[opensuse-project] openSUSE LTS
Oh yeah, here is *that* topic again ;) (and make sure to read Greg's post about Tumbleweed as well, as it is a similar kind of project, even though they are diametrically opposed ;D) Wolfgang Rosenauer (our local firefox/mozilla hero) made an interesting post on his blog, in case you're not following http://planet.opensuse.org (shame on you!): http://www.rosenauer.org/blog/2010/11/30/community-powered-long-term-support... Stop here. Please read that post. Done? OK, here are my 0.02EUR to that. The idea of an "openSUSE LTS" and/or "openSLES" aren't new indeed, and I suppose that most can remember the discussions around it some time ago. And from here on, by "LTS", I (and Wolfgang) mean "longer than 18 months" ;) There are basically two options on how to achieve that, from a technical perspective: 1) an LTS based on openSUSE 2) a rebranded SLES With "openSUSE LTS", the idea is, as Wolfgang already explained in his blog post, to pick up an openSUSE release when Novell (and the community) stops supporting it, when it goes EOL, which is after 18 months as of now. The effort can be a bit daunting, as it means keeping track of security vulnerabilities, backport fixes for those, or possibly upgrade to a newer version when backporting is too much work (e.g. Firefox). That's pretty much what is being done by the SUSE Security team and us (the community) during the lifetime of a release. But for longer and, hence, it is also more work (the older the packages, the more work it is to backport). The infrastructure provided on build.opensuse.org would certainly come in very handy. Especially when it'll have patch support :) "openSLES" is a totally different beast, as it means using the source packages of a SLES release and rebrand them. The obvious advantage is that it would most presumably be less work, as the hard work will already have been done by the Security team and the staff at Novell that does the SLES maintenance. But it would also be a rogue project: Novell cannot legally prevent anyone from doing just that as, albeit you do need a subscription to have access to them, the updates are also available as source packages. Nevertheless, it is not something Novell would like to see happening as they (or at least a few people I've talked to about it) believe it could be hurting their SLES business. While I don't personally share that opinion, and before 100 people comment negatively on this, it is a *fact* that no one can give any assurance or hard proof that it will not hurt the SLES business. Yes, we all know about CentOS, and a few know a few things about CentOS and Redhat I won't be citing in public (but let's say that some people who might or might not be working for Redhat have or haven't said that they believe that CentOS is effectively helping them spreading RHEL, but only off the record. or not.). But there are no hard facts or numbers to give any proof or guarantee that it would be the same with an "openSLES". And, personally, the last thing I'd want is people from Novell/SUSE losing their job because of that. Furthermore, Novell would clearly not be supportive of such a move, and it's not sure whether we would be able to use resources such as build.o.o for it. Long story short, I personally believe that the only viable option is "openSUSE LTS", but it does bring some technical challenges which require a certain number of committed contributors working on the maintenance. I really concur with Wolfgang's idea/proposal to start off with a server-oriented subset/core of openSUSE and try to keep that maintained for half a year or more, and learn from that experience to see whether we can realistically take on doing that for a longer period of time. Ideas, (constructive) criticism? :) (and thanks for reading so far, I know my mails are way too long) cheers -- -o) Pascal Bleser <pascal.bleser@opensuse.org> /\\ http://opensuse.org -- I took the green pill _\_v FOSDEM XI: 5 + 6 Feb 2011, http://fosdem.org
Le 30/11/2010 23:46, Pascal Bleser a écrit : Stop here. Please read that post.
Done?
Done and I'm in the exact same case as the author (regarding to the needs, I don't have the same knowledge :-)
Long story short, I personally believe that the only viable option is "openSUSE LTS", but it does bring some technical challenges which require a certain number of committed contributors working on the maintenance.
I really concur with Wolfgang's idea/proposal to start off with a server-oriented subset/core of openSUSE and try to keep that maintained for half a year or more, and learn from that experience to see whether we can realistically take on doing that for a longer period of time.
Ideas, (constructive) criticism? :)
I think most sensible products already have a running and fixed version (at the source level at least). can't you have apache 2 bug free? postfix? patched kernel? What I know is that I *have* at hand, thanks to my provider work, a running kernel for as long as I want (it's the same for all the installed distros). * first hint: ask host provider for help, they already do a part of the work (and source have to be available). my only real experience is for php scripts: wikis, photo galleries, and the update is done by the application developper, it's just a manner of running some scripts to apply them. the forst task is to list the really basic unavoidable applications :-) thanks jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Hi, Am 01.12.2010 00:02, schrieb jdd:
Le 30/11/2010 23:46, Pascal Bleser a écrit :
Stop here. Please read that post.
Done?
thanks Pascal for posting it here so I can skip that step myself ;-)
I think most sensible products already have a running and fixed version (at the source level at least).
can't you have apache 2 bug free? postfix? patched kernel?
What I know is that I *have* at hand, thanks to my provider work, a running kernel for as long as I want (it's the same for all the installed distros).
* first hint: ask host provider for help, they already do a part of the work (and source have to be available).
I have to hope that people responsible for keeping openSUSE up to date in hosting environments (I'm not sure if there are many who do it though) are reading here. I don't know who is rolling out openSUSE and would be interested in supporting the idea. I _know_ that 1und1 is still offering 10.3 on their vservers and I'm pretty sure it's not really maintained. So if anyone has more details about openSUSE hosters just let me know (probably via private mail) so we might contact them for their thoughts.
the forst task is to list the really basic unavoidable applications :-)
Basically right but I'd rather take another approach. I don't want to have "planning" delays the "doing" anymore. I for myself are willing to fail at some point if contribution is not enough to do anything serious. I would rather just start (probably already with 11.1 running out of maintenance by end of this year) but even for that we need "some" people to join in. And yes, I'm expecting limitations (at least in the beginning) like: - we will probably be slow with releasing updates - we might not be able to backport everything and need to be a bit less strict with version upgrades - we will never be able to cover everything from an openSUSE release - we need to focus on server services (translate: remote security) Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:46:54PM +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:
Oh yeah, here is *that* topic again ;) (and make sure to read Greg's post about Tumbleweed as well, as it is a similar kind of project, even though they are diametrically opposed ;D)
They are only opposed in how it works, they both aim to solve a need that people have for how they use Linux, so I see no objection to LTS at all.
With "openSUSE LTS", the idea is, as Wolfgang already explained in his blog post, to pick up an openSUSE release when Novell (and the community) stops supporting it, when it goes EOL, which is after 18 months as of now. The effort can be a bit daunting, as it means keeping track of security vulnerabilities, backport fixes for those, or possibly upgrade to a newer version when backporting is too much work (e.g. Firefox). That's pretty much what is being done by the SUSE Security team and us (the community) during the lifetime of a release. But for longer and, hence, it is also more work (the older the packages, the more work it is to backport). The infrastructure provided on build.opensuse.org would certainly come in very handy. Especially when it'll have patch support :)
This is a worthy goal, but yes, it will take a lot of work. I think it would be harder to achieve this than the other proposal.
"openSLES" is a totally different beast, as it means using the source packages of a SLES release and rebrand them. The obvious advantage is that it would most presumably be less work, as the hard work will already have been done by the Security team and the staff at Novell that does the SLES maintenance. But it would also be a rogue project: Novell cannot legally prevent anyone from doing just that as, albeit you do need a subscription to have access to them, the updates are also available as source packages. Nevertheless, it is not something Novell would like to see happening as they (or at least a few people I've talked to about it) believe it could be hurting their SLES business. While I don't personally share that opinion, and before 100 people comment negatively on this, it is a *fact* that no one can give any assurance or hard proof that it will not hurt the SLES business. Yes, we all know about CentOS, and a few know a few things about CentOS and Redhat I won't be citing in public (but let's say that some people who might or might not be working for Redhat have or haven't said that they believe that CentOS is effectively helping them spreading RHEL, but only off the record. or not.). But there are no hard facts or numbers to give any proof or guarantee that it would be the same with an "openSLES". And, personally, the last thing I'd want is people from Novell/SUSE losing their job because of that. Furthermore, Novell would clearly not be supportive of such a move, and it's not sure whether we would be able to use resources such as build.o.o for it.
Don't be so sure of this at all. I can't speak for anyone else here, and I am not speaking as Novell at all, but I can tell you that if you wish to persue this option, I will be glad to personally help you if you run into resistance from Novell in any way for this project. It should _not_ be anything that Novell should be resistant to having happen. Again, personally, I think this is both the "easier" option, as well as the better one to do. Best of luck with this, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Am Mittwoch, 1. Dezember 2010, 00:46:30 schrieb Greg KH:
... openSLE... Again, personally, I think this is both the "easier" option, as well as the better one to do.
Can't both ideas be combined? The Novell Security team has a patch stream for SLE which could be opened up to the openSUSE LTS team (maybe after respecting certain disclosure time conditions), the work to check the patches and maybe modify them would fall upon the openSUSE LTS team, but they don't need to keep track of all the different CVE etc sources for security reports, hunt down patches etc and could concentrate on fixing the issue. (afaik all the distro security lists are about resulting binaries, not source patches, if there is already something where all the patches to security issues are channeled disregard my whole mail) Cheers, Karsten -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Some comments inline. On 12/01/2010 12:46 AM, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:46:54PM +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:
Oh yeah, here is *that* topic again ;) (and make sure to read Greg's post about Tumbleweed as well, as it is a similar kind of project, even though they are diametrically opposed ;D)
They are only opposed in how it works, they both aim to solve a need that people have for how they use Linux, so I see no objection to LTS at all.
With "openSUSE LTS", the idea is, as Wolfgang already explained in his blog post, to pick up an openSUSE release when Novell (and the community) stops supporting it, when it goes EOL, which is after 18 months as of now. The effort can be a bit daunting, as it means keeping track of security vulnerabilities, backport fixes for those, or possibly upgrade to a newer version when backporting is too much work (e.g. Firefox). That's pretty much what is being done by the SUSE Security team and us (the community) during the lifetime of a release. But for longer and, hence, it is also more work (the older the packages, the more work it is to backport). The infrastructure provided on build.opensuse.org would certainly come in very handy. Especially when it'll have patch support :)
This is a worthy goal, but yes, it will take a lot of work. I think it would be harder to achieve this than the other proposal.
Agreed. Not only do you need people skilled at backporting patches, but also serious regression testing. I think here the experience of the fedroa legacy project is instructive. They were able to do the backports, but from my observation/opinion the necessary QA was lacking. That's not to criticize their efforts. Even RH people on board the infrastructure was lacking. While I think the goal is worthy, I am concerned it could be a large consumer of effort for the limited number of people in the community skilled enough and motivated to make this really a viable option for the larger world.
"openSLES" is a totally different beast, as it means using the source packages of a SLES release and rebrand them. The obvious advantage is that it would most presumably be less work, as the hard work will already have been done by the Security team and the staff at Novell that does the SLES maintenance. But it would also be a rogue project: Novell cannot legally prevent anyone from doing just that as, albeit you do need a subscription to have access to them, the updates are also available as source packages. Nevertheless, it is not something Novell would like to see happening as they (or at least a few people I've talked to about it) believe it could be hurting their SLES business. While I don't personally share that opinion, and before 100 people comment negatively on this, it is a *fact* that no one can give any assurance or hard proof that it will not hurt the SLES business.
No, unfortunately the evidence is mostly anecdotal. In this case we are looking for a negative proof.
Yes, we all know about CentOS, and a few know a few things about CentOS and Redhat I won't be citing in public (but let's say that some people who might or might not be working for Redhat have or haven't said that they believe that CentOS is effectively helping them spreading RHEL, but only off the record. or not.). But there are no hard facts or numbers to give any proof or guarantee that it would be the same with an "openSLES". And, personally, the last thing I'd want is people from Novell/SUSE losing their job because of that. Furthermore, Novell would clearly not be supportive of such a move, and it's not sure whether we would be able to use resources such as build.o.o for it.
Don't be so sure of this at all. I can't speak for anyone else here, and I am not speaking as Novell at all, but I can tell you that if you wish to persue this option, I will be glad to personally help you if you run into resistance from Novell in any way for this project. It should _not_ be anything that Novell should be resistant to having happen.
This I am really glad to read. In my opinion there is a tremendous amount of mind share to be gained for both Novell and for openSUSE to have an openSLES. Just consider the numbers of hosting companies offering CentOS/RHEL versus SLES. I have worked with some excellent hosting companies in the US, but they are exclusively CentOS/RHEL. Finding a hosting company willing to give Tier1 support to SLES is far more difficult than RHEL. Another example is scientific computing. An entire distro is based on CentOS and it is widely used in the top science/computer research labs all over the world. The entire infrastructure of my work's network is entirely RHEL/CentOS because of the ease of transitioning services and apps from one to the other.
Again, personally, I think this is both the "easier" option, as well as the better one to do.
Agreed. This eliminates a lot of duplicated effort and I think long-term is a win-win for Novell and openSUSE.
Best of luck with this,
greg k-h
I guess my question then is what does it take to push this forward with Novell? Cheers, Peter -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 08:18:53PM +0100, Peter Linnell wrote:
I guess my question then is what does it take to push this forward with Novell?
Um, I don't understand. What do you want from Novell here? This is something that the community must do, not Novell. good luck, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 05 December 2010 17:39:37 Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 08:18:53PM +0100, Peter Linnell wrote:
I guess my question then is what does it take to push this forward with Novell?
