From the first few sentences of your first link:

"The SUSE Linux distribution was originally a German translation of Slackware Linux."

And from a sentence further down:

"They released the first CD version of SLS/Slackware in 1994, under the name S.u.S.E Linux 1.0"

So, what I said was wrong how?

and

and
it looks like you are wrong SLS was a base for both. suse is not based on slack nor slack on suse.

Slack was based on SLS, but the intial SuSE was simply Slackware translated into German.

http://lwn.net/1998/0205/suse.html

It therefore would be more accurate to say "SuSE was based on Slackware" than to say "SuSE was based on SLS", because SuSE is two steps away from SLS and only one step away from Slack. To say it another way, SLS was the father of Slack, and the grandfather of SuSE

Dearlord ...

I hate having disagreements about things that aren't controversial, especially when they have basically nothing to do with the main point originally being made.

"The SUSE Linux distribution was originally a German translation of Slackware Linux..."

What part of that is so difficult to understand, and in what way does it disagree with the essence of what I was saying? Do note I wasn't composing some complex comparison between the two, noting similarities, direct lineages, the philosophies behind them, or anything like that. Sheesh.

In any case, you may choose to quibble in whatever way you desire, but it doesn't change the actual progression of the SuSE distro, which grew out of Slackware, was combined with another (mentioned in the article, but I can't remember the name off the top of my head), then took a lot of elements of Red Hat, then started adding its own stuff so that, today, it bears almost no resemblance to Slackware at all.

And the point, in the original context, is that Novell had nothing to do with that progression.

No kidding. In nothing did I even remotely suggest this.

http://lwn.net/1998/0205/suse.html

they translated slackware to german, but this was still slackware.
so, I will edit this one more time:
http://lwn.tucows.com/1999/0624/dists.php3
s.u.s.e. company released s.u.s.e. linux 1.0 which has nothing to do with suse distro. first official version was 4.2

Just wonder if Laroche will agree that you know more about suse than him.

Since you edited out the part to which I was going to respond, I'll let this rather odd digression end here.

Although many probably didn't read my original post, I must recant.
10.1 final worked out all of the aforementioned bugs with various progs and sound schemes and I like it....

---I was using the unstable version.---

As expected 10.1 has advantages and disadvantages. I dual with 10.1 and Ubuntu 6.1 Edgy Eft. Apt is pro, I don't think anyone can deny that. I don't know much about the security vulnerabilities of the various *nix platforms but as phar as I know I haven't been hacked/exploited on either system!

Both are (arguably) as easy to configure with any debian system winning the update battle. And both offer the same amount of packages. I can't find out why I can't compile progs from source on Ubuntu, but it's a snap with SuSE. Some progs don't work with Ubuntu using apt (eg. anjuta IDE, mplayer....) and work flawlessly with SuSE. Mplayer is great BTW everyone get it..!!
Ubuntu is faster; SuSE is IMO more user friendly.

In essence both a great distros, from there it's preference. Debian systems IMO slightly winning in the all out comparison. Plus Ubuntu just looks better.

And since you keep editing, I'll respond again.

Why is the insignificant little comment I made about SuSE being a fork of Slackware so important to you?

BTW, Florian LaRoche works on Red Hat, and you weren't quoting this individual, so I'm not sure what that comment even means.

And still, *nothing* you are saying disagrees in any way with the essence of what I originally posted.

http://www.wuglug.org.uk/SUSE

I'll agree that the Remastered version works much better from an initial install than the original 10.1 did. I think the point a lot of people would make, in the context of this thread, is that 10.1 never should have been released in the initial state it was. I suppose one could argue that expectations were too high and that the user base was so demanding that the seemingly eternal progression of release candidates end that the developers were in a no-win situation, and perhaps that position has merit. I would counter by suggesting that this really is one step too close to the Microsoft philosophy of releasing software even if it is bad software and relying on updates to fix it.

And I still don't like what they've done with their repositories and update mechanisms, even when they work.

Just a guess, but it could be the lack of needed libraries for the software you're trying to compile. Ubuntu doesn't, by default, have nearly as large a library selection installed, some of which are essential to compiling many things from source.

The output from your compile attempt for individual packages would be helpful to determining that. But I think that would be a better subject for a different thread.

