[opensuse-factory] Comparing enterprise and community distros
I really want to understand this better, and if I can, help to formulate a clear, concise explanation of the relationship between SUSE and openSUSE. I work at SUSE myself, after all, and nobody explained it to me! I assumed that it was comparable to the way that the 2 other Linux vendors that target the Linux market do it. I was apparently dead wrong in this, and I'm sorry that I annoyed people with my wrongness. I want to get it straight. --------------------------- So, for comparison, here's the way I understand how the competitors' models are. As I see it, there are 3 enterprise Linux vendors out there: #1, at least in size and money: Red Hat, with RHEL, Fedora and CentOS #2, maybe biggest in mindshare but not making much money from it: Canonical, with Ubuntu #3, but making a good business and product from it: SUSE, with SLE and openSUSE At home, I run Ubuntu. But they've killed off my favourite desktop, Unity, so I may well switch to openSUSE soon. I've been running Ubuntu since it came out, when I switched from SUSE Linux Professional. (I mostly ran review copies, because I regularly reviewed SUSE and Red Hat for UK magazines such as PC Pro and Personal Computer World). Ubuntu was much smaller and easier to install, and it ran the snazzy new GNOME 2 desktop. (I loved KDE 1, tolerated KDE 2 and found KDE 3 intolerably over-complex and fiddly, so I was looking for something new.) --------------------------- Ubuntu's model is easy. It's small-F free. It's paid for by Mark Shuttleworth, who personally made 2/3 of a billion US$ when he sold Thawte to Verisign. Ubuntu is his way of giving something back to the FOSS world: an easy, friendly, end-user desktop OS to rival Windows, free of charge. Derived from Debian with extra integration work, non-free drivers and firmware, and updated components. New releases every 6 months, April and October; updates available for 9 months. "Version number" is the last 2 digits of the year of release plus the month of release. Every even-numbered year, the April release is a Long Term Support release, and gets updates for 3 years on the desktop and 5 years on servers. Still free of charge. Canonical sells support, but it's never turned a profit and is still funded by Shuttleworth. There's no enterprise version or anything: one size fits all, but if you want support and consultancy, it's there for a price. --------------------------- Red Hat Used to sell a distro and merchandise. Switched to an enterprise-centric model around 2000. Now there are 3 product lines: RHEL. Enterprise distro, long support lifetime. Technically doesn't cost money but you can only run it if you have 1 support subscription per machine. Source code distributed for free, but binaries only available to paying customers. No fixed release schedule: major releases about every 2-3 years, point releases about every 6 months. Fedora: free community-maintained, community-supported. Releases roughly every 6 months, with an incrementing integer version number. Updates available for approx 12-13 months, i.e. until after {version+2) is released. No stable or long-term releases. No paid support. All GPL/FOSS, so doesn't include any nonfree drivers or firmware at all. If your hardware doesn't work, tough. Red Hat sponsors development but as of 2016 announced that community contributions had just overtaken in-house ones -- 40% RH staff, 60% community. Periodically a snapshot of Fedora is taken and forms the basis of the next RHEL major release. So essentially Fedora is a periodic alpha-test for future releases of RHEL. That was it. Simple, clear, easy. Several groups downloaded the sources of RHEL, compiled and distributed it as a free community distro, notably CentOS, Scientific Linux, White Box Linux. These were essentially identical to RHEL but with the name changed. Oracle did the same to create Oracle Unbreakable Linux, as a hostile attempt to reduce RH's share price, possibly with a view to acquisition. This did not work but eventually contributed to the death of Solaris, acquired along with Sun. Then RH muddied the waters by buying in CentOS. Now RH officially offers a free, stable distro _as well as_ its commercial stable distro and free unstable one. --------------------------- SUSE This is the one I apparently got wrong. My impression was as follows: It's comparable to RH. Novell bought SUSE and changed the product lineup to something resembling RH's. The baseline product was made free-of-charge, a separate, super-stable enterprise distro was spun off from it. SLE, the enterprise distro. Slow release cycle, stable, supported, costs money -- traditional software licensing model, comparable to but not identical to RH's support-subscription model. And openSUSE, the free, community-supported only version. Used to be a continuation of the venerable and time-honoured SUSE Linux Professional product, with continuing version numbers even, but then a few years ago, was split in 2. This has 2 flavours: * Tumbleweed, a rolling release flavour. No version number. * Leap, with periodic stable versions and a finite update cycle -- I'd guessed based on snapshots of Tumbleweed, as Fedora releases are of Rawhide, Debian releases are of Sid, and Ubuntu is of Debian. Version numbers frankly a bit of a mystery. So the equivalences are: SLE ~= RHEL openSUSE Tumbleweed ~= Fedora (specifically, Rawhide, the rolling-release pre-alpha version comparable to Debian "Sid") openSUSE Leap ~= CentOS (fixed release cycle, stable-ish, no commercial support) I assumed that SUSE sponsors openSUSE development the same way that RH sponsors Fedora -- it (until very recently, at least) is mostly developed by SUSE staff and is the testbed for future releases of SLE. --------------------------- But now I have been told, strongly, that this is not correct. That openSUSE is far more independent of SUSE than Fedora is of RH. That in some ways it's almost a rival or an officially-sanctioned fork. So what _is_ relationship of SUSE to openSUSE? Does SUSE sponsor openSUSE? If not, who does? Who's paying for it? Cui bono -- who benefits? Who does most of the development? What's the ratio of SUSE to non-SUSE contributors? Is that tracked? Is it public info? Which distro is upstream from which? Is it akin to RH: Tumbleweed (is the upstream of) SLE (which is the upstream of) Leap as Fedora → RHEL → CentOS ...? Oh, and for comparison... --------------------------- Linux Mint Derived from Ubuntu, but adds in more proprietary codecs and so on for a more seamless experience. More recently, swapped out the unpopular Mac-like Unity desktop. Initially did its own fork of GNOME 3, Cinnamon, which gives it a Windows-like makeover. Also "adopted" the GNOME 2 fork, Maté, so now offers a choice of 2 Windows-like desktops, one for high-end machines with hardware OpenGL, one for low-end ones and VMs. Gecko Linux is to openSUSE what Mint is Ubuntu. :-) So, is this all totally wrong? If so, what's wrong, and how can I fix it? -- Liam Proven - Technical Writer, SUSE Linux s.r.o. Corso II, Křižíkova 148/34, 186-00 Praha 8 - Karlín, Czechia Email: lproven@suse.com - Office telephone: +420 284 241 084 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Op donderdag 22 februari 2018 19:00:10 CET schreef Liam Proven:
I really want to understand this better, and if I can, help to formulate a clear, concise explanation of the relationship between SUSE and openSUSE. I work at SUSE myself, after all, and nobody explained it to me!
