Slashdot Mirror


First Looks at Suse 8.0 / KDE 3.0

The Register has a first look article on Suse 8.0 and KDE 3.0. Short story: they liked both, pretty much. I think the section on installation -- notably its length -- speaks volumes about the 'which is easier, Linux or MS' debate, too." There's also a review of the new SuSE up at Newsforge with some more details.

148 of 277 comments (clear)

  1. How many Cd's? by j-turkey · · Score: 1

    Heh -- will SUSE 8 include 6 or 8 CD's?

    Although a minor detail, having to shuffle that many CD's just to install the kitchen sink can further complicate an install.


    -Turkey

    --

    -Turkey

    1. Re:How many Cd's? by user32.ExitWindowsEx · · Score: 1

      SuSE doesn't offer it on DVD yet, do they?
      If not, then they should.

      --
      "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
    2. Re:How many Cd's? by ringbarer · · Score: 4, Informative

      SuSE were the first company to offer a DVD distribution. There was a lot of fuss back then because no-one believed Linux could play DVDs.

      --
      "Why did they cancel my favorite Sci-Fi show? I downloaded ALL the episodes!"
    3. Re:How many Cd's? by cyborch · · Score: 1

      Last i checked QNX could fit on a single floppy disk and featured a nice clean GUI and a web browser! There's not need for any software to take up more space!

      (It's a joke. Laugh.)

    4. Re:How many Cd's? by garglblaster · · Score: 1

      It's 7 CDs + 1 DVD + a booklet

      --

      perl -e 'printf("%x!\n",49153)'

    5. Re:How many Cd's? by duren686 · · Score: 1

      I didn't think they'd have drivers for the kitchen sink yet. Wow, Linux sure is advancing!

      --
      Y2K Compliant since the late 1890s
    6. Re:How many Cd's? by Sancho · · Score: 3, Informative

      Everyone says 7+1DVD... That's not entirely true. 7+1 is only for the Professional series. It comes on 3 CDs in the Personal series, which is not much (if any) different from the other major distros.

    7. Re:How many Cd's? by BlueUnderwear · · Score: 3, Funny
      I didn't think they'd have drivers for the kitchen sink yet. Wow, Linux sure is advancing!

      The "kitchen sink" driver has been included with most Linux distros almost since day one. In case you don't know where to look for it, it's called emacs...

      --
      Say no to software patents.
    8. Re:How many Cd's? by kevcol · · Score: 1

      Ha!

      This is nothing compared to the floppy era; pre- "A-Linux-CD-distro-in-every-pot" days! :-)

    9. Re:How many Cd's? by PepsiProgrammer · · Score: 1

      yes, then they charge you out your arse for all the additional software that normally comes included with a linux distro

      --
      "The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." - Bush 05
    10. Re:How many Cd's? by Kindaian · · Score: 1

      And it has less then half the possible funcionality and takes double time to install.

      And in the end... performs a stack dump... or a BSoD...

      Cheers...

    11. Re:How many Cd's? by fishebulb · · Score: 2

      what do you get with windows, thats right, nothing outside of an internet browser

    12. Re:How many Cd's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Last i checked QNX was written by professional software developers, not glue sniffing teenagers and college dropouts living in their parents' basement.

      (It's the truth. Cry.)

    13. Re:How many Cd's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes SuSE is on DVD, it is packaged within the Pro package.

    14. Re:How many Cd's? by jo42 · · Score: 1
      One word: "Bloatware".

      Linux Bad, FreeBSD Good.

  2. Suse 8.0 is Very nice! by garglblaster · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I've been running this on both a subnotebook and a desktop computer and I must say I'm very pleased with it. Especially KDE3.0 makes a difference. (KDE 2 never appealed to me) In addition it was a very pleasant experience to do the installs via NFS from a central machine with the CDROM drive - it went flawlessly.

    Actually I'm definitely thinking about upgrading a few of my Redhat based systems as well..

    --

    perl -e 'printf("%x!\n",49153)'

    1. Re:Suse 8.0 is Very nice! by ChazeFroy · · Score: 2

      You should upgrade to Gentoo. RPM-based (in fact, all binary-based) distros should go the way of the dodo bird.

    2. Re:Suse 8.0 is Very nice! by Phexro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "RPM-based (in fact, all binary-based) distros should go the way of the dodo bird."

      It seems like more and more people are latching on to the source-based OS these days. It appears to have become the Slackware of the new millennium. That is to say, the Real Men use source-based distros, and anyone who uses a binary distro is a stupid uneducated newbie sod who couldn't figure out how to pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel.

      Well, here in the real world, there are people who want to install software without waiting for everything to compile. In fact, the reason I stopped using Slackware was because it took too long to compile, install, and configure all the software it didn't come with.

      While your systems is laboring to compile XFree86, I'll be using mine, with software from binary packages.

    3. Re:Suse 8.0 is Very nice! by BrookHarty · · Score: 2

      I like most things about RPM, it takes a little to learn, since the man and the howto are not very informative on examples. I was able to install KDE3 on my mandrake 8.2 workstation, test it out, and uninstall it after. Was quiet simple.

      Real problem with RPM, when there are lots of dependices, deleting an RPM is a pain. When I erase an rpm, rpm -evv, i would like a --withdeps (example) flag. I couldnt find such flag.

    4. Re:Suse 8.0 is Very nice! by vampiretap · · Score: 1

      I love this response. Go Dude!

      --
      GodBrain http://www.godbrain.net http://www.alienfaktor.com http://www.tril0byte.com
    5. Re:Suse 8.0 is Very nice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Erm, you *are* using Mandrake Linux, right? There's such a command, it's called

      urpme

      E.g. to uninstall your whole KDE3 test installation, you'd just have to run

      urpme qt3

      and that's it.

      Have a look at

      http://www.mandrakeuser.org/docs/basics/brpm3.ht ml

      for an introduction. You're missing out a vital part of Mandrake if you don't know about urpmi, urpme and friends ...

      b.

    6. Re:Suse 8.0 is Very nice! by Jack+Hughes · · Score: 1
      To carry on with your theme a bit... ...and what do you do if you want to install on 10, or 100,or whatever, identical computers? Do you have install and compile the source 100 times?

      Do I have to install compilers, NFS/hard disk and junk on my firewall machine which currently boots from a CDROM with a RAM disk for volatile data?

    7. Re:Suse 8.0 is Very nice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Do you really have to choose between one or the other? FreeBSD offers a binary distribution thats very easy to install, as well as a full source tree for both the FreeBSD system and all of the external packages (which can be kept in sync with -STABLE or -CURRENT with almost no effort, using cvsup).

    8. Re:Suse 8.0 is Very nice! by Zeelan · · Score: 1

      Would be nice if you could have the option of one or the other. So that you can complie it or just install the binary. Ha!

    9. Re:Suse 8.0 is Very nice! by ScriptGuru · · Score: 1

      RPM-based (in fact, all binary-based) distros should go the way of the dodo bird.
      Have you ever tried installing a Gnome2 demo on a 60mHz processor?

      If it wern't for the wonders of an RPM based installation, I would still be installing SuSe 7.1.

      --
      Yet another signature that refers to itself. The irony and humor is dead.
    10. Re:Suse 8.0 is Very nice! by be-fan · · Score: 2

      Umm, you can always get source packages for important stuff. That's why binary distros are better. You can recompile glibc, X, and KDE for optimum performance, but can just download any application you need quickly (like I really need AbiWord ultra-optimized!) without waiting for compiles.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    11. Re:Suse 8.0 is Very nice! by Phexro · · Score: 2, Informative

      With Debian, you do.

      "apt-get install foo" downloads and installs the binary "foo" package.
      "apt-get source --build foo" downloads the source for "foo" and compiles it. You get the best of both worlds this way. You can install whatever binaries you want, and still get the speed benefits of source builds - but at your own discretion.

      It's still not as sophisticated as *BSD's ports, since it can't build foo's dependencies, and it doesn't install the packages after they've been compiled. But, it's a start, and hopefully we'll see more advanced features in the next version.

    12. Re:Suse 8.0 is Very nice! by Arandir · · Score: 2

      That's one reason I switched to FreeBSD. At the time, there really wasn't a good source based distribution for Linux. With FreeBSD I could build everything from the kernel on up to the KDE eyecandy from source with a few simple commands. Stuff was regularly updated so you didn't have to spends ten hours a week checking for updates, poring over exploit lists, etc. And the kicker was that I could still use binary packages if I wanted to.

      I tried Gentoo recently, but I didn't like it. I see a lot of potential there. But it still feels like a pre-alpha release. A ton of documents on emerge, but nothing on the system itself. Emerge is like a forest without any trees. For example, there's lots of packages, but no package descriptions. And the installation is goofy. It gives you all of the hassle of LSF without any of the educational opportunities. Sigh.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    13. Re:Suse 8.0 is Very nice! by leviramsey · · Score: 2

      Or, for those of you using RPM, download an SRPM and do rpm --rebuild my.srd.rpm

    14. Re:Suse 8.0 is Very nice! by Bob+The+Cowboy · · Score: 1
      It seems like more and more people are latching on to the source-based OS these days. It appears to have become the Slackware of the new millennium. That is to say, the Real Men use source-based distros, and anyone who uses a binary distro is a stupid uneducated newbie sod who couldn't figure out how to pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel.


      The current generation of source based distros has far better package management than RPM based (and dare I say it? .deb based) distros

      compile times longer? sure. thats the best point against em. the good news is that (Source Mage Linux at least) when you compile, a binary package is created and zipped, so that if you like, you can compile your system, then burn it to a disk and use it on a similar system... or use your system as a repository for other systems to install from

      the wait is sure as hell worth it though. X, KDE3, Mozilla, Konq all fly on my system...

      Bill
    15. Re:Suse 8.0 is Very nice! by Venotar · · Score: 1

      I've seen Gentoo run, and I think you maybe misunderstanding the appeal. With Gentoo you don't have to manually compile each package one at a time. You execute one command to begin the compilation of whichever src you want, Gentoo then grabs the source that you want to compile from whichever server and compiles it + ALL THE MISSING DEPENDANCIES. Saves a lot of time not having to double check to make sure you've tracked down all the necessary packages.

