Fedora 14: Who is Reviewing the Reviewers?

I got around to watching the show Friday and after thinking about it I have some comments. Mind you, I didn't watch the whole thing due to several things that happened from falling asleep to Flash locking up the entire system but I feel that I got the tone of the show. Also I sometimes do a light read of reviews of Fedora and a couple of others and they usually don't cover much but how to install and then add programs and maybe it's faster or slower. What I read here by Scott have been much more informative on Fedora and KVM which I am now getting somewhat familiar with.

Though I work to keep my comments objective I do have my own prejudices and many things have developed, changed and people, including me, have changed sides since I first used Linux.

1. There was a caveat before the actual review about every other show is a bash Fedora show and this was that show.

2. It seems to me that they may be trying to pattern after the Daily Show but miss by a wide margin. By Jon Stewart's admission he is NOT a reporter or even a critic. He is a comedian. In my words he is the Court Jester or the Fool who can speak truth to power without being hanged. These guys are, in my opinion, not reporters only entertainers of some sort.

3. My experience with Linux started before 2000 when I bought a thick book and CD at Costco on Red Hat 6.7(?). I was daunted by the size of the book thinking "How is an OS that takes 600 pages to explain going to make my life easier?" I did download Red Hat V. 7 in 2000 and just jumped into it. It was actually no great leap from NT 4 or W98. It was way more stable and I didn't need an anti-virus program.

4. At that time Red Hat seemed to be regarded as the Gold Standard for Linux distros and, I think, still is. I think it may be a sign of that success of Red Hat that some people are happy when they can point out a perceived deficiency. Like I could say when I bought my '02 Subaru "Yes, but can you drive on icy roads in your new Caddy?"

5. My actual day to day use of Linux is almost like a newbie. I have always been satisfied with Red Hat and then Fedora, at least since the inclusion of GnuCash. My main uses are OpenOffice, Firefox. GnuCash, Gimp. Inkscape, Audio CD Extractor, K3B, several music players and several photo viewers. They all work perfectly out of the box. I think it's a little off base to say that Fedora is not suitable for the newbie or casual user. If a person sticks to these basics then life is good and if they then want to delve deeper into more advanced subjects Fedora is ready for that too.

6. I used Eeebuntu on my netbook for a couple of months (now Fedora 14) and I recently put Ubuntu on a grand-kid's computer (my old one) because it is supposed to be better for newcomers though I'm still not convinced.

6.A. I have read over and over of how Ubuntu is better for new people and simpler but they don't offer me any more than their opinion to back it up. [see #5 above] It starts to remind me of the “Linux isn't ready for the desktop” we have all heard since around 2000 when the truth was that it was Windows that wasn't ready for the desktop. I too am getting a little tired of that.

7. Back to the show: To me it was too much cover and not enough book and only marginally funny. I can, however, see how some people would like it and I may get a kick out of seeing another show.

Bottom line, consider the source. And this whole thread has reminded me that I need to dig in to using the new features in Fedora, KDE and even Gnome. Thanks to all for that nudge.

I may be wrong now
but I don't think so.
Theme from Monk

Those who has used recent Fedora releases has already noticed some changes in Fedora installer (Anaconda). The changes has mostly been "under the hood" so far (Anaconda is extremely powerful installer), but now the developers are starting to concentrate UI too.

Chris Lumens has written couple of very interesting posts:
This Week in Anaconda #0
This Week in Anaconda #1
This Week in Anaconda #2
This Week in Anaconda #3
This Week in Anaconda #4
This Week in Anaconda #5

Scott Dowdle: I guess Fedora could be classified as a "dev distro" but I prefer "innovator distro". I like the fact that Fedora concentrates more on building a contributor culture rather than a purely consumer culture... and the four Fs. I realize that isn't for everyone.

That was really well said.

first of all, those people who claim that LAS has a fixed in bias against Fedora and/or RedHat probably watched less than 5 LAS episodes. It's as if you watched an episode of Glee where Kurt was thrown in the trash-bin by some jock and made the conclusion that Glee is a homophobic show.