I assumed that it was comparable to the way that the 2 other Linux vendors that target the Linux market do it. I was apparently dead wrong in this, and I'm sorry that I annoyed people with my wrongness.
I want to get it straight.
---------------------------
So, for comparison, here's the way I understand how the competitors' models are.
As I see it, there are 3 enterprise Linux vendors out there:
#1, at least in size and money: Red Hat, with RHEL, Fedora and CentOS
#2, maybe biggest in mindshare but not making much money from it: Canonical, with Ubuntu
#3, but making a good business and product from it: SUSE, with SLE and openSUSE
At home, I run Ubuntu. But they've killed off my favourite desktop, Unity, so I may well switch to openSUSE soon. I've been running Ubuntu since it came out, when I switched from SUSE Linux Professional. (I mostly ran review copies, because I regularly reviewed SUSE and Red Hat for UK magazines such as PC Pro and Personal Computer World).
Ubuntu was much smaller and easier to install, and it ran the snazzy new GNOME 2 desktop. (I loved KDE 1, tolerated KDE 2 and found KDE 3 intolerably over-complex and fiddly, so I was looking for something new.)
---------------------------
Ubuntu's model is easy. It's small-F free. It's paid for by Mark Shuttleworth, who personally made 2/3 of a billion US$ when he sold Thawte to Verisign. Ubuntu is his way of giving something back to the FOSS world: an easy, friendly, end-user desktop OS to rival Windows, free of charge.
Derived from Debian with extra integration work, non-free drivers and firmware, and updated components.
New releases every 6 months, April and October; updates available for 9 months. "Version number" is the last 2 digits of the year of release plus the month of release.
Every even-numbered year, the April release is a Long Term Support release, and gets updates for 3 years on the desktop and 5 years on servers. Still free of charge.
Canonical sells support, but it's never turned a profit and is still funded by Shuttleworth. There's no enterprise version or anything: one size fits all, but if you want support and consultancy, it's there for a price.
---------------------------
Red Hat
Used to sell a distro and merchandise. Switched to an enterprise-centric model around 2000. Now there are 3 product lines:
RHEL. Enterprise distro, long support lifetime. Technically doesn't cost money but you can only run it if you have 1 support subscription per machine. Source code distributed for free, but binaries only available to paying customers.
No fixed release schedule: major releases about every 2-3 years, point releases about every 6 months.
Fedora: free community-maintained, community-supported. Releases roughly every 6 months, with an incrementing integer version number. Updates available for approx 12-13 months, i.e. until after {version+2) is released. No stable or long-term releases. No paid support.
All GPL/FOSS, so doesn't include any nonfree drivers or firmware at all. If your hardware doesn't work, tough.
Red Hat sponsors development but as of 2016 announced that community contributions had just overtaken in-house ones -- 40% RH staff, 60% community.
Periodically a snapshot of Fedora is taken and forms the basis of the next RHEL major release.
So essentially Fedora is a periodic alpha-test for future releases of RHEL.
That was it. Simple, clear, easy.
Several groups downloaded the sources of RHEL, compiled and distributed it as a free community distro, notably CentOS, Scientific Linux, White Box Linux. These were essentially identical to RHEL but with the name changed. Oracle did the same to create Oracle Unbreakable Linux, as a hostile attempt to reduce RH's share price, possibly with a view to acquisition. This did not work but eventually contributed to the death of Solaris, acquired along with Sun.
Then RH muddied the waters by buying in CentOS. Now RH officially offers a free, stable distro _as well as_ its commercial stable distro and free unstable one.
---------------------------
SUSE
This is the one I apparently got wrong.
My impression was as follows:
It's comparable to RH. Novell bought SUSE and changed the product lineup to something resembling RH's. The baseline product was made free-of-charge, a separate, super-stable enterprise distro was spun off from it.
SLE, the enterprise distro. Slow release cycle, stable, supported, costs money -- traditional software licensing model, comparable to but not identical to RH's support-subscription model.
And openSUSE, the free, community-supported only version. Used to be a continuation of the venerable and time-honoured SUSE Linux Professional product, with continuing version numbers even, but then a few years ago, was split in 2.
This has 2 flavours:
* Tumbleweed, a rolling release flavour. No version number. * Leap, with periodic stable versions and a finite update cycle -- I'd guessed based on snapshots of Tumbleweed, as Fedora releases are of Rawhide, Debian releases are of Sid, and Ubuntu is of Debian. Version numbers frankly a bit of a mystery.
So the equivalences are:
SLE ~= RHEL openSUSE Tumbleweed ~= Fedora (specifically, Rawhide, the rolling-release pre-alpha version comparable to Debian "Sid") openSUSE Leap ~= CentOS (fixed release cycle, stable-ish, no commercial support)
I assumed that SUSE sponsors openSUSE development the same way that RH sponsors Fedora -- it (until very recently, at least) is mostly developed by SUSE staff and is the testbed for future releases of SLE.
---------------------------
But now I have been told, strongly, that this is not correct.
That openSUSE is far more independent of SUSE than Fedora is of RH. That in some ways it's almost a rival or an officially-sanctioned fork.
So what _is_ relationship of SUSE to openSUSE?
Does SUSE sponsor openSUSE?
If not, who does? Who's paying for it? Cui bono -- who benefits?
Who does most of the development? What's the ratio of SUSE to non-SUSE contributors? Is that tracked? Is it public info?
Which distro is upstream from which?
Is it akin to RH:
Tumbleweed (is the upstream of) SLE (which is the upstream of) Leap
as
Fedora → RHEL → CentOS
...?
Oh, and for comparison...
---------------------------
Linux Mint
Derived from Ubuntu, but adds in more proprietary codecs and so on for a more seamless experience. More recently, swapped out the unpopular Mac-like Unity desktop. Initially did its own fork of GNOME 3, Cinnamon, which gives it a Windows-like makeover. Also "adopted" the GNOME 2 fork, Maté, so now offers a choice of 2 Windows-like desktops, one for high-end machines with hardware OpenGL, one for low-end ones and VMs.
Gecko Linux is to openSUSE what Mint is Ubuntu. :-)
So, is this all totally wrong? If so, what's wrong, and how can I fix it?
What IMNSHO is wrong in your mail, is the connection FOSS - Ubuntu. Canonical/ Ubuntu/Canonical have proved over and over again that FOSS is not the way they do things. Development of f.e. Unity, Mir behind closed doors are good examples of a different attitude, compared f.e. to how openSUSE's re. OBS, openQA. Another difference is that SUSE never ever has forced in any direction, a good example being KDE as the desktop checked for install by default. Plus, just remember the Kubuntu drop by Ubuntu/Canonical. -- Gertjan Lettink, a.k.a. Knurpht openSUSE Board Member openSUSE Forums Team Linux user #548252 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Knurpht - Gertjan Lettink wrote:
Op donderdag 22 februari 2018 19:00:10 CET schreef Liam Proven: [snip 204 lines]
What IMNSHO is wrong in your mail, is the connection FOSS - Ubuntu. Canonical/ Ubuntu/Canonical have proved over and over again that FOSS [snip]
Please reduce your quoting. https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Mailing_list_netiquette -- Per Jessen, Zürich (-1.4°C) http://www.hostsuisse.com/ - virtual servers, made in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 19:52:58 +0100
Knurpht - Gertjan Lettink
What IMNSHO is wrong in your mail, is the connection FOSS - Ubuntu. Canonical/ Ubuntu/Canonical have proved over and over again that FOSS is not the way they do things. Development of f.e. Unity, Mir behind closed doors are good examples of a different attitude, compared f.e. to how openSUSE's re. OBS, openQA. Another difference is that SUSE never ever has forced in any direction, a good example being KDE as the desktop checked for install by default. Plus, just remember the Kubuntu drop by Ubuntu/Canonical.
I am not on anyone's side here. Not Ubuntu's, not Canonical's. All I have ever had from them, except the OS, is a few stickers and ballpoint pens. :-) But your email perpetuates some FUD that rivals have spread. Unity is and always was FOSS. There are currently 3 forks I'm aware of: https://yunit.io/ -- focussed on the desktop version of Unity 8 https://ubports.com/ -- focussed on the phone/tablet version of Unity 8 https://artemis-project.github.io/about/ -- focussed on Unity 7 Mir is still being developed, mainly now for embedded stuff. Source etc: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Mir Launchpad was an internal company tool but after requests it too has been opened. Source etc. here: https://dev.launchpad.net/Getting I think "forced in any direction" is gross misrepresentation. The idea of Ubuntu was inherited from UserLinux: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UserLinux The idea was to eliminate all the complexity that beset 1990s distros -- the profusion of choices of components, meaning questions that were not answerable by non-technical people who did not know their way around FOSS. The statement was simple and not controversial: that usually, there is an identifiable best-of-breed product in every major software category, from desktop to web browser, and their plan was to include that and thus minimise the number of questions asked by the installer. In other words, to follow the KISS principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle Ubuntu just took the unfinished idea and made it happen. You and anyone are perfectly entitled to disagree with the choices. Ubuntu embraced this from the start: it included packages for KDE, so if you wanted that, you could install it. It has fostered and encouraged the development of editions with other desktops and other sets of software choices, from very early on. Eliminating difficult questions from an installation program is _not_ "forcing" people to do anything. -- Liam Proven - Technical Writer, SUSE Linux s.r.o. Corso II, Křižíkova 148/34, 186-00 Praha 8 - Karlín, Czechia Email: lproven@suse.com - Office telephone: +420 284 241 084 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
* Liam Proven
I really want to understand this better, and if I can, help to formulate a clear, concise explanation of the relationship between SUSE and openSUSE. I work at SUSE myself, after all, and nobody explained it to me!
I assumed that it was comparable to the way that the 2 other Linux vendors that target the Linux market do it. I was apparently dead wrong in this, and I'm sorry that I annoyed people with my wrongness.
I want to get it straight.
please do use the plethoria of explanations availabe on opensuse.org and google, then ask questions. and the questions on this subject should be take on to opensuse as they are not appropriate discussion for a technical list. you as a "technical" writer should realize this, also as a SUSE employe should attemt to follow the list's published intention. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet freenode -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 22 February 2018 at 19:00, Liam Proven
So the equivalences are:
SLE ~= RHEL
+1, agreed.
openSUSE Tumbleweed ~= Fedora (specifically, Rawhide, the rolling-release pre-alpha version comparable to Debian "Sid")
+0.5 you're not wrong..but; Rawhide and Sid are not really tested before releasing packages to users. By design and intent they can very often by broken. The design and intent of Tumbleweed is to never knowingly allow the shipping of anything broken. Tumbleweed only releases any new package once that cohesive build has been tested in openQA. That means we use OBS to build/rebuild all of the packages and media consistently as a result of any recent changes in the distribution, and validate the basic functionality covered by openQA. As openQA does user-orientated functionality testing (actually automates what a user will do, and looks for what they will see/read), we can KNOW that Tumbleweed can always be installed, X/Wayland always works, as do our tested desktop environments and popular applications, server workloads, etc. That's what elevates Tumbleweed to miles above Rawhide and Sid at this time. (Though obviously, given Fedora are starting to test Rawhide and hold back it's releases based on their own openQA testing, I guess I'm going to have to stop saying that one day)
openSUSE Leap ~= CentOS (fixed release cycle, stable-ish, no commercial support)
+0.5 you're not wrong..but; openSUSE Leap contains a lot of additional packages, features, and functionality which is not available (or suitable) for SUSE Linux Enterprise.
So what _is_ relationship of SUSE to openSUSE?
SUSE is the founding sponsor of openSUSE. openSUSE is SUSE's closest open source community. SUSE engage with openSUSE as partners & peers.
Does SUSE sponsor openSUSE? If not, who does? Who's paying for it?
