Re: Alternatives that don´t suck?

[Lonni J Friedman]

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Yu Meng Chong <chongym at cymulacrum.net> wrote:
>>> SUSE is mildly tempting, except that they're run by Novell, who are a
>>> bunch of M$ collaborators.
>>>
>
> Hi Lonni,
>
> I know it's been a long time since I wrote anything, so I'm not sure if my first post after a long absence is going to be flamebait or not.

Pascal, nothing you could ever say would be flamebait.  You're just
too nice of a guy.

>
> Actually, you may want to try OpenSuse, which is really a lot more polished in terms of graphics and overall user experience (to me anyway!), than Fedora or CentOS/RHEL. The only thing I don't quite like about it is that it hides too much of the configuration details. I like being able to quickly update my system using yum in the CLI rather than using YAST which seems to take an inordinately long time. Also, the lack of a good mirror, or many mirror sites for OpenSUSE for my little corner of the world means that downloads are rather painful.

I've already tried it.  $DAYJOB requires me to test against every
major distro out there (see http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda_get.html
for the list), so I'm not just shooting off at the mouth with no
context.  I've used them all, and they all suck in unique ways.

>
> As for the Novell-Microsoft collaboration, I don't think it's such a bad thing. Now, before others accuse me of being a sell-out, let me just say that after running my own system integration business for more than a year, I see the pragmatism in Novell's strategy. Pragmatism may be a dirty word now, but this is not pragmatism in the nebulous sense of making more money, it is pragmatism in that companies are willing to try or even deploy Linux, but they don't want to throw away their Windows systems. There are at least two good things to have come out of this collaboration that helps my business and also helps Linux in general:

I'd be willing to agree if this pact actually showed any benefits for
Novell.  The reality is that its gotten them no where.  Not a single
one of their earnings statements since the deal with MS has had a
single example of increased revenue as a result of the deal with MS.

>
> 1. Virtualization: it is cheaper to deploy more applications on the same hardware.

Sure, but this isn't a feature that is unique to SUSE offerings.

> 2. Windows Domain and File Sharing: SUSE/openSUSE's Samba client is easier to setup than Fedora's.

I'd argue that this is rather subjective.  I've yet to find anything
in a SUSE product that was easier to do than in any other distro (and
that includes Ubuntu/Debian).


>
> This means that for companies strapped for cash (almost all SMEs), they can get the benefits of Linux (wide range of server-based applications, including SAP!), reduce their acquisition costs (through virtualization and licensing costs), reduce downtime, increase control, and still retain their existing Windows infrastructure. What's not to like?
>
> Of course, I should at this point also state that I am a Novell partner. ;)

Ahh, and now the truth comes out  :P

>
> But you should really try OpenSUSE before dismissing it. One excellent thing about it is that WMV, ASF and MPG videos seem to play better on my OpenSUSE laptop than on my Fedora 8 system.

That really makes no sense at all.  mplayer is mplayer is mplayer.  So
unless you're running into Xorg bugs, there's no way that a random
movie can play better in one distro than another, when using identical
hardware.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L. Friedman netllama at gmail.com
LlamaLand https://netllama.linux-sxs.org