Ironically, as ex zealot, desilusied with the endless fragmentation of Linux distributions and desktop dream, FOSS OSes currently are looking as the only way out of American dominated consumer OSes and related programming languages.
Plus in my deep Penguin days, SuSE was one of my favourite distros, I loved yast based management, and the KDE integration.
it's honestly a crime that they don't get more traction. Tooling they've put out like the Open Build Service (which is distro agnostic), is fantastic. I've been using Tumbleweed on dev machines for a long time, and the fact that they ship fully tested images is imo just a vastly better way to do a rolling release.
When we bring a problem to them, which we pay them for, the turn around time is awful, and about 2/5 cases I end up having to break out the debugging tools and root cause/fix fix it because their support engineers can't be bothered.
Especially their nVidia support. Worse than useless.
Why should SuSE be on the line for supporting nVidia, rather than nVidia itself or your hardware supplier? Or is SuSE now also selling corporate computer hardware?
I'm unsure what argument you are trying to make here? The page you linked makes no reference at all to nVidia. And directly below where it mentions Java (web servers are not mentioned at all, only web browsers), it also excludes:
* All 3rd party binaries such as fonts, sounds, artwork and branding
And further down, it also excludes:
* Packages without public available source
* Packages with non-Open Source license
I'm not sure if SuSE considers nVidia drivers to be 3rd party or not, but they are definitely without public available source and without an Open Source license.
Hardware is not excluded. Driver in-kernel are not excluded - ALL service packs are included. ALL modules are included.
nVidia not being mentioned, means they're not excluded.
nVidia certainly seem to think that their drivers are open source [0]. You'll also note that nVidia seem to think SUSE will provide source for those driver modules, in that announcement.
Yes, unless they are 100% under international standards, or 100% open source, they are subject to export restrictions from the overloads contributors, as per the countries their headquarters are located on.
True, but location matters a great deal, because some countries have a tendency to MITM any physical link they can get their hands on, even if that means scuba divers or secret rooms. But also who it is who is managing it, agree.
> I think the popularity dropped after the takeover in Europe
It wasn't the takeover, it was splitting SUSE linux into a paid stable/supported distro and a testing/community distro, like Red Hat had just done with RHEL/Fedora. Unlike Red Hat, SUSE didn't have the critical mass to force the community to be guinea pigs for paid customers, and it withered as folk switched to other distros, including the hot new entrant: ubuntu.
The focus should not be on the location, provided it is in the EU, but really the focus should be on carefully siloing the user data and make it only accessible to who needs them which is definitely no-one managing any servers and networks; it shouldn't matter (just dataloss, but not leaks which are not worthless). The info should be encrypted with different service dependent (healthcare, different levels, taxes etc) key pairs. As long as this data is accessible by anyone else but me, it's going to fall in the wrong hands anyway.
This is really good news. Europe has kept saying that digital sovereignty is a must, but for some reason, they have primarily considered US-based projects like Fedora and almost never SUSE. This has always made me wonder, because SUSE already has almost all the necessary tools; for example, Rancher and openSUSE and they're well known in Europe for quite a while.
good luck to suse, hopefully denmark will be first to migrate to linux and stay there unlike other countries (germany i am looking at you).
other than that i don't really believe owning EU data is the battle we can win with more regulations. I bet in 10 years nothing will change, maybe a few more grants, a few more laws..
I think regulations can be highly successful, if used aggressively enough. Look at China - they own their data, because they didn't allow it to be exfiltrated.
I think the issue at hand is that we've been half-assing our regulatory efforts.
No, as a good example for keeping your data sovereign. What you do with said sovereignty is another matter - I expect that part would play out differently in the EU than in China.
I wouldn't be too sure of the EU being a particular strong stalwart of public institutions vis a vis privacy.
They keep trying to hammer through anti-encryption or logging or scanning laws.
Big picture, there isn't a government in the world that is better for their citizens than the EU, but it's more like least-worst.
For example, free speech is a thing that the EU or its national governments love to encroach on and I am quite envious of the fiery defense it gets in the US.
China is especially good as an example because it shows that most tech companies can be made to bend to their regulatory whim. Europe is hesitant in that regard for fear of getting left behind. China shows that this fear is mostly unfounded.
And in cases where Western companies don't want to invest in China due to their regulations, local alternatives seem to quickly pick up the slack and over time even become better than their Western counterparts (at least in certain aspects). Just look at all those Chat+Payment things over there.
