SuSE, and anyone else who cares about this thread....
I think we have every right to be critical of SuSE.
We, after all, pay them for a product. When the
product comes out half-baked (or under documented) we
tend to get sour. While we as customers sometimes
make brain-dead mistakes, SuSE, as a vendor does, too.
Just looking at Michaels replies - how the hell were
we supposed to know what suse or RH do with their
kernels, unless they tell us? Does he REALLY want to
stand behind me while I work on my system - for what?
Do I need SuSE to tell me that the problems are MY
problems? - No duh, they're my problems.
Also, SuSE wants a bug report for everything. Some of
this stuff is very basic, and a low level of QC or
Documentation could easily have kept people from major
frustration.
Right now, the feeling I get is
"This is SuSE, you like it, you told me so, so shut
up. If you got a problem, fill out a bug report, and
we'll tell you that we already knew about it. We save
ton's of money letting the customer QC our
distributions, so we can hire egotistical people to
respond to your concerns and really make you feel like
an idiot."
Truthfully, I am not really bothered by the whole
ordeal. I think it's rather funny seeing these kind
of responses from vendors, especially in this day and
age. It's kinda like the old days, when you could
treat the customers poorly, because there was no
alternative. I said WAS.
Oh, and SuSE, before you get started on this - I know
you need details, and general statements don't help
much, blah blah. But, perhaps the marketing and
management folks should attend to this issue. It is
clearly not an engineering problem. It is a QC,
Documentation, Customer Relation, and Packaging
problem. That was the reason for the generality in
the original post. If I actually wanted help fixing
the problems (I didn't ask for help, did I?) then I
would have posted in that matter.
But, on a positive note, I did learn alot about the
kernel packaging!
Ron
--- Monte Milanuk
Ron Heron wrote:
Hello, I have been using SuSE since 6.0. I
upgraded
to 6.2, and then 6.4. It seems to me, though,
getting the system usable, and maintaining current software is becoming more and more difficult with SuSE. Maybe it is just me, but I have noticed
I cannot agree.
numerous postings where people have MAJOR
using SuSE upgrades and patches, or basic Linux
This is a ridiculous observation. Who else would
--- Michael Hasenstein
wrote: that problems post anything here?! This mailing list is for problems and their solutions.
upgrades on a SuSE-installed system. Here are my examples:
1) Upgraded to Kernel 2.2.16, and the system was unusable. Why can't I upgrade to a new kernel
a) That is hardly a SuSE problem if you choose to upgrade one of hte major components without knowing what you're doing.
b) Correct, the stock 2.2.16 is next to unusable. This is why the SuSE 2.2.16 is a 2.2.16 + several MB of patches, for both stability and features.
downloaded from the internet? Every time (5 times now) I tried to put in a new kernel on a SuSE distro, it failed miserably. But, I was able to upgrade other Linux systems at work (RH and Debian) I had to fall back to the SuSE kernel. Is not linux linux?
It is, and I never had problems. Of course, one has to know what one is doing.
2) Installed "Almost Everything" and Almost nothing works! Fresh, out of the box, ran an Almost Everything install on my test box, just for fun. Well, I was utterly amazed at how many things just do not work!. I try to open up Kgrabber, and it tells me I don't have this installed, or that installed, so it cannot function, and the program is just taking up space. Why would SuSE package and install software that can't work?
??? Thanks for the detailed bug report.
So, are you saying you want a bug report for every package that doesn't work right, or has unresolved dependencies _out_of_the_box_? That would be more than a few, imho. People are somewhat used to stuff working when it comes from SuSE, and I think the beef here is that some stuff doesn't just flat doesn't work out of the box, or downloaded, from the SuSE mirrors. I had one box that the kernel upgrade (using the binary rpms, thank you very much) was a complete nightmare. Another one, piece of cake. Using the same files downloaded from a SuSE mirror, shared over the lan via nfs.
Oh, I know. Now you are going to complain that we don't give specific examples. But when I do, are you going shuffle me off w/ a 'why didn't you submit a bug report?'? Why? Because for one, these are pretty basic. If SuSE was going to do something about them, I think they would have done it before the software came out, as there is little chance they could have missed them (I could be wrong)
a) kblade: Requires bladenc -- where is it? finding a source package on the bladenc homepage is a PITA, why bother even including the package in 6.4?
b) opso: Upgrading to the kernel 2.2.16 breaks the oss package that comes w/ 6.4. So if you use opso, you now have no sound, but a nice new kernel. Use alsa 0.5.8 you say? It claims amixer needs reinstalled, but amixer isn't a separate package. amixer complains about needing libasound.so.1, when the system has libasound.so, and the normal link of libasound.so to libasound.so.1 doesn't work. Fun, fun, fun.
If you want more examples, I know I can dig them up, and others can to, if we have time. The point is, particularly w/ ones like these, updates from suse that break previously working packages, or depend on packages that suse doesn't even package, are below what we the consumers expect from SuSE.
Monte
3) Decided to upgrade to XFree86 4.0. I
the software from SuSE, and followed SuSE instructions EXACTLY, and it absolutely would not work. After several hours, I ftp'd via command line to XFree86.org, downloaded the precompiled binaries, followed THEIR instructions, and it worked
The only exception was the gray screen instead of background, and missing xsession file. Still have the background problem, but the xsession problem was
fault of SuSE erasing the file during install.
I'd really love to stand behind you when you do
downloaded perfectly. the this...
4) Did everyone see the post from the poor guy
who
upgraded apache, (again, a SuSE upgrade) and it now doesn't work?
There's ALWAYS someone where everything go wrong, and (almost) always it's NOT our fault.
What is going on here? I cannot believe that SuSE is releasing 7.0 in 10 days, and their 6.4 is such a heap. Or maybe that is the plan.....
=== message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ -- 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 FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq