CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association

https://www.suse.com/news/OpenELA-for-a-Collaborative-and-Open-Future/

by LaSombra • 3 years ago

163 172 3 years ago

suse.com

whalesalad• 3 years ago

https://openela.org

systems• 3 years ago

i am getting a warning from chrome about this site certificate , or is it just me

jhalstead• 3 years ago

No issues when I opened it on mobile Chrome.

mistrial9• 3 years ago

no warning

   Google Chrome 112.0.5615.165 (Official Build) (64-bit) 
   Revision c262f36e6b1d711ee42d4fbe1343b49960593f18-refs/branch-heads/5615@{#1297}
   OS Linux
   JavaScript V8 11.2.214.14
   User Agent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) 
   AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) 
   Chrome/112.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
   Command Line /usr/bin/google-chrome-stable --flag-switches-begin --flag-switches-end --origin-trial-disabled-features=WebGPU
   Executable Path /opt/google/chrome/google-chrome

josephcsible2• 3 years ago

Are you going through a corporate proxy? Some of them will MITM newly-registered domains but not established ones.

pxc4• 3 years ago

It will provide an open process to access source code that organizations can use to build distributions compatible with RHEL

So they're not trying to create something like RHEL but in a way that is committed to being more 'open' somehow. They're still shooting for the bug-for-bug stuff, and still an effort that's parasitic on RHEL in terms of its substantive development.

This whole situation sucks.

eraser2155• 3 years ago

100%

ddtaylor2• 3 years ago

If you don't want other people using your source code should you be making open source software?

uberduper2• 3 years ago

Seems like an obvious next step is to get enterprise hardware and software vendors to begin certifying on OpenELA in addition to RHEL. OpenELA10 or w/e could stand on its own as a competing enterprise linux standard that everyone is free to build from.

CaliforniaKarl5• 3 years ago

RHEL does a lot of work, yes, but a lot of that comes from volunteers. RHEL does contribute kernel patches; but Oracle and SUSE contribute there, too.

infamouscow2• 3 years ago

I wish they went for a 501(c)3 non-profit, rather than a 501(c)6 trade organization.

The incentives between these two structures make a world of difference.

verdverm2• 3 years ago

can you elaborate?

infamouscow2• 3 years ago

Sure! IANAL, just a dev, but my understanding from seeing this play out over the last 20 years is the following broken down first by public vs. private benefit:

501(c)(3): Organizations under this classification must primarily serve a public interest and not a private interest. Any private benefit must be insubstantial.

501(c)(6): These organizations are designed to serve the private interests of their members, as long as those interests align with the broader industry or line of business.

Everything else follows from this distinction IMHO. You see it play out in the Linux or Rust foundation, in contrast to the Python or Zig software foundation. It's easier to get attention and members with a trade organization, but over time, over the long term, there's a stark difference that I believe is not disputed.

bragr• 3 years ago

Just skimming the regulations, I don't believe that it would qualify as a 501(c)3 as they don't receive "broad public support" [1] whereas the criteria for a 501(c)6 match exactly with their goals. Additionally the (c)6 allows for political activity related to the purpose of the organization, which seems like a good ability given the current intersection of politics, regulation, and tech. [2]

I'm not sure what you mean by "incentives". Perhaps you could elaborate.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)(3)_organization#Types

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization#Contributi...

vulcan01• 3 years ago

I started a 501(c)(3) with some friends. It didn't require broad public support, just that we intended to grow to such a point.

(I'm not sure exactly what the current support is like; I left the board over a year ago. I think it's around 10 folks that donate somewhat regularly.)

Certainly the political activity provision of 501(c)(6)s are beneficial for this association, and I guess they'd have more scrutiny as three large companies instead of a few high schoolers.

mfer• 3 years ago

You will find that many of the open source backing non-profits are trade organizations. Some notable examples:

- The Linux Foundation (which includes the CNCF and OpenJS Foundation)

- Rust Foundation

- Bytecode Alliance

I don't mean to provide an opinion on incentives (and they are different as the parent suggests). I just mean to share that trade organizations are already common.

