I had a look at the review on this distro, From what I read, it seems ideal for a newbie.The only negative comments I found was that dvd movie play can be a real hassle to set up.. Boot time is a little longer than some other distros but that is not really so important is it? If anyone has got this distro installed I would like to see some opinion/critique, also if you are a new user or a seasoned Linuxer. Regards John..
Hey Gund,
I loaded SuSE onto my desktop here at Uni. What an awesome distro... Very easy to load up. Thanks again.
-----Original Message----- From: Gund Wehsling [mailto:Gund.Wehsling(a)computerland.co.nz] Sent: Thursday, 22 July 2004 13:09 To: Waikato Linux Users Group Subject: RE: [wlug] Suse Live CD
Hi
I am in Collingwood street and have good copies of both the live 9.1 and personal 9.1 install.
I am quite busy during the day, but will make copies on a swap for a blank basis. Mail me off list for contact details and when and where. Rgds
Gund
-----Original Message----- From: Wayne Rooney [mailto:wrooney(a)ihug.co.nz] Sent: Thursday, 22 July 2004 1:27 a.m. To: Waikato Linux Users Group Subject: Re: [wlug] Suse Live CD
finally got the iso, but its bad
redownoading but at least tomorrow before its here , so if anyone else has it ......
A tip for the future. If you've got a bad iso, find an rsync mirror and use rsync to repair it. Much quicker that re-downloading an entire iso. Wayne
_______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug _______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
_______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
* jaytee(a)clear.net.nz <jaytee(a)clear.net.nz> [2004-07-24 10:24]:
If anyone has got this distro installed I would like to see some opinion/critique, also if you are a new user or a seasoned Linuxer.
See http://www.wlug.org.nz/Suse which is mostly my doing. Regards, -- Aristotle "If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."
On 24/07/2004, at 8:54 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
See http://www.wlug.org.nz/Suse which is mostly my doing.
What a biased piece of unsubstantiated one-eyed dribble! Suse has it stengths and its weaknesses, as do most other Linices, I should expect. How about someone writing something that is objective, insightful and fair? (I don't think I am the person. I don't know other linices well enough to really outline the similarities and differences.) Some comments that might be useful to consider (the quoted material comes from the website mentioned above):
Most seasoned users find it pretty awful as far as distributions go
Why? Just because it is not set up for seasoned users? Because it is fundamentally flawed? Do they have poor support, bad reliability, poorly arranged distributions? Do they knowingly send out official distributions compiled with a completely screwed C compiler? (Redhat has done so.) Do they mangle TeX installations to be unuseable? (Redhat does.)
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? 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? A programmer knows how to do extra things. Surely it is easy for a programmer to find the select development tools package group during installation? If you can't work that out (and I can tell you it is trivial to do so during a Suse installation) then you shouldn't be using a compiler. Get a life, mate, and evaluate Linices on real issues.
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?
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? Michael.
What a biased piece of unsubstantiated one-eyed dribble! Suse has it stengths and its weaknesses, as do most other Linices, I should expect. How about someone writing something that is objective, insightful and fair? (I don't think I am the person. I don't know other linices well enough to really outline the similarities and differences.)
Welcome to the world of the wiki. How does it work? Someone writes a page (everything has to start somewhere) and other people edit it. I wrote a SuseLinux page, incidentally a year ago Tuesday, that read "SuSE is a German Linux distribution that has the same sort of importance in Europe as RedHatLinux has in the rest of the world. It's never had much of a following in New Zealand." I stand by all those statements; Aristotle wrote all the rest of it and he's in Germany! Sounds like you like SUSE (and Novell like the all caps thing), and don't think all that much of Red Hat. That's fair enough. If you don't like it, feel free to click the "edit" button. Craig
On 25/07/2004, at 9:19 PM, Craig Box wrote:
I wrote a SuseLinux page, incidentally a year ago Tuesday, that read "SuSE is a German Linux distribution that has the same sort of importance in Europe as RedHatLinux has in the rest of the world. It's never had much of a following in New Zealand."
Which is almost all that is objective on that web page.
I stand by all those statements; Aristotle wrote all the rest of it and he's in Germany!
