[NTLUG:Discuss] SuSE vs. RedHat 6.1

[Steve Baker]

MadHat wrote:
> 
> Kathleen Weaver wrote:
> >
> > I second the SuSE suggestion.  Back when Brian and I were first trying to install Linux -- I couldn't get RedHat to work, either at home on my systems, or here.  We tried SuSE, Caledera (sp) -- which wasn't bad -- and one other distribution  -- which I don't remember.
> >
> > SuSE was heads above the rest -- quality of installation, quality of support, and price was, if not the lowest close to it, and documentation is excellant.  And their mailing list has solved every "weird" problem we've come up with.
> 
> I have never had any real problems with RH or SuSE.  I think it is a
> personal opinion thing (and shouldn't become a religous war, like vi v.
> emacs, or Linux v. *BSD).  The point was and I think still is,
> reguardless of what Distro you use, watch for updates and security
> fixes...

I use RH at work (because our IS people have at least heard of it)
and SuSE at home (because SuSE started sending me free copies when
they put my Tux game on the 6.2 distro). 

Once they are installed, it's hard to tell them apart.  Neither one
of them gave me any serious problems during install.  SuSE set up
the wrong paper size on my printer - and I hate the defaults it
provides for tcsh...RedHat had a weird setup for rlogin's that
took me a while to track down.

I couldn't say which is best - SuSE is cheaper (for me *much* cheaper),
and a recent slashdot poll showed that 40-odd% of their readers run
SuSE versus only 10% RedHat...dunno if that means much though.

I had a lot of good luck with SlakWare under 2.0.x kernels - but
installation wasn't as smooth as RH and SuSE.

If you don't like the price of RH (it does seem a little steep at
$75), consider Mandrake - which is (I'm told) little more than a
copy of the RH disks.

-- 
Steve Baker                  http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1
sjbaker1 at airmail.net (home)  http://www.woodsoup.org/~sbaker
sjbaker at hti.com      (work)