I'd like to post this not as a flame, but as a way of adding additional information and clearing up some misconceptions. Mandrake is a good distro, it has some strengths such as GUI-driven configuration that SuSE has not completely caught up with, but I thought I'd correct some of the information (not misinformation, I assume he simply doesn't know much about SuSE as he's not running it, or a recent version of it.) in this post.
On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 04:40:41PM -0700, Tyler Regas wrote: > Ah, but that's where Mandrake has succeeded where others, especially Red > Hat have not. Mandrake just inked a deal with HP to provide two versions of > 8.1 (I think) for the vast majority of *desktop* systems HP sells. Mandrake I'm happy about that, since I run an HP, but it's only an option for the business models. The home models that are sold in computer stores and elsewhere they aren't putting it on. Though at least HP isn't only putting it on servers like the rest. :-) > being on the bleeding edge has put them into the position where they could > accept this contract. Their system is the most complete, GUI-based Linux > distro there is. Literally no feature must be edited from a text editor. No SuSE's a little bit bleeding edge, the kernel is 2.4.10, the latest kernel of any off the shelf distro (updatable at least to 2.4.16, if not more if you go to mantel's directory on the ftp sites.) but not too bleeding edge for production work. > They're all there, its just that Mandrake has practically eliminated the > need for the CLI tools. And don't think that this is _not_ what people It's not what *I* want, though it'd be nice at times to have them when knowledge is lacking and it's not in a situation where it would stomp on an existing custom-configured text file. > Last, and certainly not least, is Linux. Even Red Hat, the self-appointed > champion of the Open Source and Linux movements, has been unable to achieve > the ease of use and GUI integration of Mandrake. There are few distros that Red Hat is not meant for the desktop, it's CEO and one of it's founders have both made statements to that effect. Once that's been considered the lack of GUI-driven tools versus having stable and more conservative versions of software becomes important; availability of servers, not the desktop, is their goal. What should be compared is Mandrake versus SuSE, as SuSE hasn't abandoned the desktop market completely, though it is closely involved with a partnership with IBM. (That will hopefully cure it's occasional financial worries.) > come close to matching what Mandrake has been able to offer the desktop > user. Combine Mandrake's Control Center, Mandrake Update (skip the kernel > upgrade unless you've retained the stock kernel in your install, though), > and Ximian's Red Carpet and you have a powerful GUI-based technology > currency system in place. This is where Mandrake surely can shine, once they get the bugs out of the system. SuSE's Yast2 Online Updates system is pretty simple too though. Actually, the best currancy system would be something similar to Debian apt-get or BSD's port systems. Connectiva with it's apt for RPM system, and some non-mainstream Linux distros with a port system, are playing with this and it bears watching. (Debian would be a killer update system if the updates were, well, more up to date. ;-) Though as a server OS it's not a bad configuration, and maybe they're right to avoid the Kernel of Pain.) > AFAIK, other than Red Carpet, the Mandrake tools are not present elsewhere. Similar things exist for updating SuSE, and there are more powerful tools for updating Debian, Connectiva, FreeBSD, Gentoo and Soceror. For GUI *configuration* however, Mandrake is the reigning champion; but a considerable amount of configuration *can* be done with SuSE's tools. _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
