Slashdot Mirror


Novell Releases SUSE Linux Enterprise RC3

MrHoolio writes "Yesterday morning Novell publicly annouced the free availability of release candidate 3 of the SUSE Linux Enterprise 10 products. Both the server edition and the desktop edition work with XGL out of the box. A serious step forward in the Linux desktop market, Novell claims this will go head-to-head to rival Windows on the enterprise level. It implements a whole new menu system on top of Gnome that is very well thought-out. It has incredible hardware support for a Linux distro."

38 comments

  1. A lot of praise. by Volanin · · Score: 3, Informative

    You can read some good reviews here and here.

    --
    If I clone myself, can I call it a thread?
    If a girl winks to us, can I call it a race condition?
  2. "Incredible" by the+linux+geek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It seems like "Incredible" is awfully vague. What I really want is out-of-the-box support for my nVidia card (common enough with non-FOSS distros) and my crappy Netgear WG111 wireless USB adapter. In general, wireless, sound, and to a lesser extent graphics support are what plagues Linux. Of course, Windows isn't really any better; they just have the advantages of actually having drivers developed for them by third parties, which is still relatively scarce in the Linux world.

    1. Re:"Incredible" by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 2, Informative

      The autoupdater in SLED 10 adds ATI and nVidia to the list of servers from which to pull updates. I have an ATI card in my work machine where I'm trying this new distro. It found and configured the card out of the box as you wished.

    2. Re:"Incredible" by mrsbrisby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It seems like "Incredible" is awfully vague. What I really want is out-of-the-box support for my nVidia card

      Lots of people would like that. Contact nVidia and tell them this!

      (common enough with non-FOSS distros)

      Mac OS X is the only non-Free operating system that I know of that ships with nVidia's drivers. Windows users must install the third-party driver. Linux users may use the nv driver from Xorg, or they may sacrafice their freedom and install the third-party driver.

      What distros are you talking about?

      my crappy Netgear WG111 wireless USB adapter

      Lots of people would like that. Contact Netgear and let them know this!

      In general, wireless, sound, and to a lesser extent graphics support are what plagues Linux.

      Really?

      You can't get below 50msec latency on Windows without special sound cards and drivers, but I have no problem with this on ALSA and Linux.

      Wireless support is extremely poor throughout windows- it tells applications IP is down (causing lost connections) whenever there's a 802.11 signal problem- something that's almost certainly intermittent.

      Intel's own graphics drivers work better on Linux than they do on Windows, so what exactly are you talking about here?

      Of course, Windows isn't really any better; they just have the advantages of actually having drivers developed for them by third parties

      I'm not sure this is an advantage. Unless the driver was signed and "blessed" by Microsoft, it's quite often a very low-quality driver, and worse still- you're lucky if you receive any support on it.

      In fact, unless you get an OEM bundle of Windows, you're likely to have very poor hardware support from the get-go, and unless you take the time to find signed quality drivers, you're going to have problems.

      Of course, on Linux, there's a much larger source of high quality drivers- the sound drivers are much better than any of the Windows drivers (With some exceptions for some ASIO drivers), and graphics support is simply much better with Intel and Matrox boards. I'm told nVidia and ATI don't make particularly good drivers (for any platform), but it doesn't really matter to me because their drivers are non-Free.

    3. Re:"Incredible" by CowboyBob500 · · Score: 1

      Lots of people would like that. Contact nVidia and tell them this!

      No need to, it's already there in SuSE. I run SuSE 9.3 Pro still and the proprietary nVidia driver is right there in the auto-update list. I'm assuming that it's there in subsequent releases too.

      Bob

    4. Re:"Incredible" by mjm1231 · · Score: 1
      Mac OS X is the only non-Free operating system that I know of that ships with nVidia's drivers. Windows users must install the third-party driver.

      I'm not really sure about this. On at least one model of Dell that I have here, Windows update always finds a newer nvidia driver available. Of course, if you install that driver, the machine inevitably blue screens on the next reboot and the driver has to be removed. But it is available from Microsoft.

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    5. Re:"Incredible" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly I have to debunk your argument of graphics support being good for Matrox boards.

