OSNews

I hope you have VMWare installed. That will make your night much easier!

VMware isn't always compatible. SUSE 10B1 didn't work in VMWware for me.

"VMware isn't always compatible."

FYI, the osdir screenshots were taken by me from withing VMWare..

Someone said you can just combine the files into a dvd iso. Probably easiest to do this on Linux. Perhaps someone can make a script that can extract the iso's and combine it into a bootable DVD ISO.

http://www.susewiki.org/index.php?title=Remastering_dvd_with_jigdo

I thought that in the past SuSE was never available as an .iso, and the only way to get it was to buy it or download the source and compile it yourself. The fact that Novell is offering the .iso files is a great thing.

The SUSE ISOs for 9.3 Professional are also on the mirrors so you don't have to go the network install route, but it's 5 CDs.

Does anybody know if there's any kind of "netinstall" version available for this beta?

Thanks

I agree - I just picked up Verbatim 4x DVD+RW's for 52 pence (95c) each (and Verbatim DVD-R discs are now 25p (45c) each), so along with the cheap cost of a DVD burner nowadays, there's no excuse whatsoever for any multi-CD Linux distro to not be available on DVD as well.

Fedora Core has been available on DVD since FC2 - if OpenSuSE want to compete with Fedora (which surely they do?), they *must* release a DVD version. I will *not* download multi-CD distro releases ever again, so OpenSUSE is a complete non-starter at the moment for me.

There is a detailed changelog on the first CD. It's a very big one. The most important changes are mentioned in the official announcement. A SUSE developer said on the mailing list that they fixed *all* reported bugs from Beta1 for Beta2. Unbelievable.

It would be more prudent if they had posted a changelog in their website instead of making me download 700MB just to find out what changed.

Thanks though.

Agreed...Where is changelog?
Did they fix the issues of Beta 1?

It would be nice to know if SuSE finally got frequency scaling for my Athlon XP-M, before downloading 4 CDs (hint to anyone in the know ).

I'm using suse 9.3 with my Athlon XP-M laptop right now, and it's scaling away. If you use gnome, it has an applet that shows the scaling dynamically.

> Does anybody know if there's any kind of "netinstall" version available for this beta?

Yep. Just download boot.iso accessible here:
ftp://suse.mirrors.tds.net/pub/opensuse/distribution/SL-OSS-curren...

When you boot off of that CD, the installer will complain that the install files are missing...and it'll bring you to a text-based configuration. From here, you can specify installation media, in this case "ftp," and just type the IP ADDRESS of your local SuSE mirror that contains the latest build.

If you live in America, that'll be TDS.net which is at: 216.165.129.140

After that, it'll prompt you for the path to the install files: /pub/opensuse/distribution/SL-OSS-current/inst-source/

A word of caution---I would recommend just eating the extra couple CDs and just downloading it in advance. The netinstall for a basic GNOME config is somewhere b/w 1.4-2 gigs anyway...and if your net connection (or the FTP site/connection, for that matter) b0rks on you, the installation will just hang. You'll have to start all over.

FTP installs are cool, but they don't really save you as much time as you think they might. (Especially when something breaks).

> Official reasoning: because many http and ftp servers have 2 GB problem.

One word: BitTorrent

*still hoping for KDE3.5*

I wouldn't worry if I were you, because when there is a new KDE, SUSE releases rpms of it within a few days.

http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=suse

kde is the default desktop....

don't forget, kde have 65% of the linux desktop...

Ah... don't get me wrong, this Gnome seems much cleaner and more complete than the previous Gnomes... but I like my KDE...

Even if in the past SUSE was paying more attention to KDE, since 9.3 both Gnome and KDE are equally polished. The other Window Managers are very nice too.

"Just wondering if OpenSuSe will come both with Gnome & KDE..."

Yes it will. And both very nice.

"(yes, I know it's possible to use apt with rpms but IMO that's like putting lipstick on a pig)"

Reading something like that hurts me very much, because some SUSE developers have gone to great lenghts to make APT for SUSE an extremely advanced tool.

> If SUSE would switch to using apt-get + Synaptic
> I'd give it another look but until then I'll keep
> using Ubuntu. I hate RPMs.

1. SuSE will *never* switch away from RPM.

2. DEB is not better than RPM.

3. apt is not the equivalent to /bin/rpm. The equivalent to /bin/rpm is dpkg.