Disclaimer: I work for SUSE but not on OpenELA. I am also a maintainer of CNCF projects and on the CNCF TOC.

mikeyouse• 3 years ago

Small nit but technically OpenJS is a separate 501c6 that is currently managed by the LF, they're not "underneath" the LF in the same way that CNCF is. Not sure why that's the case, probably just historical reasons since they were independent for a long time beforehand? Doesn't seem to change much operationally as they have the normal C6 structure with corporate members, etc.

nhanlon3• 3 years ago

It's incredibly difficult (read: impossible) for this type of organization to be a true 501(c)3.

eraser2155• 3 years ago

Oracle, SUSE, and Greg Kurtzer have zero interest in not profiting from this.

verdverm2• 3 years ago

Is this IBM|RedHat's Elasticsearch vs Opensearch moment?

nazgulsenpai• 3 years ago

Funny you mention that as Oracle has also "migrated" everything to OpenSearch. They're really big proponents of (other people's) free and open-source software!

jrpelkonen• 3 years ago

Interesting observation. I recently watched a documentary about Compaq, and this saga reminds me of a previous time when IBM tried to put the genie back in the bottle with MicroChannel architecture. Let’s see if they fare any better this time

mongol• 3 years ago

Ah, MicroChannel. The reason I was late into Linux. My PC was a PS/2 Model 70. Was only when I bought a Pentium 75 PC that I could join the party.

1MachineElf• 3 years ago

I suppose this is both good and bad. I wonder if Red Hat/IBM anticipated this, and how they will respond to it.

colechristensen2• 3 years ago

Eh, it's good. IBM didn't want to continue supporting community things and so here we are, the RedHat business model was a bit tricky and increasingly so because of cloud computing.

The great value of RedHat was supported software. You could buy one of those $10,000 per seat software packages for some engineering discipline that was guaranteed to work by RedHat and the vendor and if it wasn't they were quite motivated and helpful in fixing your problem quickly.

RedHat also was trusted to monitor and fix security problems quickly, and was in the privileged position of getting notifications about them before they were public so they could be fixed.

The question is how do you get people to fund these two things?

eraser2155• 3 years ago

It's been made abundantly clear by many people in many places that this isn't an IBM thing.

lbhdc• 3 years ago

I am curious how they feel as well. It seems like it won't impact their support contracts since things built with openela will be rhel compatible. But surely they cut people off for moat reasons.

Why do you think this is a bad change? I was thinking additional players in the space would make for a more robust ecosystem.

BossingAround7• 3 years ago

Why would they respond? This just confirms their position as the leader in the Linux space, doesn't it?

CaliforniaKarl5• 3 years ago

Leader? Citation needed.

For example, LWN's most-recent report[0] on who contributed Linux kernel patches puts either three or four different companies above Red Hat, depending on if you're looking at changesets or lines changed.

Regardless, if leadership is theirs to lose, then they're doing a good job of it.

[0] https://lwn.net/Articles/936113/

mulmen• 3 years ago

I am SUSE-curious after all the drama and lost trust with RedHat and IBM but any partnership with Oracle makes me uncomfortable.

ghaff2• 3 years ago

Well it was SCO back in the United Linux days--albeit it wasn't the evil SCO yet at that time. (Though as others have remarked, there's a different objective at play here.)

pxc4• 3 years ago

Wym? SUSE was owned by Novell, not SCO. Evil SCO stabbed Novell and SUSE in the back.

Kaytaro2• 3 years ago

I'd like to point out that SUSE has never made their source code as available as Red Hat, even after the changes that caused all the drama. The only way to get SLES source code is to sign up for a 90-day evaluation or request it by mail, whereas signing up for a free Red Hat account gives you full access indefinitely. Yet they accuse Red Hat of hurting the open source community by...operating the same way they've always done? It's frankly embarrassing how easy the tech communities been misled with these marketing campaigns. If IBM wasn't such an easy target, people might see this for what it is- a bad faith attempt to clone an open source project and siphon the sponsors customers with their own support contracts.

yankcrime• 3 years ago

This isn't true, it's publicly available at https://sources.suse.com i.e https://sources.suse.com/SUSE:SLE-15-SP5:GA/

lemper2• 3 years ago

to be actually honest and without any speck of trolling, I am at the opposite. I am actually planning to build a workstation and get a redhat enterprise workstation license. the only problem, though, they only have annual subscription. what I want is: one off license (just like windows desktop) and supporting a business entity's ongoing effort to curate and improve Linux ecosystem.

why not donating a certain amount of money to some distros instead? there's an expected level of entitlement when it money's involved.

lproven11• 3 years ago

Leaving aside any question of "why?", you miss the core point here.

they only have annual subscription

You are not buying the software. You cannot buy the software. All you can buy is a support subscription. That is what RH sells, not software.

roschdal• 3 years ago

OpenSuse is wonderful

BossingAround7• 3 years ago

What's the differentiator from the Fedora/Centos/RHEL line?