Um, I don't understand. What do you want from Novell here? This is something that the community must do, not Novell.
good luck,
greg k-h
I guess he means to say that without some kind of at least 'we don't care much' from Novell this might not be a good idea so he asks who to talk to... Besides, having some help would be even better of course. I'm personally quite torn on this, like most - it will be difficult to pull off and Novell might greatly dislike it which is bad for our relationship. Moreover, I'm very unsure about wheter this will hurt or help SLES - yes, I have heard the stories about CentOS - but in the end, what is the effect? If it helps SLES sales in the end - cool, more income means more investment as well. If it hurts Novell's bottom line - bad. Problem is - you can't know these things for sure. It's about perception - how management sees it. So that's where talking is important.
Hi, both projects (openSUSE LTS and openSUSE Tumbleweed) are interesting. But openSUSE LTS means more work as the maintainer (Hundreds of packages). Any security patches need to be backported. Who can perfect C or C++? Few of us can this do who like to want to get involved and that's not enough. The most important question to openSUSE LTS: How long will it be supported? 3 years or 5 years? The older the system gets, the less interesting it becomes. Since then other problems arise such as: migration problems, because the software is too old. How will you fixed the issue if the software is too old? This happens when a rolling release or shorter update cycle less, because it would be updated automatically the data structure by the software. I have a production server with openSUSE 11.2. I don't have any problem with "zypper dup". Adjustments are quickly done and it still runs today. The server has started with openSUSE 10.3 and I have to added a few openSUSE repositories like Apache, MySQL, PHP, Postfix, etc. (Like a little rolling-release). :-) The openSUSE Tumbleweed is more interesting, because all patches (security related too) are implemented in the next package version and you are always on the latest technical level. This is as interesting as Arch or Gentoo. Only lazy and strict conservative people have an LTS version. :-) <javascript:void(0);> -- Kind regards, Sebastian - openSUSE Member (Freespacer) Website/Blog: <http://www.sebastian-siebert.de> Important notes on openSUSE Mailing List: <http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Mailing_list_netiquette> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Am 01.12.2010 14:02, schrieb Sebastian Siebert:
But openSUSE LTS means more work as the maintainer (Hundreds of packages). Any security patches need to be backported. Who can perfect C or C++? Few of us can this do who like to want to get involved and that's not enough.
There are people who can do it. If there are enough to get it rolling is the thing I'm currently concerned with. That's true. There is no need to be a perfect C/C++ programmer though. It's still open source and probably other people doing similar patches for similar versions. For certain packages we may allow updates if needed.
The most important question to openSUSE LTS: How long will it be supported? 3 years or 5 years?
As long as we can make it. I wouldn't make any commitments. IMHO 5 years is out of scope currently. Three years would be a target.
The older the system gets, the less interesting it becomes. Since then other problems arise such as: migration problems, because the software is too old. How will you fixed the issue if the software is too old?
On a case by case base. We cannot provide any service level agreements. And yes there will be problems we cannot fix. And I never would tell people to keep it running if they don't need to. And still users would have more secure systems as they have today.
This happens when a rolling release or shorter update cycle less, because it would be updated automatically the data structure by the software. I have a production server with openSUSE 11.2. I don't have any problem with "zypper dup". Adjustments are quickly done and it still runs today. The server has started with openSUSE 10.3 and I have to added a few openSUSE repositories like Apache, MySQL, PHP, Postfix, etc. (Like a little rolling-release). :-)
The openSUSE Tumbleweed is more interesting, because all patches (security related too) are implemented in the next package version and you are always on the latest technical level. This is as interesting as Arch or Gentoo.
Yes, that can be interesting. But it's not the same usecase. Many of my machines are just running somewhere. I don't want to touch them besides running online updates. I cannot do that with rolling updates.
Only lazy and strict conservative people have an LTS version. :-)
Yes, I'm lazy. Why should I maintain machines which are running fine for years. I have servers running for some friends somewhere and I don't want to spend much time with them. Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Am Mittwoch 01 Dezember 2010 schrieb Sebastian Siebert:
Only lazy and strict conservative people have an LTS version. :-)
This is unfortunately not true. I host my personal web page on a virtual server on hosteurope.de (which btw also offers openSUSE mirroring, so I guess I'm free to "advertise" a bit :) and while I'm happy with it, they only offer free linux versions that last for a bit in their virtual environment. And Tumbleweed won't be able to fill that gap as openSUSE's kernel needs to fit the kernel outside and they won't do that on a "rolling" base. So I'm stuck with centos 5.5 (they offer ubuntu LTS and debian stable too I think). Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
I may be wrong but RH is where it is today is partially due to CentOS. CentOS, by more traditional business models should have killed RHEL years ago. I mean, who would want to pay for something (SLES/SLED) you can get at no cost (CentOS) right ? The opposite is true now. What we have now is a sizeable pool of RHEL-type system trained IT guys. And guess what these people will recommend for paid-for support Enterprise Linux? I can appreciate the complexity and challenges of coming out with something similar for openSUSE or SUSE-type systems. I only have college-level C/C++ skills. I will still want to help as much as I can. Eric On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Stephan Kulow <coolo@novell.com> wrote:
Am Mittwoch 01 Dezember 2010 schrieb Sebastian Siebert:
Only lazy and strict conservative people have an LTS version. :-)
This is unfortunately not true. I host my personal web page on a virtual server on hosteurope.de (which btw also offers openSUSE mirroring, so I guess I'm free to "advertise" a bit :) and while I'm happy with it, they only offer free linux versions that last for a bit in their virtual environment.
And Tumbleweed won't be able to fill that gap as openSUSE's kernel needs to fit the kernel outside and they won't do that on a "rolling" base. So I'm stuck with centos 5.5 (they offer ubuntu LTS and debian stable too I think).
Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Wednesday 01 December 2010 16:51:49 wrote Slaya Chronicles - Geeko Acolyte:
I may be wrong but RH is where it is today is partially due to CentOS.
CentOS, by more traditional business models should have killed RHEL years ago. I mean, who would want to pay for something (SLES/SLED) you can get at no cost (CentOS) right ?
The opposite is true now. What we have now is a sizeable pool of RHEL-type system trained IT guys. And guess what these people will recommend for paid-for support Enterprise Linux?
=Asking= I can clearly see the advantage of a LTS system. My impression of that discussion is, that it is worth it to ask Novell what they need to support the openSLES idea. For the openSUSE-Novell-openSLX-every community member ecosystem this seems by far the better alternative. =Thinking further= Another idea which came to my mind. I see manly two types of openSUSE users with their special needs. 1. Stability, security, long-term support, not much work maintaining or migrating the systems. This will apply to many servers or desktops from business users (esp. bigger ones). 2. Stability, security and software that is up to date. They update their systems regularly. (Power-users, Home-users, etc.) In my opinion the amount of people wanting a mixture is small (but that is just a guess). So what does the user want? 1. => He/she wants an LTS version and is happy when a new version is published, when end of life of his version is approaching after 3 years. openSUSE LTS/openSLES would be the choice. 2. => They will be happy to use openSUSE Tumbleweed. It fits exactly their needs. =Consequences= When the majority of users is satisfied with LTS and Tumbleweed why not change the release cycle to focus our resources for these new tasks? Now we have 8 month until the next release. We support every release for 18 month (2 releases and 2 months). => we have 2.33 main versions to maintain. So why not expand the release cycle to 2.5 years and support it for 3 years?! This would be fine for group 1. For the second group we offer Tumbleweed based on that LTS main release. To fill the gap between we could provide "snapshot"-CDs of the Tumbleweed tree (if really needed) to offer a live and install medium for new installations / new users. There may be a 3rd tree like factory / testing. That might reduce the number of repos as well. You could get rid e.g. of all the openSUSE 11.x/KDE_Factory repos. And we would have again about 2 main versions to maintain. =Conclusion= Ok. This is a very extreme position. The perfect solution may be in between. But with Tumbleweed and LTS we should really rethink the release cycles. Just my 2 cents. Cheers, Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 02:38:39PM +0100, Thomas Thym wrote:
=Consequences= When the majority of users is satisfied with LTS and Tumbleweed why not change the release cycle to focus our resources for these new tasks? Now we have 8 month until the next release. We support every release for 18 month (2 releases and 2 months). => we have 2.33 main versions to maintain.
Why not revisit this when/if LTS and Tumbleweed succeed. We have a ways to go here before this is something we need to worry about. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Thursday 02 December 2010 20:44:03 wrote Greg KH:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 02:38:39PM +0100, Thomas Thym wrote:
=Consequences= When the majority of users is satisfied with LTS and Tumbleweed why not change the release cycle to focus our resources for these new tasks? Now we have 8 month until the next release. We support every release for 18 month (2 releases and 2 months). => we have 2.33 main versions to maintain.
Why not revisit this when/if LTS and Tumbleweed succeed. We have a ways to go here before this is something we need to worry about.
Yes, I agree. Let's wait and discuss it again. Cheers, Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Wednesday 01 December 2010 16:51:49 wrote Slaya Chronicles - Geeko Acolyte:
I may be wrong but RH is where it is today is partially due to CentOS.
CentOS, by more traditional business models should have killed RHEL years ago. I mean, who would want to pay for something (SLES/SLED) you can get at no cost (CentOS) right ?
The opposite is true now. What we have now is a sizeable pool of RHEL-type system trained IT guys. And guess what these people will recommend for paid-for support Enterprise Linux?
Well, I think I would buy RHEL for my business because if I use Red Hat I´ve got the secure that nobody killed the project. CentOS can be killed or destroyed by everyone. Hope you know what I mean. kind regards kdl -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Thomas Thym Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 2:38 PM To: opensuse-project@opensuse.org Subject: Re: [opensuse-project] openSUSE LTS, Tumbleweed and release cycles On Wednesday 01 December 2010 16:51:49 wrote Slaya Chronicles - Geeko Acolyte:
I may be wrong but RH is where it is today is partially due to CentOS.
CentOS, by more traditional business models should have killed RHEL years ago. I mean, who would want to pay for something (SLES/SLED) you can get at no cost (CentOS) right ?
The opposite is true now. What we have now is a sizeable pool of RHEL-type system trained IT guys. And guess what these people will recommend for paid-for support Enterprise Linux?
=Asking= I can clearly see the advantage of a LTS system. My impression of that discussion is, that it is worth it to ask Novell what they need to support the openSLES idea. For the openSUSE-Novell-openSLX-every community member ecosystem this seems by far the better alternative. =Thinking further= Another idea which came to my mind. I see manly two types of openSUSE users with their special needs. 1. Stability, security, long-term support, not much work maintaining or migrating the systems. This will apply to many servers or desktops from business users (esp. bigger ones). 2. Stability, security and software that is up to date. They update their systems regularly. (Power-users, Home-users, etc.) In my opinion the amount of people wanting a mixture is small (but that is just a guess). So what does the user want? 1. => He/she wants an LTS version and is happy when a new version is published, when end of life of his version is approaching after 3 years. openSUSE LTS/openSLES would be the choice. 2. => They will be happy to use openSUSE Tumbleweed. It fits exactly their needs. =Consequences= When the majority of users is satisfied with LTS and Tumbleweed why not change the release cycle to focus our resources for these new tasks? Now we have 8 month until the next release. We support every release for 18 month (2 releases and 2 months). => we have 2.33 main versions to maintain. So why not expand the release cycle to 2.5 years and support it for 3 years?! This would be fine for group 1. For the second group we offer Tumbleweed based on that LTS main release. To fill the gap between we could provide "snapshot"-CDs of the Tumbleweed tree (if really needed) to offer a live and install medium for new installations / new users. There may be a 3rd tree like factory / testing. That might reduce the number of repos as well. You could get rid e.g. of all the openSUSE 11.x/KDE_Factory repos. And we would have again about 2 main versions to maintain. =Conclusion= Ok. This is a very extreme position. The perfect solution may be in between. But with Tumbleweed and LTS we should really rethink the release cycles. Just my 2 cents. Cheers, Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Thursday 02 December 2010 14:38:39 Thomas Thym wrote:
On Wednesday 01 December 2010 16:51:49 wrote Slaya Chronicles - Geeko Acolyte:
I may be wrong but RH is where it is today is partially due to CentOS.
CentOS, by more traditional business models should have killed RHEL years ago. I mean, who would want to pay for something (SLES/SLED) you can get at no cost (CentOS) right ?
The opposite is true now. What we have now is a sizeable pool of RHEL-type system trained IT guys. And guess what these people will recommend for paid-for support Enterprise Linux?
=Asking= I can clearly see the advantage of a LTS system.
No doubt.
My impression of that discussion is, that it is worth it to ask Novell what they need to support the openSLES idea. For the openSUSE-Novell-openSLX-every community member ecosystem this seems by far the better alternative.
=Thinking further= Another idea which came to my mind. I see manly two types of openSUSE users with their special needs. 1. Stability, security, long-term support, not much work maintaining or migrating the systems. This will apply to many servers or desktops from business users (esp. bigger ones). 2. Stability, security and software that is up to date. They update their systems regularly. (Power-users, Home-users, etc.)
In my opinion the amount of people wanting a mixture is small (but that is just a guess). So what does the user want? 1. => He/she wants an LTS version and is happy when a new version is published, when end of life of his version is approaching after 3 years. openSUSE LTS/openSLES would be the choice. 2. => They will be happy to use openSUSE Tumbleweed. It fits exactly their needs.
=Consequences= When the majority of users is satisfied with LTS and Tumbleweed why not change the release cycle to focus our resources for these new tasks? Now we have 8 month until the next release. We support every release for 18 month (2 releases and 2 months). => we have 2.33 main versions to maintain.
So why not expand the release cycle to 2.5 years and support it for 3 years?! This would be fine for group 1. For the second group we offer Tumbleweed based on that LTS main release. To fill the gap between we could provide "snapshot"-CDs of the Tumbleweed tree (if really needed) to offer a live and install medium for new installations / new users. There may be a 3rd tree like factory / testing. That might reduce the number of repos as well. You could get rid e.g. of all the openSUSE 11.x/KDE_Factory repos. And we would have again about 2 main versions to maintain.
