| DistroWatch Weekly
If you've enjoyed this week's issue of DistroWatch Weekly, please consider sending us a tip.
(Tips this week: 0, value: US$0.00)
|Reader Comments - Jump to last comment
1 • I vote for "alphabetical list of distributions" (by Thomas Chung at 2003-08-25 01:29:49 GMT) |
Hi Ladislav, per your suggestion, I'm posting my vote here:
I really like the idea of "alphabetical list of distributions" instead of "Page Hit Ranking" system because it gives every distos an equal chance for an exposure and at the same time it gives users to find distro of their choice without the influence of ranking system.
2 • Re: I vote for "alphabetical list of distributions" (by ABC on 2003-08-25 01:56:01 GMT)
I agree; an alphabetic list would help my distribution out tremendously on the ranking index!
ABC-Linux Distribution Project
3 • Distribution list (by Rusty at 2003-08-25 01:56:15 GMT)
First of all, I want to thank you for such a great site. Although I'm not a 'timesaving' customer, I'm an occasional reader that finds your site quite informative.
Re. your distribution list, I personally prefer a more complete list of distributions that doesn't remove those that haven't been on the site for a year.
In fact I'm at a loss to understand the logic of creating a 52-week prior-to-listing period since it wouldn't solve the 'Yoper' or 'Damn Small Linux' problem. i.e. Once Yoper is out for a year, if they sponsor your site, they'll again rise up in the hit rankings and will get back to the top of your list. Once DS Linux has been out for a year, they will similarly rise to the top if they come out with a few quick releases.
I think that what you and other readers have to treat the page ranking for what it is: a list of what distro links people are clicking. Removing immature distributions only prevents potential winners from getting the visibility they (may) deserve, and your readers from getting an accurate representation of what links people are clicking. Today, when I look at the ranking, I have much less of an idea of what distributions people are looking at lately and can no longer monitor the 'Popularity' of some of the 'less mature' distributions (e.g. Knoppix, Morphix, Ark) that are of interest to me.
Again, keep up the great work!
4 • No more page ranking drama (by Nick at 2003-08-25 02:10:37 GMT)
Alpha Problems: First in list get best exposure.
Hit Ranking Problems: Zealots get zealous.
So, what is the solution?
Random? Nothing? Or, do we all grow up and get over it. I mean come on! Distrowatch page hit ranking is not the terrorists!
5 • Alphabetical list, please (by common sense at 2003-08-25 02:24:11 GMT)
An alphabetical list is great. If you want to include a ranking system, put the rank in small brackets next to the name of the distribution. Make the ranking system a pure page hit count and try to weed out bot activity. I think people need to stop worrying about page hit ranking and worry about the quality of the distribution.
6 • About the new Rankings (by Prabhuram at 2003-08-25 02:24:56 GMT)
I vote for Alphabetical type of ranking list rather than for the 52-weeks type.
I think the previous method of rankings is good but the only problem was in its way it was listed.
Forum, mailing list members should not be taken account.
Because that depends upon the distribution.
Infact usually users of a distribution will register for that forum or mailinglist only if they have any problem with it.
Members of a Forum does not by any chance reflect the Number of Users of that distribution!!!.
"Also Beware!, it is possible for a distribution developer to register FAKE members and make it look to others as though he is having a big userbase"
Onebase Linux Project
7 • Page Hit Rankings (by John Gabriel at 2003-08-25 02:46:20 GMT)
I'm not sure if this is possible, but instead of ranking hits of DW's distribution specific pages, why not base the rankings on click throughs from the distribution pages to each distributions home page or download page? This way you would be ranking the OS's that people are actually interested in researching further or downloading.
Certain pages may be getting clicked on from the home page just to take a quick look at what they offer, and then the user clicks back to DW's home page because they decide from the info on the distro-spec page that it's not what they are looking for.
I also disagree with the 52 week listing criteria for the same reason noted above: it means that valuable new distributions might not get the attention they deserve. I frankly believe that Damn Small Linux has moved up so far not just because of it frequently being listed on the news here, but because it fills a niche that a lot of people are interested in and does it better than the other credit-card size distos.
8 • Ranking Distros and Live CDs (by monkymind on 2003-08-25 04:40:34 GMT)
The 52 week listing criteria may work for the Top 5+ distros and other installable ones. But the live linux CDs ala Damn Small Linux and Knoppix are extremely versatile fulfil very different needs.
Infact I know someone who primarily uses Windows but connects to the net via knoppix for banking etc. Others it's a live toolbox to test PC hardware e.g. before installing an(y) OS or for repartitioning/resizing a hard drive(qtparted) etc.
Another avantage is they can be run in computer class labs and other software restricted areas where there are normally no linux boxes. :-)
As you have noted the release cycles are frequent but that is often because the releases keep up with the latest software and/or hardware support.
Hope you manage to find a fair way of ranking the mounting interest in this portable, non-HD dependent linux.
9 • Page Hit Ranking (by G.G. on 2003-08-25 05:01:32 GMT)
I dislike the 52 weeks criteria. I think a lot of people want to learn about the new distros. I prefer if you put a random distro on the top of the list. Each time that homepage is load a new one is on top. This gives visibility to all.
10 • page hit ranking (by andrew at 2003-08-25 05:19:31 GMT)
How about system based on short, rotating cycle? Perhaps as short as one month... Totals would be reset back to zero at the end of each period. This system would have two advantages: one, it would favour distributions that were active during each period, which seems just and proper to me. Second, it would take care of difficulty of dislodging top contenders from the top of the list. This would make the system more of a snapshot than reflection of any long-term trends, but perhaps that's not such a bad thing. In any case any long-term trend could be still presented by doing some sort of summary, say, once a year.
11 • PHR (by Luk van den Borne at 2003-08-25 06:52:10 GMT)
I think the new critereum will only weaken the position of new distributions that could have been very popular otherwise, so Mdk/RH/SuSE won't have much healthy competition. Why leave a great initative on the waiting list for 52 weeks to get the attention it deserves? Besides that, I don't think it will solve the Yoper-problem.
12 • Keep PHR the same! (by Eudean Sun at 2003-08-25 08:15:21 GMT)
The PHR isn't supposed to be an accurate listing of the popularity of the usage of eash distro. It's what it says it is: PAGE HIT RANKING, nothing more. I'd prefer it be left as-is. You can make a separate listing if you want, perhaps call it "Most Widely Used Distros" or something, but don't make PHR out to be anything more than it is.
13 • Page rankings (by fritz on 2003-08-25 08:17:44 GMT)
The 52-weeks requirement seems harsh for new distros. But what about basing the rankings on the 52-weeks average, whether they existed or not ? That way they would appear, but with reduced exposure at first.
Another thing to consider would be two distinct lists.
One would be or theme-based (à la lwn distribution list) and alphabetical in each category, with links to each distribution's page for those needing more information.
The second list would be the top 10 by popularity, without links and without giving the number of votes. Maybe it would limit ballot-stuffing to real zealots ? Or maybe I'm hopelessly naive.
Thanks for your good work.
14 • Page rankings (by Fred at 2003-08-25 09:22:02 GMT)
Firstly I wanted to say I love distrowatch and have a look on its site at least once a day.
I mostly use the menu on top to get to a distribution page to know what there is and to read the short description you have put on each. Really usefull when I hear about a distro I 've never heard before.
About hit ranking I would prefer to have let's say on the main page only the ranks from the last 4 weeks or even less (1 week ?) and a link to the page statistics http://www.distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=popularity where we have a ranks based on a 1year, six months, three months and 4 weeks time
On the other hand I like the idea of ranking only hits from the distros page to their homepage, reviews or dowload area. Indeed as I said, I most of the time just have a look on your description and if it doesn't answer my needs I just come back to DW home page.
15 • Page Hit Ranking (by Grunt on 2003-08-25 11:30:11 GMT)
For starters, albeit the 52 weeks barrier seems to have cured one particular problem of PHR listing (I think we all know what distro we're talking about here), that hardly seems to do justice to newer yet popular projects. Methinks it's a "no go", very much so, in fact...
I have already proposed this on previous DWW's RCAs (without much response from Ladislav), but me being the persistent bugger that I am - I'll do so again.
1. PHR listing should include ALL distros, all 168 of them (as of today), INCLUDING the "discontinued" ones (since their pages are STILL available on DW, and people still get interested in them).
2. PHR listing should certainly remain in it's current sort order - by popularity - as this is the whole idea behind the word "Ranking" in the term "PHR"!
3. PHR listing should include the current trend of the popularity (same/falling/rising).
4. PHR listing should certainly NOT include direct links to the DW pages dedicated to those distros, otherwise PHR turns into a direct page hits generator for the major distros. Even without direct links, PHR listing will still influence its own results, but IMHO - MUCH less so (Ladislav : how did the experiment with removing links go? What's the stats on that one?)
5. PHR listing should be MOVED from the front page to a separate page dedicated solely to PHR. Preferably, the listing should have columns with "Last Update (News)", "Latest Release (any/unstable)", "Latest Stable Release" added, WITH the ability to sort the listing by any of the columns (by release/news dates, alphabetically, by PHR), and preferably with the ability to bookmark those specific sort orders. Moving the PHR listing from the front page should also reduce the influence of PHR on its own stats.
6. In the "Site Navigation" table at the top/bottom of every page a link to that separate PHR page should be provided. Perhaps in red font and/or in bold text style so that it could be easily spotted. Perhaps a news flash should be ran notifying of the change. If Ladislav is aware of any websites actively using/monitoring PHR, perhaps he should email them the direct URL of the new PHR listing page.
