not very good concept of 13.1...

English Soapbox
1

Dedoimedo:

Conclusion

            openSUSE 13.1 Bottle comes with two excellent features - the fastest installation around and the most beautiful         desktop ever conceived. The price is so much beta quality, it's embarrassing. Really. Crashes, bugs, missing         codecs and drivers. ****Horrible.       
            I am really curious why openSUSE 13.1 could not have been polished to perfection. It would just have taken         another three or four weeks of time, going through all the problems, making sure the repositories are fully up         to date, fixing the last niggles. Think about it. What does it take to transform this distro into an awesome         one. The first set of updates fixed all the ****. A live session with more free space would have been great.         Nvidia drivers, better printing. That's most of it. Alas, no. Ergo, 4/10. Sad. Maybe next time.       
            Cheers.
2

This is not a request for help, so I’m moving it to Soapbox. This thread is closed for the moment.

3

Moved from Install/Boot/Login. Thread open again.

4

Granted, i also have my fair share of problems which shouldn’t occur while using openSUSE a couple of days after release. But those problems usually get sorted out really fast, so he’s not doing the project a favour. Right now, 13.1 is by far the best GNU/Linux install I had ever.

5

I’ll put it this way; who cares about some random blog?

Take a look at App stores for Android, iPhone or Windows Phone - they are full of “This application wasn’t blue, I wanted it to be blue - 1/5 stars”, even the when the application pretty much does everything fine but they didn’t like one or two things about it. Then there are the “1/5 stars because it didn’t work on my <insert Chinese phone here>.”

In short, majority of blogs and reviews are good for one thing only; to be ignored.

6

That review seems to have been done based on a live system running from DVD. As best I can tell, there was no actual install.

Some of the problems listed are problems of running from a live DVD. For example, the complaint about no space to save anything - that’s because the DVD is read only, and the only space is a small RAM disk. If he had copied the iso to a USB, and tested from that, he would have already solved that problem.

And, of course, running from a live system is slow compared to using a system installed on the hard drive.

7

On 2014-09-01, nrickert <nrickert@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
> That review seems to have been done based on a live system running from
> DVD. As best I can tell, there was no actual install.

There is. Look about 35% down the post and you’ll see he goes through the installer, and he’s fairly complimentary about
it.

> Some of the problems listed are problems of running from a live DVD.
> For example, the complaint about no space to save anything - that’s
> because the DVD is read only, and the only space is a small RAM disk.
> If he had copied the iso to a USB, and tested from that, he would have
> already solved that problem.

It seems extraordinary that he encountered so many errors in the live KDE version.

> And, of course, running from a live system is slow compared to using a
> system installed on the hard drive.

Yes, but he does perform a normal install, and remarks that openSUSE 13.1 played nicely with his existing Kubuntu
install.

There are good and bad things about the review. Personally I think he’s 100% right to comment that the NVIDIA/AMD
repos/one-click installs should have been properly sorted out before 13.1 went gold. I have one box with an AMD card,
for which I still can’t install the proprietary driver (and it’s an openSUSE-specific problem because it installs fine
on other distros). Upon openSUSE KDE installs, I tend to find Amarok and Kaffeine throw miscellaneous errors messages,
but then again I don’t tend to use those applications.

But the bad things about his review is:

  1. He puts far too much weight on the live KDE version.
  2. He makes a big issue of the lack of proprietary drivers/codecs out of the box, probably fully knowing this is never
    an option for openSUSE (and many other distros).
  3. His review is superficial (live boot -> install -> try a couple of programs) and in no way informative - for example
    there’s not even a single mention of YaST. This is grossly negligent of the reviewer because YaST would be of
    considerable interest to potential GNU/Linux users.
8

On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 14:46:25 +0000, flymail wrote:

> But the bad things about his review is:

Just based on the blurb posted in the forum, I’d say that one of the
worst things is the assumption that waiting “a few weeks” (or months
even) would result in a /perfect/ distribution.

Complex software is generally never “perfect” - and waiting a few weeks
or months could have fixed a few things that he sees as a problem, but
there would have been other things at that point in time that someone
else would have said “if they’d just given it another couple weeks of
testing, they could have caught those and fixed them as well.”