Practically, a long time support is possible already. I offered multiple times to create an OBS project where people could still maintain (security) updates for openSUSE 11.0 for example. However, so far no real group got established. So it looks in first place as a lack of workforce to me. But again, there is nothing what stops you to do this already _right now_. However, I don't see that this would obsolete KDE:Factory openSUSE_11.1 repos for example. Because you still want to offer the user the choice to have either something rocking stable with little changes and on this other hand with some bleeding edge component. bye adrian -- Adrian Schroeter SUSE Linux Products GmbH email: adrian@suse.de -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
This looks all very interesting.... But with a LTS-Release it maybe will be difficult. I used Ubuntu 10.04 LTS for a while and read something about 8.04 LTS. There´s Firefox in version 3.0.19 and there aren´t any updates by Mozilla (I read it, if it isn´t the truth, please correct me) so I think it´s the work of the community to do this. In generell I think the idea of Thomas Thym very nice. It looks a little bit like Debian: - stable - testing - sid Maybe the Ubuntu-way is a much better way to do it: openSUSE 11.4 becomes a regular version. openSUSE 11.5 will be the first LTS release. Support till 2014 (when it comes 2011) openSUSE 11.6 will be a regular 6 month release so on..... Then they are two important repos: - LTS: This repo includes all software for a LTS-release - Regular: This repp includes all 6 month releases of software. Factory becomes like Debian Sid. That´s my idea of a LTS-version kind regards kdl PS: Please note that it´s just an idea. It isn´t the stable version of this idea. It´s more than a "Alpha" -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: AdrianSchröter Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 11:28 AM To: opensuse-project@opensuse.org Cc: Thomas Thym Subject: Re: [opensuse-project] openSUSE LTS, Tumbleweed and release cycles On Thursday 02 December 2010 14:38:39 Thomas Thym wrote:
On Wednesday 01 December 2010 16:51:49 wrote Slaya Chronicles - Geeko Acolyte:
I may be wrong but RH is where it is today is partially due to CentOS.
CentOS, by more traditional business models should have killed RHEL years ago. I mean, who would want to pay for something (SLES/SLED) you can get at no cost (CentOS) right ?
The opposite is true now. What we have now is a sizeable pool of RHEL-type system trained IT guys. And guess what these people will recommend for paid-for support Enterprise Linux?
=Asking= I can clearly see the advantage of a LTS system.
No doubt.
My impression of that discussion is, that it is worth it to ask Novell what they need to support the openSLES idea. For the openSUSE-Novell-openSLX-every community member ecosystem this seems by far the better alternative.
=Thinking further= Another idea which came to my mind. I see manly two types of openSUSE users with their special needs. 1. Stability, security, long-term support, not much work maintaining or migrating the systems. This will apply to many servers or desktops from business users (esp. bigger ones). 2. Stability, security and software that is up to date. They update their systems regularly. (Power-users, Home-users, etc.)
In my opinion the amount of people wanting a mixture is small (but that is just a guess). So what does the user want? 1. => He/she wants an LTS version and is happy when a new version is published, when end of life of his version is approaching after 3 years. openSUSE LTS/openSLES would be the choice. 2. => They will be happy to use openSUSE Tumbleweed. It fits exactly their needs.
=Consequences= When the majority of users is satisfied with LTS and Tumbleweed why not change the release cycle to focus our resources for these new tasks? Now we have 8 month until the next release. We support every release for 18 month (2 releases and 2 months). => we have 2.33 main versions to maintain.
So why not expand the release cycle to 2.5 years and support it for 3 years?! This would be fine for group 1. For the second group we offer Tumbleweed based on that LTS main release. To fill the gap between we could provide "snapshot"-CDs of the Tumbleweed tree (if really needed) to offer a live and install medium for new installations / new users. There may be a 3rd tree like factory / testing. That might reduce the number of repos as well. You could get rid e.g. of all the openSUSE 11.x/KDE_Factory repos. And we would have again about 2 main versions to maintain.
Practically, a long time support is possible already. I offered multiple times to create an OBS project where people could still maintain (security) updates for openSUSE 11.0 for example. However, so far no real group got established. So it looks in first place as a lack of workforce to me. But again, there is nothing what stops you to do this already _right now_. However, I don't see that this would obsolete KDE:Factory openSUSE_11.1 repos for example. Because you still want to offer the user the choice to have either something rocking stable with little changes and on this other hand with some bleeding edge component. bye adrian -- Adrian Schroeter SUSE Linux Products GmbH email: adrian@suse.de -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Monday 06 December 2010 19:00:51 Kim Leyendecker wrote:
This looks all very interesting.... But with a LTS-Release it maybe will be difficult. I used Ubuntu 10.04 LTS for a while and read something about 8.04 LTS. There´s Firefox in version 3.0.19 and there aren´t any updates by Mozilla (I read it, if it isn´t the truth, please correct me) so I think it´s the work of the community to do this.
In generell I think the idea of Thomas Thym very nice. It looks a little bit like Debian: - stable - testing - sid
Maybe the Ubuntu-way is a much better way to do it:
openSUSE 11.4 becomes a regular version. openSUSE 11.5 will be the first LTS release. Support till 2014 (when it comes 2011) openSUSE 11.6 will be a regular 6 month release so on.....
Then they are two important repos: - LTS: This repo includes all software for a LTS-release - Regular: This repp includes all 6 month releases of software.
Factory becomes like Debian Sid.
That´s my idea of a LTS-version
So you want to force people to update their entire system just to get a bleeding edge KDE, or kernel or digikam ? Sounds more like a step backward to me. -- Adrian Schroeter SUSE Linux Products GmbH email: adrian@suse.de -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
That´s one of the not cleared things of my idea. I said that´s just an idea that must be make perfect so this is a question that will need to clear. I don´t know, but I think if people really want to have the bleeding edge KDE, they install it from the OBS or the KDE repo.
- LTS: This repo includes all software for a LTS-release - Regular: This repp includes all 6 month releases of software.
In this cause, YaST is important. If you install the LTS, you can use the "regular" repo too and if you use the regular you can use the LTS too. I hope it´s clear. My third point is following: What´s with Tumbleweed? I think it looks very intersting and maybe it can be used with my concept too. kind regards and a nice day kdl -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: AdrianSchröter Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 8:13 PM To: Kim Leyendecker Cc: opensuse-project@opensuse.org ; Thomas Thym Subject: Re: [opensuse-project] openSUSE LTS, Tumbleweed and release cycles On Monday 06 December 2010 19:00:51 Kim Leyendecker wrote:
This looks all very interesting.... But with a LTS-Release it maybe will be difficult. I used Ubuntu 10.04 LTS for a while and read something about 8.04 LTS. There´s Firefox in version 3.0.19 and there aren´t any updates by Mozilla (I read it, if it isn´t the truth, please correct me) so I think it´s the work of the community to do this.
In generell I think the idea of Thomas Thym very nice. It looks a little bit like Debian: - stable - testing - sid
Maybe the Ubuntu-way is a much better way to do it:
openSUSE 11.4 becomes a regular version. openSUSE 11.5 will be the first LTS release. Support till 2014 (when it comes 2011) openSUSE 11.6 will be a regular 6 month release so on.....
Then they are two important repos: - LTS: This repo includes all software for a LTS-release - Regular: This repp includes all 6 month releases of software.
Factory becomes like Debian Sid.
That´s my idea of a LTS-version
So you want to force people to update their entire system just to get a bleeding edge KDE, or kernel or digikam ? Sounds more like a step backward to me. -- Adrian Schroeter SUSE Linux Products GmbH email: adrian@suse.de -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 19:02:54 wrote Kim Leyendecker:
That´s one of the not cleared things of my idea. I said that´s just an idea that must be make perfect so this is a question that will need to clear. I don´t know, but I think if people really want to have the bleeding edge KDE, they install it from the OBS or the KDE repo.
My core idea was to offer Tubleweed for those who want uptodate software and LTS for Business users with the wish to risk the chance to break something (update/upgrade) very seldom. Therefor skip the releases between LTS. Factory remains for developers. But I agree with Greg to discuss it further, when we have Tumbleweed (and hopefully LTS). Cheers, Thomas
- LTS: This repo includes all software for a LTS-release - Regular: This repp includes all 6 month releases of software.
In this cause, YaST is important. If you install the LTS, you can use the "regular" repo too and if you use the regular you can use the LTS too. I hope it´s clear.
My third point is following: What´s with Tumbleweed? I think it looks very intersting and maybe it can be used with my concept too.
kind regards and a nice day kdl -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: AdrianSchröter Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 8:13 PM To: Kim Leyendecker Cc: opensuse-project@opensuse.org ; Thomas Thym Subject: Re: [opensuse-project] openSUSE LTS, Tumbleweed and release cycles
On Monday 06 December 2010 19:00:51 Kim Leyendecker wrote:
This looks all very interesting.... But with a LTS-Release it maybe will be difficult. I used Ubuntu 10.04 LTS for a while and read something about 8.04 LTS. There´s Firefox in version 3.0.19 and there aren´t any updates by Mozilla (I read it, if it isn´t the truth, please correct me) so I think it´s the work of the community to do this.
In generell I think the idea of Thomas Thym very nice. It looks a little bit like Debian: - stable - testing - sid
Maybe the Ubuntu-way is a much better way to do it:
openSUSE 11.4 becomes a regular version. openSUSE 11.5 will be the first LTS release. Support till 2014 (when it comes 2011) openSUSE 11.6 will be a regular 6 month release so on.....
Then they are two important repos: - LTS: This repo includes all software for a LTS-release - Regular: This repp includes all 6 month releases of software.
Factory becomes like Debian Sid.
That´s my idea of a LTS-version
So you want to force people to update their entire system just to get a bleeding edge KDE, or kernel or digikam ?
Sounds more like a step backward to me.
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Le 01/12/2010 14:02, Sebastian Siebert a écrit :
But openSUSE LTS means more work as the maintainer (Hundreds of
do you really think that? are you subscribed to the openSUSE security list? (http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/) I fail to see where are the hundred of buggy packages there :-) looks for me than only the kernel needs frequent updates (security related), and I think other teams (on other distributions or updtream) already do the job :-) The main problem is than when an action is needed it have to be done *fast* The last security problem that impacted my ISP (online.com) was recently a phpmyadmin bug that was really used by a pirate on 25% (approx) of this isps client servers, making him obliged to stop all the servers for the lazzy clients. Don't use buggy apps! I don't use phpmyadmin :-) that's why I asked several times for a *HOWTO* maintain a server myself using upstream. I already follow 4/5 security mailing lists for products not maintained at all by openSUSE (PmWiki...) and update them myself from upstream not a great task jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Here's my ISP doc about the "netbook" boot, that is he use of patched kernel: http://help.ovh.co.uk/KernelNetboot however I have to say that the openSUSE of this ISP is pretty special, it's lilo based and I never could make a standard grub openSUSE boot on this server obviously, this kernel is compiled static for the hardware used :-) jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 30/11/10 22:46, Pascal Bleser wrote:
[...] Yes, we all know about CentOS, and a few know a few things about CentOS and Redhat I won't be citing in public (but let's say that some people who might or might not be working for Redhat have or haven't said that they believe that CentOS is effectively helping them spreading RHEL, but only off the record. or not.). But there are no hard facts or numbers to give any proof or guarantee that it would be the same with an "openSLES".
It's interesting to hear about the unconfirmed points of view regarding the relationship of CentOS and RHEL. I have in fact posted a similar comment a couple of weeks ago on the German mailing list, based on my own experience in the Oil&Gas business where we have large numbers of servers and compute clusters. For me it looks like CentOS is actually helping RedHat boost their business.
And, personally, the last thing I'd want is people from Novell/SUSE losing their job because of that.
This would certainly be a bad development but very shortsighted on Novell's (or whatever the name now is) side.
[...] Long story short, I personally believe that the only viable option is "openSUSE LTS", but it does bring some technical challenges which require a certain number of committed contributors working on the maintenance.
I think the only feasible and viable solution given the current resources was an openSLES, and I and my company would be looking forward to such a solution. At the moment, we use RHEL and CentOS, just like many other companies in the Oil&Gas business. Regards, Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Am 02.12.2010 15:14, schrieb Thomas Hertweck:
On 30/11/10 22:46, Pascal Bleser wrote:
And, personally, the last thing I'd want is people from Novell/SUSE losing their job because of that.
This would certainly be a bad development but very shortsighted on Novell's (or whatever the name now is) side.
[...] Long story short, I personally believe that the only viable option is "openSUSE LTS", but it does bring some technical challenges which require a certain number of committed contributors working on the maintenance.
I think the only feasible and viable solution given the current resources was an openSLES, and I and my company would be looking forward to such a solution. At the moment, we use RHEL and CentOS, just like many other companies in the Oil&Gas business.
I would love to have an openSLES but I won't fight it out with Novell if they don't change their mind. I still think that an LTS version would be possible as well. I cannot believe that there are no people out there who could spend a few hours a month to make it possible. I'm also thinking about companies here who would invest a bit of their time to have an openSUSE LTS option. But apparently they are just going for the complete free solution CentOS :-( Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 02/12/10 16:46, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
[...] I would love to have an openSLES but I won't fight it out with Novell if they don't change their mind.
I agree, out of respect for Novell as sponsor of openSUSE it should perhaps not be done without some kind of (at least unofficial) approval.
I still think that an LTS version would be possible as well. I cannot believe that there are no people out there who could spend a few hours a month to make it possible. I'm also thinking about companies here who would invest a bit of their time to have an openSUSE LTS option. But apparently they are just going for the complete free solution CentOS :-(
Well, I think it's time for a reality check: As I said, I work in the oil&gas industry where we have large compute resources (clusters with thousands of CPUs), many desktop systems, many servers, disk storage is measured in Petabytes, etc. However, the OS (i.e. Linux in this case) is only a tool for us, we don't employ Linux kernel programmers, we employ geophysicists, geologists, geoscientists, etc. That's the main difference to IT and software companies. When you say companies should invest a bit of time to have an openSUSE LTS, that's easier said than done, in particular for companies whose shares are sold on the stock market. At the end of the day, it's about making money and keeping your share holders happy - this holds for us just like it holds for Novell. There's CentOS out there which works fine, and the combination of RHEL for (important) servers, CentOS for cluster compute nodes (binary compatible with RHEL), and Fedora for desktop systems (where stability isn't such a crucial issue and having up-to-date OpenOffice or browser versions is more important) works fine and saves quite a bit of money (we are talking about several thousands of systems here, or even more in large companies). Unfortunately, in the openSUSE world there's no such OS combination available. I play a bit the devil's advocate here, I hope you realize that. Unfortunately, over the years I've seen far too many overly naive opinions in the community when it comes to Linux. Novell hasn't made openSUSE a community project because it's great fun and the company loves to throw money out the window - no, Linux is a business and Novell certainly had and has this in mind, just like RedHat and other companies in this business sector. Anyway, I've a general question at the end which fits somehow into the whole discussion here: Usually, we get new clusters now and then and older clusters will be decommissioned. These clusters are no longer based on the latest hardware (i.e. we probably speak of dual-CPU dual-core clusters here which are currently being decommissioned as opposed to new clusters based on, for instance, dual-CPU hexa-core) but they still work fine. Last time we had some problems actually getting rid of such a cluster. My question now is, would openSUSE be interested in getting a hand on such second-hand hardware? Somebody mentioned that Packman, for instance, doesn't have enough resources. Of course, the computers/cluster nodes would only be a piece of the puzzle, you would still require somebody who's going to pay the bill (air conditioning is a huge factor), you would require some space etc, i.e. somebody else would have to provide the infrastructure. But I guess if there's some interest to (at least) get the hardware (for free), there might be a way to achieve that. Regards, Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Well, I think a LTS version isn´t so good. I mean, companies will use SLES and/or SLED. I think openSUSE is a "normal" distribution like Ubuntu or others. The release plan is good for the home and uncommerical users. I work on a system like centOS but I can´t give the support like the CentOS community and it´s just a hobby by myself. (and the release plan is almost like the openSUSE one..... 10.1 commes on 17th Feb [my birthday] and 10.2 commes on 17th sept [Linux birthday] I think a 6 month release plan is the right one. I tested SUSE Linux Enterpise and I think OpenOffice 3.0 isn´t that what I want. Yes, for companies it´s better to have stable enought software for critical using, but as a home user I want to have the latest software. So far, I hope openSUSE 11.4 will be fine. kind regards kdl (kimleyendecker@hotmail.de) -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Thomas Hertweck Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 10:55 AM To: opensuse-project@opensuse.org Subject: Re: [opensuse-project] openSUSE LTS On 02/12/10 16:46, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
[...] I would love to have an openSLES but I won't fight it out with Novell if they don't change their mind.
I agree, out of respect for Novell as sponsor of openSUSE it should perhaps not be done without some kind of (at least unofficial) approval.
I still think that an LTS version would be possible as well. I cannot believe that there are no people out there who could spend a few hours a month to make it possible. I'm also thinking about companies here who would invest a bit of their time to have an openSUSE LTS option. But apparently they are just going for the complete free solution CentOS :-(
Well, I think it's time for a reality check: As I said, I work in the oil&gas industry where we have large compute resources (clusters with thousands of CPUs), many desktop systems, many servers, disk storage is measured in Petabytes, etc. However, the OS (i.e. Linux in this case) is only a tool for us, we don't employ Linux kernel programmers, we employ geophysicists, geologists, geoscientists, etc. That's the main difference to IT and software companies. When you say companies should invest a bit of time to have an openSUSE LTS, that's easier said than done, in particular for companies whose shares are sold on the stock market. At the end of the day, it's about making money and keeping your share holders happy - this holds for us just like it holds for Novell. There's CentOS out there which works fine, and the combination of RHEL for (important) servers, CentOS for cluster compute nodes (binary compatible with RHEL), and Fedora for desktop systems (where stability isn't such a crucial issue and having up-to-date OpenOffice or browser versions is more important) works fine and saves quite a bit of money (we are talking about several thousands of systems here, or even more in large companies). Unfortunately, in the openSUSE world there's no such OS combination available. I play a bit the devil's advocate here, I hope you realize that. Unfortunately, over the years I've seen far too many overly naive opinions in the community when it comes to Linux. Novell hasn't made openSUSE a community project because it's great fun and the company loves to throw money out the window - no, Linux is a business and Novell certainly had and has this in mind, just like RedHat and other companies in this business sector. Anyway, I've a general question at the end which fits somehow into the whole discussion here: Usually, we get new clusters now and then and older clusters will be decommissioned. These clusters are no longer based on the latest hardware (i.e. we probably speak of dual-CPU dual-core clusters here which are currently being decommissioned as opposed to new clusters based on, for instance, dual-CPU hexa-core) but they still work fine. Last time we had some problems actually getting rid of such a cluster. My question now is, would openSUSE be interested in getting a hand on such second-hand hardware? Somebody mentioned that Packman, for instance, doesn't have enough resources. Of course, the computers/cluster nodes would only be a piece of the puzzle, you would still require somebody who's going to pay the bill (air conditioning is a huge factor), you would require some space etc, i.e. somebody else would have to provide the infrastructure. But I guess if there's some interest to (at least) get the hardware (for free), there might be a way to achieve that. Regards, Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Kim, stop sending private copies of emails and learn how to properly quote previous emails! On 04/12/10 18:24, Kim Leyendecker wrote:
Well, I think a LTS version isn´t so good. I mean, companies will use SLES and/or SLED.
You obviously haven't read and/or haven't understood what I wrote. There are a lot of companies out there which do not use SLES and/or SLED. Nobody said an openSUSE LTS or openSLES would replace a standard openSUSE for the home end user. It would of course be a complementary package, bridging the gap between standard openSUSE and SLES/SLED. Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 2010-12-05 19:19:24 (+0000), Thomas Hertweck <Thomas.Hertweck@web.de> wrote:
Kim, stop sending private copies of emails and learn how to properly quote previous emails!
On 04/12/10 18:24, Kim Leyendecker wrote:
Well, I think a LTS version isn´t so good. I mean, companies will use SLES and/or SLED.
You obviously haven't read and/or haven't understood what I wrote. There are a lot of companies out there which do not use SLES and/or SLED. Nobody said an openSUSE LTS or openSLES would replace a standard openSUSE for the home end user. It would of course be a complementary package, bridging the gap between standard openSUSE and SLES/SLED.
Correct. And if I may add a few things... The nature of the beast highly depends on whether it's an "openSLES" (which would be binary compatible with SLES, same as CentOS for RHEL (*)) or an "openSUSE LTS". The latter would *not* be binary compatible to SLES, and have nothing to do with SLES altogether (which is why that option is fine with everyone from a "political" point of view). It is "just" an openSUSE with a longer lifetime. The target audience of an "openSUSE LTS" (**) is not going to be the "home user". Such long(er) lifetime releases are mostly meant for people/admins running openSUSE on servers and, even more specifically, on hosted environments, where you do not have physical access and where upgrading is always a risky undertaking. The other reason is that, if we take that option, we would start with a small set of "core" packages (stuff like kernel, coreutils, ...), simply because we most probably wouldn't have enough contributors to maintain a larger set of packages (e.g. KDE, GNOME, X.org, ...). That is a lot more useful than one might think: if we end up with such a small/"core" system, we can have it as a build target on build.opensuse.org and, hence, provide the newest packages for e.g. apache2, php5, mysql, etc... based on what is already maintained there. It wouldn't be backported patches, but newer versions. Personally, when I think of the hosted server scenarios I'm involved with, it would suit my needs perfectly well. Those "core" packages _must_ be maintained anyway, even if one aims for a desktop oriented LTS. And it's also something to begin with, and we'll see whether that proves to be successful or a bad idea altogether. As Wolfgang wrote in his blog post, the main idea here is to actually _try_ to do it, not discuss every potential problem and approach to death and, then, never actually try to implement it. That being said, if "openSUSE LTS" proves to be successful, nothing prevents more contributors to join the team and maintain more packages, even stuff like KDE or GNOME or ... (*) although, in practice, it's far from being as binary compatible to RHEL as one might think (**) really need to come up with a better name, it has nothing to do with what Canonical is doing for their Ubuntu LTS, and might sound misleading in that regard) -- what about "openSUSE EL" (Extended Lifetime) ? Hope this clarifies some blurry details :) cheers -- -o) Pascal Bleser <pascal.bleser@opensuse.org> /\\ http://opensuse.org -- I took the green pill _\_v FOSDEM XI: 5 + 6 Feb 2011, http://fosdem.org
Le 06/12/2010 00:40, Pascal Bleser a écrit : "home user". Such long(er) lifetime releases are mostly meant for
people/admins running openSUSE on servers and, even more specifically, on hosted environments,
and hosted computer being as cheap as 20$ a month, peope like this may be more each day. jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 05/12/10 23:40, Pascal Bleser wrote:
[...]
Correct. And if I may add a few things...
The nature of the beast highly depends on whether it's an "openSLES" (which would be binary compatible with SLES, same as CentOS for RHEL (*)) or an "openSUSE LTS". The latter would *not* be binary compatible to SLES, and have nothing to do with SLES altogether (which is why that option is fine with everyone from a "political" point of view). It is "just" an openSUSE with a longer lifetime.
This is a crucial point, no doubt. I think the binary compatibility of CentOS with RHEL is definitely one of the big advantages for companies. You can even run RHEL-certified software on CentOS without problems.... openSUSE LTS, as pointed out in other parts of this email thread, could be done right now - it's more likely a matter of human resources than anything else. Regards, Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Hi, in that post I'm picking up different points from the whole thread so don't be confused about where it ends up in the thread view ;-) So please let me summarize some of the important information. I (and others) feel there is a gap between openSUSE and Novell's SLE which needs to be filled somehow. My example was that I obviously won't buy SLES to run it on my hosted server for my personal non-commercial use but running openSUSE is also not really an option there because its very short lifetime. In some cases it's just not possible to update w/o too much risk and downtime. And a short excursion to Tumbleweed: I think this is pretty interesting and is what I'll probably run on my desktop at home and some other machines but it's still not something I would roll out on some systems. So this is not the solution I am looking for. Now coming back to the two options we discussed to fill the gap. I actually would prefer to have CentOS like thing because it can be maintained for a longer time as an LTS version is likely to be maintained. It's (mostly) binary compatible and therefore would probably be more attracting to business users. It was also said it would be less work what I do believe as well but it's not that cheap as some people may think. From some comments on the thread it's pretty clear that the "CentOS" thing currently could not use most of the openSUSE infrastructure and no protected trademarks. The work of rebranding and maintaining/paying the needed infrastructure is not to neglect. For the above reasons I don't want/cannot drive an effort to create an SLE clone. If someone wants to do it now it's time to step up as I don't think it makes sense to do both. (Feel free to send me a mail ;-)) If there won't be such a thing in the foreseeable future I will start to look into the "LTS" solution more seriously and will check with different people how to make it possible, setting up a coordination mailing list and so on.
As Wolfgang wrote in his blog post, the main idea here is to actually _try_ to do it, not discuss every potential problem and approach to death and, then, never actually try to implement it.
Yes, and unless someone starts an openSLE soonish I'll just start. But I still would appreciate if people join in ;-)
(**) really need to come up with a better name, it has nothing to do with what Canonical is doing for their Ubuntu LTS, and might sound misleading in that regard) -- what about "openSUSE EL" (Extended Lifetime) ?
Yeah ;-) openSUSE (E)nterprise (L)inux Actually I agree some sort of name would be nice but I'm not creative enough to come up with one. Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Le 09/12/2010 10:57, Wolfgang Rosenauer a écrit :
Yes, and unless someone starts an openSLE soonish I'll just start. But I still would appreciate if people join in ;-)
count on me. I have little time (family problems), but I can help documenting jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
(**) really need to come up with a better name, it has nothing to do with what Canonical is doing for their Ubuntu LTS, and might sound misleading in that regard) -- what about "openSUSE EL" (Extended Lifetime) ?
Yeah ;-) openSUSE (E)nterprise (L)inux
openSUSE UHT. (long life). -- Per Jessen, Zürich (2.4°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 12/09/2010 12:35 PM, Per Jessen wrote:
Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
(**) really need to come up with a better name, it has nothing to do with what Canonical is doing for their Ubuntu LTS, and might sound misleading in that regard) -- what about "openSUSE EL" (Extended Lifetime) ?
Yeah ;-) openSUSE (E)nterprise (L)inux
openSUSE UHT. (long life).
Nice idea, but it will be completely lost on Americans and IIRC Canada as well. UHT is a non-existent there. ;) Cheers, Peter -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 09/12/10 09:57, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
in that post I'm picking up different points from the whole thread so don't be confused about where it ends up in the thread view ;-)
So please let me summarize some of the important information.
I (and others) feel there is a gap between openSUSE and Novell's SLE which needs to be filled somehow. My example was that I obviously won't buy SLES to run it on my hosted server for my personal non-commercial use but running openSUSE is also not really an option there because its very short lifetime. In some cases it's just not possible to update w/o too much risk and downtime. And a short excursion to Tumbleweed: I think this is pretty interesting and is what I'll probably run on my desktop at home and some other machines but it's still not something I would roll out on some systems. So this is not the solution I am looking for.
