The more I hear about ALP, the less I like the idea, openSUSE should keep leap
I hope this synopsis appearing in The Register today is wrong about what ALP is: <quote> ... SUSE's next-generation OS, codenamed Advanced Linux Platform or ALP, aims to increase reliability by moving beyond simple snapshots by making the root file system read-only. The only way to install software, including updates, is during a reboot, using a new command, transactional-update ... If you have a cluster of hosts running lots of containers, this should not be too intrusive ... It's less convenient for a non-clustered machine ... </quote> https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/16/bulletproof_linux/ Sounds more like Alf, that furry creature with a long nose that had a citcom that was so annoying you couldn't watch it. Sounds like attempting to install software on ALP will be about the same... How many users on this list are reading this e-mail on a cluster? Apparently, ALP will be a cluster .... -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
On 2023-02-17 07:37, David C. Rankin wrote: Yes, the more I hear about it, the less I like it. I will have to test other distros soon, and prepare for a migration. Ubuntu, Mageia... I never thought I would be doing this. :-/ -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.4 x86_64 at Telcontar)
Hey I have already opened discussion on the IRC, let's hope someone competent appears with some constructive discussion / answers. Maybe this is better place. What troubles me the most is, that on the good old days, change like this would be first communicated with the community, there would be a poll etc etc. I do not recall any community decision regarding Leap -> ALP switch. What I would like to know is 1) Did I just missed the collective community decision to do the switch? 2) Did Board itself decided this? If yes, is there a Board meeting record available publicly, where proposal and / or final decision was done? I am mainly interested about which board member proposed it and how were the votes. 3) Perhaps did SLE decide this? If so, how is this possible? This strongly resembles me the situation when there were efforts for creating the openSUSE Foundation, that was (thankfully) later abandoned IIRC. Partly because community stood strong against. Is it possible to get Board and / or some competent statement? How is it possible, that community discussion happens _after_ announcement of Leap -> ALP and not _before_? Maybe, I am just generally confused about the decision process and I get it all wrong (it has not been "decided" yet, that the Leap will switch to ALP). In that case, feel free to correct me. In case most of the community (let's do poll!) agrees, wouldn't be better to just focus on Tumbleweed and let SLE teams take care for Leap and do what they want with it, but name it something like "openSLE" or "freeSLE"? If the problem is not having enough community resources to maintain Leap as it was before "Closing the (openSUSE) Leap Gap" effort, I honestly think, that even dropping Leap completely would be an option. In this view, I now really think that the "Closing the (openSUSE) Leap Gap" effort was huge error, although I supported it from the start. Personally (thankfully it's not up to me), I would just revert the effort right now. Opinions? Thanks to all openSUSE hackers, maintainers and contributors! Keep up the good work :) Regards, Lukáš Krejza aka Gryffus [1]: https://lists.opensuse.org/archives/list/factory@lists.opensuse.org/thread/ SHINA373OTC7M4CVICCKXDUXN5C3MYX3/[1] Dne pátek 17. února 2023 11:44:01 CET, Carlos E. R. napsal(a):
On 2023-02-17 07:37, David C. Rankin wrote:
Yes, the more I hear about it, the less I like it.
I will have to test other distros soon, and prepare for a migration. Ubuntu, Mageia... I never thought I would be doing this. :-/
-- Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R. (from 15.4 x86_64 at Telcontar)
-------- [1] https://lists.opensuse.org/archives/list/factory@lists.opensuse.org/thread/ SHINA373OTC7M4CVICCKXDUXN5C3MYX3/
On 2023-02-17 14:05, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
Hey
I have already opened discussion on the IRC, let's hope someone competent appears with some constructive discussion / answers. Maybe this is better place.
What troubles me the most is, that on the good old days, change like this would be first communicated with the community, there would be a poll etc etc.
I do not recall any community decision regarding Leap -> ALP switch. What I would like to know is
1) Did I just missed the collective community decision to do the switch?
No. There are no community decisions, ever. Or almost ever. The people that do things decide to do other things, that's all. They don't ask.
2) Did Board itself decided this? If yes, is there a Board meeting record available publicly, where proposal and / or final decision was done? I am mainly interested about which board member proposed it and how were the votes.
3) Perhaps did SLE decide this? If so, how is this possible?
Yes. As any business, they do their own decisions. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from Elesar, using openSUSE Leap 15.4)
[ Moving board@ to Bcc: ] On Fri 2023-02-17, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
2) Did Board itself decided this? If yes, is there a Board meeting record available publicly, where proposal and / or final decision was done? I am mainly interested about which board member proposed it and how were the votes.
The openSUSE Board has not been involved in this topic, and it generally is outside of the scope of the board as usually agreed upon.
How is it possible, that community discussion happens _after_ announcement of Leap -> ALP and not _before_?
Leap is currently based on SUSE Linux Enterprise. Since ALP (or "ALP", I'm not sure the name is final) is going to succeed SUSE Linux Enterprise 15, which is Leap's current base, to me it feels natural for Leap to take that step. (That's just my personal intuition, though, and I prefer to stay out of this topic for the time being and leave it to those closer to building and maintaining our distros.) Gerald
I agree, I really hope we keep Leap. I am sadden because more or more it seem we are cutting back, on packages, services and other things. It's not the SuSE I feel in love with. PLEASE KEEP LEAP!!! Put to a vote to community. If I had made to the board I would be fighting to keep it. On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 10:21 AM Gerald Pfeifer <gp@suse.com> wrote:
[ Moving board@ to Bcc: ]
On Fri 2023-02-17, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
2) Did Board itself decided this? If yes, is there a Board meeting record available publicly, where proposal and / or final decision was done? I am mainly interested about which board member proposed it and how were the votes.
The openSUSE Board has not been involved in this topic, and it generally is outside of the scope of the board as usually agreed upon.
How is it possible, that community discussion happens _after_ announcement of Leap -> ALP and not _before_?
Leap is currently based on SUSE Linux Enterprise. Since ALP (or "ALP", I'm not sure the name is final) is going to succeed SUSE Linux Enterprise 15, which is Leap's current base, to me it feels natural for Leap to take that step.
(That's just my personal intuition, though, and I prefer to stay out of this topic for the time being and leave it to those closer to building and maintaining our distros.)
Gerald
-- Terror PUP a.k.a Chuck "PUP" Payne ----------------------------------------- Discover it! Enjoy it! Share it! openSUSE Linux. ----------------------------------------- openSUSE -- Terrorpup openSUSE Ambassador/openSUSE Member skype,twiiter,identica,friendfeed -- terrorpup freenode(irc) --terrorpup/lupinstein Register Linux Userid: 155363 openSUSE Community Member since 2008.
Hey, Dne pátek 17. února 2023 16:33:14 CET, Chuck Payne napsal(a):
I agree, I really hope we keep Leap. I am sadden because more or more it seem we are cutting back, on packages, services and other things. It's not the SuSE I feel in love with.
we need - Documentation - Packagers - More OBS promotion among upstream / github But most of this can be said about most open-source projects out there. But having more upstream projects to actually use OBS (on-prem or not) for building all their packages (not only for *SUSE*, but OBS can build also windows software AFAIK, but _nobody_ from upstream _knows_) would be HUGE improvement for the overall packaging process. Until I can fix and publish what bothers me in distro, I am OK. Until I can use OBS for free to build my own projects for it, I even absolutely love it. Also, I agree, that there is not a clear communication channel between users and packagers. Say whatever, F.A.T.E. was great [1] (do not save that image, it brings bad luck) ! Regards, Gfs [1]: https://fate.opensuse.org/[1] -------- [1] https://fate.opensuse.org/
Hi, On 2/17/23 10:07, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
[ Moving board@ to Bcc: ]
On Fri 2023-02-17, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
2) Did Board itself decided this? If yes, is there a Board meeting record available publicly, where proposal and / or final decision was done? I am mainly interested about which board member proposed it and how were the votes.
The openSUSE Board has not been involved in this topic, and it generally is outside of the scope of the board as usually agreed upon.
How is it possible, that community discussion happens _after_ announcement of Leap -> ALP and not _before_?
Leap is currently based on SUSE Linux Enterprise. Since ALP (or "ALP", I'm not sure the name is final) is going to succeed SUSE Linux Enterprise 15,
This is where the confusion starts, ALP will not replace SUSE Linux Enterprise 15. Something built from ALP will replace SUSE Linux Enterprise 15. ALP is a PLATFORM from which we build other things. ALP itself does not dictate a read-only filesystem with transactional-updates and btrfs. One of the things that we will build form ALP will be *-Micro, in that incarnation there will be a read-only root filesystem based on btrfs that uses snapshots. But *-Micro will not be the only thing that gets built from AL-PLATFORM. Ultimately this is like talking about Concrete and people basically decreeing that when you have Concrete you can only make one thing from it, a foundation. That of course is completely incorrect. Concrete is a material, people us it to build houses, walls, roads, secure fence posts, make sculptures, ...... Later, Robert
which is Leap's current base, to me it feels natural for Leap to take that step.
(That's just my personal intuition, though, and I prefer to stay out of this topic for the time being and leave it to those closer to building and maintaining our distros.)
Gerald
-- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU Distinguished Engineer LINUX Technical Team Lead Public Cloud rjschwei@suse.com IRC: robjo
Thank you Gerard and Robert for appearing and explaining some confusion. If I may have some additional questions and remarks: Dne pátek 17. února 2023 16:48:07 CET, Robert Schweikert napsal(a):
Hi,
On 2/17/23 10:07, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
[ Moving board@ to Bcc: ]
On Fri 2023-02-17, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
2) Did Board itself decided this? If yes, is there a Board meeting record available publicly, where proposal and / or final decision was done? I am mainly interested about which board member proposed it and how were the votes.
The openSUSE Board has not been involved in this topic, and it generally is outside of the scope of the board as usually agreed upon.
How is it possible, that community discussion happens _after_ announcement of Leap -> ALP and not _before_?
