On Sun, 2002-07-07 at 21:14, Janne Karhunen wrote:
On 7 Jul 2002, Ladislav Bodnar wrote:
http://www.distrowatch.com/review-suse.php
It hasn't been officially published -- before I do so, I would like to consult the memebers of this mailing list as most of you have used SuSE a lot longer than I have. Anything you disagree with? Any more positive things I should mention? Any more annoyances?
You seem to be saying that nor RedHat or Mandrake do separate (professional & personal) versions. Have a look at:
No, that's not what I am trying to say. SuSE's Personal edition lacks packages such as Apache, BIND, Gaim, Glade, GnuPG, mod_perl, MySQL, NcFTP, OpenOffice, Postfix, PostgreSQL, ProFTPD, RP-PPPoE, Squid... while they are all present in the Professional edition. I am not saying that Red Hat and Mandrake do not have various editions of their products. All I am saying that the above packages are not missing even from Red Hat's and Mandrake's low-end products (unless they are missing in the high-end editions as well).
All comments are welcome; credit will be given where appropriate. Thanks very much for your time to read and express your opinion.
Then again, how come not beta-testing your products on your customers would be a bad thing ? I think it's pretty damn good thing, at least
It might be a good thing, sure. But it doesn't mean that everybody likes it.
when they do offer high quality updates. For example, have a look at bugtraqs listings of incidents. At least according to them, SuSE is most secure linux distribution out there (beats RH & MDK hands down).
More over, IMHO free FTP installation is hell of a lot better solution than .isos. With FTP, you don't end up downloading something that you're not going to install (no bandwith wasted). This is important especially with SuSE that comes with a whole heap of stuff with it.
Fair enough, although your argument would be more valid if SuSE released the FTP edition at the same time as the boxed products, which they don't. Also, with the CD in your drive, the installation is a lot simpler because you don't have to worry about network card modules, IPs, mirrors, broken connections and half a dozen of other things. I agree that FTP install is better, but I suspect that most newcomers to Linux would prefer the comfort of a spinning CD/DVD.
One more thing that i'd like to bring up for newbies is the automatic dependency resolving (yast+fou4s). This *always* comes up when newbies are trying to install software (they end up cursing rpm to the lowest levels of hell).
Thanks a lot for sharing your opinion. Ladislav
On Sunday 07 July 2002 16.01, Ladislav Bodnar wrote:
No, that's not what I am trying to say. SuSE's Personal edition lacks packages such as Apache, BIND, Gaim, Glade, GnuPG, mod_perl, MySQL, NcFTP, OpenOffice, Postfix, PostgreSQL, ProFTPD, RP-PPPoE, Squid... while they are all present in the Professional edition.
I am not saying that Red Hat and Mandrake do not have various editions of their products. All I am saying that the above packages are not missing even from Red Hat's and Mandrake's low-end products (unless they are missing in the high-end editions as well).
Please note that it's not marketed as a "low-end" product, it's marketed as a desktop product. Why would a desktop product include server side software? //Anders
Anders Johansson
On Sunday 07 July 2002 16.01, Ladislav Bodnar wrote:
No, that's not what I am trying to say. SuSE's Personal edition lacks packages such as Apache, BIND, Gaim, Glade, GnuPG, mod_perl, MySQL, NcFTP, OpenOffice, Postfix, PostgreSQL, ProFTPD, RP-PPPoE, Squid... while they are all present in the Professional edition.
Please note that it's not marketed as a "low-end" product, it's marketed as a desktop product. Why would a desktop product include server side software?
As I have the professional edition, I do not know which packages are in the personal edition. Yet in the list quoted at least Gaim, GnuPG, NcFTP, and OpenOffice are desktop/client, not server, applications.
On Sunday 07 July 2002 17.18, Graham Murray wrote:
As I have the professional edition, I do not know which packages are in the personal edition. Yet in the list quoted at least Gaim, GnuPG, NcFTP, and OpenOffice are desktop/client, not server, applications.
