David Coulthart wrote:
>
> "Fred A. Miller" wrote:
> >
> > http://www.msnbc.com/news/244979.asp
>
> Nice article, but can someone please explain why SuSE is getting such a
> bad rap as being the "least effective Linux." I realize that for this
> testing they used version 5.3 not 6.0, but why are the reports so bad?
> I've always considered SuSE technically superior, but everything lately
> seems to be disagreeing with this?
When NutraSweet first began ramping up business they started a
disinformation campaign about sachrine with FUD about sachrine causing
cancer. It worked. The truth now comes out that Aspartame breaksdown
to give wood alcohol and phenylalanine. It's obvious what wood alcohol
does to the brain, liver and kidneys, to say nothing of what large
amounts of phenylalanine does. Have headaches not long after drinking a
diet soda? Go on unexplainable carbohydrate beniges?
I am not saying that the article is a part of some disinfo campaign, it
just seemed similar in may ways to that NutraSweet campaign twenty years
ago.
The results are not that *bad* when you consider a) the distros were run
right out of the box and some default settings may be different that
others, b) SuSE 5.3 is libc5 while the others are libc6 (I don't know if
there is a quantitative difference in speed for the two libraries
running the same app - anybody have some solid data?) AND c) they are
running variations of the same kernel. When I ran RH5.0 and 5.2, if
memory serves me correctly, they were 2.0.35, the same as SuSE 5.3, so
ANY difference in speed has to be in the settings of the config files.
A week or so ago slashdot ran a poll on which distro people were using.
As I recall, RH lead with about 70%, Debian had about 20%, SuSE was
third with 9% and Caldera and the rest fell under 1%.
Looking at Caldera' marketing model it doesn't take a rocket scientist
to see why it is divergent from the GPL and not too popular. First, too
much propriatary code and licensing agreements. You DON'T see Caldera
distros on the ftp sites. It is interesting that they choose to take a
free kernel and tons of GPL supporting software and applications, and
add propriatary packages to render a distro that is too expensive. And,
they don't return anything to the Linux community. How do you say
"leach" children? That's right! Now, can you say "parasite"?
Their vaunted "marketing channel" doesn't mean squat if ftp's gives free
accesses to full distros. That only leaves quality of package and
service, and SuSE has them all beat in those to areas. Secondly,
Caldera's upgrade paradigm is remarkably similar to M$'s - slow, because
of the propriatary code. Not too many eyeballs hit their propriatary
code.
Why does ZDNET do a piece on Linux and puff Caldera? $$$. One aspect
of my business, before I retired it, was criminal forensic
investigations. A rule became obvious. If you want to find the perps
follow the cash. They who benefit the most from a crime are usually the
primary instigators. (That seems true in the political arena also.)
I'll bet that 95% of the people who try SuSE, after trying any of the
other distros, will stay with SuSE because YaST and SuSE's overall
quality can't be beat by any other current distros.
Jerry
-
To get out of this list, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
Check out the SuSE-FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/ and the
archive at http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html