The proposed system is NOT perfect :
1. It will STILL influence the PHR stats (people will ALWAYS watch for the leaders), but to a MUCH lesser degree - you'll be surprised to learn how much difference another one or two mouse clicks (that will be required to "Hit" the distro from the new PHR) can make (have a look at any serious web design guide if you don't believe me).
2. The PHR listing will NOT be visible on the front page. I personally have some VERY serious doubts that this is a drawback, and will stick to those doubts until someone logically proves to me otherwise. Those who visit DW solely to observe the PHRs (and jump with joy that their beloved Mandrake/IDMS is still Numero Uno/#81) will still be able to bookmark the PHRs listing and jump with joy to their heart's content there. Those who drop by DW 10 times a day to scroll down the front page to the umpteenth position in PHR and click on their favorite distro to "boost it" will be out of luck - as they should be. Webmasters/editors of other web resources interested in OBTAINING the PHR info will simply follow the new bookmark. The rest of folks who drop by for news will not be affected at all.
Overall, however, it is my strong belief that the proposed method will reflect Linux community's interest in various distros MUCH more accurately that the current weird one (The "52 weeks barrier". KNOPPIX, anyone?) and the previous one (plain ol' hits generator for the top-5. Yoper, anyone?). I would be inclined to believe that the whole idea of PHR was to REFLECT the community's interests, not directly INFLUENCE them! (Unless there is some conflict of interests out there that I am not aware of... ) So why not let PHR do ITS job, instead of doing fanboys' job for them?
Best of luck, folks, and Ladislav in particular.
16 • RE: Page Hit Ranking (by Grunt) (by ladislav at 2003-08-25 11:57:18 GMT)
Grunt, how good are you at PHP (or some other scripting language)? Would you be willing to maintain a rankings page, as per your proposal? I'd be quite happy to give you an account on the server and you'll get all the freedom to implement the ranking as you please (and deal with suggestions, feedback, etc). Please get in touch with me if you are interested.
As for the new 52-week ranking system, it seems to have met with some opposition so far. Fair enough, if you don't like it, I won't insist on it, but let's see if we get any other ideas first.
17 • PHR (by Isamoor on 2003-08-25 13:10:45 GMT)
I don' want the PHR to go off of the front page. It's a very neat tool. I also don't want the hyperlinks to go away from the PHR. How about a compromise and just have the links from the PHR itself not count towards the running total?
18 • PHR (by Rusty on 2003-08-25 13:24:44 GMT)
1) Keep the phr listing on the front page
2) Keep the hyperlinks from the distro listings in the phr to the actual distro pages (the fact that there are thousands of hits from the phr to the actual distro pages is fairly indicative of the fact that a large number of people find this a useful means of accessing distro-specific information.
19 • Ranking ideas (by Leo on 2003-08-25 14:53:58 GMT)
1) Please keep it where it is as it is, I think it HELPS the visitor sort out where to go first. This is VERY IMPORTANT for newbies
2) How about normalizing the number of hits to the number of announcements of each distro in distrowatch ? So, the page hit ratio would be: "number of heats in the last year" / "number of announcements in the last year" - This for each distro.
3) How about posting an overall popularity ranking weighting different sources ? These could be: your ranking, linux counter  (the most reliable IMHO), and google groups posts in the last year . You can update this once a month, it may be a little work. A possible algorithm woul be:
a) normalize each ranking to one. Fist = 1. Second = "# hits for the second " / "# hits for the first". Etc.
b) Finf the overall score as: s = (s1 * s2 * s3) ^ (1/3)
The last operation is a cubic root, assuming three sources.
4) How about limiting the counter to 1 hit per IP per day (you probably do this) to prevent abuse ?
5) You have shown great ethics Ladislav, I find it insulting that anyone though you were bribed to be put in a high position in your ranking :-(
20 • phr - 12 weeks instead of 52 weeks (by LPH at 2003-08-25 16:44:24 GMT)
Well, since others are giving their opinion then I'll submit mine too ;-)
Linux development is very fast and 52 weeks does not fit with the climate of Linux. Therefore, the 52 weeks is too long. However, 12 weeks seems reasonable. This is basically one development cycle. Many new projects are announced and then stop development after 3 months. Therefore, use the 12 weeks.
I'd like to know what happens arranging the page hits in this fashion.
21 • If it ain't broke, don't fix it (by DaveW on 2003-08-25 16:55:24 GMT)
Seems to me the whole phr business is a tempest in a teapot. True, it doesn't make much sense as a measure of popularity or interest, but so what? It is what it is, a snapshot.
To me, the main interest of DW is to keep up with new and revised distros, especially those that promise radical departures like Arch. The list is a useful way of accessing them.
That said, I think the 52 Week Rule is exactly the opposite of the right way to go. I'm not even slightly interested in reading about Mandrake, Red Hat, SuSe, and the other biggies, because I know about them already and know how to get to their sites if I want to. It's the new little distros like Knoppix, Ark, and so forth, and things I might have read a blurb about last week, that the PHR helps me remember and find.
I think Isamoor had the best idea: keep it on the front page, keep the links, go back to the previous timeframe, but don't count hits directly from PHR in the stats. This should change the rankings somewhat to reflect serious interest as opposed to idle clicking.
Beyond that, don't worry, be happy. Great as DistroWatch is, it ain't a holy book or a tax form. The rankings are just a snapshot, openly derived, to be taken for what they're worth according to each reader's own predelections. Like all internet polls, they come with a virtual warning that says "for amusement only". Isamoor's idea will make DW exactly what it should be: a site that puts the users' interests first, and those of the distros second.
22 • Pleasing everyone... and their opinions. (by MadHunter at 2003-08-25 17:16:48 GMT)
In regards to trying to please people with the ranking system, etc. I would have only one suggestion. Don't worry about it. I have learned in the very short time that MadPenguin.org has been around that everyone is a critic, and you can't please all of the people all of the time. Granted, opinion is good when it is brought about in a constructive way. Suggestions are what help people see their creations (websites, ranking systems, etc) from a number of different angles.
However, what it ultimately comes down to is this- not everyone who has an opinion or makes a suggestion is bright. They don't always know the entire picture and have not bothered to do any actual research before spouting off what is usually silly, non-related nonsense that proves their ignorance in a particular issue. I can't tell you (although I'm sure you know) that half the comments made out there end up arguing what an article says had they bothered reading beyond the first sentence.
Anyway, enough of my bashing... I apologize. I have the gift of babble when emotions run high. I simply wanted to say, as far as the ranking system worked, I understood where it pulled it's numbers from and what it took into consideration. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that the distros that appear on the front page are NATURALLY going to get more hits than those that don't. It was a good system, and bottom line is that if you liked it, don't bust your hump trying to make it idiot proof...
Relax, and let me buy you a beer! :) And know that most people understood the ranking system for what it did... It is unfortunately the mindless minority that have the loudest voices.
23 • PHR discrimination (by Ariszlo at 2003-08-25 17:51:27 GMT)
I just feel unjust that you exclude new distributions. Although I very much like Slackware, the oldest surviving distribution, I don't think Knoppix, CollegeLinux, or Yoper should be excluded. Yes, I like Yoper. It is one of the fastest OS's I have ever tried: it installs very fast, boots up very fast and launches KDE very fast. Well, the installation became about 10 minutes longer in the latest release that includes Gentoo's Portage but it still only takes about 20 minutes. A distribution that provides both an easy-to-use office core for people who have only known the One Operating System so far and Portage for people who are interested in new things but lack the time to install Gentoo might deserve getting ranked even if it is frowned upon by fans of other distros.
24 • jsiv sucks (by A concerned Linux Citizen on 2003-08-25 17:52:28 GMT)
http://jsiv-sucks.com has it all. This business of SuSE acting all superior is nothing, heck SCO is nothing, compared to what this guy is trying to do!
We are going to need a small army of lawyers soon, if people like Jsiv continue to do what they are doing!
25 • rankings (by Joe Barron at 2003-08-25 18:11:50 GMT)
I read enough on Distrowatch that I don,t by the rankings but more by the package list.Thomas is a great guy and I,m using my third version out of the four but the name LINUXINSTALL is misleading,what,s the time saver is the work his done on plugin,s.Synaptic along with video players on first boot is nice.
26 • Please reconsider PHR policy/procedure (by Ezra at 2003-08-25 18:45:25 GMT)
Since others are airing their views, I'll join in. I mean tis to be friendly and constructive, please do not take offense.
1. Page Hit Ranking should remain just that, page hits and nothing more. The new criteria has little to do with page hits.
2. 52 week criteria unfairly neglects new distros. I know Yoper was the primary target for such policy, among others, but Yoper has been around for more than a year if you count the release candidate availability. Yoper is no great shakes, but it deserves to be counted.
3. All distros should be included in the PHR (old, new, discontinued, even Caldera).
4. The PHR list should continue on the home page as an alphabetical list without hyper links to the distro pages. Put the page hit ranking number in parentheses next to the distro name, and maybe a link at the tope of the list to a PHR page with the distros in rank order.
5. Try to limit bot activity where possible. Do not limit PHR to one hit per IP address per day. Maybe limit to one IP address hit per hour (4 hours possibly). If this is not possible, at least a script that checks the logs and recalculates according to a similar rule or equation.
Just my two cents. Take it or leave it. I do believe my above suggestions would preserve the intent of the PHR.
27 • RSS (by Kenneth on 2003-08-25 20:53:25 GMT)
I'm not the creative solutions type so I don't have anything to say about how PHR should work, however, I had some site ideas. Maybe posibly you could make a RSS feed for Distrowatch? As far as I know there isn't one, only a Mozilla/Opera sidebar (which btw doesn't work with Mozilla Firebird; for me anyways). You could also make a RSS feed for the PHR too. If you need/want any help with it, I'd be happy to help.
