Open SLES?

English Soapbox
#1

What got me thinking about this was a blog post from Dag Wieers, recently of the CentOS team.

Why is there no Open Source SLES ? | Field Commander Wieers

The discussion has actually been running for a couple of years now. One of the later comments points out that this very suggestion was raised for Opensuse 11.2, and it was (correctly, in fairness) rejected. (I say “correctly” because I don’t think there should be a plan to “convert” OpenSuse into an open version of the Enterprise Suse.)

However, I think Novell is missing a big opportunity here. Red Hat is the proof. There are three tiers (if you want to call them that) of their product available:

Fedora – community, completely free distro targeted to desktops (serves as a test-bed for the enterprise stuff, too)

Clones of RHEL such as CentOS and Scientific Linux – which fill a unique need that I’ll mention below.

The Enterprise, pay-for-support product, RHEL.

When distros like CentOS appeared, some in the community said, “wow, that’s going to hurt Red Hat. Who will pay for their Enterprise product when you can get basically the same thing from Cent for free?” In fact, Red Hat’s sales to enterprises are doing just great.

How can this be? Because yes, those of us in smaller enterprises often download and use these “free” variants. With our budgets, we don’t have a choice. BUT … and this is key! … when we reach a position where we DO want support, let’s take a look at this:

  1. I have a server farm filled with CentOS. I’ve gotten used to its crotchets, I’ve learned how to make it work, and I am loathe to change now – regardless of how good the alternative might be.

  2. SO … I opt for RHEL. I’m getting exactly what I’m familiar with, all of the widgets and apps and configurators that I’ve built over the years work exactly as expected, and I get the best of both worlds.

Again, this is not speculation. The fact that Red Hat’s sales of their enterprise products continue to lead the whole industry is all you need to look at.

Here’s a perfect example: we have a firewall machine in Denver that’s running Opensuse 10.3, which is getting ready to EOL. I have to remotely administer this machine from Birmingham, so I can’t install or upgrade myself. I like (love!!) Yast, but in this case, I’m going to build the replacement server with CentOS and ship it out there, ready to plug-and-play. I’ll just put up with Webmin for configuration.

Why? Because with Suse, I have two choices:

  1. Pay up front for the Enterprise product, but as I said above, that’s not an option for us – NOW. It will be in the future.

  2. Use OpenSuse, but I’ll be forced to upgrade the thing about every 18 months. That’s unacceptable. The life of the hardware is 4-5 years, I need a server operating system that will be supported with updates for at least that long. I don’t want to go through this again in 2011.

In sum, and to repeat: I think Novell is really, really missing an opportunity here. They should make ALL source (including updates) for Suse Enterprise freely available. Yes, this means that CentOS-like “clones” of their enterprise edition will appear, but they’ll still end up ahead, because more businesses like ours will use the clone, then move up to the enterprise-supported product.

Just my opinion, but I really believe this.

#2

+1

I’m with you on this.

#3

There’s a thread on the mailing list about this at the moment.
[opensuse-project] Creating a group of conserned Users and Novell partne](http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2009-08/msg00511.html)

Which has led to this
OpenSLE Info Page

From the sounds of things it just needs a community to get behind it, though as has been mentioned no one wants to talk about the sles/sled patches which afaik aren’t accessible without a subscription.

As the mailing list is still in its early days I guess only time will tell how they manage this, and whether it goes further.

#4

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 02:56:01 +0000, FeatherMonkey wrote:

> As the mailing list is still in its early days I guess only time will
> tell how they manage this, and whether it goes further.

Yep. Personally, I think spending time on a name at this stage is a
little premature, they should first focus on what the goals of the
project are, then figure out a naming strategy. But I don’t have the
time to invest in that as well. :slight_smile:

Jim

–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Moderator

#5

And this could be the LTS Suse after the mourning because of the shortened support of openSUSE;) And i don’t think it will have bad influence on SLE. Maybe it could even has good influence on the sales as smpoole7 points. But i’ll stop here because i really don’t use any OS for that long. I like to update every time there is new release:P

#6

And some of the comments in that thread underscore the disconnect – simply put, the failure to understand what open source is and how it works. For example, one person complained that he saw no need for an “interim” (in the Fedora → Centos → RHEL, or in this case, OpenSuse → “OpenSEL” → SEL) product, because it would be “more work” (or something like that, I’m going from memory.