5e92cb50239222b2• 3 years ago

For me: yast (easy to use GUI/TUI for many administration tasks — useful for less experienced admins), snapper (filesystem snapshot management tool which automatically creates them before and after package management operations and allows you to boot into them or roll back if anything goes wrong. Quite similar to FreeBSD boot environments.)

zypper is probably the best 'classic' package manager there is (although dnf is great too; it's more of an argument against Debian and its derivatives).

Then there is https://build.openbuildservice.org which automatically builds packages for all supported distributions and architectures from a single RPM spec file and creates a ready to use repository for you.

OpenSUSE Leap is built from SLES sources and is thus comparable in its stability guarantees to the old CentOS (or any of the current RHEL rebuilds).

pxc4• 3 years ago

Probably YAST¹ and the Open Build Service². I think the latter is especially great. There's a public instance of it hosted by openSUSE³, and you can use it to build packages for almost any distro and get a feel for it.

1: https://yast.opensuse.org/documentation

2: https://openbuildservice.org/

3: https://build.opensuse.org/

Espionage7248• 3 years ago

AppArmor vs SELinux

I've ran Ubuntu and openSUSE servers and aside from a profile issue with PHP and openSUSE, I don't know if AppArmor is even protecting anything. Everything just works and it makes me think AppArmor is only applied to specific apps/services and not globally.

SELinux (at least on Fedora) is present, everywhere, and will gladly let you know if something is blocked because of it. I prefer this kind of protection even if it's more annoying at times :p Just a few weeks ago I learned about bin_t and that made my SELinux config for that service a lot more simple.

CrLf• 3 years ago

This is United Linux 21 years later. But this time, instead of building a distribution to compete with Red Hat, it's based on Red Hat (in practice, it is Red Hat).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Linux

"No subscriptions. No passwords. No barriers. Freeloaders welcome."

I'm sure they're trying to be cheeky. But it also comes off as confirming Red Hat's position. OpenELA isn't about community, it's about having a base (i.e. bug-for-bug RHEL clone) upon which to sell support contracts.

If you really want to stay in the Red Hat ecosystem, I'd suggest going with AlmaLinux instead. They seem to have a more honest understanding of what "community" means.

Some people are throwing the word "freeloaders" around. It seems clear that "freeloaders" are not people running RHEL clones, but indeed there are some "freeloaders" in the community.

ddtaylor2• 3 years ago

Most of the businesses that want to run Red hat compatible Linux probably don't care about any of that stuff. They just want to run Linux and have it be essentially as difficult to maintain as their landscaping or electricity.

creatonez4• 3 years ago

If you're unsure which enterprise linux fork to go with, here is a panel discussion between AlmaLinux, RockyLinux, and Oracle - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFMPjt_RgXA. They all lay out their philosophy and discuss the changes going forward. Unfortunately a SUSE representative couldn't make it, but you can fill in the gaps from their press material.

I tend to respect the AlmaLinux way of doing things, but I respect where the others are coming from.

pjmlp3• 3 years ago

Thanks for recovering that, I had completly forgot about it, I bet still have some Linux Journal issues talking about it.

davidw3• 3 years ago

Hrm. Just going to keep sticking with Debian and Ubuntu like I've been doing since ... wow, 1997.

BossingAround7• 3 years ago

For personal and small business needs, you can stick to whatever you'd like, even Arch Linux if that's your poison. That's not the aim of the announcement though.

davidw3• 3 years ago

It's my point though: rather than navigate between what RH is doing and what Oracle is doing, I'll just stick with a solid open source distribution. Lindy effect and all...

lproven11• 3 years ago

The first version of Ubuntu was 4.10 "Warty Warthog" in October 2004.

I used Warty myself. But while Debian was around in 1997, Ubuntu was not.

davidw3• 3 years ago

That's correct. Ubuntu branched off of Debian at a certain point.

korpsey• 3 years ago

Re-United Linux!

raverbashing• 3 years ago

So what's the story again? You either die a hero or you live enough to see yourself becoming the villain?

And now even Oracle is looking like the reasonable player?

marcosdumay3• 3 years ago

And now even Oracle is looking like the reasonable player?

A broken clock and so on. Oracle has absolutely no reason to misbehave here, and everything to gain by being ethical. At this point, they would only do something wrong if the compulsion was too strong.

tlhunter• 3 years ago

I love how they throw Java into the trademarks section. Java isn't even mentioned anywhere. Looks like a case of Oracle being Oracle.

papercrane• 3 years ago

I think it's because they used the trademark "Oracle" so they just included Oracle's standard trademark disclaimer.

