Battle Royale: Ubuntu 8.04 vs. openSUSE 11

All things are set for today’s epic battle. Two major release versions of two major Linux distributions will take the stage for what could be the fight of the year. Dubbed as the Battle Royale, it’s Ubuntu 8.04 vs. openSUSE 11 for our mega main event.

Please pay attention for the formal introduction:

This distro has a long standing record of excellence. It is widely known for its beauty, usability, and features. Fresh from its highly successful key release, please welcome the #1 challenger, the green mean distro fighting machine, openSUSE!

This distro has taken Linux to the next level. Its fast rise to fame can be credited for its user-friendliness, stability, and outstanding community support. Riding high from its recent LTS release, please welcome the defending world distribution champion, the distro Superstar, Ubuntu!

Now, let’s stop this silly intro and get down to business. I know that all of you are already excited to witness this historic match-up. So without any more delay, let’s get ready to rumble!

Tale of the Tape:

Distro Name:openSUSE| Version:11| Weight:664MB| Country Origin:Germany| Distro Origin:Slackware| Package Mgt.:RPM| Default Desktop:KDE-Gnome| Distrowatch Rank:#2


Distro Name:Ubuntu| Version:8.04| Weight:699MB| Country Origin: Isle of Man| Distro Origin:Debian| Package Mgt.:DEB| Default Desktop:GNOME| Distrowatch Rank:#1




Note: I tested the GNOME 32-bit version of openSUSE 11 to match with Ubuntu 8.04

Distrowar Arena (Test Machine Specs):
Board: Intel Corporation D102GGC2
Processor: 3.40 GHz Intel Pentium D
Hard Drive: Samsung 80GB ATA with 8GB allocated to VM disk
Memory: 2GB DDR2 RAM with 512MB allocated to VM memory

Speed Test:
Installation Time- Winner, Ubuntu!
Boot/Start-up Time - Winner, Ubuntu!
Responsiveness- Draw!

Decoding...
Installation Speed:
We have carefully timed the installation from start to finish, and Ubuntu 8.04 finished faster than openSUSE 11. It took only 17 minutes for Ubuntu to completely finish the installation, while openSUSE needed 22 minutes to complete.

Boot/Start-up Speed:
We have meticulously measured the boot/start-up speed or the time it takes for a distro to boot from grub menu to the main desktop. After 3 tries, Ubuntu’s start-up speed average is around 41 seconds. openSUSE meanwhile came close with an average of 43 seconds flat. So, Ubuntu has a slim advantage over openSUSE in this category.

Responsiveness:
They are both wicked fast and responsive in their GNOME desktop so I had to call it a draw for “Responsiveness”.

Aesthetics:
Default Theme- Winner, openSUSE!
Artwork- Winner, openSUSE!
Extras- openSUSE!

Decoding...
Default Theme:
Both Ubuntu 8.04 and openSUSE 11 have a sleek and polished default theme, but I had to pick a winner on this one. I picked openSUSE because I think the elements of its default theme have blended well with the overall desktop look. --whatever that means ;-)

Artwork:
Artwork is judged based on the appearance of distro’s default boot slash image, login menu screen, and wallpaper. I handed it to openSUSE 11 because it has a more professional appeal. I also love the new green and black combination.

Extras:
Another openSUSE 11 win for “Extras” because I’m judging this category based on the added eye-candy that a distro can give you out-of-the-box. I just think Ubuntu lacks a bit of X-factor.

Features:
Pre-installed Applications- Draw!
Available Packages from Repo- Draw!
Ease of Use- Winner, Ubuntu!

Decoding...
Pre-installed Applications:
Since both Ubuntu 8.04 and openSUSE 11 comes with outstanding selection of free and open source software and has some equally amazing list of custom applications, I decided to give a draw verdict for this category.

Available Packages from the Repo:
Both Ubuntu 8.04 and openSUSE 11 also have plenty of available packages from their respective repositories, so it’s another draw here.

Ease-of-use:
Ubuntu is still unbeatable in this category because of its simplified desktop and excellent community support. However, openSUSE 11 is within striking distance.

Stability:
Hardware Detection- Winner, Draw!
Software Management- Ubuntu!
Error Handling- Draw!

Decoding...
Hardware Detection:
I can’t make a concrete judgment in this category because I have tested openSUSE 11 and Ubuntu 8.04 in VMWare only. However, they both performed remarkably well as they have properly configured all of the important VM hardware. So, I have to call it a draw.

Software Management:
Ubuntu 8.04 is the winner in this category because its “Synaptic Package Manager” performed better than the Yast2 software installer of openSUSE 11. Synaptic is much reliable in handling dependencies and it's a little quicker than Yast2.