This is important, and often overlooked: Red Hat has no objection to CentOS. In fact, the CentOS guys and the developers at Red Hat swap bug fixes and ideas. This is how open source works. If done right, the “OpenSEL” (or whatever they end up calling it) would NOT be a drain on Novell in any way, because the community would maintain it. In fact, it would be a bonus for Novell – the whole secret to open source, the “bazaar” approach, as it were, is that you literally have millions of potential developers improving your product, instead of a few!! Can’t they see this? Sigh.

Once again: if I’m running “OpenSEL” and eventually reach the point that I need commercial support, I can simply call Novell and say, “OK, time to go with SEL. Here’s my credit card number.” It’s a seamless, painless migration.

BUT … and this is what they miss … IF I am running CentOS, and I’ve spent two years tweaking scripts and applications for it, I’m going to go with RHEL. It’s just that simple.

Novell: there is a REASON why Red Hat continues to lead. CentOS is NOT a drain on Red Hat, it’s one of the reasons WHY they continue to lead in Enterprise Linux. And I would point out, mind, that Novell has been around a lot longer than Red Hat, and (at least at one time) is (was) arguably a much larger company.

#7

I play around and change on my personal machine all the time as well. (Especially since I discovered VirtualBox – I installed Slackware 12.2 last night just to see what it looked like. :slight_smile: )

We’re speaking primarily of enterprise servers here. Very few people use CentOS for desktops, either. A server like this will need to run 24/7 with as little down time as possible.

Just scheduling down time to upgrade the distro is a major undertaking in some cases – which is why something like OpenSuse (especially since they reduced the update period to about 18 months) has become unsuitable.

So, to repeat The Declaration™(r)(c)(sm): I’ll use CentOS for these servers. When time comes to go with commercial support, I’ll go with RHEL. Novell will have lost those sales.

#8

Many of the people on that list (and otherwise) are so disconnected from reality it’s just downright scary - one of the reasons I’ve never gotten involved with most of them.

I think what Boyd is doing is great and I wish him the best in his endeavors.

#9

FWIW, I complained about the need for an LTS/OpenSLES equivalent a long
while back and I was met with outright hostility. I hope you have
better luck with the argument.

#10

On Sat, 2009-09-05 at 17:46 +0000, smpoole7 wrote:
snip…
> However, I think Novell is missing a big opportunity here. Red Hat is
> the proof. There are three tiers (if you want to call them that) of
> their product available:
>
> Fedora – community, completely free distro targeted to desktops
> (serves as a test-bed for the enterprise stuff, too)
>
> Clones of RHEL such as CentOS and Scientific Linux – which fill a
> unique need that I’ll mention below.
>
> The Enterprise, pay-for-support product, RHEL.
>
> When distros like CentOS appeared, some in the community said, “wow,
> that’s going to hurt Red Hat. Who will pay for their Enterprise product
> when you can get basically the same thing from Cent for free?” In fact,
> Red Hat’s sales to enterprises are doing just great.

Are you SURE about that? I mean, that’s certainly the P.C. thing to say
and certainly what Red Hat wants everyone to say, but is it true?

Also, CentOS has become a stumbling block for many because of its
inconsistencies with RHEL proper. Especially over the past year.
CentOS is no longer a trustworthy “free” RHEL clone (mostly due to some
stagnation… supposedly resolved now).

Is SLES free? Yes. Anyone can download and install SLES today. What
you do not have is a free updater service that tries to mimic what
Novell provides. But if you simply want to test against SLES10 SP2 (for
example), anyone can download that today. And it’s not the abitrarily
restricted thing that Red Hat provides.

>
> How can this be? Because yes, those of us in smaller enterprises often
> download and use these “free” variants. With our budgets, we don’t have
> a choice. BUT … and this is key! … when we reach a position where we
> DO want support, let’s take a look at this:
>
> 1. I have a server farm filled with CentOS. I’ve gotten used to its
> crotchets, I’ve learned how to make it work, and I am loathe to change
> now – regardless of how good the alternative might be.

Then don’t change.

>
> 2. SO … I opt for RHEL. I’m getting exactly what I’m familiar with,
> all of the widgets and apps and configurators that I’ve built over the
> years work exactly as expected, and I get the best of both worlds.

Very true. You opted for CentOS instead of a freely available
enterprise distro for eval. And yes, ideally, it’s not supposed to be
hard to upgrade. However, if you had, for example, installed SLES 10
SP2 (for free), getting on support (you have to admit) would be even
easier than blowing everything away and installing RHEL. True?

You can always to the eval which has 60 days of update support. update
and you’ll have at least for 60 days, EXACTLY what you get with an
enterprise subscription. Should is be longer than 60 days? Maybe that
would be something that Novell should consider. 60 days isn’t all that
long. I’d opt for 90 days and provide a mechanism for a longer eval…
but you know, I BET the Novell guys would renew the eval if you asked
them based on your need for your own evaluation time period.

>
> Again, this is not speculation. The fact that Red Hat’s sales of their
> enterprise products continue to lead the whole industry is all you need
> to look at.

??? I guess, I’m just not politically correct… Red Hat’s “enterprise
sales” got quite a boost from their JBoss deals. Again, are you sure
that Red Hat’s RHEL growth is still keeping pace? What is Red Hat’s
quarter to quarter RHEL growth like (percentage wise) vs. Novell SLES?

Just something to think about…

Is Red Hat the (or at least perceived as the) market leader for
enterprise Linux? Yes. Is RHEL adoption growing faster than SLES?
Maybe not.

>
> Here’s a perfect example: we have a firewall machine in Denver that’s
> running Opensuse 10.3, which is getting ready to EOL. I have to remotely

A CONSUMER distro like Fedora. Suffers from the EXACT same issues as
Fedora…

> administer this machine from Birmingham, so I can’t install or upgrade
> myself. I like (love!!) Yast, but in this case, I’m going to build the
> replacement server with CentOS and ship it out there, ready to
> plug-and-play. I’ll just put up with Webmin for configuration.
>
> Why? Because with Suse, I have two choices:
>
> 1. Pay up front for the Enterprise product, but as I said above, that’s
> not an option for us – NOW. It will be in the future.

Ditto for Red Hat.

>
> 2. Use OpenSuse, but I’ll be forced to upgrade the thing about every 18
> months. That’s unacceptable. The life of the hardware is 4-5 years, I
> need a server operating system that will be supported with updates for
> at least that long. I don’t want to go through this again in 2011.

I agree. If you want long term support but are UNSURE if you want to
commit, you could always try out SLES 10 SP2 and then later purchase
support when satisified that it works well. I’m pretty sure there may
be ways to get at the patches in a less than convenient way for SLES 10
also… but it’s probably wise to pay the one that owns the hand that
feeds you.

>
> In sum, and to repeat: I think Novell is really, really missing an
> opportunity here. They should make ALL source (including updates) for
> Suse Enterprise freely available. Yes, this means that CentOS-like
> “clones” of their enterprise edition will appear, but they’ll still end
> up ahead, because more businesses like ours will use the clone, then
> move up to the enterprise-supported product.

NOTHING is preventing YOU from starting up a CentOS like clone of SLES.
You do understand that it requires work though? What happens when the
SlentOS maintainer gets tired, gets sick or just decides to give up??

CentOS use the Red Hat support team to provide them their work which
they compile and package in a Red Hat-like way. Similar to Red Hat,
they need funding to do what they do. The rely on companies for support
in the way of funding (instead of that funding going to the the ones
that made the changes to base they use) and donations of servers and
bandwidth.

Think of CentOS as one of the many Debian forks… with one exception,
their goal to is to NOT greatly deviate from the base.

So whereas Ubuntu (for example) mainly uses Debian as their base…
unlike CentOS, Ubuntu does more config and application development that
deviates from the base. Also, unlike CentOS+Red Hat, it’s a bit easier
for Debian to utilize/change their base based on things they like from
Ubuntu (you could think of Ubuntu as a poorly done Fedora, poorly only
because Ubuntu doesn’t contribute across all areas well yet).

Red Hat’s quandry is that it’s primary “change” feed is supposed to be
Fedora, much like openSUSE serves as a playground for interesting change
possibilities for future SLES. So, does Red Hat recieve changes from
CentOS?.. maybe, but unlikely since their goal is to utilize Red Hat’s
base and changes and not really give back the other direction. Ubuntu
at one time was accused to doing similar things, but the difference was
that Ubuntu did actually make some app and config changes.

To quote CentOS, “CentOS mainly changes packages to remove upstream
vendor branding and artwork”. And certainly the same COULD be done with
SLES… the question is… will YOU be willing to do/start this?

>
> Just my opinion, but I really believe this.

If you believe in it… consider being the one to create SlentOS :slight_smile:

But creating, maintaining, supporting and sustaining a CentOS-like
project is DIFFICULT and expensive… takes a lot of dedication and
monetary support.

Really, I’m not totally against the idea… just not sure if it’s really
necessary, and I’m not totally convinced that converting from CentOS to
RHEL is the best way vs just installing RHEL and moving to a supported
path later on.

#11

By the way, you keep using that term, “PC,” when I assure you, I am the least politically-correct person you’ll ever meet. Nor have I ever been swayed by fluff sheets from marketroids. Dag supposedly based that argument on hard sales figures. Ask him where he got them; I don’t know. But it’s generally accepted that RHEL is by far the top seller … and NOT just because of JBoss. :sarcastic:

Also, CentOS has become a stumbling block for many because of its inconsistencies with RHEL proper …

A few hard examples, please. For the usage I have in mind – a small to medium-sized enterprise doing typical SME things – CentOS provides an enterprise-class OS, with update suport. If you’re referring to the brouhaha over the project leader “disappearing,” that has been resolved.

You also fail to mention that CentOS isn’t the only RHEL-based enterprise system. Scientific Linux is another (which I mentioned in MY post).

Is SLES free? Yes. Anyone can download and install SLES today. What you do not have is a free updater service

Indeed. And when I speak of Novell “opening” SEL, that’s exactly what I’m speaking of: opening the update repositories. Just as Red Hat does (SRPMs, at least).

Then don’t change.

I won’t. I haven’t. And the odds of Suse Enterprise ever getting a nickel of my money are quite small as a result. Erm … that was essentially my point, Feybana. :slight_smile:

Very true. You opted for CentOS instead of a freely available enterprise distro for eval.

You said that more than once, so I guess you really believe that this is an option. The key word is, “eval.” However, a more typical scenario for a SME goes like this:

  1. PHP says, “let’s do a Web server.” Because I’m experienced enough to know better, I’m not about to build the thing on a community-type OS, because I’ll just have to upgrade it in a year or two, with attendant headaches.

  2. So … I decide to find a “free” Enterprise-class operating system. CentOS or Scientific Linux are two excellent choices. I build my server … I spend a YEAR tweaking and building (no, 60 days is NOT enough) … and I’m happy with it.

  3. NOW I go to PHP and say, “Web server completed, running fine. But we need a supported OS.” At this point, SEL doesn’t even enter my radar envelope. I’m not ABOUT to redo all of that hard work. Ergo, RHEL gets the check.

A CONSUMER distro like Fedora. Suffers from the EXACT same issues…

Instead of “consumer,” say, “community,” and you actually agree with me. That was something else I made quite clear above.

As for me starting a CentOS like clone of SEL, of course I could do that – in theory. But the first step would be for Novell to completely open all source, including updates. That’s in keeping with the open source philosophy … … . (dang, are you gonna fling that “politically correct” thingie at me again for saying that?) … . .lol!

#12

In principle all you need to do is buy a subscription and you are entitled to download the sources to the F/OSS. What’s more likely to be an issue is the branding. Certainly Novell will not allow any confusion in branding. It won’t be allowed to use the SUSE name in any way, just like CentOS has to keep referring to a Prominent North American Linux Vendor instead of the open secret that everybody knows. The branding, or rather removal thereof, has to be negotiated. But where the sources are concerned, I don’t think the ball is in Novell’s court here.

As for the points cited in the too-hard basket, well I’m sure the founders of CentOS, Scientific, and White Box Linux (which is now a footnote in history) went through the same process. It really needs a determined group of people to see it through, rather than expecting Novell to do something (why would they?). But sorry, I’m not such a person as to lead. But if some group starts the process, I would chip in effort if feasible.

#13

Buy a subscription to SLES, remove all branding, call it “InYourFace” and distribute the patches as they come from upstream.

Problem solved.

#14

On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 01:46 +0000, smpoole7 wrote:
> cjcox;2037400 Wrote:
> >
> > Are you SURE about that? I mean, that’s certainly the P.C. thing to
> > say and certainly what Red Hat wants everyone to say, but is it true?
> >
>
> By the way, you keep using that term, “PC,” when I assure you, I am the
> least politically-correct person you’ll ever meet. Nor have I ever been
> swayed by fluff sheets from marketroids. Dag supposedly based that
> argument on hard sales figures. Ask him where he got them; I don’t know.
> But it’s generally accepted that RHEL is by far the top seller … and
> NOT just because of JBoss. :sarcastic:

Red Hat = P.C. Linux distro
Yes? Well… from my viewpoint anyhow.

>
> >
> > Also, CentOS has become a stumbling block for many because of its
> > inconsistencies with RHEL proper …
> >
>
> A few hard examples, please. For the usage I have in mind – a small to
> medium-sized enterprise doing typical SME things – CentOS provides an
> enterprise-class OS, with update suport. If you’re referring to the
> brouhaha over the project leader “disappearing,” that has been
> resolved.

Very true… and I did mention that. I guess that didn’t shake anyone
up? I think it did.

>
> You also fail to mention that CentOS isn’t the only RHEL-based
> enterprise system. Scientific Linux is another (which I mentioned in MY
> post).

True, I didn’t list those… which just muddy the waters even more.
You’re making a point I know… just not sure what the point is…

This IS the openSUSE forum… not the Red Hat rah rah forum or CentOS
forum or Fedora forum.

>
> >
> > Is SLES free? Yes. Anyone can download and install SLES today. What
> > you do not have is a free updater service
> >
>
> Indeed. And when I speak of Novell “opening” SEL, that’s exactly what
> I’m speaking of: opening the update repositories. Just as Red Hat does
> (SRPMs, at least).

I believe you can get the source patches… as well… but through their
clunky web download http://download.novell.com (select SLES and the
version and go to My Downloads).

It’s possible that the access there expires with the eval… not sure.
It’s actually even more difficult to get at the source rpms… which is
weird.

If so… then you are right about getting the update source rpms for
free. I think it is an issue against Novell.

>
>
> >
> > Then don’t change.
> >
>
> I won’t. I haven’t. And the odds of Suse Enterprise ever getting a
> nickel of my money are quite small as a result. Erm … that was
> essentially my point, Feybana. :slight_smile:

:slight_smile: Again… not sure of the point. You want Enterprise Support without
paying for it? You believe that’s CentOS… there you go, yet you
really NEED pay CentOS somehow, or they’ll cease to exist. But they
don’t really do anything except steal what Red Hat did, clean it up and
package it up… yet still, even that DOES cost money.

