TLDR: SUSE plans on investing $10+ million over the next several years on developing a free binary compatible RHEL fork.
They expect and encourage community input during the development.
SUSE will also continue maintaining SUSE Linux Enterprise, naturally.
Idk, one is investing in keep an decent open source RHEL compatible and the other is the opposite maybe they are not literally the same. You are traveling in a dangerous zone of the “if”. You can conjecture anything in the “if” zone
Oracle, IBM, Microsoft. It’s called market precedent. What’s to prevent a major corporation owned by a venture capital company to turn around and do the same thing years down the line? What to prevent them from making this “open source community” beholden to members of the board from said corporation, similar to Fedora?
“Idk man”. Conjecture can be tempered by experience. Remember that.
Sorry about that but Oracle, IBM, Microsoft, and other gigantic corpo are already the biggest contributors to the kernel, key projects like wayland and gcc are maintained almost entirely by red hat (now IBM) so we are already in this situation. Although thanks to amazing maintainers we still have these beautiful community distros: Mint, Arch, and Debian Linux, if you don´t need any fancy support these ones already give you all you need.
Don’t get me wrong I hate what Red Hat did, but Suse is offering an alternative for everyone that was using RHEL without official support and so what? If you need a big company support, accept with happiness what Suse had to offer. If you don´t Debian, was and will be always there for your servers.
Not a problem :) just answer directly next time. In any case:
It’s not that they became the biggest contributors out of nowhere you know. It’s not like they did it out the love in their heart and because of ideal, morals and ethics. It was seeing the writing on the wall and not wanting to be left behind. Remember both Microsoft and Oracle tried to sue various Linux distributions and the kernel maintainers themselves because they claimed that they or one of their subsidiaries had intellectual property that Linux was using - which was patantly false (pun intended).
In modern times they push to prevent moving away from GPL2 to something like GPL3 because they’ve already gamed the license - especially Oracle, which allows them to contribute back as little as possible, and they couldn’t have done that if they weren’t benefactors and members of the Linux Foundation.
Some would even say Microsoft’s “embrace, expand & extinguish” tactic is still well and alive to this very day. And we’re talking about the company that has a history of hidden licensing fees.
In any case, I guess SuSE is more trustworthy than all of them - again because of historical presedence. But I’m still sceptical!
In regards to Microsoft, IBM and Oracle? I’m cynnical. But it’s deserved cynicism, because of the afformentioned historical presedence.
I’m not saying that people, organizations, companies, corporations, governments, multinationals, etc can’t reform… buuuut… yeah. All of these companies have a horrible history of patent wars and subverting consumers, as well as open source projects. Soooo… yeeeeeaaaah…
Also, you never answered my question. You merely dismissed it.
Because for me it misses the point entirely, but answering your question directly: if you need some kind of “enterprise level” support you just have to “trust” some company, you have no choice, for full paying customers red hat is still ok and SUSE will fulfill the remaining needs. But if you don´t need extensive third-party support and don´t wanna be held hostage by the goodwill of some bullshit corpo you should be using Debian for a long time.