On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Mark Haney wrote: > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:38:46 -0500 (EST), Krikket <krikket@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > I can't compare to RH9, but I *can* compare it to SuSE 9.0 > > > > Don't switch to SuSE. Trust me on this one. Baaad juju. After seing > > what was available, I decided to go with SuSE for my first real exposure > > to Linux in 6+ years. (And I had no experience with a Linux GUI at that > > point.) > > > It wasn't more of a SWITCH than it was just trying to determine if it was > a good 'average user' fit since Suse does allow repartitioning of drives > on the fly. Other than that, I didn't do much with it. Ah. Yeah, the repartitioning on the fly is a rather nice feature... > > If you needs are met 100% by what's available on the distro CDs, then > > SuSE > > could work for you. But adding anything else? Damn near impossible. > > There are some things I *couldn't* get installed under SuSE, that were a > > breeze with Fedora. I'm not the only one wih those problems either. > > > > On the positive side, there are more GUI controls for things. So if > > that's what you're looking for, then maybe it's for you. > > > Nah GUI controls just get in the way. If I wanted more of those I'd stay > with Windows. :) I think SuSE is a step up from Windows, but... > > Also you can *forget* right now about editing files by hand and expecting > > them to stay that way, and work correctly. The SuSE likes to rewrite > > stuff on you without warning. > > > Without warning? Not good. But then I didn't do any hand editing in > Suse. Without warning. I only ran into this a couple of times, when I edited things like the hosts file. But it wasn't that much of a problem for me. On the flip side, a friend who was switching his RH servers over to SuSE simply copied over a lot of files for the configuration of the servers. (I *think* for Apache, Mailman, and a few other functions.) And SuSE gave him headaches overwriting his time-proven code with what *it* thought should be there, based on it's windows "registry"like data, which is stored in additional files... > > In short, the problems I had with SuSE 9.0 were great enough that I > > abandoned it, even though I paid the $80 for the Professional version. > > > > Using Fedora, I've had a *lot* fewer problems. > > > > Krikket > > Thanks for your honest opinion on that. I think I'll stick with RH. Anytime! Glad to be of some help! Krikket