    16. Re:Suse 8.0 is Very nice! by Arandir · · Score: 1

      For the entire system? With one command? Without having to hunt for all the SRPMs to begin with?

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    17. Re:Suse 8.0 is Very nice! by Ed+Avis · · Score: 2

      I use Red Hat, but whenever I upgrade a package I recompile it from the source RPM. So you can get the best of both worlds - download a binary package if you want, or rebuild from source (_with_ full dependency tracking) if you prefer.

      People often forget that RPM-based distributions are not 'binary only' - every RPM package has a corresponding source package which can be used to rebuild it.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    18. Re:Suse 8.0 is Very nice! by Jack+Hughes · · Score: 1

      Great idea! You could roll the optimised binary into a single package, with your chosen configuration - making it easier to install. Then if you made a note of what you had installed, it would be easier to uninstall it or upgrade it. If you were going to do a few of these packages, you might want to make sure that you did things in the right order - and that you didn't miss any critical things out. Hmmm... I know, you could call it the A.C Package Manager.

  3. hah... speaking of installation by lingqi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I know this might be redundant and all -- and i KNOW people here don't go around installing XP for sh*ts and giggles... but in case that you ever did install XP, you would remember that it requires a total of 2.7 clicks of the mouse and absolutely no choices are given.

    SuSE, on the other hand...

    definitely philosophical extremes here.

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

    1. Re:hah... speaking of installation by Wudbaer · · Score: 1

      Well, having installed my good share of both: For SuSE up to 7.3 it may have been true what you are saying. In SuSE 8.0 you can install a fairly well working system with something like three mouse clicks similary easy to XP. You can still change a lot of things before installing, but you definitely don't have to. And the real wonder: If you have not too unusal hardware it really works.

    2. Re:hah... speaking of installation by GreyPoopon · · Score: 2, Interesting
      definitely philosophical extremes here.

      Undoubtedly. XP by default installs a bunch of stuff that most people don't need or want, some with severe security holes. SuSE makes you pick every little detail about your system installation. Both approaches, obviously, have their merits. Unfortunatly, the good part about having to pick each thing you want installed (making the system more secure), is offset by the fact that the people who most need to use it (those who habitually leave their systems wide-open to hackers) are not able to do so (or don't have the patience). Too many parentheticals? :-)

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    3. Re:hah... speaking of installation by uchian · · Score: 1

      Question : Does windows XP install in 2.7 mouse clicks when installing on a P2 - 300mhz PC with 128 meg of ram, which has windows 98 on it taking up the entire disk (which I don't want to lose completely coz I still want to play all my old games on)?

      And for the "expert/developer/server" installation (for us techies), does it also allow the installation of working webserver, C/C++ compiler, IDE development environment, office suite, website development apps, etc. in the same installation?

    4. Re:hah... speaking of installation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Remember, that in most cases, those using *Windows* do not install it, as it comes preinstalled, complete with gobs of software from vendors...this is the ease of installation linux distribs should be thinking about.

    5. Re:hah... speaking of installation by silicon_synapse · · Score: 1

      That is where you reluctantly, slowly push down the mouse button while gritting your teath and cringing knowing that when the mouse button rises enough and sends that click to the computer that you have a pretty good chance of screwing up your computer.

    6. Re:hah... speaking of installation by Iamthefallen · · Score: 1

      Too many indeed, the system is only safer if the person doing those 2 billion clicks actually knows what they are and what they're for.

      --
      Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
    7. Re:hah... speaking of installation by Flower · · Score: 1

      It's like a click and a half on a Mac except you do it twice as fast.

      --
      I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
    8. Re:hah... speaking of installation by BurritoWarrior · · Score: 2

      you would remember that it requires a total of 2.7 clicks of the mouse and absolutely no choices are given.

      How much of a click is .7 clicks anyway?

      Curious in Carolina,
      BW

    9. Re:hah... speaking of installation by rseuhs · · Score: 2

      SuSE (and every other distro) doesn't "make" you pick everything you want installed, it ALLOWES you to pick everything you want installed.

    10. Re:hah... speaking of installation by codingbytes · · Score: 1

      I know this might be redundant and all -- and i KNOW people here don't go around installing XP for sh*ts and giggles... but in case that you ever did install XP, you would remember that it requires a total of 2.7 clicks of the mouse and absolutely no choices are given. SuSE, on the other hand... definitely philosophical extremes here.

      Of all my installation experiences (Mac OS X, Windows XP, and RedHat 7.2, LinuxPPC) Mac OS X was infinitely faster and easier (with 15 minute installation), but not better than Linux RedHat and LinuxPPC, since they provided me with the ability to really customize the system, hard drive partitions, software bundles, firewall, etc. Windows XP on the other hand took 2 hours to install. Waiting for 2 hours isn't painless! I didn't count mouse clicks, does clicking the mouse really matter? I probably click it more than a million times when I play Age of Empires II. RedHat took 40 minutes to install, longer if I had chosen to install EVERYTHING it had on the cds, which in my book is a definite plus, much better than spending 100x that time downloading the equivalent freeware for Mac OS and Windows. My main troubles installing most Linux distros come to the lack of good User Interface for the disk partitioning software, but now I know that software like the back of my hand.

      --

      soul daddies in a firewire tumble dryer

    11. Re:hah... speaking of installation by Arandir · · Score: 1

      I've always wanted to see a Linux distro that installed a bare bones non-nonsense system with just KDE or Gnome. And then put an "Install Additional Packages" icon on the desktop. Save the user the headache of reading the descriptions for ten thousand packages during install time.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    12. Re:hah... speaking of installation by GreyPoopon · · Score: 1
      it ALLOWES you to pick everything you want installed

      Yes, yes. I know. Probably poorly worded on my part. But in order to build a secure system, you really need to start on the bare-bones end and add the stuff you want piece by piece. SuSE allows you to do that, but most of the people that I mentioned before wouldn't be able to. If you just take the default installation, you get all kinds of things that you don't need and make it less secure. Maybe more secure than Windows, but less secure that I'd prefer.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

  4. Re: number of discs by m_chan · · Score: 2

    SuSe Linux Professional 8.0 ships on 7 CDs and one DVD which contains all the material that is on the 7 CDs. Don't know about the personal edition.

    I have installed using both media on about 8 systems so far and have had no problems yet either on upgrades or on fresh installs.

    When installing a lot of packages, using the DVD, mot swapping discs is pretty sweet.

  5. Instalation... by PepsiProgrammer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To me, all the popular linux distributions have been easier to install than windows, espesciallly Mandrake, but unfortunately they tend to be harder to configure afterwards, due to the shear volume of options and utilities available. Linux's biggest strength for power users, is also its biggest weakspot for normal folks

    --
    "The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." - Bush 05
    1. Re:Instalation... by Sancho · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are you kidding? When was the last time you installed Windows?
      XP virtually installs itself. You barely have to be there.
      Win2k is similar, but does have more required user input. Regardless, there are virtually no choices required in either of these two, unlike Linux where you have thousands of software packages to choose from.

      That said, under Linux, you have thousands of software packages to choose from. In Windows, you get a few "applications" like a calculator and notepad.

    2. Re:Instalation... by PepsiProgrammer · · Score: 1

      You can get just as detailed in a linux distribution as you want, just as you can get as detailed in a windows distribution as you want, you can leave the defaults in linux, just as easy as you can in windows, and linux doesnt require the user to reboot an infinite number of times, and then a few more reboots just for drivers. btw, I have installed every version of MS windows since 3.1

      --
      "The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." - Bush 05
    3. Re:Instalation... by cyborch · · Score: 1

      You can get away with clicking "Next" a bunch of times and have Mandrake install itself with all the default settings. That is indeed very easy. I guess it's much the same for SuSE. Setting up an FTP and HTTP (for example) server is more complicated. The many choices should never be removed from these services. Removing choice was never the same thing as increasing ease of use or quality or a product. If you want to use your Linux box as a workstation you can ignore the many choices involved in setting up all of these products and go right ahead with your preferred office suite (oh no, preferred as opposed to only! there's yet another choice, i guess Linux will never appeal to the normal user).

    4. Re:Instalation... by Kibo · · Score: 1

      There's actually a few ways where you can make install files in win2k & XP, and no one has to be there. Or you can make it so that should someone be there they can't input anything should they want to.

      --
      --Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
    5. Re:Instalation... by PepsiProgrammer · · Score: 1

      The difference is, you can choose not to install the additional apps if you dont want to, I think it would be much better to make all the nonessential parts of an OS optional anyway. I personally, am not against the inclusion of IE with windows, but i think it should definately be an optional component, espescially with all the security holes, and vulnerabilities it contains.

      --
      "The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." - Bush 05
    6. Re:Instalation... by checkyoulater · · Score: 1

      There's actually a few ways where you can make install files in win2k & XP, and no one has to be there.

      I can think of an even easier one. Norton Ghost.

      --
      Is that a real poncho? I mean, is that a Mexican poncho or is that a Sears poncho?
    7. Re:Instalation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Are you kidding? When was the last time you installed Windows?
      XP virtually installs itself. You barely have to be there.

      Might want to check out this article in ComputerWorld before you continue in this vein. Windows isn't as easy to install as the Microsofties try to make it out to be.

      After you read the article, you see that the author (R.L. Mitchel, apparently a serious microsoftie) had about the same sort of bad experience with WinXP that the Register reviewer had with SUSE. The only difference was that the microsoftie was out a lot more money.

    8. Re:Instalation... by BrookHarty · · Score: 2

      Suse and Mandrake installs are on par with windows. They detected printers, sound cards, gfx cards, mouse/keyboard, usb, everything. It all comes down to, add user, add network settings, go. Only in Suse/Mandrake you get to pick your X window manager. :)

    9. Re:Instalation... by BrookHarty · · Score: 2

      Whoa, I forgot the major difference! On WinXP you have to put in your Serial Number and register your hardware with m$.

