It was a better desktop than redhat, but not too different (rpm based)
it was more dependable than mandrake which had some nasty eat your data bugs when it was built with a buggy compiler
like mandrake, it used kde primarily (not a second class citizen like in redhat)
it was comprehensive (loads of packages)
it was pragmatic (packaging some useful nonoss stuff)
and they packaged and were a key user of the project that I was the lead of at the time (although other distros picked it up). It was a nice ego boost to be able to go to the local store and buy a box with your own name in it :)
I think some of those qualities should persist.
High quality
comprehensive
desktop and server (in that order)
kde
works well with foreign repositories (non OSS)
Posted Sep 16, 2010 22:38 UTC (Thu) by vblum (guest, #1151)
[Link]
"High quality
comprehensive
desktop and server (in that order)
kde
works well with foreign repositories (non OSS)"
I absolutely agree. That is why I use Suse.
Not much need to look for a new strategy. Focus on quality. It may just be that the real goal, being the highest quality desktop (and server) distribution is hard and a lot of work, and comparatively thankless. But probably the reasons above are why Suse has a userbase.
An update on openSUSE's strategy search
Posted Sep 19, 2010 8:13 UTC (Sun) by thoeme (subscriber, #2871)
[Link]
Seconded.
I stopped compiling my own kernels at the beginning of 2.6 and stopped playing with my (home and work) Linux desktops around the same time.
Since then I want a distribution which "just works" on my (moderate) hardware, is polished enough regarding management tools (I really got hooked to Yast) and runs reliably and stable...and not to forget keeps updates flowing.
(open)SuSE has given me that for now more than 10 years, so why should I change ?