Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (1264 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse] multiple kernels? -- no, really about better (and more visible, and more comprehensive ) documentation
On 15/06/17 02:05 AM, David C. Rankin wrote:
Under the hood, there isn't a whole lot of difference in what Linux is. It
just boils down to the distro philosophy, the community, and talented
developers to keep a firm hand on the wheel and keep things moving forward.
Even VMware is just Linux under the hood (and talk about older kernels...).

So, time for a change? -- no... Time to broaden your Linux horizons --
that's always a good bet

Actually when I said "time for a change" I meant a change in how openSUSE
addresses documentation, and I was comparing it more specifically to the
thoroughness that Arch and Ubuntu and even RedHat document their 'product'.

As for diversity, I've clocked mileage with UNIX V5, UNIX V6, UNIX V7, SYSTEM
III System V, SCO UNIX/85, Convergent UNIX/86, SUN OS, Solaris, quite a number
of revisions of AIX, ditto HP/UX and even Data Generals attempt at UNIX, both on
the 86 (which was a complete bomb) and on their larger machines,what was so
obsessive SVR4 compliant it was an uphill battle to administer.

All that before dealing with Linux though slackware with < 0.9 ... well
everything except Ubuntu. Oh, and various BSD's along the way all the way back
to 2.8 on the PDP-11.

I still have all the original USG manuals and I've had many books on Linux.
I can see why beginners get turned away and why so many of us have to learn by
digging under the hood, or specializing in a specific area.

Compared to the level of standards and documentation that I've seen for, for
example, even home auto maintenance, never mind the level that applies to
something like aviation, computer documentation for users and administration is
lacking, and while the Big Name firms do a better job (my shelves of AIX
documentation and sysadmin stretch a lot further than my accumulated of
UNIX/Linux) they still seem to think that volume counts.

No, the Arch and RedHat procedural manuals, their "How-To" pages, and especially
their stuff on dealing with difficult (aka error and disaster recovery) and
"interesting" situations is better presented, better indexed than OpenSuse.
All to often I find myself using those pages and 'translating' past the few
OpenSuse oddities (like the use of 'defaults').


The isn't about mixing and matching which version of Linux to run.
Its about comparing the attitudes towards documentation.
Every implementation has its foibles. This list, the factory list, keeps
pointing out that LEAP is based on the Novell/SUSE product, so things like the
kernel lag a long way behind the the 'latest' or what other distributions offer,
even if it is patched up. All of which makes things more confusing for the
admin, who has to check what patches are applied to old kernels vs using a later
a kernel. It makes it all hell for a newbie. No wonder so many newbies to
Linux end up with the "Golden Arches" of Ubuntu.



--
A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups