Salix 14.0.1 Xfce Review

[Elias]

The site linuxreviews.info did a review on the Salix Xfce 14.0.1 here it is.
part 1: http://linuxreviews.info/salix-14-0-1-xfce/
part 2: http://linuxreviews.info/salix-14-0-1-xfce2/

I really liked the review.

source: http://linuxreviews.info/

[mimosa]

Seems the reviewer really liked Salix, too

[gapan]

Not a bad review. It has one little mistake (says you can't install using a live CD), but overall it's very nice. Thanks for the heads up.

[mimosa]

Good that it gives a walkthrough of the installer, too; something that seems to induce panic blindness these days

To be fair, I think it's understandable that partitioning and installation (with or without a graphical wrapper) are a bottleneck for users new to Linux. For that reason, a distro that wants to be accessible to such users loses nothing by smoothing the process; of course, a graphical installer is far from being a guarantee of no glitches. The Slackware installer is very solid and deals reliably with preserving access to Windows.

[djemos]

I read carefully the xfce review.
Except the little mistake (says you can't install using a live CD) review is good.
I just want to say about this comment in the end of the review "because there are distributions that are lighter".
The most important is to have a functional distribution with the common packages a user need for everyday use. System has to be stable after use of weeks, months. system has to respond with speed also.
Email, office, graphics, multimedia, browsers and for more advanced users developmment tools, having also stabillity, speed and help on forums when needed. Considering all these salix is the perfect distro because its engine is slackware.
Usually users test slackware distro's when they don't know nothing about slackware and try to do things in the way other distibutions do it. Which is wrong and they write things that are not fair.
This review was fair and good.

[Adys]

When reading “reviews”, I usually take them as just one experience and nothing serious or “definitive”. Additionally, users already having some experience with the matter in question (in this case, Salix) usually won't be surprised. Reviews of Linux distros are frequently just a potential tease and not much more.

But this particular review was simply bad, IMO. My impression was so bad, that I felt compelled to comment about it here.

So, what was so bad about it? Not Salix itself, no. The review. The review was bad. Badly written, incorrect, incomplete or inaccurate information about Salix generates an incorrect impression of Salix to those potential users.

I was in need to, at least, express that I was slightly p1$$ed off about this review. When carefully reading the review, there are more than one inaccurate sentences. Important facts were either not clarified enough or skipped altogether or completely incorrect; such as about SalixLive (there are yet no officially stable SalixLive 14 ISO images released by the time of the review, but previous SalixLive releases indeed allow installing SalixOS); or about package management (Gslapt is GUI, and easy, and works as expected, and many users won't even need more than that). Some readers might wrongly (mis)understand that even the "Full" installation includes not enough programs for a typical user . I'd rather stop right now .

At this opportunity I'd like to thank all those involved in Salix. Your contribution is indeed appreciated.

Regards,
Ady