Slashdot Mirror
SuSE Sales up Significantly
Lost in the Corporate Maze writes "SUSE rides the Linux Cash Cow!. I guess someone asked SUSE to "Show me the money!". What's the breakdown between US and World sales? Where is this revenue coming from? Enquring minds want to know. "
We mentioned this before, but its interesting seeing to appear in a major pub.
Amusing step in the rivalry between the major distributions.
This is getting fun, but its also further proof that Linux
is getting bigger.
SuSE develops most of it's own tools under a proprietary license, and is one of the more proprietary (and underhanded) distributions. This announcement kind of pissed me off, as it's only purpose was to lower the value of Red Hat's IPO, and hurt Red Hat financially.
Of course Suse is free. What are you talking about? Have you been seduced by Gilbert Dawson's evil twin? What are you really saying, this time auf Englisch, bitte?
Do we have a list of all the different versions of Linux yet?
RedHat, Suse, Corel, Caldera, Debbian, Turbo Linux, Slackware, etc....?
(and isn't IBM and a buncha other vendors comming out with there own Linuces soon?)
Also, what's the difference between all of them?
Can you use a Suse disk to upgrade a Redhat system, or are they different operating systems?
That would be the correct term for the behaviour of RedHat. They don't seem to realize yet that they have actually competitors and that they must rally, if they want to survive.
My understanding was that the purpose of this announcement (and specifically it's timing) was to lower the value of Red Hat's IPO, and hurt Red Hat financially. SuSE is now bigger, and is out for blood.
Actually, SuSE is not a knockoff of slackware.
At one point in time, SuSE was selling a "german slackware". Then they created their own distribution based on Jurix by Florian La Roche (they hired Florian), plus YaST, and some
other goodies. Slackware was not the basis of modern SuSE.
Didn't know about SO5 and glibc2.1.
/opt/gnome/bin in them (again, why, when it is so simple in include?) and other non-GNOME applications conflicted. In particular, another demo application called "panel" (When run, it just displayed an X Window which said "Panel test." and had to be killed) was run instead of the GNOME Panel. The paranoid in me says that an oversight that big (putting some demo application in the $PATH and not superceding it with /opt/gnome/bin) is so silly that it must be sabotage! I guess this wouldn't bug anyone who doesn't run GNOME, but then again, KDE problems are only isolated to KDE users....
However, I'm confused on how Enlightentment DR0.15 worked for you. I had to upgrade the libjpeg and some other libs (I think libungif) as well. I was trying 15.5, but maybe you tried an earlier one?
Yes, WindowMaker came with 6.1, but I couldn't find any dock apps. Now, RH6.0 only came with the most common ones (wmmon, wmtime, wmitime,etc.) but at least they had the most common ones.
KDE, I don't know (or care) about. I do agree that they shouldn't be non-standard, but I haven't personally had any problems 'cause I don't use it. That was another problem with SuSE 6.1; it installed the base KDE stuff even though I unselected it from installation. Why?
I agree that RH5.2 had some buggy software (gnome-linuxconf for a big one), but some of the design issues in SuSE were just as bad. How do you set up a PPP connection with DHCP, for example? I can't find any way to do that without writing my own PAP or CHAP script. I certainly could do that, but why? I is automated in netcfg, so why bother?
Recent GNOME was distributed with 6.1, but when you install it, none of the default $PATH variables have
Well, I didn't want this to turn into some sort of distro flame war, but I just happen to not have problems with RH6.0, while I had HUGE problems with SuSE6.1. Sounds like you had somewhat the opposite view. Oh, well. I guess we're both happy with what we have now....
---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
The only thing I've had to go out and download are Communicator since SuSE doesn't include the one with 128 bit encryption and kernel patches.
The only problem with SuSE that I've found is that they have their own version of the kernel with extra drivers and stuff. This caused some problem for me when I tried to apply a kernel patch. I've since started installing the "standard" linux kernel sources from their CD so I can apply patches regularly when they are released.
Does any other Linux O/S ship Netscape, besides Suse? Isn't that non-gnufree software? Shouldn't we burn them at the stake for doing so?
For that price I might buy a couple for friends. Even though the manual isn't totally translated properly, it's still cool, and SuSE deserves the money. =)
Get off my launchpad!
