Linux.com

Feature

Face-off: Fedora Core 1 versus the free version of SuSE 9.0

By Ken Barber on December 22, 2003 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

With the imminent demise of the product known as Red Hat Linux, many people are asking, "Where do I go next?" For IT decision-makers, the question couldn't come at a worse time. Just as Microsoft is dropping support for their most popular version of Windows, prodding budget-conscious managers to consider Linux on the organization desktop, the best-known Linux distribution is suddenly no longer a part of the solution set at the retail level.

As a community college instructor preparing both users and administrators to use Linux in the workplace, the question of "what now?" has been on my mind as well. What follows is a head-to-head comparison of the free version of the world's second most popular Linux distribution - SuSE 9.0 - and the Red Hat-backed community Linux distribution Fedora Core 1.

My goal was modest: find out which of these distros will work best in my classroom. But as someone training people to use Linux, I also wanted to know how well each distro meets the needs of people in the real world. My questions were:

  • How easy, in terms of employee time, is it to install?
  • How well does it support, and run on, older hardware?
  • How easy is it to configure, maintain and support?
  • How easy is it to apply patches?
  • How much Useful Stuff is already included, and how much time will it take to add what isn't included?
  • How secure is the default install?
  • How easy is it for new users and administrators to learn?
  • And finally, the question on everyone's mind: What about Joe Sixpack?

Here is a "report card" summarizing the grades I would give to the two distributions. For the readers who are pondering replacements for Windows 98 or NT, my (highly biased) opinions of those platforms are also included here for comparison:

CATEGORY FEDORA SUSE WINDOWS
Easy to Install A D B
Easy to configure C A D
Default Security C C F
Patch Management A B F
User Experience/ease of learning C B A

OLDER HARDWARE

If you're running anything less than about a 600 MHz Pentium III, Fedora is the your only viable option. SuSE is unbearably slow on anything less than that, but Fedora does fine on processors down to about 300 MHz. Also, the free version of SuSE inexplicably lacks driver support for the old NE2000 network cards. This might be an issue in a school or non-profit using older hardware.

INSTALLATION

Fedora is easy and straightforward to install, whether from CD-ROMs or a network server. Most hardware devices (including network cards) are auto detected and the correct drivers installed without needless user input.

In the end, it is probably easier to install (and faster!) than Windows. The free version of SuSE, on the other hand, is a pain in the neck to install, taking at least twice as much technician time and a considerably higher level of expertise.

Even when excluding installation from CD-ROM in the comparison (SuSE does not offer ISO images of the free version, it requires a boot CD and ftp), Fedora still wins hands-down. My experience on multiple machines and multiple NICs is that the free SuSE install requires NIC drivers to be configured manually. That can eat up a lot of technician time. Also, an unnecessary amount of technician interaction (clicking "OK" before detecting every class of hardware) is required toward the end of the install. All of this significantly increases the cost of installing the free version of SuSE. Editor's note: I did not have this problem while installing the retail version of SuSE 9.0 Professional.

Both distros contain a tool (kick start in Fedora and autoyast in SuSE) to quickly and easily build a template for pre-configured auto-installs.

CONFIGURATION

SuSE's configuration tools blow everything else right out of the water. They are far superior to anything that Red Hat (or Microsoft, for that matter) has ever produced, and are so easy to use that even an MCSE can understand them -- making it possible for Windows techs to be productive more quickly after a migration. Two tools -- SaX for XFree86 configuration and YaST for everything else -- are all that a sysadmin needs to configure everything on the system.

SaX can be run from a command line if the XFree86 configuration is damaged, and even has the ability to modify modeline timings on-the-fly to adjust the size and position of the X display. YaST will also run from a command line, making remote administration over ssh an easy task.

Fedora also has a nice set of configuration tools that were first introduced in Red Hat Linux 8. They are GUI only, making administration of a remote system (or one without X) more difficult. Also, they are not installed by default and the administrator must learn the names of dozens of commands in order to launch them from a command line.

