Re: What Version of Suse?

Chris Cox wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 10:56 +0000, nitrofan wrote:
>> Hi I am new to Linux (I have been using Ubuntu for 14 days only) and
>> very new to Suse, my brother recommended I try out Suse as he felt it
>> was a better distribution than ubuntu.
> 
> Each have their pros/cons.  Ubuntu would not be the #1 Linux
> distro for 2 years running if it were not "better" in some ways.
> With that said, I run SUSE and openSUSE pretty much exclusively.
> I like the way the SUSE guys think and sometimes the Ubuntu
> folks don't think ... sad but true (sometimes Novell/SUSE stumbles
> too.. nobody's perfect, but I still think they are closer
> to thinking "correctly").

I'd have to disagree with the assumption that Ubuntu is better in some 
way just because it supposedly has been the #1 linux distro in the past 
2 years. I think it might have more to do with the fact that you were 
getting free disks from the creators for free. That was 1 huge 
difference that I think if never happened would have made the *buntu 
phenomenon more like a normal distros growth rate.

>> I tried out the Gnome i386 Live CD download last night, and apart from
>> the fact it did not seems to be able to get my sound card working
>> (Ubuntu did first time) it looked good.
>>
>> But when I spoke to my brother he said he needed 10 CD's to download
>> Suse! but I can only find a single 4.2Gb DVD Iso called "Open
Suse".
>> What is the difference? and what is the best supported version of
Suse?
>> Is it different to the commercial strength Suse? If so where do I
>> download commercial strength Suse from?

There is no commercial download for Suse, You will have to purchase SLED 
10 if you are looking for the commercial version.

>> If I install the 4.2Gb ISO and find out later that there IS a
>> commercial strength version d Suse can I install it over the top of
>> Open Suse?
> 
> Nope.  The Novell SUSE Enterprise Linux product is based off a
> much older code base... it's not an upgrade.  However, to its
> credit, it is a distribution with a very long support path, and
> since there are major companies using it, the fixes come faster
> and more often on the Enterprise side... but that costs money.

Actually it depends on what the OP meant by install over. If it was 
meant as in format and reinstall than sure. If upgrade was meant then I 

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:39:39 GMT
69_rs_ss <69_rs_ss@suseforums.net> wrote:

<snip>
> >> But when I spoke to my brother he said he needed 10 CD's to
> >> download Suse! but I can only find a single 4.2Gb DVD Iso called
> >> "Open Suse". What is the difference? and what is the
best
> >> supported version of Suse? Is it different to the commercial
> >> strength Suse? If so where do I download commercial strength Suse
> >> from?
> 
> There is no commercial download for Suse, You will have to purchase
> SLED 10 if you are looking for the commercial version.

<snip>
Hi
You can download SLED and get 60 days of updates etc to evaluate. If
you decide to keep using, just purchase a subscription to updates
online. I think it was a little extra for me to get the boxed set. I
have a 3 year subscription and as a home user I find it perfect.

You need to create an online account to get to the download and get an
Activation code.

http://download.novell.com/Download?buildid=N1YveG_t53Y~

-- 
Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890)
SLED 10.0 SP1 x86_64 Kernel 2.6.16.54-0.2.5-smp
up 1 day 18:31, 1 user, load average: 0.32, 0.19, 0.15

69_rs_ss wrote:
> Chris Cox wrote:
>> On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 10:56 +0000, nitrofan wrote:
>>> Hi I am new to Linux (I have been using Ubuntu for 14 days only)
and
>>> very new to Suse, my brother recommended I try out Suse as he felt
it
>>> was a better distribution than ubuntu.
>>
>> Each have their pros/cons.  Ubuntu would not be the #1 Linux
>> distro for 2 years running if it were not "better" in some
ways.
>> With that said, I run SUSE and openSUSE pretty much exclusively.
>> I like the way the SUSE guys think and sometimes the Ubuntu
>> folks don't think ... sad but true (sometimes Novell/SUSE stumbles
>> too.. nobody's perfect, but I still think they are closer
>> to thinking "correctly").
> 
> I'd have to disagree with the assumption that Ubuntu is better in some 
> way just because it supposedly has been the #1 linux distro in the past 
> 2 years. I think it might have more to do with the fact that you were 
> getting free disks from the creators for free. That was 1 huge 
> difference that I think if never happened would have made the *buntu 
> phenomenon more like a normal distros growth rate.

Hmmm... I didn't say that.  What WAS being said (and I didn't say this
either) was that openSUSE is a better distribution than Ubuntu.  And
then I went on (as you can see) to explain that there are pros and
cons to each.  Are you asserting that openSUSE is absolutely better
than Ubuntu?  Perhaps you can detail out why openSUSE is superior.
I'm sure the OP would appreciate a definitive answer.  I don't believe
there is a definitive answer.  But with that said, I gave my own
opinion about openSUSE and why it is my choice.

Btw, I agree that Ubuntu deserved distro of the year 2 years running.
But I am an openSUSE user and advocate.  If you look at how fast
Ubuntu came along and what it brought to the table, I think the
award was well deserved.  Don't you?

