Submitted by “I must say that both of these distros have pleased me a lot and completely suffice my requirement of a home desktop system. Both automatically detected all my hardware and had installed the drivers required. However, when it comes to comparing the two, I get a little biased towards the more polished distro.” Elsewhere, it is reported that Ubuntu’s new Linux version sports a debugging tool.
Ubuntu vs. OpenSUSE
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
In a situation where OpenSUSE is targeted towards enterprises, and Ubuntu is targeted for “human beings” (read, typical endusers), OpenSUSE won most of the interface points (including several for just picking good color schemes!) and Ubuntu won many of the functional points (such as installing, loading times, and package management).
Edited 2007-04-12 03:18
Well, it seems not to be too ironic to me after some afterthoughts. Look, in a corporate environment, the working user doesn’t have to care about installing, loading times, and package management.
On the other side, the human being, without having an administrator guy handy, and having irregular workflows, has.
So for example, Debian as not-so-easy-to-maintain and not-so-fast and not-so-bleeding-edge has proven to be a very good workstation OS here, as I would hate to have to use it at home.
Don’t administrators deserve user-friendly software too?
That’s my primary annoyance with most of the “Professional” / high-end software I’ve used. With many of those types of applications, I get the sense that the developers thought to themselves “This software is intended for experienced users, so usability be damned.”
Yeah, I second that.
On the other side, there is “usable” (user-friendly) and “usable”. I use a system (Arch Linux) which I think is very, very usable to administrators, as it’s very clean and easily seen through. It is not-so usable to the typical “home desktop user”, as he would have to write it’s own Xorg.conf “by hand” (which I as administrator would want to do _anyway_)…
Totally agreed, there are definitely differences between usability and ease of use. It is unfortunate that some fairly significant things are often ignored when discussing usability – like how flexible a piece of software is, how easily can the software be made to adapt to situations that weren’t envisioned by the original developer, etc.
There’s an interesting essay by Paul Lutus on the subject called “A Crash Course in Creative Problem-Solving”
http://www.arachnoid.com/lutusp/crashcourse.html
The article is more serious than it’s title, BTW (his article titles always make me paranoid of offending people – especially “HTML for the Conceptually-Challenged”).
I think there’s certainly a connection between ease-of-use and usability, though – in that usability enhancements can improve an application’s ease-of-use, and vice-versa.
A good comment, and the text is also a good read
I want to give one example showing where ease-of-use seems to be in the way of usability: Adobe Photoshop. This program is not easy to use at all. You can let anyone play with it and he will eventually conclude, that several task never could be “easy” with this program.
On the other side, every professional user loves this program. Because he can be productive as hell with it. If you watch them working with Photoshop you are amazed of the speed they work in.
I really like this example.
Thanks!
I know what you mean with Photoshop, it is pretty impressive to watch a pro using it (some of those folks are faster with the PS keyboard shortcuts than I am at touch-typing).
Amusingly, I was going to make almost the same point in the last post, except using Adobe Illustrator as the example
I think it’s great app and as a whole it’s a good example of usability principles put into practice. But I’ve also had some formal instruction and I’m sure I’d be totally lost otherwise.
It seems to boil down to the truism that complex tasks typically require complex tools. Although I do still think that – once that reality is acknowledged – it still makes sense to put effort into the ease-of-use of the specific steps (or to quote from the Paul Lutus article, “programmers should be forced to use their own software”).
I do definitely agree that ease-of-use (and in some cases, usability) is extremely dependent on context and circumstances. One of more unusual examples I’ve run into is from doing support for several elderly people (with no previous computer experience) who genuinely find purely text-based interfaces easier to use than modern GUIs. None of them were CLI gurus, but they did almost exclusively use their computers to dial into a local freenet which provides a text menu system (I think it’s using Gopher for the menu system). I helped a few of them upgrade to broadband and modern graphical software – and within a day or two, I was invariably asked me to setup their computers so they could access their freenet accounts via Telnet. Of course, then I had to try to explain why it was *a little* overkill to have a 5MBPS connection solely for running LYNX and PINE in a remote shell
“programmers should be forced to use their own software” is the sentence that describes it best. Programmers should also not be let alone on this difficult task, too.
Your experience with elderly people reminds me of an article published on OSNews some years ago. It showed me some of the principles and reasons why the command line can indeed give an “easier” feeling to non-tech people:
http://osnews.com/story.php/6282/The-Command-Line–The-Best-Newbie-…
No administrator with a sane mind would use a system with bleeding edge software! Almost no administrator in real world uses X at a server, because it’s a server! An administrator doesn’t write his config by hand because it’s cool, but because of control. An adminstrator does use tools for his daily work too, to make it easier. It’s the so-called nerd at home who thinks of the coolness of the console without knowing why. Don’t mix up nerdiness with professionalism.
