- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
It’s become clear to many that Red Hat’s recent missteps with CentOS and the availability of RHEL source code indicate that it’s fallen from its respected place as “the open organization.” SUSE seems to be poised to benefit from Red Hat’s errors. We connect the dots.
You must log in or register to comment.
Also SUSE: OpenSUSE needs to change their name because we say so
There’s always been the risk of confusion and openSUSE project seemed to have understood that SUSE could disallow the name at any moment. A name change does make sense for both. Especially now that even Leap might be distancing itself from SLE and whatnot.
There’s always been the risk of confusion
A name change does make sense for both
Then make SUSE become ClosedSUSE. It couldn’t be easier.
A name change does make sense for both. Especially now that even Leap might be distancing itself from SLE and whatnot.
Agreed, but GeekOS or whatever it was they had on that oSC slide … Cheesus, they can do better than that.
Yeah, I get the mascot’s name is Geeko, so maybe that is where they’re getting GeekOS. But I think I read that the mascot has to go together with the name anyway.
Cheesus, they can do better than that
On recent performance, no they can’t. I mean, they had the chance to use Driftwood and went with Slowroll.
There is no “current proposal” at this point.
What about the proposal to just drop the name openSUSE with no replacement? And let each distro just be called Tumbleweed, Leap, Aeon, etc.
I should call it Bella Linux
PS: in reference to my MC in Zenless Zone Zero
Belladeez nuts
Fukkin gottem
To be fair, OpenSUSE is the only project with a name like that, so it makes some sense that they’d want it changed.
There’s no OpenRedHat, no OpenNovell, no OpenLinspire, etc.-
OpenLinux
-
OpenUnix
-
OpenJDK
-
OpenWatcom
-
OpenWebOS
-
OpenVMS
-
OpenOffice
-
OpenTF, briefly.
I think OpenNovell was a thing too.
Thing is, ‘Open-’ was the prefix for a LOT of derivations about 20 years ago. I’m surprised you’ve never heard of any.
Not at all what my point was. There’s indeed plenty of Open-something (or Libre-something) projects under the sun, but no free/open spins of commercial projects named simply “Open<Trademarked company name / commercial offering>”.
-
LibreLinux
This article reads like a press release from SUSE.
This seems like a PR release and has zero proof or data in the article to back itself up.
Yep. I’ve seen nothing of the sort in the wild. Still Ubuntu and RHEL/Centos/Rocky/AMZ2 in the DC almost exclusively. The only things I’ve seen making a few inroads for practical applications are CachyOS and Clear Linux.
Not to be confused with OpenSUSE…
Debian Stable.
It’s always the answer to "what distro do I want to use when I care about stability and support-ability.
As a user I wouldn’t use debian. Server yes, workstation, no.
How come? I’m using it on a laptop now, and on quite a few servers. It does both things pretty well now.
Because it’s not updated often enough. Fedora is stable and up to date. Especially fedora atomic has a huge added value compared to debian.
Stable means different things in different contexts.
Debian being stable is like RHEL being stable. You’re not jury talking about “doesn’t crash”, you’re talking about APIS, behaviours, features and such being assured not to change.
That’s not necessarily a good thing for a general purpose desktop, but for an enterprise workstation or server, yes.
So it’s not so much that Debian would replace Fedora, it’s the Debian would replace RHEL or CentOS. For a Fedora equivalent, there’s Ubuntu and the like.
For some, that’s a benefit
Maybe just not for corporate enterprise that wants phone and tech support? unless Debian has an Enterprise vendor? The PLM systems and other enterprise level software are certified on SUSE and RHEL, personally I haven’t seen Debian listed anywhere.
Thing is, the last time I saw under the hood while collaborating with suse, the packaging was a freak show and the culture was abrasive.
Rocky until PCLinuxOS gets a decent VM template.
I’m sure enterprises are just running for the door, just like they did when IBM bought Red Hat. Also Hashicorp. Enterprises are going to dump Terraform because it’s closed source and owned by IBM
OpenTofu is the replacement for everyone else. Them too?
Why replace Hashi if you’re in the RH or IBM ecosystem? Why replace it at all if you’re an enterprise? They have enterprise support.
It has “become clear”. Has it?
Red Hat contributes more to Open Source than pretty much anybody. Certainly more than SUSE. That seems self-evident. If you want to debate, bring receipts.
As per the article, SUSE gets most of its money from SAP. SAP was founded by a bunch of ex-IBM people in Germany. They make IBM seem like cowboys.