When LAS started those two pretty much were Fedora fans. This season they put in a retro show where they made many praises for Fedora. In fact back then they used to knock on Ubuntu a lot. What's changed is Ubuntu took criticisms and made changes to their distros, while Fedora was ambiguous on the direction and was pretty much at a stand still.

Instead of being fanboyish, Ubuntu fans asks Ubuntu for those things to be changed, and Canonical may not always listen, but they have an idea where they want to take the distro.

For a while one can feel the bitterness of Fedora losing the newbie share to Ubuntu, but still not entirely embracing the developer share. It went back and forth. Now that "wife-friendly", "dev share" and "power user share" are all cornered by great distros, i still am not exactly sure where Fedora stands. Or was it always going for the "RedHat Enterprise server IT's PC OS" share?

So, a person who obviously is already very familiar with everything Fedora, who doesn't really seem to need a review to know the changes that went on with Fedora, what exactly bothered you having someone poitning out this is a distro that isn't at top of any of the 3 big category for linux users? Is it because reviews like this will further deplete incoming newbie linux users? Fedora is a dev distro now, they don't care right? Is it because it pointed out as a dev distro Fedora isn't on par with OpenSuse yet? OpenSuse has pushed out a lot of dev specific services that you can't get on other distros just by installing a few packages. Or is it because they pointed out Arch is more for Power users than Fedora? I mean is this point even up or debate?

Or you want a review to read off the release note, and confirm every single claim of new functionalities is useful or not, which seems like you obviously already know. That's one way to do reviews. But not every review has to do that. I like Phoronix's benchmarking new releases against each other with a bunch of stats. But I wouldn't say people shouldn't call themselves reviewers if they didn't do the same.

It's nice to see Fedora are becoming more clear on being a developer oriented build, and actually doing something to support that claim. I am sad to see Fedora is no longer the gateway distro of choice, but if they keep on working towards a distro for developer direction, Fedora could be great again, even if it's great for a different group of people.

LAS have been bashing Red Hat and Fedora quite a long time. Unfortunately their "reviews" and shows are always like that - embarrassing and childish. They tend to spread blatant lies (on purpose?) about Fedora as well which is unfortunate.

I agree the concern you raised about the release announcement. The best place to discuss about it would probably be the marketing mailing list.

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing

Scott, thanks for taking these piss poor reviewers to task. Linux Action Show is a joke. Come to think of it, the Ubuntu installer is a joke as well. I wanted to make a dual boot system with Fedora/Ubuntu but Ubuntu doesn't seem to know about LVM!

One last comment about who reviews the reviewers. In my case, it is is my readers.

Each review usually generates a fair amount of comments. In these comments my readers are very quick to note mistakes or omissions in the review. I'm very grateful to them since I write, produce and edit all of the reviews myself. No matter how hard I try to avoid mistakes, I will make them.

But my readers catch them quickly, and I can then fix the mistake. My readers also include their own takes on the distro, and often their comments contain very helpful information to me and to the other readers.

So my answer to the question is that review readers are always reviewing the reviewers, and that's a VERY good thing.

Hi all,

I write the Desktop Linux Reviews blog, thanks for the kind words about the Fedora 14 review. I do the best I can to cover the elements that I think most desktop users care about in a distro.

I understand that sometimes some folks aren't satisfied with coverage of a particular distro or simply don't care for the site at all. No problem, one size definitely does not fit for everybody when it comes to reviews or online content in general.

I am always open to helpful feedback about the reviews, and I always do my best to cover things that your average desktop user is interested in.

I perfectly agree with you. I've read too many so called reviews showing merely screenshots and simple howto. I wonder if they really know what "review" means. To me a review should mainly focus on the NEW features or how the fixed bugs are working (or not) compared with the previous release. Things like step-by-step instructions should be considered as tutorials. It is okay to have bias but please be try to be technical/practical. The point is to show what's significant and how it is different.