It’s a never-ending cycle that ultimately results in software not being
released at all.

Because there’s always “one more little thing” to be fixed.

Software release managers have to go with the concept of “it’s good
enough” - and 13.1 was good enough at release time. :slight_smile:

Jim

–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C

9

On 2014-09-01 16:46, flymail wrote:

> There are good and bad things about the review. Personally I think he’s 100% right to comment that the NVIDIA/AMD
> repos/one-click installs should have been properly sorted out before 13.1 went gold.

It is apparently impossible. The work starts after release, and, I’m
guessing, needs that the person doing it on openSUSE is available at
that moment, and the corresponding contact person at Nvidia is also
available. The procedure seems to be convoluted, so it is not started
till they are certain that the release is really GM.

–
Cheers / Saludos,

Carlos E. R.
(from 13.1 x86_64 “Bottle” at Telcontar)

10

On 2014-09-01, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
> On 2014-09-01 16:46, flymail wrote:
>
>> There are good and bad things about the review. Personally I think he’s 100% right to comment that the NVIDIA/AMD
>> repos/one-click installs should have been properly sorted out before 13.1 went gold.
>
> It is apparently impossible.

If what you say is true, then the system of release is wholly deficient. For an operating system to be released without
even the most basic necessities, such as graphics drivers, ready is just farcical. Surely it’s trivial to package the
binaries compiled with the relevant headers once the Linux kernel version has been established? I guess not.

11

On 2014-09-02 10:04, flymail wrote:
> On 2014-09-01, Carlos E. R. <> wrote:
>> On 2014-09-01 16:46, flymail wrote:
>>
>>> There are good and bad things about the review. Personally I think he’s 100% right to comment that the NVIDIA/AMD
>>> repos/one-click installs should have been properly sorted out before 13.1 went gold.
>>
>> It is apparently impossible.
>
> If what you say is true, then the system of release is wholly deficient. For an operating system to be released without
> even the most basic necessities, such as graphics drivers, ready is just farcical. Surely it’s trivial to package the
> binaries compiled with the relevant headers once the Linux kernel version has been established? I guess not.

Sigh… How many thousand times do we have to explain this? :frowning:

It is not trivial at all, because it is plain illegal… They have to
use tricks. Generating the rpms is almost trivial to anyone that knows
how to do rpms proficiently. Publishing them is not.

You plain simple can not publish those rpms on the openSUSE own
infrastructure, because then the kernel people will sue openSUSE or put
us on a black list and stop collaboration with openSUSE⁽¹⁾. That would
be terrible and the end of openSUSE as an important Linux distribution.

And Nvidia people (I don’t know what’s the AMD situation is) point blank
refuse to create the rpms themselves. They say that you are to use the
…run file, and run it yourself, as user, on your own machine. Anything
else is not supported by them⁽²⁾.

As a favour to us, they kindly host the rpms that somebody else
generates and sends to them⁽²⁾, probably by email, but could be a cd rom
on surface mail by all I know. And as this is a favour, it is done
manually, and needs authorization each time and some people actually
doing it.

Just be thankful that the procedure works at all. .-|

(1) You can locate this information on the mail list when they said
they would sue. I’m not inventing it.

(2) You can find written proof of this in a readme file in the nvidia
ftp site.

–
Cheers / Saludos,

Carlos E. R.
(from 13.1 x86_64 “Bottle” at Telcontar)

12

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 08:04:17 +0000, flymail wrote:

> On 2014-09-01, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org>
> wrote:
>> On 2014-09-01 16:46, flymail wrote:
>>
>>> There are good and bad things about the review. Personally I think
>>> he’s 100% right to comment that the NVIDIA/AMD repos/one-click
>>> installs should have been properly sorted out before 13.1 went gold.
>>
>> It is apparently impossible.
>
> If what you say is true, then the system of release is wholly deficient.
> For an operating system to be released without even the most basic
> necessities, such as graphics drivers, ready is just farcical. Surely
> it’s trivial to package the binaries compiled with the relevant headers
> once the Linux kernel version has been established? I guess not.

