Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The History of S.u.S.E

abortretry.fail

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 132 posts

Re: The History of S.u.S.E

#81

Post by plagiarist »

toprerules wrote: post #53
einpoklum wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use it at (SUSE Linux Enterprise Server, at work); I never particularly liked or disliked it; but once they adopted systemd - I lost respect for it.

100% of people who dislike systemd can't come up with a better solution that solves all of the problems that systemd was created to solve.

All the problems that systemd is "solving" is a large part of what we dislike, I think. So, no, of course we wouldn't have a replacement software.

My recent experience was trying out Fedora atomic. I love that idea. I found systemd is kinda nice for service management.

But still, I kept running into issues with it spreading into everywhere, doing its own thing, and difficulty working around it. Partially figuring out the atomicity, and partially that no other distro I've tried has leaned in that hard to systemd.

I'm moving on to Arch since it looks like I can at least get this out of my boot process.

(Or, more on the topic of the thread, Tumbleweed looks like an interesting take on being able to roll back to known working states as a replacement for Fedora atomic.)

Re: The History of S.u.S.E

#82

Post by patwolf »

I was always blown away by the fact that YaST could run either as a GTK app or a CLI/ncurses tool. The same config was available in both.

Back when I was using SuSE regularly, I was developing a pluggable web-based admin tool. I always wanted to look at the way YaST was written to see if I could do something similar for creating a web UI, but my project got sidelined before I got very far.

Re: The History of S.u.S.E

#83

Post by cgio »

nezirus wrote: post #41

SuSE was my first Linux system and it helped a lot to spark my interest. Yast (software manager) and SaX (XFree86 configuration tool) were a Godsend for a noob like me in 199x. It's still solid today, and I hold it in high regards, even if I moved to greener Linux pastures.

My first Linux system too. Back when downloading a distro was hard with available bandwidth, I got it boxed, with quite a few manuals included in the box! Still have them somewhere alongside my copies of free x86 documentation from Intel.

Re: The History of S.u.S.E

#85

Post by hulitu »

adam_gyroscope wrote: post #36

SuSE doesn’t get enough credit for the quality of the distribution. Transactional updates, serious work towards a reproducible distribution, nano as an excellent container runtime, stability under large workloads - it’s a nice piece of engineering.

> SuSE doesn’t get enough credit for the quality of the distribution

Maybe now. 7.2 had a bug where they showed one unit when partitioning drives and used another one when writing to disk. Ask me how i find out.

Re: The History of S.u.S.E

#87

Post by whalesalad »

johng wrote: post #6
mtillman wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My boss had me install SuSE 4.? but I reverted to Slackware after a few months. Yast was pretty cool from what I recall.

Slackware was my first distro as well... want to say kernel was around 0.94 or thereabouts.

I played around with slackware a ton. And mandrake (before mandriva). And OG fedora (still have some Fedora 1 DVD's somewhere, from a magazine)

All of them sucked imho. Switched to Debian when lenny was released and haven't looked back. My current workstation is Debian 12 and it is a rock solid workhorse.

Re: The History of S.u.S.E

#88

Post by albertzeyer »

I think this was my first (or among my first) Linux distributions, around 2000 or so. I did not had Internet access back then. I had some coding experience (mostly Basic; I was just learning C++). I made a dual installation with Windows. I don't really remember the details anymore, but I struggled with really using it, and after I played around with it (maybe it lead to some system freeze and then I did a cold restart), at some point it would not boot anymore. But also, I was not really learning anything about how it works, and did not really understand too much. I think I also tried Red Hat later but had similar experience.

Then some time later, I got Internet access, and I read about Gentoo, and the tutorial to install it from scratch was really well written and easy to follow, and that helped me really a lot in understanding how Linux really works, what components are involved in the whole system. I continued using that for many years. Whenever there was some problem, I was able to understand it and fix it.

Nowadays, I just want to use sth which is so widespread that it is very well supported, and I can expect that any problem can be found on the Internet with some solution, and sth where I just need to spend only a minimal amount of effort to keep it running and up-to-date, so I chose Ubuntu (already couple of years ago; not sure if my choice today would be the same, but for now I stick to it). So this is sth which basically just works. But I wonder, for a newcomer who really wants to understand how Linux works, I think I would rather recommend Gentoo or Arch Linux or so. I think I also prefer the rolling release concept (Arch, Gentoo) over the point release development model (Ubuntu, Debian, Suse, Slackware, etc).

Re: The History of S.u.S.E

#89

Post by humptybumpty »

simmons wrote: post #15

Wow, the mention of SLS takes me back. SLS was the first Linux distribution I ever used. (Not counting the very early days of manually extracting tar archives of userspace binaries to make a system...) I remember passing around the precious shoebox of SLS floppies from person to person in high school. :)

Seems like it wasn’t just you: it was the first proper Linux distro in the world:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_distribution

Re: The History of S.u.S.E

#90

Post by tombert »

plagiarist wrote: post #81
toprerules wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% of people who dislike systemd can't come up with a better solution that solves all of the problems that systemd was created to solve.

All the problems that systemd is "solving" is a large part of what we dislike, I think. So, no, of course we wouldn't have a replacement software. My recent experience was trying out Fedora atomic. I love that idea. I found systemd is kinda nice for service management. But still, I kept running into issues with it spreading into everywhere, doing its own thing, and difficulty working around it. Partially figuring out…

I think Gentoo explicitly does not do systemd, might be worth it to look at that if you want to avoid systemd, considering that I think the "official" stance of Arch is systemd.

There's also SixOS coming soon (https://events.ccc.de/congress/2024/hub/de/event/sixos-a-nix...). NixOS does kind of a similar atomic thing, so you might enjoy that, but vanilla NixOS is systemd based, so once SixOS drops you might get exactly what you want.

Post reply on HN