iB::Topic::Top 5 Tiny Distros

	Damn Small Linux :: Damn Small Linux Board The DSL Forums

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Damn Small Linux Board » Non-DSL Topics » water cooler » Top 5 Tiny Distros

		Mini-ITX Boards Sale, Fanless BareBones Mini-ITX, Bootable 1G DSL USBs, 533MHz Fanless PC <-- SALE $200 each!
		Get The Official Damn Small Linux Book. DSL Market , Great VPS hosting provided by Tektonic

Pages: (5) </ 1 2 3 [4] 5 >/

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Topic: Top 5 Tiny Distros, Review

< Next Oldest | Next Newest >

lucky13

Group: Members
Posts: 1478
Joined: Feb. 2007

Posted: May 29 2008,20:34

Here's another similar (BS) review that includes DSL 4.2.5.
http://www.abzone.be/Review001_p001

Among the lowlights:
Regarding autodetection of hardware...

Quote

My wirelesslan-adapter wasn't detected.
No Synaptics driver for my touchpad, so I have to miss some functions.

about the app selection...

Quote

it also misses some usefull software like a movieplayer. All the software is very fast, uses not much memory but, in my opinion, there are ugly as hell and not very useful for the real work.

about "package management"...

Quote

DSL comes with an own packagemanager. In fact it's not really a package manager, rather a downloadmanager because dependencies are not automatically solved. The majority of the software is outdated and there's not that many choice. However, if you find the right dependencies the installation of a program is quite fast and easy.
DSL is also Debian-compatible, so it's possible to enable apt so you can use the woody repository, but also this didn't work very well for all software.
I wanted to install my wireless-lan adapter, but I wasn't able to install the make-tools so I couldn't build the driver.

and his conclusion about DSL...

Quote

DSL is a really fast distribution, but it has some problems concerning installing additional software. Because I was not able to install the necessary build-tools I could do nothing in fact. I didn't give myself much time to figure this out, but I think this is something indispensable on a linux-system. It's nice to see my laptop running at this speed, but I think DSL is more a distribution for P1-based systems.

In his final analysis, he writes, "Especially Damn Small Linux is very lightweight, but also it's not really usable on 'more recent' systems. It think DSL is perfect for 486 or Pentium1-based systems but nothing more."

He admitted about DSL and other distros (including Arch Linux) that he didn't waste time reading documentation or trying to figure it out. He admitted he quickly nuked his Arch install because of that. Accordingly, this is how he ranked the "small distros" he reviewed:

Quote

If I have to rank the different distributions according to speed, user-friendliness, hardware detection, default theme, how I feel about it,.... I come to this conclusion:
1. TinyMe
2. ZenWalk
3. Puppy
4. XUbuntu
5. Arch
6. DSL

His rationale was based on the usual flimsy/BS criteria: aesthetics (note how pleased he is with transparency by default), latest versions of apps (as though software has an expiration date), auto-detection of everything (even when the tools he needs are easily available or even already included), and even though he was using an older computer he really didn't give much focus on how much space each distro took up with its base plus the apps he decided he needed to add, how much RAM he was left with for apps following a normal boot with normal processes running, and how well it all worked in that context -- no, he was more interested in how pretty it was on his monitor and how bleeding edge the apps were even though his computer was a 600 mhz Compaq Armada with 256MB RAM.

And the blame is always on the distro rather than user when the user doesn't bother to RTM.

--------------
"It felt kind of like having a pitbull terrier on my rear end."
-- meo (copyright(c)2008, all rights reserved)

jpeters

Group: Members
Posts: 804
Joined: April 2006

Posted: May 30 2008,02:28

Quote (lucky13 @ May 29 2008,20:34)

And the blame is always on the distro rather than user when the user doesn't bother to RTM.

That's RTFM. You reviewers need to be more observant of good English usage.

WDef

Group: Members
Posts: 798
Joined: Sep. 2005

Posted: May 30 2008,08:38

dsl still requires configuration on some hardware as we know, and can't support (eg) hw acceleration for Intel Integrated graphics (at least on my main laptop).

Like it or not that is a valid point - unfortunately it is enough to lose these "reviewers" who don't follow that dsl is partly intended to support older hw in its current form (but not only P1 !). They don't understand that for example on machines with ipw2200 wifi (like mine) you have to change the interface name eth0 to eth1 in the torsmo settings or torsmo won't print your up/down speeds etc.

