> Well Matthew, you seem like a thoughtful guy. > > Here's my take: > > SuSE Linux installed perfectly on this HP dv4217cl (dv4000) notebook, > requiring only that I install an RPM for the wireless network card > that was supplied on the non-oss cd. It works flawlessly, after two > days of fairly intense use. I'll be happy to report back over the > next couple of weeks, if you like. No problems with CD-ROMS or > anything else. It has a beautiful and very intuitive user interface > and I like it.
Which desktop are you running? > I had one OpenOffice crash the second time I executed Writer, but in > fairness, it recovered within about 2 seconds and I haven't had the > problem since. The drivers have worked flawlessly on all of my SuSE > installations, so maybe I am not using the same hardware you are > deploying; but my H/W is pretty diverse and I am not experiencing the > problems you've mentioned with 10.2. I've used SuSE way back when it was SuSE and came in a big box set; its a long soap opera unfortunately, and with each release, 5 steps forward and 3 steps back. Great new features with great new bugs. > If one wants compilers, that's fine. There are about a "go-zillion" > sources for free and/or commercial compilers. One may take aim at > some and pull the trigger. My point is about the base system: it > works and it is intuitive. It works for you but when it comes to stability I've found it lacking. > When I installed FreeBSD 6.2 on this notebook, the installation was > excellent! The OS worked fine, and while having FreeBSD on my > notebook was kind of fun (in a geek way...you know how it is), its > functionality is not well integrated enough for common daily use; > that's okay because it is not intended for common, daily use, just as > Solaris is not intended for common use -though FreeBSD did pretty > well. I do know I could get it to work much better, if I took the > time, but I did not like its style of interaction, on a notebook. I > have it running on a couple of other boxes, so I continue to work with > it on those boxes. But make no mistake about it, FreeBSD worked > flawlessly and its install (text based) was quite aggressive in making > the proper suggestions and selections (which is a refreshing change > for FreeBSD). And, even with its becoming better and more user > friendly, I doubt anyone would say that it is now, somehow, less > robust. > > So, I gave Solaris 10 (11/06) a shot. Solaris barfed all over me; > like a girlfriend you love but who just can't get it together, it > wouldn't get past the initial display probe and gave me an > unintelligible (read bank) GUI screen. So it was a text based > install, which I don't mind, as with FreeBSD, it was like the good old > days! So I fired up the games PacMan and Tetris on a crappy Windows > 3.1 box and drank a New York Seltzer (Root Beer, of course) and > watched "Back to the Future" -which also seems oddly antiquated these > days (go figure), while it installed. Then however, I began > experiencing other issues with Solaris on this notebook, that were not > trivial, so I tossed Solaris, Matthew, it just didn't work. > > Now, I like Solaris and I run it on several boxes but the mission of > the notebook (in keeping with the mission of the IBM notebook to which > you refer) is to "work," so I won't be using it as a lab rat (though > if I had another, additional notebook, that's exactly what I'd do). > > I'd give Solaris another run but this SuSE interface is so good, I > don't know what my reasoning would have to be, in order to waste my > time on that pursuit, again. > > And, I am sure I do not understand the logic in your point, from the > outset. Is your point that an OS that works flawlessly on some > systems but not on others, is inferior? If that's your point, you'll > need to look at Solaris with the same prejudice you're using when > looking at SuSE. Or, are you just defending the Solaris turf? > Because I am a huge fan of Solaris, but no matter how many times I > repeated my undying affection during the installation, it did not work > on this notebook, for more significant reasons than a failure to > recognize a CD Writer. > > I think that is the point of this whole thread, right? People are > hoping to make a more usable Solaris, in order to gain a broader > install base, gaining all of the additional support attention that > comes with that added user base. > > Most importantly, we'll have to part company on the broad statement > regarding code. First I reject the notion that SuSE is a dumping > ground for code. Second, I do not believe that Solaris needs to > become a dumping ground for code, merely to become usable across a > broader install base. FreeBSD has already proved that line of > thinking to be incorrect. > > Oh, and remember to drop the "e" before adding the "ing." Jeez, talk > about basic coding errors... :-) I'm a management kinda guy - I outsource all that kinda stuff ;-) As for your Solaris experience - if you'er running a desktop, grab a copy of SXDE or SXCE - latest features, no more bug ridden than Fedora and pretty damn reliable. Basing a review on Solaris 11/06 is pretty premature given the *cough* "mature nature" of Solaris 10. Matthew _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
