I was only there for a year or two, but it was a great place to work, and I 100% agree on the upstream contributors, but the main thing I will remember is how much people cared.
In some cases, waaayyy too much about little things, but a lot of the time about the right thing to do for the product and for the open source community around it.
I think the main thing I will miss is sitting down on a Friday afternoon and reading the dev list (devel@ I think?), it was a thing of beauty.
This is the opposite how I and not only I remember it. Novell did save S.u.S.E. in 2005 by the highly controversial deal. And then started to slowly dissolve its internal identity within the whole company and almost succeeded. The Novell management was incompetent, trying to save it's dying business by bending what SUSE was doing. Barely survived the 2008+ crisis.
Attachmate, another legacy product company was interested in Novell due to assets and customers. That there was a business unit (SUSE) that was quite capable was merely a surprise to the new owners. They let us live and do our jobs. Which paid off because Novell died in a year or so after attempts to salvage it. The Attachmate management wanted to make money, no interest in SUSE. You can call it good management, but mainly due to the fact that the accounting was internally split from Novell and the numbers did not lie.
The secret sauce of SUSE is that it has strong foundation and longtimers that still somehow manage to keep the spirit and attract new poeople who appreciate it in the work environment.
The miracle of SUSE it's been able to survive any shitty and clueless top management it had had installed by any of the buyers. So far. Fingers crossed.
I agree that Novell was great for SUSE back in the day.
I co-wrote 6 academic textbooks with Novell on SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server for Thompson / Course Technology, and I have fond memories of the whole team at Novell during that time.
Each time I was asked to write another textbook for Novell on SUSE, the publisher used YaST (Yet another SUSE Textbook) in the subject line of the email.
SuSE doesn’t get enough credit for the quality of the distribution. Transactional updates, serious work towards a reproducible distribution, nano as an excellent container runtime, stability under large workloads - it’s a nice piece of engineering.
Hey, do you like reproducible builds? I'm doing some more patches this year...
especially the core packages are getting in good shape now. The others have 1-2% packages with issues left.
SUSE has always been this perennial figure in the Linux world for me; the Linux Distro that isn't talked about often, but is generally liked and respected, by most people who use it.
I ran OpenSUSE for about a year in 2013-2014, and it did sort of have the Just Works nature to it: things did more or less what I expected them to do without much tinkering. It was the first Linux that I liked enough to be my sole operating system instead of dual booting, which should say something by itself.
I stopped running OpenSUSE because I bought a new laptop which had Nvidia Optimus, and someone told me that that was easier to get working with Arch, so that's what I did, and I haven't really touched SUSE since, but I will always respect it for getting me interested in Linux and open source.
I picked OpenSUSE as my personal desktop 15 years ago because its YaST confuguration module helped with administration. Same positve experience, apart from the occasional hiccup updating NVIDIA proprietary drivers.
Yeah, the reason I used OpenSUSE is that someone told me that YaST was more or less analogous to the Windows Control Panel, and that SUSE was relatively friendly for people who had mostly used Windows. I think that description is fairly accurate, I didn't really much trouble navigating around SUSE.
I'm an annoying math person now so I use NixOS for everything, and I don't really plan on leaving any time soon, but if I did SUSE would honestly still be a contender.
Actually, no, not all major distributions have caved and adopted systemd: Other than Gentoo, there is also SlackWare.
(There is also Devuan, which is "Debian without systemd", i.e. minimal changes to allow for systemd not to be used, but of course that doesn't change the default for everything depending directly on Debian.)
There are all sorts of complaints against systemd, some may or may not be overblown - I certainly have not investigated many use cases - but the problem is with the core of it: A single software project gradually taking over more and more of the OS userland. That is simply not a good thing to stick on your system.
No less importantly, I don't believe systemd solves any significant problems vis-a-vis its alternatives.
Switching to Windows could also "solve lots of problems". It introduces many problems though and is an undesirable thing to do, especially in terms of the ecosystem of free software.
About "making Linux better" - that's false on principle, on architectural grounds, and is not a matter of finding.
I personally found no issues with systemd in principal, the architectural issues are largely transient and are mostly fixed, and I can name multiple examples where it has in fact made things better:
- Timer units prevent long job duplication and have mechanisms for restarting as soon as possible if an execution is missed. Cron can't do that on its own, and scripting such functionality is brittle.
- Service units are much simpler and easier to understand than shell script init, restart handing is very good to have built in, and dependency management is extraordinarily useful. User units are also great.
