Slashdot Mirror


Novell To Open Source SUSE

jambarama writes "Newsforge reports Novell will be open sourcing SUSE professional under the name OpenSUSE. Is Novell following in the footsteps of Red Hat Inc., with its Fedora Core Linux distribution, or continuing its own open source policy as it has in the past as with YAST?" Note that it looks like the opensuse.org site is not yet up.

316 comments

  1. The real question: binary compatibility by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Informative

    Is Novell following in the footsteps of Red Hat Inc., with its Fedora Core Linux distribution, or continuing its own open source policy as it has in the past as with YAST?

    While I'd much prefer the latter, I'm betting that the former possibility is much more probable. However, either option would be just fine, provided that the new OpenSuSE is binary-compatible with SuSE Professional.

    From TFA:
    Lowry did not confirm it, but sources say that Novell will also make the multi-platform software build system freely available to the community, so developers can build versions of packages for any hardware they support. Novell will still sell boxed versions of SUSE with tech support, but everyone will have access to updates and developmental code.
    From this excerpt, it seems that Novell doesn't intend to make the two binary-incompatible, as Red Hat did with Fedora and RHEL. I certainly hope they don't change their minds on this.
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by CdBee · · Score: 5, Interesting

      IMO it is near-unacceptable that any two distributions of Linux on the same processor-platform should be binary-incompatible.

      Dependencies can be a problem, but that's what the LSB is for, surely - just supply the damn' libs, you don't have to use them in your default config !

      The level of binary compatibility between any 2 same-platform linux distros should be at the very least equal to the level of compatibility between Win 2000 and Win XP.

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    2. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Rashkae · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is... Linux on the same platform is almost always binary compatible. Certainly all the big distros are! I think what the parent poster meant was RPM compatible. It's the package dependency management that breaks.

    3. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're confusing SUSE Professional with SUSE Enterprise Server.

      Right now SUSE Professional is the consumer product targeted for home use, sysadmins or developers who want latest and greatest with a nice finish and polish. OpenSUSE will be the same product as this. The difference from Fedora will be that you'll still be able to buy SUSE Professional in a box with DVDs, good manuals and installation support.

      The "business class" Linux products from SUSE/Novell are:
      * SUSE LINUX Enterprise Server 9
      * Novell Linux Desktop 9 powered by SUSE LINUX (this is the "corporate" Linux desktop from Novell)
      * Open Enterprise Server 1 (a combination of SLES9 with high level networking software ported from Netware).

      These too are based on a Professional version, but are maintained for 5 years, have certifications (hardware, software, security). Generally, if you need to run something serious you run it on one of these products.

      Novell has lots of very cool stuff for Linux that's little known.

      Take ZENworks for instance: you can manage Linux servers and workstations by the large numbers, from one central console. That is distribute patches, distribute software, make configuration changes, have policies etc.

      AND, with ZENworks 7 (to be released soon) you can do the same for Windows machines sitting at a Linux computer!

    4. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt if TripMasterMonkey even has used any of the products in question.. Look at his posting history.. He likes karma whoring with meaningless but catchy posts, especially first posts. He wants the attention.

      Is this another LostCluster?

    5. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by CdBee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Technical binary compatibility is an irrelevance if Mr.Average User can't get his application to install. Maybe it is possible to convert an RPM to a DEB and install it with Apt-get or one of its front-ends but again that's further than most users want to go just to get a pre-compiled app running.

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    6. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1


      I doubt if TripMasterMonkey even has used any of the products in question..

      Actually, I'm posting from my Toshiba laptop running SuSE 9.3 (I spent last Saturday replacing my Fedora 3 install). Thanks for playing, though.

      Look at his posting history.. He likes karma whoring with meaningless but catchy posts, especially first posts.

      Apparently, the majority of slashdotters do not share your jaundiced view of my contributions. But at least you think my posts are 'catchy'...I suppose that's something.

      He wants the attention.

      And you never fail to give it to me, do you? ^_^

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    7. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not entirely sure what is meant by "binary compatibility" in this context. Certainly calls to the kernel and C libraries will likely be compatible. However, when it comes to C++, object models frequently change, and so do signatures of libraries when changes are made. If they're going to base a new distro on, say GCC 4, then you can probably expect some binary incompatibiliites.

    8. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SuSE Professional or SuSE?

      Gotcha. Moron. Thanks for playing (and losing, badly).

      Apparently, the majority of slashdotters do not share your jaundiced view of my contributions.

      Says who?

      And you never fail to give it to me, do you? ^_^

      I wasn't even replying to you, idiot. Are you retarded, illiterate, or what?

    9. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Coryoth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Technical binary compatibility is an irrelevance if Mr.Average User can't get his application to install.

      Quite true.

      Maybe it is possible to convert an RPM to a DEB and install it with Apt-get or one of its front-ends but again that's further than most users want to go just to get a pre-compiled app running.

      If you want to install an application that isn't provided by your distribution then you really want to be using an autopackage. Binary compatability becomes clear - a single autopackage can install and run on most major distributions (providing you've got the same architecture of course). If the people providing you the software haven't packaged it as an autopackage... perhaps you should be asking them to do so. Autopackage is new, but it's great for packaging up your software project - no more "RPM for Redhat, RPM for SuSE, RPM for Mandrake, DEB for Debian..." just make one autopackage binary for the lot.

      Jedidiah.

    10. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by ninji · · Score: 1

      It is relatively unacceptable for two branches to have differnt packages, but sometimes developmental needs have cause for it, although I can't really see why only the specific packages made differnt for each one would need it.

      Anyways, I think its the way to go, when choosing a Linux OS, most people like to choose something open source and widely used, and especially, free. SuSe is a good OS and alot of people are likely to choose it as an open source alternative.

      I think selling the relivant same OS, with a heavy support package is the way to go, becuase Open Source Hackers love the openness and freeness, and business's like they with paying for something, and being able to count on support for that, they wont have as much of the trouble of integeration and reform of their systems...

    11. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Cyno · · Score: 1

      you mean include only the same set of libraries, right?

      I bet you can run Blender on any RedHat or SuSE distro.

      Perhaps library-compatible would be a better term..

    12. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I admit as a Anonymous Coward I spoke out of turn, please forgive my stupidity. It is I that is the illiterate retard. I realize that after reading the article I am speaking out from between the wrong cheeks, I don't know why I come out here on these internets, I would like the editors to retracks my statesments. I am a worm.

    13. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

      I'd argue installing apps on Linux is easier than Windows.

      You look for the program you want to run in the package list (many commercial or mature distros have a GUI tool for this). You look for something you want, tick it, press install and it does all the work.

      With Windows you browse the web (there's not much good quality freeware), work out how to download it, run the installer. If there's any dependancies the software author forgot to mention then it won't run.

    14. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by CG4L · · Score: 1
      Technical binary compatibility is an irrelevance if Mr.Average User can't get his application to install. Maybe it is possible to convert an RPM to a DEB and install it with Apt-get or one of its front-ends.....

      It's called Alien and from my experience it works pretty good.

      --
      Show me your college level teaching credential and I'll gladly submit to your grammar instruction.
    15. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Work out how to download it?

      Most times, you can just click on the link, and run the install directly.

      You must be on drugs to even suggest that installing on Linux is easier than in Windows.

    16. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by KillShill · · Score: 1

      but if there's a problem, then linux makes win3.1 dll hell look like a paradise. even linux experts feel massively frustrated and helpless in that situation.

      installing and uninstalling any !arbitrary! program is hell in linux. that's the one aspect of linux i would like to see improved, everything else is pretty much great (except drivers but that's not a linux-only problem)

      --
      Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
    17. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Donny+Smith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course, the free and commercial version are not 100% compatible because they don't want them to be - they're made in such way so that people still have to buy SLES to run most commercial software.

      The same thing is with Fedora - you're welcome to beta test and debug it for Red Hat to build their Enterprise Linux version upon, and then when you want to use Linux in enterprise environment, please line up for RHEL which starts at $299 (if I'm not mistaken).

      I fail to realize why would anyone want to fuck around with these distros with a 6 month lifetime, instead of contributing to freeer distros with longer lifespans such as Ubuntu, Debian or CentOS.

      Instead of running OS's with a long upgrade cycle and spending time on debugging and improving apps, people spend 20% of their time re-installing/upgrading OS and other rundimentary shit that does little to improve Linux.

    18. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by mahdi13 · · Score: 1

      You haven't tried to download from fileplanet in the last 3 years apperently

      --
      "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
    19. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      You forgot a few things:

      Then you find out what the actual NAME of the executable you just installed is.

      You find the text configuration file for it and set it up (albiet if your Distro is a good one they have the configuration file well commented)

      (only occasionally) you create a few symlinks to some libraries that the program seem to be expecting

      (Java related) Fart around with path statements for half an hour or so

      Edit your AppMenu's text file to add your program in there (if desired)

      Run!

      Hey what could be simplier?

    20. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SuSE Professional or SuSE?

      SuSE Professional, although I'm curious as to just what you mean by 'SuSE'? Could you be trying to reference SuSE Enterprise Server? And if so, why exactly would I install that on a laptop in my spare time?

      Thanks for playing, though. (No, really...thank you. I haven't laughed this hard in weeks.)

      Says who?

      Says the 'score' column on my user page (you know where it is...heck...you probably have it bookmarked). It seems like the majority of slashdotters think I have something positive to contribute. Oh, wait...I forgot. That makes me a "Karma Whore", doesn't it? Those sour grapes must taste awful...

      I wasn't even replying to you, idiot. Are you retarded, illiterate, or what?

      You were replying in my thread with a post that referenced me specifically. And then, after my reply, you did it again. Odds are really good that you'll do it yet again after reading this reply. Seems like you're giving me all the 'attention' I want, aren't you?

      Troll on, you crazy diamond.
      --
      __________

      |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
    21. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a stupid stupid troll. Troll Troll Troll your boat gently down the net.

    22. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Orrin+Bloquy · · Score: 1

      I use Synaptic. There's a tab to see what it installed and where. Finding the executable in this list is trivial, and (under KDE) making a toolbar icon for it is about six clicks. Not as convenient as having an installer guarantee toolbar icon creation, I'll agree, but not too challenging either.

      --
      "Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on /. and I must look smart."
    23. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by caluml · · Score: 1
      With Windows you browse the web (there's not much good quality freeware), work out how to download it, run the installer.

      You forgot: Then head off to the warez/crackz/serialz sites, get infected with some trojan/spyware, and look for the serial number to use it.

    24. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      It's called Alien and from my experience it works pretty good.

      Sorry to go off-topic and flame, but... "Works pretty well" damnit! Why can't anyone ever get this correct?!?!

      "Good" is an adjective (describes a noun)
      "Well" is an adverb (describes a verb)

      Something is good, but something is done well.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    25. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "IMO it is near-unacceptable that any two distributions of Linux on the same processor-platform should be binary-incompatible."

      Why is it?

      Binary compatibility is almost completly irrelevant. Source compatibility *is* relevant.

      Talking about RPM, for instance, I don't give a damn about binary compatibility as long as I can do `rpm -tb givenprogram.srpm` and go with it.

      Or is it that you distribute some binary-only programs you don't want to share their source with me?

      Then it is your problem, not mine, and I don't give a damn about you!

      "The level of binary compatibility between any 2 same-platform linux distros should be at the very least equal to the level of compatibility between Win 2000 and Win XP"

      Just for your interest. Win 2000 and Win XP come from the same Redmon-based company that won't let you access to its source code, so you can't achieve source compatibility no matter what; all you can have is binary compatibility.

      Now, from the purely commercial point of view, SuSE is an operative system coming from Novell; Red Hat is an operative system coming from Red Hat Inc. Why the hell do you expect better compatibility between these two competing products than that from say, Win 2000 and Mac OS/X?

      On the other hand, if you *really* expect binary compatibility between SuSE's and Red Hat's products, why is it that you don't expect just the same between Microsoft's and Apple's?

    26. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      "Works pretty well" damnit! Why can't anyone ever get this correct?!?!

          The OED has no such word as "damnit". In addition, don't you need a comma before "damnit"? :)

    27. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by siplus · · Score: 1
      While installing software on windows is not as difficult as the GP said it was, Linux is at the very least no more difficult than windows.

      Besides, Synaptic will save you a whole bunch of clicks. all you have to do is click the program than 'apply'. windows has 172 next's

      ;)

    28. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You must be on drugs to even suggest that installing on Linux is easier than in Windows."

      The fact is *it is* easier to install software on Linux than in Windows.

      I am a long time user of both Windows and Linux and I *know* it.

      Not only it is easier installing software on Linux that in Windows, you can have much more control too (if you want it).

    29. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Greg_D · · Score: 1

      Synaptic is just as limited as apt, which is as limited as the repositories make them, and virtually all repositories have tons of broken software that can't run unless you whip out emerge or dpkg or rpm and install some binaries or libraries that can't be found on the repository, due to poor package management, incompetence, or some sort of political stand.

      After a year of running nothing but Linux on my PC, I reinstalled Windows. The only third party libraries I had to install for any of my software to work properly was GTK+ to get The Gimp running.
      I suppose you could throw DirectX into that mix, but I have no need for that.

      Being able to download what I want, double click it, and the program just working beats the hell out of Synaptic.

    30. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Danger+Stevens · · Score: 1

      It's funny that you recommend people don't mess with RHEL and just go to something 'freeer' like CentOS.

      CentOS is absolutely nothing more than RHEL with the labels removed. They make almost no other alterations to it. It releases two days after every release of RHEL.

      --
      World Changing - News for Humans, Stuff about our planet
    31. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Touche'. Normally I hate the spelling/grammar Nazis. I've just become very aware lately that almost nobody I speak to, or have read the writings of, knows how to use the word 'good' correctly. It's fast becoming a pet-peeve of mine...

      Granted my spelling/grammar are far from perfect, but the good/well issue is right up there with their/they're/there and its/it's. Anybody who's graduated high school should know them! But I digress and get further off point...

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    32. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but if there's a problem, then linux makes win3.1 dll hell look like a paradise. even linux experts feel massively frustrated and helpless in that situation.

      As a self proclaimed Linux Expert, I'm really not sure what you're getting at.

      In my usage, 98% of the time when I want a package it's in the package repositiory of the distro I'm using, installs without a hitch, and works perfectly.

      The remaining 2% breaks down like this:

      • Installs from source. This works the same on Windows, so there's no difference here. The class of Windows users who don't need to know about this don't need to know about it on Linux either. Hell, it's easier on Linux - if you disagree go build a source package from CVS on Windows. Firefox, OpenOffice, Gimp, and Gaim are examples of packaged heavily used on Windows with source packages and CVS archives available.
      • Installs from broken packages. This has never happened to me on a stable distribution, and the package has been fixed in the repository within 24 hours on unstable distros every time. No Windows junky would be terribly suprized if they had trouble installing something random... say Lotus Notes... on the new Longhorn beta - it's not a stable release.

