Submitted by “Sometimes, a service pack comes along that really makes a big difference. Take NT. Before SP3, it was garbage; afterwards Microsoft had its first server operating system that was worth anything. XP before SP2 was so-so, but after SP2, it became Microsoft’s best desktop operating system ever (sorry, Vista). And, now, with its SP1 for SLED (SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop), Novell has given an already excellent business desktop a real kick in the pants.”
Am I the only one that think this Microsoft naming scheme is a pitiful addon to what was once a good GNU/Linux distribution ? Service pack ? Buah … is this the best that Microsoft – Novell agreement is going to bring us ? Good, another reason to avoid GNU/Linux distributions that sign agreements with Microsoft. My two cents.
I think the naming scheme mainly comes from the fact that SLED is aimed at the enterprise market, who are used to the phrase Service Pack.
I think SLED is a great distro, very stable very polished, i haven’t downloaded SP1 for my test machine yet but i will.
As opposed to linux kernel 2.6.22-rc7-git3, glibc-2.0.1.bin.m68k-linux or apache_2.2.4-win32-x86-no_ssl?
I can see it now at the weekly change meetings for an enterprise.. “We want to upgrade to apache 2.2.4 x86 win32 no ssl”.
Or.. “We want to upgrade to SUSE Service Pack 1”.
Please.. the naming convention of Linux releases is a language of its own.
Edited 2007-07-04 08:22
“Please.. the naming convention of Linux releases is a language of its own. ”
The funniest thing is that we all are really able to understand that naming convention as if it was plain old English.
For what it’s worth, I agree with your comments.
As an aside, it appears that the mod trolls are out in force – again, this is why modding needs to be monitored, and those that abuse it punished by having the ability to mod removed from their accounts. This post did not include any spam or advertising, it did not include any personal attacks and it wasn’t off topic. Do some of you guys actually read the rules?
Dave
PS This reply is technically off topic, I can live with getting moderated down, I’d rather speak my mind and say it as it is and get modded down than be bullied into keeping my trap shut.
Am I the only one that think this Microsoft naming scheme is a pitiful addon to what was once a good GNU/Linux distribution ? Service pack ? Buah … is this the best that Microsoft – Novell agreement is going to bring us ? Good, another reason to avoid GNU/Linux distributions that sign agreements with Microsoft. My two cents.
Of all the trolls I’ve read related to the Novell/Microsoft deal this must be one of the worst. Can you give any reason why using the term “service pack” is bad for Linux? Because Microsoft uses it? Come on!
Microsoft where the first to name their OS after the year it was released (95, 2000 etc.) Perhaps we should ditch Mandriva, gentoo and every other distros that does the same also?
>Of all the trolls I’ve read related to the
>Novell/Microsoft deal this must be one of the worst.
Of all the responses to supposed trolls I’ve read related to the Novell/Microsoft deal this must be one of the worst.
>Can you give any reason why using the term “service
>pack” is bad for Linux? Because Microsoft uses it?
>Come on!
Yes, I can (and I could do it far easily in my native language, but I’ll try anyway), but remember that above all, it is my self and only opinion, and by itself can’t be right or wrong, and of course it is not trollish at all. I’d be too careful when doing business with Microsoft (there are some companies that can testify … ask IBM), and I’d avoid every single term that could give the impression that my company is following the Microsoft master plans for the Universe.
After all, the term service pack is rather new to me in the GNU/Linux world, isn’t it for you ? I’ve applied patches or updates for years, but not till now a service pack … incidentally, it is Novell the company that uses that term. Feel free to disagree, but it smells bad for me.
>Microsoft where the first to name their OS after the
>year it was released (95, 2000 etc.) Perhaps we should
>ditch Mandriva, gentoo and every other distros that
>does the same also?
I did not like the name Slackware 96 then, and I do not like similar ones now, and just for that reason. You can ditch whatever you want, of course I’ll do the same myself. Perhaps we should name the GNU/Linux distributions following Microsoft naming schemas ? May be we have Oido, Olfato, Tacto and Gusto GNU/Linux distributions ? Come on !
