129
submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 68 points 2 months ago

Also SUSE: OpenSUSE needs to change their name because we say so

[-] [email protected] 30 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

There is no "current proposal" at this point.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

What about the proposal to just drop the name openSUSE with no replacement? And let each distro just be called Tumbleweed, Leap, Aeon, etc.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

That could be a branding strategy, I guess, but the community project behind it will still need a name of some kind obviously. Unless they only want to show up at conferences/have a website url etc as "the project whose name shall not be mentioned".

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

Maybe they should go with OpenGecko or OpenChameleon

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)
  • 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.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

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>".

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Definitely getting into pedantry now, sorry - but OpenSuse isn't strictly a free version of Suse. Like RHEL, there are some proprietary and commercially restricted software in Suse that doesn't reappear - verbatim - in OpenSuse.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 47 points 2 months ago

This article reads like a press release from SUSE.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

No because the caption under the first image says that SUSE's mascot is a 'gecko named Geeko' -- which cannot be farther from the truth, for it is a Chameleon named Geeko, that is the mascot of SUSE. Aye.

[-] [email protected] 43 points 2 months ago

Debian Stable.

It's always the answer to "what distro do I want to use when I care about stability and support-ability.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

And, unlike CentOS, it can't be legally taken over by a corporate entity and changed into something entirely different. Debian is owned by Debian.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

I know at least of Freexian. But also, Ubuntu tends to cover the "Like Debian, but with enterprise support" niche.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] [email protected] 41 points 2 months ago

This seems like a PR release and has zero proof or data in the article to back itself up.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Didn't SUSE just ask openSUSE to change its name?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Mmm, maybe. "Joining the dots" also can be read as "taking a lot of bad feeling about X, and some good activity about Y and exaggerating both"

EL is pretty dominant still, although much of that seems to be Rocky/Alma rather than RHEL, but there's no way to get real numbers.

What I have seen is a lot of uptick in Debian and Ubuntu servers. We are moving away from EL towards Debian now because of what we perceive as ongoing instability in the EL ecosystem caused by Redhat. Our business depends on a reliable Linux OS so we're doing the maths.

[-] [email protected] 22 points 2 months ago

Not to be confused with OpenSUSE…

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I actually use a decade old version of this to control a very expensive machine at work which is simultaneously surreal and validating of all the time I ~~wasted~~ spent learning linux from my teens onward

[-] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago

To be honest, their demand that OpenSUSE rebrand left a bad taste in my mouth. I get the logic behind it, but the time for that passed a long time ago (probably about 15 years ago).

[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

their demand that OpenSUSE rebrand

Slight changing of the tone, there. They have formally requested the change, not demanded.

Maybe that will follow, I can't read the future, but it's not the case today.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

1000002697

Rocky Linux and possibly Alamalinux are the future if openSUSE is anything to go by

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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.

[-] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Half of what you're writing isn't really true.

You're likely assuming a lot of that.

Everyone knows that Oracle was the reason. Sorry, but they basically bragged that they stole the latest rhel source code and added an unbreakable kernel. And they purposely targeted Redhats customers with support by stealing their work.

In other words, their only other choice was to basically close shop... Oracle has been screwing them for years,

Also, sorry, but is it disrespectful when a company drops a project? We could make that same comment about every project. Also, CentOS is open source, as you said, so anyone can download it . They didn't.

You're also likely assuming they're not pouring a huge amount of resources into it too

The perfect current example of rhel improving Linux is pipewire. They are literally unfucking Linux one component at a time in large chunks. It's insane that people here are treating them so badly.

In fact, the community has no problems mistreating Linux developers over tiny things, which is why developers like myself which have been badly attacked in the past have stopped contributing

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

Why PCLinuxOS?

I'm genuinely curious.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

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

[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

Nobody gets fired for buying IBM.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

But people do get sacked when IBM buys you.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

OpenTofu is the replacement for everyone else. Them too?

[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Downsizing the number FOSS developers every couple of years is pretty much the standard in enterprises, yes.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
129 points (88.6% liked)

Linux

47293 readers
930 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS