Hi, Am 01.12.2010 00:02, schrieb jdd:

Le 30/11/2010 23:46, Pascal Bleser a écrit :

Stop here. Please read that post.

...

Done?

thanks Pascal for posting it here so I can skip that step myself ;-)

I think most sensible products already have a running and fixed version (at the source level at least).

can't you have apache 2 bug free? postfix? patched kernel?

What I know is that I *have* at hand, thanks to my provider work, a running kernel for as long as I want (it's the same for all the installed distros).

* first hint: ask host provider for help, they already do a part of the work (and source have to be available).

I have to hope that people responsible for keeping openSUSE up to date in hosting environments (I'm not sure if there are many who do it though) are reading here. I don't know who is rolling out openSUSE and would be interested in supporting the idea. I _know_ that 1und1 is still offering 10.3 on their vservers and I'm pretty sure it's not really maintained. So if anyone has more details about openSUSE hosters just let me know (probably via private mail) so we might contact them for their thoughts.

the forst task is to list the really basic unavoidable applications :-)

Basically right but I'd rather take another approach. I don't want to have "planning" delays the "doing" anymore. I for myself are willing to fail at some point if contribution is not enough to do anything serious. I would rather just start (probably already with 11.1 running out of maintenance by end of this year) but even for that we need "some" people to join in. And yes, I'm expecting limitations (at least in the beginning) like: - we will probably be slow with releasing updates - we might not be able to backport everything and need to be a bit less strict with version upgrades - we will never be able to cover everything from an openSUSE release - we need to focus on server services (translate: remote security) Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Am Mittwoch, 1. Dezember 2010, 00:46:30 schrieb Greg KH:

... openSLE... Again, personally, I think this is both the "easier" option, as well as the better one to do.

Can't both ideas be combined? The Novell Security team has a patch stream for SLE which could be opened up to the openSUSE LTS team (maybe after respecting certain disclosure time conditions), the work to check the patches and maybe modify them would fall upon the openSUSE LTS team, but they don't need to keep track of all the different CVE etc sources for security reports, hunt down patches etc and could concentrate on fixing the issue. (afaik all the distro security lists are about resulting binaries, not source patches, if there is already something where all the patches to security issues are channeled disregard my whole mail) Cheers, Karsten -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 08:18:53PM +0100, Peter Linnell wrote:

I guess my question then is what does it take to push this forward with Novell?

Um, I don't understand. What do you want from Novell here? This is something that the community must do, not Novell. good luck, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Am Mittwoch 01 Dezember 2010 schrieb Sebastian Siebert:

Only lazy and strict conservative people have an LTS version. :-)

This is unfortunately not true. I host my personal web page on a virtual server on hosteurope.de (which btw also offers openSUSE mirroring, so I guess I'm free to "advertise" a bit :) and while I'm happy with it, they only offer free linux versions that last for a bit in their virtual environment. And Tumbleweed won't be able to fill that gap as openSUSE's kernel needs to fit the kernel outside and they won't do that on a "rolling" base. So I'm stuck with centos 5.5 (they offer ubuntu LTS and debian stable too I think). Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Wednesday 01 December 2010 16:51:49 wrote Slaya Chronicles - Geeko Acolyte:

I may be wrong but RH is where it is today is partially due to CentOS.

CentOS, by more traditional business models should have killed RHEL years ago. I mean, who would want to pay for something (SLES/SLED) you can get at no cost (CentOS) right ?

The opposite is true now. What we have now is a sizeable pool of RHEL-type system trained IT guys. And guess what these people will recommend for paid-for support Enterprise Linux?

=Asking= I can clearly see the advantage of a LTS system. My impression of that discussion is, that it is worth it to ask Novell what they need to support the openSLES idea. For the openSUSE-Novell-openSLX-every community member ecosystem this seems by far the better alternative. =Thinking further= Another idea which came to my mind. I see manly two types of openSUSE users with their special needs. 1. Stability, security, long-term support, not much work maintaining or migrating the systems. This will apply to many servers or desktops from business users (esp. bigger ones). 2. Stability, security and software that is up to date. They update their systems regularly. (Power-users, Home-users, etc.) In my opinion the amount of people wanting a mixture is small (but that is just a guess). So what does the user want? 1. => He/she wants an LTS version and is happy when a new version is published, when end of life of his version is approaching after 3 years. openSUSE LTS/openSLES would be the choice. 2. => They will be happy to use openSUSE Tumbleweed. It fits exactly their needs. =Consequences= When the majority of users is satisfied with LTS and Tumbleweed why not change the release cycle to focus our resources for these new tasks? Now we have 8 month until the next release. We support every release for 18 month (2 releases and 2 months). => we have 2.33 main versions to maintain. So why not expand the release cycle to 2.5 years and support it for 3 years?! This would be fine for group 1. For the second group we offer Tumbleweed based on that LTS main release. To fill the gap between we could provide "snapshot"-CDs of the Tumbleweed tree (if really needed) to offer a live and install medium for new installations / new users. There may be a 3rd tree like factory / testing. That might reduce the number of repos as well. You could get rid e.g. of all the openSUSE 11.x/KDE_Factory repos. And we would have again about 2 main versions to maintain. =Conclusion= Ok. This is a very extreme position. The perfect solution may be in between. But with Tumbleweed and LTS we should really rethink the release cycles. Just my 2 cents. Cheers, Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Thursday 02 December 2010 20:44:03 wrote Greg KH:

On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 02:38:39PM +0100, Thomas Thym wrote:

...

=Consequences= When the majority of users is satisfied with LTS and Tumbleweed why not change the release cycle to focus our resources for these new tasks? Now we have 8 month until the next release. We support every release for 18 month (2 releases and 2 months). => we have 2.33 main versions to maintain.

Why not revisit this when/if LTS and Tumbleweed succeed. We have a ways to go here before this is something we need to worry about.

Yes, I agree. Let's wait and discuss it again. Cheers, Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Thursday 02 December 2010 14:38:39 Thomas Thym wrote:

On Wednesday 01 December 2010 16:51:49 wrote Slaya Chronicles - Geeko Acolyte:

...

I may be wrong but RH is where it is today is partially due to CentOS.

CentOS, by more traditional business models should have killed RHEL years ago. I mean, who would want to pay for something (SLES/SLED) you can get at no cost (CentOS) right ?

The opposite is true now. What we have now is a sizeable pool of RHEL-type system trained IT guys. And guess what these people will recommend for paid-for support Enterprise Linux?

=Asking= I can clearly see the advantage of a LTS system.

