is comming again in r6] i’am forced to use windows).
as for gentoo: i don’t think the ppl begind gentoo see gentoo as a developer’s distribuiton! gentoo is just one of the fastest linux available, because it compiles especialy for your processor and therefore it’s very optimized for your hardware. but to declare it “only for developers” would be a big misstake!
cheers
steve
ps: i was allways wondering where the name “Eugenia” comes from. and i read osnews so long time and today for the first time i clicked on your name to see, that your from greece. funny
my mom growed up about 40km from the greece border.
to update gentoo in just one line you could issue the following command: emerge –update world
Oh, yeah, when we do not like the other people’s arguments, we start the classic “linux is just the kernel” business.
And when we do not like the other people’s arguments, we start the classic “linux is fragmented”. I’m talking about distros. And didn’t see any argument yet about linux fragmentation. There are many distros, so what ? urpmi your Mdk, apt-get your Debian or yourInstallSoft yourDistroLinux, and you’ll get the software installed. Just answer the questions on the screen (activate that service ? Y/N). X11 configuration ? Oh yes of course there’s no graphical installer in any distro, probably this is Windows only. Oh yes I forgot, MS invented the Internet and computer science. And Joe user has to recompile his kernel 10 times to use his CD-ROM and blah blah blah blah blah…
Only, irrelevant, invalid, outdated or ridiculous arguments. Probably ignorance.
> to update gentoo in just one line you could issue the following command: emerge –update world
Yes, and then end up with the “DLL-hell” I ended-up after I upgraded from 1.0 to 1.1a, because the new libpng that was included in the new package was not binary compatible with the old one, resulting that I had to recompile about 400 MB of sources. And if you think that I had recompiled XFree, QT and some other stuff the day before, it really pissed me off. Needless to say how many people had problem with that. No matter what you say, Gentoo is not for the average user. There are too many random variables on that distribution that makes it not suitable for the mases. Portage is a moving target each and every day. Things are changing so much from day to day basis, where you can never be sure what library problems you will end up with at the end of an emerge.
Trust me, being there, done that. And the Gentoo developers know about these problems and they do acknowledge them.
gentoo is NOT for the Jon Doe User! but it’s not ONLY for develpers aswell!
cheers
steve
If you consider yourself this “Joe User” category, use Lycoris or ELX – not Gentoo. Nobody in their right mind has ever said that Gentoo is for the end user.
If you consider yourself this “Joe User” category, use Lycoris or ELX – not Gentoo. Nobody in their right mind has ever said that Gentoo is for the end user.
if you read her posts, then you will realize that she is not considering herself in the “Joe User” category! and i would not say that she is a “Joe User” at all (if she is a “Jon User”, then every “Jon User” would be able to port easy about 80 applications from open-source to beos or any operating system (read her homepage for more info)).
but to be honest: i think you know that allready and you just want to play with her! if you are so great and better (probably building your linux from scratch?) then tell us what great things you have done? show us those great applications/projects you have developed!
cheers
steve
I see lots o’ FUD here! Claims of smoking crack, coming from those who are stoned senseless on the “opiate of the masses”.
What’s the real story? Well I’ll tell ya! There are only two kinds of init scripts in use — SYSV and BSD. Every big name Linux distro uses SYSV scripts, so for all practical purposes we’re down to one. Anyway, it’s trivial to test for the presence of one or the other in an install script. It’s a non-issue!
“DLL hell”? Wrong OS! It’s another case of the user not being smarter than the program, and causing unnecessary trouble as a result. RTFM.
If you must have the “bleeding edge” version of some program, then you might have to do a little more work. There’s always the option of sticking with the slightly older stable version! But if you must get that tarball that was released 5 minutes ago, then you’d be wise to check dependencies up front.
But don’t blame Linux if you fail — this has nothing to do with Linux! It’s the way software is developed. If you don’t understand the process, my advice is to stay within the framework that your distribution provides. At least approach learning with some humility. If you find out that you’re not as brilliant as you thought you were, blaming the kernel only compounds the stupidity.
