Endeavour in Linux (Format) Magazine

** Runs into pub, slamming Linux Format magazine onto nearest table, spilling numerous drinks in the process** :beers:
"Guys, Linux Format have posted a review of Endeavour in their magazine!":grin:

In all seriousness though, I think it’s great coverage for Endeavour to be featured in Linux Format (I access the magazine via Scribd subscription).

As for the review itself… I would say it’s quite a good review - Despite the comparisons to Antergos and Manjaro… Nevertheless, at least more people will become aware of Endeavour and hopefully do an install, even if it’s in a VM or small partition. :enos: :rocketa_purple:

Summary

20 Likes

Hey! :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

Performance 8 / 10

Jesus Christ…What they compare it to, Linux from scratch or Gentoo? :sweat_smile:
I genuinely wonder what’s their 10 / 10


Other that that - fair enough, fast & clean :slight_smile:

8 Likes

I think 8/10 is a good score. As I always see things as being out of 9.
10 is non existent in my book as there’s no such thing as perfect.

Though that’s just me, I can see why you’d question their score as EOS is extremely fast. Compared to the other distros I have installed on other systems (Elementary, MX and Solus) EndeavourOS does feel the most responsive/snappy. :dash:

Edit: Spelling

5 Likes

:thinking: Wait a second…But what am i constantly aiming for then?! :upside_down_face:

That’s the point, i guess only extremely custom and patched system can be faster than Arch! :penguin:

2 Likes

Hannah Montana Linux

But in all seriousness if I recall correctly, PopOS, Linux Lite, and antiX all received 9s in regards to performance, so they probably just favor Debian or Ubuntu based distros.

4 Likes

Well thank you, now i need to distro-hop again! :rofl:

5 Likes

It’s still around : http://hannahmontana.sourceforge.net/
Feel free to install in a VM :joy:

1 Like

I always aim for 9 :slightly_smiling_face:

Oh :confused: That explains a lot, though I don’t see how… Considering those kind of distros come with way more bloatware

2 Likes

Maybe they compare rest of systems to Ubuntu from TTY :thinking:

3 Likes

:smile: They should compare systems from Arch distro’s TTY instead.

2 Likes

The really strange thing about the ‘low’ score is that Jonni is an Arch guy usually. I was a bit disappointed in the review, as I expected better from him.

4 Likes

Most distro reviews are utter rubbish, because people reviewing the distro do not spend enough time using it.

But this one feels especially unfair, because you don’t even have to use EndeavourOS to know that it cannot possibly be in any way less performant than pure Arch. In fact, EndeavourOS is just adding a custom repo to Arch and changing the branding a bit.

So if the author rates the performance of Endeavour as 8/10, that is also the score vanilla Arch should get. And there is no way that PopOS, or antiX are more performant than Arch. I call :cow::poop: on that.

7 Likes

I think the ratings overall seem okay. In terms of performance, I find that a bit hard to evaluate because it’s dependent upon which desktop you use and it’s not so easy to do a like for like comparison across distros. Best you can do is an “out of the box” test, and in terms of out of the box EndeavourOS would be fairly highly rated due to the lack of bloat. Perhaps for this reviewer an 8 for performance is fantastic, but I’d really have to know whether they rated another distro 9 or 10 for performance and if so, which distro was it before I felt the 8 was unfair.

In any case, constructive feedback is always good. Helps the EOS team know what people think and whether anything needs adjustment in accordance with the feedback received.

1 Like

Read above.

I have to admit I can’t see it; is there a reference in this thread to what they rated Arch or which distro they’ve rated 9 or 10?

2 Likes

I was wrong about Linux Lite, it received an 8 in performance. But both PopOS and antiX received 9s.

3 Likes

By the same reviewer?

I’d have to go back and check, but I was just referring to the publication as a whole. That is a fair point though, reviewers even from the same publication can have wildly varying tastes.

Yeah, but that’s why editors exist.

How is it not misleading if you read in the same magazine that PopOS and antiX are rated 9 in performance, and EndeavourOS is rated 8? What is the conclusion an unsuspecting reader can make from this?

4 Likes