This year has been tough. But times of difficulties and challenges are also opportunities to reflect on where we come from, as a thriving global open-source community, and where we’re heading.

As dust settles, we look back and remember all the good moments for openSUSE – as well as the more difficult ones – we’ve been through together. And there sure are reasons to rejoice:

• the fun and passionate “Meet the Candidates” gathering scheduled for today
• a first step into the future with the development kickoff of Leap 15.3
• significant improvements for openSUSE on the PinePhone
• the debut of a long term openSUSE - ARM journey
• the release of the Open Build Service Connector extension for Visual Studio Code
• the openSUSE + LibreOffice Conference, with plenty of excellent sessions
• the launch of “let’s improve the openSUSE learning experience” initiative
• amazing Hacktoberfest contributions
• the arrival of Leap 15.2 on Windows Subsystem for Linux … as well as countless improvements of the infrastructure (news-o-o, software-o-o) thanks to our terrific contributors, content writers, designers, developers and engineers.

The point of this post is not to pat ourselves on the back, however. As a community we cannot achieve excellence without humility. There are still plenty of things to improve regarding both the technology and the people it serves. We all have something to learn from each other, and from the community as a whole; it is in this spirit that we would like to invite you to the “2020 End of the Year survey”. The survey has almost 40 questions cherry-picked to better understand your story with openSUSE, the issues you faced and your expectations for the future. Your insights will be invaluable for all of us, especially to help the new Board orientate its actions.

We wish you a beautiful end of the year and look forward to reading you. The survey starts today on survey.opensuse.org and runs until Jan. 2.

Dear Tumbleweed users and hackers,

The year is slowly coming to an end, and a lot of people start to disappear on holiday breaks. But as we’re already used from previous years, this has never stopped Tumbleweed. Same this year: week 51 has seen another 5 snapshots being published (1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, and 1216).

The main changes contained in those snapshots were:

• GStreamer 1.18.2
• systemd 246.7
• Linux kernel 5.9.14
• KDE Frameworks 5.77.0

The items planned to be shipped in the next snapshots contain these items:

• KDE Applications 20.12
• Linux kernel 5.10
• Mozilla Firefox 84.0
• icu 68.1: breaks a couple of builds (Staging:I)
• brp-check-suse: a bug fix in how it detected dangling symlinks (it detected them, but did not fail as it was supposed to)
• permissions package: prepares for easier listing, while supporting a full /usr merge
• RPM 4.16: still a few packages build failures (Mozilla *, openblas)
• Ruby 3.0: mainly YaST not ready for that switch. We are likely to stay on 2.7 as ‘default ruby’ version, but add rubygem packages for Ruby 3.0 by end of the year
• First experiments with rpmlint 2.0 started in Staging:M
• openssl 3.0: currently alpha 9 in Staging:O

On my desktop system, I’m running XFCE on openSUSE Tumbleweed. When I leave my desk, I hit the “lock screen” button, the screen goes black, and the monitors go into standby. So far so good. When I come back and mash the keyboard, everything lights up again, the screens go white, and it says:

blank: Shows nothing but a black screen
Name: tserong@HOSTNAME
Password:
Enter password to unlock; select icon to lock

So I type my password, hit ENTER, and I’m back in action. So far so good again. Except… Several times recently, when I’ve come back and mashed the keyboard, the white overlay is gone. I can see all my open windows, my mail client, web browser, terminals, everything, but the screen is still locked. If I type my password and hit ENTER, it unlocks and I can interact again, but this is where it gets really weird. All the windows have moved down a bit on the screen. For example, a terminal that was previously neatly positioned towards the bottom of the screen is now partially off the screen. So “something” crashed – whatever overlay the lock thingy put there is gone? And somehow this affected the position of all my application windows? What in the name of all that is good and holy is going on here?

Update 2020-12-21: I’ve opened boo#1180241 to track this.

The YaST Team just finished the last sprint before the Christmas break of this convulted 2020. So let’s start the festivities by celebrating what we have achieved in the latest two weeks. That includes:

• Several additions to AutoYaST
• Better management of required packages
• Usability improvements in the registration process
• Drop of the SysVinit support
• Translation infrastructure for the wicked Cockpit module

Let’s go into the details.

You may remember that we recently introduced support in the YaST Partitioner for tmpfs mount points and for Btrfs subvolume quotas. Now those technologies have been incorporated to AutoYaST. See this pull request for some overview of the tmpfs support or this other one if you want to check the full documentation. If you are more curious about Btrfs subvolume quotas, check this pull request for some general description with screenshots or the documentation one for more comprehensive information.

We also improved how YaST manages the packages to install in order to support the different storage technologies and file systems. During installation, YaST now makes a difference between optional and mandatory packages, which implies it will not longer force you to install ntfsprogs just because there is a leftover NTFS partition somewhere in the system. Moreover, in an installed system YaST only forces installation of those packages strictly needed to perform the Partitioner actions, reducing to a minimum the number of repository refresh operations triggered by the Partitioner.

Regarding the registration process during the installation of SLE (SUSE Linux Enterprise), we have been working in a couple of fronts:

• More informative and up-to-date information about the implications of skipping registration when performing a so-called online installation.
• Some experiments (still under discussion) regarding the layout of the registration screen.

In a more general scope, we removed some bits of code in YaST that were still trying to modify the obsolete /etc/inittab file. See the announcement in the yast-devel mailing list about the definitve drop of support for SysVinit.

Going beyond YaST itself, we added internationalization support to our Cockpit module for wicked. The corresponding project is now available in the openSUSE Weblate instance and all the automation is in place to ensure all the translations contributed by our awesome volunteers are incorporated into future releases of the module.

As mentioned at the beginning of the post, this was the last development sprint of 2020, which also means this will be the last blog entry from the YaST Team this year. We will restart the usual development (and reporting) pace after the Christmas and new year season. So there is only one more thing left to say - see you in 2021!

Five openSUSE Tumbleweed snapshots have been released since last Friday.

Snapshot 20201215 is the latest update to arrive in the rolling release. The snapshot updated KDE Frameworks 5.77.0 and offered a significant amount of bug fixes and additions for the 83 addon libraries; the Breeze Icon package added an edit-move action icon, the Attica package fixed a crash and KDeclarative relicenses files to the LGPL v2 or later. Both the KIO and Kirigami packages had extensive work done; KIO cleaned up dead code and now requires Qt 5.13. Kirigami fixed rendering borders to the proper size and also made a fix for low power mode. openSUSE’s autoyast2 4.3.64 package added support for Btrfs quotas. The default window sizing was fixed in an update of gnome-tweaks 3.34.1. Location-aware applications will notice a fix for Wifi crashes in the 2.5.6 geoclue2 package. Some obsolete settings were removed from the 4.3.6 yast2-security package and text editor vim fixed the CTRL-Z behavior.

The smallest snapshot of the week was 20201214. The lone Japanese package man-pages-ja provided nearly a year’s worth of updates to version 20201115.

Some GStreamer packages like gstreamer-devtools and gstreamer-editing-services updated to version 1.18.2 in the 20201213 snapshot. KDevelop5 5.6.1 provided some small performance improvements and a set of oddities were fixed with initial parsing of project files, The Linux Kernel 5.9.14 provided serval USB serial fixes as well as Advanced Linux Sound Architecture fixes. The only major update to arrive this week in Tumbleweed was an update to xapps 2.0.0, which should benefit Cinnamon, MATE and Xfce users. Document viewer xreader 2.8.0 added an issue with the Tab key toggling checkboxes and moved the new sidebar button to be part of the navigation group.

GStreamer had various stability, performance and reliability improvements in its 1.18.2 release, which fixed an MPEG-TS timestamping regression when playing DVB streams, that arrived in snapshot 20201212. Firmware updater package fwupd 1.5.3 added the serio->firmare_id for the UDev device manager. A minor release of systemd 246.7 had some udev renaming options made; a full list of changes can be found here. Support for Python 3.5 was removed in the python-cryptography 3.3 package and libzypp 17.25.5 fixed the update of GNU Privacy Guard keys with an elongated expiration date. The GNOME desktop’s indexing and search provider tracker 3.0.2 improved the turtle parser and made the UPDATE parser tree processing iterative rather than recursive.