Error Handling:
Since both Ubuntu 8.04 and openSUSE 11 handled some minor issues that I have encountered quiet well, and they are both quick to send updates and security fixes, it’s a tie for “Error Handling”.


The verdict:
Ladies and gentlemen, the gruelling Battle Royale has come to an end. Let’s now see the scorecard. In Speed Test, the score is 2-0 in favor of Ubuntu! In Aesthetics, the score is 3-0 in favor of openSUSE! In Features, the score is 1-0 in favor of Ubuntu! In Stability, the score is 1-0 in favor of Ubuntu! With the final total score of 4-3, the winner and still distro champion of the world, the distro Superstar, Ubuntu!

Conclusion:
In my own choice of categories and tests, and in my own judgment alone, Ubuntu 8.04 has beaten openSUSE 11 but only by a very slim margin. It only shows that openSUSE is worthy to be called the second most popular Linux distribution at the moment, and Ubuntu is still the cream of the crop.

I hope you enjoyed this one. Feel free to share to us your thoughts.

PS - Anyway, I almost forgot to remind you all that our distrowar is just for the spirit of fun and should not be taken seriously. However, you can always take it seriously if you want to ;-)

Battle of the Minis (The Rematch): DSL vs. Puppy

Greetings Linux fans from around the world. We are here again to witness the clash of two ultra-lightweight distributions. As you may know, these two distros have collided in the past and have fought until the end. One ended up victorious, while the other one was not as fortunate. So today, we shall give the losing distro a chance to even the score. Now, without further delay, let's welcome our two fully loaded distro warriors!

On your left is the challenger, weighing in at exactly 48.5MB, armed with the latest weapon version, please welcome the totally upgraded DSL 4.2. On your right is the defending champion, now leaner than ever and weighing in at exactly 87.1MB, put your paws together for the newly trained Puppy Linux 4.0.

If you are ready, then let's get this battle going. Fight!

Distrowar Arena (Test Machine Specs):
Board: Intel Corporation D102GGC2
Processor: 3.40 GHz Intel Pentium D
Hard Drive: Samsung 80GB ATA with 8GB allocated to VM disk
Memory: 2GB DDR2 RAM with 128MB allocated to VM memory

Tale of the Tape:
Distro Name:Damn Small Linux (DSL)| Weight:48.5MB| Country Origin:USA| Distro Origin:Knoppix| Package Mgt.:DEB| Default Desktop:JWM| Distrowatch Rank:#9


Distro Name:Puppy Linux| Weight:87.1MB| Country Origin:Australia| Distro Origin:Slackware| Package Mgt.:PET| Default Desktop:JWM| Distrowatch Rank:#16




Speed Test:
Download Time- Winner, DSL!
Boot/Start-up Time - Winner, DSL!
Responsiveness- Draw!

Decoding: The time it takes to download DSL is obviously less due to its smaller size, so it has an advantage over Puppy. DSL is again the clear winner for "Boot/Start-up Time" (measured from boot menu to desktop) because it took only around 29 seconds for DSL to reach its JWM desktop. Puppy meanwhile was slower and took about 36 seconds to boot. It is another draw for "Responsiveness" because the two distros are both nimble, and I cannot really decide which has the clear edge.

Aesthetics:
Default Theme- Winner, Draw!
Extras- Winner, Puppy!
Artwork- Winner, DSL!

Decoding: Since both are using JWM as their window manager, I gave a draw verdict for "Default Theme" in the aesthetics category. "Extras" went to Puppy Linux because it is now utilizing the more advanced GTK2 engine. For "Artwork", I have to give it to DSL this time because I love the new darker theme. Puppy won last time because of that cute Puppy wallpaper. I just love dogs, I guess :-)

Features:
Pre-installed Applications- Winner, Puppy!
Available Packages from Repo- Draw!
Ease of Use- Winner, Puppy!

Decoding: Puppy Linux is feature-packed and has plenty of pre-installed applications. I know it's unfair because Puppy is bigger hence it has more packages out-of-the-box than DSL. But as I always say, we are just having fun here, so be it. Puppy is also the winner for "Ease of Use" because of its much- improved overall GUI, like it's user-friendly package manager.

Stability:
Hardware Detection- Draw!
Software Maintenance- Draw!
Error Handling- Puppy!

Decoding: Since both Puppy ad DSL have no trouble in detecting and configuring my test machine's hardware, it's a draw for "Hardware Detection". It's another draw for "Software Maintenance" because their package managers both performed well on several tests that I made. DSL's occasional failure to switch between window managers made me gave "Error Handling" to Puppy. I've never encountered a serious bug while in Puppy.

Final Score:
Puppy = 4
DSL = 3
*Winner Puppy!

