OSNews

The versions shipped with SLED10 will *never* change. Novell will backport security changes etc, but NEVER will they change the version. There are obvious reasons for NOT changing it.
As for your NVIDIA driver, you would have gotten them automatically, had you registered with Novell.
The problems you are experiencing has to do with yourself. You know less than you think, but more than you should, hence you're breaking it yourself.

Like I said, spare me the flames.. I HAVE registered with Novell.

As for not knowing as much as I think in your humble opinion, you're probably right I don't know as much as maybe you think I should about SuSE, however you've missed one vital component here.. I was trying to see how the average user as I have experienced for years now would approach things. I was exploring SuSE and certainly wasn't expecting to hit as many problems.

It's nieve to think that everyone is going to elect to join the Novell network. People are concerned about privacy and security, and others will just not want to do it. I don't belive they should just to get drivers. Security updates I can understand.

I certainly do not see how I know too little but too much and as a result broke things such as the installation issue I had, upgrading to the newer Firefox and the drivers.

An average user would let the os manage the updating of their browser and drivers. You, knowing more than an average user strived to go beyond the operating system and worry about individual package versioning, average users couldn't care less, click browse no problem.

---
At this point in time I've reserved myself to just have 2.0 in a folder on the desktop and will run it from there. So.. tried to use it, and Flash works fine in Firefox 1.5 but not 2.0 on my system.
---

It doesn't install from what I could tell. You just place the Firefox folder into your /home/"user" or /root directory then create a symbolic link to the firefox.sh script on your desktop.

You need to move libflashplayer.so and other files from the ~/.mozilla/plugins to the ~./firefox/plugins folder for Flash and other plugins to function.

If you don't want to do all that, wait for FF 2.0 to appear on the guru repository or w/e and grab it from there. Note: openSUSE 10.2 has Firefox 2.0.

Why Mozilla doesn't offer RPM or DEB packages or an automated installer for LSB compliant distribution (like SUSE) is beyond me.

---
Going back to 1.5 it then told me that other instances of the firefox "process" were running and I had to close them or restart the computer. No visible firefox instances were running. I knew I could terminate them with some "ps aux | grep [f]irefox" and "kill -9" commands but frankly for a desktop OS that was something I was very suprised about.
---

This sort of thing happens to me on Linux and Windows. On SUSE, I just open KSysGaurd and kill the misbehaving processes.

When windows are shown, I like to press Ctrl+Alt+Esc and click on them to terminate their instances.

---
I then tried to enable XGL... no go with my Geforce 6600 GT.. This is not a cutting edge card and certainly not old. I would have expected it to work.. no matter I started to download the drivers via YaST but then I had to add the nvidia source which I found out via Google I had to do. It presented the available downloads, but there were several and I just trusted the website message forum.. it worked.. except there are random artifacts now in the XGL interface.. fancy and all but not acceptable to have artifacts.
---

SUSE doesn't ship with proprietary drivers anymore. You get the NV driver if you use an nVidia card. NV offers no 3D support for any modern card.

DRI is a bit more functional with ATI cards, but sucks donkeys on chipsets greater than R300.

In additon, XGL and Compiz are just temporary hacks that will cease to exist once the true compositing window managers in Gnome 2.18 and KDE 4 appear and proprietary drivers support AIGLX (soon).

---
All this, not to mention I spent days trying to figure out why the installer couldn't find the software catalog, only to discover by chance that even though it booted successfully off my DVD, it kept referring to the CD-ROM drive on the same IDE for the catalog which of coarse didn't exist.. the fix was to eject the CD from the CD-ROM and only then would the installer find the catalog.
---

This is probably a bug. Maybe file a bug report?

Package management is already better in openSUSE 10.2 Beta 1. Just wait for the Gold Master in December. :-)

---
It's only early days and I'm going to give this a serious go for at least a month but as a running score on my experience so far, I could only give SuSE a 5 out of 10 and certainly wouldn't think that it's ready for the prime time.
---

Things are getting better, just wait. Next year we'll have the next generation KDE and Gnome desktops to displace Vista's Aero and Leopard's Aqua. :-)

Plus SUSE and Kubuntu will be among the first to receive the KDE 4 treatment.