True, and I don't know the rationale for leaving them out. Since I don't have the personal I can't even say if they have been left out. I know some people have said packages are missing in the professional that are in fact there, so I'm not assuming anything. But observe that the personal edition came about because so many people said the sheer number of packages in the SuSE distribution was frightening to newcomers. A newbie to linux doesn't compile software, he doesn't run servers, he doesn't need 2^25 text editors etc, etc, etc. I guess the people who bought the personal edition and then complain about the lack of, for example, development libraries should have read a bit more before buying. I guess they thought it was just a low cost version of the standard dist. //Anders
On Sunday 07 July 2002 16:25, Anders Johansson wrote:
But observe that the personal edition came about because so many people said the sheer number of packages in the SuSE distribution was frightening to newcomers. A newbie to linux doesn't compile software, he doesn't run servers, he doesn't need 2^25 text editors etc, etc, etc.
I guess the people who bought the personal edition and then complain about the lack of, for example, development libraries should have read a bit more before buying. I guess they thought it was just a low cost version of the standard dist.
//Anders
I thought it would allow me to replace what I am doing in WindowsME, act as the gateway to the internet for one or two other PC's and share files and the printer. I do have it that the other WindowsME PC's can access the internet through my SuSE8.0 box, but how can I share files and the printer? Do I understand it correct I need Samba for not, not the client which is included in the Personal edition but the server? When I bought the package I thought I didn't need to run a server. -- Frits J. Wüthrich (Sent with Kmail)
On Sun, 2002-07-07 at 23:25, Anders Johansson wrote:
True, and I don't know the rationale for leaving them out. Since I don't have the personal I can't even say if they have been left out. I know some people have said packages are missing in the professional that are in fact there, so I'm not assuming anything.
But observe that the personal edition came about because so many people said the sheer number of packages in the SuSE distribution was frightening to newcomers. A newbie to linux doesn't compile software, he doesn't run servers, he doesn't need 2^25 text editors etc, etc, etc.
I guess the people who bought the personal edition and then complain about the lack of, for example, development libraries should have read a bit more before buying. I guess they thought it was just a low cost version of the standard dist.
To me it just sounds plain wrong. You might be a home user, but if you create a web site, it is great to have Apache running on your localhost and check things out before publishing. And what about rp-pppoe, the ADSL connection package? Surely, it is not only useful, it is essential if your ISP uses this type of service. On the other hand, xine is missing from the Pro edition - where is the logic in that? Sorry, but I feel that the decision should be made by the user and not by the SuSE's marketing department. You might get a few voices saying "too many applications", but once you start leaving some out you will get a lot more voices saying "why is this or that missing". Ladislav
To me it just sounds plain wrong. You might be a home user, but if you create a web site, it is great to have Apache running on your localhost and check things out before publishing. And what about rp-pppoe, the ADSL connection package? Surely, it is not only useful, it is essential if your ISP uses this type of service. On the other hand, xine is missing from the Pro edition - where is the logic in that?
Sorry, but I feel that the decision should be made by the user and not by the SuSE's marketing department. You might get a few voices saying "too many applications", but once you start leaving some out you will get a lot more voices saying "why is this or that missing".
Ladislav
This is where feedback@suse.com comes in handy dandy :). although from what I remember they cannot ship with certain binaries... Matt
On Sunday 07 July 2002 17.43, Ladislav Bodnar wrote:
To me it just sounds plain wrong. You might be a home user, but if you create a web site, it is great to have Apache running on your localhost and check things out before publishing.
Sounds like overkill to me. You don't need a full web server just to preview web pages.
And what about rp-pppoe, the ADSL connection package? Surely, it is not only useful, it is essential if your ISP uses this type of service. On the other hand, xine is missing from the Pro edition - where is the logic in that?
Sorry, but I feel that the decision should be made by the user and not by the SuSE's marketing department. You might get a few voices saying "too many applications", but once you start leaving some out you will get a lot more voices saying "why is this or that missing".
