list advice

[Tony Alfrey]

Net Llama! wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Tony Alfrey wrote:
>> I'm thinking about creating a webpage which would be a list of systems
>> (hardware) and distros that together form a foolproof Linux system.  In
>> other words, it would state, essentially,
>>
>> "My box consists of these parts.  I installed Distro X on this system
>> and it works *out of the box* with no tweaking, additions or magic".
>>
>> Why would I do such a thing?  Because my premise is that if a Linux box
>> were like a Mac, then more people would use them.  One component of a
>> Mac is that they are absolutely free of hassle, and the other component
>> is that the Mac GUI is gorgeous.  Linux apps still have a way to go, but
>> there are clearly some combinations of hardware/distro that are
>> bullet-proof.
> 
> I don't buy that argument at all.  A Mac is a complete package, which 
> starts with brilliant marketing.  Even if everything just worked perfectly 
> out of the box, it wouldn't ever hope to compete with the marketing genius 
> of Apple.  Apple's strength really isn't the OS/firmware or the hardware 
> that they're choosing.

Then, IMHO, it appears that you have not run a Mac recently.

>  Its the marketing.  If it were just the hardware 
> then you could throw any OS on Apple HW and have the same great 
> experience.  We've already seen screenshots of a BSOD on an Intel Mac, and 
> a quick review of the Linux-PPC mailing list will quickly show you what a 
> complete nightmare it is to run Linux on a Mac.

What are you talking about?  I'm not the slightest bit interested in 
Linux on a Mac.  I want to hear someone say
"I installed Distro X, straight out of the box, on Intel PC hardware 
configuration Y, *without thinking*, and the end result was a flawless 
Linux installation in which everything worked."

<snip>
>>
>> So do any of you have thoughts about additional things I should add to
>> said list of hardware components and comments on the structure and what
>> might constitute "works out of the box"?  Should I include things like
>> price and vendor?  How about the e-mail address of the contributor?
> 
> This is a lofty goal, and ultimately, I don't think its going to pan out. 
> For starters, just because HW config #1 works great for Mr. Foo doesn't 
> really guaranetee that its going to work great for Mr. Bar.  Vastly 
> different usage patterns on the same HW can expose problems/bugs.  

Yes, this may be a problem, and that is why I need to give some thought 
about what "works out of the box" means.

> The 
> unfortunate reality, from someone who's seen it first hand, is that unless 
> a company has the resources to actually fully QA a hardware platform, its 
> going to be a nightmare when set loose on consumers.  There are way too 
> many usage scenarios out there for anyone to guarentee anything based on 
> the feedback of one or even ten people.  And dont' even get me started on 
> how this would be pointless for Gentoo (or any other distro where all the 
> components can change all too easily) 

Then Gentoo does not meet my criteria for "works out of the box" for the 
average user.  Sounds like we need a definition for the "average user". 
  The average user might use a computer to
1) search the web and
    a) download music and videos
    b) visit a website
    c) purchase goods and services
    d) manage a bank account
b) send e-mail
c) use an Office suite
d) play a video, DVD or CD
e) produce/save simple audio or video content.
f) play a video game

It should be easy to determine if a distro/hardware configuration does 
these things.  For example, if you spend some time on the SuSE list, you 
can find out pretty quick which hardware *won't* play nicely with SuSE 
10.2.  I want the opposite information.


> where one system will never match 
> any other.
> 


-- 
Tony Alfrey
tonyalfrey at earthlink.net
"I'd Rather Be Sailing"