SECURITY

While Linux still has a long way to go in the arena of security, both distros have done some very good things that deserve mentioning. In both cases unnecessary services are initially turned off, a firewall is installed by default, and patch management is handled with intelligence and grace. SuSE has a slight edge over Fedora in their firewall tool, and Fedora has a slight edge in patch management.

Both distros provide an adequate firewall, but SuSE's firewall tool allows more choices and does a better job of explaining them than does Fedora's.

Both distros have a small icon in the panel that alerts the user to patches that need to be installed, but SuSE only includes it on the KDE desktop (not Gnome). Red Hat's up2date agent has historically used RHN (the Red Hat Network) to download patches, but RHN subscriptions are not available with Fedora. To Red Hat's credit, they have tweaked Fedora so that up2date uses yum, a tool written by the Yellowdog Linux team, to install patches from community repositories instead. Yum allows patch retrieval from multiple repositories while YaST only retrieves from a SuSE mirror. And if anything goes wrong with up2date, yum works splendidly and easily from a command line.

THE USER EXPERIENCE

Like it or not, we purists need to recognize that a positive user experience is important to a successful migration, and that the baseline for user experience is Microsoft's Windows family of products. Since this is Microsoft's loftiest goal (obviously more important than mundane items such as stability and security!) that raises the bar in this area a great deal for Linux distributions.

SuSE definitely has the upper hand here, and not just because they have chosen (in my opinion) wild-and-sexy KDE over boring-but-functional Gnome as their default desktop environment: for reasons I do not fully understand, my screen looks cleaner and easier to read in SuSE than it does in Fedora, even when running Gnome (which is my own preferred environment). SuSE's menu structure also makes more sense to me.

Another important part of the user experience is the amount of Useful Stuff that is pre-installed. SuSE also wins in this area: flash content "just works" in SuSE's default browser (Konqueror); it doesn't work in any browser under Fedora. SuSE's multimedia players will play MP3 files; Fedora's will not. SuSE includes the real Acrobat Reader program; Fedora only offers second-rate alternatives. Each of these is important in one environment or another, and the amount of time it takes to add them to a Fedora installation can add significantly to the cost of its deployment.

Finally, ease of learning is also an important part of the user experience, since it's a safe bet that most migrations are occurring from a non-Linux platform. The easier it is for users and support staff to learn the new platform, the quicker they will become productive again. SuSE also wins here.

For instance, new users are going to have problems wrapping their minds around the concept of mounting and unmounting floppies and CD-ROMs, and SuSE makes this a little less painful than does Fedora (especially considering the fact that under Gnome it's often not possible to unmount a volume because a daemon called "fam" has locked it). This is just one example of the many little things that SuSE has done to make the learning curve -- and the entire user experience -- somewhat better than that under Fedora.

WHAT ABOUT JOE SIXPACK?

Finally, we come to the mythical Home User and the Eternal Quest to bring Linux to the Great Unwashed. I have bad news and good news: Neither distro is quite ready for Joe but both are getting tantalizingly close. Joe could probably install Fedora with a little bit of help, but he would quickly bog down when he tries to use it. He could probably use SuSE with a little help, but there's no way he'll ever install it.

I've never understood why, but home users don't like to supply a user name and password just to use their computers. We all know how Lindows and a certain monopoly product that rhymes with it deals with that (hint: breaks security) but SuSE deals with it elegantly: it can be configured to auto-login any non-root user of your choice. This is much preferable to making an administrator out of every Homer Simpson who sits down in front of a keyboard.

Fedora's default music player (Rhythymbox) is superior to SuSE's (Kaffeine), but the process of getting Rhythymbox to play MP3 files isn't trivial. SuSE includes the awesome audio editor Audacity while Fedora does not. Neither distro includes Mplayer, which will play virtually any Windows media file, but is not trivial to compile and install.

