For an installation that changed so much between Sles7 and Sles8, you think they could have written something.
My way was and still is, SMB under Windows. But, Sles8 requires Win/98 or above for SMB support.
Then during installation source, select Samba, give it your SMB IP stuff, then it can't find it which gives you another screen that includes SMB, then give all the info again and you finally get it.
Of course, you can't use PUTTY at this point. You need a GUI interface, VNC or VNC under a browser. Great, they at least told us about VNC, but didn't explain anything. I guess I was suppose to have sufficient Linux knowledge to know about VNC.
And don't try using PUTTY from Sles7, you need the PUTTY from Sles8 to support ssl.
All of these stupid little things, that should have been documented, sure took a quick install and turn it into a process spanning two weeks (of course not full time).
It is nice they include the Redbooks with CD1. Too bad none of the installation stuff applies to Sles8.
It would have been nice to have a document of "what has changed" and how to work around it.
I thought for sure that the FTP server in Sles7 automatically came up. I had to enable it via YaST for Sles8. I spent a few hours looking at it from a security item (ssl for FTP?) instead of it just not being up.
And having to issue a STOP and START to the TCPIP machine everytime I boot Sles8 is really a pain.
I havn't had any abends. (yet) I'm on the November 2002 distribution that I down loaded from the maintenance web site.
Now, I understand CD2 and CD3 has other code on it. But just what is a "supplemental CD1 and CD2"? What is the difference between the supplemental cds and the regular cds? I haven't found any documentation on it, but I haven't looked at the supplemental CDs either.
Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting
Steve Brouse wrote:
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.
