Linux Pioneer SUSE Marks 25 Years In the Field (itwire.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux Pioneer SUSE Marks 25 Years In the Field (itwire.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Saturday September 9, 2017 @05:46AM from the silver-anniversaries dept.

troublemaker_23 shares an article from ITWire: The Germany-based SUSE Linux marked a milestone last week: on Friday, September 2, the company turned 25, a remarkable achievement in an industry where the remains of software companies litter the landscape around the world... SUSE was formed in 1992 by three university students -- Hubert Mantel, Roland Dyroff, and Burchard Steinbild. The fourth man in the equation was software engineer Thomas Fehr. They had a simple objective: to build software and deliver UNIX support. Linux had been around for a little more than a year at that point and they decided to use it... The name S.u.S.E is a German acronym and means "Software und System-Entwicklung", or "Software and systems development". The name was later changed to SuSE and some years on became SUSE...

Like other open source outfits, SUSE has widened its services and now not only provides an enterprise Linux distribution but has a well developed software-defined storage product and one for a container-as-a-service option. It also caters to those seeking cloud options and does more than its fair share in contributing to upstream FOSS projects. Along the way, it has spawned a top-notch community distribution, openSUSE, which is run by an autonomous board led by the ebullient British developer Richard Brown.
S.u.S.E Linux was one of the first distros, arriving in 1994 after Soft Landing Systems Linux (in mid-1992) and Slackware.

54 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

yast by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-09 05:54 · Score: -1

Yet another shitty tool
How is it different from Red Hat's distros? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-09 06:01 · Score: -1, Flamebait

How is openSUSE different from Fedora and Red Hat's other distros? I haven't used it in ages, but from what I can tell it uses RPM for its packages, it uses systemd, and it uses GNOME 3. Presumably it's also using PulseAudio, if systemd and GNOME 3 are being used.
So what's the main difference? I have to type "yast" to install packages instead of "dnf"?
It sounds a lot like Debian does today: basically Fedora but you type "apt" to install packages. At least Debian has its own package format, for what it's worth.
It's like all modern Linux distros, with the exception of unusable niche ones like Slackware, Devuan and even Gentoo, have basically become shitty clones of Fedora with the main difference being what you type to install packages. Otherwise they're pretty much all the same, forcing crap like systemd, GNOME 3 and PulseAudio on you.
Linux distros used to be rich, diverse ecosystems with a variety of ways to accomplish any given task. Now they're becoming a homogeneous blob of some of the worst options around.
At least an open source OS like FreeBSD tries to be unique. It uses a better kernel than Linux. It uses Clang instead of GCC. It doesn't use something as fucking idiotic as systemd is. It has its own package management system that's superior to anything that any Linux distro has. It respects the UNIX philosophy.
It's no wonder so many people are moving away from Linux, and using alternate OSes like FreeBSD, macOS or even Windows instead. All Linux distros have basically become shitty variants on Fedora, which itself I think is quite shitty, and this has ruined the user experience.
1. Re:How is it different from Red Hat's distros? by bogaboga · 2017-09-09 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  or even Windows instead.
  I stopped reading right there, but I then realized it was too late!
  Dude, you should perhaps consider educating yourself before making posting uninformed verbiage on a respectable resource like Slashdot.
2. Re:How is it different from Red Hat's distros? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-09 06:24 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  it uses GNOME 3
  No. The default desktop is KDE. See
  https://en.opensuse.org/KDE
  And German companies, such as SUSE, are required to have stricter privacy protections than American companies, such as Red Hat.
3. Re:How is it different from Red Hat's distros? by chipschap · 2017-09-09 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  It's no wonder so many people are moving away from Linux, and using alternate OSes like FreeBSD, macOS or even Windows instead.
  Got some stats for this? If you do, let's see them ... I'd be genuinely interested. If you don't, you're a troll.
4. Re:How is it different from Red Hat's distros? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-09 06:36 · Score: -1
  
