N. B. Day wrote:
On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 23:45 -0500, Doug McGarrett wrote:
At 09:11 PM 1/26/2005 -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Doug McGarrett <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> [01-26-05 20:44]:
/snip/
If you've been reading this list for a while, I should think you would not want 9.2 Pro, and if you could find 9.0, you would would buy it. I would!
You don't like SuSE. Why don't you go back to windoz instead of bad- mouthing a distro that *you* have problems with?
<Whack>
Patrick could have quoted the last part of my note, which said:
"Don't get me wrong: I'd like to see Linux win the battle with MS, but the problems are not small, nor are they subtle."
I have been with SuSE for at least 3 major releases, and/or their subsets. Up until 9.2 I thought they were doing a very good job. I have to say that not only my own experience, but the problems expressed on the list indicate that 9.2 was half-baked. Anyone who doubts that has only to look back at the list. I don't remember anything of this magnitude occurring after 9.0 or 9.1, or even 8.2.
<Whack>
Well, enough. When I get ambitious, I will install the latest Mandrake and see what happens. I will stay aboard this forum to find out how the SuSE system fares, and I certainly wish it well, and perhaps will rejoin the users of it if and when the suits go home and let the programmers do their jobs.
--doug
I'm running Mandrake 10.1 in my lab and the SuSE 9.2 in my office. Neither is perfect, but I had no trouble installing either on my two somewhat-behind-the-curve computers, or getting the things I need working. I'm an eternal newbie; maybe a little better able to do this than the average joe, but certainly not an expert.
The Mandrake list has about the same number of people complaining that MDK 8.2 was the high point and everything has gone to hades from there. I remember some of the same folks saying that about 7.x when 8.2 was the latest.
For the last year or so I've found it easier to install a mainstream boxed Linux distro than to install WinXP. There's only a small chance that XP will properly detect all your hardware and a 100% chance you'll pick up something really nasty if you connect to the internet before you apply SP2 and all the latest hotfixes, which you need to have burned to a CD in advance.
I decided to look at SuSE again precisely because Novell bought it. The IT people have _heard_ of Novell and will be more likely to listen to my oft-repeated plea: "you don't have to support Linux or MacOS or whatever but don't make it impossible for those of us who need or prefer them to use them."
My 2cs. Suse 9.2 is the most reliable os from any one I have tried for donks. I have tried mandrake 10 and heaved it; xp needs to be reinstlled or repaired every second day. I have thought for a while that a lot of problems could be solved by running hd checks before install using one of those programs that run off a floppy. If your hardware is sus you can't blame the os (none). I also feel that some people do not want a particular os to run well and screw with it and then blame it. Read the specs, check your hardware, decide if you need to upgrade or change your os. I have friends who are still run win98 from initial install in the late 90s and it has never crashed.(maybe they should buy lottery tickets). Chris