- Automatic capturing of logs with journald and its built-in disk usage limitations are better in practice than piping to files/syslog and running logrotate on blind schedules.
- cgroup resource controls for processes are far more effective than nice/ionice, etc, and can be altered on the fly for every unit without restarting.
- systemd-resolved is one of the few ways to get system-wide support for dns-over-tls, dnssec, and per-service/network choice of DNS servers without considerable effort.
These are just the features that I personally see and interact with almost daily, but I have seen and used enough to know that its dbus and udev integrations are stellar and enable useful functionality for desktops and networking.
I understand that some people have decided that religious adherence to a vague unix dogma is more important than features, usability, and reliability, but please accept that some of us have work to do, which includes the maintainers of major Linux distributions.
> 100% of people who dislike systemd can't come up with a better solution that solves all of the problems that systemd was created to solve.
Perhaps because these people consider that solving all the problems that systemd claims to solve does introduce too many other problems, so they tend to consider it to be the better solution to solve, say, 90 % of the problems that systemd solves, but introduce less new problems.
That's every piece of technology. If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't have jobs. Resistance to change on the basis of "it will cause more problems" halts all technological progress. If you think you can do better, show. me. the. code.
All the problems that systemd is "solving" is a large part of what we dislike, I think. So, no, of course we wouldn't have a replacement software.
My recent experience was trying out Fedora atomic. I love that idea. I found systemd is kinda nice for service management.
But still, I kept running into issues with it spreading into everywhere, doing its own thing, and difficulty working around it. Partially figuring out the atomicity, and partially that no other distro I've tried has leaned in that hard to systemd.
I'm moving on to Arch since it looks like I can at least get this out of my boot process.
(Or, more on the topic of the thread, Tumbleweed looks like an interesting take on being able to roll back to known working states as a replacement for Fedora atomic.)
I think Gentoo explicitly does not do systemd, might be worth it to look at that if you want to avoid systemd, considering that I think the "official" stance of Arch is systemd.
There's also SixOS coming soon (https://events.ccc.de/congress/2024/hub/de/event/sixos-a-nix...). NixOS does kind of a similar atomic thing, so you might enjoy that, but vanilla NixOS is systemd based, so once SixOS drops you might get exactly what you want.
Arch does have systemd by default, but there seem to be options to do an install without. Probably a lot of struggle down that road for a desktop environment though.
I saw some of that SixOS and I am really interested. There was an "ownerboot" tool they linked to that also looked nice to me.
Gentoo can do systemd or OpenRC, but I think systemd is default. I would recommend Guix System if you don't want systemd, as it uses GNU Shepherd instead.
I'd be mostly concerned with package selection with Guix System. Don't you have to go out of your way to install anything proprietary on there? Also doesn't it use a Linux kernel without any blobs? I would think that drivers could be an issue.
Yes, you're correct on both counts. You can add non-default channels and get a different kernel if you so desire. Personally I have stuck to the defaults.
I worked there for a few years during the Novell/Attachmate management. They had a strong bias towards the kernel teams and engineers. They had an european work culture and some very good leads. Their Engineers were very good. The internal mailing lists were ripe with technical discussions. Got some amazing friends and inspirational engineers with whom I would love to work again.
However, There were infighting between the GNOME and KDE desktop teams. The VPs were mostly overpaid and practically useless. The constant churn of acquisition, looking for a new buyer, etc. did not help their long term cause.
With the older system software (kernels, compilers, etc) and infra layer getting commoditized I wonder how long they may remain relevant. When they brought in a new CEO and acquired Rancher I hoped that they may recover with K8S etc, but the CEO has quit and the acquisition has not done much it seems. Until they remove some dinosaurs from the old management at VP levels, I honestly do not see any recovery for them. Thumbs up for the Engineering (and leads) and heavy thumbs down for the Management, is how I remember my time there.
> However, There were infighting between the GNOME and KDE desktop teams
I like to imagine an alternate world where KDE won, became the de facto standard Linux desktop environment, and was refined to perfection (along with a huge set of desktop apps with a consistent user interface design).
> and heavy thumbs down for the Management, is how I remember my time there.
This is exactly what is reflected to the public with their flappy and sloppy unpredictability of product lines (openSUSE that is).
