Joined: Feb. 2007
||Posted: May 29 2008,20:34
Here's another similar (BS) review that includes DSL 4.2.5.
Among the lowlights:
Regarding autodetection of hardware...
|My wirelesslan-adapter wasn't detected.|
No Synaptics driver for my touchpad, so I have to miss some functions.
about the app selection...
|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"...
|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 The majority of the software is outdated and there's not that many choice.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...
|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:
|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:|
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)