Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

ubuntu vs opensuse

Filed under

I was glancing through the top searches for my site and noticed one string I thought I'd try to answer it. That search was openSUSE vs Ubuntu. Now, I've avoided formally comparing Ubuntu to other distros such as openSUSE or Mandriva before because in my book it's like comparing apples to oranges, but for the sake of those searching, I will try.

Downloading and Installing:

The first difference that presents itself is the choice of downloads. Ubuntu comes in a one installable live CD or alternatively, a one CD installer. OpenSUSE comes first in a five CD or one DVD installer. They also offer a one CD installable system as well in either a GNOME or KDE flavor. Of course, Ubuntu is the only one who will send you a CD for free.

OpenSUSE's installer is a refined graphical installer with lots of user choices. It can be a quick easy install or more advanced if so needed usually by clicking further options. It includes desktop and package selection, setting up root password, net connection, other hardware configuration, boot loader, and a user account. Ubuntu's installer is becoming more and more polished, but it's a one size fits all install. No package selection or root password, but it does walk the user through basic settings such as a user account and boot loader. As all Linux, both require an install and swap partitions and give the user the means during install to make them if needed. OpenSUSE's installer is much more powerful, but both get the job done.

The Desktops:

Ubuntu's desktop is what appears to me to be a slightly customized for aesthetics but otherwise basic GNOME. OpenSUSE gives the user a choice as to which desktop to use: KDE, GNOME, or one of several other popular lighter solutions. OpenSUSE customizes their KDE and GNOME desktops quite a bit. First for aesthetics but also for things which developers feel will enhance the desktop experience such as Kickoff menus, integrated search, extra applets. OpenSUSE has far more polish and professional appearance.

The topic of eye candy, curb appeal, or default look is a bit fluid as it is one of easiest areas to customize and completely change. Ubuntu seems to prefer earthtones with an emphasis on browns whereas openSUSE tends toward greens. Both offer customized wallpapers and color schemes and openSUSE had their own window decoration. Both seem customize application splashes as well as boot screens, system startup splashes, and desktop splashes. In this area it's mainly a matter of personal choice.

The latest release of Ubuntu is suppose to offer advanced desktop effects with compiz fusion out of the box for supported graphic cards whereas openSUSE still needs to be activated.

Included and Installing Apps:

Default set of applications depends on which of the openSUSE images chosen. Comparing the 4 gig DVD to Ubuntu's one Live CD will go as you might expect - openSUSE provides much more. But even so, you don't really get much with Ubuntu by default. There's one browser, one email application, an instant messenger, a music player, a movie player, a CD burner, OpenOffice, and the GIMP for image manipulation.

Fortunately, Ubuntu does have a repository with lots more software available for easy installation. Ubuntu comes with a quick Add/Remove Software tool that even has user ratings for listed software. There is also Synaptic available which is a bit more powerful. Ubuntu comes with software repositories already available for use. openSUSE had their software manager as well. It's a complicated program for installing and removing software and updates. New Linux users may find Ubuntu's more simplified interface easier to use. Both come with an update manager and both seem to work equally well.

In the area of system monitoring and configuration tools, openSUSE definitely has Ubuntu beat. Ubuntu comes with the GNOME preferences modules and a few other hardware configurations such as a network connection tool. I've found it to be iffy at best and usually inoperative. openSUSE has a wide variety of tools for many purposes as well as skill and outcome levels. New Linux users may not need all the functionality provided by openSUSE, but for those wishing for powerful advanced configuration tools will want openSUSE.

Both in their latest releases offer easy installation of some multimedia codecs. On both desktops if a codec is needed a pop up opens to help the user install them. Ubuntu comes with a Restricted Drivers application that will download and install proprietary graphics or wireless drivers. openSUSE has their One-Click install of these as well, although you will have to visit their site to get started. I think Ubuntu's Restricted Manager is a bit more convenient being available from within the menu system as opposed to browsing the openSUSE website for the One-Click applications although openSUSE offers more choice once you get there. Neither have enough codecs for every multimedia format at the time of this writing.


Under the hood Ubuntu is based on Debian Linux, a distro with a long history and a solid reputation for stability. As such, Ubuntu utilizes APT for package management although all their applications have been rebuilt and optimized to work within the Ubuntu framework. openSUSE isn't really based on anything else, unless you'd like to say it's based on the enterprise system SuSE Linux. Many moons ago, SuSE Linux was based on Slackware Linux, another distro with a long distinguished history and reputation for stability. But I don't think you'd find too much of those roots left today. Ubuntu has been around for about three years now and openSUSE has been in development, if by different names and owned by other parent companies, since about 1994.

Hardware Support:

Most hardware support comes from the Linux kernel, and these days the Linux kernel supports just about everything in a normal pc or laptop. However, there are still aspects of the userspace environment that can effect hardware support. Two big culprits are powersaving and ethernet, and perhaps on a lesser scale sound and graphics.

I've never had a problem getting any kind of internet connection out of openSUSE, but I've had more failure than success in this area from Ubuntu, especially wireless. In the latest releases of both of these distros, I've had some difficulty with suspend/hibernate.

So, basically in today's Linux world with the advanced capabilities in the kernel and userspace detection and auto-configuration, most all Linux distributions handle hardware very well. However, I've found that openSUSE's userspace support is a bit better.