4. DEB is not better than RPM, did I mention that?

5. "This is the first SUSE Linux that includes apt4rpm":

http://ct.kki.org/blog/2005/08/18/suse-linux-100-beta2-opensuse-in-...

6. Did I mention that DEB is not better than RPM?

7. apt sits a layer on top on both dpkg and /bin/rpm and therefore apt cannot be better than /bin/rpm because it is something completely different.

8. Finally, DEB is not better than RPM.

9. No commercial-grade distro can *ever* switch away from RPM because RPM is an industry standard.

10. Hate RPM as you desire, it's your decision, but there's no reason for that because DEB and RPM do exactly the same and therefore neither of them is better than the other.

1. SuSE will *never* switch away from RPM.

...

10. Hate RPM as you desire, it's your decision, but there's no reason for that because DEB and RPM do exactly the same and therefore neither of them is better than the other.

11. There's no need for apt4rpm except for Debian refugees, because yast does much the same as apt.

12. y2pmsh provides a command line interface to the yast package manager for people who don't like either the X or ncurses interfaces.

"11. There's no need for apt4rpm except for Debian refugees, because yast does much the same as apt."

As somebody who dual-booted between SUSE and Debian for a long time, allow me to disagree.

1)YaST isn't/wasn't quite as good as APT in calculating dependencies. I have found some gross mistakes that I have corrected either manually or with an "apt-get -f install"
2)APT is a lot easier to use: for each repo just add one word (example: packman). To YaST you need to add a whole URL. Also synaptic has (arguably) more features than YaST as a frontend for a package manager.

> There's no need for apt4rpm except for Debian
> refugees, because yast does much the same as apt.

I wouldn't say that, although I like YaST very much, because YaST is, let's talk about it seriously, "a little bit" slow. I think it's a good idea to give users the choice. Both are good solutions.

I wouldn't say that, although I like YaST very much, because YaST is, let's talk about it seriously, "a little bit" slow.

True, although the yast in 9.3 seems a lot more responsive than the one in 9.2.

(What annoys me most is that whole list of SuSEconfig.something scripts that is run every time you install or remove the tiniest package, no matter whether they're in any way connected.)


I think it's a good idea to give users the choice. Both are good solutions.

Fair enough, it's just that some people seem to think that apt is somehow greatly superior when tools like yast, urpmi or yum do much the same thing.

And of course having to provide both yast and apt repositories doesn't make things any easier for people like packman.

"5. "This is the first SUSE Linux that includes apt4rpm":

http://ct.kki.org/blog/2005/08/18/suse-linux-100-beta2-opensuse-in-...

Thanks. I didn't know it yet. This makes my day, because I have been a long time supporter of SUSE APT, and one of those who asked SUSE to include APT in the distribution.

Not only is DEB not better than RPM, RPM is much better... whenever I hear ignorant meatheads spout "but apt is better than rpm" it just makes me want to scream. apt is a frontend, it can be used by RPM or DEB.

-What is DEB's advantage?
Its plaintext and so it can be edited by a text editor (if you like to suffer alot.)
-What does this get you?
ahhh... almost nothing

-What is RPM's advantage?
Much more fine grained query functionality. Built in support for signatures, timestamp, md5sums, and trace histories.
-What does this get you?
Lets see... I can check very packaged file on my system for original installed timestamps, verify its md5sum from install, "back-up" my system to that any previous state that I want (like return my system to the way it was 3 weeks ago), advanced queries that ARE NOT EVEN IMAGINABLE under DEB, and about a HUNDRED other things that DEB cannot.

Bobby

when people talk about apt in the debian sense most of them are really talking about DPKG and yes.... DPKG is better than RPM. DPKG with apt as a front end is much more advanced than rpm, and has much better dependency handling than apt for rpm.

in any event, I am not a debian user (or it's derivitives), but I used Debian for a long period of time in the past, debian's package management is second to none and I don't think many people would argue with me on this point.

@re_re

You just don't seem to get it. RPM and apt are two completely different things. You can't compare them. As people are continually repeating, and seemingly going way over the heads of some users, APT AND RPM ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS. You can however, compare RPM and dpkg, and in this comparison, RPM is clearly superior. Feel free to prove me wrong though. What makes you thing that dpkg is better than RPM?

ummm..... i believe i pointed that out.... by saying most people that talk about apt are really talking about DPKG (they just don't know it)

anyway... can you say "dependency hell"

I work with RPM's at work regularly and I must say... DPKG blows RPM away, RPM has it's place but.. it pretty much just sucks.