28 • PHR: the cure is worse than the disease (by Ariszlo at 2003-08-25 21:57:50 GMT)
I understand your point that you want to adjust HPR to real popularity but the criterion of 52 weeks is a very bad one. I agree that on the base of user activity Gentoo deserves higher ranking than Yoper but then why do you include distributions that do not even have have user forums? Let me not mention them.
29 • I say leave it alone (by Benjamin Vander Jagt at 2003-08-25 23:16:04 GMT)
As it is now, readers know that the ones at the top are the most likely to be clicked and can understand that. It's not too bad at the moment, and for the most part it's accurate. If you start adding all sorts of modifications, then the inconsistencies will still exist, but readers won't know how to calculate downward...
One thing I can think of would be to occasionally wipe the numbers and scramble the list in some way, but even that I don't recommend. Of course, you want to eliminate cheats with things like one voter per IP per day...
30 • PHR (by Angelo on 2003-08-25 23:35:02 GMT)
How about an Alphabetic listing that cycles through the alphabet? One day distros starting with 'A' are listed at the top. The next day 'B' is at the top (and 'A' would be last after Z), the next day would be C...Z,A,B. etc...
Just a thought.
31 • Changes discarded (by ladislav at 2003-08-26 00:23:03 GMT)
Thank you all for comments. The idea of only ranking those distributions which have been around for at least one year has met with plenty of resistence and has been scrapped. Everything is back to the original format. But the experiment did serve a useful purpose - if in the future there are still people who compalin that the ranking is unfair, at least I have a page where I can direct them to read the opinions of others.
Now if only I could persude the Yoper people to spend more time improving their own web site rather than losing sleep over the DistroWatch ranking...
32 • PHR & change of OS (by jim at 2003-08-26 04:15:34 GMT)
as far as voting on PHR my two cents worth is to leave it alone . after all it does what it says! but on another note i had to read your post twice about red hat and suse being the only server distros. seems to me youve been doing quite nicely with debian. and no i dont understand why you have to use commercial hosting software. being a newbie, i was under the impression that linux was and is about choice. allthough there may be some pressures that im not aware of in your endeavor. red hat and suse are pretty well known distrows, i dont see the point . is this a change of mission or an eloborate joke? dont quite know what to think about, this about face. some enlightenment if possible would be greatly appreciated on my part. regards jim
33 • RE: PHR & change of OS (by ladislav at 2003-08-26 04:59:14 GMT)
is this a change of mission or an eloborate joke?
An elaborate joke.
34 • PHR: lies, damn lies, and statistics (by Bill M at 2003-08-26 13:39:55 GMT)
I never had any issues with the manner in which the PHR listings were presented or calculated. It was understood that the listing merely reflected the behavior of the sites visitors, and like any behavior, it was influenced by a variety of factors which are ever changing.
The conversation concerning the future of the listing hurts my head!! My 2 cents amounts to 3 options, and a lot of work for Distrowatch web developer:
1. Perhaps the listing can be variable, ie, insert a drop down menu that enables the list to be reordered in a variety of formats to match whatever the visitors feels is a viable presentation of the data collected. Enable a cookie mechanism to set a default for the users prefernence, and get on with presenting the news on Linux Distributions, which is the focus of Distrowatch (and by the way ladislav you're doing a hell of job!).
2. If you want to twist the statistics even further, build a new page where we can point and click our way through lots of variables to generate an infinitesimal number of reports to be abused to each visitors satisfaction.
3. Do nothing.
35 • Re : Isamoor, Rusty, ALL (by Grunt on 2003-08-26 14:05:46 GMT)
Isamoor, Rusty : please take my following question for what they are - an attemp to understand your point of view, not as a personal attack. By the way, others are most welcome to answer those questions as well - hopefully this will provide more information about DW readers base.
1. Why do you believe that the best place for PHR to be is the front page? Why is it important to YOU, personally YOU, to see how much interest each distro attracts at any given moment? Are you interested in viewing that information EVERY time you visit DW?
2. Why do YOU, personally YOU, prefer to have hyperlinks from the PHR (in its current form - without any fields indicating last updates of each distro)? Would an alphabetical list of distros with hyperlinks from the front page suffice, and if not - why not? Would a column with dates of last updates of distros make you follow the links less often (e.g. to check up what has actually CHANGED in the last unstable release, etc)?
36 • Re : Ladislav (by Grunt on 2003-08-26 14:13:58 GMT)
Grunt, how good are you at PHP (or some other scripting language)?
No good at all. I'm a C/C++ programmer, sorry... :(
Would you be willing to maintain a rankings page, as per your proposal?
Willing? Yeah, why not... :) Able? Considering the answer to my previous question - I don't think so... :(
A couple of questions on PHR :
How is "Hits Per Day" calculated? Is it an average for the indicated period? Does it include info from previous periods? Is it a global average (since counters' inception)?