Conclusion:

The final score was close, with Puppy Linux emerging triumphant yet again. However, DSL should not be underestimated because it showed us that it has the capability to beat distros that are much bigger in size. Maybe I will give DSL a smaller opponent next time, like SliTaz. What do you think?

That concludes our battle for today. This is all just for the spirit of fun; I hope you enjoyed this one. As always, I am the sole judge of this so-called Distrowar, therefore your opinions are greatly appreciated.

Battle of the Beasts: Wolvix vs. Pardus

Another exciting month has almost passed. So far, I tried and tested two equally fantastic and capable Linux distributions. Wolvix 1.1.0 and Pardus 2007.3 are well-crafted distros that truly deserve some attention. Some might ask which one is better between the two. There’s only one way to find out. Let’s put Wolvix and Pardus on stage and start a distrowar.

Ladies and gentlemen, put your hands together for our two distro warriors. On the right corner, weighing in at 483MB, please welcome the Norwegian Wolf, Wolvix. On the left corner weighing in at exactly 686MB, please welcome the Pride of Turkey, Pardus.

Now sit back, relax, and read on. It’s Wolvix vs. Pardus, wolf vs. leopard, dog vs. cat. Let’s get it on! :)

Distrowar Arena (Test Machine Specs):
Board: Intel Corporation D102GGC2
Processor: 3.40 GHz Intel Pentium D
Hard Drive: Samsung 80GB ATA with 8GB allocated to VM disk
Memory: 2GB DDR2 RAM with 256MB allocated to VM memory

Tale of the Tape:

Distro Name: Wolvix| Weight: 483MB| Country Origin: Norway| Distro Origin: Slackware| Package Mgt.: TGZ| Default Desktop: XFCE| Distrowatch Rank: #66




Distro Name: Pardus| Weight: 686MB| Country Origin: Turkey| Distro Origin: Gentoo| Package Mgt.: PiSi| Default Desktop: KDE| Distrowatch Rank: #64




Speed Test:
Installation Time- Winner, Wolvix!
Boot/Start-up Time - Winner, Pardus!
Responsiveness- Winner, Wolvix!

Decoding:
Wolvix edged out Pardus by just a small margin in “Installation Time (the time it takes to finish the installation)”. Meanwhile, Pardus is the clear winner in “Start-up Time (measured from Grub menu to the main desktop)” because it completely booted for around 52 seconds, whereas Wolvix took more than 3 minutes to finish booting. Because Wolvix uses the lighter XFCE desktop manager, it tends to be a little bit quicker and more responsive than Pardus which uses KDE.

Aesthetics:
Default Theme- Winner, Wolvix!
Extras- Winner, Pardus!
Artwork- Winner, Pardus!

Decoding:
I made Wolvix the winner for “Default Theme” because I love its simple and elegant look. Pardus won “Extras and “Artwork” for its added desktop eyecandy, like the transparent effects and the enhanced Kickoff style menu, and also for its great looking icon sets.

Features:
Pre-installed Applications- Winner, Pardus!
Available Packages from Repo- Draw!
Ease of Use- Winner, Pardus!

Decoding:
For “Pre-installed Applications”, Pardus won due to the fact that it is bigger in terms of size than Wolvix, which means it contains a larger number of pre-installed software. Quality wise, they both include great software packages out-of-the-box. Also, they equally have plenty of “Available Packages from Repo” that is why I called it a draw. For “Ease of Use”, Pardus is my choice because of its straightforward graphical installation and package management, and for its uncomplicated Control Center.

Stability:
Hardware Detection- Draw!
Software Management- Winner, Pardus!
Error Handling- Winner, Pardus!

Decoding:
Since Pardus and Wolvix had no problems in properly detecting and configuring my hardware, it’s a draw for “Hardware Detection”. Pardus won “Software Management” because of its highly capable and Synaptic-like package manager called PiSi. I gave “Error Handling” to Pardus for the reason that I encountered fewer issues with it than with Wolvix.

Final Score:
Pardus = 7
Wolvix = 3
*Winner, Pardus!

Conclusion:
Pardus won by quite a large margin mainly because in my own opinion it is more polished and complete than Wolvix. However, I can’t fully assume that Wolvix is the ultimately loser in this battle since my judgment was solely based on the results of my tests and on my hardware alone. To be really fair, I need other people’s opinion. So, to those who have also tried these two distros, feel free to give us your thoughts.

Anyway, our distrowar is all for fun and should not be taken seriously. If you want to take this gravely, it’s your choice. Just don’t blame me if you’ll encounter heart problems (hehe).

Slack Off: GoblinX vs. Zenwalk

Today, two Slackware-based Linux distributions from the lightweight division will square off to find out once and for all, who has the clear edge. On the left corner, please welcome the Brazilian sensation, GoblinX. On the right corner, put your hands together for the Zenmaster, Zenwalk.

I will be the sole and fair (hopefully) judge for this Slack-off as I have tried and tested the latest versions of the two distros just recently. I know that it is kind of unfair to compare the two as Zenwalk is bigger than GoblinX “Mini Edition” in terms of size and therefore has more pre-installed applications and features. And, I could have used the “Standard Edition” edition instead. But, we are all just having fun here so we shall push through. Who knows, this could end up like the fight between David and Goliath.

Let the battle begin!

Distrowar Arena (Test Machine Specs):
Board: Intel Corporation D102GGC2
Processor: 3.40 GHz Intel Pentium D
Hard Drive: Samsung 80GB ATA with 8GB allocated to VM disk
Memory: 2GB DDR2 RAM with 256MB allocated to VM memory

Tale of the Tape:

Distro Name: GoblinX/ Weight: 153MB/ Country Origin:Brazil/ Distro Origin:Slackware/ Package Mgt.:TGZ/ Default Desktop:XFCE/ Distrowatch Rank:#36




Distro Name: Zenwalk/ Weight: 469MB/ Country Origin:France/ Distro Origin:Slackware/ Package Mgt.: TGZ/ Default Desktop:XFCE/ Distrowatch Rank:#14


Speed Test:
Installation Time- Draw!
Boot/Start-up Time - Winner, Zenwalk!
Responsiveness- Draw!

Decoding:
Both GoblinX and Zenwalk were completely installed at almost the same speed, so I just gave a draw verdict on “Installation Time”. Zenwalk took about 41 seconds to boot (measured from Grub menu to the main desktop) compared to GoblinX’s 45 seconds. They were both very responsive since the two are using the same lightweight window manager which is XFCE.

Aesthetics:
Default Theme- Winner, GoblinX!
Extras- Winner, GoblinX!
Artwork- Winner, GoblinX!

Decoding:

GoblinX won the entire "Aesthetics" category because of its unique and artistic appeal. Zenwalk was just too plain and simple. Though for me, simplicity in design is not a disadvantage, I just thought that GoblinX has that X-factor in terms of looks.

Features:
Pre-installed Applications- Winner, Zenwalk!
Available Packages from Repo- Draw!
Ease of Use- Draw!

Decoding:

Being the bigger distro, Zenwalk has the obvious advantage against the smaller GoblinX for available “pre-installed applications”. But, they both have plenty of packages on hand from their software repositories. Also, they were both user-friendly and I had a hard time choosing which one is better so I'm giving a draw verdict for “Ease of Use”.

Stability:
Hardware Detection- Winner, Zenwalk!
Software Management- Draw!
Error Handling- Winner, Zenwalk!

Decoding:

The minor predicament in GoblinX during installation is the reason why Zenwalk won “Hardware Detection” and “Error Handling”. Zenwalk was just too smooth and trouble-free during the set-up. Since both have the same package management system, it’s a tie for “Software Management”.

Final Score:
Zenwalk = 4
GoblinX = 3
*Winner, Zenwalk!

Conclusion:

The older and more experienced Zenwalk Linux won, but by just a slim margin. Its stability and added features were just too much for the young GoblinX to take. Nonetheless, GoblinX didn’t just easily go down because it fought until the end. I think it has a huge potential to succeed, and perhaps, could someday become a distro to be reckoned with.

A well-deserved win by Zenwalk in my own view, but as always, I want more opinions from our dear readers.

Distrowar: Fluxbuntu vs. MiniMe

Fluxbuntu and MiniMe are ultra-lightweight versions of two equally popular Linux distributions namely Ubuntu and PCLinuxOS. Fluxbuntu kept it light by utilizing a Fluxbox window manager as well as other unhefty pre-installed applications. Meanwhile, MiniMe uses a KDE desktop but with minimum out-of-the-box software packages.

It is time once again for our monthly distrowar. As usual, I will be the sole judge, and it’s only me who can decide which will be declared a winner or a loser. Two distros that I have recently reviewed will take the stage. Ladies and gentlemen, it’s Fluxbuntu 7.10 (RC) vs. PCLOS “MiniMe” edition for today’s main event. I know that it is quite unfair to compare the two, as Fluxbuntu is a distribution on its own, while MiniMe is just a preview of the soon to be released PCLOS 2008. But what the heck, as I’ve always said, this is all just for the spirit of fun so we’re going to push through. Just fasten your seatbelts and prepare for battle!

Distrowar Arena (Test Machine Specs):
Board: Intel Corporation D102GGC2
Processor: 3.40 GHz Intel Pentium D
Hard Drive: Samsung 80GB ATA with 8GB allocated to VM disk
Memory: 2GB DDR2 RAM with 256MB allocated to VM memory

Tale of the Tape:
Distro Name: Fluxbuntu / Weight: 306MB (i386.iso)/ Country Origin:USA/ Distro Origin:Ubuntu/ Package Mgt.:DEB/ Default Desktop:Fluxbox/

Distro Name: MiniMe/ Weight: 297MB (i386.iso)/ Country Origin:USA/ Distro Origin:PCLinuxOS/ Package Mgt.: RPM (APT)/ Default Desktop:KDE /

Speed Test:
Installation Time- Winner, MiniMe!
Boot/Start-up Time - Winner, Fluxbuntu!
Responsiveness- Draw!

Decoding:
MiniMe just blew me away with its super quick installation, while Fluxbuntu needed some extra time to fully complete its set-up. Fluxbuntu boots faster (measured from Grub menu to the main desktop) which took about 44 seconds. MiniMe consumed around 53 seconds at boot. MiniMe is very responsive even with its KDE desktop, and Fluxbuntu as expected is the same way receptive. Hence, my verdict for 'responsiveness' is dead heat.

Aesthetics:
Default Theme- Winner, Fluxbuntu!
Extras- MiniMe!
Artwork- Winner, Fluxbuntu!

Decoding:
Fluxbuntu’s default theme and artwork is a winner for me because I just love its clean and simple default look. It truly reflects its ultra-light character. MiniMe is plain looking but it is highly customizable, that is why I gave it the upper hand in the ‘Extras’ category.

Features:
Pre-installed Applications- Fluxbuntu!
Available Packages from Repo- Draw!
Ease of Use- Winner, MiniMe!

Decoding:
Fluxbuntu has a better and greater line-up of pre-installed software applications compared to MiniMe. But, both have plenty of available software packages from their respective repositories. I find MiniMe a lot easier to use based on the ease of installation, newbie-friendly KDE desktop, and very reliable, complete and comprehensible Control Center.

Stability:
Hardware Detection- Winner, MiniMe!
Software Management- Draw!
Error Handling- MiniMe!

Decoding:
Due to some known issues with Fluxbuntu, MiniMe won 'hardware detection' and 'error handling'. MiniMe just works without giving me that much of a hard time configuring all the necessary hardware devices. Software management is a tie since they both performed well in dealing with software packages like downloading, installation, updating, and uninstallation.

Final Score:
MiniMe = 5
Fluxbuntu = 4
*Winner, MiniMe!

Conclusion:
MiniMe won by a very slim margin, a point to be exact. It is not really a convincing win by MiniMe so I would like to give Fluxbuntu the benefit of the doubt. The conclusion was just based IMOP (in my own opinion). Therefore, I would appreciate to hear some views from our dear readers who have tried both MiniMe and Fluxbuntu.

So, that is it for now. Till then and see you on our next Distrowar! :)

Battle of the Elite: openSUSE vs. Mandriva

Mandriva and openSUSE are two well-established Linux distributions worthy to be considered elite. Both have successfully conquered the hearts of many Linux enthusiasts long before Ubuntu and PCLinuxOS took the stage. With their latest releases namely Mandriva Linux 2008 and openSUSE 10.3, they remained a force to be reckoned with.

In case you are wondering which is better among the two, then you are in luck because it is time once again for our distrowar. It’s Mandriva Linux 2008 vs. openSUSE 10.3 for today’s main event! I experienced installing and using these distros not-so-long ago, so that kind of gave me the authority to be the judge. But, let me again remind you that this is purely for entertainment and should not be taken seriously. So if you are ready, “It’s Showtime!”

Distrowar Arena (Test Machine Specs):
Board: Intel Corporation D102GGC2
Processor: 3.40 GHz Intel Pentium D
Hard Drive: Samsung 80GB ATA
Memory: 2GB DDR2 RAM
Graphics Card: ATI RADEON X1050
*Note: For fairness sake, I recently installed and tested the KDE versions of Mandriva Linux 2008 and openSUSE 10.3 ‘once again’ using the the test machine listed above.

Tale of the Tape:

Distro Name: openSUSE/ Weight:695MB (KDE-i386.iso)/ Country Origin:Germany/ Distro Origin:Slackware/ Package Mgt.:RPM/ Default Desktop:KDE-Gnome/ Distrowatch Rank:#3


Distro Name: Mandriva Linux/ Weight:694MB (One KDE-CDROM)/ Country Origin:France/ Distro Origin:Red Hat Linux/ Package Mgt.:RPM (urpmi)/ Default Desktop:KDE /Distrowatch Rank:#8



Speed Test:
Installation Time- Winner, Mandriva!
Boot/Start-up Time - Winner, Mandriva!
Responsiveness- Draw!

Decoding:

Mandriva Linux was completely installed with less time consumed compared to a rather long process in openSUSE. Mandriva also boots faster which took around 48 seconds to reach the main desktop from the Grub menu, while openSUSE took about 57 seconds. They were both responsive and I saw no considerable differences that separated the two.