LEAP is beta/rc for Enterprise -> LEAP is now based ON Enterprise -> LEAP will be canned for NEW thing just Tumbleweed for community in the future -> Nothing about new thing but new LEAP are still published -> Community still wants something like LEAP, creates Slow-roll Tumbleweed in fear of SUSE still canning LEAP...maybe? -> Now, no news about EOL of LEAP, no "new thing", but Slow-Roll for Tumbleweed...what a Clown-show...
SUSE/openSUSE you are terrible in messaging, like chickens on meth with a new brain-fart every two month.
Nothing against the Dev's but the C-suite and Marketing should probably be replaced, those ping-pong announcements is the opposite from what someone wants from a Distro.
Really openSUSE why should anyone use LEAP for a professional project if there is a really big chance that in 3-4 years a complete re-installation/migration is needed? Or is it not? I don't know, also pretty sure you don't know too. So fck it i use Debian/Ubuntu/FreeBSD or Slackware hell even Oracle-Linux, literary anything else is more predictable longterm.
You guys have no technical problems but a trust and communication one.
I like openSUSE, but the predictability is dirt poor (which is why I don't use it for servers...or anything else).
About two years ago, LEAP was supposed to be canned for this new shiny thing, since then...nothing. So, dear openSUSE, should I install openSUSE Leap? Wait for the "new" thing, is this "new" thing also free or what? Or you know what? I have a better idea...I just install Debian or FreeBSD (community based, no endless reselling, no corporate overlord, clear messaging).
Kind of agree with this take. Suse was my first distro (got a box set of the commercial distro in the early 00's), but it's been unpredictable, sometimes bug laden, unclear direction, and during that time Debian has become not just better but also easier to use...
Flatpak and Flathub mean almost any distro is suitable for a home user, so now what I look for is stability and how easy it is to install and use dev tools. Everything runs and works on Debian, I've found openSuse to have more bugs.
SuSE was my first Linux system and it helped a lot to spark my interest. Yast (software manager) and SaX (XFree86 configuration tool) were a Godsend for a noob like me in 199x.
It's still solid today, and I hold it in high regards, even if I moved to greener Linux pastures.
My first Linux system too. Back when downloading a distro was hard with available bandwidth, I got it boxed, with quite a few manuals included in the box! Still have them somewhere alongside my copies of free x86 documentation from Intel.
SuSE 5.1 (only a light version that came with a magazine) and 5.3 was the first linux distro that I really liked. YaST was really great to install anything from the 6 cdroms. I have yet the copy.
One thing not made clear in that history was their role in ARM Linux. There was a guy there, I forget his name (I think it was Andy). We learned a lot about making an ARM compiler for CL from him. He really was the, at the low level, the one that help make ARM Linux happen.
Anyone remember his name? Definitely would like to give him a shout out.
6.3 was when I jumped to SuSE and yast was a revelation at the time. On the other hand I jumped away from SuSE later because of the many custom ways of doing things.
> After Red-Hat and Mandrake, it became my favourite home distro until Ubuntu came into the scene.
I fucking loved Mandrake. And Red Hat on a PowerMac. It was a challenge but it was very rewarding when it worked. I had the opposite trajectory after that, though. I tried Ubuntu when it was new and shiny but ran into so many issues… Now I have been using OpenSuse continuously for about 6 years without complaint. Even the usual (though much rarer than it used to be) sticking point of Nvidia drivers are trivial to deal with by restoring snapshots.
My whole story was that other than a netbook running Ubuntu, now dead, all my Linux stuff at home, are custom stuff on the router and BlueRay player that at least run Linux kernel itself, Android and WebOS powered devices, and running containers on WSL/macOS.
Mandrake was great, by its usability and being compiled for Pentiums instead of 386 CPUs.
The move to SuSE was when their development quality started to go down, and eventually pivoted into some other distro.
My first introduction to linux was SuSE 7.2. Got it in the physical box from a local Borders bookstore. I think I was about 12-13 years old. Installed it on the family Gateway computer (PIII, 128mb ram).
SuSE 6.3 for me. With the handbook and everything on CDs it's the sort of introduction to Linux as physical artifacts that you had to deal with. It defined a life-changing experience that's near impossible to avoid. Because you sure weren't able to pull a Docker container of any size in two seconds flat, you weren't able to Google for whatever (Linux Documentation Project was the only website worth visiting), and what you had was what you had, none of this having the latest from github at any time.
It was nice to have these limitations that forced you to sit down and just be with it, free of all the distractions and doubts that arise from always seeing the latest on Hacker News. You knew it was good, you knew you had it all, and you could make the world your oyster with ancient Perl and PHP, documentation and all included right there on those CDs.