Not really. The intended market for the personal edition wouldn't know the other packages existed. You have clearly bought the wrong version. The users targeted by the personal edition are complete newcomers. I suspect you bought the personal because it was cheaper. Read up on usability studies. Almost everyone commenting on these matters say it's far better to have a selection of packages, with few if any duplicates for any given area of use. People who are more experienced can always download from the net and install themselves. Or why not buy the professional package? As for ADSL missing in the personal, I don't know. There were a few X packages missing in pro too. Mistakes happen. As Matthew said, that's why feedback@suse.com is there. About xine: so what? The versions distributed are pointless anyway. To get a usable version you will have to download from the net anyway, as long as the threat of litigation remains. //Anders
On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 06:13:52PM +0200, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 07 July 2002 17.43, Ladislav Bodnar wrote:
To me it just sounds plain wrong. You might be a home user, but if you create a web site, it is great to have Apache running on your localhost and check things out before publishing.
Sounds like overkill to me. You don't need a full web server just to preview web pages.
You do if you are coding PHP, Perl, or have a database backend to your site. These things can't be tested by just opening the page locally in a web browser. But if you are coding dynamic web sites, there are other reasons you would want Pro version. Best Regards, Keith -- LPIC-2, MCSE, N+ Right behind you, I see the millions Got spam? Get spastic http://spastic.sourceforge.net
On Sunday 07 July 2002 19.38, Keith Winston wrote:
You do if you are coding PHP, Perl, or have a database backend to your site. These things can't be tested by just opening the page locally in a web browser.
Indeed, but that wasn't what I said. Developer tools like Websphere studio have scaled-down miniservers for preview purposes. You don't need a full web server. //Anders
On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 08:00:03PM +0200, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 07 July 2002 19.38, Keith Winston wrote:
You do if you are coding PHP, Perl, or have a database backend to your site. These things can't be tested by just opening the page locally in a web browser.
Indeed, but that wasn't what I said. Developer tools like Websphere studio have scaled-down miniservers for preview purposes. You don't need a full web server.
Interesting, I haven't checked into Websphere. I generally set up my laptop dev environment to mirror my production environment. Linux is great that way. Best Regards, Keith -- LPIC-2, MCSE, N+ Right behind you, I see the millions Got spam? Get spastic http://spastic.sourceforge.net
On Mon, 2002-07-08 at 00:13, Anders Johansson wrote:
Not really. The intended market for the personal edition wouldn't know the other packages existed. You have clearly bought the wrong version. The users targeted by the personal edition are complete newcomers. I suspect you bought the personal because it was cheaper. Read up on usability studies. Almost everyone commenting on these matters say it's far better to have a selection of packages, with few if any duplicates for any given area of use. People who are more experienced can always download from the net and install themselves. Or why not buy the professional package?
OK, I accept your argument. Maybe I failed to see this from a newbie point of view. There are too many things I use on a daily basis that are missing in the Personal edition that I find it impossible to recommend it. But there might be users who are perfectly happy with it because it satisfies their needs. I would like to see some comments from those who are happy with the Personal edition, but I suspect that they don't subscribe to this list...