Agreed it would be more appropiate to call it maintenance set or similar.
Since the vast majority of people in the world use windows, it makes sense that certain practices of theirs have entered common language. Since SLED is actually aimed at real world business, doesn’t it make sense to use terminology that they are familiar with?
IMHO, going with SLED 10.1 would make the most sense from a geeky point of view, but I can definitely understand why Novell is catering to their paying customers with this.
On the other hand, what doesn’t make sense is all the distros jumping on board with the naming by year thing. If you are going to copy MS thats fine, but do it in a place where they are at least consistent. Name by year is only used as a marketing tool, they have proven the names they give their OS are pretty much completely arbitrary. To this day, I still run into people who use windows 2000 and windows ME interchangeably. IMHO, geek operating systems should be a bit above that silliness, and should stick to version numbers that actually tell you something.
Edited 2007-07-04 16:42
I get your point, but I’d like to clarify that what you’re calling “real world business” would be rather called “Microsoft world business” in my opinion.
There have been, there are and I hope there will be real business without Microsoft. So there is no need to follow a Microsoft directed naming fashion. I mean, are HP/UX, AIX, Solaris or GNU/Linux less prepared for real business than Microsoft products ?
I trust that the person responsible for choosing among the available tools for doing a certain task would go further than the name when taking a decision, in fact, it has been so where I’ve worked till now.
Novell has been shipping Service Packs for it’s products since the early 90’s at least– Long before Microsoft.
Of course, I’m sure that if you write them politely and explain that they’re just copying Microsoft, that they’ll be more than willing to change their policy.
Especially if you have a suggestion for a better name.
Here. Have your two cents back. I don’t think you can spare them.
Windows OSes have, lately, not been too bad in the interop department. Not stellar, but not terrible. As long as you stay on the same platform (Win32, essentially), things run pretty smoothly (Vista, I’m ignoring you).
A sedan, if you will.
Linux, *nix and *BSD are all very good at interop and tend to adhere strictly to agreed-upon standards. Light, fast and stable, they’re very good in even heterogeneous environments.
They are the sports cars.
SLED seems to me to be the worst of both worlds. Forced to exist as a sort of awkward bridge between the Unix way and the Microsoft way, it’s the utility van of operating systems. Everything seems to exist in duplicate (or triplicate), but it all does essentially the same thing, just in incompatible ways. It seems an uncomfortable fit and, while pretty, doesn’t appear to accomplish much.
It seems as if a business would be better off marrying themselves to one platform than trying to apply SLED like so much duct tape.
But then again, I’m not a CIO, so I don’t know what kind of magic pixie dust attracts those guys to make big software purchases.
Most business are married to one platform–Windows.
I think the corporate arena needs that transition time where both worlds collide on one desktop. They can’t just rip out all their MS products and put in Linux overnight.
Besides, if you stick to the Novell-recommend way of operating their software, you should be in the clear (as with any OS).
Besides, this thing runs great on existing hardware. It’s certainly worth evaluating versus buying everything new to run Vista. If you have just desk worker people, $50 a seat for everything sounds pretty good.
-m
I’m sorry, but isn’t that a contradiction?
It’s a perfect, perhaps unintentionally, example of how MS uses the term “interoperability”…
It is not the car analogy that concerns me, it is the lack of concise references.
Your post claims that “SLED seems to me to be the worst of both worlds. Forced to exist as a sort of awkward bridge between the Unix way and the Microsoft way, it’s the utility van of operating systems. Everything seems to exist in duplicate (or triplicate), but it all does essentially the same thing, just in incompatible ways. It seems an uncomfortable fit and, while pretty, doesn’t appear to accomplish much. ”
Our company, and also several of my colleagues privately rely on SLED and OpenSUSE for our daily work – in a combined Windows/SLED/OpenSuse environment. I fail to see exactly how this socalled ‘utility van’ malfunctions or doesn’t fulfill its purpose? I even fail to see that it is a ‘utility van’. From my view, SLED and OpenSUSE (yes, I’m aware there are differences between the two) clearly represents a hybrid : Powered by electricity its blazingly fast (not in the Dell way), and can still run on fuel whenever it is necessary to commute or communicate with the ‘old world’.