My first PC was a used IBM PS/2 Model 70. 2 MB RAM, 60 MB HD. It could not run Linux due to the MCA bus. I lost one year of Linux use because of it, until I bought a Pentium 75.
I remember fondly my first brush with SuSE around 2005, and I was blown away how polished and professional it was. I was a Red Hat user then and later moved on to Ubuntu so I found the YaST based bit foreign to my taste. Those were the days of wild distro-hopping.
I played around with slackware a ton. And mandrake (before mandriva). And OG fedora (still have some Fedora 1 DVD's somewhere, from a magazine)
All of them sucked imho. Switched to Debian when lenny was released and haven't looked back. My current workstation is Debian 12 and it is a rock solid workhorse.
Wow, the mention of SLS takes me back. SLS was the first Linux distribution I ever used. (Not counting the very early days of manually extracting tar archives of userspace binaries to make a system...) I remember passing around the precious shoebox of SLS floppies from person to person in high school. :)
One thing I always found awesome is that even the very first versions, like "Linux Aktuell 4.x" from 1996 or so, already had full support for Braille terminals during installation.
That made SuSE very usable for blind people, even installable, while for other operating systems you always needed someone to set the system up for you (and probably still do).
I am not blind personally (and I don't know anybody who is), but I still found that a fascinating thing to do (I assume they knew someone who was blind and required that support?)
I was working at S.u.S.E. at the time (in 1998) and there was a guy
(I think he was an employee, but I might be wrong) on site who was blind, he and
made sure the Braille terminals worked; yes I think also during installation.
And then there was /usr/bin/zast as a symlink pointing to /usr/bin/yast - just in case you had a DIN keyboard, but the matching keymap hadn’t been loaded.
I was always blown away by the fact that YaST could run either as a GTK app or a CLI/ncurses tool. The same config was available in both.
Back when I was using SuSE regularly, I was developing a pluggable web-based admin tool. I always wanted to look at the way YaST was written to see if I could do something similar for creating a web UI, but my project got sidelined before I got very far.
I used SuSE for many years as my daily driver, and it was generally a very nice ride, and I have/would recommended it to others. I got away from it a few years back because I was always hitting something I wanted to install that was "we know about Debian and Redhat...everything else you're on your own". I think I remember the last-straw was getting a video-in card and associated OSS HDTV software running...fought for a while with SuSE and Debian 'Just Worked'. If I had more time to build-from-source this probably would have been a non-issue, but if I'm going to get a new hobby building everything from source, there are probably a couple of other distros I should look at.
I should definitely revisit it...I keep running into "the Debian + Backport version of this software is just a little too out of date for what you want to do" and Ubuntu has pissed me off in other, more annoying ways too many times.
Which later became Caldera Deutschland and played a bit of a role in Caldera Open Linux. And which happened to have its offices well within commuting range of everything SuSE. I've been wondering about local connections ever since I recognized the Caldera sign on that building (back in the 20th).
I got a soft spot for SUSE. In the late 2000s, Novell partnered with my highschool to teach a certification class, so it became the distribution I cut my teeth on if you don't count my time playing with compiz window effects on a free Ubuntu live-disk in junior high.
Wow, I haven't seen Yggdrasil mentioned in a long time. In the early 90s, one of the guys at work tried to install it on a 386 PC. They never quite succeeded. Just a couple of years later I was running SuSE at home, after having started with Red Hat. The improvement in the distributions in that short amount of time was impressive.
I think this was my first (or among my first) Linux distributions, around 2000 or so. I did not had Internet access back then. I had some coding experience (mostly Basic; I was just learning C++). I made a dual installation with Windows. I don't really remember the details anymore, but I struggled with really using it, and after I played around with it (maybe it lead to some system freeze and then I did a cold restart), at some point it would not boot anymore. But also, I was not really learning anything about how it works, and did not really understand too much. I think I also tried Red Hat later but had similar experience.
Then some time later, I got Internet access, and I read about Gentoo, and the tutorial to install it from scratch was really well written and easy to follow, and that helped me really a lot in understanding how Linux really works, what components are involved in the whole system. I continued using that for many years. Whenever there was some problem, I was able to understand it and fix it.
