I just read the 'comparison' at Distrowatch.
http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20140106
The comments were interesting as it was from an outsiders perspective
and I have short listed a few here. Interestingly we seemed to be one of
the more popular to review !!!
I think a lot of the comments are down to perception of what the distro
is, and it's intended target audience, and also finding the right
documentation/help/navigation more easily.
A better website will help with perception etc.
Would it be appropriate to have links in the relevant manager sections
to documentation either locally or on the website ?
Some items I personally don't think are good ideas - e.g. turning on SSH
and Samba by default, but these are personally preferences. Maybe we
need to look at a slightly enhanced install or post install system
whereby you ask if you want certain services on ?
Anyway, some food for thought - gives us some things to think about for
the future.
Good :
Simple installer
Low resource usage
Low space requirements
Good stability
CentOS base
backup/restore feature
More secure by default
Bad :
No option to set DHCP address (understand for home server possibly)
Limited console menu options (didn't find text server-manager)
Server-manager doesn't work with Opera ??
"No way simple way to configure services"
SSH and Samba not running by default
Didn't easily find ways to install additional packages
No support for Btrf or ZFS
Didn't think it would support in place upgrade
'Fairly bare bones'
'Not a lot of documentation'
More work for admin
Overall scores :
Advanced file systems (Btrfs/ZFS): 0
Documentation: 3
Ease of installation: 3
Ease of maintaining/upgrading: 3
Length of support for each release: 4
Performance: 4
Stability: 5
Steps required to enable services: 2
_______________________________________________
Discussion about project organisation and overall direction
To unsubscribe, e-mail [email protected]
Searchable archive at http://lists.contribs.org/mailman/public/discussion/