If you search for that paragraph, you'll find lots of examples of it being reproduced verbatim.

paulddraper• 3 years ago

"Write once, trademark everywhere"

linuxftw2• 3 years ago

Part of the justification at the time for getting rid of CentOS proper in favor of CentOS "Stream" was that poor Red Hat was doing all the work and spending all the cash in support of CentOS. Red Hat even went as far to say that the CentOS leadership (board?) was in full support.

Red Hat never allowed CentOS to have any kind of election. It was never a community driven project after Red Hat bought it.

So, very interesting to see these companies banding together to give us back CentOS by another name. It will be interesting to see what Rocky and Alma do.

gangohango• 3 years ago

CIQ is rocky.

linuxftw2• 3 years ago

I was thinking one of the distros was backed by CIQ, but I couldn't remember which, thanks.

nhanlon3• 3 years ago

We (RESF/Rocky) are _not_ CIQ, and do not take direction from CIQ.

End of story.

CaliforniaKarl5• 3 years ago

Not true. Rocky Linux is a Rocky Enterprise Software Foundation project. And on https://www.resf.org, you can see that RESF is backed by lots more folks than just CIQ.

geerlingguy5• 3 years ago

Bryan Cantrill had an insightful talk "Corporate Open Source Anti-Patterns" surrounding events from 8-12 years ago, and all I'll say is history definitely echoes sometimes: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm8P4oCIY3g

Espionage7248• 3 years ago

Why would anyone use a server OS that's a fork of another server OS, provided by a group of 3rd-parties with their own competing enterprise distros?

I'm sure there's a reason for it with all the discussions, but if I want to use CentOS, why wouldn't I just use CentOS Stream that RH is providing? If I want RHEL, I'll go get RHEL that afaik is also free. If I want to see the future of RHEL, there's Fedora Server. And if I believed RH was being intentionally hostile, why would I support them at all and not go with a completely unrelated distro like SUSE?

josephcsible2• 3 years ago

If I want RHEL, I'll go get RHEL that afaik is also free.

You can't get RHEL for free.

Espionage7248• 3 years ago

Are you sure?

Things I read online say it's free, including https://developers.redhat.com/products/rhel/download

As I understand, the only costs with RHEL include using it across a large number of machines in enterprise, and customer support. Someone using it on a few machines in a home lab should be fine I imagine?

eraser2155• 3 years ago

Yes you can.

https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/new-year-new-red-hat-enterpri...

marcosdumay3• 3 years ago

Because soon that will be the fork everybody will target,and the de facto standard.

RHEL could have survived for a while in hostile mode if everybody was complacent (maybe making the entire thing profitable). But this is exactly people not being complacent.

Anyway, you can bet there will be infighting once this is established. But well, the power that free software grants for people to misbehave is very limited.

bonzini5• 3 years ago

It's a fork that by definition is an exact reproduction of the thing they fork. So it cannot become a new, different standard.

Espionage7248• 3 years ago

Who is everyone? I imagine any serious business is paying for RHEL instead of an unheard of fork, and in my use if I wanted to change from Fedora Server I'd go to CentOS Stream, followed by RH with a free dev license.

I'm getting the vive that some people just want free RHEL, feel entitled to have it, and don't realize that actual RHEL is free within reason (apparently up to 16 simultaneous machines). Nobody remotely concerned about security is running a non-mainstream distro and public-facing services in an age of randomware and crypto.

lproven11• 3 years ago

provided by a group of 3rd-parties with their own competing enterprise distros

Only SUSE has its own distro, or rather, whole family of them: SLE, openSUSE Leap, and openSUSE Tumbleweed.

The others are rebuilds of CentOS Linux source.

Timber-65392• 3 years ago

I like this solution way much better. Now the only player that's missing here is Almalinux. Maybe it's not too late to make a U-turn and join this new group so that Redhat alone can be responsible for contributing to RHEL as intended.

eraser2155• 3 years ago

How is red hat being the only contributor a good thing?

Timber-65392• 3 years ago

It may not be a good thing to anyone looking at this whole mess but it's clearly what Red Hat wants. After all, their VP did lament that they were doing all this work for "free" just so that the other enterprises can rebuild their product.

lproven11• 3 years ago

Now the only player that's missing here is Almalinux.

