Linked by David Adams on Fri 11th Jul 2008 04:10 UTC
SuSE, openSUSE A few weeks ago, the OpenSUSE Project announced the release of OpenSUSE 11.0, the "community" edition of SUSE Linux, Novell's commercial Linux distribution. Here it's taken for a test drive.
Order by: Score:
I've tried it, but...
by natic on Fri 11th Jul 2008 05:03 UTC
natic
Member since:
2008-07-11

I wanted to use it as a Samba server but it's all horribly incomplete. The shares sort of work, the printer connects, but as far as I know only in Vista - the only Vista box we have, the rest are all XP and quite frankly the headache inducing torment of the samba user account handling is horrid.

Suse 9.3 when I tried it was so much better but it seems they've really let the server side down too much since then. It used to be basic, like Ubuntu but robust like a true UNIX machine should be. That's what it should be, maybe they've aimed it at the desktop market too heavily now at the expense of versatility? At least it's stable, they seem to get that bit right.

Now it just seems to sort of be on the same track as Fedora...all glitz and glamour and bleeding edge but nothing solid underneath...but at least Fedora acts more complete, esp. as a server. I think we'll stick to a distro that works as a decent Samba server. I was lead to believe that Suse was a good server distro, whoever says so isn't a network administrator in a business. I signed up today just to post this, that's how fed up I am with it. No I didn't RTFA coz I don't care anymore.

</rant>

Reply Score: 2

RE: I've tried it, but...
by decriptor on Fri 11th Jul 2008 05:16 UTC in reply to "I've tried it, but..."
decriptor Member since:
2008-06-19

I would disagree with you as a former network administrator and opensuse user. I use a mi of sles and opensuse for servers and have had a great amount of success. As for samba, its the same samba on both machines.

opensuse 11.0 is 3.2.0 and
fedora 9 is 3.2.0pre3 (assuming it was undated after release)

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: I've tried it, but...
by natic on Fri 11th Jul 2008 05:27 UTC in reply to "RE: I've tried it, but..."
natic Member since:
2008-07-11

Well then explain how I'm supposed to use the broken interfaces in KDE which always worked in the previous OpenSuse distros from 9.3 until 10.2 to set up shares and connect only certain users to those shares with proper permissions.

I fail to see how it's done like it used to be. I reckon that Fedora would still work like it always has like that.

I don't care about command line and all that rubbish. We don't have a lot of trained IT staff, we need stuff done fast. Don't give me that crap about CLI being quicker, or easier or anything. It just isn't. You point, click and go. That's it. The point is to minimise mistakes not make things complicated. Whatever happened to keeping things simple.

EDIT: Fixed spelling

Edited 2008-07-11 05:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

v RE[3]: I've tried it, but...
by decriptor on Fri 11th Jul 2008 05:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I've tried it, but..."
RE[4]: I've tried it, but...
by natic on Fri 11th Jul 2008 05:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I've tried it, but..."
natic Member since:
2008-07-11

And this is why Linux isn't ready. Get things right. Don't bitch at me coz I don't have time. Want prime time users get prime time shit working. RTFM and all that is just an excuse. And before you have a go at me for that remember I'm used to distros WORKING! Like they should. Why have interfaces to things that normally work that don't. Why not just grey the lot out? That way I'll know I'm wasting my time.

I'm not having a go at the community per se, I have seen wonderful work done on all sorts of fronts, but show stoppers like this need to be done away with. Permanently.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: I've tried it, but...
by bralkein on Fri 11th Jul 2008 17:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I've tried it, but..."
bralkein Member since:
2006-12-20

Look, I can see that you're not frustrated and decriptor's reply to you was a bit short tempered, but I can't agree with what you're saying. Linux isn't ready for prime time because you can't configure your server on one particular distribution of Linux using a GUI? Come on.

As a home user trying to manage some digital photos or whatever I think it's fair to say that if they have to bust out the CLI then something has gone wrong, but from the sound of things you're trying to set up a Linux Samba server in a professional environment, which is altogether different. If you're going to embark upon a technical project like this, then you're just going to have to get to know your tools properly. In Linux, this means having a rudimentary knowledge of the CLI. In Windows I'd actually say the same thing, but even without that Windows has its own problems one has to come to terms with.

My point is basically this: if you're a techie (and why else would you be on these forums?) you should be willing to read a few HOWTOS and learn some basic CLI skills to make things work. There is a wealth of brilliant documentation online for SAMBA and BASH. If you're not up to the task of learning a new system, fork out for Windows instead.