In addition to SUSE we have a number of other sponsors https://en.opensuse.org/Sponsors In addition to those 'Project Sponsors', we have a plethora of other organisations sponsoring our events eg see https://events.opensuse.org/conference/oSC17 https://events.opensuse.org/conference/summitasia17
Cui bono -- who benefits?
openSUSE provides open source software. Anyone who wishes to benefit from what we do is welcome to do so. In addition to those users who download openSUSE and our sponsors we have friendly relationships with a number of other corporations. For example, Fujitsu have repeatedly used openSUSE solutions, and there are many hosting and cloud providers benefiting from offering our images, of course. We're also chatting with a number of hardware providers about pre-loading openSUSE on their devices.
Who does most of the development?
100% of our development is done by our contributors ;) (Note: our contributors include individuals employed by many corporations, including SUSE) Yes, I know, a cheesy answer, but if you want to understand, you NEED to start thinking along these lines.
What's the ratio of SUSE to non-SUSE contributors? Is that tracked? Is it public info?
It's public - all of our commits, like all of our code, can be seen in their associated OBS or GitHub projects. But that's a lot of data, and we do not actively track it. Speaking from the Board's perspective, when we last discussed parsing that data, we felt we didn't really see a benefit. if the Project is getting most of the things done that it wants to do (and generally speaking, it is), then why does it matter who any of our contributors employers are or their motivations are? That said, it was analysed way back in 2012. At that time SUSE employees were responsible for ~35% of Submit Requests to openSUSE Factory, with the community responsible for 65%. Historically, obviously SUSE started as the vast majority when openSUSE began. The SUSE/non-SUSE ratio reached about 50/50 in 2010. By 2011 the community was clearly doing more of the work. It's important to note that SUSE has never reduced it's contributions to openSUSE, but the growth in our non-SUSE contributions has clearly grown at a higher rate over time, leading to that trend. For a modern picture, there is an easy metric which might give you some indication SUSE Linux Enterprise has a codebase across it's products that equate to about 3000 rpm source packages openSUSE's distributions are both over 12000 rpm source packages We could assume that all 3000 of SLE's packages in Tumbleweed & Leap are 100% owned and maintained by SUSE employees in their work time; This is most certainly not the case, SUSE employees are encouraged to collaborate share maintainership with community volunteers, but it might just work to illustrate the point. That leaves 9000 source packages which are only in openSUSE because of volunteer work, either from non-SUSE employees, or SUSE employees contributing in their spare time. They're certainly packages SUSE do not actively care for (otherwise they'd be in the SLE products). These package numbers have grown pretty rapidly over the last few years (Leap 42.1 was ~10000), suggesting both an increase in contribution from SUSE contributors and our non-SUSE contributors.
From SUSE's side that makes sense given the companies recent growth.
I'd say it's a reasonable guestimate that the SUSE/non-SUSE ratio is still around 33/66 However I look at what goes on in openQA, there is no way in a million years I could suggest that SUSE do the majority of the work in openSUSE (though obviously, the work they do is wonderful and openSUSE wouldn't want to live without it).
Which distro is upstream from which?
Is it akin to RH:
Tumbleweed (is the upstream of) SLE (which is the upstream of) Leap
as
Fedora → RHEL → CentOS
That would be an over simplification A more accurate description would be Tumbleweed → SLE → Leap ← Tumbleweed You could simply this as Tumbleweed → SLE + Leap but it would miss the important detail that SUSE do test, harden, polish and SLE-ify that which they adopt from Tumbleweed before openSUSE takes those polished SLE sources and use them for the basis of Leap, which is then augmented with additional packages, often originating from Tumbleweed. I guess you could say Tumbleweed is both the Alpha and the Omega, but that sounds a little grandiose. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
* Richard Brown
On 22 February 2018 at 19:00, Liam Proven
wrote: So the equivalences are:
SLE ~= RHEL
+1, agreed.
openSUSE Tumbleweed ~= Fedora (specifically, Rawhide, the rolling-release pre-alpha version comparable to Debian "Sid")
+0.5 you're not wrong..but; Rawhide and Sid are not really tested before releasing packages to users. By design and intent they can very often by broken. The design and intent of Tumbleweed is to never knowingly allow the shipping of anything broken. Tumbleweed only releases any new package
Richard, this topic really does not belong here and *you* should know and help redirect/limit/stop it. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet freenode -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday, 2018-02-22 at 21:35 +0100, Richard Brown wrote:
On 22 February 2018 at 19:00, Liam Proven <> wrote:
... Quick oftopic - feel free to reply on the normal opensuse mail list.
Cui bono -- who benefits?
openSUSE provides open source software. Anyone who wishes to benefit from what we do is welcome to do so.
In addition to those users who download openSUSE and our sponsors we have friendly relationships with a number of other corporations. For example, Fujitsu have repeatedly used openSUSE solutions, and there are many hosting and cloud providers benefiting from offering our images, of course. We're also chatting with a number of hardware providers about pre-loading openSUSE on their devices.
I'm interested in this. When/if there is some outcome, please publish it prominently :-) Yesterday I had a quick look at laptops. My local provider has 6 Acer laptops with Ubuntu, of a total of 932. It has 147 with Free Dos. However, looking at the Spain Acer and HP sites, Linux was not even mentioned. I thought that some years ago HP had some offers with SLED. It pains me to see nothing with (open)SUSE. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. (from openSUSE 42.3 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlqPRmAACgkQtTMYHG2NR9XoAwCfYMmi/k6iYCO67FJh+vc6qPyj OuAAn18Hmey2nzCtpIGWXJ5D6y+dpQ7q =irR1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 02/22/2018 09:35 PM, Richard Brown wrote:
Rawhide and Sid are not really tested before releasing packages to users. By design and intent they can very often by broken.