I would suggest posting the question to alt.linux.suse or some of the other newsgroups. I have this feeling that newbies get recommended to usenet by co-workers and friends when they really should be here. * Ladislav Bodnar (distro.watch@msa.hinet.net) [020707 15:39]: ::On Mon, 2002-07-08 at 00:13, Anders Johansson wrote: :: ::> Not really. The intended market for the personal edition wouldn't know the ::> other packages existed. You have clearly bought the wrong version. The users ::> targeted by the personal edition are complete newcomers. I suspect you bought ::> the personal because it was cheaper. Read up on usability studies. Almost ::> everyone commenting on these matters say it's far better to have a selection ::> of packages, with few if any duplicates for any given area of use. People who ::> are more experienced can always download from the net and install themselves. ::> Or why not buy the professional package? :: ::OK, I accept your argument. Maybe I failed to see this from a newbie ::point of view. There are too many things I use on a daily basis that are ::missing in the Personal edition that I find it impossible to recommend ::it. But there might be users who are perfectly happy with it because it ::satisfies their needs. I would like to see some comments from those who ::are happy with the Personal edition, but I suspect that they don't ::subscribe to this list... -=Ben --=====-----=====-- mailto:ben@whack.org --=====-- Tell me what you believe..I tell you what you should see. -DP --=====-----=====--
On Monday 08 July 2002 00.41, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
I would suggest posting the question to alt.linux.suse or some of the other newsgroups. I have this feeling that newbies get recommended to usenet by co-workers and friends when they really should be here.
I think so too. It has also been my experience that many people new to computers don't grasp the value of mail filters. If you wake up one morning seeing your inbox filled with 300 mail from this list completely swamping the 3 or 4 personal mail you have, you'd probably unsub fairly quickly. I've seen many outlook users who don't even know filter functions exist, let alone that they can be used to divide incoming mail into folders. Perhaps it takes a certain level of experience to even be able to use this kind of list to its fullest?! //Anders
As a side note to Outlook, on a network with MS Exchange at work, the filters for Outlook are not 100% reliable, only about 95%. Sometimes Outlook will put personal email in the [SLE], other times, in the OpenOffice.org filter. Also will put some OOo in [SLE] and vice-versa. Art On Sunday 07 July 2002 16:11, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Monday 08 July 2002 00.41, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
I would suggest posting the question to alt.linux.suse or some of the other newsgroups. I have this feeling that newbies get recommended to usenet by co-workers and friends when they really should be here.
I think so too.
It has also been my experience that many people new to computers don't grasp the value of mail filters. If you wake up one morning seeing your inbox filled with 300 mail from this list completely swamping the 3 or 4 personal mail you have, you'd probably unsub fairly quickly. I've seen many outlook users who don't even know filter functions exist, let alone that they can be used to divide incoming mail into folders.
Perhaps it takes a certain level of experience to even be able to use this kind of list to its fullest?!
//Anders
* Art Fore
As a side note to Outlook, on a network with MS Exchange at work, the filters for Outlook are not 100% reliable, only about 95%. Sometimes Outlook will put personal email in the [SLE], other times, in the OpenOffice.org filter. Also will put some OOo in [SLE] and vice-versa.
?? You would expect less from m$ ?? Probably askes each post "Where would you like to go today?" -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org
?? You would expect less from m$ ?? Probably askes each post "Where would you like to go today?"
LOL!!!!! -- tina "diffuze" johnsson web: http://diffuze.com
I thought it was a great come back, but I have seen LOL several times, could someone enlighten me as what this acronym stands for? Art On Sunday 07 July 2002 18:24, diffuze wrote:
?? You would expect less from m$ ?? Probably askes each post "Where would you like to go today?"
LOL!!!!!
Laugh Out Loud!
-----Original Message----- From: Art Fore [mailto:art_fore@3mts.com] Sent: Monday, 8 July 2002 16:29 To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] SuSE 8.0 Review
I thought it was a great come back, but I have seen LOL several times, could someone enlighten me as what this acronym stands for?
Art
On Sunday 07 July 2002 18:24, diffuze wrote:
?? You would expect less from m$ ?? Probably askes each post "Where would you like to go today?"
LOL!!!!!
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Thanks. Guessed most of them but would never have guessed that one. Art On Sunday 07 July 2002 21:30, David Milligan wrote:
Laugh Out Loud!
-----Original Message----- From: Art Fore [mailto:art_fore@3mts.com] Sent: Monday, 8 July 2002 16:29 To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: Re: [SLE] SuSE 8.0 Review
I thought it was a great come back, but I have seen LOL several times, could someone enlighten me as what this acronym stands for?