Now coming back to the two options we discussed to fill the gap. I actually would prefer to have CentOS like thing because it can be maintained for a longer time as an LTS version is likely to be maintained. It's (mostly) binary compatible and therefore would probably be more attracting to business users. It was also said it would be less work what I do believe as well but it's not that cheap as some people may think. From some comments on the thread it's pretty clear that the "CentOS" thing currently could not use most of the openSUSE infrastructure and no protected trademarks. The work of rebranding and maintaining/paying the needed infrastructure is not to neglect.
I more or less agree entirely with Wolfgang's summary. A clone of SLES would still be a lot of work, but the same holds for an LTS version. The effort required to maintain any such project should not be underestimated. It will be hard work and requires a solid team effort.
For the above reasons I don't want/cannot drive an effort to create an SLE clone. If someone wants to do it now it's time to step up as I don't think it makes sense to do both. (Feel free to send me a mail ;-))
I have very little spare time due to my job but I would be happy to help in one way or another. Having said that, doesn't it at the end of the day come down to a "political" question: Are we willing to proceed with a clone of SLES (provided it's 100% legal to do so) even when Novell is strictly against this idea? Maybe they couldn't do anything about it directly, but working against your main sponsor might create a somewhat strange impression, and a lot of infrastructure and support for openSUSE is coming from that one sponsor in the first place... Have the openSUSE board members an opinion on that issue? Cheers, Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
* Thomas Hertweck <Thomas.Hertweck@web.de> [2010-12-09 20:49]:
Having said that, doesn't it at the end of the day come down to a "political" question: Are we willing to proceed with a clone of SLES (provided it's 100% legal to do so) even when Novell is strictly against this idea? Maybe they couldn't do anything about it directly, but working against your main sponsor might create a somewhat strange impression, and a lot of infrastructure and support for openSUSE is coming from that one
It has been suggested that this would have to be done outside the openSUSE project. So provided some infrastructure can be organized and enough people step up and work on this outside the openSUSE community such a situation would not even arise. The initial attempt (which seems to have gone nowhere) started this way. -- Guido Berhoerster -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Thursday 09 December 2010 22:01:07 Guido Berhoerster wrote:
* Thomas Hertweck <Thomas.Hertweck@web.de> [2010-12-09 20:49]:
Having said that, doesn't it at the end of the day come down to a "political" question: Are we willing to proceed with a clone of SLES (provided it's 100% legal to do so) even when Novell is strictly against this idea? Maybe they couldn't do anything about it directly, but working against your main sponsor might create a somewhat strange impression, and a lot of infrastructure and support for openSUSE is coming from that one
It has been suggested that this would have to be done outside the openSUSE project. So provided some infrastructure can be organized and enough people step up and work on this outside the openSUSE community such a situation would not even arise. The initial attempt (which seems to have gone nowhere) started this way.
Again, I offered several times resources in build.o.o to do a LTS. Just no real work force has formed so far (looks like lack of interesst to me). bye adrian -- Adrian Schroeter SUSE Linux Products GmbH email: adrian@suse.de -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 09/12/10 20:03, Adrian Schröter wrote:
[...] Again, I offered several times resources in build.o.o to do a LTS. Just no real work force has formed so far (looks like lack of interesst to me).
The comment about "doing it outside of the openSUSE project" referred to a clone of SLES, not an openSUSE LTS version. Regards, Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 08:52:36PM +0000, Thomas Hertweck wrote:
On 09/12/10 20:03, Adrian Schröter wrote:
[...] Again, I offered several times resources in build.o.o to do a LTS. Just no real work force has formed so far (looks like lack of interesst to me).
The comment about "doing it outside of the openSUSE project" referred to a clone of SLES, not an openSUSE LTS version.
I dont think that anything speaks against using the OBS also for a potential openSLES. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Hi all, On 11/12/2010 00:18, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 08:52:36PM +0000, Thomas Hertweck wrote:
On 09/12/10 20:03, Adrian Schröter wrote:
[...] Again, I offered several times resources in build.o.o to do a LTS. Just no real work force has formed so far (looks like lack of interesst to me).
The comment about "doing it outside of the openSUSE project" referred to a clone of SLES, not an openSUSE LTS version.
I dont think that anything speaks against using the OBS also for a potential openSLES.
That is the point where we should stop the discussion now and let's begin with the implementation of openSUSE LTS (openSLES or whatever). :-) The issue was raised often in the past and we discussed it for a long time without results. Actions speak louder than words. @Pascal Bleser and Wolfgang Rosenauer: You speak out loudly for an openSUSE LTS. Are you ready to lead the project? :-P I hope that follow actions now! -- Kind regards, Sebastian - openSUSE Member (Freespacer) Website/Blog: <http://www.sebastian-siebert.de> Important notes on openSUSE Mailing List: <http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Mailing_list_netiquette> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Hi, People often say I complicate things too much... Adryan offered the resources... forget the name for time being and focus on what you want to do, people that are available and for what... take Adryan offer and start it... decide the name later... For what I've seen around there is nice demand for a openSUSE Server oriented solution. If there are people available to make it happen... sure... go for it... By now everyone has an idea of possible problems... instead of pointed them, start dropping some solutions instead. Then when the time comes and you need to name your creation or reflection of the community, you think on the name and how you want to position yourselfs with openSUSE without 'offending' (I really don't know the right word for their) our sponsors. In the end, it will end up dependably mostly on the people maintaining it until some visibility is build around it. I personally like the idea of a solution more server oriented. This will also probably increase the number of overall packages available if the community finds it Since such a project might bring lots of new synergies around openSUSE, maybe we should forget the name and positioning for now, leaving it for later. nm
The comment about "doing it outside of the openSUSE project" referred to a clone of SLES, not an openSUSE LTS version.
I dont think that anything speaks against using the OBS also for a potential openSLES.
Ciao, Marcus
-- nelson marques nmo.marques@gmail.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
In the most points, I agree with you. But How shall we name it during the discussion on the Mailing list? Well, I think you´re right and it´s more important to talk about the resources that project will need. They are three important issues: 1.) Support: This is one of the major problems. If I want to use a LTS version, I need Support, right? Who want to give the support. I don´t know but _I_ need secure, when I use a LTS version. 2.) Updates: Yes, maybe it´s the same like support, but updates are important. An example is the Kernel. I don´t need a LTS version, that needs a new kernel every month. There´s a LTS kernel the right choose. But If I use the LTS version for a server, I want to have the latest security updates. How we can realize that there are the updates for the system? Maybe we can use Thumbleweed for updates (e.g. for Firefox or Thunderbird) these programmes are not so "important" like KDE or GNOME. I think a LTS version don´t need the latest desktop environment. But the latest browser is a "must-have", because of security. 3.) Publishing: With which version we would start? How we would build it? I mean if it base on openSUSE 11.3, and we release it in March 2011, 11.4 comes in a few days. Maybe a SLE-clone is much better than a system that base on openSUSE. Hope you know what I mean. kind regards and good luck for the project kdl -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Nelson Marques Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 1:53 AM To: Marcus Meissner Cc: Thomas Hertweck ; opensuse-project@opensuse.org Subject: Re: [opensuse-project] openSUSE LTS Hi, People often say I complicate things too much... Adryan offered the resources... forget the name for time being and focus on what you want to do, people that are available and for what... take Adryan offer and start it... decide the name later... For what I've seen around there is nice demand for a openSUSE Server oriented solution. If there are people available to make it happen... sure... go for it... By now everyone has an idea of possible problems... instead of pointed them, start dropping some solutions instead. Then when the time comes and you need to name your creation or reflection of the community, you think on the name and how you want to position yourselfs with openSUSE without 'offending' (I really don't know the right word for their) our sponsors. In the end, it will end up dependably mostly on the people maintaining it until some visibility is build around it. I personally like the idea of a solution more server oriented. This will also probably increase the number of overall packages available if the community finds it Since such a project might bring lots of new synergies around openSUSE, maybe we should forget the name and positioning for now, leaving it for later. nm
The comment about "doing it outside of the openSUSE project" referred to a clone of SLES, not an openSUSE LTS version.
I dont think that anything speaks against using the OBS also for a potential openSLES.
Ciao, Marcus
-- nelson marques nmo.marques@gmail.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Hi, Am 11.12.2010 13:54, schrieb Kim Leyendecker:
They are three important issues:
1.) Support: This is one of the major problems. If I want to use a LTS version, I need Support, right? Who want to give the support. I don´t know but _I_ need secure, when I use a LTS version.
There is not more "support" for LTS as you get for openSUSE. If you need support then you really need to buy SLES because that is what it is about.
2.) Updates: Yes, maybe it´s the same like support, but updates are important. An example is the Kernel. I don´t need a LTS version, that needs a new kernel every month. There´s a LTS kernel the right choose. But If I use the LTS version for a server, I want to have the latest security updates. How we can realize that there are the updates for the system? Maybe we can use Thumbleweed for updates (e.g. for Firefox or Thunderbird) these programmes are not so "important" like KDE or GNOME. I think a LTS version don´t need the latest desktop environment. But the latest browser is a "must-have", because of security.
That is what that all is about. What did you expect by LTS. It's meant to be a longer supported (as in security updates) openSUSE release. The plan would be to just do the same as during the first 18 months of its lifetime for a longer time.
3.) Publishing: With which version we would start? How we would build it? I mean if it base on openSUSE 11.3, and we release it in March 2011, 11.4 comes in a few days. Maybe a SLE-clone is much better than a system that base on openSUSE. Hope you know what I mean.
For different reasons it could make sense to start with 11.1. But let me explain again. openSUSE LTS (or however it is called in the end) is _not_ a new distribution. Somehow I think you haven't read the earlier mails carefully. It just means that security maintenance will be available after the first 18 months (which are guaranteed by our main sponsor). Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
let's begin. I beg 11.1 is dropped or nearly to be dropped my own hosted server *is* 11.1 cat /etc/SuSE SuSE-brand SuSEconfig/ SuSE-release jdd@ks33269:~> cat /etc/SuSE-release openSUSE 11.1 (i586) VERSION = 11.1 and not that important I refuse to make it as risk. so why don't we start supporting 11.1 as we can, well or bad, just to see what happen? we have first to define what this "supporting" mean (enabling a new repo??) jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday December 11 2010 13:54:40 Kim Leyendecker wrote:
In the most points, I agree with you. But How shall we name it during the discussion on the Mailing list?
How about simply "openSUSE X.Y LTS" or would that be to obvious? I've simply had it with all the idiotic code names so one needs a dictionary to find out wtf something is. Tumbleweed is fine cause it is always just one version so there is no version confusion but that LTS will always be based on a certain openSUSE version so a codename doesn't make sense IMHO. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Am Samstag 11 Dezember 2010, 19:49:14 schrieb Stephan Kleine:
On Saturday December 11 2010 13:54:40 Kim Leyendecker wrote:
In the most points, I agree with you. But How shall we name it during the discussion on the Mailing list?
How about simply "openSUSE X.Y LTS" or would that be to obvious?
would so not the best looks like wee copied simple ubuntu. To openSUSE X.Y is a evergreen version sounds much better. br gnokii
I've simply had it with all the idiotic code names so one needs a dictionary to find out wtf something is. Tumbleweed is fine cause it is always just one version so there is no version confusion but that LTS will always be based on a certain openSUSE version so a codename doesn't make sense IMHO.
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday December 11 2010 20:15:33 S.Kemter wrote:
Am Samstag 11 Dezember 2010, 19:49:14 schrieb Stephan Kleine:
On Saturday December 11 2010 13:54:40 Kim Leyendecker wrote:
In the most points, I agree with you. But How shall we name it during the discussion on the Mailing list?
How about simply "openSUSE X.Y LTS" or would that be to obvious?
would so not the best looks like wee copied simple ubuntu. To openSUSE X.Y is a evergreen version sounds much better.
well, how would you then call the next LTS which has to coexist for at least a bit more than just a few months with the current LTS so people can upgrade when they feel comfortable? In regards to "copying" buntu by calling a LTS LTS I disagree. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
El sáb, 11-12-2010 a las 20:29 +0100, Stephan Kleine escribió:
On Saturday December 11 2010 20:15:33 S.Kemter wrote:
Am Samstag 11 Dezember 2010, 19:49:14 schrieb Stephan Kleine:
On Saturday December 11 2010 13:54:40 Kim Leyendecker wrote:
In the most points, I agree with you. But How shall we name it during the discussion on the Mailing list?
How about simply "openSUSE X.Y LTS" or would that be to obvious?
would so not the best looks like wee copied simple ubuntu. To openSUSE X.Y is a evergreen version sounds much better.
well, how would you then call the next LTS which has to coexist for at least a bit more than just a few months with the current LTS so people can upgrade when they feel comfortable?
In regards to "copying" buntu by calling a LTS LTS I disagree.
What about openSUSE x.x XE stands for openSUSE x.x eXtended Edition ? And not copying none. -- Ricardo Chung | openSUSE Linux Ambassador http://en.opensuse.org/User:Amonthoth http://twitter.com/amon0thoth1 http://amon0thoth1.blogspot.com http://www.facebook.com/pages/openSUSE-Panama-Users-Group/326325121542 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Well, I think if you really think off "evergreen" it seems to be the best choice. At first, almost everybody knows what an evergreen is and if you just watch the "green" it works fine with the openSUSE identity. kind regards kdl On 11.12.2010 20:54, Ricardo Chung wrote:
El sáb, 11-12-2010 a las 20:29 +0100, Stephan Kleine escribió:
On Saturday December 11 2010 20:15:33 S.Kemter wrote:
Am Samstag 11 Dezember 2010, 19:49:14 schrieb Stephan Kleine:
On Saturday December 11 2010 13:54:40 Kim Leyendecker wrote:
In the most points, I agree with you. But How shall we name it during the discussion on the Mailing list? How about simply "openSUSE X.Y LTS" or would that be to obvious? would so not the best looks like wee copied simple ubuntu. To openSUSE X.Y is a evergreen version sounds much better. well, how would you then call the next LTS which has to coexist for at least a bit more than just a few months with the current LTS so people can upgrade when they feel comfortable?