Hey thanks for the great reply. I'll give this a go when I get home later on.

Hmm... some testing has revealed that plugins work in either the .mozilla/plugins (from previous firefox) or firefox/plugins folders.

I would just check to make sure "libflashplayer.so" in one of those. Then type "about:plugins" in the address bar to determine if Flash is successfully installed.

Why Mozilla doesn't offer RPM or DEB packages or an automated installer for LSB compliant distribution (like SUSE) is beyond me.

Because not everybody uses a rpm or deb based packamanager.A pre-compiled binary in a zip is fair.

Any Linux distro in it's current state of affairs is more of a closed appliance solution than a platform as far as nondeveloper oriented users are concerned. The philosophy here is that you should avoid using software from 3rd party sources and stick to whatever distro integrated.

It resembles a desktop OS but in reality it turns your PC into a multi function desktop appliance.

Well, Transtec has been selling desktops and laptops with SuSE preinstalled for ages now. At least a year anyway, because we buy from Transtec here at work, and I've been working here for a year.

Here you go, a nice laptop with SuSE preinstalled:

http://www.transtec.co.uk/GB/E/products/Notebooks/transtecv210noteb...

I've come to the conclusion that for some users, though probably not anywhere near the majority, pre-loaded anything is a bad idea. Every time I'm confronted with default install options in Linux/FreeBSD I find I need to change something!

I can see that point of view, if they configured like Flash, Java, Movie Player, Real Player, Xine, XMMS (with codecs) and DVD codecs. I feel this would help the cause even if they had to a pay a fee for license keys. I can understand the need to change/configure for you liking I know I totally change my Linux workstation/laptop/servers all around.

SLED 10, which is what they're talking, about does come with all that stuff pre-installed iirc.

If it's Linux, you actually CAN.

True, but if you have to reinstall Linux because the vendor got it wrong the only advantage over having to get rid of Windows before you put Linux on the machine is that Microsoft lose the revenue. Microsoft losing the revenue for one box is unlikely to be much comfort to anyone but the most rabid Microsoft hater who has to reinstall Linux.

Yet, if you are of the sort that thinks that everyone gets everything crudtastically wrong except for you yourself, I doubt if there's any comfort to be found anywhere under any circumstances. The advantage is that, like it has been stated ad nauseum in dozens of articles like these, the Linux is pre-installed and supported out-of-box. It is yet another path in which to INTRODUCE Linux to the general public in a way that is familiar and palatable to them. Thus, the same people who blindly trusted Microsoft to serve their best interests (which they may or may not have done) are merely just switch to trusting someone else (albeit blindly), the ones who desire to learn how to master and refine their computers have another opportunity to do so, and Microsoft (et al., if there were an et al. allowed) has to work all the harder to win customers back. Plus, if someone is merely unconcerned about change, they can stick with the obvious choice(s). So the pre-installer doesn't get it perfect first shot from the gate... who does?

//Thus, the same people who blindly trusted Microsoft to serve their best interests (which they may or may not have done) are merely just switch to trusting someone else//

Microsoft agenda = make money for Microsoft. (Nothing wrong with that per se, but it isn't the same agenda as end users of software would have).

Authors of FOSS software agenda = make the best software possible for users to use.

Just looking at the agenda of the people writing the software you might consider using can lead you to a decision. This isn't a blind choice at all. The agendas are in plain sight.

Perhaps. I don't know if it's that simple though.

You cannot deny that vendors of paid linux distributions have a angenda to make money as well.

I think you're comparing different entities here. Microsoft generally owns and controls the entire pipeline for software that it's involved in (there are exceptions) and are certainly geared towards making a profit. This includes the "authors" of the software inside Microsoft.

