Novell To Open Source SUSE

jambarama writes "Newsforge reports Novell will be open sourcing SUSE professional under the name OpenSUSE. Is Novell following in the footsteps of Red Hat Inc., with its Fedora Core Linux distribution, or continuing its own open source policy as it has in the past as with YAST?" Note that it looks like the opensuse.org site is not yet up.

Comments

The real question: binary compatibility

[TripMaster Monkey]

Is Novell following in the footsteps of Red Hat Inc., with its Fedora Core Linux distribution, or continuing its own open source policy as it has in the past as with YAST?

While I'd much prefer the latter, I'm betting that the former possibility is much more probable. However, either option would be just fine, provided that the new OpenSuSE is binary-compatible with SuSE Professional.

From TFA:

Lowry did not confirm it, but sources say that Novell will also make the multi-platform software build system freely available to the community, so developers can build versions of packages for any hardware they support. Novell will still sell boxed versions of SUSE with tech support, but everyone will have access to updates and developmental code.

From this excerpt, it seems that Novell doesn't intend to make the two binary-incompatible, as Red Hat did with Fedora and RHEL. I certainly hope they don't change their minds on this.

Re:The real question: binary compatibility

[CdBee]

IMO it is near-unacceptable that any two distributions of Linux on the same processor-platform should be binary-incompatible.

Dependencies can be a problem, but that's what the LSB is for, surely - just supply the damn' libs, you don't have to use them in your default config !

The level of binary compatibility between any 2 same-platform linux distros should be at the very least equal to the level of compatibility between Win 2000 and Win XP.

Re:The real question: binary compatibility

[Rashkae]

It is... Linux on the same platform is almost always binary compatible. Certainly all the big distros are! I think what the parent poster meant was RPM compatible. It's the package dependency management that breaks.

Re:The real question: binary compatibility

[CdBee]

Technical binary compatibility is an irrelevance if Mr.Average User can't get his application to install. Maybe it is possible to convert an RPM to a DEB and install it with Apt-get or one of its front-ends but again that's further than most users want to go just to get a pre-compiled app running.

Re:The real question: binary compatibility

[man_of_mr_e]

I'm not entirely sure what is meant by "binary compatibility" in this context. Certainly calls to the kernel and C libraries will likely be compatible. However, when it comes to C++, object models frequently change, and so do signatures of libraries when changes are made. If they're going to base a new distro on, say GCC 4, then you can probably expect some binary incompatibiliites.

Re:The real question: binary compatibility

[Coryoth]

Technical binary compatibility is an irrelevance if Mr.Average User can't get his application to install.

Quite true.

Maybe it is possible to convert an RPM to a DEB and install it with Apt-get or one of its front-ends but again that's further than most users want to go just to get a pre-compiled app running.

If you want to install an application that isn't provided by your distribution then you really want to be using an autopackage. Binary compatability becomes clear - a single autopackage can install and run on most major distributions (providing you've got the same architecture of course). If the people providing you the software haven't packaged it as an autopackage... perhaps you should be asking them to do so. Autopackage is new, but it's great for packaging up your software project - no more "RPM for Redhat, RPM for SuSE, RPM for Mandrake, DEB for Debian..." just make one autopackage binary for the lot.

Jedidiah.

Re:The real question: binary compatibility

[Donny Smith]

Of course, the free and commercial version are not 100% compatible because they don't want them to be - they're made in such way so that people still have to buy SLES to run most commercial software.

The same thing is with Fedora - you're welcome to beta test and debug it for Red Hat to build their Enterprise Linux version upon, and then when you want to use Linux in enterprise environment, please line up for RHEL which starts at $299 (if I'm not mistaken).

I fail to realize why would anyone want to fuck around with these distros with a 6 month lifetime, instead of contributing to freeer distros with longer lifespans such as Ubuntu, Debian or CentOS.

Instead of running OS's with a long upgrade cycle and spending time on debugging and improving apps, people spend 20% of their time re-installing/upgrading OS and other rundimentary shit that does little to improve Linux.

Re:The real question: binary compatibility

[Chandon Seldon]

but if there's a problem, then linux makes win3.1 dll hell look like a paradise. even linux experts feel massively frustrated and helpless in that situation.

