On Thu, Aug 12, 2021, at 17:26, Martin Wilck wrote:
On Do, 2021-08-12 at 08:57 -0400, Patrick Shanahan
* jdd(a)dodin.org <jdd(a)dodin.org> [08-12-21
is that linux distro are evolving differently, at leats
wise, so a reviewer used to ubuntu can't understand others
in which case the *reviewer* is not qualified to make a review. his
output becomes conjecture and guesswork and hardly worth the time to
Even if that was generally true, it doesn't help us because people
would read these reviews without realizing the reviewer's under-
qualification. Thus bad publicity would be generated either way.
But I don't think it's true. I can understand that, especially for
users who a try a certain distro for the first time, it provides peace
of mind to be explicitly told that the existing OS installations won't
be overwritten. The YaST partitioner's summary screen contains this
information, but much less prominently, and hidden in a long list of
much less important actions like "Create btrfs subvolume XYZ". You
basically have to infer it from the absence of an action like "Delete
That’s not the case with every reinstall I’ve done btw. Sometimes the summary at the end
does not show the partition info anymore. And that’s the only part that is missing from
I can’t put my finger on it when that happens though, but I’ve seen it at certain times
for TW installs and then a few snapshots later it worked again and a few more later and
it’s not there.
Always on the same Thinkpad T480s laptop btw.
Not sure if there was a difference between net and dvd installs though.
This said, I have long given up reading distribution
reviews. Lots of
reviews focus on
1 installation, usually on a rather simple hw configuration, like a
laptop with just a single disk (but more often than not with Nvidia
2 eye candy of the desktop,
3 ease of configuration of certain hardware, like typical home
4 availability of multimedia applications and games.
None of these items (except 3., maybe) are actually important criteria
to choose a distro, IMO. Other aspects, like timely fixes for security
issues and bugs, general stability, long lifetime, solid engineering,
well-written, up-to-date documentation, good and friendly support
infrastructure / community, and availability of up-to-date software and
development tools are much more important (list intentionally
incomplete). IMO these are areas where openSUSE is better than many
+1 from me
However, comparing that in a review would require far more work on the
part of the reviewer, which is unlikely to happen. So perhaps, because
we know reviews are written the way they are written, we too should
focus more on the 4 aspects above...