OpenSUSE 11.0 Released

Nate D writes "It's here: a new major release of Novell's community-supported distro is now available, and can be downloaded from the mirrors. Linux Format has a hands-on look at the new installer, SLAB menu and Compiz Fusion, and weighs up whether the distro can fight competition from Ubuntu and Fedora. Is this the start of a new era for SUSE?"

Sure, why not.

[impskizzle]

Seeing as how Ubuntu is Vista with a Linux kernel, I don't see why this can't be a new era for SuSE

Probably not

[morgan_greywolf]

Is this the start of a new era for SUSE?"

Probably not. Competition between major distros doesn't really exist, because all features are available for all distros. Neither Ubuntu, nor Fedora nor SuSE specialize in anything in particular, so in the end, there's not much difference between them aside from package management and menu layout.

Re:Probably not

[allcar]

Don't underestimate package management - it is critical. It is the main differentiator between distros and it is the key to Ubuntu's current success. It's also one of the main reasons that Linux is so much more stable than Windows.

New Era?

[f0ad001]

The only way SUSE will start a new era is if they dump Microsoft as a partner.

Re:Justin

[catscan2000]

At the risk of being labeled a troll, I typically tell colleagues who ask about the Microsoft deal that Apple has numerous patent and other technology licensing agreements with Microsoft, and yet we don't see a groundswell of people on Slashdot calling Apple on the carpet for their Microsoft agreements.

In response, I've heard that the difference is that Apple doesn't pretend to be fully open-source whereas Novell does to an extent, though Apple does have an open-source kernel and other bits in addition to a proprietary system. Similarly, Novell's SuSE (not openSuSE) is a product that users typically need to pay for. From a high-level view, this looks like both companies offer a proprietary system as well as an open-source subset of that proprietary system.

As a result -- at least, from that simplification of the issue -- I think that anti-SuSE people on Slashdot are treating Novell unfairly versus Apple. I'm not a fan of the Microsoft deal, either, but I do like openSuSE on technical and, especially, usability grounds, and that is why I both advocate for and use it both at home and at work.

Now I'm off to download the latest version :-)

(there goes my karma, though :-(. Please be nice!)

Re:Probably not

[AvitarX]

When I first used Linux it was redhat, and when I wanted to reconfigure the sound I had to re-install it (I guess knowing sndconf was the command would have helped, but I didn't).

Then SUSE came with the YaST, and I could "re-install" without actually reinstalling, and much time was saved.

Of course now all that stuff is real obvious anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

Re:Torrent link

[RiotingPacifist]

your doing it wrong.
*encrypt your conections,
*keep your number of connections limited
*dont upload more than (find the ISPs throttle spot here)kb/s

and you should be fine

Re:New Era?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, because by running OSX, you're clearly a saint when it comes to free vs proprietary software.

Re:New Era?

[Ilgaz]

Well, functionality?

Lets see... Nokia just shipped "Nokia Maps Downloader" application which is not absolutely photoshop class complex application. It is coded in .NET 3.0 . Where is the Linux version so people having same functionality as Windows will run?

Look to REAL WORLD, not some Mono blogs or Mono clone coders friends applications who are hosted at Novell themselves.

Re:New Era?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me why that deal matters exactly? Because Microsoft gave them money? Because you can read into the agreement things that aren't there (admission that Microsoft owns the patents to some GPL code). They gave up nothing, they give a lot back to the linux community, they provide the best packaging for KDE (in fact i'd say they're the de facto KDE distribution). This bitterness towards them needs to stop, they easily give the linux community as much as the Ubuntu project does.

SUSE has more Enterprise-focus

[SplatMan_DK]

Competition between major distros doesn't really exist, because all features are available for all distros.

While some may argue that SUSE is bad as a matter of principle (because of their deal wil Microsoft, which secured them a truckload of cash), it is my experience that SUSE has more focus on Enterprise needs than most other distros.

So yes - perhaps all features are available for all distros. But not all are actually implemented/moved to another distro. Most corporate users like the way YAST (packet manager) is working, and they also enjoy some of the built-in features for central management and integration with infrastructure products widely used in Enterprises.

Simply put: SUSE has more focus on Enterprise needs, and less focus on whistles and bells (in GUI and elsewhere). An even though many of these features COULD be moved/ported to other distros, they are not. For the simple reasons that users of these distros are not needing or requesting them.

On the other hand distros like Ubuntu has a much nicer appeal to consumer-type end-users. It looks more familiar to them , than SUSE and has a more appealing look'n'feel.

- Jesper

Re:New Era?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple made a big stink about patents a number of years ago wrt spring-loaded folders in the Nautilus file manager.

Apple has also purposely broken the iPod database so that Free Software iPod software broke after the update.

Apple also have a similar deal with Microsoft as Novell has.

I know, I know... "Apple shiny. Me like shiny" makes it all better, right? Whatever.

A crusade against cross-platform initiatives?

[SplatMan_DK]

One basic question. Is Mono and Moonlight a selected by default option or not?

I can't say for SUSE 11, but for 10.x neither Mono or Moonlight was installed by default. They were available through the YAST package manager.

I would use original XP or Vista rather than a thing which is made by their cloning partners. At least they are original.

It is sad that you come to such a conclusion without at least evaluating the technical potential of these projects, and perhaps Novells reasons for engaging in them. It sounds almost like you are on a personal crusade against commercial vendors who are in the cross-platform / portability business.