I personally have extensive experience with RHEL and other Linux’es and I just don’t understand what it is about SLED that you claim is the ‘worst of both worlds’. So – please enlighten us.
Cars?
BSD – Land Rover, great for pulling cattle out of ditches (this is not a criticism – I live in a farming area).
Linux – a Range Rover, still does the heavy lifting, but more comfortable.
Mac – BMW, elegant. smooth, comfortable, a bit pricey.
Windows (2000 and XP) – Family saloon, easy to buy and use, most garages can service it.
Windows Vista – You may never have seen these cars, but they do exist. It’s an old VW with an imitation Porsche body on it. Good-looking (at first glance) but slow, unsafe (old VW brakes and chassis), gas-guzzling and overpriced. (I can’t remember the maker’s name, but I never wanted one. They weren’t on the market for long.)
I like the car analogies, they’re funny. I never thought of an OS that way before. You can do these forever.
I’ve alwasy thought of Linux as a Honda civic. Extremely easy to mod due to an active community that create mod parts for the car. Good performance, pretty good gas mileage and it can be pretty good looking if modded right.
Edited 2007-07-04 12:40
That’s not bad, except that the Honda Civic is (arguably if you’re a Toyota fan) the most popular compact car in many countries. But then, I’ve never liked car::computer analogies anyway. As a hobbyist car mechanic and a full-time geek, I can see the similarities but the differences far outweigh them.
Then again, cars are more and more becoming as complicated electronically as computers. Indeed, some of the better European sedans and SUVs have three or even four separate computer systems in them (emissions control, climate control, entertainment/navigation, drivetrain/powertrain management).
Let me give you mine:
Linux – Honda Civic – Cheap, Reliable, No fancy features.
Windows XP – Toyota Camry – A little expensive, Reliable, Overall very comfortable and feature rich.
MAC – BMW I agree
Vista – Toyota Camry underneath with a Rolls Royce looks and safety features of Merc.
crazydude…
is your bank account littered with payments from MS and Apple…
Based on what evidence? people who have *NEVER* actually *USED* the operating systems spouting views gained from the grape vine rather than actually any real world experience.
I’m running Windows Vista right now, would I purchase it as a stand alone boxed product? probably not, if I was happy with Windows XP – but would I kick up a protest if it came pre-installed on my machine (which it has, its Windows Vista Business Edition), I’d be quite happy to continue running it.
Stop the lying and look at the reality – just because Dell is having a crappy time getting their act together, doesn’t mean that the whole IT industry is suffering because of Windows Vista – look at HP sales for instance since Windows Vista’s launch, for example. Its not all black and white.
Vista – I’ve used it. Never Again. So don’t criticise from a position of ignorance about me.
I doubt it big time. I’ve seen people like you make claims – then come back with their tail between their legs admiting they never used it, and the only experience was with their mates woefully underpowered computer.
If you’re going to run around promoting you ‘alternative’ how about addressing issues which stop end users from migrating – the lack of MiniDisc support, the lack of mainstream desktop applications from big name vendors, the woweful lack of hardware support due to Linus’s stubborness in regards to a stable driver API/ABI.
OMG – MiniDisc not supported?! I should have noticed that so long ago, but could care the f*%$ less about a Sony propriety disk format. Surely you should have a real reason to use Vista over Linux if you’re going to criticize others. Vista is the worst pos modern gui to hit the market. It was a major step backwards for the end user. You shouldn’t have to resort to classic look and feel every new Microsoft OS. Seriously, they should sell the gui enhancements as addons and leave the classic as the default.
I am not sure I got it right. For whom? for what?
The contenders are:
Novell?
Suse?
The user?
I have my own idea, but maybe I am wrong.
