On 25/07/2004, at 11:54 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Michael Cree <cree(a)phys.waikato.ac.nz> [2004-07-25 12:51]:
Most seasoned users find it pretty awful as far as distributions go
Why?
What is the point of your question?
You haven't told us why is it that seasoned users find Suse pretty awful. I'd like to know why you make that claim! Hence my question: Why? I gave a list of expansions on that question which you chose not to quote. They explained it. So I would like to know if there is some fundamental reasons why seasoned users find it pretty awful. Is it because it is badly compiled? Is it because they have terrible support? Is it because it comes, by default, with KDE and some people object to the licensing of the QT library? Is it because it doesn't have programmers' tools in the default installation?
What I wrote is an observation that is true in my experience. Besides two or three exceptions, noone I know of has stuck with Suse for any length of time -- everyone seems to move on to other distros once they get their feet wet with Linux.
Why is that? Who knows.
Can someone explain it? I honestly would like to know why!
Its configuration tools interfere with manual tweaking a lot of the time, and the standard install doesn't include things like a Compiler, make(1), locate(1) and others that really should be available on every "real" system.
Who are they aiming it for? Why shouldn't configuration tools interfere with manual tweaking? Do we not need a version of Linux that makes it very easy to administer?
It limits flexibility. That might not matter where a large number of pretty uniform machines has to be maintained; I guess that's why Suse is so successful as an enterprise desktop distro.
True. You might have noticed that I have already criticised Suse on this list, beforehand, for this very reason. But instead of you damning it, how about some acknowledgement that Suse have a market in mind and that they are aiming their distribution for their market? And maybe they have done a good job in packing Linux for that market? (I'm not saying that they really have - I am just raising the possibility that this might be so.) That market may not suit seasoned users, true, but let's be objective about what Suse is good for and what it is not. Instead of evaluating it on your own narrow criteria, how about trying to evaluate it on its own criteria and seeing if meets those, or assessing it on criteria of other users (i.e. readers of the webpage) who might be interested in it?
I don't know if that makes it a good end user distro.
Fair enough. Then be honest in your writings which are on a publicly accessible website advocating Linux instead of trashing Suse in what appears to be ignorance.
Why should compilers, make, etc., be on "real" systems? What is a "real" system? Who users compilers, etc.? Programmers, no doubt. But don't we want Linux systems for and useable by the general public? What are they going to do with a compiler, with make, etc?
Come again? Compiling is not programming.
I've written very little C code so far, but I'd feel severely crippled without a compiler. Guess why?
There's a lot of stuff that does not come as a binary package.
Are you evaluating this on the basis of what comes precompiled with certain other Linux distributions or what comes with Suse? Suse has a very full set of precompiled packages, which I am told is much more extensive than other distributions. This lessens the need for a compiler. Again, who are Suse's customers? They are aiming at desktop users. They are not savvy enough to know how to use a compiler. I should point out that I am a programmer and have coded extensively in C under a number of OSes. But I agree with Suse's approach. I think they are right to not install the compiler's by default. Any programmer will be savvy enough to select the developer's package group during installation and get the compiler's installed. That's what I do, and I don't see it as a problem. With so much opensource software out there, no one default installation is going to suit everyone's needs.
make is another, partially separate issue.
I could possible agree with you on this one with more evidence. Certainly the average desktop user is NOT going to be using make, however make is a very useful tool for underlaying programs to exploit. Whether the Suse's default installation is hindered by this I don't know. An interesting question.
You can't even install any Perl modules from CPAN (whether they contain any C code or not) without make (no, that doesn't count as developing either -- there are applications written in Perl).
The average desktop user is not interested in installing Perl modules from CPAN. Again a correct call by Suse.
Nor would I want to use LaTeX without a make.
I am a very experienced user of LaTeX and think make is really a bit of a waste of time with LaTeX. LaTeX is generally a trivial twice (maybe thrice, and in very rare circumstances non-converging) compile situation. Adding BibTeX or makeindex hardly changes the situation. Certainly big documents spread across a number of files might benefit with management from make, but usually LaTeX's \includeonly command is sufficient. Anyway I use Emacs with auctex and auctex provides as much of the functionality of make that is needing for compiling documents, and is much easier to use than make.
That locate is missing on Suse's default install is just ridiculous.
Use find. With fast discs nowadays what is the point of keeping an extra database of the disc structure when it is already there in the filesystem on the disc?
Get a life, mate, and evaluate Linices on real issues.
Ad hominem basically forfeits any argument, you know. Good show.
I said, "evaluate Linices on real issues". That is not ad hominem. You have made a number of biased and unsubstantiated claims about Suse, that is next to useless for anyone trying to evaluate the relative pros and cons of various Linux distributions. Admittedly the first half of the sentence could be interpreted as ad hominem, but it is a standard turn of phrase that any NZer would understand and it carries truth which you have completely missed. A pity.
If you want a European beginner friendly distro, Mandrake should be a much better choice.
Why? 'Mandrake "should" be'? Or is it really? Or does it just aspire to what it should? So what makes Mandrake so good compared to Suse?
Mandrake aims for the same people as Suse except it doesn't have the aforementioned downsides. I don't think that sentence requires a lot of explanation in its context.
Then why do you say that it "should" be a better or choice? Is it or isn't it? Maybe as a German (admittedly, I am making an assumption based on your location of residence) you do not understand the intricacies of the English language, but the "should" in that sentence is really telling about your underlaying agenda.
Suse never had much of a following in NewZealand.
So what? Maybe that just proves how ignorant NZers are of excellent European distributions? Without more evidence how can we know?
FYI #1: I live in Germany. FYI #2: Mandrake is also European.
So what if you live in Germany? Without evidence to back up the claim it can be taken as meaning different things. I have highlighted one choice above which you didn't intend. Why does Suse not have a following in NZ? Is it because NZers are not very aware of Suse, or is it because NZers are very aware of Suse and have made an active choice not to use it? The implications for a reader who is interested in Linux and wanting to make a choice about which distribution to use, are very different depending on the answer to that question. Michael.