Just FWIW I can point to a dozen other CentOS Linux rebuilds, at least one backed by Huawei and another backed by HPE.

So no, this is badly wrong.

fweimer• 3 years ago

Based on https://openela.org/about/ this appears to be a source-only distribution. They do not speak of binary builds (just “buildable”), that's apparently up to the downstream participants.

ticviking• 3 years ago

I'm not sure that's a bad thing given that the previous approach was hampered so much by confusion about where the value is.

If this is a commitment to a set of source then the players can compete on ease of use, support or other stuff.

CaliforniaKarl5• 3 years ago

Right now I'm thinking about it in the way that I think about Let's Encrypt.

Let's Encrypt has their own infrastructure, governance, etc., but I don't use Let's Encrypt products to interact with Let's Encrypt. Instead, I interact with Let's Encrypt via products like Certbot from the EFF.

If OpenELA's going to provide source, and I access that source through builds provided by CIQ or SUSE or someone else, then I'll be thinking of it in the same way as I think about Let's Encrypt.

Dulat_Akan• 3 years ago

Oh big stones companies moving to the Talent side of Open Source developers. Good but needed to act little bit earlier. Yes better late then never)

loph2• 3 years ago

Simply put, I'm not using anything with 0racle's name on it.

Free software from 0racle? There are gonna be strings attached... to lawyers.

creatonez4• 3 years ago

Oracle Linux, surprisingly, is no strings attached. The licensing is straightforward GPL, the download pages are freely accessible.

In this case, it might be Oracle's lawyers preventing them from being aggressive, because they wouldn't fare well trying to challenge Red Hat. If they screw up their treading-lightly strategy, or if they get into legal trouble, there could no longer be a suitable operating system to run Oracle Database on.

toyg2• 3 years ago

It's because they are the underdog, in no position to impose anything. They do the work because they need it for strategic reasons, so they might as well give it away for goodwill.

SahAssar• 3 years ago

Are you tying to make 0racle the new Micro$oft/M$? Whats the zero supposed to represent?

loph2• 3 years ago

My contempt is so great I will not even type their name.

ftaghn• 3 years ago

As much as people may hate oracle, they employ significant contributors to the Linux kernel. https://lwn.net/Articles/915435/

Many in very important subsystems. The XFS maintainer (who just recently stepped down from this role) and contributor Darrick Wong works for Oracle. Meanwhile, btrfs is the creation of Chris Mason, who worked there until 2012. Modern filesystems on linux owe a decent debt to Oracle. Good luck running an Oracle-free linux.

I often find it interesting when people imply the company is freeloading for having chosen the path of making an RHEL clone. They cloned RHEL because an unhealthy, dependent ecosystem was built around the one, singular linux distribution, not because they are unwilling to fund work.

Giving some serious competition to Red Hat can only be a good thing.

dralley3• 3 years ago

They cloned RHEL because an unhealthy, dependent ecosystem was built around the one, singular linux distribution, not because they are unwilling to fund work.

They cloned RHEL to spite Red Hat for the JBoss acquisition in the mid-2000s.

jzb5• 3 years ago

Competition is great. Xeroxing the code and undercutting them isn’t actually competing.

Oracle went after Red Hat when Red Hat bought JBoss. Larry said as much. They didn’t like Red Hat actually competing with them, so Oracle sought to undermine RHEL & have a full stack so they didn’t have to share customer spends.

candiddevmike• 3 years ago

How is IBM better than Oracle?

throw16180339• 3 years ago

IBM hasn't tried to establish that APIs are copyrightable; Oracle has.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_....

firen777• 3 years ago

The part about IBM in this blog post did change my opinion a bit: https://www.lpi.org/blog/2023/07/30/ibm-red-hat-and-free-sof...

josefx• 3 years ago

How does the modern web browse itself without JavaScript? Oracle still has the trademark on that.

axus• 3 years ago

Hopefully that OpenELA uses MariaDB and not MySQL.

creatonez4• 3 years ago

My guess is that Oracle Linux will use OpenELA source code repositories to create a distribution that has the usual Oracle-specific quirks, whereas RockyLinux and SUSE will use these repositories to create a distribution that has Red Hat-specific quirks. Sounds like members will have the freedom to do whatever they want with their distribution, they probably won't let any one member exclude specific packaging repositories that are desired by other members.

pjmlp3• 3 years ago

Including everything that depends on Java in some form or function?

pygar• 3 years ago

Probably a dumb question, as I'm not really on the enterprise side of Linux but: Isn't Canonical in the same business as Red Hat? Why doesn't Canonical seem to care about alleged "freeloaders"?