      Pretty simply, the package + repository system is way cleaner than anything Windows has, and any claims of "nightmare dependancy situations" are probably the result of users intentionally doing things the hard way rather than using offical packages from their distributor.

      It's like if a Windows user copied a friend's "C:\Program Files\Front Page" directory to their computer and complained it didn't work rather than using an installer - possible, but I'm sure as hell not going to give you any sympathy if you don't get it to work.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    33. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Azul · · Score: 3, Informative

      The only reason I can think for them not to be entirely compatible is that SuSE Professional is released much more frequently than SLES. SLES 9 Sp2, for example, comes with a kernel based on 2.6.5 (with lots of fixes by Novell) and this will continue for the entire lifespan of SLES 9. This doesn't happen with SuSE Professional, which has an entirely different focus and is based on the latest available versions of all packages.

      In order for them to be compatible, you'd need to drop the stability of SLES, which would be a stupid move, or stabilize SuSE Professional (rather than build it using the latest available versions of software), which would be a stupid move as well.

      Providers of propietary software do certify it against specific distributions (and even versions). This is a process that takes time and money from them, so its a smarter move to certify against the stable distribution, not the constantly moving one, specially since their creator does not offer support for the latter.

      And, anyway, you can legally run SLES for as long as you want without paying Novell (see this post in my weblog for more information)

      So no, there are real reasons why they are not compatible and they are not your simplistic "they don't want them to be" ideas.

    34. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by SeeTheLight · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is it possible to have a single autopackage that can detect what architecture it is being run in and install the appropriate binaries?

    35. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Azul · · Score: 3, Informative

      Before continuing to recommend Autopackage, you might want to read this post by Joey Hess from the Debian Project, where he calls it "Worst. Package. Format. Ever" and ponders if it was designed by monkeys (and he, the maintainer of Alien, does know a bit about package formats).

      If you're interested, you might also want to read this post and the comments there.

    36. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by SeeTheLight · · Score: 1

      Control of what?

    37. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by CdBee · · Score: 1

      (there's not much good quality freeware)

      Beats me what this stuff on my Windows machine is then
      ( iTunes, Winamp, AVG antivirus, Zonealarm FW, OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird, DBPowerAmp, Media Player Classic, X-chat, nVu) - yes, some of its OSS, it's all still free as in beer.

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    38. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by CdBee · · Score: 1

      Binary compatibility is important to me as my time is important to me - I acknowledge your ability to build an app from code with a compiler, it's something I haven't ever tried. I prefer a nice installer file, be it .msi, .deb, .rpm or .something else format, as I take more pleasure from using my computer than configuring it. I view application installation as a 2-minute job to be done once...

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    39. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Hosiah · · Score: 2, Funny

      You could also get the source code, grep it for library references, and hook things up to your needs and compile it and install it yourself, by hand, coding the occasional softlink and/or shell script to make it work your way. But, oops, I forgot, it's hedistic sacriledge to even mention such a thing in a Linux discussion on Slashdot, in these days of Ubuntu/Mandriva dominance. Forget I mentioned that. What I meant to say is, programs are written by the program fairy, and cannot be installed on a system without the magic install wizard.

    40. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by zootm · · Score: 1

      Regardless of how good it is as a package format, it's aiming to be distribution-neutral, which puts it a lot better than many. I'm not a big fan of the current practice of treating system/library packages and applications packages so similarly as they are now -- it means that the maintainer of a distribution has accept full control over a vast number of packages, and makes it harder for application developers to develop for a "neutral" Linux platform.

      Autopackage may not be the solution, but "traditional" package managers are no better for the problems facing Linux for mass (particularly desktop) acceptance.

    41. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      I agree with you completely. Having a father who taught graduate-level English made me extremely sensitive to transgressions. On the other hand, people are people (some, indeed, aren't native English speakers/writers, so may be forgiven for never really having learned the adverb/adjective rules), and I appreciate that the whole point of the language is to communicate.

            Of course, everyone understands this at some level. I'm preaching to the choir. Just wanted to say that your pet peeve is one of mine, too, and it *should* be one of anyone who attempts to use English. Too bad there's only so much time in one's life.

    42. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Com2Kid · · Score: 1
      I use Synaptic.


      I used to as well, it sucked. A lot. Then again I was using the YOPER version of it, no clue how well the main line branch of it does.

      There's a tab to see what it installed and where.


      True, but I was thinking more of YaST2 when I posted, SuSE loves to shove stuff all around your hard drive, make new directories without informing you, and do all other sorts of nice stuff. In retrospect SOME of it is nice, but if you do not KNOW that it is going to happen. . . .

      (such as spending 20 minutes trying to find the apache web-root directory only to then realize that new "srv" directory under /)
    43. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually in Suse 9.3 Novell clarified redistribution rights in the license file at the root of the DVD. You can redistribute it providing you receive NOTHING in return.

      Apparantly based on this news they are making it truly free in 10.0 =) I wonder if this means that textmaker and planmaker are being removed from the distribution?

    44. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Stauf · · Score: 1

      But I digress and get further off point...

      You're grammering pretty good but.

    45. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by salimma · · Score: 1
      In order for them to be compatible, you'd need to drop the stability of SLES, which would be a stupid move, or stabilize SuSE Professional (rather than build it using the latest available versions of software), which would be a stupid move as well.

      Or, as a third option, provide compatibility libraries on SuSE Pro so that SLES applications would run out-of-the-box, provided their RPMs use file dependencies instead of hard-coded package names.
      --
      Michel
      Fedora Project Contribut
    46. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by KillShill · · Score: 1

      by definition, if it's in your distro's repository, then the program isn't arbitrary.

      i mean you take the source, and build it yourself.

      i mean, i'm sure all the programs you could ever want in any situation in your lifetime, would be located in the repository...

      copying a friends frontpage directory could work. some programs asbolutely will not start without certain registry keys or certain other settings but many just recreate the settings as needed on startup. depends on the application. though that may not be a good example of what you want to express.

      --
      Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
    47. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "I view application installation as a 2-minute job to be done once..."

      Me too!

      And that's the niceness about going for source compatibility instead of binary compatibility. Any knowledgeable person can tell you what a deterrent to innovation the "wintel" backwards binary compatibility has meant to computer advancement of the last decade. Why I should want to make sure new libraries are binary compatible with old ones when most problems can be resolved just recompiling old programs to link with new versions (be it me or my distribution-of-choice builders the ones that recompile), maybe with minor source changes, when I (and everybody else) know assuring binary compatibility is just a PITA?

      I have sucessfully recompiled software from late 80's I used on HP-Ux on modern linux distributions with no (or minor) problems. Only problems arrived from software I couldn't access the source code. From my experience the answer is clear: to hell with binary compatibility and to hell with binary-only programs: "show me the source" is the right answer.

    48. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "by definition, if it's in your distro's repository, then the program isn't arbitrary."

      I would say taking one out of about 8500 programs of about any category you are able to think about is quite arbitrary. But if you want to tell me "arbitrary" is some extrange program nobody knows then, well, you can, even then, install on a Linux system with more or less dificulty. I now ask you how many people has the knowlege to install a source tarball for any arbitrary program on Windows? I bet quite a reasonably percentage of Linux users know about the "./configure && make && make install magic", and for the most part, this is all it's needed to be done, TAKING APART those about 8500 programs you don't even need to do but apt-get install program!!!.

    49. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      "Installing any program that exists and could possibly run on Linux, including both packaged programs and programs that only exist as development source snapshots" is a different standard than "Installing programs that have been packaged for Windows".

      Would you consider it reasonable to rip on Windows for the install procedure for, say, Firefox from source? It'd be exactly as valid as ripping on Linux for the same thing.

      The avaiability of source-only Linux programs is neat. It gives an additional option for Linux power users that users on non-Unix systems don't tend to have. It's not something that a normal user is expected to know about or deal with.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    50. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by ZaMoose · · Score: 1

      Where did you come up with the notion that FC and RHEL are "binary incompatible"? I quite easily run FC3-compiled packages from Dag Wieers and Freshrpms on my RHEL4 desktop. Some (*ahem* Mplayer) take some tweaking to get running well, particularly if you've chosen to go the x86-64 route.

      Please get the facts before you go off spouting nonsense like your "incompatible" fluff in the future.

      --
      I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
    51. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by CG4L · · Score: 1
      Why thank you for the armchair grammar lesson!! I am confident that your (not you're) grammar skills are very accomplished, but if the meaning of my comment was in question, then you may need to evaluate your simple comprehension of a statement made in the English language. I can state it more simplistic for you if that is a difficult task for your mind to grasp.

      Let us start. When an individual is communicating a message and chooses the word "good" to describe a verb, than simple logic would dictate that the person would mean "well". Sorry for the mix up. I will try and be a better student next time, Proffesor Atzanteol. Oh, and since we are giving English lessons here is a simple simple spelling lesson. Let us start. Altogether now. First word, "A".."N".."A".."L".. Second word, come on you can do it, "R".."E".."T".."E".."N".."T".."I".."V".."E"..

      Also, if you need a defintion of that term you can find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_retentive

      Well now, that was fun now children wasn't it??!!

      --
      Show me your college level teaching credential and I'll gladly submit to your grammar instruction.
    52. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Wiz · · Score: 1
      Are you sure? They stablised the C++ ABI back in gcc 3.2 (although 3.3 to 3.4 had a minor change to SPARC, for a good reason though).
      The main purpose of the 3.2 release is to correct a couple of problems in the C++ ABI, with the intention of providing a stable interface going forward. Accordingly, 3.2 is only a small change to 3.1.1.

      From GCC themselves.
    53. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Autopackage isn't a package format, so Joeys experience is irrelevant. It's a way of distributing programs on Linux that happens to share a few attributes of traditional package systems, and also a few of traditional installer systems. The fact that it can't be parsed using Alien doesn't mean it was designed by monkeys, and anybody who asserts such a thing deserves to have their own credibility questioned.

    54. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      I appreciate the sarcasm. I don't expect people to have perfect spelling and grammar. Lord knows mine aren't perfect as I'm sure you can tell. Normally I hate spelling/grammar nazis.

      But "well and good" are such *simple* and common words that any knucklehead should know how to use them. Even you hit upon your/you're. How often here do you read something like "There research is terrible" or "Your going to need to explain yourself"?

      It doesn't make you incoherent, though one *does* need to re-read a sentance or two a couple times before they can figure out what you mean. But it definitely shows serious sloppiness and speaks a bit about the author (whether you like it or not) when even *trivial* grammar rules are ignored.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    55. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Azul · · Score: 1

      I think "designed by monkeys" isn't a conclusion he gets from seeing it can't be parsed by Alien but rather its entire lack of semantics in the package files. The fact that it can't be parsed using Alien is not the relevant fact. The relevant fact is that it can't be parsed using anything!

      I know XML is over hyped, but in this age you'd think people would have learned the value of using formats with explicit semantics. From Joey's post it would seem that the format of Autopackage's files is entirely lacking in this regard. As you say yourself, "Autopackage isn't a package format" (I think it would be clearer to say "Autopackage files lack a explicit package format").

      That, in my opinion, is a little shortsighted. There will be a lot of things that people will eventually want to do with software distributed as Autopackage files and they won't be able since there are no semantics. Joey's case is just one initial example of this problem.

      Wouldn't you think it better for Autopackage files to actually have a format with some semantics? Sure, you'd need to design a model that allows you to install those packages in any platform anticipating most things developers will want, which seems to be a bit more work than the simplistic "bah, its just a shell script that you run to install packages" approach, but I think it would work better in the long run.

      Can you extract information of dependencies from Autopackage files (for example, to build a dependency tree)? Can you build a list of files that an Autopackage file will install? In that list, can you know the size of each file? Can you extract a list of relevant installation questions that users will be asked (for example, to automatically build a YaST module to config the package)? The specific answers to these questions are not relevant; what's relevant is to notice that should Autopackage become successful, people will want to do a lot of difficult to anticipate things with these files.

      From the little I've read, your approach seems to be to add command line switches to the scripts that Autopackages are. Now I think about it, this is a good idea! If you add enough, people will be able to do all the things they might want to do from the packages just going the extra step of running them with the relevant switch and then parsing the output. But then, wouldn't it be better to have included just the output of these switches? This would require Autopackage to parse packages and install them on their own, but it would standarize everything.

      Anyway, just my two cents. I'm really not familiar with Autopackage other than from the little I've read on its website and those I liked on my grandparent post.

    56. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

      I think I said we shouldn't mess with Fedora because it's wasteful and should instead contribute to CentOS instead (which I do).

    57. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello Oracle, Can i have your source code? ...

      Please?

    58. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by CG4L · · Score: 1

      OK. "sentance" is actually correctly spelled "sentence". And also, for further reference in the future, it may be perceived to be rather obnoxious to act like a kindergartner with a college level education ("nanna, nanna, nanna, you are wrah-ong!!"). Correcting petty grammatical errors to make oneself feel important is not exactly a mature attribute. It also tends to make the indivdual somewhat less popular as it did for me when I was like 9 years old and executed the same tactics as a "know-it-all" student enrolled in the MGM (Mentally Gifted Minor, minimum IQ = 134) program and displayed the same attitude to my peers in Elementary education. I unlearned that behaviour at the secondary education level and had an immensely more enjoyable experience with the human race. Ciao.

      --
      Show me your college level teaching credential and I'll gladly submit to your grammar instruction.
    59. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      OK. "sentance" is actually correctly spelled "sentence"
      ...
      Correcting petty grammatical errors to make oneself feel important is not exactly a mature attribute

      'Nuff said. I'm done here. FWIW I was typing that early this morning. And as I said, I'm not expecting perfection. Typo's and such are understandable. As are minor spelling errors here and there. If I *always* spelled "sentence" incorrectly, or if everybody else started spelling it with the same mis-spelling I made above, that's when it becomes annoying.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    60. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      And, if you're a commercial vendor, who wants to release closed source software, how many install systems and distros do you have to support.. hell, you can't get the same RPM to install in RH9, fc2,3 or 4 from the same RPM, let alone different distros.

      The package system is great for F/OSS that is available for the distro, or even a nice source make/gnu-make, but it does nothing for the majority of software which are smaller utility, or niche programs that are closed source... keeping the open vs closed source debates aside, this *is* where most software is, and will probably continue to be, if the majority of developers, and software companies expect to make any mony... by not having a common system for installing software on at least 1/2 of the linux installs out there it's a bad thing...

      Despite any political views re: microsoft, at lease you can create an installer that will work on more than 95% of every windows install for the past 8-10 years, can't come close to that with linux... hell, take a que from BSD here..

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    61. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      Well, the fact that it can't be parsed by anything is a deliberate design choice. The flexibility we get from exposing an API rather than a fixed package format lets us continue to improve the system for non-technical end users, who make up the vast majority of our users. The number of people who will benefit from the switch to LZMA compression in 1.2 vs the number of people who would benefit from being able to tell ahead of time what files a package would install is significant.

