We have been using SuSE on our Z900 on an IFL running zVM. We have worked
with S390 version 1, SLES7 and now SLES8. We did get their Premium support
contract with SLES7 which gave us a upgrade to SLES8. SLES8 has not been
going very well. The documentation they provide on CD1 is poor. It does
not cover anything in any detail about the installation. We could not get
the install to work using SAMBA, worked with their support and they had no
idea how to fix it. We copied the image of CD1 and CD2 to another Linux
server and tried the FTP install method. It went thru CD1 but never did
CD2. The current install method has only 2 choices for what to install,
the instance size now takes about 2 gb. We have been working with their
support structure again but get poor responses and lots of questions, few
answers. Even with their newest kernel (k_deflt) fix it abends after a few
hours of operation. Their premium support says they guarantee 2 hour
turnaround, 7 x 24, that all most never happens. YAST has been totally
redone, the doc in the SLES8 Installation guide is only several pages.
Lots of things that used to work by default, (ftp, kde, apache), do not
anymore, no documentation at all. In my opinion SuSe has not gotten
better, but worse. I have found out that IBM offers a support contract and
we may pursuit that when this one runs out. I to am interested in Red Hat
because we may even drop SuSe all together. If anyone has gotten SLES8
working I would like to hear about that also.
Thanks,
Steve Brouse
Manager of Mainframe Operating Systems Group
AES/PHEAA
"Hall, Ken (IDS
ECCS)" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc:
.ml.com> Subject: Re: RedHat vs Suse
Sent by: Linux
on 390 Port
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RIST.EDU>
05/29/03 08:51
AM
Please respond
to Linux on 390
Port
For Intel, I'm partial to Redhat, but on 390:
1) The SuSE distribution (SLES8) has more current versions of components
like the kernel.
2) The networking OCO modules are already part of the package.
A number of fairly annoying bugs have been fixed in SLES8 too.
The folks here were never able to get Redhat working, but SuSE has gone in
fairly easily on both SLES7 and 8.
The downside of SuSE is that you have to pay for the maintenance agreement
to get it, where Redhat can be downloaded for nothing.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Post, Mark K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 4:08 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] RedHat vs Suse
>
>
> Duane,
>
> I would not say that any of the Linux/390 distributions "work
> better with
> VM" than any of the others. I also have my doubts that
> DSPACE (what ever
> that is) would "run better" on one Linux/390 distribution
> versus another.
> Without more information, that sounds a lot like magical
> thinking rather
> than anything else.
>
> Use the distribution that you're most comfortable with
> overall (using what
> ever criteria you might have for that).
>
>
> Mark Post
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Duane Weaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 1:34 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RedHat vs Suse
>
>
> We installed SuSe Linux under z/VM on a z800 box, under the
> belief that
> SuSe Linux worked better with VM and the hardware. There is
> a desire to
> put something called the MIT DSPACE project. There is a
> belief that
> DSPACE would run better on RedHat.
>
> I am interested in talking to anyone who installed RedHat Linux under
> VM. HAve you had any trouble with RedHat. Did you have to do any
> modifications to make RedHat run under VM?
>
> Is there any truth to the belief that SuSe Linux works better with VM?
>
> duane
>
This message contains privileged and confidential information intended for
the above addressees only. If you receive this message in error please
delete or destroy this message and any accompanying documentation after
contacting the sender. The sender of this message will fully cooperate in
the civil and criminal prosecution of any individual engaging in the
unauthorized use of this message.