No doubt.

My impression of that discussion is, that it is worth it to ask Novell what they need to support the openSLES idea. For the openSUSE-Novell-openSLX-every community member ecosystem this seems by far the better alternative.

=Thinking further= Another idea which came to my mind. I see manly two types of openSUSE users with their special needs. 1. Stability, security, long-term support, not much work maintaining or migrating the systems. This will apply to many servers or desktops from business users (esp. bigger ones). 2. Stability, security and software that is up to date. They update their systems regularly. (Power-users, Home-users, etc.)

In my opinion the amount of people wanting a mixture is small (but that is just a guess). So what does the user want? 1. => He/she wants an LTS version and is happy when a new version is published, when end of life of his version is approaching after 3 years. openSUSE LTS/openSLES would be the choice. 2. => They will be happy to use openSUSE Tumbleweed. It fits exactly their needs.

=Consequences= When the majority of users is satisfied with LTS and Tumbleweed why not change the release cycle to focus our resources for these new tasks? Now we have 8 month until the next release. We support every release for 18 month (2 releases and 2 months). => we have 2.33 main versions to maintain.

So why not expand the release cycle to 2.5 years and support it for 3 years?! This would be fine for group 1. For the second group we offer Tumbleweed based on that LTS main release. To fill the gap between we could provide "snapshot"-CDs of the Tumbleweed tree (if really needed) to offer a live and install medium for new installations / new users. There may be a 3rd tree like factory / testing. That might reduce the number of repos as well. You could get rid e.g. of all the openSUSE 11.x/KDE_Factory repos. And we would have again about 2 main versions to maintain.

Practically, a long time support is possible already. I offered multiple times to create an OBS project where people could still maintain (security) updates for openSUSE 11.0 for example. However, so far no real group got established. So it looks in first place as a lack of workforce to me. But again, there is nothing what stops you to do this already _right now_. However, I don't see that this would obsolete KDE:Factory openSUSE_11.1 repos for example. Because you still want to offer the user the choice to have either something rocking stable with little changes and on this other hand with some bleeding edge component. bye adrian -- Adrian Schroeter SUSE Linux Products GmbH email: adrian@suse.de -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Monday 06 December 2010 19:00:51 Kim Leyendecker wrote:

This looks all very interesting.... But with a LTS-Release it maybe will be difficult. I used Ubuntu 10.04 LTS for a while and read something about 8.04 LTS. There´s Firefox in version 3.0.19 and there aren´t any updates by Mozilla (I read it, if it isn´t the truth, please correct me) so I think it´s the work of the community to do this.

In generell I think the idea of Thomas Thym very nice. It looks a little bit like Debian: - stable - testing - sid

Maybe the Ubuntu-way is a much better way to do it:

openSUSE 11.4 becomes a regular version. openSUSE 11.5 will be the first LTS release. Support till 2014 (when it comes 2011) openSUSE 11.6 will be a regular 6 month release so on.....

Then they are two important repos: - LTS: This repo includes all software for a LTS-release - Regular: This repp includes all 6 month releases of software.

Factory becomes like Debian Sid.

That´s my idea of a LTS-version

So you want to force people to update their entire system just to get a bleeding edge KDE, or kernel or digikam ? Sounds more like a step backward to me. -- Adrian Schroeter SUSE Linux Products GmbH email: adrian@suse.de -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Tuesday 07 December 2010 19:02:54 wrote Kim Leyendecker:

That´s one of the not cleared things of my idea. I said that´s just an idea that must be make perfect so this is a question that will need to clear. I don´t know, but I think if people really want to have the bleeding edge KDE, they install it from the OBS or the KDE repo.

My core idea was to offer Tubleweed for those who want uptodate software and LTS for Business users with the wish to risk the chance to break something (update/upgrade) very seldom. Therefor skip the releases between LTS. Factory remains for developers. But I agree with Greg to discuss it further, when we have Tumbleweed (and hopefully LTS). Cheers, Thomas

...

- LTS: This repo includes all software for a LTS-release - Regular: This repp includes all 6 month releases of software.

In this cause, YaST is important. If you install the LTS, you can use the "regular" repo too and if you use the regular you can use the LTS too. I hope it´s clear.

My third point is following: What´s with Tumbleweed? I think it looks very intersting and maybe it can be used with my concept too.

kind regards and a nice day kdl -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: AdrianSchröter Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 8:13 PM To: Kim Leyendecker Cc: opensuse-project@opensuse.org ; Thomas Thym Subject: Re: [opensuse-project] openSUSE LTS, Tumbleweed and release cycles

On Monday 06 December 2010 19:00:51 Kim Leyendecker wrote:

...

This looks all very interesting.... But with a LTS-Release it maybe will be difficult. I used Ubuntu 10.04 LTS for a while and read something about 8.04 LTS. There´s Firefox in version 3.0.19 and there aren´t any updates by Mozilla (I read it, if it isn´t the truth, please correct me) so I think it´s the work of the community to do this.

In generell I think the idea of Thomas Thym very nice. It looks a little bit like Debian: - stable - testing - sid

Maybe the Ubuntu-way is a much better way to do it:

openSUSE 11.4 becomes a regular version. openSUSE 11.5 will be the first LTS release. Support till 2014 (when it comes 2011) openSUSE 11.6 will be a regular 6 month release so on.....

Then they are two important repos: - LTS: This repo includes all software for a LTS-release - Regular: This repp includes all 6 month releases of software.

Factory becomes like Debian Sid.

That´s my idea of a LTS-version

So you want to force people to update their entire system just to get a bleeding edge KDE, or kernel or digikam ?

Sounds more like a step backward to me.

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Here's my ISP doc about the "netbook" boot, that is he use of patched kernel: http://help.ovh.co.uk/KernelNetboot however I have to say that the openSUSE of this ISP is pretty special, it's lilo based and I never could make a standard grub openSUSE boot on this server obviously, this kernel is compiled static for the hardware used :-) jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Am 02.12.2010 15:14, schrieb Thomas Hertweck:

On 30/11/10 22:46, Pascal Bleser wrote:

...

And, personally, the last thing I'd want is people from Novell/SUSE losing their job because of that.

This would certainly be a bad development but very shortsighted on Novell's (or whatever the name now is) side.

...

[...] Long story short, I personally believe that the only viable option is "openSUSE LTS", but it does bring some technical challenges which require a certain number of committed contributors working on the maintenance.

I think the only feasible and viable solution given the current resources was an openSLES, and I and my company would be looking forward to such a solution. At the moment, we use RHEL and CentOS, just like many other companies in the Oil&Gas business.