That's a bit dishonest. We don't have openQA in Debian, that's correct. But we regularly rebuild the whole Debian archive on the AWS cloud for the reproducible builds project and also test packages for their installability and upgradeability using "piuparts". There is also a project that regularly rebuilds the archive using LLVM and one project that constantly re-bootstraps Debian from source (rebootstrap). Debian is also usually one of the main players when it comes fixing bugs during gcc and similar transitions. If you are checking the various upstream projects, you see that lots of fixes for bugs, especially for non-x86 stuff, comes from Debian folk. Don't forget that Debian has lots of people who are directly working for upstream projects like Mozilla, Valve, Google, Intel, ARM, IBM and Loongson (the MIPS guys). My private laptop runs Debian unstable and my company laptop runs openSUSE Tumbleweed. I dist-upgrade both laptops daily and to be honest, in the past 6 months, it was the openSUSE laptop that ran into issues that made the machine unusable. One was a change in one of the network packages which broke DHCP (I think it was wicked) and one was the recent Mesa(?) bug which broke KDE on Tumbleweed. I didn't have any such issues on my Debian unstable installations. In fact, my unstable installations are usually quite old and I just carry them over from one computer to another but dist-upgrade them every day.
The design and intent of Tumbleweed is to never knowingly allow the shipping of anything broken. Tumbleweed only releases any new package once that cohesive build has been tested in openQA. That means we use OBS to build/rebuild all of the packages and media consistently as a result of any recent changes in the distribution, and validate the basic functionality covered by openQA.
Debian is most likely going to adapt openQA for Debian Installer soon. Adam gave a good talk during DebConf17 about it and he convinced the Debian Installer team to adopt it :-).
As openQA does user-orientated functionality testing (actuall automates what a user will do, and looks for what they will see/read), we can KNOW that Tumbleweed can always be installed, X/Wayland always works, as do our tested desktop environments and popular applications, server workloads, etc.
I agree. OpenQA is awesome. But it cannot catch all issues as we've seen in the past 6 months. For all intents and purpose, Tumbleweed remains a rolling release distribution and anyone who doesn't know how to fix the occasional hickups themselves or with the help of the community (that includes knowing how to properly report bugs or ask on mailing lists), shouldn't be running Tumbleweed in the first place.
That's what elevates Tumbleweed to miles above Rawhide and Sid at this time. (Though obviously, given Fedora are starting to test Rawhide and hold back it's releases based on their own openQA testing, I guess I'm going to have to stop saying that one day)
Rawhide isn't really intended for normal users though. Rawhide is primarily targeting Fedora's distribution developers. Unless you want to work on Fedora, you should not be using Rawhide at all. Normal Fedora releases are usually already bleeding-edge enough, there is no need to switch to Rawhide. FWIW, Rawhide is so extremely bleeding edge that half of the packages are either pre-release or git snapshot versions. So there isn't really any other distribution that is more bleeding edge than Fedora (not even Arch) but it's basically a minefield. So putting Rawhide into this comparison is flawed anyway. From what I know, RedHat does lots of integration testing in Fedora though. I learned that recently while fixing Firefox on big endian targets. Adrian -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 09:08:08 +0100
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Rawhide isn't really intended for normal users though. Rawhide is primarily targeting Fedora's distribution developers. Unless you want to work on Fedora, you should not be using Rawhide at all. Normal Fedora releases are usually already bleeding-edge enough, there is no need to switch to Rawhide.
That'd a fair comment. But is sid, by comparison? -- Liam Proven - Technical Writer, SUSE Linux s.r.o. Corso II, Křižíkova 148/34, 186-00 Praha 8 - Karlín, Czechia Email: lproven@suse.com - Office telephone: +420 284 241 084 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 21:35:12 +0100
Richard Brown
+0.5 you're not wrong..but; Rawhide and Sid are not really tested before releasing packages to users. By design and intent they can very often by broken. The design and intent of Tumbleweed is to never knowingly allow the shipping of anything broken.
OK. Worth clarifying but not directly germane to the question I am trying to resolve.
openSUSE Leap ~= CentOS (fixed release cycle, stable-ish, no commercial support)
+0.5 you're not wrong..but; openSUSE Leap contains a lot of additional packages, features, and functionality which is not available (or suitable) for SUSE Linux Enterprise.
OK. So, then, compare it to Tumbleweed instead.
So what _is_ relationship of SUSE to openSUSE?
SUSE is the founding sponsor of openSUSE. openSUSE is SUSE's closest open source community. SUSE engage with openSUSE as partners & peers.
That's not really the sort of direct, plain answer I am looking for.
Cui bono -- who benefits?
openSUSE provides open source software. Anyone who wishes to benefit from what we do is welcome to do so.
Oh come _on_.
Who does most of the development?
100% of our development is done by our contributors ;)
That is a non-answer!
Yes, I know, a cheesy answer,
It's more than that, it's obfuscatory!
but if you want to understand, you NEED to start thinking along these lines.
Come on, Richard, dude, when we talked, you agreed that a better explanation and a clear statement were needed. This isn't helping!
What's the ratio of SUSE to non-SUSE contributors? Is that tracked? Is it public info?
It's public - all of our commits, like all of our code, can be seen in their associated OBS or GitHub projects.
Augh...
But that's a lot of data, and we do not actively track it.
(!)
Speaking from the Board's perspective, when we last discussed parsing that data, we felt we didn't really see a benefit.
:-o
if the Project is getting most of the things done that it wants to do (and generally speaking, it is), then why does it matter who any of our contributors employers are or their motivations are?
What matters is that you and others got very cross with me for my comments about the nature of what openSUSE is and what the relationship of openSUSE and SUSE is. And yet when I seek clarification, you are, with all due respect, giving me the run-around and apparently trying to _avoid_ giving clear answers! I fully appreciate that this may not be your intent, but it is how it appears. This is _important_. If you wish, as you told me you do, to be clear about what openSUSE is _and is not_ then this is _precisely_ the sort of information that is _needed_ to answer that question. If it matters to you and to the openSUSE organisation that openSUSE is not just the free version of SUSE Linux, then _this is the answer to that question_ and as such it is _very_ important. If it doesn't matter to you, if you are happy with a statement such as "openSUSE is the free-of-charge version of SUSE Linux", then sure, it's not important and don't bother tracking and analysing it.
That said, it was analysed way back in 2012. At that time SUSE employees were responsible for ~35% of Submit Requests to openSUSE Factory, with the community responsible for 65%.
Historically, obviously SUSE started as the vast majority when openSUSE began. The SUSE/non-SUSE ratio reached about 50/50 in 2010. By 2011 the community was clearly doing more of the work.
So this is big news and stuff that should be being shouted from the rooftops. A daily contributor-balance count should be at the top of the front page of www.opensuse.org. It means you were _way_ ahead of RH in achieving this, which is something to be proud of and record and promote, not conceal behind evasive-looking answers and "we don't record that" and "we haven't looked in years".