      It isn't. On a a dual-DVI Matrox G550 you're limited to... single analog monitor (or clone for two), assuming you're running AMD x64 / Intel EM64T.

      Yes, their HAL "microcode" is 32-bit Intel code. Can't they just recompile it? Well, it could just as well be written in ASM. Who knows?

    6. Re:"Incredible" by mrsbrisby · · Score: 1

      I'm not really sure about this. On at least one model of Dell that I have here, Windows update always finds a newer nvidia driver available. Of course, if you install that driver, the machine inevitably blue screens on the next reboot and the driver has to be removed. But it is available from Microsoft.

      I'd say it's Dell Windows at that point- it's an OEM bundle, and it's not exactly the same thing.

      Microsoft's official XP install disks don't include nVidia driver.

    7. Re:"Incredible" by alphamugwump · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure this is an advantage. Unless the driver was signed and "blessed" by Microsoft, it's quite often a very low-quality driver, and worse still- you're lucky if you receive any support on it.

      Sometimes, any driver is better than no driver at all.
  3. DL.tv has a video of this by jbarr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Check out DL.tv, an online tech show hosted by Patrick Norton (of former "The Screen Savers" fame") and Robert Heron. Episode 72 shows off the function. It's pretty cool. It's a lot of eye candy, but it is pretty stunning. And supposedly, it's running on a not-too-state-of-the-art video adapter, illustrating how the implementation, unlike Windows Vista, doesn't require the highest-end hardware.

    --
    My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
    1. Re:DL.tv has a video of this by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 1

      I have an ATI Radeon RV200, the GLX does indeed perform rather well on this old of a card. It feels a bit like Enlightenment did on my S3 911A back in the '90s.

      That said I turned off the eye candy as there are enough little annoyances to keep me from it.

      First it resolution is limited to 1600x1200 (or 1920x1200 for 16:9 displays). When one is used to 2048x1536, 1600x1200 seems so cramped. I also use the gconf-editor to modify the window control widgets to have the close X on the left (where it belongs) with the Metacity window manager. The compositor used with XGL doesn't obey that setting. Last, seems to be a real bug. My panels after any sort of touching would shrink to being about only 1024 pixels wide, and not stretching across the whole top or bottom of the screen (yes with Expand checked). This issue goes away upon switching back to the non-XGL server.

    2. Re:DL.tv has a video of this by mjm1231 · · Score: 1
      They do reveal that they are running on an Nvidia 6800, which would at least meet (and depending on the model could substantially exceed) Vista's minimum requirements for Aero.

      While it does indeed look cool, I can't imagine a single useful purpose that would make me ever want to turn it on in either OS. I mean, the fade affect was bad enough, now new app windows can wobble too? I want my apps to open faster, not slower!

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    3. Re:DL.tv has a video of this by subsolar2 · · Score: 1

      They do reveal that they are running on an Nvidia 6800, which would at least meet (and depending on the model could substantially exceed) Vista's minimum requirements for Aero.

      While it does indeed look cool, I can't imagine a single useful purpose that would make me ever want to turn it on in either OS. I mean, the fade affect was bad enough, now new app windows can wobble too? I want my apps to open faster, not slower!


      The 6800 was in the desktop running the Vista beta, the laptop running SuSE 10.1 with Xgl enabled was using Intel integrated graphics. Serious difference in horsepower there slanted twards vista.
  4. Re:"Incredible is awfully vague." by Amendt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Having just gone through the process of installing the nVidia driver it does seem strange that that nVidia doesn't release a script so you don't have to go out of x (the graphical system) and then go back into the graphical system manually. I find Intel is doing a better job of 3d graphic suport. Too bad all the decent cards are nVidia or ATI. I guess a little pain for the long term gain. Also, with OSS other graphic card campanies can become main stream easier. Hang in there Linux users the I can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

  5. Running it right now! by porkThreeWays · · Score: 1

    I'm running it right now and posting this within xen virtualization. Most of this stuff is stuff you could already do with Linux anyway. However, I'm highly impressed at the integration of it all. I think with SLES 10-Final I'll finally convert all our debian and cent os boxen to SLES. SLES 9 wasn't ever really anything impressive to me but I used it because we are a Novell shop (however I found myself installing other distros when SLES 9 was too painful).