Art
On Sunday 07 July 2002 18:24, diffuze wrote:
?? You would expect less from m$ ?? Probably askes each post
"Where
would you like to go today?"
LOL!!!!!
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
On Sun, 07 Jul 2002, Art just had to get this off his chest:
Thanks. Guessed most of them but would never have guessed that one.
theo:/home/theo $ wtf lol LOL: laughing out loud theo:/home/theo $ rpm -qf `which wtf` bsdgames-2.11-169 Theo -- Theo v. Werkhoven ICBM 52 8 24N , 4 32 40E. S.u.S.E 7.3 x86 Kernel 2.4.16-4GB See headers for PGP/GPG info.
On Monday 08 July 2002 23.15, Theo v. Werkhoven wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jul 2002, Art just had to get this off his chest:
Thanks. Guessed most of them but would never have guessed that one.
theo:/home/theo $ wtf lol LOL: laughing out loud
theo:/home/theo $ rpm -qf `which wtf` bsdgames-2.11-169
Also, a very useful application: dict (dictd-1.4.9-449 in SuSE 8.0) dict lol 2 definitions found
From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (09 FEB 02) [foldoc]:
LOL <chat> "laughing out loud" or "lots of luck". (1998-09-17)
From V.E.R.A. -- Virtual Entity of Relevant Acronyms December 2001 [vera]:
LOL Laughing Out Loud (slang, Usenet, IRC) //Anders
I have been trying to compile a .tar.gz file. ./configure is OK, but make gives these errors which I can't understand. Can anyone help please? Last part of log is: logcore.h:25: db3/db.h: No such file or directory In file included from mainview.h:23, from kpsk.h:31, from globals.h:22, from dcddlg.cpp:22: gttextwidget.h:28: qtableview.h: No such file or directory In file included from waterfall.h:28, from globals.h:23, from dcddlg.cpp:22: auxwindow.h:21: ktmainwindow.h: No such file or directory make[3]: *** [dcddlg.o] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/keith/Documents/kpsk-0.9.3/kpsk' make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/keith/Documents/kpsk-0.9.3/kpsk' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/keith/Documents/kpsk-0.9.3' make: *** [all] Error 2 (I accidentally downloaded it into the Documents directory instead of the Download directory!) Many thanks for any advice. Cheers Keith
On 8 Jul 2002, Ladislav Bodnar wrote:
satisfies their needs. I would like to see some comments from those who are happy with the Personal edition, but I suspect that they don't subscribe to this list...
Happy. -- Ragnar Steingrimsson | Department of Cognitive Sciences UC-Irvine, SSPA 3151 | Email: ragnar@uci.edu Irvine, CA 92697 | Small Green Men
On 8 Jul 2002, Ladislav Bodnar wrote:
satisfies their needs. I would like to see some comments from those who are happy with the Personal edition, but I suspect that they don't subscribe to this list...
Happy. Basically I am happy with what is supplied, but I probably need Samba for replacing the functionality I had using WindowsME. Using the
On Monday 08 July 2002 01:46, Ragnar Steingrimsson wrote: printer on the Linux system from my other WindowsME machine. Samba is included as lient only on the Personal edition. -- Frits J. Wüthrich (Sent with Kmail)
I don't understand this comment. I am running SuSE 8.0 & ADSL right out of the box using the Personal Edition. I have plenty to quibble with but handling ADSL is not on the list of shortcomings. doc
And what about rp-pppoe, the ADSL connection package? Surely, it is not only useful, it is essential if your ISP uses this type of service.
Ladislav
-- "And God said, let there be light ... "
On Mon, 2002-07-08 at 01:00, David Colburn wrote:
I don't understand this comment. I am running SuSE 8.0 & ADSL right out of the box using the Personal Edition.
Some (but not all) ADSL providers use PPPoE (point-to-point protocol over ethernet) to dynamcially asign IP addresses to users. If your ADSL service does not use this type, then you won't need the rp-pppoe package.
