10 things to consider when choosing a Linux distribution (TechRepublic)

Considering that this was posted on lwn, which usually doesn't link to just any Linux related
article I expect a halfwau decent article. This isn't its a completely unbalanced uninformed
article even including some old fashioned fuuuud about some distro's the author appearantly
doesn't like.

Hint to other lwn subscribers: not worth the read!

Question to Jake: why link to this from lwn?

Lets take em in his order:

1.  Fedora is 100% Free Software.  The brief flirtation with Fluendo and Codec Buddy is out
for F9.

2.  No comment on the eternal flamewars over rpm vs deb except to note that both DO work and
have real strengths and weaknesses vs each other.

3.  I dunno, I have /etc/init.d on RHEL/Fedora.  And /etc/rc.d/init.d so you can't fumble and
throw a file not found error.

4.  This guy claims to be using Ubuntu and doesn't know it's default DE is GNOME?  Phlease.
Not that both Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, etc. doesn't also maintain pretty up to date KDE packages
as well.

5.  SELinux anyone?  I hate the thing because after years of effort it still tends to fill
/var/log/messages with crap and stuff randomly doesn't work.  But it does enhance security,
especially on servers where it tends to work out somewhat better.

6-8. No comment.

9.  Why waste so many words saying that installation problems ain't much of a problem and
hasn't been for years?  Agree that preload is a good thing, just wish more vendors offered it.

10.  Is this guy really right that the Ubuntu community has outpaced Debian and Fedora's?  If
so I'll have to go have another look.

I really wonder why this blog entry has been linked by LWN. Usually, LWN is better by far, but
that entry is only half-baken and not really worth attention.

Snore.  I could offer an arbitrary personal anecdote about why I left Ubuntu, after having
used it from its first release, to go to Fedora.  The differences between the distros, even
though they are completely disjoint in terms of distribution engineering, are so incredibly
small as to be almost not worth mentioning.

Some people run into stuff that doesn't work in Fedora and does in Ubuntu.  Some people run
into stuff that doesn't work in Ubuntu and does in Fedora.  They both include the same
desktop(s), use the same X server, include Firefox and OpenOffice and Evolution, run in x86
and x86-64 and some other archs, include all the same little miscellaneous desktop apps like
Pidgin or Rhythmbox, use udev and HAL, etc.

Even many of the core low-level "distro specific" technologies are the exact same with each -
both include Pulseaudio, FC9 is using upstart, and the next versions of each will be using
PackageKit for software updates and installation.  Once kernel mode-setting is in they'll
probably be using the same graphical bootup sequence tools, too.

They include the same server tools - Apache, Dovecot, Exim, Postfix, Sendmail, MySQL,
PostgreSQL, Courier, sshd, etc.

It's taken a while, but the last few years have finally started to see a lot of once
distro-specific work pushed into upstream projects.  Other than the low-level packaging tool,
the only place the distros differ any more is in the experimental areas where all the distros
are trying out different things, until eventually one comes out the clear winner and all the
other distros adopt it.  That is, the only places the distros differ are where there's no
clear superior solution!

1. Who gives, you don't have to install the offending pieces.
2. But only when you are building packages. apt, I can't deny, beats most rpm frontends
(yast,yum and smart) in terms of speed, but dpkg has a seemingly utterly complex build system
-- lots of dh_* calls, anyone?!
3. What's the rc.d nonsense?
4. Is not a factor in choosing a distro, at least if you can choose what you want to install.
All major players give that choice.
5. Eh well... me says it's not always a technical issue.
6. Biased opinion, definitely.
7. Somehow it came to no surprise that Ubuntu is also listed here.
...

It's much more simple, rule #1:
- if you are not biased to a distro already, use whatever they use at work.

I don't know who is smoking something strong here (I confess I had some beer), but excluding
Debian from "100 % open" is pretty much an assault. Sure thing there is non-free and contrib
sections available, but those are just an option for you to decide upon. 

Also, I might be ignorant, but what other "100%" distributions ship Ice... products instead of
Fire... trademarked ones (read iceweasel vs firefox) which might bite you whenever you expect
it least?

The flow "distributions released under GPL" -> if not -> "with proprietary drivers" (ie
non-free) is misleading and shortsighted imho. BTW - is there any distribution which contains
GPL-only pieces? GPL is not inclusive of all FOSS.

And what you should consider while talking about support that every "main" (ie 100% free)
package in Debian is supported (in contrast to all-in-1 multiverse...). And support !=
Community. Thus I would have made a separate section on support itself.

At least the article does not (like still many do) focus on the installation process only.
Apart from that, the author did get it all wrong. The first question has to be the one for the
"intended use", of course. Some of his points are totally irrelevant, but they forgot
questions like:
A. How many years does the distribution exist, how big is the project and how likely is, it
will support me in three or ten years?
B. How complete is the distribution in terms of number of officially supported packages
available?
C. Does the distribution feature a public and working/useful bug tracking system? And so on...

It's pretty much obvious, that this guy only ever used Redhat/Fedora and Ubuntu. Not 
even mentioning Debian or openSUSE speaks for itself. If he'd just left out any 
recommendations and focused on a list of things to look out for, it could have become a 
nice article.