You have a problem that they are a "proprietary company"? What the hell does that mean? You curse them for being a company? For having a proprietor? For trying to turn a profit? What the hell is wrong with that!? And you wonder why the stallmen people are called comunists! Sheesh, people.
CompUSA:
RedHat = $79.95
SuSE = $29.95
I choose SuSE!
>great work to advance XFree86 development
That's not gnufree either. Why aren't they shipping with XGnuFree86 instead?
Why, you ask, is SuSE getting all kinds of play? Well, friends, last week I went to CompUSA (yeah, I know...) to look for the new RedHat 6.0 distrib. I have 5.2, so why not stay with what I know as a relative newbie, right?
;-}
What should greet my eyes: RH6.0 is ONLY $79.99. Huh? I didn't pay that much for Windows NT f'cryin' out loud!
And what's next to that $79 RH6.0 package on the shelf? SuSE 6.1 for $29.95. Next stoopid question?
I don't know what is the RH strategy here, but they lost a potentially loyal buyer of 5.0 and 5.2. I just didn't want to start all over again with a different distribution. Well, I did, and it was a relatively simple transition. New ppp & TCP issues resolved easily. Lotz of new toys, etc.
And now I don't even need no steenkin' distribution!!
Here is the license of yast: click me
Yes, you cannot redistribute the entire cd set.
But no, once you remove yast and derived works, you can redistribute it.
I've been doing admin work for SuSE systems since years and have never used yast. You really don't need it, if you aren't a clueless newbie.
I am not trying to tell someone else what they should or should not do. It's just that I will always prefer a free software package over a non-free one. I go approximately along the lines of the DFSG (not GPL free, but a superset of that) to make this decision, and it is a personal ethical decision because I feel that free software does more to advance the field I work in than non-free software.
In particular, I will not purchase a distribution which consists of freely donated software with one program that is not freely donated but instead is licensed in such a way as to discourage free distribution of the composite product. You are free to do as you choose and I support your right to agree to whatever licensing terms you enjoy. You can be Bill Gates' towel boy for 12 months after opening Win2k shrink wrap, for all I care. (see Dilbert archives..)
The FSSTD also states that all configuration information will be placed under /etc. I submit that the XF86Config file is a configuration file and does not belong in the off-the-wall place that SuSE sticks it (I don't recall where exactly they stuck it, but at least in 5.3 it wasn't in /etc). I submit that the linkes in /etc/rc.d on a Red Hat system are configuration information. The actual scripts can live in /sbin/rc.init or wherever they want to, but my system knows what stuff to start up at boot time by looking at those links. The FSSTD says that I should be able to restore my entire configuration by restoring /etc. But with SuSE, I have to restore /sbin/rc.d also.
/var/spool/lp/ (where is the name of the printer), which also breaks that rule. And name server files are stored in /var/named, which again breaks that rule. SuSE's blatant disregard of the FSSTD is not why I don't use SuSE, it's more a case of personal distaste for the licensing terms on YaST.
Not that Red Hat is totally free of such idiocy. For example, print configuration information is stored in little files in
-- Eric
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
The 'yast' config utility is not GNU free or any kind of free. You can't copy it or any portion of its source code without written permission. Granted, the system does work without yast and can be redistributed as such. But requiring the removal of the GUI setup tool for redistribution is discouraging free distribution.
SuSE makes their money because of the other contributors to GNU, Linux and the many many other apps they sell -- these people encouraged free distribution of their Linux-related works. SuSE does not encourage free distribution of their Linux related work (the distribution). However, SuSE does make contributions to XFree86 (XFree) and Linux (GPL) which we can all benefit from. They are not "bad" but their product is not free in the DFSG sense.
All that said, I apologize again for calling SuSE leeches, which is clearly not true.
(puts on dunce cap)
I meant to say proprietary SOFTWARE company, and I really should have said 'non-free software company'. My bad. Nothing wrong with turning a profit. But the action of creating a non-free distribution of free software is asymmetrical (they take free software from the community and return it as a non-free conglomeration) which displeases me. It need not displease you and probably will not, espescially if you don't mind shrink wrap agreements.