I would love to have an openSLES but I won't fight it out with Novell if they don't change their mind. I still think that an LTS version would be possible as well. I cannot believe that there are no people out there who could spend a few hours a month to make it possible. I'm also thinking about companies here who would invest a bit of their time to have an openSUSE LTS option. But apparently they are just going for the complete free solution CentOS :-( Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Well, I think a LTS version isn´t so good. I mean, companies will use SLES and/or SLED. I think openSUSE is a "normal" distribution like Ubuntu or others. The release plan is good for the home and uncommerical users. I work on a system like centOS but I can´t give the support like the CentOS community and it´s just a hobby by myself. (and the release plan is almost like the openSUSE one..... 10.1 commes on 17th Feb [my birthday] and 10.2 commes on 17th sept [Linux birthday] I think a 6 month release plan is the right one. I tested SUSE Linux Enterpise and I think OpenOffice 3.0 isn´t that what I want. Yes, for companies it´s better to have stable enought software for critical using, but as a home user I want to have the latest software. So far, I hope openSUSE 11.4 will be fine. kind regards kdl (kimleyendecker@hotmail.de) -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Thomas Hertweck Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 10:55 AM To: opensuse-project@opensuse.org Subject: Re: [opensuse-project] openSUSE LTS On 02/12/10 16:46, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:

[...] I would love to have an openSLES but I won't fight it out with Novell if they don't change their mind.

I agree, out of respect for Novell as sponsor of openSUSE it should perhaps not be done without some kind of (at least unofficial) approval.

I still think that an LTS version would be possible as well. I cannot believe that there are no people out there who could spend a few hours a month to make it possible. I'm also thinking about companies here who would invest a bit of their time to have an openSUSE LTS option. But apparently they are just going for the complete free solution CentOS :-(

Well, I think it's time for a reality check: As I said, I work in the oil&gas industry where we have large compute resources (clusters with thousands of CPUs), many desktop systems, many servers, disk storage is measured in Petabytes, etc. However, the OS (i.e. Linux in this case) is only a tool for us, we don't employ Linux kernel programmers, we employ geophysicists, geologists, geoscientists, etc. That's the main difference to IT and software companies. When you say companies should invest a bit of time to have an openSUSE LTS, that's easier said than done, in particular for companies whose shares are sold on the stock market. At the end of the day, it's about making money and keeping your share holders happy - this holds for us just like it holds for Novell. There's CentOS out there which works fine, and the combination of RHEL for (important) servers, CentOS for cluster compute nodes (binary compatible with RHEL), and Fedora for desktop systems (where stability isn't such a crucial issue and having up-to-date OpenOffice or browser versions is more important) works fine and saves quite a bit of money (we are talking about several thousands of systems here, or even more in large companies). Unfortunately, in the openSUSE world there's no such OS combination available. I play a bit the devil's advocate here, I hope you realize that. Unfortunately, over the years I've seen far too many overly naive opinions in the community when it comes to Linux. Novell hasn't made openSUSE a community project because it's great fun and the company loves to throw money out the window - no, Linux is a business and Novell certainly had and has this in mind, just like RedHat and other companies in this business sector. Anyway, I've a general question at the end which fits somehow into the whole discussion here: Usually, we get new clusters now and then and older clusters will be decommissioned. These clusters are no longer based on the latest hardware (i.e. we probably speak of dual-CPU dual-core clusters here which are currently being decommissioned as opposed to new clusters based on, for instance, dual-CPU hexa-core) but they still work fine. Last time we had some problems actually getting rid of such a cluster. My question now is, would openSUSE be interested in getting a hand on such second-hand hardware? Somebody mentioned that Packman, for instance, doesn't have enough resources. Of course, the computers/cluster nodes would only be a piece of the puzzle, you would still require somebody who's going to pay the bill (air conditioning is a huge factor), you would require some space etc, i.e. somebody else would have to provide the infrastructure. But I guess if there's some interest to (at least) get the hardware (for free), there might be a way to achieve that. Regards, Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On 2010-12-05 19:19:24 (+0000), Thomas Hertweck wrote:

Kim, stop sending private copies of emails and learn how to properly quote previous emails!

On 04/12/10 18:24, Kim Leyendecker wrote:

...

Well, I think a LTS version isn´t so good. I mean, companies will use SLES and/or SLED.

You obviously haven't read and/or haven't understood what I wrote. There are a lot of companies out there which do not use SLES and/or SLED. Nobody said an openSUSE LTS or openSLES would replace a standard openSUSE for the home end user. It would of course be a complementary package, bridging the gap between standard openSUSE and SLES/SLED.

Correct. And if I may add a few things... The nature of the beast highly depends on whether it's an "openSLES" (which would be binary compatible with SLES, same as CentOS for RHEL (*)) or an "openSUSE LTS". The latter would *not* be binary compatible to SLES, and have nothing to do with SLES altogether (which is why that option is fine with everyone from a "political" point of view). It is "just" an openSUSE with a longer lifetime. The target audience of an "openSUSE LTS" (**) is not going to be the "home user". Such long(er) lifetime releases are mostly meant for people/admins running openSUSE on servers and, even more specifically, on hosted environments, where you do not have physical access and where upgrading is always a risky undertaking. The other reason is that, if we take that option, we would start with a small set of "core" packages (stuff like kernel, coreutils, ...), simply because we most probably wouldn't have enough contributors to maintain a larger set of packages (e.g. KDE, GNOME, X.org, ...). That is a lot more useful than one might think: if we end up with such a small/"core" system, we can have it as a build target on build.opensuse.org and, hence, provide the newest packages for e.g. apache2, php5, mysql, etc... based on what is already maintained there. It wouldn't be backported patches, but newer versions. Personally, when I think of the hosted server scenarios I'm involved with, it would suit my needs perfectly well. Those "core" packages _must_ be maintained anyway, even if one aims for a desktop oriented LTS. And it's also something to begin with, and we'll see whether that proves to be successful or a bad idea altogether. As Wolfgang wrote in his blog post, the main idea here is to actually _try_ to do it, not discuss every potential problem and approach to death and, then, never actually try to implement it. That being said, if "openSUSE LTS" proves to be successful, nothing prevents more contributors to join the team and maintain more packages, even stuff like KDE or GNOME or ... (*) although, in practice, it's far from being as binary compatible to RHEL as one might think (**) really need to come up with a better name, it has nothing to do with what Canonical is doing for their Ubuntu LTS, and might sound misleading in that regard) -- what about "openSUSE EL" (Extended Lifetime) ? Hope this clarifies some blurry details :) cheers -- -o) Pascal Bleser /\\ http://opensuse.org -- I took the green pill _\_v FOSDEM XI: 5 + 6 Feb 2011, http://fosdem.org

On 05/12/10 23:40, Pascal Bleser wrote:

[...]