ArchLinux is for the experienced desktop user, the one with a sane mind. It’s KISS. The desktop term you think of is the term of Microsoft and Apple. Nothing real, just a buzzword, “desktop” is a very personal matter.
I think you totally misunderstood my posting!
Although I _do_ use ArchLinux on a productive server (fsi.informatik.uni-erlangen.de), I didn’t want to recommend it as Operating System for servers or even Workstations. In fact, I would recommend Debian for both – and btw., who talked about servers anyway?
“An administrator doesn’t write his config by hand because it’s cool, but because of control.”
Exactly! So what’s cool about it anyway?! You think I don’t do it because of control?! What leads you to this assumption?
People with an attitude like your’s really piss me off. You don’t know me, you don’t get what I want to say, so you start a rant about who you believe I am. Perhaps just to make clear that you are not the same?
In a situation where OpenSUSE is targeted towards enterprises
Unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re getting at, I think you’re missing something. OpenSuse isn’t targeted towards enterprises, that would be Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop.
Edited 2007-04-12 12:27
It’s just that when you hear SUSE Linux, the connotation is of a slow, obfuscated OS, intended mostly for server operations for use by companies that can’t afford better.
I was just comparing the connotations/reputations of the two distros and pointing out how the reality, at least for this user, is ironically the opposite.
I rather use windows than SUSE. I have given suse a try 2 times already, and out of the box it just feels so slugish, so slow. And this is a lot coming from a Linux administrator and ms-hatter basher. But I rather use windows than suse. I can’t see why so many people running away from windows find a home with this distro. Well, I guess that is just basically the same thing in terms of crappyness. And the menu was just horrible.
I can’t talk about Ubuntu as I have not used it.
>I rather use windows than SUSE
“Honestly” I was about to write the same thing, but I figured it might be perceived as trollish… But that’s just my experience, after giving it a more than fair chance.
As for Ubuntu (or Fedora): pick one and make it the unofficial standard Linux distribution. Although I go for DIY distros like Arch and Slackware, I can live with either. I am not saying they are better than “your favourite distro”, what I am saying is that they are about good enough and the benefit of standardizing would outweight any deficiences.
(Wishful thinking, of course)
Edited 2007-04-12 04:02
/* I can’t see why so many people running away from windows find a home with this distro */
because opensuse offers the same stuff the other distros offer:kde,GNOME,linux kernel,firefox,thunderbird,etc.well, as you already know windows does not.
/* I can’t talk about Ubuntu as I have not used it.*/
ubuntu offers the exact same software as opensue:kde,GNOME,linux kernel,firefox,thunderbird. with that in mind their is not much difference between distros other then package managers and a few cosmetics.
Package management is one of the biggest reasons I use linux in the first place. I absolutely hate having to more or less manually update all gazillion programs I have installed.
> SUSE really does not believe in package management.
> Yast is at least 4 generations inferior to Synaptic.
Synaptic sucks. Big time. It doesn’t know which packages were manually selected and which were automatically installed. Therefore it can’t automatically remove packages no longer needed. It’s also almost completely clueless about ‘recommended’ and ‘suggested’ dependencies.
So, if yast is inferior to synaptic there is no way I would even consider considering suse.
I, too, am waiting for Synaptic to be a front-end to aptitude instead of apt-get. I *think* last time I fired up Synaptic it actually suggested automatically installed (now unused) packages when I removed something… We’ll see.
You can set up various options concerning suggested and recommended packages in Synaptic. I’m not sure because I’m not using Ubuntu at the moment but there’s apt-get autoremove so I guess this functionality should be accesible from Synaptic. Apt is also way faster and cleaner, I don’t have to constantly force some changes because alternative repositories don’t work well together. Not to mention most package managment methods in Suse are dramatically slow compared to Synaptic. I’ve seen lots of Suse users looking for alternatives while most of Debian/Ubuntu crowd enjoys default settings with some resorting to aptitude.
Synaptic does not suck “big time”.
It may be not perfect, and it may need to gain the functionality you mention, but it does not suck at all, or at least not very much, especially when compared to yast — or any other existing package manager.
By the way, have you considered reporting that bug/wish back to the programmers? Your worries might then be documented in bugzilla and eventually be attended, instead of simply being yet one more scrap of gratuitous badmouthing in OSnews.
