[Posted April 18, 2025 by corbet]
EU OS is not a brand-new Linux distribution in the traditional sense. Instead, it is a proof-of-concept built atop Fedora's immutable KDE Plasma spin (Kinoite). EU OS takes a layered approach to customization. The project's vision is to provide a standard, adaptable Linux base that can be extended with national, regional or sector-specific customizations, making it suitable for a wide range of European public sector needs.
bootc
Posted Apr 18, 2025 22:10 UTC (Fri)
by champtar (subscriber, #128673)
[Link]
The article doesn't mention it, but their website does (https://eu-os.gitlab.io/), they want to use bootc, explaining the Fedora choice. bootc aim to be distro/packager agnostic so they could switch away from Fedora in the future.
Needs to be based on a 'European' distribution
Posted Apr 19, 2025 8:12 UTC (Sat)
by tdz (subscriber, #58733)
[Link] (3 responses)
Needs to be based on a 'European' distribution
Posted Apr 19, 2025 8:47 UTC (Sat)
by zdzichu (subscriber, #17118)
[Link] (1 responses)
Needs to be based on a 'European' distribution
Posted Apr 19, 2025 10:53 UTC (Sat)
by tdz (subscriber, #58733)
[Link]
I'd be one of those European engineers and we already do have a these support structures at SUSE. With our Multi-Limux Support, at SUSE we even offer support for CentOS and RHEL. It's all there. Yet it makes no sense to build upon a non-European base if the goal is sovereignty from outside parties.
Needs to be based on a 'European' distribution
Posted Apr 19, 2025 14:35 UTC (Sat)
by champtar (subscriber, #128673)
[Link]
How long would the support cycles be?
Posted Apr 19, 2025 10:40 UTC (Sat)
by aragilar (subscriber, #122569)
[Link] (4 responses)
I'm somewhat surprised Fedora would be chosen, I though the support cycle for a single release was quite short?
How long would the support cycles be?
Posted Apr 19, 2025 12:22 UTC (Sat)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
How long would the support cycles be?
Posted Apr 20, 2025 14:13 UTC (Sun)
by gdt (subscriber, #6284)
[Link] (2 responses)
Fedora has a release cycle but no support cycle. There is no support in the 'enterprise' sense of the word.
Fedora broke Bluetooth headsets for the best part of a year. There have been bugs which have left Fedora computers dead in the water, which if the distribution was more widely used would have an impact akin to the CloudStrike incident. Which is fine. Fedora is meant to be the operating system which sorts out changes which can't be tested against the necessarily small ranges of devices available to a developer or lab.
But as a base distribution for a desktop used across many countries personal computers it is a poor choice as the distribution's goals are incompatible with that usage. And again, there's nothing wrong with that.
My view is: Debian exists. It's the obvious choice considering compatibility of aims. It needs work, but there's plenty of scope to use the funds no longer going to US technology corporations to make that work happen in Europe. SuSE would be one of the companies best positioned to contract for that work.
However at this stage I don't see any proposal from the Council of Europe. Rather the opposite: the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform and the associated Horizon Europe funds have been redirected towards defending Europe from Russia's military aggression. This "EU OS" is merely an independent proposal which is using the "EU" name.
I expect the Council and Parliament to develop a more comprehensive programme to ensure European sovereignty, which would include software platforms, but at present the immediate work of defending Ukraine is clearly taking precedence in budget allocations.
The desktop is not the difficult problem
Posted Apr 19, 2025 10:44 UTC (Sat)
by storner (subscriber, #119)
[Link] (5 responses)
The desktop is not the difficult problem
Posted Apr 19, 2025 11:44 UTC (Sat)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (2 responses)
The desktop is not the difficult problem
Posted Apr 22, 2025 8:59 UTC (Tue)
by jepsis (subscriber, #130218)
[Link] (1 responses)
With modern security and regulatory demands, software now incurs ongoing maintenance costs — it's no longer one-and-done, it's a lifecycle commitment.