As a self proclaimed Linux Expert, I'm really not sure what you're getting at.

In my usage, 98% of the time when I want a package it's in the package repositiory of the distro I'm using, installs without a hitch, and works perfectly.

The remaining 2% breaks down like this:

• Installs from source. This works the same on Windows, so there's no difference here. The class of Windows users who don't need to know about this don't need to know about it on Linux either. Hell, it's easier on Linux - if you disagree go build a source package from CVS on Windows. Firefox, OpenOffice, Gimp, and Gaim are examples of packaged heavily used on Windows with source packages and CVS archives available.
• Installs from broken packages. This has never happened to me on a stable distribution, and the package has been fixed in the repository within 24 hours on unstable distros every time. No Windows junky would be terribly suprized if they had trouble installing something random... say Lotus Notes... on the new Longhorn beta - it's not a stable release.

Pretty simply, the package + repository system is way cleaner than anything Windows has, and any claims of "nightmare dependancy situations" are probably the result of users intentionally doing things the hard way rather than using offical packages from their distributor.

It's like if a Windows user copied a friend's "C:\Program Files\Front Page" directory to their computer and complained it didn't work rather than using an installer - possible, but I'm sure as hell not going to give you any sympathy if you don't get it to work.

Re:The real question: binary compatibility

[Azul]

The only reason I can think for them not to be entirely compatible is that SuSE Professional is released much more frequently than SLES. SLES 9 Sp2, for example, comes with a kernel based on 2.6.5 (with lots of fixes by Novell) and this will continue for the entire lifespan of SLES 9. This doesn't happen with SuSE Professional, which has an entirely different focus and is based on the latest available versions of all packages.

In order for them to be compatible, you'd need to drop the stability of SLES, which would be a stupid move, or stabilize SuSE Professional (rather than build it using the latest available versions of software), which would be a stupid move as well.

Providers of propietary software do certify it against specific distributions (and even versions). This is a process that takes time and money from them, so its a smarter move to certify against the stable distribution, not the constantly moving one, specially since their creator does not offer support for the latter.

And, anyway, you can legally run SLES for as long as you want without paying Novell (see this post in my weblog for more information)

So no, there are real reasons why they are not compatible and they are not your simplistic "they don't want them to be" ideas.

Re:The real question: binary compatibility

[SeeTheLight]

Is it possible to have a single autopackage that can detect what architecture it is being run in and install the appropriate binaries?

Re:The real question: binary compatibility

[Azul]

Before continuing to recommend Autopackage, you might want to read this post by Joey Hess from the Debian Project, where he calls it "Worst. Package. Format. Ever" and ponders if it was designed by monkeys (and he, the maintainer of Alien, does know a bit about package formats).

If you're interested, you might also want to read this post and the comments there.

Re:The real question: binary compatibility

[Hosiah]

You could also get the source code, grep it for library references, and hook things up to your needs and compile it and install it yourself, by hand, coding the occasional softlink and/or shell script to make it work your way. But, oops, I forgot, it's hedistic sacriledge to even mention such a thing in a Linux discussion on Slashdot, in these days of Ubuntu/Mandriva dominance. Forget I mentioned that. What I meant to say is, programs are written by the program fairy, and cannot be installed on a system without the magic install wizard.

A feasible business model

[guaigean]

This is probably one of the best moves Novell can make for both themselves and the OSS community. As Linux gains popularity, corporations are wanting to move to open source apps, but want corporate backing and support. This gives Novell the flexibility of both tracks, and offers another stable solution for enterprise level business.

Re:A feasible business model

[Karzz1]

This is probably one of the best moves Novell can make for both themselves and the OSS community.

I couldn't agree more. I was a longtime RedHat customer/user. I liked that, at my option, I could download and use RH Linux for free or, if I needed support or felt like supporting RH I could buy the boxed version. As a matter of fact I had a RH Network subscription (bought by me personally as a show of support) that, when RH changed all their versioning around, I got stiffed on about 6 months worth of. As a result, and after bad experiences with Fedora core on my servers (least of which is no upgrade path) I have had no qualms about using CentOS in production. With SuSE basically going back to the licensing model that RH had in the past, and being a former SuSE user, I am inclined to look at SuSE again.