Correct. And if I may add a few things...

The nature of the beast highly depends on whether it's an "openSLES" (which would be binary compatible with SLES, same as CentOS for RHEL (*)) or an "openSUSE LTS". The latter would *not* be binary compatible to SLES, and have nothing to do with SLES altogether (which is why that option is fine with everyone from a "political" point of view). It is "just" an openSUSE with a longer lifetime.

This is a crucial point, no doubt. I think the binary compatibility of CentOS with RHEL is definitely one of the big advantages for companies. You can even run RHEL-certified software on CentOS without problems.... openSUSE LTS, as pointed out in other parts of this email thread, could be done right now - it's more likely a matter of human resources than anything else. Regards, Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Le 09/12/2010 10:57, Wolfgang Rosenauer a écrit :

Yes, and unless someone starts an openSLE soonish I'll just start. But I still would appreciate if people join in ;-)

count on me. I have little time (family problems), but I can help documenting jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On 12/09/2010 12:35 PM, Per Jessen wrote:

Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:

...

...

(**) really need to come up with a better name, it has nothing to do with what Canonical is doing for their Ubuntu LTS, and might sound misleading in that regard) -- what about "openSUSE EL" (Extended Lifetime) ?

Yeah ;-) openSUSE (E)nterprise (L)inux

openSUSE UHT. (long life).

Nice idea, but it will be completely lost on Americans and IIRC Canada as well. UHT is a non-existent there. ;) Cheers, Peter -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

* Thomas Hertweck [2010-12-09 20:49]:

Having said that, doesn't it at the end of the day come down to a "political" question: Are we willing to proceed with a clone of SLES (provided it's 100% legal to do so) even when Novell is strictly against this idea? Maybe they couldn't do anything about it directly, but working against your main sponsor might create a somewhat strange impression, and a lot of infrastructure and support for openSUSE is coming from that one

It has been suggested that this would have to be done outside the openSUSE project. So provided some infrastructure can be organized and enough people step up and work on this outside the openSUSE community such a situation would not even arise. The initial attempt (which seems to have gone nowhere) started this way. -- Guido Berhoerster -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On 09/12/10 20:03, Adrian Schröter wrote:

[...] Again, I offered several times resources in build.o.o to do a LTS. Just no real work force has formed so far (looks like lack of interesst to me).

The comment about "doing it outside of the openSUSE project" referred to a clone of SLES, not an openSUSE LTS version. Regards, Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Hi all, On 11/12/2010 00:18, Marcus Meissner wrote:

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 08:52:36PM +0000, Thomas Hertweck wrote:

...

On 09/12/10 20:03, Adrian Schröter wrote:

...

[...] Again, I offered several times resources in build.o.o to do a LTS. Just no real work force has formed so far (looks like lack of interesst to me).

The comment about "doing it outside of the openSUSE project" referred to a clone of SLES, not an openSUSE LTS version.

I dont think that anything speaks against using the OBS also for a potential openSLES.

That is the point where we should stop the discussion now and let's begin with the implementation of openSUSE LTS (openSLES or whatever). :-) The issue was raised often in the past and we discussed it for a long time without results. Actions speak louder than words. @Pascal Bleser and Wolfgang Rosenauer: You speak out loudly for an openSUSE LTS. Are you ready to lead the project? :-P I hope that follow actions now! -- Kind regards, Sebastian - openSUSE Member (Freespacer) Website/Blog: http://www.sebastian-siebert.de Important notes on openSUSE Mailing List: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Mailing_list_netiquette -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

In the most points, I agree with you. But How shall we name it during the discussion on the Mailing list? Well, I think you´re right and it´s more important to talk about the resources that project will need. They are three important issues: 1.) Support: This is one of the major problems. If I want to use a LTS version, I need Support, right? Who want to give the support. I don´t know but _I_ need secure, when I use a LTS version. 2.) Updates: Yes, maybe it´s the same like support, but updates are important. An example is the Kernel. I don´t need a LTS version, that needs a new kernel every month. There´s a LTS kernel the right choose. But If I use the LTS version for a server, I want to have the latest security updates. How we can realize that there are the updates for the system? Maybe we can use Thumbleweed for updates (e.g. for Firefox or Thunderbird) these programmes are not so "important" like KDE or GNOME. I think a LTS version don´t need the latest desktop environment. But the latest browser is a "must-have", because of security. 3.) Publishing: With which version we would start? How we would build it? I mean if it base on openSUSE 11.3, and we release it in March 2011, 11.4 comes in a few days. Maybe a SLE-clone is much better than a system that base on openSUSE. Hope you know what I mean. kind regards and good luck for the project kdl -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Nelson Marques Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 1:53 AM To: Marcus Meissner Cc: Thomas Hertweck ; opensuse-project@opensuse.org Subject: Re: [opensuse-project] openSUSE LTS Hi, People often say I complicate things too much... Adryan offered the resources... forget the name for time being and focus on what you want to do, people that are available and for what... take Adryan offer and start it... decide the name later... For what I've seen around there is nice demand for a openSUSE Server oriented solution. If there are people available to make it happen... sure... go for it... By now everyone has an idea of possible problems... instead of pointed them, start dropping some solutions instead. Then when the time comes and you need to name your creation or reflection of the community, you think on the name and how you want to position yourselfs with openSUSE without 'offending' (I really don't know the right word for their) our sponsors. In the end, it will end up dependably mostly on the people maintaining it until some visibility is build around it. I personally like the idea of a solution more server oriented. This will also probably increase the number of overall packages available if the community finds it Since such a project might bring lots of new synergies around openSUSE, maybe we should forget the name and positioning for now, leaving it for later. nm

...

The comment about "doing it outside of the openSUSE project" referred to a clone of SLES, not an openSUSE LTS version.

I dont think that anything speaks against using the OBS also for a potential openSLES.

