> On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 12:11 -0700, Edward McAuley > wrote: > > Uh, let's see. Beautiful interface (as attractive > as the Mac or Vista), intuitively laid out, ease of > use, UNIX (like), open source...it's already here. > You can download it or buy it. > > Suse 10.2 > > Please look at this latest version, it is stunning. > The beautifully designed and intuitive layout of > its desktop is very difficult to communicate until > you spin it up and use it for a while. > > Give it a look; the price is certainly right. > > 've used SuSE 10.2 - if you're happy to avoid the > bugs that you can fly > a 747 through. Beta quality compilers, drivers and > libraries. Crappy > KDE/OpenOffice.org integration (specifically > kslaves/openoffice.org) - > its horrific - "ship first, hide bugs hopeing they > won't get found". > > Lord knows I don't want to see Solaris turn into a > dumping site for bad > code. > > Matthew > > _______________________________________________ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Well Matthew, you seem like a thoughtful guy. Here's my take: SuSE Linux installed perfectly on this HP dv4217cl (dv4000) notebook, requiring only that I install an RPM for the wireless network card that was supplied on the non-oss cd. It works flawlessly, after two days of fairly intense use. I'll be happy to report back over the next couple of weeks, if you like. No problems with CD-ROMS or anything else. It has a beautiful and very intuitive user interface and I like it. I had one OpenOffice crash the second time I executed Writer, but in fairness, it recovered within about 2 seconds and I haven't had the problem since. The drivers have worked flawlessly on all of my SuSE installations, so maybe I am not using the same hardware you are deploying; but my H/W is pretty diverse and I am not experiencing the problems you've mentioned with 10.2. If one wants compilers, that's fine. There are about a "go-zillion" sources for free and/or commercial compilers. One may take aim at some and pull the trigger. My point is about the base system: it works and it is intuitive. When I installed FreeBSD 6.2 on this notebook, the installation was excellent! The OS worked fine, and while having FreeBSD on my notebook was kind of fun (in a geek way...you know how it is), its functionality is not well integrated enough for common daily use; that's okay because it is not intended for common, daily use, just as Solaris is not intended for common use -though FreeBSD did pretty well. I do know I could get it to work much better, if I took the time, but I did not like its style of interaction, on a notebook. I have it running on a couple of other boxes, so I continue to work with it on those boxes. But make no mistake about it, FreeBSD worked flawlessly and its install (text based) was quite aggressive in making the proper suggestions and selections (which is a refreshing change for FreeBSD). And, even with its becoming better and more user friendly, I doubt anyone would say that it is now, somehow, less robust. So, I gave Solaris 10 (11/06) a shot. Solaris barfed all over me; like a girlfriend you love but who just can't get it together, it wouldn't get past the initial display probe and gave me an unintelligible (read bank) GUI screen. So it was a text based install, which I don't mind, as with FreeBSD, it was like the good old days! So I fired up the games PacMan and Tetris on a crappy Windows 3.1 box and drank a New York Seltzer (Root Beer, of course) and watched "Back to the Future" -which also seems oddly antiquated these days (go figure), while it installed. Then however, I began experiencing other issues with Solaris on this notebook, that were not trivial, so I tossed Solaris, Matthew, it just didn't work. Now, I like Solaris and I run it on several boxes but the mission of the notebook (in keeping with the mission of the IBM notebook to which you refer) is to "work," so I won't be using it as a lab rat (though if I had another, additional notebook, that's exactly what I'd do). I'd give Solaris another run but this SuSE interface is so good, I don't know what my reasoning would have to be, in order to waste my time on that pursuit, again. And, I am sure I do not understand the logic in your point, from the outset. Is your point that an OS that works flawlessly on some systems but not on others, is inferior? If that's your point, you'll need to look at Solaris with the same prejudice you're using when looking at SuSE. Or, are you just defending the Solaris turf? Because I am a huge fan of Solaris, but no matter how many times I repeated my undying affection during the installation, it did not work on this notebook, for more significant reasons than a failure to recognize a CD Writer. I think that is the point of this whole thread, right? People are hoping to make a more usable Solaris, in order to gain a broader install base, gaining all of the additional support attention that comes with that added user base. Most importantly, we'll have to part company on the broad statement regarding code. First I reject the notion that SuSE is a dumping ground for code. Second, I do not believe that Solaris needs to become a dumping ground for code, merely to become usable across a broader install base. FreeBSD has already proved that line of thinking to be incorrect. Oh, and remember to drop the "e" before adding the "ing." Jeez, talk about basic coding errors... ;) ejm This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