Finally, I'm sorry to say that it seems you've been more a victim of bad luck than anything - it's been possible to configure Samba with a GUI for upwards of 5 years now. Have you considered filing a bug report?

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: I've tried it, but...
by carlleigh on Fri 11th Jul 2008 18:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I've tried it, but..."
carlleigh Member since:
2008-06-19

"And this is why Linux isn't ready." --> snip

snip <--"I'm not having a go at the community per se, I have seen wonderful work done on all sorts of fronts, but show stoppers like this need to be done away with. Permanently."
======================================================

Natic I'm really concerned about you. I think you really should give up this Linux thing and stick to Microsoft.

As for everyone that has not tried Linux before or openSuse, don't worry its quite good. I think you can skip Natics comments he seems to be on some kind of Linux induced FUD rage.

If you have problems like Natics with Samba and you haven't the time to invest in learning Linux: Novell does have reasonably charged support options even for openSuse, you might want to think about the more fully supported and able SUSE Enterprise, or you might want to try a previously released version of openSuse which at this early date would be much better supported.

Thank You!

Reply Score: 0

Fedora is based on openSUSE?
by decriptor on Fri 11th Jul 2008 05:09 UTC
decriptor
Member since:
2008-06-19

I'm just left scratching my head....

<From Article>
There are other under-the-cover improvements, including a new installer. In short, OpenSUSE 11.0 is a step-wise refinement of the OpenSUSE line, rather than anything revolutionary.

......

The big question is: Given that Red Hat bases its Fedora distribution on OpenSUSE, and
</From Article>

Under the hood? Man, I didn't even notice the new installer, they must have hid that well under the hood...

Always knew fedora look just like openSUSE ;) :/

I give up

Reply Score: 5

RE: Fedora is based on openSUSE?
by rtfa on Fri 11th Jul 2008 08:40 UTC in reply to "Fedora is based on openSUSE?"
rtfa Member since:
2006-02-27

Did you also notice the need to download 2 DVDs to get opnesuse installed? what a load of cr*p.

I think the person who did this "review" just plucked some nonsense phrases out of the air (or troll forums), perhaps they should go back to flipping burgers.

Reply Score: 4

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"Did you also notice the need to download 2 DVDs to get opnesuse installed? what a load of cr*p."

He must have heard of the boxed retail edition. That comes with 2 dual layer DVDs. But you can't download that one.

Reply Score: 2

sgibofh Member since:
2007-03-31

to install, you can use a single CD iso or a single DVD iso...

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Thanks, I know that.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Fedora is based on openSUSE?
by massysett on Fri 11th Jul 2008 12:13 UTC in reply to "Fedora is based on openSUSE?"
massysett Member since:
2007-12-04

I stopped reading right there.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Super-Hornet
by Super-Hornet on Fri 11th Jul 2008 06:02 UTC
Super-Hornet
Member since:
2008-07-03

natic.. Are u using KDE4 or KDE3.5 in the first place?

Edited 2008-07-11 06:03 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Super-Hornet
by natic on Fri 11th Jul 2008 06:09 UTC in reply to "Comment by Super-Hornet"
natic Member since:
2008-07-11

I've tried 10.2 with KDE 3.5.x and had exactly the same problems with Suse 11 with KDE 4.1.x. Also tried 32 and 64 bit versions of both and always got the same result.

Reply Score: 1

Only for server?
by jollyx on Fri 11th Jul 2008 06:59 UTC
jollyx
Member since:
2007-03-24

I wanted to use it as a Samba server

Then CentOS comes to mind.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Only for server?
by natic on Fri 11th Jul 2008 07:58 UTC in reply to "Only for server?"
natic Member since:
2008-07-11

So why should I have to distro hop. That's another frustration with Linux. What's to say that something in CentOS isn't a showstopper. Why can't there be a unified approach. I know this has been debated time and again on these sites but I reckon there is merit in unification for these very reasons.

EDIT: Sorry, another spelling error

Edited 2008-07-11 07:59 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Only for server?
by Adurbe on Fri 11th Jul 2008 09:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Only for server?"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

Its not so much a case of distro jumping (which I am currently in the process of doing) its more the fact of doing your research.

If you want to use any system as a server you NEVER use all the latest and greatest, you use the versions that work. If it works, you dont upgrade/replace

CentOS is a good choice as it is built to be a stable server system and has been proven to be just that (well redhat has and CentOS is the same thing, different badge)

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Only for server?
by Adurbe on Fri 11th Jul 2008 09:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Only for server?"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

With regards to the unification point

RPM based distros (redhat, suse, mandrake)
DEB based distros (debian, ubuntu, xandros)
Source Distros (gentoo + co)

Basically everything falls under one of these 3

Linux distros, by their nature, will never have '1 version'

Edit - I should learn english...

