Learn from suse install to improve my Ubuntu install?

[Scott Kitterman]

On Thursday 10 August 2006 09:42, ubuntu at rio.vg wrote:
> 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".
>
Sure.  I understand that.  I'd like to have SSH installed by default, but then 
that would break the no nothing listening paradigm.

On the server side, my second Ubuntu mail server went from power on to boot 
from the install CD to a fully functional Postfix server with SASL and TLS in 
less than 4 hours (that included testing).  I can, and will, automate this 
further, but that's not unreasonable.  

I tend to lean on the less is more theory for servers since what they are used 
for varies so much.  The less stuff I have installed, the better.  Less to go 
wrong.  Currently Ubuntu installs one less package (SSH) by default in the 
server version than I would like.  I can live with that.

> 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.

On the Desktop I've been quite pleased with Kubuntu.  I will confess to having 
used Automatix to get through a lot of the pain of getting extra stuff.

> 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.

There are two schools of thought on this.  Personally, I like the belt and 
suspenders approach (Firewall even if nothing is listening), but that's me.  
If they did install a firewall by default, then you'd get to have the 
argument about which one.

> 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.
>
I agree it could be improved.  

> > 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.
>
Well that was a killer for me.  It worked great, I just could never update it.  
AppArmor I turned off the first time it stopped me from doing something I 
wanted.  On a server, maybe, but on a desktop, I think it's overkill.

> 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.

For a lot of server applications I think it's plenty mature and it's security 
fix support is generally very good (where's that ClamAV remote execution fix 
anyone?), so for a lot of functions, I'd have to disagree with you on the 
server end.

On the Desktop, KDE is KDE by and large.  The biggest difference is package 
management.  I'm pretty happy with Adept, Apt, and Dpkg.

Scott K