Ciao, Marcus

-- nelson marques nmo.marques@gmail.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

let's begin. I beg 11.1 is dropped or nearly to be dropped my own hosted server *is* 11.1 cat /etc/SuSE SuSE-brand SuSEconfig/ SuSE-release jdd@ks33269:~> cat /etc/SuSE-release openSUSE 11.1 (i586) VERSION = 11.1 and not that important I refuse to make it as risk. so why don't we start supporting 11.1 as we can, well or bad, just to see what happen? we have first to define what this "supporting" mean (enabling a new repo??) jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Am Samstag 11 Dezember 2010, 19:49:14 schrieb Stephan Kleine:

On Saturday December 11 2010 13:54:40 Kim Leyendecker wrote:

...

In the most points, I agree with you. But How shall we name it during the discussion on the Mailing list?

How about simply "openSUSE X.Y LTS" or would that be to obvious?

would so not the best looks like wee copied simple ubuntu. To openSUSE X.Y is a evergreen version sounds much better. br gnokii

I've simply had it with all the idiotic code names so one needs a dictionary to find out wtf something is. Tumbleweed is fine cause it is always just one version so there is no version confusion but that LTS will always be based on a certain openSUSE version so a codename doesn't make sense IMHO.

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

El sáb, 11-12-2010 a las 20:29 +0100, Stephan Kleine escribió:

On Saturday December 11 2010 20:15:33 S.Kemter wrote:

...

Am Samstag 11 Dezember 2010, 19:49:14 schrieb Stephan Kleine:

...

On Saturday December 11 2010 13:54:40 Kim Leyendecker wrote:

...

In the most points, I agree with you. But How shall we name it during the discussion on the Mailing list?

How about simply "openSUSE X.Y LTS" or would that be to obvious?

would so not the best looks like wee copied simple ubuntu. To openSUSE X.Y is a evergreen version sounds much better.

well, how would you then call the next LTS which has to coexist for at least a bit more than just a few months with the current LTS so people can upgrade when they feel comfortable?

In regards to "copying" buntu by calling a LTS LTS I disagree.

What about openSUSE x.x XE stands for openSUSE x.x eXtended Edition ? And not copying none. -- Ricardo Chung | openSUSE Linux Ambassador http://en.opensuse.org/User:Amonthoth http://twitter.com/amon0thoth1 http://amon0thoth1.blogspot.com http://www.facebook.com/pages/openSUSE-Panama-Users-Group/326325121542 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

El sáb, 11-12-2010 a las 21:41 +0100, Kim Leyendecker escribió:

Well, I think if you really think off "evergreen" it seems to be the best choice. At first, almost everybody knows what an evergreen is and if you just watch the "green" it works fine with the openSUSE identity.

Exactly, it keeps our green identity intacta and the whole nature connotation. There are so many options but stick with one is useful to identify it and meaningful.

kind regards kdl

On 11.12.2010 20:54, Ricardo Chung wrote:

...

El sáb, 11-12-2010 a las 20:29 +0100, Stephan Kleine escribió:

...

On Saturday December 11 2010 20:15:33 S.Kemter wrote:

...

Am Samstag 11 Dezember 2010, 19:49:14 schrieb Stephan Kleine:

...

On Saturday December 11 2010 13:54:40 Kim Leyendecker wrote:

...

In the most points, I agree with you. But How shall we name it during the discussion on the Mailing list? How about simply "openSUSE X.Y LTS" or would that be to obvious? would so not the best looks like wee copied simple ubuntu. To openSUSE X.Y is a evergreen version sounds much better. well, how would you then call the next LTS which has to coexist for at least a bit more than just a few months with the current LTS so people can upgrade when they feel comfortable?

In regards to "copying" buntu by calling a LTS LTS I disagree.

What about openSUSE x.x XE stands for openSUSE x.x eXtended Edition ? And not copying none.

-- Kim Leyendecker (kimleyendecker@hotmail.de) Powered by openSUSE 11.3 This mail was composed under Linux

-- Ricardo Chung | openSUSE Linux Ambassador http://en.opensuse.org/User:Amonthoth http://twitter.com/amon0thoth1 http://amon0thoth1.blogspot.com http://www.facebook.com/pages/openSUSE-Panama-Users-Group/326325121542 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Saturday, December 11, 2010 06:57:58 pm Stephan Kleine wrote:

On Saturday December 11 2010 21:41:52 Kim Leyendecker wrote:

...

Well, I think if you really think off "evergreen" it seems to be the best choice. At first, almost everybody knows what an evergreen is and if you just watch the "green" it works fine with the openSUSE identity.

You are missing the point since there would be _2_ LTS versions one need to support so people would be able to switch.

IOW if the current LTS is called "$green" and the next one "$green^2" and the one after that "$green^3" we are getting into the buntu realms with stuff like horny horse.

Point being: code names suck!

So, IMHO, just stick to the openSUSE versions the LTS is build upon and add some "this is some LTS version" if "LTS" is too much Ubuntu so one could call a LTS a LTS.

I would use: openSUSE 11.1 Evergreen It solves version problem and it is more in our tradition to use metaphoric names for some versions: Factory (development - like factory assembly line), Tumbleweed (newest software - like following the winds of upstream changes). LTS is for majority of potential users worse than Evergreen. It is acronym that is clear to some computer fans, while word evergreen one can find in any vocabulary from English to any language. Evergreen has association with evergreen plants that live year around, and calling some openSUSE <version> Evergreen will tell potential users more then SAWET (some acronym will ever tell). It has one additional advantage for those that feel bad to follow *buntus in every step :) -- Regards, Rajko -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Saturday, December 11, 2010 06:39:06 pm Nelson Marques wrote:

Personaly I wouldn't associate openSUSE with terminology that is the actual name of a company ....

If we want to go that way then there is not good name that will satisfy whole world. What is holly in one part can be devil in another. Particular acronym XE gives not particular presence to company when you use Google, Yahoo and Bing. It is currency exchange, gas xenon, business software, and what not. -- Regards, Rajko -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Sunday, December 12, 2010 12:36:09 pm Kim Leyendecker wrote:

Let me ask a technical question:

Which kernel version will be supported?

That was another comment on this discussion; a lot of words about names and none tried to start discuss for instance how to revive 11.1 as a test case (kernel is 2.6.27). It is just out of support, so it can be easy to continue adding security patches. I would like to see some action plan what one has to do to keep 11.1 alive for another 6 months as a test is whole idea feasible. In my humble opinion, better idea would be to think how to make upgrade path bullet proof, so that one has no fear what will happen on next change. That will help desktop and server use cases with single effort. -- Regards, Rajko -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Le 13/12/2010 04:16, Rajko M. a écrit :

On Sunday, December 12, 2010 12:36:09 pm Kim Leyendecker wrote:

...

Let me ask a technical question:

Which kernel version will be supported?

