Why I haven't written a traditional distro review in a long time

Ah, the Linux (or BSD) distro review. They're relatively easy to crank out, they bring the traffic in a major way (especially when the excellent Distrowatch links to you).

But do they mean much? Not really, I think.

Most of the time it's the usual:

• "Here's what happened when I tried/failed/succeeded in installing Distro X on Hardware Y"
• "The installer is good/bad/barbaric"
• "Networking/printing/X was easy/hard/impossible to set up"
• "Package management is like Debian/Red Hat/Slackware and is good/bad/barbaric"
• "Repositories are big/small/good/bad"
• "My favorite apps are present/absent/broken"
• "The default desktop/menus/window manager are good/bad"
• "The community is active/nonexistant/helpful/hostile"

And the list goes on. I feel like writing a shell script that can pose questions and crank out automatic distro reviews.

What's harder to write — much harder than the quickie distro review — is a long-term review of a distro after a month or more of heavy use.

For one thing, most of us don't want to spend long periods of time running distros we don't like or aren't familiar with.

And for any given user, most of the 300+ active distros out there won't do anything for our hardware and work patterns that we don't already get from the distros we're currently using.

That's not to say that the many, many dozens of distros out there should just give up and stop trying to do something better and different (even though what they're doing is usually based on an existing distro and often doesn't add much, if any value to what they're already copying).

I'm just saying that after after a year and half of writing this kind of thing, I'm tired of both writing and reading quickie distro reviews that don't really tell the potential user of a given distribution all that much that they can use in making their decision.

I've already done tons of posts on Debian Lenny, and almost every problem has been fixed at some point in the project's long road from Testing to Stable.

So should I do another distro review on the installation, care and feeding of Debian Lenny when it finally does receive its Stable status?

Do I need to reinstall Ubuntu every six months and write about how that goes? OpenBSD?

Never mind that the development of OpenBSD is purposefully more evolutionary than revolutionary, or that a rolling release might be better/worse than one that comes out every six months or at some other regular (or not so much) interval.

I don't quite know how to end this tortuous post except to say that I reserve the right to change my mind. Maybe I'm purposefully shoving my own head in the sand by not embracing your favorite distro (usually Slackware or Mandriva) and sticking to what's been working for me (Ubuntu, Debian, OpenBSD, Puppy ... and that's about it these days).

Maybe it's part of the evolution (or devolution) of me as a writer about technology, but right now I'm convinced that that there's a better way to do all of this that doesn't throw out free, open-source software in favor of what the average guy/gal is using (Windows/Mac) but also does more than preach to the same creaky choir, of which I myself am a warbling member.

Being more truthful, I won't stop reading distro reviews, especially when they're written by writers who know what they're doing. But I plan to be a whole lot more careful about writing them. I've been thinking (and writing) for some time about why it's more than time for me to stabilize my herd of machines and stop the endless process of cranking one distro after another onto their partitions.

The freedom to change distros like underwear, at more than one level, begins to detract from what a computer operating system is supposed to be for, which is getting stuff done. I guess I want things to be more about ends rather than means.