>
> >
> > Very true. You opted for CentOS instead of a freely available
> > enterprise distro for eval.
> >
>
> You said that more than once, so I guess you really believe that this
> is an option. The key word is, “eval.” However, a more typical scenario
> for a SME goes like this:
>
> 1. PHP says, “let’s do a Web server.” Because I’m experienced enough to
> know better, I’m not about to build the thing on a community-type OS,
> because I’ll just have to upgrade it in a year or two, with attendant
> headaches.

> 2. So … I decide to find a “free” Enterprise-class operating system.
> CentOS or Scientific Linux are two excellent choices. I build my server
> … I spend a YEAR tweaking and building (no, 60 days is NOT enough) …
> and I’m happy with it.

Again, both Red Hat and Novell would allow you to have as long as you
need for your trial balloon.

>
> 3. NOW I go to PHP and say, “Web server completed, running fine. But we
> need a supported OS.” At this point, SEL doesn’t even enter my radar
> envelope. I’m not ABOUT to redo all of that hard work. Ergo, RHEL gets
> the check.

AFAIK, there is no direct CentOS -> Red Hat upgrade path. ??

>
> >
> > A CONSUMER distro like Fedora. Suffers from the EXACT same issues…
>
> Instead of “consumer,” say, “community,” and you actually agree with
> me. That was something else I made quite clear above.

Community is the accepted word now… sorry. SUSE Prof. was a consumer
based distro that was NOT community generated (ditto for Red Hat Linux
at one point). I’m too old.

>
> As for me starting a CentOS like clone of SEL, of course I could do
> that – in theory. But the first step would be for Novell to completely
> open all source, including updates. That’s in keeping with the open
> source philosophy … … . (dang, are you gonna fling that “politically
> correct” thingie at me again for saying that?) … . .lol!
>

It’s a valid point. Not sure if this forum is the proper way to
communicate that to Novell though.

Of course, under the GPL, I (we) DO have the rights to take their
updates that are under the GPL and expose them anyway I like. People
don’t often think about that… but it is true. So… even though
Novell doesn’t have a clean convenient mechanism (if any at all) for
getting to their source code for updates they make, in theory, a person
with the access could turn around and publish them as long as the
licensing allows it.

Not all of the distro is GPL of course, so you’d have to be careful with
regards to licensing.

I think some of your points are VERY valid. I think the idea that
CentOS is some kind of “enterprise” distro is wrong though. But
arguably, you could look at anything and say it’s one way or another…
I mean, do we really think Microsoft will be around tomorrow? :slight_smile:

I’d like to see Novell make the source rpms for their updates more
accessible… but I’m not sure I think creating a SlentOS is a good
idea.

I’d rather fork :slight_smile: Sinatra style!! (but only for learning… for
anything of lasting service, I’ll go RHEL or SLES… unless SinatraOS
starts taking off, then I’ll buy out Red Hat and SUSE… not Novell
though… too much baggage getting the whole thing).

#15

I never said otherwise. If I have a choice, I much prefer Suse to CentOS or Red Hat (and especially – gack, gag – Fedora).

(Sorry, if any Fedora lovers happen to stumble through here, you have my sympathies.)

:slight_smile: Again… not sure of the point. You want Enterprise Support without paying for it?

Of course not. For what I’m doing now, I can “support” myself. But as our company grows and moves more operations onto the Web, the day will come (and sooner, rather than later) that I’m overloaded and will gladly pay someone else to update/patch my server(s).

AFAIK, there is no direct CentOS -> Red Hat upgrade path. ??

I never said there was. But CentOS is close enough to Red Hat that the migration is very easy. T’was my point on that.

I’m too old.

I’m 53, kid. Don’t talk to me about “old.” :slight_smile:

Of course, under the GPL, I (we) DO have the rights to take their updates that are under the GPL and expose them anyway I like …[snip]

I also agreed with the rest of what you said. Honestly, I think we’d agree more than not.

(Except for the Sinatra thing. Ray Charles was THE MAN!)

rotfl!