Until it does it sucks “big time” in my book, because it doesn’t do what I need a package manager (frontend) to do.
No. I usually do that, but with this particular issue there are certainly tons of people who want the same thing, so I’ve just assumed it has been on the synaptic wishlist for ages. (Now I’m going to check it out, just to be sure it’s not one of those situations that can arise when everybody just assume Someone Else(tm) already did it.)
I have done no such thing. I’m critical towards synaptic, but not without reasons. In fact I already stated the reasons.
I find Synaptic to work pretty well. It doesn’t remove unneeded packages, but I just run “apt-get autoremove” periodically to do that. Of coures if that could be done from within Synaptic that would be better. Or better yet, when you remove a package, it should ask you whether you also want to remove unneeded dependencies.
I’m using Feisty right now and Synaptic does have full “auto-remove” support. Just FYI.
> I’m using Feisty right now and Synaptic does have
> full “auto-remove” support.
I stand corrected. Very nice. Is it fully compatible with the “M(arked as auto-installed)” of aptitude?
I just read that the new synaptic doesn’t automatically mark anything to be removed, but you still have to select some “remove auto-removable” command or something. Is this true? That’s not a big deal, though, as long as it keeps track of what I’ve installed manually and what it has installed automatically because of dependencies.
Yep, appears to follow apt-get’s marking of auto-installed packages. The auto-installed packages show up under a different section under the “status” view, and you basically have to mark them manually (not really a big deal for me).
You can even change the “auto-installed” status from within synaptic if I remember correctly (been a while, I usually keep auto-installed stuff cleaned out so I can’t test that right now).
> > > I’m using Feisty right now and Synaptic does have
> > > full “auto-remove” support.
> >
> > I stand corrected. Very nice. Is it fully compatible
> > with the “M(arked as auto-installed)” of aptitude?
> >
> > I just read that the new synaptic doesn’t automatically
> > mark anything to be removed, but you still have to
> > select some “remove auto-removable” command or
> > something. Is this true? That’s not a big deal, though,
> > as long as it keeps track of what I’ve installed
> > manually and what it has installed automatically
> > because of dependencies.
>
> The auto-installed packages show up under a different
> section under the “status” view
I just installed feisty and got the new synaptic, but it doesn’t seem to be at all compatible with aptitude’s “auto-installed”. I have about a gazillion auto-installed packages in aptitude, but synaptic shows only one “auto-removable” and even that one is one I have installed manually. When I compare two packages, of which one is manually installed and one is auto-installed in aptitude, I can’t see any relevant difference between the packages in synaptic.
Also, synaptic’s manual doesn’t even mention the auto-removable thingy, so I’m having a hard time figuring out how it’s supposed to work. Too bad, since I was hoping I might have had a reason to stop hating synaptic, but I guess it’ll have to stay on my “sucks big time”-list for now.
…some better, some worse but the only one I really, really hated was Suse. Too bad it was also the first Linux distro I ever tried (Suse 6.2) and the second (Suse 7.2, payed for both). In fact, I blame Suse for scaring me away from Linux for some years!
I tried openSUSE recently and yes, it is polished in many eye catching ways. But the things I hated about it are still there: embarassing package management, buldozer-like configuration system and s-l-o-w.
I never figured why it’s so popular.
PS. This has nothing to do with Novell. I appreciate Mono.
Edited 2007-04-12 03:57
package management: rpm
works pretty good. other things like apt, can be used too if you like.
configuration: yast or just your own editing
works pretty good as well.
You might try to tell exactly the problems you face instead of telling a few tales.
we in fact found that on reasonable hardware, there is not much you can say about your complaints.
(this is a suse10.2 laptop, 768 MB, 2.8 GHz Xeon; compiz/beryl)
>package management: rpm works pretty good.
Works well enough to do the initial installation. Extra software? You’ll find very few SUSE rpms compared to Fedora, for example. Upgrade via network? I was never able to do it (busy server or something). And Yast is slow.
>configuration: yast or just your own editing
Does yast still overwrite everything when you make a change in configuration? Either you use yast (will its limitations and slow speed) or you are on your own. Fedora and Ubuntu are more permissive.
Speed? Most distros I’ve tried are comparable in terms of speed, except for Suse, which is slower. But I guess it will take a double blind study to convince you.
Back in 6.2, it used to be “locate” that made the system crawl after booting and ruined the impression for the Linux-newbie of the time. Now, it’s beagle on first boot, I guess.
>You might try to tell exactly the problems you face instead of telling a few tales.
This is a dissatisfied user and ex-customer, not a generic basher.
Now the good things about the last version I tried (10.0 or 10.1, not sure). Polished theme, right down to the details. Cool boot screen.
Edited 2007-04-12 15:45
okay lets count up the review points
Open SUSE (unknown version)
boot splash 1 point
Theme 1 point
gnome menu 1 point
gdm login 1 point
fonts 1 point
Ubuntu (unknown version)
Boot speed 1 point
package manager 1 point
community 1 point
java install 1 point
Open SUSE WINS!
I’m so glad! to that someone else made this decision for me. Thanks
I hope openSUSE works for you, if you do indeed go for it, but I’d urge you to rethink your scoring, e.g. giving boot splash equal value to package management.
Either way, you won’t regret moving to linux :o)
I’ve been playing with Linux off and on since 1999 but never been able to kick the Windows habit until I tried Kubuntu. It’s not that I’m not a technical user, it’s just that Kubuntu was the first *nix distro just to work straight out of the box.
Installation is a snap. No initial Grub screen to be found. Boot Speed quite fast for my taste. It’s got a nice login Menu. The new Start menu is even better than the older Start menu. It’s got all your open source applications and they work even better on Windows. Themes are a personal tastes. Great selection of default applications. Vista’s also incredibly stable. Java, Codecs, etc…? Windows has all of those and more. Package management and system configurations are a breeze on Vista. Microsoft are continously working to make Windows more and more secure. They’re also attacking spammer thru the courts to shut them down. They’d only need to hire a team of elite ninjas to hunt down hackers with evil intentions. Vista’s got new fonts for better screen readability. And finally no one can beat MS for it’s community support.
It’s obvious, Abhay needs Vista.
this is a joke right?
Considering the source, I’d say that was an honest-to-goodness serious post from our very own adherent of the Church of Microsoftology.
Yes, the obvious comparison was intended.
Nah, just another spamertizement..
Just mod it down as spam and be done with it…
–bornagainpenguin
I’m a died-in-the-wool Linux user, but I would not quickly dismiss this comment. The point is, many reviews could be summed up like this – How Windows-ish is the distro? The things that are being measured are actually the things Windows is good at.
However, rarely are the other things measured – uptime, scalability (fat Desktop vs. Lightweight WM). Shell features, scriptability, automatic updating of ALL software, etc. Most importantly, the Freedom of the distro. When is the last review you heard that rated the “Freeness” of the distro. Usually, we are more concerned with “Unfreeness”, i.e., how quickly we can get the Proprietary bits.
The point is, based on the criteria of this reviewer, I too would have to give Vista the nod. I’m just glad there are other considerations involved.
…mandriva 2007.1 spring
The official release is in the pipes…early seeders are downloading it right now (to improve bittorrent efficiency ) since a few days.
It seems to be worth to have a look at it…
I’ve read this in the forums:
http://forum.club.mandriva.com/viewtopic.php?p=320674#320674
and in french (you can translate with google..):
http://forum.club.mandriva.com/viewtopic.php?p=318504#318504
http://forum.club.mandriva.com/viewtopic.php?t=64199&highlight=port…
regards,
glyj
Edited 2007-04-12 05:25
SUSE has an absolutely amazing feature which gets forgotten too often: the repair one.
Anything wrong at all with your system? Boot from DVD/CD1 and choose “other” as an option. It will offer you: repair an installed system. It can be from fully automated to manual (but no console or command line).
In 99% of cases your system will return in full working order. No other OS has anything like that, AFAIK, and I have tried hundreds.
Xandros has one too. Even not commercial version has it. And yes, it is cool.
Thanks. I must try it.
Installation:
Ubuntu – no customization, very fast, 1CD
openSuse – overcustomization, slow, especially via internet, too big
winner: Ubuntu
Grub:
Are you kidding me? Is this relevant?
Boot speed:
Ubuntu: not very speedy compared to Arch/Gentoo, medicore
openSuse: If you haven’t noticed during installation, Suse is ssllooww
winner: Ubuntu
GDM:
Another irrelevant point, matter of preference, easily themeable. I like Ubuntu better but won’t score this.
Gnome Menu:
Also matter of preference, not to mention that SLAB is present in Ubuntu repositories but it has broken fonts, like in Suse but more about that later.
OpenOffice:
Ubuntu: AFAIK stock OO.org2 with new icons and splash
openSuse: Prelinked by default, VBA, new splash
winner: openSuse
Theme:
Also matter of preference but since Suse looks way better overall…
winner: openSuse
Default Applications:
Ubuntu: almost entirely stock Gnome with some minor changes
openSuse: nicely integrated but Monotastic, apps too new to have needed functionality (like any kind of a browser in Banshee or browsing capabilities in F-Spot)
draw
Stablitity:
Didn’t have any problems with both
draw
Installing Java, Codecs etc:
Ubuntu: Automatix, Mint, the fact that most needed stuff is in official repos (universe/multiverse/restricted/commercial)
openSuse: having to resort to stuff like Pacman packages, no integrated solution
winner: Ubuntu
Package management:
Ubuntu: Apt, Synaptic, vast repositories, high quality third-party repositories
openSuse: slow Yast, slow and limited repositories, third party repos don’t cooperate well with others
winner: Ubuntu
System configuration:
Ubuntu: stock Gnome administration tools (usually I don’t need more)
openSuse: enormous Yast, slow but just does the stuff Ubuntu apps can’t
winner: openSuse
Security:
openSuse: AppArmor and configuration via Yast
winner: openSuse
Fonts:
Ubuntu: correctly detects DPI and antialias/subpixel rendering
openSuse: even after manual tweaking of DPI, fonts and other settings some apps just use their own settings (for example their Gnome menu)
winner: Ubuntu
Community Support:
Ubuntu: good forums but quality goes downhill recently, bit more popular distro so it’s easier to find help
Suse: many fragmented forums, went downhill years ago
winner: Ubuntu
Ubuntu: 6
openSuse: 4
A very minor point, but…
Ubuntu: correctly detects DPI and antialias/subpixel rendering
It didn’t detect subpixel settings correctly on my computer. My monitor is BGR, but Ubuntu used RGB – making all text colorful.
This guy really does not like brown I guess, giving OpenSuse points 3 times due to it.
Personally I can’t stand OpenSuse’s menu and do not understand the appeal. Since I use xfce though it is not a big deal.
Pretty much every other point in favor of Suse I disagree with except security and stability. I do not find Ubuntu unstable, but each version has had at least some issues. Except Debian and Slackware though I have had stability issues with all distros I have tried. the problems are usually small and very infrequent, but present none the less. As far as security is concerned I manually harden my installs, but to each his own.
Nice comparison, I do not agree with much of it and find the faulting of Ubuntu for color scheme shallow, but it is all personal preference I guess.
The Ubuntu used for comparison is Dapper or Edgy I guess since Feisty does include VBA for OO. It does not invalidate the comparison, just clarifying.
I totally agree with you. Login screens, splash screens, and themes are all changeable. I am running Feisty and using Fluxbox at the moment..I’m just feeling minimalist at the moment. Does that make gnome or kde worse? I think much of his focus is just on aesthetics.. nice article.. but not what you judge a platform on.
I disagree. Apple has made aesthetics their defining characteristic and have made great gains just for the look of their products, even when those products offer fewer features or don’t perform as well as other products.
Apple has made aesthetics their defining characteristic and have made great gains just for the look of their products, even when those products offer fewer features or don’t perform as well as other products.
I disagree.. while Apple does pay a huge amount of attention to aesthetics, the larger thrust is at usability. With a Mac( i also have an iBook) things just work. One doesn’t spend time doing configuration. You spend your time getting a task done. For an author to dis Ubuntu based on a splash screen, or a login manager .. is petty at best. I also believe that comparing Apples aesthetics in an discussion of splash screens and login managers re: Uboingo or Suzy is apples(HAH!)and oranges.
The article is almost irrelevant since most points are biased and personal.I would call the article a subjective diary.
An important point if not the most important is package management and the availabillity of applications.It is here where Ubuntu shines.
It’s a review. Show me one review that has no personal bias or opinions in it.
I’ve never seen a system administration console as comprehensive or usable as Suse YAST2. Short of the Windows Control Panel or Administrative Tools or whatever else, I guess.
So for me, the comparison would go something like this:
Ubuntu community and support and friendly packages: 5 points
Suse YAST2: 5 points
TIE!
“Ubuntu on the other hand has upstart, which makes it boot really fast. Overall Ubuntu was the quicker of the two, though SUSE falls short by a small margin.”
Never mind that upstart does not do anything in Edgy, just simulates init(1). Even Feisty is missing the genuine upstart scripts, you have to install tem separately.
This tells something of the creditability of the article (points for COLORS! OMG)
“Never mind that upstart does not do anything in Edgy, just simulates init(1). Even Feisty is missing the genuine upstart scripts, you have to install tem separately. ”
Now that’s the sort of information I like to know and that no one tells you about. Everyone assumes that if Upstart is in, it’s the “real deal”. Me included.