      -
      cd /mnt/games/jediknight2; winex JEDIOUTCAST.EXE

    10. Re:Instalation... by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      To me, all the popular linux distributions have been easier to install than windows

      Yes, but you're trying to install windows on a Macintosh!

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    11. Re:Instalation... by Iberian · · Score: 1

      I have installed all windows OS'es times and have installed Linux in two flavors. Windows 95 on are cake to install. Follow the simple on screen instructions, works nearly every time with most of the hardware in its respective day. Win Xp is so simple it is not even funny. It also installs drivers for things like a gf3 and my hpt372 raid controller. Tried to install debian on hpt372 raid and of course it doesn't recognize it. Go to highpoint's web site and they don't have a driver for Debian. They do have the files so you can build your own though, yippee. Suse is somewhat simple again however it doesn't always work and the raid driver for it is about 8mbs which is just stupid when the windows version is a few hundred k. I will be installing Mandrake 8.2 this weeked to see what that is like. Linux has evolved but to claim it matches the ease of installation that Windows XP has is nothing more that a disillusioned lie.

  6. Re:sorry by nexusone · · Score: 1

    This guy should also not wear any cloths ether, most textiles around the world use German made machines.

    --
    Wise men speak because they have something to say, Fools because they have to say something!!!!
  7. My SuSE 8.0 Experience by filtrs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm a big SuSE fan. Loved 7.3 (and will be going back to it tonight) but I've had a serious problem with 8.0. I won't go into all the details, but I'd like to point out one major problem I've had.

    YaST2 has been hailed lately (and I have in the past liked it as well) as one of the easiest installation tools out there. I agree the installation options are very well laid out and easy to understand. My one problem though, has to do with the handling of package errors.

    I installed 8.0 a few days ago on my laptop and had a problem-free install. However, the next time I installed it, I had several package problems. No big deal usually, just install them later. Problem is, I had errors on the YaST2 modules. Which are the last packages installed off the first disk. I had waited for 1.3 GB worth of packages for nothing. System won't boot. Nothing.

    Question : Is it that hard to implement an "Abort, Retry, Fail?" option? I'd like to do my install in one sitting instead of having to repeatedly go back, look at the logs to see what failed, and install them again.

    Just a thought. Sorry for the rant, but it kind of took away my evening last night. :)

    --
    My mother always used to tell me: If you can't find anything nice to say, say something bad about Windows.
    1. Re:My SuSE 8.0 Experience by cyborch · · Score: 1

      What does "Abort, Retry, Fail" mean anyway? I remember seeing such a prompt back in the times when I was Using DOS (4.x through 6.0 after which I discovered the alternatives). I have never ever before or since seen anything so unintuitive. Please do not adopt this. In stead use words like "Stop now" and "Ignore error". There's no need to copy bad behavior just because people are used to this kind of bad behavior.

    2. Re:My SuSE 8.0 Experience by filtrs · · Score: 1

      I agree that the original DOS terminology may not be the most precise, its the idea I'm arguing for. Specifically, the "Retry" option. "Stop Now" and "Ignore Error" are already basically your 2 options under YaST2. (You can hit "Abort" and cancel the whole install or just keep going, the default)

      I don't care if they call it "Retry Package" or "Try Again, Something in Your System Is Fscked", I just don't want to have to start all over again or end up with an unusable system.

      --
      My mother always used to tell me: If you can't find anything nice to say, say something bad about Windows.
    3. Re:My SuSE 8.0 Experience by T3kno · · Score: 2

      I have to say thank you. I have been running SuSE for several years now. I'm looking at my 6.0 box right now. On a side note I love the graphics on the boxes. One pattern that has definately emerged with SuSE is that the *.0 release are always very buggy, other distros too, but SuSE is what I have the most experience with. The ideas and concepts are great, but there is some work to be done still. From what I can tell this seems to be holding true for 8.0 as well. The other pattern that I have noticed is that the *.1 will be coming very shortly. I will probably wait for that or 8.2 until I upgrade, as I am happily running 7.3 with KDE 3.0 right now and it rox. Whether SuSE does this deliberatly or not is up for debate, but I have decided to stop rewarding them for releaseing a buggy 8.0. They are a great company and I really think that they have hands down the best distro out there. Your mileage may vary, but in my experience SuSE 7.3 has been the best thing I've run. IMHO RedHat is lagging way behind, and all they have to offer is a nasty red hat, and interchange is cool too.

      --
      (B) + (D) + (B) + (D) = (K) + (&)
    4. Re:My SuSE 8.0 Experience by cyborch · · Score: 1

      I agree that the original DOS terminology may not be the most precise, its the idea I'm arguing for.

      Fair enough. And you are right, the option should be available. It just irritates me whenever someone copies MS just for the sake of copying MS.

    5. Re:My SuSE 8.0 Experience by longsnowsm · · Score: 1

      Your spot on about Suse 8. It is not ready for prime time. Installation problems with DMA in hard disks(causes my system to hang), SCSI modules moved to modules disk 2 which creates problems. KOffice applications crash, try opening a kspread, plug in some numbers and years, then try to change the format of the year so it is reflected as a date field crashes every time. Konqueror when used as a browser crashes after about 15 minutes of use. Lots of problems that should have been sorted out before this release. I managed to get past my issues after quite a while and a ticket opened with Suse support.

      Worse yet Suse didn't want to support SCSI for the basic support. Basically a desktop PC attitude with very narrow scope of what a "desktop PC is" Overall we were looking at Suse as a candidate for moving some of our older midrange Unix systems to Linux. I don't think Suse will be in the running as our distribution of choice after what I have seen.

    6. Re:My SuSE 8.0 Experience by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1
      You wish
      Now it is time for my rant. This comes in late because I had to re-install the whole thing because I could no longer get into X11 after having installed Open Office 1.0 yesterday morning.

      - Do NOT install SuSE if you have a wheel-mouse. If you get a 'spurious 8259a interrupt: IRQ7' then that it is the cause. Other symptoms were hanging during the install of icons-xpm or 'hot plugging services'. Installation on that laptop was a real pain.

      - If you are updating from a previous level, make sure you do not have any partitions mounted read-only. Yast2 cannot handle them. At least the error-message is relatively friendly.

      - After having installed Open Office 1.0 yesterday, I could no longer get into X11. I tried everything and was finally reduced to a controlled 'format and re-install'. The re-install hung twice. Plan B was then to install 7.3 (a minimal system) and upgrade. That went fine, except that Yast2 died between CDs 4 and 5 while I was adding the special software I need. This left me having to re-install about half of the software again because the new stuff had not been configured.

      It works now. I am sticking to the slightly older Open Office version that came on the CDs.

      SuSE changed a lot of configuration stuff between 7.3 and 8.0 (rc.config is virtually dead) so I can understand only wishing to maintain one configuration tool, but Yast1 was always easier to use than Yast2.

      Red Hat 5.1 (I think, somewhere around then) drove me to using SuSE. Much more like this and I might be looking around again.

      The production servers I run will be staying on 7.3.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    7. Re:My SuSE 8.0 Experience by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      Konqueror dies on you?
      - Netscape 4.xx has always been unstable under Linux.
      - Netscape 6.1 (?) was pretty good under SuSE 7.3 but the SuSE 8.0 version is totally unstable
      - The new Mozilla is almost as bad (it was pretty solid before)
      Only the Konk still cuts it for me - the only browser I use that still works fine under 8.0

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
  8. To get the latest version of mozilla... by ChocoboKnight · · Score: 1

    http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/releases/mozill a1.0rc1/Red_Hat_7x_RPMS/

  9. Why do? by jtrandall · · Score: 1

    Why do all reviews of distros end up being reviews of how long it takes to install... then a review of kde?!

    1. Re:Why do? by reallocate · · Score: 1

      Because:
      1. All distributions are pretty much the same, given a few version differences. For all practical purposes, the only things that can be changed are the install and setup routines.
      2. People talk about interfaces like KDE because the thing is as close as open source has managed to get to a an unembarrassing GUI. Geez, what else are they going to talk about? This year's release of a 20-year old editor?

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  10. Install time by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

    Seems to comparing apples and oranges on one thing.

    With Windows there is a base install, I know you can choose if you want wordpad and such but for the most part a simple base install.

    With SUSE you have to pick packages etc. but its seems that time spent here would be saved by not having to install them it later, as you would with with Windows.

    Not saying one is better than the other just different.

    1. Re:Install time by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

      Are you advocating bundling applications with the operating system?

      Absolutely, I hate having to download Office of Kazaa everytime I re-install Windows :-)

  11. info has to be installed separately? by corebreech · · Score: 5, Informative

    Long time SuSE user here, who in the past always went with the "install everything" option.

    With 8.0, there was no "install everything" option -- or I missed it -- so I picked "Default KDE w/ Office".

    You'd expect that info would be installed with such an option, yes?

    The reason I needed info was because SuSE is still using lilo, and I'm sorry, but grub simply rules, alpha or not, so I had to do that bit manually.

    Also, I have a GeForce4 TI 4600 and I can't for the life of me get the thing to work right (yes I have the latest nVidia drivers), but I attribute that to it being a new card and all and fully expect somebody else to figure it out for me. Not a big deal since I stay in text mode most of the time anyways (use the GeForce for Windows games.)

    Oh, yes, and one last thing... NO STICKERS!!! SuSE always has an assortment of somewhat-silly-but-nevertheless-cool stickers I can put on things and regret having done so later, but none were to be found in 8.0.

    So sad it makes me.

    1. Re:info has to be installed separately? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      is there any perifinalia at all inthe box? no pins? no case badges? nothing!!!!

      man what a bummer. that was the coolest thing about Suse.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    2. Re:info has to be installed separately? by Chuut-Riit · · Score: 1

      I had a similar reaction. I did the default install, which went incredibly smoothly and quickly. Then I went to configure a file using Emacs, and it wasn't there. A default installation without emacs, but with pico, joe, etc.? Disappointing. Not to mention all the time I spent shaking the box upside down trying to figure out where the stickers were.

    3. Re:info has to be installed separately? by corebreech · · Score: 2

      I can run X too, using the dummy nv driver included with the distribution.

