Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Jun 2006 09:59 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Novell and Ximian According to a Novell confidential memo dated June 14, Novell is delaying its next release of both the server and desktop versions of SUSE Linux Enterprise 10 "to address final issues with our new package management, registration, and update system and also fix the remaining blocker defects."
Thread beginning with comment 135302
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Good
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 20th Jun 2006 10:20 UTC in reply to "Good"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Better to get it right first time than to have to release SP1 a month down the road.

Interesting thread this is going to be. I'm really looking forward to all the excuses why for a Linux company it's okay, but for MS it's not ;) .

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Good
by Kroc on Tue 20th Jun 2006 10:37 in reply to "RE: Good"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

They don't try and spin webs around it. Novel have given us a reason, and one that isn't surrounded in mystery. In fact you go watch their bugzilla site and see why yourself firsthand.

And Ubunutu did the same thing only a while back. They shipped precisely on the new date as said.

And they didn't pull major features from a 'feature complete' beta product.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Good
by Buffalo Soldier on Tue 20th Jun 2006 10:43 in reply to "RE: Good"
Buffalo Soldier Member since:
2005-07-06

Interesting thread this is going to be. I'm really looking forward to all the excuses why for a Linux company it's okay, but for MS it's not ;) .

It's not okay for any company (FLOSS or even proprietary) to delay a release of product MANY MANY times.

It's considerable if they did it once or twice.

MS delays for so many times plus they are pulling out features. (Sorry I don't have the exact duration. Anyone remembers how many years Vista has been delayed?)

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Good
by mym6 on Tue 20th Jun 2006 16:59 in reply to "RE[2]: Good"
mym6 Member since:
2005-08-26

Depends on how you look at it. I came across a statement by someone at MS saying after Windows 2000 was released they should/would follow a faster release cycle, much like OSX is now. If you go by that schedule, they're like...5 years late.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Good
by enloop on Tue 20th Jun 2006 23:49 in reply to "RE[2]: Good"
enloop Member since:
2005-11-13

>>"It's not okay for any company (FLOSS or even proprietary) to delay a release..."

Why not? They don't have to tell us anything about their development process and their release plans. They owe us nothing. They'd be justified in keeping their mouths shut until the product was ready to ship.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Good
by DevL on Tue 20th Jun 2006 11:02 in reply to "RE: Good"
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

It's all about the magnitude of the delay. Vista should have been out, what, three years ago? And in its present form it has had tons of features cut.

Not that I complain though. Anything that's bad for Microsoft is good for the competition and hence for the computing world.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Good
by Tom K on Tue 20th Jun 2006 17:07 in reply to "RE[2]: Good"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Three years ago?

Nice attempt at a troll, but it sucks.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Good
by slate on Tue 20th Jun 2006 17:55 in reply to "RE[2]: Good"
slate Member since:
2006-04-04

Linux can't compete, so it needs all the delays from Microsoft it can get

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Good
by Anonymous Penguin on Tue 20th Jun 2006 13:48 in reply to "RE: Good"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

The main difference is, IMO, that MS has had 5 years to develop Vista, whilst SUSE releases twice a year.
Why is that? Because Vista is an attempt to square the circle, with its backwards compatibily (which is far from working all the time, BTW)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Good
by abraxas on Tue 20th Jun 2006 23:35 in reply to "RE: Good"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

There is nothing wrong with delaying a product. There is something wrong with promising a product with X features, then delaying said product and stripping out X features, then delaying again, stripping out more features, then delaying again and stripping out even more features. This is especially bad for a company as large as Microsoft and with delays in the years. I can deal with 6 weeks or even 6 months if that's what it takes to get a product up to standards, including all originally announced features. I'm having a hard time convincing myself that Vista is worth the wait after two of the biggest features (in my opinion) are no longer going to be included. Those features being WinFS and Monad. At least it's good for competition as many Linux distributions are now far outpacing Windows with features, like XGL and Beagle.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Good
by ralph on Wed 21st Jun 2006 08:17 in reply to "RE: Good"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

*Sigh*

Thom, really, this is getting annoying and leads to me (and I'm quite sure this also applies to others) visiting this site, especially the discussion area, less and less.

I'm not even going to start to argue your point about MS and Novell. For anyone with half a brain it's plain to see that there's a hugh difference between delaying a product for some weeks, or having these incredible troubles getting out a new product that MS had.

Be that as it may (and who cares really), why is it that you as one of the editors of this site, try to start a stupid and unnecessary flamewar? Aren't the usual stupid flamewars taking place here not more than enough already?

Edited 2006-06-21 08:18

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Good
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 21st Jun 2006 13:55 in reply to "RE[2]: Good"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Learn to use the internet. There's a SMILEY in the post. You know, a smiley indicates, depending on which one, humour, sadness, or whatever. In this case, it was a smiling smiley, as such, I was just JOKING.

Edited 2006-06-21 13:55

Reply Parent Score: 1