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.

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: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.

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 [planetsuse.org].

Re:Is it just me?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's the develepment process that's being opened up.

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

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: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: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.

Re:switch to suse

[Anonymous Coward]

The so called "Eval" version _is_ for all intents and purposes the boxed version, minus software they cannot for legal reasons include in their free distribution (But which you can _install_ from FTP servers, including MP3 support etc.)

I think Novell/SuSE made a mistake calling it Eval, when there is nothing to eval there - it's the full product. They should've originally called it the FTP version, which would've saved them a lot of headache from confused users. Like you for example.

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 [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 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:Breach of GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

> How on Earth is it possible that SUSE Pro has NOT been open source so far?

It has, don't trust Slashdot headlines/stories.

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: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:Umm, SuSE is _already_ open source

[Brandybuck]

That explains it. YAST was already open sourced, so I was confused as to what was left. The actual ISO images? They don't have any!

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" again?

This community is too caught up in words, in my humble opinion. We're like sheep in the way we can be trivially manipulated by the right words. People are all gushing about how wonderful the world is because SuSE is now open. Sheesh.

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 [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 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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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: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.

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.

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: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.

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 [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: binary compatibility

[Azul]

Before continuing to recommend Autopackage, you might want to read this post [kitenet.net] 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 [debian.org], does know a bit about package formats).

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

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.

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 [wikipedia.org] Netscape thing that RH bought vs. a stable and extremely mature [informationweek.com] (over 1 billion served) eDirectory product which is light years ahead [extremetech.com] 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.