Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 9th Dec 2006 23:44 UTC
SuSE, openSUSE "In conclusion? I'm going to stick with it. It really is impressive with a great set of software installed by default (taking away perhaps a lot of my need for massive repos), nice touches like the new menu and use of Gnome control center etc." More here.
Order by: Score:
Looks really good
by unoengborg on Sun 10th Dec 2006 01:33 UTC
unoengborg
Member since:
2005-07-06

This distro looks really really good. It have many usability enhancements to e.g. the Gnome/K menu, the gnome control center. It looks very professional with is clean unobtrusive non figurative background with just enough patterns to make it easy to memorize a file or folders location on the desktop.

I really hope that, this will spread to standard Gnome/KDE so that it will appear in other Linux desktops as well.

Most(/all?) of these enhacements were created before the Novell Microsoft deal, so it shouldn't be any riskier to incorporate than any other free software,but I guess that many Linux zealots will not see it that way, and stop using it in some sort of misguided revenge directed at Novell. If that happens, that in itself would be a victory for Microsoft.

Screenshots? Have a look at:
http://www.thecodingstudio.com/opensource/linux/screenshots/index.p...

Reply Score: 5

Nice
by rajan r on Sun 10th Dec 2006 02:17 UTC
rajan r
Member since:
2005-07-27

But the fonts? Rather on the small side no?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Nice
by gamma on Mon 11th Dec 2006 03:42 UTC in reply to "Nice"
gamma Member since:
2005-07-06

I have the opposite problem actually. If I understand correctly fonts are based off the size of your monitor. Suse autodetected I had a 15" Sharp LCD with a native resolution of 1600x1200 so it decided to set my font dpi to 133px, which is freaking huge in my opinion. I could be on the other side of the room and read it. I'm guessing that Suse/the reviewer said they had a larger monitor and it decided to make the fonts smaller.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Nice
by hal2k1 on Mon 11th Dec 2006 11:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

There is a dependency on both the resolution and the physical size of your screen. Most automatic X configurations are unaware of your screen size, and so they get the screen dpi wrong, which in turn mucks up the font rendering.

How to fix?

http://www.mozilla.org/unix/dpi.html

"DPI Problem Solving

Both points and DPI either too small or too big are typically caused by a mismatch between your real display size and the display size your X server thinks you have. So, if you don't like Mozilla's UI font sizes, start to correct your problem by reconciling the two sizes. Measure your display, and change whatever settings are required to cause the X server to report and use the actual display size.

To find out what your X server thinks your DPI settings are, run the program xdpyinfo:

$ xdpyinfo | grep dimensions
$ xdpyinfo | grep resolution

Note the dimensions in pixels and millimeters, and the resolution in DPI. Compare to what you're actually using, but don't confuse dots and pixels - a dot may or may not equal a pixel. If you have KDE, kinfocenter's X-Server section will conveniently show the same information.

For example, if you use a 17" CRT display, your viewable screen dimensions will be approximately 328 mm wide by 246 mm tall. This actual size can usually be forced by adding:

DisplaySize 328 246

to

Section "Monitor"

in /etc/X11/XF86Config or /etc/X11/xorg.conf, as applicable on your system. If you are running a 1400 X 1050 resolution with a 328 mm X 246 mm display, your system will be running at an actual 108 DPI. In most cases, this change will be sufficient to correct your problem."


Don't forget that the DisplaySize numbers are in units of millimeters, and that the dimensions are entered as width first, then height of the display area of your display.

Getting this setting correct should fix any font size problems, and at the same time improve the look of the fonts on screen.

Another reference: http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Set_DPI_(Dots_Per_Inch)

Hope this helps.

Edited 2006-12-11 11:29

Reply Score: 2

Laptop
by Lengsel on Sun 10th Dec 2006 02:27 UTC
Lengsel
Member since:
2006-04-19

I tried installing it on Turion X2 and the MBR did not work when I rebooted, so couldn't load any OS. Installed on Core 2 Duo, and that all worked ok, but desperately struggling with the Intel PRO/Wireless 3945ABG and can't run NDSIwrapper, or at least can't figure out how to run it. How do I get the wifi chipset working for a strong, consistent connection?

But openSUSE 10.2 is a beaut! It's the only distribution in the world that I can actually use GNOME with ease and simplicity, with enjoyment. At least Novell is funding user interface R&D with the menuing system, who else is focused around casual users the way Novell is for the SUSE development procress? It's a great system!

Reply Score: 3

RE: Laptop
by thebluesgnr on Sun 10th Dec 2006 02:47 UTC in reply to "Laptop"
thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

Install the ipw3945d and ipw-firmware packages from the non-oss repository. You don't need ndiswrapper for this chipset.

Reply Score: 5

menu disparity
by jtrapp on Sun 10th Dec 2006 05:19 UTC
jtrapp
Member since:
2005-07-06

Even though they replaced both the gnome and K menus, it seems that they put more thought into the gnome menu. It is simple, elegant, and nothing requires more than a couple of clicks. On the other hand, K menu requires numerous clicks to navigate, you must drill down through (sometimes) multiple tiers to find your application.
On the positive side, gnome is really slick. I have sworn by KDE since beginning the GNU/Linux transition, but this release has me switching.

