2009's 10 Worst Linux Distributions

Ok TxtEdMacs, just for you I am going to apply my editor's red pencil to a couple parts of the article. (BTW, that's Josephine Friday.)

Quoting: 9. Super-specialized Distributions - A couple of years ago I saw a Linux distribution called something like 8086 Linux. OK, I admit that it's cute but is it practical? Keep those kinds of distros in academia where practicality isn't important. The throwaways in this category include GeeXBoX, LinuxConsole and Zenwalk.

The whole idea of FOSS is so that code is not "kept in academia", but made freely available to anyone who wants it. "Something like 8086 Linux"? Is that the name or not? It's the author's job to look these things up. Why are GeeXBoX, LinuxConsole and Zenwalk throwaways? It's the author's job to back up his assertions.

Quoting: 8. Minimal Desktop - How many of these do we need? Seriously, if you want a minimal desktop, install busybox, xfce or lxde and use it. We don't need 50 distros named 'minimal.' Ones to avoid are CrunchBang, INX and LormaLinux.

Using a lightweight window manager or graphical environment likebusybox, xfce or lxde does not trim down the base install, which is completely separate. Minimal distributions do a considerable amount of trimming beyond package selection and graphical environments. What are the specific reasons to avoid CrunchBang, INX and LormaLinux?

Quoting: 7. Foreign Language Distros - Most major distros ask during installation which language you want to use so why do we need these? I mean, do we really need an Eskimo Linux? One exception here--I think Red Hat should have kept Redneck as one of their installation language choices--it was the second language after English that they had for Red Hat. There are too many transgressors in this category to list here.

This one left my jaw hanging. Who is this author, Archie Bunker?

Just like a certain commonly-cited body part, everyone has an opinion. What makes an opinion worth listening to is it has a basis and reasons. Anyone can say "I like this" or "This thing sucks." So what, why should anyone else care? "Because I say so and have these creds" doesn't matter-- any article or opinion piece needs to stand on its own merits.

If this is really some kind of clever satire that went over my head, my apologies.

Some of the people writing negative comments, like tuxchick, are paid columnists (or journalists) who write pieces which demonstrate their detailed knowledge of the subject matter and offer informed opinions. Then there are columnists who write pieces which demonstrate their lack of knowledge of the subject matter and offer uninformed opinions.

I notice khess didn't bother replying to the substantive criticism. Let's reiterate some of it:

How is Zenwalk a specialty distro rather than a general purpose distro? What makes it specialized? What makes it qualify for a worst list as a specialty distro?

How is Slax a tool for creating your own distro rather than a ready-to-go live CD distro? What makes it a tool for building a distro rather than a complete distro in its own right? What makes it qualify for a worst as a tool for building your own distro?

Your inclusion of these and where you placed them in your article makes it seem that you have never really tried either distro and know little or nothing about them, Mr. Hess.

Some columnists write clearly so that you understand precisely what they mean. Some write disjointed gibberish. Your entire piece laid out categories of distros you don't like and then named some prime examples as worst. Towards then end you list another category and then include Ubuntu in the category. You now say it isn't listed as a worst. That's as clear as mud.

OK, if you say so, but then your article is pretty incoherent and badly written.

I get paid for my writing too. I don't just blindly dismiss all my critics. I try to learn from constructive criticism. Your writing would improve if you did the same.

While I like most of Ken's articles (I might be the only one in this forum it seems?) it certainly seems this was Ken's worst article of 2009. There's not much distro's that are not mentioned, so basically the article says over 90% of Linux distro's are "the worst of 2009".

Probably it would have been a better idea to keep the list shorter, and elaborate more on why that particular distribution is bad. For example, I could write an article of the same length explaining why F11 is a bad distro - in my opinion. Too much list, too less arguments.

And BTW: Downloading a 'pre-installed virtual Debian' solved some of the hassles I couldn't solve on my own when installing Debian in kvm. You saw the VMWare WinXP images - pre-cracked and patched with SP3 in the 'usual suspect distribution channels?' 100% illegal, but saves you lots of time. However, the problem with these is they are not to be trusted, you don't know what people did put in the image, like malware etc, which would also be possible for Linux VMWare appliances. That would have been a better argument I suppose.

Apart from that, the virtual appliances are a great way to circumvent using anything beyond the freeware VMPlayer. VMPlayer doesn't create machines. For example, you can't install WinXP when you only have VMPlayer, but you can if you hack a 'DSL Virtual Appliance'. However, I screwed up two mingled / intermixed WinXP machines and manually 'hacking' the vmdk-lists / vmx files only made the darn thing segfault without a proper error message. So now I'm using VirtualBox, which is about three times faster in my experience.