The new SUSE CEO is ex Red Hat. Again, according the the article, the hope was that he would bring some of the Red Hat “open source magic” but SUSE has proven too “corporate”. Not exactly supporting their own argument there.
I am not close enough to the situation to know, but I doubt SUSE is taking over anything from Red Hat soon. RHEL is so far ahead that they have multiple distros trying to be “alternate” suppliers of RHEL by offering compatible distros. SUSE themselves are doing that now. If the world is looking to SUSE, why isn’t anybody trying to clone SUSE Enterprise?
SUSE is making some smart moves, given that they are the underdog. But let’s not confuse that with SUSE pulling ahead of Red Hat.
To be blunt…
Redhat contributes a huge amount to the community.
The only ones who think they’re misstepping or whatever are just making noise and likely aren’t even using RHEL.
I don’t think people realise exactly how far their contributions go for usability, and getting rid of Redhat of actually a really bad thing for Linux.
I’d even argue, the only people complaining about this likely don’t contribute anything to Linux anyway…
The only thing they did is stop oracle pulling their repo, rebranding and selling support slightly cheaper.
The lost my trust when they blocked the ability to share the source code
But you probably trust them for every other project like pipewire and such?
In practice, Linux is that it is today thanks to Redhat.
Linux is that it is today thanks to Redhat.
Mmm, maybe - but only if you allow that the same can be said for the tens of thousands of other companies and individuals who have contributed.
Absolutely it can.
But Redhat is a huge contributor
The biggest threat that Linux faces isn’t from Microsoft or other companies. Over the past 30 years, I’ve noticed it is actually from the community. I’ve seen so many cases where the community blows things out of proportion and scares off developers. It sucks. Linux and open source would be so much more successful if we didn’t constantly make open source toxic for companies
Poor people like Lennart Poettering get shat on constantly too. He could get a much better paying job
Even right now… VSCode. It’s open source and MIT. People are STILL crapping on Microsoft and saying stuff like “oh wait for the enshittification”, instead of thanking them, or encouraging them for more
It’s bonkers… There’s so much negative reinforcement out there that it’s scaring people away
You are right.
It’s human nature emboldened by freedom, of course. Codes of Practice help, but can’t change the freedom that comes from entitlement and anonymity.
But on balance, there’s an awful lot of genuine people doing good, respectfully and politely.
What other company or individual can the same be said of?
He did not say “shared a two-line bug fix one time”. The claim is that Red Hat is almost uniquely important in the Open Source ecosystem. Their source code contributions and / or the number of significant project that they have founded are evidence of this.
Can you name even a single company with the same impact? You certainly cannot name tens of thousands.
Often, when somebody moves the goal posts to avoid addressing an argument head on, it is to intentionally mislead. I hope that is not the case here.
They don’t own pipewire, samba or any other community project. They just help fund and develop them
They do not own it because of their commitment to not just Open Source but ironically the GPL. So the large number of projects they have founded and the larger number of projects are the force behind are not “owned” by them.
They could have “owned” a tonne of the software almost every Linux user uses ( including Guix and Debian ).
This is precisely why it sounds so wrong to my ears when talk about Red Hat as above. Few facts. Lots of name calling.
I disagree with you. You seem keen to insult people who might hold an alternative opinion, so no doubt you’ll attack me as well.
Redhat did far more than just stymie Oracle. That you’re saying that suggests you’re either deliberately ignoring the facts (Ending CentOS 8 7 years early with no prior announcement, being massively disrespectful to the volunteer CentOS maintainers and support staff), deliberately paywalling source deliberately to target all rebuilders, not just Oracle, generally being amateurish and entitled dicks to the community through their official communications and so on) - or you simply don’t know.
About the only thing you say that is correct, is that Redhat do contribute a lot to FOSS, even now. That deserves respect, but it gets harder to do that at a personal level each time they do something simultaneously dumb and selfishly corporate. A lot of people have given Redhat a lot of space and stayed quiet out of respect of their history. Maybe they are right to, but the direction they’re heading doesn’t look healthy to me.
To my eye, Red Hat’s “direction” has not changed since they formed the Fedora Project to begin with ( the first attempt at keeping RHEL and their “no cost” options distinct ). Attempt number two was the creation of CentOS Stream. Now it is the way they manage RHEL SRPMS. No change in direction. No change in intent. No overall change in their behaviour.
Redhat have done a lot for Linux in the past. And that will likely continue for some time yet. But they have done some seriously questionable things ever since IBM bought them out. I don’t like the direction they seem to be heading in as withmany of IBM products.
Is there a “questionable thing” other than your views on CemtOS? I do not watch them super closely but I do not recall anything else.