Nowadays, I just want to use sth which is so widespread that it is very well supported, and I can expect that any problem can be found on the Internet with some solution, and sth where I just need to spend only a minimal amount of effort to keep it running and up-to-date, so I chose Ubuntu (already couple of years ago; not sure if my choice today would be the same, but for now I stick to it). So this is sth which basically just works. But I wonder, for a newcomer who really wants to understand how Linux works, I think I would rather recommend Gentoo or Arch Linux or so. I think I also prefer the rolling release concept (Arch, Gentoo) over the point release development model (Ubuntu, Debian, Suse, Slackware, etc).
So it's not just a meme that Germans like to put "Deutsche" in front of every product/company name, it's the reality. How imaginative, the marketing departments who come up with these names must be making bank.
Well who ever came up with "Deutsche Linux-Distribution" most likely did not have a marketing department.
Besides, putting "German" in your product name at the time (199x) actually was a savvy marketing move, especially if you are the first in a particular niche. There were lots of buyers who wanted to buy fully translated software back then, and the sticker "Software and Manual in German" probably is the most successful sale booster of the 80ies and 90ies in Germany.
This of course does not even touch the subject of localization issues, just to name 2 from the top of my hat:
[1]For years (maybe a decade?) Apple maps had issues if you tried to enter an address the "German" way: <Streetname> <Number> instead of <Number> <Streetname>.
[2]To this day websites ask me for "states" in my shipping address. Yes, Germany has states. We mostly dont care about them. No one puts the state in a shipping address. Shops, please stop getting annoyed when I dont know if you expect me to enter a 2-or 3-length string as abbreviation for my state (which you dont need for anything, anyway). VAT is a federal tax, therefore its not different from state to state.
The Netherlands had that system as well. But entering the number first is faster: the number needs to be exact, but the street can be autocompleted easily.
That the distribution was a fully translated system together with a thick manual (of course also in German) was the whole point and idea. Your comment is too dismissive in my opinion.
The manual was pretty much a Linux for beginners book. It not only explained installation and basic system administration, but had substantial vim and Emacs chapters, as well as a chapter on retro gaming using emulators. (SuSE 5.3 in my case).
So it's not just a meme that Americans like to slap a flag on everything they import from China, it's the reality. How imaginative, the marketing departments who come up with these names must be making bank.
Last time Germans put a National in front of an organization it did not go so well.
Similar with Reich but surprisingly there are still a couple of things starting with Reich, like the Parliament building is still called Reichstag even if there is no Reich no more.
Americans use National mostly when things are uncontroversially national and international. For mostly national and controversially international things they prefer World, like World Series, WCW, WFL.
> the Parliament building is still called Reichstag even if there is no Reich no more
"Reich" isn‘t a Nazi thing. The building was already called that decades earlier. It goes back to the last German emperor, and Reich actually means empire. The Roman Empire is also called Römisches Reich.
SUSE is not very popular in southeast-east asia I suppose. for corp here (at least in my country), the defacto OS for enterprise is RedHat. Never once I heard SUSE was considered.
TBF, the Computing Tabulating Recording Company became IBM in the 1920's when they were selling punch card machines to businesses and governments around the world, including the Nazis thru their German subsidiary, Hollerith.
Er... there is no woman's name that sounds like that.
In English, it's "SOO-zuh" or "SOO-se" if the speaker isn't native and doesn't turn final vowel sounds into schwa like most natives tend to.
In German, it's "ZOO-ze"
/ˈsuːzə/
It is not Susie, or Suzy, or Sooz, or anything like that, and that pronunciation tends to annoy the company. Souce: me; I worked there for 4 years. The company has Youtube videos on how to pronounce it, and even a song making fun of people getting it wrong.
Think of the American march composer John Philip Sousa. Like that. As in the musical instrument the sousaphone.
I've been a user of openSUSE since "openSUSE", nearly. It's my daily driver, today.
I want to say I was playing with Mandrake, Red Hat and a little Gentoo at the time. I started using it regularly around 2010ish - I was working at a Windows shop and had a pretty elaborate home lab with Windows servers and domain controllers so I could do things at home "before trying that on corporate." I remember the deciding factor became "I can use YaST to add this device to my domain controller and login with domain credentials easier than I can add a Windows box to the domain." And I found that was often the theme with many tasks, whether they're unusual like "logging into a Windows host" or mundane. Over the years, the software options available have been pretty incredible. I run Tumbleweed in most places and it's, by far, the smoothest "bleeding edge rolling update" distribution I've worked with. `Snapper` was my first experience with "working rollback."
Because of the fine folks at openSUSE, I went from "knowing nothing about Linux" to "using it as my primary desktop" and I'm mostly a .NET developer. So many development tasks are just easier to do under Linux, whether it's the pesky node or python module that needs gcc/LLVM to compile some dependency and the expansive set of software repositories and available `.rpm`s make it all very straight-forward.
I recently picked up a higher-end AMD GPU and was dismayed to find that ROCm support was limited, mostly, to Ubuntu[0]. I got everything mostly working in Tumbleweed -- interestingly, most of the AI workloads I put it through worked as well in Tumbleweed as they did in Ubuntu following the official documentation but a few of the ROCm utilities didn't run. I ended up reloading with Ubuntu and quickly regretted the situation. Stupidly, I assumed doing a distribution update would be flawless like it typically is with Tumbleweed. After all, the only way to actually update Tumbleweed is via a distribution update, and 2K packages later it very rarely fails to boot. I knew right away that I wouldn't have the safety of being able to pick the previous snapshot but I was surprised that when it failed half-way through it didn't bother to roll anything back; it simply left my machine in a broken state that booted directly to a text console. Having re-loaded this box four times in the prior few days, I decided to go back to what I knew.
About the only complaint I have centers around their default choice of `btrfs` for the filesystem. While I like the CoW functionality (the only particular "advanced" feature that I utilize with `btrfs`), it seems to excel -- mostly -- at teaching me about filesystem recovery. My home lab isn't anywhere near as elaborate as it had been in the past. It seems even on a UPS with proper shutdowns it's ridiculously prone to getting itself into a state where a `btrfs restore` is the only way to recover from a filesystem problem. Every single time I get everything back except for some random cache/tmp/log file but I need to dig up or purchase a volume of equal size to restore it to, meaning I have to keep around an empty drive at least as large as my largest volume. It seems to me "if the filesystem can literally restore everything except for a file or two that has become corrupted" it should offer a "dangerous" option to do so online. To this day I have never had to restore everything from an actual backup, it's always gotten back everything important simply restoring the broken filesystem to a new volume and the filesystem becomes corrupted without explanation -- power didn't fail, the system had a clean shutdown, it just randomly goes "read-only" with a guarantee that the next boot will drop to an emergency console. Unfortunately, CoW helps a lot with the work I do and ends up being worth the grief involved. While I've had fewer failures in the last couple of years and an easier time recovering from those failures, it's often a full day's work to get everything right, again.
[0] Support exists for Leap but the repositories were broken for a solid month while I was setting things up.
True but SUSE (the enterprise version) is pretty clear about the use of btrfs, just use it for the OS (snapshots), the "data" partition should always be XFS.
AFAIK (though not as connected to Red Hat storage team these days), RHEL is pretty much XFS plus logical volume managers. As I understand it, ZFS was just a non-starter because of licensing + Oracle and the feeling was that btrfs just wasn't quite there.
> it seems to excel -- mostly -- at teaching me about filesystem recovery.
100% this.
I worked for SUSE for 4 years and I like the distro, but I unhappily and reluctantly got used to the distro destroying its own root partition a couple of times a year.
In the end I reinstalled on plain old ext4, and then it became rock solid, but you lose snapper and the rollback functionality, and they are handy.
> I want to say I was playing with Mandrake, Red Hat and a little Gentoo at the time.
I don't know when you started playing with all of these and for how long, so it can be absolutely how you said (in the end, it's your own life!) but chances are you mostly used Mandriva, since the Mandrake name disappeared in 2005.
I didn't know snapper supported LVM. That is nice. OpenSUSE's installer probably doesn't support it with its snapper setup though. Default is / btrfs and allowing snapshots if the disk is big enough. (More than 30gb?)
The photo looks like it's an 80ies synth-pop band.
Also, "Sure, one could download all forty Slackware floppy disk images, but it would take quite a bit of time on a 28.8kbps modem"
Yes...yes it does.
On a more serious note, I miss the days when Linux and open source software where on the rise. Things weren't perfect, but there was a lot of idealism and a desire to build cool stuff and the whole "tech bro" thing wasn't what it is today.
I honestly love OpenSUSE. About the only negative thing I can say about it is that zypper, an otherwise perfect package manager, is really, absurdly slow.
- How great the place was for those involved in the open-source ecosystem
- How great Novell and Attachmate were as owners
The company had, like many others, good and tough times, but the people were very passionate about it.
I will never stop feeling lucky for it being part of me for so many years.