      When I try to get the real nvidia driver to work, whether it be the one downloaded using SuSE's updater or one I download myself from Nvidia I invariably end up in 640x480 mode with a desktop the size of Kansas.

      Changing window managers doesn't seem to help, at all.

    4. Re:info has to be installed separately? by kikensei · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm running SuSE 8 with a 4600 and no issues in 3D gaming or desktop, including WineX 2 windows games. After downloading the latest nvidia drivers via YOU, I went to /usr/lib and made sure that libGL.so was a link to libGL.so.1 and that libGL.so.1 was a link to /usr/lib/GL/currentnvidiaglxbinary. Then re-run Sax2 and it detects a 4600. Make sure glx is the only 3D module loaded. voila. I still got the OS warning me, as I ran tuxracer, that there was no 3D support. But there WAS, and tuxracer sprang to life in full 3D despite the OS's disbelief.

    5. Re:info has to be installed separately? by iomud · · Score: 2

      File the geforce item under - reasons why linux wont be commercially succesful on the desktop for quite some time. If it takes more than 30 minutes to make work or install, joe schmoe aint gonna do it.

    6. Re:info has to be installed separately? by arbat2 · · Score: 1

      Strange, but when I install Windows 2000 with my older GeForce 2 MX, I get a 640x480, 16 colour, 60hz display.

      I then spend half an hour installing the modem drivers, setting up the dial up networking, installing and setting up a web browser, then downloading this whopping huge driver.

      Then I install the driver, and have to *reboot* my machine for them to load properly.

      I then go and change the resolution, bit depth, refresh rate, colour profiles, etc.

      I don't see people claiming that Windows won't be succesful on the desktop.

    7. Re:info has to be installed separately? by iomud · · Score: 2

      Yes but you dont go editing config files or reading obtuse docs to do it and it doesnt take you more than one try, you click on install.exe reboot and click a few more times. Big difference from asking grandma to know her monitors vertical refresh rate.

  12. KDE 3.0 is nice... by toupsie · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I just downloaded RedHat 7.3 (just 3 CDs) which includes KDE 3.0 and installed it on an IBM ThinkPad to play around with it to see where the Linux Desktop is at. I am a dedicated Mac OS X desktop user and use Linux as a server OS. But am always curious how well Linux is doing for the desktop user and how much of the Mac OS X user experience is going to leak into Linux (like KDE's icon magnification in the panel).

    KDE 3.0 is getting really close to something I would give Mom to use (she has Mac OS X right now) but it is still not there. It still has some bugs and useability problems like the clipboard. The KDE office suite is...well...sweet! I am truly impressed by that part. I am wishing that KDE/KOffice gets ported to XDarwin (We have Gnome -- Yuck!). Would give M$ Office v.X a run for its money in the home and educational market where Apple thrives.

    My only huge complaint about KDE (And GNOME) is how freaking ugly the font rendering is. I guess I am spoiled with Apple. However, if they can get the font rendering from Nautilus (ex-Apple folks) into KDE, you got a real winner there once you run the desktop environment through a usability and consistency review.

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    1. Re:KDE 3.0 is nice... by uchian · · Score: 1

      My only huge complaint about KDE (And GNOME) is how freaking ugly the font rendering is.

      Just checking but make sure that your running the latest XFree86 (4.2) and have antialiasing turned on (in the control panel).

      Things then look much sweeter.

    2. Re:KDE 3.0 is nice... by madenosine · · Score: 1

      The KDE office suite is...well...sweet!

      I disagree. KOffis seems to (currently) be lacking too many useful features. IMO, it's the opposite of most open source office suites; it looks great on the outside, but some work has to be done under the hood

    3. Re:KDE 3.0 is nice... by toupsie · · Score: 2
      Just checking but make sure that your running the latest XFree86 (4.2) and have antialiasing turned on (in the control panel).

      Thanks for the tip. I tried that with very little improvement if any at all compared to my Mac OS X box. Font rendering is just plain beautiful under Quartz.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    4. Re:KDE 3.0 is nice... by toupsie · · Score: 2
      I disagree. KOffis seems to (currently) be lacking too many useful features. IMO, it's the opposite of most open source office suites; it looks great on the outside, but some work has to be done under the hood

      Hey, I am a Mac guy! So appearance is so much more important than performance! :)

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    5. Re:KDE 3.0 is nice... by be-fan · · Score: 2

      Ach. Damn blind Mac people. Font rendering under OS X is too damn blurry! Sorry, but BitStream's got the AA font renderer market all tied up! Take a look at QNX RtP sometime. FontFusion kicks ass!

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    6. Re:KDE 3.0 is nice... by toupsie · · Score: 2
      Ach. Damn blind Mac people. Font rendering under OS X is too damn blurry!

      I think it looks great under Mac OS X. Not blurry at all -- I am eagle-eyed. But I will QNX RtP to see the difference. I admit to be being a Mac Zealot.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  13. WOW by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    I love the new KDE 3.0 Artwork!!!

    it is easy on the eyes, beutiful and profesional.

    man....I am impressed.

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  14. ISO? by Jedi1USA · · Score: 1

    SuSE looks like something I would like to try. However It will be very difficult for me personally get past the no ISO thing.

    --
    My old sig was REALLY stoopid.
    1. Re:ISO? by The+Pi-Guy · · Score: 1

      It's gonna be ++hard for ME because I can't find it on their FTP site at all!!

      --j

  15. Re:Installation by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    This is not a problem with linux, it's a problem with the people that write the programs you download. Open office is a simple install.

    I agree, programmers out there love to leave everything in the perpetual beta state. they dont want to waste time with install scripts or making it user friendly to install.. and that has always been a problem with linux AND BSD software..

    the Loki installer is awesome... but very few programmers take the time to use it.... sad.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  16. Re:download screen by cyborch · · Score: 1

    The KDE people aren't the only people who think that a GUI idea is a good one just because it's one of microsoft's ideas...

  17. Downsides by PapaZit · · Score: 4, Informative

    SuSE isn't bad, but I've found the following problems so far:

    SuSE 8.0 is missing the gtk-config script. For that matter, I'm pretty sure (can't check now) that there's no gtk-devel. Yes, the gtk lib is there, but if you have any apps that you need to build, it's a little bit annoying.

    The online updater is screwy. When I first tried, I got the "bad GPG sig" message talked about in the article. When I tried again, it wouldn't even try to download the updates. A detailed problem report (submitted via YaST2, nice) has not been answered in close to a week.

    It looks like KDE 3 assumes that root can write to a user's home directory. I use NFS at home (and map root to nobody). KDE 3 doesn't like that at all. We use AFS at work. KDE 3 doesn't like that any better. Not SuSE's fault (same problems with RH 7.3 and with KDE 3 compiled myself).

    On my laptop, YaST2 won't recognize my Xircom modem/ethernet card or my Lucent 802.11b card. The modules aren't even listed in their setup program. Tricky business, I know, but Red Hat handles it.

    --
    Forward, retransmit, or republish anything I say here. Just don't misquote me.
    1. Re:Downsides by BrookHarty · · Score: 2

      Suse has the best sparc64 release, I'm running Suse 7.3 with Icewm on a sunblade. KDE/Gnome is overkill for it. (imho)

      Ill be glad when 8.0 for Sparc64 comes out. Other distros support 32bit, but when it comes to 64 bit, Suse is the way to go.

    2. Re:Downsides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      gtk-devel and config are there (at least in Pro they are). The problem is that unless you install them, along with make using the "Development tools" or whatever that option is called during installation. Otherwise make doesn't work, can't find gtk. I went through this yesterday. Installed just gtk, gtk-devel, make and gcc and skipped all the other tools. NO MATTER WHAT, I couldn't get Lame to configure properly. I had to do a reinstall to make this work.

    3. Re:Downsides by elmegil · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Which 8.0 did you get? Personal or Professional? I found the same thing with my copy of 7.3, and realized that it was the Personal Edition Difference. If you're with it enough to be doing builds, they expect you want to pay more for the Pro Edition. Of course, you can always go out to their FTP site and download the necessary RPMs, that's what I did.

      While we're finding things to complain about, YaST is nice & all, but at least in 7.3 it's a hairball to try and figure out where the printer configs are, and God Help You if you want to do something different than they do by default (e.g. make the ASCII interface to my Samba based printer the default; yah, I figured out ways to do it, but not as a system wide default).

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    4. Re:Downsides by Elbelow · · Score: 1
      I'll be glad when 8.0 for Sparc64 comes out.

      The SPARC port of SuSE generally skips one version number every time, so the next edition will probably be 8.1. At least that is what Thorsten Kukuk, the SPARC port maintainer wrote:
      The bad news: For 8.0, as in the past, I will skip one version. The good news: We will continue with 8.1, if I'm able to get more and faster UltraSPARCs (Hey, where are the people from Sun on this list? Since Sun mentioned SuSE Linux for SPARC in their Linux announcement, maybe they can start loaning me newer and faster hardware?) My few current ones are far to slow to compile current glibc/gcc and qt. But I don't think that 32bit SPARCs will be supported any longer: it is impossible to use our current installer with kernel 2.2 and kernel 2.4 is still far away from running stable. It is possible to configure a minimal kernel which runs on most of the 32bit SPARCs, but this kernel misses to much important features. And I don't see a kernel developer looking at this :-(
  18. Installation a red herring by Osty · · Score: 1

    I think the section on installation -- notably its length -- speaks volumes about the 'which is easier, Linux or MS' debate, too.

    Why is it that so much effort is spent on a task that should be only a very minor part of your computing experience? X-based GUI installers, playing games during installation, focusing on installation during reviews, etc. All wasted effort, unless you're the kind of person that likes to reinstall once a week or so. Once a distribution has a "good enough" installer (say, Redhat's installer circa 5.x, or SuSE's YAST, pre-7.x), shouldn't they focus more on common computing tasks? KDE is gettting much more useable (GNOME's taking its time ...), but there's still plenty of work to be done, and if these distributions truly cared about being "easy to use" they should be focusing their energies and monies on that area of development.