Could it be that Upstart still is a tiny bit faster than ‘regular’ init(1) though? Personally I get excited about even a 2-second decrease in boot time, so who knows
I’m running OpenSUSE 10.2 myself ATM and boot time is certainly one of the things that bothers me.
Edited 2007-04-12 08:44
“Now that’s the sort of information I like to know and that no one tells you about. Everyone assumes that if Upstart is in, it’s the “real deal”. Me included.”
I read it here on Osnews, or found it following a link from one of the articles / comments. Ah, here it is:
http://www.osnews.com/read_thread.php?news_id=17557&comment_id=2245….
Of course, it may have changed since, but I do not believe so.
Anyway, Edgy boots faster than Dapper did, so there definitely was something (maybe the bash->dash transition?). I have not seen Feisty yet, though.
then neither is for you. Both ubuntu and opensuse have slow boot. What upstart does is cut time down from (for example) 1:30 to 1:15 (if you are lucky). So yest it boots faster, but this is still ridiculously slow. You can get much better results with slack, Arch or gentoo (and all this: miracle! without upstart).
The whole hoopla about upstart is quite ridiculous.
“The whole hoopla about upstart is quite ridiculous.”
Well maybe, but I happen to be interested in new developments in technology.
…then look for something more efficient than ersatz. It is more or less like claiming fuel efficient suv because it went from 15miles/galon to 17miles/galon while you want 30 miles/galon
wrong technology.
That’s not the point.
My point was just that, I am interested in it. I keep up with software, distributions, … even if I am never going to use them. And once in a while I hope that new stuff improves my computer experience and sure enough, sometimes it does.
What version have you tried? Using the new scripts? Note that Feisty still uses the old init.d-style scripts…could it be that you’re basing your judgement on the current version, which is not supposed to be significantly faster?
I guess we will see a new digg clone with Ubuntu at the top of computer related news. omfg
I’m amazed that some posters are trotting out the old stuff about SuSE being slow. I assume they have not in fact tried it.
Some versions of SuSE were slow, very. But recent versions are not. I am running SuSE 10.2 here (replacing 10.1) on a Northwood p4, and it is certainly not slow or sluggish.
Apart from some folks here trotting out cliches or recycling the opinions of others, I found this a very fair article. I thought he was way off on the time taken for installation, perhaps because of problems specific to his set up, but otherwise he covered all the right bases.
SuSE does suffer from the lack an Automatix or equivalent and from its incredible lack of decent package management (at the moment, anyway) other than third-party efforts like smart. OTOH, the article doesn’t give enough credit to YaST, imho. It may be crude and clunky compared to your average Windows control panel, but it is megaleaps and megabounds ahead of anything else on Linux.
Personally I’ve never found Ubuntu tempting. If you’re going to go down that road, then go the whole hog and do Debian, imho. On the other hand, if you want the most polished desktop from a company with the resources to polish it (far more so than Canonical can manage), then go SuSE.
This being Linux, all that is subject to change without notice at any moment. My own concern is that some within SuSE appear too interested in preening themselves and their Gnome/Mono credentials to pay full attention to KDE, which will certainly take the polish off SuSE if they continue.
Excellent work. Easy to understand.
[url=http://www.iphoneconverter.com]Get iphone[/url]
Actually there’s only one thing I dislike about ubuntu: the funky version names. If I’m not that much into ubuntu, how the heck am I supposed to know if fiesty, edgy, dapper, drake is the latest version, still alpha/beta, etc?
I prefer the numbering of opensuse – although the major number is unreasonably high..
Although the digit’s are “less human”, it’s easier to understand and talk about with “foreigners”.
Packagemanagement: I totally agree with the new mono application zdm/zen – they’re crap. But the yast solution of 10.0 was perfect: stable, proven, simple yet it offered all the functionality I needed. Why replace it with some crappy c# solution?!?
I know the yast solution is still there but doesn’t co-operate well with zen under 10.2 (or was downgraded too).
But in a conclusion I’d vote like that: OpenSuse is better for techies or in business environments and Ubuntu is better for a single enduser who doesn’t want to fuss around with the system itself too much.
But in a conclusion I’d vote like that: OpenSuse is better for techies or in business environments and Ubuntu is better for a single enduser who doesn’t want to fuss around with the system itself too much.
I’m a long time gentoo and ubuntu user.Hardened gentoo on servers en ubuntu for the desktop.
Both have supperb package management.One big central repository and no hassles with amateuristic mirrors and or repos.
SuSE has one similarity with Microsoft:
A lot of bla bla and waiting time but nothing really substatial delivered.
