That is an interesting report. A friend who runs SuSE 9.1 on his machine at work has no end of problems. I have personally never had any problems with it. I thought it was a difference in the hardware we are running. It is good to hear that SuSE 9.[23] are working well.
I had considered moving to CentOS when I do my next upgrade because it is a supported Linux distro at the place that has our managed servers. Regards, Daniel On Friday 26 August 2005 14:47, Marvin Dickens wrote: > On Friday 26 August 2005 10:50 am, Stuart Brorson wrote: > > One other note: SuSE 9.[012] personal edition didn't put a lot of .h > > files in the distribution. THis may cause problems later in the > > build. Be forewarned. The fix is to install, for example, the > > XFree86-devel package, as well as some other *-devel packages. > > We have use SuSE in our shop(And, I use it at home...) and have for years. > With that said, 9.1 professional and the downloadable version were huge > disapointments. In fact, we bitched (With real complaints about real > problems) so much to SuSE/Novell, that when 9.2 was released they sent up > free copies of 9.2 > > We had problems from the day we installed 9.1 until 9.2 was available to > us. Almost everything that we used that was not part of the distribution > would not compile. Programs that should have compiled even though they were > not part of the distro would not... We ended up de-installing a lot of the > programming libraries and reinstalling them from original source. This > solved most of the problems, but every time we added a new app/program to > the list of things we used, we would hold our breath - Hoping it would > compile. Sometimes it would, sometimes it wouldn't. > > With that said, SuSE 9.2 and 9.3 play well with gEDA - Or at least as well > as Fedora and Debian. My advice is to dump SuSE 9.1. It's more trouble than > it's worth and does not reflect the quality that the SuSE/Novell > distribution is known for. > > Regards > > Marvin