Who cares? Novell is evil
Not necessarily evil; I think the consensus in the F/OSS world is that they jumped the gun and covered their collective ass before considering whether they should have at all. That’s not evil, just dumb. Evil would be colluding with Microsoft to sully the good reputation of the Linux kernel and the community surrounding it (SCO, I’m looking at you).
From reading this artical the greatest improvement in this service appears to be an openoffice update…
hardly as far reaching as xp sp2 was for example
… and so it must be true – omg.
Follow the link and see what it actually is about:
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS8817137323.html
or visit Novell directly. Only because you ignore the changes does not mean they are not there – and this even gets modded up, wow. It is called “service pack” for a reason, not “OpenOffice-patch”.
I don’t think it fitted in any of the categories that deserve a -1 apart from disagreeing with its content which basically summarized my thought that SLED is getting worse than it used to be. Using “service packs” in GNU/Linux is good ? I think no, I think this only is good for Microsoft and I don’t think it will help to migrate from Windows to GNU/Linux in the corporate world. Again my two cents, and sorry about my English.
Let me help you out on that here.
It might just have had something to do with the fact that you’re bringing up that particular deal between those two particular companies, which is being brought up to the table any time anything remotely Suse is being discussed, to the annoyance of quite a lot of regular visitors of this website.
FYI, the words “Service Pack” are indeed used by MS too, however, it’s plain English (well, from a business point of view), it’s something people understand, and BTW SuSE has had retail “SuSE Linux Professional” boxes for years prior to the Novell acquisition. Which sounds rather MS’ish to me too.
Doesn’t mean you can’t discuss “interoperability”, but not based on something as shallow as a silly name.
Thanks, it was not at all my intention to annoy anyone. I’ll try to be more careful next times … may be anyway that the modding down reasons should be revised, just my sincere opinion. Even when I agree to your post, I keep on thinking the modding down reasons does not adjust to what my first post told.
You should say your opinion regardless of are you going to be modded up or down. Every opinion contributes because it adds a piece to a big picture. Computers, software are supposed to serve people, help them with their needs, and feedback is an indication how far have they made.
100% agreed … just my feedback is lost if the moderation goes below -1 hehe, from -1 up it is okay for me.
It is not lost if visitors are keeping browsing score low enough. And I think they should. We are all in a very, very sorry state if one is supposed to express the opinion only when it is liked by community.
If one cares only for opinion that she/he likes, that is ok, but then there is no point taking part in discussion.
er… wouldn’t “update” be plain English? “Service Pack” means nothing to me without having already been familiarized with the term by Microsoft.
You are right, actually.
yes, but as someone already mention: It seems that Novell has used the term “Service Pack” even before that their agreement with MS.
http://support.novell.com/linux/psdb/Archive_Service%20Pack.htm…
Considering that almost every tech in the world is familiar with the term Service Pack, that’s why they used it, it’s familiar.
Its as plain English as you can get; when you take something in to get ‘serviced’, you take it into get repaired. Same thing with a service pack, you download a pack to service your operating system – if one were to use it as a verb.
As for ‘service pack’ being an exclusive term by Microsoft – incorrect. Many vendors referrred to their updates as service packs, or update packs or some variation. The only reason why people associate Service Packs with Microsoft is due to Microsoft pervasiveness in the IT world (most people here don’t have a clue about the IT industry before Microsoft).
I don’t agree with what you said – to claim that the use of “Service Pack” as being something exclusive to Microsoft let alone damaging a distribution, its stupidity at best.
The issue is how people ‘perceive’ what the points system is for. If you remove points for ‘off topic’ or ‘abusive’ posts, then what do the ‘add points’ do? one would assume you add points because it is post that contributes to the debate.
For me, I tend to ignore stupid comments – its not worth my time clicking down *every* moronic comment made on this forum – I’d sooner leave them for the rest of the forum to see, and have them verbally bashed to oblivion.
I don’t see any real descriptions of what this service pack provides. The most hilarious part is when the author describes working on documents located anywhere… with kio_slaves.
