Correct me if I’m wrong, I’m still on the learning path of Linux. But there doesn’t seem to many forks of OpenSuse? There are a bunch of forks of Arch, Fedora and Debian, but why not OpenSuse? Is it a license problem or something else?

  • A7thStone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Your infographic shows that suse was rebased off jurix and redhat after it stopped being Slackware based.

    • mitchty@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s rpm, suse Linux 1.0 was never built off the same source or installer that Redhat Linux was.

      Do you have a historical example where any suse distribution used redhat based source? As opensuse as I said only used the rpm package manager, it never used any other components of a redhat derived install.

      Source: I work there and can find zero redhat strings in any old source code from that era, the old greybeards took offense to the implication that suse was ever based on redhat other than using rpm which at the time was about it for packaging.

      All they did was start to use rpm instead of tar for packaging.

      • LeFantome@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I will just say that SUSE 4.2 was not built off the same base as SUSE 1.0 either. It is not going to be as clear cut as finding a cloned Red Hat source code repository.

        SUSE 4.2 was really version 1.0 of the distribution we call OpenSuse today ). It was a reboot. This version was no longer based on Slackware and it was the first version using RPM.

        Debian introduced packages in 1995 ( before Debian 1.0 ). RPM did not appear until Red Hat Linux 2.0 in the fall. SUSE 4.2 came out in 1996 and could have used either one.