@re_re

I agree that pure RPMs can result in dependency hell. You do realize however, that DPKG provides NO handling of dependencies at all, correct?

@re_re

Edit of the above. I meant to say limited dependency support, not none. My bad.

.deb knows which files are configuration files and how to handle them

.deb supports three level of dependencies (required, recommended, suggested)

Can .rpm do that? AFAIK not, but I might be wrong. If I'm right, than .deb IS better.

You are right on 3. and 7., and I agree with 1. as well. 9. too. Though something being and industry standard does not imply that that is the best way to do thing (I won't make any examples, to avoid further flaming

You could have droped 2., 4. and 8 however. That's not nice, pulling emotions into a technical discussion

maybe there should be some easysuse or easyyast websites for extra repositories...

There is APT:

http://linux01.gwdg.de/apt4rpm/

Note that there are already repositories for SUSE 10:

ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/suse/apt/SuSE/

(But don't expect too much just yet)

stop to lie... everybody know kde have the linux desktop market

Back when I got my boxed copy of Storm Linux 2000, which was a while ago, I do believe they actually printed on the box that KDE desktop environment was used by approximately 75% of Linux users, I don't remember the exact figure but it was in the 70's somewhere.

I don't know what the figures are now, but I wouldn't be surprised to see that KDE still has a strong position. I'm not saying that the SL2000 box couldn't be wrong, or that it was accurate, but I have seen similar figures since then showing KDE as still having a 60% - 70%+ user base amongst Linux users.

Anyway I don't see why this has to turn into a competition, I can understand that you are sceptical about the figures since these days it's hard to find any that aren't strongly influenced by bias; however, I assure you that I preffer facts even over my own personal opinion.

I believe it is optimized for i586 even if the Gentoo fanboy says elsewise. Of course source rpms are available to optimize to i686 if one has the inclination...

Does this build have support built in for wireless cards using RT2500 driver?

Excuse me for my bad english, but *yes*. My laptop has a Ralink wifi device, and is used without any problem since the first install.

Is that the same as 'yast -i package.rpm' ?

No, it does the same as the yast GUI, including downloading from repositories and solving dependencies, only with a command-line interface.

From the package description:


y2pmsh is a shell interface for the YaST2 packagemanager. It's able to
- install, update, remove or query packages and selections
- display package dependencies
- manage installation sources


When you start it you get a prompt where you enter commands. 'help' gives you a list of available commands, e.g. 'install', 'search', 'commit', 'whatdependson'.

Another caveeat about SUSE for me (and this extends to every distribution) is that there is no full multimedia support like in Windows or Mac OS X.

-----

You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

"Another caveeat about SUSE for me (and this extends to every distribution) is that there is no full multimedia support like in Windows or Mac OS X.

-----

You obviously don't know what you're talking about."

I know that good multimedia support can be added manually, I've done it before, but the problem is that it doesn't always go smoothly and in many cases takes more time than it's worth to me. Rather than insult me because of your own mistake try reading my whole posts before jumping to conclusions.

LOL, you troll. Windows can't play DVDs to start with. Quicktime? Real-Media..? Hey cool, Windows can play exactly as much stuff as Linux.

You're the troll, the point is that Windows has the software to play DVDs and other media formats available much more easily than in Linux. For me I got all the DVD playing software I needed on the CD with my DVD player, and on my laptop with the built in DVD-player the software was preinstalled.

I've never needed RealPlayer before, nor would I want to use it, and the only time I've ever needed quicktime was when watching the Apple keynotes.

I like Linux, but to get good multimedia support (including DVD support) there are actually more steps involved. People like you who try to blow off real issues with any OS shouldn't even be allowed to comment.

Another caveeat about SUSE for me (and this extends to every distribution) is that there is no full multimedia support like in Windows or Mac OS X. I realize that good multimedia support can be added manually, but I've rarely done that successfully in SUSE, and to do it properly takes too long. I would gladly buy a $30 CD with the proper multimedia support packages done right from the distribution's company than have to add it in manually, when are Linux distributors going to realize that there is a fair market for this.