That was another comment on this discussion; a lot of words about names and none tried to start discuss for instance how to revive 11.1 as a test case (kernel is 2.6.27). It is just out of support, so it can be easy to continue adding security patches.

yes, I sent a mail on the subject with no answer :-)

I would like to see some action plan what one has to do to keep 11.1 alive for another 6 months as a test is whole idea feasible.

exactly. I have a 11.1 server that can serve as test

In my humble opinion, better idea would be to think how to make upgrade path bullet proof, so that one has no fear what will happen on next change. That will help desktop and server use cases with single effort.

pretty difficult IMHO we have to define what applications we have to focus on (kernel, glibc, postfix, apache), notice the number of security fixes done for the previous year (not except for the kernel...) and see how we can make these fixes available. A repo with only the patches? AFAIK I never updated my server for month (my ISP takes care of the kernel) jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 07:54, Kim Leyendecker wrote:

In the most points, I agree with you. But How shall we name it during the discussion on the Mailing list? Well, I think you´re right and it´s more important to talk about the resources that project will need.

2.) Updates

This is _THE_ single most important issue. Who is going to be back-porting patches and resolving subsequent bugs and regressions? If we can barely get off the ground to do something and stick to petty debates about the name, where is this effort going to come from? This is why my position is firmly that it needs to be an SLES clone because all of the security fixes and bug fixes can come from upstream. Who cares about the name? Let the project show its merits by the quality, attention to details and call it CrapOS. I propose to start the SLES clone at first. If momentum builds around that, then perhaps a more desktop oriented distribution can be built around that with newer desktop packages. Who is with me? I will supply hosting. What needs to be done to get an OBS up and running independent of openSUSE/Novell and compiling the current SLES sources as-is? Once we can build it installer and all then we can debrand it and release it to the general public. -- Med Vennlig Hilsen, A. Helge Joakimsen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Le 12/12/2010 21:20, Thomas Hertweck a écrit :

idea of an SLES clone has been dropped? Please clarify.

I vote to drop it. I don't want to install sles...(in fact, I can't install sles, not i my provider list) jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 08:20:18PM +0000, Thomas Hertweck wrote:

On 10/12/10 23:18, Marcus Meissner wrote:

...

[...] I dont think that anything speaks against using the OBS also for a potential openSLES.

As everybody seems to have suddenly jumped onto the openSUSE LTS train (according to the emails sent in the last two days), does this mean the idea of an SLES clone has been dropped? Please clarify.

Well, whatever someone actually _does_ and not just emits talks will happen. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On 12/12/10 21:22, Marcus Meissner wrote:

[....] Well, whatever someone actually _does_ and not just emits talks will happen.

Hmm, this is a bit of a chicken and egg problem. You shouldn't really start such a project without having a plan and a team that's able to deliver the expectations, so discussions certainly are required. However, discussing everything to death will lead to nothing, I fully agree. Having read the emails of the last couple of days, I definitely think some people try to run a marathon without even having learned to stand up and walk. ;-) It seems as if Wolfgang is now going ahead with an 11.1 LTS version. I personally think that's the wrong decision, I would have started with an SLES clone, to be honest. (And, if asked, I would not have based an LTS version on 11.1.) Unless you got kernel developers, very good programmers (including people who know the low-level stuff), and quite a few experienced software testers in the team, it will be difficult to maintain the software and deliver high quality over the entire lifetime of an LTS release. But there you go. So all the best to Wolfgang, hopefully he will manage to handle that project, I am sure the openSUSE community would benefit from it. Andrew would like to start an openSLES project, so now we already have two competing approaches. Given our very limited resources, I don't think this is going to work. If we look into a SuSE-based Linux release with long(er) lifetime, I think we need to focus on one such project. It will be more than enough work, i.e. splitting the resources and working on projects that compete with each other (at least in some areas) doesn't sound like a good start, at least from my perspective. Has anybody checked with Boyd Gerber who tried to start a similar project about a year ago? Maybe we could learn from his experiences and avoid the same mistakes this time. I haven't seen any contributions from him in this thread, I hope he's still around (trying a CC on this email). Regards, Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Am 14.12.2010 21:19, schrieb Thomas Hertweck:

Hmm, this is a bit of a chicken and egg problem. You shouldn't really start such a project without having a plan and a team that's able to deliver the expectations, so discussions certainly are required. However, discussing everything to death will lead to nothing, I fully agree. Having read the emails of the last couple of days, I definitely think some people try to run a marathon without even having learned to stand up and walk. ;-)

I'm not sure if our expectations are the same. I already said that we never ever manage to keep everything in 11.1 updated. I think I have at least some idea how much work it is and I know that I won't be able to do it myself.

Andrew would like to start an openSLES project, so now we already have two competing approaches. Given our very limited resources, I don't think this is going to work. If we look into a SuSE-based Linux release with long(er) lifetime, I think we need to focus on one such project. It will be more than enough work, i.e. splitting the resources and working on projects that compete with each other (at least in some areas) doesn't sound like a good start, at least from my perspective.

"openSLE" and Evergreen need different set of expertise IMHO and a different type of contributions. My example is infrastructure. I'm not able to contribute any infrastructure nor do I know whom to ask for sponsoring it. You are right that it may split the ressources a bit but if and when an openSLE comes up I don't see a reason to continue Evergreen just for the sake of doing it.

Has anybody checked with Boyd Gerber who tried to start a similar project about a year ago? Maybe we could learn from his experiences and avoid the same mistakes this time. I haven't seen any contributions from him in this thread, I hope he's still around (trying a CC on this email).

I have. And he suffers from health issues so a lot of information from last year is lost (actually almost all). Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 09:48:48PM +0000, Thomas Hertweck wrote:

Marcus said in an email (10/12/2010) that even an openSLES could be hosted on build.o.o. I am not sure whether that would be feasible in practice but

Actually I have to retract this statement after some internal mails told me as I was too forward with this. There might be a semi official statement from Gerald Pfeifer or others in the future. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Why should we "respect" Novell's wishes? As Kim pointed out Novell is a business like any other company, of course they don't want a free version of SLES when they can sell it just fine for $2,000 or whatever it costs. In a perfect world do you think RedHat wants their RHEL given away for free as CentOS? Not if they could be making more money.... I think the best way to "respect Novell's wishes" is to read the GPL license that comes with SLES which says the software is free to be redistributed. I for one wouldn't need any support contract or warranty. Instead of upgrading/reinstalling openSUSE every year or two (because of being forced to... deleted repos and such) I'd rather have 1 OS run for a long time. So wa On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 04:55, Thomas Hertweck wrote:

On 02/12/10 16:46, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:

...