37 • So.... (by MadHunter at 2003-08-26 15:01:38 GMT)
... has anyone read any good books lately? ;)
38 • Books (by Kenneth on 2003-08-26 17:39:17 GMT)
That's random question. Well, I know I will have to once school starts again. And some that aren't as good too. So, what do you think about the RSS idea Ladislav? It'd make it possible to display Distrowatch news in Karamba or gDesklets. :) Oh, and another suggestion. Maybe Distrowatch Weekly as an e-mail newsletter? Or maybe for Timesavers only.
39 • PHR (by Vm. at 2003-08-26 21:49:46 GMT)
The name PHR is self explanatory. Page Hit Ranking... and it means that it has nothing to do with the actual popularity of the distribution, and that it only shows how popular it is on this site. If that is not the way it is supposed to work then the title - PHR - is flawed and needs a fix. Right now, I don't think that PRH doesn't need a change. But indeed, Yoper on number 3 does seem rediculous. So I request for a new ranking system which will not be wholly based on the number of hits the distribution's page gets. I hope I have been clear enough.
40 • RE: RSS feed (by ladislav at 2003-08-26 23:00:59 GMT)
DistroWatch has had RSS feed for over a year. Please check the "About" page for details.
41 • alphabetic listing (by MixMatch at 2003-08-27 00:44:03 GMT)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell there is already an alphabetic listing of the distros on every page. It's right at the top in a drop-down menu. Oh, wow, and it even has even the newer distros! Someone remind me why we want to duplicate this?
42 • Grunt's question (by Rusty on 2003-08-27 02:46:19 GMT)
To answer Grunt's questions:
1)a) why do _I_ like phr on the front page?
Because it's the tool on the site that I use most often for getting information about various distros. Also because I like the fact that I can have a look at the front page and get a quick overview of what's happening with various distros (sort of like a dashboard--you get a summary of most of the relevant info).
1b) why do _I_ want to see how much interest each distro attracts at any given moment?
Because if I haven't kept up to date in the rapidly changing world of linux, this gives me a _very_rough_ idea of some of the distros that have changed (damn small linux would be a good example).
1c) Do I need to see that info every time I visit DW?
I won't necessarily look at it, but I want to see it. When I'm driving my car, I rarely look at the odometer, but I'm happy that the manufacturer hasn't positioned it in the glove compartment ;-)
2a) Why do I like the hyperlinks?
Because that is the quickest means for me to get more info on a distribution (yes there's a drop-down list at the top, but that's not a very usable interface). Moreover, the rankings sometimes affect a decision on my part to seek more info on a distro in which case a hyperlink saves me from having to go to a different portion of the UI (the dropdown list). Note: I have no aversion to including the date of last update for a distro in the table, although it could appear cluttered.
2b) Would an alphabetical list suffice?
It would, but as I pointed out earlier, the ranking does provide _some_ information that I consider useful (although I do take it with a grain of salt), which an alphabetical listing would not.
2c) Would last published date make me check the distro less often?
I'm not sure--it's one of thos UI things that I'd have to try out before I can comment.
Hope this helps...
43 • Increase the statistical timescale (by Penguin Domesticus on 2003-08-27 03:30:44 GMT)
I think the current page hit ranking list may be ok just the way it is (& it's just a PHR, nothing more serious), but if some refinement is really needed, how about just increasing the statistical time scale enough, from one year to two or rather three years or so? (maybe two years now, if DW doesn't yet have proper three year stats) I.e. if a distro is new, it would get zero page hits from all the days of the 2-3 year period before it has been listed on DW.
When thinking about it, I'm pretty sure that stats from the last three years could give quite reliable results. Also, doesn't a new distro really need about that time, 3 years, before it can really established itself as a serious alternative to the big ones?
On the Statistics sub pages you could still have several newer stats from the recent months etc. too.
44 • No subject (by Kenneth on 2003-08-27 05:21:31 GMT)
Doh! I should've looked harder. I feel so stupid. Thanks for telling me about it.
About the PHR, I would agree with the suggestion of rating click-throughs to the distribution's site. I'm also one of those people that go to a distro's page to read the short descriptions. If I were actually interested, I would then click through to the distro's sites. This could also be made that only distros with working sites would get ranked because they would be the only ones with click-throughs that would work. It would also mean a distro without a site (which would most like be an inactive one anyways) would not have it's ranking increase.
45 • Not about PHR, but a comment on "top enterprise" (by Ric de France at 2003-08-27 07:12:10 GMT)
They did not get to the top because they believed the first salesman who came their way and told them that they don't have any other choice. They got to the top, because they did a careful research of all their options and chose the best one.
I disagree with the above statement (as your article allows me to do). Managers will look at the first (and most likely flashiest) salesman that comes through the door promising them the earth. I working on a project as a result of that. I'm not saying that it always happens that way, but it can. Managers don't want to think they have a problem. The minute they can shift "blame" onto someone else, they will, be it the vendor, or their developers.