Edited 2008-07-11 09:13 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Only for server?
by natic on Fri 11th Jul 2008 13:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Only for server?"
natic Member since:
2008-07-11

With regards to the unification point

RPM based distros (redhat, suse, mandrake)
DEB based distros (debian, ubuntu, xandros)
Source Distros (gentoo + co)

Basically everything falls under one of these 3

Linux distros, by their nature, will never have '1 version'

Edit - I should learn english...


But that's only half of what I was talking about earlier. Unify the entire application set. Have it labeled as this Linux OS does everything, is completely stable and will not fall over, regardless. Then or all the crazy experimental stuff have it as separate distros entirely. Apple does it all under one roof, maybe try learning from them, no? Yes I know they're a hardware vendor and drives etc. are an issue, but I believe certification would help immensely. It'd also get the ISVs all over it, no?

Also another thing on a similar vein...a stable ABI would make all that tremendously easy. Throw in a stable API to keep the devs happy too...and why not. That way wouldn't you eliminate the need to keep hopping? Or maybe I'm just slightly jaded of late.

EDIT: meant Apple not Mac

Edited 2008-07-11 14:02 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Only for server?
by ruel24 on Sat 12th Jul 2008 19:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Only for server?"
ruel24 Member since:
2006-03-21

"With regards to the unification point

RPM based distros (redhat, suse, mandrake)
DEB based distros (debian, ubuntu, xandros)
Source Distros (gentoo + co)

Basically everything falls under one of these 3 "

Really? Well that doesn't explain Slackware, which doesn't use any of these...

I agree that there will never be a unified Linux packaging system. It's the beauty of FOSS. There isn't a "one size fits all" mentality. If I don't like the way Fedora does something, there's always Debian, Suse, Mandriva, PCLinuxOS, Slackware, Knoppix, Slax, Dynebolic, Sabayon... In other words, there's choice.

Edited 2008-07-12 19:39 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Only for server?
by unclefester on Fri 11th Jul 2008 10:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Only for server?"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Opensuse is intended to a be a bleeding edge desktop distro not a production server. Why not also complain about Vita Home Basic being unsuitable as a server

Reply Score: 3

Kokopelli
Member since:
2005-07-06

It covers install by saying LVM might confuse users, then glosses over new features by saying that improvements are largely "version refreshes."

It then proceeds to have multiple factual errors (Fedora is based on Suse and that the install required 5 CDs or 2 DVDs) that sort of make me wonder if the author did any research at all. So you have an article where a little over half is not about the release itself but to either background of the company or related news items. Of the other half there are multiple factual errors and vague hand waving. There is not even enough substance in the article for me to comment on the authors opinion.

As far as OpenSuse 11.0 is concerned, I gave it a spin a few weeks ago. As a desktop distro I found it fairly impressive. It installed cleanly on my spare laptop without issue. I am still not fond of the SLAB menu but overall I would have to say it is the best default KDE desktop I have tried. I did not really use it all to long though. It was nice, but not enough to convince me to replace my main desktop.

Reply Score: 5

Comment by moleskine
by moleskine on Fri 11th Jul 2008 11:55 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

Interesting. I installed OpenSuSE 11.0 on my desktop PC about three weeks ago, but earlier this week went back to Debian Lenny. Why? Because too many bugs kept coming out of the woodwork on OpenSuSE. They were really irritating ones, too, like software suspend not working due, I suspect, to OpenSuSE's own "new" Gnome applet for controlling it. On Debian Lenny it works perfectly "out of the box". In addition, Debian's installer picked up my 1680x1050 widescreen monitor and configured X perfectly for it. OpenSuSE's installer dumped me into 1280x1024 and offered no clues what to do about it.

For all that, I think this article has got it exactly the wrong way round. It says that OpenSuSE isn't really suitable for new users, whereas the whole point of YaST is that it makes system configuration comprehensible to those who don't know Linux very well. No other distro has anything like it. Fedora, for example, is poorly equipped with configuration tools. The contrast couldn't be starker.

OTOH, the article says that OpenSuSE 11.0 is a "solid" iteration. My experience is that it has far too many bugs for that; another reviewer called it "rough inside". I'm sure OpenSuSE 11.0 will eventually become "solid" but my guess is that it will take a few months of bug-fixing before that really happens.

