SUSE to be acquired by EQT Partners
lists.opensuse.org
lists.opensuse.org
Or are they the kind of private equity firm that loads up its companies with debt, pays itself massive dividends, and then lets the companies struggle and die under unsustainable debt loads?
(See: Toys 'R Us, etc)
Finn Rausing of Rausing family, who made a fortune on founding Tetrapak
Peter Wallenberg Jr. Wallenberg family is the most established "capitalist" family in Sweden with historical ties far back and still significant stake in companies such as Ericsson
Leif Östling, former CEO of Scania, now on the board of Volkswagen
I guess EQT mostly does what it says on the tin, restructure and sell companies. If you ever wondered why so many people only have relatively expensive cable internet in Sweden instead of being connected directly to widely available fiber networks that is to a large extent because of EQT.
Care to expand on this? Among OECD countries Sweden is near the top in "Percentage of fibre connections in total broadband subscriptions" [0], with 61.8% (for reference the OECD average is 23.3%, with US at 12.6% and e.g. Germany being woefully poor at 2.3%).
[0] https://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/1.10-PctFibreToTotalBroad...
The things is that the telephone network itself is still essentially owned by the government and multiple companies compete to provide service. And fiber is to large extent operated under a similar model. (950 000 of the 1 300 000 are municipal broadband).
The cable monopoly, including exclusivity contracts, was instead sold to EQT (which later sold to someone else) and of course instead of opening up to competition they kept the monopoly in place.
It isn't that EQT was doing something awful (their schools with inflated grades are probably worse in that regard). Internet connectivity in Sweden is still rather good. It is just that PE firms generally do whatever makes them money, not necessarily what is good for consumers or anyone else.
[0] In Swedish, page 106: http://www.konkurrensverket.se/globalassets/publikationer/ra...
The numbers in the report you linked are from 2014 and 2016 and are based on statistics from PTS. PTS' most recent report [0] says that in 2017 there were 2.4 million fiber subscriptions, or 62% of all fixed broadband subscriptions, with a big increase over the last few years.
I do agree that Com Hem was a terrible thing, convincing way too many people (or apartment building associations) to sign up for very-long-term contracts. Well, they're still a terrible thing, but plenty of people have seen the light now :)
[0] http://www.statistik.pts.se/media/1315/svensk-telekommarknad... (p. 30)
But sure, they are capitalist, and the last 20-30 years they have run out of their industrialist steam, as everyone else in Sweden (or should I say the west) . Maybe especially so since Peter Wallenberg passed away - he publicly stated that he was not especially keen on starting EQT but also saw that "everyone else" were running similar operations.
I don't think EQT are crooks - they probably come out rather good in comparison, but if you dislike the privatization in the healthcare and education sectors, I think you should blame the politicians not the businessmen.
When the Swedish government wants to cancel an illegal weapons deal with Saudi Arabia, which was initiated by a delegation headed by the crown princess, they reconsider after pressure from Marcus Wallenberg (which later blows up in everyone's faces). When Obama visits Sweden, the first order of business is to honor Raoul Wallenberg. When the prime ministers wife, responsible for health care in Stockholm, quits politics she joins the Wallenberg health care business her own party have been essentially selling hospitals to. It is Marcus Wallenberg who invites Swedish politicians and lobbyists to the Bilderberg meetings. Fredrik Reinfeldt went on their private jet before he was prime minister. Jacob Wallenberg is on the board of Svenskt Näringsliv, the main lobby for privatization, which was until recently headed by Leif Östling who of course is also on the board of EQT.
It is not a conspiracy, at least not a very exciting one. They are just very influential and they use that influence to enrich themselves. Hence the allegation of being crony capitalists.
Honoring Raoul Wallenberg isn't about capitalism. Working in Hungary during WWII, he saved tens of thousands of Jewish people from the Nazis and fascists, until he was arrested and never was seen again. Later, evidence emerged that he died at the hands of the KGB.