Just speaking from experience,
46 • no counts for clicks in ranking (by Nuno Barreto at 2003-08-27 17:28:17 GMT)
My sugestion is simply this: Do not count when people get to the distributions page by clicking in the ranking section. This way we eliminate the "lets click on this one because it is high in the ranking" mentality.
47 • SuSE and Red Hat (by Anonymous on 2003-09-26 14:49:43 GMT)
It's only marketing. The market leader (Red Hat) will say there's only one choice. Everyone else will say there are two choices - Red Hat and ourselves.
Number of Comments: 47
Display mode: DWW Only • Comments Only • Both DWW and Comments
|• Issue 690 (2016-12-05): Fedora 25, Ubuntu adopts rolling HWE kernel, running Android apps on GNU/Linux, Haiku working toward EFI support|
|• Issue 689 (2016-11-28): openSUSE 42.2, Fedora's upgrade path, plans for Korora 25, transitioning from PC-BSD to TrueOS, Webconverger's reproducible builds|
|• Issue 688 (2016-11-21): Endless OS 3.0.5, KDE neon fixes security hole, FreeBSD's Quarterly Status Report, Rolling release trial #2 concludes|
|• Issue 687 (2016-11-14): NAS4Free 10.3.0.3, Fedora gains MP3 playback, budgie-remix becomes Ubuntu Budgie, Ubuntu flavours compared, Rolling release trial #2|
|• Issue 686 (2016-11-07): FreeBSD 11.0, rolling release trial #2, Debian announces supported architectures, Simplicity switching to antiX base, farewell to Mythbuntu|
|• Issue 685 (2016-10-31): elementary OS 0.4, SUSE gains ARM support, Mint improves language support, Dirty COW explained, Rolling release trial #2|
|• Issue 684 (2016-10-24): Ubuntu 16.10, Linux popularity in different markets, Fedora runs on Raspberry Pi, Ubuntu features live kernel patching|
|• Issue 683 (2016-10-17): Refracta 8.0, making packages for distributions, Alpine switches to LibreSSL, 386BSD website publishes classic code|
|• Issue 682 (2016-10-10): KDE neon 20160915, Android-x86 6.0, Fedora warns of update bug, HandyLinux drops English translation, LXQt benchmarks|
|• Issue 681 (2016-10-03): OpenBSD 6.0, DragonFly BSD to support LibreSSL in ports, systemd denial of service bug, upgraded Mintbox Mini|
|• Issue 680 (2016-09-26): Uruk GNU/Linux 1.0, blocking applications at the firewall, Lenovo controversy, Ubuntu running on the Nextcloud Box|
|• Issue 679 (2016-09-19): OpenMandriva 3.0, 32-bit vs 64-bit performance, openSUSE updates, KaOS unveils first run wizard|
|• Issue 678 (2016-09-12): Apricity 07.2016, Mageia adopts DNF, KDE neon to use Wayland, FreeBSD updates Linux compatibility, creating cron jobs|
|• Issue 677 (2016-09-05): Peppermint OS 7, Manjaro updates leadership, TrueOS becomes rolling release, organizing files, creating torrents|
|• Issue 676 (2016-08-29): Korora 24, Fedora 25 to use Wayland by default, Linux turns 25, PC-BSD becomes TrueOS, finding software licensing information|
|• Issue 675 (2016-08-22): Gentoo LiveDVD "Choice Edition", moreutils, Ubuntu improves terminal convergence, MATE packaged for Openindiana, FreeBSD improves video support|
|• Issue 674 (2016-08-15): Zenwalk Linux 8.0, Ubuntu phone follow-up, Lubuntu transitioning to LXQt, Steam running on FreeBSD|
|• Issue 673 (2016-08-03): noop linux and EasyNAS, Debian's GnuPG switch, Fedora "Flock", using "nice"|
|• Issue 672 (2016-08-01): Ubuntu Phone 15.04, Solus embraces rolling release model, interview with Jane Silber, FreeBSD Quarterly Report|
|• Issue 671 (2016-07-25): Slackware 14.2, Point Linux 3.2, OpenBSD disables usermount, KaOS releases significant changes, Fedora 22 reaches end of life.|
|• Issue 670 (2016-07-18): Linux Lite 3.0, Bodhi team plans 4.0.0, pfSense changes licensing, running software across distributions, Linux Mint upgrade path|
|• Issue 669 (2016-07-11): Linux Mint 18, proving a system is secure, LibreSSL in FreeBSD, Ubuntu plans phasing out 32-bit, pfSense status report|
|• Issue 668 (2016-07-04): Fedora 24, Linux Mint plans for 18.1, FreeBSD and DragonFly BSD improve their file systems, comparing Flatpak, Snap and AppImage|
|• Issue 667 (2016-06-27): GeckoLinux 421, Fedora supports Flatpak, Solus unveils new features, running GNU/Linux on tablets|
