Learn from suse install to improve my Ubuntu install?

[ubuntu at rio.vg]

Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday 10 August 2006 08:40, ubuntu at rio.vg wrote:
> 
> Personally, I found that the only way to deal with SuSE 10.1 package 
> management was to install Kubuntu instead.
> 
> While Dapper sported a new installer that did have some issues, Ubuntu was at 
> least smart enough to leave the text mode installer on the alternate CD so 
> that people that had problems with the new installer had another way to go.

I'm still on the fence about this.  When I tried Ubuntu, I seriously
missed many of the more advanced features in SuSE.  Frankly, Ubuntu
still feels very immature.  I very much missed yast as the one-stop shop
for configuring everything.  Trying to figure out which program
configured which device when every project decides it needs a nifty name
that may or may not have anything to do with what it actually does is a
pain in the ass.  No firewall from the start.  The server version
doesn't even install ssh by default!  The amount of post-install
fiddling I had to do was much greater.  Lean is good, but there is a
line between "lean" and "not fully installed".

I'm all for using the command-line, but given that different distro's
arrange /etc differently, using the gui just to get it up and running is
much easier, but in Ubuntu, just finding the correct gui could be
problematic.  One of yast's greatest assets, in addition to being only
one command to remember, is the curses version of it lets you have the
ease of the gui configurer, but on the console.

I don't buy the "We don't install anything listening by default, so you
don't need a host firewall".  It's fine for the single user at the end
of a cable modem, but even installing something as simple as nfs require
rpc portmap, which is then a listening service.

In Ubuntu, I didn't notice any selection of packages during the install.
 I've gotten used to seeing that along the way, deciding what I want,
then running the install so that I don't need to babysit the machine as
it installs each additional package I need like I did for Ubuntu.  As a
server distro, Ubuntu has a long way to go.

> The experience with opensuse 10.1 convinced me that, at best, SuSE views 
> opensuse as a source of beta testers for SLES.  I needed a distro where a 
> realease was meant to actually be the final product.

I have to agree with you here.  From now on, every release of SuSE is
completely suspect.  SuSE employees attitude towards it has also been
appalling.  At release, SuSE 10.1's update system was completely and
utterly broken: It did not work.  You would have to go through and run
the update manually to fix it when they finally did write a fix (which
took weeks), and throughout, they didn't even put something about it
anywhere at all prominent on the website.  The corporate mentality of
sweeping embarrassment under the rug has a firm grip on SuSE.  They'd
rather not acknowledge that there's a problem than fix it.

That said, SuSE 10.1's only problem was package management.  Granted, in
terms of a distro, that's an awfully big one, but everything else was
still quite well done.  I was especially impressed with AppArmor.

So, as I said, I'm still on the fence.  I'm keeping an eye on Ubuntu,
but so far SuSE hasn't become too problematic to use (since you can
install apt) and Ubuntu isn't really mature enough yet, imho.