      In general the design has always been "figure things out as the package runs, and don't try and guess what we'll need to do ahead of time". Modern Linux distributions are so fragmented and inconsistent it's the only sane way to ensure we can make them run everywhere.

      If you look at the use cases for this sort of thing, very rarely do people want to get a dependency tree from an installer on MacOS X or Windows, and as that's where I think we should be heading platform-wise, it makes sense to give those use cases priority.

  2. A feasible business model by guaigean · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is probably one of the best moves Novell can make for both themselves and the OSS community. As Linux gains popularity, corporations are wanting to move to open source apps, but want corporate backing and support. This gives Novell the flexibility of both tracks, and offers another stable solution for enterprise level business.

    --
    Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
    1. Re:A feasible business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Upon what do you base this assumption/opinion?

      Does "community" development imply "corporate backing"?

    2. Re:A feasible business model by Karzz1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is probably one of the best moves Novell can make for both themselves and the OSS community.

      I couldn't agree more. I was a longtime RedHat customer/user. I liked that, at my option, I could download and use RH Linux for free or, if I needed support or felt like supporting RH I could buy the boxed version. As a matter of fact I had a RH Network subscription (bought by me personally as a show of support) that, when RH changed all their versioning around, I got stiffed on about 6 months worth of. As a result, and after bad experiences with Fedora core on my servers (least of which is no upgrade path) I have had no qualms about using CentOS in production. With SuSE basically going back to the licensing model that RH had in the past, and being a former SuSE user, I am inclined to look at SuSE again.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
    3. Re:A feasible business model by mpapet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are making a few assumptions:

      1. Binary compatibility. It seems likely to me that they would make the two versions incompatible. They need to have a clear distinction between the two versions. Binary INcompatibility is that distinction.

      2. Novell makes the right product. They could screw up a great distro by having a license/revenue/feature package that the market doesn't like. It's easier to screw this up than you think.

      3. Novell actually offers something that will drive enterprise consumers over to their product from RH. So far, they are a me-too product with lots of potential given their back-end stuff.

      4. The battle for systems management tools is on and Novell's a likely loser. MS and RH don't want them in their market. They'll likely get screwed by both firms when they buddy-up somehow. Sun will probably throw a couple of punches in as well.

      --
      http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
    4. Re:A feasible business model by MynockGuano · · Score: 2, Interesting

      SGI is already switching their software distribution and support from RHEL to SuSE on their Altix platform. We installed it on ours yesterday.

      Like it or not, that sticks them into the game at many U.S. government/military sites, and that automatically yanks them out of the "me-too" division. Just as SGI is using their government contracts to hang in the market by a thread, SuSE can use it to jump-start a play for major market acceptance as they move in the other direction.

    5. Re:A feasible business model by mattdm · · Score: 1

      As a result, and after bad experiences with Fedora core on my servers (least of which is no upgrade path) [...]

      While I definitely agree that Fedora Core isn't a good choice for servers, I'm curious about your "no upgrade path" statement. I've seen similar comments on Slashdot before, so it seems to be not just an isolated perception. Yet, you can upgrade from RHL9 to FC1 to FC2 to FC3 to FC4 to (future) FC5 just fine -- seems like an upgrade path to me.

    6. Re:A feasible business model by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      if someone is unhappy with FC, CentOS is the way to go. They claim that Centos 4.1 will be supported until 2012. Nuts, they are.

    7. Re:A feasible business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 1. Binary compatibility. It seems likely to me that they would make the two
      > versions incompatible. They need to have a clear distinction between the two
      > versions. Binary INcompatibility is that distinction.

      Off course not

      > 3. Novell actually offers something that will drive enterprise consumers over
      > to their product from RH. So far, they are a me-too product with lots of
      > potential given their back-end stuff.

      I just went to Novell last friday to see a demo of their Open Enterprise Server, with the former Netware management tools. It blew my mind. Perfect integration between Linux and Windows clients, easily manageable, you name it. It was like Active Directory done right. Nothing 'me too' about that.

      > 4. The battle for systems management tools is on and Novell's a likely loser.
      > MS and RH don't want them in their market. They'll likely get screwed by both
      > firms when they buddy-up somehow. Sun will probably throw a couple of punches
      > in as well.

      Again, look at the tools they actually offer.. at least as nice as RedHat.

      This looks like a great move from Novell's part to me (who's been using RH/FC since Redhat 5.2). I actually asked the Novell rep at the demo 'why they didn't pull a Fedora on SLES'. His answer? 'Wait & see' :)

      Also, if you follow, for example, Planet Gnome you can see that a lot of the more exciting new stuff in Linux comes from Novell these days (well, actually it comes from what used to be Ximian). New network monitor stuff, Beagle (!), Mono, ...

      One other, very important thing in the enterpris market: even though IBM supports both RedHat and SuSE on their machines, they are currently pushing SuSE more than RedHat (I can know it, working for a Tier 1 IBM Business Partner and dealing with Big Blue on a daily basis).

      I'm very excited about this announcement! Can't wait to see how it turns out.

    8. Re:A feasible business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing I forgot: I hope they start including apt or yum soon. As someone who's constantly building his own repositories for internal and external use, it would be a huge advantage to be able to use it easily under SuSE as well.

    9. Re:A feasible business model by Karzz1 · · Score: 1

      Everything I had on fedora core is now on centos 4.1 while all my old boxes running RH9 and earlier are Centos 3.5. Maybe I am doing something wrong with regards to upgrades, but I have a) not seen the upgrade option between different versions of FC and b) have not seen the upgrade option to RH Enterprise from any of the FCs. I have done many RH installs (many Linux installs in general) so if someone can tell me what I am doing wrong, that would definitely help me and I am sure anyone else that may have run into this. =)

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
    10. Re:A feasible business model by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      I don't think you're necessarily doing anything wrong. You seemingly made the best decision based on the information you had.

      I myself have always doen fresh install because it is simpler and supposdely the best method. However, there are update paths. Instead of giving you wrong information, I'll suggest to you how to get the right information.

      • Got to #fedora on freenode's irc servers. And clear state what you want to do.
      • Got to the general user mailing list and state what you would like to do clearly.
      • Post your question(s) at fedoraforum.org and/or linuxquestions.org (they have a fedora board)

      Of the top of my head I know for a fact that if you beging a Fedora install on amachine that already has Fedora, it will recognize the installtion (unlessed it is badly hosed) and offer you the option to upgrade.

      It is also suppose to be possible to use yum with approporate conf files to upgrade to the lastest version of Fedora.

      If you would like to upgrade to RH Ent. that implies that you have paid a liscence for support, I can't imagine the tech support being unwilling to guide you through an upgrade to RH Ent. unless you have some special circumstances which could make it more problamatic than it is.

      Good luck.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  3. Umm, SuSE is _already_ open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All they're doing is opening the development process to be something more like Fedora.

    -linuxrocks123

    My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. This is not legal advice.

    "There's no need for red-hot pokers. Hell is -- other people!"
    -Jean Paul Sartre

    1. Re:Umm, SuSE is _already_ open source by Brandybuck · · Score: 1, Informative

      That explains it. YAST was already open sourced, so I was confused as to what was left. The actual ISO images? They don't have any!

      But "open source" is still the wrong term. Opening up the developer process is NOT "open source". Besides, I still don't know what this "opening" means. Does it imply that they automatically rejected every prior fix submitted by non-employees? Does this now mean they will accept *every* submission? If they reject even one because it's a bad fix, will that make them "closed" again?

      This community is too caught up in words, in my humble opinion. We're like sheep in the way we can be trivially manipulated by the right words. People are all gushing about how wonderful the world is because SuSE is now open. Sheesh.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    2. Re:Umm, SuSE is _already_ open source by houghi · · Score: 2, Informative

      The actual ISO images? They don't have any!

      Look at a mirror and you will see that they do. 5 of them, although they do not contain all the software that is on the DVD's

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:Umm, SuSE is _already_ open source by jurt1235 · · Score: 1

      Yes, and they follow the GPL, YAST2 is opensource under GPL, so the only thing they want to do is turn it over to the community. I think debian will get more followers this way, and Suse will loose. I use suse a lot, megapatch it myself, but this way it is getting less and less attractive.

      --

      My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
    4. Re:Umm, SuSE is _already_ open source by sud_crow · · Score: 1

      actually, they do have ISO images, SuSE 9.3 has 5 ISOS for CDs and 1 ISO for DVD, all from Novell, although they were released a couple months after the retails.

      --
      no sig
  4. switch to suse by cerelib · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I currently have been using kubuntu because it has proven to be the most user friendly KDE distro, for free (full version, no eval). I have tried suse before and enjoyed it, but I did not like having eval versions and such. And just felt stupid trying to get a pirated version of a linux distro. if this pans out I will definitely give it a chance.

    1. Re:switch to suse by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Informative


      SuSE is currently available for free via FTP download. It takes a while to get a system installed and up nd running, but IMHO, SuSE 9.3 is definitely worth it.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    2. Re:switch to suse by Chaotic+Spyder · · Score: 1

      Suse is free.... :S allthough you can choose to pay for the cd and get support i've been useing SuSE for about a year now and i love every second of it but the software is free to download and install.. check out the
      mirrors
      http://www.novell.com/products/linuxprofessional/d ownloads/ftp/int_mirrors.html

      --
      Losers whine about their best, Winners go home to fuck the prom queen
    3. Re:switch to suse by guaigean · · Score: 1

      I have to agree. The benefits of 9.3 are very nice. Overall SuSE is a very stable distro with a lot of simplicity. Yes, I could use Slackware, Gentoo, etc, and have, but making life a little easier isn't always a bad thing. Especially if you know how to do it the hard way already.

      --
      Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
    4. Re:switch to suse by vivek7006 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or you can download the ISO image of SUSE 9.3 from torrents

      DVD
      http://isohunt.com/download.php?mode=bt&id=4142556
      5 CD Set
      http://isohunt.com/download.php?mode=bt&id=3965870

    5. Re:switch to suse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would anyone want to 'pirate' a Linux distro - how cheap are you ? It's less than $99 with DVD's (32 + 64bit),CD's, manuals and even a nifty 'SuSE' sticker to put on your box to replace that strange multi-colored flag thing that so many computers have on them.

      Don't be such a tight-wad, spend some cash and save a lot of hassle.

    6. Re:switch to suse by Curmudgeonlyoldbloke · · Score: 2, Informative

      It takes a while in terms of elapsed time, but not really in terms of effort. Just download the 50Mb network boot disk and leave for a while.

    7. Re:switch to suse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The so called "Eval" version _is_ for all intents and purposes the boxed version, minus software they cannot for legal reasons include in their free distribution (But which you can _install_ from FTP servers, including MP3 support etc.)

      I think Novell/SuSE made a mistake calling it Eval, when there is nothing to eval there - it's the full product. They should've originally called it the FTP version, which would've saved them a lot of headache from confused users. Like you for example.

    8. Re:switch to suse by seguso · · Score: 3, Informative
      SuSE is currently available for free via FTP download. It takes a while to get a system installed and up nd running, but IMHO, SuSE 9.3 is definitely worth it.

      I downloaded the DVD image here: ftp://ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/pub/Mirrors/ftp.su se.com/pub/suse/i386/9.3/iso/SUSE-9.3-Eval-DVD.iso

      BTW, the "eval" in the filename is misleading, because this is not a crippled version of the commercial release: it contains the non-free software (acrobat reader, realplayer, etc.).

      I was a former ubuntu hoary user but I switched to SUSE as the free dvd came out. To me, SUSE is one year ahead of the other distros, due to YAST.

    9. Re:switch to suse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To me, $99 is chump change. All of my kids are grown, I make in the upper five figures and my wife has her own employment. But it wasn't that long ago that I was raising three boys, earning substantially less money and saving pennies. It wasn't that long before that that I was a college student who was estatic if I had an extra five bucks to buy a pizza. "Cheap" is a matter of perspective.

    10. Re:switch to suse by KillShill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      aren't those the "warez" versions?

      infringing the copyright of a linux distribution is awfully naughty.

      --
      Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
    11. Re:switch to suse by Wannabe+Code+Monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And just felt stupid trying to get a pirated version of a linux distro. if this pans out I will definitely give it a chance.

      Well you should feel even stupider, SUSE Professional is already free. It's Enterprise which costs money.

      --
      We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
    12. Re:switch to suse by digidave · · Score: 1
      --
      The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
    13. Re:switch to suse by houghi · · Score: 1

      The 5 CD's are available on any mirror. Also a boot.iso is available of less then 60MB wich will do an FTP instalation. No need to download all 5 CD's

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    14. Re:switch to suse by M1FCJ · · Score: 1
      The license you have to agree when you are installing it doesn't mention that you have to pay money to them. It only grants you the freedom to make as many copies as you like and install on as many servers/PCs you have. The only thing you won't be able to do is get support.

      It is definitely not evaluation of the software but if you get some small amount of support as evaluation. On the other hand I can't think when was the last time I needed paid-for support with Linux because it is "never".

    15. Re:switch to suse by rtelfairm · · Score: 2, Informative

      Indeed, HTTP/FTP download/install is available and can be slow, depending on one's connection [my last install took over 2 hours across a reasonably good DSL line]. However, SuSE has made CD and DVD ISO's available for download, and you can also find them in the torrent.

      If you want to install "from the 'Net", the procedure involves booting install CD #1 and at the inital "boot:" prompt entering:

      linux install=[http/ftp]://ip.address.of.mirror/path/to/ directory/ending/with/arch/9.3[or other version]

      I totally agree with parent -- Install across 'Net can be slow, but SuSE 9.3 is a *fabulous* "desktop" distro and is my distro of choice on capable hardware. I haven't set up any servers on SuSE [just because], so I can't comment either way on that.

      /me
    16. Re:switch to suse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, as of a couple of weeks ago, the 5-disk 9.3 ISOs were released, and happily sitting on the FTP mirrors :-)

    17. Re:switch to suse by renoX · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right, somehow with my USB ADSL modem (speedtouch), I feel like FTP install won't work..

    18. Re:switch to suse by aav · · Score: 2, Informative

      Slashdot - the place where the uninformed morons are modded insightful.

      Have you even used your brain when you wrote "warez version" ?

      Since when aren't I allowed to make as many copies of Linux as I please ? Assuming I bought one CD with some distribution, I still am allowed to make as many copies as I please, share them with friends and anybody else, as long as I don't make more than the beer they'd have to invest in me for burning the cd's for them.

      Here's an excerpt from the licence posted on the SuSE website:

      You may make and use unlimited copies of the Software for Your distribution and use within
      Your Organization. You may make and distribute unlimited copies of the Software outside Your organization provided that: 1) You receive
      no consideration; and, 2) you do not bundle or combine the Software with another offering

      Moreover, Suse has always provided their distribution on their FTP server. I've been using it for 7 years now and I never had any issues with downloading it, while I still bought one of each major release, to support them.

      There are tons of mirrors across the world.

      With 9.3, they provided the choice between a net-based installation, and a cd-based one. As such, the CDs available as torrents are actually copies downloaded from the website.

      As for the other posts: 9.3 has been available online for more than a month now.

    19. Re:switch to suse by chef_raekwon · · Score: 1

      I was a former ubuntu hoary user but I switched to SUSE as the free dvd came out. To me, SUSE is one year ahead of the other distros, due to YAST.

      you've tried the rest. now try http://debian.org/.

      Suse ahead of Debian. Curious.

      --
      We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
    20. Re:switch to suse by MsGeek · · Score: 1

      Actually I'm more interested in apt-get for SuSE. SuSE is the one distro that supposedly can get everything working on a ThinkPad right out of the box, including the notorious audio on 600/600e problem. If apt was available for SuSE I'd be all over it.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
    21. Re:switch to suse by agraupe · · Score: 1

      I tried Debian. Then I tried Ubuntu. Ubuntu is like debian, but without the pain. SuSE, though, is still the better option. And right now I'm using gentoo... ;)

    22. Re:switch to suse by KillShill · · Score: 1

      the only moron is you. biting my head off for basically no good reason. instead of being an ass, you could have said what you wanted to say.

      to me, suse was a "commercial" distro. they have on their discs software which is not gpl. i thought it might not be legal to download those images. my post didn't say that i'm 100% certain that it was illegal, just a comment.

      slashdot, news for nerds, anger management that matters.

      --
      Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
    23. Re:switch to suse by kotku · · Score: 1

      This is something that has confused me as well. What do you get when you purchase the big shiny SUSE box for big $$$ in the shop that you don't get when you download the torrent.

      --
      The bikini - security through obscurity since 1943
    24. Re:switch to suse by mink · · Score: 1

      Printed Manuals
      Support from SUSE (I think 90 days)
      DVD has content not available on the CD version AFAIK.
      A box.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    25. Re:switch to suse by mink · · Score: 1

      Have you priced a non upgrade version of MS Windows?
      Even worse if you want RAID above 0 (and your not doing RAID via a controller) you have to buy a server edition of Windows for your desktop.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  5. Huh... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Open sourcing a linux distro that contains Open Source Software (OSS). What an interesting concept. Did Novell take a patent on this? Will Microsoft be the doing the same thing? What about SCO?

    1. Re:Huh... by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2, Funny

      SCO will be sueing Novell for open sourcing Open Source Software. Darl McBride was quoted as saying "This kind of thing can't be allowed to continue, where would this country be if software were free"?

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Huh... by suitepotato · · Score: 1

      SCO will be sueing Novell for open sourcing Open Source Software. Darl McBride was quoted as saying "This kind of thing can't be allowed to continue, where would this country be if software were free"?

      Asked for quotes, random geeks seemed to think all software was free anyways and offered free cracked Windows Office XP copies to the reporters.

      --
      If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  6. interest gone? by Shinaku · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I help out occasionally on a Linux help IRC channel, and looking through the logs I've seen that the amount of people using SuSE has dropped considerably while the amount of people using Ubuntu has risen exponentially.

    Maybe they're opening it up to compete with Ubuntu?

    --
    -- :>
    1. Re:interest gone? by ckaminski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or maybe us suse users just don't need help since it "just works?"

    2. Re:interest gone? by cypherz · · Score: 1

      SuSE users don't have time for all that IRC crap! Our distro just works so we don't need much help. _Thats_ why you're not seeing much traffic from SuSE users... :p

      SuSE 9.3 rocks. I'm using it in production right now...

      --
      This sig kills fascists.
    3. Re:interest gone? by cypherz · · Score: 1

      Damn! That'll teach me to read all the replies! arrgh!

      --
      This sig kills fascists.
    4. Re:interest gone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SuSE users don't have time for all that IRC crap!

      Or maybe it's because they don't know how to use IRC.

  7. This sounds like a good step but... by Zweideutig · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Where is the profit for Novell? I presume Novell will still charge for the media and support of course, but is that enough? I think a non-profit organization should be created to continue the develop of Suse (susa). Now that Mandrake is gone (Mandriva,) an opensource beginner-friendly dsitribution ought to help fill the gap. Disclaimer: I use the *BSDs on servers and Debian, Gentoo and Slackware on the desktop, but Suse may be a good option others.

    --
    Powered by caffeine and sugar; BSD
    1. Re:This sounds like a good step but... by CoolCash · · Score: 2, Informative

      The profit comes from there server applications that run on Suse. The eDirectory, Zenworks, GroupWise, products. All part of there Open Enterprise Server. These products are all charged per user, not per server.

    2. Re:This sounds like a good step but... by FatherOfONe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Where will Novell make money?

      That is a great question. The box versions that sell for under $100 don't make jack for Novell. All they do is get more users of their NOS. So, in one way this will get more and more users to at least try their product.

      In my opinion Novell will make money by moving up the application stack a bit. They will focus on things like groupware, management, clustering etc. Things that can be done with Linux today but could be a lot better for the average admin and end user. When Linux gets say 25 to 40% of the server market, their products will really start to shine. People will want stuff that runs on both Linux AND Windows, and perhaps other platforms as well (BSD, AIX, Solaris, Apple etc), and Novell will do an excellent job of this. Microsoft will probably delay any products for Linux as long as possible, and thus this will give Novell a competitive advantage for a long time.

      Now in my opinion they should look hard at open sourcing eDirectory, and build apps on top of it. Given that RedHat has release the Netscape directory server under GPL, the time is short for Novell to move on this.

      --
      The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
    3. Re:This sounds like a good step but... by tangledbank · · Score: 0

      The profit comes from Novell Enterprise Edition, much like RHEL4.

  8. Is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Ive downloaded the last couple versions of SuSe professional from their ftp servers, both before and after Novell bought them. What exactly is changing here other than some retarded "open" naming.. Is Novell getting scared about something and think they need some extra advertising today??

    1. Re:Is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I think it's the develepment process that's being opened up.

    2. Re:Is it just me? by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1


      I'm hoping that ISO images of the install CD for this 'OpenSUSE' will be available for download. Installing via FTP works, but it's an unnecessary pain in the ass.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    3. Re:Is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What's wrong with the ISOs (both CDs and DVD) of SUSE Pro 9.3 being available? *sigh*

  9. Oh the HUMANITY!! by Billy+the+Impaler · · Score: 1, Funny

    Somebody pre-slashdotted the opensuse link. I know one of you did it. Probably one of those grimy subscribers Fess up!

  10. Where's my cape? by cshark · · Score: 4, Funny

    Anyone else notice that the domain opensuse.org is registered to the caped crusader himself?

    --

    This signature has Super Cow Powers

    1. Re:Where's my cape? by goldspider · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bruce Wayne is just some aloof, philanthropic billionaire. You're thinking of Batman.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    2. Re:Where's my cape? by Fung_Koo · · Score: 1

      I don't know who he is behind that mask of his, but I do know when we need him... and we need him now! --Commissioner Gordon

      --
      It must be the power of NEGITIVE IONS!!
    3. Re:Where's my cape? by rubycodez · · Score: 1, Interesting

      they didn't know who Batman was, but let him have police power with license to kill, maim, and destroy public and private property; an aircraft pilot's license; a heavy-water moderated nuclear reactor; weapons of mass destruction including explosives, launch systems, artillery, armored vehicles, biological and chemical agents.....hey, come to think of it, isn't that kind of like what we did with George W Bush?

    4. Re:Where's my cape? by cshark · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right. We do know who Bush is though... mostly. If your dad was the former head of the CIA, you too would have the same sort of doors open up.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    5. Re:Where's my cape? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's another domain, which is working and has a front page for the time being

      http://www.opensuse.co.uk

  11. Free Booster Seat with every Download. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Ah yes, follow the RH model, and let the community do all the work.* All the while cutting European jobs.

    *Plus the quality will suffer.

    1. Re:Free Booster Seat with every Download. by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      All the while cutting European jobs.

      That's because you're not BUYING enough shrinked wrapped boxes of SuSE!

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  12. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    In other news, Debian and Gentoo is also creating an "open source" versions of their respective OS's.

    Oh... Wait a minute... :-)

  13. Breach of GPL? by Enoch+Lockwood · · Score: 0, Interesting
    How on Earth is it possible that SUSE Pro has NOT been open source so far? It's based on GPLd software and therefore all changes to the code and 3rd party additions should be free too.

    Am I sensing a license infringement cover up somewhere in here...

    1. Re:Breach of GPL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      > How on Earth is it possible that SUSE Pro has NOT been open source so far?

      It has, don't trust Slashdot headlines/stories.

    2. Re:Breach of GPL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      calm down, little boy

      Its not a (very) dumb /. article title that makes things come true...

    3. Re:Breach of GPL? by Shimbo · · Score: 3, Informative

      How on Earth is it possible that SUSE Pro has NOT been open source so far? It's based on GPLd software and therefore all changes to the code and 3rd party additions should be free too.

      They used to licence their installer, Yast2, under what the FSF would call a non-free licence (basically, no commercial redistribution). It was their own code, so they could licence it how they liked. There's nothing to stop you putting free and non-free stuff in the same distro: "mere aggregation" as the GPL has it.

      They haven't done that since SuSE 9.1, so it's a non-issue now.

    4. Re:Breach of GPL? by Johnny+Fiction · · Score: 1
      The official line from Novell:

      the GPL does not cover all code in SUSE Linux. In addition, various Novell trademarks, including "SUSE," are found throughout SUSE Linux. Unauthorized copying and redistribution of SUSE Linux violates Novell's trademark rights."

      http://cgi3.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage &userid=novell-piracy-group

      This applies to SUSE 9.3. Someone more legally minded than me may know whether this is in breach of the GPL - it definitely seems add odds with the spirit of the GPL to me.

  14. Planet SuSE by riggwelter · · Score: 3, Informative

    As this develops, news on the announcement as well as blogs from the SuSE community (and staffers) discussing it will be on Planet SuSE.

    --
    Listening for the sound of the coming rain...
  15. Re:The real question is by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

    (2B || !2B) is always true.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  16. A soon to be shotty OS? by smvp6459 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Does this mean SUSE Pro's going to end up like so many distros...a half baked OS with errors, for which no corporation is responsible?

    I gladly paid (and would continue to pay) for SUSE regularly because I knew I would get one of the most compatible, well tested and fairly up to date distributions that wasn't enterprise grade. Where will I go for solid release if OpenSUSE goes the way of Fedora Core 4?

    1. Re:A soon to be shotty OS? by kitzilla · · Score: 2, Informative

      I understand your concern, but you can always buy Novell Desktop Linux if you want fully supported SUSE. I used NDL 9 until installing SUSE 9.3 (freely available for download) just yesterday. NDL is quite slick, and "feel" right in a business environment. The license is cheaper than SUSE, too.

      --
      This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    2. Re:A soon to be shotty OS? by op12 · · Score: 1

      A soon to be shotty OS?

      That's a shoddy way to spell shoddy

    3. Re:A soon to be shotty OS? by TrekCycling · · Score: 1

      This is why I switched to CentOS. If no one is going to LET me pay for a well-supported professional OS that isn't Enterprise cost, then I'll just use the free rebuild. I was a SuSE user for 2 years and then I saw the writing on the wall. Looks like I was right.

    4. Re:A soon to be shotty OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where will I go for solid release if OpenSUSE goes the way of Fedora Core 4?

      Debian duh

    5. Re:A soon to be shotty OS? by Azul · · Score: 1

      I think you mean NLD (Novell Linux Desktop) rather than NDL.

      I'd also like to point out that NLD is strictly oriented for desktops; if you want to run SuSE on a server (with support from Novell), you should use SLES (SuSE Linux Enterprise Server).

      Basically, SuSE Professional (and I suppose now OpenSUSE) is the development version of the distribution. It is changing fast, with new releases made very often (at least when compared with SLES and NLD). SLES and NLD, on the other hand, are much more stable. Novell recommends using SLES and NLD on corporate environments (instead of SuSE Professional).

    6. Re:A soon to be shotty OS? by Azul · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can use SuSE Linux Enterpriser Server or Novell Linux Desktop, both of which are based in SuSE Professional (they are the "stable" version of SuSE Professional). Novell sells support for these two distributions.

      Oh, and, btw, it is not uncommon to find Novell employees who use SuSE Professional instead of Novell Linux Desktop. Since SuSE Professional serves as a development environment that eventually becomes SLES/NLD, I do think Novell has reasons to care and make sure it doesn't suffer the fate you fear.

    7. Re:A soon to be shotty OS? by kitzilla · · Score: 1

      Yup: NLD, not NDL. And I do use it as a desktop product.

      --
      This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    8. Re:A soon to be shotty OS? by smvp6459 · · Score: 1

      First, I wasn't trolling and second, I should have been a little more clear when I made my initial post, but it was well clarified in a proceeding post:

      I like SUSE because it is more up to date than Novell's enterprise desktop BUT it is also stable. Sure it isn't bleeding edge, but it's close enough for me while still providing a wide array of packages that I know will almost always work. I also like that it provides better support for new laptops than many distributions (especially enterprise desktops).

      This has not been my impression of FC4 and I wouldn't be surprised if Novell wastes what it now has in SUSE. Oh, and how hard is it for Novell to just install NLD over the old version of SUSE and let the employees install whatever developer tools that NLD doesn't provide?

    9. Re:A soon to be shotty OS? by Azul · · Score: 1

      I should have clarified what I meant when I said it is serves as a "development environment" that eventually becomes NLD/SLES. I didn't meant that it is used by developers for development work, but rather as the "testing" environment that allows Novell to test new technologies. Which is why I said Novell isn't likely to let its quality drop. That's what I meant. :)

      When I say it isn't stable, I don't mean it in the "it crashes" sense but rather in the "its moving quickly" sense.

  17. Layoffs announced at same time by Rashkae · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In completely unrelated news, I'm sure, Novell has announced layoffs of over 100 employees in Europe. Begs the question, is Novell trying to improve SuSe development with a community development model ala Red Hat, or is Novell Cutting SuSe loose?

    1. Re:Layoffs announced at same time by blueZhift · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would guess that the Novell layoffs are a prelude to cutting SUSE loose Fedora style given that the layoffs story says that Linux has been flat for Novell. OpenSUSE would essentially give Novell some free workers and for the long term would keep SUSE alive, not that it's dying or anything like that. I suspect SUSE will be around long after Novell bites the dust.

    2. Re:Layoffs announced at same time by Quash · · Score: 1

      Novell laid off European sales staff. It's re-organizing its sales arm. It did not lay off any engineering/tech staff.