Re:A feasible business model

[mpapet]

You are making a few assumptions:

1. Binary compatibility. It seems likely to me that they would make the two versions incompatible. They need to have a clear distinction between the two versions. Binary INcompatibility is that distinction.

2. Novell makes the right product. They could screw up a great distro by having a license/revenue/feature package that the market doesn't like. It's easier to screw this up than you think.

3. Novell actually offers something that will drive enterprise consumers over to their product from RH. So far, they are a me-too product with lots of potential given their back-end stuff.

4. The battle for systems management tools is on and Novell's a likely loser. MS and RH don't want them in their market. They'll likely get screwed by both firms when they buddy-up somehow. Sun will probably throw a couple of punches in as well.

Re:A feasible business model

[MynockGuano]

SGI is already switching their software distribution and support from RHEL to SuSE on their Altix platform. We installed it on ours yesterday.

Like it or not, that sticks them into the game at many U.S. government/military sites, and that automatically yanks them out of the "me-too" division. Just as SGI is using their government contracts to hang in the market by a thread, SuSE can use it to jump-start a play for major market acceptance as they move in the other direction.

Umm, SuSE is _already_ open source

[Anonymous Coward]

All they're doing is opening the development process to be something more like Fedora.

-linuxrocks123

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. This is not legal advice.

"There's no need for red-hot pokers. Hell is -- other people!"
-Jean Paul Sartre

Re:Umm, SuSE is _already_ open source

[houghi]

The actual ISO images? They don't have any!

Look at a mirror and you will see that they do. 5 of them, although they do not contain all the software that is on the DVD's

switch to suse

[cerelib]

I currently have been using kubuntu because it has proven to be the most user friendly KDE distro, for free (full version, no eval). I have tried suse before and enjoyed it, but I did not like having eval versions and such. And just felt stupid trying to get a pirated version of a linux distro. if this pans out I will definitely give it a chance.

Re:switch to suse

[TripMaster Monkey]

SuSE is currently available for free via FTP download. It takes a while to get a system installed and up nd running, but IMHO, SuSE 9.3 is definitely worth it.

Re:switch to suse

[vivek7006]

Or you can download the ISO image of SUSE 9.3 from torrents

DVD
http://isohunt.com/download.php?mode=bt&id=4142556
5 CD Set
http://isohunt.com/download.php?mode=bt&id=3965870

Re:switch to suse

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

It takes a while in terms of elapsed time, but not really in terms of effort. Just download the 50Mb network boot disk and leave for a while.

Re:switch to suse

[seguso]

SuSE is currently available for free via FTP download. It takes a while to get a system installed and up nd running, but IMHO, SuSE 9.3 is definitely worth it.

I downloaded the DVD image here: ftp://ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/pub/Mirrors/ftp.su se.com/pub/suse/i386/9.3/iso/SUSE-9.3-Eval-DVD.iso

BTW, the "eval" in the filename is misleading, because this is not a crippled version of the commercial release: it contains the non-free software (acrobat reader, realplayer, etc.).

I was a former ubuntu hoary user but I switched to SUSE as the free dvd came out. To me, SUSE is one year ahead of the other distros, due to YAST.

Re:switch to suse

[KillShill]

aren't those the "warez" versions?

infringing the copyright of a linux distribution is awfully naughty.

Re:switch to suse

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

And just felt stupid trying to get a pirated version of a linux distro. if this pans out I will definitely give it a chance.

Well you should feel even stupider, SUSE Professional is already free. It's Enterprise which costs money.

Re:switch to suse

[rtelfairm]

Indeed, HTTP/FTP download/install is available and can be slow, depending on one's connection [my last install took over 2 hours across a reasonably good DSL line]. However, SuSE has made CD and DVD ISO's available for download, and you can also find them in the torrent.

If you want to install "from the 'Net", the procedure involves booting install CD #1 and at the inital "boot:" prompt entering:

linux install=[http/ftp]://ip.address.of.mirror/path/to/ directory/ending/with/arch/9.3[or other version]

I totally agree with parent -- Install across 'Net can be slow, but SuSE 9.3 is a *fabulous* "desktop" distro and is my distro of choice on capable hardware. I haven't set up any servers on SuSE [just because], so I can't comment either way on that.