[...] I would love to have an openSLES but I won't fight it out with Novell if they don't change their mind.

I agree, out of respect for Novell as sponsor of openSUSE it should perhaps not be done without some kind of (at least unofficial) approval.

...

I still think that an LTS version would be possible as well. I cannot believe that there are no people out there who could spend a few hours a month to make it possible. I'm also thinking about companies here who would invest a bit of their time to have an openSUSE LTS option. But apparently they are just going for the complete free solution CentOS :-(

Well, I think it's time for a reality check: As I said, I work in the oil&gas industry where we have large compute resources (clusters with thousands of CPUs), many desktop systems, many servers, disk storage is measured in Petabytes, etc. However, the OS (i.e. Linux in this case) is only a tool for us, we don't employ Linux kernel programmers, we employ geophysicists, geologists, geoscientists, etc. That's the main difference to IT and software companies. When you say companies should invest a bit of time to have an openSUSE LTS, that's easier said than done, in particular for companies whose shares are sold on the stock market. At the end of the day, it's about making money and keeping your share holders happy - this holds for us just like it holds for Novell. There's CentOS out there which works fine, and the combination of RHEL for (important) servers, CentOS for cluster compute nodes (binary compatible with RHEL), and Fedora for desktop systems (where stability isn't such a crucial issue and having up-to-date OpenOffice or browser versions is more important) works fine and saves quite a bit of money (we are talking about several thousands of systems here, or even more in large companies). Unfortunately, in the openSUSE world there's no such OS combination available.

I play a bit the devil's advocate here, I hope you realize that. Unfortunately, over the years I've seen far too many overly naive opinions in the community when it comes to Linux. Novell hasn't made openSUSE a community project because it's great fun and the company loves to throw money out the window - no, Linux is a business and Novell certainly had and has this in mind, just like RedHat and other companies in this business sector.

Anyway, I've a general question at the end which fits somehow into the whole discussion here: Usually, we get new clusters now and then and older clusters will be decommissioned. These clusters are no longer based on the latest hardware (i.e. we probably speak of dual-CPU dual-core clusters here which are currently being decommissioned as opposed to new clusters based on, for instance, dual-CPU hexa-core) but they still work fine. Last time we had some problems actually getting rid of such a cluster. My question now is, would openSUSE be interested in getting a hand on such second-hand hardware? Somebody mentioned that Packman, for instance, doesn't have enough resources. Of course, the computers/cluster nodes would only be a piece of the puzzle, you would still require somebody who's going to pay the bill (air conditioning is a huge factor), you would require some space etc, i.e. somebody else would have to provide the infrastructure. But I guess if there's some interest to (at least) get the hardware (for free), there might be a way to achieve that.

Regards, Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

-- Med Vennlig Hilsen, A. Helge Joakimsen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

What you need? That´s my project look here: www.luse-linux.de.vu If you really want to do it, you need PEOPLE! People to work for support and other things. It´s really hard. You mean that Novell don´t like to get a free version of SLE? Well maybe they don´t like but they can´t say that it´s illegal. I think Novell thinks that´s better to build an free SLE in the openSUSE project because then they have the controll. If I build something like this, I can say, that´s SLE but maybe it isn´t it. I hope you know what I mean. -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Andrew Joakimsen Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 7:42 PM To: Thomas Hertweck Cc: opensuse-project@opensuse.org Subject: Re: [opensuse-project] openSUSE LTS My last message got cut off. So what needs to be done to get the ball rolling on a clone of the Linux distribution by a "prominent German Linux vendor"? -- Med Vennlig Hilsen, A. Helge Joakimsen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Andrew, stop sending private copies of emails and learn how to properly quote previous emails! On 04/12/10 18:40, Andrew Joakimsen wrote:

Why should we "respect" Novell's wishes?

Because Novell is the biggest sponsor of the openSUSE project, and working against your sponsor isn't such a good idea, I'd say. As pointed out in my email and Pascal's email, RedHat's attitude towards a CentOS clone seems to differ from Novell's attitude towards a proposed openSLES. RedHat seems to tolerate the free CentOS, they even seem to benefit from this project - they will not say so in public but you hear those stories now and then. Novell doesn't seem to be keen on an openSLES, at least that's the opinion that has been mentioned on various mailing lists in the past. Whether that's an official opinion, I don't know. I also don't know who was in touch with Novell management or whoever is responsible for answering questions regarding a free SLES clone. Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Monday December 6 2010 00:16:47 Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

On Sun, 5 Dec 2010, Thomas Hertweck wrote:

...

As pointed out in my email and Pascal's email, RedHat's attitude towards a CentOS clone seems to differ from Novell's attitude towards a proposed openSLES.

This looks like a case where different people may have different intelligence¹. I certainly am seeing most strong, numerous and unambiguous indications to the contrary.

Just to get that straight: are you implying that RedHat isn't in favor of CentOS as in they would like to see it die sooner than later? Or do you mean that Novells (or whoever is responsible now for SLE) attitude changed so an openSLE might be an option?

...

Novell doesn't seem to be keen on an openSLES, at least that's the opinion that has been mentioned on various mailing lists in the past.

This is correct.

...

Whether that's an official opinion, I don't know. I also don't know who was in touch with Novell management or whoever is responsible for answering questions regarding a free SLES clone.

Companies as such usually do not issue official comments on questions like this. (Any official statement from Red Hat?)

As for individuals, happy to talk; I just arrived on vacation so you may not see a lot from my side the next two, three weeks. ;-)

Gerald

¹ "intelligence" as in CIA, not as in IQ. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Hi all, Feel free to ignore this email since it's not operational, but just an expression of my personal concerns: 1. Impact of more branded products 'openSUSE' on our current/future user base. Too much choice of similar products might actually confuse our audiences and we will suffer from that. 2. Current and Future Resources - Do we have resources to make such thing happen if we have a positive feedback from Novell/whoever? Who will work towards it? I know at least that the marketing team is already overwhelmed with work... Maybe Bryen would like to add something more. 3. Clear objective/goal ? What will we benefit from it? Nelson. On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Thomas Hertweck wrote:

On 06/12/10 00:21, Stephan Kleine wrote:

...

On Monday December 6 2010 00:16:47 Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

...

On Sun, 5 Dec 2010, Thomas Hertweck wrote:

...

As pointed out in my email and Pascal's email, RedHat's attitude towards a CentOS clone seems to differ from Novell's attitude towards a proposed openSLES.