In regards to "copying" buntu by calling a LTS LTS I disagree.
What about openSUSE x.x XE stands for openSUSE x.x eXtended Edition ? And not copying none.
-- Kim Leyendecker (kimleyendecker@hotmail.de) Powered by openSUSE 11.3 This mail was composed under Linux -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
El sáb, 11-12-2010 a las 21:41 +0100, Kim Leyendecker escribió:
Well, I think if you really think off "evergreen" it seems to be the best choice. At first, almost everybody knows what an evergreen is and if you just watch the "green" it works fine with the openSUSE identity.
Exactly, it keeps our green identity intacta and the whole nature connotation. There are so many options but stick with one is useful to identify it and meaningful.
kind regards kdl
On 11.12.2010 20:54, Ricardo Chung wrote:
El sáb, 11-12-2010 a las 20:29 +0100, Stephan Kleine escribió:
On Saturday December 11 2010 20:15:33 S.Kemter wrote:
Am Samstag 11 Dezember 2010, 19:49:14 schrieb Stephan Kleine:
On Saturday December 11 2010 13:54:40 Kim Leyendecker wrote:
In the most points, I agree with you. But How shall we name it during the discussion on the Mailing list? How about simply "openSUSE X.Y LTS" or would that be to obvious? would so not the best looks like wee copied simple ubuntu. To openSUSE X.Y is a evergreen version sounds much better. well, how would you then call the next LTS which has to coexist for at least a bit more than just a few months with the current LTS so people can upgrade when they feel comfortable?
In regards to "copying" buntu by calling a LTS LTS I disagree.
What about openSUSE x.x XE stands for openSUSE x.x eXtended Edition ? And not copying none.
-- Kim Leyendecker (kimleyendecker@hotmail.de) Powered by openSUSE 11.3 This mail was composed under Linux
-- Ricardo Chung | openSUSE Linux Ambassador http://en.opensuse.org/User:Amonthoth http://twitter.com/amon0thoth1 http://amon0thoth1.blogspot.com http://www.facebook.com/pages/openSUSE-Panama-Users-Group/326325121542 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday December 11 2010 21:41:52 Kim Leyendecker wrote:
Well, I think if you really think off "evergreen" it seems to be the best choice. At first, almost everybody knows what an evergreen is and if you just watch the "green" it works fine with the openSUSE identity.
You are missing the point since there would be _2_ LTS versions one need to support so people would be able to switch. IOW if the current LTS is called "$green" and the next one "$green^2" and the one after that "$green^3" we are getting into the buntu realms with stuff like horny horse. Point being: code names suck! So, IMHO, just stick to the openSUSE versions the LTS is build upon and add some "this is some LTS version" if "LTS" is too much Ubuntu so one could call a LTS a LTS. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday, December 11, 2010 06:57:58 pm Stephan Kleine wrote:
On Saturday December 11 2010 21:41:52 Kim Leyendecker wrote:
Well, I think if you really think off "evergreen" it seems to be the best choice. At first, almost everybody knows what an evergreen is and if you just watch the "green" it works fine with the openSUSE identity.
You are missing the point since there would be _2_ LTS versions one need to support so people would be able to switch.
IOW if the current LTS is called "$green" and the next one "$green^2" and the one after that "$green^3" we are getting into the buntu realms with stuff like horny horse.
Point being: code names suck!
So, IMHO, just stick to the openSUSE versions the LTS is build upon and add some "this is some LTS version" if "LTS" is too much Ubuntu so one could call a LTS a LTS.
I would use: openSUSE 11.1 Evergreen It solves version problem and it is more in our tradition to use metaphoric names for some versions: Factory (development - like factory assembly line), Tumbleweed (newest software - like following the winds of upstream changes). LTS is for majority of potential users worse than Evergreen. It is acronym that is clear to some computer fans, while word evergreen one can find in any vocabulary from English to any language. Evergreen has association with evergreen plants that live year around, and calling some openSUSE <version> Evergreen will tell potential users more then SAWET (some acronym will ever tell). It has one additional advantage for those that feel bad to follow *buntus in every step :) -- Regards, Rajko -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
XE is very negative as it's a company name in the US formerly known as Blackwater. Personaly I wouldn't associate openSUSE with terminology that is the actual name of a company which outsources mercenaries to the US Army, specially when the press has taken them down several times and their atrocities in Iraq are well known... Search google for Blackwater (now XE). just my two thoughts... as a former soldier I don't see mercs with good eyes. Nelson On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Ricardo Chung <amon0.thoth1@gmail.com> wrote:
El sáb, 11-12-2010 a las 20:29 +0100, Stephan Kleine escribió:
On Saturday December 11 2010 20:15:33 S.Kemter wrote:
Am Samstag 11 Dezember 2010, 19:49:14 schrieb Stephan Kleine:
On Saturday December 11 2010 13:54:40 Kim Leyendecker wrote:
In the most points, I agree with you. But How shall we name it during the discussion on the Mailing list?
How about simply "openSUSE X.Y LTS" or would that be to obvious?
would so not the best looks like wee copied simple ubuntu. To openSUSE X.Y is a evergreen version sounds much better.
well, how would you then call the next LTS which has to coexist for at least a bit more than just a few months with the current LTS so people can upgrade when they feel comfortable?
In regards to "copying" buntu by calling a LTS LTS I disagree.
What about openSUSE x.x XE stands for openSUSE x.x eXtended Edition ? And not copying none.
-- Ricardo Chung | openSUSE Linux Ambassador
http://en.opensuse.org/User:Amonthoth http://twitter.com/amon0thoth1 http://amon0thoth1.blogspot.com http://www.facebook.com/pages/openSUSE-Panama-Users-Group/326325121542
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
-- nelson marques nmo.marques@gmail.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday, December 11, 2010 06:39:06 pm Nelson Marques wrote:
Personaly I wouldn't associate openSUSE with terminology that is the actual name of a company ....
If we want to go that way then there is not good name that will satisfy whole world. What is holly in one part can be devil in another. Particular acronym XE gives not particular presence to company when you use Google, Yahoo and Bing. It is currency exchange, gas xenon, business software, and what not. -- Regards, Rajko -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Let me ask a technical question: Which kernel version will be supported? kind regards kdl -- Kim Leyendecker (kimleyendecker@hotmail.de) Powered by openSUSE 11.3 This mail was composed under Linux -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday, December 12, 2010 12:36:09 pm Kim Leyendecker wrote:
Let me ask a technical question:
Which kernel version will be supported?
That was another comment on this discussion; a lot of words about names and none tried to start discuss for instance how to revive 11.1 as a test case (kernel is 2.6.27). It is just out of support, so it can be easy to continue adding security patches. I would like to see some action plan what one has to do to keep 11.1 alive for another 6 months as a test is whole idea feasible. In my humble opinion, better idea would be to think how to make upgrade path bullet proof, so that one has no fear what will happen on next change. That will help desktop and server use cases with single effort. -- Regards, Rajko -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Am 13.12.2010 04:16, schrieb Rajko M.:
On Sunday, December 12, 2010 12:36:09 pm Kim Leyendecker wrote:
Let me ask a technical question:
Which kernel version will be supported?
That was another comment on this discussion; a lot of words about names and none tried to start discuss for instance how to revive 11.1 as a test case (kernel is 2.6.27). It is just out of support, so it can be easy to continue adding security patches.
I would like to see some action plan what one has to do to keep 11.1 alive for another 6 months as a test is whole idea feasible.
Why do you think "none tried to start"? I always said from the beginning I'd start with 11.1 and I'm figuring out some details already.
In my humble opinion, better idea would be to think how to make upgrade path bullet proof, so that one has no fear what will happen on next change. That will help desktop and server use cases with single effort.
Yes, but what is bullet proof for you? Version updates usually mean changes in features and configuration. That can never ever be safe in my world as it always needs human thinking and doing. Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Le 13/12/2010 04:16, Rajko M. a écrit :
On Sunday, December 12, 2010 12:36:09 pm Kim Leyendecker wrote:
Let me ask a technical question:
Which kernel version will be supported?
That was another comment on this discussion; a lot of words about names and none tried to start discuss for instance how to revive 11.1 as a test case (kernel is 2.6.27). It is just out of support, so it can be easy to continue adding security patches.
yes, I sent a mail on the subject with no answer :-)
I would like to see some action plan what one has to do to keep 11.1 alive for another 6 months as a test is whole idea feasible.
exactly. I have a 11.1 server that can serve as test
In my humble opinion, better idea would be to think how to make upgrade path bullet proof, so that one has no fear what will happen on next change. That will help desktop and server use cases with single effort.
pretty difficult IMHO we have to define what applications we have to focus on (kernel, glibc, postfix, apache), notice the number of security fixes done for the previous year (not except for the kernel...) and see how we can make these fixes available. A repo with only the patches? AFAIK I never updated my server for month (my ISP takes care of the kernel) jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Anyways, a code name is just optional. What's needed is someone to take over the work. Otherwise 11.1 is going to be declared discontinued, repos well be removed etc in two weeks according to the schedule (well, probably next year due to vacations).
Well, if I read this, I think he's right. I see this idea as the best: - Organisation and official statement for the public (e.g. Pro-Linux.de, Linux-Journal, some other computer magazines and some openSUSE Newssites. - Thinking of a name and realize the ideas we've made in the organisation-step. - releasing of that, what's the result of the work. So, the community and the users know what's planned and maybe they don't grade up their 11.1 installations. In fact, I've got an iso-image of 11.1 With virtualBox I'll create a virtual machine to test it, when it's out or in testing time. kind regards kdl THIS IS JUST OPTIONAL, AND DON'T IMPORTANT FOR MY POST On 13.12.2010 09:43, jdd wrote:
Le 13/12/2010 04:16, Rajko M. a écrit :
On Sunday, December 12, 2010 12:36:09 pm Kim Leyendecker wrote:
Let me ask a technical question:
Which kernel version will be supported? That was another comment on this discussion; a lot of words about names and none tried to start discuss for instance how to revive 11.1 as a test case (kernel is 2.6.27). It is just out of support, so it can be easy to continue adding security patches. yes, I sent a mail on the subject with no answer :-)
I would like to see some action plan what one has to do to keep 11.1 alive for another 6 months as a test is whole idea feasible. exactly. I have a 11.1 server that can serve as test In my humble opinion, better idea would be to think how to make upgrade path bullet proof, so that one has no fear what will happen on next change. That will help desktop and server use cases with single effort.
pretty difficult
IMHO we have to define what applications we have to focus on (kernel, glibc, postfix, apache), notice the number of security fixes done for the previous year (not except for the kernel...) and see how we can make these fixes available.
A repo with only the patches? AFAIK I never updated my server for month (my ISP takes care of the kernel)
jdd
-- Kim Leyendecker (kimleyendecker@hotmail.de) Powered by openSUSE 11.3 This mail was composed under Linux -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 07:54, Kim Leyendecker <kimleyendecker@hotmail.de> wrote:
In the most points, I agree with you. But How shall we name it during the discussion on the Mailing list? Well, I think you´re right and it´s more important to talk about the resources that project will need.
2.) Updates
This is _THE_ single most important issue. Who is going to be back-porting patches and resolving subsequent bugs and regressions? If we can barely get off the ground to do something and stick to petty debates about the name, where is this effort going to come from? This is why my position is firmly that it needs to be an SLES clone because all of the security fixes and bug fixes can come from upstream. Who cares about the name? Let the project show its merits by the quality, attention to details and call it CrapOS. I propose to start the SLES clone at first. If momentum builds around that, then perhaps a more desktop oriented distribution can be built around that with newer desktop packages. Who is with me? I will supply hosting. What needs to be done to get an OBS up and running independent of openSUSE/Novell and compiling the current SLES sources as-is? Once we can build it installer and all then we can debrand it and release it to the general public. -- Med Vennlig Hilsen, A. Helge Joakimsen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 10/12/10 23:18, Marcus Meissner wrote:
[...] I dont think that anything speaks against using the OBS also for a potential openSLES.
As everybody seems to have suddenly jumped onto the openSUSE LTS train (according to the emails sent in the last two days), does this mean the idea of an SLES clone has been dropped? Please clarify. Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Le 12/12/2010 21:20, Thomas Hertweck a écrit :
idea of an SLES clone has been dropped? Please clarify.
I vote to drop it. I don't want to install sles...(in fact, I can't install sles, not i my provider list) jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:08 PM, jdd <jdd@dodin.org> wrote:
Le 12/12/2010 21:20, Thomas Hertweck a écrit :
idea of an SLES clone has been dropped? Please clarify.
