SuSE vs. RedHat
KeeKee
new in Lunix.
Would anyone please provide the information.
What are the differences between SuSE and Red Hat's offerings? Which
has an advantage, infrastructure wise?
Thanks!!!
Jan Gerrit Kootstra
KeeKee,
I would say, it depends on what applications you want to run on top of it.
SuSE is better tuned to run Novell applications on top of it.
More general applications like Oracle can run on both distributions.
Want to paid support release you can choose Red Hat (RHEL) or SuSE
(SLES). Both are a bit conservative for new features, but much more
tested features. Both are meaned for a commercial setting.
Want less conservative, but also has some less tested feature.
Fedora associated with Fedora or OpenSuSE.
SuSE also has a paid supported release named SuSE. For non-commercial use.
Red Hat has no paid supported in between release for non-commercial use.
I have a little preference for RHEL. No netters do not attack this
statement. My personal experience and knowledge of RHEL is better.
Kind regards,
Jan Gerrit Kootstra
Jan Gerrit Kootstra
> Jan Gerrit Kootstra wrote:
>> SuSE is better tuned to run Novell applications on top of it.
>
> in the past the name SuSE and before that S.u.S.E wer abriviations, SUSE
> officially is just a brand name and does not mean anything.
>
> http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3085261
> So from 9.0 it went from SuSE to SUSE. 9.0 was released in 2003.
>
>
> houghi
Houghi,
Thank you for reminding me.
Snipping is sinning against Nettiquet, if you do not point this out.
David Bolt
houghi painted this mural:
> Jan Gerrit Kootstra wrote:
>> SuSE is better tuned to run Novell applications on top of it.
>
> It is SUSE (and openSUSE as a result ) for a few years already. Although
> in the past the name SuSE and before that S.u.S.E wer abriviations, SUSE
> officially is just a brand name and does not mean anything.
>
> http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3085261
> So from 9.0 it went from SuSE to SUSE. 9.0 was released in 2003.
Not internally they didn't. The last SuSE release was I can confirm as
being called SuSE was 9.3:
davjam@davids:~> cat /etc/SuSE-release ; ls -l /etc/SuSE-release
SuSE Linux 9.3 (i586)
VERSION = 9.3
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 36 2005-03-23 21:35 /etc/SuSE-release
As you can see, I still have it running on one machine despite it being
more than a few years beyond the EOL. Since it's a file server, with no
WAN connection, there's no real need to upgrade.
AFAIK, the only one that actually identified itself as SUSE was 10.0. I
can't confirm that as I don't have the 10.1 installation media, nor do
I have a 10.1 system available. I do know that 10.2 was openSUSE as,
while I don't have a 10.2 system running, I do still have the media
available for it.
Regards,
David Bolt
--
Team Acorn: www.distributed.net OGR-NG @ ~100Mnodes RC5-72 @ ~1Mkeys/s
openSUSE 10.3 32b | openSUSE 11.0 32b | | openSUSE 11.2 32b
openSUSE 10.3 64b | openSUSE 11.0 64b | openSUSE 11.1 64b |
RISC OS 4.02 | RISC OS 3.11 | openSUSE 11.1 PPC | TOS 4.02
Chris Cox
One is green, the other one is red :-)
SuSE is old... there's Novell SUSE Linux Enterprise Server/Desktop
now. And there is a community based distro called openSUSE.
So SLES matches up to Red Hat (Red Hat Enterprise Linux).
Red Hat doesn't believe in enterprise Linux desktops, so no
equivalent for Novell's SLED there.
Similar to openSUSE, there is the Fedora project which is
a Red Hat-ish community based distro.
Novell has a fairly current comparison doc at:
http://www.novell.com/rc/docrepository/public/6/basedocument.2009-04-01.6574230940/4622117PRINT_en.pdf
Also (if it matters) Novell isn't afraid to take on Windows Server 2008
either:
http://www.novell.com/rc/docrepository/public/6/basedocument.2009-04-02.3584057753/4622118PRINT_en.pdf
If you want some success stories including migrations away from
Windows:
http://www.novell.com/products/server/productinfo/
Feel free to search Red Hat's site for similar things. And... PLEASE
let me know if you find anything. I really want to see it.
About the only time I see Red Hat mention SUSE is to refer
to benchmarks or statitics that Red Hat wants to use but
didn't have anything using their own OS.
The bigger question is why are there no Red Hat stories about
successful migrations from Windows? And no comparative doc
against Windows? Weird. Novell has the reputation of
being the Microsoft lover... but to me, it looks the other
way around.
Harold Stevens
[Snip...]
> AFAIK, the only one that actually identified itself as SUSE was 10.0.
FWIW...
Just booted up a dormant 10.0 and confirmed: it is indeed SUSE (all caps).
--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
I toss GoogleGroup (http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/).
Harold Stevens
[Snip...]
> no Red Hat stories about successful migrations from Windows
FWIW...
Red Hat seems to be holding their own, making progress in their niche. IMO
like early Google (remember Gmail/Hotmail hoopla?), Red Hat doesn't appear
that interested in disturbing M$ groupthink (or right now, anyway).
Remember Napoleon's dictum:
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
(http://quotes4all.net/authors/napoleon/quotes.html)
JMO; YMMV...
marrgol
> AFAIK, the only one that actually identified itself as SUSE was 10.0. I
> can't confirm that as I don't have the 10.1 installation media, nor do
> I have a 10.1 system available. I do know that 10.2 was openSUSE
10.1 was SUSE too.
--
mrg
Ulick Magee
>
> Red Hat doesn't believe in enterprise Linux desktops, so no
> equivalent for Novell's SLED there.
Funny, I was talking with our RH reseller in work the other day, there
were definitely enterprise desktop options available.
http://www.redhat.com/rhel/desktop/compare/
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Desktop
A general purpose client solution suitable for desktop and laptop
systems, offering a comprehensive suite of personal productivity
applications such as OpenOffice, Firefox browser, and Evolution email
client.
> Weird. Novell has the reputation of
> being the Microsoft lover... but to me, it looks the other
> way around.
I don't think anyone outside MS likes MS, not even the major OEMs, MS
screws them over just like they do to everyone else.
--
Ulick Magee
Free software and free formats for free information for free people.
Open Office for Windows/OSX/Linux: http://www.openoffice.org
openSUSE Linux: http://en.opensuse.org
Chris Cox
> Chris Cox wrote:
>> Red Hat doesn't believe in enterprise Linux desktops, so no
>> equivalent for Novell's SLED there.
>
> Funny, I was talking with our RH reseller in work the other day, there
> were definitely enterprise desktop options available.
>
> http://www.redhat.com/rhel/desktop/compare/
>
> Red Hat Enterprise Linux Desktop
>
> A general purpose client solution suitable for desktop and laptop
> systems, offering a comprehensive suite of personal productivity
> applications such as OpenOffice, Firefox browser, and Evolution email
> client.
Hmmm... SO... Red Hat back in.... but do you want to trust
a company that comes in with a desktop, leaves, comes back, etc?
Reminds me of another successful company, Sun Microsystems as
we watched them support x86, drop it, support it, drop it and
then support it again.... it did wonders for their reputation...
>
>
>
>> Weird. Novell has the reputation of
>> being the Microsoft lover... but to me, it looks the other
>> way around.
>
> I don't think anyone outside MS likes MS, not even the major OEMs, MS
> screws them over just like they do to everyone else.
>
True, but my main point is that Novell is actively taking
on Microsoft. I don't see Red Hat in the picture currently.
Jan Gerrit Kootstra
I see a biased text.
I do not see Novell taking on Microsoft. Only join them. I see customers
switch from Groupwise to Exchange.
Red Hat is focusing on other markets..
Moe Trin
<slrnhgdvn4...@penne.houghi>, houghi wrote:
>Harold Stevens wrote:
>> Remember Napoleon's dictum:
>>
>> Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
>Didn't he loose in the end? ;-)
Because Wellington followed Napoleon's dictum - geez, will you please
pay attention? There is going to be a test before the end of this
class and that _may_ be one of the questions.
Old guy
stan
> Harold Stevens wrote:
>>
>> Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
>
After the quote was published and others took his advice :)
Chris Cox
...
> Chris,
>
>
> I see a biased text.
>
> I do not see Novell taking on Microsoft. Only join them. I see customers
> switch from Groupwise to Exchange.
I agree that Novell has problems holding off the Exchange juggernaut.
Definitely. But, I do commend them for not rolling over and playing
dead. Red Hat says... well... we don't do "mail"... fine...
I guess when you don't even try.. you can't say you're not
competing well (?).
>
> Red Hat is focusing on other markets..
BUT, in all fairness, they are focusing MOSTLY on markets
that others (including Novell) are also targeting. I guess
you could say there is a market outside of that owned by
Microsoft.... but it is a SMALL market by comparison.
Perhaps Red Hat doesn't act with uncertainty or doubt... but
you can definitely feel the fear.
I might not like Microsoft, but given that Red Hat's target
market is those that depend upon Java (which is weird given
Red Hat historical adverseness there)... does that really
make sense? I mean nobody likes Microsoft, but in my
industry I see a lot more people that are frustrated by
Java and its failure to deliver on its promises.
Eef Hartman
> Similar to openSUSE, there is the Fedora project which is
> a Red Hat-ish community based distro.
AND CentOS, the Community ENTerprise O/S, which is much close
to Red Hat Linux Interprise (and yes, it does have a desktop
install). Essentially CentOS is RHEL without having to pay for
support etc.