Reply Score: 1

Ugly
by stare on Sun 10th Dec 2006 06:08 UTC
stare
Member since:
2005-07-06

Looking at screenshots, it's just plain ugly. Small bad antialiased fonts, 2D amateur-looking icons, big buttons. It's probably good OS under the hood, but professional operating system should not look like this in 21 century.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ugly
by raver31 on Sun 10th Dec 2006 08:47 UTC in reply to "Ugly"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

It is so simple to change though !

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Ugly
by fpbecker on Sun 10th Dec 2006 12:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Ugly"
fpbecker Member since:
2005-07-08

Sure it's easy to tweak font settings etc. But: Defaults do matter. Do you really expect Joe User to want to fiddle with the settings? No, Joe User expects things to work - and to look good. The openSUSE defaults don't look as good as they could with appr. 2 minutes more work.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Ugly
by aziz_pagla on Sun 10th Dec 2006 12:09 UTC in reply to "Ugly"
aziz_pagla Member since:
2006-12-10

Beauty in only skin deep.

I still crave for the CDE look. Used to love xfce till they made it gnome-like.

Incidentally, which distro has the "best" look for the desktop?

Just curious!

Edited 2006-12-10 12:10

Reply Score: 1

Better then 10.1
by HiThere on Sun 10th Dec 2006 09:38 UTC
HiThere
Member since:
2006-05-13

Me old man installed it yesterday. He didn't get unresolved or conflicting dependency issues like he had in 10.1.

Oh, and if you don't like the "new main menu" thing in KDE, there is an option that allows you to effortless switch between the new and the old style.

Edited 2006-12-10 09:40

Reply Score: 3

Don't like the new KDE menu
by manjabes on Sun 10th Dec 2006 10:16 UTC
manjabes
Member since:
2005-08-27

To be honest, I can't tell how come everyone is so excited and happy about the new KDE menu. I for one don't see it as an advancement over the previous (of course, it may take a little getting used to) because of the myriad of clicking that is needed to find something. In the old-style KDE menu, I could navigate to deep into the menu tree within an eyeblink, now I have to click my way through the thing which is quite annoying and SLOW (especially considering the fact that I have to bear with a laptop touchpad & mousebuttons). IF the menus would open when the cursor pauses at them, it may have a chance but for now I cannot see the advancements of "usability" anywhere. Probably this is like some kind of a Gnome-thing that "has great usability" but stupid me cannot feel it in any way.

Reply Score: 5

messages
by netpython on Sun 10th Dec 2006 10:43 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

and I wonder if this is because of Novell's apparmour? I haven't tried disabling it yet because it's only a matter of 10s or so on boot and login but it does seem strange when the rest of the distro is so good.

You should check the messages for denials (scanning for changes in AppArmor speak) and update the Apparmor policy accordingly.

Reply Score: 3

WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

I suppose it doesn't include stuff like the proprietary nVidia drivers or Realplayer, and also support for various codecs is probably lacking..But how much of a trouble is it to get all that?

Reply Score: 1

netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

But how much of a trouble is it to get all that?

Depends for a great deal on your arch ( x86 or x86_64).
Other then that it is just a matter of adding the packman repo from one of the mirrors with YaST:

http://de.opensuse.org/Benutzer:Buschmann23/Smart/Spiegelserver

Reply Score: 3

Very Nice.
by Yagami on Sun 10th Dec 2006 12:15 UTC
Yagami
Member since:
2006-07-15

i am a long time linux user. i am also a long time gentoo user ( + than four years )

for two years now , i usually try some new comercial linux distributions ( fedora , suse , mandriva , ubuntu ) , just to see where linux comercially is heading.

i have to say , that open suse 10.2 is the first one i could make in one day , as good as gentoo ( as far as i taking a screenshot , and almost couldnt tell which one is it )

there were some performance problems first, and its too bad most users dont know some tips ( for exemple , with beryl and nvidia , or to also disable completly zmd , also , install a good font ( vn implementation of urw) ) but other than that :

* the yast is great
* the kde menu is great ( i am a kde user , havent seen gnome yet... or if i ever will )
* the underlying system seems to be good ( i like the sysconfig yast editor )
* very nice art , nice grub screens
* nice overwall tweaks ( konqueror with smooth scrolling )
* lots of software ( nice that the serenity theme exists for suse )
* and its there ... in one day i setted up suse just the way i want it ... perfect ;)

i am really happy about it.

cons :

* well , the damn thing couldnt recognize my lvm setup in instalation , but as soon as it booted from the hard drive ( 2nd fase of instalation ) , it detected them properly. of course , at second fase , there is no point anymore.

* i am still afraid of the "binary" thing... i have the mentality of "compiled in the box" ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Very Nice.
by netpython on Sun 10th Dec 2006 12:42 UTC in reply to "Very Nice."
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

I would miss the ebuilds too ;-) And gentoo-hardened.

Reply Score: 2

New menu
by Headrush on Sun 10th Dec 2006 13:25 UTC
Headrush
Member since:
2006-01-03

I could live comfortably with the new menu with one simple change. Allow the vertical size to be adjustable. Why restrict it to such a small size. Since most user tend to use the same apps all the time, open that favorites tab vertically so we can fit them all in without scrolling!

