History of SUSE

Im interested in how Novell got into SUSE.
When I used SUSE years ago at a time when dial uyp modems were the main, I was so impressed at the installation, quicker and easier than windows. And it recognized everything I had plugged in.all perperals.

Did Novell buy SUSE ? and is open SUSE like Fedora is to RedHat ?

Yes, that’s a pretty good summary. Wikipedia will have a more detailed history.

openSUSE - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bit of the history that is missing from the above is that Ray Noorda, the CEO from 1983 to 1994, wanted Novell to go into Linux in the 1990s and when the board refused to follow him he put some of his money into a company called Caldera which also took over some of Novell’s DOS programs.

Unfortunately, Caldera merged with SCO which ended up in a lawsuit with Novell; however, some of the leading lights of Caldera moved to SUSE and are now involved with openSUSE.

So the plot thickens :slight_smile:

You know, well im no expert but I reckon if downloading and installing software was as easy for Linux as it is for windows, The whole world would use Linux :slight_smile:

What, you mean as easy as cybercriminals downloading and installing malware into one’s Windows computer? I certainly hope that never happens. lol!

Agree with this point.
One more thing how much easy it would be more than by just running one command in terminal to install/download an application. :wink:

Ih thinking of buying a Linux Book. Im a dummy so would lINUX FDOR dUMMIES BE GOOOD?
rotfl!

john hudson wrote:
> The bit of the history that is missing from the above [wiki refs]

suggestion: log into the wiki and add to the story…do you have the
footnotes?


palladium

ml2967 wrote:
> You know, well im no expert but I reckon if downloading and installing
> software was as easy for Linux as it is for windows

are you kidding? Redmond has nothing nearly as easy as YaST (or Zypper)…

i mean, do you actually find this “so last century” routine: go to
some untrusted site and download some untrusted code to your desktop
and then blindly double click it…and, then spend three days trying
unsuccessfully to clean the malware crap out of your machine…

you find that “easy” compared to YaST???


palladium

ml2967 wrote:
> Ih thinking of buying a Linux Book. Im a dummy so would lINUX FDOR
> dUMMIES BE GOOOD?

linux is not for dummies…dummies pay for Redmond’s new and
‘exciting’ Ultimate Malware Bait Professional System Deluxe 2010

if you want good linux documentation see my earlier post:
http://tinyurl.com/ybklh48


palladium

I completely agree here. I think I have ranted and pontificated on this subject a zillion times in the past :slight_smile:

… when such views as Windows software being easier to install than Linux software are expressed, what I think we are facing here is the issue being confused by a few things:

  • most new users do not understand the Linux software repository concept and hence do not realize that is the way to install
  • many new users, not understanding the software concept, go to the developers site and download source code and try to compile. Thats NOT the way to nominally do things in Linux (unless one is an expert) but new users often try it, fail and then rant about how difficult it is to install software in Linux
  • many new users, once they get a small understanding as to how repositories work in Linux, immediately add a zillion conflicting repositories into their software package manager, and install either untested software (from a zillion different repositories) or they have dependency conflicts because of the zillion different repositories. The fact that one should not setup every repository under the sun never occured to them, and then because of that they claim Linux is hard to install software. If those users would only stick to OFFICIAL repositories (ie OSS, Non-OSS and Update) and add perhaps one more repository (where I recommend Packman), 99% of their software installation problems would be a thing of the past.

Typically, when it comes to install software for function-A, when my wife and I both decide to do it on our respective operating systems (her on WinXP and me on Linux) I succeed in a fraction of the time it takes her. She is typically either still scanning for virus, or she is acking or researching the dozen zone alarm warnings from the new software in WinXP, when at the same time as she is still installing, I have the software up and running in Linux, and I am using the software functionality.

Unfortunately , new users often never get to the stage of knowledge where they can learn that things are actually faster (in many cases) in Linux.

oldcpu wrote:
> things are actually faster (in many cases) in Linux.

i know you must have some specifics in mind when you add that “(in
many cases)” qualifier…but, i’m pretty sure in the TOTAL scheme of
things the time the average knowledge Redmond Users spends fighting
malware and energy sucking registry problems (not counting the time
s/he must spend WORKING for wages to PURCHASE the license to be
abused) makes the efficiency of the average knowledge Linux user look
like a Warp Speed eye blink…

on the other hand i agree with you: folks who fall into Linux and
refuse to learn how to do things the correct way will forever
believe Redmond is faster and easier…that is their loss…

and, their great loss has nothing whatsoever to do with “actually
faster in Linux” qualified, or not…


palladium

It was in one of Ray Noorda’s obituaries but I didn’t think to make a note of it at the time.

Perhaps I’ll see if I can Google it.

LOL! Very well put!

I disagree. I’d say 99.9% (or perhaps 99.95%) :slight_smile:

A book that I found very useful was “OpenSUSE 11 and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server BIBLE” It is for beginners to advanced. I can definitely recommend it.

henkadsf

it was good to heare all replies, once Ive read up on Linus i mighr have a diffeerebt view on software installing

yep, until you have done it the right way, don’t judge it!


palladium