I found out today that SuSE did make significant contributions to XFree and the kernel which offset that asymmetry to some extent, but do not really make up for it. It does have the effect of making me look like an idiot for calling them leeches, though..
from what I understand (correct me please if I am wrong) is that the cultural context of linux in the US and the rest of the world is quite different. it seems that the *free* and *non-free* concerns are lessor in countries other than our own. I have heard that the concerns in other countries than our own are more based on technical merit of the distro rather than whether they comply with *free* or *non-free* status.
If this is the case, maybe we should harken back to basic anthropology classes to remember which lense we use to view linux phenomena outside of our own (may I say *narrow* viewpoint)
I submit that the XF86Config file is a configuration file and does not belong in the off-the-wall place that SuSE sticks it (I don't recall where exactly they stuck it, but at least in 5.3 it wasn't in /etc).
/etc.
What are you talking about? I've had 5.2,5.3,6.0, and 6.1 and I've always found XF86Config in
chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
1) I'm a big SuSE fan, have been for 2-3 years.
B) There will always be downloading for the newest version of something, noteably the kernel.
II) I have a pet chameleon (not really, but that'd be neat).
------------------------------------------
Reveal your Source, Unleash the Power. (tm)
My understanding was that the purpose of this announcement (and specifically it's timing) was to lower the value of Red Hat's IPO, and hurt Red Hat financially. SuSE is now bigger than Red Hat, and is out for blood.
And you were worried about Red Hat abusing it's ``monopoly'' power....
Many thanks to everyone that posted all the download sites for SuSE. I have obviously gone BLIND from the excitement that I didn't see all those sites. Thanks again. :)
"Klaatu, verada, necktie!" -Ash
I haven't used Redhat for more than a year now since switching to SuSE. SuSE offers very good value for money. In the UK official SuSE retails for less than half the price of official Redhat. It comes with more CDs containing much more software than Redhat....saves a lot of time on downloading. Also I quite like using YAST to administer linux boxes....more so since it's non-graphical.
I have installed both RedHat 5.2 and Debian 2.1, and, while neither of them was particularly difficult for me, I found the Debian install to be incredibly tedious. It took me over an hour just to go through the package selection process. Granted, I would scream bloody murder if the installer took away the ability to select individual packages, but I much prefer RedHat's heirarchical package selection system. If I have disk space, and I know what I want to do with the system, I can just select a group of packages by what they do, and then go in and remove the stupid little programs that I'll never use.
/etc/rc.d/ rather than just in /etc. And having the rc scripts have intelligent names makes things much easier when you're glancing at something and want to be able to pull out info quickly. It also makes things easier on a newbie. For example, it only took me a couple minutes to find where the system init script was. The fact that it had sysinit in its filename made it that much easier.
.tar.gz since I installed Linux in January, though.
Also, in case you couldn't tell from the previous statement, I'm a fan of trees (real and electronic), and of heirarchical organizations withing my computer. Subdirectories are a good thing. I much prefer RedHat's organization of having all the init stuff in
As far as package management after the install, I could give a flying rat's a$$. I haven't used RPM since I installed linux (and that was a first time install for me). I have downloaded a few gigs (yes, GB) of sources in
-Cheetah
Hehehe. Try Linux HQ, use the Distributions link, and let your jaw drop down to the ground. There are *many* distributions, ranging from tiny one-floppy versions to packed, multiple-CD distros.
;-)
Differences? Many. Too many to post here. Do the research.
As for RH -> SuSE, I doubt they're upgradeable between each other, because of different file placement and such. 'sides, SuSE probably has better things to do than constantly track RH's standards...
It's fascinating to look at the variance in free Unix use across different demographic borders. Some of the real data agree with the commonly held myths, and other data disprove these. One thing that surprised me (although no one else who heard it) was that BSD runs neck-and-neck in Japan with Linux, allegedly accounting for 50% of the free Unix use. It will be interesting to see whether TurboLinux will change that.
Nice Box. 450 pg manual. 5cd's. 60days installation support.
I can never just walk on by.
I think so, Brain. But where will we get a duck and a rubber hose at this time of night? --Pinky
Hmmm, which one should I buy?