--
*******************************************************************
** Eef Hartman, Delft University of Technology, dept. SSC/ICT **
** e-mail: E.J.M....@tudelft.nl - phone: +31-15-278 82525 **
*******************************************************************
Ulick Magee
>
> CentOS is basically a fork of RedHat.
Not really, a fork takes development off in a different direction and
the code will be different.
> It is a distro based on RedHat.
Based on recompiled RedHat source code with trademarks etc. removed.
Like what you'd end up with rembrand on openSUSE, as you know.
http://en.opensuse.org/Making_a_SUSE_based_distribution
> (or a rip off, depending who you ask)
Is someone who uses rembrand ripping off openSUSE or Novell? I don't
really think so. Anyone who writes code under the GPL knows that someone
else can re-use their work. That's the whole point... same goes for
packaging, and making a distro is really just packaging on a larger scale.
Ultimately if you are paying RH you are paying them for support and
updates, not for a right to use the software itself. If you want to
support it yourself then no need to pay them. CentOS is basically a
community of people who have decided to create a RHEL-alike that they
support themselves. No problem with that under the GPL, or legally, or
morally (in my view).
Ulick Magee
>
> rembrand was made by Novell for specifically that purpose. SUSE Studio
> is made specifically made to make (open)SUSE based distributions. You
> can even still use the (open)SUSE updates.
>
> So the main difference is that if you use a SUSE based distribution,
> Novell will be very happy to help. I am not sure if RedHat helps you to
> make something like CentOS. Therin lies the morality.
RH don't help you, but they can't stop you either.
If the market positions of RH and Novell were reversed, then RH would
probably be the ones encouraging people to make derived distributions,
and Novell with the dominant position in enterprise linux would not.
It's not about being a good guy or a bad guy, just business.
> Indeed. So while some say that it is a rip off, others say it is perfect
> use of the GPL as the GPL was inteded.
If the GPL did allow RH to stop this sort of thing, it would be a
mistake IMHO. 'Free' isn't just free as in beer (mmm, beer...)
> And other people think it is morally wrong. Especially on the basis that
> it is not really a fork in the standard, but rather a group of people
> who let RedHat do all the dirty work and then use that code. Some even
> would say abuse.
I can see why people would have that view, I don't agree though. RH know
the rules of the game, what they put out under GPL can be reused, they
know this, if they're not happy with this they could write their own OS
and then licence it whatever way they want. But they don't. RH are in
the position they are in now because the GPL allows them to benefit from
the work of others so it seems right that others should be able to
benefit from their work under the GPL too.
J G Miller
> It is about what CentOS is doing or is not doing.
> It is allowed, as I said, but that not make it morally correct.
Is not what Centos does not only allowed by actually encouraged
by the GPL?
If you have ethical/moral issues concerning what Centos does,
then presumable you have ethical/moral issues about what Red Hat
does in packaging up and selling other people's work
(eg the Linux kernel and all the GNU software).
J G Miller
> "So what we do is hide behind the GPL and not pay them, but instead just let
> them keep doing the development and just use their work."
First of all, it is important to note that Red Hat has and does pay for a
considerable level of development work of various software packages, but of
course these are going to be geared towards the requirements of their customers.
That notwithstanding, the above comment can still be applied to Red Hat vis a
vis the unpaid Fedora development and the upstream software development.
(Also in a similar manner, the same could be said about Canonical with
respect to Debian.)
> Again: perfectly legal with the GPL, but some people might think that is
> wrong.
Yes some people have very erroneous views over what is right and what is wrong,
and I agree entirely with you that just because something is legal (or not
classified as illegal) does not mean that it is ethically or morally right.
David Bolt
houghi painted this mural:
> J G Miller wrote:
>> (Also in a similar manner, the same could be said about Canonical with
>> respect to Debian.)
>
> I have no idea about Canonical, but there are people who say that about
> Ubuntu and even say that Ubuntu leeches of the whole Linux community.
You mean like this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3385088017824733336
Ulick Magee
>
> And to proove that, the distro we will be using at the office for at
> least two servers will be CentOS. I am just testrunning it in Virtualbox
> and by golly am I spoiled by openSUSE and YaST.
>
> Trying to install mc gives me an error. Darn.
>
> Now I need to look at how to do all this in CLI instead of just using
> `yast` in cli. And how can I easily add a repository and install
> phpMyAdmin.
>
> Darn this Linux stuff is hard. :-D
Second result on scroogle.org:
http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/rhel-centos-fedora-linux-yum-command-howto/
* Yes, they rip off Google, and admit it, but justify it with Google's
invasion of privacy :)
Ulick Magee
>
> Yast does much more then just install software. ;-)
Yeah but you didn't ask that...
Don't make me post the 'asking smart questions' link :)
On the command line try
setup
A lot more limited than text-mode Yast though.