One article or review they claim talked about a gadget. The author disliked the product because it is ugly. There is no spec nor brief info at all. Too bad it's from a well known famous uk magazine. (of course it's about linux)

When Linux was still "new" the supporters were almost entirely "fanbois". However as time gone on, Linux and the users have matured things have changed somewhat. For example, I am Debian and related distro supporter; in the early years I championed Redhat because when dealing with IT departments that knew less about it than I did it was often a choice of Redhat or Windows. For various reasons no other distros were even in the running. In some adventuresome places you could sneak Suse into the system but for the most part it was a Redhat world. When my only choice was Redhat or Redmond, I wore the Fedora with pride. Then a funny thing happened; places I worked started using more Linux, I started to have more choice and more to the point, was able to earn a living coding for it. On top of that, I found myself needing to make Linux work in more and more varied situations, from embedded medical devices to set-top boxes to the Playstation to routers and embedded NAS units. This is not to mention the dozen or so different machines we have running here of all different stripes. Many are headless providing this service or that, even if its just computing power. About this time (I think FC 6 or so but my memory is dodgy) I had a rather intense trick to pull off, upgrading a server in a datacenter from Suse (some version) to Redhat (the accepted answer at that point) and basically everything worked from a semi-mechanical standpoint but I wound up in a Yum/RPM generated hell. At this point I switched to APT-based distros (the aforementioned Debian since many of these machines were servers) and because of the flawless way it worked, APT sold me and since Debian worked well natively with APT, I was sold on it. When I was able to put Deb on a router, a firewall device, a NAS unit, a medical device, a Playstation and more, I was sold since I had the same basic system running everywhere. It made maintaining stuff a breeze.

This is not a post to slam RPM over APT, not at all. I know you can shoe-horn APT onto RPM-based distros and they have gotten better over time and for all I know, are better that what I have now. Thats not the point: I needed/depended on an RPM-based distro working for me at a point where there were still brittle points in the system and it bit me. Hard. Since Debian and friends have just worked for me both personally and professionally, I have had little incentive to go back to an RPM-based solution. Call it an instance of "if it aint broke, don't fix it". However reasonable I feel about my choice, it leaves me in the same bucket as the fanbois who love Windows, tried Linux once 10 years ago and have formed every opinion about it since then based on that experience. As time goes on, in their mind the comparison is the latest version of Windows with the way Linux was 10 years ago. I am no better in that when I look at the choices I see what Debian is doing for me *now* and what Redhat did to me back *then*. This particular shoe fits either foot; RPM guys who diss APT-based distros probably had a rough time at a point where hardware detection on Redhat/PCLinuxOS/whatever was better than a Debian or Ubuntu or whatever many years ago and have formed every opinion since then based on this.

I guess I am saying I see it as less of a matter of being a fanboi for this or that but rather what you have grown comfortable with versus the last thing that did not work well. Right now I don't see myself as championing anything in particular; APT just continues to follow the magical "path of least astonishment" for me. It is far beyond the apps; administration counts for a lot with me but one that depends on a GUI loses as I have to maintain so much stuff that doesn't have a monitor that the old school methods work best for me/us (the missus is a geek and Linux-lover too; her problem is that once she gets a set of hardware and a distro she likes, she upgrades it for years after the natural support cycle has expired and won't let me upgrade the box until some hardware breaks in a manner tragic enough to call for an OS install).

As for reviews, the install is now for me an old story. I want to know how it does with things like disaster recovery, how easily a machine can go from bare metal to a usable development and multimedia station because that is what is important to me. How easily can I get this distro to go onto non-standard hardware and if its not supported, give me the tools to support myself. The look of a desktop is a non-starter too...