Actually there’s only one thing I dislike about ubuntu: the funky version names. If I’m not that much into ubuntu, how the heck am I supposed to know if fiesty, edgy, dapper, drake is the latest version, still alpha/beta, etc?
Releases drop the funky name and use numbers. Go to ubuntu.com and you’ll see no funky names, only 6.10 for the latest stable release and 7.04 for the upcoming release.
Packagemanagement: I totally agree with the new mono application zdm/zen – they’re crap.
Agree. Apt rules, aptitude is even better. Yum is getting very robust too.
But in a conclusion I’d vote like that: OpenSuse is better for techies or in business environments and Ubuntu is better for a single enduser who doesn’t want to fuss around with the system itself too much.
For techies? Opensuse? Maybe you meant newbies. I sure hate to deal with an extra layer of complexity between me and my config files
The numbering system is superior, why on earth would I want a distro with names that make no sense and have no meaning other than the communist who dictates them just like the install. No options with Ubuntu, you install what they want and you need nothing else. Yes it is for human beings [androids] with no thought or desire to change.
OpenSuSE is actually moving to something bigger than someones EGO at Ubuntu stating what a humanbeing does not need choice.
Score OpenSuSE 100% for being ‘open’
Score Ubuntu -.000000000000001 for being Communist
Southern.Pride -.000000000000001 for being uninformed, and lazy, as another poster already stated, the names are codenames, at release they are changed to Ubuntu 6.10, 7.04, whatever the year + the month equals.
Edited 2007-04-12 13:28
as 4 me, i’d better read this http://www.prevedgame.ru/in.php?id=20508
I like blue better than brown.
openSUSE r0xx!!
(but oh yeah it boots slow, has dodgy package management, doesn’t easily install codecs, runs slower, has AppArmor which is great though not neccessary but that’s a good thing, etc.)
And the slab menu is awesome!!1
Edited 2007-04-12 12:31
OpenSuSE is a good distro however when it comes to Ubuntu it is more Communist because it dictates what you install on the front end NOTHING except what they want just like Windows!
I do not like Debian so I use Fedora and I would use OpenSuSE because they give you a choice does Ubuntu NO. You have to install KDE manually why not offer it on the front end? I find Ubuntu is forcing the end user to accept their way or the highway to me this is not choice but take it and be happy. At least SLED is geared towards the Enterprise and they are actually marketing it, I do not like the Ubuntu nor how they go about mandating what they want [options] like Fedora, OpenSuSE and so on.
Also every article is about Ubuntu the others are discarded like cardboard in a dumpster. I don’t want a ‘dumbed’ down version of a Linux distro and I do not like using sudo I want control over MY Operating System so Ubuntu will never get installed by me period.
Actually, you could just download kubuntu, instead, Ubuntu also offers Xubuntu, which is based on XFCE. these are both official projects of Ubuntu.
http://www.kubuntu.org/faq.php
http://www.xubuntu.org/
Your rhetoric is entirely wrong, please do some research.
You can run any of a dozen or so DE’s, installed right from the official depo’s, and you can choose your DE at download.
“OpenSuSE is a good distro however when it comes to Ubuntu it is more Communist”
You speak of communism but I don’t think you know what it actually is.
Also, you obviously don’t know Ubuntu.
Do you really have to went your dislike for Ubuntu at every damn opportunity? It’s getting a bit old, to say the least.
Edited 2007-04-12 14:05
You have to install KDE manually why not offer it on the front end?
There’s Kunbutu, a ubuntu supported version using kde. But if you installed ubuntu, you can always install the kubuntu-desktop package to get kde up and running. Is that what you call ‘manually’?
That would be Facism, not Communism, although in practice they may look alike.
My point is proven, I do not want a OS that tells me what to install. Does Fedora now I can choose anything I want on the front end.
No thanks, it is all the same to me.
Thats what the alternate cd and and server install cd’s are for. Please do a little research before trolling. If you want kde use kubuntu, if you want xfce use xubuntu. The fact that fedora is thinking of going the same route with single cd releases, might tell you something.
I have installed it before I did not like it my opinion and I am entitled to one.
I do not want extra disks it is a major pain and burning them sometimes can be one as well.
I will stick with Fedora, every article is about Ubuntu I do not like being force fed something that is ‘free’…
I am glad you found a distro that you like. I hold Centos in high regard, though I am generally not fond of RPM based distros. I can also understand your frustration with the endless stream of Ubuntu articles. Ubuntu has an enthusiastic user community and so a lot of articles are pumped out. That said you could just start ignoring articles on subjects that do not interest you.
As far as being “told what to install” it is a matter of preference. You prefer to choose packages during install, I prefer to get a working install and then customize to suit my needs from the working install.
http://www.imagehoop.com/view_image/5fd88706/Screenshot.png
Take this laptop as an example, which is a Ubuntu desktop install. I use XFCE (not Xubuntu), Xine, Beryl, and urxvt. (Note: I did a sudo su – to once again refute the “can’t get to root” argument.) None of these come standard with Ubuntu, but were painless to install and configure.
Really the only indication that this is Debian, much less Ubuntu, based is the update manager. So how did Ubunutu tell me what to install again?
So I am glad you found a distro you like, but no one is force feeding you anything. Read the articles that interest you and ignore the rest….
i can confirm that it rocks.
thank you for attending.
goodbye
This article mirrors quite a few of my observations and feelings about this subject. OpenSUSE is on my x64 desktop and Kubuntu is on my laptop.
OpenSUSE on my laptop is definitely more sluggish, on the x64 machine it’s a wash between the two for performance. I do prefer apt to smart, it’s definitely faster to run updates and install and Adept is ahead of smart’s gui. But, I have to say, I’ve tried Kubuntu two times on my x64 machine and keep going back to OpenSUSE on it. The x64 version of Kubuntu is lacking the attention and polish that the i386 versions have received.
I’ll probably try 7.04 when it’s stable on my x64 but I’m looking forward to 10.3 this fall.
I used to use Suse, but I really couldn’t stand Yast. Everytime I made the slightest change in the system, the big, slow Yast engine would fire up. It’s like a giant OS-wide wizard that is too dumb to realize you have changed one little network setting – no need to go through the whole X, Sound, etc, etc wizards. And anytime you had to manually edit something to make things work, it would undo everything the next time it ran.
It was the yast straw for me!
deb-based package management is faster than any rpm-based package management soution I’ve used, I won’t deny that. rpm’s seem to simply deal with far more meta data that increases the overhead for cataloging and parsing.
Having said that, the performance of Yast in openSUSE 10.2 represented a significant improvement over any previous versions. Unfortunately Yast remained crippled by the default enabling of zmd, but that has been addressed for 10.3 and zmd will no longer be the default. It’s still not synaptic fast, but the difference is hardly what I would consider crippling.
Yast is also far more powerful, at least I’ve found, when controlling dependencies. That’s a personal preference, and probably not something an average user would be concerned with, but it’s enough to have pulled me back from using Smart. Yast can also manage multi-arch dependencies, and supports delta rpms for patch updates rather than forcing full package downloads. Certainly the first point isn’t significant for the majority of users, but the second one is still important for a large number of dial-up users in a world where broadband seems to be taken for granted.
There’s also the issue of package availability for Ubuntu due to it’s debian heritage. I won’t deny that, but I think as an issue it’s a bit of a red herring. I’m sure others have different opinions, but from my time in Kubuntu I question how many of those vast packages are relevant for the average desktop user. I know in most cases I was interested in newer or even developmental pacakges, which more often than not necessitated compiling, downloading somebody else’s .deb or using third-party repos. That’s not a knock at Debian, certainly every distro could learn an important lesson in from the stability that Debian’s packaging guidelines provide, but it’s simply providing perspective.
openSUSE has the build service now, which has become a very wicked tool for providing repository access to a wide variety of packages, including backports for previous versions. A number of the packages uploaded into the build service are leading edge, beta or developmental, but by providing an automated build tool and environment, users are still able to obtain those applications in distro-standard packages that are updated as updates become available. What it is lacking right now is a comprehensive method of searching and cataloging the build service, that’s still a WIP, but it’s not hard to find the specific build service repos that may be of interest by visiting the wiki or forums. I won’t deny that Suse lacks the legacy of package availability that Debian and derivatives have, but I would argue that Suse is at least on equal ground, if not farther ahead in some areas, when it comes to the ease of availability for current or developmental packages.
Just trying to provide some perspective. Simply saying that synaptic is faster and has more packages is accurate but doesn’t necessarily provide the big picture.
Ofcourse apt doesn’t provide the whole picture,i’m just saying OpenSuSE mist a change to be awfully good.
Please post your negative feedback on the opensuse mailing list if you want that opensuse be improved
personnaly, I prefer suse because their hardware management is nice
also kde on buntu is too buggy
This review is completely non-techie and don’t even provide some basic details of version of software and other basic stuff for some professional reviews…
…instead, it provides something really important too. User point of view.
By understanding what things they’re pleased most, and what things are more important to them, we can focus to make products better. It may be not professional, but we cannot dismiss user’s opinions, they’re very import!