Come to think of it, why is SUSE considered as a serious replacement for RHEL and not Ubuntu?

creatonez4• 3 years ago

Come to think of it, why is SUSE considered as a serious replacement for RHEL and not Ubuntu?

SLES and RHEL are somewhat similar, in that they both use the RPM package format, and they both have a 10 year support lifecycle. They are not entirely compatible though. They also make management software that is supposed to be as interoperable as possible with competitor distributions.

Anyways, last month SUSE announced they would be making an actual RHEL fork, so that's the real reason they are joining this new partnership -- it's not related to SLES, but a new distro they are making.

As for Ubuntu -- it is often touted as an alternative to RHEL. However, people don't like the weird ways in which Ubuntu diverges from the rest of the Linux community (Snap, LXD, ufw, etc.), so some attention is diverted towards Debian and RHEL, which are more focused on packaging software that is already proven. Red Hat does their innovation in Fedora, waits a few years to see if it catches on, then implements it in RHEL. This tends to have a greater degree of success than pushing it suddenly on users like Ubuntu does.

dralley3• 3 years ago

Why doesn't Canonical seem to care about alleged "freeloaders"?

I don't think there are any corporate entities reselling a rebuilt Ubuntu

geerlingguy5• 3 years ago

Are there any reselling a rebuilt RHEL?

zzzoom• 3 years ago

Why doesn't Canonical seem to care about alleged "freeloaders"?

Ubuntu is downstream from Debian. They get a lot of packaging for free.

lproven11• 3 years ago

Um. They get a lot, but packaging is not part of it.

I don't think I know a single package in Ubuntu that is a Debian package. That is what Ubuntu _does_ -- it takes Debian, repackages and tests and integrates it.

jzb5• 3 years ago

Canonical recently introduced a “Pro” subscription - I’m not sure how sources are available from that.

There really aren’t rebuilders for Ubuntu in the same way, and Canonical has a very different place in the industry. I think there was a thing a few years ago about Canonical going after some of the distros based on Ubuntu, but I think that was over pointing directly to Canonical’s repos (rather than hosting their own binaries), which is reasonable.

If Canonical were a public company or owned by one and had a multi-billion dollar business being undermined by clones and freeloaders… I think you’d see similar actions.

the_why_of_y3• 3 years ago

I got the impression that sources are not available to the general public.

See for example this security update, the versions back to 20.04 have links to launchpad, the older versions have no link but say "Available with Ubuntu Pro".

https://ubuntu.com/security/notices/USN-6239-1

DarkmSparks• 3 years ago

I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. And tbh, these days, with whatever bad medicine google feels like foistering on us this week, Oracle are truly beginning to look more and more like the "good guys".

As much as any large evilcorp can be the good guys anyway.

pelasaco• 3 years ago

As openSUSE user, the only answers that I care from SUSE are:

- Are you going to kill Leap and Tumbleweed?

- Are you going to handle the "community" as you do with the openSUSE community?

stockerta• 3 years ago

I loved SUSE for a long time, but their future plans for Leap had me looking elsewhere. They want to make the next Leap microOS bases, so a transactional immutable base. No thanks I don't need that. Moreover they want to kill yast for some web based stuff with way less feature.

nolist_policy• 3 years ago

That's news to me. Source?

MicroOS is and will be its own cool thing AFAIK. I'm guessing they will provide a MicroOS based on Leap in the future.

jasoneckert• 3 years ago

I remember when Sun Microsystems and AT&T teamed up in the late 1980s and Sun announced the next version of their OS would be based on SysV UNIX instead of BSD UNIX. Since Sun was this massive force in the UNIX market back then, other UNIX vendors formed the Open Software Foundation (OSF) in protest.

In many ways, Red Hat and IBM are the modern Sun Microsystems and AT&T, so it's not surprising that their competitors are essentially doing the same thing.

the_why_of_y3• 3 years ago

their competitors are essentially doing the same thing.

OSF was developing an operating system[1] based on Mach, a file system from IBM, and BSD's IP stack, that intentionally had very little in common with AT&T UNIX.

OpenELA is trying to create a carbon copy of their competitor's product, guided by the slogan "bug-for-bug compatible".

These reactions couldn't be further apart.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSF/1

lproven11• 3 years ago

Also on this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37079769 (ZDnet story, 5 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37078603 (Phoronix story; no comments on HN)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37085519 (ZDNet again, no comments)

CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association

Related Stories