SUSE will soon be the largest independent Linux company
zdnet.com
zdnet.com
I'd be curious what the difference in the install base is like.
SLES has pushed deep onto back office computers and embedded devices like deli scales, which ia a big stretch from where it started (as an IBM 4690 OS replacement).
If Canonical is sold, I doubt it would be for nearly as much as SUSE or RHEL. The general consensus seems to be that Ubuntu is for new users, while SUSE and RHEL are for serious customers, and that's far more important than most other features from an enterprise perspective (nobody ever got fired for choosing RHEL/SUSE).
And yeah, I also would be very interested in the paying install base.
Personally, I'm switching to SUSE because there's a supported path from Tumbleweed to SUSE, and Ubuntu has caused me far too much pain for me to trust them with my money and my business. Ubuntu just doesn't seem to know what it wants to be when it grows up, and that's a problem that SUSE and RHEL have solved long ago.
I have been under the impression that SUSE has kept changing ownership since Novel took over (then Attachmate, merger with Micro Focus, now sold), never settled, it's simply a a risk to many businesses running Linux with commercial support.
During my tenure with Citrix (XenServer team), the product team made a big decision to switch dom0 (not just the kernel) from SLES 11 (I could be wrong about the release) to CentOS 7, which I personally thought was the right move. Don't want to talk about XenServer rebrand and what happened to the free edition here (simply search xcp-ng as alternative).
NOTE: In the past 11 years working in Australia, I have never seen a single production system running on SLES (I've seen Gentoo though). Above doesn't mean openSUSE/SLES isn't a great Linux distro.
Absolutely not - this just proves that there's no commercial risk involved. Red Hat was recently bought as well, which unlike the SUSE sale might actually have an impact on the company.
I wish they'd produce a systemd-less version like Devuan.
I've been hearing similar often. What's the beef with Systemd anyway? I've haven't heard much and Googling will surely just turn up a bunch of theoretical, philosophical, or hate posts. Why is Systemd bad from the perspective of a regular user.
Some of us like the Unix way where things are predictable and composed of small, transparently-working programs that do one thing, and do it well. Nothing that systemd solves is worth abandoning established ways of system automation and follow Poettering's (author of systemd) vision instead. Systemd in its entirety is approaching the size of the Linux kernel itself. If I wanted that kind of monolith, I'd be running Windows, or AIX (where ironically Linux is heading with RedHat being bought by IBM). Have fun with IBM Tivoli SystemD cluster manager some ten years down the road.
So when bugs appear one needs to wait for SuSE to fix them or work around them. Ubuntu did a much more standard approach, they have (like Debian of course) less customizations in place making users profit from both upstream and 3rd party packages without SuSE focus.
Anyways, other distributions don't seem to have a tool like YaST which does all the system configuration and has both proper shell and UI integrations. Also KDE feels more natural on SuSE I guess.
My only major fear is that BTRFS is going to eat my lunch, but it's also improving as well, so that's becoming less and less of a worry. I'm watching ZFS on Linux as well, but neither SUSE nor RedHat seem interested in jumping on the bandwagon, so I'm holding off.
openSUSE seems quite nice, and I agree with most of the decisions that they make. Honestly, I don't know why I didn't use it until now...
RPM was first released in 1997.