a long-time Suser compares kubuntu and Suse
Hiya! Warning: this mail is long-winded. If you're not up to reading a very long post, then don't bother - delete it now. ------------------------------------------------ A bit of background: One of the things i've always loved about Suse, and boasted about to anyone who's asked me why i use it, is that i can pop in the installation DVD and be back online and working again within an hour or so. Back in the old days, when i used to love to spend 2 days configuring my box after each new installation, that wasn't a concern. But as i've matured [i.e., grown old] and Linux has become my primary OS, both at work and at home, getting and staying online and functional has become my priority. Suse has always been good at that. Turn it on and it just works [the vast majority of the time]. i switched from Slackware to Suse in the summer of 1998 (6.0, i think) and i've used only Suse since then. i've experimented with other distros, but never for more than a couple days before switching back to Suse. Debian, for example, is simply a pain in the butt to get working for desktop use. RedHat has, and always will, suck. ArkLinux is nice and ultra-optimized for speed but is missing a large package repository (maybe not true, but it's missing XEmacs packages, and that's my primary programming tool). Ubuntu is colorful and nice looking, but based on Gnome, which i hate with a deep-seated passion. So i decided to give Kubuntu a try. For those who don't know, Kubuntu is basically Ubuntu with a default desktop of KDE instead of Gnome. Over the years i've contributed, on and off, to the Suse newsgroups and lists such as this one. In fact, i'll also claim that the hostname that you see in the yast titlebar ("Yast @ myhost") is my feature. It was added to yast a couple weeks after a sent a bug report to Suse asking them to add it because i had accidentally installed software on the wrong machine when i had yast open on two remote boxes at once and got the windows mixed up. (Before the hostname was there, it was easy to confuse multiple yast instances running on different machines.) i tell you this not to brag, but to put my long history with Suse into perspective, so as to proactively dispel any ideas that i'm unfairly criticising Suse here. ------------------------------------------------ Now, what this mail is all about: After some Grief with the Suse 10.1 packaging tools, i bit the bullet and installed Kubuntu (http://www.kubuntu.org) on my laptop. Here i'd like to give a quick overview of what i now feel Suse is doing right and where it could improve, compared specifically with Kubuntu. In the past i was unable to make such a comparison because i was so caught up in my Suse-blindness. Suse's good, but my recent frustration with it led me astray, and this is the result... [Had i never upgraded from 10.0 to 10.1, i almost certainly would not be writing this...] ------------------------------------------------ What Suse does RIGHT: - Administration of network services, e.g. Samba, DNS, etc, is incredibly well done in Suse. It's soooo simple to set this stuff up in Yast. (And to THINK, i used to LOVE editing those config files by hand!) - The modularity of Yast makes it easy for Suse to add news tools to the tried and true Yast interface, both in curses mode and X11 mode. This makes new features easy to find, compared to a hodge-podge of various tools scattered around the system. - Setting up network devices is trivial with yast. i'd have never figured out how to get my DSL connection working if not for yast. - The SuseFirewall. Simplicity and effectiveness at its best. Were it not for the SuseFirewall, i would probably disconnect my DSL line between each click i make in my browser, simply out of paranoia. - The installation process is pretty damned good. Kubuntu's X11-based installer crashed near the end, leaving my system unbootable. The text-based installer was much closer to what i am used to with Yast, in terms of features, though yast does provide the user with many more options (e.g. selecting your screen resolution for X11, whereas Kubuntu simply selects the highest resolution your chipset can support). ------------------------------------------------ What Suse could DO BETTER: - SIMPLE documentation. IMO, Wikis are HORRIBLE means of documentation except in some unusual circumstances (and i can't think of a good use case for a wiki, to be honest). They are, almost without exception, butt-ugly, hard to weed through, and are notorious for having out of date or duplicated entries (each of various quality). By comparison, Kubuntu's online manual is a dream come true: http://doc.ubuntu.com/kubuntu/desktopguide/C/index.html Using it, within *literally* minutes i figured out how to effectively use one of the package managers (Adept, a Qt front end for apt) and install my XVid/mp3/multimedia stuff. With Suse you've got to search for ages, then go find the software, install it, and hope it works. The typical case is: a) figure out that it doesn't work, b) google a bit, c) go ask on a mailing list (like this one), d) get a terse answer with the word "packman" in it, e) go add the sources to yast, f) install, waiting on yast to try to figure out if it can use the remote install source, g) try again. Ad nauseum. <short aside> A recent post to this list claimed that Yast downloaded the 17MB remote package list *3 times* in the *same session*. On a 6+MBit DSL line that might be acceptable (depends on whether the package server can keep up with your line - not all of them can provide more than 100k/second), but over a modem it's downright unacceptable. </short aside> And what do you know - i haven't had to subscribe to a Kubuntu mailing list to figure anything out (nor have i had to google a single time). The kubuntu manual is simple, straightforward, and gives me the *exact* commands/packages i need to install to solve my problems (e.g., the much-maligned multimedia packages). It's as simple as "apt-get install ..." Granted, a fast DSL line still helps, but even without one the process is faster than with Suse because the apt tools don't have the high logistical overhead which Yast software management tools do. That leads us to... - Yast's software management is simple to use and effective but *incredibly* slow compared to apt-based tools. Orders of magnitude slower. The most annoying thing is that after any given install, Yast has to run the SuseConfig.* scripts, updating every single setting for every single app/service on my system, including those which have *absolutely nothing* to do with what i just installed. e.g. if i install a game, the Latex and Apache SuseConfig scripts are run. WTF?!?!?! With Adept (or other apt-based tools), it's trivial to search for new packages and installing them is FAST. There are no absurd wait times or "this repo is not signed. Do you want to continue?" warnings on every frigging install. (And that misleading "do not show this warning again" checkbox which doesn't really do what nearly everyone thinks it should.) Today i had to find out the hard way which development tools i needed to install on Kubuntu. This is a process consisting of: a) Try to configure/build one of my source trees. b) See what breaks (i.e., what tool/library is missing). c) Install the missing package. d) Lather, rinse, repeat. [For the non-Americans in the crowd, that means "start from the beginning," or "go back to step (a)".] In yast this is downright tedious to do because the install process takes so damned long. With apt/Adept it was almost a pleasure, with almost no wait time involved. Searching is simple and installation is lightening-fast. Now i've known about apt for years, and have used it in small amounts before, but i always found it tedious because it was missing a front end. With Kubuntu's clear, straightforward documentation, i was led directly to Adept and was downloading updates from faraway servers in a matter of under three minutes. And the Adept UI is a dream to use compared to Yast's software manager (which isn't bad in and of itself, but could learn some ease-of-use tricks from Adept). ------------------------------------------------ And finally... my [very personal] conclusion: i'm convinced. After 8 full years of being a die-hard Suse user, my laptop is going to stick with Kubuntu. My desktop PC will stay Suse, if ONLY because i've used Yast to set up the PC as my primary DSL connection and a router/firewall for the two laptops. If that was as easy to do in Kubuntu as it is in Suse, i'd have reinstalled my desktop machine today. i'm *that* convinced that Kubuntu is what i'm looking for in a desktop OS. For a server, i'd almost certainly stick with Yast because administering the network services is so simple to do. (And all these years i've thought that Suse is stronger as a desktop than a server.) <final gripe> And Kubuntu supports my GigaBit NIC out of the box, which Suse doesn't. To get it working under Suse i had to a) google until i found a forum talking about the driver, b) go download the driver sources from RealTek, c) hack its sources because it had typos which prevented it from compiling, d) install it. And repeat (d) every time i upgraded my kernel (which, granted, wasn't so often because the 10.1 update tools are so hosed). Fine - not every distro can get every driver included. But i can't even get this driver through online updates with Suse, whereas Kubuntu "just has it", even though they're using an older kernel than Suse 10.1 does. </final gripe> This is the longest mail i've written in some time. i hope that anyone replying to it will have the decency to liberally SNIP out large parts before posting back to the list ;). And, just as importantly, i hope it hasn't upset anyone or offended anyone's sense of decency or propriety. Suse is still good. But Kubuntu is also good. :) -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
On Monday 21 August 2006 02:41, stephan beal wrote:
The most annoying thing is that after any given install, Yast has to run the SuseConfig.* scripts, updating every single setting for every single app/service on my system, including those which have *absolutely nothing* to do with what i just installed. e.g. if i install a game, the Latex and Apache SuseConfig scripts are run.