> 
>>> I tried out the Gnome i386 Live CD download last night, and apart
from
>>> the fact it did not seems to be able to get my sound card working
>>> (Ubuntu did first time) it looked good.
>>>
>>> But when I spoke to my brother he said he needed 10 CD's to
download
>>> Suse! but I can only find a single 4.2Gb DVD Iso called "Open
Suse".
>>> What is the difference? and what is the best supported version of
Suse?
>>> Is it different to the commercial strength Suse? If so where do I
>>> download commercial strength Suse from?
> 
> There is no commercial download for Suse, You will have to purchase SLED 
> 10 if you are looking for the commercial version.

Not exactly true.  You can download and use the free Enterprise
versions of SUSE.  What you don't get is an easy update mechanism.
That's support, and Novell wants you to pay for that.

> 
>>> If I install the 4.2Gb ISO and find out later that there IS a
>>> commercial strength version d Suse can I install it over the top
of
>>> Open Suse?
>>
>> Nope.  The Novell SUSE Enterprise Linux product is based off a
>> much older code base... it's not an upgrade.  However, to its
>> credit, it is a distribution with a very long support path, and
>> since there are major companies using it, the fixes come faster
>> and more often on the Enterprise side... but that costs money.
> 
> Actually it depends on what the OP meant by install over. If it was 
> meant as in format and reinstall than sure. If upgrade was meant then I 
> would agree that should not be tried.

Chris Cox wrote:
> 69_rs_ss wrote:
>> Chris Cox wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 10:56 +0000, nitrofan wrote:
>>>> Hi I am new to Linux (I have been using Ubuntu for 14 days
only) and
>>>> very new to Suse, my brother recommended I try out Suse as he
felt it
>>>> was a better distribution than ubuntu.
>>>
>>> Each have their pros/cons.  Ubuntu would not be the #1 Linux
>>> distro for 2 years running if it were not "better" in
some ways.
>>> With that said, I run SUSE and openSUSE pretty much exclusively.
>>> I like the way the SUSE guys think and sometimes the Ubuntu
>>> folks don't think ... sad but true (sometimes Novell/SUSE stumbles
>>> too.. nobody's perfect, but I still think they are closer
>>> to thinking "correctly").
>>
>> I'd have to disagree with the assumption that Ubuntu is better in some

>> way just because it supposedly has been the #1 linux distro in the 
>> past 2 years. I think it might have more to do with the fact that you 
>> were getting free disks from the creators for free. That was 1 huge 
>> difference that I think if never happened would have made the *buntu 
>> phenomenon more like a normal distros growth rate.
> 
> Hmmm... I didn't say that.  What WAS being said (and I didn't say this
> either) was that openSUSE is a better distribution than Ubuntu.

That is the way I took it when you said "Ubuntu would not be the #1 
Linux distro for 2 years running if it were not "better" in some ways.
"

> And then I went on (as you can see) to explain that there are pros and
> cons to each.  Are you asserting that openSUSE is absolutely better
> than Ubuntu?  Perhaps you can detail out why openSUSE is superior.
> I'm sure the OP would appreciate a definitive answer.  I don't believe
> there is a definitive answer.  But with that said, I gave my own
> opinion about openSUSE and why it is my choice.

I'm not saying it is absolutely better though I personally believe so. 
Something like this can be very subjective so it really depends on the 
person. I do think that openSUSE has better management tools such as 
Yast and anything that can be done with apt-get I can pretty much do 
with zypper.

As for community, I think there is something to be said against Ubuntu 
when they have to post on their forums to watch out for the answers you 
are given because there are members telling people commands that will 
wipe out their file system essentially. I also found it distasteful that 
when the email came looking for devs to jump ship to Ubuntu because of 
what people thought the Novell/Microsoft merger meant.

> Btw, I agree that Ubuntu deserved distro of the year 2 years running.
> But I am an openSUSE user and advocate.  If you look at how fast
> Ubuntu came along and what it brought to the table, I think the
> award was well deserved.  Don't you?

I don't. I think it was all marketing hype but nothing really different 
was brought to the table. Name one thing that Ubuntu brought to the 
table. Package management came from Debian, they picked up Apparmour 
along the way. Only thing I can think of was Automatix which for a long 
time was a hacked together script. I haven't looked at it recently so I 
couldn't comment now but...

>>>> I tried out the Gnome i386 Live CD download last night, and
apart from
>>>> the fact it did not seems to be able to get my sound card
working
>>>> (Ubuntu did first time) it looked good.
>>>>
>>>> But when I spoke to my brother he said he needed 10 CD's to
download
>>>> Suse! but I can only find a single 4.2Gb DVD Iso called
"Open Suse".
>>>> What is the difference? and what is the best supported version
of Suse?
>>>> Is it different to the commercial strength Suse? If so where do
I
>>>> download commercial strength Suse from?
>>
>> There is no commercial download for Suse, You will have to purchase 
>> SLED 10 if you are looking for the commercial version.
> 
> Not exactly true.  You can download and use the free Enterprise
> versions of SUSE.  What you don't get is an easy update mechanism.
> That's support, and Novell wants you to pay for that.

So basically as I said, you have to purchase SLED 10 if you want the 
corporate version. If you have to pay for updates then it isn't a free 

On 03/17/2008 69_rs_ss wrote:
> I don't. I think it was all marketing hype but nothing really 
> different was brought to the table.

By the time, something very important was brought to the table: Ubuntu made it
extremely easy for users to add install sources containing closed source drivers
and software. Also, IIRC, they added stuff to the kernel. My Ubuntu co-worker
had for example his laptop card reader working most of the time.

Uwe

-- 
Novell Support Connection Volunteer SysOp