Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I Tested 100s Distros.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I Tested 100s Distros.

    After testing 100s of distros (some not even listed on Distrowatch) the statistic is as follows:

    Only 2, I repeat only T W O distros have instlled/enabled font rendering. Out of hundreds distros out there only two distros have font rendering.
    Does it mean that only two small teams who make their own distros, actually use them as their daily driver? And the rest don't? Apparently.

    One distros that has font rendering is based on Debian stable 10.x. And it isn't Kubuntu nor KDE Neon. Kubuntu and KDE Neon have no font rendering.
    The other distro that has font rendering is based on Arch and it isn't Manjaro KDE.

    None of those distros are listed on Distrowatch. Thist statistic says a lot. I mean a lot. People who make those distros don't use their product at all.

    One contender, an independant distro, Solus with Plasma has tried to enable font rendering but failed. They did "something" (I know exactly what) but they failed.
    The rest of them, all those "big distros": Kubuntu, Manjaro KDE, Arch (no wiki for this), Fedora KDE, KDE Neon didn't even bother with font rendering.
    (Just to let you know I tested other DE too).

    One other interesting aspect is the overwhelming number of distros that do not boot at all or do not boot on BIOS (some may boot UEFI, like the one with font rendering
    based on Arch). The majority of those distros DO NOT BOOT AT ALL (This includes ever so popular Manjaro - version 20 does not boot on BIOS). My suspicion is nobody knows
    the boot process and the creators are simply idiots. VB from Oracle is not a test.


    Interesting fact is that almost all laptops (99%) come with Intel CPUs. Zero of the distros have VAAPi gstreamer and drivers installed by default. All players (VLC and mpv/smplayer)
    use stupid amount of CPU (zero distros have browser with VAAPi) and get hot and loud. All of them. There are zero distros that come with VAAPi enabled by default. Read it again Z E R O. Out of those zero distros that have no VAAPi by default, have proper VAAPi dependancy enabled (pacman, apt, etc.). Exception being Intel's own distro Clear that has GPU memory management library as dependancy.


    Other fact is that almost ZERO distros have firewall enabled by default. I have encountered only 2 distros that have firewall enabled by default. (on systemd you need to enable and start firewall process, some use nftables+firewalld- like Fedora but you have to always enable and start the process, installing ufw will fail whatever message you get after instlling it, if you use openrc you have to use ufw-openrc, but almost zero of the distros have firewall by default and... surprisingly a lot of them have openssh by default including ssh-server, what the f...ck!).


    Wow! Simply WOW!

    I don't even know what to make of this. Took me a lot of time to test them, but are those people who make those distros dumb morons? Only two teams use their own distro? And it even isn't Debian, Ubuntu, Neon, Mint (Cinnamon- omg, what a piece of garbage), Manjaro. WTF?!

  • #2
    No surprises to me here. Nobody seriously uses Linux on the desktop. I used it exclusively for 6 years and tried dozens of distros before I realized this just must be some kind of big joke and happily hopped right back on to Windows. Linux has decades ahead of itself before it's comparable. It's only good for servers and embedded systems, which yeah is a massive market, but it's worthless on the desktop, an utter waste. And even in the server space it has to compete with Windows. It's no wonder so many DEs try to copy Android and macOS, they're all equally worthless.

    Comment


    • #3
      There are lots of old BIOS implementation which have a bug that makes em very slow to boot from USB key especially if you create a hybrid ISO. Most likely the ones that boot better on your system use SYSLINUX (ISOLINUX is the iso9660 part). UEFI has its own problems like whitelists or broken bootorder via efibootmgr on some systems but in generally I would always disable CSM on new systems. This is just an extra emulation layer which does not make things better. Btw. multiboot sticks are a tiny bit faster on those problematic systems. Some years ago Kanotix used a patched GRUB but that patch did not work with newer releases and UEFI makes it obsolete anyway. In your case I would try GRUB or SYSLINUX on a FAT32 formatted usb key. Kanotix has that using the usb creator in the multi boot variant.

      Btw.I have got no clue what your problem with font rendering is. Maybe provide screenshots - and show hw specs (infobash or inxi -v minimum).

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Securitex View Post
        Only 2, I repeat only T W O distros have instlled/enabled font rendering. Out of hundreds distros out there only two distros have font rendering.
        Does it mean that only two small teams who make their own distros, actually use them as their daily driver? And the rest don't? Apparently.
        Unfortunately its not this straight forwards of on and off. sudo dpkg-reconfigure fontconfig-config on debian stable/testing (I run debian testing).

        First option that comes up is Native or Autohinter or none. None is totally horrible. If you fonts you are using need autohinter and you have native mode the fonts don't render right same with the reverse in fact. Next option is how much hinting none, slight, medium or full. Debian in fact starts on slight some distributions that look horrible to the eye are in fact on full.

        Welcome to horrible just because font rendering features are enabled does not mean they are set the correct way.

        Originally posted by Securitex View Post
        And it isn't Kubuntu nor KDE Neon. Kubuntu and KDE Neon have no font rendering.
        Last time I installed those font rendering was on set on medium that did not look good when set back to slight looked better on my screen. Please note I said on my screen. This does make me wonder if you have mistaken badly thinking that font rendering is off when in fact it just set the wrong way.

        Originally posted by Securitex View Post
        One other interesting aspect is the overwhelming number of distros that do not boot at all or do not boot on BIOS.
        This when I hit it a lot of cases I do check in kvm/boxes or virtualbox that in a virtual machine does the disc work or not. There are a hell load of motherboards that need particular versions of the Linux kernel so that you have the quirks to work around incorrect bios/UEFI so the system can boot as well as at time being horrible slow.

        Originally posted by Securitex View Post
        Interesting fact is that almost all laptops (99%) come with Intel CPUs. Zero of the distros have VAAPi gstreamer and drivers installed by default. All players (VLC and mpv/smplayer)
        use stupid amount of CPU (zero distros have browser with VAAPi) and get hot and loud. All of them. There are zero distros that come with VAAPi enabled by default. Read it again Z E R O. Out of those zero distros that have no VAAPi by default, have proper VAAPi dependancy enabled (pacman, apt, etc.). Exception being Intel's own distro Clear that has GPU memory management library as dependancy.
        There are a set of reasons for that. https://github.com/intel/intel-vaapi-driver/issues/262

        Sorry to say intel VAAPI has been between great to absolutely disaster on decode and encode of videos. So a lot of distributions have gone with off by default might use more CPU but it always renders right. Windows uses with VAAPI have also run into intel failing to decode and encode videos correctly. This is a rock and hard place no matter what path you choose some end users are going to be upset.

        Originally posted by Securitex View Post
        Other fact is that almost ZERO distros have firewall enabled by default. I have encountered only 2 distros that have firewall enabled by default. (on systemd you need to enable and start firewall process, some use nftables+firewalld- like Fedora but you have to always enable and start the process, installing ufw will fail whatever message you get after instlling it, if you use openrc you have to use ufw-openrc, but almost zero of the distros have firewall by default and... surprisingly a lot of them have openssh by default including ssh-server, what the f...ck!).
        Turns out having firewall on by default when you are sitting behind a router anyhow makes very little difference. There is the tits on bull factor where you are looking for something that really does not improve security. Firewall without being that configured like windows provides out the box is about the same as the Linux kernel with no extra firewall scripts/programs enabled. So like it or not there is always fragment of firewall enabled under the Linux kernel. If you are wanting a firewall for security you really do need to configure it and you really do need to pick firewall that provides information the way you can understand.

        Ssh server on by default with the install is useful when your graphics interface does not come up for some reason. it is something that people have to remember to remove/disable after systems are setup that don't need it.

        Comment

        Working...
        X