It's important to note that SUSE has never reduced it's contributions to openSUSE, but the growth in our non-SUSE contributions has clearly grown at a higher rate over time, leading to that trend.
For a modern picture, there is an easy metric which might give you some indication
SUSE Linux Enterprise has a codebase across it's products that equate to about 3000 rpm source packages openSUSE's distributions are both over 12000 rpm source packages
We could assume that all 3000 of SLE's packages in Tumbleweed & Leap are 100% owned and maintained by SUSE employees in their work time; This is most certainly not the case, SUSE employees are encouraged to collaborate share maintainership with community volunteers, but it might just work to illustrate the point. That leaves 9000 source packages which are only in openSUSE because of volunteer work, either from non-SUSE employees, or SUSE employees contributing in their spare time. They're certainly packages SUSE do not actively care for (otherwise they'd be in the SLE products).
These package numbers have grown pretty rapidly over the last few years (Leap 42.1 was ~10000), suggesting both an increase in contribution from SUSE contributors and our non-SUSE contributors. From SUSE's side that makes sense given the companies recent growth.
I'd say it's a reasonable guestimate that the SUSE/non-SUSE ratio is still around 33/66
However I look at what goes on in openQA, there is no way in a million years I could suggest that SUSE do the majority of the work in openSUSE (though obviously, the work they do is wonderful and openSUSE wouldn't want to live without it).
So this is good info, but may I suggest that it's more important than you seem to regard it? That this is a prime differentiator, and good marketing info as well as a mere tech statistic?
That would be an over simplification
A more accurate description would be
Tumbleweed → SLE → Leap ← Tumbleweed
You could simply this as
Tumbleweed → SLE + Leap
but it would miss the important detail that SUSE do test, harden, polish and SLE-ify that which they adopt from Tumbleweed before openSUSE takes those polished SLE sources and use them for the basis of Leap, which is then augmented with additional packages, often originating from Tumbleweed.
I guess you could say Tumbleweed is both the Alpha and the Omega, but that sounds a little grandiose.
Like I said: tweet-length. A sentence or two should be enough. As, allegedly, Einstein said: if you can't explain it to your grandmother, you don't really understand it yourself. -- Liam Proven - Technical Writer, SUSE Linux s.r.o. Corso II, Křižíkova 148/34, 186-00 Praha 8 - Karlín, Czechia Email: lproven@suse.com - Office telephone: +420 284 241 084 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
eOn Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Richard Brown
On 22 February 2018 at 19:00, Liam Proven
wrote: So the equivalences are:
SLE ~= RHEL
+1, agreed.
openSUSE Tumbleweed ~= Fedora (specifically, Rawhide, the rolling-release pre-alpha version comparable to Debian "Sid")
+0.5 you're not wrong..but; Rawhide and Sid are not really tested before releasing packages to users. By design and intent they can very often by broken. The design and intent of Tumbleweed is to never knowingly allow the shipping of anything broken. Tumbleweed only releases any new package once that cohesive build has been tested in openQA. That means we use OBS to build/rebuild all of the packages and media consistently as a result of any recent changes in the distribution, and validate the basic functionality covered by openQA. As openQA does user-orientated functionality testing (actually automates what a user will do, and looks for what they will see/read), we can KNOW that Tumbleweed can always be installed, X/Wayland always works, as do our tested desktop environments and popular applications, server workloads, etc.
That's what elevates Tumbleweed to miles above Rawhide and Sid at this time. (Though obviously, given Fedora are starting to test Rawhide and hold back it's releases based on their own openQA testing, I guess I'm going to have to stop saying that one day)
I was going to stay quiet because we were focused on openSUSE here, but now you've mentioned Fedora, which I'm heavily involved in. Rawhide has been gated on nightly composes for almost a year now. If a compose and test cycle fails, the snapshot does not get released to mirrors. This in fact became a problem because we had failed composes for over a week due a litany of problems. At this point, Rawhide is at the same level of working/broken as Factory, in my view. We have been holding back our releases based on failed tests on blocking media for at least the last two releases (so at _least_ the last year). This has triggered delays in both Fedora 26 and Fedora 27 releases. So you should stop saying this _now_, because this is not true. While it is true we don't make an equivalent to Tumbleweed as an officially supported thing, it's certainly something Matthew Miller is interested in having Fedora offer, and he always brings up "Fedora Bikeshed" whenever he talks about it. ;)
openSUSE Leap ~= CentOS (fixed release cycle, stable-ish, no commercial support)
+0.5 you're not wrong..but; openSUSE Leap contains a lot of additional packages, features, and functionality which is not available (or suitable) for SUSE Linux Enterprise.
This is not true either. CentOS ships with extra packages, features, and functionality contributed through various SIGs as module repositories that people can use. Much of it is not suitable or supported by Red Hat, and completely community driven.
So what _is_ relationship of SUSE to openSUSE?
SUSE is the founding sponsor of openSUSE. openSUSE is SUSE's closest open source community. SUSE engage with openSUSE as partners & peers.
I don't completely agree here. As SUSE is the primary sponsor and developer, there are a number of things it controls in very obvious ways. It does not use this ability often, but it has done so in the past. For example, my createrepo_c package was pulled into the distribution without me having my maintainership rights preserved, and I was rejected from even getting them despite me creating the package because the SUSE OBS team wanted total control of the package. That's fine and whatever, but do not try to play off SUSE as an equal. It's not.
Does SUSE sponsor openSUSE? If not, who does? Who's paying for it?
In addition to SUSE we have a number of other sponsors https://en.opensuse.org/Sponsors
In addition to those 'Project Sponsors', we have a plethora of other organisations sponsoring our events eg see https://events.opensuse.org/conference/oSC17 https://events.opensuse.org/conference/summitasia17
Cui bono -- who benefits?
openSUSE provides open source software. Anyone who wishes to benefit from what we do is welcome to do so.
In addition to those users who download openSUSE and our sponsors we have friendly relationships with a number of other corporations. For example, Fujitsu have repeatedly used openSUSE solutions, and there are many hosting and cloud providers benefiting from offering our images, of course. We're also chatting with a number of hardware providers about pre-loading openSUSE on their devices.
