Richard Creighton wrote:
Balderdash! Are you saying that because he is experienced and that he has other distros or OS's on his system that he can't write an objective review
he can't say "I don't recommand this for a beginner, because a beginner won't have 4 linuxes on his machine.
I *never* make an upgrade, and this with any distro (I tried many, specially mandrake or debian for years) because there are always a lot of problems.
and if he wants to upgrade his system from an older version
instead of doing a 'fresh install', does that make his review less valuable.
of course. this makes he's computer very special (as any of os, probably). This make a valuable *personal* experience, but nothing that can be reproduced
Few people I know want to erase months or years of
configuration effort by the equivilent of FORMAT C:
format c: in linux???
just to get a 'fresh
keep you home as I do and use a new partition for new linux... and things go mostly good
I have communicated with many from around the world that
simply wanted to upgrade from 10.2 to 10.3 and the system failed miserably. Why should that not be reported if it is a fact?
the problem is that is this review, one have to *guess* what tha author did.
insist that the only VALID test of an operating system or distro like 10.3 is to wipe your disk and start fresh in order to avoid problems is ludercrous and utterly unrealistic.
but this is true for any linux I ever could use... too many things change from one distro to an other (you can't either upgrade from xp to vista or windows 2000 to xp)
collective heads in the sand and saying '...but he is a power user on a special machine' and ignoring what he had to say.
I know of users able to go to a car trash and build a marvelous car from there, it's not what most people do.
the author expereience is good, but he have visibly no experience of scientific protocol:
* use known starting point, always the same, completely described * apply object of this system * report * do it again with any object you want to compare
cases, Yast, is not very intuitive and that also is a fact.
what mean 'intuitive'??? in most if not all the cases, intuitive mean "acostumed with". Last saturday I had to debug kubuntu and mandriva 8 on friends computers, and I can say they interface is very unintuitive for me. Ihopenit become intuitive for regular users (but it was not for my friends neither...)
It is a
dammed good program, but that doesn't mean it is perfect and can't stand improvement.
Real life dictates that most installs will be upgrades not fresh
most people uses preinstalled computers and Linux (any linux) will always have problems until preinstalled... the reporter said also that yast is very good as keeping account of other os on the disk, this is the most important
installs and tests that ignore that fact are themselves deficient. So, if as you say, he did an upgrade, (which I didn't read from his report but might have missed)
no, he didn't saif that. One had to guess from he's reports
can write your own review. Be sure and complain about the loss of all your favorite programs and settings and the amount of time it takes to relocate the programs and set them up again from scratch.
? I did this two weeks ago. from yast this costed me one afternoon (use to be one week for W) when I don't want to loose any setting I simply don't change distro :-))
*should* read his review because it is not written from one of the lemmings, but from someone actually spending a bit of time and trouble evaluating the competition.
it's a valuable personal but very badly reported experience.
for example, how do you want to compare things not knowing what coputer he used? here what I did when buying my new laptop next week
with this I could report.
and I'm also a beta tester...