Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 28th May 2006 15:07 UTC, submitted by Valour
SuSE, openSUSE SoftwareInReview takes a look at SUSE 10.1, and summarizes: "While SUSE Linux 10.1 has lost some ground on its wonderful predecessor, I can see where it is headed in the future - and I like what I'm envisioning. A mildly buggy release like 10.1 was necessary in the big picture, unless of course Novell had opted to wait until issues with Atheros drivers, the ZENworks updater, and XGL were resolved. That would have resulted in a 'skipped' release, I think. Despite the trouble I had with 10.1, none of the problems were showstoppers, nor would they keep me from continuing to use and recommend SUSE Linux."
Thread beginning with comment 128674
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: ...
by enloop on Sun 28th May 2006 17:19 UTC in reply to "..."
enloop
Member since:
2005-11-13

Ubuntu has a one-CD install only because you download everything that doesn't fit on the CD, not bcause they have a magical compression algorithm. SUSE offers a similar option, Look around the opensuse site.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: ...
by Mitarai on Sun 28th May 2006 17:24 in reply to "RE: ..."
Mitarai Member since:
2005-07-28

The only thing I can find is a Live DVD, not cool.

And no, FTP install is not what Im looking for.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: ...
by macisaac on Sun 28th May 2006 20:20 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
macisaac Member since:
2005-08-28

"And no, FTP install is not what Im looking for."

why not? when you install debian or whatever other distro via the net, generally it's using ftp (or http or nfs) to just grab it's packages like suse does whether it be grabbing debs or rpms.

what are you looking for, an AFS install?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by netpython on Sun 28th May 2006 17:30 in reply to "RE: ..."
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

SUSE offers a similar option, Look around the opensuse site.

They don't have have the sheer amount of high avaibility update servers much less a decent working package management system like apt.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: ...
by smitty on Sun 28th May 2006 17:36 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

Smart is pretty close to apt. Their update servers are bad, though.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: ...
by Anonymous Penguin on Sun 28th May 2006 22:52 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"They don't have have the sheer amount of high avaibility update servers much less a decent working package management system like apt."

Wrong. Apt is still there, and on top of that you can use Smart which uses the apt repos.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by miscz on Sun 28th May 2006 19:29 in reply to "RE: ..."
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

The only thing that has to be downloaded in Ubuntu is language support. Everything else is just there - desktop environment, web browser, word processor, multimedia apps. Most of those are the ones that I'd choose myself, the rest is just few minutes of downloading. I don't have tons of bandwith to waste so I just skip distros like Suse or Fedora.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: ...
by Terracotta on Sun 28th May 2006 21:24 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
Terracotta Member since:
2005-08-15

Correct AND there's only one browser per desktop environment, one video player, one audio player per default installed, don't like the one installed? install another one. What's the use in installing three mediaplayers (in such a slooooooow way, I really don't understand why internet repos are this slow), it takes an awfull lot of time to install them, and after that you have to uninstall two of them, what's the use of that?

Reply Parent Score: 3