A view of what other people think of SuSE 8.1 http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1887 A bit of a funny review - seems to have plenty to say against 8.1 but then gives a complimentary conclusion. And only 0.1 short of RedHat 8.0 http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1842 Tim
This woman reviews based on how things look based esthetics and as a slightly smarter then average dumb end user. And if you dispute anything she says via talk backs..she loses it. She told a user the other day to f**k himself and was quite mean to him. Just because he begged to differ on her opinion. I wouldn't give her the click though. * linux (linux@pipandtim.com) [021007 11:18]: ::A view of what other people think of SuSE 8.1 :: ::http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1887 :: ::A bit of a funny review - seems to have plenty to say against 8.1 but ::then gives a complimentary conclusion. :: ::And only 0.1 short of RedHat 8.0 :: ::http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1842 -- Ben Rosenberg ---===---===---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org Tell me what you believe.. I tell you what you should see.
** This email message from Ben Rosenberg
begin Ben Rosenberg's quote: | This woman reviews based on how things look based esthetics and as | a slightly smarter then average dumb end user. And if you dispute | anything she says via talk backs..she loses it. She told a user the | other day to f**k himself and was quite mean to him. Just because | he begged to differ on her opinion. I wouldn't give her the click | though. forgive my saying so, but without looking directly at the accuracy of your appraisal, which might be spot on, reviews of distributions oughtn't be looked at individually, but instead multiple reviews taken together can give a pretty good sense of a product. there are a couple reasons for this, but the most important is that a modern distribution is a huge thing that cannot be comprehensively explored under deadline pressure, and anyway what's important to some is insignificant to others. for instance, a lot of people make a big deal out of the installer, while others are willing to endure hell's own installation if the result is a rock-solid system. some concentrate on robust package management, while others hold the view that the thing ain't installed until the rpm database is broken. some concentrate on aesthetics (and not just slightly smarter than average end users -- look at the dispute between kde and red hat), and there is argument in support of this, because after all that's what the user deals with. otoh, there are those who couldn't care less, because they blow away whatever's shipped in favor of their own customizations anyway, or else they eschew X and desktops entirely. there's just no way that a single review can take all of this into account. the attempts to quantify reviews through performance tests have invariably fallen short because all that does is move the subjective nature of reviews back one notch, to decide which performance features are important and therefore worth testing. even hardware tests suffer from this: ideally, they would in aggregate tell how quickly one can do stuff, but again the problem -- what stuff? so the answer is to read as many reviews as possible, if one is interested in that sort of advice, picking and choosing among the things that are important to the reader. -- dep http://www.linuxandmain.com -- outside the box, barely within the envelope, and no animated paperclip anywhere.
participants (4)
-
Ben Rosenberg
-
dep
-
jfweber@eternal.net
-
linux