And so it goes. Maybe neither one of these free offerings from the top two commercial distributions are quite ready for Joe Sixpack, but both are definitely ready for a more technically savvy audience. If you're faced with making a decision between them, hopefully this article will be of use to you.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Face-off: Fedora Core 1 versus the free version of SuSE 9.0

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

K12LTSP 4.0 (based on Fedora Core 1)

Posted by: Administrator on December 22, 2003 09:40 PM
K12LTSP 4.0

  This slick distro makes installing the goodies such as flash/realplayer/java a breeze.

#

Re:K12LTSP 4.0 (based on Fedora Core 1)

Posted by: Administrator on December 24, 2003 01:25 PM
I'll say.
Having used both RH box sets AND the FREE downloaded version of K12ltsp, I am always impressed with K12.
I have used it as my home desktop OS, in fact, and have the K12 3.1.2 installed on the machine on which I am now typing. (I'll wait a week or two before doing the ever simple yum update to 4.0, to make sure the majority of bugs are out, since 4.0 was only made available...yesterday, I think.)



tony b

<A HREF="http://www.school-library.net/" TITLE="school-library.net">School-Library.net</a school-library.net>

#

Re:Fedora vs SuSE vs Mandrake

Posted by: Administrator on December 25, 2003 04:01 PM
I think that Mandrake is quite similar to SuSE in Easy to Configure (Mandrake Control Center is similar to YaST), Default Security (about the same in most linux distros) and ease of learning.

But, it does have an edge in installation. It's regarded as easier to install as any version of windows.

Mandrake isn't as good as SuSE in patch management because the MandrakeUpdate program doesn't reside in the toolbar, but otherwise it's pretty easy - pick the patch you want to install, or check all of them. (Not like windows where you have to download all the patches at once and it takes a loooong time to do that)

#

Re:Fedora vs SuSE vs Mandrake

Posted by: Administrator on December 23, 2003 09:25 AM
Thatīs right. Working in Eurpoe Mandrake is far better valued here then in the USA. I had Mandrake 9.1 and Redhat 8 duak booting and opted for the Mandrake based on my own experience. Why...basically ease of use and hardware. The Mandrake automatically picked up my printers and even m Kodak digital camera and Nikon slide scanner. As a desktop I cannot thi9nk of anything easier to use, my wife uses it and refuses to use anything else including Mac OSX or Windows XP saying that she is completely comfortable with it. Also I have the 9.2 working as a server for a web design company here in Spain with 4 different Mac systems and 3 different Windows systems and they were not only happy to pay me but also to pay a license fee to Mandrake. Oh and for those killer apps VMware, Crossover Office and that replacement for Apt-get URPMI,

P.S,
Suse well 9 out of 10 for the graphics but the rest sucks

#

Box sets for first time users

Posted by: Administrator on December 23, 2003 01:18 PM
For new time and beginner users, I never recommend the "free" versions. Always the box sets, and the professional versions at that. As you said "Editor's note: I did not have this problem while installing the retail version of SuSE 9.0 Professional." Why would you recommend something that's mainly for experienced uses, ie. the 'free' versions, to first time users?

#

The flash issue on Fedora

Posted by: Administrator on December 22, 2003 09:23 PM
I would like to tell you that the Flash work on the Fedora's Mozilla. But it's time consume. Since the complier of Fedora is too new for this version of Flash plug-in which make it doesn't work (I guess). If you insist on play flash on Fedora, you can try to install a Mozilla 1.5 in a RH 8 or RH 9 machine and install the flash plug-in on it. Then copy the Mozilla to the Fedora and try it. There is a method will work 100%, installs RH 8 or RH 9 first. Then installs Mozilla (I don't like the preconfigure Mozilla)and Flash plug-in to the new Mozilla. The last thing is upgrade the OS to Fedora. After such kind of insistent, your Mozilla on Fedor will "Flash".

#

There's an easier way...