Reply Score: 1

Plain ugly menu:
by deb2006 on Sun 10th Dec 2006 16:52 UTC
deb2006
Member since:
2006-06-26

Why - just why? - do they have to implement the ugly XP menu? I don't get it. (irony on: Since Novel has paid a good sum to Microsoft - I guess they can use Microsoft's patented menu. irony off)

Reply Score: 2

SuSE being abonded by GPLv3, and Samba
by walterbyrd on Sun 10th Dec 2006 17:25 UTC
walterbyrd
Member since:
2005-12-31

Whatever you think of the msft/novl deal, the fact remains that a lot of major Linux contributors are not happy about the deal, and plan to abandon novl.

I found an article, just today, on groklaw, about Samba going to GPLv3. A lot of people think that openoffice should also abandon novl, because novl has effectively forked openoffice.

Future versions of Linux kernel may also be, at least in part, GPLv3.

Just some stuff to think about before committing to SuSE.

Reply Score: 2

linux-it Member since:
2006-07-13

You also could try to use your brains and try to understand that if the FSF persists in changes that cause such deals not to happen or worse, to kill, we'd better drop GPL v3.

If yo want to be the underdog for teh rest of your life, then you should stick with this Novell/MS deal is bad and FSF is good.

Problem here is that people still are helping MS by thinking the deal is bad and amplyfy the FUD.

What could happen ?

o) the patent deal is of no use at all. so that's no problem

o) interoperability is something that keeps linux from taking off big time.

heterogenous networks are things people want. what do you like about linux if yo cannot use it at work because the rest is windows ? does that make sense ? is that really better for you ? I tend to think not.

If all goes awry, Novell will be dead, OpenSUSE is still there, OpenOfficeis still there.

If FSF changes GPL v3 in such a way that only forks are possible, it would mean that the products get worse.

Some people are slowly starting to understand that thinking instead of a gut feeling sometimes may be better. Just think of it, try to understand.

Just some stuff to think about before ditching SUSE/NOVELL

Edited 2006-12-10 18:14

Reply Score: 4

walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

>>
What could happen ?
o) the patent deal is of no use at all. so that's no problem
o) interoperability is something that keeps linux from taking off big time.
<<

Classic FUD. This deal has nothing to do with increasing interoperability. Linux is open. Msft can choose interoperability whenever msft chooses to do so.

Do you not remember Ballmer viciously threatening to sue all Linux users who don't use Novell? That is what this underhanded deal is about.

Reply Score: 3

grat Member since:
2006-02-02

Classic FUD. This deal has nothing to do with increasing interoperability. Linux is open. Msft can choose interoperability whenever msft chooses to do so.

Really? So all the stuff about making sure each other's operating systems can function well virtualized was smoke? Can you provide some evidence for this theory?

Do you not remember Ballmer viciously threatening to sue all Linux users who don't use Novell? That is what this underhanded deal is about.

Do you have any idea how comical it is that the proponents of this theory have to rely on Steve Ballmer for "proof"?

What next, quotes from Darl McBride about Linux violating SCO's IP?

Reply Score: 1

linux-it Member since:
2006-07-13

"Do you not remember Ballmer viciously threatening to sue all Linux users who don't use Novell? That is what this underhanded deal is about."

Yes you are right. If Mazda volates a patent, I will be sued because I drive a Mazda3.

The whole point is that whatever Ballmer sais, it's not going to happen. ballmer cannot (legally based) send me a piece of paper stating I owe him money. So there you are, you believe Ballmer and he will thank you in adding to the whole FUD tread about, ehhh nothing at all ?

Novell did a good job -- they got more money from MS than the oher way around, they have stated they want operability (OOo starts to look that way); granted, Novell pulled out of the exchange clone.

like Grat said: Ballmer isn't exactly someone to trust and believe, he's a comic, a clown.

Reply Score: 1

walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

>>like Grat said: Ballmer isn't exactly someone to trust and believe, he's a comic, a clown.<<

Excuse me, but the president and CEO of the most powerful software company on the planet is indeed somebody to take very seriously.

Do you remember what F.U.D. stands for? It is supposed to give anybody who uses your competitor's product a vauge uneasy feeling. And if msft threatening to sue you doesn't make you feel a little uneasy, then you must be insane. Msft can drive just about anybody into bankruptcy, whether msft is right or wrong.

Reply Score: 1

walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

>>
Really? So all the stuff about making sure each other's operating systems can function well virtualized was smoke? Can you provide some evidence for this theory?
<<

What "theory" is that? That Linux is open? If msft wants interoperability so bad, then why didn't msft open the APIs to Samba? Why did msft fight that so hard in Europe? Why is msft so desperately fighting the ODF standard? Why doesn't msft publish the specs for NTFS?

>>
Do you have any idea how comical it is that the proponents of this theory have to rely on Steve Ballmer for "proof"?
<<

In case you didn't know: Ballmer is president and CEO of a $300 Billion dollar international mega-corp, a corp with a long standing reputation for ruthless behavior, a corp which funded the entire scox-scam, a corp that is a convicted monopolist. When Ballmer makes a threat, it is fair to assume that threat will be taken seriously.

Even if msft has no grounds for a lawsuit, would you want to be sued my msft? Scox had absolutely no case what-so-ever, but they still cost msft many millions in legal fees. And gave msft nearly four years of FUD.

Make no mistake, msft wants the world to belive that linux is a legal mine field. It's pure fud, and it's working. Novell is now msft's bitch.