    3. Re:Layoffs announced at same time by ShibbyShagDeluxe · · Score: 1

      That's what I heard too. I think they've put openSUSE together with the layoff's and thought that Novell were trying to get SUSE Linux developed on the cheap. ------------------- Mr Spanky, the erotic goldfish www.opensuse.co.uk

      --
      Mr Spanky, the erotic goldfish
  18. Re:The real question: does it rhyme? by ShaniaTwain · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yast in the past was twice as fast,
    as suse on the loose with juice,
    but the smell will tell
    if novell has done well,
    or if redhat has gotten their goose.

    (with apologies to seuss)

  19. Re:Crappy software never dies... by Zweideutig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because you are using Gentoo now and you think Suse is too "n00b" for you, it doesn't mean it is "crappy." You and me like *BSD or Solaris instead of Linux altogether, or Debian, Gentoo, or Slackware, that is great for us and serves us well. But Suse is still good for person across the street that just sends e-mail and reads online news, and wants something relatively easy to use, but without the hassle of spyware. You don't want to teach them how to use something like Gentoo do you?

    --
    Powered by caffeine and sugar; BSD
  20. Known, Successful Business Model by mpapet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They will do exactly like RH because it appears to be profitable.

    It's difficult to see how this makes them an actual meaningful competitor to RH though.

    It will be interesting to see if they drop java in the forthcoming project. In 9.3 they distribute it on the cd. They pay Sun for this priviledge, so I find it hard to believe they would be so charitable in the future.

    It's sad (predictable though) that Linux is going this way. The open project portion is essentially free development and testing for the corporate parent. The "open" portions of the distros are becoming the red-headed stepchild to the supported version.

    Please, no comments about how CentOS is "the same" as whatever RH product they got it from. Service, service, service is what makes it different.

    Charge a fortune for something that's free and the world will beat a path to your door.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
    1. Re:Known, Successful Business Model by Patoski · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's difficult to see how this makes them an actual meaningful competitor to RH though.

      Red Hat is getting a too big for their britches. RH's product is way more expensive than Suse and is not demonstrably better than what Suse is offering.

      RH looks really beaten when you look at their end to end enterprise solution stack. Novell looks miles better than RH and has decades of experience playing in this sandbox. Identity management looks esp poor for RH when you compare that old krufty Netscape thing that RH bought vs. a stable and extremely mature eDirectory product which is light years ahead of even Active Directory.

      Suse has many of the same support agreements from the big boys like IBM, Oracle, etc. Except for a solution that is already deployed or maybe wanting to go with the market leader (for safety) why would someone deploy RHL vs Novell? I can't think of a reason off the top of my head. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

      It will be interesting to see if they drop java in the forthcoming project. In 9.3 they distribute it on the cd. They pay Sun for this priviledge, so I find it hard to believe they would be so charitable in the future.

      This really doesn't matter much in the end. They'll just add it as an upgdate you can dl in YAST like they do with nvidia drivers, etc.

      --
      G. Washington on Government "it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
    2. Re:Known, Successful Business Model by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

      t will be interesting to see if they drop java in the forthcoming project. In 9.3 they distribute it on the cd. They pay Sun for this priviledge, so I find it hard to believe they would be so charitable in the future.

      Slackware distributes java and installs it by default. I don't think they pay anything.

    3. Re:Known, Successful Business Model by rsax · · Score: 1
      Except for a solution that is already deployed or maybe wanting to go with the market leader (for safety) why would someone deploy RHL vs Novell? I can't think of a reason off the top of my head. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

      One reason could be that Red Hat makes the SRPMS for their RHEL line of operating systems available to anyone. This has allowed projects like CentOS to become so popular. Some people like having the option of using a RHEL-like operating system on servers that they know they can't commit big $$ to. You can install CentOS where it makes sense and pay for RHEL when appropriate. With SUSE Linux Enterprise you can use the operating system on several computers, I think, but you can't use the updates they provide. Which would be fine if the SRPMS were made available but.........

  21. Hope this means ISOs. by (H)elix1 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    One of SuSE's biggest problem is they gave every excuse in the book (without stating the obvious about driving folks buy the boxed sets) about producing an ISO image for installing. The boot/FTP thing was a pain in the ass, the 'live' disks are not for someone using it normally. You could build your own image, but it was not easy. If anything comes out of the 'open' version, I hope it is distribution for install on one or more disks.

    And, as long ask I'm dreaming - wouldn't it be nice to see a distribution get the minimal or basic installation only requires one (possibly two) CDs? I am so very tired of downloading five or more CDs just because they packaged 20megs of required files on each and every CD.
        Not that I'm bitter...

    1. Re:Hope this means ISOs. by Chaotic+Spyder · · Score: 1

      Why even bother with 2 discs???
      one dvd is more than enough... allthough SuSE needs a DVD-DL for both 32 and 64bit os's but it's still one pice of media... i try as hard as i can now to put everything on dvd's cheaper/MB and simpler to have one disc..

      --
      Losers whine about their best, Winners go home to fuck the prom queen
    2. Re:Hope this means ISOs. by (H)elix1 · · Score: 1

      Just updated my home system with a DVD-R, so I guess that would be an option. Hate to download multiple gigs of stuff when I could possibly get by with 700M or less for a basic install.

    3. Re:Hope this means ISOs. by Ravatar · · Score: 1

      I think his concern was more about the download time for several GB than disc media.

    4. Re:Hope this means ISOs. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      there are ISOs get them here:

      ftp://mirrors.kernel.org/suse/i386/9.3/iso/

      both CD and DVD, so quit yer bitchin

    5. Re:Hope this means ISOs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ISO images for SUSE Pro 9.3 *are* available on SUSE FTP and mirrors as they have been also for the previous version.

    6. Re:Hope this means ISOs. by Fouquet · · Score: 1
      The boot/FTP thing was a pain in the ass,

      Can you expand on why you find this so? I've installed suse 9.1, and 9.2 on numerous machines, always using the FTP install. I've never had a problem (running off of the argon nat. lab mirror) and always found the installation to go smoothly. It typically took me ~2 hours over my cable modem connection, although for most of that it runs by itself while I am elsewhere.

      wouldn't it be nice to see a distribution get the minimal or basic installation only requires one (possibly two) CDs?

      I bet that installing via FTP is faster than downloading the entire ISO distribution, because I too don't come anywhere close to needing all of the packages.

    7. Re:Hope this means ISOs. by Kelson · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the previous poster, but I've repeatedly run into problems where the connection would hiccup during the installation, but the installer wouldn't notice that it needed to reconnect to the FTP server. At least twice I've set up a SuSE install to run overnight, only to wake up the next morning and find it stalled. And of course you can't pick up from the middle, you have to start all over again.

      This is where it's an advantage to download an ISO that will at least get you a working system. You can use your favorite download manager to grab the ISO without worrying about connection issues. Then you can install it in one fell swoop, and by the time you download updates or additional software via YaST, you have an actual system with things like a cache folder, control over the network interface, access to other apps, etc.

    8. Re:Hope this means ISOs. by (H)elix1 · · Score: 1

      as of two days ago... Wish they had made a /. story when they did that. Thanks for the link!

    9. Re:Hope this means ISOs. by (H)elix1 · · Score: 1

      I had problems because 9.1 could not figure out how to use the gigabit Ethernet card in my laptop and had a less than reliable connection when doing it on another machine. Got it to work, but it was not click and drool by any stretch of the imagination. The newer cuts do pick up all my hardware - including wireless - but I did those installs with CD media and then went on-line to update.

  22. now make it use apt. by cies · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now finally the community might have a chance to make and totally apt based SuSE.

    Currently it is possible http://linux01.gwdg.de/apt4rpm/ to have apt run on top of an existing SuSE but not as the default installation medium. I feel that apt is the one thing that stand in between of SuSE and perfection.

    The current (YaST/RPM) based solution is not too bad, but it is just too slow. Seaches in the package database take ages. And, iirc, it cannot do multiple downloads at the same time.

    Right now im installing SuSE 9.3 from the default http site. I thought it was released to the public more than a weak ago, but it still is not on the mirrors. It right now is about to take 6 hours to download 1.3 gig of packages. amazing.

    but afterall i still feel suse is the best (most polished) desktop distro arround.

    im looking forward to what this move will bring us.

    cies breijs.

    1. Re:now make it use apt. by houghi · · Score: 1

      Now finally the community might have a chance to make and totally apt based SuSE.

      Do not forget that YAST is more then just a package installer. It will also do a lot of the configuration of your machine.

      What would be welcome is APT4Yast. An integration of apt4rpm and Yast. If that is done (and working) you have the best of both worlds.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  23. Re:Support is Profit Generator by mpapet · · Score: 1

    In theory anyway.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  24. Re:Huh... what's closed source that will open? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    Funny, I'm a SuSE 9.2 pro user on laptop as well as my main home server, but I'm trying to think what other than some device drivers are still closed. They already open sourced YAST & iFile, what else is there?

  25. iso by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Being able to download the fully installable ISO images will be great.

    Huh. The ISO images are available now. When did that happen ?
    ftp://mirrors.kernel.org/suse/i386/9.3/iso/

    Now I CAN tell people to use something better than Fedora Core.

    1. Re:iso by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The ISO images are available now. When did that happen ?

      Look at the date of the Slashdot story.

  26. Re:The real question: does it rhyme? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

    Nice, except SuSE isn't pronounced like Seuss. It's pronounced Zoo-zuh, approximately(/zu:z@/ in SAMPA)

    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  27. Re:Crappy software never dies... by Radres · · Score: 1

    Heh, actually I don't personally run Linux anymore. I was merely making a commentary on how many times when a software product fails, it gets released as open source.

  28. Re:Huh... what's closed source that will open? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    java/j2ee stuff for one

  29. Dreaded Double Digits! by Kelson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was wondering what would happen when SuSE got up to 10.0...

    Mac OS 9 went to Mac OS X and cay names.
    Red Hat 9 went to Fedora Core 1.
    Mandrake and Conectiva 10 merged and went to Mandriva 2005.

    Clearly, SuSE 10.x was doomed... though I seriously expected it to become Novell Linux 1 or Novel Linux 2006 or something.

    1. Re:Dreaded Double Digits! by Jestrzcap · · Score: 1
      --
      "I have great faith in fools: Self confidence my friends call it." ~Edgar Allan Poe
    2. Re:Dreaded Double Digits! by Kelson · · Score: 1

      er, "cat names"

      Shoulda hit preview.

    3. Re:Dreaded Double Digits! by Kelson · · Score: 2, Funny

      And when has Slackware ever followed trends? ;-)

    4. Re:Dreaded Double Digits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SuSE eXPerience should be fun

    5. Re:Dreaded Double Digits! by Physics+Nobody · · Score: 1

      That's why I use Debian. Given their release cycle I'll probably be dead before they hit version 10 ;)

      --

      Physics is good

    6. Re:Dreaded Double Digits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every software vendor is (obviously) desparately trying to avoid what happened to X when it went to 11.

      Similarly, try to find any amplifier that doesn't use "10" as its ultimate/maximum volume/value. Once a product has reached "10", there is no attainable new improved level to reach. I know, it's those damn French and their nearly ubiquitous metric system.

  30. Novell has made a good move by ehaggis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As an avid user and fan of SuSE, I am glad to see Novell has a plan for it. Downloading the "opensource" version has been dificult and not very friendly. Only a small download was available with online package installations. I was starting to worry.

    --
    One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
    1. Re:Novell has made a good move by houghi · · Score: 1

      Only a small download was available with online package installations.

      There was always the FTP instalation with almost all software available. Now there also a 5 CD download available. Not small, if you ask me.

      I owuld still go for the FTP instalation if you do not want to buy the boxed set, because a LOT of packages are not on the CD's.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:Novell has made a good move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Downloading SUSE has been not difficult except you have difficulties with ISO images. The only changes now are an opened development and FTP tree as ISO images being available immediately once released.

  31. What needs to happen next... by Jizzbug · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What needs to happen next is all the RPM-based distros need to merge their development trees and package sets under the umbrella of the Fedora Foundation (returning home from whence they all sprang years ago).

    The inconsistency between Linux distros is ridiculous and inexcusable (especially for the all-too-German SuSE).

    RPM-based Distros Unite!

    --

    -=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
    1. Re:What needs to happen next... by M1FCJ · · Score: 2, Informative

      Huh? SuSE was a spin-off from Slackware, implementing Redhat's Package Manager, not the other way around.

    2. Re:What needs to happen next... by krischik · · Score: 1

      Actually I like the "all-too-German SuSE" for it's better I18N support. In fact the main problem with the "all-too-US Novel" taking over SuSE is a certain degradition of in the I18N support.

      i.E. defaut for printer-paper is now "Letter" - yuck!! - with SuSE (before Novel) a German installation would default to "A4" - as it should do.

      But that is just USA stamping all over - no matter that more users worldwide use A4 and that you can't even buy "Letter" paper in Europe (basicly because no one wants to buy it).

      Martin

  32. nope, no slashdotter did it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it was us german heise.de users.
    It was a clear heiseDOS.

  33. This is old news... by Achra · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Am I the only one that gets his news well before Slashdot on http://www.digg.com/?

    Go ahead and mod me troll. :)

    --
    Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
  34. Re:SUSE == too German by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Godwinned from the Getgo.

    Seriously, how is characterizing "all germans are unlearned nazis" any different from saying "all blacks commit crimes" or "all Brits have bad teeth"? It's a horrific stereotype.

  35. wonder If it will recognize my video card by asscroft · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    what the hell is wrong with X11 and matrox mystiques? It's not like it's a winmodem. Oh, sure, it'll recognize the 1mb trident, but I'd like a little more than 640x480@256.

    --
    because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
    1. Re:wonder If it will recognize my video card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to whomever modded this, fair enough, I deserved it. Keep up the good work. Maybe someone will metamod you in the plus direction.

  36. Now,... um... even MORE open source! by millermj · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If I'd seen this before it went public I would have e-mailed the on-duty editor saying that there's a major problem with the headline. So let's clear the air and get the announcement right --

    Novell's announcement was not that they're open sourcing SUSE. SUSE is already GPL. Novell is essentially announcing this:

    The goal of OpenSUSE is to create a community-supported distribution similar to Fedora. Also, like Fedora, this becomes a code base that the developers of the commercially-supported distributions can pull from.

    --
    Did anyone bother to ask the customers what they want?
  37. Re:Crappy software never dies... by Zweideutig · · Score: 1

    Sorry I misunderstood you. So you run *BSD, commercial UNIX, or Windows instead of Linux?

    --
    Powered by caffeine and sugar; BSD
  38. OpenSUSE? by JPriest · · Score: 4, Funny

    You mean the name was has not already been taken by a porn site? Cool!

    --
    Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    1. Re:OpenSUSE? by imr · · Score: 1

      Too late!
      Thx for the tip!

