What's New in SUSE Linux 10.1

The testing of SUSE Linux 10.1 is in the final stages. Following the recent release of its second beta, three more development releases are scheduled to appear over the next three weeks before the new version is declared stable. It will then be formally released - after a delay required to package the usual SUSE retail boxes and to update the printed documentation. This means that, barring some last minute package upgrades and bug fixes, the latest SUSE beta is close to what the final release will look like. So what can we look forward to in March? And how does the result of this intensive development process compare with the upcoming Fedora Core 5, due for release at roughly the same time as SUSE 10.1?

Having recently investigated the second test release of Fedora 5, my testing of SUSE Linux 10.1 beta2 started with a deficit on the first impressions barometer. Firstly, unlike Fedora Core, SUSE doesn't offer a DVD edition of its beta releases, so testers need to download and burn five CD images (or three if a basic installation with KDE and/or GNOME is sufficient). Yes, there are smaller delta ISOs, but these are only really useful on a SUSE installation since they require the "deltarpm" package, only available in SUSE Linux. Secondly, the Fedora developers usually produce comprehensive and well-written release notes, accessible also from within the installation program, with details about the changes and any known issues users might experience. This is especially important during beta testing in order to prevent testers from reporting known issues as bugs and to waste time discussing them on mailing lists. Yes, SUSE does provide a changelog, but it is just a dry list of package and feature updates in chronological order, while the beta2 release notes, barely a page long, mention little beyond the origin of Agama, an African lizard that gave the release its code name.

On to the installation. Unlike Anaconda in Fedora 5, the SUSE installer has been subjected to only light modifications. The first obvious one is a screen allowing the user to perform a media check to ensure that the installation CD/DVD images are not defective. The second notable change is the removal of a "default" when choosing the desktop environment. Historically, SUSE has always given clear preference to KDE over GNOME, but Novell, with its eye on the enterprise desktop and with many GNOME applications under its umbrella, wants to see the simpler interface of GNOME promoted to at least equal status. As such, the user has to make an explicit decision between GNOME and KDE (or choose a text-only or minimal graphical system). In the partitioning stage, formatting partitions with the XFS file system is no longer supported and the choice of journaling file systems is limited to ReiserFS (default) and ext3.

One of the applications frequently mentioned in SUSE's release announcements and developer blogs, even more so than in Fedora's, is NetworkManager. This is a Red Hat-initiated GNOME program that should, at least in theory, take the pain out of re-configuring networks on mobile computers that access the Internet in varied locations. On the latest SUSE release, this is not turned on by default (at least it wasn't on the desktop system I installed SUSE on), but it can be enabled during installation. In this case it will seamlessly integrate into the system trays of both the GNOME panel and KDE Kicker. Although still considered a work in progress, NetworkManager is a promising tool with a potential to beat other operating systems in ease of network re-configuration. Incidentally, an excellent article about the present status and features of this application was recently published in Red Hat Magazine.

On the desktop, in sharp contrast with Fedora Core 5, there is little evidence of any significant changes - except perhaps for the presence of the Beagle desktop search tools, which now installs by default. Naturally, most applications have been updated to their latest versions; among the major components, SUSE's second beta ships with kernel 2.6.16-rc1, X.Org 6.9, KDE 3.5.1, OpenOffice.org 2.0.1rc2, Firefox 1.5 and Apache 2.2.0. Xen has also been updated to 3.0. Interestingly, the developers have decided to stay with the stable GNOME 2.12, instead of moving on to the current beta release of 2.14 - wisely so, given the fact that SUSE 10.1 will be finalized before March 15th, the expected release date of the new GNOME. As in Fedora 5, SUSE's latest beta also includes glibc 2.3.90 and GCC 4.1.0 - both are testing versions, but both carry major enhancements that are likely to shape the development work of other distributions throughout 2006.

All in all, there isn't much new in SUSE 10.1 to get terribly excited about. Sure, there is the usual: a cutting-edge kernel, update packages and improved hardware support, but it seems that most of the work has been put into general polish of the product, rather than major feature enhancements. It is entirely possible that SUSE Linux will be used as a basis for the new versions of both SUSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES) and Novell Linux Desktop (NLD), as the current stable releases of both have now become somewhat long in the tooth.

How do Fedora 5 and SUSE 10.1 compare at this late stage of development? To tell the truth, there isn't much to justify recommending one over another. If anything, in terms of features and available packages, the two distributions have been converging - they both ship with five CDs worth of programs and both seem to copy the best features from each other (e.g. Beagle, introduced into SUSE several releases ago is now part of Fedora Core, while the Red Hat-sponsored NetworkManager is being talked up by SUSE as a major new feature). After the recent simplifications of Anaconda, Fedora is perhaps easier to install, but it still lacks a comprehensive YaST-like central administration tool. The convenience of YaST is perhaps one point that could sway certain users to SUSE. On the other hand, some might consider the presence of a modular X.Org 7.0 and familiar SELinux in Fedora an advantage over the monolithic X.Org 6.9 and less widely-used AppArmor in the latest SUSE. In the end, however, the choice of one over the other will probably come down to personal preference, rather than major differences in features or quality.

---

(Log in to post comments)