3 ms·

This is the worst article on Linux I've read in years. Installing Puppy Linux to disk almost never happens in reality, because that's not even a secondary aim o

by kick 7y ago

This is the worst article on Linux I've read in years. Installing Puppy Linux to disk almost never happens in reality, because that's not even a secondary aim of it. They picked a distro that isn't aimed at being installed to demonstrate their point, because no distribution in the top ten is actually difficult to install.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
robbya 7y ago
"Instead, the front page is largely a treatise on how Puppy Linux isn’t actually a “distribution” per se, and a technical description of what does and doesn’t count as a true Linux distribution." I think the above quote from the article is why Puppy was used. Why is the front page for Puppy full of technical nit-picking about terminology? Why isn't it focused on getting the user to productivity faster and easier. Or maybe to follow on to your point, why doesn't the Puppy home page clarify that install to disk isn't a goal. That info on the home page would have certainly helped the author more than the definition of a distribution.
- kick 7y ago
  Puppy Linux isn't in the mainstream, isn't aimed at users who aren't in the know, and you can cherry-pick anything if you look far enough outside the realm of "Plausibly installed on more than five hundred consumer systems."
  - robbya 7y ago
    Is that clear from their homepage? > Ease of use → grandpa-friendly certified™ http://puppylinux.com/ http://puppylinux.com/ If I wasn't tech savvy and I stumbled into Puppy, I'd assume it was targeting non-tech savvy people based on that statement at the top of the homepage. Then I'd likely feel burned by "Linux" when it wasn't. There is a marketing problem there. Although in that example, why is a mainstream user looking at puppy in the first place? So I think you're right, that's a cherry picked example.
juststeve 7y ago
I actually think it's the worst.

by kick 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

robbya 7y ago

"Instead, the front page is largely a treatise on how Puppy Linux isn’t actually a “distribution” per se, and a technical description of what does and doesn’t count as a true Linux distribution." I think the above quote from the article is why Puppy was used. Why is the front page for Puppy full of technical nit-picking about terminology? Why isn't it focused on getting the user to productivity faster and easier. Or maybe to follow on to your point, why doesn't the Puppy home page clarify that install to disk isn't a goal. That info on the home page would have certainly helped the author more than the definition of a distribution.

kick 7y ago
Puppy Linux isn't in the mainstream, isn't aimed at users who aren't in the know, and you can cherry-pick anything if you look far enough outside the realm of "Plausibly installed on more than five hundred consumer systems."
- robbya 7y ago
  Is that clear from their homepage? > Ease of use → grandpa-friendly certified™ http://puppylinux.com/ http://puppylinux.com/ If I wasn't tech savvy and I stumbled into Puppy, I'd assume it was targeting non-tech savvy people based on that statement at the top of the homepage. Then I'd likely feel burned by "Linux" when it wasn't. There is a marketing problem there. Although in that example, why is a mainstream user looking at puppy in the first place? So I think you're right, that's a cherry picked example.

juststeve 7y ago

I actually think it's the worst.