  39. Re:Crappy software never dies... by Coryoth · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But Suse is still good for person across the street that just sends e-mail and reads online news, and wants something relatively easy to use, but without the hassle of spyware.

    SuSE is also still good for throwing on opteron servers and clusters. SuSE was the first major distro with x86-64 support, so they were the early leader in that market, and they've stayed pretty strong. The enterprise edition for x86-64 is a very nicely put together package, and great for research clusters. Just because it isn't hard or obscure doesn't mean it isn't good.

    Jedidiah.

  40. The Best Distro? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We just evaluated a bunch of distributions for standardization, including all the SuSE varients (Novell Linux Desktop, SuSE Enterprise Server). Professional was the easiest to install for our development environment on a variety of different platforms (laptop, high end workstation, regular enterprise PC). The price was by far the most agressive as well.

    In contrast, the price of Red Hat was really quite shocking. 299 US$ for a workstation? Some of the freeware distros wouldn't even install. You have to question if some of the shoddy freeware distributions are a good idea - they are just amunition for MS.

    1. Re:The Best Distro? by mooser · · Score: 1

      While $299 for a Linux workstation distro is shocking, Red Hat does provide something other than software for that $299. It does include a year worth of support which you may or may not need, but large companies love support contracts and that is basically what this is. I have been using the Enterprise Server line for a couple of years and have been quite happy with the quality of software as well as their support.

  41. Meh by ylikone · · Score: 1
    Never tried Suse, probably never will.

    /happy archlinux user

    --
    Meh.
  42. You are forgetting something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Mr. Average User" doesn't install applications. Most people use whatever comes with the computer, and if they need anything else, they get a "computer-literate" friend or relative to perform the highly complex task of sticking in the CD and clicking "OK" a few times.

    1. Re:You are forgetting something... by Greg_D · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Man, someone better go out and tell CompUSA to close down their stores, because apparently they haven't heard the bad news, yet!

      The average user does indeed install a lot of applications on his own. He installs Firefox. He installs Zone Alarm. He installs Office. He installs anti-virus software. he installs games and filesharing programs and iTunes and a ton of other things.

      He installs them because they're easy to install.

      Unless you're talking about Linux. Then, may God bless his poor little soul, because if he doesn't have synaptic or smart set up properly, he's going to be SOL.

    2. Re:You are forgetting something... by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      He installs Firefox

      Already installed with any major distro.

      He installs Zone Alarm

      A firewall is already built into any major distro.

      He installs Office

      Open Office or Koffice are already installed with any major distro.

      He installs anti-virus software

      What virus would that be for?

      he installs games and filesharing programs and iTunes and a ton of other things

      GTK Gnutella is normally installed, commercial games tend to have their own installers, don't know about iTunes, but there's probably a Linux equivalent already installed.

      Unless you're talking about Linux. Then, may God bless his poor little soul, because if he doesn't have synaptic or smart set up properly, he's going to be SOL.

      I suppose what you're saying here is that women won't have the same comprehension problems as us blokes. Still, it's not hard even for men. The Yast 2 package manager is used to install software on a Suse distro. It's not complicated, and has little pictures for people who don't read too well.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  43. Re:Crappy software never dies... by oddfox · · Score: 1

    Explain to me how the most successful Linux distro in Europe has failed? Especially when it attracted the attention of a company as large and well-known as Novell? I don't use SuSE anymore (I've got AMD64 Gentoo) but it was a great distribution last time I tried it via FTP install, and it's always been a very user-friendly one to boot. Besides, associating a distribution like SuSE with the term "crappy software" implies that all Linux distributions are "crappy" since they're basically all the same with some minor changes or architectural differences, wouldn't you agree? They're all perfectly capable of running the same software library (Excepting where something won't run because it's for a different architecture).

    --
    "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
  44. Re:The real question: does it rhyme? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    no problem, the whole thing should be spoken with heavy german accent anyway in tribute to SuSE's origins, and thus all the 's' pronounced like 'z', and trailing silent e's made vocal as schwa.

  45. Community Image by alucinor · · Score: 1

    I wander what kind of community image they'll have? Maybe they can make it seem more fun and weird as opposed to Fedora, which feels very cool and hacker-like.

    --
    random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
  46. Excuse my ignorance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excuse my ignorance but can someone please explain to me how a Linux distribution was not Open Source in the first place?

    Or is it only the kernel that requires this?

  47. Re:Crappy software never dies... by Zweideutig · · Score: 1

    Another good point why SuSE isn't "crappy." Which bolsters my point.

    --
    Powered by caffeine and sugar; BSD
  48. Hm Open Sourcing a Linux Distro Hm....... by sir+lox+elroy · · Score: 1

    SuSe is already Open Source all they are doing is going to allow the community to drive the package selection, organization, etc... I just hope that unlike Red Hat they do a little better at listening to the community. I also think this article could have been worded better. Hmmm Open Sourcing an already Open Source Product, News at 9. :-)

    --
    Kosh: "Understanding is a 3 edged sword, your side, their side, the Truth."
  49. Re:Slashdot Falters by ak3ldama · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Short answer: Yes. Long answer: ...Yes.

    It is, or at least was, the discussion that mattered. Recently the signal noise ration has gotten horrible, makes a person think about leaving. Just look at the moderation taking place, if your threshold is set to 3, there are very few posts that make it. The proof is in the pudding!

    --
    "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
  50. How do you pronounce SUSE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it:

    soo-see
    soo-suh
    soo-zee

    Is there one that is "official"?

    1. Re:How do you pronounce SUSE? by ylikone · · Score: 1

      Hell, I've always just pronounced it soose (rhymes with moose).

      --
      Meh.
    2. Re:How do you pronounce SUSE? by Bambi+Dee · · Score: 1

      None of the above, I think. If it's pronounced like the first name "Suse", which is the only way I've ever heard it pronounced (here in Germany), it might be best transcribed as "ZOO-Zeh", maybe "ZOO-Zuh". The "e" is a "schwa"-sound, rather like the "e" in "the" (not the "theeeee"-the. obviously).

    3. Re:How do you pronounce SUSE? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      I prefer to spell it out in full:

      Second

      User

      Systems

      Engineering

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    4. Re:How do you pronounce SUSE? by TransEurope · · Score: 1

      I think SuSE is pronounced like the surename
      of Konrad Zuse*, which means it is pronounced german-style, not english -> Tsu-seh

      *German Computer pioneer, build the first functional programmable computer.

    5. Re:How do you pronounce SUSE? by TransEurope · · Score: 1

      Tsu-Seh for Zuse. SuSe -> Suh-Seh

  51. 1CD Distros by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    Mandrake mini Ubuntu Kubuntu Knoppix DSL Puppy ...

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  52. Re:SUSE == too German by Jizzbug · · Score: 1

    To call someone a something-Nazi is a rather common expression in the United States. I wasn't saying all Germans are unlearned Nazis. The "something-Nazi" expression is meant along similar lines as the "fun police" expression.

    You may have someone in your office who is a bandwidth-Nazi, for example (they monitor traffic making sure nobody is downloading excessively).

    I was simply calling SuSE Intellectual-Property-Nazis for explicitly and ridiculously copyrighting, all-rights-reserving an empty file!

    Although, I can't say SuSE ever earned an ounce of my respect, being one of the most proprietary distribution in the history of Linux.

    --

    -=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
  53. From the -1, Flamebait department you mean by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    Why add the tagline "depends on your definition" ? Is the point of the article to incite a Free vs. Free definition flamewar? Is the merit of a Slashdot thread measured in the number of RMS references?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  54. yes ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gay

  55. Interplanetary travel by FishandChips · · Score: 1

    Well I hope this works for SuSE but there are two other questions behind it all. First, Novell's financial situation doesn't look any too rosy and I wonder whether the existence of an OpenSuSE is really going to make much difference to customers looking for solid long-term support.

    Second, the lines are becoming more distinct now, between what one might call community-based open source (planet Debian et al) and commercial-based open source (SuSE, Fedora, Mandriva, etc). It's far from certain that the commercial model will prevail over the community one even though the commercial outfits monopolize the headlines.

    In many ways, the best help Linux users can give would be to move over to planet Debian, and start using distros the Wall Street mob can never get their mitts on. For a poorly funded school, hospital, local government outfit or similar, Red Hat or SuSE dangling corporate support contracts probably doesn't look very different from Microsoft to a harassed manager on a shoestring budget.

    --
    Las qué passoun
    tournoun pas maï
  56. I know you're trolling by crush · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... but in case someone is confused by your post:

    If you want to pay for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (in one of three flavours ) then you'll get full support and a long, steady release cycle.

    If you want a completely no-cost OS then you can use Red Hat Fedora. It has a quick release cycle, lots of exciting add on packages maintained by the community in the Extras repositories and a very aggressive incorporation of new features.

    Don't go confusing RHEL and RH Fedora.

    Unlike SuSE, Red Hat has always been scrupulous about releasing under the GPL all their code for the distro (with the exception of the build-system). They've never had proprietary tools like YaST. I'm glad to see that SuSE is now fuly embracing the path of openness. Hopefully it will mean that there'll be real competition between two fully Free distros with nothing distinguishing them except technical merit.

    1. Re:I know you're trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Unlike SuSE, Red Hat has always been scrupulous about releasing under the GPL all their code for the distro (with the exception of the build-system).

      You mean like suse with the exception of Yast (long time ago)?

      ---

      yeah, hope they dont fully embrace the path of buggy releases, like RedHat has been embracing...

    2. Re:I know you're trolling by Uncle+Warthog · · Score: 1

      If you want to pay for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (in one of three flavours ) then you'll get full support and a long, steady release cycle.

      If you want a completely no-cost OS then you can use Red Hat Fedora.


      He's not confusing the two and he isn't trolling. He's referring to the fact that there's no option in between the over-priced RHEL and Fedora.

      Up until now, there's been three options with SuSE (I hate the new spelling too...) Linux: SuSE (now Novell) Linux Enterprise Server (and now Desktop as well) with full support and a long support cycle, SuSE Linux Professional (and previously Personal as well) with limited support but a much better package selection than the Enterprise version and still a good, stable OS, and the FTP version with limits to availability (FTP only) and package selection (no commercial packages, etc.) and no support.

      Red Hat shot themselves in both feet when they dropped the regular boxed version of the OS. The community ended up with Fedora which produces a fast-moving target of a distribution with poor stability and no support (except for the usual community support). The only other version available was the over-priced RHEL version with full support but none of the other advantages that the boxed version had (good development environment, compatibility with the enterprise version, and some limited support). When they did this, Red Hat essentially pulled the rug out from under their own development community, most of whom moved on to Fedora and now (as far as I can see) couldn't care less about Red Hat except for having to deal with them as part of Fedora.

      Unfortunately, Novell doesn't seem to have learned from Red Hat's lesson. The fact that they had the Pro version of SuSE Linux is what enabled them to get and keep a fairly vibrant developer community and with this bone-headed move, they're about to throw that away just as Red Hat did only Novell, trailing far behind Red Hat's #1 market position, isn't in a position to survive it as Red Hat was.

    3. Re:I know you're trolling by crush · · Score: 1

      SuSE's ISOs contain material which is not GPL'ed. I suggest you grep the licenses for the contents of one of the Professional ISOs.

      There's a marked difference between Red Hat's adhering to the line of _only_ providing Free Software and SuSE's inclusion of non-Free material.

  57. Flunks the real world test by nightsweat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think your explanation sounds great in theory but it flunks the real-world test. MS software installs pretty easily these days and brings along all the libs it needs. Or, if the app doesn't get all the libraries necessary, WIndowsUpdate does.

    I don't like the fact Linux apps install rougher, but they do.

    --

    the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
    1. Re:Flunks the real world test by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      In the real world I live in, Linux software installs seem easier. Juggling CDs and typing in 20 character product keys just isn't a sound user experience compared to having your application downloaded and installed by a package manager.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    2. Re:Flunks the real world test by nightsweat · · Score: 1

      In the 7-11-05 issue of Infoworld Jon Udell "confesses" that when he's trying out an unfamilar source component he cheats by installing it on Windows first.

      Why? "Because on Windows, an open source component is likely to come with an installer that just works. That's a huge advantage."

      --

      the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
    3. Re:Flunks the real world test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Seems you never tried the thrill of a good
      urpmi myapp
      and for the updates :
      MandrakeUpdate &
      I can't really see how much more simple it can be... (It seems apt-get is similar)
    4. Re:Flunks the real world test by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      Windows software SEEMS to install "pretty easily these days" but in the process of installing it usually copies a bunch of dlls to the Windows system directory. Over time, these dlls tend to clobber each other, produce subtle incompatabilities, etc, and Windows' performance decreases. Sometimes there are crashes, BSODs, etc. Sometimes installing one app kills another one.

      Eventually the person gets totally fed up and either reinstalls Windows or chucks it all and downloads Slackware.

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    5. Re:Flunks the real world test by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But woe to you when the open source component doesn't have an easy installer.

      On Linux, the easy things are easy. The moderatly difficult things are reasonably simple. The hard things are hard, but possible.

      On Windows, the easy things are easy. Some of the moderatly difficult things are also easy. If it's not easy, it's a horrible nightmare.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    6. Re:Flunks the real world test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On Linux "horrible nightmare" is the default. Switching screen resolutions, installing Samba or Wine or getting a Wi-Fi card to work...not to mention Bastille... horrible. I had less trouble getting Slackware with X to run on a 386 with 8MB than I had doing any of those in Red Hat.

    7. Re:Flunks the real world test by orasio · · Score: 1

      Shame on you.
      I sticked with slackware, and I'm a happy monkey now.

  58. Re:SUSE == too German by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although, I can't say SuSE ever earned an ounce of my respect, being one of the most proprietary distribution in the history of Linux.

    No, that would be SCO OpenServer [rimshot]

    Seriously, though. SuSE makes a nice distribution, which they used to develop under more secretive conditions than most. They plan on changing their development model. Now it'll be just a nice distro that's easy to get into. Sounds good to me.

  59. Faster if you use a MIRROR by IceAgeComing · · Score: 1

    Right now im installing SuSE 9.3 from the default http site. I thought it was released to the public more than a weak ago, but it still is not on the mirrors. It right now is about to take 6 hours to download 1.3 gig of packages. amazing.

    In YAST, simply add an alternate download location. The link is only one of many choices. And it's been there since April, from what I can tell.

    As with most mirrors, this can help download times a lot.

  60. Re:The real question is (2B || !2B) always true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not in an intuitionistic context .... ;)

  61. Ha! Ha! Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -linuxrocks123

    I know your password!

  62. Suse already releases CD and DVD ISO's by Prototerm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just downloaded the ISO images the other day for Suse 9.3 and installed it. It is one DVD or 5 CD's, but it appears to be the entire Pro installation. They delay releasing the cost-free, non-"live" version for something like 6 weeks after the actual release. I imagine this delay is what will be eliminated.