Posted by: Administrator on December 22, 2003 11:36 PM

If you install the "compat-libstdc++" package in Fedora, Flash will work just fine.


RE: <A HREF="http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/linux.html#Flash" TITLE="mozdev.org">http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/linux.html#Flash</a mozdev.org>

#

Fedora and SuSE

Posted by: Administrator on December 22, 2003 10:04 PM
Having used K12LTSP with both RH 8 and 9 I can say that it is a big improvement over plain-vanilla RedHat Linux. RHL with Ximian also kicks up usability a few notches. SuSE 9 Pro version was touched on briefly in the article. For ease of install and overall usability from scrach SuSE 9 Pro gets my vote. That's why it's my desktop of choice these days. I just hope Novell keeps SuSE available as a retail version, with KDE as the default desktop. Grafting the Ximian desktop onto the SuSE corporate version makes a lot of sense though. Both KDE and GNOME need ways of altering default desktops easily without learning scripting. A policy-driven kmenuedit-like GUI would make administrator transistions from a Windows environment a lot easier.

#

Fedora vs SuSE vs Mandrake

Posted by: Administrator on December 22, 2003 10:19 PM
The debate here seems to assume that the only choices are Fedora or Suse. What about Mandrake? I just installed Mandrake 9.2 and am very favorably impressed (so far) with it as a Windows replacement for Joe Six Pack. It pretty much installed itself, found (almost) everything except my monitor (but that could be because I have it on a KVM). I running it on a 450 mhz AMD chip on an old motherboard. I'm also running 2 servers using Red Hat 9.0. I'm not a Linux expert by any means but I'm also not a 'newbie'. Try the Mandrake 9.2. You might be surprised.

#

Completely ignored redhat-config-*

Posted by: Administrator on December 22, 2003 10:47 PM
It would be interesting to see how this survey would have resulted if the writer had taken the time to use any of the provided configuration tools for Fedora Core 1.

I guess the other distributions should be happy they were ignored by a less than competent installation.

Perhaps next time he could
1) ask in a live help irc channel (freenode.net #fedora)
2) look at 1000's of user emails (fedora.redhat.com, archive, search for configure?)
3)read/post a question on the fedora faq forums fedora.artoo.net
4)Or have gone completely insane and emailed a question here: fedora-list@redhat.com

Of course all of these are only posted and referenced on Mozilla's home page after install, or on Rdhat's Fedora main page, and I guess RTFM is a little too complicated for some folks. However, it's probably the least I would've expected from a supposed comparison linux.com though, rookiez.

#

my 2 cents on SUSE 9.0

Posted by: Administrator on December 26, 2003 08:30 AM
Can't comment on Fedora, but yesterday I did my first ever Linux install on Toshiba 5205-s503 laptop. I've tried SUSE 9.0, Mandrake 9.2, and Red Hat 9.0.

Both SUSE 9.0 and Mandrake 9.2 failed to install. Period. SUSE installation started OK, then in the middle of installation, just when it's started probing for USB, I've lost my mouse (touchpad) and at that point on I could no longer interact with installation procedure (it doesn't provide for decent keyboard based navigation). Tried several times, with the same result.


  Mandrake 9.2 zipped through fine, then on boot, hanged up on 'checking for new hardware' step, also pretty consistently.

I've ended up installing Red Hat 9.0 (still available for download at my university), and that worked just fine, even if it didn't pick up PCMCIA and apparently didn't install USB 2.0, and didn't provide NTFS module either -- those are small things, the key is just to get the whole bloody thing up and runing. Neither SUSE nor Mandrake could accomplish it.

I think the state of Linux is such that having highly polished installation procedures like SUSE or Mandrake, with minimum of human interaction is simply dangerous. It either works it doesn't work at all. Red Hat installation procedure is clumsy, old-fashioned, blah blah blah, but it did install and came up, and ultimately this is what counts. If neither SUSE nor Mandrake installed on my machine, their value for me is NIL. Red Hat came up, and I'm sure Fedora wouldn't have any problems either (but I'm going to hold on and use 9.0 during the next semester, and then I hope Fedora with 2.6 will be available).

