Change Ubuntu/Fedora/Debian to "open-source communities", and count again.
Originally Posted by squirrl
Canonical guys trend to develop Ubuntu-specific software (Unity is the most outstanding one), while Red Hat works for the whole ecosystem.
suse does a whole lot more for the linux comunity in general then most of the distro's you mentioned, next to that with osb you can build anything you want and package for all the distro's you mentioned, its a solid good distro that fits nicely between fedora and ubuntu
Originally Posted by blackiwid
You might want to install the Linux backport packages.
Originally Posted by bwat47
Indeed, there is no reason for this hate on SUSE.
Originally Posted by Xilanaz
I see... you just like pissing everyone off.
Originally Posted by BO$$
He's been a pretty obvious troll for quite some weeks, it always surprises me people don't recognize his shit posts from other threads.
Originally Posted by Hamish Wilson
I did not rant against suse developers, I dont just see the reason behind this fedora clone... I dont know there history but they are rpm based thats the reason I think its similar to fedora, they have other release-timings more conservative etc ok but it would be better to not reinvent the wheel so much times... I mean if you have a good goal it makes sense maybe... but both teams fedora and suse seems to have problems managing all stuff and having problems with releasework. there was a artikel where suse developers whined about if 2 guys go at the same time in holliday all falls apart or something like that.
Originally Posted by Xilanaz
So yes some of you argued that its a question about their enterprise distros... so redhat linux vs fedora and suse enterprise vs opensuse. that is just my point, they do that just because of making money its technicaly stupid to do. there is a reason why there are so many ubuntu-clones it costs much effort to make out of nothing or even out of debian a destkop-ready distribution its just more work, that taking ubuntu and make your diffs to that.
So they make themself more work, and dont work together because they want to sell it, it makes technicaly no sense. And to the suse is not redhatish, as far as I know, lsb is basicly we define how redhat does stuff as standart, mostly... and maybe I am wrong here? Suse have directory structure and rpm and most other stuff like lsb says it. So I dont really get it.
Anaconda is in the critical path
New hardware systems are uefi based. Anaconda was first coded with one solution, and then, following SUSE, whose solution was superior, they dropped that solution for one that is as compliant.
Anaconda will be used by other distributions such as CENTOS, SCIENTIFIC LINUX, RED Hat Linux and other Linuxes that are forks of Fedora.
Solving the problem for Fedora is solving it for others. It has to work on many platforms, uefi and non uefi, on the mac and on pentium 3 systems as well as the atom.
That is quite a feat. The UBUNTU solution as far as I know, is a temporary one, that UBUNTU started with a year ago. The solution that parallels Fedora and SUSE will probably be presented in a later UBUNTU version.
I am using Fedora 18 based an the Alpha release. Because it was alpha, some stuff needs tweaking, but all the applications I have downloaded and used, work flawlessly.
So yes, we understand that Anaconda is late, and that the programer(s) are under pressure, but we must also back off from criticism. The new anaconda looks very much better than the legacy version from which we are moving away. One cannot divide ones attention to multiple problems when the others require a solid reliable installer program.
I do hope some things have improved from this early look last August though in terms of design:
This is confused, in several ways.
Originally Posted by lsatenstein
For a start, you're confusing UEFI and Secure Boot. UEFI is a new firmware standard for PCs, replacing the old BIOS standard. It has been around for several years, and Fedora has supported it for several releases, since Fedora 12 at least.
You seem to be talking about Secure Boot, which is a single feature of recent versions of the UEFI specification. It is not mandatory under the UEFI spec, though it is required by Microsoft's Windows 8 certification program. Many systems have already shipped with UEFI firmwares in the last few years, with no Secure Boot. I'm typing this on one.
As far as Secure Boot goes, most of the necessary support is not in anaconda, it is in the bootloader and kernel layers. anaconda does not have to do anything special to support Secure Boot, really, beyond maybe installing an extra package.
And in terms of actually supporting Secure Boot - it is more correct to say that many parties, including RH and SUSE, have been working in collaboration to support SB. RH's Matthew Garrett came up with the broad design that Fedora, SUSE and Ubuntu will all use. SUSE suggested a neat revision to the design which Matt liked, and incorporated into his work; it's not correct to say that we started out with one codebase and then completely ditched it for a different one which SUSE designed, this is a misrepresentation. Since SUSE's plan was pretty much the same as Matt's plan plus the neat improvement, and Matt added their suggested improvement, they just decided to use the code Matt was working on. In the end it works out as a collaborative effort.
Fedora and SUSE will both use virtually the same code for SB support. Ubuntu will use a slightly older version of the same code initially, configured in a slightly different way. As Matthew wrote at http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/18945.html:
"As far as I know, Suse and Fedora will be shipping the same code. Ubuntu is shipping an older version of Shim but should pick up the local key management code in the next release. The only significant difference is that Ubuntu doesn't require that kernel modules be signed."
I do recommend reading through Matt's blog archive on the topic. It's dense stuff, but you'll wind up better informed