/me

Re:switch to suse

[aav]

Slashdot - the place where the uninformed morons are modded insightful.

Have you even used your brain when you wrote "warez version" ?

Since when aren't I allowed to make as many copies of Linux as I please ? Assuming I bought one CD with some distribution, I still am allowed to make as many copies as I please, share them with friends and anybody else, as long as I don't make more than the beer they'd have to invest in me for burning the cd's for them.

Here's an excerpt from the licence posted on the SuSE website:

You may make and use unlimited copies of the Software for Your distribution and use within
Your Organization. You may make and distribute unlimited copies of the Software outside Your organization provided that: 1) You receive
no consideration; and, 2) you do not bundle or combine the Software with another offering

Moreover, Suse has always provided their distribution on their FTP server. I've been using it for 7 years now and I never had any issues with downloading it, while I still bought one of each major release, to support them.

There are tons of mirrors across the world.

With 9.3, they provided the choice between a net-based installation, and a cd-based one. As such, the CDs available as torrents are actually copies downloaded from the website.

As for the other posts: 9.3 has been available online for more than a month now.

Huh...

[__aaclcg7560]

Open sourcing a linux distro that contains Open Source Software (OSS). What an interesting concept. Did Novell take a patent on this? Will Microsoft be the doing the same thing? What about SCO?

Re:Huh...

[$RANDOMLUSER]

SCO will be sueing Novell for open sourcing Open Source Software. Darl McBride was quoted as saying "This kind of thing can't be allowed to continue, where would this country be if software were free"?

interest gone?

[Shinaku]

I help out occasionally on a Linux help IRC channel, and looking through the logs I've seen that the amount of people using SuSE has dropped considerably while the amount of people using Ubuntu has risen exponentially.

Maybe they're opening it up to compete with Ubuntu?

Re:interest gone?

[ckaminski]

Or maybe us suse users just don't need help since it "just works?"

This sounds like a good step but...

[Zweideutig]

Where is the profit for Novell? I presume Novell will still charge for the media and support of course, but is that enough? I think a non-profit organization should be created to continue the develop of Suse (susa). Now that Mandrake is gone (Mandriva,) an opensource beginner-friendly dsitribution ought to help fill the gap. Disclaimer: I use the *BSDs on servers and Debian, Gentoo and Slackware on the desktop, but Suse may be a good option others.

Re:This sounds like a good step but...

[CoolCash]

The profit comes from there server applications that run on Suse. The eDirectory, Zenworks, GroupWise, products. All part of there Open Enterprise Server. These products are all charged per user, not per server.

Re:This sounds like a good step but...

[FatherOfONe]

Where will Novell make money?

That is a great question. The box versions that sell for under $100 don't make jack for Novell. All they do is get more users of their NOS. So, in one way this will get more and more users to at least try their product.

In my opinion Novell will make money by moving up the application stack a bit. They will focus on things like groupware, management, clustering etc. Things that can be done with Linux today but could be a lot better for the average admin and end user. When Linux gets say 25 to 40% of the server market, their products will really start to shine. People will want stuff that runs on both Linux AND Windows, and perhaps other platforms as well (BSD, AIX, Solaris, Apple etc), and Novell will do an excellent job of this. Microsoft will probably delay any products for Linux as long as possible, and thus this will give Novell a competitive advantage for a long time.

Now in my opinion they should look hard at open sourcing eDirectory, and build apps on top of it. Given that RedHat has release the Netscape directory server under GPL, the time is short for Novell to move on this.

Where's my cape?

[cshark]

Anyone else notice that the domain opensuse.org is registered to the caped crusader himself?

Re:Where's my cape?

[goldspider]

Bruce Wayne is just some aloof, philanthropic billionaire. You're thinking of Batman.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, Debian and Gentoo is also creating an "open source" versions of their respective OS's.

Oh... Wait a minute... :-)

Planet SuSE

[riggwelter]

As this develops, news on the announcement as well as blogs from the SuSE community (and staffers) discussing it will be on Planet SuSE.

Layoffs announced at same time

[Rashkae]

In completely unrelated news, I'm sure, Novell has announced layoffs of over 100 employees in Europe. Begs the question, is Novell trying to improve SuSe development with a community development model ala Red Hat, or is Novell Cutting SuSe loose?

