Hi all, I've got a company that does Network Administration in several clients, but up until now we've only worked with M$ systems. I'm starting to use linux (just brought a machine home to install it), and my goal is to try to find out if with Linux we'll be able to replace some of our clients systems. One of my newbie questions is about what distro should we use. We need something that's not very complicated to start with, but that allows us to implement good server solutions. Right now I'm trying to choose between Red Hat and Suse. One of my friends (who is a Red Hat fan) told me that he didn't like SUSE because we were a bit dependant on their configuration tools (I think he mentioned YAST). Can you please tell me if SUSE would be the best distro for me to start with, and why? Thanks in advance Filipe Joel de Almeida Network Consultant Filipe.Joel@netcabo.pt
Filipe Joel de Almeida wrote:
Hi all,
I've got a company that does Network Administration in several clients, but up until now we've only worked with M$ systems.
I'm starting to use linux (just brought a machine home to install it), and my goal is to try to find out if with Linux we'll be able to replace some of our clients systems.
One of my newbie questions is about what distro should we use. We need something that's not very complicated to start with, but that allows us to implement good server solutions.
Right now I'm trying to choose between Red Hat and Suse. One of my friends (who is a Red Hat fan) told me that he didn't like SUSE because we were a bit dependant on their configuration tools (I think he mentioned YAST).
Can you please tell me if SUSE would be the best distro for me to start with, and why?
Thanks in advance
Filipe Joel de Almeida Network Consultant Filipe.Joel@netcabo.pt
Well, since you're writing to a Suse list, you'll probably find a biased opinion here, but.... I prefer Suse having run both Red hat 9 and Suse 8.2. I have to run my own little network within a university network and I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a linux expert. Suse was much easier to configure and get running right out of the box so to speak for me, networking with windows machines, etc. wayne
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
When the company that I worked for (a few years back) wanted to switch some servers over to Linux, the Director of IS insisted that we use Red Hat because of the name recognition (easier sell to the board). so I used Red Hat for a couple of years. Then we wanted to switch some of our HP-UX/Oracle servers to Linux. After consulting with the Oracle people we decided (from there recomedation) to use Suse Linux for the Oracle machines. After setting up and using the first Suse machine I never went back to Red Hat. I very rarely use Yast. Coming from a HP-UX background I am more use to editting the config files myself (also I feel more comfortable doing it myself rather then letting a Yast do it). It is also easier for me to ssh into a server and make quick changes to config files rather then getting up and going to the machine and using Yast. You will find that Yast will save you a lot of time while you are learning Linux. But like your friend said a lot of people do get a bit too dependent on it. Just have to learn how to do stuff with out it if you do not want to be dependent on it. I found that where Suse puts stuff (IE: config files, web server, .....) just makes much more since (coming from my HP-UX background). One thing that always bugged me about Red Hat was putting the web pages for your web server in the /var directory. I have also found that Suse tends to setup hardware better then Red Hat. When we got our first copy of Suse in (where I use to work) I was struggling to get the display to work properly on my laptop with red hat but Suse configured it perfectly. But from a person that has used both, I would very strongly recommend using Suse. That is just my two cents for you. Hope it helps Jon On Thursday 12 June 2003 09:05, Filipe Joel de Almeida wrote:
Hi all,
I've got a company that does Network Administration in several clients, but up until now we've only worked with M$ systems.
I'm starting to use linux (just brought a machine home to install it), and my goal is to try to find out if with Linux we'll be able to replace some of our clients systems.
One of my newbie questions is about what distro should we use. We need something that's not very complicated to start with, but that allows us to implement good server solutions.
Right now I'm trying to choose between Red Hat and Suse. One of my friends (who is a Red Hat fan) told me that he didn't like SUSE because we were a bit dependant on their configuration tools (I think he mentioned YAST).
Can you please tell me if SUSE would be the best distro for me to start with, and why?
Thanks in advance
Filipe Joel de Almeida Network Consultant Filipe.Joel@netcabo.pt
On Thu, 2003-06-12 at 15:38, Jon hoffman wrote:
It is also easier for me to ssh into a server and make quick changes to config files rather then getting up and going to the machine and using Yast.
I'm not saying you should, but it's perfectly possible to use YaST over an ssh connection, both graphical and text based. I do it all the time Also, not directed at you but rather to add to the thread, all the SuSEconfig stuff is plaintext ascii scripts. You can find then in /sbin/conf.d/ in case you're ever wondering what exactly they do. No lock-in at all
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 03:42:14PM +0200, Anders Johansson wrote:
I'm not saying you should, but it's perfectly possible to use YaST over an ssh connection, both graphical and text based. I do it all the time
Also, not directed at you but rather to add to the thread, all the SuSEconfig stuff is plaintext ascii scripts. You can find then in /sbin/conf.d/ in case you're ever wondering what exactly they do. No lock-in at all
There is also webmin, which has interfaces for MANY *nix systems in it. I use it for most generic system stuff and use YaST for SuSE specific stuff (finding/installnig packages, online updates, etc.) Seems to work okay so far (2wks only). You just might have to go into the SuSE sysconfig thing in YaST and turn it off for some services (I have it off for sendmail, apache, etc, things I do with webmin or by hand).