Novell has made it its core business to connect technologies which are for different reasons not already connected. And in most of these cases, the products they connect are either all commercial or a mixture of (F)OSS and classic closed-source commercial software.

While you may disagree with their goals, and be almost religiously in opposition of them, I think they do more good than bad. They ultimately ensure that the customer/consumer has a wider choice in products and technologies, and they are IMHO they key to breaking the monopolistic world domination which certain vendors enjoy.

I frankly don't see why Novells projects (for example Mono and Moonlight) are "bad" while similar cross-platform initiatives (such as WINE and SAMBA) are "good". I think the end user should have the widest range of products to choose from, and any company or community who is engaged in projects which enhance portability and interconnectivity are "good". Especially when they release them under open source licenses - like Novell does.

- Jesper

Re:Why people should stay away from it

[SplatMan_DK]

and we all know SuSE is now at least half-evil.

Would you care to explain WHY? I mean, really explain. With rational arguments - not emotional, religious or similar irrational explanations. Honestly, give me SOLID ARGUMENTS here. And perhaps a few examples. Did somebodys business close because of the MS/Novell deal? Did someone get sued? Did FOSS projects die? Did customers end up with fewer choices? What????
:-)

your boss says "let's try a Linux distro for a while", please, don't suggest OpenSuSE

A good recommendation in a corporate setting is always based on a good business case. I would be happy to evaluate your arguments for not choosing SUSE for a company, if they are solid and based on rational arguments.

Untill then I will most certainly recommend SUSE if the business case supports it. And in some cases it will - no questions asked. Novell makes great cross-platform products, so if a company needs, say, a cluster of servers capable of running both J2EE and .NET, it would make a lot of sense comparing SUSE with MONO/JBOSS vs Windows 2008 with BEA (just an example, insert other similar server-cases here).

Or perhaps we could imagine a company wanting to convert their outdated XP clients with Linux clients in order to postpone hardware upgrades (which would be needed in order to migrate to Vista). Perhaps the ability to show webpages with Silverlight elements was an important criteria? What about browsers capable of showing PDF documents, MS Word documents, Flash content, etc? All these are cross-platform initiatives, and I honestly believe that Linux won't make in into the corporate environment without these.

I don't understand why some people think Novell and their projects (for example Mono and Moonlight) are "bad" while other cross-platform initiatives (such as WINE and SAMBA) are "good". I also fail to see why the same people often argue that IBM's investments in Open Source projects are "good" while Novells are "bad". The discussion about Microsoft/Linux/Novell needs to be elevated to a level where it is based on the same standard you would demand in other more scientific debates. Drop the emotional and irrational arguments. Give me facts and examples from real life.

Users and customers benefit from a free market. It gives them the widest range of products to choose from. Any community or company who is engaged in software projects which enhance portability and interconnectivity are "good" as far as I am concerned. Even more so when they are releases them under open source licenses - like MONO and Moonlight.

:-)
- Jesper

Re:Justin

[mooreti1]

I completely agree. The M$/Novell technical agreement is much less of a big deal than the community makes it out to be. So what if they have a patent agreement? It wasn't selling out since it never concerned the kernel, just the utilities used in Linux. That, and M$ has yet to prove any patent violations concerning Linux, which has always led me to believe that it touched more on the directory services issues.

Re:SuSE ...

[PReDiToR]

preditor@<mybox>:~> uname -a
Linux <mybox> 2.6.25.7-PReDiToR #1 Thu Jun 19 04:44:46 BST 2008 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux

Don't like the openSUSE kernel? Don't use it.

Just like that.

Re:Why people should stay away from it

[FishWithAHammer]

use Mono today and tomorrow there will be more reasons to move to Windows.

Oh, hell yeah. Because GTK# and QT# work great on Windows, right?

Get a clue before you start whining about OMG TEH MICROSOFTS. I understand that you have a retarded knee-jerk hatred of Microsoft. Carrying that over to Novell (who, might I add, went to bat against SCO--or have you already forgotten that?) because they support Mono, a tool for interoperability that doesn't suck nearly as much as Java, is amazingly retarded.

Novell's business is making systems talk to each other. They don't really care if those systems are closed-source, because people still use them.

You could just as easily look at it the other way: use Mono and there are fewer reasons to have Windows around, because the majority of .NET apps run under Mono.

I don't understand why Mono is TEH EVIL but WINE and Samba are OK. It makes no fucking sense. Is it because people like Miguel--gasp!--don't view Microsoft as enemies? Because they--GASP!--are willing to work with other people, regardless of what you as a FOSStard think?

Re:Probably not

[drinkypoo]

The whole fucking world has been saying it wanted Debian with updated repositories and cutting-edge software (but that has actually been tested by a human at leastonce.) Ubuntu comes along and gives it to us and people are confused about why it is successful? It's because they give us what we ask for!

Re:Probably not

[Max Littlemore]

I'd have said Ubuntu's success was due to having little things pop up and ask you if you want to install mp3 codecs when the user tries to play an mp3, or Flash installer helpers, etc.

No. That stuff is pretty recent.

I seem to remember the existence of scripts like EasyUbuntu and the like a while back to get that stuff running, although they were a bit dodgy so the command line was preferred in my case. I think that was for the last LTS release.

I also seem to remember that Ubuntu was already gaining a large share before Dapper was released due to the combination of the Debian package management system, human user focus and shorter release cycle thus more current software.

Of course this is all from memory and I couldn't be bothered finding references.