I would drop the idea of SLES clone by the root concept of 'clonning', I would though highly encourage openSUSE 'spin' oriented for server deployment for the following reasons: 1. I don't believe it would pose a threat to the commercial offers of our sponsors. 2. It appears to have high demand. I think a openSUSE server oriented spin would please many people. 3. It's a good initiative to promote OBS and enroll more people with openSUSE. It will most likely bring new synergies and packages to OBS and openSUSE. 4. A + for all of those who are only interested in running their own server. I think this idea does please a lot of people for being dropped. Maybe the naming is the real problem, but I don't see a reason for the concept to be taken down. Anything the boosters can do to inject some positive synergies around this ? nm
I vote to drop it. I don't want to install sles...(in fact, I can't install sles, not i my provider list)
jdd
-- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
-- nelson marques nmo.marques@gmail.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 08:20:18PM +0000, Thomas Hertweck wrote:
On 10/12/10 23:18, Marcus Meissner wrote:
[...] I dont think that anything speaks against using the OBS also for a potential openSLES.
As everybody seems to have suddenly jumped onto the openSUSE LTS train (according to the emails sent in the last two days), does this mean the idea of an SLES clone has been dropped? Please clarify.
Well, whatever someone actually _does_ and not just emits talks will happen. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday, December 12, 2010 03:22:08 pm Marcus Meissner wrote:
Well, whatever someone actually does and not just emits talks will happen.
Does anyone know what has to be done if we exclude SUSE employees? -- Regards, Rajko -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 12/12/10 21:22, Marcus Meissner wrote:
[....] Well, whatever someone actually _does_ and not just emits talks will happen.
Hmm, this is a bit of a chicken and egg problem. You shouldn't really start such a project without having a plan and a team that's able to deliver the expectations, so discussions certainly are required. However, discussing everything to death will lead to nothing, I fully agree. Having read the emails of the last couple of days, I definitely think some people try to run a marathon without even having learned to stand up and walk. ;-) It seems as if Wolfgang is now going ahead with an 11.1 LTS version. I personally think that's the wrong decision, I would have started with an SLES clone, to be honest. (And, if asked, I would not have based an LTS version on 11.1.) Unless you got kernel developers, very good programmers (including people who know the low-level stuff), and quite a few experienced software testers in the team, it will be difficult to maintain the software and deliver high quality over the entire lifetime of an LTS release. But there you go. So all the best to Wolfgang, hopefully he will manage to handle that project, I am sure the openSUSE community would benefit from it. Andrew would like to start an openSLES project, so now we already have two competing approaches. Given our very limited resources, I don't think this is going to work. If we look into a SuSE-based Linux release with long(er) lifetime, I think we need to focus on one such project. It will be more than enough work, i.e. splitting the resources and working on projects that compete with each other (at least in some areas) doesn't sound like a good start, at least from my perspective. Has anybody checked with Boyd Gerber who tried to start a similar project about a year ago? Maybe we could learn from his experiences and avoid the same mistakes this time. I haven't seen any contributions from him in this thread, I hope he's still around (trying a CC on this email). Regards, Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Thomas Hertweck wrote:
Has anybody checked with Boyd Gerber who tried to start a similar project about a year ago?
Boyd got at least as far as getting a mailing list running, but I think he later hit some health problems, which presumably caused things to grind to a halt. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (-4.6°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Am 14.12.2010 21:19, schrieb Thomas Hertweck:
Hmm, this is a bit of a chicken and egg problem. You shouldn't really start such a project without having a plan and a team that's able to deliver the expectations, so discussions certainly are required. However, discussing everything to death will lead to nothing, I fully agree. Having read the emails of the last couple of days, I definitely think some people try to run a marathon without even having learned to stand up and walk. ;-)
I'm not sure if our expectations are the same. I already said that we never ever manage to keep everything in 11.1 updated. I think I have at least some idea how much work it is and I know that I won't be able to do it myself.
Andrew would like to start an openSLES project, so now we already have two competing approaches. Given our very limited resources, I don't think this is going to work. If we look into a SuSE-based Linux release with long(er) lifetime, I think we need to focus on one such project. It will be more than enough work, i.e. splitting the resources and working on projects that compete with each other (at least in some areas) doesn't sound like a good start, at least from my perspective.
"openSLE" and Evergreen need different set of expertise IMHO and a different type of contributions. My example is infrastructure. I'm not able to contribute any infrastructure nor do I know whom to ask for sponsoring it. You are right that it may split the ressources a bit but if and when an openSLE comes up I don't see a reason to continue Evergreen just for the sake of doing it.
Has anybody checked with Boyd Gerber who tried to start a similar project about a year ago? Maybe we could learn from his experiences and avoid the same mistakes this time. I haven't seen any contributions from him in this thread, I hope he's still around (trying a CC on this email).
I have. And he suffers from health issues so a lot of information from last year is lost (actually almost all). Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 14/12/10 20:54, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
Am 14.12.2010 21:19, schrieb Thomas Hertweck:
[...] Having read the emails of the last couple of days, I definitely think some people try to run a marathon without even having learned to stand up and walk. ;-)
I'm not sure if our expectations are the same. I already said that we never ever manage to keep everything in 11.1 updated. I think I have at least some idea how much work it is and I know that I won't be able to do it myself.
My last comment cited above was certainly not aimed at you but at those people discussing names and other relatively unimportant stuff in great length without looking at the big picture first. Research and software project management on a relatively large scale is my day-to-day job, so I think I have a fair understanding of the difficulties involved. In a nutshell, I think we agree that there has to be an entire team to handle the work.
[...] "openSLE" and Evergreen need different set of expertise IMHO and a different type of contributions. My example is infrastructure. I'm not able to contribute any infrastructure nor do I know whom to ask for sponsoring it. You are right that it may split the ressources a bit but if and when an openSLE comes up I don't see a reason to continue Evergreen just for the sake of doing it.
As I mentioned in a previous email, under some circumstances I could perhaps arrange for an entire (second-hand) Linux cluster. But even if I managed to do so, we would still require somebody who's going to pay the bill for A/C and power and somebody who provides the space, network, etc. Marcus said in an email (10/12/2010) that even an openSLES could be hosted on build.o.o. I am not sure whether that would be feasible in practice but I am not an expert on the current situation and the "political" issues regarding the "official" openSUSE build infrastructure. I assume you are going to use the OBS for 11.1 LTS?
[...] I have. And he suffers from health issues so a lot of information from last year is lost (actually almost all).
I am sorry to hear that Boyd isn't well. I hope it's nothing serious. I obviously shouldn't expect an answer from him under these circumstances. Regards, Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 09:48:48PM +0000, Thomas Hertweck wrote:
Marcus said in an email (10/12/2010) that even an openSLES could be hosted on build.o.o. I am not sure whether that would be feasible in practice but
Actually I have to retract this statement after some internal mails told me as I was too forward with this. There might be a semi official statement from Gerald Pfeifer or others in the future. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 09/12/10 21:01, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
[...] It has been suggested that this would have to be done outside the openSUSE project. So provided some infrastructure can be organized and enough people step up and work on this outside the openSUSE community such a situation would not even arise.
Sure. But it doesn't answer the fundamental question whether we as a community would be happy with such an overall approach. Let's say you started such an openSLE project (outside of the official openSUSE project and infrastructure but it would obviously still be associated with openSUSE in one way or another, even if it was just through the people finally responsible for the openSLE project), then I am sure you would feel more comfortable if you had at least some support from the community (see also the comment about the initial attempt below). Obviously there are different opinions: Some say we shouldn't care about Novell at all and even what the openSUSE community thinks doesn't matter, as long as there are enough volunteers and infrastructure to handle such an openSLE project. Others seem to feel somewhat uncomfortable with such a "rogue" openSLE project. I am just asking, you know. We must be convinced that it's the right thing to do.
The initial attempt (which seems to have gone nowhere) started this way.
Correct. But obviously there wasn't enough support to get the whole thing going. I think any such project (whether it's some kind of LTS or an SLE clone approach) needs a dedicated group of people, a critical mass, so to speak. I wouldn't even think about starting it unless there were enough volunteers to contribute. Once you have started it (i.e. released a first version), there's no turning back. So we would have to ensure that such a project (LTS or openSLE) was sustainable for the forthcoming future (possibly many years; this would obviously also depend a bit on the future of SLE in case an openSLE project was started). Take care, Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Why should we "respect" Novell's wishes? As Kim pointed out Novell is a business like any other company, of course they don't want a free version of SLES when they can sell it just fine for $2,000 or whatever it costs. In a perfect world do you think RedHat wants their RHEL given away for free as CentOS? Not if they could be making more money.... I think the best way to "respect Novell's wishes" is to read the GPL license that comes with SLES which says the software is free to be redistributed. I for one wouldn't need any support contract or warranty. Instead of upgrading/reinstalling openSUSE every year or two (because of being forced to... deleted repos and such) I'd rather have 1 OS run for a long time. So wa On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 04:55, Thomas Hertweck <Thomas.Hertweck@web.de> wrote:
On 02/12/10 16:46, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
[...] I would love to have an openSLES but I won't fight it out with Novell if they don't change their mind.
I agree, out of respect for Novell as sponsor of openSUSE it should perhaps not be done without some kind of (at least unofficial) approval.
I still think that an LTS version would be possible as well. I cannot believe that there are no people out there who could spend a few hours a month to make it possible. I'm also thinking about companies here who would invest a bit of their time to have an openSUSE LTS option. But apparently they are just going for the complete free solution CentOS :-(
Well, I think it's time for a reality check: As I said, I work in the oil&gas industry where we have large compute resources (clusters with thousands of CPUs), many desktop systems, many servers, disk storage is measured in Petabytes, etc. However, the OS (i.e. Linux in this case) is only a tool for us, we don't employ Linux kernel programmers, we employ geophysicists, geologists, geoscientists, etc. That's the main difference to IT and software companies. When you say companies should invest a bit of time to have an openSUSE LTS, that's easier said than done, in particular for companies whose shares are sold on the stock market. At the end of the day, it's about making money and keeping your share holders happy - this holds for us just like it holds for Novell. There's CentOS out there which works fine, and the combination of RHEL for (important) servers, CentOS for cluster compute nodes (binary compatible with RHEL), and Fedora for desktop systems (where stability isn't such a crucial issue and having up-to-date OpenOffice or browser versions is more important) works fine and saves quite a bit of money (we are talking about several thousands of systems here, or even more in large companies). Unfortunately, in the openSUSE world there's no such OS combination available.
I play a bit the devil's advocate here, I hope you realize that. Unfortunately, over the years I've seen far too many overly naive opinions in the community when it comes to Linux. Novell hasn't made openSUSE a community project because it's great fun and the company loves to throw money out the window - no, Linux is a business and Novell certainly had and has this in mind, just like RedHat and other companies in this business sector.
Anyway, I've a general question at the end which fits somehow into the whole discussion here: Usually, we get new clusters now and then and older clusters will be decommissioned. These clusters are no longer based on the latest hardware (i.e. we probably speak of dual-CPU dual-core clusters here which are currently being decommissioned as opposed to new clusters based on, for instance, dual-CPU hexa-core) but they still work fine. Last time we had some problems actually getting rid of such a cluster. My question now is, would openSUSE be interested in getting a hand on such second-hand hardware? Somebody mentioned that Packman, for instance, doesn't have enough resources. Of course, the computers/cluster nodes would only be a piece of the puzzle, you would still require somebody who's going to pay the bill (air conditioning is a huge factor), you would require some space etc, i.e. somebody else would have to provide the infrastructure. But I guess if there's some interest to (at least) get the hardware (for free), there might be a way to achieve that.
Regards, Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
-- Med Vennlig Hilsen, A. Helge Joakimsen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
My last message got cut off. So what needs to be done to get the ball rolling on a clone of the Linux distribution by a "prominent German Linux vendor"? -- Med Vennlig Hilsen, A. Helge Joakimsen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
What you need? That´s my project look here: www.luse-linux.de.vu If you really want to do it, you need PEOPLE! People to work for support and other things. It´s really hard. You mean that Novell don´t like to get a free version of SLE? Well maybe they don´t like but they can´t say that it´s illegal. I think Novell thinks that´s better to build an free SLE in the openSUSE project because then they have the controll. If I build something like this, I can say, that´s SLE but maybe it isn´t it. I hope you know what I mean. -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Andrew Joakimsen Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 7:42 PM To: Thomas Hertweck Cc: opensuse-project@opensuse.org Subject: Re: [opensuse-project] openSUSE LTS My last message got cut off. So what needs to be done to get the ball rolling on a clone of the Linux distribution by a "prominent German Linux vendor"? -- Med Vennlig Hilsen, A. Helge Joakimsen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
* Kim Leyendecker <kimleyendecker@hotmail.de> [12-04-10 13:53]:
You mean that Novell don´t like to get a free version of SLE? Well maybe they don´t like but they can´t say that it´s illegal. I think Novell thinks that´s better to build an free SLE in the openSUSE project because then they have the controll.
I believe you are grossly mistaken here about "controll". Perhaps you can show us where the control exists? -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Andrew, stop sending private copies of emails and learn how to properly quote previous emails! On 04/12/10 18:40, Andrew Joakimsen wrote:
Why should we "respect" Novell's wishes?
Because Novell is the biggest sponsor of the openSUSE project, and working against your sponsor isn't such a good idea, I'd say. As pointed out in my email and Pascal's email, RedHat's attitude towards a CentOS clone seems to differ from Novell's attitude towards a proposed openSLES. RedHat seems to tolerate the free CentOS, they even seem to benefit from this project - they will not say so in public but you hear those stories now and then. Novell doesn't seem to be keen on an openSLES, at least that's the opinion that has been mentioned on various mailing lists in the past. Whether that's an official opinion, I don't know. I also don't know who was in touch with Novell management or whoever is responsible for answering questions regarding a free SLES clone. Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, 5 Dec 2010, Thomas Hertweck wrote:
As pointed out in my email and Pascal's email, RedHat's attitude towards a CentOS clone seems to differ from Novell's attitude towards a proposed openSLES.
This looks like a case where different people may have different intelligence¹. I certainly am seeing most strong, numerous and unambiguous indications to the contrary.