Who does most of the development?
100% of our development is done by our contributors ;)
(Note: our contributors include individuals employed by many corporations, including SUSE) Yes, I know, a cheesy answer, but if you want to understand, you NEED to start thinking along these lines.
What's the ratio of SUSE to non-SUSE contributors? Is that tracked? Is it public info?
It's public - all of our commits, like all of our code, can be seen in their associated OBS or GitHub projects. But that's a lot of data, and we do not actively track it. Speaking from the Board's perspective, when we last discussed parsing that data, we felt we didn't really see a benefit. if the Project is getting most of the things done that it wants to do (and generally speaking, it is), then why does it matter who any of our contributors employers are or their motivations are?
That said, it was analysed way back in 2012. At that time SUSE employees were responsible for ~35% of Submit Requests to openSUSE Factory, with the community responsible for 65%.
Historically, obviously SUSE started as the vast majority when openSUSE began. The SUSE/non-SUSE ratio reached about 50/50 in 2010. By 2011 the community was clearly doing more of the work.
It's important to note that SUSE has never reduced it's contributions to openSUSE, but the growth in our non-SUSE contributions has clearly grown at a higher rate over time, leading to that trend.
For a modern picture, there is an easy metric which might give you some indication
SUSE Linux Enterprise has a codebase across it's products that equate to about 3000 rpm source packages openSUSE's distributions are both over 12000 rpm source packages
We could assume that all 3000 of SLE's packages in Tumbleweed & Leap are 100% owned and maintained by SUSE employees in their work time; This is most certainly not the case, SUSE employees are encouraged to collaborate share maintainership with community volunteers, but it might just work to illustrate the point. That leaves 9000 source packages which are only in openSUSE because of volunteer work, either from non-SUSE employees, or SUSE employees contributing in their spare time. They're certainly packages SUSE do not actively care for (otherwise they'd be in the SLE products).
These package numbers have grown pretty rapidly over the last few years (Leap 42.1 was ~10000), suggesting both an increase in contribution from SUSE contributors and our non-SUSE contributors. From SUSE's side that makes sense given the companies recent growth.
I'd say it's a reasonable guestimate that the SUSE/non-SUSE ratio is still around 33/66
However I look at what goes on in openQA, there is no way in a million years I could suggest that SUSE do the majority of the work in openSUSE (though obviously, the work they do is wonderful and openSUSE wouldn't want to live without it).
Which distro is upstream from which?
Is it akin to RH:
Tumbleweed (is the upstream of) SLE (which is the upstream of) Leap
as
Fedora → RHEL → CentOS
That would be an over simplification
This is also an oversimplification for RH ecosystem, too. It's weird... Fedora → RHEL → CentOS ←Fedora + EPEL + SIGs There are also cases where CentOS SIGs contribute to Fedora, which feeds back down into RHEL and thus to CentOS.
A more accurate description would be
Tumbleweed → SLE → Leap ← Tumbleweed
You could simply this as
Tumbleweed → SLE + Leap
but it would miss the important detail that SUSE do test, harden, polish and SLE-ify that which they adopt from Tumbleweed before openSUSE takes those polished SLE sources and use them for the basis of Leap, which is then augmented with additional packages, often originating from Tumbleweed.
I guess you could say Tumbleweed is both the Alpha and the Omega, but that sounds a little grandiose. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
-- 真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Liam Proven wrote:
I really want to understand this better, and if I can, help to formulate a clear, concise explanation of the relationship between SUSE and openSUSE. I work at SUSE myself, after all, and nobody explained it to me!
I think perhaps this topic is probably best suited for opensuse@o.o ? See my reply over there. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (-1.3°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - free dynamic DNS, made in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 22.02.2018 19:00, Liam Proven wrote:
I really want to understand this better, and if I can, help to formulate a clear, concise explanation of the relationship between SUSE and openSUSE. I work at SUSE myself, after all, and nobody explained it to me!
Then please ask your manager for a "mailing lists 101" introduction, so that you can choose the correct list to ask a question next time. Thanks.
SLE, the enterprise distro. Slow release cycle, stable, supported, costs money -- traditional software licensing model
NO. NO. NO. Most of the software in SLE is still GPL. AIUI (I'm not a lawyer), it is basically impossible for SUSE to sell a GPL license to anyone. What SUSE sells is service: subscriptions. Access to updated versions. Technical support. Whatever. But not a license. I hate it that I have to explain this at work at least twice a day, but having to explain it to FOSS people really hurts. -- Stefan Seyfried Ceterum censeo fluid-soundfont esse delendam (from the Leap 15 DVD :-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday 2018-02-23 08:27, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
On 22.02.2018 19:00, Liam Proven wrote:
SLE, the enterprise distro. Slow release cycle, stable, supported, costs money -- traditional software licensing model
NO. NO. NO.
Most of the software in SLE is still GPL. AIUI (I'm not a lawyer), it is basically impossible for SUSE to sell a GPL license to anyone.
If the GPL forbade selling, the license would not be libre and go counter to its own spirit. So that's not it.
What SUSE sells is service: subscriptions. Access to updated versions. Technical support. Whatever. But not a license.
Remember that there is a End-User License Agreement when doing the initial install with yast2.
I hate it that I have to explain this at work at least twice a day, but having to explain it to FOSS people really hurts.
I am not surprised people doubt your strange view. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 02/23/2018 09:22 AM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
What SUSE sells is service: subscriptions. Access to updated versions. Technical support. Whatever. But not a license.
Remember that there is a End-User License Agreement when doing the initial install with yast2.
Interesting. Is it easily possible to read the EULA of Yast prior buying the product? If not, this particular display of the message isn't valid in countries like Germany anyway. Adrian -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 2018-02-23 09:29, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 02/23/2018 09:22 AM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
What SUSE sells is service: subscriptions. Access to updated versions. Technical support. Whatever. But not a license.
Remember that there is a End-User License Agreement when doing the initial install with yast2.
Interesting. Is it easily possible to read the EULA of Yast prior buying the product? If not, this particular display of the message isn't valid in countries like Germany anyway.