    --
    If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
    1. Re:Running it right now! by Glonoinha · · Score: 2, Informative

      If I can get Sybase 12.5.x or Sybase 15 (the free ones for Linux) running on SLES 10 I will be all over this for a server.
      Oh yea, and if anybody is wondering what the hell I am talking about - Sybase ASE 15 is free on Linux if you run a single CPU machine with other limitations (no more than 2G of physical memory allocated to the Sybase engine, and I think it limits the database size to 5G - but other than that no limits; you are even allowed to use it commercially last I checked.)

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
  6. Hardware support in Linux is already incredible by Morgaine · · Score: 1

    >> It has incredible hardware support for a Linux distro.

    That line makes no sense to me at all.

    Linux has had incredible hardware support for many years now, and it's all built in.

    We don't have to rely on drivers to be supplied by manufacturers with their products as is the norm in the two proprietary consumer operating systems. For the most part, everything just works as soon as you plug it in. It's been many years since I bought a PC accessory off the shelf in Maplins or from a mail-order box shifter, plugged it in to one of my Linux boxes, and it's failed to work.

    Of course, the wierder stuff probably doesn't have Linux support, but then it doesn't have built-in Windows support either --- the manufacturer provides the support on disk.

    The amount of hardware supported directly by Linux is nothing short of phenomenal. And that's not limited to just a couple of distros.

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
    1. Re:Hardware support in Linux is already incredible by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      The problem with Linux is that if it isn't supported out of the box, it isn't supported at all. At least with windows you can go to the manufacturers website and get the drivers. Granted, I think that hardware support will come with time. As Linux gets more popular, more hardware makers will support it. ATI and Nvidia already offer Linux drivers. They aren't the best drivers, but they are coming along, and getting better. I think that Linux has real promise, and even if you can get it up to 10% of computers running Linux, that many of the manufacturers will follow.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Hardware support in Linux is already incredible by Homology · · Score: 1

      >> It has incredible hardware support for a Linux distro.

      > That line makes no sense to me at all.

      > Linux has had incredible hardware support for many years now, and it's all built in.

      I too wondered about what was meant by that. Quite possibly is that the Linux distribution includes binary-only drivers to use hardware from hardware vendors that don't care about their users (NVidia, for instance).

    3. Re:Hardware support in Linux is already incredible by Morgaine · · Score: 1

      >> I think that Linux has real promise, and even if you can get it up to 10% of computers running Linux, that many of the manufacturers will follow.

      Actually, I think that Linux's promise is not related to the provision of support by manufacturers at all. It may well be just the opposite --- support by manufacturers quite often holds back the direct support in (and hence the promise of) Linux.

      Look at both extremes of support quality to see this:

      On the good-support side, two quite obvious factors hold back Linux's support of new hardware --- people not bothering to write native support because the proprietary one works fine (think nVidia), and people not able to write native support because the proprietary support is offered in lieu of interface documentation (think nVidia again). So in that respect, "good" manufacturer support is bad for Linux.

      And on the bad-support side, manufacturers cease support of products once they are no longer current (because it no longer contributes to profits), and longer term, they cease support of products when the operating system they work under is no longer current (think W98, W95, etc). Yet, this loss of manufacturer support has zero impact on the promise and success of Linux when its hardware support is built-in rather than provided by manufacturers. Consequently, Linux's support gets better compared to (say) Windows as products get older and lose their manufacturer support.

      So, in bother cases, manufacturer support is less than a wholly good thing, and to some extent (especially long term) can be quite bad. Linux really stands on its own two feet, or on the shoulders of its excellent community, very well indeed.

      --
      "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
    4. Re:Hardware support in Linux is already incredible by DrXym · · Score: 1
      The problem with Linux comes when it doesn't support your hardware. With windows you pop in a disk and the driver installs. On Linux you go without and hope someone will put you out of your misery by writing a driver. Mostly my experience has been good but I've had two occasions where I spent hours and hours of searching and googling, desperately trying to get a sound chipset to work and a wireless card. I managed to get neither of them to work although both were allegedly supported.