As a small comment, on the opensuse-factory list there is work going on right now to remove if not all then at least most SuSEconfig scripts, placing the functionality closer to where it needs to be. So this particular problem should be in the process of being addressed. Perhaps your mail should also be sent to opensuse-factory@opensuse.org As a short summing up, your complaints about suse as compared with kubuntu are - Documentation - Software Management - Drivers I can't comment on the documentation, because to be honest, I've never read it. The software management has been done to death, everyone knows the current state of it, and it's being worked on very actively, I don't think anything more can be usefully added, except bug reporting for new issues Which leaves the drivers: you have the closed source kernel modules, which Ubuntu can't ship anymore than SUSE can, if they want to avoid a lawsuit. But if there is an open source module that isn't being included for some reason, could you point me to it? If you don't want to do it yourself, I can open a bug report to get it included
On Monday 21 August 2006 03:00, Anders Johansson wrote:
As a short summing up, your complaints about suse as compared with kubuntu are
- Documentation - Software Management - Drivers
(a) and (b), yes. The drivers is only a minor point. It's uncommon that i have to fiddle with unusual drivers. And about documentation:
I can't comment on the documentation, because to be honest, I've never read it.
i hadn't either, until Suse 10.1 ;). Then i had to search around so much to get my DVDs and videos working... Searching through the wiki was a nightmare. It's all so disorganized and spread out, without a single common point of reference (e.g., a single table of contents). This is, however, common in Wikis, and is why i don't care for them in general. Kubuntu's docs, on the other hand, are concise, well-indexed, and have the exact commands one needs to fix a problem, as opposed to "find xxx.rpm, download it, and install it." They're a model of good introductory docs, IMO.
The software management has been done to death, everyone knows the current state of it, and it's being worked on very actively, I don't think anything more can be usefully added, except bug reporting for new issues
Agreed.
Which leaves the drivers: you have the closed source kernel modules, which Ubuntu can't ship anymore than SUSE can, if they want to avoid a lawsuit. But if there is an open source module that isn't being included for some reason, could you point me to it? If you don't want to do it yourself, I can open a bug report to get it included
i'm not sure if the r1000 driver is open source or not, to be honest. The source is available, but i don't know what the license is. i got the fix/info from here: http://forums.suselinuxsupport.de/index.php?showtopic=36365 And the driver from here: http://www.realtek.com.tw/downloads/downloads1-3.aspx?lineid=1&famid=4&series=2004111&Software=True (Achtung: that's probably word-wrapped) It's under: "Linux driver for kernel 2.4.x and 2.6.x, version 1.04" i don't know if it's worth entering a bug report for because i don't really think it's a bug, but simply an omission (which might have legal grounds). i can't really fault any distro just because it's missing my one special driver. In the case of a NIC, i keep an old, reliable USB NIC around just for such cases. It was just bonus points for Kubuntu that it supported my NIC out of the box. -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
stephan beal wrote:
i'm not sure if the r1000 driver is open source or not, to be honest. The source is available, but i don't know what the license is. i got the fix/info from here: http://forums.suselinuxsupport.de/index.php?showtopic=36365
And the driver from here:
http://www.realtek.com.tw/downloads/downloads1-3.aspx?lineid=1&famid=4&series=2004111&Software=True
(Achtung: that's probably word-wrapped)
It's under: "Linux driver for kernel 2.4.x and 2.6.x, version 1.04"
i don't know if it's worth entering a bug report for because i don't really think it's a bug, but simply an omission (which might have legal grounds).
I suspect it is due to SUSE trying to keep the kernel as vanilla as possible, which is a Good Thing(R) IMHO. There's nothing wrong with external drivers, but they do need to be merged into the kernel-tree. (provided the manufacturer is willing of course). SUSE used to ship kernels with a whole truckload of special patches, drivers and what have you. It must have been a management nightmare. /Per Jessen
Anders Johansson <andjoh@rydsbo.net> wrote: Which leaves the drivers: you have the closed source kernel modules, which Ubuntu can't ship anymore than SUSE can, if they want to avoid a lawsuit. ....... - A lawsuit by whom? If a hardware vendor supplies a binary driver to be freely distributed by any Linux Distro, who is going to sue them?
stephan beal wrote:
Hiya!
My results were pretty similar. I initially tried Ubuntu, rather than Kubuntu, since someone mentioned it was usually better to install Ubuntu, then add the kubuntu-desktop after install. (I also wanted to see the state of Gnome, since I hadn't used it in several years. (It sucks much more now)) I found the whole "live-cd install" a pretty nifty system. I think SuSE could really move to it. During a long install, having a working environment is rather nice. If you have a question during install, you can even bring up Firefox and google it or read the online documentation without a second machine. (Though I don't like the actual install steps in Ubuntu as much, especially since they leave out several important steps like deciding what packages you want to initially install, for instance, YaST is much better) Running the YaST installer inside a live-cd environment would be a nifty feature for SuSE. If you liked Adept, Synaptic is even better, in my opinion. Moreover, since I've been using apt in 10.1, for servers, I've found it really handy to just have it install something quickly on the command line. I know there were ways to do it with yast, but I remember there being issues with dependencies. (though this may have been fixed at some point) With apt, when you just want to quickly install some package, it doesn't have to run the full update from every source and download the massive repodatas three times over or spend several minutes crunching away at who knows what. It just gets the package you asked for and installs it, along with dependencies. For package management, the apt systems are the best I've ever seen. (though fou4s is still the best update system mankind has ever produced) In several other areas, Ubuntu still has a ways to go. Their repo system can sometimes be a bit odd, like what's the real difference between "Universe" and "Multiverse" and there is certainly no consistent configuration system like YaST. And, maybe someone else knows why, but SuSE 10.1 comes with a version of ALSA that does mixing. I mean, you run multiple programs (not through arts or esd) that connect to ALSA and it lets them both output sound. Ubuntu doesn't have that. I like being able to pull up things like RealPlayer while playing music through something else, or still have warning sounds go off or even while playing a game with ePSXe. It's really nice.
On Monday 21 August 2006 03:33, suse@rio.vg wrote:
second machine. (Though I don't like the actual install steps in Ubuntu as much, especially since they leave out several important steps like deciding what packages you want to initially install, for instance, YaST is much better)
Agreed. On the other hand, i liked that it "just did it" and i had complete control over what i wanted to install afterwards (a painless process, as it turns out).
Running the YaST installer inside a live-cd environment would be a nifty feature for SuSE.
Amen. Though the ubuntu live-installer crashed on me late in the process, with a backtrack and a link to a "submit a bug" page. Of course, you need an account to enter a bug, so the link was pretty useless unless you're an existing kubuntu user because at that point in the process you don't have email set up and therefor can't create an account under which to register the bug.
If you liked Adept, Synaptic is even better, in my opinion.
i'll give it a try.
install some package, it doesn't have to run the full update from every source and download the massive repodatas three times over or spend several minutes crunching away at who knows what. It just gets the package you asked for and installs it, along with dependencies.
Amen.
For package management, the apt systems are the best I've ever seen. (though fou4s is still the best update system mankind has ever produced)
i'm not familiar with it, and first heard of it a few days ago here on the list.
In several other areas, Ubuntu still has a ways to go. Their repo system can sometimes be a bit odd, like what's the real difference between "Universe" and "Multiverse"
Universe == "the majority of the Free Software universe..." Multiverse == "software which has been classified as non-free" http://doc.ubuntu.com/kubuntu/desktopguide/C/extra-repositories.html
and there is certainly no consistent configuration system like YaST.
That's one of Suse's strongest differentiating points, IMO.
And, maybe someone else knows why, but SuSE 10.1 comes with a version of ALSA that does mixing. I mean, you run multiple programs (not through arts or esd) that connect to ALSA and it lets them both output sound. Ubuntu doesn't have that. I like being able to pull up things like RealPlayer while playing music through something else, or still have warning sounds go off or even while playing a game with ePSXe. It's really nice.
Eeek - that means that i'll have to turn off skype while watching videos. :( Oh well. -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 02:41:19 +0200 stephan beal <stephan@s11n.net> wrote:
If that was as easy to do in Kubuntu as it is in Suse, i'd have reinstalled my desktop machine today. i'm *that* convinced that Kubuntu is what i'm looking for in a desktop OS.
Actually, it is: Install firestarter from Synaptic and it will configure: * the firewall * The NAT * The Internet connection sharing * DHCP for a local network * Real time firewall events view * View active network connections, including any traffic routed through the firewall -- Thanks http://www.911networks.com When the network has to work
stephan beal wrote:
------------------------------------------------ What Suse could DO BETTER:
- SIMPLE documentation. IMO, Wikis are HORRIBLE means of documentation except in some unusual circumstances (and i can't think of a good use case for a wiki, to be honest).
There are quite a few nonetheless. Anything that is community based, but especially for communities of non-techie users. As far as what the wiki looks like, you can't blame the tool, you have to blame the users or the admin.
Kubuntu's online manual is a dream come true: http://doc.ubuntu.com/kubuntu/desktopguide/C/index.html
I think it might have been better to compare the SUSE manuals to the Kubuntu ones instead of bringing in e.g. the opensuse wiki.
- Yast's software management is simple to use and effective but *incredibly* slow compared to apt-based tools. Orders of magnitude slower.