Novell doesn't seem to be keen on an openSLES, at least that's the opinion that has been mentioned on various mailing lists in the past.
This is correct.
Whether that's an official opinion, I don't know. I also don't know who was in touch with Novell management or whoever is responsible for answering questions regarding a free SLES clone.
Companies as such usually do not issue official comments on questions like this. (Any official statement from Red Hat?) As for individuals, happy to talk; I just arrived on vacation so you may not see a lot from my side the next two, three weeks. ;-) Gerald ¹ "intelligence" as in CIA, not as in IQ. -- Dr. Gerald Pfeifer <gp@novell.com> Director Product Management, SUSE Linux Enterprise, openSUSE, Appliances
On Monday December 6 2010 00:16:47 Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2010, Thomas Hertweck wrote:
As pointed out in my email and Pascal's email, RedHat's attitude towards a CentOS clone seems to differ from Novell's attitude towards a proposed openSLES.
This looks like a case where different people may have different intelligence¹. I certainly am seeing most strong, numerous and unambiguous indications to the contrary.
Just to get that straight: are you implying that RedHat isn't in favor of CentOS as in they would like to see it die sooner than later? Or do you mean that Novells (or whoever is responsible now for SLE) attitude changed so an openSLE might be an option?
Novell doesn't seem to be keen on an openSLES, at least that's the opinion that has been mentioned on various mailing lists in the past.
This is correct.
Whether that's an official opinion, I don't know. I also don't know who was in touch with Novell management or whoever is responsible for answering questions regarding a free SLES clone.
Companies as such usually do not issue official comments on questions like this. (Any official statement from Red Hat?)
As for individuals, happy to talk; I just arrived on vacation so you may not see a lot from my side the next two, three weeks. ;-)
Gerald
¹ "intelligence" as in CIA, not as in IQ. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 06/12/10 00:21, Stephan Kleine wrote:
On Monday December 6 2010 00:16:47 Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2010, Thomas Hertweck wrote:
As pointed out in my email and Pascal's email, RedHat's attitude towards a CentOS clone seems to differ from Novell's attitude towards a proposed openSLES.
This looks like a case where different people may have different intelligence¹. I certainly am seeing most strong, numerous and unambiguous indications to the contrary.
Just to get that straight: are you implying that RedHat isn't in favor of CentOS as in they would like to see it die sooner than later? Or do you mean that Novells (or whoever is responsible now for SLE) attitude changed so an openSLE might be an option?
Yep, it would be good to clarify which part of the original statement (the part about RedHat or the part about Novell) Gerald seems to address here. Gerald, do you think that RedHat's attitude towards CentOS is just as negative as Novell's attitude towards openSLES, or do you think Novell's attitude towards an openSLES is not as bad as it looks? I can certainly sense a certain contradiction between the statements Pascal and I have made (which were more or less equivalent) and Gerald's indications mentioned in his email. Regards, Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Hi all, Feel free to ignore this email since it's not operational, but just an expression of my personal concerns: 1. Impact of more branded products 'openSUSE' on our current/future user base. Too much choice of similar products might actually confuse our audiences and we will suffer from that. 2. Current and Future Resources - Do we have resources to make such thing happen if we have a positive feedback from Novell/whoever? Who will work towards it? I know at least that the marketing team is already overwhelmed with work... Maybe Bryen would like to add something more. 3. Clear objective/goal ? What will we benefit from it? Nelson. On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Thomas Hertweck <Thomas.Hertweck@web.de> wrote:
On 06/12/10 00:21, Stephan Kleine wrote:
On Monday December 6 2010 00:16:47 Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2010, Thomas Hertweck wrote:
As pointed out in my email and Pascal's email, RedHat's attitude towards a CentOS clone seems to differ from Novell's attitude towards a proposed openSLES.
This looks like a case where different people may have different intelligence¹. I certainly am seeing most strong, numerous and unambiguous indications to the contrary.
Just to get that straight: are you implying that RedHat isn't in favor of CentOS as in they would like to see it die sooner than later? Or do you mean that Novells (or whoever is responsible now for SLE) attitude changed so an openSLE might be an option?
Yep, it would be good to clarify which part of the original statement (the part about RedHat or the part about Novell) Gerald seems to address here. Gerald, do you think that RedHat's attitude towards CentOS is just as negative as Novell's attitude towards openSLES, or do you think Novell's attitude towards an openSLES is not as bad as it looks? I can certainly sense a certain contradiction between the statements Pascal and I have made (which were more or less equivalent) and Gerald's indications mentioned in his email.
Regards, Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
-- nelson marques nmo.marques@gmail.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Hi, I have some views on the openSUSE LTS/openSLES comparisons. 1. I have a feeling the two being analogised to CentOS is a bit unfair. openSUSE's relation with SLE has always been more the Fedora to RHEL kind. We, as a project, form a base, not a copy of SUSE's enterprise offerings, if typically more conservatively than competition. 2. openSUSE has the direct primary sponsorship of Novell. CentOS has no official affiliation with RH. An openSLES may antagonise Novell/SUSE/Attachmate's friendly approach. 3. Offering of an LTS version alternately with a couple of normal versions has not been discussed. I wonder why. Ubuntu does that quite appreciably, (though I have never personally encountered an Ubuntu-powered server).
From Wikipedia, "To date every fourth release, in the second quarter of even-numbered years, has been designated as a Long Term Support (LTS) release, indicating that it has updates for three years for desktop use and five years for server"
To say what that means, let's say we have 12.0 as LTS(5 release cycle support), then 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 with normal 2.2 cycle support. Then again 13.0 as LTS, and so on. This will cause an LTS version to be perennially active, while having a "cutting edge" version for systems here stability is not primary. This would help a only one extra already present older version needs to be maintained, reducing stress on the developers. 4. The point mooted in (3) can also help on standardising a versioning scheme, the need for which was discussed but never finalised some time earlier, probably on the marketing and project lists. 5. Nelson Marques has a point. Too many offerings would cause confusion. Normal openSUSE vs openSUSE LTS vs openSUSE Tumbleweed vs openSLES has already confused me to an extent. 6. Someone suggested binary compatibility with SLES would make people recommend SLES for paid-for-support Linux. While I appreciate Novell's roles in what openSUSE is today, I personally feel SLES sales figures are not supposed to be the concern of the openSUSE project. Furthermore, even openSUSE can be paid-for-support Linux, considering people pay for 90 day support or something like that when they buy the box. Regards, ~kknundy. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Please do not send private copies of list emails - use the "reply to list" feature of your MUA instead of "reply all"! On 07/12/10 00:01, Koushik Kumar Nundy wrote:
I have some views on the openSUSE LTS/openSLES comparisons.
1. I have a feeling the two being analogised to CentOS is a bit unfair. openSUSE's relation with SLE has always been more the Fedora to RHEL kind. We, as a project, form a base, not a copy of SUSE's enterprise offerings, if typically more conservatively than competition.
I think you are confused. The discussion is about a Linux distribution that is non-commercial but supported for much longer than the usual 18 months release cycle of openSUSE (in reality it's more like 12 months because people that see stability as a primary goal wouldn't install a new release in the first couple of weeks anyway). This distribution would bridge the gap between the commercial SLES/SLED and openSUSE. Two ways of achieving this have been proposed: an openSUSE LTS version (which would obviously be an openSUSE but with extended support), or a clone of SLES which is sometimes called openSLES. That's it. It's not as complicated as you would like to make it.
2. openSUSE has the direct primary sponsorship of Novell. CentOS has no official affiliation with RH. An openSLES may antagonise Novell/SUSE/Attachmate's friendly approach.
This problem has already been discussed in the past and in this thread. Please read!
3. Offering of an LTS version alternately with a couple of normal versions has not been discussed. I wonder why.
Not sure what you mean. Of course not every openSUSE release would be an LTS version. As mentioned, I think you are a bit confused.
[...] 5. Nelson Marques has a point. Too many offerings would cause confusion. Normal openSUSE vs openSUSE LTS vs openSUSE Tumbleweed vs openSLES has already confused me to an extent.
Yes, I can see that. Please read my reply to Nelson, previous discussions on the opensuse-project list, and the entire email thread.
6. Someone suggested binary compatibility with SLES would make people recommend SLES for paid-for-support Linux. While I appreciate Novell's roles in what openSUSE is today, I personally feel SLES sales figures are not supposed to be the concern of the openSUSE project. Furthermore, even openSUSE can be paid-for-support Linux, considering people pay for 90 day support or something like that when they buy the box.
The main advantage of binary compatibility would be on the user side because a user could run SLES-certified software on openSLES. If it also led to increased sales of SLES which happens to be offered by one of the main sponsors of the openSUSE project, then it would be a nice side-effect. I don't think increased SLES sales figures are our primary concern at all. If at all, the community seems to be more concerned that openSLES could damage the business of one of its main sponsors. We seem to go round and round and round in circles. I really wish more people would follow the discussions from the beginning and actually read all the emails. A lot of the stuff that has been asked or mentioned here has already been discussed numerous times. Nothing has been decided yet. It's still being discussed what is feasible and what could be achieved with the given resources. openSLES would perhaps be simpler to maintain as it's a clone of an existing Linux distribution. However, this approach has clear advantages as well as clear disadvantages. openSUSE LTS would entirely be a community project - it would probably require more resources but follow the community spirit. Again, it has advantages and disadvantages. In terms of resources, probably only one solution can be implemented, so there needs to be some kind of decision-making process. Requests for a non-commercial SuSE-based Linux distribution have been observed, so there's at least an agreement that such a long-support version (whatever it might be at the end of the day) could come in quite handy in general. Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Thomas Hertweck wrote:
Please do not send private copies of list emails - use the "reply to list" feature of your MUA instead of "reply all"!
Your turn first: http://www.leptonite.org/mft/ cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Please do not send private copies of list emails - use the "reply to list" feature of your MUA instead of "reply all"! On 06/12/10 20:22, Nelson Marques wrote:
1. Impact of more branded products 'openSUSE' on our current/future user base. Too much choice of similar products might actually confuse our audiences and we will suffer from that.
I don't see this as a problem. At the moment, there are the commercial products SLES / SLED and there's openSUSE. That's it. Having said that, even right now we face problems with what users actually mean by saying that they use openSUSE 11.3. Quite often I find out that they actually installed 11.3 at some point and then enabled all sorts of repositories that drag in unstable GNOME/KDE stuff etc. So the choice is already there right now. We would just give the child a name.
2. Current and Future Resources - Do we have resources to make such thing happen if we have a positive feedback from Novell/whoever? Who will work towards it? I know at least that the marketing team is already overwhelmed with work... Maybe Bryen would like to add something more. 3. Clear objective/goal ? What will we benefit from it?
All of this has been discussed in the past, and some arguments have also been mentioned in this thread. Please read it! It doesn't make sense to repeat everything over and over and over again, we are just going round in circles... Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Stephan Kleine wrote:
Just to get that straight: are you implying that RedHat isn't in favor of CentOS as in they would like to see it die sooner than later?
Yes, debranded distributions based on RHEL are a huge concern for Red Hat. And, yes, I have seen the mumble, mumble references in this thread and elsewhere ("some people who might or might not [...] have or haven't said") and pretty much know it's not true. Like many statements Greg makes about our business are not. ;-)
Or do you mean that Novells (or whoever is responsible now for SLE) attitude changed so an openSLE might be an option?
Anything like that would not be able to use any of our trademarks and would not receive any support from Novell. Gerald -- Dr. Gerald Pfeifer <gp@novell.com> Director Product Management, SUSE Linux Enterprise, openSUSE, Appliances -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On 2010-12-05 19:27:02 (+0000), Thomas Hertweck <Thomas.Hertweck@web.de> wrote:
On 04/12/10 18:40, Andrew Joakimsen wrote:
Why should we "respect" Novell's wishes?
Because Novell is the biggest sponsor of the openSUSE project, and working against your sponsor isn't such a good idea, I'd say. As pointed out in my email and Pascal's email, RedHat's attitude towards a CentOS clone seems to differ from Novell's attitude towards a proposed openSLES. RedHat seems to tolerate the free CentOS, they even seem to benefit from this project - they will not say so in public but you hear those stories now and then. Novell doesn't seem to be keen on an openSLES, at least that's the opinion that has been mentioned on various mailing lists in the past. Whether that's an official opinion, I don't know. I also don't know
Yes, it is. At least, the person I spoke to about that last year is definitely representative of Novell in this regard.
who was in touch with Novell management or whoever is responsible for
I was.
answering questions regarding a free SLES clone.
The person I asked :) I will ask again and will also ask whether it may be quoted, or let that person write an email about it herself. But I won't quote without an agreement from that person -- not that anyone needs to get conspiracy theories going, it is just plain politeness. Just give me a couple of days to get back on this. cheers -- -o) Pascal Bleser <pascal.bleser@opensuse.org> /\\ http://opensuse.org -- I took the green pill _\_v FOSDEM XI: 5 + 6 Feb 2011, http://fosdem.org
participants (27)
-
Adrian Schröter -
Andrew Joakimsen -
Gerald Pfeifer -
Greg KH -
Guido Berhoerster -
jdd -
Jos Poortvliet -
Karsten König -
Kim Leyendecker -
Koushik Kumar Nundy -
Ludwig Nussel -
Marcus Meissner -
Nelson Marques -
Pascal Bleser -
Patrick Shanahan -
Per Jessen -
Peter Linnell -
Rajko M. -
Ricardo Chung -
S.Kemter -
Sebastian Siebert -
Slaya Chronicles - Geeko Acolyte -
Stephan Kleine -
Stephan Kulow -
Thomas Hertweck -
Thomas Thym -
Wolfgang Rosenauer