Finally, the article talks a lot about community. SuSE was my main distro for 3-4 years, until about a year after the Novell takeover. At that time, the main SuSE mailing list was vibrant, full and with a large number of seriously knowledgeable, professional folks on it. On installing OpenSuSE 11.0 I went back to the mailing list for the first time in a few years. The knowledge on offer had dropped way, way down. It felt as if nearly all the professionals had gone, leaving mainly new users trying to help new users. This really makes me wonder whether mixing commercial distros and the idea of community isn't like trying to mix oil and water.

Overall, not a good experience then. It's rather ironic that Debian, which doesn't set out to be a desktop distribution per se, in fact provides a better - and certainly more "solid" - example than the alleged desktop-meisters can manage. OpenSuSE is nice-looking, sure, but shame about all the bugs.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by moleskine
by netpython on Fri 11th Jul 2008 12:55 UTC in reply to "Comment by moleskine"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

It says that OpenSuSE isn't really suitable for new users, whereas the whole point of YaST is that it makes system configuration comprehensible to those who don't know Linux very well.

The article meant OpenSuSE offers during install time a plethora of options that might confuse new kids on the block.

I started using SuSE with the "seven" series. Allmost puked my guts out with the 10 series. To put it frankly i anyway ordered the 11 retail box.

Once you get the hang of OS's it doesn't really matter that much which one you run. I equally like Fedora, only i need a 3D ati driver for my laptop and since fedora has such bleeding edge packages there isn't a ati driver in livnas repo. If i wanted i could run fedora 8 or downgrade certain packages. OpenSuSE 11 has nice community repositories (eg: ati drivers) available through YaST.

Anyway in the end linux is an OS and the prime imho is what are you going to do with it. Google is my best friend.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by moleskine
by wakeupneo on Sun 13th Jul 2008 04:33 UTC in reply to "Comment by moleskine"
wakeupneo Member since:
2005-07-06

whereas the whole point of YaST is that it makes system configuration comprehensible to those who don't know Linux very well. No other distro has anything like it. Fedora, for example, is poorly equipped with configuration tools. The contrast couldn't be starker.


...err, Mandriva's Control Center not only matches YaST for configuration tools, but excels it for ease of use and speed. Refreshing or adding repositories in YaST's package manager is like pulling teeth in comparison. Why is it so incredibly slow? What is it doing?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by moleskine
by sgibofh on Sun 13th Jul 2008 20:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by moleskine"
sgibofh Member since:
2007-03-31

you did use the latest version of YaST/zypper, didn't you?

It appears that quite a few peopple didn't try oS11 for a start and use older comments that were valid then, but isn't now...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by moleskine
by wakeupneo on Mon 14th Jul 2008 02:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by moleskine"
wakeupneo Member since:
2005-07-06

True enough. The last version I tested was 10.2 so I'll have to take another look. Thanks for letting me know this has been dealt with.

Reply Score: 2

v JSenior Match
by kikiloveu2 on Fri 11th Jul 2008 16:02 UTC
Nothing like choice
by rockwell on Fri 11th Jul 2008 21:27 UTC
rockwell
Member since:
2005-09-13

Choice of more crap.

http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/

Reply Score: 5

Comment by happycamper
by happycamper on Sun 13th Jul 2008 16:21 UTC
happycamper
Member since:
2006-01-01

OpenSUSE, like Fedora, is a simple install if you are an experienced user, but it is probably beyond the skill set of a casual home user. For example, during the install you will be asked if you want a partition-based or LVM-based partitioning scheme. Admittedly, if you just click Next, the right thing will happen, but it's definitely a confusing question to ask a user who may not even know what LVM is.


Why do new users need to be spoon-feed by watering down stuff for them like if they don't have the ability to learn new things like google what LVM is and learn how to use it?

Edited 2008-07-13 16:31 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Be honest
by nelvana2005 on Mon 14th Jul 2008 01:58 UTC
nelvana2005
Member since:
2005-07-29

Be honest, what did you expect?
I use OpenSuse 11.0 with KDE 3.5.9 and this combination is rock-solid, stable, mature and up to now I didn't find any bug.

KDE 4.0.4? No, it is too early, everyone knows that.

Gnome? No. It can't be better than Debian's or Ubuntu's Gnome.
But I was curious, I have to admit that I tried out OpenSuse's Gnome.
And I found it at once, my first bug, the gnome-updater applet ran amok.

So I went back to KDE 3.5.9 at once.
I'll use the KDE 3.5.x series as long as possible, maybe I'll ignore KDE 4 completely.

Reply Score: 1