I don’t think any distro supports the X1 Carbon better than Fedora. My previous work machine was a 6th gen, and Fedora worked great on there, including power management and suspend. The only thing that didn’t work was the fingerprint reader, but that has been resolved in more recent models. Starting with the 8th gen, Lenovo sells them with Fedora pre-installed. Lenovo works directly with the Fedora project to ensure their hardware works correctly. As others have mentioned, the most likely problem is something misconfigured that is stopping you from suspending. You could try updating the firmware and possibly resetting it to the defaults (although check through each setting to make sure nothing is set to be Windows-specific). You might also try a fresh install of Fedora to see if it was an OS-level misconfiguration.

P.S. There is no such thing as Fedora 38.5. The project only has major versions, not minor versions.

Oracle and SUSE have quite successful commercial offerings already. They don’t need to sell a RHEL clone as their core business.

It seems like you don’t understand the actual motivations of the parties involved here.

• Oracle’s goal with Oracle Linux is to undermine Red Hat profits to prevent Red Hat from competing with them on acquisitions. They also have a secondary goal of being able to offer their customers a “full stack” deployment (operating system plus application) of their core business products like Oracle Database.

• SUSE’s goal is to attract new customers with a RHEL clone offering (tied in with their SUSE Manager product), which gives them a sales funnel to pitch their core business of SLES for those customers’ new deployments. They first did this with their “Expanded Support” offering, which was clone-style updates for existing RHEL and CentOS installs. They were working on converting this into a full distro offering named “Liberty Linux”, but abandoned the idea last minute. Instead they rebranded “Expanded Support” as “Liberty Linux”, causing much confusion for due to previous leaks about the full distro by the same name.

• Kurtzer/CIQ/Rocky’s goal is selling a RHEL clone as a core business offering, at a price that undercuts Red Hat’s pricing. This is only financially viable because they’re not doing 99% of the engineering work to build the operating system.

The parties involved have very different goals, but they’re aligned enough to partner up until one of them decides to screw the others over (see “United Linux”).

They’re trying to give the community back what was lost.

Don’t be fooled by them using the word “community” eleven times in the announcement. They’re doing this for their own business reasons, as detailed above. That’s why OpenELA is a trade association.

A collaborative effort to mitigate the damage done by commercial interests.

The entire point is to protect the participants’ commercial interests.

Anyone who was using a distro that was downstream of RHEL wasn’t looking for enterprise-level support in the first place so I don’t really understand your complaint there.

You must not talk to many enterprises. Many of them are looking for enterprise-level support of RHEL clones to cut costs. All the ones that I’ve directly heard about making a switch eventually switched back to Red Hat after realizing that the third party support was insufficient for their needs. These third parties can’t fix bugs or add features to a clone of another distro they do not control.

These two companies coming together to give back what the community lost, for free, is what FOSS is all about. Somehow I feel like that has gone right over your head.

The F in FOSS stands for free as in libre, not free as in gratis. If you think that the point of FOSS is getting things for free (gratis), then I’m afraid you’re the one with things going over your head.

old versions of modules that come from the Ceph package got flagged by our security scan.

RHEL uses a practice called backporting, where older versions of software in packages get fixes from newer versions of the software without changing the version. This means that scanners that only check the version number can give you false positives for CVEs that are actually fixed. Is there a specific CVE that your scanner mentions? If so, you can look it up in the Red Hat CVE database and check if the fix has been backported, and which release of the package includes said fix.

Well in order to access the CentOS stream repo you need to have a subscription.

That’s false. The sources are right here, open to the world and open for contribution. What was shut down was the automation to export RHEL source RPMs to the legacy location. The source RPM exports were pretty much useless for contributors and maintainers of RHEL and CentOS. However, they were critical for RHEL rebuilds, which is why people are upset.

Now they seem content to profit from it and give nothing back.

This statement is completely false. Red Hat contributes a ton to open source, to thousands of upstream projects, probably more than any other individual company. Software from Red Hat acquisitions has been transitioned from closed to open source. New open source software is often created by Red Hat engineers. Everything Red Hat does is open source and contributed back upstream whenever possible.

To be clear, me saying this is not an endorsement of the RHEL source export changes announced yesterday. I think that sucks. But it doesn’t undo everything else Red Hat does.

For this to be accurate you need to change it to “why don’t you rewrite it in rust”? Rust fans say this so often they made it an acronym (RIIR).