  Have you actually used Windows recently? Windows 10 is not the Windows 95 you might be thinking of.
  In my experience, Windows 10 is much stabler than most modern Linux distros. I couldn't even install Fedora on my system, because the installer would lock up. Debian would install, but several times I did updates and then my system wouldn't boot. Systemd was responsible in one way or another when that happened.
  So when I needed to get a new computer, I got one that came with Windows 10. After using Linux for a number of years, I haven't looked back.
  The Windows Subsystem for Linux makes it easy to use Linux software on Windows, too. I can also install Linux in a virtual machine if I really need to.
  I know, you'll probably falsely accuse me of being a "paid shill" or some nonsense like that. But guess that? I'm not being paid by anyone to express this opinion.
  I like what Microsoft has done with Windows 10, and I like how they've made it easy for me to use Linux software if I really need to. It's more than sufficient for my needs as a developer and a system administrator. It gives me the best of both worlds.
  You'll probably start bleating on about Windows 10's privacy, but after the Ubuntu/Amazon debacle I don't trust Linux distros to be any more privacy-friendly.
  There's a reason why Linux is only at 3% of the desktop market: it's lousy compared to Windows 10!
5. Re:How is it different from Red Hat's distros? by aliquis · 2017-09-09 06:40 · Score: 2
  
  How is use a different package format a possible advantage for Debian but not for Fedora/SUSE? They are both different to each other.
  I preferred SUSE but I don't remember all that much about why, but:
  1) Didn't the default desktop used to be KDE for SUSE? Or neither/pick what you want? Is the default Gnome now?
  2) SUSE normal media used an actual configurable installer I think where you get to pick what you wanted whereas Fedora just threw in whatever crap they thought you should have and that was that. (There's some net installer for Fedora which I think give you more options.)
  3) Fedora by default used some patching-crap to fetch package upgrades which was much slower on my machine rather than just fetching the new packages in their full. Of course is may be a trade-off between network and CPU capacity and is definitely configurable.
  4) I think less stuff may work by default in Fedora because it's locked down harder as far as audio and video and such goes. Which may be positive or negative. Of course one can still use both in Fedora.
  5) Both seem to run sshd and have remote root login enabled by default which are both shitty stupid settings if you ask me. I used to run the BSDs so I wasn't used to that and once upon a time had sat the root password to simply "ok" because I wanted something simple I assume and no-one else was using my machine anyway. Not the best with such a setup .. :D
  For me Fedora was basically nothing but annoyances. Dumb installer, more work to get a desktop running, slow updating of packages, the stupid SSH defaults. The Ubuntu installer was graphical and never managed to actually launch it's graphical shit on my machine either. So that too were junk. Both SUSE I think and Debian had actual installers with options and in the case of Debian non-graphical and in the case of something like OpenBSD fitting on one floppy disc so that's what I prefer. I guess offering a live image to test it out or use sometimes and being able to install from that is also fine but I hate when auto"magical" stuff is trying to do shit for you and then they fail. Back in Archlinux beta Archlinux broke the audiomixer and USB devices. I don't want upgrading my OS to break stuff .. With FreeBSD you'd get documentation which cover the upgrade and changes you need to do to make things work again if anything. That's acceptable.
6. Re: How is it different from Red Hat's distros? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-09 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  In my experience, when windows crashes, all os's do, it crashes hard. After multiple failed attempts at recovery and hours later, it can come back, but all Linux distros would have come back sooner. Windows sucks. Still does. Especially windows 10
7. Re: How is it different from Red Hat's distros? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-09 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  >respectable
  >Slashdot
  Lul
8. Re:How is it different from Red Hat's distros? by LVSlushdat · 2017-09-09 07:40 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  No shit.. You stated
  
  It's like all modern Linux distros, with the exception of unusable niche ones like Slackware, Devuan and even Gentoo, have basically become shitty clones of Fedora with the main difference being what you type to install packages. Otherwise they're pretty much all the same, forcing crap like systemd, GNOME 3 and PulseAudio on you.
  If you knew what you were talking about, you'd KNOW that distros such as Slackware and
  Devuan DO NOT use systemd, AND you'd NOT be saying they're unusable.. The fact you
  say they're unusable means you don't know squat about Linux..
  
