Linux

6127 readers

418 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system

Also check out:

Original icon base courtesy of [email protected] and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Why openSUSE? (reddthat.com)

submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

43 comments fedilink hide all child comments

First, let me be clear up front that I'm not promoting the idea that there should be one "universal" Linux distro. With all the various distros out there for consumers, there's lots of discussion about Arch, Debian, and Fedora (and their various descendant projects), but I rarely see much talk about openSUSE.

Why might somebody choose that one over the others? What features or vision distinguishes it from the others?

Edit: I love all the answers! Great stuff. Thanks to everyone!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 38 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (10 children)

There are a bunch of software-related reasons why openSUSE is a good choice (snapper, zypper, yast, to name a few), although few are exclusive to openSUSE. I think the primary selling point of openSUSE (Tumbleweed) is that it is a rolling release distro that never crashes, never requires attention, and just works. One of the reasons people don't talk about it is probably that it is boring. All packages are tested extensively. It never breaks. And even if it did break, the default btrfs file system and snapper ensure that the system doesn't stay broken for longer than it takes to reboot.

If you want a distro that is up to date, easy to use, and dependable, openSUSE is a fantastic choice. It's just not very exciting to have something that never requires attention; a lot of people use Linux because they like things requiring attention.

As an afterthought, I also think the fact that openSUSE and its users seem to be pathologically unable to create any logo or symbol for anything even tangentially related to the distribution that doesn't look like absolute shit might be holding them back.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (3 children)

and broken btrfs systems don't stay broken for longer than it takes to reboot

Not true. Fedora and others use BTRFS too and just dont deal with snapshots at all.

I dont care about traditional Fedora but that is pretty bad. TW is way better here.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I still find it quite baffling that for a distro that pitches itself as an everyday Linux distro for newer and intermediate users, Fedora doesn't come with snapshots preconfigured out of the box or any obvious way of handling a system restore.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

Yes traditional Fedora is useless in that regard. Their offline updates also dont really work reliably.

Rpm-ostree ("Fedora Atomic Desktops") Fedora meanwhile is really really nice.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)