Apparently the person who was pushing for the arms deal to be reinstated was foreign minster, party colleague and former prime minister Carl Bildt. Another frequent visitor to the Bilderberg meetings and infamously chairman of the board at Lundin Petroleum. The Lundin brothers are cousins of Marcus Wallenberg [5]. Carl Bildt is also senior advisor to Wallenberg Foundations [6].
Wallenbergs dominance in Sweden isn't really a secret [9]. So between "it a coincidence" and "they all know each other", I am going with the second one. Sweden has a number of other people to honor whose family's jet the prime minster hasn't borrowed like Folk Bernadotte [7] (who was related to the king) or Birgitta Karlström Dorph [8].
[0] In Swedish; https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/hemliga-brevet-fran-reinfel... [1] In Swedish; https://www.svd.se/hit-fick-reinfeldt-lift-av-wallenberg [2] https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&ar... [3] In Swedish; https://www.aleris.se/om/om-aleris/nyheter/filippa-reinfeldt... [4] https://www.thelocal.se/20120901/42954 [5] In Swedish; https://www.di.se/di/artiklar/2014/11/14/pa-djupet-med-lukas... [6] In Swedish; http://www.wfab.se/stiftelsernas-investeringskommitte/stifte... [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folke_Bernadotte [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birgitta_Karlstr%C3%B6m_Dorph [9] https://www.economist.com/business/2016/03/10/a-nordic-pyram... [9] https://www.economist.com/special-report/2006/10/12/swedens-... [9] https://www.economist.com/business/2009/01/22/the-ties-that-... [9] https://www.ft.com/content/4f407796-0a35-11e5-a6a8-00144feab... [9] https://www.nytimes.com/1982/09/15/obituaries/marcus-wallenb...
(A small correction to my previous comment. It was Jacob, not Marcus, Wallenberg who brought Reinfeldt to the meeting).
That being said, is there still a lot of people that use SUSE? I remember a lot of people used to rave (particularly academic) about it due to it's stability. I remember playing with their distro builder a couple of years ago and you can choose the specific packages and settings to install which was super neat.
But, in my experience, most eDirectory/GroupWise shops ended up migrating to AD/Exchange, and SUSE often went away in that process, especially if the organisation already has RHEL or Oracle Linux as well.
I used to maintain their US Linux infrastructure.
It used to be exclusively the only OS you could use (can't confirm if anymore).
The installation procedure makes OpenBSD's look decadently comfortable, but I admit once it runs, it seems to just keep working.
For instance, a restarting computer at the local Kroger where I shop said IBM SurePOS. Looking it up, it turns out some group tried to make a concurrent version of DOS that IBM modified into a specialized OS for POS's. Recently, they upgraded to touchscreens running Linux on Fujitsu boxes. The GUI is ugly, slow, and has the tell-tell coffee mug in corner of dialogs. Appears Kroger, always slow as can be, got on Java desktop bandwagon just as everyone else chasing fads were leaving it for stuff like web apps or Electron.
The self-checkouts have a Windows loading screen. Probably was WinXP Embedded given they're old. The handhelds use mainframe-era, terminal apps. Their computers at customer service are thin clients from HP at this location. I think one said "Iceweasel" one time. The checkout predictor thing with the three balls on monitor showed something Linux-related one time. If you ask employees, you'll get SCO OpenServer, AS/400, mainframe, and a pile of random apps with web interfaces. I don't know what they run. One employee told me email and web browsers load in what must be VM's that take 5-10 min to load on the thin clients. It must be unbearable.
So, Kroger certainly uses plenty of Linux with mission-critical services being on it. Their choices for inventory and desktop GUI's also hint they're pretty backwards in their practices. I'm not sure about the others since I mostly shop at Kroger.
I think you really do not know much about the history of PC operating systems.
IBM licensed Digital Research's real-time OS, FlexOS, for its point-of-sale machines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlexOS
FlexOS is related to DR's Concurrent DOS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiuser_DOS
... which was the descendant of Concurrent CP/M, which was the offspring of CP/M-86, one of the 3 original OSes at launch for the IBM PC in 1981 (along with PC DOS and the UCSD p-System).
CP/M was the original industry-standard OS for 8080 micros. It is what MS-DOS is a knock-off version of -- MS-DOS was licensed from SCP, whose QDOS was a copy of CP/M.
