I purchased SuSE 7.3, and I've found it very easy to use; however, I've only been using Linux for about 8 months. I'm an IT Manager, and I've only used Windows for the past 10 years - I'm not advocating Windows by this statement! I'm finding ways to replace Windows. I've installed Red Hat 7.2 to see how different it is from SuSE. I downloaded Mandrake, but it hung during installation so I didn't retry the install since it took several hours to get there. My question is: In terms of business usefulness, what have you found to be the major difference between SuSE and RH? I don't expect everyone to give me an entire list, but at least 1 major difference would be very valuable. I can tell you this much. I'm not necessarily advocating Red Hat over SuSE, but other companies are developing software that works on Red Hat first because it's more widely marketed than all of the other distributions. Even Dell is offering Red Hat Advanced Server. SuSE is doing something with IBM, but I don't remember exactly. Michael -----Original Message----- From: Uzo Kemdi Anyamele [mailto:anyamele@btopenworld.com] Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 9:38 AM To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: [SLE] War among the penguins? Fellow SuSErs, Dont all rush off now !! But take a glance at http://www.redhat.com/software/linux/upgrade_rebate.html Hahahahahahahaha...... even if I got offered all the monies, I've paid for SuSE versions so far..... Thanks, but no thanks. Though, I can see the desperate, yet funny side. SuSE must be reaching places in North America. Well done, Guys and Gals. -- Kemdi IN_SuSE_d Since 5.2 123792 of counter.li.org ICQ:112290572 -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
On Friday 10 May 2002 10:41, mslpop3 wrote:
.. I'm an IT Manager, and I've only used Windows for the past 10 years - I'm not advocating Windows by this statement! I'm finding ways to replace Windows. ....
My question is: In terms of business usefulness, what have you found to be the major difference between SuSE and RH? I don't expect everyone to give me an entire list, but at least 1 major difference would be very valuable.
I can tell you this much. I'm not necessarily advocating Red Hat over SuSE, but other companies are developing software that works on Red Hat first because it's more widely marketed than all of the other distributions. Even Dell is offering Red Hat Advanced Server. SuSE is doing something with IBM, but I don't remember exactly.
Michael
RH has a bigger share of the US market for IA than SuSE. Many organizations, particularly those doing business internationally, must support both, and both recognize the importance of inter-operability. Not knowing specifics of your situation, I can't offer much. In my job, I deal with both Windows and RH, and find the Windows interoperability features of RH less satisfactory than SuSE. At least one of the servers I run works only with RH6.2, so I would expect that any organization of any size would be using multiple versions. SuSE has more interest in supporting individual users, but both are doing an excellent job of supporting business use, and servers appear to account for most of the business demand in the US. RH has improved their support for notebooks since I was driven to switch to SuSE there. These are purely personal opinions. -- Tim Prince
I have run both and think they are about the same. Except: 1.) Red Hat a much higher availability of third party documentation than SuSE does. 2.) Redhat does not provide as comprehensive a package for the money Seven CD verses five for Redhat. 3.) SuSE provides better documentation with the package. 4.) Redhat uses LinuxConf and RPM SuSE use Yast. Just my thoughts pab -----Original Message----- From: Tim Prince [mailto:tprince@computer.org] Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 2:17 PM To: mslpop3; 'Uzo Kemdi Anyamele'; suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] War among the penguins? On Friday 10 May 2002 10:41, mslpop3 wrote:
.. I'm an IT Manager, and I've only used Windows for the past 10 years - I'm not advocating Windows by this statement! I'm finding ways to replace Windows. ....
My question is: In terms of business usefulness, what have you found to be the major difference between SuSE and RH? I don't expect everyone to give me an entire list, but at least 1 major difference would be very valuable.
I can tell you this much. I'm not necessarily advocating Red Hat over SuSE, but other companies are developing software that works on Red Hat first because it's more widely marketed than all of the other distributions. Even Dell is offering Red Hat Advanced Server. SuSE is doing something with IBM, but I don't remember exactly.
Michael
RH has a bigger share of the US market for IA than SuSE. Many organizations, particularly those doing business internationally, must support both, and both recognize the importance of inter-operability. Not knowing specifics of your situation, I can't offer much. In my job, I deal with both Windows and RH, and find the Windows interoperability features of RH less satisfactory than SuSE. At least one of the servers I run works only with RH6.2, so I would expect that any organization of any size would be using multiple versions. SuSE has more interest in supporting individual users, but both are doing an excellent job of supporting business use, and servers appear to account for most of the business demand in the US. RH has improved their support for notebooks since I was driven to switch to SuSE there. These are purely personal opinions. -- Tim Prince -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
As far as the software development, most of the software that you see that says "Supports RH version X" is written by companies that are US based and are ignorant to Linux use worldwide. True, RH does hold the loargest market share in the US... but outside of the US, it's a different story. Truth is, most of the software (with few exceptions) will work just fine on either of the platforms... the real difference between the distro's being the kernel and the version of glibc that were used as building blocks. Sure, occasionaly you hit some bug somewhere... but it's not all that common in my experience. The only major things is support for certain hardware, where the Mfr. doesn't open source the drivers (NVidia, Promise, etc.) which causes problems for any distro if you need to build custom kernels for some reason. In general, I've always felt that SuSE had a more user friendly admin suite (Yast vs. Linuxconf) but the underlying file structure, especially with SuSE 8.0 seems to be converging. I would like to see everyone switch to a better package manager (ala Debian) which might actually push Debian to be a better distro overall as well... but some people seem to like RPMs for some reason. There's my 2 cents. - herman On Fri, 10 May 2002, peter banks wrote: ->I have run both and think they are about the same. Except: ->1.) Red Hat a much higher availability of third party documentation than ->SuSE does. ->2.) Redhat does not provide as comprehensive a package for the money Seven ->CD verses five for Redhat. ->3.) SuSE provides better documentation with the package. ->4.) Redhat uses LinuxConf and RPM SuSE use Yast. -> ->Just my thoughts ->pab ->-----Original Message----- ->From: Tim Prince [mailto:tprince@computer.org] ->Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 2:17 PM ->To: mslpop3; 'Uzo Kemdi Anyamele'; suse-linux-e@suse.com ->Subject: Re: [SLE] War among the penguins? -> ->On Friday 10 May 2002 10:41, mslpop3 wrote: ->> .. I'm an IT Manager, and I've only ->> used Windows for the past 10 years - I'm not advocating Windows by this ->> statement! I'm finding ways to replace Windows. .... ->> ->> My question is: In terms of business usefulness, what have you found to be ->> the major difference between SuSE and RH? I don't expect everyone to give ->> me an entire list, but at least 1 major difference would be very valuable. ->> ->> I can tell you this much. I'm not necessarily advocating Red Hat over ->> SuSE, but other companies are developing software that works on Red Hat ->> first because it's more widely marketed than all of the other ->> distributions. Even Dell is offering Red Hat Advanced Server. SuSE is ->> doing something with IBM, but I don't remember exactly. ->> ->> Michael ->> ->RH has a bigger share of the US market for IA than SuSE. Many ->organizations, particularly those doing business internationally, must ->support both, and both recognize the importance of inter-operability. Not ->knowing specifics of your situation, I can't offer much. In my job, I ->deal with both Windows and RH, and find the Windows interoperability ->features ->of RH less satisfactory than SuSE. At least one of the servers I run works ->only with RH6.2, so I would expect that any organization of any size would ->be ->using multiple versions. SuSE has more interest in supporting individual ->users, but both are doing an excellent job of supporting business use, and ->servers appear to account for most of the business demand in the US. RH has ->improved their support for notebooks since I was driven to switch to SuSE ->there. These are purely personal opinions. ->-- ->Tim Prince -> ->-- ->To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com ->For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com ->Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com -> -> -> ->
Herman, didn't you get the latest news. Apt (ported from debian) is available for SuSE. Have a look at http://linux01.gwdg.de/apt4rpm On vrijdag 10 mei 2002 21:03, Herman L. Knief wrote:
I would like to see everyone switch to a better package manager (ala Debian) which might actually push Debian to be a better distro overall as well... but some people seem to like RPMs for some reason.