I have plenty to quibble with but handling ADSL is not on the list of shortcomings.
doc
And what about rp-pppoe, the ADSL connection package? Surely, it is not only useful, it is essential if your ISP uses this type of service.
Ladislav
--
"And God said, let there be light ... "
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
On Sun, 2002-07-07 at 23:25, Anders Johansson wrote:
True, and I don't know the rationale for leaving them out. Since I don't have the personal I can't even say if they have been left out. I know some people have said packages are missing in the professional that are in fact there, so I'm not assuming anything.
But observe that the personal edition came about because so many people said the sheer number of packages in the SuSE distribution was frightening to newcomers. A newbie to linux doesn't compile software, he doesn't run servers, he doesn't need 2^25 text editors etc, etc, etc.
I guess the people who bought the personal edition and then complain about the lack of, for example, development libraries should have read a bit more before buying. I guess they thought it was just a low cost version of the standard dist.
To me it just sounds plain wrong. You might be a home user, but if you create a web site, it is great to have Apache running on your localhost and check things out before publishing. And what about rp-pppoe, the ADSL connection package? Surely, it is not only useful, it is essential if your ISP uses this type of service. On the other hand, xine is missing from the Pro edition - where is the logic in that?
Sorry, but I feel that the decision should be made by the user and not by the SuSE's marketing department. You might get a few voices saying "too many applications", but once you start leaving some out you will get a lot more voices saying "why is this or that missing".
Ladislav ===================== Ladislav, You have made some good points, but what I think you and many here fail to realize is that we look at the levels of packages just a little differently than most users will. As Anders was trying to point out, few people need or want the number of applications provided by the Pro version. It is just too overwhelming when you are starting to learn a new OS. I think you will find, if you ask a new convert or new user,
On Sunday 07 July 2002 11:43, Ladislav Bodnar wrote: that they in fact do not initially even consider getting 2500+ programs with an OS! Everything needed to get up and running plus all the programs needed to enjoy the internet are provided by the Personal version. If you want more, then the extra programs are easily obtained by downloading. These are things learned as the user becomes aquainted to their new Linux OS. From my own experience about one year back, I considered the Personal version very heavily to begin with, but after reading the boxes and a few reviews, I decided I wanted the Pro for the development and server functions I would need later. The general user is not dumb and the packages provide enough info for them to decide how much Linux they want. SuSE provides all the programs needed in either package to do what the customer may need or want to do initially. More advanced users here have forgotten what it feels like to be the "newbie" and the process they went through picking their first package, it is still fresh in some of our minds though. :o) Also, maybe I missed something on your "review" page, but it seemed as if it were more of an installation via ftp page than review. But that is excellent also, as I have had many in the local users group wanting to download SuSE to give it a test run. Regards, Patrick -- ----------end of line........ --- KMail v1.4.1 --- SuSE Linux Pro v8.0 --- Registered Linux User #225206
On Monday 08 July 2002 04:38, Patrick wrote:
Also, maybe I missed something on your "review" page, but it seemed as if it were more of an installation via ftp page than review. But that is excellent also, as I have had many in the local users group wanting to download SuSE to give it a test run.
Well, it all started as a description of the FTP installation process, but after playing with the finished product for two weeks, I added another paragpraph (Pleasures and annoyances) and decided to call it a "review". After all, it sounds a lot better saying "SuSE Review" than "SuSE FTP Installation Instructions". See, I learnt something from SuSE's marketing department :-) Sorry if it was a bit misleading...
participants (17)
-
Anders Johansson -
Art Fore -
Ben Rosenberg -
David Colburn -
David Milligan -
diffuze -
Frits J. Wüthrich -
Graham Murray -
Keith Powell -
Keith Winston -
Ladislav Bodnar -
Ladislav Bodnar -
Matthew Johnson -
Patrick -
Ragnar Steingrimsson -
SuSEnixER -
Theo v. Werkhoven