I think it's carried on all Sunsite mirrors. In the UK it's located here. The UK magazine PC Plus has also previously distributed it on it's cover CD. PC Plus has been running a string of linux hands-on articles since the middle of last year mainly based on the SuSE distribution.
I asked and received. Glory of glories, I got pleasant, rational answers to my original question.
It's sincerely appreciated.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
To grab the source for a package,
just do "apt-get source packagename"
To rebuild a package, do "apt-get --compile source packagename"
I found the McMillen re-package of the Mandrake stuff for $30 at a Borders in New Hampshire. While I've had 3 Red Hat distributions in the past (and 2 Yggdrasil's before that), the $80 asking price for Red Hat 6.0 was an insult, IMNSHO. Bob Young can bray all he wants about the support he's providing, but I'm not about to pay him for something I don't need. BTW, even though Mandrake doesn't explicitly say so, I found it trivial to upgrade my RH 5.2 system to Mandrake 6.0. Once I picked up the fixed RPM's from their WWW site, I was all set.
That said, I happen to like/prefer the RPM system, but I know SuSE makes a fine product, and hope that they do succeed. But I also hope that they and RH and all the others remember that a lot of what's in Linux today was freely contributed.
That says it all. I for one think that Red Hat had better be very careful charging $80 for something when we can all get "the same thing (virtually)" for $30 bucks from SuSE or Mandrake or Etc...
I don't have a problem with SuSE attempting to competitively position themselves by trying to lower the value of RedHat's IPO. Ehh. It's a dog eat dog world out there.
What I *do* have a problem with is that they are essentially a proprietary company. They distribute a non-free Linux distribution, and stop just short of entirely refusing to acknowledge GNU and the GPL (not a mention of GNU on the package). More than 90 percent of what they are selling on that CD was contributed for free by the community. But they don't have the decency to contribute their utilities back, such as YAST.
SuSE is not helping Linux by trying to turn it proprietary. RedHat, on the other hand, isn't perfect either. But RH contributes their improvements and so is a member of the community instead of a leech -- like SuSE.
----------------------------------------
3. Dissemination
It is forbidden to reproduce or distribute data carriers which have
been reproduced without authorisation for payment without the prior
written consent of SuSE GmbH or SuSE Linux. Distribution of the
YaST programme, its sources, whether amended or unamended in full or
in part thereof, and the works derived thereof for a charge require
the prior written consent of SuSE GmbH.
All programmes derived from YaST, and all works derived thereof as a
whole or parts thereof may only be disseminated with the amended
sources and this licence in accordance with 2b). Making YaST or
works derived thereof available free of charge together with SuSE
Linux on FTP Servers and mailboxes is permitted if the licences on
the software are observed.
----------------------------------------
The major difference to GPL that I see is that you can't sell anything derived from YAST. In that sense it is %100 free (as in beer) and free with restrictions (as in speech), as well as having the same 'infection' property which GPL does (including requiring that the source be available). Ummm, are we nitpicking?
chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
...to what I said above.
:), and then offer YAST 'for free' on an FTP site.
This licence means you can make as many copies as you want to give away, just not to sell it. That also means a company can buy one copy and make a bunch of copies to install everywhere.
As far as I can see, you could literally make a distro identical to SuSe except for YAST, sell it for gobs of money (well, you could try
chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
I had SuSE 5.0 (i think) on my computer once. ./configure Windowmaker. All the Include Files were in different directorys than they were suspected.
./configured without any parameters. Two days later the Debian Package was available.
These were my first steps with linux but i was frustrated i didn't manage to
Yast messed up most configuration files...
In school we had installed a proxy using Linux.
We had to wait two weeks for a new version of squid we really needed urgently... and it was broken. We had to compile it ourselves.
Then a friend of mine (the one who showed me linux) gave me Debian and i was really happy:
Although the WindowMaker was quite old, the sources I downloaded
And the best thing i know is APT.
I read in freshmeat about a software package which sounded interesting.
"apt-get install softwaretitle"
and it was running on my box.
This was just a great.
If you don't want to use bleeding-edge, you can choose the Stable tree, for guys who like to play around with the newest things there's a seperate unstable tree. (updates usually appear within 2 days in unstable)
"apt-get update"
"apt-get upgrade"
and your system is up-to-date
So i just love Debian whereas i didn't like SuSE very much.