-- Richard Bos Democracy cost a fortune
Yes, I've seen that... but SuSE itself is still RPM based which means you have to deal with all of RPM's idiosyncracy's when applying package changes from the CDs. - Herman On Fri, 10 May 2002, Richard Bos wrote: ->Herman, -> ->didn't you get the latest news. Apt (ported from debian) is available for ->SuSE. Have a look at http://linux01.gwdg.de/apt4rpm -> ->On vrijdag 10 mei 2002 21:03, Herman L. Knief wrote: ->> I would like to see everyone switch to a better package manager (ala ->> Debian) which might actually push Debian to be a better distro overall as ->> well... but some people seem to like RPMs for some reason. -> ->
* mslpop3 (michael@linuxprofessional.net) [020510 10:52]: :: ::I can tell you this much. I'm not necessarily advocating Red Hat over SuSE, ::but other companies are developing software that works on Red Hat first ::because it's more widely marketed than all of the other distributions. Even ::Dell is offering Red Hat Advanced Server. SuSE is doing something with IBM, ::but I don't remember exactly. :: Michael, A small hint about the "works with RH" stuff you may see. If it works on RH..then you have a 9-10 chance it's going to work with SuSE. They are binary compatible. The problem you might run into is that RH tends to put things in goofy places ..they muck about with the file structure, but with the LSB becoming quick the standard by which Linux distributions are judged. This won't be a problem much longer. As far as the major differences between RH and SuSE...well. SuSE is much more LSB compliant then RH and SuSE uses the current standard GCC compiler so you won't run into as many issues. RH uses 2.96-RH while SuSE uses 2.95.3 which most other Linux distributions and other Unices use as well. Others can put up further differences. -=Ben --=====-----=====-- mailto:ben@whack.org --=====-- If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little. -GC --=====-----=====--
On Fri, 10 May 2002, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
A small hint about the "works with RH" stuff you may see. If it works on RH..then you have a 9-10 chance it's going to work with SuSE. They are binary compatible. The problem you might run into is that RH tends to put things in goofy places ..they muck about with the file structure, but with the LSB becoming quick the standard by which Linux distributions are judged. This won't be a problem much longer.
As far as the major differences between RH and SuSE...well. SuSE is much more LSB compliant then RH and SuSE uses the current standard GCC compiler so you won't run into as many issues. RH uses 2.96-RH while SuSE uses 2.95.3 which most other Linux distributions and other Unices use as well. Others can put up further differences.
It works both ways... SuSE's change this release from /etc/rc.config to /etc/sysconfig/... was to conform to the LSB. My RedHat-using friends are saying 'it's about time!' Yes, the LSB will make it easier for third-party applications to install on any distro. And sometimes the standards committee is declaring the 'RH style' to be the direction to go. Eventually, all distros will have an equal level of 'goofiness' in their FHS implementations. Rick Green
Rick Green wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2002, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
A small hint about the "works with RH" stuff you may see. If it works on RH..then you have a 9-10 chance it's going to work with SuSE. They are binary compatible. The problem you might run into is that RH tends to put things in goofy places ..they muck about with the file structure, but with the LSB becoming quick the standard by which Linux distributions are judged. This won't be a problem much longer.
As far as the major differences between RH and SuSE...well. SuSE is much more LSB compliant then RH and SuSE uses the current standard GCC compiler so you won't run into as many issues. RH uses 2.96-RH while SuSE uses 2.95.3 which most other Linux distributions and other Unices use as well. Others can put up further differences.
It works both ways... SuSE's change this release from /etc/rc.config to /etc/sysconfig/... was to conform to the LSB. My RedHat-using friends are saying 'it's about time!'
Yes, the LSB will make it easier for third-party applications to install on any distro. And sometimes the standards committee is declaring the 'RH style' to be the direction to go. Eventually, all distros will have an equal level of 'goofiness' in their FHS implementations.
when will /opt go away......?????
Rick Green
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
::when will /opt go away......????? Hopefully never. /opt means Optional as in the operating system doesn't need it. /usr means UNIX system resources..it's not usr as in user. I absolutely hate that RH stuffs everything in /usr .. I mean how big does /usr/bin need to be anyway. I guess I'm just old fashion and use Solaris to much. SuSE's layout is one of the reasons I left RH around 4.0 and never looked back. -=Ben --=====-----=====-- mailto:ben@whack.org --=====-- If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little. -GC --=====-----=====--
Ben Rosenberg wrote:
::when will /opt go away......?????