That is clearly the achilles' heel of 10.1 - and even in this early stage, 10.2 is already a vast improvement.
And finally... my [very personal] conclusion:
i'm convinced. After 8 full years of being a die-hard Suse user, my laptop is going to stick with Kubuntu.
My sole experience with Ubuntu started with a kernel crash of the installation system on 6.06 - SUSE has never done that, so I'll personally stick to SUSE, probably for quite some time to come. /Per Jessen
On Sunday 20 August 2006 22:41, Per Jessen wrote:
My sole experience with Ubuntu started with a kernel crash of the installation system on 6.06 - SUSE has never done that,
Well SuSE has done that to me a time or two over the years, and if your Ubuntu experience was all that common there would be no mention of Ubuntu in this list. Can you imagine the Die-hard Debian user seeing 10.1 as his first SuSE install? Single exposures are seldom valid, and turning away at the first difficulty is seldom fruitfull. Hell, I'd still be running Netware if I let a little difficulty deter me from investigating various Linux distros. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
John Andersen wrote:
On Sunday 20 August 2006 22:41, Per Jessen wrote:
My sole experience with Ubuntu started with a kernel crash of the installation system on 6.06 - SUSE has never done that,
Well SuSE has done that to me a time or two over the years, and if your Ubuntu experience was all that common there would be no mention of Ubuntu in this list.
Certainly, I didn't mean to imply anything else.
Can you imagine the Die-hard Debian user seeing 10.1 as his first SuSE install? Single exposures are seldom valid, and turning away at the first difficulty is seldom fruitfull.
What would you suggest I do? No matter how often I repeated the exercise, it still crashed. This is the installation system kernel we're talking about. To me it was not exactly very promising. /Per Jessen, Zürich
Per Jessen wrote:
That is clearly the achilles' heel of 10.1 - and even in this early stage, 10.2 is already a vast improvement.
How so? Because I don't see how it could reach the previous level of functionality without a complete redesign. Or do you mean "vast improvement" in that it only takes four hours instead of eight?
suse@rio.vg wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
That is clearly the achilles' heel of 10.1 - and even in this early stage, 10.2 is already a vast improvement.
How so? Because I don't see how it could reach the previous level of functionality without a complete redesign. Or do you mean "vast improvement" in that it only takes four hours instead of eight?
No, even more than that. Wrt plain functionality I didn't miss much in 10.1, but speed was/is a major problem - with 10.2, an installation on even an ancient PII 450MHz is over quite quickly. /Per Jessen, Zürich
Per Jessen wrote:
suse@rio.vg wrote:
Per Jessen wrote: How so? Because I don't see how it could reach the previous level of functionality without a complete redesign. Or do you mean "vast improvement" in that it only takes four hours instead of eight?
No, even more than that. Wrt plain functionality I didn't miss much in 10.1, but speed was/is a major problem - with 10.2, an installation on even an ancient PII 450MHz is over quite quickly.
"Installation" of what? How long does it take in 10.2 to add a new source, bring up the software management, find the program you want, and install it? (and no, the new repo can't be connected to you via lan) Once it's actually downloading and installing rpms, zen/rug isn't bad, but then, fou4s can do that very well, and fou4s is a SHELL SCRIPT! (and fou4s can deal with delta rpms, which zen/rug still can't) I'm guessing that the connection speed to the repo is key. Those people that have a really sweet connection to a good repo can use zen/rug. Those of us on the other side of the planet, not so much.
suse@rio.vg wrote:
No, even more than that. Wrt plain functionality I didn't miss much in 10.1, but speed was/is a major problem - with 10.2, an installation on even an ancient PII 450MHz is over quite quickly.
"Installation" of what?
Of an entire system.
How long does it take in 10.2 to add a new source, bring up the software management, find the program you want, and install it? (and no, the new repo can't be connected to you via lan)
Sorry, that's all I use, so I can't say.
I'm guessing that the connection speed to the repo is key.
In 10.1 a lot of the lack of speed was due to Yast/Zmd/rug, not the access-speed to the source. I always install from local sources, and I guarantee 10.2 is a lot faster. /Per Jessen, Zürich
Per Jessen wrote:
suse@rio.vg wrote:
"Installation" of what?
Of an entire system.
The initial install has never been the problem.
How long does it take in 10.2 to add a new source, bring up the software management, find the program you want, and install it? (and no, the new repo can't be connected to you via lan)
Sorry, that's all I use, so I can't say.
Well, that's where the problem has been.
I'm guessing that the connection speed to the repo is key.
In 10.1 a lot of the lack of speed was due to Yast/Zmd/rug, not the access-speed to the source. I always install from local sources, and I guarantee 10.2 is a lot faster.
That may be the case, but when zen/rug decides to repeatedly download the same large repodata files over and over, that's the problem we're talking about! It's the massive delays every time you bring up software management. It's the throttling of the machine every time you wake up zmd. These are the issues. Once it had things downloaded and parsed, actually installing things may not have been the fastest, but it wasn't sitting there for an hour looking like it had completely crashed. I'm guessing that because it was first designed as a zenworks interface, all design assumptions were that repo's were local or on the lan, since that is the environment ZenWorks was designed for. There's also the problem of random mirror redirection. I discovered this when I tried pointing smart at the build system early on. You might have a good connection to one mirror, but it will redirect you to whatever mirror it feels like, no matter how crappy your connection to it is. Maybe this is why SuSE doesn't seem to get what we're screaming about? They're all connected closely to their local repo, so they're not seeing what we are and are assuming that the slowness you're talking about above is what we've been complaining about. It isn't. Sure, the slowness is less than optimal, but it isn't the hour-long crash look-a-like those of us in the states trying to use repo's in Germany get. If the problem was just the speed of install from a local repo, it could be fixed by the "improvements" they've mentioned. But what we're seeing over here is MUCH worse.
suse@rio.vg wrote:
"Installation" of what?
Of an entire system.
The initial install has never been the problem.
Maybe not for you, but certainly for me. The initial install (from a local source) in 10.1 took much too long - and 10.2 has fixed that.
Sure, the slowness is less than optimal, but it isn't the hour-long crash look-a-like those of us in the states trying to use repo's in Germany get.
Aren't there any useable local mirrors over on your side? /Per Jessen, Zürich
Per Jessen wrote:
suse@rio.vg wrote:
The initial install has never been the problem.
Maybe not for you, but certainly for me. The initial install (from a local source) in 10.1 took much too long - and 10.2 has fixed that.
I won't debate you. That's something, as you say, can be fixed and has come a long way. It's much trickier to fix the remote issue.
Sure, the slowness is less than optimal, but it isn't the hour-long crash look-a-like those of us in the states trying to use repo's in Germany get.
Aren't there any useable local mirrors over on your side?
No. Local, as-in "on the local lan", of course not. I don't work for Novell, nor am I in a datacenter that has a suse mirror. Having the entire repo and updates mirrored locally is not a common occurrence. I'll get maybe 10-20 Kb/s from the remote repo's. (I'm not talking about initial install. For that, I had CD's. I'm talking about software management AFTER install.)
On Monday 21 August 2006 08:17, Per Jessen wrote:
Sure, the slowness is less than optimal, but it isn't the hour-long crash look-a-like those of us in the states trying to use repo's in Germany get.
Aren't there any useable local mirrors over on your side?
Actually on mirror is about as good as another, unless you have a back door into Internet2 in north america. Its often faster to choose a mirror in europe for me because due to the time difference you are all asleep over there while everyone here is wide awake pounding the hell out of local mirrors. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On Tuesday 22 August 2006 09:01, John Andersen wrote:
Its often faster to choose a mirror in europe for me because due to the time difference you are all asleep over there while everyone here is wide awake pounding the hell out of local mirrors.
It's funny you say that because the opposite is true here (in Europe/Germany). About 15:00 every day the internet as a whole gets a bit slower when the Americans get up and start going to work. :) -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
On Monday 21 August 2006 06:51, suse@rio.vg wrote:
Maybe this is why SuSE doesn't seem to get what we're screaming about? They're all connected closely to their local repo, so they're not seeing what we are and are assuming that the slowness you're talking about.
Yes, developers should always be on dial up and have nothing faster than an 800mhz processor and a 1024x768 display. Then systems would perform. Every advance in processor technology or decrease in memory price is gobbled up by look-and-feel. We still wait for our machines. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
Maybe this is why SuSE doesn't seem to get what we're screaming about? They're all connected closely to their local repo, so they're not seeing what we are and are assuming that the slowness you're talking about.
Yes, developers should always be on dial up and have nothing faster than an 800mhz processor and a 1024x768 display. Then systems would perform.
"If developers were more limited, they'd make better programs." Yes I do agree. Did I already mention DOOM? Probably best software renderer at that time.
Every advance in processor technology or decrease in memory price is gobbled up by look-and-feel. We still wait for our machines.
