![SuSE SuSE](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/suse_64.png)
![Businesses Businesses](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/business_64.png)
![Linux Business Linux Business](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/linuxbusiness_64.png)
![Novell Novell](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/novell_64.png)
![Software Software](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/software_64.png)
![Linux Linux](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/linux_64.png)
Novell To Open Source SUSE 316
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.
The real question: binary compatibility (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: 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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The real question: binary compatibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The real question: binary compatibility (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [autopackage.org]. 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 (Score:4, Informative)
If you're interested, you might also want to read this post [licquia.org] and the comments there.
Re:The real question: binary compatibility (Score:2)
You look for the program you want to run in the package list (many commercial or mature distros have a GUI tool for this). You look for something you want, tick it, press install and it does all the work.
With Windows you browse the web (there's not much good quality freeware), work out how to download it, run the installer. If there's any dependancies the software author forgot to mention then it won't run.
Flunks the real world test (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't like the fact Linux apps install rougher, but they do.
Re:Flunks the real world test (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:The real question: binary compatibility (Score:2)
You forgot: Then head off to the warez/crackz/serialz sites, get infected with some trojan/spyware, and look for the serial number to use it.
Re:The real question: binary compatibility (Score:2)
Re:The real question: binary compatibility (Score:3, Insightful)
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:
Re:The real question: binary compatibility (Score:2)
Sorry to go off-topic and flame, but... "Works pretty well" damnit! Why can't anyone ever get this correct?!?!
"Good" is an adjective (describes a noun)
"Well" is an adverb (describes a verb)
Something is good, but something is done well.
Re:The real question: binary compatibility (Score:2)
The OED has no such word as "damnit". In addition, don't you need a comma before "damnit"?
Re:You are forgetting something... (Score:2, Insightful)
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, bec
Re:The real question: binary compatibility (Score:3, Interesting)
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 arou
Re:The real question: binary compatibility (Score:4, Informative)
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 [freaks-unidos.net] 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: does it rhyme? (Score:3, Funny)
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:The real question: binary compatibility (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The real question: binary compatibility (Score:2)
I bet you can run Blender on any RedHat or SuSE distro.
Perhaps library-compatible would be a better term..
Re:The real question: binary compatibility (Score:2)
I doubt if TripMasterMonkey even has used any of the products in question..
Actually, I'm posting from my Toshiba laptop running SuSE 9.3 (I spent last Saturday replacing my Fedora 3 install). Thanks for playing, though.
Look at his posting history.. He likes karma whoring with meaningless but catchy posts, especially first posts.
Apparently, the majority of slashdotters do not share your jaundiced view of my contributions. But at least you think my posts are 'catchy'...I suppose that's something.
He wants
A feasible business model (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A feasible business model (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
While I definitely agree that Fedora Core isn't a good choice for servers, I'm curious about your "no upgrade path" statement. I've seen similar comments on Slashdot before, so it seems to be not just an isolated perception. Yet, you can upgrade from RHL9 to FC1 to FC2 to FC3 to FC4 to (future) FC5 just fine -- seems like an upgrade path to me.
Re:A feasible business model (Score:2)
Re:A feasible business model (Score:3, Insightful)
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 t
Re:A feasible business model (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
-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 (Score:2, Informative)
But "open source" is still the wrong term. Opening up the developer process is NOT "open source". Besides, I still don't know what this "opening" means. Does it imply that they automatically rejected every prior fix submitted by non-employees? Does this now mean they will accept *every* submission? If they reject even one because it's a bad fix, will that make them "closed" agai
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
SuSE is *not* Open Source! (Score:2)
To the best of my knowledge and making it clear that what I say here does not represent Novell and I am not a lawyer, I believe you are not legally allowed to redistribute SuSE (at least not if you keep copies).
You can read about this in a post I made in [slashdot.org]
Re:SuSE is *not* Open Source! (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong.
I just pulled out my Suse 9.3 Pro CD, and in LICENSE.TXT it says:
Re:Umm, SuSE is _already_ open source (Score:2)
switch to suse (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:switch to suse (Score:5, 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.
Re:switch to suse (Score:4, Informative)
DVD
http://isohunt.com/download.php?mode=bt&id=414255
5 CD Set
http://isohunt.com/download.php?mode=bt&id=396587
Re:switch to suse (Score:2, Insightful)
infringing the copyright of a linux distribution is awfully naughty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:switch to suse (Score:3, Informative)
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 webs
Re:switch to suse (Score:2, Informative)
Re:switch to suse (Score:3, Informative)
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 [fht-esslingen.de]
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 hoar
Re:switch to suse (Score:2)
Re:switch to suse (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re:switch to suse (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Huh... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Huh... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Huh... what's closed source that will open? (Score:2)
interest gone? (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe they're opening it up to compete with Ubuntu?
Re:interest gone? (Score:3, Insightful)
This sounds like a good step but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Support is Profit Generator (Score:2)
Re:This sounds like a good step but... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This sounds like a good step but... (Score:3, Interesting)
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 L
Where's my cape? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Where's my cape? (Score:3, Funny)
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Oh... Wait a minute...
Planet SuSE (Score:3, Informative)
Layoffs announced at same time (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Layoffs announced at same time (Score:3, Interesting)
Known, Successful Business Model (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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
Hope this means ISOs. (Score:2, Redundant)
And, as long ask I'm dreaming - wouldn't it be nice to see a distributio
1CD Distros (Score:2)
Suse already releases CD and DVD ISO's (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hope this means ISOs. (Score:2)
now make it use apt. (Score:5, Interesting)
Currently it is possible http://linux01.gwdg.de/apt4rpm/ [linux01.gwdg.de] 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.
Faster if you use a MIRROR (Score:2)
In YAST, simply add an alternate download location. [linux01.gwdg.de] The link is only one of many choices. And it's been there since April, from what I can tell.
As with most mirrors, this can help download times a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
iso (Score:2, Insightful)
Huh. The ISO images are available now. When did that happen ?
ftp://mirrors.kernel.org/suse/i386/9.3/iso/ [kernel.org]
Now I CAN tell people to use something better than Fedora Core.
Dreaded Double Digits! (Score:3, Interesting)
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! (Score:2)
Re:Dreaded Double Digits! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Dreaded Double Digits! (Score:2)
Shoulda hit preview.
Novell has made a good move (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What needs to happen next... (Score:2, Interesting)
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... (Score:2, Informative)
Now,... um... even MORE open source! (Score:2, Insightful)
Novell's announcement was not that they're open sourcing SUSE. SUSE is already GPL. Novell is essentially announcing this [eweek.com]:
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
OpenSUSE? (Score:4, Funny)
VMWare (Score:3, Interesting)
I love being able to be working in Windows, and just "pop up" Linux when I want it without rebooting.
Communities (Score:2, Interesting)
Real reason for this: Discountinug a product. (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Crappy software never dies... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Crappy software never dies... (Score:2)
Re:Crappy software never dies... (Score:3, Interesting)
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 ha
Re:Crappy software never dies... (Score:2)
I tried out Kubuntu, since they usually claim to have new KDE packages on the day they're released (3.4 released? Kubuntu has it!). However, I discovered that that only applied to i386. Since I have an Athlon 64, I'd have to compile anything newer than 3.4.0 (including 3.4.x bugfix releases) myself, unless I want to use the breezy testing repository.
Combine that with the fact that I'd have to compile several other things myself to get support
Re:Crappy software never dies... (Score:2)
If you want to surf the bleeding edge then SuSE is probably not for you. Personally I see that as a benefit, not a problem.
Jedidiah.
Re:Crappy software never dies... (Score:2)
However, you do not need to compile anything for MP3 support or anything else for that matter. The Ubuntu Guide covers all that stuff. You might have wanted to enable the non-free repository.
Re:Is it just me? (Score:2)
I'm hoping that ISO images of the install CD for this 'OpenSUSE' will be available for download. Installing via FTP works, but it's an unnecessary pain in the ass.
Re:A soon to be shotty OS? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A soon to be shotty OS? (Score:2)
I know you're trolling (Score:3, Informative)
... but in case someone is confused by your post:
If you want to pay for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (in one of three flavours [redhat.com]) 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 [redhat.com]. 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 s
Re:A soon to be shotty OS? (Score:3, Informative)
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 f
Re:Slashdot Falters (Score:3, Interesting)
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!
Re:Free Booster Seat with every Download. (Score:2)
That's because you're not BUYING enough shrinked wrapped boxes of SuSE!
Re:How do you pronounce SUSE? (Score:2)
Re:How do you pronounce SUSE? (Score:2)
Second
User
Systems
Engineering
Its actually Software- Und System-Entwicklung (Score:2)
Software- und System-Entwicklung
which translates into Software- and System-Development
Re:Breach of GPL? (Score:4, Informative)
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:SUSE == too German (Score:2)
The foo-Nazi expression was popularized into the American cultural mindspace by an (as I am told--haven't seen it, myself) excellent Seinfeld episode featuring a "Soup-Nazi".