A lot of people use linux because they hate msft, so why use novl when other distros that embrace the foss philosophy are out there?

All JMHO, of course.

Reply Score: 2

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//What "theory" is that? That Linux is open? If msft wants interoperability so bad, then why didn't msft open the APIs to Samba? Why did msft fight that so hard in Europe? Why is msft so desperately fighting the ODF standard? Why doesn't msft publish the specs for NTFS? //

Spot on.

It is not that Linux lacks interoperability, but rather that Microsoft goes out of its way to deliberately prevent interoperability.

Reply Score: 2

IanSVT Member since:
2005-07-06

Make no mistake, msft wants the world to belive that linux is a legal mine field. It's pure fud, and it's working. Novell is now msft's bitch.

A lot of people use linux because they hate msft, so why use novl when other distros that embrace the foss philosophy are out there?


A lot of that FUD(I'm really starting to hate that acronym) is being generated by the "open source community". Microsoft, or specifically Balmer, said one negative thing about Linux and it was a piece of unsubstantiated BS which Novell denied. Just because Balmer is a billionaire, doesn't mean he's unable to make himself out to be a major boob. Whether or not Novell made the correct move in making this deal is ancillary but not directly a cause of the legal doubt. People like Bruce Perens and Pamela Jones have generated enough FUD to do Microsoft's job for them. Nothing like having your biggest opponents do all the damage for you.

Why use Novell? Well, because we're talking about business here, which was the crux of the whole deal. Novell has a variety of of proprietary products that you won't find any equal to on Gentoo, or Ubuntu, or Slack. And let's be serious about something here. Is IBM using Linux because of open source values? Same with Novell, or HP, or RedHat, or Canonical, or Sun? I'm willing to bet the answer is no all around. They're supporting open source software because it's the only economically viable way to fight Microsoft.

Reply Score: 2

walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

>>Balmer, said one negative thing about Linux and it was a piece of unsubstantiated BS which Novell denied.<<

Wrong. Ballmer *threatend* every linux user who does not use Novell. Yes, it's a big deal.

Besides, what are saying? Everything is cool because Ballmer probably would not really sue? That misses the entire point. It is the *threat* of the lawsuits that is the FUD. And Ballmer certainly threatened.

>> Whether or not Novell made the correct move in making this deal is ancillary but not directly a cause of the legal doubt.<<

Bullsh!t. Msft is just wrapping up pulling the exact same scam with scox. And you can be certain that Novell knows that, since novell is also being sued by scox as part of the same scam. Of course novell knew what msft was up to, what else would even make sense? Msft agrees not to sue novell, and only novell, so where does leave every other distro?

Novell very obviously wanted to be the seen as the only company that could legally distribute linux. Because only novell has msft's blessing. Caldera, and sunw, tried to pull the same scam.

>>
People like Bruce Perens and Pamela Jones have generated enough FUD to do Microsoft's job for them.
<<

Oh? Exactly what have they said, or implied, that was not true? Be specific.

>>
Why use Novell? Well, because we're talking about business here, which was the crux of the whole deal.
<<

Exactly, and novell is one business whose days are numbered. 1) Msft always screws their business partners. 2) Novell has betrayed, and made bitter enemies of the very people who provide them their product - paybacks are a bitch.

Now, let's be totally pragmatic about business: do you want a linux supplier who won't be able to supply you in the near future? Didn't think so, neither does anybody else.

Reply Score: 1

linux-it Member since:
2006-07-13

"Now, let's be totally pragmatic about business: do you want a linux supplier who won't be able to supply you in the near future? Didn't think so, neither does anybody else."

If Novell dies, do we still have linux?

I'd think so, just like anybody else....

Thanks for feeding the FUD troll..

Reply Score: 1

walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

>>If Novell dies, do we still have linux? <<

Do you still have novell's proprietary extensions? And isn't that what the msft/novl 5 year deal is all about? What happens after 5 years?

The time to move to a new linux distro is now. And if you are just getting started, make a good start, don't get mixed up in the novl/msft scam.

Reply Score: 0

IanSVT Member since:
2005-07-06

Novell very obviously wanted to be the seen as the only company that could legally distribute linux. Because only novell has msft's blessing. Caldera, and sunw, tried to pull the same scam.

Nothing but conjecture on your part. I could say that Novell would be fine with any other Linux company making a similar deal and that it was meant to increase potential and current customer uptake of Suse Linux. But that's conjecture on my part as well.

Oh? Exactly what have they said, or implied, that was not true? Be specific.

Perens: "Coming just as the SCO case is winding down, the timing is interesting. Novell is the new SCO."

Pamela Jones: "Well, if there are any Novell supporters left, here's something else to put in your pipe and smoke it. Novell is forking OpenOffice.org."

Dynamically linked modules are not a fork. Novell hasn't sued anyone and beyond that, Novell has some very good and useful products, something SCO doesn't have.

Exactly, and novell is one business whose days are numbered. 1) Msft always screws their business partners. 2) Novell has betrayed, and made bitter enemies of the very people who provide them their product - paybacks are a bitch.