Jan Engelhardt --
On 22/08/06, John Andersen <jsa@pen.homeip.net> wrote:
On Monday 21 August 2006 06:51, suse@rio.vg wrote:
Maybe this is why SuSE doesn't seem to get what we're screaming about? They're all connected closely to their local repo, so they're not seeing what we are and are assuming that the slowness you're talking about.
Yes, developers should always be on dial up and have nothing faster than an 800mhz processor and a 1024x768 display. Then systems would perform.
Shame SMTP doesn't have a modding feature; I'd mod you up by ten. Bet MTS had it ;-) Jeff
John Andersen wrote:
On Monday 21 August 2006 06:51, suse@rio.vg wrote:
Maybe this is why SuSE doesn't seem to get what we're screaming about? They're all connected closely to their local repo, so they're not seeing what we are and are assuming that the slowness you're talking about.
Yes, developers should always be on dial up and have nothing faster than an 800mhz processor and a 1024x768 display. Then systems would perform.
Not *always*, but if you're developing a software management system that is designed to be used worldwide on slow connections, shouldn't you, you know, actually try it out on a slow connection to see if it works OK? I know you're trying to make a point about bloat and waste, but honestly, I like my machine to look nice. Everything would be faster if it was written in assembly, but it would take forever to get anything actually programmed and you can forget portability.
Per Jessen wrote:
In 10.1 a lot of the lack of speed was due to Yast/Zmd/rug, not the access-speed to the source. I always install from local sources, and I guarantee 10.2 is a lot faster.
Hmmm...can't wait! Why do I get the feeling that 10.2 will actually be version 11? I can see the discussion at SUSE HQ now... SUSE Engineer: All versions of software on SUSE now go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and... Management: Oh, I see. And the previous version only went up to ten? SUSE Engineer: Exactly. Management: Does that mean it's better? Is it any better? SUSE Engineer: Well, it's one better, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most Linux distributions, you know like Slackware, will be stuck at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your server. Where can you go from there? Where? Management: I don't know. SUSE Engineer: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do? Management: Make version eleven? SUSE Engineer: Eleven. Exactly. One better. Management: Why don't you just make ten better? SUSE Engineer: [pause] This version is at eleven. -- Kai Ponte www.perfectreign.com Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
On Monday 21 August 2006 15:19, PerfectReign wrote:
Hmmm...can't wait! Why do I get the feeling that 10.2 will actually be version 11? I can see the discussion at SUSE HQ now...
SUSE Engineer: All versions of software on SUSE now go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
Management: Oh, I see. And the previous version only went up to ten?
SUSE Engineer: Exactly.
Management: Does that mean it's better? Is it any better?
SUSE Engineer: Well, it's one better, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most Linux distributions, you know like Slackware, will be stuck at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your server. Where can you go from there? Where?
Management: I don't know.
SUSE Engineer: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Management: Make version eleven?
SUSE Engineer: Eleven. Exactly. One better.
Management: Why don't you just make ten better?
SUSE Engineer: [pause] This version is at eleven.
Kai Ponte
+5 Funny
On 21/08/06, PerfectReign <suse@xr4ti.cotse.net> wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
In 10.1 a lot of the lack of speed was due to Yast/Zmd/rug, not the access-speed to the source. I always install from local sources, and I guarantee 10.2 is a lot faster.
Hmmm...can't wait! Why do I get the feeling that 10.2 will actually be version 11? I can see the discussion at SUSE HQ now...
SUSE Engineer: All versions of software on SUSE now go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
Management: Oh, I see. And the previous version only went up to ten?
SUSE Engineer: Exactly.
Management: Does that mean it's better? Is it any better?
SUSE Engineer: Well, it's one better, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most Linux distributions, you know like Slackware, will be stuck at ten.
Actually, it looks like Patrick is giving us 11 soon! (Is he the first?) Jeff
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, suse@rio.vg wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
suse@rio.vg wrote:
Per Jessen wrote: How so? Because I don't see how it could reach the previous level of functionality without a complete redesign. Or do you mean "vast improvement" in that it only takes four hours instead of eight?
No, even more than that. Wrt plain functionality I didn't miss much in 10.1, but speed was/is a major problem - with 10.2, an installation on even an ancient PII 450MHz is over quite quickly.
"Installation" of what? How long does it take in 10.2 to add a new source, bring up the software management, find the program you want, and install it? (and no, the new repo can't be connected to you via lan) Once it's actually downloading and installing rpms, zen/rug isn't bad, but then, fou4s can do that very well, and fou4s is a SHELL SCRIPT! (and fou4s can deal with delta rpms, which zen/rug still can't)
I'm guessing that the connection speed to the repo is key. Those people that have a really sweet connection to a good repo can use zen/rug. Those of us on the other side of the planet, not so much.
Even given a very fast local source, 10.1's install is still really quite slow (slower than 9.X and 10.0), for a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons include the almost unbearably long time it (the installer) spends parsing meta-data (ie, "adding a source"). I recently did a number of installations over a local LAN, with the data source being a local httpd and parsing the meta data took a VERY LONG TIME, in the range of several minutes. This on a Duron 750. Even the RPM installation itself (the underlying install of the rpm packages) is slower than it should be. There are a number of other slowdowns, some easy to address, some much harder. The parent post makes me really want to give 10.2 a try. With that said, 10.1 has been just fine for me, except I can't use my external USB cd burners. I also don't use rug/zen, I use smart, and maybe that helps too. If 10.2 is better in this area.... -- Carpe diem - Seize the day. Carp in denim - There's a fish in my pants! Jon Nelson <jnelson-suse@jamponi.net>
Jon Nelson wrote:
Even given a very fast local source, 10.1's install is still really quite slow (slower than 9.X and 10.0), for a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons include the almost unbearably long time it (the installer) spends parsing meta-data (ie, "adding a source"). I recently did a number of installations over a local LAN, with the data source being a local httpd and parsing the meta data took a VERY LONG TIME, in the range of several minutes. This on a Duron 750. Even the RPM installation itself (the underlying install of the rpm packages) is slower than it should be.
Yep, this is exactly what I've been talking about.
The parent post makes me really want to give 10.2 a try.
Maybe wait till the first beta is out - the grouping of software packages is being worked on and it's still a little poor in Alpha3. /Per Jessen, Zürich
Per Jessen wrote:
Jon Nelson wrote:
Even given a very fast local source, 10.1's install is still really quite slow (slower than 9.X and 10.0), for a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons include the almost unbearably long time it (the installer) spends parsing meta-data (ie, "adding a source"). I recently did a number of installations over a local LAN, with the data source being a local httpd and parsing the meta data took a VERY LONG TIME, in the range of several minutes. This on a Duron 750. Even the RPM installation itself (the underlying install of the rpm packages) is slower than it should be.
Yep, this is exactly what I've been talking about.
The parent post makes me really want to give 10.2 a try.
Maybe wait till the first beta is out - the grouping of software packages is being worked on and it's still a little poor in Alpha3.
Per, I must be looking in the wrong place but all I can see is alpha1 at http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/SL-10.2-Alpha2/iso/ . What is the URL for alpha3 or is it arrived at by installing alpha1 and this then being upgraded to alpha3 via <shudder> zmd? Cheers. --
Basil Chupin wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
Jon Nelson wrote:
Even given a very fast local source, 10.1's install is still really quite slow (slower than 9.X and 10.0), for a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons include the almost unbearably long time it (the installer) spends parsing meta-data (ie, "adding a source"). I recently did a number of installations over a local LAN, with the data source being a local httpd and parsing the meta data took a VERY LONG TIME, in the range of several minutes. This on a Duron 750. Even the RPM installation itself (the underlying install of the rpm packages) is slower than it should be.
Yep, this is exactly what I've been talking about.
The parent post makes me really want to give 10.2 a try.
Maybe wait till the first beta is out - the grouping of software packages is being worked on and it's still a little poor in Alpha3.
Per, I must be looking in the wrong place but all I can see is alpha1 at http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/SL-10.2-Alpha2/iso/ .
What is the URL for alpha3 or is it arrived at by installing alpha1 and this then being upgraded to alpha3 via <shudder> zmd?
Disregard this message, Per. Just been to the URL and realised that I was looking at the SL directory and not the OpenSUSE directory. Cheers. -- This computer is environment-friendly and is running on OpenSuSE 10.1
On 21/08/06, suse@rio.vg <suse@rio.vg> wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
suse@rio.vg wrote:
Per Jessen wrote: How so? Because I don't see how it could reach the previous level of functionality without a complete redesign. Or do you mean "vast improvement" in that it only takes four hours instead of eight?
No, even more than that. Wrt plain functionality I didn't miss much in 10.1, but speed was/is a major problem - with 10.2, an installation on even an ancient PII 450MHz is over quite quickly.
"Installation" of what? How long does it take in 10.2 to add a new source, bring up the software management, find the program you want, and install it? (and no, the new repo can't be connected to you via lan) Once it's actually downloading and installing rpms, zen/rug isn't bad, but then, fou4s can do that very well, and fou4s is a SHELL SCRIPT! (and fou4s can deal with delta rpms, which zen/rug still can't)
Are you guys telling me that yast in 10.1 takes even *longer* than in 10.0? Jeff. -- ------------------------------------------------------ Argument against Linux number 6,033: "...So this is like most Linux viruses. You have to download the virus yourself, become root, install it and then run it. Seems like a lot of work just to experience what you can get on Windows with a lot less trouble."
Jeff Rollin wrote:
On 21/08/06, suse@rio.vg <suse@rio.vg> wrote:
Per Jessen wrote: "Installation" of what? How long does it take in 10.2 to add a new source, bring up the software management, find the program you want, and install it? (and no, the new repo can't be connected to you via lan) Once it's actually downloading and installing rpms, zen/rug isn't bad, but then, fou4s can do that very well, and fou4s is a SHELL SCRIPT! (and fou4s can deal with delta rpms, which zen/rug still can't)
Are you guys telling me that yast in 10.1 takes even *longer* than in 10.0?
Yes. MUCH slower. Moreover, adding sources and refreshing can take, quite literally, hours. And during that time, there is no progress meter, progress text, often not even a dialog box asking you to wait. It just hangs there.
On Tuesday 22 August 2006 11:09, Jeff Rollin wrote:
Are you guys telling me that yast in 10.1 takes even *longer* than in 10.0?
IMO, yes, at least if you have network install sources set up. Not only do you have to wait longer because of the network connection, but you get a "this repo is not signed" warning dialog which you have to click OK on in order to go forward. -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 02:41 +0200, stephan beal wrote:
Hiya!
Warning: this mail is long-winded. If you're not up to reading a very long post, then don't bother - delete it now.
------------------------------------------------ A bit of background:
One of the things i've always loved about Suse, and boasted about to anyone who's asked me why i use it, is that i can pop in the installation DVD and be back online and working again within an hour or so. Back in the old days, when i used to love to spend 2 days configuring my box after each new installation, that wasn't a concern. But as i've matured [i.e., grown old] and Linux has become my primary OS, both at work and at home, getting and staying online and functional
snip
------------------------------------------------ What Suse could DO BETTER:
- SIMPLE documentation. IMO, Wikis are HORRIBLE means of documentation except in some unusual circumstances (and i can't think of a good use case for a wiki, to be honest). They are, almost without exception, butt-ugly, hard to weed through, and are notorious for having out of date or duplicated entries (each of various quality). By comparison, Kubuntu's online manual is a dream come true: http://doc.ubuntu.com/kubuntu/desktopguide/C/index.html
Using it, within *literally* minutes i figured out how to effectively use one of the package managers (Adept, a Qt front end for apt) and install my XVid/mp3/multimedia stuff. With Suse you've got to search for ages, then go find the software, install it, and hope it works. The typical case is: a) figure out that it doesn't work, b) google a bit, c) go ask on a mailing list (like this one), d) get a terse answer with the word "packman" in it, e) go add the sources to yast, f) install, waiting on yast to try to figure out if it can use the remote install source, g) try again. Ad nauseum.
OpenSuSE being open, cant the community stand together and change the package manager to something that works? Or am I misinformed about the open source process? Why should we wait for Novell to change the distro? If I wanted to wait for a SW provider to fix things I'll go back to Windows. My 2c worth. E-Mail disclaimer: http://www.sunspace.co.za/emaildisclaimer.htm
On Sunday 20 August 2006 23:20, Hans van der Merwe wrote:
OpenSuSE being open, cant the community stand together and change the package manager to something that works? Or am I misinformed about the open source process?
Well, all distros end up having to make some decisions about what is in and what is out, and having some control of that. I suspect that in order to get rid of zmd/rug etc and revert to Yast/YOU you would have to fork it and call it HvdW Linux which would be CaPiTaLiZeD just as weirdly as SuSE to the english speakers... ;-) -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 23:28 -0800, John Andersen wrote:
On Sunday 20 August 2006 23:20, Hans van der Merwe wrote:
OpenSuSE being open, cant the community stand together and change the package manager to something that works? Or am I misinformed about the open source process?
Well, all distros end up having to make some decisions about what is in and what is out, and having some control of that.
I suspect that in order to get rid of zmd/rug etc and revert to Yast/YOU you would have to fork it and call it HvdW Linux which would be CaPiTaLiZeD just as weirdly as SuSE to the english speakers... ;-)
<Confused> Whats the use of Open_Whatever distros? Who controls it? E-Mail disclaimer: http://www.sunspace.co.za/emaildisclaimer.htm
On Sunday 20 August 2006 23:43, Hans van der Merwe wrote:
On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 23:28 -0800, John Andersen wrote:
On Sunday 20 August 2006 23:20, Hans van der Merwe wrote:
OpenSuSE being open, cant the community stand together and change the package manager to something that works? Or am I misinformed about the open source process?
Well, all distros end up having to make some decisions about what is in and what is out, and having some control of that.
I suspect that in order to get rid of zmd/rug etc and revert to Yast/YOU you would have to fork it and call it HvdW Linux which would be CaPiTaLiZeD just as weirdly as SuSE to the english speakers... ;-)
<Confused> Whats the use of Open_Whatever distros? Who controls it?
Novell controls it. Just like Red Hat controls Fedora. "OpenSuSE" is a Marketing Droid's invention, a necessary step toward making Monetizing SUSE Linux for Novell, by giving away SuSE and disavowing any support responsibility, foisting that responsibility onto "the community". Its a test bed for the higher priced Commercial distribution, SuSe Linux Enterprise Server and Desktop. But You and I have as much chance of making a change to the distro's package management stack as we do of replacing Kim Il Jung. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
John Andersen wrote in another thread called "[SLE] a long-time Suser compares kubuntu and Suse" :
But You and I have as much chance of making a change to the distro's package management stack as we do of replacing Kim Il Jung. Let replace him then, and change SUSEs package manager while we are at it.
My vote goes to: Smart as back end yast as front end. -- Regards Kenneth Aar
On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 11:59 +0200, Kenneth Aar, Grafikern.no wrote:
John Andersen wrote in another thread called "[SLE] a long-time Suser compares kubuntu and Suse" :
But You and I have as much chance of making a change to the distro's package management stack as we do of replacing Kim Il Jung. Let replace him then, and change SUSEs package manager while we are at it.
My vote goes to:
Smart as back end yast as front end.
Second. E-Mail disclaimer: http://www.sunspace.co.za/emaildisclaimer.htm
John Andersen wrote:
On Sunday 20 August 2006 23:20, Hans van der Merwe wrote:
OpenSuSE being open, cant the community stand together and change the package manager to something that works? Or am I misinformed about the open source process?
Well, all distros end up having to make some decisions about what is in and what is out, and having some control of that.
I suspect that in order to get rid of zmd/rug etc and revert to Yast/YOU you would have to fork it and call it HvdW Linux which would be CaPiTaLiZeD just as weirdly as SuSE to the english speakers... ;-)
This actually happened when RedHat split RHEL/Fedora. CentOS was created. Since RHEL is almost entirely GPL, RedHat has to distribute the sources not only to the OS, but also the updates. So CentOS took the source rpms, replaced the logos, and compiled it. In addition, then get the source rpm updates and compile those. I wonder if the same will happen to SuSE...
OpenSuSE being open, cant the community stand together and change the package manager to something that works?
There are at least two sorts of 'open' communities, as in 1. Aristocratic monarchy, with us being consultants only 2. Democracy Guess you can figure.
Or am I misinformed about the open source process?
Jan Engelhardt --
On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 09:07 -0400, suse@rio.vg wrote:
John Andersen wrote:
On Sunday 20 August 2006 23:20, Hans van der Merwe wrote:
OpenSuSE being open, cant the community stand together and change the package manager to something that works? Or am I misinformed about the open source process?
Well, all distros end up having to make some decisions about what is in and what is out, and having some control of that.
I suspect that in order to get rid of zmd/rug etc and revert to Yast/YOU you would have to fork it and call it HvdW Linux which would be CaPiTaLiZeD just as weirdly as SuSE to the english speakers... ;-)
This actually happened when RedHat split RHEL/Fedora. CentOS was created. Since RHEL is almost entirely GPL, RedHat has to distribute the sources not only to the OS, but also the updates. So CentOS took the source rpms, replaced the logos, and compiled it. In addition, then get the source rpm updates and compile those.
I wonder if the same will happen to SuSE...
