>Hi Jerry,
>
>I wouldn't have spent the time looking at SuSE 8.0 if it were not for your descriptions of it over the last few weeks.
>
>I picked up a copy of 8.0 this weekend and installed it. It was quite easy to install and it DOES have a nice look. In fact, I think it has a better look (graphically) than RH 7.3 (I picked up that one too). I don't know if it handles font display better or if it has better control over video in general, but it looked more refined, more precise ... just "sharper" somehow.
>
>Now the big decision. uhmm... Which one do I use? Or maybe I'll use both (on two different machines of course).
>
>Guy

Oh, I forgot my rant.... ;-)

Red Hat's lead in the USA is due entirely to their marketing, not the quality of their distro.

The majority of RH installations are as servers. Folks who try to use it as a workstation distro are generally disappointed (without getting into desktop wars, RH favored GNOME for a long time, and GNOME is not/will never be as advanced as KDE). I began my Linux experience with RH 5.0 and the very next upgrade, 5.1 was so bad that I tried some others before discovering SuSE. Later, just to see how things were progressing, I purchased RH 6 and began installing it on my son's PC. Half way through the install I canceled. It felt like I was leaping back two years. Even later, I looked at a subsequent release and decided against installing it. To me, it is sad how many folks have views/experiences of Linux that are ... tainted... by their experience with RH. More than once I've encountered newbie Linux users saying they were disappointed with Linux. When I asked them which distro they were using 99% of them stated "RH". After trying one of several other distros many were shocked by the difference.

RH is slowing improving on the the desktop scene, but it is nowhere near the quality of SuSE 8, Mandrake 8.2, Debian, FreeBSD or some lesser known distros.
JLK