alexander volovics wrote:

On Wed, 09 Dec 1998 Kaare Rasmussen wrote:

...

According to this test: <A HREF="http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,375002,00.html"><A HREF="http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,375002,00.html</A">http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,375002,00.html</A</A>> it is harder to install SuSE 5.3 than RedHat 5.2 This surprises me.

Here's the quote:

In tests of Office Suite 99 on a 200MHz Pentium-based desktop PC, PC Week Labs found installation of the operating system to be considerably harder than installation of Red Hat Linux 5.2 (see review). Hardware auto-detection was practically nonexistent, forcing us to configure hardware components individually.

I would tend to agree. I recently installed both SuSE 5.3 and RH 5.2, both twice on 4 different machines, and the RH installation procedure does seem slightly more smooth, straightforward and efficient.

I agree, but for different reasons. RH has a functional list - what do want to use this computer for, and it selects the packages. YaST does not - if I didn't have several months of experience breaking RH ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H playing with RH, I would not know what all those packages do. Even now, I find myself removing stuff that is really important (see previous post about removing BSD Database). As much as I love SuSE over RedHat, RedHat is working hard to deliver a goof-proof product to the masses and it seems the SuSE team is working on making an ultra-stable system. Each have their place. George - To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e Check out the SuSE-FAQ at <A HREF="http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/"><A HREF="http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/</A">http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/</A</A>> and the archiv at <A HREF="http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html"><A HREF="http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html</A">http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html</A</A>>