I’m disappointed. I managed to find my way to (what appears to me to be) one of the first “distro year in review” pages to appear for 2010, and found it less than satisfying.
Perhaps that’s because TechRadar’s list is really just a list of the heaviest and best-known distros available, arranged to suit dull, hackneyed categories.
Every big-name release, plus a few of their variants, is represented, and everyone got a nod in the same way everyone got a prize in your primary school’s sports day. Even if you lost, you took home a cheap plastic trophy.
What’s the point in that? I’ll concede that Puppy Linux deserves to be on there; Puppy is fantastic stuff and anyone with a 200Mhz machine or faster should at least try it out and see how it feels.
But four deviations from Ubuntu, a giveaway to PCLinuxOS as the best distro for “new converts,” and a couple of nods to Fedora, Debian and OpenSuse? How was that list made? By plucking the first ten names on Distrowatch’s hot list, and giving them obvious nicknames?
Tsk, tsk. And you call yourself a journalist. Time to get off Facebook and actually go outside the building. “Bright light! Bright light!“
Sorry. Media joke. :oops:
No, that list just makes me feel hollow and empty … like when I took home the cheap plastic trophy for my abysmal performance in the 100-meter sprint back in 1976. Even then I knew it was a pointless gesture. I didn’t win. I was just there.
What’s needed is for someone to actually take the time and think about 10 good distros. Someone who actually looked at more than 11 distros last year, and knows more about them than their default desktop colors.
Then maybe I’ll get the feeling that the list was actually made of interesting and influential Linux projects, instead of watching the open-source rendition of a one-room schoolhouse popularity contest. Or the Academy Awards. :evil: