On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 10:27 -0600, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:

I want everything done in the open with this. I want to avoid any issues with prejudice on my part. So I am making this totally open to the community.

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:

...

I really like Condorcet Internet Voting Service (CIVS)

http://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/civs.html

I want to use it in choosing the name. I would like to have the choice done and have someone annouce it at the openSUSE Conference (Sep 17-20).

So I will take all names and add them to the service. I envision having all entries by the Sep 8. Starting the voting on Sep 9 and ending on Sep 16.

My question is who should be allowed to vote? Just memeber of the openSUSE community or having a registration page (location TBD) where I will take all the names and email addresses. What do you think the critera for this voting should be?

I would like to use, all openSUSE community members as of now with the additions of everyone subscribe to openSUSE ML, openSUSE Project email list. The openSLE emai list I host and those that have contacted me privatly. One vote per person and email address.

-- Boyd Gerber 801 849-0213 ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047

I'm not trying to put down this initiative. And I commend you for putting some steam into this initiative. But at the same time, I can't help but wonder... Aren't you putting the cart before the horse? Voting a name when the work itself hasn't begun yet on the distribution? I mean, a name should also reflect the sum product. How do we vote on cool names without seeing the product itself? There's a process that should be in place in just about every initiative. But in this case, I just simply feel like it is putting the cart before the horse. -- Bryen Yunashko openSUSE Board Member GNOME-A11y Team Member www.bryen.com (Personal Blog) www.planet-a11y.net (Feed aggregator of the Accessibility Community) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 11:09 -0600, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:

I guess I see this as the name of the group of people. The name of those who want an identity. I semi agree with you on putting the cart before the horse. But to be able to change copywrite, trademark, branding we need something to replace it. Hence the name. I really see this name as what the group of interested people will be. I have had a few email stating that a proper name for the inititive should be choosen. So this, is my way of creating an identity that those of us that support this inititive will be called. The product that comes from this will then be branded with the name.

-- Boyd Gerber 801 849-0213 ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047 --

This is where I'm having some confusion, and perhaps you can explain it in a bit more detail for me and others who are unclear as well. First of all, the feeling I got from the name voting was that you were seeing to name a product not identifying a group. So I think you need to make that clearer to people. Second of all, what I'm confused on is the concern for trademark issues and what the real intent of this 'product' is. You've referred to SLES or openSLES, and I see names proposed that are derived from openSUSE. Which are you really basing off of? There have been a number of us in the past few months who have talked about creating an openSUSE Server edition, much like we have GNOME and KDE LiveCD versions. What would differentiate your proposed product from something that is simply customized for a version type like -server? I just feel like when we go the route of a new name/entity then it gives the appearance of forking when I think we could harness the power of community more if we just simply added a new product to the openSUSE Project. People wouldn't wonder if they're favoring one or the other. As for long term support. I think that's a great idea. But again, if we don't have an actual product before us, how can we really truly define how we are able to provide long-term support? What are the issues involved in LTS? What is the infrastructure that has to be implemented to guarantee such LTS? I'm not saying I'm opposed to this. Just that this seems to leave more questions than answers. -- Bryen Yunashko openSUSE Board Member GNOME-A11y Team Member www.bryen.com (Personal Blog) www.planet-a11y.net (Feed aggregator of the Accessibility Community) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On 09/04/2009 09:49 PM, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Bryen M Yunashko wrote:

...

This is where I'm having some confusion, and perhaps you can explain it in a bit more detail for me and others who are unclear as well.

Sorry, if it I was not clear. All the emails I have received have been really good. The main concern expessed was that we should have a name for our initiative. Something we could get people to rally around. A possible product being openSUSE LTS/openSLES. There have been a concern expressed, that we really need a name for this initiative that is free of any copyright, trademark, and other legal issues. Having the vote be CIVS, allows us to go down the list of prefered names, and dropping those that do not meet the standard ie (Copyright, Trademark, etc.) Doing this in the open then gives the community a way to choose the name of the initiative and product. The product being one part of the representation of the group.

...

First of all, the feeling I got from the name voting was that you were seeing to name a product not identifying a group. So I think you need to make that clearer to people.

My intent was naming the initiative.

...

Second of all, what I'm confused on is the concern for trademark issues and what the real intent of this 'product' is. You've referred to SLES or openSLES, and I see names proposed that are derived from openSUSE. Which are you really basing off of?

The initiative will as one of its goals choose what to base a product and what will be the base of the product. OpenSUSE LTS or openSLES.

...

There have been a number of us in the past few months who have talked about creating an openSUSE Server edition, much like we have GNOME and KDE LiveCD versions. What would differentiate your proposed product from something that is simply customized for a version type like -server?

I like the server CD idea, but being that it is openSUSE it has only an 18 month life cycle. Many people wait a few months to decide whether or not it is a good idea to go with the release. So you then shrink the 18 months to 15-16. For a server in many places that is too short a time to really be viable. Hence the openSUSE LTS, possibly based on the server CD.

...

I just feel like when we go the route of a new name/entity then it gives the appearance of forking when I think we could harness the power of community more if we just simply added a new product to the openSUSE Project. People wouldn't wonder if they're favoring one or the other.

I want to avoid the idea of the forking. I want it thought of as our version of CentOS via openSUSE or SLES. But being totally open community driven. But given our resources, what that will be is to be determined. Like I said earlier. I want it as a rallying cry for the initiative. Our take on CentOS from a SUSE perspective.

...

As for long term support. I think that's a great idea. But again, if we don't have an actual product before us, how can we really truly define how we are able to provide long-term support? What are the issues involved in LTS? What is the infrastructure that has to be implemented to guarantee such LTS?

The product will come from the initiative. It will be the off shoot of our name. The fruit of the initiative if you like.

...

I'm not saying I'm opposed to this. Just that this seems to leave more questions than answers.

Sorry, I hope I have answered more of them with this and other emails.

I vote for openSLES because it's more original (it is not reminiscent of Ubuntu LTS) and distinguishable. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:38:48 -0400, Greg Freemyer wrote:

Uhhg, have you at least identified a user base? Is this for desktop users, or is it for servers? In the LTS space I really think those are 2 very different bases and you don't need to support both.

For some reason I thought you were shooting for the LTS server space similar to Centos.

If you haven't even gotten the far, picking a serious name seems very premature.

+1, well said, Greg. I've seen too many projects fail (or falter/stagnate) because the first goal was to come up with a cool sounding name without clearly defining what the project was actually about. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Andrew Joakimsen wrote:

About the name. I don't know. But probably it would be best to avoid using the terms "SLES" "SuSE," etc.

That really is what I want to try and do. I really would like an indirect method of link to SUSE. Green is our openSUSE color's but really has other meaning that really out shines SUSE.

In terms of the software product itself, I think it would be inefficient to create a new distribution. What I am getting at is ideally we would be a clone of CentOS but based on SLE. Thus, for example, we can achieve binary compatibility with software for SLES. I don't think the prominence of RHEL would be what it is without CentOS, IMO the Linux market for commercial software would have been more segmented.

I personally lean in the openSLE camp. But there has been some very compelling arguments about openSUSE LTS. The big one being the great community we have. The way it appears that openSUSE get's security fixes before SLES. I am not saying openSUSE does. Just the appearence. This is fuel by the great support methods openSUSE has developed. It has a very strong case because of it. I think that is why my tally of people having expressed an opinion is 18,19 openSUSE LTS,openSLES. With 4-8 people that want to get going on openSLES right now. What I see as the biggest problem with openSUSE LTS is who will do all the back porting of Security fixes. It is a lot easier to remove and replace copyright, Trademark, branding, ... for a binary compitable OS. That is why it is so hard to make a decission. one vote more for openSLES is not enough to show clear consenous in a direction. We will make a descision after the openSUSE conference.

Is Novell really against an free (as in beer) clone of SLES, and would they do anything to stop us? What are the legal considerations, namely: what parts of SLES are not distributed under the GPL or other open licenses? How much work would it take to build such a distribution?

Red Hat makes it extremely clear on what to remove to be acceptable and avoid any legal entanglements. We would have to do this on our own. We do not have any pockets, deep or other wise should we end up on the wrong side of Novell. I have had a lawyer look over things, an his opinion was the same as you stated above, but he clearly pointed out that he does not specialist in the area and what he has said really is just his opinion. He said we really need someone who specializes in the area to make a review of the guidelines and product. Right now we do not have it. That is one of the issues with openSLE. It would be really easy to end up on the wrong side of Novell. This is just some of the things that have been presented. I have received some support from openSUSE management. Those working on this initiative have talked with the openSUSE management and we really do not see any issues with them. Also it seems that the SLES management is begining to look at the initiative in a positive light. What I have probems with is the higher levels o Novell. I have heard them say that this would be a possible thret. And would have legal watch it very closly. This is not a direct quote more a reading of what was being said. So, that is why we are taking things in a set order. That is also why it is taking so long. We have to have our guidelines fully developed and rpmlint rules in place where possible to make the initiative successful. We are right now doing the guidelines. They are in scope of what would be needed for either direction at the moment. A legal review of the guidelines will be needed. Then we should be able to start on the coding.

Further reading:

http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/04/1331247 http://dag.wieers.com/blog/why-is-there-no-open-source-sles

Thanks I have read them. -- Boyd Gerber 801 849-0213 ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Mon, 7 Sep 2009, Mariano Iumiento wrote:

...

...

In terms of the software product itself, I think it would be inefficient to create a new distribution. What I am getting at is ideally we would be a clone of CentOS but based on SLE. Thus, for example, we can achieve binary compatibility with software for SLES. I don't think the prominence of RHEL would be what it is without CentOS, IMO the Linux market for commercial software would have been more segmented.

I personally lean in the openSLE camp. But there has been some very compelling arguments about openSUSE LTS. The big one being the great community we have. The way it appears that openSUSE get's security fixes before SLES. I am not saying openSUSE does. Just the appearence. This is fuel by the great support methods openSUSE has developed. It has a very strong case because of it. I think that is why my tally of people having expressed an opinion is 18,19 openSUSE LTS,openSLES. With 4-8 people that want to get going on openSLES right now. What I see as the biggest problem with openSUSE LTS is who will do all the back porting of Security fixes. It is a lot easier to remove and replace copyright, Trademark, branding, ... for a binary compitable OS. That is why it is so hard to make a decission. one vote more for openSLES is not enough to show clear consenous in a direction. We will make a descision after the openSUSE conference.

...

Is Novell really against an free (as in beer) clone of SLES, and would they do anything to stop us? What are the legal considerations, namely: what parts of SLES are not distributed under the GPL or other open licenses? How much work would it take to build such a distribution?

Red Hat makes it extremely clear on what to remove to be acceptable and avoid any legal entanglements. We would have to do this on our own. We do not have any pockets, deep or other wise should we end up on the wrong side of Novell. I have had a lawyer look over things, an his opinion was the same as you stated above, but he clearly pointed out that he does not specialist in the area and what he has said really is just his opinion. He said we really need someone who specializes in the area to make a review of the guidelines and product. Right now we do not have it. That is one of the issues with openSLE. It would be really easy to end up on the wrong side of Novell. This is just some of the things that have been presented.

I have received some support from openSUSE management. Those working on this initiative have talked with the openSUSE management and we really do not see any issues with them. Also it seems that the SLES management is begining to look at the initiative in a positive light. What I have probems with is the higher levels o Novell. I have heard them say that this would be a possible thret. And would have legal watch it very closly. This is not a direct quote more a reading of what was being said. So, that is why we are taking things in a set order. That is also why it is taking so long. We have to have our guidelines fully developed and rpmlint rules in place where possible to make the initiative successful. We are right now doing the guidelines. They are in scope of what would be needed for either direction at the moment. A legal review of the guidelines will be needed. Then we should be able to start on the coding. I'm not sure if this has been evaluated, but the 'SUSE Appliance

On Sat, 2009-09-05 at 08:03 -0600, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote: program' [1] is the formal Partners/ISV possibility to develop any SLEx based appliances by using either KIWI, SUSE Studio, SLE JeOS, SLES for Amazon EC2. I would say 'go for the SUSE Studio' method since it allows to create a SLES based .iso where packages and repositories can be added/removed, as well as for the 'branding group of packages'. [2]

The program allows a Novell Business Partner (it could be the 'organization' of the 'openSLE', or whatever it will be the final name) to be supported with their developed appliance. The requirement is that (obviously) there has to be an agreement between the Partner and Novell that requires a fee to be paid (it's some sort of percentage on revenue). [3] The program allows also a free trial evaluation to potential customers as per the SLES evaluation licensing, making sales more easy.

I think that all this stuff should be analyzed more in details. [4]

Considering that there is a real intention about doing this project, either by creating some sort of organization (either profit or non-profit) or by just creating a Community, there is surely the need of some sort of budgets, no matters where they come from, but there is surely a need of funds.

I have had an attorney look over 2 different possible legal organizations. Both are non-profit as a possible legal entity. One is a business trust. I also know that it might be possible to have something under the new legal organization for openSUSE. There is a lot to be discussed. I hope it could be done at the up comming conference. I hope that IRC yaloki could head it.

Since the beginning of the discussion, the target of the new 'distro' is appeared to be small/medium businesses where the distro could be installed at a lower price than SLES but with more support than openSUSE, so we are talking about 'business', and not free-time.

Therefore, I believe that the solution could be something like: - Define the 'go-to-market' model and the 'budgeting': even if there is a fee to provide to Novell, there is also some earning from 'selling' the appliance (or the related services) that could probably justify the fee and pay the 'organization' bills (we're talking about business!). - Contact Novell [5] for more details and establish the agreement. This will also prevent any legal problems. - Setup an organization and 'organize' it (employees?).

One more advantage from this solution is that the 'customized' SLES based distro will be supported by Novell!!!

If this will be the decision to follow, than an 'openSLE' solution would be THE way to go.

[1] http://www.novell.com/partners/technology/isv/appliance/ [2] http://www.novell.com/it-it/IT/news/press/novell-announces-significant-isv-s... [3] http://www.novell.com/partners/technology/isv/appliance/program.html [4] http://www.novell.com/partners/technology/isv/appliance/getting_started.html [5] http://www.novell.com/partners/technology/isv/appliance/contact.html

-- Boyd Gerber 801 849-0213 ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Andrew Joakimsen wrote:

Is Novell really against an free (as in beer) clone of SLES, and would they do anything to stop us? What are the legal considerations, namely: what parts of SLES are not distributed under the GPL or other open licenses? How much work would it take to build such a distribution?

Novell understands open source licensing and participates willingly in the Linux and open source community, and contributes to the same. That means accepting the responsibilities and rights that come with the FOSS licenses, as well as getting the benefit of those licenses. Is Novell against a clone of SLES? So long as the licensing (copyright & trademark) is respected and the downstream project that produces said clone follows its obligations, why would it be? I think there are a variety of opinions within Novell as to whether a CentOS-like distribution would be good, bad, or indifferent for Novell and SUSE. There are possible benefits and drawbacks, and I'm not sure anyone can point to reliable data about the effects of CentOS on Red Hat, much less on the effects of a clone on Novell's SUSE business. (If you can, please let me know...) I can say Novell is unlikely to focus any significant resources to a clone at this time. I think pretty much all of SLES fits under one of the OSI-approved licenses. How much work would it take? There's the real question that this group should be asking itself before dreaming up names and taking votes, etc. If you look at CentOS, not to mention all the now-defunct projects that have tried to do rebuild RHEL or provide longer-term support for Fedora, it's a fair amount of work to build and keep current a distribution even when someone else is creating all the SRPMs. One minor factoid: Red Hat released RHEL 5.2 May 21st, 2008. The corresponding CentOS release (5.2) was announced June 24th. Red Hat released RHEL 5.3 on January 20, 2009, CentOS dropped the 5.3 announcement on April 1st. (No joke...) Package updates happen faster than that, of course - I think there's usually a lag of a few days to a week from when Red Hat releases a package and the corresponding CentOS package is released. I seem to recall an article on LWN that examined this, but my memory and Google-fu are not serving me very well this Saturday morning. A clone effort would require several people to keep the packages up to date, some people to maintain and configure the build systems, and resources in terms of providing build hosts and mirrors. An openSUSE "LTS" maintained by the community would require packagers and developers who are willing to continue maintaining packages that are 18+ months old, for free. I haven't seen much evidence to date that this is something volunteers are clamoring to do. The Fedora Legacy project attempted this, managed it for a couple of years, and finally ran out of steam. Best, Zonker -- Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier openSUSE Community Manager: http://zonker.opensuse.org Blogs: http://blogs.zdnet.com/community | http://www.dissociatedpress.net Twitter: jzb | Identica: jzb http://identi.ca/group/opensuse/members -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Besides the question what would it mean for Novell which is hard to answer as Zonker hinted -, I think we should also discuss what this means for the openSUSE project. Here're the questions that are in my mind about this: There were three topics mentioned and I'm asking myself what a successful "openSUSE Server Media", "openSUSE LTS" or "openSLES" would mean for the openSUSE project itself. So, in total we have at least three different angels to look at this: From Novell's perspective, from the openSUSE project perspective - and from the perspective of server admins. All three projects would require volunteers to step up and those volunteers would be missed in other parts of the project. So, could either of these attract additional volunteers to the openSUSE project and additional users to openSUSE? openSUSE Server Media: * This would be packages that are part of the distribution, so work for it would go back to the distribution itself and strengthen it. It would make openSUSE as a server more popular (openSUSE is already used as a server). openSUSE LTS: * If this would be done every couple of releases, I expect that the LTS team would help to harden this release and this would benefit everybody. * If the team uses technology from openSUSE, like the Build Service, the engineers might improve this technology and therefore improve the tools. * Indirectly, this might give openSLES/openSUSE LTS additional users that then become SLES or openSUSE users later - or work in the Build Service with benefits for openSUSE. openSLES * I see no direct benefit from the packaging work for this to openSUSE distribution itself. * If the team uses technology from openSUSE, like the Build Service, the engineers might improve this technology and therefore improve the tools. * Indirectly, this might give openSLES/openSUSE LTS additional users that then become SLES or openSUSE users later - or work in the Build Service with benefits for openSUSE. Did I miss anything or where is my thinking flawed? Even if I'm not convinced yet that some options are the best for the openSUSE project, it doesn't mean I will block anything (I doubt I could;), it just implies where I engage myself, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@{novell.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi | Identica: jaegerandi 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

On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 07:16:03PM +0100, Thomas Hertweck wrote: [...]

Ubuntu doesn't have an Enterprise version lurking in the background, that's why I think an LTS version makes sense for them.

[...] They do, or at least they wish to. And the "Enterprise version" IS the LTS version (that's what they offer paid support on) - you can even (announced this week) buy a dedicated support engineer from them. And that's the interesting difference - Ubuntu LTS competes with openSUSE in the "unpaid for" Linux market while the same distribution (Ubuntu LTS) competes (or hopes to) with SLES in the "paid for" market, but with a different business model. So far, Canonical has not made a commercial success with Ubuntu, but Ubuntu has had a remarkable amount of success in the "community mind-share" stakes. But if Ubuntu begins to be a commercial success and begins to break into the "Enterprise" market, both Red Hat and Novell will need to rethink their Enterprise Linux business model. My personal view is that we really do need an openSUSE LTS to be able to continue to compete with Ubuntu in the "unpaid for" and "community mind-share" areas. -- ======================== Roger Whittaker roger@disruptive.org.uk http://disruptive.org.uk ======================== -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, Thomas Hertweck wrote:

Wouldn't openSLES also play in the "unpaid for" business? At least regarding the costs from a user/customer perspective.

Also from the other cost perspective, at least some 99% of it. ;-) (Anyone claiming that CentOS is an OS or Linux distribution of its own merit really misses that aspect.)

It will be quite tricky to support software for several years and you need experts to do so. Are there enough real experts in the community who are willing to take on such an important and time-consuming role?

Some other Linux distributions (Debian comes to mind) and the BSDs have been demonstrating that it can work out. But things like that are always hard to predict. My question would be along the line of Andreas' and others: what do we feel will benefit the openSUSE project and distribution most? Gerald -- Dr. Gerald Pfeifer E gp@novell.com SUSE Linux Products GmbH Director Product Management F +49(911)74053-483 HRB 16746 (AG Nuremberg) SUSE Linux Enterprise, openSUSE, Appliances GF Markus Rex -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:

My intent was naming the initiative.

I think I agree with Bryen: It seems important to first identify the rough goal of the initiative before naming it since the former definitely can have a strong influence on the latter. So far I have seen three different ideas mentioned . openSUSE Server Edition, somewhat alike the GNOME and KDE media . openSUSE LTS, longer term security and possibly other updates . codename "openSLES", a CentOS equivalent and at least for two out of the three I don't see why openSUSE would not be a good fit for name.

I like the server CD idea, but being that it is openSUSE it has only an 18 month life cycle. Many people wait a few months to decide whether or not it is a good idea to go with the release. So you then shrink the 18 months to 15-16.

There is nothing that prevents openSUSE from offering updates for 18 years. ;-) At this point Novell is sponsoring 18 months, and if some group steps up to help with that and/or lengthen the period, why not? Gerald -- Dr. Gerald Pfeifer E gp@novell.com SUSE Linux Products GmbH Director Product Management F +49(911)74053-483 HRB 16746 (AG Nuremberg) SUSE Linux Enterprise, openSUSE, Appliances GF Markus Rex -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

Pascal Bleser wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

...

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:

...

My intent was naming the initiative.

I think I agree with Bryen: It seems important to first identify the rough goal of the initiative before naming it since the former definitely can have a strong influence on the latter.

So far I have seen three different ideas mentioned

. openSUSE Server Edition, somewhat alike the GNOME and KDE media . openSUSE LTS, longer term security and possibly other updates . codename "openSLES", a CentOS equivalent

and at least for two out of the three I don't see why openSUSE would not be a good fit for name.

Or even for the third, although it could be a bit misleading. ("x" based on SLES based on openSUSE ;))

...

...

I like the server CD idea, but being that it is openSUSE it has only an 18 month life cycle. Many people wait a few months to decide whether or not it is a good idea to go with the release. So you then shrink the 18 months to 15-16.

There is nothing that prevents openSUSE from offering updates for 18 years. ;-) At this point Novell is sponsoring 18 months, and if some group steps up to help with that and/or lengthen the period, why not?

Only feasible on a reduced "core" of openSUSE then, IMHO (kernel, apache, samba, ...). Unless we find a team of 15 to 20 dedicated people who bring the necessary baggage, tracking, patching and building openSUSE for several years during their free time, the "openSLES" option is the most realistic. Of course, that "core" could be extended over time, when more people join the club.

But still, right now, "openSLES" is the only option I'm sure we could develop.

cheers - -- -o) Pascal Bleser /\\ http://opensuse.org -- I took the green pill _\_v FOSDEM::6+7 Feb 2010, Brussels, http://fosdem.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFKpJllr3NMWliFcXcRAmXoAJ9d3VDQjFNzxgt7pbHwl59pbYuMoQCfb2xL DDqSJGD6o+xPJxiP1/wnF40= =oLZg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I absolutely agree. My vote goes for openSLES, too! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 10:37 -0400, Jason Perlow wrote:

"OpenSLES" could only be developed under the auspices of an independent organization from openSUSE because maintaining it is totally counter to Novell's enterprise software interests. We couldn't cal it OpenSLES either. I'd go for "Black Forest Enterprise" or "Bavarian Enterprise" something like that.

While Novell is heavily involved in openSUSE as a project/organization, openSUSE and SLES are not the same. Novell has directive authority over SLE products, while it has strong influential presence for openSUSE. Members and the community at large are free to participate and shape the direction and level of quality that openSUSE offers. As indicated in recent events, community is also a strong influential presence for the openSUSE Project. It's time people started separating the two and understanding that SLE ! = openSUSE. -- Bryen Yunashko openSUSE Board Member GNOME-A11y Team Member www.bryen.com (Personal Blog) www.planet-a11y.net (Feed aggregator of the Accessibility Community) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

...

...

On 9/7/2009 at 08:49 AM, Andreas Jaeger wrote: Nevertheless I agree, an openSLES should not be part of openSUSE. On the other hand a "openSUSE LTS" is something that can live under the openSUSE project just fine IMHO,

Perhaps I missed the discussion but can someone please explain to me why we even want a server product like this? I know that most people see openSUSE as a desktop, but there are plenty of people who run it as a server. I thought that was the whole purpose of having both the server and desktop packages on openSUSE. And if we do go down the route of creating a server product, what does that mean for the server components on openSUSE? Joe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

On Monday 07 September 2009 07:25:57 Pascal Bleser wrote:

Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

...

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:

...

My intent was naming the initiative.

I think I agree with Bryen: It seems important to first identify the rough goal of the initiative before naming it since the former definitely can have a strong influence on the latter.

So far I have seen three different ideas mentioned

. openSUSE Server Edition, somewhat alike the GNOME and KDE media . openSUSE LTS, longer term security and possibly other updates . codename "openSLES", a CentOS equivalent [...] But still, right now, "openSLES" is the only option I'm sure we could develop.

The first option mentioned by Gerald ("openSUSE Server Edition") is something that could be easily done by a small number of people. IMO it would be taking the existing packages, creating a media and perhaps adjusting the installation work flow and adjusting patterns - and then testing for sure. This would be a one-time effort for each release and something a couple of users are interested in as well, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@{novell.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi | Identica: jaegerandi 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

Hello all, If you want a chance to vote for which name you want for the openSUSE LTS/openSLES. You will need to subscribe to the list. Only those members that have subscibe will be allowed to vote. http://lists.zenez.com/mailman/listinfo/opensuse-lts_opensles-name_vote -- Boyd Gerber 801 849-0213 ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org

I am using mailman. There are a few bugs, I submit bugreports for them., but thanks for the heads up. I thought I had caught all the errors. -- Boyd Gerber 801 849-0213 ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org