"Fred A. Miller" wrote:
<A HREF="http://www.msnbc.com/news/244979.asp"><A HREF="http://www.msnbc.com/news/244979.asp</A">http://www.msnbc.com/news/244979.asp</A</A>>
Nice article, but can someone please explain why SuSE is getting such a bad rap as being the "least effective Linux." I realize that for this testing they used version 5.3 not 6.0, but why are the reports so bad? I've always considered SuSE technically superior, but everything lately seems to be disagreeing with this? -- TIA, Dave C. pepermil@pop.cybernex.net <A HREF="http://www2.cybernex.net/~pepermil/"><A HREF="http://www2.cybernex.net/~pepermil/</A">http://www2.cybernex.net/~pepermil/</A</A>> - To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e Check out the SuSE-FAQ at <A HREF="http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/"><A HREF="http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/</A">http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/</A</A>> and the archive at <A HREF="http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html"><A HREF="http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html</A">http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html</A</A>>