What would we call it FreeSuse or Notvell? -- ___ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ | | | | [__ | | | |___ |_|_| ___] | \/
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 02:21:37PM -0700, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 09:07 -0400, suse@rio.vg wrote:
John Andersen wrote:
On Sunday 20 August 2006 23:20, Hans van der Merwe wrote:
OpenSuSE being open, cant the community stand together and change the package manager to something that works? Or am I misinformed about the open source process?
Well, all distros end up having to make some decisions about what is in and what is out, and having some control of that.
I suspect that in order to get rid of zmd/rug etc and revert to Yast/YOU you would have to fork it and call it HvdW Linux which would be CaPiTaLiZeD just as weirdly as SuSE to the english speakers... ;-)
This actually happened when RedHat split RHEL/Fedora. CentOS was created. Since RHEL is almost entirely GPL, RedHat has to distribute the sources not only to the OS, but also the updates. So CentOS took the source rpms, replaced the logos, and compiled it. In addition, then get the source rpm updates and compile those.
I wonder if the same will happen to SuSE...
What would we call it FreeSuse or Notvell?
I would call it SUSE Linux 10.1 or SUSE Linux 9.1... Ciao, Marcus
On Wed, 2006-08-23 at 21:39 +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 02:21:37PM -0700, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:
On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 09:07 -0400, suse@rio.vg wrote:
John Andersen wrote:
I wonder if the same will happen to SuSE...
What would we call it FreeSuse or Notvell?
I would call it SUSE Linux 10.1 or SUSE Linux 9.1...
Not for a fork. CWSIV
This actually happened when RedHat split RHEL/Fedora. CentOS was created. Since RHEL is almost entirely GPL, RedHat has to distribute the sources not only to the OS, but also the updates. So CentOS took the source rpms, replaced the logos, and compiled it. In addition, then get the source rpm updates and compile those.
I wonder if the same will happen to SuSE...
What would we call it FreeSuse or Notvell?
I am claiming STOW for myself for future. :p Jan Engelhardt --
On Monday 21 August 2006 09:28, John Andersen wrote:
I suspect that in order to get rid of zmd/rug etc and revert to Yast/YOU you would have to fork it and call it HvdW Linux which would be CaPiTaLiZeD just as weirdly as SuSE to the english speakers... ;-)
Suse officially dropped the odd capitalization some years ago, actually. However, just like people still say "Compaq", even though there is no more Compaq, many people still write SuSE, even though there is no SuSE anymore (only Suse). -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
stephan beal <stephan@s11n.net> writes:
On Monday 21 August 2006 09:28, John Andersen wrote:
I suspect that in order to get rid of zmd/rug etc and revert to Yast/YOU you would have to fork it and call it HvdW Linux which would be CaPiTaLiZeD just as weirdly as SuSE to the english speakers... ;-)
Suse officially dropped the odd capitalization some years ago, actually. However, just like people still say "Compaq", even though there is no more Compaq, many people still write SuSE, even though there is no SuSE anymore (only Suse).
It's "SUSE" - all four letters in cups now, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
stephan beal <stephan@s11n.net> writes:
On Monday 21 August 2006 09:28, John Andersen wrote:
I suspect that in order to get rid of zmd/rug etc and revert to Yast/YOU you would have to fork it and call it HvdW Linux which would be CaPiTaLiZeD just as weirdly as SuSE to the english speakers... ;-)
Suse officially dropped the odd capitalization some years ago, actually. However, just like people still say "Compaq", even though there is no more Compaq, many people still write SuSE, even though there is no SuSE anymore (only Suse).
It's "SUSE" - all four letters in cups now,
If you knew SUSE, like I know SUSE... ;-)
On Monday 21 August 2006 12:14, stephan beal wrote:
Suse officially dropped the odd capitalization some years ago, actually. However, just like people still say "Compaq", even though there is no more Compaq, many people still write SuSE, even though there is no SuSE anymore (only Suse).
Ummmmmmm....... Have you tried to do a suseconfig? or a SUSEconfig? or a Suseconfig ?? Bob S
On 21/08/06, stephan beal <stephan@s11n.net> wrote:
On Monday 21 August 2006 09:28, John Andersen wrote:
I suspect that in order to get rid of zmd/rug etc and revert to Yast/YOU you would have to fork it and call it HvdW Linux which would be CaPiTaLiZeD just as weirdly as SuSE to the english speakers... ;-)
Suse officially dropped the odd capitalization some years ago, actually. However, just like people still say "Compaq", even though there is no more Compaq, many people still write SuSE, even though there is no SuSE anymore (only Suse).
I miss "SuSE", it adds flavour [sic]; besides, I think "openSUSE" is even weirder! Jeff -- ------------------------------------------------------ Argument against Linux number 6,033: "...So this is like most Linux viruses. You have to download the virus yourself, become root, install it and then run it. Seems like a lot of work just to experience what you can get on Windows with a lot less trouble."
After some Grief with the Suse 10.1 packaging tools, i bit the bullet and installed Kubuntu (http://www.kubuntu.org) on my laptop.
I've done the same over the last couple of days.... mainly because the childish and petty "people" on this list were annoying me to the point I was ready to drop SUSE and never look back... but that's another story... and not somethign I want to get into.
What Suse does RIGHT:
SUSE does a lot of things right and it really starts to show once you load in a different distro. This really became apparent for me when I installed Kubuntu with the serious intent of switching over to it. Initially, I booted it up and the LiveCD version was working great... for a LiveCD. I think Knoppix is better as a LiveCD, btu the Kubuntu disk is good too. Then I installed. The install worked, and I had a "working" system, but... the installer did NOT identify my CPU properly. I got the default i386 kernel instead of an SMP kernel... and no word on 32 or 64 bit kernels... so... no CPU detecting going on at all. SUSE does this right every time. I had to install Synaptic seperately - Adept was installed... but not as easy to use as Synaptic. I enabled Multiverse... and was able to install some apps (including the correct kernel for my computer)... but even though there is almost 20,000 apps available, some of what I consider the "most basic" 3rd party apps are not there - as they are with SUSE and the 3rd party app maintainers (namely Guru and Packman) I tried installing Easyubuntu... and the "easy install from the website involved an SVN checkout... and the instructions (on the Easyubuntu website) were completely wrong. I have yet to get it working. i wonder where a new user would be? In the end I do have a fully functioning KDE... sort of. I bring up the KDE "Control Panel" and instead I get the Gnome one - despite downloading and installing ONLY Kubuntu. My monitor is not set up correctly - and the tools provided by Ubuntu to adjust the xorg settings are so primitive as to be useless (I "can" edit the xorg.conf file, but the Ubuntu guys have modified the layout to something do unrecognisable that I've yet to convince it to accept my montior settings). SAX2 wins out big time on this.
Using it, within *literally* minutes i figured out how to effectively use one of the package managers (Adept, a Qt front end for apt)
Have to agree here. This is where SUSE really fails the end user. An experienced person can work out what needs to be done, but a new users is not going to work it out... unless he /she has a LOT of hand holding. Where Ubuntu gets it right is the simplicity. The package manage is already there... it's PRECONFIGURED with the correct online repositories and... 3rd party repository settings are there... disabled by default, but already there. When you enable them, you are clearly informed that they are 3rd party repositories and unsupported etc. SUSE on the other hand comes with YAST... which works great if you want to install stuff off the DVD, but without a lot of background understanding... is a big blob of mystery to a new user when they want to add other repositories - and the SUSE Wiki is totally useless on this subject... there's info there, but it's so cryptic that it may as well be a recipie for beef stroganoff.
- Yast's software management is simple to use and effective but *incredibly* slow compared to apt-based tools. Orders of magnitude
You don't notice this until you install something in (K)Ubuntu. There... the install happes so quickly, I was left wondering... did it install something? Compare that to SUSE where even on a dual CPU computer, it takes forever. For me... the annoyance created by the childish idiots who think they are list police was almost enough to drive me away from SUSE... it's what got me looking elsewhere. But in the end, I was reminded that despite it all, SUSE is top of the heap when it comes to Linux. I will have to just filter out on a LOT of names to clear out the idiots from my inbox. If we/Novell can get the zmd/rug foolishness sorted out and find some satisfactory solution to the 3rd party apps thing, SUSE will win every time. C.
On Monday 21 August 2006 23:43, Clayton wrote:
The install worked, and I had a "working" system, but... the installer did NOT identify my CPU properly. I got the default i386 kernel instead of an SMP kernel... and no word on 32 or 64 bit kernels... so... no CPU detecting going on at all. SUSE does this right every time.
I had no problem with the CPU issue, but I did discover a minor kubuntu failing: arbitrarily using ext3, without so much as a by your leave.
I had to install Synaptic seperately - Adept was installed... but not as easy to use as Synaptic. I enabled Multiverse...