Aesthetics:
Default Theme- Winner, openSUSE!
Extras- Mandriva!
Artwork- Winner, openSUSE!

Decoding:

For “Default Theme” and “Artwork” I picked openSUSE as the winner because I prefer the color green over Mandriva’s blue as it has a much cleaner and sleeker appeal. Mandriva’s desktop is also well polished but I just love green, that’s all. For “Extras”, the 2D effects of Mettise gave Mandriva the upper hand over openSUSE.

Features:
Pre-installed Applications- Draw!
Available Packages from Repo- Draw!
Ease of Use- Winner, Mandriva!

Decoding:

Both have a good line-up of pre-installed software applications and both also have plenty of available software packages from their respective repositories. I considered Mandriva a lot uncomplicated to use compared with openSUSE, based on the ease of installation and its straightforward approach in software and hardware maintenance. Mandriva is also very easy to tweak and I find its graphical configuration tools ideal for Linux beginners.

Stability:
Hardware Detection- Winner, Mandriva!
Software Maintenance- Draw!
Error Handling- Draw!

Decoding:

They were both running smooth and steady on my test machine so it is kind of hard for me to decide which has the clear advantage. So, I just gave a draw verdict on “software maintenance” and “error handling” just to be safe. However, Mandriva won “hardware detection” because it properly detected my graphics card and then flawlessly installed the necessary device driver to make it fully functional.

Final Score:
Mandriva Linux = 6
openSUSE = 2
*Winner, Mandriva Linux!

Conclusion:

Mandriva Linux 2008 may have convincingly won the battle against openSUSE 10.3 but not unanimously because there’s only one judge and that is me :) So, to those who have experienced using these two distros and can compare which of them is better, feel free to give us some feedback.

Distrowar: TinyME vs. Sidux

A month has already passed since our last distrowar, so we are at the right moment to bring it on again. This time, two equally capable Linux distributions that I have recently tried and tested will battle it out to determine who has the upper hand.

It’s TinyME against Sidux for today's main event. Now, without further ado, let’s get ready to rumble!

Distrowar Arena (Test Machine Specs):
Board: Intel Corporation D102GGC2
Processor: 3.40 GHz Intel Pentium D
Hard Drive: Samsung 80GB ATA
Memory: 2GB DDR2 RAM
Display: ATI RADEON X1050

Tale of the Tape:


Distro Name: Sidux/ Weight:448MB/ Country Origin:Germany/ Distro Origin:Debian/ Package Mgt.:DEB/ Default Desktop:KDE/ Distrowatch Rank:#23





Distro Name:TinyME/ Weight:199MB/ Country Origin:USA/ Distro Origin:PCLinuxOS/ Package Mgt.:RPM (APT)/ Default Desktop:Openbox /Distrowatch Rank:#51



Speed Test:
Download Time- Winner, TinyME!
Boot/Startup Time - Winner, Sidux!
Responsiveness- Draw!

Decoding:
Obviously, TinyME wins the “Download Time” because of its smaller-sized installer. I consider it a plus for a distro that has lesser size and hence can be completely downloaded in lesser time also. Sidux boots surprisingly faster than TinyME, but only about 8 seconds separated their startup time speed. It’s a tie for “Responsiveness” because they were both quick performers.

Aesthetics:
Default Theme- Winner, Sidux!
Extras- Winner, Sidux!
Artwork- Winner, Sidux!

Decoding:
The aesthetics category is really hard to decide because they both look good. Nevertheless, Sidux seems to have a slight edge against TinyME in every "Aesthetics" sub-category so I made it the winner.

Features:
Pre-installed Applications- TinyME!
Available Packages from Repo- TinyME!
Ease of Use- Winner, TinyME!

Decoding:
I have to give it all to TinyME for the “Features” category for the following reasons; it has better line-up of pre-installed software applications and utilities, it has more available software packages from its repositories, and it is relatively easier to use compared to Sidux.

Stability:
Hardware Detection- Draw!
Software Maintenance- Draw!
Error Handling- Draw!

Decoding:

They both performed smooth and steady on my test machine. Accordingly, I can only give a draw verdict for the “Stability” category. Also, I know that an extensive use is required for me to accurately judge their constancy. So, I will just leave it to those that may have used Sidux and TinyME for a much longer period of time than I had and can precisely compare which is more stable among the two.

Final Score:
Sidux = 4
TinyME = 4
*Draw!

Conclusion:
For the first time ever in the history of distrowar, we have a tie. This only means that Sidux and TinyME may differ in strengths and weaknesses, but in the end, they are in the same way competent.

As always, let me remind you that "distrowar" is just for the spirit of fun and should not be taken seriously. However, you can always take it seriously if you want to. :)

Battle of the Minis: DSL vs. Puppy Linux

Damn Small Linux and Puppy Linux are two of the most popular ultra-lightweight distributions today that is why a lot of people are curious to learn who has the obvious advantage among them. So, I’m here to put them on a distro war as I have recently tried and tested each one of them. I found out some of their strengths as well as their weaknesses. Though they both performed fairly well on my previous tests, I used different computers for each of the test I made, therefore I tried them once again and this time I’m using the same test machine specification. These were the results of the Battle of the Minis.

Distrowar Arena (Test Machine Specs):
Board: Intel Corporation D102GGC2
Processor: 3.40 GHz Intel Pentium D
Hard Drive: Samsung 80GB ATA
Memory: 2GB DDR2 RAM
Display: ATI RADEON X1050

Tale of the Tape:

Distro Name:Damn Small Linux (DSL)/ Weight:49.5MB/ Country Origin:USA/ Distro Origin:Knoppix/ Package Mgt.:DEB/ Default Desktop:FWM/ Distrowatch Rank:#10

Distro Name:Puppy Linux/ Weight:98.7MB/ Country Origin:Australia/ Distro Origin:Slackware/ Package Mgt.:PET/ Default Desktop:JWM / Distrowatch Rank:#15

Speed Test:
Download Time- Winner, DSL!
Boot/Startup Time - Winner, DSL!
Responsiveness- Draw!

Decoding:
It takes a shorter time to download DSL than Puppy because of its smaller-sized ISO. It is also faster to boot and approximately took 30 seconds to reach its Fluxbox desktop from start, while Puppy booted slower taking about 50 seconds to reach its JWM’s desktop. I call it a tie for “Responsiveness” due to the fact that both distros are light and quick, and I can't see a substantial difference between the two in terms of their receptiveness.

Aesthetics:
Default Theme- Winner, Puppy!
Extras- Winner, Puppy!
Artwork- Winner, Puppy!

Decoding: Puppy Linux is my winner in every Aesthetics sub-category because first of all, I love its JWM desktop which is a little bit sleek-looking compared to DSL’s Fluxbox. Puppy also has simple but good looking default wallpaper, and quite a few polished extras to choose from, in case you wanted to change its look.

Features:
Pre-installed Applications- Winner, Puppy!
Available Packages from Repo- Draw!
Ease of Use- Winner, Puppy!

Decoding: The pre-installed applications of Puppy Linux are plenty compared to the smaller-sized DSL. Both have plenty of available and updated packages from their respective repository that is why I’m calling it a draw.

Stability:
Hardware Detection- Draw!
Software Maintenance- Draw!
Error Handling- Draw!

Decoding: I can only give a draw verdict in all of the "Stability" sub-categories because both have shown stability in the short period of my tests. But I know that stability can be better judged with extensive usage. So, I just hope that the readers who have used them both long enough can fill in the gap.

Final Score:
Puppy = 5
DSL = 2
*Winner Puppy!

Conclusion:
Puppy Linux has won the battle but only in my own opinion and based only from the tests I made. I still love DSL for its smaller foot print and fast start-up time which is key in rescuing a broken system. Meanwhile, Puppy’s abundance of useful out-of-the-box applications despite of its minute size is its strongest point.

Distro War! Sabayon vs. Mint

A lot of people have been pairing and matching their favourite distros with the hope of finding out which is better or superior among their choices; and I'm one of them. I often visit different forums or do a search on Google looking for answers and curious about the real winner among my favourites.

I have recently reviewed Sabayon 3.3b Mini Edition and Mint 3.0 Light Edition. As we all know, they are two of the most promising and hottest Linux distros today. They are currently ranked number 5 and 6 respectively on Distrowatch.com. I know more and more people have been pairing these two that is why I'm starting a distro war. I'm rating Sabayon and Mint based on the tests I made to find out who has the clear edge.

Distrowar Arena(Test Machine Specs):
Board: Intel D101GGCL
Processor: 3 GHz Intel Pentium 4 with HT Technology
Hard Drive: Samsung 80GB with 10GB allocated to VM disk
Memory: 1.5GB 400 MHz DDR with 512MB allocated to VM memory
Graphics Card: On-board

Tale of the Tape:

Distro Name:---------------------------Sabayon Linux----------------Linux Mint

Origin:-----------------------------------Italy-----------------------------Ireland
Age (Since Version 1):-------------------?-----------------------------1 YR
Package Management:---------------SRC (Portage)----------------DEB(Debian)
Default Desktop:-----------------------KDE----------------------------GNOME

Installation:-----------------------------Graphical(LiveCD)-----------Graphical(LiveCD)

Speed Test:

Installation Time- Winner, Sabayon!
Boot/Startup Time - Winner, Sabayon!
Responsiveness- Draw!