(also tried Knoppix. This bloody thing came up before I had a chance to blink. But at this point I still stick with Red Hat)

Cheers.

#

Re:my 2 cents on SUSE 9.0

Posted by: Administrator on December 29, 2003 09:40 AM
Use Windows XP and keep up with the simple security patches. Linux just makes things difficult<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Re:my 2 cents on SUSE 9.0

Posted by: Administrator on December 29, 2003 11:38 PM
SO you would rather just remain a minion of the security flawed O/S, and shell out money for each new "upgrade". Have no real control over your own system, or total freedom to do what you wish.



The only real difficulty that I had when getting involved with a powerful O/S called Linux, was unlearning all the bad habits that Windows taught me.



I am 100% Windows free, and can do everything that I could in Windows, and even more. Plus I no longer have system lock-ups or the blue screen of death, which is just part of the reason for consistent re-boots, which are a thing of the past for me.



Yeah, in the beginning you have to fire up some synapses, just to get up to speed with Linux, but then the benifits are worth it. More stability, total cost savings, and total freedom. Just my two bits for your two cents.

#

Re:my 2 cents on SUSE 9.0

Posted by: Administrator on January 07, 2004 06:09 PM
I wish I knew these things before I got involved with Linux. My experience is with SUSE 8.1, Red Hat 9, and Knoppix.

SUSE is the most loaded distro, but it's instructions in English are like a "machine translation" of German-- they are incomprehensible (and I consider myself fairly literate and smart).

Especially when setting up a DSL account: the SUSE instructions are geared for dial-ups in Europe! Many apps buzzed out--or broke.

Red Hat was an easier install, and I began to love Gnome over KDE-- BUT, one needs a magnifying glass to read the installation manual, and Red Hat 9 lacks MP3 (it must be downloaded as a plug-in). I've never gotten Real Player to work, and I want MPlayer-- but I am a newbie and it is incomprrehensible to me even though I've read everything on the net and in the library that I can.

I picked up a Knoppix distro at the LinuxWorld Convention in S.F. It works great and flawlessly, but I am afraid to use it as a dual boot with Red Hat. It seems Linux Distros and layman manuals are always emphasizing how to get Linux to work with Windows. I don't want Microsoft in my home! I wish the Distros would just concentrate on making Linux second to none (which it REALLY is).

I don't want to f--k up my expensive computer with an OS that is a magnet for viruses and requires me to buy alot of crappy advertisement-laden software just to get a minimal home pre-perimeter defined IT experience.

I want something that works-- and I don't want to be a hostage consumer. No more fast food please.

I am still learning how to get the most from Linux-- the challenges and rewards are endless-- I am very curious about other distros like Turbolinux and Slackware. The Asians seem to be able to make almost everything more user-friendly and I expect the same in a distro like Turbolinux. Anyone tried it? All the smart geeks love Slackware-- but what makes it different?

-- Alabamarasta-- San Francisco

#

Re:my 2 cents on SUSE 9.0

Posted by: Administrator on December 30, 2003 03:25 AM
My Windows XP never freezes, I never have security issues because I apply the patches when they come out (like you must for every OS). I don't have any hardware issues like I always do with Linux.

I can install anything with no problems, no dependency issues like I find with Mandrake, Fedora Core, Redhat, and Debian (just the ones I have tried and use).

My auto-update always works without bugs.

I don't have people with an elitist attitude calling me stupid when I don't understand something and ask for help with Windows either.

#

Re:my 2 cents on SUSE 9.0

Posted by: Administrator on December 30, 2003 06:54 AM
The only time that I have any dependency issues is when some third party software didn't include what was needed for the software to run assuming that everyone has the same libraries. But then that happens with Windows too. But sometimes when it happens in Windows, Windows locks up, where as in Linux, the program just doesn't run.



But when you have to pay a ton of money for the next new upgrade, do you realize that you are paying for the propaganda that M$ spews forth about how insecure open source is, and how secure Windows is.



Why support bullies who like to steal ideas and crush competition? Don't you realize that hinders innovation? I buy parts and build my own machine so that I am not swindled out of bucks for a operating system that I do not like. In fact the savings that I get from not having an O/S on any hardware allows me to build with a bigger bang for my buck. I am able to get a $1200,00 machine for only $600.00.



I am able to reconfigure my machine at anytime that I wish, without having to get re-activation permission from M$. I have a mobile dock with different sliders. I am able to change distros at anytime that I wish. I can dedicate one for graphics development, another for games development, and a third for just general use. Can you have XP on more than one drive without violating the M$ policies? I do not think so. So I have infinitely more freedom to develop than you do.



Besides, why do think that there is so much spam? M$ has all sorts of behind the scenes running software that calls home to let them know where you have been on the web, what you have been doing there and a back door for gov't angencies to look in on you, all without you even being aware of it.



M$ takes the info that it has retrieved from your machine, and sells your name and address and e-mail address to third parties so it can still make a buck off of you. Ever notice that after you have visited an online clothing retailer, that you start to get spam from Haband and LL Bean? Now you know why. It didn't happen immeadiately, but it definitely happened after you got yourself one of those patches or updates.



I no longer have that problem. Sure I get the usual spoofed spam, and some of the ones that already know my current e-mail, but I can visit sites all without having the big jump in spam after I get an update. And I have to tell you, it is nice.



So you go right ahead and continue the good fight, of which half of it I no longer have to wage. Enjoy yourself, with Uncle Sam looking over your shoulder whenever he feels like looking in on you. Stay on the phone waiting for that re-activation code, whenever you decide to upgrade the hardware too much and have the software tell you it's not the same machine. It is your choice, so have fun with it. And I will enjoy peace and quiet on my Linux machine, with a slight depndency issue here and there as someone forgot that there are more than one distro out there. Happy New Year.

#

Why I use Linux?

Posted by: Administrator on December 30, 2003 05:40 PM
Simple

It works. Does everything I want it to do.


More importantly, it does NO MORE than I want it to.


No adware, no popups, no spyware.


No-one can restrict me (DMCA - DeCSS no problem outside US. Ask DVD-Jon).


With a little work, almost no-one can spam me.


No-one can mBlaster me.


No bloat'y apps.


And, for me, the biggie.

No large corporation can download a new 'service pack' to make my software suddenly comply with the laws of a foreign country 5,000 kilometres away, in whose law-making processes I have no say. (Read your EULA's carefully!)


Oh, and I like the price!
(Even with buying a distro)

Andy

Oulu, Finland

#

Re:my 2 cents on SUSE 9.0

Posted by: Administrator on December 30, 2003 07:24 PM
I haven't run into any dependency issues with Windows XP yet. I have been running it since it was released. It hasn't locked up on me yet either.

I agree with you when it comes to MS's activation policy. Of course I run corporate software which doesn't require any activation.

Where is your proof that MS sends information to 3rd parties? That is the opposite of what their privacy policy says. My hardware firewall would have let me know if this was going on... and it hasn't.

My MS Office blocks any spam that is sent to my email too...

The only time you have to reactivate is when you change a major component like a processor. You can install and reconfigure your hardware all you want and not be forced to reactivate.

I don't get spam from websites I visit.

If you apply patches when they come out, just like you must with any other OS you don't have to worry about MS blaster etc.

I don't feel safe installing software on my machine that a 16 year old helped develop. Maybe Linux has backdoors and is selling your information to 3rd parties to make a buck off of you, it hasn't happened to me yet.