Talk to nVidia and ATI about that. They’re the ones (as I understand it)
who build the binaries for the proprietary drivers.

Jim

–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C

13

On 2014-09-02, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
> Sigh… How many thousand times do we have to explain this? :frowning:
>
> It is not trivial at all, because it is plain illegal… They have to
> use tricks. Generating the rpms is almost trivial to anyone that knows
> how to do rpms proficiently. Publishing them is not.

Obviously I’m not understanding this. Why is it any less legal to make available the binaries for the proprietary
drivers for the RC any more than it is for the full release? Of course I’m assuming the kernel and driver versions are
identical at the time of transition since this would be necessary for it to work. If my assumption is wrong than I
obviously stand corrected, but the farce of otherwise not having basic graphics drivers at the time of full release
should provide sufficient incentive since for many the open-source alternatives are not a viable option.

14

On 2014-09-03, Jim Henderson <hendersj@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
> Talk to nVidia and ATI about that. They’re the ones (as I understand it)
> who build the binaries for the proprietary drivers.

I can understand this interpretation for Nvidia. But in the case of AMD, the situation beggars belief. AMD sponsors the
openSUSE project! In light of this, if openSUSE and AMD can’t co-ordinate the time of release of full editions and
proprietary binary packages, then there’s clearly an issue of communication in the partnership.

15

This is the “soapbox” thread, right? So here’s my opinion. You’re getting a complex product for free. Why not accept a few rough edges, especially when you have a free forum of people willing to help you out? Where else do you get so much? At the airline counter? Concert ticket office?

Thank you forum!

16

You have drivers - open source Radeon and Nouveau, you just didn’t have proprietary, here it comes, 3rd party drivers.

AMD and nVidia both have release dates which they can look at, compile and prepare the drivers beforehand in their repositories. The “GM” is always ready a few weeks before public release so that repositories and maintainers can prepare for it.

17

On 2014-09-03, Miuku <Miuku@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
>
> flymail;2662401 Wrote:
>> For an operating system to be released without even the most basic
>> necessities, such as graphics drivers, ready is just farcical.
> You have drivers - open source Radeon and Nouveau, you just didn’t have
> proprietary, here it comes, 3rd party drivers.

I see your point, but generally the 3rd party drivers are flaky, and often not fit for purpose in many uses (e.g.
often failing for multiple screens). Obviously openSUSE cannot provide the proprietary drivers out of the box. However,
my suggestion is merely that openSUSE could be a bit more pro-active in engaging the relevant parties (AMD is sponsor
for goodness sake!) prior to full releases. I’m slightly surprised that my suggestion has been met with such tenacious
resistence from the community here.

18

Probably because the community has little to nothing to do with this. You should complain to nVidia and AMD, there’s likely nothing we can do about it. No offence intended…

19

We’ve actually asked for a permission to package the drivers ourself and host them on OBS. The answer was simple and plain “no”.

I was told that any driver I put up on the OBS will be deleted, no questions asked.

20

On 2014-09-03 13:16, Miuku wrote:
>
> flymail;2662401 Wrote:
>> For an operating system to be released without even the most basic
>> necessities, such as graphics drivers, ready is just farcical.
> You have drivers - open source Radeon and Nouveau, you just didn’t have
> proprietary, here it comes, 3rd party drivers.
>
> AMD and nVidia both have release dates which they can look at, compile
> and prepare the drivers beforehand in their repositories. The “GM” is
> always ready a few weeks before public release so that repositories and
> maintainers can prepare for it.

No, at least on the case of NVidia, they do not prepare “repositories”.
They don’t create any driver rpm. They just create the .run file which
you are to install “the hard way”, and it is prepared by timing of their
choosing, the same file for all distributions IIRC.

What they probably do, is /after/ a distribution makes a release, and if
the driver (the hard way driver, mind) does not work with that release,
and people report to them, they will, hopefully, provide another driver
in due time.

They do not create, nor accept reports for, the rpm drivers of “the easy
way”. Not their problem at all.

Please, let us put each blame where it is due :slight_smile:

–
Cheers / Saludos,

Carlos E. R.
(from 13.1 x86_64 “Bottle” at Telcontar)