Slashdot Mirror


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.

24 of 316 comments (clear)

  1. The real question: binary compatibility by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by CdBee · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    2. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Rashkae · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by CdBee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    4. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Coryoth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Azul · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:The real question: binary compatibility by Azul · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  2. A feasible business model by guaigean · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
    1. Re:A feasible business model by Karzz1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
  3. Umm, SuSE is _already_ open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  4. switch to suse by cerelib · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:switch to suse by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Informative


      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.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    2. Re:switch to suse by vivek7006 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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

    3. Re:switch to suse by seguso · · Score: 3, Informative
      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.

  5. Huh... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

  6. Where's my cape? by cshark · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --

    This signature has Super Cow Powers

  7. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

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

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

  8. Planet SuSE by riggwelter · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    --
    Listening for the sound of the coming rain...
  9. Re:Crappy software never dies... by Zweideutig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --
    Powered by caffeine and sugar; BSD
  10. Known, Successful Business Model by mpapet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  11. now make it use apt. by cies · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  12. OpenSUSE? by JPriest · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
  13. Flunks the real world test by nightsweat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --

    the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
  14. Re:Breach of GPL? by Shimbo · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.