How many incompatible versions of Windows are there?
None recent that I know of.
I tend to disagree. The “Linux fragmentation” that you and others are eluding to is mainly, as Simba said, “because different distros have different init methods.” In other words, the “fragmentation” being referred to is disparate directory and config file structure.
I would compare this to Windows directory structure being changed with every release. Or I would compare it with Control Panel applications changing with every new release.
Or while we’re at it, what about menu items that never seem to stay in the same place between versions (for example, old versions of IE had Internet Options under the view menu. Now they are under the tool menu)? Also, the registry is different between all versions of Windows. Or what about file formats changing in Windows applications? What about the incompatible Windows development libraries (Incomprehensible compiler error — translated means: You can’t include support for that generic Windows API function, this is an MFC app!)
I don’t use Windows all that much anymore, so I haven’t done a inconsistency by inconsistency count between all the Linux distros and all the Windows flavors, but believe me, if it’s configuration and directory structure and other such inconsistencies you thinking of, Windows is full of them. Since all versions of Windows are currently being used and supported (Windows 98 and up) then I think it is only fair that you compare all of them, not just the latest.
Yeah… Now tell me how long it REALLY took and how many times you REALLY had to reboot.
I find his/her statement completely plausible.
As far as reboots go, as I recall, it was a couple of reboots during install, almost one reboot per Windows Update item (Windows 98 has quite a few). Usually one reboot every time you install an application and a few reboots when Windows 98 crashes. Compound that by having a problem during install and I think you could easily spend half your life installing and rebooting Windows. That’s been my experience anyway.
I used to work as a computer technician / builder. I’ve installed Windows 98 literally thousands of times. I have NEVER had an install require more than 4 reboots or take more than 2 hours.
Didn’t do the updates did you.
Seriously though, I built computers for individuals and up to schools and large corporations; I’ve even done it in Japan. I managed a health care company’s network, a testing lab network at Intel, Microsoft, Novell and some smaller places. I managed a national bank’s network (before they became Wells Fargo), and so on, before becoming an engineer.
During that time I installed every version of Windows ever made more times than I can count and I have dealt with problems with Windows machines more times than I wish to remember. I totally believe the numbers the original poster stated. Why? Because I’ve been there.
> I would compare this to Windows directory structure being changed with every release. Or I would compare it with Control Panel applications changing with every new release. Or while we’re at it, what about menu items that never seem to stay in the same place between versions (for example, old versions of IE had Internet Options under the view menu. Now they are under the tool menu)? Also, the registry is different between all versions of Windows. Or what about file formats changing in Windows applications? What about the incompatible Windows development libraries.
You have messed up the whole meaning of the words. What you describe is hardly “fragmentation” or incompatibility. It is evolution, fixing, changing. It would have been fragmentation if after these changes, older applications would completely stop working. But older applications targetted for either the NT or the 9x technologies, do work fine for their target technology. In fact, Microsoft has been… accused of this: for keeping good backwards compatibility, creating more code bloat. But the end result was that they kept their userbase this way, able to run their 1984 Lotus1-2-3 application, even under Win95!!
Therefore, your post does not hold up. Windows is far from fragmented or incompatible. In fact, it respects its roots more than any other OS.
Linux distributions on the other side, tend to change things (eg. /usr/local/* being the default path, while other distros do not even include it in their path variable, different packaging, different library versions that can create problems when trying to run something on a different distro etc etc) in ways that do fragment the application base. Windows do not have these problems. The Linux experience does.
Linux distributions on the other side, tend to change things (eg. /usr/local/* being the default path, while other distros do not even include it in their path variable, different packaging, different library versions that can create problems when trying to run something on a different distro etc etc) in ways that do fragment the application base. Windows do not have these problems. The Linux experience does.
Eugenia, I’m going to assume that what you call “default path” is the place where programs are installed. If that assumption is incorrect, let me know, and we can go into all the other ways that the statement is erroneous.
Now…using your very own logic, Windows is fragmented because many programs install themselves into directories other than “C:Program Files”. Getting down to the actual “PATH” environment variable, further proof comes when I type “WINWORD.EXE” from a command prompt and Word fails to start.
Clearly you’re using a double standard to promote a falsehood. You’re also using non sequitur (the old “straw man”) in your proof. The existence of a poorly packaged Linux application has no bearing whatsoever on any alleged Linux fragmentation!
Now if you want to compare apples to apples, go ahead and compare RPM, apt-get etc. against Wise, InstallShield etc. It would make an interesting read. But these left-handed attacks are telling us more about the quality of your character than they are about Linux. And I clicked on this story to read about Linux.
Joe User just have to start from the noon and get everything ready on the morning ^^
At least that was the way I used on an athlon 850
Sorry…
You have messed up the whole meaning of the words.
No I didn’t. I even repeated Simba’s words verbatim.
What you describe is hardly “fragmentation” or incompatibility. It is evolution, fixing, changing.
So what does moving menu items around fix? What does changing the directory structure fix? Perhaps all the different Linux distros feel that they are evolving, fixing, and changing things. Why is it acceptable for Windows and not for Linux?
It would have been fragmentation if after these changes, older applications would completely stop working. But older applications targetted for either the NT or the 9x technologies, do work fine for their target technology.
Don’t Linux application also work for their target technology? I would argue that if not Linux wouldn’t be where it is today.
In fact, Microsoft has been… accused of this: for keeping good backwards compatibility, creating more code bloat. But the end result was that they kept their userbase this way, able to run their 1984 Lotus1-2-3 application, even under Win95!!
I can run old Linux apps just fine, but why would I want to if I can run the newest version? What you are saying indirectly, I think, is that Windows applications are so expensive that users are forced to use antiquated software. I guess it’s nice that they still could in 95, but they can’t anymore right? I would call that fragmented and broken by your definition.
Therefore, your post does not hold up. Windows is far from fragmented or incompatible. In fact, it respects its roots more than any other OS.
My post DOES hold up because the same problems you say Linux has, Windows has. The only difference is that Linux is more stable and secure. You are saying that in Windows’ case, it is evolution, fixing and good and that in Linux’s case, the very same things are fragmented, incompatible and bad. It can’t be both ways.
A slight aside to something you or Simba said: So what if a company only targets their commercial Linux products to RedHat and SuSE (like my company does). I can still run their products on Debian, Slackware, etc. The reason companies only support a couple of distros is a support reason only. Not a compatibility issue.
Linux distributions on the other side, tend to change things (eg. /usr/local/* being the default path, while other distros do not even include it in their path variable,
That is comparible to Windows 95/98 not having a “Document and Settings” folder and Windows 2000 and up having moved “Temporary Internet Files” from C:Windows or C:WINNT to a hidden folder lost in the user directory under “Documents and Settings” somewhere. Or what about the Windows Explorer icon being moved from the root Start|Programs menu into Accessories?
Sure, these are inconsistant and irritating at first, but only take a few minutes to learn and work with. It’s the same thing with Linux.
different packaging, different library versions that can create problems when trying to run something on a different distro etc etc) in ways that do fragment the application base. Windows do not have these problems. The Linux experience does.
What!? Windows most certainly DOES have these issues. Try to intermingle certain libraries in Visual Studio and you will get all kinds of compilation errors due to incompatibilities.
Where do you think the term .DLL hell came from? Microsoft products and libraries being completely incompatible! When I worked there we had to rewrite the entire interface of our product because of library incompatibilities with Visual Studio 6. I have never had as big a problem with libraries under Linux.
