I'd been a zealous supporter of SUSE for many years, moving from one release to the next with the ever more desperate hope that each one would finally cover the ground left lacking in previous releases. I'd come to believe that no linux release could possibly recognize all of the complex possibilities in any laptop (my particular applications). I never experienced a SUSE release that did not require extensive tweaking, patching, and researching to activate basic hardware functionality: audio, graphics cards, networking, printing., etc. On one occasion, YAST upgraded the kernel and rendered my laptop completely non functional. The latest frustration was to ungrade a simple IRC chat client. Since SUSE seems to like it's own unique locations for files (e.g. "gnome" is a folder containing many graphics apps) many graphics based source installs are problematic. As I'd grown used to finding, this application upgrade attempt required upgrading multiple supporting packages (e.g. GTK2 and five others). Even after a day of building and installing from source, the upgrade still failed. Not only that, but because of the unique file locations of SUSE, the source builds created problems with old programs (browser, Gaim, Office). In exasperation I backed up all of my user files on an external drive and tried Ubuntu.

Not only did everything work (auto installed all hardware, networking, I-net access, printing) but the application packages are kept within one or two releases of current! Copying the "hidden" files for my users back to the respective folders restored all my data and configurations (bookmarks, emails, data files, etc). I was fully operational (which I'd never been with SUSE) in a half day ! I'm amazed and a bit angry with myself for supporting SUSE through all these distributions. In retrospect, the appearance is that SUSE picks a set of application program releases and supports only those for any particular SUSE version release (e.g. later versions of GTK2 are available only for later versions of SUSE). I should have seen it before: it's the Microsoft way! If you want to upgrade "to the latest application package" you have to buy a new version of the SUSE package. Just like Msoft, SUSE wants us to believe that applications and systems are inseparable.

My recommendation to anyone considering making the jump: backup your "hidden" folders (external drive) and go directly to Ubuntu. I did it in half a day and didn't lose a thing! As a significant bonus, the update and program add/remove function is light years ahead of YAST (much faster, more accessible, links to current upgrades).

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me 5 times, I used to be a SUSE user." (hmm - It's worth pondering why both addicts and computer fans are called 'users')

Yeah, me too. Suse - ubuntu. Haven't looked back since.

My first Linux distro was suse 5.3 I think. I did like it then and kept up with it until about 7. Then I played with mandrake, but found it too limiting. A mate posted me Debian Potato and I have been a debian user since, using Sid (I tried fedora and it lasted about 3 hours). My laptop is Kubuntu.

I just find apt is so easy to use and makes all the difference.

A few years ago I needed to install suse 9.0 to do stuff for a client, ended up installing it under Bochs on debian, just so I could get rid of it when I had finished.

How do you mean "limiting"?

I've used Mandrake since 7, and while I found releases prior to 10 to be rough around the edges, I could do anything I wanted to do, though usually it was via the command line.

I've also deployed and worked on a number of the other distros, but I keep coming back to mandriva for no reason other than it is what I have up and running on my workstation.

I think the focus of your criticisms of Suse are quite narrow and your experience can't be expected to be repeated by many desktop "users." (the target of both distros?) In my opinion, you even set Suse up for failure. Upgrading a system with a bunch of software installed from source seems to be asking for any package manager to fail - even apt?

Your comparison of switching to Ubuntu is with a clean install, only copying your config files. Did you attempt a clean install of Open Suse 10.2? I didn't see a version number for your Suse experience. I'm curious what would happen if you did a breezy install, then a bunch of source installs, and then upgraded to Edgy. I'd be impressed if it went as flawlessly.

I have been using Kubuntu and Mepis for almost 2 years now and it's been maybe 3 years since I primarily used Suse - only experimenting with it now and then to see how it's developing. I do however have my current box installed to dual boot to Suse 10.2, which I must say is far superior to previous versions and it does have some distinct advantages over Ubuntu based distros - mainly that Yast has developed into an extremely good tool for anyone who doesn't want to manage a box from the command line. It also is more responsive running Beryl.

Now that I'm done praising Suse, I must state that it has failed my test and I will not switch to it. Their system of relying on dispersed repositories with no rhyme or reason to their differences and the dependency hell that still can result if you get your packages from other than Suse... I want to use the apps I have to go to several 3rd party repos for - multimedia mainly... Packman, Suser Guru, jenga... gimme a break!! It's not worth it to me. I very much wish Ubuntu would adopt Yast or Mandriva's admin tools - that would remove ALL reason for me to consider another distro.

I want to USE my computer, not administer it. Mepis has added management tools that make it a better choice for me than straight Kubuntu, but it's essentially just Kubuntu without sudo otherwise. The tools are good enough, but Mandriva's are probably the outright best of ANY distro.

Hiya Steel Shepherd -

Thanks for your detailed and experienced commentary. I had tried to "cut to the chase" at the expense of leaving a lot of less significant details out, but your questions remind me that perhaps others are similarly curious. Since you ask, I offer this expansion with the observation that nowadays the cost of trivial publication is effectively zero <grin>.

I started with Linux about 1997 with a lot of experimenting with distributions. I settled on SUSE when it seemed the best as recognizing and auto configuring the laptops I had (even though always imperfectly). I cycled faithfully through successive releases through version 10.0. I'd continued with that release until my recent epiphany. Installs were always on clean machines (since 2000, I've converted laptops to Linux for LANS running on my own UNIX servers for a racing organization). I have no problems with those applications (once the basic hardware is recognized) but people do like to do other things with their laptops and that's where the problems I point out with SUSE appear.

These problems are obvious as soon as a common file structure is required (e.g. source installs). Consequently my first message identifies those problems. The packages I described are in wide use and are accessible in this version of SUSE only via source builds (YAST doesn't support the most recent releases of many common packages for this version of SUSE). They include Firefox, Xchat, Mplayer, Gaim, Open Office, etc). Since these are graphics front end systems, they require upgrades to several underlying packages (like GTK) beyond those supported via YAST. My experience suggests that these issues are typical headaches for home consumers (i.e. trying to get current releases operating). A quick survey of forum posts, blogs, support requests, etc for SUSE help (using Google search) tends to support this observation.

My conclusion (as stated before) is that it appears as though SUSE does not put substantial effort into version changes of application packages for any single SUSE release. Later SUSE packages do support later application packages which suggests a corporate policy biased toward encouraging purchase of a "more current" SUSE package (I labeled this behavior the M'soft strategy).

YAST itself continues to have it's own affectations (e.g. firewall configuration is considered a hardware setup task, SAMBA [a moving target itself] was never well implemented, network printer configurations are always problematic, kernel changes are applied without backup of the previous kernel, etc). The Ubuntu approach to common programs (add/del programs, upgrade, etc) appears vastly simpler and I believe more effective for most users. Configuration details have not been an issue for us to date since the laptops tend to start with all necessary parameters "auto recognized and configured". Consequently, I can't comment on those issues yet. I have experimented with a few source builds without issue but that is anecdotal rather than an empirical conclusion.

The laptops we use are a collection (~ 30) of 1-3 year old Samsung, Sony, Toshiba, Acers, and IBM (Thinkpads). Until the trial with Ubuntu on a laptop that I maintain as a backup and a personal terminal, I'd never had a seamless installation on any laptop. There were always some time consuming investigations, tweaks, configuration issues, research, drivers, or other set up parameters and programs to get all basic hardware functions operational (internal audio, high resolution screen display, mouse connection, ethernet network, and CD/DVD drive). SUSE basic support itself offered no help with networking and limited useful suggestions in general for many problems we've encountered over the years (my own experience predated the race support project). SUSE had been chosen because of a perceived movement toward "turn key" application by several of the earlier owners. I believe it still may be a viable choice for anyone that requires a commercial distribution (i.e. corporate applications with a local support department). Fortunately for me, I don't have that constraint.

Since conversion, there have been several laptops that did not take kindly to the Ubuntu 6.10 CD directly but so far all have worked when version 5 was installed then upgraded. It seems rare to not have the basic functions properly configured. The one exception so far is an older ACER that is not yielding to gentle persuasion.

My overall impressions, and the primary reasons that explain them, are as stated initially. I hope this expanded monologue addresses some of your more specific questions. My enthusiasm is infectious at having discovered Ubuntu Linux to be an advancement (or deterioration, depending on your point of view) to a truly user friendly operating system with "turn key" usability (hmm.. sounds disgustingly like the first Windows press releases). Anyway, that's the point of my message.

As in all posts, this is just one persons opinion. Thanks again for sharing your own experiences and observations.

Since you all are making unfavorable comparisons of one distro over another, not a good idea, allow me to observe that each commentary above shows that the writer is experienced enough to move to the real thing. Debian is definitely not for newbies, but it's the distro that mature users move to, not from.

Moving from an .rpm based distro to apt is an enlightenment in itself, but living thru a couple upgrades on a calendar based release schedule like that employed by Ubuntu is an eye opener of a different nature.

Debian's "when it's ready" release schedule means that the Stable release can be relied on for critical servers and production workstation environments. Testing is most suitable for home systems, and Unstable (Sid) is always more stable than a new release of any distro not "built from source."

20,000+ Packages in the official and semi-official repositories means never having to worry about confusing the package manager.

I certainly see very much in your statement that I agree wholeheartedly with, but please allow me to comment. First off, I am not addressing Debian itself, but Ubuntu, and most of my commentary could likely be applied to any Debian BASED distro.

Indeed, I would NEVER introduce a newbie with Debian. I certainly WOULD introduce a newbie to Linux with MEPIS, or even Kubuntu. If the newbie were someone with the PC literacy of my wife, it would be better to go with Linspire.

This last comment is very unimportant, but I'd also add that I do believe some experienced users would move FROM Debian, but probably only to even more challenging Distros... Maybe Slackware or Gentoo? I've had little desire to try either. And my comments should be considered to apply to home desktop users only.