But Fedora is based on an IBM product... so that's a swing and a miss. SuSE would be a better direction, IMO
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
554 points (96.5% liked)
Linux
52095 readers
1483 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Only after IBM purchased Redhat recently
"Made with ❤️ in Brussels by Robert Riemann"
Clicked his URL…
"physicist and computer scientist…passionate about open source and free software, cryptography…"
Whew, almost read crypto"currency"…
"…and peer-to-peer technology such as BitTorrent or Blockchain/Bitcoin.
Goddammit.
--
✍︎ arscyni.cc: modernity ∝ nature.
In my opinion, If sovereignty is the goal i think GTK based DE will be safer than QT based DE.
I am aware of The Free QT foundation And its relation to KDE but in a long term there is possibility of things might get complicated if there is change in policy . And even the QT trademark is not totally free. I'm not trying to start DE war, i love both KDE and GNOME.
The Qt foundation tried to get fucky once already, and KDE and some other major companies that rely on it were about ready to fork it if they persisted, and Qt seemed to calm down after that.
Not a great relationship to be in though, constantly suspecting that your toolkit might do a rugpull at some point if the shareholders demand it. But I think they could pull off a fork if they ever did.
Why Fedora? Sorry, but there are so many European options, it makes no sense to build a European house on an American basement.
Probably since it's the main redhat upstream and they want the advantage of already widespread usage.
Although at that point why not OpenSUSE for the same reason you mentioned.
Suse is the first thing that came to mind
It's still open source
if you're not paying it doesn't really matter. open source belongs to everyone; it's a disservice to put it in the same bag as, say, a Microsoft or Apple OS.
plus how far removed is enough? are we going to scrutinize what programming languages were used and where they originated as well?
Open source is free for everyone, I think the objection is more about an american company being able to directly influence the decisions, operating under US jurisdiction, etc.
Much like when IBM bought RH and then axed CentOS?
Yeah, no.
The idea of a "distro for EU public sector" is neat, but even the PoC has some flaws when considering technical sovereignty.
First of all, using Gitlab & Gitlab CI. Gitlab is an American company with most of its developers based in the US. Sure, you could host it by yourself but why would you do it considering Forgejo is lighter and mostly developed by developers based in the EU area?
The idea of basing it on Fedora is also somewhat confusing. Sure, it's a good distro for derivatives, but it's mostly developed by IBM developers. The tech sovereignty argument doesn't hold well against Murphy's law.
For me, it's a perfectly fitting compromise, because Fedora is a community that is detached from RedHat and IBM, but it is also the best distribution out there.
They are pushing the envelope and have been for some time. If it weren't for Fedora devs we wouldn't have seen Wayland, PipeWire, Nouveau, etc be pushed to the general public. Also Fedora a libre distribution built by community. If that were ever to change they'd hemorrhage devs.
Compare that with Ubuntu. They want a vendor lock-in via Snaps (and in one point in time Mir), they're currently replacing coreutils (copyleft) with uutils (copyright) and have what I would say is a pretty bad and convoluted GPU stack.
OpenSuSE could probably be a better alternative, if they took the Linux desktop seriously. But they play second fiddle to Fedora and have not even been close enough to push the envelope like Fedora has.
In conclusion Fedora is the best libre Linux distributions out there.
Now if Eelco Doolstra wasn't fucking around, we could have had a super LTS NixOS - but NOOOO.
Fedora is not that detached from IBM.They dictate it's development hence the removal of codecs. If it was a community addition why would it matter? And why would they remove the codecs. After that it was obvious fedora was not a community dustro but driven by Redhat.
If it was a community addition why would it matter? And why would they remove the codecs.
You don't have to be a corporation to be held liable for legal issues with hosting codecs. Just need to be big enough for lawyers to see you as an attractive target and in a country where codec patent issues apply. There's a very good reason why the servers for deb-multimedia (Debian's multimedia repo), RPM Fusion (Fedora's multimedia repo), VLC's site, and others are all hosted in France and do not offer US-based mirrors. France is a safe haven for foss media codecs because its law does not consider software patentable, unlike the US and even most other EU nations.
Fedora's main repos are hosted in the US. Even if they weren't, the ability for any normal user around the world to host and use mirrors is a very important part of an open community-friendly distro, and the existence of patented codecs in that repo would open any mirrors up to liability. Debian has the same exact issue, and both distros settled on the same solution: point users to a separate repo that is hosted in France which contains extra packages for patent-encumbered codecs.
Love this! We definitely should try to spread Linux to become more accessible and popular.
I read EUDORA for a split second and got all excited that the best email client ever was getting reborn!
But this is cool too… i guess.
As much as I love what they're doing, tieing an OS to a specific region via name seems like the opposite of Open Source values.. Then again, I suppose it could just be forked into a more generalized version
This is specifically for the public sector. The fact that it is open source make it adaptable to different scenarios.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Meanwhile https://www.europarl.europa.eu/petitions/en/petition/content/0729%252F2024/html/Linux%2Bstatt%2BWindows just closed with 2474 Supporters
Well, first I hear of it.
If the EU were concerned about the US jurisdiction of Linux projects it could pick:
- OpenSuSE (org based in Germany)
- Mint (org based in Ireland)
- Manjaro (org based in France/Germany, and based of Arch)
- Ubuntu (org based in UK)
However if they didn't care, then they could just use Fedora or other US based distros.
I think it would be a good idea for the EU to adopt linux officially, and maybe even have it's own distro, but I'm not sure this Fedora base makes sense. Ironically this may also be breaching EU trademarks as it's masquerading as an official project by calling itself EU OS.
Mint and Ubuntu have Debian as an upstream, don't they?
Debian is a US legal entity, so if it was required to sanction countries, it feels that software built with it would likely be restricted.
Debian is open source though. So unless they make it closed source we can keep using it.
Making it closed source would probably kill it and a fork would take its place.
Well, all the distros being discussed are open source - it's kind of a requirement when making a linux distro because the licences require it and you wouldn't be able to make it closed source. (Unless there's a huge shift in the law)
And being open source doesn't necessarily prevent it falling under sanctions legislation. I have seen a linux distro being legally required to "take reasonable steps" to geo-block Russian access to its repos, and I've personally read disclaimers when installing linux that "This software is not allowed to be used in Russia". (That distro is 'owned' by an organisation that was controlled by a single person, so it's probably not comparable to Debian) We're all technical people so we can all probably think of half a dozen ways around that, but it was still ordered by the US Government (even before the current government)
And you may be right in that it would be excempt. Debian isn't owned by anyone, but its trademark is(Software in the Public Interest), and it feels possible that those who help distribute foss (by mirroring repos for example) may be restricted if they fall under US jurisdiction. I don't know for certain - and unless someone here is a qualified lawyer specialising in software licences as well as how software rooted in the US relates to sanctions - we're all probably guessing.
Three months ago any of this would have felt ridiculous - who would want to stop free software? But now? In this era of the ridiculous? I certainly feel unsure about predicting anything.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I'd add:
- Mageia (French)
- Zorin OS (Ireland)
- Ufficio Zero (Italy)
Last option but better for an easy migration: linuxfx.org
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›