I found Adept just as easy to use as Synaptic. I saw no improvement at all in performance, or package selection using Synaptic. The 3.5.4 kde repositories were recently made available, and I cut and pasted one line from the Kubuntu announcement into Adept, clicked refresh, Dragged kde from the left side bar to the "I want" target window, and Clicked update. By the time I got off the phone it was done. Log out of kde, log in again and everything is 3.5.4. 15 minutes max. There are other minor annoyances, but nothing glaring. Kbuntu is an excellent entry lever linux Distro that can grow with the user. Its worth every cent you paid for it. I'm disparately hopeing 10.2 is better, and 10.3 is as slick as snot on a gold tooth, as I have come to expect of the .2 and .3 packages. But if not, I have my bail-out.... <snip>
SUSE on the other hand comes with YAST... which works great if you want to install stuff off the DVD,
I think you have hit the nail on the head. Adept, synaptic and apt were designed from the ground up as network based installers that could used DVDs in a pinch. I get the impression that using network repositories with Yast was bolted on after the fact more in support of patches than any strong intent that everything be installed across the net. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
I had no problem with the CPU issue, but I did discover a minor kubuntu failing: arbitrarily using ext3, without so much as a by your leave.
I stumbled on that one too. Nothing wrong with ext3. It works... but I wanted to choose Reiser for my / filesystem. Not even an option when you go into the filesystem dialog on install.
I found Adept just as easy to use as Synaptic.
True enough... familiarity thing again. I'm used to Synaptic after using it on SUSE for a looong time. I did like the task feedback in Adept. C. .
On Tuesday 22 August 2006 10:13, John Andersen wrote:
I had no problem with the CPU issue, but I did discover a minor kubuntu failing: arbitrarily using ext3, without so much as a by your leave.
This isn't arbitrary, it turns out: i switched my / to xfs and then, at the end of the install process, kubuntu warned me that grub won't always install on XFS and they offer Lilo as an alternative. i tried it anyway and it didn't work, so i had to install all over again to format / as ext3 so grub would work.
I found Adept just as easy to use as Synaptic.
Easier, IMO.
There are other minor annoyances, but nothing glaring. Kbuntu is an excellent entry lever linux Distro that can grow with the user. Its worth every cent you paid for it.
For those with a flatrate line, that means "it costs the same as your time to install it was worth to you."
I'm disparately hopeing 10.2 is better, and 10.3 is as slick as snot on a gold tooth, as I have come to expect of the .2 and .3 packages. But if not, I have my bail-out....
i'll give it until 10.2. If it's not as good as, say 9.3 or 10.0 was, then i'm out.
Adept, synaptic and apt were designed from the ground up as network based installers that could used DVDs in a pinch. I get the impression that using network repositories with Yast was bolted on after the fact more in support of patches than any strong intent that everything be installed across the net.
True, but yast has been around since before DSL lines existed. In Europe (suse's home), DSL was adopted relatively late compared to the U.S., so they made it primarily usable for CD/DVD installations. Getting DSL in Europe (at least in Germany) is still a hassle - it's almost a rule that you have to wait 6-8 weeks for the installation of your DSL service after you order it. The only exception, AFAIK, is if you get your DSL from Deutsch Telekom, which had a monopoly on the phone market until 1997 or 1998, and still runs most of the phone lines. -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
On Wednesday 23 August 2006 06:28, stephan beal wrote:
On Tuesday 22 August 2006 10:13, John Andersen wrote:
I had no problem with the CPU issue, but I did discover a minor kubuntu failing: arbitrarily using ext3, without so much as a by your leave.
This isn't arbitrary, it turns out: i switched my / to xfs and then, at the end of the install process, kubuntu warned me that grub won't always install on XFS and they offer Lilo as an alternative. i tried it anyway and it didn't work, so i had to install all over again to format / as ext3 so grub would work.
OTOH, after the first Kubuntu install, for the subsequent ones I caught the ext3 thingie just in the nic of time selected reiserfs because it has been so robust on all my SuSE installations. Kubuntu was happy use reiser, and it worked like a charm. I'm sure this is the wrong list for this, Ubuntu was also happy to mount a ntfs partition on the second drive. Mounted it RW, which scared the hell out of me so I remounted it RW. Does anyone know if its generally regarded as safe to mount ntfs RW these days? -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
Clayton wrote: <snip>
Using it, within *literally* minutes i figured out how to effectively use one of the package managers (Adept, a Qt front end for apt)
Have to agree here. This is where SUSE really fails the end user. An experienced person can work out what needs to be done, but a new users is not going to work it out... unless he /she has a LOT of hand holding.
Valid point there - hadn't thought of it. Though I do agree YaST is far superior to the only other package manger I tried - urpmi - it is still very complicated. Newbies like me have a hard time because of the need to scour the net for sources. The ones listed on the opensuse website often are broken or simply wrong. For example I've never seen this link to work... http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/SL-10.1/non-oss-inst-source/ ...then if I choose a mirror, I have a dizzying array of folders to choose from. For example here - ftp://mirrors.kernel.org/suse/ I have yet to find the non-oss-inst-source folder anywhere. But then this mirror DOES have it... http://mirror.usu.edu/mirrors/opensuse/distribution/SL-10.1/non-oss-inst-sou... Not particularly complaining here, just mentioning that maybe things could be a bit easier. Since I've used 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 10.0 and 10.1 I'm starting to get the hang of it. I just utilize google as my install helper. :) -- K
Though I do agree YaST is far superior to the only other package manger I tried - urpmi - it is still very complicated. Newbies like me have a hard time because of the need to scour the net for sources. The ones listed on the opensuse website often are broken or simply wrong.
Yup... I haven't been brave enough to step in and change things... mainly because I'm never sure that my method of "fixing" it so I could actually get it to work is the right way to do it.... it just happens to be the way that works for me. I've been using SUSE since 6.0. I've been through the days when I had to recompile the kernel provided by SUSE just to get my sound card working. I'm no expert by any means, but I am comfortable in SUSE, and in Linux in general... yet.. I REALLY struggle to get package management working "nicely" in SUSE. Smart is OK, but as I've pontificated on this list in the past, I think it's UI is horribly designed. You ony have to compare to Synaptic and Adept to see just how horrible Smart-gui is in terms of useablity. Trying to explain (over the phone) to a new SUSE user how to add sources in YAST is impossible. I put them on to Smart-gui with a LOT of caveats, and a huge long email explaining how to view what is new since the last update, and how to guess if they are getting or even need an update/upgrade to an installed app... how to pick the most recent version and on and on.... If they use Synaptic or Adept... it's immediately obvious. Oh well.... It's a small issue when viewed in the context of everythign else in SUSE that is far better than anythign else on the Linux market :-) C.
On Tuesday 22 August 2006 09:43, Clayton wrote:
After some Grief with the Suse 10.1 packaging tools, i bit the bullet and installed Kubuntu (http://www.kubuntu.org) on my laptop.
I've done the same over the last couple of days.... mainly because the childish and petty "people" on this list were annoying me to the point I was ready to drop SUSE and never look back... but that's another story... and not somethign I want to get into.
That was my second reason for trying Kubuntu, but i didn't want to say it because my first mail was provocative enough as it was without such a statement ;).
What Suse does RIGHT:
SUSE does a lot of things right and it really starts to show once you load in a different distro.
With 8 years of experience with Suse (err... SUSE), i think i hit all of the major "right" points in my original post. As i mentioned there, "i couldn't make this comparison before" because i was blinded by my one-distroness. Until i tried out Kubuntu, i couldn't compare suse with much of anything.
The install worked, and I had a "working" system, but... the installer did NOT identify my CPU properly. I got the default i386 kernel instead of an SMP kernel... and no word on 32 or 64 bit kernels... so... no CPU detecting going on at all. SUSE does this right every time.
i expected this to be the case on my laptop and was actually surprised to find that it did install an SMP kernel (the laptop is a dual-core).
I had to install Synaptic seperately - Adept was installed... but not as easy to use as Synaptic.
i find just the opposite - i tried Synaptic and found that it looks too much like Yast. Adept has a gracefully simple interface, by comparison. Not only that, but i have this deep-seated hatred of Gnome and GTK-based apps, so i'll always choose a non-GTK alternative when possible.
but even though there is almost 20,000 apps available, some of what I consider the "most basic" 3rd party apps are not there
True, but the installation tools (Synaptic/Adept) are so simple to use and search through that choosing your apps takes very little time. i found this to not be a hindrance. Although i had to spend some time installing emacs, make, gcc, flex, etc, it went MUCH more quickly than it would have with yast.
- as they are with SUSE and the 3rd party app maintainers (namely Guru and Packman)
And the first time the 3rd party maintainers get tired and quit, Suse won't have multimedia support.
xorg.conf file, but the Ubuntu guys have modified the layout to something do unrecognisable that I've yet to convince it to accept my montior settings). SAX2 wins out big time on this.
i got lucky - my monitor works out of the box. Granted, if it hadn't, i'd have been up a creek because i haven't had to manually configure a monitor since... since... i started using suse. i would have to start googling to find out how to fix it.