Novell's days might be numbered. Time will tell. Microsoft does not always screw their business partners. Granted, it happens more than not. Also, it might come as a shock to you, but Novell's revenue streams aren't all based on open source offerings. In fact, those offerings are a minority of their revenue. They are trying to move that to a majority, but it's not there. The operating system, Suse Linux, is merely a platform to deliver their main money making products like GroupWise, ZenWorks, and IdentityManager.

Didn't think so, neither does anybody else.

You probably shouldn't talk for anyone else. I'm not sure what servers you're running, but I've got a few SLES boxes heating my server room right now and I don't have any plans on giving them the old flatten and reinstall with anything else. In fact, I plan on adding more Suse linux servers down the road to replace my aging NetWare boxes when OES2 comes out.

I guess the point is, there is concern about this deal. However, going off and using speculation as fact is irresponsible and potentially damaging, aka FUD.

Edited 2006-12-11 13:51

Reply Score: 2

walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

>>
Novell very obviously wanted to be the seen as the only company that could legally distribute linux. Because only novell has msft's blessing. Caldera, and sunw, tried to pull the same scam.

Nothing but conjecture on your part.
<<

It's the only thing that makes any sense.

>>
Oh? Exactly what have they said, or implied, that was not true? Be specific.

Perens: "Coming just as the SCO case is winding down, the timing is interesting. Novell is the new SCO."
<<

That statement is exactly accurate.

>>
Pamela Jones: "Well, if there are any Novell supporters left, here's something else to put in your pipe and smoke it. Novell is forking OpenOffice.org."
<<

Again, according to Miguel, that is correct.

>>
Dynamically linked modules are not a fork.
<<

According to Miguel, it's more than just a pluggin.

>>
Novell hasn't sued anyone
<<

Yet. And besides, the idea is fud the competitors in exchange for msft loot. It's the threat of litigation that is the fud.


>>
I guess the point is, there is concern about this deal. However, going off and using speculation as fact is irresponsible and potentially damaging, aka FUD.
<<

Okay. So give us the facts. What specific patents must be protected? Oh, that's right, msft/novl won't say. Wonder why not?

Please note: my "speculation" is based on a clear understanding of msft pattern of behavior.

Reply Score: 1

elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Whatever you think of the msft/novl deal, the fact remains that a lot of major Linux contributors are not happy about the deal, and plan to abandon novl.

A lot of major linux contributors work for Novell and contribute to openSuse, but aside from that, what exactly does that mean? What major contributors are planning to "abandon" Novell?

I found an article, just today, on groklaw, about Samba going to GPLv3. A lot of people think that openoffice should also abandon novl, because novl has effectively forked openoffice.


PJ set a new low with that little bit of sensationalism over Novell forking openoffice. Producing patches and add-on functionality and making them freely available to the community does not constitute a fork.

Besides which, OOo is not even GPL. It's LGPL, and it forms the basis for Sun's commercial Star Office product. Even if Sun decides not to accept the mods, which would be surprising since it would benefit Star office, they're still available to everyone else. Claims of forking are simply and utterly unfounded.

Samba going v3 impacts nothing, Novell and openSuse are still free to distribute it as is anyone else.

Future versions of Linux kernel may also be, at least in part, GPLv3.

You can't be a little bit pregnant. The kernel is staying at v2, even the FSF has accepted that.

Just some stuff to think about before committing to SuSE.

*sigh*

The problem is few people *are* thinking, they're simply adopting a herd mentality (or maybe a hurd mentality). The title of your post underscores that (gpl abandoning Suse, what exactly does that mean?) openSuse 10.2 is being very well received by reviewers, and it's an outstanding desktop in it's own right. It is also an entirely free distro with no non-free packages or components installed by default. If people choose to ignore openSuse on it's merits, that's their choice and that's their loss. Neither openSuse or their community will suffer for it, in fact they'll probably be better off.

Reply Score: 4

walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

>>PJ set a new low with that little bit of sensationalism over Novell forking openoffice.<<

I'm not sure PJ's article was sensationalist at all. Did you read the statement's by what-his-name from Ximian? He brags about Novell's OpenOffice having proprietary code all throughout the application. The OpenXML extensions are not just a plug-in.

>>Samba going v3 impacts nothing, Novell and openSuse are still free to distribute it as is anyone else.<<

Don't be so sure. Moglen now wants to frame the GPL to specifically exclude Novell, and any other such underhanded deals.

>>The problem is few people *are* thinking, they're simply adopting a herd mentality (or maybe a hurd mentality).<<

Wrong. Are you aware of the credentials of Moglen and RMS? Are you aware of msft's history, and well deserved reputation? Ever ask yourself why msft and novl are being so secretive and sneaky? For example: what specific code needs to protect by this deal? Msft and novl won't say.

Suse is not a very popular version of Linux. And from what I'm reading, Linux users seem to prefer distros that do not have sneaky underhanded deals with msft. Many of the Linux heavy-weights strongly disapprove of this, and they have the power to specifically isolate novl.

Just something to think about.

Reply Score: 3

grat Member since:
2006-02-02

I'm not sure PJ's article was sensationalist at all.

Other than redefining "Fork", you're right. Hardly any sensationalism.

Don't be so sure. Moglen now wants to frame the GPL to specifically exclude Novell, and any other such underhanded deals.

Which will kill commercial viability of GPLv3.

Wrong. Are you aware of the credentials of Moglen and RMS?

I'm aware that everyone was unimpressed by GPLv3 until this deal broke, Moglen made some mutterings about "See? This is why we need GPLv3!", and ever since he saw the actual documentation, his comments have essentially amounted to "We'll fix 'em!".

This deal was the absolute best thing that could have happened for the FSF, and they've capitalized on it beautifully.

Ever ask yourself why msft and novl are being so secretive and sneaky? For example: what specific code needs to protect by this deal? Msft and novl won't say.

Ballmer says "All your linux belong to us!", which has been given far more credibility than it should have, by the F/OSS community.

Novell says "No, Microsoft is wrong. There is no proprietary code in Linux that Microsoft has rights to."

You've made a lot of accusations, with nothing to back it up.

Please stop spreading the FSF's FUD.

Reply Score: 2

deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

Other than redefining "Fork", you're right. Hardly any sensationalism.
I think it may very well end up a fork. Novell may say "its alright to use this code, go ahead" yet other projects are going to look at it and wonderi f it is tainted or will be used against them later so they will pass and essentially it will be a fork.

Which will kill commercial viability of GPLv3.
SSSAAAWWWEEEETTTTT, that would be great IMO! There should be nothing commercial about the GPL. Any commercial interests should be required to accept a non-commercial license and to follow that non-commercial license if they want to benefit from it. GPL is power for the people - not the companies.

Reply Score: 1

grat Member since:
2006-02-02

SSSAAAWWWEEEETTTTT, that would be great IMO! There should be nothing commercial about the GPL. Any commercial interests should be required to accept a non-commercial license and to follow that non-commercial license if they want to benefit from it. GPL is power for the people - not the companies.

So, you don't actually want any GPL'd software to be commercially viable?

Go run HURD.

Reply Score: 3

linux-it Member since:
2006-07-13

indeed the GPL v3 will, if Moglen keeps this idea not take off at all. It would not be adpoted at the places where I work for. *that* is what customers say to me. Big customers (11.000+ workplaces). They are *waiting for such deals to happen, they need it to have it *working*. How bad could that be?

Again, you're feeding the FUD and Ballmer will thank you (not personally, but he will -- it is *exactly* what's good for him, it's what he wants and the community _and the FSF_ happily help Ballmer in getting there, How stupid can man be....

Reply Score: 1

elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

I'm not sure PJ's article was sensationalist at all. Did you read the statement's by what-his-name from Ximian? He brags about Novell's OpenOffice having proprietary code all throughout the application. The OpenXML extensions are not just a plug-in.

I assume you're talking about Miguel, he operates in a slightly different plane of reality when it comes to understanding the implications of encumbered code. I wouldn't consider his viewpoint authoritative.

The openXML extensions will be pure GPL code. By virtue of section 7 of the current GPL, Novell would not be able to distribute it under the GPL if it contains licensed technology that is not freely transferable.

From Justin Steinman at Novell:
...Today we announced new interoperability between OO-XML and OpenOffice.org. What Novell is doing, is we are working with Microsoft to write a 100% — let me stress that: a 100% — open source piece of code. We are going to write that code and we are going to roll it into the Novell version of OpenOffice.org that ships as part of Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop and we are going to contribute 100% of that code back to the open source community for inclusion in the OpenOffice.org mainline project (if the community decides that they want to include it). But, let me be perfectly clear, this is pure GPL code, like everything else we do with the Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop. We're picking what we think is the best of open source that's most relevant to our customers, and distributing it. If the community wants to adopt this OO-XML translator, we would welcome it and applaud it.

Andy Updegrove's take:

Although David didn't mention the continuing hostility of some in the FOSS community to Novell's recent action (the Register.com quotes Bruce Perens calling Novell "the new SCO"), I expect that Steinman's comments are as much in answer to those criticisms as to David's question. Be that as it may, this is solid confirmation that Novell plans to contribute untainted code to OOo. It will be interesting to see whether that project decides to use it, or whether it has something else in the works that it will prefer to use in preference.

If PJ's buddy Andy, an attorney, doesn't see implications with the code, I'm pretty comfortable with that.

Don't be so sure. Moglen now wants to frame the GPL to specifically exclude Novell, and any other such underhanded deals.

Which will effectively eliminate the ability for companies like IBM or Intel to develop and distribute GPL software as well. There's no way they can single out the Novell agreement without impacting all commercial organizations that engage in cross-licensing deals. The community will quickly discover just how important commercial collaboration has been on vital OSS projects, including GNU, once that support and development is focused into forked v2 versions. I wouldn't put it past RMS to take that step, but even Moglen will see that as throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Wrong. Are you aware of the credentials of Moglen and RMS? Are you aware of msft's history, and well deserved reputation? Ever ask yourself why msft and novl are being so secretive and sneaky? For example: what specific code needs to protect by this deal? Msft and novl won't say.

Not a single point you've made is relevant; instead, let's look at what is: Novell has stated on the record that the agreement does not concern patent attributable code in any GPL software. MS, despite their best efforts to the contrary, has not been able to refute that.

That is the only relevant fact that the FSF community needs to concern themselves with. Yes, MS and Novell entered an agreement together and no, it does not directly relate to GPL licensed software. Moglen, BTW, had access to the documentation under NDA and he confirmed there's nothing implying GPL violations in the agreement.

What business does the community have demanding that MS and Novell be forthcoming about the terms on the contract? They co-operated with Moglen, which was more than they were obligated to do. The GPL issue has been addressed, move on. There are other proprietary licensed technologies that Novell and Microsoft sell under a non-GPL license that could be covered under the agreement.

Having said that, I do think Novell is unwise partnering with Microsoft in this manner, because frankly I agree that Microsoft eats it's partners the first chance it gets. But that's just a bad business decision on Novell's part (hardly their first), from the community's POV it has no impact on linux or FLOSS.

Suse is not a very popular version of Linux. And from what I'm reading, Linux users seem to prefer distros that do not have sneaky underhanded deals with msft. Many of the Linux heavy-weights strongly disapprove of this, and they have the power to specifically isolate novl.

Er, Suse is the #2 commercial distro. It has an established paying user base. It is one of only two versions of linux supported by the largest linux companies and hardware vendors.

Judging from the loads on the servers since release and the new users popping up in the forums, I don't think Suse is losing anything. But I guess we'll see.

And you keep talking about the heavyweights pulling their support for Novell. Who? What? How? What does this mean? Who gets to decide what Novell does other than Novell?

Who are the linux "heavyweights"?

IBM? HP? They have no problem with the agreement. They sell Suse. They're quite happy with it. Intel? SGI? Who among the commercial linux developers is pulling support for Novell? Or do the companies actually bankrolling linux R&D, and using their own patents to protect it, not count?

Oh, right, Red Hat. Novell's largest competitor. They've been battling Suse since before this agreement, AIGLX vs XGL, selinux vs AppArmor etc. I don't think this will change anything.

Linus and the kernel developers? Are they pulling their support for Novell? I mean, the ones that don't already work for Novell?

So who are the "heavyweights"? You're not simply talking about RMS and PJ are you?

Just something to think about.

There's many things to think about...

Reply Score: 5

walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

>>
Which will effectively eliminate the ability for companies like IBM or Intel to develop and distribute GPL software as well.
<<

WTF? How do you figure? Novell is effectively trying to take exclusive control of a public resource, how is IBM trying to do that? Novell is telling the world that only Novell's Linux distro is legal, use any other distro, and Ballmer can sue you. Where is IBM saying that? What cross-license linux deal is IBM involved in, that is similiar to the novl/msft deal?


>>
There's no way they can single out the Novell agreement without impacting all commercial organizations that engage in cross-licensing deals.
<<

Please give an example of such a deal that you consider
similar to the msft/novl deal

>>
Not a single point you've made is relevant; instead, let's look at what is: Novell has stated on the record that the agreement does not concern patent attributable code in any GPL software. MS, despite their best efforts to the contrary, has not been able to refute that.
<<

The deal is obviously about patents "on the record" novell is now back-peddling. But the facts speak for themselves.

>>
Yes, MS and Novell entered an agreement together and no, it does not directly relate to GPL licensed software. Moglen, BTW, had access to the documentation under NDA and he confirmed there's nothing implying GPL violations in the agreement.
<<

Last time I checked, Linux was GPL software. How could the deal not apply to GPL'd software?

>>
What business does the community have demanding that MS and Novell be forthcoming about the terms on the contract?
<<

Because msft is threating the commuinity with lawsuits, and because novell is trying to steal linux from the community? If I'm wrong about that, then what's the reaon for the big secret?

>>
Er, Suse is the #2 commercial distro. It has an established paying user base. It is one of only two versions of linux supported by the largest linux companies and hardware vendors.
<<

But most Linux users don't use a commercial distro. And SuSE is a distant 2nd place to Redhat.

>>
Who are the linux "heavyweights"?
<<

Moglen and RMS, not sure if PJ would qualify - although she does have some influence.

>>IBM? HP? They have no problem with the agreement. They sell Suse. They're quite happy with it.<<

They have not spoken out against publically. It would be bad PR, since they have already sold SuSE. But, I am not sure that they are "quite happy with it."

Reply Score: 1

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//What major contributors are planning to "abandon" Novell?//

I don't know if "abandon Novell" is the right way to phrase it, but the facts are that Samba and all of GNU (at the very minimum) are certain to use the GPL version 3 when it is ready. There is a possibility the Sun will move Java to the GPL v3 and possibly make Solaris available under GPL v 3 as well.

GPL v 3 will have clauses to make it clear that patent deals such as Microsoft/Novell which cover one set of GPL software users but not all will be violations of the GPL v 3 license.

That means that Novell will be cut off (for as long as they have a deal in place which protects only their users but not other users for the same software)from all future versions (after the introduction of GPL v 3) of all of the following software:

Samba
All GNU packages: http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/
(which includes bash, binutils, coreutils, gcc, fontutils, freefont, GIMP, GNOME, ghostscript, GRUB, parted, GnuPG, ncurses and many many more of lesser importance).

That lot of software is easily sufficient to scuttle SuSe without it, and SuSe will no longer be able to use any updated versions of any of these after GPL3 comes into effect (as long as Novells deal with Microsoft remains in place).

That will "cut of SuSe's air supply". SuSe could fork all of the GPL2 versions of these packages and carry on from there, but they will not have a sufficient developer resource to maintain it all properly. SuSe forks will "get stuck" at the current versions.

Reply Score: 2

and
by deanlinkous on Sun 10th Dec 2006 19:30 UTC
deanlinkous
Member since:
2006-06-19

Where exactly does that leave a suse user in five years? Staring down a barrel of a gun with ballmer and his goofy smile at the business end of it...

No thanks. Pass.

Reply Score: 4

RE: and
by grat on Sun 10th Dec 2006 20:29 UTC in reply to "and"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

Where exactly does that leave a suse user in five years? Staring down a barrel of a gun with ballmer and his goofy smile at the business end of it...

No, in five years, it leaves the entire open source community staring at that gun.

For the next 5 years, a subset of that community has something vaguely resembling an offer to not sue.

Pretending Novell is in league with the devil does nothing to address potential IP concerns in Linux. The Novell deal does nothing to address this.

I don't think Microsoft is stupid enough to sue over vague and nebulous IP claims-- they've seen SCO get raked over the coals for that tactic.

No thanks. Pass.

Pass what? FUD? C'mon... Let's see some *proof* of wrongdoing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: and
by deanlinkous on Sun 10th Dec 2006 20:47 UTC in reply to "RE: and"
deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

Let's see some *proof* of wrongdoing.
Exactly! Lets see some of this proof that linux violates some vague idea that MS paid to get a patent on. Where is this proof?

No in five years MS knows who (corporate customer)is using novell/suse and will know exactly who to go after.

Oh, and i am not pretending they really are in league with the devil. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: and
by grat on Sun 10th Dec 2006 21:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: and"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

Exactly! Lets see some of this proof that linux violates some vague idea that MS paid to get a patent on. Where is this proof?

I agree 100% with you. Instead of saying "See! This proves Novell sold us out!", the community should be saying "Prove it, or shut the $@%% up."

Because if Linux doesn't violate anyone's IP, then a covenant not to sue is completely irrelevant to ALL linux users-- Novell's, Red Hat's, Canonical's, even Oracle's customers (Both of them).

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: and
by deanlinkous on Sun 10th Dec 2006 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: and"
deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

Instead of saying "See! This proves Novell sold us out!", the community should be saying "Prove it, or shut the $@%% up."
Well novell is the one sitting with the MS money, so whether MS actually puts up or shuts up is irrelevant to the fact that novell sold us out - novell got the money and MS has a major linux player taht they can hold up as being a "safe" choice for patents so...sell out!

We can say, prove it or shut up but we all know that isn't the game MS wants to play. They paid novell to play the game and novell (knowingly or unknowingly) played ball with them. sell out...

Edited 2006-12-10 22:06

Reply Score: 3

My Mini Review
by oxleyn on Sun 10th Dec 2006 21:27 UTC
oxleyn
Member since:
2005-10-04

Well I've tried both the KDE and Gnome desktops out now with OpenSuSE 10.2 and am fairly impressed by SuSE/Novell's work with areas such as the start menu etc. Hardware detection on my Latitude D620 was faultless although whilst the installation correctly detected my screen resolution it forgot to configure 915resolution for it! Doh!

However, why do they still insist on installing LOADS of apps during the installation? What's wrong with a single CD installation as opposed to the more bloated DVD-based install?

The net result for me at least is still a feeling of a slower Linux distro. I wasn't at all impressed with Kerry Beagle thrashing away after my first logon and making my laptop unusable for almost 10 minutes. Shame really because it does look pretty damn good on the surface.

Reply Score: 1

RE: My Mini Review
by grat on Sun 10th Dec 2006 21:35 UTC in reply to "My Mini Review"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

The net result for me at least is still a feeling of a slower Linux distro. I wasn't at all impressed with Kerry Beagle thrashing away after my first logon and making my laptop unusable for almost 10 minutes. Shame really because it does look pretty damn good on the surface.

Aww, man... Here you go, putting the conversation back on track.

Beagle thrashing my system to oblivion and back was one of my major complaints about 10.1. It's depressing that it's still doing it.

On my office machine, I basically had to log in, and then do nothing for the first 10 or so minutes every morning while Beagle and ZMD ran. Add to that Evolution Exchange 2.6 being buggy, and I finally had to switch to Kubuntu. I was hoping to go back to SuSE on 10.2, but it looks like I'll have to do some serious evaluating still.

Reply Score: 1

uh
by deanlinkous on Sun 10th Dec 2006 22:01 UTC
deanlinkous
Member since:
2006-06-19

I have always found those whiz-bang apps to slow me and my system down rather than help me work so I prefer lean and mean system and pick and choose what will help and wont help me get stuff done.

Reply Score: 2

It's great
by sultanqasim on Mon 11th Dec 2006 00:39 UTC
sultanqasim
Member since:
2006-10-28

I like SUSE 10.2 a lot because it is full featured, beautiful and not just made of generic GNOME/KDE. I am posting this comment running it on my Apple iBook G4; it runs great on it, even my wireless mighty mouse works! I like it's new menuing system a lot. Just a warning to users switching to SUSE, with 10.2, you should probably select GNOME because it is better integrated into the system and hes an even better main menu and app browser etc. Only one complaint: fix airport extreme wirless so I don't need to be plugged in all the time but that is OK since they are still catching up in mac support. I think this is the best distro around; a bit bloated but still better than ubuntu unless you have an old computer ;) . No wonder it has now exceeded ubuntu and is in first place in distrowatch 7 days.

Reply Score: 1