Leap is currently based on SUSE Linux Enterprise. Since ALP (or "ALP", I'm not sure the name is final) is going to succeed SUSE Linux Enterprise 15,
This is where the confusion starts, ALP will not replace SUSE Linux Enterprise 15. Something built from ALP will replace SUSE Linux Enterprise 15. ALP is a PLATFORM from which we build other things. ALP itself does not dictate a read-only filesystem with transactional-updates and btrfs. One of the things that we will build form ALP will be *-Micro, in that incarnation there will be a read-only root filesystem based on btrfs that uses snapshots. But *-Micro will not be the only thing that gets built from AL-PLATFORM.
Ultimately this is like talking about Concrete and people basically decreeing that when you have Concrete you can only make one thing from it, a foundation. That of course is completely incorrect. Concrete is a material, people us it to build houses, walls, roads, secure fence posts, make sculptures, ......
This is exactly my point. "Everyone" just assumes, that: 1) ALP-based distro means heavy focus on containers + transaction updates for root FS, exclusively 2) SLE going for ALP means Leap will go ALP without doubt and there is no other option Both are then wrong? These 2 points IMHO make public and more importantly Leap users (which i see im my eyes - please take no offense - as our little kids we need to take care for, even when it's sometimes exhausting) into believing (and fearing), that they are forced into a change by an enterprise. Change that they didn't called for, for whatever reasons. They think that they will have to use flatpaks, that have bundled libraries they laugh at Other OS (c) since they have linux. They think they will lose beloved zypper and yast2 sw_single ;) Typical Leap user IMHO does not want change. And changing the way they install software, with "cool" addition of the containerized desktop app problems we do not talk about, is the worst change possible for them. I think that number of articles getting this wrong is spreading like a plague, so it already suffices something like openSUSE news post, what ALP-based means and what it doesn't mean in comparison to current Leap. I don't think the new "containers are the future" paradigma, but actual architecture change of the system. Is read-only root an option? Is using containers an option? Etc... That would clarify much confusion. This confusion is also an actual reason why this thread exists. We can talk about how useful is heavy containerization for desktops, but this is completely out of scope of this discussion IMHO. What is IMHO important are these questions: 1) Does ALP-based distribution mean and requires/expect heavy containerization? 2) Is it expected to be fewer RPMs available in favour of flatpaks/whatever in an ALP-based distribution? 3) Current very simplified code packaging (for packages also available in SLE) path for Leap is (correct me if wrong, please): Upstream -> Packager -> Factory /Tumbleweed -> SLE -> Leap How would the packaging path (according to current proposals) in ALP-based Leap look? I guess here is the main advantage of ALP-based? 4) Does majority of Leap users prefer ALP-based or non-ALP-based distro :) ? 5) Does majority of Leap community packagers prefer ALP-based or non-ALP-bysed distro? 6) What is the Board opinion? Is 100% of the Board ALP-positive? If no, what do opponents say? If yes, convince us too, please! What will a browsing PC gain and lose? What problem it will solve for them? What will sysadmin laptop gain and lose? What problem it will solve for them? What will gaming/multimedia PC gain and lose? What problem it will solve for them? What will enterprise work desktop gain and lose? What problem it will solve for them? What wil a server gain and lose? What problem it will solve for them? Also, many users and packagers seem to forget, that Leap gap can be opened again. It's not written into stone. I guess flatpaks from OBS still use .spec files and have to build, so it should really be only matter of OBS configuration. I was in favor of that effort, but I am not so sure anymore. For me, personally, I don't care (as an user). I use TW and until we have Factory and TW, I'm fine. But i care for the Leap users. How can we ask Leap users for an opinion most effectively? We can still revive and extend [1] (or something alike), but a post and a poll would be better :D
On 2/17/23 12:57, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
Dne pátek 17. února 2023 18:55:16 CET, Andrei Borzenkov napsal(a):
On 17.02.2023 20:39, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
a post and a poll would be better :D
What would do better is actually doing something, not posting and polling.
Do something just for the sake of change?
Nothing is being done for the sake of change. We do not sit around thinking about "what could we change to annoy people", if that is the impression then sorry to disappoint you. The changes are being considered because there new needs, users/customers have changed their behavior, cloud is a thing didn't exist 15 years ago, containers are a thing, development teams for higher level applications move faster and demand other things. These are just some of the factors that are being considered. How do we satisfy the customer that wants 20 years of support while also making the customer that is after something new every 3 years happy? As such, off the cuff remarks that imply that those driving changes do it for the sake of change are not really helpful. Later, Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU Distinguished Engineer LINUX Technical Team Lead Public Cloud rjschwei@suse.com IRC: robjo
Fri, 17 Feb 2023 15:25:23 -0500 Robert Schweikert <rjschwei@suse.com> :
On 2/17/23 12:57, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
Dne pátek 17. února 2023 18:55:16 CET, Andrei Borzenkov napsal(a):
On 17.02.2023 20:39, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
a post and a poll would be better :D
What would do better is actually doing something, not posting and polling.
Do something just for the sake of change?
Nothing is being done for the sake of change.
The only change that should come is what users ask for This isn't really a Suse exclusive but I could list a dozen more recent 'features' that not only no user majority has asked for but I suspect that next to no user has asked for at all, yet they are there, WHY? Who or what is driving development, user needs or someone else's needs? Is any kind of 'industry' need ever justifiable as any sort of direction? My answer is a total absolute NO, the ONLY need to cater to is end user need. It's industry that has to adapt, the tail is not to wag the dog. Who ever asked for the cloud, for interface commonality with smart phones, the vanishing menu bars, etc? No one that I know of. When something stops catering to MY needs I chuck it.
Hi, On 2/17/23 16:43, bent fender wrote:
Fri, 17 Feb 2023 15:25:23 -0500 Robert Schweikert <rjschwei@suse.com> :
On 2/17/23 12:57, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
Dne pátek 17. února 2023 18:55:16 CET, Andrei Borzenkov napsal(a):
On 17.02.2023 20:39, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
a post and a poll would be better :D
What would do better is actually doing something, not posting and polling.
Do something just for the sake of change?
Nothing is being done for the sake of change.
The only change that should come is what users ask for
This isn't really a Suse exclusive but I could list a dozen more recent 'features' that not only no user majority has asked for but I suspect that next to no user has asked for at all, yet they are there, WHY?
It is a community project, changes are driven by developers. The changes that are driven by contributors that also happen to work for SUSE have a very high chance to being driven by customers or partners of SUSE. Those that are consumers of the results have influence by creating bug reports or feature requests.
Who or what is driving development, user needs or someone else's needs?
Users are a very diverse group. The need of one group may not overlap with the group of another. Catering to as many groups as possible while keeping the effort to a reasonable level is part of the idea behind ALP.
Is any kind of 'industry' need ever justifiable as any sort of direction? My answer is a total absolute NO, the ONLY need to cater to is end user need.
Define "end user"? If your definition is the group of people that consume Leap as a desktop or server environment, then that definition is quite narrow in scope. Anyway, your opinion is of course equally valid to the opinion of someone else that thinks the definition of "end user" is much broader and includes companies that ultimately pay for a large chunk of resources that make openSUSE possible.
It's industry that has to adapt, the tail is not to wag the dog. Who ever asked for the cloud, for interface commonality with smart phones, the vanishing menu bars, etc? No one that I know of. When something stops catering to MY needs I chuck it.
That is of course your prerogative. No one forces you to use openSUSE Leap and if there is a distribution that better meets your needs then so be it. Later, Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU Distinguished Engineer LINUX Technical Team Lead Public Cloud rjschwei@suse.com IRC: robjo
On 2023-02-17 23:08, Robert Schweikert wrote:
Hi,
On 2/17/23 16:43, bent fender wrote:
Fri, 17 Feb 2023 15:25:23 -0500 Robert Schweikert <rjschwei@suse.com> :
On 2/17/23 12:57, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
Dne pátek 17. února 2023 18:55:16 CET, Andrei Borzenkov napsal(a):
On 17.02.2023 20:39, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
a post and a poll would be better :D
What would do better is actually doing something, not posting and polling.
Do something just for the sake of change?
Nothing is being done for the sake of change.
The only change that should come is what users ask for
This isn't really a Suse exclusive but I could list a dozen more recent 'features' that not only no user majority has asked for but I suspect that next to no user has asked for at all, yet they are there, WHY?
It is a community project, changes are driven by developers. The changes that are driven by contributors that also happen to work for SUSE have a very high chance to being driven by customers or partners of SUSE.
Those that are consumers of the results have influence by creating bug reports or feature requests.
Who or what is driving development, user needs or someone else's needs?
Users are a very diverse group. The need of one group may not overlap with the group of another. Catering to as many groups as possible while keeping the effort to a reasonable level is part of the idea behind ALP.
Is any kind of 'industry' need ever justifiable as any sort of direction? My answer is a total absolute NO, the ONLY need to cater to is end user need.
Define "end user"? If your definition is the group of people that consume Leap as a desktop or server environment, then that definition is quite narrow in scope.
Anyway, your opinion is of course equally valid to the opinion of someone else that thinks the definition of "end user" is much broader and includes companies that ultimately pay for a large chunk of resources that make openSUSE possible.
It's industry that has to adapt, the tail is not to wag the dog. Who ever asked for the cloud, for interface commonality with smart phones, the vanishing menu bars, etc? No one that I know of. When something stops catering to MY needs I chuck it.
That is of course your prerogative. No one forces you to use openSUSE Leap and if there is a distribution that better meets your needs then so be it.
I see a disconnect with the community in all this. :-( -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.4 x86_64 at Telcontar)
Lukas(?) & Robert, et al -- ...and then Robert Schweikert said... % ... % % How do we satisfy the customer that wants 20 years of support while also % making the customer that is after something new every 3 years happy? [snip] First, thanks to all for a mostly-enlightening discussion. I'm looking forward to learning more. The only thing I'll throw in here is that, while perhaps I used to be one of the Cool New Kids who Knew His Stuff, these days after changing careers and not getting to spend as much time in front of the keyboard as I'd like I'm definitely one of those who wants things smooth, slow to change, and easy to maintain. While I couldn't have imagined it just five years ago, there are now times when I'll go an entire week away from my beloved main workstation. It stings, but somehow I get by, and I get to spend 6-9 hours a day teaching people how to fly, so overall I'm happy :-) BUT I have to have something simple and stable that I can "just use" without having to know as much as I used to. So far, SuSE has been that thing for me for about three decades now, and I don't really see that changing too terribly. But I'm watching and, yes, peeking warily ahead to the day when I might have to change flavors when the last version of LEAP is finally too buggy to allow to continue. [FWIW, I was on SuSE 12.x until about 2020, so even in the worst case I see that day as a long way off! ;-] Thanks again for all of the support, development, guidance, and effort in general. I'm looking forward to What's Next and hoping that I like it -- and not making any bets against that yet. HAND :-D -- David T-G See http://justpickone.org/davidtg/email/ See http://justpickone.org/davidtg/tofu.txt
Am 18.02.23 um 04:17 schrieb David Thorburn-Gundlach: ...
First, thanks to all for a mostly-enlightening discussion. I'm looking forward to learning more.
The only thing I'll throw in here is that, while perhaps I used to be one of the Cool New Kids who Knew His Stuff, ... ... While I couldn't have imagined it just five years ago, there are now times ... ... BUT I have to have something simple and stable that I can "just use" without having to know as much as I used to.
So far, SuSE has been that thing for me for about three decades now, and I don't really see that changing too terribly. ...
This could be my text (having used SUSE since 9.x) , and yes, while I see chance coming, I'm still curios enough to find out what ALP might bring. Peter
Hmmm.. Same person that was driving for foundation. Micro Os. Had a look at it. Not impressed. Hopefully there is some saner persons looking in to the future. Containerized? I'm using openSuSE for a daily driver. Me? Certificated as system architect at MS Azure. Doing a lot of work there. Regards
On 17.02.2023 20:57, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
Dne pátek 17. února 2023 18:55:16 CET, Andrei Borzenkov napsal(a):
On 17.02.2023 20:39, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
a post and a poll would be better :D
What would do better is actually doing something, not posting and polling.
Do something just for the sake of change?
Do something to maintain Leap in its current form if that is what you want.
On 2/17/23 12:39, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
Thank you Gerard and Robert for appearing and explaining some confusion.
If I may have some additional questions and remarks:
Dne pátek 17. února 2023 16:48:07 CET, Robert Schweikert napsal(a):
Hi,
On 2/17/23 10:07, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
[ Moving board@ to Bcc: ]
On Fri 2023-02-17, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
2) Did Board itself decided this? If yes, is there a Board meeting record available publicly, where proposal and / or final decision was done? I am mainly interested about which board member proposed it and how were the votes.
The openSUSE Board has not been involved in this topic, and it generally is outside of the scope of the board as usually agreed upon.
How is it possible, that community discussion happens _after_ announcement of Leap -> ALP and not _before_?
Leap is currently based on SUSE Linux Enterprise. Since ALP (or "ALP", I'm not sure the name is final) is going to succeed SUSE Linux Enterprise 15,
This is where the confusion starts, ALP will not replace SUSE Linux Enterprise 15. Something built from ALP will replace SUSE Linux Enterprise 15. ALP is a PLATFORM from which we build other things. ALP itself does not dictate a read-only filesystem with transactional-updates and btrfs. One of the things that we will build form ALP will be *-Micro, in that incarnation there will be a read-only root filesystem based on btrfs that uses snapshots. But *-Micro will not be the only thing that gets built from AL-PLATFORM.
Ultimately this is like talking about Concrete and people basically decreeing that when you have Concrete you can only make one thing from it, a foundation. That of course is completely incorrect. Concrete is a material, people us it to build houses, walls, roads, secure fence posts, make sculptures, ......
This is exactly my point. "Everyone" just assumes, that:
1) ALP-based distro means heavy focus on containers + transaction updates for root FS, exclusively 2) SLE going for ALP means Leap will go ALP without doubt and there is no other option
Both are then wrong?
These 2 points IMHO make public and more importantly Leap users (which i see im my eyes - please take no offense - as our little kids we need to take care for, even when it's sometimes exhausting) into believing (and fearing), that they are forced into a change by an enterprise. Change that they didn't called for, for whatever reasons. They think that they will have to use flatpaks, that have bundled libraries they laugh at Other OS (c) since they have linux. They think they will lose beloved zypper and yast2 sw_single ;) Typical Leap user IMHO does not want change.
Well most people are not excited about change if it is something that people have been used to for some time. That is not unique to Leap users
And changing the way they install software, with "cool" addition of the containerized desktop app problems we do not talk about, is the worst change possible for them.
I think that number of articles getting this wrong is spreading like a plague, so it already suffices something like openSUSE news post, what ALP-based means and what it doesn't mean in comparison to current Leap.
If we knew the answer it would have been shared. The problem is that there are very few concrete answers as to what this will look like. I get that people do not like uncertainty and the announcement "Leap after 15.5 will be very different" was probably a bit premature given that we are not certain what this looks like. Simon, and I encourage everyone to read the factory thread [1], and others have started some concrete work on what this might look like. And again, this is a community project and with enough hands anything can be built.
I don't think the new "containers are the future" paradigma, but actual architecture change of the system. Is read-only root an option? Is using containers an option? Etc... That would clarify much confusion.
This confusion is also an actual reason why this thread exists.
We can talk about how useful is heavy containerization for desktops, but this is completely out of scope of this discussion IMHO.
What is IMHO important are these questions:
1) Does ALP-based distribution mean and requires/expect heavy containerization?
It is not a requirement, see the Hackweek work.
2) Is it expected to be fewer RPMs available in favour of flatpaks/whatever in an ALP-based distribution?
There is a good chance that fewer packages will be imported from the SUSE build service. If you look at Leap as a combination of packages from the SUSE internal build service + community packages from OBS and there is a certain balance then it can be expected that the count of OBS provided packages will be larger than it is today.
3) Current very simplified code packaging (for packages also available in SLE) path for Leap is (correct me if wrong, please): Upstream -> Packager -> Factory /Tumbleweed -> SLE -> Leap
There are more packages in Leap. See above.
How would the packaging path (according to current proposals) in ALP-based Leap look? I guess here is the main advantage of ALP-based?
We do not know. There is a chance that for the enterprise products certain "packages" will only be available as containers. That does not mean that this has to be the same for an openSUSE distribution. Again, while we have gotten used to a somewhat 1 to 1 relationship, between an Enterprise product and an openSUSE distribution there is no such requirement enforced by any technical limitation. Part of this was a question of maintainers. Back to waht I sated earlier, openSUSE is a community project everyone can pretty much built what they see fit.
4) Does majority of Leap users prefer ALP-based or non-ALP-based distro :) ?
5) Does majority of Leap community packagers prefer ALP-based or non-ALP-bysed distro?
6) What is the Board opinion? Is 100% of the Board ALP-positive? If no, what do opponents say? If yes, convince us too, please! What will a browsing PC gain and lose? What problem it will solve for them? What will sysadmin laptop gain and lose? What problem it will solve for them? What will gaming/multimedia PC gain and lose? What problem it will solve for them? What will enterprise work desktop gain and lose? What problem it will solve for them? What wil a server gain and lose? What problem it will solve for them?
Also, many users and packagers seem to forget, that Leap gap can be opened again. It's not written into stone. I guess flatpaks from OBS still use .spec files and have to build, so it should really be only matter of OBS configuration. I was in favor of that effort, but I am not so sure anymore.
For me, personally, I don't care (as an user). I use TW and until we have Factory and TW, I'm fine. But i care for the Leap users. How can we ask Leap users for an opinion most effectively? We can still revive and extend [1] (or something alike), but a post and a poll would be better :D
Later, Robert [1] https://lists.opensuse.org/archives/list/factory@lists.opensuse.org/thread/Y... -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU Distinguished Engineer LINUX Technical Team Lead Public Cloud rjschwei@suse.com IRC: robjo
On 2/18/23 04:09, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
Thank you Gerard and Robert for appearing and explaining some confusion.
If I may have some additional questions and remarks:
Dne pátek 17. února 2023 16:48:07 CET, Robert Schweikert napsal(a):
Hi,
On 2/17/23 10:07, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
[ Moving board@ to Bcc: ]
On Fri 2023-02-17, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
2) Did Board itself decided this? If yes, is there a Board meeting
record available publicly, where proposal and / or final decision was
done? I am mainly interested about which board member proposed it and
how were the votes.
The openSUSE Board has not been involved in this topic, and it generally
is outside of the scope of the board as usually agreed upon.
How is it possible, that community discussion happens _after_
announcement of Leap -> ALP and not _before_?
Leap is currently based on SUSE Linux Enterprise. Since ALP (or "ALP",
I'm
not sure the name is final) is going to succeed SUSE Linux Enterprise 15,
This is where the confusion starts, ALP will not replace SUSE Linux
Enterprise 15. Something built from ALP will replace SUSE Linux
Enterprise 15. ALP is a PLATFORM from which we build other things. ALP
itself does not dictate a read-only filesystem with
transactional-updates and btrfs. One of the things that we will build
form ALP will be *-Micro, in that incarnation there will be a read-only
root filesystem based on btrfs that uses snapshots. But *-Micro will not
be the only thing that gets built from AL-PLATFORM.
Ultimately this is like talking about Concrete and people basically
decreeing that when you have Concrete you can only make one thing from
it, a foundation. That of course is completely incorrect. Concrete is a
material, people us it to build houses, walls, roads, secure fence
posts, make sculptures, ......
This is exactly my point. "Everyone" just assumes, that:
1) ALP-based distro means heavy focus on containers + transaction updates for root FS, exclusively
2) SLE going for ALP means Leap will go ALP without doubt and there is no other option
Both are then wrong?