> Europe is hesitant in that regard for fear of getting left behind. China shows that this fear is mostly unfounded.
It's hard to transplant the Chinese experience elsewhere. Not only due to Europe's current far greater dependence on American software and cloud providers, but also due to China's far larger pool of technical expertise, likely resulting from many decades of heavy emphasis on math and science education, together with far greater social and monetary rewards. I doubt that European politicians or their electorates have the patience for a big turnaround that may not start to pay off for several decades or even generations.
Thankfully, we have parts of the ex soviet bloc that had the same heavy emphasis on math and science. You wouldn't believe the number of Romanian software engs I've worked with.
Are you trying to say that there are no businesses in Europe at all? Like 100% unemployment?
Or are you saying that you would personally find it easier with fewer regulations? For instance, there are probably laws that make it illegal for people to point a gun at you and make you hand them all your money. Do those hurt your business?
If you can't run a business in Europe, maybe it's the wrong business, or maybe you're in the wrong place. But there are hundreds of millions of people in Europe who have a job, so I think it's safe to say that it's not impossible to run a business in Europe.
Definitely! They set an even playing field (i.e competitors can't undercut me due to shoddy quality or questionable labour practices), enable interoperability and create an open market.
The longest run up until now... But you shouldnt be so sure that it is still a democracy and you shouldnt be so sure that the fact it was kept a democracy for so long was because of free speech absolutisme. I for one, think that the US of A has lost a lot of its narrative in the last 20 years. I think its the narrative that kept it a democracy until now.
Popper’s perspective aligns with the view of tolerance as a social contract. The protection of tolerance extends only to those who reciprocate it. When one party breaches this contract by imposing on others’ rights or safety, the injured party is no longer obligated to extend tolerance to the aggressor.
> We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
And who gets to decide who the intolerant parties are in an argument/dispute in order to justify the use of force against them?
The quote you posted literally advocates for censorship, oppression and genocide of the other side, except since it's of those YOU view as being intolerant, so then it's somehow moral and OK for you to do it against them, but you wouldn't agree to that when the other party does it to you when they view you as the intolerant one.
Because that's exactly what the Nazis did when they got into power: they removed the ones who they considered to be intolerant form their perspective, and it's exactly the rhetoric Zionists use to justify genocide in Gaza: they're just removing intolerant people so then it's morally ok.
Literally no party ever, not even the Nazis, Stalinists, Maoists, ever thought "we're the bad intolerant guys and we're proud of it".
On the contrary, they all thought they were on the right side of history and that all the atrocities they were doing, they were the right thing, done for the greater good.
Nazi literally means "national" and "socialist" as in for the country and the working people, both words with good meaning behind them on their own, up until WW2.
>Your behavior suggests either deep ignorance or malicious attempts at distorting the conversation in a right wing extremist way. Either way is not a good look.
What behavior? Correcting your wrong takes with facts and arguments? Every point you brought up here I have disproved with arguments.
>They did, however think "we will not tolerate the Jewish threat to our aryan volk" - i.e. an openly pro-intolerance ideology.
I never said the Nazis weren't being intolerant, I just called you out for painting those you don't like as intolerant as the Nazis in order to justify using censorship and state force against them in the name of greater good.
If we're gonna go after people for intolerance I expect a lot more proof of criminal wrongdoing and argumentation than just comparing them to Nazis since you're doing exactly what the Nazis did to justify their intolerance towards the Jews.
>"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies
Not sure how calling people who disagree with you as antisemites helps in any way since I never said anything in support for the Nazis or against the Jews.
Edit: Answering to your reply from below here to not balloon the thread any further:
>"I did not call you an antisemite, I pointed out a common behavioral pattern of antisemites."
So your argument is: "I'm not calling you an antisemite directly, I'm just using a quote to describe your pattern of behavior as being antisemitic." ? Do you even hear yourself?
Like I said before, you're the one who can't stop using Nazis as boogeymen and Jews as a humans shield in arguments all for the sake of emotional manipulation, then call people antisemitic when they disagree with you.
Please stop this. Other community members are complaining, and for good reason. You both seem to want to avoid fascism and oppression, which is great. You seem bitterly opposed about what approaches are most effective at achieving it, and are using that to justify continually escalating personal attacks on each other. Please step away from the keyboard, take some time to cool down, and recognize that this is no way to resolve age-old debates like this.
You've both broken several guidelines in this subthread, most notably the one against personal swipes, but others too. Please read them and observe them if you're going to comment here, otherwise don't.
Please stop this. Other community members are complaining, and for good reason. You both seem to want to avoid fascism and oppression, which is great. You seem bitterly opposed about what approaches are most effective at achieving it, and are using that to justify continually escalating personal attacks on each other. Please step away from the keyboard, take some time to cool down, and recognize that this is no way to resolve age-old debates like this.
You've both broken several guidelines in this subthread, most notably the one against personal swipes, but others too. Please read them and observe them if you're going to comment here, otherwise don't.
Ironically, as ex zealot, desilusied with the endless fragmentation of Linux distributions and desktop dream, FOSS OSes currently are looking as the only way out of American dominated consumer OSes and related programming languages.
Plus in my deep Penguin days, SuSE was one of my favourite distros, I loved yast based management, and the KDE integration.
>SusSE was one of my favourite distros
it's honestly a crime that they don't get more traction. Tooling they've put out like the Open Build Service (which is distro agnostic), is fantastic. I've been using Tumbleweed on dev machines for a long time, and the fact that they ship fully tested images is imo just a vastly better way to do a rolling release.
Their corporate support is a joke.
When we bring a problem to them, which we pay them for, the turn around time is awful, and about 2/5 cases I end up having to break out the debugging tools and root cause/fix fix it because their support engineers can't be bothered.
Especially their nVidia support. Worse than useless.
Enthusiastically agree. A point of curiosity… are you in the Americas or in Europe?
I’ve often wondered if the support is better if one is on the “correct”side of the Atlantic.
At a minimum, one would have the benefit of having time zone alignment with Engineering staff.
“We’re waiting for Engineering in Germany to get back to us.” is a common refrain.
[flagged]
>That's why they have no international tech companies
Well, they do have SAP. Though based on what I've heard their support is not exactly top notch
Don't forget about Siemens!
> Their corporate support is a joke.
SUSE also really like their "I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition!"-style random subscription audits too.
Why should SuSE be on the line for supporting nVidia, rather than nVidia itself or your hardware supplier? Or is SuSE now also selling corporate computer hardware?
Because its in scope for their support license that you're paying them for.
nVidia is neither Java nor a web server.
https://www.suse.com/support/policy-products/
I'm unsure what argument you are trying to make here? The page you linked makes no reference at all to nVidia. And directly below where it mentions Java (web servers are not mentioned at all, only web browsers), it also excludes:
And further down, it also excludes: I'm not sure if SuSE considers nVidia drivers to be 3rd party or not, but they are definitely without public available source and without an Open Source license.Hardware is not excluded. Driver in-kernel are not excluded - ALL service packs are included. ALL modules are included.
nVidia not being mentioned, means they're not excluded.
nVidia certainly seem to think that their drivers are open source [0]. You'll also note that nVidia seem to think SUSE will provide source for those driver modules, in that announcement.
[0] https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/nvidia-releases-open-sourc...
Because SuSE has YES-certified the hardware it's running on.
> related programming languages.
Does it matter what country a programming language originates from?
Yes, unless they are 100% under international standards, or 100% open source, they are subject to export restrictions from the overloads contributors, as per the countries their headquarters are located on.
Some examples,
https://www.java.com/en/download/help/error_embargoed.html
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/nuget/nuget-org/policies/e...
"Customer support data is stored exclusively on EU-located networks and servers"
We should not just focus on the location. It's about who is managing the servers and networks.
> We should not just focus on the location
True, but location matters a great deal, because some countries have a tendency to MITM any physical link they can get their hands on, even if that means scuba divers or secret rooms. But also who it is who is managing it, agree.
> some countries have a tendency to MITM any physical link they can get their hands on, even if that means scuba divers or secret rooms
The same countries have physical access to links in other countries, through agreements.
Indeed, and as of today, a lot of it is being re-thought and re-negotiated, which I'm kind of glad about.
SUSE S.A. ownership does seem to be entirely European, if you're worried about Safe Harbor type issues.
https://siliconangle.com/2023/08/18/suse-taken-private-major...
They were a German company before being bought by Novell in 2004. I think the popularity dropped after the takeover in Europe.
Now that they are completely disentangled again, let's hope they restore the popularity. It is a good distribution.
> I think the popularity dropped after the takeover in Europe
It wasn't the takeover, it was splitting SUSE linux into a paid stable/supported distro and a testing/community distro, like Red Hat had just done with RHEL/Fedora. Unlike Red Hat, SUSE didn't have the critical mass to force the community to be guinea pigs for paid customers, and it withered as folk switched to other distros, including the hot new entrant: ubuntu.
Popularity dropped because of backlash from the controversial MS deal that Novell did with Suse in 2006.
The focus should not be on the location, provided it is in the EU, but really the focus should be on carefully siloing the user data and make it only accessible to who needs them which is definitely no-one managing any servers and networks; it shouldn't matter (just dataloss, but not leaks which are not worthless). The info should be encrypted with different service dependent (healthcare, different levels, taxes etc) key pairs. As long as this data is accessible by anyone else but me, it's going to fall in the wrong hands anyway.
This is really good news. Europe has kept saying that digital sovereignty is a must, but for some reason, they have primarily considered US-based projects like Fedora and almost never SUSE. This has always made me wonder, because SUSE already has almost all the necessary tools; for example, Rancher and openSUSE and they're well known in Europe for quite a while.
good luck to suse, hopefully denmark will be first to migrate to linux and stay there unlike other countries (germany i am looking at you).
other than that i don't really believe owning EU data is the battle we can win with more regulations. I bet in 10 years nothing will change, maybe a few more grants, a few more laws..
I think regulations can be highly successful, if used aggressively enough. Look at China - they own their data, because they didn't allow it to be exfiltrated.
I think the issue at hand is that we've been half-assing our regulatory efforts.
Have you just used China as a good example for user privacy?
No, as a good example for keeping your data sovereign. What you do with said sovereignty is another matter - I expect that part would play out differently in the EU than in China.
I wouldn't be too sure of the EU being a particular strong stalwart of public institutions vis a vis privacy.
They keep trying to hammer through anti-encryption or logging or scanning laws.
Big picture, there isn't a government in the world that is better for their citizens than the EU, but it's more like least-worst.
For example, free speech is a thing that the EU or its national governments love to encroach on and I am quite envious of the fiery defense it gets in the US.
I think it's more an example of successfully enforcing regulations.
China is especially good as an example because it shows that most tech companies can be made to bend to their regulatory whim. Europe is hesitant in that regard for fear of getting left behind. China shows that this fear is mostly unfounded.
And in cases where Western companies don't want to invest in China due to their regulations, local alternatives seem to quickly pick up the slack and over time even become better than their Western counterparts (at least in certain aspects). Just look at all those Chat+Payment things over there.
> Europe is hesitant in that regard for fear of getting left behind. China shows that this fear is mostly unfounded.
It's hard to transplant the Chinese experience elsewhere. Not only due to Europe's current far greater dependence on American software and cloud providers, but also due to China's far larger pool of technical expertise, likely resulting from many decades of heavy emphasis on math and science education, together with far greater social and monetary rewards. I doubt that European politicians or their electorates have the patience for a big turnaround that may not start to pay off for several decades or even generations.
Thankfully, we have parts of the ex soviet bloc that had the same heavy emphasis on math and science. You wouldn't believe the number of Romanian software engs I've worked with.
Yup, it's a win-win.
You either bend a foreign company to your will or you get to build a local champion.
So far we thought the though guy on the school playground would always be on the same team, now it doesn't feel like it will ever be the case again.
> Europe is hesitant in that regard for fear of getting left behind.
And that fear grows when American companies pump money in the EU representatives. /s
Regulations work, you just have to enforce them.
i am curious if you are from eu or ever tried to run a business here
Are you trying to say that there are no businesses in Europe at all? Like 100% unemployment?
Or are you saying that you would personally find it easier with fewer regulations? For instance, there are probably laws that make it illegal for people to point a gun at you and make you hand them all your money. Do those hurt your business?
If you can't run a business in Europe, maybe it's the wrong business, or maybe you're in the wrong place. But there are hundreds of millions of people in Europe who have a job, so I think it's safe to say that it's not impossible to run a business in Europe.
I am both from the EU and running a business there. Do you have any questions you'd like me to answer?
yes, do you really believe more regulations help you?
Definitely! They set an even playing field (i.e competitors can't undercut me due to shoddy quality or questionable labour practices), enable interoperability and create an open market.
interesting take, I guess I am still barbarian or a big capitalist head to believe in that. Thanks for answer
[flagged]
[flagged]
> made it the longest running democracy to date
the US didn't have universal suffrage until the mid 1960s
[flagged]
[flagged]
The longest run up until now... But you shouldnt be so sure that it is still a democracy and you shouldnt be so sure that the fact it was kept a democracy for so long was because of free speech absolutisme. I for one, think that the US of A has lost a lot of its narrative in the last 20 years. I think its the narrative that kept it a democracy until now.
Not the longest. The longest is San Marino - since 1600.
What's with the Vatican?
Not a democracy, an elected absolute monarchy. More akin to the prince-electors of the HRE.
it's a democracy, without universal suffrage
like the US until the repeal of the Jim Crow laws (1960s)
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Put differently, tolerance is a social contract: https://conversational-leadership.net/tolerance-is-a-social-...
Popper’s perspective aligns with the view of tolerance as a social contract. The protection of tolerance extends only to those who reciprocate it. When one party breaches this contract by imposing on others’ rights or safety, the injured party is no longer obligated to extend tolerance to the aggressor.
> We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
And who gets to decide who the intolerant parties are in an argument/dispute in order to justify the use of force against them?
The quote you posted literally advocates for censorship, oppression and genocide of the other side, except since it's of those YOU view as being intolerant, so then it's somehow moral and OK for you to do it against them, but you wouldn't agree to that when the other party does it to you when they view you as the intolerant one.
Because that's exactly what the Nazis did when they got into power: they removed the ones who they considered to be intolerant form their perspective, and it's exactly the rhetoric Zionists use to justify genocide in Gaza: they're just removing intolerant people so then it's morally ok.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
> intolerance was a point of pride for them
Literally no party ever, not even the Nazis, Stalinists, Maoists, ever thought "we're the bad intolerant guys and we're proud of it".
On the contrary, they all thought they were on the right side of history and that all the atrocities they were doing, they were the right thing, done for the greater good.
Nazi literally means "national" and "socialist" as in for the country and the working people, both words with good meaning behind them on their own, up until WW2.
>Your behavior suggests either deep ignorance or malicious attempts at distorting the conversation in a right wing extremist way. Either way is not a good look.
What behavior? Correcting your wrong takes with facts and arguments? Every point you brought up here I have disproved with arguments.
[flagged]
>They did, however think "we will not tolerate the Jewish threat to our aryan volk" - i.e. an openly pro-intolerance ideology.
I never said the Nazis weren't being intolerant, I just called you out for painting those you don't like as intolerant as the Nazis in order to justify using censorship and state force against them in the name of greater good.
If we're gonna go after people for intolerance I expect a lot more proof of criminal wrongdoing and argumentation than just comparing them to Nazis since you're doing exactly what the Nazis did to justify their intolerance towards the Jews.
>"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies
Not sure how calling people who disagree with you as antisemites helps in any way since I never said anything in support for the Nazis or against the Jews.
Edit: Answering to your reply from below here to not balloon the thread any further:
>"I did not call you an antisemite, I pointed out a common behavioral pattern of antisemites."
So your argument is: "I'm not calling you an antisemite directly, I'm just using a quote to describe your pattern of behavior as being antisemitic." ? Do you even hear yourself?
Like I said before, you're the one who can't stop using Nazis as boogeymen and Jews as a humans shield in arguments all for the sake of emotional manipulation, then call people antisemitic when they disagree with you.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Please stop this. Other community members are complaining, and for good reason. You both seem to want to avoid fascism and oppression, which is great. You seem bitterly opposed about what approaches are most effective at achieving it, and are using that to justify continually escalating personal attacks on each other. Please step away from the keyboard, take some time to cool down, and recognize that this is no way to resolve age-old debates like this.
You've both broken several guidelines in this subthread, most notably the one against personal swipes, but others too. Please read them and observe them if you're going to comment here, otherwise don't.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[flagged]
Please stop this. Other community members are complaining, and for good reason. You both seem to want to avoid fascism and oppression, which is great. You seem bitterly opposed about what approaches are most effective at achieving it, and are using that to justify continually escalating personal attacks on each other. Please step away from the keyboard, take some time to cool down, and recognize that this is no way to resolve age-old debates like this.
You've both broken several guidelines in this subthread, most notably the one against personal swipes, but others too. Please read them and observe them if you're going to comment here, otherwise don't.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html