      Linux desperately needs a decent binary driver layer, one which is common to all dists with a common packaging system so that manufacturers can ship a driver which works on all of them. I'm actually surprised that NVidia, ATI, VMWare and the dists don't band together to produce such a thing. It must be a pain for all concerned in the current model.

    5. Re:Hardware support in Linux is already incredible by mikesd81 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it means that it has good hardware detection? I remember reading about Suse on a notebook before and they were impressed with the hardware detection of even a wireless NIC. Just a thought.

      --
      That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
    6. Re:Hardware support in Linux is already incredible by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Have you ever tried to mount your cellphone to transfer files to/from it?
      Have you ever tried to sync an iPaq?
      Have you ever tried to get an ATI All in Wonder card fully working?
      Have you ever tried to mix ATI Radeon 7500 and 8500 or 9500 in the same machine using ATI's drivers?
      Have you ever tried to get an NVidia theater (their take on the AiW concept) card fully working?
      Have you ever tried to get a Hercules Game Theater XP fully functional, including full MIDI support?

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    7. Re:Hardware support in Linux is already incredible by A+Bookworm · · Score: 1

      "Linux desperately needs a decent binary driver layer, one which is common to all dists with a common packaging system so that manufacturers can ship a driver which works on all of them."

      The thing is, the core Linux developers don't want binary drivers. They want Open Source drivers so that bugs can be found and squashed by the Open Source community, just as other Open Source bugs are. Indeed, one part of the Linux creation legend (I believe) is that Linus originally created Linux, in part, because of a malfunctioning binary printer driver whose vendor wouldn't release the source code so it could be fixed.

      Theres a big debate out there which boils up occasionally (it did so recently) about whether or not Linux should even allow binary-only drivers. I believe that some argue that the GPL explicitly forbids creating binary-only Linux drivers (some vendors, like nVidia, have found a way around this problem). Personally, I can see some validity to both sides of the issue and I don't know if, how, or when it will be resolved.

    8. Re:Hardware support in Linux is already incredible by DrXym · · Score: 1
      The core developers don't have to be involved. Every major dist maintains their own kernel with patches. The Red Hats and Novells of this world could esily ensure that Linus et al never have to deal with a binary driver. They would write and maintain the ABI over the kernel and ensure that any differences were hidden from both sides. I doubt the kernel changes significantly in a major release cycle (e.g. 2.6) that they couldn't maintain and provide an ABI that did this.

      There are philosophical objecttions to binary drivers but the reality is that many OEMs won't open source their drivers for very sensible business reasons. Even if they were open source, very few users are capable or inclined to build a driver module, especially if their dist doesn't even contain a toolchain. Binary drivers are essential if Linux is ever to conquer the home / consumer market.

    9. Re:Hardware support in Linux is already incredible by A+Bookworm · · Score: 1

      "They would write and maintain the ABI over the kernel and ensure that any differences were hidden from both sides."

      Ah, but I have seen it argued (IANAL so I don't know if it's valid) that this is forbidden by the GPL.

      "... the reality is that many OEMs won't open source their drivers for very sensible business reasons."

      I tend to agree, although I'm neither a businessman (to know what I might want to hold confidential) nor a driver writer (to know if open-sourcing drivers would reveal said confidential info). However, I can understand Linus's (and others') objections to binary drivers, too. As I said, I don't see a resolution, personally, so I expect that it's going to be a long haul for some hardware drivers for Linux.

      "Binary drivers are essential if Linux is ever to conquer the home / consumer market."

      We're getting offtopic, here, but I thought I'd mention something that I see all too often. What makes you think that "Linux" (Linus & Co., I presume?) wants to conquer anything? Oh, sure, Red Hat, SuSE, etc. may have conquest dreams. I, personally, would love to see Linux bring down a certain large software company - but I'm not a core Linux developer. However, to my perception, Linus & Co. are more interested in Building A Better OS than in Conquering Anything.

      I frequently see some pundit or speaker comment that "If Linux really wants to accomplish X then it must do Y." (I saw one just yesterday by Simon Phipps, Sun Microsystems' Chief Open Source officer) What they don't seem to realize is that the first half of that statement is more important than the second. If "Linux" doesn't care about accomplishing X then it can do what it deems best rather than pursue course Y.

