What makes a distro "good"?

[urukrama]

The ubuntuforums members are often asked to suggest a "good" distro other than Ubuntu, or, more specifically, a "good" KDE distro, etc. Sometimes members claim that distro xyz is very good, or perhaps even the best.

But I always wonder, what makes a distro good?

Is it the package management system or structure (deb vs rpm; synaptic vs. pacman; etc)
? Is it the speed? Is it based on the amount of resources the distro uses? Is it the looks of the distro (the default theme, the usplash, the gmd/kdm theme)? Is it the added extras (a different menu, a GUI for xorg configuration, easy codec installation)? Is it the fact that distro xyz comes with the latest versions of applications abc? Is it the default applications that come with the distro, and whether it comes on one cd or more? Is it the flexibility in customisation (of looks, and of versions of applications that can be installed)?

Is it all of these together, or none of them?

I'm sure that we all have a different opinion about this, but I am always a little puzzled when people just say "Sidux is a really good KDE distro" or "Mint is the best distro" adn then do not explain why they say so. Chances are that they consider it best based on something I don't consider important.

So, what makes a distro good in your opinion?

[Lord Illidan]

Package management and speed are definite pluses. Community is also one.

[misfitpierce]

Community... Ease of use... and Great features built in.

[ThinkBuntu]

• Stability
• Productivity (ease of use)
• Innovation
• Speed
• Good design
• Customizability

[igknighted]

I would say all of those things add together and form a general "feel" that I give a plus or minus. I think you missed two of the most important things though... hardware support and reliability. I am using Pardus right now because it is one of the few distros that really supports my sound card. Overall, I just really think that everything taken together forms a general opinion of the distro.

EDIT: Great topic, by the way.

[ThinkBuntu]

I would say all of those things add together and form a general "feel" that I give a plus or minus. I think you missed two of the most important things though... hardware support and reliability. I am using Pardus right now because it is one of the few distros that really supports my sound card. Overall, I just really think that everything taken together forms a general opinion of the distro.

EDIT: Great topic, by the way.

Pardus has the best out-of-the-box hardware compatibility I've seen. I think that Gentoo/Sabayon and Debian/Ubuntu draw close when you factor in the vastness of their available packages, which can only maximize hardware compatibility. I consider hardware compatibility to be part of my Productivity/Ease-of-use point, but I think that my points neglect the priority people place on computers as entertainment/multimedia machines. As for the other one...reliability and stability are pretty much one in the same.

[tgalati4]

For most people, a good distro is one that works well on your particular machine. That means it installs without jumping through too many hoops and things just work the way they are supposed to.

All of the other factors mentioned give you a more or less favorable impression of that distro.

If there is a package that you want to use, but it is not available for your distro and you compile it from scratch, and it works, then you may not gripe about the lack of that package.

If you don't know how to compile from scratch, then that could be a show-stopper.

It's a curious observation that when you have a decent install running for a few weeks, you want to try something different.

There is no perfect distribution, but there are many that come close. With some effort, you can normally work around most issues. Once you have your machine set up, you are reluctant to trash it for another distro, but the itch is still there.