The 20201211 snapshot kicked off the week with the 6.1.16 maintenance update to virtualbox, which had a workaround to improve resizing of 32-bit VMs with the VMSVGA graphics controller, and it does not try to use RandR version 1.3 due to bugs causing the X server to hang. The 5.2.0 machine emulator version of qemu has a new KVM feature that improves the handling of asynchronous page faults, and new arm boards mps2-an386 (Cortex-M4 based) and mps2-an500 were added. The qemu update also has RISC-V improvements for the Ibex (OpenTitan) Platform Level Interrupt Controller.

The GNOME project turned 23 this year, and despite equally persistent rumors to the contrary, it's still alive and kicking.

Just how alive, though? All I know is this: Where the topic of GNOME's health goes, accurate data rarely follows. Of course, there is data — lots of it in fact, in public source code repositories. Though flawed in many ways, it allows us to make comparisons to the past — and maybe predictions for the future: Are a few organizations carrying most of the workload, making them critical points of failure? Are new contributors able to pick up the slack from those who leave? Is the project graying (i.e. increasingly dominated by veterans)?

In one of my occasional fits of hubris, I set out to process this data to see if I could shake out anything meaningful. I'm usually fine with just satisfying my own curiosity and leaving it at that, but it's one of those times where the results seem interesting enough for a blog post. So here we are.

I'm going to lead with the nice graphs and follow on with a section on methodology. The latter is long, boring, and mandatory reading.

Active contributors

By generation

The stacked histogram above shows the number of contributors who touched the project on a yearly basis. Each contributor is assigned to a generational cohort based on the year of their first contribution. The cohorts tend to shrink over time as people leave.

There's a special "drive-by" cohort (in a fetching shade of off-white) for contributors who were only briefly involved, meaning all their activity fits in a three-month window. It's a big group. In a typical year, it numbers 200-400 persons who were not seen before or since. Most of them contribute a single commit.

According to this, GNOME peaked at slightly above 1,400 contributors in 2010 and went into decline with the GNOME 3.0 release the following year. However, 2020 saw the most contributors in a long time, even with preliminary data — there's still two weeks to go. Who knows if it's an anomaly or not. It's been an atypical year across the board.

This is the same histogram, but with per-month bins. There's a clear periodicity caused by the semiannual release cycle. The peak month was March 2011, right before the GNOME 3.0 release. About 450 contributors got involved that month.

The drive-by cohort is relatively smaller on a monthly basis. This makes sense, as it has little overlap from month to month, and the per-year bins tend to add them all up.

By affiliation

Above, the top 15 affiliations of active contributors. I've excluded personal accounts. This is pretty flawed (details below), but interesting nonetheless. For what it's worth, it mostly lines up with my memory of things.

The pattern tracks well with the total despite only capturing a minority portion of it. I think this means that paid and unpaid contributions are driven by the same underlying trends, or that there's a lot of the former hiding in the latter.

Commit count

By generation

Here I'm counting the number of commits per year in the various cohorts.

At first glance, this looks much less dire. However, note how newcomers are having a smaller impact, especially from 2014 on. And the 2018-2020 bounce is entirely due to a handful of veterans making a comeback.

Half the commits in 2020 were made by contributors who've been with the project for ten years or more. Also noteworthy, drive-by commits are a vanishingly small portion of the total.

By affiliation

Top 15 affiliations again, but now ordered by commit counts. It's safe to say that GNOME is dependent on paid developers in a big way. Specifically, and to no one's surprise, it leans heavily on Red Hat.

General observations

A few observations can be made with confidence:

• By F/OSS standards, the project is not unhealthy. It has hundreds of experienced and first-time contributors every year. It is well-organized and arguably well-funded compared to its peers. But:
• Every metric has the project peaking around 2010.
• A diminishing number of veterans is doing an increasing share of the work.
• Although recruitment is stable, newcomers don't seem to be hitting their stride in terms of commits.
• Corporate sponsorship is probably necessary to keep the project going, but the field of sponsors has kept thinning.

I think GNOME is addressing the risk factors competently by modernizing infrastructure (GitLab, Discourse). This has obvious value even in the absence of quantifiable results, but it'll be interesting to see if the effect can be measured over the next couple of years.

Diminished enthusiasm may also be due to there being fewer ways for a new contributor to make their mark or assume a role of responsibility. GNOME has become more conservative, certainly much more so than it was a decade ago in the run-up to GNOME 3. The rationale and phrasing in the announcement of the new versioning scheme (e.g. "Radical technological and design changes are too disruptive for maintainers, users, and developers") seems indicative of this trend¹.

Notes on methodology

So what's wrong with this analysis? If you're so inclined, you can find the details under the next couple of subheadings and pass harsh, harsh judgement.

I've set the unscientific rigor bar high enough to hopefully yield something useful, but low enough that I could do it in my spare time and not get stuck in the dreaded state commonly known as "90% done".

Module selection

I aggregated data from 189 Git repositories. The vast majority of these are hosted on gnome.org, with a handful from freedesktop.org and github.com. Commits are uniquely identified by their commit hash, meaning trivial duplicates are counted only once.

GNOME has always been a decentralized, big-tent project, so it's not obvious how to delineate it. I've tried to be fair by including most of the repositories from a full meta-gnome-desktop jhbuild, including fairly low-level dependencies like Cairo, Pango, and Pipewire, as well as past, present and would-be flagship applications under the GNOME umbrella. Documentation and infrastructure is represented, as are many archived projects (e.g. ORBit2, Bonobo, Sabayon, GAL).

I was a little uncertain about what to do with X.Org and Wayland. In the end I decided to include the latter, but not the former, since Wayland has close ties to GNOME (it even references GTK+ in its TODO file), while X.Org has its roots in the much older XFree86.

Mono is another project I resisted including; its development was tangential to GNOME proper, diverging completely in the most recent decade. However, I did include GtkSharp and several GNOME-hosted C# applications common on desktops in the 2005-2010 time frame.

Since I haven't established hard criteria for module selection, it's subject to various biases. Older code is probably underrepresented, since providers of important functionality were more loosely attached to the project early on (e.g. GNOME Online Accounts and Telepathy got pulled in, should I have included Gaim or Pidgin too? How about XChat?).

Anyway, the list isn't terrible, but there's room for improvement.

Contributor identities

Similar studies often identify contributors by their e-mail addresses. I used full author names instead, since there's good reason to think they're more stable over a 20-year time span. We're fairly consistent in spelling our own names, and we change them rarely (often never). On the other hand, e-mail addresses come and go with different hosting arrangements, employers, etc.

An added challenge with this approach is that sometimes different people have the exact same name. In practice, I'm not aware of any instances of this happening in GNOME. It seems to be rare enough that I doubt it'd introduce significant error in most projects.

I should add here that the drive-by cohort depends on a fair amount of hindsight (you never know when someone might come back with more contributions, but the likelihood drops off quickly as time passes). This means the cohorts for 2020 are preliminary. They'll be a lot more accurate with another run late next year.

Domain names

I'm using e-mail domain names as a proxy for organizations in some of the graphs. This is a notoriously unreliable approach for at least three reasons:

1. Contributors often use personal e-mail addresses for paid work, leading to significant undercounting in general.
2. Specific companies may require their employees (or ask them nicely) to use company e-mail for collaboration. Out of the listed companies, I know of at least one that definitely did this. However, there are many that don't, and these will be comparatively less well represented.
3. The mapping between DNS and organizations isn't one-to-one. A company may operate under multiple names or TLDs (e.g. .co.uk and .com).

Despite these weaknesses, it's common to slice the data this way. It's difficult to do better without access to semi-closed data troves, and depending on your views on privacy and ability to handle PII safely, it might not be something you'd want to get into anyway. But I bet you'd be well-positioned for it if you were, say, the corporate owner of both LinkedIn and GitHub.

When grouping by organization, the goal is to get an idea of which outside entities are sponsoring contributions. Therefore, I've filtered out addresses from the biggest mass e-mail providers like @gmail.com and project-centric providers of personal accounts (e.g. @gnome.org, @gtk.org).

I took the liberty of reassigning the personal domains of a few extra prolific authors who would've otherwise showed up as individual organizations. Since there's no way I'm doing it for everyone, this introduces some bias. The full details are in the project's metadata file (see: code).

Version control systems

Changeovers in version control systems divide GNOME's VCS history into three eras with noticeable discontinuities between them.