"Some group tried," indeed. This is the original OS company, successfully trading and dominating the industry when Bill Gates and Paul Allen founded Micro-Soft.
Well, that's a big assumption and rude at the same time. I post a lot here about the history of operating systems. I'm well aware of DOS and CP/M. I know little to nothing about Concurrent DOS or FlexOS because of no need. So, let's look at your link:
"IBM licensed Digital Research's real-time OS, FlexOS, for its point-of-sale machines."
...the article you link says "IBM originally chose DR Concurrent DOS 286 as the basis of their IBM 4680 computer for IBM Plant System products and Point-of-Sale terminals..." The original source I read those terminals said they were based on Concurrent DOS. So does my comment and this link. Clearly, I did some research. Kroger's POS's also said IBM 4680.
Let's see where FlexOS comes in: "IBM announced the adoption of FlexOS... as the basis of their IBM 4690 OS..." Ok, FlexOS was used for a different one I didn't look up because Kroger didn't use it.
So, you're saying I'm ignorant about OS's because I didn't study a proprietary OS (FlexOS) I've never seen, the local store didn't use, and that was likely inferior to most RTOS's I know of? I'm not sure what your aim was.
Taco Bell's system runs on "Taco Bell Linux" (or did, anyways, 10 years or so ago). I have a copy of their CD installation discs somewhere, I meant to look into it to see what distro they were building on top of but I never got around to it.
Linux killed them...and it was time for Netware to go. I remember the first time I compared Border Manager with OpenSuSE (2.2 kernel -w-w ipchains) & squid as proxy. Eye opening. No more midnight reboots. No more opaque interfaces and $$ for nothing.
Since I don't want to tinker every weekend with my distro anymore I need something stable. openSUSE Leap, based on SLE, offers this. Additionally KDE is a first-class citizen and just works as intended.
There's also a rolling release version, Tumbleweed, but I didn't try it yet.
Do many people actually do this, though? A few years ago, I used Arch as my main distro, and, besides the initial setup, almost never tinkered with it. I would imagine that more approachable distros would be more tinker-free too.
For those of us who still like to tinker while maintaining a stable base, there are distros like Debian, Slackware, Void, and so on. And finally, for those who consider Linux a hobby or pastime (or who are comfortable living on the bleeding edge) there are projects like Arch, Neon, and Gentoo.
I agree with you in regards to most RH derived releases. Systems tinkering RH/Fedora may end you up in almost as much pain as if you tried it on OSX.
But SuSE has always been approachable in that regard (20 year user).
I run Elementary OS as my daily driver these days; no fuss, no muss, just log in and get to work. About the only thing I do on a fresh install beyond changing the background is setting up my tools. Surprisingly git isn't installed from the outset, but it's just a sudo apt install away. Likewise, I enable ppa support, add the ppas for Waterfox and Oracle Java, and install the ubuntu-restricted-extras package for better media support. Beyond that, the built in apps and programs suit my needs almost perfectly, and the OS fades into the background unlike Windows 10 or other flashy "LOOK at ME not your WORK!!" type OSes/DEs.
Keep fighting the good fight!
Thank you so much for making me look it up!
By the way, I just checked the job listings (https://www.suse.com/company/careers/) to see what they are up to, and there are 320 open positions? Really? Did they grow that much? When I left the Linux world almost 15 years ago that was about the total size of that company, that was just a few years after Novell had acquired it. It confirms the impression I had from loosely following some SuSE engineer's social media posts, getting handed over to new owners again and again does not seemed to have hindered them from growing quite a bit. Wikipedia says they have a thousand employees now.
Novel technology becomes optimized and ubiquitous and newer more complex technology is built on top of it. Then the same happens to that tech.
Those homepages are a picture of where Red Hat and Suse want their business to go - not where it actually is.
In practice both companies have struggled to diversify into broader “enterprise solutions”. After 20+ years, the vast majority of Red Hat’s revenue still comes from the good old RHEL subscription. Everything else - storage, java, openstack, containers, IDEs - is still far behind. They seem to be betting everything on Kubernetes being the new Linux, but we tend to forget just how huge Linux was in the late 90s... And how huge Red Hat was in the Linux world. This time they’re a medium-sized fish in a medium-sized pond. Kubernetes is cool, but is it cool enough to get Red Hat from $3B to $10B in revenue, with hundreds of vendors pushing their own Kubernetes service? Personally I don’t see it. As a point of comparison, Vmware is nearing $8B and has successfully diversified into storage and networking.
It’s a testament to the incredible momentum of Linux adoption on the server, that even Suse (a distant second in the business of commercial Linux) has survived this long without any meaningful diversification.
Personally I think we’ll see Red Hat getting acquired in the next 5 years, while they can still a good multiple on the “cloud native” hype. If they wait too late, the reality will set in that Openshift revenue can’t grow fast enough to offset a shrinking RHEL business. If they wait too long, they will end up like Suse.
It would be interesting to see what would happen with linux after that, as they are one of the biggest (if not the biggest) donors to Linux, and while you'll still find Enterprise Linux for the Server (whether it's them or some successor), they are also responsible for things like Linux on the Desktop and FOSS in general, so projects which don't directly make money like Cygwin, gtk, gnome, gcc, and PulseAudio may be in danger.
As for those satellite projects you mention, in my experience the dependency on Red Hat is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Their employees tend to close ranks and crowd out other contributors in the projects they sponsor. If RH disappeared tomorrow, for many of those projects the result would be more diverse contributors, with a healthier mix of ideas and priorities. It might help shock the Linux community out of the cultural rut it’s been stuck in.
It seems you're ignoring the vast amount of work Red Hat contributes as free software. See e.g. the amount of work put into the kernel: https://lwn.net/Articles/742672/. They've been increasing the amount of contributors while they've been expanding. Currently it's a pretty big company, so quite a huge amount of contributions. Further, any company they buy they tend to make the software free software.
You're being dismissive without any substance IMO.
But... Slow moving can be another way to say 'proven' and who is out there deciding what should be deprecated if it isn't the big companies like RH? Is that the cultural 'rut' you refer to? That things don't move fast enough? If that is it I disagree. Most of the 'innovation' I've seen in software is wrapping old ideas for a new generation.
My comment on “cultural rut” was unrelated. I was referring to the lack of diversity in the open-source community, and the difficulty in moving past the myths and closed-club mentality of 1960s US academia. Open-source is still primarily the playground of privileged, insecure, passive-agressive white males cargo-culting the behavior of their predecessors, but it could be so much more.
Regardless, that's even less reason to be worried about Red Hat totally collapsing, then. Plenty of other companies - large and small - to pick up the slack (and I highly suspect the various Red Hat contributors would probably continue to contribute anyway).
People really should talk about this a lot more: Red Hat fund so much of the development of the basic components that the actual desktop environments rely on, as well as their support of GNOME: they have people working on everything from Wi-Fi and Bluetooth to power management to graphics (Noveau driver, Wayland, Pipewire etc.) and audio. No other company seems to have the desire or the resources to fund these essentials at the level that Red Hat has done for many years.
Oracle? I shudder to think of what would happen to all of Red Hat's IP under Oracle's control ....
See also: Sun Microsystems
Also, Microsoft's cash cow isn't Windows, it's Office and Outlook. So an acquisition of Red Hat might give them an opportunity to make inroads into Linux with those products.
Last but not least, there's plenty of Linux running on Azure, a RedHat acquisition could play into that strategy.
- Ansible for decentralized configuration management (not as popular as Chef, but still popular)
- OpenShift Enterprise for container orchestration (gaining a lot of traction)
- CodeEnvy, a cloud-based IDE
- JBoss, a legacy Java application server (used at every boring billion-dollar co you can think of)
- Innovation Lab: a somewhat expensive service for large corps to see how the latest IT trends are applied
Ansible is very very popular, but because it's agentless, it's difficult to monetize.
Also, from what I've read, companies like Puppet haven't been able to turn a profit.
When you look beyond marketing hype and focus on hard financial data, you can make fascinating discoveries :-)
I don't call growing to a thousand people from the low few hundred that I knew "struggling".