#

Re:my 2 cents on SUSE 9.0

Posted by: Administrator on January 13, 2004 01:25 AM
Being a "newbie" and a former XP Pro user I have the blessing of hands on with both. Since I'm adapt to build machines myself, I like the idea that Linux is not as hardware dependant as Linux. In order for XP to run faster and more effecient, you must invest in hardware that is specifically XP compatable and so that pretty much eliminates legacy devices. There is a undiscovered wealth of hardware that although considered by most obsolete, it still can hold its own with the more efficient O/S to drive it. There is the issues of updating drivers and mission critical components. I found it was complicated to go to websites to fetch the latest driver to install (sound and video mostly) Linux is tested for a specific packages and rarely require upgrade unless you update to the latest version. I also got tired of the constant cleaning and defragmentation issues. Linux has a more itelligent and efficient way of storing data thus eliminating that chore. On a more personal front, I found that I became intellectually lethargic with XP. I took for granted XP would always take care of issues and thus I felt I was losing the ability of the hands-on aspect to diagnosed a system and because XP has a rather watered down version of MSDOS within it, I trusted XP until it would crash then where is those skills when you become overconfident of a O/S enough to forget them. Linux is more involved but the user is forced to learn those aspects of that system and better prepares them to service it in the event of a crash. XP only provided a pristine armchair experience in that manner. In the real world IT, you must have a intimate knowlege of hardware and the O/S even if doesn't have a backup or system restore to save it from a crash. Linux is not perfect by any stretch but I would rather have a sixteen year old write programs for this and understand his process in writing it and debugging it then the closed-loop MS uses to develop installations for its offerings. The end user has no input what so ever in the direction of development or the goals of it. So in the end result, If you feel trusting of XP abilities without a say in how that is developed, then by all means do so but you might find one day that these systems that you have so much faith in will fail requiring costly hardware changes or time comsuming reinstalls of the operating system and unless you can personally afford it at about 65 dollars a hour or above, It makes sense to know the ropes before you have to grab onto them to save yourself. It is a matter of preferance really but I personally trust my own judgements and not the determinations of a huge corperation that is guilty in a anti trust case filed by our own government, to how O/S's and computer systems are implemented and maintained. I sleep well with that understanding, question is, do you?

#

Fedora

Posted by: Administrator on January 10, 2004 01:47 PM
Lets face it, how many large organizations are going to deploy Fedora on mission critical systems with no kind of support contract to back it up. So how is it that we end up comparing Fedora with Suse. It's an apples and oranges scenario.

Fedora should be ranked in the same catagory as Debian or Slackware, both of which are excellent distributions.

#

Re:Fedora

Posted by: Administrator on January 20, 2004 07:08 AM
Didn't try Fedora but tried RH9, a bit different but allright). After that I tried SuSe 9 (free) and I knwo 1 thing for sure. If you want a desktop-computer..choose SuSe 9. YaST (Yet another Setup Tool) is totally cool. After looking around a bit I came to the conclusion that every setting you want to change in SuSe 9 can be changed by using YaST.

BTW, when I installed RedHat 9 I had the same problem with my mouse and I couldn't use my keyboard anymore (reset) so I think it's a general bug if you try something that is TOO wrong.

BTW2. wine in Fedora and RH9 is unstable<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(

#

Mother of All Distros

Posted by: Administrator on January 30, 2004 01:22 AM
I have, at one time or another over the 5 or so years I have been using Linux, used Suse, RedHat, Mandrake, Debian, and Gentoo.
By far the easyest to install on my Celereon 2.2Ghz PC, was Red Hat 9.0. It detected EVERYTHING. And while I am capable of manually configuring everything, it was nice to not have to.
However, being inducted into the Linux world by Debian Slink, and watching that distro progress over the years, I would have to say that is where my heart is. Not so easy to install, but a snap to administrate with the right tools.
Definately not for "Joe SixPack" though. But if you are a Sys Admin migrating to Linux for the first time, do yourself a favor, and Go the Debian way. The learning curve is slightly higher, but in the end it will all be worth it.

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya