They actually did a study on it after rolling back to Windows, and it turned out to not have failed due to technical difficulties at all.
If I recall correctly they stated that something like 80-90% of all issues reported during the period were due to badly designed processes - processes which were the same as in Windows, and the number of technical issues actually dropped.

Certainly, the fact that Microsoft promised to build a fancy new HQ in the city if they switched back to Windows can’t have had anything to do with the choice to roll back…

MS Outlook is the joke.

And it’s still entirely unrelated to my point, since SUSE will remain the trademark in question regardless of what’s actually contained in OpenSUSE.

But yes, the free/open-source spins of things tend to have somewhat differing content compared to the commercial offering, usually for licensing or support reasons.
E.g. CentOS (when it still was a real thing)/AlmaLinux/etc supporting hardware that regular RHEL has dropped support for, while also not distributing core RedHat components like the subscription manager.

Not at all what my point was. There’s indeed plenty of Open-something (or Libre-something) projects under the sun, but no free/open spins of commercial projects named simply “Open<Trademarked company name / commercial offering>”.

To be fair, OpenSUSE is the only project with a name like that, so it makes some sense that they’d want it changed.
There’s no OpenRedHat, no OpenNovell, no OpenLinspire, etc.

Well, one available case you can look at is Uru: Live / Myst Online, currently running under the name Myst Online: Uru Live: Again.

They open-sourced their Dirt/Headspin/Plasma engine, which required stripping out - among other things - the PhysX code from it.

Both the rendezvous/mailbox and transport servers are available under an MIT license, though not every client makes it easy to use your own rendezvous.

I personally use the rymdport GUI client and the rust CLI.

Well, things like the fact that snap is supposed to be a distro-agnostic packaging method despite being only truly supported on Ubuntu is annoying. The fact that its locked to the Canonical store is annoying. The fact that it requires a system daemon to function is annoying.

My main gripes with it stem from my job though, since at the university where I work snap has been an absolute travesty;
It overflows the mount table on multi-user systems.
It slows down startup a ridiculous amount even if barely any snaps are installed.
It can’t run user applications if your home drive is mounted over NFS with safe mount options.
It has no way to disable automatic updates during change critical times - like exams.

There’s plenty more issues we’ve had with it, but those are the main ones that keep causing us issues.
Notably Flatpak doesn’t have any of the listed issues, and it also supports both shared installations as well as internal repos, where we can put licensed or bulky software for courses - something which snap can’t support due to the centralized store design.