So what if he's in Germany? What has that got to do with evaluating it? Linices should be evaluated on objective issues, not on the country you happen to live in.
Sounds like you like SUSE (and Novell like the all caps thing),
I have used Suse and find it ok. It also has it shortcomings which I have iterated in other postings, and have questioned whether it was the right choice for us. I do not have enough experience of other Linices to know whether they may be better. But I can sure can tell you that that webpage had practically nothing on it that could assist me in evaluating it.
and don't think all that much of Red Hat.
Redhat knowingly put out an official Linux distributed compiled with a faulty compiler. That, in my books, is an arrogance and a mistake of such catastrophic and unacceptable proportions that I will never ever consider Redhat again. They have demonstrated their ethic and extraordinary lack of judgement. They have done it once, and knowingly. They have lost my trust and my business. Michael.
I have an idea to stop this sterile and silly bickering. Why doesn't everybody learn how to use a real distribution (one example that is briliant: gentoo), where you can easily and efficiantly build a system up to how you like and/or how your feeling at the moment. ie : Don't feel like alsa? USE="-alsa" emerge xorg-x11 kde voila! KDE is built without anything alsa in it or want to install alsa now? ALSA_CARDS="emu101k" emerge alsa-utils (build alsa-utils with only support for soundblaster like cards). (BTW: ccache is your friend, and smokingly easy to install on gentoo :) (note: these options are normallly put in one file). Then we can easily stop this bickering about what x person thought of y distribution when "they first tried it" z months ago, and questionable statements like "This distribution is better in europe" and everybody can have their linux system just the way they want. Simple :). Peace, Love and Gentoo Linux :). m Michael Cree wrote:
On 25/07/2004, at 9:19 PM, Craig Box wrote:
I wrote a SuseLinux page, incidentally a year ago Tuesday, that read "SuSE is a German Linux distribution that has the same sort of importance in Europe as RedHatLinux has in the rest of the world. It's never had much of a following in New Zealand."
Which is almost all that is objective on that web page.
I stand by all those statements; Aristotle wrote all the rest of it and he's in Germany!
So what if he's in Germany? What has that got to do with evaluating it? Linices should be evaluated on objective issues, not on the country you happen to live in.
Sounds like you like SUSE (and Novell like the all caps thing),
I have used Suse and find it ok. It also has it shortcomings which I have iterated in other postings, and have questioned whether it was the right choice for us. I do not have enough experience of other Linices to know whether they may be better. But I can sure can tell you that that webpage had practically nothing on it that could assist me in evaluating it.
and don't think all that much of Red Hat.
Redhat knowingly put out an official Linux distributed compiled with a faulty compiler. That, in my books, is an arrogance and a mistake of such catastrophic and unacceptable proportions that I will never ever consider Redhat again. They have demonstrated their ethic and extraordinary lack of judgement. They have done it once, and knowingly. They have lost my trust and my business.
Michael.
Malcolm Lockyer wrote:
I have an idea to stop this sterile and silly bickering.
Why doesn't everybody learn how to use a real distribution (one example that is briliant: gentoo)
Please, no one reply to this message, it'll only create what it "intended" to end. Distro wars are simply a waste of bandwidth and fill the list with needless fluff. Cheers Philip
<feel free to ignore> Sorry for my needless fluff. I don't mean to come off as a "ricer boy". I worded it badly. If you want to have a fun fast system you understand use gentoo, and yes it has its own pile of faults like everything. But obviously nobody cares, your happy with what you use, and I am happy with gentoo. So I'll offically shut up now. Peace. m Philip Murray wrote:
Malcolm Lockyer wrote:
I have an idea to stop this sterile and silly bickering.
Why doesn't everybody learn how to use a real distribution (one example that is briliant: gentoo)
Please, no one reply to this message, it'll only create what it "intended" to end.
Distro wars are simply a waste of bandwidth and fill the list with needless fluff.
Cheers
Philip
_______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
* 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? 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.
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. I don't know if that makes it a good end user distro.
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. make is another, partially separate issue. 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). Nor would I want to use LaTeX without a make. That locate is missing on Suse's default install is just ridiculous.