Where Ubuntu gets it right is the simplicity. The package manage is already there... it's PRECONFIGURED with the correct online repositories and... 3rd party repository settings are there... disabled by default, but already there. When you enable them, you are clearly informed that they are 3rd party repositories and unsupported etc.
Whereas suse users first have to subscribe to a list like this one to get the list of repos. ;)
SUSE on the other hand comes with YAST... which works great if you want to install stuff off the DVD, but without a lot of background understanding... is a big blob of mystery to a new user when they want to add other repositories - and the SUSE Wiki is totally useless on this subject... there's info there, but it's so cryptic that it may as well be a recipie for beef stroganoff.
Amen.
- Yast's software management is simple to use and effective but *incredibly* slow compared to apt-based tools. Orders of magnitude
You don't notice this until you install something in (K)Ubuntu. There... the install happes so quickly, I was left wondering... did it install something?
LOL! When it installed gcc in under 10 seconds, i did just that - double-checked to make sure it was really there.
For me... the annoyance created by the childish idiots who think they are list police was almost enough to drive me away from SUSE...
The solution to that is not to drop the distro, but to unsub from this list (or any list with abusive/bullyish posters - and there are lots of them here). Or just get in the habit of pressing DELETE based on the subject line of the mail. e.g., anything with "Post Nazis" gets automatically deleted here, if for no other reason than its overly-provocative subject line.
what got me looking elsewhere. But in the end, I was reminded that despite it all, SUSE is top of the heap when it comes to Linux.
In many areas, yes, but not in package management.
If we/Novell can get the zmd/rug foolishness sorted out and find some satisfactory solution to the 3rd party apps thing, SUSE will win every time.
We've been assured several times by on-list developers that the system is being completely reworked, so us bitching about it won't help much more. -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
stephan beal wrote:
If we/Novell can get the zmd/rug foolishness sorted out and find some satisfactory solution to the 3rd party apps thing, SUSE will win every time.
We've been assured several times by on-list developers that the system is being completely reworked, so us bitching about it won't help much more.
We have? When was this? All I've seen is where every time we point yet another problem with it, they say "We are looking to improve that area". I've seen nothing about an actual redesign. From everything I've read from suse, zen/rug is here to stay. (and will promptly be deleted from every system I install and replaced with apt)
On Wednesday 23 August 2006 16:39, suse@rio.vg wrote:
stephan beal wrote:
We've been assured several times by on-list developers that the system is being completely reworked, so us bitching about it won't help much more.
We have? When was this? All I've seen is where every time we point yet another problem with it, they say "We are looking to improve that area". I've seen nothing about an actual redesign. From everything I've read from suse, zen/rug is here to stay.
i didn't say REPLACED, i said REWORKED. See the mail from from Anders Johansson, 2006.08.21 @ 3:00, for example.
(and will promptly be deleted from every system I install and replaced with apt)
Again:
stephan beal wrote: ... so us bitching about it won't help much more.
They're painfully aware of the problems, as people on this list have done no end of letting them know about the problems. -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
They're painfully aware of the problems, as people on this list have done no end of letting them know about the problems.
With all due respect, I don't care if they're so "painfully aware" of it it's like having gout. What I care about is whether they will do anything to fix it. Jeff.
stephan beal wrote:
On Wednesday 23 August 2006 16:39, suse@rio.vg wrote:
stephan beal wrote: We have? When was this? All I've seen is where every time we point yet another problem with it, they say "We are looking to improve that area". I've seen nothing about an actual redesign. From everything I've read from suse, zen/rug is here to stay.
i didn't say REPLACED, i said REWORKED. See the mail from from Anders Johansson, 2006.08.21 @ 3:00, for example.
You mean the one where he states "zmd is broken by implementation, not by design"? Or where he states "it's being worked on very actively, I don't think anything more can be usefully added, except bug reporting for new issues"? That's not very promising. That says they'll fix the bugs in the current design. That's not even a rework.
(and will promptly be deleted from every system I install and replaced with apt)
Again:
stephan beal wrote: ... so us bitching about it won't help much more.
They're painfully aware of the problems, as people on this list have done no end of letting them know about the problems.
Just because they don't want to hear it doesn't mean they shouldn't. When pressed, they'll try and list a set of new features that make the zen/rug system better, but most of the time, you could actually do that in the old version. At the same time, it can't even do what the previous version did, regardless of the speed issue. Even fou4s can deal with delta rpms! fou4s is a SHELL SCRIPT! If we don't keep up the pressure, the issue will be swept under the rug. Even now they're declaring things like "Well, the yum system uses large xml blobs, so there's not much we can do". This is precisely one of those "design" issues I've been talking about. I have a suspicion that they're not aware at the level of frustration amongst the user base. I have a feeling that they think the current system is good enough, once the edges are smoothed over, or have been ordered by Novell/Ximian to keep the current system, no matter what. Why is apt so much faster at installing? Here's one important clue: The repo update is SEPARATE from the install. i.e. When I want to install something, it uses the current data, downloads downloads the package, and installs it. I don't have to go through the process of updating all the repodata from the source. The cost of updating from the repo's can be very high. Apt's style lets me pull up the package management quickly install something, close it and move on.
i expected this to be the case on my laptop and was actually surprised to find that it did install an SMP kernel (the laptop is a dual-core).
Interesting... I installed 3 times on my system and got the same results 3 times. My CPU is an AMD X2 3800+ (dual core). When I install SUSE it correctly IDs it as needing an 64 bit SMP kernel. I tried Ubuntu from the LinuxFormat magazine, a downloaded Ubuntu and a downloaded Kubuntu. In all *buntu instances I got the i386 kernel. Weird.
i find just the opposite - i tried Synaptic
:-) That's what I love about the choices... you like Adept, I like Synaptic. We can use either and get the exact same results using the exact same repositories.
Not only that, but i have this deep-seated hatred of Gnome and GTK-based apps, so i'll always choose a non-GTK alternative when possible.
Yup, me too... usually. I let it go for Synaptic, and Firefox. Otherwise.. anything GTK is usually consigned to the depths of hell where it belongs. Ha ha... errr...
And the first time the 3rd party maintainers get tired and quit, Suse won't have multimedia support.
That is a concern... but when one bows out, and other steps in to fill the void. As it is though, I don't think we on the list express anywhere near enough appreciation for those people who provide us the resources at Packman, Guru, gwdg.de and others. Guys.. thanks.. :-)
The solution to that is not to drop the distro, but to unsub from this list (or any list with abusive/bullyish posters - and there are lots of
True... it was frustration and annoyance though. <shrug> I got over it :-) and I'm not going anywhere. C.
On Wednesday 23 August 2006 22:20, Clayton wrote:
i expected this to be the case on my laptop and was actually surprised to find that it did install an SMP kernel (the laptop is a dual-core).
Interesting... I installed 3 times on my system and got the same results 3 times. My CPU is an AMD X2 3800+ (dual core). When I install SUSE it correctly IDs it as needing an 64 bit SMP kernel. I tried Ubuntu from the LinuxFormat magazine, a downloaded Ubuntu and a downloaded Kubuntu. In all *buntu instances I got the i386 kernel. Weird.
The kubuntu pages has different links for the 64bit processors. http://ftp.wayne.edu/linux_distributions/ubuntu/kubuntu/6.06/ -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
Oops - guess I should've voted for the Reply-To header after all - will send to the list. Sorry! ----- Forwarded message from Craig Millar <suse@craigmillar.org> ----- From: Craig Millar <suse@craigmillar.org> Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 01:56:51 +0100 To: suse@rio.vg Subject: Re: a long-time Suser compares kubuntu and Suse User-Agent: mutt-ng/devel-r796 (Debian) On 23/08/06 12:25 -0400, suse@rio.vg wrote:
I have a suspicion that they're not aware at the level of frustration amongst the user base. I have a feeling that they think the current
Well I doubt that. This list and the opensuse list has been inundated with non-stop moaning about these issues for several months. Which is not to say that they'll necessarily resolve all grievances in time for the next release (who really knows exactly how many resources they have to devote to resolution of the problems), but it would take an entire organisation with improbably high levels unintuition to not notice the frustration this has caused. What does concern me is the newcomers to our venerable distro who subscribe to the lists and find nothing but this negative PR, deserved or otherwise. cm ----- End forwarded message -----
participants (22)
-
Anders Johansson -
Andreas Jaeger -
Basil Chupin -
Bob S -
BRUCE STANLEY -
Carl William Spitzer IV -
Clayton -
Craig Millar -
Hans van der Merwe -
James Knott -
Jan Engelhardt -
Jeff Rollin -
John Andersen -
Jon Nelson -
Kenneth Aar, Grafikern.no -
Marcus Meissner -
Per Jessen -
PerfectReign -
Stan Glasoe -
stephan beal -
suse＠911networks.com -
suse＠rio.vg