View Full Version : differences between Ub and suse?

December 31st, 2006, 04:33 AM
What are the differences between Ub and suse? Which is updated more and is superior?

December 31st, 2006, 05:15 AM
Move to Cafe.

December 31st, 2006, 06:31 AM
SUSE is a lot better then Ubuntu hands down. The only reason is YaST. I don't think I've ever used anything that's come close to how powerful that software is!

Of course, Ubuntu is basically Debian, so it's faster and more mature.

The Noble
December 31st, 2006, 06:34 AM
The main difference between suse and Ubuntu is that Ubuntu is debian based (and thus uses .deb files and apt-get) while suse is based off of Red Hat (or at least uses .rpm packages). Neither are "superior", as that is merely opinion, but you are asking the Ubuntu community and will find that to be a biased place to ask. On which is updated more: from what I have heard and seen, rpm based distros are usually updated with the most bleeding edge packages; but that is becoming a negligable advantage in this day and age.

December 31st, 2006, 07:35 AM
moving to the SUSE forum

pain of salvation
December 31st, 2006, 07:39 AM
SUSE is based on Slackware, Ubuntu is based on Debian.

openSUSE 10.2 is easier than Ubuntu, also more polished. Ubuntu has a great community.

December 31st, 2006, 07:46 AM
SUSE is a lot better then Ubuntu hands down. The only reason is YaST. I don't think I've ever used anything that's come close to how powerful that software is!

Of course, Ubuntu is basically Debian, so it's faster and more mature.

First off, YaST2 is a wonderful concept for the windows thumpers but its horrible software, and any distro that will release a stable version with a broken package manager should be slapped.

Also, the fact that Ubuntu is Debian based doesn't make it more mature because SuSE is actually older than debian, only slightly, but it is in fact still older and to most, age is synonymous with maturity.

Then again .... debian has proven to be the mother of all distros, distrowatch did a count out of how many distros exist that are derived from debian, the number derived from redhat, from slackware, etc. and I think debian accounts for roughly 80-85% of all distributions of linux in existence. (if i remember correctly)

but a real run down of suse vs. debian? ... well the package management difference has already been pointed out but then there is also the difference in gnome and kde customizations in suse along with all the novell backing that is contributed, both have their strong points and their weaknesses but in the end, you should use what you like ... try them both if you are unsure ... spend about a week with each and make a choice.

January 2nd, 2007, 03:59 AM
I'm not sure why anyone would describe Yast as horrible software. A few (genuine and accurate, not anedotal) examples of its horribleness should be given to justify a comment like this or it is meaningless. Yast seems like amazing software to me ;) and is one of the major strengths of the distro. In terms of difference Yast is imo a huge positive difference from the debian based distros, and most others too. Maybe it's the most powerful config tool of any OS, I'm not sure, but I can't see any real objection to a single system config tool which actually works. The fact that MS tries to do something similar, but less ambitious with Control Centre (and doesn't really suceed) doesn't mean it's a bad idea or only for "windows thumpers" whatever they are (somekind of rabbit?). Yast and a Gnome desktop gives me all the ease of use and clear simplicity of Gnome along with a config tool which works.

I think it's a very long time since you could say Suse is based onSlackware.

Other major differences between Ubuntu and Suse are the packages and managers. For package management Smart is essentially as good as Apt/Synaptic/Adept. I run Kubuntu alongside Suse (I wanted to learn more about debian based distros while I consider switching) as the one major drawback for me of rpm distros is the poor upgrade process. Only reinstall works perfectly and if you have a lot of apps from multiple sources that aren't included with the distro it's a major pain in the neck. But having seen what happened with people trying to upgrade from dapper to edgy I'm not sure this isn't the case with Ubuntu too......which leaves the automatic updater notification of Apt/Adept/Synaptic as the only real advantage over Suse 10.1 and this functionality is ok in 10.2....and also makes me think that the Debian 4 will be a more realistic alternative than Ubuntu for some.

Other differences that have made a difference to me: slightly different range of packages/versions available sometimes, though this is very minor issue as the source is always available. I find that Suse has a greater variety of 3rd party packagers out there....I might be wrong on this of course, just how it seemed to me.

Ubuntu forums are bigger and busier but sometimes it's a case of "never mind the quality feel the width". There are a couple of really first class non-Novell Suse boards where the quality of advice is outstanding, though there's a lot less smalltalk type stuff than here.

I haven't found any real difference in speed or resource use between Suse and debian and Ubuntu. Hardware recognition is also pretty much identical (Ubuntu and Suse installers being better than debian). After all these distros are using similar kernels, desktop environments and managers, applications, drivers etc.....I'm extremely suspicious of people who find big speed differences aparently caused by nothing more than the distro's name and logo :-k

To see a real difference in speed I think you have to abandon Gnome and KDE.

edit: package managers: apt is much, much easier to set up than Smart, though once Smart is configured it's great. The new package management in Suse 10.2 is extremely good. Implementation of Zen in 10.1 was horribly broken and all negative comments directed at Novell were thoroughly deserved :)

January 5th, 2007, 06:24 AM
We should really concentrate on what is similar in the two. We use a lot of the same software and therefore are both part of the same machine. Neither distros would exist in their current form if it wasn't for users from other distros. We all learn from each other, share the same code and use a lot of the same software.

-Open source programs developed by Suse users can easily be brought over to Ubuntu

January 6th, 2007, 07:32 AM
We should really concentrate on what is similar in the two.

The OP asked:

What are the differences between Ub and suse? Which is updated more and is superior?

maybe we should concentrate on the differences?

Anyway I'd like to point out one more difference :D


There are many more mirrors for Debian and derivatives than for Suse. I'm in Bangkok, Thailand. International bandwidth here is not great, particularly to Europe and USA and even more particularly after something like the recent earthquake near Taiwan which killed the 6 cross Pacific data cables. Updating anything for Suse became actually impossible. The nearest Suse mirrors are in Korea and Taiwan and Japan and the speeds can be slow, though sometimes the Korean mirrors are good.....and the Asian mirrors are anyway not always complete. And then there's the fact that almost all the 3rd party Suse repos are in Europe.....totally inaccessible sometimes and rarely great speed. But Debian seems to be mirrored everywhere and chances are that wherever you live you can get what you need/want very very fast. While I was unable to update Suse for an entire week, one friend downloaded the latest Ubuntu iso in 45 minutes and when I changed a few things on my Kubuntu partition I had high speed access to all the debs I needed.

John T. Monkey
January 9th, 2007, 10:43 PM
I always found SUSE more polished than Ubuntu, More visual effects on the desktop and the boot loader and splash screens and such are more colourful and pretty (Edgy is catching up though with splash screens?) and you get more working out of the box on SUSE.

I would argue that Ubuntu is easier to use than SUSE. It's easier to install the things that don't work out of the box (e.g. wma and encrypted dvd, nightmares to set up in SUSE but very, very easy in Ubuntu).

I also found that SUSE was quite bloated and the default install has 3 or 4 programs that do the same thing, which was really good for me when I was a new user because it let me try different things and pick out my favourites. Ubuntu is much more streamlined and efficient there, which I prefer at the minute. But again it's easier to install the other things if you want them.

That was a rant...