Before 1998: Dark ages

In the Bad Old Days, Free Software would often use plain RCS or no version control at all. I have basically no data for this era: The GIMP, being the ur-project from which GTK+ spawned, was imported to CVS in November 1997, but by then it had already been in development since at least mid-1995. It may be possible to reconstruct it somewhat by diffing old tarball releases. Linux historians have done this for the kernel.

1998-2009: Centralized

GNOME projects were mostly maintained in CVS from 1998 on, with infrastructure provided by Red Hat. A few companies (e.g. Ximian) maintained projects in their own CVS instances that were later consolidated under GNOME.

CVS had many limitations. For instance, history edits and other complex operations — like, oh, renaming a file — fell under the technical term "surgery" and the auspices of a competent server-side surgeon. The centralization of accounts also fostered a workflow where outside contributions were committed without any formal authorship metadata. This shows up in my plots as undercounting of active contributors.

GNOME moved to Subversion in 2007. While technically superior to CVS, it was still a centralized file-tracking solution and didn't change the workflow very much.

2009-present: Decentralized

Subversion didn't last long; 2009 saw the move to Git. The active contributor count shot up that year, and part of this is due to more accurate authorship metadata. I think there's a case to be made that involvement had been gradually increasing even before Git's introduction, but moving to a proper DVCS certainly didn't hurt.

Since a lot of contributors moved off @gnome.org in this switch, and affiliations are assigned based on e-mail addresses, the discontinuity is most visible in these graphs.

I expected the improved history management (and reduced commit anxiety) in Git's wake would also have produced more numerous commits. The data doesn't really bear this out — the count did increase the following year, but it's hard to distinguish from the general momentum leading up to GNOME 3.

Code

I wrote a small program to automate this somewhat. It's nothing much, but at least it can serve as a humorous example of what can happen when your reach starts to exceed awk's grasp and it occurs to you that hey, I should use Rust for scripting!

CSV files

I've uploaded the report data used in the charts in CSV format. It should be fairly self-explanatory and can be imported directly in LibreOffice (UTF-8, comma-separated).

Disclaimer

According to a quick tally, I've done enough work on GNOME projects for a place in the top 3% of committers². That's decent enough, but the lion's share of it is, shall we say, not very recent. I don't presume to speak for the project or, in fact, any group at all.

---

¹ Not necessarily a bad thing. There's something to be said for not constantly yanking the rug out from beneath everyone's feet.

² Humblebrag aside, I'd like to emphasize that since there are so many small contributions ("long tail"), it's easy to end up in a high percentile even with a modest commitment.

Alpha images of openSUSE’s next stable fixed release openSUSE Leap 15.3 are now available for testing at software.opensuse.org/distributions/testing.

Release Manager Luboš Kocman announced the availability of the Alpha images yesterday in an email to developers on the openSUSE Factory mailing list.

“I’d like to inform you that you can already find openSUSE Leap 15.3 testing images on software.opensuse.org,” Kocman wrote. “You may notice that Installation images for all arches can be now found in the Installation tabs, and the tab Ports no longer exist. This new structure corresponds with the way how we build images in 15.3.”

openSUSE Leap 15.3 is based on the Jump concept that was developed over the past several months, which makes it and SUSE Linux Enterprise compatible. openSUSE Leap aligns with SLE and its Service Packs (SP), which keeps the system updated, stable and patched. Upon General Availability of this release, there will be a whole new level of harmony between Leap 15.3 and SUSE Linux Enterprise 15 SP3.

The end of CentOS 8 announced last week aligns well for those users who are ready to move away from RedHat’s community enterprise release to a release model with openSUSE Leap, which has a life cycle of about 18 months of maintenance and security updates per minor release.

The point release of Leap 15.3 enters its Alpha build phase. During the Alpha phase, regular Alpha images will be built on a rolling basis until mid-February, when it is scheduled to transition to a Beta build phase. The beta submission deadline is February 12. The Beta phase has a similar model until the General Availability of the release; at GA, the rolling builds stop and Leap transitions into a maintenance and security update phase.

“Any update request to existing packages should be simply submitted against openSUSE:Leap:15.3 and OBS will determine where to redirect the request either to SLE or openSUSE Backports,” the email states. “Please note that new packages need to be currently submitted against openSUSE:Backports:SLE-15-SP3.opensuse-factory@ We know it’s inconvenient and we’ll work with the Autobuild team to make it a default destination place for any new package submission for openSUSE Leap 15.3.”

Distro hoppers, hobbyists, users and tech enthusiasts can download the current builds and help test the releases at software.opensuse.org/distributions/testing.

Users of openSUSE Leap 15.1 have until January of 2021 before it reaches its End of Live and users need to update to Leap 15.2. The Public Availability of Leap 15.3 is scheduled to be released in July, 2021, according to the releases roadmap Users of Leap 15.2 will need to update to the newer version within six months of the release of Leap 15.3.

Introduction and Biography I began my Linux journey in 2003 back when you could go into nearly any local software store and buy a boxed set of SUSE, Redhat or Mandrake. After a few months of trying to start out the easy way, I went with Mandrake, and stuck with it as it became Mandriva. … Continue reading My Platform for the 2020 openSUSE Board Election →

Users of the community enterprise distributions can be confident in the direction of openSUSE Leap for those who might be hunting for a stable Linux distribution that offers predictability and longevity.

Minor releases like openSUSE Leap 15.2 sometimes get compared to a major release. The minor releases are essentially updates that people can choose rather than have forced updates.

Major versions of Leap receive long periods of maintenance and security updates; the release cycle has additional overlap that is greater than that of alternatives. Major releases are coming roughly every three to four years and minor releases come usually once a year, which leads to a life cycle of about 18 months of maintenance and security updates per minor release. Many of the package’s versions are the same as in previous minor releases.

Leap aligns with SUSE Linux Enterprise and its Service Packs (SP), which keeps the system updated, stable and patched. openSUSE and SUSE have been collaborating to bring openSUSE Leap 15.3 and SUSE Linux Enterprise 15 SP3 even closer together to make them fully compatible.

Users who are willing to switch to Leap are likely to find great benefits in choosing an openSUSE distributions and support ecosystem the project provides.

openSUSE Leap not only offers the sources, but Leap 15.3 will also offer the binaries and tools like the Open Build Service to rebuild the distribution. However, no rebuilding efforts are needed to benefit from the enterprise-grade code base. OBS also offers other capabilities like easy to add container builds and openSUSE’s Devel Project allows for the latest software on a stable platform that is much more refined without impacting the underlying enterprise code base. Testing of migrations are also made with the project’s openQA test suite automatically for older releases.

openSUSE Leap has continually moved closer together with SUSE Linux Enterprise, but the openSUSE Project is independently driven by its community and the path for Leap is foreseeable. openSUSE has a thriving global community with multiple distributions, so users pondering a switch from another distribution can consider openSUSE Leap and it’s community a safe haven for their future.

As the openSUSE Board election is drawing closer, with the ballots opening on December 15 already, we want to invite the openSUSE community to a “meet-and-greet” and QA live session with the candidates.

In the past weeks there have been passionate discussions on the election and candidates, and we felt we had to answer the community’s interest with a proper setting.

In this video call the candidates will introduces themselves, present their openSUSE board election platforms and answer questions. While this might sound a bit formal we really want to keep it very informal and relaxed for everyone. The goal is to give the community a better picture of the candidates so they can decide whom to vote for.

Time and date

Saturday, 2020-12-19 at 13:00 UTC

We tried to accommodate as many time zones as possible. We chose Saturday to give people a chance to take part who are working during the weekdays. Please find your local time accordingly here

Location

We will gather at this Jitsi room: https://meet.opensuse.org/meet-the-candidates-2020

The session will be recorded for anyone not being able to take part. Furthermore we’re trying to make a live stream on Youtube possible as well to cover regions not that well connected to meet-o-o. Please keep that in mind so if you don’t want to be recorded it’s better to leave your webcam turned off.

Moderation

Adrien Glauser and Vinzenz Vietzke will be moderating the whole event together to make sure no questions get lost unanswered.

Collecting Questions

As mentioned there will be lots of time for questions and discussions. We will try to monitor the chat for questions as they pop up. But if you already have questions to one or more candidates in mind please email them in advance: vinzv@opensuse.org That makes planning much easier for us.

If there a general questions on the event feel free to get in touch. We’re looking forward to a productive and healthy session!