
A
review of OpenSUSE 10.3, which concludes:
"While openSUSE's efforts to simplify Linux or Window-fy Linux can be commended, the inconsistency in their implementation is its downfall. Opening applications quickly becomes a chore with the excessive amount of clicks needed to find the application you want. The application browser loads slowly, looks cluttered, and uses icons that are too large. Yast has been improved but still feels slow."
Permalink for comment 277106
To read all comments associated with this story, please
click here.
Member since:
2006-05-04
The Debian FUD machine
Isn't that a bit exaggerated?
In any case, I believe "rpm hell", or "dependency hell", is a thing of the past for most distributions.
I'm a longtime Debian user, I've used Gentoo for 3-4 years, and I'm running one Ubuntu install for a month. I did try OpenSuse betas for 10.3. I still prefer Debian because of, first of all, my experience with Debian, but also because of the large amount of packages in the official repos and the -in general- good quality of the software packages. That doesn't mean that I believe the quality of packages in other distros is worse. Well, except for Gentoo: I have the impression that the quality of Gentoo packages got worse over the last couple of years, and that is one of the reasons I stopped using it about a year ago.
I think that what plays a much larger role regarding the quality of a certain package, is the capabilities of the package maintainer, and how much he or she takes his job as a serious responsibility. For any distribution, you'll find package maintainers which are doing an excellent job for their packages, and you'll find sloppy package maintainers. Maybe this isn't only about "quality of existing packages", but also important is the reaction on bug reports, keeping the package uptodate with upstream and so on. But, in general, I believe that most large distros have high quality packages, simply because they have enough developers to maintain their packages.