I suppose I'll have to be a broken record on this but...

Windows does not come with full Codecs installed.

3rd Party software (WinDVD, PowerDVD, MusicMatch...) have codecs that load when you install the software. The reason there isn't DVD support in Linux is that each distro would have to purchase the licensing for a decrypter. That decrypter, being closed source, goes against the whole concept of a GPL based OS. Suse can't offer the NVIDIA driver because it's a closed source driver. However, NVIDIA doesn't charge for the use of the driver, so Novell can link to it and let the user make the choice.

Windows by itself cannot play DVD's...it needs the above mentioned software to do it.

My point isn't about licenses, it's that getting video codecs in Windows is much easier, windows media player already supports a fair bit, DVD playing software usually comes with a computer that has a DVD drive or on a CD with the drive, and it's not that hard to install Quicktime.

In Linux it's more difficult to get multimedia support, especially if prebuilt pacakages are not available. Distributors don't have to take the cost of making video codecs available, what they can do is make it a separate CD with easy to install packages and charge enough for that CD to pay any licensing fees. The fact that the codecs will be on a separate CD will also make it optional for the user whether they want to use proprietary codecs with Linux or not.

Microsoft may not have had to do anything to get all the multimedia support there is availble for Windows, but the fact remains that with the easy installation of two programs Windows can have all the multimedia support I'll ever need. Linux could really use an edge there, and a codec CD could provide that.

there are linux distributions that come with full multimedia support, however windows and osx do not.

If you want a linux distro with full multimedia support, try SimplyMepis, it comes with all media codecs, browser plugins, the works, and it's free. the only thing you may have to do (and i'm not sure) is install libdvdcss to get dvd decryption and this is as simple as apt-get install libdvdcss... it takes about 15 seconds to install with broadband.

another distro to try is PCLinuxOS, I am not 100% sure, but I believe it comes with all media codecs installed as well, and it runs faster then SimplyMepis.

Gentoo and Debian proper are also possabilities, they install and adjust all configuration files accordingly with one command.... easy.

The one thing that consistently stops me from looking at Suse is the upgrade path. If it were possible to update from 9.1, 9.2, or 9.3 to opensuse I'd be all for it but to my knowledge you have to download and install the CD each time you want to move up a rev.

Have a look here:

http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=145&slide=1...

"System Update", which should really be called "System Upgrade", does what you're asking for. "Change Source of Installation" lets you add online repositories so no CDs needed.

("Online Update" provides security patches and bug fixes for the currently installed version.)

So whats the most painless route from moving from 9.3 to 10.beta2...........

The only realistic route is downloading cd/dvd...

That's fantastic! .. you've made my day ... yum & rpms just seem to work so well together ... really makes installing a breeze

There are (or will be with next Beta) unsupported, unofficial yum repositories afaik.

That's madness.

I'm all for choice and all, and I can see why people prefer different package manangement interfaces, but what use are three different types of repositories? They're still distribution-specific, so even with yum you can't sensibly use Fedora repositories on Suse. So all you do is create more work for packagers.

>Great now there's a lot for everyone.Those who want to use "on the edge&testing" go
>with OpenSuSE and those who prefer "stable&support" buy a box.

Actually, if just "stable" is enough you can download the SL 9.3 Pro version from the OpenSuse.org.

Can you clarify? Which version did you update from? I only have a 9.1 CD available at the moment and am wondering if I can upgrade from there.

I cannot understand, how many times these people upgrade their system, every 6 months or every for months. Do you people do anything but upgrading your systems. I do not need OS every 4 mnths, or every 6 months and even every year. I want full-featured OS running at least 3 years, and as I see neither Linux is a choice, being every time "more polished ..."



Its about choice, prismX. You don't have to upgrade unless you have to. Its their choice to use the new version if they want. It doesn't mean you have to.

My usual thing is to use only the distros labelled "Stable" (for production use). I never go with "Beta", etc. Even then, I usually skip a version or so.

However, there are certain times when an upgrade is indeed necessary.

It could be because :
* Security issue
* Major fix
* Major improvements (which may have a feature you can use).

For the most, I'm sticking with Suse 9.3 on my Suse box. I ain't changing until Suse 11.x

BTW, Linux is about continually improvement, you cannot stop it...The best way is to stick with those labelled "ready for production"...Skip a version.

But it sounds like you should stay with Windows.