Filipe Joel de Almeida wrote:
Right now I'm trying to choose between Red Hat and Suse. One of my friends (who is a Red Hat fan) told me that he didn't like SUSE because we were a bit dependant on their configuration tools (I think he mentioned YAST).
Can you please tell me if SUSE would be the best distro for me to start with, and why?
I used Red Hat for 2 years, then I took the job I have now, for a company that sells SuSE (among other things). I was very happy with Red Hat, the first thing I started talking after I was hired was that we should also sell Red Hat. Then I installed SuSE to check it out. Never touched Red Hat again ever since. And I'm not saying that Red Hat is bad. It isn't. SuSE will do more stuff automatically for you than Red Hat will. You are not really dependant on YaST, but what if you were, is that such a Bad Thing (tm)? YaST makes it easy for you to configure stuff that you'd have otherwise to know how to configure yourself. YaST does not "hide the Linux" from you; the Linux is there for you to look at (/etc/sysconfig/), but what if you particularly don't really want to, or don't have time right now to do it? Also YaST will reduce the changes of a newbie messing the system up. SuSE has a lot more software in the kit that Red Hat does. And, most importantly it's all so nicely integrated. All I can say is that you'd appreciate SuSE even more if you used Red Hat for a length of time, then switch to SuSE. An example: Installation of mailman (with postfix). With SuSE, you just install the rpm then activate the service and you're good to go. I don't know what's the status of Red Hat now, and I think I'm not beeing fair not comparing to their latest distro, but when I installed Mailman on Red Hat (6.2 or 7.0, don't remember), it was a pain. First, install postfix instead of sendmail. Then Mailman, then configure apache for Mailman interface, then bang head against wall because of mailman.mail-group or user does not work right etc. The result is that I know very well how Mailman works. This wouldn't have been the case with SuSE, I would have stayed ignorant in this respect. It depends what the purpose is: learn how Mailman works or actually do stuff with Mailman? If you want to learn how stuff in Linux work, you'd better install Debian, Slackware, or the Holy System: Linux from Scratch. Compile and install everything from source, on your own, that is. (I'd like to do that someday)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Silviu Marin-Caea"
You are not really dependant on YaST, but what if you were, is that such a Bad Thing (tm)? YaST makes it easy for you to configure stuff that you'd have otherwise to know how to configure yourself. YaST does not "hide the Linux" from you; the Linux is there for you to look at (/etc/sysconfig/), but what if you particularly don't really want to, or don't have time right now to do it? Also YaST will reduce the changes of a newbie messing the system up.
SuSE has a lot more software in the kit that Red Hat does. And, most
As several persons have mentioned it, YaST is excellent if you are a newbie. BUT, SuSE lets you edit those config files by hand, and everything works fine. And (if i am wrong, please correct me), even if you m anually change a config file that has to affect other programs/applications/OS configs, you only have to type "SuSEconfig", and it will execute automatically everything that YaST will do too... :) -------------------------------------------------------- Juan Francisco Torres Ch.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 12 June 2003 10:05 am, Filipe Joel de Almeida wrote: ...snip...
Right now I'm trying to choose between Red Hat and Suse. One of my friends (who is a Red Hat fan) told me that he didn't like SUSE because we were a bit dependant on their configuration tools (I think he mentioned YAST).
Every distro has their own configuration tools. Red Hat has a terrible mix of undocumented, not-well-thought-out stuff: Anaconda, up2date, *cfg, etc. There appears to be no rhyme or reason to it all, codewise or userwise (I've been through all that code and I still sometimes have nightmares. I can also tell you of some *very* disturbing features of up2date I discovered...). YaST2 is amazing in comparison. It's very well documented at the code level, and everything is integrated nicely in one place. However, I recommend you try both to get a feel for the various features. - -- James Oakley Engineering - SolutionInc Ltd. joakley@solutioninc.com http://www.solutioninc.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+6IJs+FOexA3koIgRAhMFAKCJ6RKRup5gbmiAmFywnogmJm15DACcCjlK PptUShhXvEoQEa7JHSVg288= =TbYV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:38:52AM -0300, James Oakley wrote: : -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- : Hash: SHA1 : : On Thursday 12 June 2003 10:05 am, Filipe Joel de Almeida wrote: : ...snip... : > Right now I'm trying to choose between Red Hat and Suse. One of my friends : > (who is a Red Hat fan) told me that he didn't like SUSE because we were a : > bit dependant on their configuration tools (I think he mentioned YAST). : : Every distro has their own configuration tools. Red Hat has a terrible mix of : undocumented, not-well-thought-out stuff: Anaconda, up2date, *cfg, etc. There : appears to be no rhyme or reason to it all, codewise or userwise (I've been : through all that code and I still sometimes have nightmares. I can also tell : you of some *very* disturbing features of up2date I discovered...). YaST2 is : amazing in comparison. It's very well documented at the code level, and : everything is integrated nicely in one place. : : However, I recommend you try both to get a feel for the various features. I have to agree with James 100% on this one. I hardly ever use YaST2 after the initial setup. I'm ol' skool in the respect that I enjoy hand-editing configuration files. At least SuSE goes through the effort of being consistent with their config file placement. And all the stuff in /etc/sysconfig is commented (unlike Redhat). Way to go SuSE!!! --Jerry -- Open-Source software isn't a matter of life or death... ...It's much more important than that!