    Surely I can't be the only one who thinks that it's completely silly to put so much work into installation for an operating system which advertises its robustness (thus implying that installation is a rare task).

    1. Re:Installation a red herring by cyborch · · Score: 1

      Why is it that so much effort is spent on a task that should be only a very minor part of your computing experience?

      On of the big reasons for not switching to Linux (for many people) is the initial impression it gives. Remeber that first impressions last. If an OS installation doesn't feel good (in addion to being quick and easy, easy meaning "with buttons and stuff" to a windows user) it cannot possibly be any good when running. Or so it seems many windows users think.

      Oh, and that .sig of yours: "NoPopIE [daishar.com], Internet Explorer popup killer (win2k/xp only, for now) " - Nothing beats mozilla at eliminating popups.

  19. Caution: Pioneer DVD drives cant read DVD by Troodon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Im rather pleased with SuSE, though I did manage to cause a hiccup in an otherwise smooth install: I wanted to keep my / partition small, thus I did a minimal install and symlinked /opt to /usr/opt then did an update from my minimal install to a default. The installer didnt smoothly configure my graphics card and such, which I had to resort to sax2 to configure. Not much of a hardship at all. Perhaps I should just read up on LVM and just fiddle with the sizes of the volumes after the install.

    Anyway, my point: The SuSE DVD, part of the SuSE proffesional pack doesnt work with certain Pioneer drives (along with a few others): http://sdb.suse.de/en/sdb/html/wessels_pioneerdvd. html. Apparently its a vibration problem. The DVD starts to spin up, then sticks? with a low clicking sound. Firmware updates solve this problem for a few of the Pioneer models. My own, a DVD-115 will happily read the CD's.

    Beyond that Ive hand no significant problems )beyond some rushed editing of the manuals) and am happy to attest to SuSE 8 being rather slick indeed.

    --
    troodon.net
  20. Ease of installation ... by The+MoMo+King · · Score: 1

    is based on what people are familiar with. The lay person out there has a lot of experience with Window flavors so its installation seems to be easier and more intuitive.

    I'll give an example. On most cars changing the sparkplugs is no big deal and sum what easy, yet since most people don't have experience doing it, its considered hard. Same way with Linux.

    Plus, I suspect the average person gets confused if more then a couple of options are given.

  21. Why it still isn't for all users by yoink! · · Score: 2

    I think we can all agree about linux's importance in a wide range of computing environments. Unfortunately it is clear from the review of SuSE 8.0 that it's place on the home-desktop remains limited to those who have a developed and decent understanding of computer systems, and the related issues, as well as the time to carefully customise / fix their installations. Linux distros still force users to deal with issues that many users don't or won't want to deal with. This is not necessarily a drawback, as many of us would like to know exactly what's going on. It does remain clear however, that destop linux solutions remain, at best, a niche market.

    We used to use linux on many of our desktops here. As business moved away from web site-oriented things to audio production, we had to slowly move back to windows, a painful process but one which was aboslutely necessary, as our main application was designed solely for high-end film / video work on windows-based machines (hopefully they will port it to OSx). The Linux-kernel has remained an important part of our business environment as a router, http and ftp server and much more, ensuring it a lasting presence in our daily lives. More seriously, one that has never failed us, averaging over 180 days of uptime, interupted solely by extended powerfailures. Let's see windows, any version, do that. Long live the penguin.

    1. Re:Why it still isn't for all users by yoink! · · Score: 2

      We currently use a/d converters from the Echo line of converters. Between drivers and latency issues with linux, there is no hope of getting low latency, low CPU usage, and stable operation on WINE. Honestly, we did not even try. We need all the DSP horsepower we can get from our systems which are used almost exclusively with such applications. Either way... if anyone wants to e-mail me, I'd be happy to have a more involved discussion on the issue.

  22. SuSE 8.0 problems by AaronW · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I recently upgraded 3 different computers from SuSE 7.3 to 8.0. I had a number of issues with the original 7.3 but those were fixed with later patches (like the updated kernel).

    SuSE 8.0, while mostly stable, has a number of annoying bugs.

    1. sudo relies on the environment variables. I need sudo support to start and stop various services under /etc/rc.d and that doesn't work because /usr/sbin is not in the sudo path. If the user's path is being inherited this could cause security holes.

    2. The upgrade on one system failed because 8.0 remapped one of the SCSI devices causing a failed mount of fstab. I had to go back and search the logs to figure out what went wrong. When problems occur I shouldn't have to go to the logs to find out what happened. It should have popped up a dialog or something. As it was, the mount was for my USB zip drive. If I could have told YAST to just ignore it I wouldn't have had to start over.

    I also found that yast failed to properly upgrade everything. For example, on all of my systems gpg stopped working properly. I had to manually reinstall the rpm to fix this.

    I also wish yast2 were more extensive. The firewall configuration could be improved, and many more modules are needed for configuring things like a DNS server (for my internal home LAN), an imap/pop mail server, a news server, and samba. Hardware configuration needs to add support for installing a CDRW drive.

    I also found it a real PITA to get my CDRW working again after upgrading to 8.0. In addition the KDE tool I used before for burning CDs keeps crashing whenever I try and configure it.

    I found that the video for Linux support is working much better than it did in earlier releases (although the 2.4.16 kernel upgrade for 7.3 was stable as well).

    I also like KDE 3.0, which I am also running on Solaris at work.

    During the initial upgrade I missed being able to do detailed selection of packages to install in the categorized way it was in 7.3.

    Over all I am satisfied with SuSE 8.0, but I think it is a .0 release and needs some more polishing. If you don't need the bleeding edge support, stay with 7.3 and wait for 8.1.

    --
    This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  23. Re:Glad someone likes KDE 3.0... by AaronW · · Score: 3, Informative

    Of course had you gone into the control center, click "Look & Feel" and "Launch Feedback" you can easily disable this. In addition there are numerous other look and feel settings to make KDE look and feel quite different than Windows.

    --
    This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  24. importance of installation by timothy · · Score: 1

    a) I like free software to be popular, especially software for Linux or BSD, because that leads to more of it being available to me :)

    b) for free software to be popular, people must be willing to install some of it; a tough install is a big stumbling block to get over.

    c) I usually have at least one machine (not saying this is usual, just that it's the case) set aside just to experiment on. If a particular system is a pain to install, that's a bummer. I am not a masochist, I like things to be easy and good.

    d) neither of my parents have even my small experience in installing things like Mandrake -- perhaps the easiest of the mainstream Linux distros to put on.* That's why I told my mom to get a Mac ;) For my own hardware, I think putting on Mandrake is considerably easier than Windows + Assorted Drivers, but I have not installed Windows recently except for the idiotic ghosted-image-no-choices variety.

    timothy

    * Have not yet tried Lycoris or certain others which are also supposed to be easy ...

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    1. Re:importance of installation by Osty · · Score: 1

      a) I like free software to be popular, especially software for Linux or BSD, because that leads to more of it being available to me :)

      Wouldn't it better to be popular because the software is good, not because it's a one-trick pony? "Sure, the installation was slick, and I had a blast playing tetris while the files copied, but once that was done I couldn't figure anything out. That X thing sure is confusing and ugly."


      b) for free software to be popular, people must be willing to install some of it; a tough install is a big stumbling block to get over.

      You misunderstand me. I'm not advocating tough or confusing installers. I'm saying that there's a point when things are "good enough", especially when you're dealing with a very small part of the overall experience, and when you hit that point it's time to move on to other problems. Do you really think letting a user play solitaire while the files copy from the CD is a useful feature? Was it really worth spending development time (and possibly money) on adding that? One can even argue that making X-based installers was a waste of time and effort. Text-based installers don't have to be bad or confusing, and GUI-based installers are not inherently "easier". Point: "good enough" != "tough install" && X > "good enough" = "waste of effort".


      d) neither of my parents have even my small experience in installing things like Mandrake -- perhaps the easiest of the mainstream Linux distros to put on.* That's why I told my mom to get a Mac ;) For my own hardware, I think putting on Mandrake is considerably easier than Windows + Assorted Drivers, but I have not installed Windows recently except for the idiotic ghosted-image-no-choices variety.

      I don't know anything about your parents, but if they're like the majority of parents out there, Linux in any flavor is not right for them just yet and not because of the initial installation. Sure, maybe they'll be able to get through the install (possibly not -- most of those people can't even get through a Windows install (okay, upgrade, since most people will have Windows pre-installed)), but will they be able to do anything with it afterwards? And I don't mean with liberal help from you or others. I'm talking about being able to power up the computer, fire up a web browser, e-mail client, or word processor, do what they need to do, and turn it off. With Linux, probably not. With Windows, maybe (leaning towards "yes"). With Mac OS, almost certainly (Mac OS 9 moreso than Mac OS X, but OS X is getting better).

    2. Re:importance of installation by timothy · · Score: 1
      "Wouldn't it better to be popular because the software is good, not because it's a one-trick pony? "Sure, the installation was slick, and I had a blast playing tetris while the files copied, but once that was done I couldn't figure anything out,. That X thing sure is confusing and ugly."

      I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

      Where's the one-trick pony? Easy installation doesn't contradict any other sort of functionality. I find the default install of the Linux distros I've seen generally well-laid out, with plenty of built in "things to do." I know little about Windows, but the Windows default desktops I've seen have been considerably poorer. On common hardware, I don't think X has been a big drawback for several years.

      Part of software being *good* is that it installs easily. In fact, to me, that's a very big part of being good IMO. Software that doesn't get installed isn't good or bad, it's just in limbo.

      "You misunderstand me. I'm not advocating tough or confusing installers. I'm saying that there's a point when things are "good enough", especially when you're dealing with a very small part of the overall experience, and when you hit that point it's time to move on to other problems. Do you really think letting a user play solitaire while the files copy from the CD is a useful feature? Was it really worth spending development time (and possibly money) on adding that? One can even argue that making X-based installers was a waste of time and effort. Text-based installers don't have to be bad or confusing, and GUI-based installers are not inherently "easier". Point: "good enough" != "tough install" && X > "good enough" = "waste of effort"."

