Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th Apr 2011 22:06 UTC, submitted by sjvn
SuSE, openSUSE Attachmate now owns Novell and therefore, by extension, also owns SUSE and openSUSE. With Oracle currently doing everything in its power to thoroughly destroy what's left of Sun's open source commitments, scepticism abound about the future of SUSE, and more specifically of openSUSE. Attachmate's CEO has answered some questions about the future of SUSE and openSUSE, and as far as words go, it's looking good.
Thread beginning with comment 471439
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
It's all about management
by Moredhas on Sat 30th Apr 2011 07:07 UTC
Moredhas
Member since:
2008-04-10

In the right hands, any small project can flourish. In the wrong hands, even Microsoft could disappear virtually overnight. Played correctly, SuSE could replace Ubuntu as the entry level distro (when I started using Linux, it was in fact recommended to me over Ubuntu, which at the time was 5.04, Hoary Hedgehog or Warty Warthog, I forget which). Played correctly, it can serve the higher level users at the same time.

With Canonical too busy telling users what they want, rather than asking, Attachmate could find themselves with a lot of new users. Exactly what value this would be to them, how they want to monetize, I don't know, but there's definitely potential for becoming the dominant entry-level distro; and increasingly, people aren't leaving the entry-level behind. They get comfortable there. I'd personally like them to utilise some of the good work done on Plasma and release a good tablet build of SuSE alongside their desktop offerings. Even if only a handful of people use it now, it's a growing market, and will be increasingly important in the coming years. A strong focus on feature parity between x86 and ARM will be important, too, I think. With Windows 8 being able to run on ARM processors, we'll probably see a lot of ARM netbooks, tablets, and even light desktops out in the world, and from my brief (by no means thorough) Googling, ARM can be a pain in the ass for Linux users.

Reply Score: 5

RE: It's all about management
by Neolander on Sat 30th Apr 2011 08:29 in reply to "It's all about management"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

from my brief (by no means thorough) Googling, ARM can be a pain in the ass for Linux users.

I'm interested to know what problems exactly linux on ARM encounters. I suspect that it has to do with the much more proprietary hardware ecosystem, but am a lot more interested in what actually happens than what I think happens ;)

Edited 2011-04-30 08:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: It's all about management
by Radio on Sat 30th Apr 2011 10:13 in reply to "RE: It's all about management"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Lack of optimisation, because each ARM vendor makes his variant of the base design they licence from ARM. Texas Instruments opens well its OMAP variant, but nVidia is far slower and less open.

Add on that the fact there is a far larger variety of hardware on the ARM plaform (wifi and graphical chipsets, touchscreen, accelerometer, camera, and bootloader - chen it is not locked), and the net result is so much fragmentation and target hardware so small that we are largely dependent on the vendor to get enough code and data to adapt a functional linux.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: It's all about management
by pantheraleo on Sun 1st May 2011 00:58 in reply to "It's all about management"
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

With Canonical too busy telling users what they want, rather than asking, Attachmate could find themselves with a lot of new users.


I don't see Canonical as being competition to Attachmate. Novell basically had four main competitors: Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, and Red Hat. Of these five vendors, Novell was probably the weakest because they are the furthest from being able to provide a full stack solution. By that, I mean they are the furthest from being be able to provide a single vendor point of contact for support.

In the open source world, we often like to tout freedom of choice as one of the benefits. However, if you are running a mission critical application that you need vendor support for, building different parts of your stack on software provided by different vendors can get dicey when it comes to support. If something breaks in your data access layer for example, who's problem is it? The database vendor's? The application server vendor's? The ORM framework vendor's? If your entire stack is from one vendor, there can be no ambiguity about who's problem it is when something goes wrong, and who is responsible for supporting it.

Of the five vendors I mentioned above, currently, only Microsoft, Oracle, and IBM are capable of providing a full stack:

Microsoft has .NET, MS SQL Server, IIS, and Windows Server 2008. Oracle, thanks to the Sun purchase, has two Java EE application servers, (Glassfish and WebLogic), Oracle and MySQL databases, and Solaris. IBM has AIX, a Java EE application server (WebSphere), and the DB2 database.

RedHat comes close, in that they provide a supported OS and a Java EE application server (JBoss). But they need to buy up a database vendor. Red Hat should have bought MySQL, but in the past they have been hesitant to provide their own database because they wanted to appear database vendor neutral. But now that Oracle owns Sun, that's not going to fly anymore. Oracle is obviously going to push the Solaris / Oracle combo, and discourage the Linux / Oracle combo.

And then we have SUSE, which is sort of left without any kind of stack at all.

Alas, it is too bad that VMWare didn't buy Novell. That would have raised some eyebrows and probably caused a little bit of nervousness at Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, and Red Hat. A VMWare purchase of Novell would have been very interesting indeed.

Edited 2011-05-01 01:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: It's all about management
by twitterfire on Mon 2nd May 2011 15:09 in reply to "It's all about management"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

How can you make money by from making desktop Linux distributions, good Sir?

Red Hat makes money by selling support for their server distro, and if Canonical will ever make a buck, that will be because they followed Red Hat steps and released a server version of their distro.

Reply Parent Score: 2