I have been dabbling in Linux for a couple of years on and off and consider myself a total n00b. I always ended up going back to windows, all I can say is I have installed Suse 10.2 and will format my old windows disk as for all it's down point I now consider me a linux user. Well done for converting me.

Doug

Don't know what the deal is here.
If someone even considers installing a version where it is clearly stated that the admin system is broken there isn't really much of a point in complaining about it.

Never installed a distro where I didn't encounter broken packages or problems with deps - don't care if it is apt,rpm or portage (mixing debian original with ubuntu is asking for trouble BTW).

What suse was developed from is about as relevant as a frogs fart in (fill in a location you don't like).About all distros in circulation today are devolped on top of something else originally.

I for my part don't see whats so windowslike either - the fact that you can configure most things with a gui (which is clearly devils work) the appearance (that you can't change) or maybe the fact that you can d/l it for free?

You can apply all those things to almost any distro out there - heck even gentoo goes for a gui-installer after all it's a popularity contest out there lately.
Can't blame the commercial distros for trying to be popular after all they need to make money (just another devils work - although I like it) plus commercial customers don't like to retrain a couple of hundred people from scratch.

A few personal observations. I've been using Slackware since 9.1, but last year I started looking at other distros with the idea of being able to sell pre-installed laptops & PC's, and to support them.

So far I've tried a lot on live CD, but ended up with Kubuntu and Suse. Currently I have Kubuntu 6.06 on an old Compaq Presario (c1999), Suse 10.1 on a new Dell Inspiron 1300, 10.2 on a two year old Acer TravelMate. My old desktop (Pentium 886MHz) was Slack 10.1, but my new one (AMD Duron 1.6GHz) has ended up with FC6 after trying Slack 11.0, and Suse 10.2.

So why? The old Compaq only has 96Mb ram,and is a bit slow, but it works fine, and mostly I use it to play DVD's on my LCD TV. It dual boots with Win98, but only so I can test websites with IE6.

The Dell is my 81 year old mothers, and it had to be really usable for e-mail, some internet, and playing CD' & DVD's.

My laptop needs more power, and Suse 10.2 is now quite stable after all the hassle with the broken YaST/Zen business. When I get time I will try using Wine as I still have a legacy app which is written in Visual Basic and is unlikely to get ported soon. For the time being I have XP as a dual boot just for that.

My desktop is going to get used for graphics and webdesign. FC6 uses Gnome as the desktop, and I have always used KDE till now, but I decided to stick with it, and it not as difficult as I thought. The install of FC6 was very easy, but the partition tool is very poor, and I don't like the package manager. The first I don't find a problem, as I use a GParted live disk, and the second can be lived with.

So to summarize, I am now happy that I can build usable machines for others using using Suse 10.1 or 10.2, depending on how stable I want them to be. More important, I can support them. With a bit more testing, I think I could do the same with Kubuntu/Ubuntu. Kubuntu is easier, as I'm not yet confident about Gnome. For the future I think I like FC6 as well, and for the moment I can live with the mix.

The moral of the story? Distros are a personal choice. What do you need, how difficult is it to support, etc. It looks to me like the big issue is that Linux on the desktop is now a reality. Windows users complain that it is too geeky and you need to fiddle to get it working, but that is even more true of Windows. I just re-installed XP Home on my brothers laptop and it took all day!

Linux can now be installed and working in a couple of hours, including getting Wifi to work with ndiswrapper, and finding libdvdcss so you can play out-of-region DVD's. I can now get on with some real work again, and ignore Vista completely.

I haven't read all 11 pages of post, but I must say that I am happy to be a SuSE user again. I had horrible nightmares with SuSE 10.1! I am now back to using SuSE 10.2 and I like it so far. I am a little worried about the future of SuSE since they have some partnership with Microsoft. Many say that it was a mistake, and many say it was a good move. I really do not know, but I hope the OpenSuSE team continues to keep up the good work. The more choices we have, the better we are!

I also must add that every Linux distro that I have tried (Ubuntu, Fedora Core, Mandriva, SuSE, CentOS) have just been getting better and better. Their support for hardwares and programs are getting much more user friendly and many distros are starting to "get it". This gives us more options and choices to use which is great!

For anybody interested in the slack/sls/suse whodidwhatwhen and ooohhh the founder of suse is disgusted!!! issues heres a link
http://www.datamanager.it/articoli.p...icercato=17639

I surely Agree