Bottom Line:

So really the big basic difference is that Ubuntu is a simplified cookie cutter distribution designed to not overwhelm the new user with choice. openSUSE on the other hand is the polar opposite offering choices for every aspect of Linux computing. openSUSE is very scalable and it can be as easy or advanced as one needs. You could install openSUSE on a dozen machines and none be the same if that was your wish, whereas install Ubuntu on a dozen machines and it would be exactly alike except some might not be able to connect to the internet.

As stated at the beginning, there really isn't much of a comparison between these two distros as they are so vastly different in target audience, capabilities, and philosophies. If you are a brand new Linux user perhaps you should get your feet wet with Ubuntu as openSUSE might seem a bit overwhelming. After a coupla weeks and you begin to feel claustrophobic, then branch out to try openSUSE. If you have any Linux or advanced Windows experience, then you might prefer the functionality found in openSUSE.

openSuSE and the cookie cutter distribution ..

I've used both and while openSuSE does provide a lot more on the DVD, it does so at the cost of complexity, for instance out of the box, to add the missing bits, it requires disabling zen and enabling the smart package manager, then manually adding third party repositeries that may or may not work.

Getting third party apps to compile seems to be a bit of a headache, mpeg4ip requires lame which requires mp3 which requires etc. I'm not saying Ubuntu wouldn't suffer the same fate but once you exit the safe habour of Yast, you're on your own .. Smile

To add the extra bits in Ubuntu all it took was firing up Synaptic Package Manager and enabling repositeries. Simplicity of use doesn't necessarly mean simplicity under the hood. As a desktop I would use Ubuntu while reserving openSuSE for the backend. What more does the average user want from a desktop than a browser, email, IM, Music player, Movie player, CD burner, OpenOffice and image manipulation. Anything bigger and you need to run it on a server.

Finally I find there is a lot more online support for Ubuntu than openSuSE that and it isn't encumbered with any licensing nonsence makes it a prime choice for me.

opsuse and complexity

"I've used both and while openSuSE does provide a lot more on the DVD, it does so at the cost of complexity, for instance out of the box, to add the missing bits, it requires disabling zen and enabling the smart package manager, then manually adding third party repositeries that may or may not work."

Actually that was only with opensuse 10.1, dunno about Zen problem... I personally have never has that issue. I will agree, 10.1 was a headache which I still remember. as for complexity - I guess it depends, I found Ubuntu far more complex. Either way the 10.1 issues were fixed with updates. On to opensuse 10.3 . . .

Today with openSuSE 10.3, open yast; select software; select community repositories, and just click on the repos you want to add - and walla. All the updates you need without having to install 3rd party package managers. Also now with the one click install offered - opensuse is very flexible. I also do have smart and synaptic installed on this 10.3 machine. They all work very well.... just add packman, listed on the yast repositories website - and in yast Community Repositories already... apt appears to still be in beta at this time for 10.3.

Personally I am really liking the way 10.3 is headed - but I do still have some issues (everything will have its issues).

If you are going to run Wireless... make sure you can get your machine to an rj45 jack, or just download the DVD if you are unsure if you must compile a driver. I have not tried the gnome CD install, but on the KDE CD, there is no make or gcc. So while I had my wireless drivers - I was stuck. DVD includes those and I was able to compile. We all have our wireless issues in Linux... I hope they reconsider putting make on the CD in the future. However - ndiswrapper works perfectly (should I say - as perfect as ndiswrapper can work). Once compiled - or ndiswrapped; yast makes wireless pretty darn easy. My one desktop, it's rt2500 was set up automatically, and my laptops broadcom 4306 was a brease with ndiswrapper. This desktops rt2561 card I had to compile the serialmonkey drivers - I used the DVD, the other two I used the KDE CD install.

How I see it is this, Both have communities and large repos. I prefer opensuse mainly bacause I have a real root account - which is my preference. I also enjoy having all the init levels as a posix standard(1 thru 5, with 6 being reboot, yadda yadda yadda). So.. try both if you can, see which you prefer. Both "flavors" are a good choice, and have their fans. I know we will hopefully see the good points of each distro listed. I know both offer much more than what has been discussed thus far.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More in Tux Machines

Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora and elementary OS All Patched Against WPA2 KRACK Bug

As you are aware, there's a major WPA2 (Wi-Fi Protected Access II) security vulnerability in the wild, affecting virtually any device or operating system that uses the security protocol, including all GNU/Linux distributions. Read more

Pixel 2 and 2 XL review—The best Android phone you can buy

Welcome to year two of Google Hardware. In 2016, Google jumped into the Android hardware space with its first self-branded device, the Google Pixel. Google's software prowess shined on the Pixel 1, offering up exclusive features like the Google Assistant, the best Android camera thanks to advanced software processing, fast day-one OS updates and betas, and the smoothest, best-performing overall build of Android. The killer software package made it the best Android phone of the previous generation. The Pixel still represented Google's first foray into smartphone hardware, though, and it didn't offer anything special in the hardware department. It was a bland-looking iPhone clone. It had the same specs and basic design as everything else. The Pixel even skipped water resistance, which had become an expected feature at that price point. Google said it wanted to make its own hardware, but it didn't actually build special hardware. Read more

6 Best Open Source Alternatives to Microsoft Office for Linux

Looking for Microsoft Office in Linux? Here are the best free and open source alternatives to Microsoft Office for Linux. Read more

Today in Techrights