@AndyInMokum: I remember your well written comment about what Peppermint wants to achieve under the following interview:
http://www.linuxandubuntu.com/home/an-interview-with-peppermint-ceo-mark-greaves
But people are superficial. If I were Mark, I would threaten to punch them if they continue saying Peppermint is all about Ice.
Yeah
Fritz, I hear you mate. What I find so bloody annoying, is how the goals of the distro are misinterpreted time and time again. The solution is simple too. Drop
Mark, or even me an email explaining how he's writing a review and he has several questions about this, than and another. The straight from the horse's mouth approach can be included in the review. This way there can be no doubt to which direction and the ultimate goals of the distro. With that out of the way, the review is free to be as subjective as much as he/she wants. The reader is now in a position to make an informed choice
.
Ice continues to be the elephant in the room. It's still treated as the package
Peppermint is built around. Rather than it being an optional extra. The mama elephant in the room, is the lack of pre-installed office and graphical software. The concept of leaving these choices up to the individual user, continues to elude reviewers. They completely fail to understand how preinstalled "user" software does nothing to enhance the distro; it's an enigma to them
. They don't understand, it's the base components and how they interact with each other, that gives the distro it's characteristics. They continually fail to grasp how the freedom to choose, is what gives the user an incredible amount to power. These "reviewers" don't take the time to conduct proper, informed research. In fact, I often think they don't understand the incredible amount of power and flexibility the
Open source Licensing Agreement and the
Linux kernel together produces. Much of these type of reviews are as
Ly commented on, cut & paste journalism. This is bound by its nature to produce reviews that are thin and lacking in detail. It really annoys me too because the perpetuated inconsistencies these types of reviews create, are not only bad for
Peppermint. They're bad for the whole
Linux community. To be blunt, they're just plain sloppy
.
Imagine someone showing interest in using
Linux. Their criteria is the distro must be lightweight and easy to customise. It must be bug free. It mustn't be a specialized single purpose distro. After reading Joshua Allen Holm's review,
Peppermint 9 is off the table as a suitable distro. In reality, it ticks/checks all the boxes as the ideal distro. A nervous computer user could find the lack of product knowledge that many reviewers show, very off putting.
Anyway, that's my rant over for the day. It's too hot here to get all worked up.
30ºC plus, (
86ºF plus) with a relative humidity of:
68,1 % and rising. It's a sticky one in
Amsterdam. It reminds me, I must load up the fridge with beer before the supermarket shelves are wiped out by the invading hordes
.
