Windows crashed all around the world, openSUSE branding change: Linux & Open Source News

Head to squarespace.com/thelinuxexperiment to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code thelinuxexperiment

I love to hate on Microsoft but Crowdstrike literally crashed RedHat servers less than a month ago and Debian servers back in April. I think the common denominator here is Crowdstrike.

This is another example of problems in Monopoly. Single company providing security solution to lot of major companies

What shocked me is critical businesses, hospitals, airlines use Windows. I thought they use Linux. Linux dominates in the server world.

TBH, the fact that this didn't happen on Linux & MacOS doesn't mean it couldn't. Falcon sensor on Linux is a kernel module as well. The real problem is any OS allowing this sort of nonsense...

The CrowdStrike problem really doesn't have anything to do with Windows. CS has also made a bunch of Debian servers kernel panic in april. This is genuinely a problem with CS not testing their updates.

Opensuse should change their name to chameleon

I saw a commenter on Ars Technica say that the big issue is Habsburg Syndrome. Like Habsburg dynasty, the modern tech industry is so inbred that a small issue can quickly become catastrophic.

There are other reports out there that share a similar thing happened with CrowdStrike on Debian systems in Jun. This should be a reminder to all of us that periodic architectural review (every 6 mos - 2 yrs) is needed at least to analyze direct eternal dependencies: "Can any be removed now? Can they be de-coupled or mitigated some other way?" This is not an OS specific concept. And not just system arch either - app architecture is vulnerable as well.

"fuck you, i use linux" ahh moment

the point is, you can't get a malware if your computer isn't working 😂

Honestly I think what SUSE could probably do to make this rebranding request go a whole lot smoother is offer an olive branch and assist openSUSE in developing their own recognizable branding. They don't have to do it, and I'm not expecting nor demanding that they do, but it would be pretty cool if SUSE did do that as a gesture that their request for openSUSE to rebrand was not made in bad faith and that they're willing to continue supporting the community distro in its new identity.

Id like for Opensuse to keep the chameleon, but changing the name is perfectly good with me

Microsoft doesn't understand that Windows is used by users. They are more focused toward their AI and Azure Cloud computing services than the actual usability of their own operating system. I'm also tired of companies forcing us to log-in into accounts for work that do not necessarily need network connectivity. I had to install Windows on a VM to create ISOs for separate machines for testing or development purposes, and the fact that I need to work around that pesky OOBE screen to get to a desktop with a local user is astonishing. This should be illegal. Fortunately I've been a Linux user for the past 8 years, and full-time for the past 4 years now. I'm happy to see that year after year, Linux improves in usability and ease of use while still keeping power of choice to users. So I'm glad that more people realise that they have better choices than Windows, at least for those who aren't locked in with "services" and software that is exclusive to certain operating systems.

All these companies installing updates on production systems without testing them first???? Start printing the pink slips...

the rebranding is about brand identity not association SEO for SUSE/openSUSE is a nightmare

We should learn from what happened here and work towards shielding Linux in such a way that third party software for safety is not nescessary. Considering that Linux has been growing in the desktop space, we should take safety more seriously.

The fact that with Windows a vendor can push an OTA update like that without the IT teams knowing about it is an issue.

You're just wrong about the Crowdstrike stuff. As an example, calling it 'a single point of failure' is just a fundamental misunderstanding of what that means. By your definition, the opersting system itself would be considered a 'single point of failure.' The problem is a lack of testing. Updates to critical systems should be done in a test environment before it is ever pushed to production. That doesn't happen for a few reasons but, most often, because management won't pay for it.

Crowdstrike protected windows computers from all the threats. 100% effectiveness.