I think there were some good points raised in Cliff's email to Suse. I do agree that some sort of more transparent bug tracking/logging system would be a benefit to us all. I think many Linux companies are having to become 'Professional' too quickly for the resources that it obviously requires. None of us can complain about the amount of software that comes in every SuSE distribution and the rapidity of the improvements of packages in each release. But all this comes with a price, the need for much more intensive testing for more and more varied setups. For all their faults, Microsoft have struggled very hard to support the diverse range of equipment that exists and have huge resources to put into this and yet they suffer many of the same problems. We see strange oddities when we upgrade/install the latest release. Weird font settings in kde, a section on USB scanners in the manuals that refers to a usb system and configuration files that arent there ( it was upgraded to hotplug ). Seemingly weird problems compiling things like kde ( new version of autoconf ). 1. A bug/support tracking system could help by allowing a problem to be addressed/answered once and the rest of us being able to use that info. At the moment it is a case of scanning through the email group to see if someone else has solved the problem, and predictably we see the same questions popping up repeatedly. 2. I think that the changes from version to version need to be explained in much greater detail. I had to hack my old apache conf file to get it to work in the new setup, and the one that it was replaced by was even worse. It would be nice to know that the questions we ask, have been noted and examined. I dont think I have ever managed to upgrade my machine from one release to another without some major problems afterwards. The thing that keeps me returning to SuSE is this list, and being able to get at a huge library off the DVD which is permanently in my drive. dids

->I have no objections to commercial distributions of Linux/GNU packages ->if they add genuine value and ease of use. I know many people on the ->list think you can do no wrong, anything that does not work is ->always someone else's fault. However I would not recommend your ->product to anyone coming new to Linux as a place to start. -> ->In your present situation, and the present cyncial attitude you show ->to your customers (the splitting of the distribution into Personal/ ->Professional being a disgraceful example of this) I will be surprised ->if you survive. I'm not going to comment on 99% of what Cliff said because he seems to have issues with things no matter how SuSE sets them up. He's bitched about Sendmail being "cocked up" yet I upgraded from 7.1 to 7.3 and guess what..I haven't touched my sendmail configs and it's all still working. WOW! My sendmail.cf is still there and the new one has a .rpmnew extention. And I am one picky person when it comes to sendmail. I'm not say that SuSE perfect...hell if anyone has read some of the things I've said about them or for you SuSE Oakland people..we know SuSE has issues, but damn it so do a lot of other software companies. SuSE is at least more receptive to fixing things that actually are a problem. Some people have problems just because it's in their nature to have problems. I've met many Unix and Windows Admins who thought they knew their shit..and didn't. I don't mean to offend anyone but the fact is software isn't perfect and if SuSE could magically know all the situations that this software would be used in with every configuration well...I would be scared of them. ;) Let's look at RH since they are the only Linux distributions in the same league as SuSE as far as professional quality and appearance. Redhat: Standard $59.95 w/ 30 days web support. Professional $199.95 w/ 60 days Web-based support with unlimited web tickets and 60 days Telephone-based support, including two incidents. And if you want the Oracle "Enhanced Version" your talking about $2500 while SuSE Pro comes with the same software. I would also point out that Mandrake has serveral version as does Caldera and Turbolinux. This complaint that SuSE sold out when they split the distribution is total bullshit and is SUCH a non-issue for the value that you get. I'm just amazed at the stupidity of some people who complain about what you get when you buy SuSE's products. I would say go check out Solaris or some of the other commercial Unix packages and see how their configuration is out of the box for servers. I would also say go look at the amount of software you get with Windows. I just don't get it. -----=====-----=====-----=====-----=====----- Ben Rosenberg mailto:ben@whack.org -----=====-----=====-----=====-----=====----- "Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal" -AE

On 09-Nov-01 Cliff Sarginson wrote:

Hello, I am today unsubscribing from the list, and ceasing to use SuSE Linux on my network.