Decoding: In VMware, it only took about 15 minutes to install Sabayon against 20 minutes in Mint. The Boot/Startup Time, measured from Grub to desktop, took 58 seconds for Sabayon and 65 seconds for Mint. It's a draw for Responsiveness due to fact that both distros are light and fast and I can't see a considerable difference between the two.

Aesthetics:
Default Theme- Winner, Mint!
Extras- Winner, Mint!
Artwork- Winner, Mint!

Decoding: Mint is my winner in all Aesthetics Category. The default theme is pleasing to the eye with several extra Mint wallpapers available. The artworks are sleek and polished like its boot-splash screen and log-in menu.

Features:
Pre-installed Applications- Draw!
Available Packages from Repo- Winner, Mint!
Ease of Use- Winner, Mint!

Decoding: The Pre-installed Applications Category is deadlocked because both have several important features installed by default like the multimedia capability of Sabayon and the key softwares found in Mint. The Debian/Ubuntu repositories have all the good and latest stuff available for Mint compared to the sometimes dated Gentoo packages. Ease of Use is hands down to Mint for being newbie-friendly.

Stability:
Hardware Detection- Draw!
Software Maintenance- Draw!
Error Handling- Draw!

Decoding: I can only give a draw verdict in all of the "Stability" sub-categories because I have never used Mint and Sabayon long enough to declare a clear winner. But based only on my initial tests, I found out that both of them are very much capable and are generally stable for productive uses. I hope the readers can fill in the gap.

Final Score:
Mint = 5
Sabayon = 2
*Winner Mint!

Conclusion:

The results are only based on my own opinion and were solely based on the tests I made. Mint may have won the war but the DVD version of Sabayon might have all the necessary weaponry it needs to beat Mint. What do you think?

Ubuntu vs. PCLinuxOS vs. SimplyMepis

Intro:
This is my own quick views on the three of the five most popular Linux distros today. On Distrowatch, Ubuntu Feisty Fawn is currently at number one, PCLinuxOS 2007 is second and SimplyMepis 6.5 is at number five on the list.

Test Machine Specs:
Board: Intel Corporation D102GGC2
Processor: 3.40 GHz Intel Pentium D
Hard Drive: Seagate ST340016A ATA (40.02 GB)
Memory: 1GB DDR2 RAM
Display: RADEON X300/X550 Series [Display adapter]

Installation:
SimplyMepis 6.0 simply rocks for its easy and trouble-free installation. It only took about 10 minutes to completely finish the installation without a problem. Based on using SM 3.5, my first ever Linux distro, and also having tried more than 10 Linuxes, I think SM's installer is the best among the rest in terms of user-friendliness. Ubuntu sucks bigtime on my test machine because I can't boot the live CD at first. After trying several boot option parameters, adding "noapic nolapic" finally solved the problem. After the installation, I have to edit grub adding the option again in order to boot and also to the menu.lst once booted. PCLinuxOS has also a very user-friendly installer but I have to choose the Safe Boot option for my test machine to boot the live CD. It took 15 minutes to install without any problems.

Look and feel:
I prefer Gnome so Ubuntu is for me. It has a sleek and fast default theme. Compiz or Beryl doesn't work on Ubuntu using my test machine. PCLinuxOS has also a nice and smooth looking GUI. Beryl can be activated but it made some applications unstable like Firefox freezes from time to time. SimplyMepis has a toy-looking default desktop but it is highly configurable to suit your taste. Beryl worked just fine and more stable than in PCLinuxOS.

Package Management:
Ubuntu has the best collection of installed and installable software available on their repositories and can easily be removed and added using install/remove menu. You have to install several multimedia codecs though but it can easily be done via Automatix. Simply Mepis has also a lot of good software installed including multimedia codecs for playing DVD, MP3 and more. Installing and removing software is not as easy as that of Ubuntu but there are plenty of freeware avialable on Debian and Mepis repositories. Meanwhile, PCLinuxOS has plenty of additional RPM packages available but you have to know the package name for it to be installed. Several multimedia codecs are installed by default but not DVD support.

Stability:
I have briefly used PCLinuxOS or Simply Mepis to make a concrete review. But judging from that short experience, they were both quite stable with some minor bugs. I have used Ubuntu the longer time than the two. Most Ubuntu users will agree with me that it is a tough and tested OS. It has very few bugs and very stable indeed.

Conclusion:
For me, Ubuntu overall has the edge on both PCLinuxOS and SimplyMepis but I will only recommend it for novice users. SimplyMepis simply works out of the box and is the most user-friendly, definitely good for beginners. PCLinuxOS though radically simple, it lacks what the other two have but still a fine working distro.