      I wouldn't be surprised to see Linus & Co. look at the Binary Drivers Problem, shrug, say something like, "The GPL forbids it and we agree with that," and go back to coding.

  7. Enterprise Level by MechaShiva · · Score: 1

    As long as the productivity apps are there (whether custom built or off-the-shelf), it can be used for 'enterprise level' workloads. Users can be trained to use something without having to understand how it works or what platform it works on. Hell, we had users working on OS/2 Warp 3 as of a few years ago.

    To me at least, enterprise level means management and deployment tools. Centralized patch management, remote administration, and policy/profile tools are really at the top of the list. Linux has always had the pieces there, you just usually had to assemble them yourself. If Novell has managed to unify this into a cohesive package (and from the early buzz, it sounds like they have), they may have a product on their hands that can compete with everybody's favorite 800 pound gorilla.

    For me personally, I'd be thrilled if I didn't need to call up a vendor just because I need to reinstall the OS (we use Dells, which have the unpleasant tendency to brick). That's a waste of 10 perfectly good minutes. Also, it'd be nice to not need my users to have admin privileges just so they can receive anti-virus updates. The logic there still causes my brain to cramp.

    --
    After calming me down with some orange slices and some fetal spooning, E.T. revealed to me his singular purpose.
  8. Subuntu? by FunnyLookinHat · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Is this a new version of Dapper Drake? 6.07? That's a cute name for ubuntu: Suse.

  9. "Enterprise Linux" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both SLES and RHEL fell toyish, to say the least. It reminds me of how Windows Server, that has a media player installed... only 100 times worse.

    I installed Debian where I used to work, because they needed to run Linux to work with a partner; it actually feels enterprise like.

    Where I work now (Fortune 100) it's all BSD (Net, Free and Open) and Solaris; yet we tell managenent it's Linux, because that's what they want to hear.
    If we must run Linux is always Debian; it happens if we can't get some comertial app to run in the Linux ABI (we use Debian as Linux-Base) because it uses some silly new Linux kernel API.

    The only reason to go with the comertial vendors would be if we _must_ have support for some unthinkable reason and cannot run Solaris. And then our choise is almost always limited to SLES and RHEL, and well, SLES is the best of those; so I'm glad it's improving.

    1. Re:"Enterprise Linux" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both SLES and RHEL fell toyish, to say the least. It reminds me of how Windows Server, that has a media player installed... only 100 times worse.

      Apparently, Windows is a success in the most lucrative areas of computing, so that isn't so bad.
      And If you don't know how to turn off X, then you probably don't need to.

      I installed Debian where I used to work, because they needed to run Linux to work with a partner; it actually feels enterprise like.

      Well SUSE and RedHat pay probably close to 50% of full time kernel developers. (IBM, HP, SGI, OSDL etc. close to 50).

      Where I work now (Fortune 100) it's all BSD (Net, Free and Open) and Solaris; yet we tell managenent it's Linux, because that's what they want to hear. If we must run Linux is always Debian; it happens if we can't get some comertial app to run in the Linux ABI (we use Debian as Linux-Base) because it uses some silly new Linux kernel API.

      You tell management it's Linux? You sound incompetent.

      The only reason to go with the comertial vendors would be if we _must_ have support for some unthinkable reason and cannot run Solaris. And then our choise is almost always limited to SLES and RHEL, and well, SLES is the best of those; so I'm glad it's improving.

      Each to their own. They's always going to be Solaris or BSD zealots, same as there'll always be Linux and Windows zealots.

    2. Re:"Enterprise Linux" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, Windows is a success in the most lucrative areas of computing, so that isn't so bad.
      And If you don't know how to turn off X, then you probably don't need to.


      That's such a thing called holistic security; which one day you might hear of; which neither SLES, RHEL or Windows fit into.

      Well SUSE and RedHat pay probably close to 50% of full time kernel developers. (IBM, HP, SGI, OSDL etc. close to 50).

      Probably explains why the Linux kernel has so many security holes popping up.