This looks like a case where different people may have different intelligence¹.  I certainly am seeing most strong, numerous and unambiguous indications to the contrary.

Just to get that straight: are you implying that RedHat isn't in favor of CentOS as in they would like to see it die sooner than later? Or do you mean that Novells (or whoever is responsible now for SLE) attitude changed so an openSLE might be an option?

Yep, it would be good to clarify which part of the original statement (the part about RedHat or the part about Novell) Gerald seems to address here. Gerald, do you think that RedHat's attitude towards CentOS is just as negative as Novell's attitude towards openSLES, or do you think Novell's attitude towards an openSLES is not as bad as it looks? I can certainly sense a certain contradiction between the statements Pascal and I have made (which were more or less equivalent) and Gerald's indications mentioned in his email.

Regards, Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

-- nelson marques nmo.marques@gmail.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Please do not send private copies of list emails - use the "reply to list" feature of your MUA instead of "reply all"! On 07/12/10 00:01, Koushik Kumar Nundy wrote:

I have some views on the openSUSE LTS/openSLES comparisons.

1. I have a feeling the two being analogised to CentOS is a bit unfair. openSUSE's relation with SLE has always been more the Fedora to RHEL kind. We, as a project, form a base, not a copy of SUSE's enterprise offerings, if typically more conservatively than competition.

I think you are confused. The discussion is about a Linux distribution that is non-commercial but supported for much longer than the usual 18 months release cycle of openSUSE (in reality it's more like 12 months because people that see stability as a primary goal wouldn't install a new release in the first couple of weeks anyway). This distribution would bridge the gap between the commercial SLES/SLED and openSUSE. Two ways of achieving this have been proposed: an openSUSE LTS version (which would obviously be an openSUSE but with extended support), or a clone of SLES which is sometimes called openSLES. That's it. It's not as complicated as you would like to make it.

2. openSUSE has the direct primary sponsorship of Novell. CentOS has no official affiliation with RH. An openSLES may antagonise Novell/SUSE/Attachmate's friendly approach.

This problem has already been discussed in the past and in this thread. Please read!

3. Offering of an LTS version alternately with a couple of normal versions has not been discussed. I wonder why.

Not sure what you mean. Of course not every openSUSE release would be an LTS version. As mentioned, I think you are a bit confused.

[...] 5. Nelson Marques has a point. Too many offerings would cause confusion. Normal openSUSE vs openSUSE LTS vs openSUSE Tumbleweed vs openSLES has already confused me to an extent.

Yes, I can see that. Please read my reply to Nelson, previous discussions on the opensuse-project list, and the entire email thread.

6. Someone suggested binary compatibility with SLES would make people recommend SLES for paid-for-support Linux. While I appreciate Novell's roles in what openSUSE is today, I personally feel SLES sales figures are not supposed to be the concern of the openSUSE project. Furthermore, even openSUSE can be paid-for-support Linux, considering people pay for 90 day support or something like that when they buy the box.

The main advantage of binary compatibility would be on the user side because a user could run SLES-certified software on openSLES. If it also led to increased sales of SLES which happens to be offered by one of the main sponsors of the openSUSE project, then it would be a nice side-effect. I don't think increased SLES sales figures are our primary concern at all. If at all, the community seems to be more concerned that openSLES could damage the business of one of its main sponsors. We seem to go round and round and round in circles. I really wish more people would follow the discussions from the beginning and actually read all the emails. A lot of the stuff that has been asked or mentioned here has already been discussed numerous times. Nothing has been decided yet. It's still being discussed what is feasible and what could be achieved with the given resources. openSLES would perhaps be simpler to maintain as it's a clone of an existing Linux distribution. However, this approach has clear advantages as well as clear disadvantages. openSUSE LTS would entirely be a community project - it would probably require more resources but follow the community spirit. Again, it has advantages and disadvantages. In terms of resources, probably only one solution can be implemented, so there needs to be some kind of decision-making process. Requests for a non-commercial SuSE-based Linux distribution have been observed, so there's at least an agreement that such a long-support version (whatever it might be at the end of the day) could come in quite handy in general. Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Please do not send private copies of list emails - use the "reply to list" feature of your MUA instead of "reply all"! On 06/12/10 20:22, Nelson Marques wrote:

1. Impact of more branded products 'openSUSE' on our current/future user base. Too much choice of similar products might actually confuse our audiences and we will suffer from that.

I don't see this as a problem. At the moment, there are the commercial products SLES / SLED and there's openSUSE. That's it. Having said that, even right now we face problems with what users actually mean by saying that they use openSUSE 11.3. Quite often I find out that they actually installed 11.3 at some point and then enabled all sorts of repositories that drag in unstable GNOME/KDE stuff etc. So the choice is already there right now. We would just give the child a name.

2. Current and Future Resources - Do we have resources to make such thing happen if we have a positive feedback from Novell/whoever? Who will work towards it? I know at least that the marketing team is already overwhelmed with work... Maybe Bryen would like to add something more. 3. Clear objective/goal ? What will we benefit from it?

All of this has been discussed in the past, and some arguments have also been mentioned in this thread. Please read it! It doesn't make sense to repeat everything over and over and over again, we are just going round in circles... Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On 2010-12-05 19:27:02 (+0000), Thomas Hertweck wrote:

On 04/12/10 18:40, Andrew Joakimsen wrote:

...

Why should we "respect" Novell's wishes?

Because Novell is the biggest sponsor of the openSUSE project, and working against your sponsor isn't such a good idea, I'd say. As pointed out in my email and Pascal's email, RedHat's attitude towards a CentOS clone seems to differ from Novell's attitude towards a proposed openSLES. RedHat seems to tolerate the free CentOS, they even seem to benefit from this project - they will not say so in public but you hear those stories now and then. Novell doesn't seem to be keen on an openSLES, at least that's the opinion that has been mentioned on various mailing lists in the past. Whether that's an official opinion, I don't know. I also don't know

Yes, it is. At least, the person I spoke to about that last year is definitely representative of Novell in this regard.

who was in touch with Novell management or whoever is responsible for

I was.

answering questions regarding a free SLES clone.

The person I asked :) I will ask again and will also ask whether it may be quoted, or let that person write an email about it herself. But I won't quote without an agreement from that person -- not that anyone needs to get conspiracy theories going, it is just plain politeness. Just give me a couple of days to get back on this. cheers -- -o) Pascal Bleser /\\ http://opensuse.org -- I took the green pill _\_v FOSDEM XI: 5 + 6 Feb 2011, http://fosdem.org