[HN Gopher] CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Assoc... ___________________________________________________________________ CIQ, Oracle, SUSE Create Open Enterprise Linux Association Author : LaSombra Score : 134 points Date : 2023-08-10 16:40 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.suse.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.suse.com) | tlhunter wrote: | I love how they throw Java into the trademarks section. Java | isn't even mentioned anywhere. Looks like a case of Oracle being | Oracle. | paulddraper wrote: | "Write once, trademark everywhere" | papercrane wrote: | I think it's because they used the trademark "Oracle" so they | just included Oracle's standard trademark disclaimer. | | If you search for that paragraph, you'll find lots of examples | of it being reproduced verbatim. | DarkmSparks wrote: | I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. And tbh, these | days, with whatever bad medicine google feels like foistering on | us this week, Oracle are truly beginning to look more and more | like the "good guys". | | As much as any large evilcorp can be the good guys anyway. | fweimer wrote: | Based on https://openela.org/about/ this appears to be a source- | only distribution. They do not speak of binary builds (just | "buildable"), that's apparently up to the downstream | participants. | ticviking wrote: | I'm not sure that's a bad thing given that the previous | approach was hampered so much by confusion about where the | value is. | | If this is a commitment to a set of source then the players can | compete on ease of use, support or other stuff. | CaliforniaKarl wrote: | Right now I'm thinking about it in the way that I think about | Let's Encrypt. | | Let's Encrypt has their own infrastructure, governance, etc., | but I don't use Let's Encrypt products to interact with Let's | Encrypt. Instead, I interact with Let's Encrypt via products | like Certbot from the EFF. | | If OpenELA's going to provide source, and I access that | source through builds provided by CIQ or SUSE or someone | else, then I'll be thinking of it in the same way as I think | about Let's Encrypt. | toyg wrote: | Or java. | roschdal wrote: | OpenSuse is wonderful | BossingAround wrote: | What's the differentiator from the Fedora/Centos/RHEL line? | pxc wrote: | Probably YAST1 and the Open Build Service2. I think the | latter is especially great. There's a public instance of it | hosted by openSUSE3, and you can use it to build packages for | almost any distro and get a feel for it. | | -- | | 1: https://yast.opensuse.org/documentation | | 2: https://openbuildservice.org/ | | 3: https://build.opensuse.org/ | 5e92cb50239222b wrote: | For me: yast (easy to use GUI/TUI for many administration | tasks -- useful for less experienced admins), snapper | (filesystem snapshot management tool which automatically | creates them before and after package management operations | and allows you to boot into them or roll back if anything | goes wrong. Quite similar to FreeBSD boot environments.) | | zypper is probably the best 'classic' package manager there | is (although dnf is great too; it's more of an argument | against Debian and its derivatives). | | Then there is https://build.openbuildservice.org which | automatically builds packages for all supported distributions | and architectures from a single RPM spec file and creates a | ready to use repository for you. | | OpenSUSE Leap is built from SLES sources and is thus | comparable in its stability guarantees to the old CentOS (or | any of the current RHEL rebuilds). | Espionage724 wrote: | I found YaST to get in my way at times; I particularly | remember YaST's Network panel hanging because I had | StevenBlack's huge HOSTS file. I do like the network panel | though for changing static IPs; I had to do some searching | to try to figure out how to do that on Fedora, and ended up | using Cockpit instead (not sure how to do it cli). | | I'm confused on the differences in repo priority between | zypper (oS TW) and dnf (Fedora). Apparently dnf also allows | setting repo priority, but I've never had to do it, and | packages seem to come from expected repos without having to | specify (stuff comes from RPM Fusion if I have those repos | added). On TW I had to manually specify repo priority to | something other than 99 and set a flag to allow vendor | changes to have similar behavior; I like that kind of | control but I didn't need to do it on Fedora. | | OBS is nice in-concept but I don't like the idea of using | it outside of openSUSE. I think Launchpad/PPAs for Ubuntu, | Copr for Fedora, and AUR for Arch. I think OBS for openSUSE | and don't like the idea of using OBS for