Lets say Yes, No and Maybe, Certainly with regards to 1, SUSE is currently putting a heavy focus on Containers and Transactional Updates including in there media so its reasonable that this is how its being reported. However Fundamentally ALP is built from the same sources as Tumbleweed so if you build it the right way its still possible to have a solution that acts like Leap and Tumbleweed without the container focus. Recently we created an ALP workgroup during SUSE's Hackweek to prove that this is possible see [1]. With regards to 2, unless we somehow find a huge number of extra volunteers it does likely mean atleast using the ALP sources but we are able to use them to create something that resembles current Leap pretty closely.
These 2 points IMHO make public and more importantly Leap users (which i see im my eyes - please take no offense - as our little kids we need to take care for, even when it's sometimes exhausting) into believing (and fearing), that they are forced into a change by an enterprise. Change that they didn't called for, for whatever reasons. They think that they will have to use flatpaks, that have bundled libraries they laugh at Other OS (c) since they have linux. They think they will lose beloved zypper and yast2 sw_single ;) Typical Leap user IMHO does not want change. And changing the way they install software, with "cool" addition of the containerized desktop app problems we do not talk about, is the worst change possible for them.
I think that number of articles getting this wrong is spreading like a plague, so it already suffices something like openSUSE news post, what ALP-based means and what it doesn't mean in comparison to current Leap. I don't think the new "containers are the future" paradigma, but actual architecture change of the system. Is read-only root an option? Is using containers an option? Etc... That would clarify much confusion.
This confusion is also an actual reason why this thread exists.
We can talk about how useful is heavy containerization for desktops, but this is completely out of scope of this discussion IMHO.
What is IMHO important are these questions:
1) Does ALP-based distribution mean and requires/expect heavy containerization?
No again see [1], but for example its possible to build MicroOS from tumbleweed that does require this while tumbleweed itself doesn't.
2) Is it expected to be fewer RPMs available in favour of flatpaks/whatever in an ALP-based distribution?
On SUSE products most likely, but for openSUSE it will depend on what people contribute. For example SUSE may decide to only ship and support apache as a containerized workflow, which will almost certainly run fine under openSUSE's Leap replacement / next version. But at the same time if someone in the community is willing to maintain it then there is no reason why openSUSE Couldn't continue to ship apache as an RPM it might just take someone to do some work or depending on how the container images are built it maybe automatic then it might just require someone willing to fix bugs related to not running in a container. Similarly for flatpaks I expect that Gnome atleast will probably favor having its applications as flatpaks but these will have to be created and distributed by SUSE rather then on flathub so I would presume they will use obs for this and if so it might still be possible to just rebuild those source as rpm's or it might take someone willing to do whatever effort is required to make that happen. I know the desktop apps I still maintain will be available as rpm's though.
3) Current very simplified code packaging (for packages also available in SLE) path for Leap is (correct me if wrong, please):
Upstream -> Packager -> Factory /Tumbleweed -> SLE -> Leap
That is correct for packages in SLE, for non SLE packages it is just Upstream -> Packager -> Factory /Tumbleweed -> Leap
How would the packaging path (according to current proposals) in ALP-based Leap look? I guess here is the main advantage of ALP-based?
It would look the same except in the SLE and possible Leap part (if the community feel like it) Rather then just having rpm's there would be a mix of rpm's container images and flatpaks, hopefully all will be buildable from rpm spec files so if users want they can still mostly use rpm's
4) Does majority of Leap users prefer ALP-based or non-ALP-based distro :) ?
This is the wrong question, the right question is do enough people care enough about Leap to contribute enough to make it a viable distro into the future. Realistically Leap is a community open source project and as always if people aren't willing to contribute to it, then it will die. SUSE currently contributes by providing a Release Engineer, access to there binaries and sources for SLE and a bunch of hosting building and other infrastructure. From there it has always been up to the community to take that and create whatever distros we feel like we want we are lucky that SUSE provides the community with a good base to do such and even with ALP there seems to be a good enough base to atleast do something but feature parity with the current Leap will probably require more effort from the community if we want to keep it the way it was as SUSE has some different focuses and Goals. Fortunately this doesn't make creating Leap impossible. As with all open source projects users really only get to use whatever developers decide to create that they find useful for themselves but many developers try to make there code as useful as possible for end users. But that doesn't mean there is a magic black hole of resources where by if 100 users request X suddenly we have enough time and effort to make it happen.
5) Does majority of Leap community packagers prefer ALP-based or non-ALP-bysed distro?
I guess we will find out based on whether they choose to contribute rpm's, flatpaks or container images. Personally I have reasons why I'd like an as Leap like system as possible in some cases which Is why I created a prototype one that is ALP-Based because I know thats what i'll have access to in the future. The only exception to this would be if enough users banded together and started paying developers to create something that meets there needs.
6) What is the Board opinion? Is 100% of the Board ALP-positive? If no, what do opponents say? If yes, convince us too, please!
At the end of the day I can say as someone who was previously on the Board that the Board's position doesn't really matter because the board has no power to tell contributors that they need to do something, at most in very rare circumstances all they can do is tell a contributor not to do something. Again openSUSE as an organisation isn't paying any contributors to implement the things they deem most important to the community all contributions are voluntary either by people or by people acting on behalf of there employer.
What will a browsing PC gain and lose? What problem it will solve for them?
What will sysadmin laptop gain and lose? What problem it will solve for them?
What will gaming/multimedia PC gain and lose? What problem it will solve for them?
What will enterprise work desktop gain and lose? What problem it will solve for them?
What wil a server gain and lose? What problem it will solve for them?
In all these cases systems should theoretically be more secure and if something does go wrong it should be slightly easier to recover. But the main benefits SUSE is looking at is more about lifecycle management. Due to SLE's ABI compatibility guarantees all of Leap 15.4 and 15.5 will still have to use python 3.6 as default. With ALP's containerisation approach different components such as the desktop wont be bound to using the same versions as other components which means for openSUSE users they are more likely to end up with newer versions and less of the limitations Leap currently has which makes some software feel quite dated. 1. https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:ALP/Workgroups/GrassyKnoll -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
Simon, Your explanations here make me feel a lot more comfortable with what openSUSE is proposing. (If only they had made this clear themselves, it would have saved us all a great deal of hair-pulling and anguish.) Leslie On 2023-02-19 19:47:28 Simon Lees wrote:
Re: The more I hear about ALP, the less I like the idea, openSUSE should keep leap From: Simon Lees <sflees@suse.de> To: users@lists.opensuse.org
Not enough information to check signature validity. Show Details On 2/18/23 04:09, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
Thank you Gerard and Robert for appearing and explaining some confusion.
If I may have some additional questions and remarks:
Dne pátek 17. února 2023 16:48:07 CET, Robert Schweikert napsal(a):
> Hi,
>
> On 2/17/23 10:07, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> This is where the confusion starts, ALP will not replace SUSE Linux > Enterprise 15. Something built from ALP will replace SUSE Linux > Enterprise 15. ALP is a PLATFORM from which we build other things. ALP > itself does not dictate a read-only filesystem with > transactional-updates and btrfs. One of the things that we will build > form ALP will be *-Micro, in that incarnation there will be a read-only > root filesystem based on btrfs that uses snapshots. But *-Micro will not > be the only thing that gets built from AL-PLATFORM.
> Ultimately this is like talking about Concrete and people basically > decreeing that when you have Concrete you can only make one thing from > it, a foundation. That of course is completely incorrect. Concrete is a > material, people us it to build houses, walls, roads, secure fence > posts, make sculptures, ......
This is exactly my point. "Everyone" just assumes, that:
1) ALP-based distro means heavy focus on containers + transaction updates for root FS, exclusively
2) SLE going for ALP means Leap will go ALP without doubt and there is no other option
Both are then wrong?
Lets say Yes, No and Maybe, Certainly with regards to 1, SUSE is currently putting a heavy focus on Containers and Transactional Updates including in there media so its reasonable that this is how its being reported.
However Fundamentally ALP is built from the same sources as Tumbleweed so if you build it the right way its still possible to have a solution that acts like Leap and Tumbleweed without the container focus. Recently we created an ALP workgroup during SUSE's Hackweek to prove that this is possible see [1].
With regards to 2, unless we somehow find a huge number of extra volunteers it does likely mean atleast using the ALP sources but we are able to use them to create something that resembles current Leap pretty closely.
These 2 points IMHO make public and more importantly Leap users (which i see im my eyes - please take no offense - as our little kids we need to take care for, even when it's sometimes exhausting) into believing (and fearing), that they are forced into a change by an enterprise. Change that they didn't called for, for whatever reasons. They think that they will have to use flatpaks, that have bundled libraries they laugh at Other OS (c) since they have linux. They think they will lose beloved zypper and yast2 sw_single ;) Typical Leap user IMHO does not want change. And changing the way they install software, with "cool" addition of the containerized desktop app problems we do not talk about, is the worst change possible for them.
I think that number of articles getting this wrong is spreading like a plague, so it already suffices something like openSUSE news post, what ALP-based means and what it doesn't mean in comparison to current Leap. I don't think the new "containers are the future" paradigma, but actual architecture change of the system. Is read-only root an option? Is using containers an option? Etc... That would clarify much confusion.
This confusion is also an actual reason why this thread exists.
We can talk about how useful is heavy containerization for desktops, but this is completely out of scope of this discussion IMHO.
What is IMHO important are these questions:
1) Does ALP-based distribution mean and requires/expect heavy containerization?
No again see [1], but for example its possible to build MicroOS from tumbleweed that does require this while tumbleweed itself doesn't.
2) Is it expected to be fewer RPMs available in favour of flatpaks/whatever in an ALP-based distribution?