RedHat is well over ten thousand employees. If the Linux distribution really was the center they would only have a few hundred both, which they had when the Linux distribution was not just at the center, it WAS the center of the business. So clearly this is no longer the case.
If you look at their 2017Q4 results, it’s very telling: out of $772M of revenue, the combination of Openshift, Openstack, Ansible, Java middleware, IDEs and every other product in the “application development and emerging technologies” group added up to $173M. That’s 22.4% of their revenue coming from their entire “next-generation” portfolio combined. Everything else is basically RHEL.
Hopefully this gives you a better picture of how they pay for their 10,000+ employees.
To me your reply is what makes no sense. I worked for one of those Linux companies. A few hundred people is all it takes to have a Linux distribution business. More people than that is what makes no sense. So if they now have sooo many more people it means that most of them do things not related to the Linux distribution business itself.
Yes, the Linux still is at the core, but I don't count people supporting computing center operations as doing work for the Linux distribution - that is an entirely new layer well above it.
Your accounting seems to be based on the idea that just because it's all centered around the Linux distribution it means you can call it all "Linux distribution business". I vehemently disagree, as I said, I consider that well above the level of merely selling Linux distributions. I saw how that business looked like from the inside, and what they do now does not remotely look like they do the same thing. Well, of course they still do, what I mean is the share of the overall activity of the company.
The amount of people needed to build and maintain the Linux distribution has not changed significantly. They don't need more package maintainers or significantly more kernel hackers. The people they hired don't work on the Linux distribution but on things made on top of it, whether that's other software products or services.
You're bumming me out lol
If someone wrote code (as a volunteer, not for hire) and licensed it as GPL, SUSE doesn't own that code, and the new owners of SUSE won't own it either, so everything is the same as it was before.
No. Why would they?
You're providing a stub for interesting debate here but you did it without any expectation that YC would pay you for it. You did it for the betterment of the internet, or the karma, or something in the middle, but either way, YC owes you nothing for it and you [happily] entered into that arrangement without thinking about it.
The people contributing to SUSE —through bug reports, bug fixes, maintaining the community, the tens of thousands of upstream projects that it uses via open licenses, etc, etc, etc— aren't doing so with an expectation that somebody will pay them down the line.
But indirectly, SUSE users (some of whom will contribute) and customers get a distribution with a new lease of life. They get continued use of its infrastructure and packagers and developers.
I suppose the biggest innovation in the past few years have been in terms of virtualization, and they were barely dependent on the distribution as most of the work was done upstream on the linux Kernel.
So it's hard to be a newcomer and have strong selling points. Maybe the next generation of kernel programmed in type safe, memory safe languages would be interesting?
When I was learning via LFS I felt like there is still a lot of innovation that can be done. I remember back in 2000 I attended a Linux World Expo and it was amazing. It felt great to see all these companies dedicating resources to making Linux better. Now, I don't feel like it is quite the same anymore. There were companies inventing all sort of solutions from large scale server management to desktop apps to, to, to. Companies gave out stuffed toys. I still have a SUSE branded lizard, a Fedora and 5-6 more.
edit: ah there are a few anecdotes nested in this comments already.
When I worked at the University of Cincinnati in 2012, we had a lot of stuff running on SLES, mostly because we were running Novel's Identity Management system.
That was a while back though and I'm not sure if they're still down that route since Novell turned into Micro Focus and, I guess now, EQT.
https://penguindreams.org/blog/how-google-and-microsoft-made...
SPF, DKIM, DMARC all need to be set up. Check to see if the IP is any RBLs. Time also helps as the major MXers "learn" you are a real mail server.
fedora was way ahead in performance for years. That was the only reason to go RH-alike but Fedora is _so_ flaky and systemd upstream + attendant cruft like firewalld and the default selinux policies are nightmares. Every Fedora distribution is another set of bugs and workarounds that push you towards RH enterprise..as if you hadn't been doing this for 20 years and needed RH to show you the way.
Fedora is nice if you are doing hypervsiors with QEMU/KVM. Very close to prod out the box.