other distros, | even if that's one of the big benefits and point to OBS. | Espionage724 wrote: | AppArmor vs SELinux | | I've ran Ubuntu and openSUSE servers and aside from a profile | issue with PHP and openSUSE, I don't know if AppArmor is even | protecting anything. Everything just works and it makes me | think AppArmor is only applied to specific apps/services and | not globally. | | SELinux (at least on Fedora) is present, everywhere, and will | gladly let you know if something is blocked because of it. I | prefer this kind of protection even if it's more annoying at | times :p Just a few weeks ago I learned about bin_t and that | made my SELinux config for that service a lot more simple. | whalesalad wrote: | https://openela.org | [deleted] | systems wrote: | i am getting a warning from chrome about this site certificate | , or is it just me | jhalstead wrote: | No issues when I opened it on mobile Chrome. | josephcsible wrote: | Are you going through a corporate proxy? Some of them will | MITM newly-registered domains but not established ones. | mistrial9 wrote: | no warning Google Chrome 112.0.5615.165 | (Official Build) (64-bit) Revision | c262f36e6b1d711ee42d4fbe1343b49960593f18-refs/branch- | heads/5615@{#1297} OS Linux JavaScript V8 | 11.2.214.14 User Agent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) | AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) | Chrome/112.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Command Line | /usr/bin/google-chrome-stable --flag-switches-begin --flag- | switches-end --origin-trial-disabled-features=WebGPU | Executable Path /opt/google/chrome/google-chrome | pxc wrote: | > It will provide an open process to access source code that | organizations can use to build distributions compatible with | RHEL | | So they're not trying to create something like RHEL but in a | way that is committed to being more 'open' somehow. They're | still shooting for the bug-for-bug stuff, and still an effort | that's parasitic on RHEL in terms of its substantive | development. | | This whole situation sucks. | uberduper wrote: | Seems like an obvious next step is to get enterprise hardware | and software vendors to begin certifying on OpenELA in | addition to RHEL. OpenELA10 or w/e could stand on its own as | a competing enterprise linux standard that everyone is free | to build from. | pxc wrote: | > OpenELA10 or w/e could stand on its own as a competing | enterprise linux standard that everyone is free to build | from. | | Idk. How is that standing on its own? SUSE already has a | perfectly good enterprise Linux distro in SLE. If the point | is to have an alternative standard that anyone can build | from, why not just use that as the base? | eraser215 wrote: | 100% | CaliforniaKarl wrote: | RHEL does a lot of work, yes, but a lot of that comes from | volunteers. RHEL does contribute kernel patches; but Oracle | and SUSE contribute there, too. | ddtaylor wrote: | If you don't want other people using your source code should | you be making open source software? | CrLf wrote: | This is United Linux 21 years later. But this time, instead of | building a distribution to compete with Red Hat, it's based on | Red Hat (in practice, it _is_ Red Hat). | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Linux | | > "No subscriptions. No passwords. No barriers. Freeloaders | welcome." | | I'm sure they're trying to be cheeky. But it also comes off as | confirming Red Hat's position. OpenELA isn't about community, | it's about having a base (i.e. bug-for-bug RHEL clone) upon which | to sell support contracts. | | If you really want to stay in the Red Hat ecosystem, I'd suggest | going with AlmaLinux instead. They seem to have a more honest | understanding of what "community" means. | | Some people are throwing the word "freeloaders" around. It seems | clear that "freeloaders" are not people running RHEL clones, but | indeed there are some "freeloaders" in the community. | creatonez wrote: | If you're unsure which enterprise linux fork to go with, here | is a panel discussion between AlmaLinux, RockyLinux, and Oracle | - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFMPjt_RgXA. They all lay out | their philosophy and discuss the changes going forward. | Unfortunately a SUSE representative couldn't make it, but you | can fill in the gaps from their press material. | | I tend to respect the AlmaLinux way of doing things, but I | respect where the others are coming from. | ddtaylor wrote: | Most of the businesses that want to run Red hat compatible | Linux probably don't care about any of that stuff. They just | want to run Linux and have it be essentially as difficult to | maintain as their landscaping or electricity. | [deleted] | 1MachineElf wrote: | I suppose this is both good and bad. I wonder if Red Hat/IBM | anticipated this, and how they will respond to it. | BossingAround wrote: | Why would they respond? This just confirms their position as | the leader in the Linux space, doesn't it? | CaliforniaKarl wrote: | Leader? Citation needed. | | For example, LWN's most-recent report[0] on who contributed | Linux kernel patches puts either three or four different | companies above Red Hat, depending on if you're looking at | changesets or lines changed. | | Regardless, if leadership is theirs to lose, then they're | doing a good job of it. | | [0]: https://lwn.net/Articles/936113/ | colechristensen wrote: | Eh, it's good. IBM didn't want to continue supporting community | things and so here we are, the RedHat business model was a bit | tricky and increasingly so because of cloud computing. | | The great value of RedHat was _supported_ software. You could | buy one of those $10,000 per seat software packages for some | engineering discipline that was guaranteed to work by RedHat | and the vendor and if it wasn 't they were quite motivated and | helpful in fixing your problem quickly. | | RedHat also was trusted to monitor and fix security problems | quickly, and was in the privileged position of getting | notifications about them before they were public so they could | be fixed. | | The question is how do you get people to fund these two things? | eraser215 wrote: | It's been made abundantly clear by many people in many places | that this isn't an IBM thing. | colechristensen wrote: | It is not clear what you mean. | CaliforniaKarl wrote: | Links pls? | lbhdc wrote: | I am curious how they feel as well. It seems like it won't | impact their support contracts since things built with openela | will be rhel compatible. But surely they cut people off for | moat reasons. | | Why do you think this is a bad change? I was thinking | additional players in the space would make for a more robust | ecosystem. | mulmen wrote: | I am SUSE-curious after all the drama and lost trust with RedHat | and IBM but any partnership with Oracle makes me uncomfortable. | ghaff wrote: | Well it was SCO back in the United Linux days--albeit it wasn't | the evil SCO yet at that time. (Though as others have remarked, | there's a different objective at play here.) | pxc wrote: | Wym? SUSE was owned by Novell, not SCO. Evil SCO stabbed | Novell and SUSE in the back. | ghaff wrote: | SUSE was bought by Novell later. Per Wikipedia: | | "United Linux was an attempt by a consortium of Linux | distributors to create a common base distribution for | enterprise use, so as to minimize duplication of | engineering effort and form an effective competitor to Red | Hat. The founding members of United Linux were SUSE, | Turbolinux, Conectiva (now merged with MandrakeSoft to form | Mandriva) and Caldera International (later renamed to The | SCO Group). The consortium was announced on May 30, 2002. | The end of the project was announced on January 22, 2004." | | It never really worked from a business perspective but | Caldera becoming faux-SCO was pretty much the final straw. | infamouscow wrote: | I wish they went for a 501(c)3 non-profit, rather than a 501(c)6 | trade organization. | | The incentives between these two structures make a world of | difference. | verdverm wrote: | can you elaborate? | bragr wrote: | Just skimming the regulations, I don't believe that it would | qualify as a 501(c)3 as they don't receive "broad public | support" [1] whereas the criteria for a 501(c)6 match exactly | with their goals. Additionally the (c)6 allows for political | activity related to the purpose of the organization, which | seems like a good ability given the current intersection of | politics, regulation, and tech. [2] | | I'm not sure what you mean by "incentives". Perhaps you could | elaborate. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)(3)_organization#Types | | [2] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization#Contributi... | vulcan01 wrote: | I started a 501(c)(3) with some friends. It didn't require | broad public support, just that we intended to grow to such a | point. | | (I'm not sure exactly what the current support is like; I | left the board over a year ago. I think it's around 10 folks | that donate somewhat regularly.) | | Certainly the political activity provision of 501(c)(6)s are | beneficial for this association, and I guess they'd have more | scrutiny as three large companies instead of a few high | schoolers. | nhanlon wrote: | It's incredibly difficult (read: impossible) for this type of | organization to be a true 501(c)3. | eraser215 wrote: | Oracle, SUSE, and