Sigh...I think I'm getting old.
Why do people continue to write, and read reviews of Linux Distro releases? What does the review provide (other than the author's opinion, which may or not be valuable to you) that the release announcement/release notes and other official communication from the distro don't provide? How often do Ubuntu/Fedora/openSUSE/Debian or any other major distro have a release that is either so bad or so good that it warrants a "review"? It seems every review I read goes something like this:
"Distro version 13.13 'Majestic Mockingbird' comes with Firefox, GIMP, Evolution, Thunderbird, Rythmbox, a few games and a terminal emulator pre-instaled. It works well on my hardware. There is a new wallpaper, here is a screenshot of it, but I'm going to change it, and the theme and the font and add a gaziliion applets to my panel/bar/dock and a huge elaborate conky config. Here is a screenshot of my uber tweaked-out desktop that looks like something out of a sci-fi movie. Overall it's pretty stable but I hate the new interface. It sucks. I'm going to go back to using nothing but terminal windows and text based applications, because I'm an uber geek. I may remove X altogether."
I know it's great for any distro to get press, but I can't remember the last time I learned anything valuable, or read anything insightful from any stock distro review.