The desktop is not the difficult problem
Posted Apr 22, 2025 12:09 UTC (Tue)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
The software has been chosen, now the task needs to be adapted to the software
Posted Apr 19, 2025 15:25 UTC (Sat)
by hailfinger (subscriber, #76962)
[Link] (2 responses)
The software has been chosen, now the task needs to be adapted to the software
Posted Apr 19, 2025 16:54 UTC (Sat)
by excors (subscriber, #95769)
[Link] (1 responses)
I think it's worth linking the whole FAQ: https://eu-os.gitlab.io/faq
This doesn't sound at all like a public sector procurement process; there was no requirements list or tendering or communicating with vendors at all. And it's not public sector: "Right now, EU OS is not a project of the European Union. Instead, EU OS is a community-led Proof-of-Concept. This means it is lead by a community of volunteers and enthusisasts. The project goal is to become a project of the European Commission in the future"
It sounds like this is (currently) a single guy's project, and he just chose a distro that he thought would work well for a few reasons, which is the standard decision-making process in pretty much every small project. Distro choice will always be contentious and there's rarely an objectively correct answer, which is why the distro wars have been ongoing since last century; so whoever's doing the work gets to pick one they like.
The software has been chosen, now the task needs to be adapted to the software
Posted Apr 20, 2025 7:24 UTC (Sun)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link]
Don't reinvent the wheel
Posted Apr 20, 2025 4:55 UTC (Sun)
by pabs (subscriber, #43278)
[Link]
Might be best to join one of the existing distros than reinvent the wheel. Debian is quite heavily European, or there is openSUSE in the RPM camp, or perhaps a more modern distro like Guix/Nix.
A possible reason for Fedora
Posted Apr 20, 2025 5:05 UTC (Sun)
by DemiMarie (subscriber, #164188)
[Link] (31 responses)
Fedora is the only major reasonably fast-moving desktop distro I know of that is not a rolling release. Slower-moving distros very often lag so far behind upstream that when there is a problem, getting help from upstream is nigh impossible.
A possible reason for Fedora
Posted Apr 20, 2025 14:28 UTC (Sun)
by hailfinger (subscriber, #76962)
[Link] (30 responses)
Hm. Do you know about Ubuntu? It seems to fit the criteria for "major reasonably fast-moving desktop distro".
Major distro? Sure.
Reasonably fast-moving? Sure, even with identical release cadence.
Desktop? Sure.
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 20, 2025 15:30 UTC (Sun)
by DemiMarie (subscriber, #164188)
[Link] (28 responses)
I had forgotten about non-LTS Ubuntu, but my understanding is that its binary packages aren’t freely redistributable, and there is no interest in an immutable base system.
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 20, 2025 15:36 UTC (Sun)
by DemiMarie (subscriber, #164188)
[Link]
To elaborate: In the areas where I had been looking for a distro, the licensing constraints meant that Ubuntu wasn’t an option, so I didn’t even consider it. For instance, there’s no pre-built Ubuntu Qubes template, and Ubuntu isn’t an option for the base for Qubes OS’s dom0.
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 20, 2025 16:38 UTC (Sun)
by ballombe (subscriber, #9523)
[Link] (25 responses)
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 20, 2025 22:26 UTC (Sun)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link] (24 responses)
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 21, 2025 3:33 UTC (Mon)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (23 responses)
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 21, 2025 7:00 UTC (Mon)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link]
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 21, 2025 9:49 UTC (Mon)
by ballombe (subscriber, #9523)
[Link] (20 responses)
Do you have a link to share ?
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 21, 2025 17:33 UTC (Mon)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (19 responses)
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 21, 2025 21:45 UTC (Mon)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (15 responses)
But what happens if you recompile the source code and end up with a bit-for-bit identical binary? (Isn't reproducible building a goal for some systems?) How can you prove to Canonical that it's your binary and not theirs?
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 21, 2025 21:55 UTC (Mon)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (13 responses)
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 21, 2025 23:20 UTC (Mon)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (12 responses)
Oh, I see. So it's the package itself, not the binary, that's the issue.
That's no big deal, then. It's standard operating procedure to restrict the use of trademarks.
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 21, 2025 23:54 UTC (Mon)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (11 responses)
Really? I don't think Debian has ever had issues with people redistributing packages that contain "debian.org" in the changelog. I don't think Canonical would have much of a leg to stand on in that specific respect given the number of actual Debian packages that contain changelog entries from Canonical employees using their project addresses, but when asked there's never been any clarity on just what level of trademark removal is desired here.
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 22, 2025 0:52 UTC (Tue)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (10 responses)
Yeah, I don't know. I don't think it would be reasonable to consider developer@ubuntu.org in a Changelog to be a violation of the "Ubuntu" trademark... it's just an email address that's used to record a historical fact.
I think you're right that Canonical is asking for a lot more than it's really entitled to... which may be typical of corporations and less typical of non-profits like Debian.
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 22, 2025 20:09 UTC (Tue)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (8 responses)
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 23, 2025 3:01 UTC (Wed)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (7 responses)
What is an "Ubuntu binary", though? And what if no Canonical trademarks appear in that binary, and the source to the binary is GPL'd?
If you happen to build an executable from the GPL'd source that happens to match the executable Ubuntu built, then how can Ubuntu stop you from distributing that?
I think it's pretty clear you can't redistribute Ubuntu binary packages that contain Canonical trademarks, including things like artwork, themes, etc. But saying you can't download some random .deb that's part of Ubuntu but doesn't contain any Canonical trademarks and then redistribute it seems pretty far-fetched to me.
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 23, 2025 3:19 UTC (Wed)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (6 responses)
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 23, 2025 15:26 UTC (Wed)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (5 responses)
They can't, unless said executable contains Canonical trademarks that make it appear that it originated from Ubuntu. (The GPL explicitly permits this sort of restriction)
OK, so I wrote a piece of software that is licensed under GPLv2 and is shipped by Canonical as part of Ubuntu Universe. Section 3 of GPLv2 says: "You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:" [provide source code...]
The GPLv2 explicitly says you're allowed to distribute the program or a work based on it in object code or executable form. There's nothing in the GPLv2 about trademarks. And a binary .deb is surely a "work based on" my program.
GPLv3 mentions trademarks, so yes... for GPLv3-licensed work, Ubuntu is probably within its rights to require removal of trademarks as a condition of redistribution.
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 23, 2025 15:29 UTC (Wed)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 23, 2025 16:02 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (3 responses)
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 23, 2025 16:13 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 23, 2025 16:22 UTC (Wed)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (1 responses)
And then if you distribute the Ubuntu package UNmodified that's perfectly okay from a trademark point of view.
Yes, I agree... but does Canonical?
The problem is if you take the Ubuntu version of your work, modify it again, then distribute it with Ubuntu trademarks intact.
I agree again, but this isn't a problem. If you're going to modify the work, then it's easy enough to strip out the trademarks. However, I think it would be very problematic if Canonical attempted to prevent you from redistributing an unmodified .deb that you simply downloaded from Ubuntu's servers (which is how I read the start of this thread.)
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 23, 2025 16:58 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 23, 2025 17:20 UTC (Wed)
by ballombe (subscriber, #9523)
[Link]
The policy is conflating Canonical the company with Ubuntu the supposedly community-supported distribution.
It presents Canonical as appropriating the full Ubuntu IP to itself and does not acknowledge upstream projects and Debian IP. This does not encourage to contribute to Ubuntu.
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 22, 2025 6:58 UTC (Tue)
by zdzichu (subscriber, #17118)
[Link]
It's not a technical issue, it's legal. Color of the bits matters.
It's very tiring when people on LWN start discussing law matters and apply their specific logic to incompatible domain.
According to Ubuntu, only TRADEMARK is protected
Posted Apr 22, 2025 4:07 UTC (Tue)
by jjs (guest, #10315)
[Link] (2 responses)
According to Ubuntu, only TRADEMARK is protected
Posted Apr 22, 2025 4:13 UTC (Tue)
by jjs (guest, #10315)
[Link]
According to Ubuntu, only TRADEMARK is protected
Posted Apr 22, 2025 9:01 UTC (Tue)
by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501)
[Link]
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 21, 2025 11:53 UTC (Mon)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
I don’t believe Ubuntu binaries are redistributable
Posted Apr 22, 2025 1:05 UTC (Tue)
by HenrikH (subscriber, #31152)
[Link]
While true, that is something that one or two €100M investment from the EU would change in a heartbeat ;)
A possible reason for Fedora
Posted Apr 20, 2025 17:56 UTC (Sun)
by zdzichu (subscriber, #17118)
[Link]
Ubuntu is not a standalone distribution, but is siphoning packages from Debian testing variant. Fedora is self-standing and has a stable releases (each with ~13 months of support).
Odd choice, in my opinion
Posted Apr 21, 2025 15:06 UTC (Mon)
by chexo4 (subscriber, #169500)
[Link] (1 responses)
Odd choice, in my opinion
Posted Apr 22, 2025 10:39 UTC (Tue)
by abo (subscriber, #77288)
[Link]
Layering can be done by building custom images, rather than client side rpm-ostree manipulation. That's much more reliable and I'm sure that's what would be recommended for organisations.
Not the first time
Posted Apr 24, 2025 5:22 UTC (Thu)
by carlosrodfern (subscriber, #166486)
[Link]
The EU has been talking about utilizing Linux as OS for the government desktop to achieve technology independence from the USA for almost two decades. Being there, never comes to fruition. I hope it is for reals this time.