From your comment you make it sound as if SuSE Linux doesn't use RPMs. They do use RPM files for all of their packages and I rather like the way YaST acts as a front-end to RPM allowing me to easily install updates.
Okay I went a bit off the deep end with this. I still don't like SuSE 'cause they distribute a non-free distribution. But I should not have called them a leech and I apologize for that error.
Even though SuSE doesn't make all of their utilities free, they have (as the above poster pointed out) made significant hardware support contributions to XFree86 and the kernel. I suppose I should have checked that out first before being so harsh, so I'm sorry. (But I'm still not going to pay them for a non-free software package)
here I used rpms from this site
esp. I installed GNOME (then new) rpms on suse5 from here. Quite useful site to remember. -a
I've been running SuSE since 5.1. I bought each distrib (5.1, 5.3) directly through SuSE. I skipped 6.0 and bought 6.1 from Best Buy for $29.95 I believe. Great buy, beats the hell out of purchasing RH 6 for $79.95. ;) Since I saved all of that money, I went and bought WordPerfect 8 for Linux from Best Buy also. (I don't mind spending money for non-MS products.;)
Now, I'd really be content if I could purchase Civ Call to Power and other Linux games from the rack.
Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
I was amazed that BestBuy was carrying SuSE. I looked at the price tag and almost fell over. =]
~$30 For 5 CDs 60 day support and a 450pg manual.
Hahaha. Redhat is ~$80
calx
AFAIK, Quincy is an iguana
------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
Sure you can resell SuSE if you take out the non-free components, but SuSE without YaST isn't quite SuSE anymore, is it?
--
bgphints - internet routing news, hints and ti
Oh, that's right.
Darn it. How about if I say lizards are better than birds? =)
Get off my launchpad!
This is not meant to start a flame war, but what's the appeal of SuSe over, say, RedHat or Debian?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
So is SuSE 100% "free software" (by the FSF definition) yet?
This is why I'm still running Red Hat.
Okay Debian is "free" but you need to be a programmer just to install the thing.
So here's one thing I never got straight . . . is it "Seuss" or "Sousa?"
.")
(.au file with thick German accent: "Hello, my name ist Marc Torres und I pronounce 'SuSE' as . .
iSKUNK!
By the same token, other 'alternative' OSes were big in Europe but bombed in the US: Atari and above all Amiga (let's hope that they don't set a precedent for Linux).
The Amiga hardly bombed in the US. Everyone who could afford one pretty much went out and bought one. Everyone who couldn't afford one got an ST or stuck with their C64.
The Ami may never have achieved, in the US, the same phenomenal success it had in Europe, but it was by nobody's measure a bomb. The ST, now that was a bomb -- well, maybe a dud. =)
It's the one question I have about SuSE. I have yet to find a download site for their distribution. I'd like to try it. Thanks
"Klaatu, verada, necktie!" -Ash
SuSe's Linux always came with smooth, simple yet powerful installation routines - and good documentation (even back in 199(4?)).
... unusuable places) - ever configured sendmail.cf (nearly) from scratch (NO example file available)?
The distributions I tried (well, some years ago) were well suited for beginners, but not for the more advanced user, with "hacker" documentation and optional modules missing there and where (or in
SuSe was the first distribution easily available on CD in Germany - and the first company offering professional support since Linux 0.99.x. See, my first linux CD was a SuSe with kernel 1.0.9
In case someone asks: now I use (and prefer) Debian, but I intend to try OpenBSD soon.
Interesting. I have lived in Germany now for almost six years, and not long after I arrived I heard about Linux for the first time (1994) via Usenet. It wasn't too long after that SuSE started pushing SuSE Linux, which took root pretty fast. Every company I've worked for or with (six of 'em) have used SuSE Linux in some capacity; my current company uses it for all servers, both intra- and Internet, for ourselves and our clients (we do web design, sometimes also setting up the server as well).
I didn't hear about Red Hat until much later. Odd. Even then I basically heard of it through my interest in MkLinux DR2.
It's also interesting that Linux took root so fast in Germany. Lots of Debian developers, for example, are German (or at least European). By the same token, other 'alternative' OSes were big in Europe but bombed in the US: Atari and above all Amiga (let's hope that they don't set a precedent for Linux).
So in many ways it's not a surprise to see that SuSE is doing so well, in contrast to Red Hat or Caldera--they've been bigger longer. But as the article states, SuSE's and Red Hat's growth curves are about the same--just Red Hat is a step behind. I wish 'em both luck...
cya
Ye Olde Webdesigner
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
Page 1 Heading: "Show Me The Money"
:)
Page 2 Heading: "R-E-S-P-E-C-T"
Holy moly, can you get any more WORN OUT than that? Someone fax these guys some originality, please.
I propose a new law be passed giving citizens the right to legally smack silly anyone who says, "show me the money."
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Okay Debian is "free" but you need to be a programmer just to install the thing.
I beg to differ. Debian is only marginally more complex to install than, say, Red Hat. It's just wildly more complex to maintain. Part of that comes from the very strong dependancy model the package system is using. Another part of it comes from the fact that the Debian folks seem to have modified the hell out of every piece of software they package, and that the packages themselves are more fragile -- they break reasonably often with even simple apt-get operations.
[Note that I'm talking about potato here, slink isn't quite so painful, as it is quite stable now.]
Using Debian, I do miss being able to rpm --rebuild a package, and have that just plain work. Unfortunately dpkg-buildpackage seems to have a terrifyingly high failure rate in potato. (Or am I the only one who can't rebuild apache or pam?)
I don't debate your point about freeness, though. I like that it takes only a glance to see if a package is non-free with Debian.
I am a newbie who is thinking of trying their package, but my reluctance is about their yast. From a buried comment above, I see that it is not free software.
That raises the next question, is the source code for yast distributed, and if so has anyone compiled it to check that the distributed (binary?) yast creates the same system as on-site compiled yast?
Without getting into some big debate about which distribution is better, or which company is larger, I think I've found part of the answer to why sales are up: SuSE is cutting big deals with software distributors.
I went to Fry's a couple of days ago, and when I went looking to see if they had BeOS 4.5 upgrades (they didn't have any Be at all =( ) I was surprised to find SuSE 6.1 on sale for $30. I thought I'd gottten a good deal at $40 a month ago. I'm sure the price has dropped considerably at other places, as well. With its shelf-neighbor Red Hat 6.0 selling for $80 at the same time, it's no wonder that more people are turning to SuSE...
Get off my launchpad!
Do you have any proof of this. I have a hard time believing Suse would agree with a student to stay out of the US market...
(everyone needs to be called a jack ass every now and then)
I didn't mean that they hate free software, but the thing is, they have a CD full of almost all freely copyable software, but I can't copy the CD legally because SuSE has made it non-free. They also rarely mention GNU/GPL/FSF in their advertising literature, although I was unaware the GNU Manifesto was printed in their manual.
All that aside, they are not leeches and have done some great work to advance XFree86 development which I should have looked into before disrespecting the company.
-=Ivan
The Linux FSSTD defines that no executable may be placed under /etc. init scripts are obviously executables (in the sense chmod +x) and therefore SuSE placed them in /sbin/init.d.
/etc/init.d (Solaris, Debian Linux), /etc/rc.d/init.d (RedHat Linux), or /sbin/init.d (SuSE Linux). No problems with that.
IMHO this doesn't make such a great difference. I admin several SysV-ish systems where the scripts are in
Better get used to it. Both companies are commercial, and both will do what they have to to gain market share.
So long as it's based on a better product, not Microsoft-like tactics of trying to hurt the other company instead of improving your own.
Read the license.
YaST is proprietary software. Read the license, dumb ass.
You should buy Borland C++ 3.1. It comes in a huge box, with 6 manuals, and almost 30 floppies. That's the measure of software quality: the packaging. The best companies spend the most on buying boxes.
Dumb ass....
well, as undesirable as their propietary behavior is, we dont want red hat to be seen as the 'standard' linux as the market emerges, and Suse demonstarting to the public that there are other companies who distrubute lots of linux is good. also, Suse releasing their figures like this could actually help redhat by showing that the whole market for linux is growing quickly.
Juln
I saw SuSE for the first time this weekend. The first thing that stood out to me is that it is an HPsUX clone. init.d is in /sbin and YaST looks exactly like SAM.
/etc where it belongs.... Sure, we have BSD and System V.... But why make each system V different? Shesh....
I hate HP-UX for that. Why can't they leave things like init.d in
Other than that tid bit, I've heard great things about SuSE.... More power to em, I just wanted to complain about something.
Romans 10:9-10
Does anyone remember how some people were worried about RedHat becoming the hegemonic Linux distributor? Personally, I prefer my tyrants to be American, so I need all of you /.ers to go buy RedHat so that SuSE doesn't take over and force us all to use software with support for the euro mark!
Seriously, the size of SuSE is good news for everybody. Should RedHat, in contradiction of sanity, start doing those things people were worried about, businesses have another large company to call for a Linux distro & hand-holding. If SuSE is "in their heart of hearts a services" company, I'd expect them to do very well in the (corporate) support aspect of things, which is where the money is. Having big corporations use Windows is why Windows is still around, so it's rather important for Linux World Domination (oddly enough, not a registerd trademark of Linus Torvalds).
Off-Topic: Microsoft's applications are what's keeping Windows on the desktop. There's no doubt in my mind that companies would prefer a free, reliable, easier-to-remotely-admininster o/s like Linux *if* it ran Microsoft Office. Combine this with WINE, and I see trouble for the model that Microsoft depends on for its revenue. Solution? Stop wasting time and money on Win2000/NT 5 and go ahead and finish WINE. According to my reading of the WINE license, they can fork the project and close-source the remainder of WINE. This is a classic embrace & extend manuever, and has three benefits for MS. First, it allows them to continue to sell at least a chunk of the O/S (i.e. DirectX 6/7, other API implementations); second, it saves them the enourmous R&D costs of developing a real O/S (i.e. Linux, FreeBSD, or Solaris) and immediately gains them all the benefits thereof; third, it maintains the APIs that Office depends on in the face of the Linux threat, and hence protects their hegemony. It's the same calculation they made porting Office to Macintosh, but even easier: Linux has a larger installed base (and/or more publicitly), and you get the added bonuses of selling something in addition to Office *and* "subverting" a competitor.
-_Quinn
Slackware 4.0: because the penguin is never sleeping.
Reality Maintenance Group, Silver City Construction Co., Ltd.
...but you need to remove these `unfree' packages first. Some years ago I saw this detailed in a README (iirc it was about burning CDs yourself).
Btw, FSSTD stands for FileSystem STanDard. You can find the document on Metalab.
Redhat talks about risks of their going public. They don't mention any competitor, but everything else. Also, I've heard (ok,ok, hearsay) that Mr. Young (Redhat) used the words "...our little competitors..." during an event. Redhat felt a little TOO secure and important.
--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/
SuSE has 8.3 names to make DOS installs possible.
There is a directory full-names which has the long, more descritive names.
Let's have a discussion about why chameleons are better than penguins...
1) chameleons have big tongues
2) chameleons can't get their feathers ruffled
3) chameleons are masters of energy conservation, and, just like programmers, most people think they are lazy
4) chameleons are better engineered to adapt to surroundings
5) Quincy! (www.foxtrot.com - Jason's pet)
x) penguins are for bird-brains
Get off my launchpad!
Using that system, the pronunciation I'm most familiar with as spoken by anglophones would be /'su z@/, although folks from Germany of course say something that seems more to the English ear to be /'zu z@/ or even /'zu zE/ instead.
given SuSE's history. They started out as a Slackware-derivative, and had an agreement with Volkerding that they would stay out of the US market. Now, it looks like they're set on violating that agreement in a MAJOR way.
> "They basically stumbled upon Linux, riding it to where they are," Kusnetzky says. "But I think in their heart of hearts, they're still a services company."
:) )
Isn't this the whole point os the open source model? (get the software for free, pay for the support).
Suse was my first encounter with linux when 5.1 was given away free with PCPlus (My response was somthing like "what? an OS given away free with a magazine? cant be any good..." I've come a long way in the last year...
Bil
Well, the guy that was showing it to me didn't mention that they symlinked it.
As far as the managers go, you'd be surprised how many managers get torn up about their init.d being symlinked these days.
Romans 10:9-10