Slashdot Mirror
SuSE Linux Desktop 1.0 Reviewed
LinuxLasVegas writes "SuSE announced a new release today titled "SuSE Linux Desktop 1.0". The distro is built on SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8.x technology and comes with Crossover Office 2.0. Mad Penguin has the first review of this release. From what I read, it seems like a good release, but for the $600 price tag, I'm not sure if it would be worth the jump..."
It looked to me on the website that the price was listed as $99... is $600 with support and such?
Why does this cost $600?? I read the first two pages of the review - excellent point about how deep CrossOver puts some items by defautl - but didn't see an explanation of the cost.
isn't a review of the distro (which is just SuSe 8.2 + Crossover near as I can tell) but of the support. i.e. how useful is it, how easy is it to get a tech on the phone when need be, how quickly do patches come out and how easy are they to apply/do they break things. For us home desktop users this is pretty meaningless, except as it pertains to getting linux a foothold in the corporate sector.
This is a package for corporate computers, so of course it's overpriced. Corperations have always payed way more than software was worth. It's a throwback to the days when software was harder to write and software engineers were a lot scarcer, I think. Or maybe they're just dumb and ignorate about technology (probably both).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The more it costs, the more it is of value, most of German managers seem to think. (And others, I have heard...)
Hmmm, but... I read something of about 129 Euros, where's the rest going now?
It's happened at last: the cost of enabling software is greater than the cost of the hardware. This is true for a US$600 OS+basic s/w package that can run on a modest but new x86 box bought from a well known vendor.
It just might be worth it. But I'd spend an extra US$200 and get an eMac from Apple; an OpenBSD base, plenty of bundled applications, and a decent all-in-one system to boot.
Either way, it can still be entirely free from Microsoft applications.
Windows XP Home Edition -- $179.00
Office XP Standard -- $342.00
Price -- $521.00
Still cheaper than the Linux solution, PLUS it has all that fun Microsoft cross program functionality.
I guess the question is raised to on why chose a $600 OS package to run programs that are designed for another OS?
Stability? I'm guessing this is a very arguable reason. I mean, I'm not going to claim to be the worlds smartest software developer, but i know that programs running in an emulated environment are often slower and less stable than running in their native platform.
Price? As proven above, this is hardly a driving force behind the purchase.
I guess part of me is wondering what the target market for this application is? I guess I'm having trouble understanding the whole reason for windows applications in a non-windows environment. Why run an OS that that boasts 70% application compatibility for what you use when you can run one that is 100%?
I'm not trolling or flaming here, I just really do not understand what business this software is even targeting.
Perhaps Linux SysAdmins who want the windows applications without the hazing of their friends when they see him running windows at a LAN party?
So feel free to flame me if i'm wrong.
Unfortunately, idealism isn't reality. The mythical Joe Six pack could care less about "Freedom" they care about 1 thing. Getting free stuff. The more free stuff the better. Why do you think we see the word "FREE!!!" everywhere. People want free stuff.
The Philosophy of "free software" really only matters to people who write software; no one else cares if they have the source code.
This is the reason why Linux and the GPL are evil. People love free things. What they don't realize is that there's a string. It's not free; it's open with conditions.
If you TRUELY care about Free as in Freedom software, then support public domain and BSD/MIT licensed software.
Not quite right. You may only run the software on a computer which you have a maintainance contract for. So it is an initial $99 plus at best $899 for every 10 stations you want to run it on.
See here.
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
then sell the 4 remiaining liscenses to someone else.
Or get 5 buds to all chip in.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Includes support for 3 years (w/updates) and 5 licenses I believe. It's some kind of SMB thing similar to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Just from what I have read from SuSE. This addresses the fact that Business Users are muvh different than the retail market.
These are smart business models for the SMB market. The only market that matters right now. The big boys spent their wads - now everyone has to compete for real - not just on advertising.
All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
This link is to a "different" product, actually it is the same, different box.e _linux /office_desktop/index.html
http://www.suse.com/us/private/products/sus
Let the frenzy begin.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
an enterprise office might have special needs that they get from software houses that create apps that you don't hear about on places like download.com or freshmeat
That's right and there is still a huge gap in usability of most open source apps. But, take it from someone who has had his share of "enterprise level computing" applications: there is also a large number of very inferior "professional applications" out there that should really be replaced with something good (no, I don't mean MS Office). I think open source software can provide a lot of "common functionality" or base infrastructure or whatever you want to call it. And to be honest, things like a word processor are not "enterprise computing" anymore, they're now part of base level office infrastructure. Enterprise applications need to move on, concentrate on company needs instead of selling sub-par crap that performs standard operations poorly for high prices.
So, yeah, there are no real "enterprise apps" pre-installed on SuSE, and I don't see how there could be. It comes, however, with a fine selection of basic/extended office infrastructure software which is not part of a normal Windows installation.
What I would like to see is SuSE (or someone else) take KDE to the level Ximian is pushing GNOME. SuSE would have the clear advantage of being an end-to-end solution provider, and could integrate KDE deeply with the rest of the OS. A (more) polished, integrated KDE desktop targeted to enterprise (and even small) businesses...especially if they can extend the capabilities of the Kiosk framework (esp. for organizations serving the public, like schools, libraries, etc.). Tight OpenOffice integration would be integral, too. I'd do it if I was a millionaire...
For that price phone support should be included. You just dont get the same results when emailing back and forth...
If you want a year of support from MS, I would guesstimate that you would end up paying at least 6000$ for 5 seats or 10 times of what SuSE charges.
SuSE's offering isn't meant for home users, it targets businesses which don't have much Linux experience and will need both much support to make the jump and also a possibility to run at least the most important MS apps.
For that niche (and only for that niche) SuSE's offer isn't a bad deal, IMO.
I think that this is great and I'm all for someone coming up with better desktop options. Who cares about the price, after all this is for companies and if enough of them can migrate, then other software providers will take notice
But I have one problem/question with this progress that has been made under Linux of late.
I have a series of machines that range from 600-750MHz and 128MB - 768MB RAM. It seems to me that the new KDE has become remarkably slow. To the point where I am unable to seriously consider using it on the lower RAM machines.
Rather than just bitch and be labeled a troll, I have a serious question. Is this the cost of progress? I am assuming that WinXP is going to be equally difficult to use on these machines, but I have nothing to base that one. Has anyone tried it?
Does the relative bloat of KDE compare to the relative bloat of other Desktop Environments?
This is a real concern for me because the slow down in performance when comparing Suse is significant enough that I'm wondering if KDE is approaching Gnome in speed or if KDE has passed WinXP in performance (or lack thereof).
I think that the responsiveness of a system is more critical that the Eye Candy it provides, especially as a User Environment. And I'm not seeing that in KDE. Are you?