On Thursday 12 June 2003 09:05, Filipe Joel de Almeida wrote:
Hi all,
I've got a company that does Network Administration in several clients, but up until now we've only worked with M$ systems.
I'm starting to use linux (just brought a machine home to install it), and my goal is to try to find out if with Linux we'll be able to replace some of our clients systems.
One of my newbie questions is about what distro should we use. We need something that's not very complicated to start with, but that allows us to implement good server solutions.
Right now I'm trying to choose between Red Hat and Suse. One of my friends (who is a Red Hat fan) told me that he didn't like SUSE because we were a bit dependant on their configuration tools (I think he mentioned YAST).
Can you please tell me if SUSE would be the best distro for me to start with, and why?
Thanks in advance
Filipe Joel de Almeida Network Consultant Filipe.Joel@netcabo.pt ============================ Filipe, If this were a mixed list, I am sure you would get differing opinions for each distro, but it's not, so I am guessing you are leaning toward SuSE as a recommendation. :o)
I would guess that you are searching for valid reasons to present to those in charge to do so though. As many have here I am sure, so have I, given Red Hat a try on some occasion and we stay with SuSE because of that. I like Wayne, find RH to be more cryptic and difficult to install and even use beyond that. I don't think anyone can say it's a bad distro because of that, just more difficult to use in most cases. I live in the Red Hat state here in the USA, so there are many users around my area, I was almost one too when first starting. After reading several reviews on those available though, I chose SuSE. Many of the RH users I have gotten to install SuSE are still with SuSE! Many are new users that have seen both installed and they are still with SuSE, so that indicates much to me. Compare the costs of each Pro package and the contents of each. I think you'll find SuSE to be the best buy there. Consider the support also you will need, in fact sign up on the RH mail list and compare the differences. I haven't, but understand that list to be not as "user friendly" as SuSE's. Now the pros & cons (in my opinion): SuSE is easier to install and maintain SuSE follows the LSB closer SuSE has YaST2 SuSE & IBM like each other SuSE & Oracle like each other SuSE likes most hardware SuSE can take it's users from small to large, when they are ready SuSE is not Red Hat :o) Then too, remember, as the old saying goes, you won't get fired for choosing IBM hardware for your shop, so it is for Red Hat too. If you choose RH, you won't get fired as it will work well for you also. RH has proven to be a great Linux server distro and it is used heavily there. I believe their recent attempts at a desktop Linux have not been one of their best moments. They will get there, but if you are looking for both server and desktop, I think SuSE will make your move easier. Patrick -- --- KMail v1.5.2 --- SuSE Linux Pro v8.2 --- Registered Linux User #225206 On any other day, that might seem strange...
Hi all,
I've got a company that does Network Administration in several clients, but up until now we've only worked with M$ systems.
I'm starting to use linux (just brought a machine home to install it), and my goal is to try to find out if with Linux we'll be able to replace some of our clients systems.
One of my newbie questions is about what distro should we use. We need something that's not very complicated to start with, but that allows us to implement good server solutions.
Right now I'm trying to choose between Red Hat and Suse. One of my friends (who is a Red Hat fan) told me that he didn't like SUSE because we were a bit dependant on their configuration tools (I think he mentioned YAST).
Can you please tell me if SUSE would be the best distro for me to start with, and why?
I'm also in the process of evaluating Suse, but I'm coming from an entirely different direction than you are. I've been using Linux for >6 years now and have never looked as a commercial product until now. Given that, I'm more familiar with the DIY aspect of many of the distributions. I'm assuming that, given your history with Windows, you are not as accustomed to DIY as Debian, Slackware, and Gentoo might require. That said I have two points which might help you sort this out. Point One: You are going to have to close the doors, lock everyone out, and just try each of these out yourself. You have to live with it. Every distribution has it's own idiosyncrasies that you will have to work with. And eventually you will find one that doesn't drive you crazy (or less so) Point Two: A number of people I know who have been long term RedHat users (and contractors) have recently switched to Suse. This was based on RedHat 9.0 comparisons to Suse 8.2. What information I have received from them seems to imply that Suse 8.2 has a much better job with the Administration and SysAdmin management of the installations. I think this difference is more apparent with larger installations.
participants (11)
-
Anders Johansson -
BandiPat -
Filipe Joel de Almeida -
James Oakley -
Jerry A! -
Jon hoffman -
Juan Francisco Torres Chacón -
Michael George -
Silviu Marin-Caea -
tallison＠tacocat.net -
wayne king