Why not use the existing Distros?
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
550 points (96.5% liked)
Linux
52081 readers
1268 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
Why Fedora? They're basically Red Hat in a trench coat. I'd go with a EU based distro like Suse.
Having seen SuSE destroy collaborators like OL, CNC and probably Turbo, I'm okay never even working with them as a customer. I intend to avoid them until death.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I was wondering the same when I came across it a few hours ago and decided to look into it, apparently it’s because it was decided to use an atomic distribution as a base and Suses is apparently not considered stable enough by them. (I can not argue the validity of these statements given either way, that’s just what I found in one of their gitlab issues . if someone wants to look at it for themselves, searching for Fedora on the issue tracker should bring it up)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Fedora Origin: USA
No, thanks. 🙅
alternative POV: it’s entirely FOSS so there’s little control that can be exerted from its use. it’s also entirely free, so use is extracting value without providing anything in return. by its use, you’re taking resources to maintain, host, etc and providing nothing in return
similar reason to why i don’t use ecosia with an ad blocker: by blocking ads you’re using their resources without giving back and thus you’re taking resources away from the charity
This is true, but then why not base it off Guix (the GNU distro)? ..I'm sure Fedora is full of binary blobs and not-so-free software.
If they needed it, they could still add extra software and blobs to Guix, sourced by the EU... and I think doing that would allow it to carve itself a niche (a version of Guix with more compatibility would be interesting for many) rather than sticking a white label on Fedora and call it something else. I don't see a lot of value on this over just using Fedora directly, I'm not sure if it's true that Fedora & Red Hat do not benefit from this... wouldn't their support agents be able to just start providing support also to EU OS customers if they (both customers and support agents) want? Wouldn't it make it more interesting for private companies working closely with the government to choose Red Hat as a partner when it comes to enterprise Linux?
I guess we'll have to see how much they customize it, but in my experience with previous attempts, I'm expecting just a re-skin, just Fedora with different theme. At most, with some extra software preinstalled. I don't think that's a threat to Fedora or Red Hat, but rather an opportunity for expansion.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I wonder how much work is entailed in transforming Fedora in to a distro that meets some definition of the word "Sovereign" 🤔
Personally I wouldn't want to make a project like this be dependent on the whims of a US defense contractor like RedHat/IBM, especially after what happened with CentOS.
I didn’t know red hat was working for the US government. Can you tell me in what way?
load more comments
(5 replies)
But it's a good starting point. Better than inventing everything from the scratch.
I read the sovereign to mean something like an unified platform for EU institutions, that you can dev and train people on.
dependent on the whims of a US defense contractor like RedHat/IBM
A very good point.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Scammers never let a good global crisis get in their way.
- Rebadge a distro and say it's fromm the EU
- .....????
- Profit!
- Collect a hefty donation from EU
Great sentiment I guess but I don't see any reason to believe this will amount to anything.
Based on a US distro whose versions are supported for 1 year, and "built to the requirements for the EU public sector" (because the EU public sector has one coherent set of requirements and the dev knows them, even if he doesn't list them out).
This is most probably good-intentioned and it is admirable how the dev sprung into action, but it's naive at best.
I thought it was naive as well, but because they based it on a mayfly distro that has really great validation and reliability but it's gone in a fortnight.
Wither Almalinix or Cloudlinux or PCLinuxOS or Mandriva? Three of them have really solid support structures and at least one of them has amazing compatibility options with libraries for services.
There are options. A few of them could be better than fedora while fedora is still owned by redhat as redhat dies from suffocation -- hell, its all just fucking ancillary bull (Ansible) they sell now, as its metastatic cancer (Systemd) eats it alive.
EUbuntu?
They should call it EUROS.
European Union Redstar Operating System?
Fedora based actually
EUdora, since I don't think the mail client is still under development
Family Feudora
@SpiceDealer Sorry, what ? How can it be made in EU if it's a Fedora fork/derivative ?
I mean Fedora is open source but if they really wanted a european base, they could have gone with opensuse. AFAIK opensuse is the only fully european linux distro plus they use many of the same tech that redhat/fedora does.
Ultimately I think it doesn't matter too much since even the linux foundation is based in the US and large parts of what makes the linux desktop are maintained by non-EU companies (on top of all the major projects hosted by Github, Gitlab including most of Flathub). If its all open source, I think the risks are pretty low e.g. huawei was able to use Android despite all the restrictions.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
Is this made by European union I wonder
From the subheading on the ReadMe.
Community-led Proof-of-Concept for a free Operating System for the EU public sector 🇪🇺
So it's made by the EU in the sense that the maintainers are likely citizens of the EU, I guess.
Depending on who the group is ... it is good to first do a thorough check on who the group is ... it can just as likely be a group of scam artists that are riding on some nationalism band wagon happening around the world these days.
They could, and if I was an EU government entity, I would do my homework on what they were offering, even if they were acting 100% in good faith.
However, helping governments get away from the clutches of the likes of Apple and Microsoft seems like a noble goal, and if this idea spurs that change regardless of the adoption of this distro, I think it will have been a net positive.
It's going to have to start at the local level. They're usually the ones that have less budget and less influence to sell, anyway.
If they are honest about what they are suggesting ... the first step would be to be explicitly clear about who THEY are and WHO they represent.
I really don't care that much about the technical side of things because I'm not that technically knowledgeable. However, I am more apt to trust the judgment or recommendations of prominent people in the industry (that are not corporately attached or controlled) ... I would also trust public institutions or journalists or academics with a track record of social advocacy and wanting to represent people instead of corporations or businesses. I would also trust politicians or political advocates that mostly represent people and public institutions.
I really don't put my faith in any one person no matter who they claim to be to just say they want to build something meaningful and give me no information on their background, who they worked for, who they represent or what kind of people or organizations they associate with. There have been far too many 'good natured' technocrats and technology people from the past decade or two who claim to say that they want to change the world for the better and then end up wanting to burn it all down for a profit.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)