|• Issue 666 (2016-06-20): Comparing more live update methods, Ubuntu's snap packages, Antergos drops 32-bit media, GeckoLinux unveils Rolling edition, learning Linux resources|
|• Issue 665 (2016-06-13): BunsenLabs Linux Hydrogen, Fedora 24 delayed, NetBSD grows in size, Clonezilla questions|
|• Issue 664 (2016-06-06): Sabayon 16.05, Debian updates install media, the cost of free software, Qubes explains secure build process|
|• Issue 663 (2016-05-30): Comparing live update methods, Ubuntu MATE's progress, distros debate systemd change, DistroWatch turns 15|
|• Issue 662 (2016-05-23): Clonezilla Live, new Fedora community repository, DragonFlyBSD runs Wayland, a live edition of Slackware and kernel components|
|• Issue 661 (2016-05-16): FreeBSD 10.3, OpenMandriva adopts Clang, Debian adds ZFS packages, PCLinuxOS drops 32-bit and comparing CentOS with RHEL|
|• Issue 660 (2016-05-09): Ubuntu MATE 16.04, Mint's xapps, FreeBSD Quarterly Report, Debian updates 32-bit support, addressing GPL violations|
|• Issue 659 (2016-05-02): Ubuntu 16.04, compiling custom kernels, Cinnamon 3.0, Sabayon launches ARM build, Devuan ships Beta release|
|• Issue 658 (2016-04-25): Kali Linux 2016.1, elementary OS 0.3.2, Debian elects Project Leader, Fedora 24 feature preview, Nard reaches 1.0|
|• Issue 657 (2016-04-18): Redox, Linux Mint improves update manager, planned Fedora 24 features, Ubuntu 16.04 getting Snappy packages|
|• Issue 656 (2016-04-11): Qubes OS 3.1, Whonix offers bug bounties, Puppy's family tree, setting up disk partitions and running bash on Windows|
|• Issue 655 (2016-04-04): Parsix 8.5, Sabayon's Community repository, Red Hat offers free subscriptions, Ubuntu tablets, command line tips|
|• Issue 654 (2016-03-28): PCLinuxOS 2016.03, Using signatures to create a web of trust, Arch Linux rolls out Pacman update, GuixSD packages GNOME|
|• Issue 653 (2016-03-21): Antergos 2016.02.21, Debian prepares for election, a Unix-like OS written in Rust, watching Netflix on FreeBSD|
|• Issue 652 (2016-03-14): ReactOS 0.4.0, Debian swaps Iceweasel for Firefox, Fedora moving forward with Wayland, Verifying ISO files|
|• Issue 651 (2016-03-07): Korora 23, Linux Mint improves security, Ubuntu MATE on Raspberry Pi 3 computers, trying different file systems|
|• Issue 650 (2016-02-29): Haiku in 2016, running Android apps on GNU/Linux, 30 years of MINIX, Fedora plans Atomic Workstation|
|• Issue 649 (2016-02-22): Zorin OS 11, openSUSE launches new editions, Linux Mint website compromised, sandboxing applications using Firejail|
|• Issue 648 (2016-02-15): XStream Desktop 153, Raspbian unveils OpenGL feature, free hardware, Ikey Doherty talks desktop design|
|• Issue 647 (2016-02-08): Tails 2.0, KDE project launches Neon, Manjaro unveils ARM support, FreeBSD's quarterly report|
|• Issue 646 (2016-02-01): deepin 15, Mint plans X-Apps, FreeBSD to support boot environments, logging into the desktop as root|
|• Issue 645 (2016-01-25): Linux Mint 17.3 "Xfce", Chromixium changes its name, Ubuntu tablets coming soon, Linux vs BSD comparision|
|• Issue 644 (2016-01-18): Kwort 4.3, Sabayon tests ARM images, Slackware adopts PulseAudio, running Linux without GNU software|
|• Issue 643 (2016-01-11): Solus 1.0, Mint provide upgrade path to 17.3, Fedora developers work on stability, running the LXQt desktop|
|• Issue 642 (2016-01-04): paldo GNU/Linux, vetting distro repositories, Fedora plans to adopt GCC 6, Ian Murdock passes|
|• Issue 641 (2015-12-21): Arch Linux, Qubes OS to ship on Librem laptops, ALT offers start kit images, the spread of systemd and launchd|
|• Issue 640 (2015-12-14): Chakra GNU/Linux 2015.11, removing meta-data from files, Ubuntu to remove on-line dash searches|
|• Issue 639 (2015-12-07): OpenBSD 5.8, openSUSE gathers Summer of Code proposals, running WINE on a live disc, Enlightenment adds Wayland support|
|• Issue 638 (2015-11-30): Qubes OS 3.0, KaOS with Plasma, NetBSD 7.0, Fedora seeks Wayland testers, scheduling tasks|
|• Full list of all issues|