The bottom line is that what you are calling fixes, evolution and “good” under Windows are the exact same things you are calling fragmentation, incompatibilities and “bad” under Linux. It can’t be both ways. Either both systems suck or both systems are good. I hope at least some readers can see that.
Eugenia,
I wrote the previous post, but I normally post under the name Camel. I work with the person who goes by BakaSmack on this list, and he showed me your post this morning.
I responded from his machine but didn’t change the name field prior to hitting submit. Therefore, I thought it appropriate to note that if you or anyone wants to hate someone for my previous post, it should be Camel that you dislike and not BakaSmack.
Thank you.
Windows do not have these problems. The Linux experience does.
No.
WtF is wrong with this person? If the person who posted originally is offended with the what the f**k part, PLEASE email me, so I can delete it immediately. Twelve hours? No fricking way. Anyone who knows about Microsoft Security Updates, (not really a major thing, but anyway), knows that it takes no more than 3 hours MAX. to install Windows and all drivers from CD. Anyway, I consider myself a skilled Linux user with experience on installfests and the sort. From what I’ve seen from the Gentoo INSTALL page on their site, it must take a WHOLE weekend to install the sucker
BlackBox rules! ~Live Long & Prosper~
Don’t Linux application also work for their target technology? I would argue that if not Linux wouldn’t be where it is today.
Try installing a Deb on Red Hat.
Yes, Linux is fragmented because of various incompatible distributions. But there is only *one* Windows distribution. In has new releases, adding new things and all..
If Eugenia said Red Hat Linux is fragmented, she’s wrong, you could run an app made from Red Hat 5.x days on 7.3. However, if she says GNU/Linux as a whole is fragmented (which is what she says), well, she is darn right. (BTW, Linux isn’t the only thing fragmented. Take UNIX for example, BSD, System V…)
So live with it. Linux appears not to be made for the Joe User from day one (*WARNING: Cheapshots* GNU software was first created for this isolatist socialist group of people, while the Linux kernel was created for those who wanted a Minix kernel, but don’t want to use Minix). (And, BTW, Windows (not it’s DOS roots) was first created to kill OS/2 and Macintosh – which is for Joe user).
As for Lotus 1-2-3 from 1984, I heard it worked on Windows XP using Compatiblity mode.
Try installing a Deb on Red Hat.
That’s an irrelevant example don’t you think? First of all, there are several applications that only run on certain versions of Windows. Secondly, RPMs and DEBs are no more Linux than InstallShield is Windows. But for the times when you can’t get a binary package to work, there’s always:
./configure
make
make install
The difficulty is unbearable I know, but it works across the Linux board.
Yes, Linux is fragmented because of various incompatible distributions.
They are only incompatible if you don’t know what you are doing. User ignorance should not be a measure of a systems “fragmentation”, whatever that’s supposed to mean.
But there is only *one* Windows distribution. In has new releases, adding new things and all..
Which are incompatible often times by Eugenia’s definition.
If Eugenia said Red Hat Linux is fragmented, she’s wrong, you could run an app made from Red Hat 5.x days on 7.3. However, if she says GNU/Linux as a whole is fragmented (which is what she says), well, she is darn right.
Eugenia’s reasons for Linux being fragmented are based on things being in different directories or config files being different. That’s what she said isn’t it? There is nothing different about this than the many versions of Windows. If you can’t see that then you are blind. Different Windows have different .bat, .sys and .ini files and different registry settings. How is that different from /etc/profile being different between versions of Linux? It’s not.
So live with it. Linux appears not to be made for the Joe User from day one
I don’t think anyone here ever claimed that it was. Nor do I believe that anyone that uses it wishes it was.
As for Lotus 1-2-3 from 1984, I heard it worked on Windows XP using Compatiblity mode.
It doesn’t work on Windows 2000 or Windows NT. And it still, as was mentioned earlier, would appear that Windows software is so expensive that people are forced to use antiques.
I for one am glad there’s Linux and OpenBSD.