If anyone is interested why I attach a copy of the mail I have sent to feedback@suse.com.

I want to thank people who have answered some of my questions, and I hope that some of my input has been of use to some people as well.

Cliff: Best wishes and good luck; and I hope to encounter you again somewhere some time. Your presence has been notably worth while. To all: With regret, I have a lot of sympathy with Cliff. Like him, I have been doing Unix admin a long time (since the early 80s); and I have been using various Linux distributions since the 0.9 kernel in 1993: SLS, MCC-Interim, Slackware, Red Hat, Debian, SuSE. Various reasons: SLS died; MCC was bare bones; Slackware died (for a while); Red Hat has a very unfortunate transition around Version 4; Debian I caught at a bad patch as it tried to move up from 0.9 to 1.0 (but I have a successful later version on a laptop); finally SuSE, which won my heart with version 5.1 at the end of '97. That distribution is still doing solid work on that old machine, with never a hitch. Since then I have put 6.1 on another machine with what looked like good success, though I think it had an uneasy relationship with VMWare. The 6.1 machine now belongs to someone else. But of course 5.1 is semi-obsolete: libc5, and an old kernel. Not much use now for new software except what I compile myself, and a lot of new software is not compilable on such an old system. So I was looking forward to making a new machine with a really up-to-date distribution, and of course I was looking to SuSE, and I waited for Series 7. First came 7.0. That simply refused to install properly: After "configuring" X, it froze. On trying to resume installation and configuration after a restart, it believed everything was in place and refused to continue. Re-starting from scratch (reformatting hard drive) led to the same outcome. Result: 7.0->Trash. I skipped 7.1 (maybe I shouldn't have), and waited for 7.2. This certainly installed smoothly enough, but then I found a number of things wrong with it, even at very basic levels. Some of these I mailed to the list about at the time, but since then I have mainly kept quiet. (As a very basic example: this is the first Linux distribution on which, whether I ftp from it or to it, I'm obliged to explicitly enter "binary" in order to ensure that the transfer really is in binary mode, even though the ftp startup message assures me that it's "transferring files in binary mode"). So I'm not happy with it, though it's still running on the new machine. However, NO WAY am I going to migrate my working software and files irrevocably from the old 5.1 machine, because I simply don't trust the new 7.3 machine. In my view, SuSE-7.3 is -- not entirely, but enough to be seriously worrying -- buggy (including in major apps), unpredictable, and unreliable. I use Linux for serious work, and at the moment the new machine is used as an auxiliary (especially for necessary use of Win98 under VMWare); but it is not being used as I would wish: as a much faster, much more powerful engine than the old 5.1 box on which I can confidently work. I don't bother with SuSE email support (though I've paid for the Professional editions every time); I do try to make best use of the Support DBs on the SuSE site (though the German version seems to be better maintained than the English one -- Why?). The printed documentation looks good when you open it, but soon turns out to not quite meet the need on many fronts. On a related note, why, now, do we no longer get the list of files in a package (on pressing F2 for "details" when installing)? This used to be very valuable. Now all we get is a brief description which, in many cases, reads more like hype than information. I really regret having come to this rather negative view of the SuSE Series 7. Series 5 and Series 6 were what you expect of a Linux distribution: reliable, solid, not too difficult if you had to work round a problem (of which there were not many), and little trouble to extend or to tweak. And of course you always get that great SuSE benefit: Masses of important software on convenient to use CDs. You need to do something new? OK, in goes the CD and a few minutes later you can. (Or should be able to). When, as in my case, it costs the equivalent of US$1 to download 10-15 MB (1 hour) by modem, that's important. Recently, I mailed the SuSE list asking if there would be a list of fixes, for their various packages, in 7.3 relative to 7.2 or 7.1; the main reaction was that SuSE have to pay people to do this and it would be a lot of trouble. Shortly after this, as it happened, Debian posted an enormous list of the changes and fixes to the various packages incorprated in their new release, with URLs for further material. And Debian (in theory) don't pay anyone for this; it simply gets done. Red Hat, of course, have long had a detailed inventory of bugs and fixes on their "updates" site. Mind you, I suppose they do pay someone to do it. SuSE? For someone in my position, wondering whether to continue with SuSE, this sort of information is important. As Cliff points out, it's not the cost in money; it's the time and trouble spent fixing things (it took me three months to get 7.3 working smoothly for what I use it for). It would be useful to get assurance that the things that worry you have been fixed (or confirmation that, apparently, they haven't). Trawling through the support database is not an attractive option. Therefore, I have been following the recent comments on 7.3 on the list. A mixture of encouraging and discouraging. Not convincing me that 7.3 is going to fix my worries arising from 7.2. I don't want to itemise points Cliff made in his mail (many of which I agree with, where my experience overlaps). But I'd like to pull out one comment he made: In my view you are becoming the Microsoft of the Linux world, tying people into your distributions - making people nervous of installing anything that is not packaged by you. This is not in the spirit of Open Source. I would add to that, that increasingly SuSE's installation, setup and configuration are becoming impenetrable; yet the documentation and publicity suggest that the user doesn't need to worry: it will all be looked after. Well, in my experience, it won't. In some cases it will; in other cases you're on your own. This increasing impression of "the user doesn't need to know" may be valuable in penetrating the "dumb[ish] user" market, but it cuts no ice with people who know when something works and when it doesn't, and then set about trying to fix it when it doesn't; as Cliff says, fixing problems on recent SuSE is no joke. Which is not to denigrate the valuable help that SuSE list members often come up with. I'd like to second Cliff's vote of thanks to Lenz Grimmer; and to others, such as Ben Rosenberg and, particularly from me, to Volker Kuhlman whose researches on getting VMWare to install properly on SuSE have been thorough and deep, and got me past what looked like an impasse, at an important moment. And thanks, too, to the many not-named whose responses to the list (to others) have also been useful at various moments. I'm trying not to be unreservedly hard on SuSE. Assembling such a huge repertoire of software is no light task, and some glitches are inevitable. Minor problems one can live with or work round, and remain grateful for the bundling of so much that is useful. Nevertheless, especially if one has paid for a "Professional" edition, there is an expectation that almost everything will _basically_work_. This at least implies that the packagers give their packages a test flight; and, if the latest (because glitzier) version of something won't work, then let it be replaced (or have as an alternative) an earlier one which will. (As an example: start up xcam in 7.2; on the window, click "preferences"; then click "show advanced options". Immediate segfault. Did _anyone_ test this? This is far from the only case where it looks as though things were not tried out before being bundled). Also, one must not forget that Linux itself -- the core stuff around which every distribution is assembled -- has its ups and downs. I'm well conscious of the possible explanation that some of the issues which people complain of may arise on that front. Such problems should pass as Linux gets past the sticky patch. SuSE 5.1 was based on the 2.0.33 kernel; 6.1 (IIRC) on the 2.2.12 kernel; both of these got the name, in their time, of "the best kernel ever". Are we perhaps going through a sticky patch? Maybe people who want a reliable system should stick to something earlier? I wish I knew. But SuSE are being unusually silent about real technical issues. Time was when this list had frequent meaty input from people who worked for SuSE; and I was usually happy to take this as authoritative. This no longer happens. Well, mustn't go on too long. Unlike Cliff, I intend to stay on the list and watch what happens. If I can contribute useful tips, I'll try. But I hope SuSE will think a bit about postings that people like Cliff and myself put up. We're not particularly ignorant, and we're not particularly stupid (even if we do sometimes overlook the obvious). If we're not happy, then something needs fixing. Or, perhaps, SuSE may be embarking on a "strategic change of direction" where I, perhaps Cliff and others, may not wish to follow. We'll see. Best wishes to all, Ted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 167 1972 Date: 09-Nov-01 Time: 22:05:11 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------