Dear Mr. Author. First of all, the SLED primary DE is Gnome, so this isn’t exactly relevant. Second, kio has been around for – dunno – 4 years? It’s not provided by this new service pack, it’s an already existing feature like all the other stuff you cover.
And what about comparisons with other major distros? How can this simply be “the best business desktop around, period.” without even mentioning the others?
That apart, I would like to congratulate SUSE with the menu system… which of course was present before SP1 as well.
Well, it *was* written by SJVN.
I really don’t want to bash the poor guy, but his writings have generally failed to impress us for quite some time now.
Not to mention the poor taste that is reflected by his use of terms such as “a real kick in the pants”, and of course his failure to omit the ubiquitous and boring MS-bashing. In the very first f*ing paragraph, even.
This site is getting more and more ‘Slashdot-alike’. Most posts only show that only a few people are known with the Novell Linux products.
First of all, the term ‘Service Pack’ for the SUSE enterprise product range isn’t new at all. They’ve had it for years.
Secondly, if you would take the time to actually read what is in SP1 (and not in the mentioned article), you would know that SP1 is a major upgrade for the enterprise products (SLES and SLED). And that, if you would take the time, can conclude that Novell did a fantastic job, providing one of the best Enterprise grade Linux products out there.
And pleassse, get over the Novell/MS deal. It isn’t that important.
“Fantastic job” is a relative term, and it depends a lot on what are each of our needs. SuSE was once one of my favourite distros (in fact, I bought 5.3 CD’s), but it is getting worse day after day (again, it is my only opinion) for me.
If we add to that the Novell/MS deal as you call it, I get even more unpleased, and about getting over this issue and about its importance … I’ll take RMS word for it rather than yours, nothing personal in it.
red hat calls them update 1, 2 etc ubuntu has nothing like this, new versions are supposed to allow upgrades, but that is risky. Calling it a “pack” is at least telling you it is a bundle of something unlike the Red Hat terminology.
Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/1A543a Safari/419.3
For me, the term Service Pack does not mean the same as Updates. Updates for me fix bugs and security problems but do not change versions and APIs. Service packs mean that besides fixing everything, they will also make semi-major changes to the system. So your version of Gnome, Mozilla, OpenOffice, Linux kernel, etc. might be a newer version. For me, service pack means stress test before installation. I’m guessing that SuSE has made some dramatic changes to their Enterprise Linux and that is why they call it a service pack.
“a real kick in the pants.”
Does this mean YAST is now faster… package management on SUSE has been darn slow for ages…
I wish Linux companies would not copy Windows on everything look and feel there must be better ways to “Create” Making the menu look like Vistas etc yeah ok thanks for the choice now stop copying and create something “New” and useful…
YaST is something that Novell is taking care of.Newer versions *do* run faster.
However, is this argument really an argument? For big site instals, you will use autoyast after building a baseline. For normal use: how many times a day do you really run yast? And you *do* know that you don’t need yast to do maintenance, don’t you? You eve ca use all those different packages under SUSE. SLES, SLED etc.
This kind of arguments just don’t cut it.
What Grat said basically.
Novell’s been trotting out the SP label for rev level releases for a long time. NetWare 5.1 is up to SP8, NetWare 6.5 is up to SP6. This is nothing new nor is it a way to walk lock step with Microsoft.
Edited 2007-07-04 22:41
“Everyone” seems to fall over the fact that SP1 of SLED10 is called a SP. They probably aren’t aware that Novell already called the SLES9 ones a service pack.
People who have evaluated or used SLED for some time also know hat it works pretty well in heterogenous networks.
If you judge SLED10SP<x> by the name, it only shows how shallow te thinking process is that some people have here.
Seriously, people should start talking about hecontent of the package, nt what the gut feeling says. Sometimes, it simply is dferent than what you think.
Wouldn’t SLED 10 sound better as SLED X? Cash in on the roman numeralness of OS X. Maybe even throw in the P for SLED XP. Personal editions of the 10.x versions could be called SLED ME. The 9.x versions could be SLED 9x. Really old versions could be SLED III.I.I for Workgroups. /tongue in cheek