Get a life, mate, and evaluate Linices on real issues.
Ad hominem basically forfeits any argument, you know. Good show.
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.
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. Regards, -- Aristotle "If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."
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.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 09:54:21AM +1200, Michael Cree wrote:
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.
It is a publicly editable wiki. If you disagree with the contents, edit it and put in your own objective observations. This is more positive than telling other people what they should write.
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?
I use both locate and find a lot, and they are good at different things. I wouldn't want to do a find on my whole filesystem every time I'm looking for installed .css files - locate indexes the filenames and returns them pretty much instantly, find would take minutes to go through my hard drive, as well as slow down the rest of the system and possibly help wear out the disk faster. John McPherson
I'm playing with a number of distros as I want to find an ideal little distro that is as easy as pie for a newbie. I tried the live CD, and ... how do i say it nicely. .... not a pretty experience, 2 machines wouldn't even boot to X, and the third did but no mouse, (I think the KVM switch might have upset something,) all these machine work perfectly with Knoppix, morphix Mepis (as Live CD) and PC Linux OS (live cd based on mandrake) Later on I'll have another play to see if I can get a better result. Also Suse has a reputation of not doing media well, I hoped this would be gone by now, but reviews I have read make it seem that it remains unchanged. I'm working on a test list of what I plan to do to test a number of Linuxes as home users desktop PC's I'm guessing what the average low budget user will do with a PC, but based on my experiences of the last 2 weeks, its not much. I will be doing a full install on an old dse terminator, these came with mandrake 9 on them so its very linux friendly, right down to the ham modem. which should be fun. I will be dual booting with Win ME so that the experience is as close to what a new user should expect. I will also install and older So far I plan to do: Suse Fedora Mandrake Mepis Knoppix (installed) PC Linux OS CollegeLinux (its what I use) but it will get an honest review warts and all. Yoper (same here, even if I had issues in the past) I will also do Feather and morphix gui-light, installed as a desktop, just for older machines. at the end as some pc's still dont work on I686 distros. and choice is nice. I am looking at either a 500Mhz K5 or a 200MHz P1mmx (Laptop) for this ... I may even get brave and do both. I'll wiki the results, but its more for my own use and he results will also be posted on a new website I am working on. Each will get a day or 2 to do its thing. and then get replaced with the next so I only expect 2 distros per week, so dont ask me to do too many, but if I missed a really good desktop distro let me know. as I will be comparing them and would hate to miss a really good one. But the tests will be really easy to duplicate so you can do them on your favourite distro and compare the results yourself. They will be compared after the install, I will assume a newbie will not do the install themself. so Its really only how it works as a desktop that I need to consider. so If I missed the best desktop distro, drop me a note. And ... why am I blowing away my perfectly good CollegeLinux 2.5 install? .. the 2.6 pre-Alpha is due out very soon, and this is the machine I will be testing and debugging on, so its about to be blown away anyway. There may never be a better time. Have fun.
I had a look at the review on this distro, From what I read, it seems ideal for a newbie.The only negative comments I found was that dvd movie play can be a real hassle to set up.. Boot time is a little longer than some other distros but that is not really so important is it? If anyone has got this distro installed I would like to see some opinion/critique, also if you are a new user or a seasoned Linuxer.
I loaded SuSE onto my desktop here at Uni. What an awesome distro... Very easy to load up. Thanks again.
I've personally found the SuSE live CD great, it loaded up two machines without any problems. It did everything plus more than what you would expect out of Windows install. I actually loaded up SuSE on one of my machines, configured it and everything, then I transferred the Hard Drive to another machine. It fired up straight away and rediscovered and installed the different hardware without any issues, fuss, or a reboot requirement. Try that with XP :) (BTDT) It also updated the security patches, software updates as soon as the network card was configured. If I was looking at a floor of machines (whether a computer lab, POS machines, calls centre, etc), I would definitely consider this distro. A thing to consider, this is a desktop distro, if you want to build a server, this is not your distro. I kinda like that as a network administrator, if someone is hand out this distro to newbies on site, there will a lesser risk posed on rogue servers on any given subnet.
-----Original Message----- From: jaytee(a)clear.net.nz [mailto:jaytee(a)clear.net.nz] Sent: Saturday, 24 July 2004 20:20 To: Waikato Linux Users Group Subject: RE: [wlug] Suse Live CD
I had a look at the review on this distro, From what I read, it seems ideal for a newbie.The only negative comments I found was that dvd movie play can be a real hassle to set up.. Boot time is a little longer than some other distros but that is not really so important is it? If anyone has got this distro installed I would like to see some opinion/critique, also if you are a new user or a seasoned Linuxer.
Regards John..
Hey Gund,
I loaded SuSE onto my desktop here at Uni. What an awesome distro... Very easy to load up. Thanks again.
-----Original Message----- From: Gund Wehsling
Thursday, 22 July 2004 13:09 To: Waikato Linux Users Group Subject: RE: [wlug] Suse Live CD
Hi
I am in Collingwood street and have good copies of both the live 9.1 and personal 9.1 install.
I am quite busy during the day, but will make copies on a swap for a blank basis. Mail me off list for contact
[mailto:Gund.Wehsling(a)computerland.co.nz] Sent: details and
when and where. Rgds
Gund
-----Original Message----- From: Wayne Rooney [mailto:wrooney(a)ihug.co.nz] Sent: Thursday, 22 July 2004 1:27 a.m. To: Waikato Linux Users Group Subject: Re: [wlug] Suse Live CD
finally got the iso, but its bad
redownoading but at least tomorrow before its here , so if anyone else has it ......
A tip for the future. If you've got a bad iso, find an rsync mirror and use rsync to repair it. Much quicker that re-downloading an entire iso. Wayne
_______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug _______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
_______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
_______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
On 24/07/2004, at 8:19 PM, jaytee(a)clear.net.nz wrote:
I had a look at the review on this distro, From what I read, it seems ideal for a newbie.
I would agree with that sentiment. It comes, by default, with KDE desktop and OpenOffice. As someone else indicated, compilers and other programming tools are not installed by default., but then, why should they be when it is aimed at windowing desktop users? It comes with an extensive set of RPMs, and a well organised installation program (as part of YAST) that can be used to install other package sets. You just select development tools group, and hey-presto, you get all the compilers, etc., installed.
The only negative comments I found was that dvd movie play can be a real hassle to set up..
I don't know much about that but someone else indicated on this list that Suse was less than adequate in this regard.
Boot time is a little longer than some other distros but that is not really so important is it?
Personally, I think it is completely irrelevant, as is installation time. Who gives a damn how long it takes to install? It is a one off action. Why is boot up time so relevant? The machine is switched on and never switched off again. What is important is how fast applications run, how responsive the windowing system is, how the system copes with multiple tasks running or with CD/disc read/writes running, and so on. The differences between linices are small compared to the differences in hardware, amount of memory, etc.
If anyone has got this distro installed I would like to see some opinion/critique, also if you are a new user or a seasoned Linuxer.
I ran Suse on my office computer for three or so years. I have now dumped it and moved to Mac OS X. To be frankly honest, I have almost no regrets in abandoning Linux for my office computer. We continue to run Suse on our servers (as well as HP/Compaq Tru64 Unix on our alpha workstations) and one staff member I am responsible for is using it on our deparment laptop - mainly to get good access to LaTeX and a decent text editor (emacs). Suse has its strengths and weaknesses. It is certainly a good installation for someone with little Unix experience. It has an extensive set of precompiled packages ready on its installation discs. It is one of the best for multilingual support (not surprising when it comes from Europe). And for some people, that it is not American will figure highly! But, as I have intimated before, and see someone else in the last couple of days making similar comments on this list, its extra layer of configuration scripts linking into YAST (the administration frontend), which makes it so great for newbies, is a right royal pain in the arse for serious server work. We are always having to work through the Suse administration scripts to work out what they do so that we can make changes to the basic administration level without nasty interactions with Suse's guff. Michael.
participants (9)
-
A. Pagaltzis -
Craig Box -
Gavin Denby -
jaytee＠clear.net.nz -
John R. McPherson -
lindsay -
Malcolm Lockyer -
Michael Cree -
Philip Murray