Hopefully never. /opt means Optional as in the operating system doesn't need it. /usr means UNIX system resources..it's not usr as in user. I absolutely hate that RH stuffs everything in /usr .. I mean how big does /usr/bin need to be anyway. I guess I'm just old fashion and use Solaris to much. SuSE's layout is one of the reasons I left RH around 4.0 and never looked back.
-=Ben
then why is it most manually built programs, i.e. compilled from source, install to /usr/local by default? maybe some of these "/optional" packages need to be there instead? does any other commercial Unix use /opt? (I don't think SCO does?) BTW for those not familiar w/Solaris, you do get /opt as Ben says, but you don't get /usr/local, you have to create that yourself..... -don (just my .02)
--=====-----=====-- mailto:ben@whack.org --=====-- If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little. -GC --=====-----=====--
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
-- ------------------------------- proud linux user since kernel 1.1.54
aix uses /opt as of 5.1 too, keeps kde, gnome, netscape and so on in it. I always considered /usr/local somewhere to put stuff that is vital to your own machine, but just your own machine (my adsl stuff lives there for example). if i lose /opt i can carry on using the machine, if i lose /usr/local i will lose my networking. I think mostly the unix filesystems are a mess, hopefully the linux standards base will help :) Ewan
then why is it most manually built programs, i.e. compilled from source, install to /usr/local by default? maybe some of these "/optional" packages need to be there instead? does any other commercial Unix use /opt? (I don't think SCO does?) BTW for those not familiar w/Solaris, you do get /opt as Ben says, but you don't get /usr/local, you have to create that yourself.....
-don (just my .02)
Donald Knecht
then why is it most manually built programs, i.e. compilled from source, install to /usr/local by default? maybe some of these "/optional" packages need to be there instead?
/usr/local is strictly for *local* stuff, i.e. stuff you compile yourself. A distribution should *never* touch it, making sure your local stuff doesn't get overwritten. Philipp
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 10:41:55AM -0700, mslpop3 wrote:
I can tell you this much. I'm not necessarily advocating Red Hat over SuSE, but other companies are developing software that works on Red Hat first because it's more widely marketed than all of the other distributions. Even Dell is offering Red Hat Advanced Server. SuSE is doing something with IBM, but I don't remember exactly.
I have high regard for both distros and have used both quite a bit over several years. Here are some differences I've noticed: RHN vs. YOU (SuSE+) -------------------- To use the RHN, you have to register each computer on their system, which is time consuming to setup and maintain. Also, there is a charge for each PC after the first one that you register. I find YOU much easier to use and less intrusive. Printing (SuSE++) ----------------- SuSE has included CUPS for several versions and makes it easy to set up printing via YaST2. The Red Hat print system was has been in transition (broken) since 7.1 for PCL printers. I haven't tested the new 7.3, but at least they now include CUPS and maybe they have the print system working better. 3rd party apps (Red Hat+) -------------------------- Red Hat and SuSE both have many partners and many 3rd party apps available. Red hat appears to have a few more. It depends on your needs. Checkpoint certifies RH, SAP certifies SuSE. SuSE has more presence on IBM mainframes. Red Hat has more presence in e-commerce with Stronghold. One thing for sure, if anyone releases something for Linux at the moment, they will support RedHat first. Compiler (SuSE+) ---------------- Red Hat angered many people when they shipped a beta gcc compiler in 7.0. The latest version still has a non standard compiler, gcc 2.96-RH vs. the SuSE gcc 2.95.3. There is a lot of debate and angst over the RH compiler and some projects state that their code won't work with the RH compiler. I really don't know enough about gcc to have an informed opinion, except that no one complains about the SuSE compiler. Developers on key projects -------------------------- This is an interesting view and just a guess on my part, based on names that I see in various projects. Red Hat has more employees on gcc, gnome, ext3, python. SuSE has more developers on KDE, reiserfs, NIS, Xfree. They each have about the same on the kernel. Community --------- The SuSE community seems to be a little more friendly. Best Regards, Keith -- LPIC-2, MCSE, N+ Will we all fight for the right to be free? Got spam? Get spastic http://spastic.sourceforge.net
participants (11)
-
Ben Rosenberg
-
Donald Knecht
-
Ewan Leith
-
Herman L. Knief
-
Keith Winston
-
mslpop3
-
peter banks
-
Philipp Thomas
-
Richard Bos
-
Rick Green
-
Tim Prince