What are the major Differences between Suse and Red Hat ?

YaST and SaX2

Moved: This thread is more suitable in Linux-Distributions and has been moved accordingly to help your thread/question get the exposure it deserves.

RH .. is genereal for enterprise server app's Suse is targeting desktop.

Suse, in my opinion is one of the best for new users .. RH has too many annoying differences for my taste (starting UID at 500 making it incompatible with Debian varianst off the bat) and many many many many other nuances to list.

Fedora is closer to Suse but it's much poorer in performance.

Hmmm...

Slackware, 1993, UID=500
RH, 1995, UID=500
Debian, 1996,UID=1000

:}

Winsnomore - I'd say that performance is relative. Minimize your daemon array, KDE or Gnome eye candy, and place some configuration options (namely compile options) to any distro and you'll have similar performance (note that is a primary reason why I use Arch - i686!).

Now, speaking directly on installation defaults, you'll get bloat with both! I'm of the school where you install just base packages and add when you need it, but I realize that is incompatible with the thoughts of many new Linux users out there. It stinks for the vendors (RH and Suse) because they have to walk the fine line of adding features vs. RAM footprint/speed/compatibility with most processors (i386).

Oh...I had done a few different replies ....ok..whatever....no problem

Azucaro,
The problem with FC2 was it's compile options (so I am told) it was compiled with -g .. enabling one to debug but slowing down the system to a dog. I could never install FC3 on my machine .. due to anaconda bug. FC4 I played with but never could care about the command line base updating any more ..

To my relativism Suse was much better performance than FC2 .. actually Suse 9.2 was better than 9.1 but 9.3 doesn't seem to be any better than 9.2 !!!!

Winsnomore: I've never heard of that in a release distro. Where did you hear that information?

On this site !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was having terrible performance with FC2 .. I asked and everyone said dah!!!
A lot of folks wote back that FC was compiled with -g option, even the FS code ... and that made sense to me after seeing the difference with other distros.

I switched to Suse 9.1 .. and things are at least 5x faster ..

I have installed
- Centos 4.0, Mandrake 10.1, Mepis, Plain Debian, Suse .. 9.1/2/3 .. Arch, Libranet, Xandros ..
and god knows what else :=) (Ubuntu barfed .. , Gentoo was a mess)
The worst system I had was FC2 .. may be FC1 was equally bad .. but I only had it for a few days when I started playing with linux.

Hmm, good to know! I jumped onto Fedora after version 3 came out. With FC3 I still had to do a lot of fixing here and there, and so I migrated over to Arch. My main reason was the ease of use and fast (i686 optimized) binaries. Haven't been back since.

And if you wanted to create a free SLED/SLES clone, I assume it would be similar to how CentOS is created, basically recreating SLED or SLES without the SUSE branding and SLED/SLES-specific binaries or how would that be handled?

LinuxGeek2305
i take it you did not realize that this thread in from 2005
9 YEARS AGO

and 9 years ago there was not that big a difference
RHEL 3.6
RHEL 4.1
-- VS --
SUSE 9.3

Oops, my bad.

Well, that certainly brought me out of the woodwork!