      OK, I didn't say anything about whether installers should be X-based or not, or include a solitaire game, and frankly I don't care that much about either one, necessarily. You're right -- a pretty install isn't necessarily well-done, and a simple-text based install procedure can be just as good as any graphical one. There might be particular examples I'd say a graphical one would be better (sliders to allocate hard drive space visually would be nice, say), but in general, I have no argument with you there. We all have different ideas about what constitutes "good enough" but I think it's healthy to always look for improvements.

      I don't know anything about your parents, but if they're like the majority of parents out there, Linux in any flavor is not right for them just yet and not because of the initial installation. Sure, maybe they'll be able to get through the install (possibly not -- most of those people can't even get through a Windows install (okay, upgrade, since most people will have Windows pre-installed)), but will they be able to do anything with it afterwards? And I don't mean with liberal help from you or others. I'm talking about being able to power up the computer, fire up a web browser, e-mail client, or word processor, do what they need to do, and turn it off. With Linux, probably not.

      Well, I disagree with you there. My dad has no problem navigating either the KDE or Gnome desktops on my machines, opening browsers, typing in OpenOffice, etc -- why would he? (Oh, and Evolution is no harder to use than Microsoft Outlook, IMO, though I don't think he's tried that.) The similarities to either Windows or the Macintosh desktops are huge -- WIMP can be a good thing :) Not that Mac or Windows is tbe best of all possible interfaces, but someone used to either of those should have no problem with current desktop environments. [Some desktops take a bit more to get used to -- blackbox / windowmaker / enlightenment etc.] The big weak point that I currently find with installing Linux for someone who never has before is disk partitioning. With a new, blank drive and an "automatic" setting, no problem, but trying to explain why one wants a /home partition (and others), must specifically set up a /swap partition etc is a pain. More pain if setting up a system to dual-book. This is a major point I'd like to see improved in installation procedures -- would be good to see a number of percentage-based disk-partitioning schemes set up to choose from, so people new to it could choose a plausible configuration to start with. Mac OS 9 is what my mom and sister use, and they seem to like it. timothy

      --
      jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    3. Re:importance of installation by Osty · · Score: 1

      Where's the one-trick pony? Easy installation doesn't contradict any other sort of functionality. I find the default install of the Linux distros I've seen generally well-laid out, with plenty of built in "things to do." I know little about Windows, but the Windows default desktops I've seen have been considerably poorer. On common hardware, I don't think X has been a big drawback for several years.

      The "one-trick pony" I was referring to was about focusing mostly on the installation (of a distribution -- I'm not talking about single-app installers, here, like apt/dpkg, rpm, Loki's installer thing, etc), taking away effort that could be spent on making a truly useable computing experience. We're getting there, but had Redhat, Mandrake, SuSE, et al focused on their environment of choice (KDE, GNOME, something else) rather than focusing on flashy initial installation routines two and three years ago, we'd be that much further along today. As it is, GNOME still has a number of useability faults, and while KDE is getting much better they still have a long way to go.


      OK, I didn't say anything about whether installers should be X-based or not, or include a solitaire game, and frankly I don't care that much about either one, necessarily. You're right -- a pretty install isn't necessarily well-done, and a simple-text based install procedure can be just as good as any graphical one. There might be particular examples I'd say a graphical one would be better (sliders to allocate hard drive space visually would be nice, say), but in general, I have no argument with you there. We all have different ideas about what constitutes "good enough" but I think it's healthy to always look for improvements.

      The X-based installers, the games and web browsers during installation, etc were my main point. Effort was expended on software that ideally will only be used once or twice per person. And it's not just the developer's fault, either. Redhat and Mandrake touted their flashy new installation routines while many reviews focused on nothing but the installation of a system. Those reviews are as much at fault for focusing on the wrong areas as the developers were. Anyway, I agree that it's healthy to look for improvements, but there comes a time where a certain area (installation, in this case) has gotten "good enough" (or better), and it's time to start looking for improvements in other components. I'm of the opinion that we hit that mark something around two years ago, yet the major players are still fiddling with their installers to the neglect of other components (for example, Linux still falls way short in accessibility for the physically handicapped (blind, paralyzed, etc). It's coming along, but slowly). If a distribution is truly targetting the desktop user, then they need to realize that there's more to making the system user-friendly and approachable than just making it easy to install.


      The big weak point that I currently find with installing Linux for someone who never has before is disk partitioning. With a new, blank drive and an "automatic" setting, no problem, but trying to explain why one wants a /home partition (and others), must specifically set up a /swap partition etc is a pain. More pain if setting up a system to dual-[boot]. This is a major point I'd like to see improved in installation procedures -- would be good to see a number of percentage-based disk-partitioning schemes set up to choose from, so people new to it could choose a plausible configuration to start with.

      You make it more complicated than it needs to be. Why would a desktop user care about having a separate /home partition, or a separate /var, or even a separate /swap? (swap files are seriously underused. They are a great way to reduce the complexity of an installation.) For a server install, or for the advanced user, I can see those scenarios being useful and a proper installer would have an "advanced" mode that allows someone who knows what s/he's doing to have more control. For your average run-of-the-mill desktop install, forget all of that stuff and just use one big /.


      (Just so you don't respond to the wrong thing, let me state that I do understand the importance of separating your filesystems onto different partitions, and even different drives. It makes backups and recoveries easier, and it enhances your local security if used right. However, it's so much extra stuff that Joe Sixpack neither needs to know about nor care about, and so it shouldn't even be mentioned except in the manual that's never read anyway.)


      Linux is getting better. I'm still not of the opinion that it's ready for desktop use by the "unwashed masses", but it seems I'm in the minority with that opinion. That's fine, it's just my opinion. However, it bugs me to no end every time I see a review of a new distro that focus 95% of the review on the installation and maybe 5% on actually using the system. It bugs me when I see cash-strapped companies wasting time and effort on "solved" problems when they could be targetting their limited resources on areas that would net them more significant returns such as making the system as a whole easier to use. I can't count the number of times I've seen people bitten in the rear by shoddy system management software provided by various distributions (Redhat, Mandrake) (for my qualifications on this, I op on #Linux on EFNet, and see a metric pantload of these problems every day). For many of these people, the only recourse is to go "down to the metal" and start mucking around with tools like route and ifconfig. There's no reason they should need to do this, except that the config tools provided by their distro break more often than not.


      We don't want or need more flashy installers. We need secure, robust, EASY TO USE system configuration tools, user interfaces, applications that make Linux (and *BSDs, and other unices like Solaris that may piggy-back on the "movement") more approachable and easier to use. 95% of your computing time is spent outside the installer, so all I ask is that a proportionate amount of time be spent on areas other than the installer.


      (Please excuse the rant. This issue just gets me a bit riled becaues I see so many people having so many problems, most of which could be solved if distro developers would get their priorities straight.)

  25. Re:Glad someone likes KDE 3.0... by cnkeller · · Score: 2
    And WHAT THE HELL IS WITH THE LITTLE ANIMATED ICONS NEXT TO THE MOUSE POINTER?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Ye gods, if I wanted that crap, I'd have stuck with the Win98 Plus! that came installed with one of my machines. You can't even turn them off.

    Can't tell if you're trolling or just lazy.

    Control Center->Look & Feel->Launch Feedback->unclick enable busy cursor.

    I've been playing with KDE3.0 for exactly four hours now, and while I happen to agree with you that it's annoying, it's pretty simple to figure out how to turn it off.

    --

    there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots

  26. Re:About ease of installation: by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1

    Boy, and I got peeved because I had to replace a WinModem (4 years ago...)
    I guess I should let it go.

    --
    The opposite of progress is congress
  27. (minor) gripes with SuSE 8.0... by CJ+Hooknose · · Score: 2
    OK, I bought the Pro version within a week of release. What the heck, I wanted KDE 3.0. Installation and (basic) configuration were pretty much as the article described--easy. Lots of interesting software to install and use, antialiased fonts look great in KDE apps, YaST2 provides easy interfaces for the newbie to do all kinds of things.

    Unfortunately, with 8.0, SuSE has gone to a Redhat-style mess under /etc/sysconfig/ instead of the relatively clean system they had before. The system boot scripts have become about twice as complex as they were in 7.3, with little gain in functionality AFAICT. It works, sure, but aesthetically, it stinks.

    Also, the PCMCIA management took a turn for the worse. PCMCIA configuration information isn't stored in the time-honored /etc/pcmcia/ directory, but somewhere under /etc/sysconfig again. This makes it difficult to use the extremely useful PCMCIA scheme support. The apparent solution is to define multiple instances of a PCMCIA NIC through YaST, and the first one corresponds to slot 0 while the second one corresponds to slot 1. Weird, and not documented in the SuSE manuals.

    It is a good distro, just has some warts....

    --
    Give a monkey a brain and he'll swear he's the center of the universe.
  28. Re:Glad someone likes KDE 3.0... by Russ+Steffen · · Score: 1
    You can't even turn them off.

    Did you even try? You didn't notice the big "Launch Feedback" section in the Control Center? I'll agree that that stuff should not be on by default, but there is almost nothing that cannot be turned off or customized if you bother try.

  29. Re:Glad someone likes KDE 3.0... by LMCBoy · · Score: 2
    And WHAT THE HELL IS WITH THE LITTLE ANIMATED ICONS NEXT TO THE MOUSE POINTER?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Ye gods, if I wanted that crap, I'd have stuck with the Win98 Plus! that came installed with one of my machines. You can't even turn them off.


    snip for sanity...


    Animated "working" hourglasses in the toolbar...that I CANNOT TURN OFF


    First of all, try the decaf next time, cowboy. Now. Take a deep breath. Ready for the super-secret, totally obscure method to diasble these features that haunt your soul? It's kinda complicated, so you might want to print this out...


    1. Open KControl.

    2. Select "Launch Feedback" from the menu.

    3. Uncheck the "Enable busy cursor" and "Enable taskbar notification" checkboxes.


    Whew, that was tough. Definitely worth giving the old CAPS-LOCK key a vigorous workout over.

