New
#1111
Today this poor bloke made Youtube, Ouchhhhh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dgKoUPjdYs
They say he wasn't hurt.
Last edited by jfar; 09 Jan 2010 at 17:09.
Both have their strengths and weakness.
But overall, OpenSuse looks and feels more 'polished' out of the box and does have a much more pleasant default theme than Ubuntu. Obviously that it is only a small part to it all, but it does make a better first impression.
It also auto mounts NTFS partitions out of the box, making access to NTFS drives a hell of a lot more easier than 9.10 ever did.
I'm using the KDE desktop instead of gnome. Overall, in some areas it's 'easier' to work with and in other areas... well, it's still Linux
Installing proprietary drivers (like damn video drivers) is easier in Ubuntu than Suse. But getting sound to work was far easier in Suse than tracking down libs/dependencies in Ubuntu.
I also grew to loathe Ubunutu's Grub2 - from a laypersons point of view, it seemed like more trouble than it was worth. Modifying the suse loader via GUI is so much more pleasant.
I also find myself using the terminal a lot less for everything in Suse compared to ubuntu.
The YaST2 package manager is a mixed bag. For certain packages, it's very easy when the one-click option works. Then again, I also like Synaptic and apt-get can be handy but does lack the 'single click' install option.
Connecting to a Windows network seems easier than Suse, but I haven't played with that too much yet.
Currently, I prefer OpenSuse to ubuntu.
Honestly, I like both -with certain reservations of course
But I do find ubuntu is far easier to break. As for repairing either, well - not surprisingly, I have little patience with either
I played around with Linux for a little while and the main thing I found to make things easier is to totally avoid the use of Grub
If you use the advanced install option you can ensure that the boot files are loaded onto the actual Linux partition, and leave the boot partition alone completely.
It is then a fairly simple task to use easyBCD to set-up the loading from within the Windows loader.
Ubuntu 9.10 also has the WUBU option which sets up the Linux as a type of bootable VHD and thus also avoids Grub
Hi all
I AM ROOT -- YOU WILL OBEY ....
Actually I've had Linux as a server for ages and ages -- but now am in the process of ditching it in favour of W2008 Server.
Finally MS have woken up to the fact that Servers DON'T have to be desktop OS'es.
W2003 Server and W2008 server are really EXCELLENT products but of course they aren't free. Fortunally these are available if you have a technet subscription.
To learn about OS'es Linux is probably the best teaching tool there is -- especially as root you can destroy the whole system with a few commands if you aren't careful -- you soon learn.
However for the general public out there it'll never become mainstream.
I wouldn't even recommend it as a general purpose desktop -- but as a FREE server -- why not.
Most people who use Linux on their desktops are always re-installing it every so often -- I can't be bothered doing this any more.
As a server Linux is reliable -- often 6 months or more between re-boots -- W2008 also looks good in the reliability stakes.
Cheers
jimbo