LAS never was serious journalism. It is more of an entertainment show showing off some news they click together during the show.
The Reviews as far as I know and they claim are their personal experience they had with the distro/application about a week or a few week of usage.
This is in my opinion nothing wrong. Even the comparison with Ubuntu isn't so wrong, as both are sharing almost identical technologies. (and as long you don't refere to the argumentation: "ah its different than ubuntu so its bad")
So even if I don't 100% agree with their opionion and doubt there profession journalism I need to accept it.
In my opinion the fact that Fedora has a different target audience is undererstimated.

I did not read the Desktop Linux Review fully because it got borrying while reading.
But I guess the comparison to Ubuntu from this and other reviewers reveals a secret whish that Fedora could be a serious competitor even in the home desktop user to Ubuntu.

I just moved from ubuntu 10.10 (had been using ubuntu for a year with no major issues till my ethernet stopped working on 10.10).

The only thing I think fedora needs to do a better job of is letting new users know where to go to get the stuff to quickly get their desktop in working order. I bounced around googling and posting in forums till I found the unofficial fedora faq site www.fedorafaq.org. In 2 minutes from just cutting and pasting from that page, on my x86_64 bit computer I had the rpmfusion repos enabled, dvd, flash, java, and bookreading from firefox enabled. I guess it is roughly the same as enabling restricted extras from ubuntu but I really should not have had to bounce all over the place to find that site, perhaps fedora should just put a link to that site on the desktop...Anyway after using fedora for 2 days now I just don't see the massive hoopla over ubuntu...

plus if you ever encounter a redhat system at work (much more chance of this then an ubuntu server) you will know how use yum, chkconfig, and how services such as apache are managed on redhat.

I think ubuntu is on the path to being great and I hope Shuttleworth makes is as user friendly as possible. But after using the fedorafaq page, I see it is mostly smoke and mirrors at this point with ubuntu. They are just making it easier to enable stuff people need, if Fedora would follow suite I think they would begin to play catch up a bit in distrowatch...

Most reviews I have seen tend to be rinse and repeats that follow the same basic formula. A series of screenshots showing the installer and almost nothing about the actual distro itself and how it handles various functions such as setting up a printer, adding users, maintaining the system etc. and whether any of that actually works. Since potential users spend almost no time actually using the installer and almost all their time actually using the distro I find most reviews useless.

Additionally many distro installers completely miss important functions and areas that should be included in the installer at the start, not later in the distro. For example, setting up networking, setting up Samba and workgroups/users, setting up printers etc.. All of those should be part of a decent installer. Ubuntu is especially bad in this area. Using a barebones installer to do basic setup of partitions, time zones, and a single user while leaving the really more important "meat" to half baked barely working utilities in the actual system is really skirting the issues by taking the easy way out and not in my opinion a modern installer that satisfies the needs for a modern operating system and user.

Most reviews ignore these issues entirely while spending their time focusing on how pretty the wallpaper is or useless screenshots of the minimalistic installers being used.

The Linux Action Show guys are whiny children who don't like anything that is not Ubuntu. Check out each of their past "reviews" of Fedora and they are the same every time. I think there was a thread on a Fedora mailing list one time after one of their "reviews" that got fairly heated because of their clear bias. They are not serious Linux users and still show their Mac fanboi roots.

Long time Linux Action Show listeners know that there is a bias against Fedora. When they aren't reviewing it, they knock it consistently between releases. If you don't like then you should stop listening.

Personally, I think that Fedora 14 far from perfect. I was running F12, but installed F14 on another partition and had nothing but troubles. They range from no multimedia sound and no compositing to crashing plasmas in KDE and broken package management. I can fix any of the above, but they keep breaking after I fix them. So I switched back to F12 where everything works and nothing breaks.

So, while LAS may be biased in general, they may have a point when it comes to F14.

I fully agree with you. The "Review 2: Desktop Linux Reviews" I was ticked off because they weren't reviewing! They were offering a biased opinion of how they saw Fedora 14. Fedora 14 is NOT Ubuntu and that is the beauty of Fedora! I don't even like Ubuntu, because it feels too commercial and some of the administrative things are forced/removed on you.

Freedom (aka the force) is strong with Fedora. I have been wanting someone to create a Fedora spin that does what Ubuntu does for Debian, but I'm now thinking no. I want the ability to do things for myself. It only takes a few shell scripts and downloads, and my Fedora is fight ready! It kinda makes me feel like more of a geek when I can "hack" a couple of things.

I am making a site dedicated to just that. Soon actually. I have too many people I'm supporting with Fedora installs and want them to all have a place to go to learn.

Anyway, I'm off topic.

Thanks for a great review!

Merely adding emphasis to the paragraph "What's to be learned / For Fedora":

When someone wants to review a new version of a distribution, the first thing one does is go and look for "some list of what's new". So that list better contained what the people who made the distro perceived to be 'reasons to use this version'; 'why this version is better than the last'.

When I set out to review F12, the graphic environment didn't show at all and the display just flickered / powered down and up in a weird way, and it was a real hassle to fix. That was the reason I didn't review F12 at all, because I didn't want to be too negative about it.
If Fedora 13 has a newer Nouveau driver causing less people to have these problems, then shout it from the roofs and put the word out! Even if RedHat / Fedora didn't contribute to Nouveau (or anything else), these are far more important things to most users than 'faster loading of pictures'!

It might also be interesting to separate between corporate / non-corporate features: Most desktop users with 'simple computing needs' are probably not interested in Spice.

So what I want to say is this:
If some distro has newer "3d party software" (not developed by the distro itself) which fixes serious errors the older versions of the distro suffered, tell it in release notes! Those things probably are more important than the technologies the distro invented itself, IMHO. This can be a 'copy paste' of the 3d party software release notes. Say, a newer version of KDE-PIM fixes some of the errors in the Akonadi-selftest-list, put that in the release notes of Fedora as well! These are the things that annoy people and may keep them from using some distro, so fixing these issues is what might bring them back.

You're right with the overlap, I mean on the surface for the average desktop user there not much difference for example between Kubuntu and Fedora 14 KDE, except that the first uses Openoffice and the second KOffice, and then like you said a few admin tools differ.
Basically at this point they only differ in their package management, installer, and a few tools. With environments providing mostly a default set of applications all KDE distros essentially are the same, ok, perhaps stability will differentiate them and ease of use of installing proprietary drivers.

I wished there was more choice, because simply having 500+ distros does not really constitute choice any more. Perhaps Ubuntu with all its changes upcoming will make things interesting again.

And yes, DLR suck, slagging one distro off for not being like the authors favourite one? Because the installer is a little more advanced. I found his reviews always quite biased and light on information.

Just hope mine are a bit better ;)

Linux Action Show rocks

I share your annoyance. Every review seems to be "How this upstart differs from Ubuntu". Makes a change from how the distro is not Windows I suppose.

Reviews.. Pointless and self serving. Nothing more.

I never read reviews once the release is out. I do all my info searching during the development cycle. Once a distro (Ubuntu really) comes out, there is nothing more for me to learn. Most reviews are the same old, same old, every single release. I wouldn't sweat it, most people probably, I think, get their sources from a wide variety of places.

Linus got inside my head!

Most Linux reviews are pathetic. The only exception I can think of right now are the ones at Dedoimedo and Techiemoe who has stopped reviewing for the most part.

Desktop Linux Reviews articles are also pathetic. The lack content besides what you actually see if you boot the live cd yourself with screenshots and whats included in the menus.

In the Fedora review he didn't even explain how to get the stuff that is not included. It was indeed one of the 3 worst "reviews" I've seen.

Recently he was bitching about people not including hardware requirements and release notes so he wouldn't have to look them up himself! What's worst is that he makes money from the site both from advertising and from donations. And now he started another site. Its obviously a business.

I don't listen to streamcasts so I cant really comment on that, neither do I use Fedora.