  --
  THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
9. Re:How is it different from Red Hat's distros? by Hognoxious · 2017-09-09 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  Well that's the difference, you see - Windows doesn't have systemd. Just give it a year or so and systemd will have Windows.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
10. Re:How is it different from Red Hat's distros? by Billly+Gates · 2017-09-09 08:12 · Score: 3
  
  From what I read (thought they went under) is it's significantly cheaper than Redhat.
  You're looking at features. Corporations don't care about pulse audio and packages. They want support and server hardware support. If SuSE has the same level as Redhat then it can be cheaper and it's someone they can sue if it fails and call if there is a problem.
  The question is if anything is certified for SuSE anymore or is it Solaris, Windows Server, or Redhat? Not meant as a troll but I have not heard anything about it since Bush was in office
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
11. Re:How is it different from Red Hat's distros? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-09 08:21 · Score: -1
  
  If you want to troll, you have to try harder. That diatribe only shows your total lack of intelligence in any shape or form.
12. Re:How is it different from Red Hat's distros? by pnutjam · 2017-09-09 09:47 · Score: 3
  
  SUSE has Yast, love it or hate it, it's unique to linux and presents the same interface across gui or headless systems. Zypper is also the package management system yum wants to be when it grows up.
  
  Aside from that OpenSUSE, IMHO, it has the hands down best hardware support of any distribution. I used to slum it with Ubuntu when I ran into packages missing in OpenSUSE, but that's almost never the case now. SUSE build services are awesome and if you haven't checked out SUSE studio, your missing out.
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
13. Re:How is it different from Red Hat's distros? by pnutjam · 2017-09-09 09:50 · Score: 3
  
  Most stuff is certified for SUSE, it's not as popular in the US, but very common in Europe. I ran a SLES based cluster for the last couple years.
  My understanding is that RH wants you to license every copy once you licence any copy of RH. SUSE doesn't really care if your license lapses, you just won't be getting support on that machine anymore.
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
14. Re:How is it different from Red Hat's distros? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-09 10:02 · Score: 0
  
  openSUSE gives you the option of using KDE instead of Gnome.
15. Re:How is it different from Red Hat's distros? by Hognoxious · 2017-09-09 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  From what I read (thought they went under) is it's significantly cheaper than Redhat.
  
  CentOS is cheaper still.
  
  The question is if anything is certified for SuSE anymore or is it Solaris, Windows Server, or Redhat?
  
  I think it's one of the supported nixy platforms for SAP, along with RHEL and the Oracle one that's basically RHEL.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
16. Re:How is it different from Red Hat's distros? by Hognoxious · 2017-09-09 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  When you say Europe, do you mean Germany?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
17. Re:How is it different from Red Hat's distros? by Billly+Gates · 2017-09-09 13:48 · Score: 2
  
  Redhat Eula bans centos. You must only use Redhat for all servers.Not pay for one license and use their support for CentOS. Still if there is a problem with one of your Dell servers they will tell you to install Redhat and hang up. Enterprise support is a big thing for CIOs for this reason.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
18. Re:How is it different from Red Hat's distros? by Barsteward · 2017-09-09 20:10 · Score: 1
  
  yes, its shit. it still can't install anything without multiple reboots etc
  
  --
  "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
19. Re:How is it different from Red Hat's distros? by thegarbz · 2017-09-09 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  There's other differentiators as well. With Red Hat pulling out, Ubuntu throwing a lot of weight behind a ZFS kernel module, and Debian staying in the dark ages, SUSE is now the only major Linux vendor putting serious effort into BTRFS.
  While I don't use SUSE, their continued existence is something that benefits others too.
20. Re:How is it different from Red Hat's distros? by hardihoot · 2017-09-09 23:36 · Score: 1
  
  unusable niche ones like Slackware, Devuan and even Gentoo
  
  Unusable? I've been using Gentoo for years. And with Gentoo you have the option of using or not using systemd as you choose. Gentoo might be unusable for you maybe, but not for me.
  
  no wonder so many people are moving away from Linux
  Not so. Look at RHT share price: it keeps going up and up as more companies start using it. My real-world experience tells me that what you are saying "just ain't so". It appears you took your own experience and extrapolated and exaggerated it from a small manure pile to produce a proportion of dung as high as Mt. Everest.
  
  --
  A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver --Proverbs 25:11
21. Re:How is it different from Red Hat's distros? by pnutjam · 2017-09-11 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  My cluster was for Rolls-Royce, based in the UK. This was a US clone of their larger UK one.
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
22. Re:How is it different from Red Hat's distros? by Hognoxious · 2017-09-11 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  Which Rolls-Royce? If it's the car one I rest my case.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
23. Re:How is it different from Red Hat's distros? by pnutjam · 2017-09-11 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  nah, someone else makes the cars, we made aircraft engines.
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
Package dependencies: SuSE used to shine... by bogaboga · 2017-09-09 06:04 · Score: 1

I used to love SuSE for its ability to manage dependencies, especially circular dependencies. These used to drive mu nuts on RedHat.
To "resolve" them, I often used to "force install" them, ruining my system in the process. I understand things have since changed [for the better], right?
1. Re:Package dependencies: SuSE used to shine... by aliquis · 2017-09-09 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  To "resolve" them, I often used to "force install" them, ruining my system in the process. I understand things have since changed [for the better], right?
  Yeah. Now we use Windows 10!
2. Re:Package dependencies: SuSE used to shine... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-09 06:34 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry about your luck!
'ebullient'? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-09 06:07 · Score: 0, Funny

I had to look up the definition of the word 'ebullient'. I've learned that it's a chiefly British term meaning 'having effeminate gaiety and flamboyance'.
1. Re:'ebullient'? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-09 08:39 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  "I've learned that it's a chiefly British term meaning 'having effeminate gaiety and flamboyance'.
  And you'd be wrong [ https://en.oxforddictionaries.... :
  ebullient, adjective
  1 Cheerful and full of energy. ‘she sounded ebullient and happy’
  2 archaic (of liquid or matter) boiling or agitated as if boiling. ‘misted and ebullient seas’
SUSE means SOUR in German by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-09 06:22 · Score: 0

It was a ripoff of slackware, hence SOUR.
1. Re:SUSE means SOUR in German by Sique · 2017-09-09 07:10 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Actually, SOUR in German is SAUER.
  Suse is the german spelling for Susan.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
2. Re:SUSE means SOUR in German by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-09 10:10 · Score: 0
  
  SUSE sounds like the German word, süß, which means sweet not sour.
  Halt die Klappe. Du dumm fucking dummkopf.
3. Re:SUSE means SOUR in German by Leninix · 2017-09-09 11:27 · Score: 2
  
  We french people beats you for the Suse meaning: it means a blowjob in french.
4. Re:SUSE means SOUR in German by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-09 13:14 · Score: -1
  
  And systend means "suck my dick" in every language.
5. Re:SUSE means SOUR in German by dargaud · 2017-09-10 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  WTF are you talking about ? Never heard it for that meaning. Suze in french is a bitter liquor, made from gentian mountain flower. Pretty good.
  
  --
  Non-Linux Penguins ?
SUSE was formed in 1992 by DontBeAMoran · 2017-09-09 06:42 · Score: 1

Linux pioneer SUSE marks 25 years in the field
Shit, I'm old.