Note that the openSUSE text is not an EULA in the strict sense - worth reading it nevertheless ;) EULAs for SUSE products are available via: https://www.suse.com/de-de/licensing/eula/ and let's not go down all the legal discussion here, that's off-topic for this list, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Fri, Feb 23, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 02/23/2018 09:22 AM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
What SUSE sells is service: subscriptions. Access to updated versions. Technical support. Whatever. But not a license.
Remember that there is a End-User License Agreement when doing the initial install with yast2.
Interesting. Is it easily possible to read the EULA of Yast prior buying the product?
YaST has no EULA, YaST displays the product EULA during installation. And of course you can read it prior buying the product. Thorsten -- Thorsten Kukuk, Distinguished Engineer, Senior Architect SLES & CaaSP SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 23.02.2018 09:22, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Friday 2018-02-23 08:27, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
On 22.02.2018 19:00, Liam Proven wrote:
SLE, the enterprise distro. Slow release cycle, stable, supported, costs money -- traditional software licensing model
NO. NO. NO.
Most of the software in SLE is still GPL. AIUI (I'm not a lawyer), it is basically impossible for SUSE to sell a GPL license to anyone.
If the GPL forbade selling, the license would not be libre and go counter to its own spirit. So that's not it.
My wording might be incorrect, but still: SUSE is selling subscriptions, not licenses. IANAL, but as I understand it, you can sell the software, but not the license. Or to put it another way: if you were to buy the GPL license for the software, the license allows you to give it away for free to anyone. That's not what would allow SUSE (and RedHat and others) to build a sustainable business model. So they are selling subscriptions and services, with different conditions than the GPL (limitations of numbers of machines for example) -- Stefan Seyfried Ceterum censeo fluid-soundfont esse delendam (from the Leap 15 DVD :-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Friday 2018-02-23 09:45, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
My wording might be incorrect, but still: SUSE is selling subscriptions, not licenses. IANAL, but as I understand it, you can sell the software, but not the license.
It all depends on what you understand as "software sale" and "license sale". (In any case, there is sale of physical media, sale of permission to {use, modify, sublicense, sell, etc.}, and transfer of copyright, all for a fee.) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 08:27:56 +0100
Stefan Seyfried
On 22.02.2018 19:00, Liam Proven wrote:
I really want to understand this better, and if I can, help to formulate a clear, concise explanation of the relationship between SUSE and openSUSE. I work at SUSE myself, after all, and nobody explained it to me!
Then please ask your manager for a "mailing lists 101" introduction, so that you can choose the correct list to ask a question next time. Thanks.
Actually, he's been supportive of this.
SLE, the enterprise distro. Slow release cycle, stable, supported, costs money -- traditional software licensing model
NO. NO. NO.
Most of the software in SLE is still GPL. AIUI (I'm not a lawyer), it is basically impossible for SUSE to sell a GPL license to anyone.
You appear to misunderstand the nature of the GPL. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney « Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? (#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney) Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.) » That leads to: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html « Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. If this seems surprising to you, please read on. » « Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development. Don't waste it! » Selling the software != selling the licence.
What SUSE sells is service: subscriptions. Access to updated versions. Technical support. Whatever. But not a license.
There is a free-of-charge 60-day _trial_ of SLE. I have a machine running it. https://www.suse.com/products/server/download/ Note, it stops receiving updates after 60 days. It is not time-bombed; it does not stop working, but it does become unsafe to use on the public Internet once it can no longer be updated.
I hate it that I have to explain this at work at least twice a day, but having to explain it to FOSS people really hurts.
Then how come your comments to me appear to be based on an incorrect understanding? It is 100% legal _and explicitly encouraged by the FSF_ to sell GPL software. -- Liam Proven - Technical Writer, SUSE Linux s.r.o. Corso II, Křižíkova 148/34, 186-00 Praha 8 - Karlín, Czechia Email: lproven@suse.com - Office telephone: +420 284 241 084 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Am 23.02.2018 um 12:25 schrieb Liam Proven:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 08:27:56 +0100 Stefan Seyfried
wrote: On 22.02.2018 19:00, Liam Proven wrote:
I really want to understand this better, and if I can, help to formulate a clear, concise explanation of the relationship between SUSE and openSUSE. I work at SUSE myself, after all, and nobody explained it to me!
Then please ask your manager for a "mailing lists 101" introduction, so that you can choose the correct list to ask a question next time. Thanks.
Actually, he's been supportive of this.
Supportive of asking on the wrong list?
Most of the software in SLE is still GPL. AIUI (I'm not a lawyer), it is basically impossible for SUSE to sell a GPL license to anyone.
You appear to misunderstand the nature of the GPL.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
« Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? (#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney)
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.) »
That leads to:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
« Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. If this seems surprising to you, please read on. »
« Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development. Don't waste it! »
Selling the software != selling the licence.
What SUSE sells is service: subscriptions. Access to updated versions. Technical support. Whatever. But not a license.
There is a free-of-charge 60-day _trial_ of SLE. I have a machine running it.
Yes. I know. And we have lots (probably a six-figure number) of SLE subscriptions at work.
https://www.suse.com/products/server/download/
Note, it stops receiving updates after 60 days. It is not time-bombed; it does not stop working, but it does become unsafe to use on the public Internet once it can no longer be updated.
This does not really contradict what I wrote. SUSE sells subscriptions. Not licenses. I'll open the Customer center now. What do I see? "Warning: 3 expired subscriptions". "SUSE Server: XXX Subscriptions". Not a single License in our portfolio.
I hate it that I have to explain this at work at least twice a day, but having to explain it to FOSS people really hurts.
Then how come your comments to me appear to be based on an incorrect understanding?
It is 100% legal _and explicitly encouraged by the FSF_ to sell GPL software.
I did not question that. But SUSE is not selling a license for this GPL software. If it was, I could just take the thing I bought and, word of GPL, give it away for free. You would not be happy for very long. This is why SUSE and RedHat sell services ("subscriptions") under different conditions than the GPL. And now, please, take it to the right list (I don't know which one, but not factory@) -- Stefan Seyfried "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
participants (13)
-
Andreas Jaeger
-
Carlos E. R.
-
Jan Engelhardt
-
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
-
Knurpht - Gertjan Lettink
-
Liam Proven
-
Neal Gompa
-
Olaf Hering
-
Patrick Shanahan
-
Per Jessen
-
Richard Brown
-
Stefan Seyfried
-
Thorsten Kukuk