It’s become clear to many that Red Hat’s recent missteps with CentOS and the availability of RHEL source code indicate that it’s fallen from its respected place as “the open organization.” SUSE seems to be poised to benefit from Red Hat’s errors. We connect the dots.
Also SUSE: OpenSUSE needs to change their name because we say so
There’s always been the risk of confusion and openSUSE project seemed to have understood that SUSE could disallow the name at any moment. A name change does make sense for both. Especially now that even Leap might be distancing itself from SLE and whatnot.
There’s always been the risk of confusion
A name change does make sense for both
Then make SUSE become ClosedSUSE. It couldn’t be easier.
I should call it Bella Linux
PS: in reference to my MC in Zenless Zone Zero
Debian Stable.
It’s always the answer to "what distro do I want to use when I care about stability and support-ability.
And, unlike CentOS, it can’t be legally taken over by a corporate entity and changed into something entirely different. Debian is owned by Debian.
Maybe just not for corporate enterprise that wants phone and tech support? unless Debian has an Enterprise vendor? The PLM systems and other enterprise level software are certified on SUSE and RHEL, personally I haven’t seen Debian listed anywhere.
I know at least of Freexian. But also, Ubuntu tends to cover the “Like Debian, but with enterprise support” niche.
In my homelab I have Debian VMs originally set up with Debian 6 in 2011 which were upgraded another 6 major releases to now Debian 12 over the years. When I think about Debian I always get a very warm cozy feeling.
As a user I wouldn’t use debian. Server yes, workstation, no.
How come? I’m using it on a laptop now, and on quite a few servers. It does both things pretty well now.
Because it’s not updated often enough. Fedora is stable and up to date. Especially fedora atomic has a huge added value compared to debian.
Stable means different things in different contexts.
Debian being stable is like RHEL being stable. You’re not jury talking about “doesn’t crash”, you’re talking about APIS, behaviours, features and such being assured not to change.
That’s not necessarily a good thing for a general purpose desktop, but for an enterprise workstation or server, yes.
So it’s not so much that Debian would replace Fedora, it’s the Debian would replace RHEL or CentOS. For a Fedora equivalent, there’s Ubuntu and the like.
Fair enough, it’s good that there’s choice.
This article reads like a press release from SUSE.
No because the caption under the first image says that SUSE’s mascot is a ‘gecko named Geeko’ – which cannot be farther from the truth, for it is a Chameleon named Geeko, that is the mascot of SUSE. Aye.
This seems like a PR release and has zero proof or data in the article to back itself up.
Yep. I’ve seen nothing of the sort in the wild. Still Ubuntu and RHEL/Centos/Rocky/AMZ2 in the DC almost exclusively. The only things I’ve seen making a few inroads for practical applications are CachyOS and Clear Linux.
Didn’t SUSE just ask openSUSE to change its name?
Mmm, maybe. “Joining the dots” also can be read as “taking a lot of bad feeling about X, and some good activity about Y and exaggerating both”
EL is pretty dominant still, although much of that seems to be Rocky/Alma rather than RHEL, but there’s no way to get real numbers.
What I have seen is a lot of uptick in Debian and Ubuntu servers. We are moving away from EL towards Debian now because of what we perceive as ongoing instability in the EL ecosystem caused by Redhat. Our business depends on a reliable Linux OS so we’re doing the maths.
Strange, I’ve not really seen that. Where I work we’ve just transitioned to RHEL. And Rocky/Alma are nowhere near as popular as RHEL.
Interesting, thanks. Those I’ve spoken to moved from Centos to Rocky when that was killed, and I know of more that moved to Debian.
Not to be confused with OpenSUSE…
To be honest, their demand that OpenSUSE rebrand left a bad taste in my mouth. I get the logic behind it, but the time for that passed a long time ago (probably about 15 years ago).
their demand that OpenSUSE rebrand
Slight changing of the tone, there. They have formally requested the change, not demanded.
Maybe that will follow, I can’t read the future, but it’s not the case today.
I mean yes they did “formally request” it, but given the power dynamic between a FOSS project and a large technology company, openSUSE is not in a position where they could possibly refuse. So is there a difference between a request and a demand?
If there’s no requirement, maybe openSUSE will just formally politely refuse to change names
I am sure it is a requirement really. Who owns the SUSE trademark?