    --
    "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
  63. Re:SUSE == too German by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Better too german than too american... The thing i ask is why us poeple are so arrogant to think it's okay that they interact with foreign poeple and expect them to speak their language instead of the opposite. I think suse should leave english translation as a supplemental package created by some external us-guy (or uk), like all those us-software does for german language files. Would be just fair. And by the way; Like a german comedian said: "50 years the whole world hated us. Now everyone hates the usa. THANK YOU BUSH! HANKY YOU SO MUCH!" ;)) (But in fact it's 1. not that funny because of the sufferers inside and outside the usa, and 2. bush is just a dummy chosen by a buch of idiots and assholes) So no idea why you blame suse for being "too german" if they are nice enough to translate their stuff for you. Stop expecing it or leave them alone. But don't blame them. Thank you.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  64. Switch to OS X already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are you using an archaic OS like Linux anyway? OS X is everything Linux ever was and 10 million things more. More secure. Faster. Easier to configure. Simpler to use.

    Simply better.

    Simply OS X.

    1. Re:Switch to OS X already. by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Easier to configure what? And what if I don't like Apple's Desktop? Or its more expensive hardware? Everything that Linux ever was? Does that include free?

  65. I will have to once again look at SuSE, but... by suitepotato · · Score: 1

    ...I will still likely stay with FC3 for production, FC4 to play with pending it going to production, and various RH for servers as soon as I get some more money to send down to Raleigh.

    I will say this... they need a better mascot. The Red Hat fedora is just plain cooler, imho. The SuSE lizard looks like it is high or something and the name just brings back this inane taunt line of Wimp Lo's in Kung Pow: Enter the Fist, "I rock. And roll. All day long. Sweet Suzy."

    But I will try not to let that stop me from giving it a chance somewhere. I mean, if I can get past the horrors of Motif, the idiocy of Vi, and still use *nix OSes...

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    1. Re:I will have to once again look at SuSE, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No way, I love the Lizard, its the best OS Logo there is.

      Call me Shallow, but its one of the reasons I love SuSE and look forward to this... its so polished and the Installer and Boot screens etc are so nice, and the lizard is fucking awesome :)

      Screw the hat. Hell I like the Lizard better than the Penguin himself ;) Gives the distro some personality.

  66. Re:Crappy software never dies... by Mornelithe · · Score: 1

    Out of curiosity, how prompt is SuSE on getting new KDE packages?

    I tried out Kubuntu, since they usually claim to have new KDE packages on the day they're released (3.4 released? Kubuntu has it!). However, I discovered that that only applied to i386. Since I have an Athlon 64, I'd have to compile anything newer than 3.4.0 (including 3.4.x bugfix releases) myself, unless I want to use the breezy testing repository.

    Combine that with the fact that I'd have to compile several other things myself to get support for mp3 and so on, and I decided there was little advantage for me to go Kubuntu over Gentoo on my particular setup.

    Is SuSE better in this regard?

    --

    I've come for the woman, and your head.

  67. Good PR move... by torrents · · Score: 1

    SuSE has always seemed a little to corporate for F/OSS, there were probably many people who were confused about exactly what the licensing terms were. Releasing evaluation versions could have also contributed to reluctance on the part of noobs to give it a try. Hopefully they will bake cd images available on opensuse and clear up some of the confusion

    --
    Get your torrents...
  68. Re:Crappy software never dies... by Coryoth · · Score: 1

    Personally I'm not overly concerned about having the latest KDE on the day of release on my research cluster. I am concerned about stability, administration tools and a good array of scientific and engineering software available out of the box.

    If you want to surf the bleeding edge then SuSE is probably not for you. Personally I see that as a benefit, not a problem.

    Jedidiah.

  69. VMWare by drxenos · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I love SUSE. I just wish I could get it to work with VMWare. Redhat works great, but SUSE (for me) crashes during installation.

    I love being able to be working in Windows, and just "pop up" Linux when I want it without rebooting.

    --


    Anonymous Cowards suck.
    1. Re:VMWare by guaigean · · Score: 1

      You could try booting SuSE and VM'ing Windows. Works great for me :D

      --
      Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
    2. Re:VMWare by isj · · Score: 1

      You need Vmware 5.x. Vmware 4.x does not support SuSE 9.x

    3. Re:VMWare by steve_l · · Score: 1

      Vmware 4.5 runs nicely on suse9.2, but I didnt get it working on Suse9.3 until monday. You need some patch file vmware-any-any that modifies/replace the vmnet driver to build against the recent kernels. Its been up and running since then.

    4. Re:VMWare by arf_arf_arf · · Score: 1

      having tried both, i've found that running linux on the host and windows in vmware has worked better for me than vice versa.

      caveats: it depends what you're doing with windows, and i haven't tried using a newer windows than w2k for host purposes.

    5. Re:VMWare by guaigean · · Score: 1

      That's true though. Trying to use the video in side running WinXP in VMWare was fairly difficult, and not worth it.

      --
      Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
    6. Re:VMWare by drxenos · · Score: 1

      I'm using 5. Did you do anything special to get it to work?

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
    7. Re:VMWare by askegg · · Score: 1

      Just select "text mode" on the initial screen and away you go.

      (The graphical install borks).

      --
      I don't make predictions, and I never will.
    8. Re:VMWare by isj · · Score: 1

      The OP had problems with running SuSE 9.3 as guest OS. You need Vmware 5 for that (SuSE 9.2 had no problem)

  70. O' SuSE Anna, don't you cry for me by GnuTzu · · Score: 1

    O' SuSE Anna, don't you cry for me. I come from Alabama with a disto on my er' laptop. SLES (Enterprise Server) is supposed to make money for Novell. The spreading popularity of an fully open source version may be expected to help promote the enterprise version.

    --
    { return clarity; }
  71. Communities by eelcoh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So as more and more companies jump on the community bandwagon, will the community of communities be big enough to help them all out? How many people actually take part in an OSS community project? Is that number still rising? Won't it become more and more difficult to attract more people to a project like this?

  72. Can I just say... by Mad+Ogre · · Score: 1

    Fricken SWEEET! SUSE has long been my favorite distro... this means it has a good chance of getting even better. Now if we could just resolve this little DVD playback on Linux thing.

    --
    MadOgre.com
  73. Re:Crappy software never dies... by digidave · · Score: 1

    I think you misunderstood what Kubuntu is about. It uses a 6 month release cycle and only does security fixes (some bug fixes) between releases. When (k)ubuntu releases it is the newest it can be.

    However, you do not need to compile anything for MP3 support or anything else for that matter. The Ubuntu Guide covers all that stuff. You might have wanted to enable the non-free repository.

    --
    The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
  74. Re:The real question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm, depends. If, assuming you could define a variable without a syntax error as 2B, then

    $ python
    >>> twoB = 0
    >>> print twoB or not twoB
    true

    >>> twoB = 1
    >>> print twoB or not twoB
    1
    # In Unix shell scripting, this is usually means false; in high level languages, this is true.

    >>> twoB = 2
    >>> print twoB or not twoB
    2
    # and on ...

  75. Compatibility assured with combined distro by Orrin+Bloquy · · Score: 1

    ...merging the best of Slackware, Ubuntu, Debian and Gentoo, I give you SLUDGE 1.0.

    --
    "Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on /. and I must look smart."
  76. Re:SUSE == too German by MynockGuano · · Score: 1

    No IP for you!

    The foo-Nazi expression was popularized into the American cultural mindspace by an (as I am told--haven't seen it, myself) excellent Seinfeld episode featuring a "Soup-Nazi".

  77. Re:The real question: does it rhyme? by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter how you pronounce it, as long as you don't mention the war. I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it.

  78. Netcraft confirms it, SuSE is dead! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In an unexpected move that has taken the blogscape by storm, open-source operating system SuSE Linux has now gone... wait for it... OPEN SOURCE OFMG WFT HAX !!@##312

    I'll bet the sucke^H^H^Hbscribers are feeling pretty stupid for paying for access to shit like this.

  79. Its actually Software- Und System-Entwicklung by Phelan · · Score: 1

    SuSE
    Software- und System-Entwicklung
    which translates into Software- and System-Development

    --
    "Nimis exaltatus rex sedet in vertice - caveat ruinam!"
    1. Re:Its actually Software- Und System-Entwicklung by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And explains why it's SuSE. Thanks! Now I'll be able to remember which letter is lowercased.

  80. Re:Huh... what's closed source that will open? by M1FCJ · · Score: 1
    JRE is open. JDK is open but has limitations on distribution conditions. On the other hand GNU's Java implementation is free.

    Open doesn't mean free. Java source is open, you can take it and recompile it on your platform, at your own risk and with no support from Sun. What you can't do is modify it. It is not free as in freedom.

  81. SuSE is *not* Open Source! by Azul · · Score: 1

    Depending on the specific SuSE distribution (Novell Linux Desktop, SuSE Linux Enterprise Server, SuSE Professional) you'll find included components that are not open source such as the Java Runtime Environment, Acrobat Reader, Opera, Real Player and others.

    To the best of my knowledge and making it clear that what I say here does not represent Novell and I am not a lawyer, I believe you are not legally allowed to redistribute SuSE (at least not if you keep copies).

    You can read about this in a post I made in my weblog a week ago.

    As for the rest of what you say, I really don't know but my guess is that Open SuSE is all about allowing more community participation in the development process. For instance, public bugtracking (yes, I know about bugzilla.novell.com), public development mailing lists, etc..

    1. Re:SuSE is *not* Open Source! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually if you look at the EULA on SuSE professional you can redistribute to your hearts content as long as you do not charge for it.

    2. Re:SuSE is *not* Open Source! by smyle · · Score: 2, Informative
      I believe you are not legally allowed to redistribute SuSE (at least not if you keep copies).

      Wrong.

      I just pulled out my Suse 9.3 Pro CD, and in LICENSE.TXT it says:

      ...

      The Software is a collective work of Novell. You may make and use unlimited copies of the Software for Your distribution and use within Your Organization. You may make and distribute unlimited copies of the Software outside Your organization provided that: 1) You receive no consideration; and, 2) you do not bundle or combine the Software with another offering (e.g., software, hardware, or service). The term "Organization" means [legal definition deleted]

      The Software is a modular operating system. Most of the components are open source packages, developed independently, and accompanied by separate license terms. Your license rights with respect to individual components accompanied by separate license terms are defined by those terms; nothing in this Agreement (including, for example, the "Other License Terms and Restrictions," below) shall restrict, limit, or otherwise affect any rights or obligations You may have, or conditions to which You may be subject, under such license terms.

      While the license terms for a component may authorize You to distribute the component, You may not use any Novell marks (e.g., SUSE and SUSE LINUX) in distributing the component, whether or not the component contains Novell marks.

      ...

      So, in short, you can give it away, but can't charge for it unless you want to go through a whole lot of hassle.
      --

      Sleep is just a poor substitute for caffeine, anyway. -Bob Lehmann

    3. Re:SuSE is *not* Open Source! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, what part of "Your license rights with respect to individual components accompanied by separate license terms are defined by those terms" don't you understand? Read AcroRead and Sun Java's JRE and tell us we're allowed to give away copies of them.

    4. Re:SuSE is *not* Open Source! by Azul · · Score: 1
    5. Re:SuSE is *not* Open Source! by Azul · · Score: 1
      Moderators: parent post is spreading false information, please don't moderate as Informative. Here is why.

      That Novell allows you to redistribute it does *not* mean that you can actually redistribute it.

      The text you quote says: "Your license rights with respect to individual components accompanied by separate license terms are defined by those terms; nothing in this Agreement (including, for example, the "Other License Terms and Restrictions," below) shall [...] otherwise affect any rights or obligations You may have, or conditions to which You may be subject, under such license terms."

      There are some proprietary packages included in SuSE Professional that you are not allowed to redistribute (consult the list of packages). Here are two examples:

      • Sun's Java JRE's license specifies that redistribution of this software is only allowed if it is "bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Programs". Making a copy of the JRE as part of an entire copy of a GNU/Linux distribution seems to serve a different purpose.
      • Acrobat Reader's license allows you to redistribute the software but requires you to keep no copies: "You may not, rent, lease, sublicense, assign or transfer your rights in the Software, or authorize all or any portion of the Software to be copied onto another user's computer except as may be expressly permitted herein. You may, however, transfer all your rights to Use the Software to another person or legal entity provided that: [...] (b) you retain no copies, including backups and copies stored on a computer [...]".


      I haven't looked at their licenses but I suspect there could be additional problems with Opera, RealPlayer, TextMaker, PlanMaker, all included in SuSE Professional 9.3.

      As a consequence, if you give copies away, even if you don't charge for them, you'd be violating these packages' licenses.

      So, in short, no, you can not give it away.

      If you want more details, please do read the post in my weblog I mentioned in the grandparent post. Feel free to point out errors after you've read it and I'll update it.
    6. Re:SuSE is *not* Open Source! by rpdillon · · Score: 1

      None of those packages were licensed to me under the the licenses you mention; they were licensed to me under the license SuSE uses.

      I never saw (or agreed) to any license other than SuSE's license. I just re-read that license, and confirmed that it contains NO clauses regarding Java, Acrobat, or any other software included in the SuSE distribution, other than free software.

      As far as I can tell, the licenses you mentioned only apply if you are obtaining the JRE or Acrobat from their respective websites, which I didn't. I'm sure Novell made Sun and Adobe aware that it was going to be allowing its users to redistribute, and it has licenses worded accordingly with the providers of the software included in its distribution. If they do not, it is not the end user's problem.

      In the absence of you presenting me with a license agreement that I clicked "OK" to during the SuSE install that says otherwise, I think folks are free to redistribute SuSE in accordance with the SuSE license agreement that they agreed to.

    7. Re:SuSE is *not* Open Source! by Azul · · Score: 1

      No.

      The licenses for this programs apply if you are obtaining them as part of SUSE. You could take a look at /usr/share/doc/packages/acroread/LICREAD.TXT and /usr/share/doc/packages/java2-jre/LICENSE. They seem to be the same as the files I liked to; at least, both do include the portion I quoted.

      SuSE's License, which you agreed to, explicitly states that "Your license rights with respect to individual components accompanied by separate license terms are defined by those terms; nothing in this Agreement (including, for example, the "Other License Terms and Restrictions," below) shall [...] otherwise affect any rights or obligations You may have, or conditions to which You may be subject, under such license terms."

      The fact that Novell doesn't show you the programs' licenses is, in my opinion, not relevant. It is clear that you are *not* allowed to use or redistribute software unless you are licensed to do so by the copyright owner. And the only way you're allowed seems to be those licenses, which don't allow making copies and giving them out.

      So it's pretty clear: if you copy SuSE 9.3, you are copying some of the "individual component accompanied by separate license terms", that set explicit rules governing the act of redistributing them.