--
#DeleteFacebook
1. Re:SUSE was formed in 1992 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-09 14:23 · Score: 0
  
  at 25 you're just a child.
2. Re:SUSE was formed in 1992 by DontBeAMoran · 2017-09-09 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  SUSE is 25, I'm not.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
Serious question by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-09 06:59 · Score: 0

Is it still unusable trash?
1. Re:Serious question by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-09 08:02 · Score: 0
  
  No - Windows 10 spyware edition (all editions except maybe the corporate edition) has taken that place.
2. Re:Serious question by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-09 21:22 · Score: 0
  
  I used to joke that SuSE installations had two variants: broken or heavily broken. I've used a lot of distros over the years, but SuSE was the most painfully problematic of all. I've met a few SuSE fanboys/girls over the years, and I just don't get what the great thing about it is. Fair play to making it to 25 years though.
3. Re:Serious question by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-10 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  Well. If you keep meeting people who are complete fans of it, and you can't seem to get into any other state than "broken", that's quite indicative, don't you think?
  My bet is that you do not respect that it's SuSE rather than DeadRat, or whatever your normal distro is, and keep getting into fights with it's tools rather than using them. That would explain a lot.
  In my own experience, SuSE is probably the most solid, usable and reliable distro out there. IMO it has RH and Debian beat in every category other than in a few aspects. It historically wasn't particularly fast but that seems to be a thing of the past, it doesn't quite have the same amount of stuff packaged for it, and their idea of a "minimal" installation could definitely need some tweaking.
  I'd recommend giving it a shot again. Just remember, use yast, don't fight it.
I bought SuSE by twistedcubic · 2017-09-09 07:04 · Score: 0

Back when Linux distributions were sold in stores, I bought a boxed version of SuSE from Best Buy for $35. I installed Postfix, but everytime I did an update Postfix was replaced by Sendmail. Very annoying. So I sold it on Ebay (yes, forreal!) for $10 or so. Those were the days...
1. Re: I bought SuSE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-09 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  I've been using only (open)SUSE since I got some CDs with 4.2 in 1995.
  SUSE is really a solid distro.
  Cheers. And all the best for the next 25 years.
Tumbleweed is Continous Delivery at it's best by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-09 07:22 · Score: 0

All my machines now run openSUSE Tumbleweed updated to 2017-09-04. Local modifications are minimal. Updates are safe. Not a single failure since initial installation in September 2017. See also https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/
1. Re:Tumbleweed is Continous Delivery at it's best by Sique · 2017-09-09 07:29 · Score: 2
  
  September 2017 is now, right? No failure today then.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
2. Re:Tumbleweed is Continous Delivery at it's best by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-09 15:43 · Score: 0
  
  I ment September 2016.
And after all these years by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-09 07:47 · Score: 0

Nobody knows how to pronounce the distro's name. People will refer to it as "Soosee, or Soosa, whatever"..
1. Re:And after all these years by cyberchondriac · 2017-09-09 09:09 · Score: 2
  
  We use SuSE SLES at work, and Novell/MicroFocus would say "Soos-say", which just sounds really wrong to my ears.
  I'd always read it was pronounced "Soo-suh". Whatever. We've stuck by SLES11 because it's SystemV, and they went to SystemD with version 12.
  I can't knock YaST though, I love that for a set up tool. Of course, it's use is entirely optional; but recommended.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
They used to make Linux right? by Billly+Gates · 2017-09-09 08:07 · Score: 1

Whatever happened to then?

--
http://saveie6.com/
1. Re:They used to make Linux right? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-09 12:50 · Score: 0
  
  Whatever happened to then?
  "then" is still a word in the English language, it hasn't gone anywhere.
You never forget your first one by quax · 2017-09-09 12:52 · Score: 1

Was my first Linux distribution with a 0.97 kernel. Good times.
Black Indian Liars by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-09 13:37 · Score: -1

Black Indian Liars use windows 10 because monkey man Nayaya is a monkey man Black Indian Liar on H1B Indian Liar Program. Microsoft loves Black Indian liars and Liars of Liars. Black Indian Liars.