On Thursday 05 March 2009 14:58:07 Peter Poeml wrote:
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 02:46:35PM +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On Thursday 05 March 2009 14:21:18 Peter Poeml wrote:
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 09:47:47AM +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On Thursday 05 March 2009 06:13:51 member greenarrow1 wrote:
[...] I have been reading articles recently about Novell specifically their financial condition and, of course, OpenSUSE. I to am beginning to wonder where OpenSUSE lies with Novell and are we just test subjects for their improvement of SLED and SLES. Is Novell trying to get
You get everything in openSUSE that is in SLED and SLES as well (unless it's closed source software that is not freely redistributable). openSUSE 11.1 contains already nearly everything that SLE{D,S}11 will have and those things that are missing (since SLE gets released later) might hit openSUSE 11.1 as updates or have been added to the factory tree targetting openSUSE 11.2.
openSUSE is an own distribution where we make also changes that are not needed for SLE at all but are needed for the openSUSE community.
"also changes that are not needed for SLE" - alright. But what about *conflicting* changes?
(Totally naive question. I can't actually think of an example right now, I'm more conceiving that such conflicts could arise)
Those things we can best discuss with examples: * NetworkManager setup: - SLES way: Always use traditional scripts - SLED way: Always use NM - openSUSE way: Only use NM on laptops, use traditional scripts elsewhere * Short installation with no more questions after the reboot. This is something driven by openSUSE in openSUSE 11.0 and SLES does not use it at all.
Examples help. Yes, I see. I also see the "big bad" example 10.1 package management being mentioned, which admittedly is in the distant past now and I'm sure that everybody appreciates that we have learnt a lot from it.
If we have a plot for dealing with this, it might serve to lessen perveiced risks and concerns that the community might have about this.
In general, I think many conflicting changes can be solved in single packages with some config changes. So, some extra work - but nothing to stop us. And if there's something where that's not easy possible, we might need some more time... I see openSUSE becoming more freedom in this and if there's something which will help us grow openSUSE, then we should do it.
This sounds right, and makes sense to me.
What made me ask this is that I somehow felt a gap in your above mail. (The one where you put it like "... also changes that are not needed ..."). There, I found something was missing and unsaid, concerning such a possible conflict of interests.
And following this thread, I see this particular concern uttered more than once, so it really concerns people, and it's good to be explicit
I understand the concerns, change is not always visible on a daily basis. What I'm asking is to help us overcome these problems and do the right thing in the future.
about this. Showing ways how to constructively deal with the situation, like you just did, is very good.
Thanks, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Director Platform / openSUSE, aj@suse.de SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126