    --
    Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
  30. Gentoo kicks arse by br0ken+by+design · · Score: 1

    Just put that on my laptop the other day.
    I normally use BSD, but I needed linux, so I gave Gentoo a shot after hearing it had a 'ports' type package system.

    It kicks ass! IMO, best linux distro I've seen so far.
    Yeah, people whine about how long it takes to compile a system, but I'd rather take a day
    to build a system that runs well on *my* hardware, than take an hour and build a generic system that runs like shit.

    :wq

    --
    One ring to rule them all. The (_O_) in Goatse.cx
  31. Upgrading by Tim+Ward · · Score: 2

    The brief version is that he had to buy a new scanner, new CD-burner software, upgrade to Office XP, upgrade to PAgemaker 7.0, buy new versions of kiddie games. And it all took a LOT of suffering on his part!

    Well, there's no accounting for idiots, at the end of the day. When I upgrade an OS I do first check whether it has a hope in hell of supporting my hardware. Far too many hardware manufacturers can't be arsed to produce drivers for new operating systems to drive their obsolete hardware ... for a very good reason, actually, which is it that it costs them money for no return - indeed, negative return, because if they don't bother to make the drivers they get to sell you a new piece of hardware.

    It was ever thus. Anyone who tries to put a new OS on an old machine without being aware of this aspect of life has things to learn.

    And the software? There's a lot of crap software out there. If you run commercial shrinkwrap software with appropriate debug tools you can spot all the bugs that the developers couldn't be arsed to detect and fix. It's reasonable that a new version of an OS will respond differently to broken API calls.

    I'm slightly surprised that he "had" to upgrade to Office XP, though. What was he upgrading from, and what didn't work in the old version that meant he "had" to upgrade?

    1. Re:Upgrading by chriskenrick · · Score: 1

      There is too accounting for idiots, it's called
      Microsoft Money :)

  32. **MOD PARENT UP** by ShinGouki · · Score: 1

    that's a key point that nobody seems to catch when talking about easy installations

    --
    -dk
    Dream with the feathers of angels stuffed beneath your head.
  33. Can't we all just get along? by drywater · · Score: 1

    Everyone keeps complaining that they like SuSE (or any other distro for that matter), but it doesn't do this one little thing they like, so screw it. Christ, people. It's LINUX, you can make it do whatever you want to. Apparently, Windows is so popular because it just won't let you change some things. Here's an OS that lets you do whatever you want and people still complain. Too lazy to make these changes themselves, but never too lazy to bitch and complain about them to anyone who'll listen. I've been running SuSE 8.0 on my home machine for three weeks now as my only operating system. Sure, there were some things that didn't work or I didn't like out of the box, but with a little time and effort, it suits me perfectly now. If you can't handle an OS that gives you the freedom to do whatever you want to do because someone else didn't do it for you, then load Windows and shut up. I realize that Linux isn't for everyone and not everyone has the time to sit down and learn the difference between /etc and a hole in the ground, but Windows is a perfectly fine operating system for those people.

  34. Re:Only two complaints.. by corebreech · · Score: 2

    I have the same problem with my Logitech Optical Mouse. And I made a big post earlier complaining about there being no info, stickers, etc., but this is easily more irritating.

  35. And pretty soon... by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 2
    XP virtually installs itself. You barely have to be there.
    Rumor has it the next generation of Windows *will* install itself. Whether you're there or not.

    Yes, it's true! This new generation of cutting edge technology (codenamed InterTransGenObsidianPyramidObscura) will take advantage of the inevitable switchover to pure wireless, broadcasting itself from Redmond over the very airwaves themselves, using cellphones as booster stations. Once those little quantum perturbations detect a computer nearby, they will zero in, and with no effort whatsoever, install this exciting new upgrade, free of charge. A truly cross-platform OS, InterTransGenObsidianPyramidObscura will replace previous versions of Windows on Intel systems, as well as dynamically configure itself to run on Mac, Sun, Alpha and Palm processors. Upgrade packs are already in the works for electric blankets, HDTVs, Macrovision-disabled VCRs, and low-water toilets. It will be sure to be everywhere you look -- Very, very sure.

    Be sure to register within 30 days!
    GMFTatsujin

  36. Installed SuSE 8 over the weekend... by Zenjive · · Score: 1

    Very slick! Even had a DVD drive, so no disc swapping.

    KDE 3 rocks your nads!

    The best part... booted on the DVD, partitoned drives, installed software (lots of it), system booted. NO REBOOTS! Eat that M$!

    So tired of reinstalling Win98 and rebooting 800 times for plug-n-pray to get it's crap together.

    --


    A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with. - Tennessee Williams
  37. Offtopic - Popups by Osty · · Score: 1

    Oh, and that .sig of yours: "NoPopIE [daishar.com], Internet Explorer popup killer (win2k/xp only, for now) " - Nothing beats mozilla at eliminating popups.

    The fact that mozilla has the ability to block popups and IE seemingly doesn't is the reason I wrote that tool. Try it out, if you use win2k or xp (rationalization for limiting it to those operating systems -- they're what I have available to test with. Also, it uses UNICODE for all string handling, which win9x doesn't like). IE can block pop-ups just as well, because IE is extendable (through Browser Helper Objects, just COM objects in dlls that implement certain interfaces). It's still a work-in-progress, and it's got its share of rough edges, but it works quite well. Well enough that it proves that IE can do just as well as Mozilla, even if it does require a bit more work on the IE side.

  38. Re:Glad someone likes KDE 3.0... by Laplace · · Score: 2

    Hah. Youcan turn the launch feedback off, but you can't turn trolls like him off.

    --
    The middle mind speaks!
  39. more of a complaint about other RPM's by Twister002 · · Score: 1

    I switched my desktop system from RH 7.2 to SuSE 8.0 because of Mozilla.

    I d/led the RPM for Mozilla 1.0 RC1 and tried to install it, rpm told me I need another source, I get that source it tells me it need 10 other sources to install. I give up and switch to SuSE, sure it uses RPM's but they seem to all WORK for me.

    I haven't seen any differences between KDE 2 and KDE 3 except the cool little aqua-like inflating icons on the panel. But I'm not one of those people that can look at the root dir and tell what distro I'm running.

    --
    "For a successful technology, honesty must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." -Feynman
  40. 8.1 by spectatorion · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know the approximate release cycle time? Suse 8.0 sounds great and looks even better, but experience has taught me better than to install anything that is x.0. Maybe I am wrong in this instance, but I am strongly considering moving to Suse and doing a fresh install on my system, but I would be more comfortable installing 8.1 without assurances that 8.0 is truly production-quality software. I have not really been tracking the Suse release schedule, so I was wondering if anyone could either quell my concerns or let me know when 8.1 should be expected.

  41. ah but... by Twister002 · · Score: 1

    The number of reboots is VASTLY different between Win2K and Linux.

    I just installed Win2K last night and I counted 14 reboots to get it installed and patched up with all the latest patches. When I installed SuSE 8.0 I had to reboot once (and I really didn't HAVE to reboot, I just wanted to after the install finished).

    --
    "For a successful technology, honesty must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." -Feynman
    1. Re:ah but... by Iberian · · Score: 1

      If you need to reboot 14 times to install 2k you must not know what you are doing.

  42. Funny you should say that by Ethelred+Unraed · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I recently got a used K6-3/400 PC, which I promptly wiped. Problem was, I had no clue as to what was inside the thing (I originally thought it was a Duron 600 until Red Hat told me otherwise). and installed Red Hat 7.2. It installed like a charm -- hardware all recognized and correctly configured, Net configured and away we go.

    Then I decided to install Windows 98 SE, which I need to test websites (other than this PC, I only have Macs running either Linux or Mac OS X). It was a nightmare -- constant reboots (usually without warning me or waiting for a confirmation) and it failed to recognize both the video card and the Ethernet card. I ended up having to reboot into Linux, do cat /proc/pci to find out what kind of cards they were (hardly anything exotic -- an old TNT video card and a Realtek Ethernet card) and trying to install drivers. The ones from the Windows CD refused to work, and of course with no Ethernet I couldn't easily download them...

    So I ended up booting again into Red Hat (damn, GRUB is nice), downloading current drivers there, copying them to the Windows partition, rebooting and reinstalling -- and it *still* didn't work at first (with a reboot in between each attempt, of course). Eventually it finally decided to cooperate (I still don't know what happened -- after one of the many reboots the video card and Ethernet card suddently started working).

    Red Hat took me about 30-45 minutes to install and configure (I just did a standard workstation install), mostly just waiting on the files to copy over to the hard drive. Windows 98 SE took over two and a half hours of PITA work.

    OK, granted, Red Hat 7.2 is much newer than 98 SE. But remember that a *huge* number of people still use 98 SE as their primary system, and it's still more or less the standard most users look to. I'd say Linux has come a looooong way already as far as easy installation goes.

    Best of all, my wife, who up till now has only used Macs and is techno-phobic, saw the GNOME desktop, got curious and soon I had her playing Civilization: Call to Power on Linux. And she fiddled around with surfing in no time.

    I am now fantasizing about romantic evenings with my wife recompiling kernels. ;-)

    Cheers,

    Ethelred

    --
    Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
  43. Re:Glad someone likes KDE 3.0... by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 2
    WHAT THE HELL IS WITH THE LITTLE ANIMATED ICONS NEXT TO THE MOUSE POINTER?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

    This is actually a VERY significant usability feature! Sometimes X applications can be *very* slow to start (StarOffice, Mozilla, etc). What will often happen is newbies will click the Mozilla icon (for example) and nothing will happen. So they click it again. And again, and again. Then suddenly tons of Mozilla windows start opening all over the screen. The flashing icon was put in to solve this usability problem, and it does quite a good job. For the rest of us it is a 10 second trip into KControl to turn it off.

    --
    main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
  44. Linux Usability Epiphany by feldsteins · · Score: 2

    I've realized something about Linux that I hadn't before. I can express it in the following prediction -

    The first Linux distibution which makes significant inroads to the desktop market will be universally hated by today's Linux community.

    Put another way, the present Linux community prizes "options" and "power-user friendliness" and "control" over things like "simple" and "easy." No, these things aren't always mutually exclusive, but I think the two are at odds often enough to make my prediction valid.