In that case why would it be a bad thing to change the name to something else?
It has “become clear”. Has it?
Red Hat contributes more to Open Source than pretty much anybody. Certainly more than SUSE. That seems self-evident. If you want to debate, bring receipts.
As per the article, SUSE gets most of its money from SAP. SAP was founded by a bunch of ex-IBM people in Germany. They make IBM seem like cowboys.
The new SUSE CEO is ex Red Hat. Again, according the the article, the hope was that he would bring some of the Red Hat “open source magic” but SUSE has proven too “corporate”. Not exactly supporting their own argument there.
I am not close enough to the situation to know, but I doubt SUSE is taking over anything from Red Hat soon. RHEL is so far ahead that they have multiple distros trying to be “alternate” suppliers of RHEL by offering compatible distros. SUSE themselves are doing that now. If the world is looking to SUSE, why isn’t anybody trying to clone SUSE Enterprise?
SUSE is making some smart moves, given that they are the underdog. But let’s not confuse that with SUSE pulling ahead of Red Hat.
deleted by creator
I disagree with you. You seem keen to insult people who might hold an alternative opinion, so no doubt you’ll attack me as well.
Redhat did far more than just stymie Oracle. That you’re saying that suggests you’re either deliberately ignoring the facts (Ending CentOS 8 7 years early with no prior announcement, being massively disrespectful to the volunteer CentOS maintainers and support staff), deliberately paywalling source deliberately to target all rebuilders, not just Oracle, generally being amateurish and entitled dicks to the community through their official communications and so on) - or you simply don’t know.
About the only thing you say that is correct, is that Redhat do contribute a lot to FOSS, even now. That deserves respect, but it gets harder to do that at a personal level each time they do something simultaneously dumb and selfishly corporate. A lot of people have given Redhat a lot of space and stayed quiet out of respect of their history. Maybe they are right to, but the direction they’re heading doesn’t look healthy to me.
To my eye, Red Hat’s “direction” has not changed since they formed the Fedora Project to begin with ( the first attempt at keeping RHEL and their “no cost” options distinct ). Attempt number two was the creation of CentOS Stream. Now it is the way they manage RHEL SRPMS. No change in direction. No change in intent. No overall change in their behaviour.
deleted by creator
Half of what you’re writing isn’t really true.
'tis, you know.
Also, sorry, but is it disrespectful when a company drops a project? We could make that same comment about every project. Also, CentOS is open source, as you said, so anyone can download it . They didn’t.
Dropped a project? It wasn’t actually their project. I think you’re missing some history there. CentOS was a distro started by Greg and Rocky entirely separate from RHEL and ran for many years. Redhat took over CentOS through methods that may be seen as underhand until they had sufficient seats and influence over the Board to have control of it, and then they took/stole the CentOS name. CentOS Linux is an example of a FOSS project that got taken over by a corporate entity, and then killed. (Anyone heard of embrace, extend, extinguish before?) Now CentOS only exists as CentOS Stream, which is repositioned upstream of RHEL and is a staging area/testbed between Fedora and RHEL. Redhat say it’s not suitable for production use, so nobody other than testers uses it, afaik.
Redhat have done a lot for Linux in the past. And that will likely continue for some time yet. But they have done some seriously questionable things ever since IBM bought them out. I don’t like the direction they seem to be heading in as withmany of IBM products.
Is there a “questionable thing” other than your views on CemtOS? I do not watch them super closely but I do not recall anything else.
Thing is, the last time I saw under the hood while collaborating with suse, the packaging was a freak show and the culture was abrasive.
Rocky until PCLinuxOS gets a decent VM template.
I’m sure enterprises are just running for the door, just like they did when IBM bought Red Hat. Also Hashicorp. Enterprises are going to dump Terraform because it’s closed source and owned by IBM
Nobody gets fired for buying IBM.
But people do get sacked when IBM buys you.
OpenTofu is the replacement for everyone else. Them too?
Why replace Hashi if you’re in the RH or IBM ecosystem? Why replace it at all if you’re an enterprise? They have enterprise support.
Terragrunt provides enterprise support for OpenTofu last I was looking into it.
Why invest around IP you have no control around if you don’t have to?
Downsizing the number FOSS developers every couple of years is pretty much the standard in enterprises, yes.
Saw the thumbnail and for a second I thought a new backrooms video dropped.