Greg Kurtzer have zero interest in _not_ | profiting from this. | mfer wrote: | You will find that many of the open source backing non-profits | are trade organizations. Some notable examples: | | - The Linux Foundation (which includes the CNCF and OpenJS | Foundation) | | - Rust Foundation | | - Bytecode Alliance | | I don't mean to provide an opinion on incentives (and they are | different as the parent suggests). I just mean to share that | trade organizations are already common. | | Disclaimer: I work for SUSE but not on OpenELA. I am also a | maintainer of CNCF projects and on the CNCF TOC. | mikeyouse wrote: | Small nit but technically OpenJS is a separate 501c6 that is | currently managed by the LF, they're not "underneath" the LF | in the same way that CNCF is. Not sure why that's the case, | probably just historical reasons since they were independent | for a long time beforehand? Doesn't seem to change much | operationally as they have the normal C6 structure with | corporate members, etc. | pelasaco wrote: | As openSUSE user, the only answers that I care from SUSE are: | | - Are you going to kill Leap and Tumbleweed? | | - Are you going to handle the "community" as you do with the | openSUSE community? | linuxftw wrote: | Part of the justification at the time for getting rid of CentOS | proper in favor of CentOS "Stream" was that poor Red Hat was | doing all the work and spending all the cash in support of | CentOS. Red Hat even went as far to say that the CentOS | leadership (board?) was in full support. | | Red Hat never allowed CentOS to have any kind of election. It was | never a community driven project after Red Hat bought it. | | So, very interesting to see these companies banding together to | give us back CentOS by another name. It will be interesting to | see what Rocky and Alma do. | [deleted] | gangohango wrote: | CIQ _is_ rocky. | CaliforniaKarl wrote: | Not true. Rocky Linux is a Rocky Enterprise Software | Foundation project. And on https://www.resf.org, you can see | that RESF is backed by lots more folks than just CIQ. | linuxftw wrote: | I was thinking one of the distros was backed by CIQ, but I | couldn't remember which, thanks. | nhanlon wrote: | CIQ is a sponsor of Rocky (and my employer, to be | transparent) - but they do not have a say over what Rocky | does. | nhanlon wrote: | We (RESF/Rocky) are _not_ CIQ, and do not take direction from | CIQ. | | End of story. | gareim wrote: | I knew you'd show up and say this. CIQ's CEO claims to have | founded Rocky and is the current president of RESF, is | Rocky's most prominent sponsor, and Rocky's recent moves | have been in the same direction that CIQ requires in order | to survive. Regardless of direct control or not, Rocky's | financial incentives align with CIQ's. | | As you so point out your bias, it would be really nice if | you didn't speak on behalf of your employer and let others | make their own conclusions without hearing from those | biased. | davidw wrote: | Hrm. Just going to keep sticking with Debian and Ubuntu like I've | been doing since ... wow, 1997. | BossingAround wrote: | For personal and small business needs, you can stick to | whatever you'd like, even Arch Linux if that's your poison. | That's not the aim of the announcement though. | davidw wrote: | It's my point though: rather than navigate between what RH is | doing and what Oracle is doing, I'll just stick with a solid | open source distribution. Lindy effect and all... | Espionage724 wrote: | Why would anyone use a server OS that's a fork of another server | OS, provided by a group of 3rd-parties with their own competing | enterprise distros? | | I'm sure there's a reason for it with all the discussions, but if | I want to use CentOS, why wouldn't I just use CentOS Stream that | RH is providing? If I want RHEL, I'll go get RHEL that afaik is | also free. If I want to see the future of RHEL, there's Fedora | Server. And if I believed RH was being intentionally hostile, why | would I support them at all and not go with a completely | unrelated distro like SUSE? | josephcsible wrote: | > If I want RHEL, I'll go get RHEL that afaik is also free. | | You can't get RHEL for free. | Espionage724 wrote: | Are you sure? | | Things I read online say it's free, including | https://developers.redhat.com/products/rhel/download | | As I understand, the only costs with RHEL include using it | across a large number of machines in enterprise, and customer | support. Someone using it on a few machines in a home lab | should be fine I imagine? | hrrsn wrote: | You can sign up for the developer license and install it on | up to 16 machines, after that you need to pay | Espionage724 wrote: | Now I'm even more confused as to why RHEL's changes are | this controversial :p | | 16 machines is more devices than I have in my house, and | enterprise seems like they can just pay for RHEL. I'm | also betting there's not some thorough verification | process that would prevent you from running RHEL free on | more than 16 machines (seems almost too easy, but just | make multiple free accounts per-16 machines? RH I'm sure | would be happier to have people running RHEL at all than | intentionally seeking out free license violators) | kobalsky wrote: | > Now I'm even more confused as to why RHEL's changes are | this controversial :p | | 16 licenses is the proverbial tip. | | we know what happens next. | doubled112 wrote: | 16 devices doesn't cover everything I have at home, and | managing the license(s) isn't something I'm looking to | do. | Espionage724 wrote: | So you'd rather use some random fork of RHEL? | doubled112 wrote: | For personal use I use Debian almost exclusively. | Laptops, desktops, servers, VMs, Raspberry Pis, all of | it. | | Pre-Stream CentOS was never my preference, but I did | spend some time running it to learn the RHEL way. The | free licenses would fill that gap. | | At work we run RHEL where we needed support and Alma | where we don't. It was chosen for me. I'm watching to see | how this plays out, but not incredibly concerned. | rascul wrote: | > up to 16 machines | | Does that include virtual machines? | pincoballino wrote: | It seems possible: | https://developers.redhat.com/articles/faqs-no-cost-red- | hat-... > "10. How many Red Hat Enterprise Linux | entitlements are included in the no-cost Red Hat | Developer Subscription for Individuals?" | | "The no-cost Red Hat Developer Subscription for | Individuals grants the ability to install Red Hat [...] | on 16 physical or virtual nodes" | eraser215 wrote: | Yes you can. | | https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/new-year-new-red-hat- | enterpri... | anyoneamous wrote: | This falls under the heading of "technically correct" - in | the sense that the limit is high enough for people to make | the argument you are, and yet too low for most enterprise | use-cases. Worse, the offer could be withdrawn at any time. | Espionage724 wrote: | If you're enterprise with more than 16 machines, you can | and should probably be paying for RHEL. | | What I'm not understanding is why people need to use RHEL | and would resort to free random forks of it, instead of | just using CentOS Stream or Fedora that are basically the | same thing, actually from RH, and 100% free. RHEL is not | that special. | anyoneamous wrote: | > can and should probably be paying for RHEL. | | I'm on the fence about that. I wish people were more | willing to financially support open-source development, | but I've worked with dozens of customers using RHEL over | the last 10 years and never seen a single one of them | open a support request - on that basis I can see why | people feel that the price is too high. When the options | are "get gouged" or "be labelled a freeloader", the | outcome is pretty obvious. | | > just using CentOS Stream or Fedora | | I think the rise of free alternatives (Amazon Linux) and | a DevOps-style mindset (no patching, just burn it down | and redeploy when updates are needed) are exactly what | has motivated this squeeze - RHEL is losing relevance in | a lot of places, so RH/IBM are left with fewer potential | customers and so just end up squeezing them harder. | Dulat_Akan wrote: | Oh big stones companies moving to the Talent side of Open Source | developers. Good but needed to act little bit earlier. Yes better | late then never) | pygar wrote: | Probably a dumb question, as I'm not really on the enterprise | side of Linux but: Isn't Canonical in the same business as Red | Hat? Why doesn't Canonical seem to care about alleged | "freeloaders"? | | Come to think of it, why is SUSE considered as a serious | replacement for RHEL and not Ubuntu? | creatonez wrote: | > Come to think of it, why is SUSE considered as a serious | replacement for RHEL and not Ubuntu? | | SLES and RHEL are _somewhat_ similar, in that they both use the | RPM package format, and they both have a 10 year support | lifecycle. They are not entirely compatible though. They also | make management software that is supposed to be as | interoperable as possible with competitor distributions. | | Anyways, last month SUSE announced they would be making an | actual RHEL fork, so that's the real reason they are joining | this new partnership -- it's not related to SLES, but a new | distro they are making. | | As for Ubuntu -- it _is_ often touted as an alternative to | RHEL. However, people don 't like the weird ways in which | Ubuntu diverges from the rest of the Linux community (Snap, | LXD, ufw, etc.), so some attention is diverted towards Debian | and RHEL, which are more focused on packaging software that is | already proven. Red Hat does their innovation in Fedora, waits | a few years to see if it catches on, then implements it in | RHEL. This tends to have a greater degree of success than | pushing it suddenly on users like Ubuntu does. | dralley wrote: | >Why doesn't Canonical seem to care about alleged | "freeloaders"? | | I don't think there are any corporate entities reselling a | rebuilt Ubuntu | loph wrote: | Simply put, I'm not using anything with 0racle's name on it. | | Free software from 0racle? There are gonna be strings attached... | to lawyers. | creatonez wrote: | Oracle Linux, surprisingly, is no strings attached. The | licensing is straightforward GPL, the download pages are freely | accessible. | | In this case, it might be Oracle's lawyers preventing them from | being aggressive, because they wouldn't fare well trying to | challenge Red Hat. If they screw up their treading-lightly | strategy, or if they get into legal trouble, there could no | longer be a suitable operating system to run Oracle Database | on. | toyg wrote: | It's because they are the underdog, in no position to impose | anything. They do the work because they need it for strategic | reasons, so they might as well give it away for goodwill. | candiddevmike wrote: | How is IBM better than Oracle? | throw16180339 wrote: | IBM hasn't tried to establish that APIs are copyrightable; | Oracle has. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_. | ... | josefx wrote: | How does the modern web browse itself without JavaScript? | Oracle still has the trademark on that. | SahAssar wrote: | Are you tying to make 0racle the new Micro$oft/M$? Whats the | zero supposed to represent? | ftaghn wrote: | As much as people may hate oracle, they employ significant | contributors to the Linux kernel. | https://lwn.net/Articles/915435/ | | Many in very important subsystems. The XFS maintainer (who just | recently stepped down from this role) and contributor Darrick | Wong works for Oracle. Meanwhile, btrfs is the creation of | Chris Mason, who worked there until 2012. Modern filesystems on | linux owe a decent debt to Oracle. Good luck running an Oracle- | free linux. | | I often find it interesting when people imply the company is | freeloading for having chosen the path of making an RHEL clone. | They cloned RHEL because an unhealthy, dependent ecosystem was | built around the one, singular linux distribution, not because | they are unwilling to fund work. | | Giving some serious competition to Red Hat can only be a good | thing. | dralley wrote: | > They cloned RHEL because an unhealthy, dependent ecosystem | was built around the one, singular linux distribution, not | because they are unwilling to fund work. | | They cloned RHEL to spite Red Hat for the JBoss acquisition | in the mid-2000s. | axus wrote: | Hopefully that OpenELA uses MariaDB and not MySQL. | raverbashing wrote: | So what's the story again? You either die a hero or you live | enough to see yourself becoming the villain? | | And now even Oracle is looking like the reasonable player? | Timber-6539 wrote: | I like this solution way much better. Now the only player that's | missing here is Almalinux. Maybe it's not too late to make a | U-turn and join this new group so that Redhat alone can be | responsible for contributing to RHEL as intended. | eraser215 wrote: | How is red hat being the only contributor a good thing? | Timber-6539 wrote: | It may not be a good thing to anyone looking at this whole | mess but it's clearly what Red Hat wants. After all, their VP | did lament that they were doing all this work for "free" just | so that the other enterprises can rebuild their product. | sproketboy wrote: | [dead] | [deleted] | verdverm wrote: | Is this IBM|RedHat's Elasticsearch vs Opensearch moment? | nazgulsenpai wrote: | Funny you mention that as Oracle has also "migrated" everything | to OpenSearch. They're really big proponents of (other | people's) free and open-source software! | jrpelkonen wrote: | Interesting observation. I recently watched a documentary about | Compaq, and this saga reminds me of a previous time when IBM | tried to put the genie back in the bottle with MicroChannel | architecture. Let's see if they fare any better this time | mongol wrote: | Ah, MicroChannel. The reason I was late into Linux. My PC was | a PS/2 Model 70. Was only when I bought a Pentium 75 PC that | I could join the party. | korpsey wrote: | Re-United Linux! ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-08-10 23:00 UTC)