Re:Layoffs announced at same time

[blueZhift]

I would guess that the Novell layoffs are a prelude to cutting SUSE loose Fedora style given that the layoffs story says that Linux has been flat for Novell. OpenSUSE would essentially give Novell some free workers and for the long term would keep SUSE alive, not that it's dying or anything like that. I suspect SUSE will be around long after Novell bites the dust.

Re:The real question: does it rhyme?

[ShaniaTwain]

Yast in the past was twice as fast,
as suse on the loose with juice,
but the smell will tell
if novell has done well,
or if redhat has gotten their goose.

(with apologies to seuss)

Re:Crappy software never dies...

[Zweideutig]

Just because you are using Gentoo now and you think Suse is too "n00b" for you, it doesn't mean it is "crappy." You and me like *BSD or Solaris instead of Linux altogether, or Debian, Gentoo, or Slackware, that is great for us and serves us well. But Suse is still good for person across the street that just sends e-mail and reads online news, and wants something relatively easy to use, but without the hassle of spyware. You don't want to teach them how to use something like Gentoo do you?

Known, Successful Business Model

[mpapet]

They will do exactly like RH because it appears to be profitable.

It's difficult to see how this makes them an actual meaningful competitor to RH though.

It will be interesting to see if they drop java in the forthcoming project. In 9.3 they distribute it on the cd. They pay Sun for this priviledge, so I find it hard to believe they would be so charitable in the future.

It's sad (predictable though) that Linux is going this way. The open project portion is essentially free development and testing for the corporate parent. The "open" portions of the distros are becoming the red-headed stepchild to the supported version.

Please, no comments about how CentOS is "the same" as whatever RH product they got it from. Service, service, service is what makes it different.

Charge a fortune for something that's free and the world will beat a path to your door.

Re:Known, Successful Business Model

[Patoski]

It's difficult to see how this makes them an actual meaningful competitor to RH though.

Red Hat is getting a too big for their britches. RH's product is way more expensive than Suse and is not demonstrably better than what Suse is offering.

RH looks really beaten when you look at their end to end enterprise solution stack. Novell looks miles better than RH and has decades of experience playing in this sandbox. Identity management looks esp poor for RH when you compare that old krufty Netscape thing that RH bought vs. a stable and extremely mature eDirectory product which is light years ahead of even Active Directory.

Suse has many of the same support agreements from the big boys like IBM, Oracle, etc. Except for a solution that is already deployed or maybe wanting to go with the market leader (for safety) why would someone deploy RHL vs Novell? I can't think of a reason off the top of my head. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

It will be interesting to see if they drop java in the forthcoming project. In 9.3 they distribute it on the cd. They pay Sun for this priviledge, so I find it hard to believe they would be so charitable in the future.

This really doesn't matter much in the end. They'll just add it as an upgdate you can dl in YAST like they do with nvidia drivers, etc.

now make it use apt.

[cies]

Now finally the community might have a chance to make and totally apt based SuSE.

Currently it is possible http://linux01.gwdg.de/apt4rpm/ to have apt run on top of an existing SuSE but not as the default installation medium. I feel that apt is the one thing that stand in between of SuSE and perfection.

The current (YaST/RPM) based solution is not too bad, but it is just too slow. Seaches in the package database take ages. And, iirc, it cannot do multiple downloads at the same time.

Right now im installing SuSE 9.3 from the default http site. I thought it was released to the public more than a weak ago, but it still is not on the mirrors. It right now is about to take 6 hours to download 1.3 gig of packages. amazing.

but afterall i still feel suse is the best (most polished) desktop distro arround.

im looking forward to what this move will bring us.

cies breijs.

iso

[Anonymous Coward]

Being able to download the fully installable ISO images will be great.

Huh. The ISO images are available now. When did that happen ?
ftp://mirrors.kernel.org/suse/i386/9.3/iso/

Now I CAN tell people to use something better than Fedora Core.

Re:A soon to be shotty OS?

[kitzilla]

I understand your concern, but you can always buy Novell Desktop Linux if you want fully supported SUSE. I used NDL 9 until installing SUSE 9.3 (freely available for download) just yesterday. NDL is quite slick, and "feel" right in a business environment. The license is cheaper than SUSE, too.

Dreaded Double Digits!