  82. Re:Huh... what's closed source that will open? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    your mom's not free as in freedom.

  83. What's the name going to be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will it be named OpenLinux? :)

  84. Suse Rocks .. by sundru · · Score: 1

    A free version of suse pro has always been available
    its just being renamed to opensuse, if i member correctly, you had to download an iso
    and boot on that cd and install off the net.
    I just hope they dont transfer control of
    decision making, on features to the community. Face it there has to be an authority with proven
    skills to be able to dictate what works in practical life and other wise

    I purchased every version of suse pro from 8.0 as
    a personal show of support for the superb
    distro, I never had a problem with it.. If not for anything
    Reiserfs rocks !!, I yet have to see it break , had
    power failures , my kid pressing comp power buttons for play etc. still worked.

  85. Re:Huh... what's closed source that will open? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    I don't have to click an agreement box before I get to see Sun source anymore? If I do than it's not open source.

  86. Re:SUSE == too German by LnxAddct · · Score: 0, Troll

    Umm... Suse is owned by Novell... which is an American corporation, why on earth would English not be their main language? Also English is the "language of commerce" and it is very widely spoken. On a side note, its funny how the whole world who "hates" America is more or less nothing but a bunch of cowards. Its like Europeans didn't learn anything from the past 2 world wars... you don't let your enemy keep growing out of control simply because he says he'll be good... The U.S. is preventing World War III and the rest of the world is too damn ignorant to realize that we are saving their asses again.

    I don't agree with Bush on everything, I did not vote for him, but the wars he is fighting are worth every penny and every life. The europeans just kept going about their lives letting Saddam gain more and more power, same thing with N. Korea. The U.N. is useless, corrupted, and is known to not enforce anything, so the U.S. stepped in. If it wasn't for the U.S., the Europeans would wake up one day again only to find troops invading their country and taking over. Then the rest of europe would say, "Well fine, but don't take anymore countries and we'll let this whole thing go", then they'll wake up one morning to find themselves being invaded. Learn from your history, burn the fire out before it gets out of control.
    Regards,
    Steve

  87. SuSE is great for beginners... but... by v3xt0r · · Score: 0

    advanced users know to steer-clear of commercialized distros.

    SuSE was the 1st distro I used when trying to learn linux (from a windows state of mind), but there came a point in time that I was too restricted to thier compilation of programs, and hideous package management system (Yast2, *shrug*).

    Package Managers are great for lazy windows migrants, but not for production environments.

    A Linux Production Environment should be built from the ground-up, not jumbled into a CD loaded with EVERYTHING and then stripped-down.

    Not everyone will agree, but most should.

    Slackware and Debian are the only commercial distros I'd suggest using, for a (linux) production environment.

    --
    the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
    1. Re:SuSE is great for beginners... but... by Phishcast · · Score: 1
      Slackware and Debian are the only commercial distros I'd suggest using, for a (linux) production environment.

      Yes, Slack and Debian for my business critical production environment. When it all goes to hell it sure is great to have UseNet and IRC to fall back on.

      Kidding aside, I agree with the sentiment of having intimate knowledge of what you're running, but I doubt you find many people betting their enterprise on a distribution without an official support channel. Your statement "advanced users know to steer-clear of commercialized distros" should be changed to "advanced hobbyists," or perhaps "advanced users who don't have their livelihood on the line."

    2. Re:SuSE is great for beginners... but... by v3xt0r · · Score: 0

      In that case, it really doesn't matter which platform you choose...

      If you are simply choosing a platform that has a corporate entity that can be blamed when shit hits the fan, then you really are not taking responsibility for your work.

      --
      the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
  88. For More on This Story by sjvn · · Score: 1
  89. Re:SUSE == too German by M1FCJ · · Score: 1
    Until I got dissapointed with the removal of Red Hat lines of distros and the failure some people call FC2, I switched some of my home machines to SuSE. We also had the same kind of switch at the office so it made sense. I am reasonably impressed with Centos 4.1 and FC4 but they don't have anything over SuSE 9.3 (neither does Suse have something over FC4). They tend to work and that's enough for me.

    At one point I stopped being interested in the OS alone and actually getting something done. I will use any distribution which does its work fine. I have (production) slackware, debian, Redhat 7, 8, 9, SuSE SLES 8.x, SLES 9 and CentOS 4.1 boxes and (gasp!) some FreeBSD machines. I'm happy with the lot. If I ran a homogeneous job, it would have made my life easier but if and only if I am a newbie sysadmin. I'm not so the brand really doesn't matter. I have one Solaris 10 (i386) and a couple of SPARC boxes as well but they are not used for any real work.

    The sad fact of life is once you have a box in production, doing some work for you or your company, it is very hard to upgrade it without spending substantial money. That's when you are looking for 10 year support cycles.

    For any sysadmin worth his/her salt, the real criteria is Will it be stable, secure and will it do its job, the rest is just details.

    For SCO's notice: I wiped out an OpenServer 5.0.5 installation today and burned the license. Come and sue me!

  90. Re:SUSE == too German by sundru · · Score: 1

    This was a linux discussion , now that we digressed let me ask this, So who gets to decide whos the Good and Bad Guys ? you ??
    Craziness .... Mortified , Petrified, Stupefied are words that come to mind.
    War is happening rt now, innocent peeps die all the time, bcos you dont see in the news doesnt mean its not happening .

    So in short
    Instead of
    www.cnn.com
    read
    news.bbc.co.uk
    You will notice how much you dint know.

  91. Real reason for this: Discountinug a product. by nlinecomputers · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Suse is already open source. The pro version only adds a few commerical programs and drivers that you don't get on the download versions.

    What this really means is that they are axing the Retail Product that no one buys to focus on the server and workstation versions for corporation. Gee have we not seen this before in Fedora/Red Hat?

    I'm a big fan of Suse and have used it for years but I haven't bought a copy since 9.0.

    --
    Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
  92. Re:SUSE == too German by fmaxwell · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The thing i ask is why us poeple are so arrogant to think it's okay that they interact with foreign poeple and expect them to speak their language instead of the opposite. I think suse should leave english translation as a supplemental package created by some external us-guy (or uk), like all those us-software does for german language files.

    Had you won WWII, I'm sure that's how things would be. Of course the German people seemed more interested in conquering other nations than interacting with them, so German would probably be the only language permitted in software.

  93. Re:Crappy software never dies... by Mornelithe · · Score: 1

    I was referring to the repositories people put out with new KDE versions. I don't know who makes them, but from what I've seen there are usually i386 repositories on the day of release. They don't exist for x86-64, though, as far as I can tell.

    I could have sworn that I had to compile something myself for mp3 support or something of that nature. Perhaps it was k3b or something, I can't recall. Most stuff is enabled via non-free repositories, though, you're right.

    --

    I've come for the woman, and your head.

  94. Wow, they're open sourcing a linux distro! by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Who'd a thunk it?

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  95. Or use Debian instead by cecom · · Score: 1

    Or even better, the community might come to its senses and use Debian ... I heard rumours that apt already works there :-)

    (Note: This is a joke! Nothing against SuSE)

  96. Enterprise editions not meant for desktop. by AngryElmo · · Score: 1

    SLES != Suse Professional. One is the server version, the other is the desktop version. Same difference as RHEL and (now) Fedora. The server versions tend to be behind the latest releases by a bit and are qualified (with a certain set of packages) to run on specific hardware configurations. Desktop stuff (although provided) is not core to the distribution. It is like comparing Windows 2003 Enterprise edition against Windows XP. *insert snide swipe at MS here*

  97. Dirrefences with Fedora by gbulmash · · Score: 0
    According to an article linked from the SuSE site, the whole OpenSuSE push (a.k.a. "lizard blizzard") is intended to push Linux into more mainstream usability, i.e. so it can be easily installed and deployed by "non-technical" users.

    It seems more that SuSE has decided to gun for Mandrake/MandRiva/MandCorRiva, Ubuntu, Linspire, and other desktop-focused distros than going after more "Geeky" distros like Fedora, Gentoo, etc.

    I'll be interested to see the SuSE Professional 10.0 beta they'll be distributing next week and which is considered the kick-off point for this initiative.

  98. Identity management comparision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Identity management looks esp poor for RH when you compare that old krufty Netscape thing that RH bought vs. a stable and extremely mature eDirectory product which is light years ahead of even Active Directory.
    Fascinating. Can you cite any references to support your statement?
    1. Re:Identity management comparision by Patoski · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fascinating. Can you cite any references to support your statement?

      Gladly...

      Identity management looks esp poor for RH when you compare that old krufty Netscape thing that RH bought vs. a stable and extremely mature (over 1 billion served) eDirectory product which is light years ahead of even Active Directory.

      I freely admit that some of these articles are a bit long in the tooth however the directory services software landscape hasn't changed dramatically in the last few years. MS' last AD schema change was in 2003 and that wasn't an earth shattering update or anything.

      --
      G. Washington on Government "it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
  99. I love open source progress by bsquizzato · · Score: 1

    Looking at that picture of YaST2, I had no idea it was like that now. The last time I had used SuSE was back when it was 6.3... and YaST was still a pretty flaky text-only configuration tool (even though it was still one of the best attempts at making the task of configuration a little more painless). It's really nice to come back to a project and see that it has made so much progress (of course though I would expect lots of development like this out of a major corporation).

  100. Suse and software availability by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

    Suse was one of the first flavours of Linux that I used, I think about four years back. I quite liked it, with my only major beef being that software seemed to often be fairly old. How are things these days? Are the major players such as KDE or firefox kept up-to-date in their repositories?

    --
    Everything will be taken away from you.
  101. Very incorrect analogy by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 1

    Unlike SUSE, which has some closed components, everything in RedHat has always been open source, including their Enterprise distributions. Novell is in no way "following in the footsteps of Red Hat Inc.".

  102. Shinaku confirms! by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

    SUSE IS DEAD

    One more crippling bombshell hit the already flagging SuSE community today, as Slashdot user Shinaku announced the results of his extensive IRC survey. "The amount of people using SuSE has dropped considerably," says Shinaku. Clearly this does not bode well for users of the once popular Linux distribution owned by Novell. This news only serves to reinforce what we already knew: SuSE is collapsing like a punctured Goodyear blimp. The rats have already jumped ship, as several chief developers of the distribution have moved to Redmond, WA, citing their plans to "stand on street corners with signs reading 'Will code for mountain dew'." The only question now is how long before the end?

    You don't need to be an IRC analyst to predict SuSE's future. The writing is on the wall. SuSE faces hard times ahead, as its user base continues to drop considerably in days to come. Predatory distros such as Ubuntu and PuppyLinux grow fat on the blood of the innocent, wooing poor naive users away from the loving arms of Novell and then leaving them with nothing but a smoking hole where their hearts used to be.

    Novell's latest move, Open Sourcing SuSE, is seen by some as the dying gasp: A valiant attempt, but just as surely a failure. It has often been compared to Custer's Last Stand at the Battle of Little Bighorn. John Dvorak, well known and respected writer, has gone on record as saying that Novell is expected to sell SuSE to SCO before the end of summer.

    The error of margin in this survey is 3%.

    --
    SIGSEGV caught, terminating

    wait... not that kind of sig.
  103. too little too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Novell has been in trouble for some time now. I think the worst thing to happen to SuSe was Novell. SuSe had always been fairly solid, although it really suffered early on as being considered the German version of Red Hat. They have come a long way over the years, attempting to focus more on the enterprise class customers. But, they just never seemed to be able to crack Red Hat's stranglehold on the enterprise market. I don't think IBM has had a good influence either. IBM has been pumping money into them to keep them alive. It was also pushing SLES on the mainframe, which is another Linux port accomplishment, but does it really make sense as corporate strategy in 2005? I think not. Recently, IBM has been announcing new alliances and deals with Red Hat. Is that perhaps a sign of some sort of fall out between IBM and Novell? Perhaps Novell is tired of waiting for the return on their mainframe (s390) porting investment and IBM's false claims about it's future.

    BTW, OpenSuse is an interesting name choice. Especially on the recent heels of OpenSolaris' release. Perhaps that's the real target....

  104. Re:Crappy software never dies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They do releases once or twice a year. As a rule, that's when they are about 2 months before bleeding edge, and more in between. I haven't felt overly limited by this delay, since with SUSE all the packages are tested and "just work".

  105. Linux in Russia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what Russia has to say about this IP infringment? Linux Torovaldis wrote Linux for the communist government as all Russian citizens' work belongs to the socialist state. Now their competetive advantage is being stolen.

  106. Mandriva not "gone" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still freely available - just look at their page.

  107. Re:Huh... what's closed source that will open? by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

    Every time you install a GPL software, you agree to the GPL license. What's the difference? GPL isn't granted automatically, you have to agree it before you install the software. It is your responsibility to read the license and decide to use the software or not.

  108. Duh, Uh Huh, Uh Huh ---- OSX has a Gazillion more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello, I'm an expertiese OSX user!

    All of me homeboys in me hometown tella me my OSX skillz are l33t. Nowaway Linux can stand up to Macky's (that the kool way of saying Mac) supper dupper similipciity and useability.... ... I can say more, but me gotta go back tending me livestock!

    L8ter my slashdot beatches!

  109. Re:SUSE == too German by Jizzbug · · Score: 1

    Here at work our legacy product (management software for retail pharmacies, apothecaries, and nursing homes) runs on SCO OpenServer 5.0.5. We're currently moving away from Btrieve to SQL so we can port the software to Linux and ditch SCO once and for all.

    Unfortunately, SuSE was chosen as the Linux platform of choice by two guys who no longer work here (and who most people in the company apparently didn't like).

    It's too bad, 'cause I mostly can't stand SuSE and its Germanic caveats. I was raised by Slackware, but didn't know Slackware begat SuSE till this discussion (I had always assumed SuSE was a fork of RHL). I can't see hardly a shred of resemblance between Slackware and SuSE. I'd much prefer we were using Fedora, RHEL/CentOS, Slackware, Debian, or Gentoo over SuSE, but the higher ups are already set on shitty lil' SuSE. Oh well.

    One thing I will give SuSE... They beat the hell outta SCO!

    Another thing I'll give SuSE... People in this discussion have said that SuSE is following Red Hat's lead with OpenSUSE. Well, this all started with Red Hat following SuSE's lead on RHEL. SuSE was about the only distro you couldn't download ISOs for, they claimed ridiculous licensing schemes on their binaries and trademarked graphics, etc. They proved that business model a success and then Red Hat followed their lead in going down a similar road of propriety when ditching RHL and creating RHEL.

    --

    -=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
  110. Re:Huh... what's closed source that will open? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    Not true, I can install & use & even modify for my own use GPL software but cannot DISTRIBUTE it or modify & DISTRIBUTE without agreeing to GPL license. After all, if I'm the writer and sole user, who cares if I've provided a copy of the source to myself 8D