On SUSE products most likely, but for openSUSE it will depend on what people contribute. For example SUSE may decide to only ship and support apache as a containerized workflow, which will almost certainly run fine under openSUSE's Leap replacement / next version. But at the same time if someone in the community is willing to maintain it then there is no reason why openSUSE Couldn't continue to ship apache as an RPM it might just take someone to do some work or depending on how the container images are built it maybe automatic then it might just require someone willing to fix bugs related to not running in a container.
Similarly for flatpaks I expect that Gnome atleast will probably favor having its applications as flatpaks but these will have to be created and distributed by SUSE rather then on flathub so I would presume they will use obs for this and if so it might still be possible to just rebuild those source as rpm's or it might take someone willing to do whatever effort is required to make that happen. I know the desktop apps I still maintain will be available as rpm's though.
3) Current very simplified code packaging (for packages also available in SLE) path for Leap is (correct me if wrong, please):
Upstream -> Packager -> Factory /Tumbleweed -> SLE -> Leap
That is correct for packages in SLE, for non SLE packages it is just
Upstream -> Packager -> Factory /Tumbleweed -> Leap
How would the packaging path (according to current proposals) in ALP-based Leap look? I guess here is the main advantage of ALP-based?
It would look the same except in the SLE and possible Leap part (if the community feel like it) Rather then just having rpm's there would be a mix of rpm's container images and flatpaks, hopefully all will be buildable from rpm spec files so if users want they can still mostly use rpm's
4) Does majority of Leap users prefer ALP-based or non-ALP-based distro :) ?
This is the wrong question, the right question is do enough people care enough about Leap to contribute enough to make it a viable distro into the future.
Realistically Leap is a community open source project and as always if people aren't willing to contribute to it, then it will die. SUSE currently contributes by providing a Release Engineer, access to there binaries and sources for SLE and a bunch of hosting building and other infrastructure. From there it has always been up to the community to take that and create whatever distros we feel like we want we are lucky that SUSE provides the community with a good base to do such and even with ALP there seems to be a good enough base to atleast do something but feature parity with the current Leap will probably require more effort from the community if we want to keep it the way it was as SUSE has some different focuses and Goals. Fortunately this doesn't make creating Leap impossible.
As with all open source projects users really only get to use whatever developers decide to create that they find useful for themselves but many developers try to make there code as useful as possible for end users. But that doesn't mean there is a magic black hole of resources where by if 100 users request X suddenly we have enough time and effort to make it happen.
5) Does majority of Leap community packagers prefer ALP-based or non-ALP-bysed distro?
I guess we will find out based on whether they choose to contribute rpm's, flatpaks or container images. Personally I have reasons why I'd like an as Leap like system as possible in some cases which Is why I created a prototype one that is ALP-Based because I know thats what i'll have access to in the future.
The only exception to this would be if enough users banded together and started paying developers to create something that meets there needs.
6) What is the Board opinion? Is 100% of the Board ALP-positive? If no, what do opponents say? If yes, convince us too, please!
At the end of the day I can say as someone who was previously on the Board that the Board's position doesn't really matter because the board has no power to tell contributors that they need to do something, at most in very rare circumstances all they can do is tell a contributor not to do something.
Again openSUSE as an organisation isn't paying any contributors to implement the things they deem most important to the community all contributions are voluntary either by people or by people acting on behalf of there employer.
What will a browsing PC gain and lose? What problem it will solve for them?
What will sysadmin laptop gain and lose? What problem it will solve for them?
What will gaming/multimedia PC gain and lose? What problem it will solve for them?
What will enterprise work desktop gain and lose? What problem it will solve for them?
What wil a server gain and lose? What problem it will solve for them?
In all these cases systems should theoretically be more secure and if something does go wrong it should be slightly easier to recover.
But the main benefits SUSE is looking at is more about lifecycle management. Due to SLE's ABI compatibility guarantees all of Leap 15.4 and 15.5 will still have to use python 3.6 as default. With ALP's containerisation approach different components such as the desktop wont be bound to using the same versions as other components which means for openSUSE users they are more likely to end up with newer versions and less of the limitations Leap currently has which makes some software feel quite dated.
1. https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:ALP/Workgroups/GrassyKnoll
-- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net
Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B End of signed message -- Platform: Linux Distribution: openSUSE Leap 15.4 x86_64
On 2/20/23 18:18, J Leslie Turriff wrote:
Simon, Your explanations here make me feel a lot more comfortable with what openSUSE is proposing. (If only they had made this clear themselves, it would have saved us all a great deal of hair-pulling and anguish.)
Leslie
Well everything is still very early on and really we don't have enough technical detail from SUSE to really have a full plan for everything yet but having said that Leap 15.5 will be mid this year which means we still have a good 16-18 months to have something solid
On 2023-02-19 19:47:28 Simon Lees wrote:
Re: The more I hear about ALP, the less I like the idea, openSUSE should keep leap From: Simon Lees <sflees@suse.de> To: users@lists.opensuse.org
Not enough information to check signature validity. Show Details On 2/18/23 04:09, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
Thank you Gerard and Robert for appearing and explaining some confusion.
If I may have some additional questions and remarks:
Dne pátek 17. února 2023 16:48:07 CET, Robert Schweikert napsal(a):
> Hi,
>
> On 2/17/23 10:07, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> This is where the confusion starts, ALP will not replace SUSE Linux > Enterprise 15. Something built from ALP will replace SUSE Linux > Enterprise 15. ALP is a PLATFORM from which we build other things. ALP > itself does not dictate a read-only filesystem with > transactional-updates and btrfs. One of the things that we will build > form ALP will be *-Micro, in that incarnation there will be a read-only > root filesystem based on btrfs that uses snapshots. But *-Micro will not > be the only thing that gets built from AL-PLATFORM.
> Ultimately this is like talking about Concrete and people basically > decreeing that when you have Concrete you can only make one thing from > it, a foundation. That of course is completely incorrect. Concrete is a > material, people us it to build houses, walls, roads, secure fence > posts, make sculptures, ......
This is exactly my point. "Everyone" just assumes, that:
1) ALP-based distro means heavy focus on containers + transaction updates for root FS, exclusively
2) SLE going for ALP means Leap will go ALP without doubt and there is no other option
Both are then wrong?
Lets say Yes, No and Maybe, Certainly with regards to 1, SUSE is currently putting a heavy focus on Containers and Transactional Updates including in there media so its reasonable that this is how its being reported.
However Fundamentally ALP is built from the same sources as Tumbleweed so if you build it the right way its still possible to have a solution that acts like Leap and Tumbleweed without the container focus. Recently we created an ALP workgroup during SUSE's Hackweek to prove that this is possible see [1].
With regards to 2, unless we somehow find a huge number of extra volunteers it does likely mean atleast using the ALP sources but we are able to use them to create something that resembles current Leap pretty closely.
These 2 points IMHO make public and more importantly Leap users (which i see im my eyes - please take no offense - as our little kids we need to take care for, even when it's sometimes exhausting) into believing (and fearing), that they are forced into a change by an enterprise. Change that they didn't called for, for whatever reasons. They think that they will have to use flatpaks, that have bundled libraries they laugh at Other OS (c) since they have linux. They think they will lose beloved zypper and yast2 sw_single ;) Typical Leap user IMHO does not want change. And changing the way they install software, with "cool" addition of the containerized desktop app problems we do not talk about, is the worst change possible for them.
I think that number of articles getting this wrong is spreading like a plague, so it already suffices something like openSUSE news post, what ALP-based means and what it doesn't mean in comparison to current Leap. I don't think the new "containers are the future" paradigma, but actual architecture change of the system. Is read-only root an option? Is using containers an option? Etc... That would clarify much confusion.
This confusion is also an actual reason why this thread exists.
We can talk about how useful is heavy containerization for desktops, but this is completely out of scope of this discussion IMHO.
What is IMHO important are these questions:
1) Does ALP-based distribution mean and requires/expect heavy containerization?
No again see [1], but for example its possible to build MicroOS from tumbleweed that does require this while tumbleweed itself doesn't.
2) Is it expected to be fewer RPMs available in favour of flatpaks/whatever in an ALP-based distribution?
On SUSE products most likely, but for openSUSE it will depend on what people contribute. For example SUSE may decide to only ship and support apache as a containerized workflow, which will almost certainly run fine under openSUSE's Leap replacement / next version. But at the same time if someone in the community is willing to maintain it then there is no reason why openSUSE Couldn't continue to ship apache as an RPM it might just take someone to do some work or depending on how the container images are built it maybe automatic then it might just require someone willing to fix bugs related to not running in a container.
Similarly for flatpaks I expect that Gnome atleast will probably favor having its applications as flatpaks but these will have to be created and distributed by SUSE rather then on flathub so I would presume they will use obs for this and if so it might still be possible to just rebuild those source as rpm's or it might take someone willing to do whatever effort is required to make that happen. I know the desktop apps I still maintain will be available as rpm's though.
3) Current very simplified code packaging (for packages also available in SLE) path for Leap is (correct me if wrong, please):
Upstream -> Packager -> Factory /Tumbleweed -> SLE -> Leap
That is correct for packages in SLE, for non SLE packages it is just
Upstream -> Packager -> Factory /Tumbleweed -> Leap
How would the packaging path (according to current proposals) in ALP-based Leap look? I guess here is the main advantage of ALP-based?
It would look the same except in the SLE and possible Leap part (if the community feel like it) Rather then just having rpm's there would be a mix of rpm's container images and flatpaks, hopefully all will be buildable from rpm spec files so if users want they can still mostly use rpm's
4) Does majority of Leap users prefer ALP-based or non-ALP-based distro :) ?
This is the wrong question, the right question is do enough people care enough about Leap to contribute enough to make it a viable distro into the future.
Realistically Leap is a community open source project and as always if people aren't willing to contribute to it, then it will die. SUSE currently contributes by providing a Release Engineer, access to there binaries and sources for SLE and a bunch of hosting building and other infrastructure. From there it has always been up to the community to take that and create whatever distros we feel like we want we are lucky that SUSE provides the community with a good base to do such and even with ALP there seems to be a good enough base to atleast do something but feature parity with the current Leap will probably require more effort from the community if we want to keep it the way it was as SUSE has some different focuses and Goals. Fortunately this doesn't make creating Leap impossible.
As with all open source projects users really only get to use whatever developers decide to create that they find useful for themselves but many developers try to make there code as useful as possible for end users. But that doesn't mean there is a magic black hole of resources where by if 100 users request X suddenly we have enough time and effort to make it happen.
5) Does majority of Leap community packagers prefer ALP-based or non-ALP-bysed distro?
I guess we will find out based on whether they choose to contribute rpm's, flatpaks or container images. Personally I have reasons why I'd like an as Leap like system as possible in some cases which Is why I created a prototype one that is ALP-Based because I know thats what i'll have access to in the future.
The only exception to this would be if enough users banded together and started paying developers to create something that meets there needs.
6) What is the Board opinion? Is 100% of the Board ALP-positive? If no, what do opponents say? If yes, convince us too, please!
At the end of the day I can say as someone who was previously on the Board that the Board's position doesn't really matter because the board has no power to tell contributors that they need to do something, at most in very rare circumstances all they can do is tell a contributor not to do something.
Again openSUSE as an organisation isn't paying any contributors to implement the things they deem most important to the community all contributions are voluntary either by people or by people acting on behalf of there employer.
What will a browsing PC gain and lose? What problem it will solve for them?
What will sysadmin laptop gain and lose? What problem it will solve for them?
What will gaming/multimedia PC gain and lose? What problem it will solve for them?
What will enterprise work desktop gain and lose? What problem it will solve for them?
What wil a server gain and lose? What problem it will solve for them?
In all these cases systems should theoretically be more secure and if something does go wrong it should be slightly easier to recover.
But the main benefits SUSE is looking at is more about lifecycle management. Due to SLE's ABI compatibility guarantees all of Leap 15.4 and 15.5 will still have to use python 3.6 as default. With ALP's containerisation approach different components such as the desktop wont be bound to using the same versions as other components which means for openSUSE users they are more likely to end up with newer versions and less of the limitations Leap currently has which makes some software feel quite dated.
1. https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:ALP/Workgroups/GrassyKnoll
-- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net
Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B End of signed message
-- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
On 2023-02-20 02:47, Simon Lees wrote:
On 2/18/23 04:09, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
Thank you Gerard and Robert for appearing and explaining some confusion.
4) Does majority of Leap users prefer ALP-based or non-ALP-based distro :) ?
This is the wrong question, the right question is do enough people care enough about Leap to contribute enough to make it a viable distro into the future.
It is the right question, sorry. Contribution is pointless if the result is not used. Both SUSE and openSUSE needs to brag about "look how many million users we have". A distribution that only caters to packagers is pointless. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from Elesar, using openSUSE Leap 15.4)
On 2/20/23 20:11, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-02-20 02:47, Simon Lees wrote:
On 2/18/23 04:09, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
Thank you Gerard and Robert for appearing and explaining some confusion.
4) Does majority of Leap users prefer ALP-based or non-ALP-based distro :) ?
This is the wrong question, the right question is do enough people care enough about Leap to contribute enough to make it a viable distro into the future.
It is the right question, sorry.
Contribution is pointless if the result is not used. Both SUSE and openSUSE needs to brag about "look how many million users we have". A distribution that only caters to packagers is pointless.
Well Carlos the best I can do in my spare time (Other then a small list of packages, I don't get paid to work on openSUSE the rest I do in my spare time after hours as is the same for a number of SUSE employees) is to create a distro that does the stuff I need that can be easily expanded by anyone else who wants to do the same and if enough people do that we will end up with a pretty good Leap replacement if they don't we will end up with one that does what SUSE ALP does + a few extra things. At the end of the day I have a family a life and many other commitments. So the best I can do is make something thats useful for me that atleast I'll use and maybe it'll be good enough for other people or give them something to work off to make it useful for them as well. The reason openSUSE has enlightenment support is because it is useful for me and I use it, just so happens its useful for other people and they use it as well. If you were to give me an infinite pool of time then yes I would have time to work on the things users want most and that would be the right question but until then openSUSE will continue to be 95% people working on things they find interesting for themselves like it always has been, it just turns out with enough of such people you wind up with a pretty good distro. -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
On 2023-02-20 11:46, Simon Lees wrote:
On 2/20/23 20:11, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-02-20 02:47, Simon Lees wrote:
On 2/18/23 04:09, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
Thank you Gerard and Robert for appearing and explaining some confusion.
4) Does majority of Leap users prefer ALP-based or non-ALP-based distro :) ?
This is the wrong question, the right question is do enough people care enough about Leap to contribute enough to make it a viable distro into the future.
It is the right question, sorry.
Contribution is pointless if the result is not used. Both SUSE and openSUSE needs to brag about "look how many million users we have". A distribution that only caters to packagers is pointless.
Well Carlos the best I can do in my spare time (Other then a small list of packages, I don't get paid to work on openSUSE the rest I do in my spare time after hours as is the same for a number of SUSE employees) is to create a distro that does the stuff I need that can be easily expanded by anyone else who wants to do the same and if enough people do that we will end up with a pretty good Leap replacement if they don't we will end up with one that does what SUSE ALP does + a few extra things.
At the end of the day I have a family a life and many other commitments. So the best I can do is make something thats useful for me that atleast I'll use and maybe it'll be good enough for other people or give them something to work off to make it useful for them as well. The reason openSUSE has enlightenment support is because it is useful for me and I use it, just so happens its useful for other people and they use it as well.
If you were to give me an infinite pool of time then yes I would have time to work on the things users want most and that would be the right question but until then openSUSE will continue to be 95% people working on things they find interesting for themselves like it always has been, it just turns out with enough of such people you wind up with a pretty good distro.
But of course I understand that. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from Elesar, using openSUSE Leap 15.4)
* Carlos E. R. <carlos.e.r@opensuse.org> [02-20-23 06:21]:
On 2023-02-20 11:46, Simon Lees wrote:
On 2/20/23 20:11, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-02-20 02:47, Simon Lees wrote:
On 2/18/23 04:09, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
Thank you Gerard and Robert for appearing and explaining some confusion.
4) Does majority of Leap users prefer ALP-based or non-ALP-based distro :) ?
This is the wrong question, the right question is do enough people care enough about Leap to contribute enough to make it a viable distro into the future.
It is the right question, sorry.
Contribution is pointless if the result is not used. Both SUSE and openSUSE needs to brag about "look how many million users we have". A distribution that only caters to packagers is pointless.
Well Carlos the best I can do in my spare time (Other then a small list of packages, I don't get paid to work on openSUSE the rest I do in my spare time after hours as is the same for a number of SUSE employees) is to create a distro that does the stuff I need that can be easily expanded by anyone else who wants to do the same and if enough people do that we will end up with a pretty good Leap replacement if they don't we will end up with one that does what SUSE ALP does + a few extra things.
At the end of the day I have a family a life and many other commitments. So the best I can do is make something thats useful for me that atleast I'll use and maybe it'll be good enough for other people or give them something to work off to make it useful for them as well. The reason openSUSE has enlightenment support is because it is useful for me and I use it, just so happens its useful for other people and they use it as well.
If you were to give me an infinite pool of time then yes I would have time to work on the things users want most and that would be the right question but until then openSUSE will continue to be 95% people working on things they find interesting for themselves like it always has been, it just turns out with enough of such people you wind up with a pretty good distro.
But of course I understand that.
realizing it and refraining from demeaning those working under stated constraints appears to not be happening, re: many "Chicken Little" statements. it does not help and does spread much mis-information. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet oftc
On 2023-02-20 17:04, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Carlos E. R. <> [02-20-23 06:21]:
On 2023-02-20 11:46, Simon Lees wrote:
On 2/20/23 20:11, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-02-20 02:47, Simon Lees wrote:
On 2/18/23 04:09, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
Thank you Gerard and Robert for appearing and explaining some confusion.
4) Does majority of Leap users prefer ALP-based or non-ALP-based distro :) ?
This is the wrong question, the right question is do enough people care enough about Leap to contribute enough to make it a viable distro into the future.
It is the right question, sorry.
Contribution is pointless if the result is not used. Both SUSE and openSUSE needs to brag about "look how many million users we have". A distribution that only caters to packagers is pointless.
Well Carlos the best I can do in my spare time (Other then a small list of packages, I don't get paid to work on openSUSE the rest I do in my spare time after hours as is the same for a number of SUSE employees) is to create a distro that does the stuff I need that can be easily expanded by anyone else who wants to do the same and if enough people do that we will end up with a pretty good Leap replacement if they don't we will end up with one that does what SUSE ALP does + a few extra things.
At the end of the day I have a family a life and many other commitments. So the best I can do is make something thats useful for me that atleast I'll use and maybe it'll be good enough for other people or give them something to work off to make it useful for them as well. The reason openSUSE has enlightenment support is because it is useful for me and I use it, just so happens its useful for other people and they use it as well.
If you were to give me an infinite pool of time then yes I would have time to work on the things users want most and that would be the right question but until then openSUSE will continue to be 95% people working on things they find interesting for themselves like it always has been, it just turns out with enough of such people you wind up with a pretty good distro.
But of course I understand that.
realizing it and refraining from demeaning those working under stated constraints appears to not be happening, re: many "Chicken Little" statements. it does not help and does spread much mis-information.
Where do you read demeaning? :-O -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from Elesar, using openSUSE Leap 15.4)
Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-02-20 02:47, Simon Lees wrote:
On 2/18/23 04:09, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
Thank you Gerard and Robert for appearing and explaining some confusion.
4) Does majority of Leap users prefer ALP-based or non-ALP-based distro :) ?
This is the wrong question, the right question is do enough people care enough about Leap to contribute enough to make it a viable distro into the future.
It is the right question, sorry.
Contribution is pointless if the result is not used.
Not at all, contribution is sometimes/often purely for your own satisfaction. I agree your satisfaction improves by knowing that others benefit from your contribution, but whether it is one or fifty is not so important. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (15.8°C) Member, openSUSE Heroes (2016 - present) We're hiring - https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Heroes
On 2023-02-20 02:47, Simon Lees wrote: ...
Again openSUSE as an organisation isn't paying any contributors to implement the things they deem most important to the community all contributions are voluntary either by people or by people acting on behalf of there employer.
Back in the day, I bought the SUSE distribution box, more than once. And I am happy to contribute with things that are within my skillset, which does not include packaging, nor will they. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from Elesar, using openSUSE Leap 15.4)
Well.. Noticed that chairman didn't wanted to be involved.. From the tread at Users mailing list. Started a new tread at openSuSE projekt. Please contribute. Regards
On 2/17/23 04:44, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-02-17 07:37, David C. Rankin wrote:
Yes, the more I hear about it, the less I like it.
I will have to test other distros soon, and prepare for a migration. Ubuntu, Mageia... I never thought I would be doing this. :-/
Just for grins I was looking at: Not a Systemd Fan? Here are 14 Systemd-Free Linux Distributions https://itsfoss.com/systemd-free-distros/ I don't mind systemd at all, don't really care which init I use, though I was always fond of sysVinit. I hold out hope that SUSE will see the wisdom in preserving the community it has built over the past 25 years, but it has been clear for some time that openSUSE, while no longer the testbed that feeds into the enterprise offering, is now something it no longer values. Yes tumbleweed will be there, but it's not a "Release" it's just a "Rolling Release". Now I'll admit, the distinction from a stability standpoint has basically evaporated, but the one aspect that remains is a core-library version update that breaks or renders a package, group of packages or hardware you rely on obsolete. The panic over the glibc 2.36 -> 2.37 tls scare for the Nvidia G04 driver (390.XX) is one recent example. Thankfully there was an easy workaround (and to Nvidia's credit, while undocumented, they appear to have include tls versions for both) But with a rolling release, sometimes things don't go that way. That is why, for servers, or just a stable desktop for your given hardware, the 2 year release model was reliable (and yes, we grumble a bit about the dated nature of packages in a "stable-release", but stable and "bleeding-edge" serve different purposes) Here is to hope that the community means something to SUSE and we see stable releases of Leap for hears to come. We will know soon enough. -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
Hi, On 2/20/23 03:25, David C. Rankin wrote:
On 2/17/23 04:44, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-02-17 07:37, David C. Rankin wrote:
Yes, the more I hear about it, the less I like it.
I will have to test other distros soon, and prepare for a migration. Ubuntu, Mageia... I never thought I would be doing this. :-/
Just for grins I was looking at:
Not a Systemd Fan? Here are 14 Systemd-Free Linux Distributions https://itsfoss.com/systemd-free-distros/
I don't mind systemd at all, don't really care which init I use, though I was always fond of sysVinit.
I hold out hope that SUSE will see the wisdom in preserving the community it has built over the past 25 years, but it has been clear for some time that openSUSE, while no longer the testbed that feeds into the enterprise offering, is now something it no longer values.
It is statements like this that make it really hard not to be dismissive. That said, apparently you know more about SUSE and what the company values than many that work here, please share the details so we can learn. Later, Robert
Yes tumbleweed will be there, but it's not a "Release" it's just a "Rolling Release".
Now I'll admit, the distinction from a stability standpoint has basically evaporated, but the one aspect that remains is a core-library version update that breaks or renders a package, group of packages or hardware you rely on obsolete.
The panic over the glibc 2.36 -> 2.37 tls scare for the Nvidia G04 driver (390.XX) is one recent example. Thankfully there was an easy workaround (and to Nvidia's credit, while undocumented, they appear to have include tls versions for both) But with a rolling release, sometimes things don't go that way.
That is why, for servers, or just a stable desktop for your given hardware, the 2 year release model was reliable (and yes, we grumble a bit about the dated nature of packages in a "stable-release", but stable and "bleeding-edge" serve different purposes)
Here is to hope that the community means something to SUSE and we see stable releases of Leap for hears to come. We will know soon enough.
-- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU Distinguished Engineer LINUX Technical Team Lead Public Cloud rjschwei@suse.com IRC: robjo
Hi, On 2/17/23 01:37, David C. Rankin wrote:
I hope this synopsis appearing in The Register today is wrong about what ALP is:
<quote>
... SUSE's next-generation OS, codenamed Advanced Linux Platform or ALP, aims to increase reliability by moving beyond simple snapshots by making the root file system read-only. The only way to install software, including updates, is during a reboot, using a new command, transactional-update ...
If you have a cluster of hosts running lots of containers, this should not be too intrusive ... It's less convenient for a non-clustered machine ...
</quote>
Let's start with the simple things: ALP -> Adaptable Linux Platform but fair enough we can give Liam a break for mixing up the names. That said, unfortunately there still is the idea that "Platform" is the same as "what gets built from the platform". I repeat the idea of ALP is that we can build many things from the same platform and those things may look very different. And that is being done already today -Micro has a read-only filesystem but TW or Leap do not. Other than the micro version of whatever gets built from ALP we don't really have a strong concept on what those things look like. It is still anticipated that the first product that gets built from ALP is *-Micro and we all already know pretty much what that looks like. Then there is the effort Simon and others worked on over hackweek and shared recently. That goes more along the lines of what many people on this list are used to, probably. Last but not least there is no law that says that openSUSE has to have the equivalent of whatever SUSE decides to sell as a product. It is a community project and as the hackweek project showed a bit of personal interest and effort go a long way. Later, Robert
https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/16/bulletproof_linux/
Sounds more like Alf, that furry creature with a long nose that had a citcom that was so annoying you couldn't watch it. Sounds like attempting to install software on ALP will be about the same...
How many users on this list are reading this e-mail on a cluster? Apparently, ALP will be a cluster ....
-- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU Distinguished Engineer LINUX Technical Team Lead Public Cloud rjschwei@suse.com IRC: robjo
On 2023-02-17 09:38:01 Robert Schweikert wrote: > : > Then there is the effort Simon and others worked on over hackweek and > shared recently. That goes more along the lines of what many people on > this list are used to, probably. >: Where is this information shared? All of the information (little enough) I have seen has come either from discussions here or from outside reports from the likes of The Register; and the comments that I have seen here from people who are apparently 'in-the-know' seem 1) dismissive of our concerns, and 2) unwilling to explain what their intentions are. Leslie -- Platform: Linux Distribution: openSUSE Leap 15.4 x86_64
On 19.02.2023 09:08, J Leslie Turriff wrote:
On 2023-02-17 09:38:01 Robert Schweikert wrote:
: Then there is the effort Simon and others worked on over hackweek and shared recently. That goes more along the lines of what many people on this list are used to, probably. : Where is this information shared?
Surprise - the information related to development of openSUSE is shared on the list intended for discussing development of openSUSE - factory mailing list.
All of the information (little enough) I have seen has come either from discussions here or from outside reports from the likes of The Register; and the comments that I have seen here from people who are apparently 'in-the-know' seem 1) dismissive of our concerns, and 2) unwilling to explain what their intentions are.
Leslie -- Platform: Linux Distribution: openSUSE Leap 15.4 x86_64
On 2023-02-19 00:21:32 Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
|Surprise - the information related to development of openSUSE is shared |on the list intended for discussing development of openSUSE - factory |mailing list.
You are being facetious, but indeed I was not aware of that list. Leslie -- Platform: Linux Distribution: openSUSE Leap 15.4 x86_64
On 2023-02-19 08:53, J Leslie Turriff wrote:
On 2023-02-19 00:21:32 Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
|Surprise - the information related to development of openSUSE is shared |on the list intended for discussing development of openSUSE - factory |mailing list.
You are being facetious, but indeed I was not aware of that list. Leap users don't often read that mail list, and users are not really welcomed there.
-- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.4 x86_64 at Telcontar)
Sun, 19 Feb 2023 11:47:36 +0100 "Carlos E. R." <robin.listas@telefonica.net> :
On 2023-02-19 08:53, J Leslie Turriff wrote:
On 2023-02-19 00:21:32 Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
|Surprise - the information related to development of openSUSE is shared |on the list intended for discussing development of openSUSE - factory |mailing list.
You are being facetious, but indeed I was not aware of that list. Leap users don't often read that mail list, and users are not really welcomed there.
-- Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R. (from 15.4 x86_64 at Telcontar)
mailing lists and web forums are for the birds, everything should be on usenet, out on open ground
...and then bent fender said... % % mailing lists and web forums are for the birds, % everything should be on usenet, out on open ground HA HA HAHAHAhahahahaha Dang it ... Now I have to clean Coke off of my monitor. But thanks for the laugh. That was hilarious! Heck, even *I* know about the factory list, and to top it off I know how to find archives in lots of places. On the other hand, I no longer have the time or energy to run a news node or chase down all of the many, many, many lovely newsgroups I used to follow. Time marches on. HAND :-D -- David T-G See http://justpickone.org/davidtg/email/ See http://justpickone.org/davidtg/tofu.txt
On 2023-02-20 00:52, David Thorburn-Gundlach wrote:
...and then bent fender said... % % mailing lists and web forums are for the birds, % everything should be on usenet, out on open ground
HA HA HAHAHAhahahahaha
Dang it ... Now I have to clean Coke off of my monitor.
But thanks for the laugh. That was hilarious!
Heck, even *I* know about the factory list, and to top it off I know how to find archives in lots of places.
On the other hand, I no longer have the time or energy to run a news node or chase down all of the many, many, many lovely newsgroups I used to follow. Time marches on.
You do not need to. Thunderbird, for example, supports Usenet just fine. You only need to configure a server or provider from out there, and subscribe to the groups you like. I think Mutt does to, in its way. If not mutt, Alpine does. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from Elesar, using openSUSE Leap 15.4)
Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-02-19 08:53, J Leslie Turriff wrote:
On 2023-02-19 00:21:32 Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
|Surprise - the information related to development of openSUSE is |shared on the list intended for discussing development of openSUSE |- factory mailing list.
You are being facetious, but indeed I was not aware of that list. Leap users don't often read that mail list, and users are not really welcomed there.
Errm, users are perfectly welcome, as long as they don't seek/expect support and then get annoyed when they don't get any :-) -- Per Jessen, Zürich (8.8°C) Member, openSUSE Heroes (2016 - present) We're hiring - https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Heroes
On 2023-02-20 09:22, Per Jessen wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-02-19 08:53, J Leslie Turriff wrote:
On 2023-02-19 00:21:32 Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
|Surprise - the information related to development of openSUSE is |shared on the list intended for discussing development of openSUSE |- factory mailing list.
You are being facetious, but indeed I was not aware of that list. Leap users don't often read that mail list, and users are not really welcomed there.
Errm, users are perfectly welcome, as long as they don't seek/expect support and then get annoyed when they don't get any :-)
Well, often when TW breaks because the developers have done some change that users don't know about, the only place to possibly ask is the factory list, as devs and packagers are the only people that may know what is going on. Users ask in the users or support list, and nobody knows for days, because devs don't read there. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from Elesar, using openSUSE Leap 15.4)
On 2/20/23 20:22, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-02-20 09:22, Per Jessen wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-02-19 08:53, J Leslie Turriff wrote:
On 2023-02-19 00:21:32 Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
|Surprise - the information related to development of openSUSE is |shared on the list intended for discussing development of openSUSE |- factory mailing list.
You are being facetious, but indeed I was not aware of that list. Leap users don't often read that mail list, and users are not really welcomed there.
Errm, users are perfectly welcome, as long as they don't seek/expect support and then get annoyed when they don't get any :-)
Well, often when TW breaks because the developers have done some change that users don't know about, the only place to possibly ask is the factory list, as devs and packagers are the only people that may know what is going on. Users ask in the users or support list, and nobody knows for days, because devs don't read there.
Well dev's don't even all read there anymore so your best bet for finding the right person is the bugtracker :-) -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-02-20 09:22, Per Jessen wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-02-19 08:53, J Leslie Turriff wrote:
On 2023-02-19 00:21:32 Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
|Surprise - the information related to development of openSUSE is |shared on the list intended for discussing development of |openSUSE - factory mailing list.
You are being facetious, but indeed I was not aware of that list. Leap users don't often read that mail list, and users are not really welcomed there.
Errm, users are perfectly welcome, as long as they don't seek/expect support and then get annoyed when they don't get any :-)
Well, often when TW breaks because the developers have done some change that users don't know about, the only place to possibly ask is the factory list, as devs and packagers are the only people that may know what is going on. Users ask in the users or support list, and nobody knows for days, because devs don't read there.
Unfortunately, communication is increasingly deteriorating, yes. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (15.4°C) Member, openSUSE Heroes (2016 - present) We're hiring - https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Heroes
* Carlos E. R. <robin.listas@telefonica.net> [02-20-23 04:54]:
On 2023-02-20 09:22, Per Jessen wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-02-19 08:53, J Leslie Turriff wrote:
On 2023-02-19 00:21:32 Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
|Surprise - the information related to development of openSUSE is |shared on the list intended for discussing development of openSUSE |- factory mailing list.
You are being facetious, but indeed I was not aware of that list. Leap users don't often read that mail list, and users are not really welcomed there.
Errm, users are perfectly welcome, as long as they don't seek/expect support and then get annoyed when they don't get any :-)
Well, often when TW breaks because the developers have done some change that users don't know about, the only place to possibly ask is the factory list, as devs and packagers are the only people that may know what is going on. Users ask in the users or support list, and nobody knows for days, because devs don't read there.
please cite examples of "when TW breaks" as I am unable to myself aside the recent old nvidia card problem which is resolved and didn't break anything, just restricted video modes. your continuing ranting about TW being unstable is FUD! and factory is not the *only* place to seek help with TW difficulties, it is *not* the place. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet oftc
On 2023-02-20 17:10, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Carlos E. R. <> [02-20-23 04:54]:
On 2023-02-20 09:22, Per Jessen wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-02-19 08:53, J Leslie Turriff wrote:
On 2023-02-19 00:21:32 Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
|Surprise - the information related to development of openSUSE is |shared on the list intended for discussing development of openSUSE |- factory mailing list.
You are being facetious, but indeed I was not aware of that list. Leap users don't often read that mail list, and users are not really welcomed there.
Errm, users are perfectly welcome, as long as they don't seek/expect support and then get annoyed when they don't get any :-)
Well, often when TW breaks because the developers have done some change that users don't know about, the only place to possibly ask is the factory list, as devs and packagers are the only people that may know what is going on. Users ask in the users or support list, and nobody knows for days, because devs don't read there.
please cite examples of "when TW breaks" as I am unable to myself aside the recent old nvidia card problem which is resolved and didn't break anything, just restricted video modes. your continuing ranting about TW being unstable is FUD! and factory is not the *only* place to seek help with TW difficulties, it is *not* the place.
LOL. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from Elesar, using openSUSE Leap 15.4)
Dne neděle 19. února 2023 11:47:36 CET, Carlos E. R. napsal(a):
On 2023-02-19 08:53, J Leslie Turriff wrote:
On 2023-02-19 00:21:32 Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
| Surprise - the information related to development of | openSUSE is shared on the list intended for discussing | development of openSUSE - factory mailing list.
You are being facetious, but indeed I was not aware of that list.
Leap users don't often read that mail list, and users are not really welcomed there.
The project has ML to discuss future of that project used by contributors. Clear. No one prevents You from joining. So such things are discussed there. It's not a list to discuss problems - the topics are separated. Clear. It's not problem of project that users don't follow it's official discussion platform. -- Vojtěch Zeisek https://trapa.cz/ Komunita openSUSE GNU/Linuxu Community of the openSUSE GNU/Linux https://www.opensuse.org/
On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 09:21:32 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov <arvidjaar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19.02.2023 09:08, J Leslie Turriff wrote:
On 2023-02-17 09:38:01 Robert Schweikert wrote:
: Then there is the effort Simon and others worked on over hackweek and shared recently. That goes more along the lines of what many people on this list are used to, probably. : Where is this information shared?
Surprise - the information related to development of openSUSE is shared on the list intended for discussing development of openSUSE - factory mailing list.
All of the information (little enough) I have seen has come either from discussions here or from outside reports from the likes of The Register; and the comments that I have seen here from people who are apparently 'in-the-know' seem 1) dismissive of our concerns, and 2) unwilling to explain what their intentions are.
Robert Schweikert referred to this thread - Message-ID: <0ccddef8-4c98-22f8-2ce9-e6ccf588f64b@suse.de> Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2023 14:36:53 +1030 From: Simon Lees <sflees@suse.de> To: openSUSE Factory <factory@lists.opensuse.org>, "alp-community-wg@lists.opensuse.org" <alp-community-wg@lists.opensuse.org> Subject: [Alp-community-wg] Proposal: Creating a Leap replacement based on ALP. -- Robert Webb
Strange, I thought that "openSUSE Project" mailing list exist for that. Factory = Decisions already made and..
Le 19/02/2023 à 11:57, Johan Dot a écrit :
Strange, I thought that "openSUSE Project" mailing list exist for that. Factory = Decisions already made and..
me too, project is the place to debate of non-technical options jdd -- mon serveur usenet: dodin.fr.nf c'est quoi, usenet? http://www.dodin.org/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Usenet.Usenet
Sun, 19 Feb 2023 00:08:06 -0600 J Leslie Turriff <jlturriff@mail.com> :
Where is this information shared? All of the information (little enough) I have seen has come either from discussions here or from outside reports from the likes of The Register; and the comments that I have seen here from people who are apparently 'in-the-know' seem 1) dismissive of our concerns, and 2) unwilling to explain what their intentions are.
A+ It borders on what the French call 'obscurantisme', like what exactly is 'the community' if not the only thing that it could be to rational people: the user base? It's nice to have hackers and backers but at the end of the day what you have without the users is NOTHING. And while on users, I suspect that 90% of us are average Joe's who are NOT sysadmins and who use several id's for ourselves and maybe a few for family members but that's it. Are there really more than just a few real multi-user machines for which some would seem to think that Linux exclusively exists? I don't think so, and while on 'users' I claim that most of us appreciate the opportunity to use the keyboard from time to time but we certainly don't want it to be the only way to interface with a heap of rare minerals :-) -- https://i.imgur.com/RsbswMP.png
Leslie -- Platform: Linux Distribution: openSUSE Leap 15.4 x86_64
On 2/19/23 01:08, J Leslie Turriff wrote: > On 2023-02-17 09:38:01 Robert Schweikert wrote: >> : >> Then there is the effort Simon and others worked on over hackweek and >> shared recently. That goes more along the lines of what many people on >> this list are used to, probably. >> : > Where is this information shared? All of the information (little enough) I have seen has > come either from discussions here or from outside reports from the likes of The Register; > and the comments that I have seen here from people who are apparently 'in-the-know' seem > 1) dismissive of our concerns, Please point out in this thread where there was dismissive behavior so we can improves. > and 2) unwilling to explain what their intentions are. Link to factory thread provided in a different response. Later, Robert > > Leslie > -- > Platform: Linux > Distribution: openSUSE Leap 15.4 x86_64 -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU Distinguished Engineer LINUX Technical Team Lead Public Cloud rjschwei@suse.com IRC: robjo
participants (20)
-
Andrei Borzenkov -
bent fender -
Carlos E. R. -
Carlos E. R. -
Chuck Payne -
David C. Rankin -
David Thorburn-Gundlach -
Gerald Pfeifer -
J Leslie Turriff -
jdd＠dodin.org -
Johan Dot -
Lew Wolfgang -
Lukáš Krejza -
Patrick Shanahan -
Per Jessen -
Peter McD -
Robert Schweikert -
Robert Webb -
Simon Lees -
Vojtěch Zeisek