[Kelson]

I was wondering what would happen when SuSE got up to 10.0...

Mac OS 9 went to Mac OS X and cay names.
Red Hat 9 went to Fedora Core 1.
Mandrake and Conectiva 10 merged and went to Mandriva 2005.

Clearly, SuSE 10.x was doomed... though I seriously expected it to become Novell Linux 1 or Novel Linux 2006 or something.

Re:Dreaded Double Digits!

[Kelson]

And when has Slackware ever followed trends? ;-)

Novell has made a good move

[ehaggis]

As an avid user and fan of SuSE, I am glad to see Novell has a plan for it. Downloading the "opensource" version has been dificult and not very friendly. Only a small download was available with online package installations. I was starting to worry.

What needs to happen next...

[Jizzbug]

What needs to happen next is all the RPM-based distros need to merge their development trees and package sets under the umbrella of the Fedora Foundation (returning home from whence they all sprang years ago).

The inconsistency between Linux distros is ridiculous and inexcusable (especially for the all-too-German SuSE).

RPM-based Distros Unite!

Re:What needs to happen next...

[M1FCJ]

Huh? SuSE was a spin-off from Slackware, implementing Redhat's Package Manager, not the other way around.

Now,... um... even MORE open source!

[millermj]

If I'd seen this before it went public I would have e-mailed the on-duty editor saying that there's a major problem with the headline. So let's clear the air and get the announcement right --

Novell's announcement was not that they're open sourcing SUSE. SUSE is already GPL. Novell is essentially announcing this:

The goal of OpenSUSE is to create a community-supported distribution similar to Fedora. Also, like Fedora, this becomes a code base that the developers of the commercially-supported distributions can pull from.

OpenSUSE?

[JPriest]

You mean the name was has not already been taken by a porn site? Cool!

Re:Crappy software never dies...

[Coryoth]

But Suse is still good for person across the street that just sends e-mail and reads online news, and wants something relatively easy to use, but without the hassle of spyware.

SuSE is also still good for throwing on opteron servers and clusters. SuSE was the first major distro with x86-64 support, so they were the early leader in that market, and they've stayed pretty strong. The enterprise edition for x86-64 is a very nicely put together package, and great for research clusters. Just because it isn't hard or obscure doesn't mean it isn't good.

Jedidiah.

Re:Slashdot Falters

[ak3ldama]

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: ...Yes.

It is, or at least was, the discussion that mattered. Recently the signal noise ration has gotten horrible, makes a person think about leaving. Just look at the moderation taking place, if your threshold is set to 3, there are very few posts that make it. The proof is in the pudding!

I know you're trolling

[crush]

... but in case someone is confused by your post:

If you want to pay for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (in one of three flavours ) then you'll get full support and a long, steady release cycle.

If you want a completely no-cost OS then you can use Red Hat Fedora. It has a quick release cycle, lots of exciting add on packages maintained by the community in the Extras repositories and a very aggressive incorporation of new features.

Don't go confusing RHEL and RH Fedora.

Unlike SuSE, Red Hat has always been scrupulous about releasing under the GPL all their code for the distro (with the exception of the build-system). They've never had proprietary tools like YaST. I'm glad to see that SuSE is now fuly embracing the path of openness. Hopefully it will mean that there'll be real competition between two fully Free distros with nothing distinguishing them except technical merit.

Flunks the real world test

[nightsweat]

I think your explanation sounds great in theory but it flunks the real-world test. MS software installs pretty easily these days and brings along all the libs it needs. Or, if the app doesn't get all the libraries necessary, WIndowsUpdate does.

I don't like the fact Linux apps install rougher, but they do.

Re:Flunks the real world test

[Chandon Seldon]

But woe to you when the open source component doesn't have an easy installer.

On Linux, the easy things are easy. The moderatly difficult things are reasonably simple. The hard things are hard, but possible.

On Windows, the easy things are easy. Some of the moderatly difficult things are also easy. If it's not easy, it's a horrible nightmare.

Suse already releases CD and DVD ISO's

[Prototerm]

I just downloaded the ISO images the other day for Suse 9.3 and installed it. It is one DVD or 5 CD's, but it appears to be the entire Pro installation. They delay releasing the cost-free, non-"live" version for something like 6 weeks after the actual release. I imagine this delay is what will be eliminated.

VMWare

[drxenos]

I love SUSE. I just wish I could get it to work with VMWare. Redhat works great, but SUSE (for me) crashes during installation.

I love being able to be working in Windows, and just "pop up" Linux when I want it without rebooting.

Communities

[eelcoh]

So as more and more companies jump on the community bandwagon, will the community of communities be big enough to help them all out? How many people actually take part in an OSS community project? Is that number still rising? Won't it become more and more difficult to attract more people to a project like this?

Re:Breach of GPL?

[Shimbo]

How on Earth is it possible that SUSE Pro has NOT been open source so far? It's based on GPLd software and therefore all changes to the code and 3rd party additions should be free too.

They used to licence their installer, Yast2, under what the FSF would call a non-free licence (basically, no commercial redistribution). It was their own code, so they could licence it how they liked. There's nothing to stop you putting free and non-free stuff in the same distro: "mere aggregation" as the GPL has it.

They haven't done that since SuSE 9.1, so it's a non-issue now.

Re:You are forgetting something...

[Greg_D]

Man, someone better go out and tell CompUSA to close down their stores, because apparently they haven't heard the bad news, yet!

The average user does indeed install a lot of applications on his own. He installs Firefox. He installs Zone Alarm. He installs Office. He installs anti-virus software. he installs games and filesharing programs and iTunes and a ton of other things.

He installs them because they're easy to install.

Unless you're talking about Linux. Then, may God bless his poor little soul, because if he doesn't have synaptic or smart set up properly, he's going to be SOL.

Re:A soon to be shotty OS?

[Azul]

You can use SuSE Linux Enterpriser Server or Novell Linux Desktop, both of which are based in SuSE Professional (they are the "stable" version of SuSE Professional). Novell sells support for these two distributions.

Oh, and, btw, it is not uncommon to find Novell employees who use SuSE Professional instead of Novell Linux Desktop. Since SuSE Professional serves as a development environment that eventually becomes SLES/NLD, I do think Novell has reasons to care and make sure it doesn't suffer the fate you fear.

Real reason for this: Discountinug a product.

[nlinecomputers]

Suse is already open source. The pro version only adds a few commerical programs and drivers that you don't get on the download versions.

What this really means is that they are axing the Retail Product that no one buys to focus on the server and workstation versions for corporation. Gee have we not seen this before in Fedora/Red Hat?

I'm a big fan of Suse and have used it for years but I haven't bought a copy since 9.0.

Re:SuSE is *not* Open Source!

[smyle]

I believe you are not legally allowed to redistribute SuSE (at least not if you keep copies).

Wrong.

I just pulled out my Suse 9.3 Pro CD, and in LICENSE.TXT it says:

...

The Software is a collective work of Novell. You may make and use unlimited copies of the Software for Your distribution and use within Your Organization. You may make and distribute unlimited copies of the Software outside Your organization provided that: 1) You receive no consideration; and, 2) you do not bundle or combine the Software with another offering (e.g., software, hardware, or service). The term "Organization" means [legal definition deleted]

The Software is a modular operating system. Most of the components are open source packages, developed independently, and accompanied by separate license terms. Your license rights with respect to individual components accompanied by separate license terms are defined by those terms; nothing in this Agreement (including, for example, the "Other License Terms and Restrictions," below) shall restrict, limit, or otherwise affect any rights or obligations You may have, or conditions to which You may be subject, under such license terms.

While the license terms for a component may authorize You to distribute the component, You may not use any Novell marks (e.g., SUSE and SUSE LINUX) in distributing the component, whether or not the component contains Novell marks.

...

So, in short, you can give it away, but can't charge for it unless you want to go through a whole lot of hassle.

Re:Identity management comparision

[Patoski]

Fascinating. Can you cite any references to support your statement?

Gladly...

Identity management looks esp poor for RH when you compare that old krufty Netscape thing that RH bought vs. a stable and extremely mature (over 1 billion served) eDirectory product which is light years ahead of even Active Directory.

I freely admit that some of these articles are a bit long in the tooth however the directory services software landscape hasn't changed dramatically in the last few years. MS' last AD schema change was in 2003 and that wasn't an earth shattering update or anything.