The bar gets set higher for usability in linux as things like Ubuntu (and even Fedora, LOL!) at last get easier to use, come out of the box supporting new hardware, and increasingly automate their configuration. That is to be expected.

We know Robert has done a great job of improving these things in dsl because we have the history to understand that and we also understand the value of dsl's simple extension system and the things that dsl has pioneered. The criticism that extensions are mostly "outdated" is a bit annoying since we have quite a lot of recent software in there.

It's easy to write these somewhat naive, often inaccurate criticisms off as ill-conceived but we know that Robert has been doing much work on next gen DSL and is ahead of them anyway.

No usability criticisms should just be blown off. They are perhaps best weighed against what the aims and use cases really are for dsl and what its priorities are. It could be that what some of these people want is another distro.

lucky13

Group: Members
Posts: 1478
Joined: Feb. 2007

Posted: May 30 2008,12:06

Quote

That's RTFM. You reviewers need to be more observant of good English usage.

Sometimes I play the civility card. And then when I do, I get criticized for it. Heh.

Quote

No usability criticisms should just be blown off. They are perhaps best weighed against what the aims and use cases really are for dsl and what its priorities are. It could be that what some of these people want is another distro.

I'm not dismissing legitimate complaints about usability. I think it's ultimately the user's responsibility anyway because (1) he or she chooses the hardware in question and usually without any consideration for whether it's supported fully or only marginally in non-Windows operating systems; (2) there are valid considerations developers have to make with respect to licensing, obscurity, and the balance of what can fit on a CD/DVD or within the constraints of a particular size limit (e.g., 50 MB); and (3) not one distro I've ever used has come with guarantees or assurances and assigns all responsibility and liability on the user. I also think it's the user's responsibility regardless of OS to have a clue about its configuration because defaults aren't suitable for every user even if all hardware appears to be functional.

In this case, the reviewer had two things he said he couldn't get to work in DSL: a synaptics touchpad and a particular brand and model of wifi card. Both of those things are addressed in these very forums. The latter is also addressed in the wiki (I double checked). Rather than take any time or ask any questions to investigate it, the reviewer decided to start installing things he didn't even need to get one of those pieces of hardware working. And he apparently didn't take time to understand that folly, either, given his erroneous statements about both MyDSL and Debian. I don't think I blew off his concerns about usability; I think he blew off DSL (and Arch). Some people are in different places on learning curves. This reviewer chose to not even get on one with respect to two of the distros he "reviewed."

I know DSL isn't a panacea and it's not for everyone. My objection to most reviews is the frames of reference in which distros are all supposed to be judged according to a single set of criteria and almost always with zero regard for how and why they do things differently. Like Robert noted, it's apples and oranges when you start comparing 2.4 and 2.6. It's also apples and oranges when you compare 50MB to ~700MB, packaging or extension methods, and so on. As I asked this particular reviewer, if you don't bother to take the time to understand what you're reviewing, why bother reviewing it? That's not even a review, it's not particularly useful or informative, and it's a grave disservice to readers and to the distros.

Finally, I've decided that any time aesthetics is openly or obviously an overriding criterion in one of these misguided articles that it should be called a "beauty contest" instead of a review. Can DSL ever hope to win beauty contests without default transparent menus and 500kb wallpaper? Or will it only appeal to reviewers who actually bother to "get it" and come to appreciate its stability, speed, modularity, and utility beyond "DSL is perfect for 486 or Pentium1-based systems but nothing more" (a direct quote) and this insatiable demand for the most recent version of every single app even when the test hardware isn't bleeding edge?

(edited/clarified)

--------------
"It felt kind of like having a pitbull terrier on my rear end."
-- meo (copyright(c)2008, all rights reserved)

WDef

Group: Members
Posts: 798
Joined: Sep. 2005

Posted: May 30 2008,22:38

You're right that anyone who purports to be writing a "review", meaning an evaluation of some sort, ideally has an obligation to (a) do their homework, and (b) know what they are talking about. Otherwise it should just be an opinion piece, a blog.
Back to reality ..

22 replies since May 23 2008,19:10

< Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Pages: (5) </ 1 2 3 [4] 5 >/

Damn Small Linux Board » Non-DSL Topics » water cooler » Top 5 Tiny Distros