      You tell management it's Linux? You sound incompetent.

      Management doesn't know jack; they think evey free unix-like system is Linux, so when we showed them a few BSD boxes securing the enterprise thay said: "No, that IS Linux.". And went: "Yeah, sure, if you guys say so.". Management can't even seperate right from wrong, much less BSD from Linux.

      Each to their own. They's always going to be Solaris or BSD zealots, same as there'll always be Linux and Windows zealots.

      Sure is, that's why we don't go by beliefes but bulletproof-test Trusted Solaris, and the various BSDs. But if you even look my VMS machines the wrong way, you're a dead man.

  10. Re:"Enterprise Linux" (or, "did you know") by kimvette · · Score: 1

    Did you know that with SuSE Linux you can:

      - Elect not to install xine, kaffiene, etc.
      - You can choose from a variety of window managers
      - You can choose to run or not run X
      - That media and graphics apps, office apps, and so forth can actually be useful on a server? (ref: thin clients like X terminals, or if you're used to Windows, terminal services, etc.)

    Your server may not line up with what other enterprises use. Why limit the system, and likewise, be glad it's not like Windows in that it's highly configurable and you don't get MSIE and Windows Media Player shoved down your throat with no option to remove them.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  11. apps and peripherals by zogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All major distros install fine now, so what is left is how they deal with your hardware, that is the #1 important part now that really needs to be "fixed" in linux land, any distro. Any distro out there can function as a web surfer, email client and word processor,all that crap works now just fine, but how about printing and other various USB devices? How about all the other do-dads that the vendors are pushing now that come either USB or to a lesser extent firewire? I've been on a search for the best distro with the best hardware detection AND configuration. It not only has to find and see the device, said device MUST repeat MUST become functional within a few clicks or it is "broken". I am no longer buying more hardware trying to find the magic combination of distroX and add-ons. I am no longer playing with distros because this or that desktop window manager has "cool new features" and they now offer a thousand new semi functional applications. That is irrelevant, it is already "good enough". Fix the dang bugs! Make what is already out there "just work".

    People want to know how to "make money" with open source? Frikkin easy to answer that one. Offer a distro that actually installs and configs external devices flawlessly. That's worth paying for. Your monitor gets nailed, sound WORKS first time every time, printers work, cams work, and etc. That stuff. Not half assed semi-works and have to haunt google for weeks to find the magic incantantion.

        All the other stuff,IMO, perpetual fast release cycle beta broken ware.

        I don't care one bit if they release two or three times a year if the stuff doesn't work (Hi Fedora!), I prefer one good solid release once in awhile, a year or two, with just security updates, that's plenty. I don't need 5 CDs full of broken ware,90% of which I and the vast bulk of the computing public will never, ever use, I want one CD with some normal apps and ****superb hardware detection and installation****. That's the killer make it or break it "app" for me now. Beyuond that, sure, have it offered, but stick to one cd tops for a basic install, and everything on that CD works. If it doesn't stick it elsewhere and label it truthfully as alphaware.

    I'll see how the reviews go on this latest suse, the forums tell the tale.

  12. Still missing SELinux by Nathaniel · · Score: 1

    Let me know when they add support for SELinux.

    1. Re:Still missing SELinux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a loss.

      SLES/SLED include AppArmor, works better and it's easier to configure than SELinux.

  13. Enterprise 10 by robstrat · · Score: 1

    I was using a number of front ends for Linux and bought Mandrake 10 a while back. I am a (close your ears), Windows NT4 user for a long time. Had started with NT3 as a bug chaser. Those were the days. Along the way I was studying UNIX for simpler server control due to Windows memory managment - or lack of. Stumbled onto Linux and loved it, but had little spare time to realy get into the command line stucture. Heard the mumblings of Novell getting into the fray and thought - what the the heck, all's I can do is brake it. It installed wonderfully, and way shorter than Windows. I to was impressed with the lib finding all my hardware. I'm using a Compaq SP 750, dual P3 733's with 256MB and three hard drives (two IDE, one SCIC), running raid. Even picked up on my onboard sound chip. As I said - I'm impressed. It's usable - finaly - a Linux system I can show-off. Robert