Are you sure you didn’t mean 64GB SD Cards?
I dunno if you could stuff a working linux distro in 16MB anymore =p
Not that any of this has anything to do with the thread topic.
@sfalken the two Pihole ones are 16GB, the GPS Time one is 32GB. They are minimal installs as just run the one service.
I think Kappa fits the bill: Kappa (folklore) - Wikipedia
(not to be confused with Kalpa lol)
Is that so? Instead of writing Tumbleweed, Leap, MicroOS, Leap Micro, Aeon, Kalpa, and maybe JeOS I write one word and mean all of them. That’s what I feel like saying, why does it bother you? Am I committing a crime? Am I violating the license agreement?
Portal:Distribution - openSUSE Wiki
The openSUSE distribution is a stable, easy to use and complete multi-purpose distribution.It is aimed towards users and developers working on the desktop or server. It is great for beginners, experienced users and ultra geeks alike, in short, it is perfect for everybody! The latest release, openSUSE Leap 15.6, features new and massively improved versions of all useful server and desktop applications. It comes with more than 1,000 open source applications. openSUSE Tumbleweed is the rolling release, providing the latest upstream software releases, yet only those packages that pass testing.
openSUSE is also the base for SUSE’s award-winning SUSE Linux Enterprise products.
Welcome to the openSUSE Forums!
Yes, it’s obvious –
- “The answer is 42” → Leap.
And, “Geeko” is also obvious –
- Why is the Foundation named as it is?
Given the discussion here, my vote as a rebranding of the project could well be “Leap” –
- It’s fresh, known as a distribution offering, and simple.
I see the rebranding as an opportunity. Make the new Name and Logo modern and impactful.
Unique. Something that has a meaning or describes the values in one word. Doesn’t have to be an existing word or could be a combination of two words.
1 Like
I have worked >35 years in a marketing position and I see the rebranding as a big chance, but it has to be done right. The name in the end isn’t really important as long it is memorable. It requires a big effort to get the name and the philosophy behind to the people, if you fail you are almost doomed and will certainly vanish from peoples view, before they think about this ‘new’ distro they will install others. I don’t know how openSUSE makes the money it needs to run servers, advertisements, etc, but I see a serious thread here, relying on donations is a setup for failure and the certain end, which would be a bad thing. I use SuSE/openSUSE for 25years and I don’t like to see my favorite distro disappear.
2 Likes
You can suse over the rights too though youd lose all financial support, create a schism and end up competing with the commercial distro, or reach an agreement.
Or create a new brand, on amiable terms, that is just as great as openSUSE, and keep all ties and support with SUSE.
Hello all,
What a crazy and confusing discussion … ooof!
Why not change the name to the tumbleweed graphic or leap graphic.
Guaranteed to be incomprehensible and unpronounceable. All will be forced to refer to the project along the lines of “the project formerly known as openSUSE”.
Sound familiar?
1 Like
This! I agree wholeheartedly. Thank you @swannema for a thoughtful post.
[quote=“swannema, post:110, topic:176691”]
I don’t know how openSUSE makes the money it needs to run servers, advertisements, etc, but I see a serious thread here, relying on donations is a setup for failure and the certain end, which would be a bad thing.
[/quote]t
Apparently you missed that from the beginning of openSUSE we’ve been heavily funded / sponsored by SUSE. Our infra runs on hardware they provide, in their datacentres, they’ve paid for our conferences. So the setup for failure has been working since 2005, and the certain end has not happened (yet).
2 Likes
Do as your patrons say. No discussion. Theyre resolved and you must do this.
I do not mean this type of funding, if it stays and SUSE will continue to support the project when this is fine, but I have my doubt this will be the case in the long-term. SUSE will pretty fast realize that they probably have underestimated the positive effect from having an open community, it also helps their business to have the name SUSE in peoples head, be it openSUSE or SUSE doesn’t really matter but it certainly is more widespread with both around when just SUSE. So it can have a financial impact on them and why would they continue to support a project that is not apparent associated with them and the connection can only be seen when one digs a bit deeper. This is obviously a bit hypothetical but I have seen these things happening more than once.
long time user (>10yr). I would not have problems with a rebrand, in fact I would advocate a break with the gecko branding for the project/ foundation; some thing more generic like easyLinux/ strongLinux/ whateverwith would be ok since the distributions have their own strong brand identity
I’ve been reflecting on this post. I think that using the “Leap” name as an overarching project brand name could work nicely as others have mentioned.
Distro naming:
Leap —> Leap Stable
Tumbleweed —> Leap Rolling
Leap Slowroll
etc
The build service:
OBS ----> LBS
3 Likes
I don’t know about that, though. If you think from the perspective of how the different distros relate to each other - Tumbleweed → SLE → Leap is the progression.
With OBS, I don’t think it makes sense to rebrand that - it’s an openSUSE Project, but it is able to be used by any distro, really. The same holds true for things like kiwi.
I found the talk from the conference to be very illuminating from a structural perspective. Definitely worth watching to get a clearer picture of how things fit together.
1 Like
Yes, but isn’t that’s what is at the crux of SUSE’s “rebrand request”? We ditch “openSUSE” in favour of a name less obviously connected with the “SUSE” brand.
This bit is interesting with respect to the brand decoupling proposal/request…
…because although Leap is derived as per the above, I’m not sure that SUSE wants this to be explicitly advertised as such.
Yes, so did I, although much of the governance still seems a bit vague/murky to me (as an outsider), and when I read other third-party articles, discussions etc, it is clear that this is true for the wider Linux community as well. Many seem to think this has negatively affected potential collaborators and distro users.
External perception examples:
1 Like
SuSE is a very German thing: Gesellschaft für Software und Systemeentwicklung mBH.
Since Systementwicklung stands for System Development, it is self-explaining why the free Desktop shall be branded in a way, that the difference between commercial system and free distro becomes more visible. That’s cool. All the best wishes to the original SuSE.
But i also like to see that the roots of OpenSuSE are honoured and appreciated.
The Brand Icon should be clearly distinctive different to the SuSE chameleon, too.
So i would suggest something in this direction (do not use this exactly since it needs to be checked carefully regards copyright complications first):
- Name: SuLV (Software und Linux Verteiler, in English like: Software and Linux Distributor).
- A green (or blue?)Lizard with straight tail in a friendy way similar to this screenshot:
2 Likes
It is nothing more than a request. I think some of the examples of external perception are reading into it things that are likely not there. The one from Linuxiac was posted to the Facebook group as well, so I’ve read it over, and their perception varies from mine in a few different respects.
As came up in the discussion at the end of the presentation, brand dilution of “SUSE” is something that I personally thing is a potential issue - the ‘genericization’ of the name does create some confusion for some people. We see folks come here for SLE support (and I see it, weirdly, the openSUSE Facebook group, which I am also one of the admin team for).
Leap, though, has a history of being a distribution, not a project - so elevating that to the “project” name would, I think, create more confusion, particularly with openSUSE projects like OBS, Kiwi, openQA, and other projects that aren’t distro-related projects, but are distro-agnostic projects for the most part.
Project governance is a separate-but-related bigger topic, and there are likely several models we could use overall, with varying degrees of independence/interdependence on SUSE itself.
I have thoughts about what I think would work, but speculation about any of this at this (including the branding) stage is probably too early. The way I’m viewing the whole thing is that SUSE isn’t “upset” - they’re looking to ensure the brand is protected rather than becoming genericized, and there’s an opportunity for the project as a whole to “spread its wings” and become, in some ways, more independent of SUSE, which would have some net benefits.
In the Q&A in the talk, someone pointed out that when someone says “I run SUSE” or “I run openSUSE” - that doesn’t really mean anything, because openSUSE Isn’t a distro, it’s an umbrella for a number of different projects - some large, like TW, and some small, like Aeon and Kalpa.
Like I said above, I see it as an opportunity - the project probably needs to become more organized/structured, and then a project naming/branding/rebranding exercise probably makes sense. I don’t personally see that it makes sense to do branding until we figure out orgnaiation/structure and governance moving forward.
That’s a part of the project becoming more mature.
That’s my opinion. 
I’m keeping an open mind for now, although it would help if the board (or whoever is really mandated to do so) issued a more explicit statement about the spirit of the proposal. The speculation comes because of the opaqueness of the request as it was delivered to us.
I concur, and it’s unfortunate that this isn’t being done as step #1.
1 Like