The "authors" of free software don't always control that pipeline of software conception, creation, delivery and support, so their agenda understabily could be believed to be as you've said to make the best software.

You could argue that you're in some aspect encouraged to take the software, modify and repackage and then sell support services for it. This is of coarse conditional that the release the changes back to the community. There IS a benefit here for everyone if followed, but also a gearing towards making a profit.

The vendors of delivering and supporting the software, whilst they do contribute to the FOSS movement, do have a gearing towards making money as well.

So to be fair here, I would think it's probably best to compare the entire FOSS movement (conception, creation, delivery and support) against Microsoft as a whole. If you view it in that context it's not as simplistic as one is for profit, the other for the good of people.

And lets not forget the tremendous charatable contributions and recent appearance to be more open from Microsoft. I say appearance with emphasis because I'm sure this is geared towards some idea that there's profit or lack of expense by doing so.

There is certainly gray areas in this on both sides in my view.

//You cannot deny that vendors of paid linux distributions have a angenda to make money as well. //

Linux distributions make money, as you put, via "then sell support services for it". This is perfectly out in the open. You don't have to pay for the support if you don't require it. If you don't require the support, the total TCO is $0.

Thus the authors of FOSS software are not served in any way by putting "bad" things (bad from the end users' perspective) in the software. The FOSS software authors make no extra or less money (one way or another) via what they put into the software. OTOH, if the authors put the best code they can into the software, then they themselves benefit, distributors benefit, and end users benefit. Since the code is free of charge, there is no need at all to protect it from piracy, or to hide it from scrutiny, or to deceive anyone about what is in it.

With Windows however, with a different agenda, all I have to do is mention the keywords: WGA, call home, product keys, EULA, license fee, CAL, DRM, closed, proprietary, patent, royalty, lock-in ... and the agenda is clear. Very clear. It is not the same agenda as end users have.

Edited 2006-10-27 03:32

I already said that the vast majority of people would be happy with the options; I don't have anything against preloaded Linux in principle, either. Quite the contrary: I say BRING IT ON!!!

l3v1:Well, actually, I'd like more to be able to finally buy laptops (I'd say desktops too, buy I never buy pre-built PCs) without any OS whatsoever which should really show in their price too. And I mean quality laptops from big names, not some noname laptops. And I expect that if a laptop costs x+os price, then I should be able to buy the same laptop for x, and not at the same price, for a higher price, or not be able to buy at all. I don't think I'm asking too much.

No, you are not asking too much, just head over to the HP page and check out the HP Compaq business laptops such as the nx6325 or nc63110. You can get them with FreeDOS for about 50$ less than with MS Windows XP Pro.

EDIT: Of course i meant nc6310.

Edited 2006-10-27 19:32

It seems that new Linux user expect everything to just work out of the box when they install the OS themselves, but I've never known Windows to just work when first installed.

You'll have to clarify what you mean by "just work when first installed". Windows doesn't ship with every conceivable driver, so it's therefore impossible for it to work without some kind of separate driver installation.

It's interesting that many would be new users know enough to get the OS up and running, but are then dissatisfied when they have to get drivers working. Yet, I've always had to hunt down drivers for Windows and make adjustments on the fly.

I don't think any user is happy about having to hunt for drivers; regardless of whether it's for Linux or Windows.

Once you've put in the work, you can basically go off into the computer world naked and not have to worry (though I wouldn't advise it), while in windows, a Bulet proof vest is mandatory for daily survival.

First, security is only one column in a larger decision matrix. I know plenty of users who use their machines simply for writing email and browsing the web. They simply don't care about security at all. If something happens to their machine, they insert their system CD, reboot, and reinstall the OS in 30 minutes. In terms of effort, that isn't a big deal for them. But it's certainly less effort than learning an entirely new OS. Second, have you tried Vista yet? It uses restricted user accounts, IE (the biggest vector for malware) runs with restricted permissions (something that Firefox does not do yet, by the way), it requires a default password, and the firewall is enabled by default; hence, your complaint about security carries far less weight.