    Consider the following quote from the article.

    "The packages have been separated into even more categories now in hopes of simplifying the task. I don't think it helps much; but I really like the freedom of choice. That is, after all, one of the chief virtues of Linux."

    Yep, Linux has got virtues. Freedom of choice may in fact be one of them. I'll give it that. I seriously doubt, though, that when all is said and done "freedom of choice" is going to mean much to most novice computer users. "Easy to use" will. Can't we at least have one distro that is willing to provide this even if it means making a distro without some of the traditional Linux virtues like freedom of choice? When someone does make this distro it will be trashed endlessly in these forums. And it will get a good contract with a hardware OEM and make serious inroads to the desktop OS market.

    And another thing. When the Linux community is asked about ease of use, etc., they usually give answers amounting to "we need just a little more engineering time." In other words, "each new distro is getting closer to this goal than the last and in the next one or two we'll really have it to the extent commercial desktop OSs do." I think the "we need a little more engineering time" response is somewhat inaccurate. The other thing that is needed is a shift in priorities - the willingness to create the truly easy to use (and geek-hated) Linux distro.

    --
    You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
    1. Re:Linux Usability Epiphany by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Does Lycoris qualify? I've never tried it, but I've heard that it's very newbie friendly, at the cost of flexibility. And I'm sure most /.rs would say it sux, but maybe their grandparents and "Aunt Millie" would like it.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  45. Re:Suse 8.0 has that unprofessional "killall" comm by DrCode · · Score: 2

    "Instead of sound software engineering, we now have "Free Speech" flag-waving."

    Er, okay. My experience, going back-and-forth between Solaris and Linux daily, is that they're of about the same quality, which is quite high.

    And BTW, I like 'killall' on Linux, regardless of its history.

  46. Suse 8.0 Install by John+Kelvie · · Score: 1

    Glad to hear so many had installations that went flawlessly. I can't say that was the case for me. I had a couple minor issues and one major one. The minor ones just had to do with the rendering of fonts by KDE/X. No big deal there, but if I was evaluating it from an ignorant user's perspective, I would say completely ugly fonts that the system produced on first boot are totally unacceptable and would have them runnning screaming to their windows installation
    disk.

    Other problem was a bigger one. The installer,YaST2 or whatever they call it, did not correctly recognize my keyboard. I am not sure how they compile support for usb input devices in the kernel, but about midway through the installation process, my keyboard ceased to function. This was very problematic. When I rebooted the machine the keyboard started working fine again, but the mappings for non-standard keys were not functioning correctly. I changed the keyboard setting to 104-key standard and it began recognizing my keys for a short time before again losing track of the keyboard and forcing me to reboot again.

    On the whole not a great experience...I assumed the keyboard problem could have been overcome by recompiling the kernel with the correct usb settings(or at least the ones that have always worked for me) and perhaps screwing around with my X86Config file if things were still not working correctly. Were I evaluating this system from the perspective of a not particularly tech-savvy or curious windows user I would say these problems are wholly unacceptable.

    John

  47. Left vs. Right close button by Decimal · · Score: 2

    I've always thought that it would be better to have the close button up in the right hand side of the screen, like Windows does instead of how Apple does. After all, it's easier for someone to accidentally hit it when they're going for the "file" button, right? But come to think of it, left may be better after all. I can't count how many times a pop up window has come up with the close button out of reach on my Windows box. Deliberately, no doubt. But I've come to believe the whole one-click close idea needs some rethinking. Why not a button that you click and several other buttons come up to the left below it? A double click could minimize, a click and a click slightly to the right would maximize, a click and a click slightly down would close. You could even hold the button down for half a second and then release it over the correct buttons for the same actions. And a "down" arrow would make sense, you click it once and it "brings down" new options, clicking it twice brings it "down" to the taskbar.

    Okay, my chest feels lighter now. :) Does anybody know if I can do this in KDE 3?

    --

    Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
    1. Re:Left vs. Right close button by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 2

      Double click on the icon in the upper right-hand corner of the window. This has worked since Windows 1.0

    2. Re:Left vs. Right close button by Decimal · · Score: 2

      Sure, that works well for well educated Windows users, but what's intuitive about that?

      --

      Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
  48. Re:Glad someone likes KDE 3.0... by Seli · · Score: 1

    > I'll agree that that stuff should not be on by default

    It should be on by default, as the BFUs most needing this feature would have trouble finding out how to turn it on (if they knew there was something like that). More skilled people are expected to have no trouble finding out how to turn it off. Well, and then there are also idiots like this one ...

  49. MOD THIS GUY UP!!! by corebreech · · Score: 3, Informative

    You fixed my problem!!!

    The issue was that libGL.so was linked to libGL.somethingelseiforgetwhat and not libGL.so.1.

    Changing that and running sax2 gives me a working desktop. KDE is beautiful.

    Bless you.

    1. Re:MOD THIS GUY UP!!! by kikensei · · Score: 1

      Glad it worked. Life is good now, eh?

  50. Netinstall? Machines with No CD? by billstewart · · Score: 2
    If you're installing directly on a machine with a 52x CD-ROM drive, fine, you can put up with playing jukebox with the 7 CDs (and if the installer is bright enough, you only need to use each one once....) But if you have a machine with no CDROM in it (i.e. a machine where you really _want_ Linux instead of MSWindows) this much data can be a big hassle. If you're doing a Netinstall, this either means you need a server machine with a spare 5GB of space to cache the CDs in, or else the installation process needs to be designed intelligently enough that you can swap CDs in and out of the drive in your netboot server machine.

    Redhat 7.1, which didn't fit into a single CD, was really annoying about this, but I didn't *want* to go building Debian or Gentoo from scratch on my antique-store lab machines, I wanted a consistent environment. Is SuSe any better? Or should I always pick up another $100 disk drive every time I need to upgrade the OS?

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  51. They Red-Hatted it. by bob · · Score: 1

    I think the thing that most struck me about it was the major changes to the init system. No longer do they have this big, monolithic /etc/rc.config. After getting it installed, one of the first things I wanted to do was to get it to add a default route -- I was using a static IP and for some reason that didn't get done correctly during the install. No problem, just vi /etc/rc.config... oops, where'd everything go!?!? Well, /etc/sysconfig as a matter of fact, with all the RedHattish ifup scripts and all. Gonna take some getting used to for this long-time SuSE user.

  52. Re:Funny you should say that (offtopic) by fferreres · · Score: 2

    Why as Red Hat support about your CPU? OMG the lameless filter :( (Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.) It may be lame, but maybe this guy finds it usefull next time...


    fferreres@fede:~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
    processor : 0
    vendor_id : GenuineIntel
    model name : Celeron (Mendocino)
    cpu MHz : 432.331
    cache size : 128 KB
    bogomips : 861.79

    --
    unfinished: (adj.)
  53. Can't Update Running 7.3 by 5.11Climber · · Score: 1

    The darn thing won't recognize Seagate SCSI drives on my dual-proceessor Intel L440GX motherboard. I've removed my extra SCSI card and my fibre channel card but still no go. I guess my review'll have to wait...

    --
    Arf!
  54. Micosoft Money by Tim+Ward · · Score: 2

    Yes, that may well be accounting for idiots - I use Quicken myself, which was vastly better when I started using it.

  55. Initial experience with SuSE 8.0 Pro pretty poor by donallen · · Score: 1

    At the beginning of this week, I received a copy of SuSE 8.0 Pro and attempted to install it on a Thinkpad 600e with about 300 Mbytes of memory. Installation was in a new 1.8 Gbyte partition. Network access is via a Cabletron (Wavelan) 802.11 card. There is absolutely nothing remarkable about this machine; it's a vanilla Thinkpad 600e. Towards the end of a default install I get the message Checking for PCMCIA (using i82365) -- running which is all she wrote. I was able to ^c out of this after waiting 15 minutes to see if anything interesting was going to happen. There's was a lot of chatter in the logs about PCMCIA problems. Sooo, I tried going to the SuSE website to "unlock" my support key. After filling out the appropriate form, which included my email address, I was informed that ai.mit.edu was not a valid domain name, which I'm sure will come as a shock to the folks at the MIT AI Lab. Failing that, I tried calling the SuSE tech support number, which is not a toll-free number, of course. After the usual canned messages and clicking, I was informed that everybody was busy and told to call back later. No voicemail. So, I sent an email to their tech support address. This was three days ago. I got some machine responses, but have yet to hear from a human being. Yesterday, I called back the phone number and succeeded in getting somebody on the phone, a cheerful Irish fellow. He told me that they had, indeed, experienced problems setting up these cards and offered to email me some info that he thought would help. He asked for my email address, which I gave him. He told me I'd have the email in 20 minutes. Over 24 hours later, I'm still waiting. In addition to the above, I can also observe that KDE 3.0 takes FOREVER to come up on login. I think it takes about as long to login to the SuSE 8.0/KDE 3.0 system as it does to login to W2000, which is pretty bad. SuSE claims to support GNOME. Don't believe it. After observing the performance problem with KDE, I redid the install, choosing GNOME instead. Their version is unbelievably minimal. I can also say that after perusing the system logs myself, I decided that the PCMCIA hangup was probably an IRQ or some-such conflict with the sound stuff. So, I redid the install without sound support and this time the PCMCIA stuff didn't hang. But the card is not set up and there's nothing in the installation to help with card configuration. Apparently they expect you to know how to edit the config files yourself, despite the fact that you are paying these guys to make installation easy and despite there being nothing in the documentation about how to do this (there is a content-free paragraph in the *Reference manual* on page 339 about such cards that says "More detailed information about PCMCIA can be found in the *Reference Manual*"! Emphasis mine, obviously. What a joke. All this in contrast to my experience with RedHat 7.1, which installed easily on the same Thinkpad and also on the desktop machine I'm typing at now. I had intended to install SuSE on the latter, but wanted to use the laptop as a test-case. No way in hell am I going to proceed now with SuSE on the desktop machine. I guess I'll chalk this up to experience and go back to RedHat. /Don Allen