Here’s something interesting that caught my attention recently—a new community-led project called “EU OS” that plans to offer a free, Fedora-based Linux operating system specifically tailored for Europe’s public sector.
First and foremost, this initiative is still in its very early phases—the official project documentation includes a conspicuous warning that, at the moment, it is “a work in progress.” Simply put, you haven’t released anything yet — no install ISO, no alpha version, not even some technical details. Just an idea at this point.
It is designed as a Proof-of-Concept built upon Fedora Linux, complemented by the KDE Plasma desktop environment. According to the developers, countries could add a specialized “national layer,” regions could add their own enhancements, and individual organizations could fine-tune additional functionalities.
This layered approach is planned to allow administrators to combine shared core elements—including user management, device provisioning, software deployment, and data handling—with more targeted adjustments. As a result, developers and IT experts can focus on local priorities without losing sight of collective European interests.
Moreover, EU OS aims to embody the “public money, public code” principle, whereby software funded by the government is open for everyone to use, improve, and share. That philosophy is expected to spur innovations well beyond European borders, as no per-seat licensing fees and flexible standards attract fresh ideas from both the public and private spheres.
Looking ahead, the project plans to leverage CI workflows to build an “atomic operating system,” run installation trials on various hardware, and demonstrate real-world Proof-of-Concept among early-adopting organizations.
Meanwhile, supporters hope that the European Commission itself will step in by hosting EU OS on a dedicated platform and providing substantial backing.
So, let’s make it clear – even though the name EU OS might suggest a connection to the European Union (as well as a strong reference in the logo), it doesn’t actually seem to have any official ties to the EU organization itself. In my opinion, the name is a bit misleading, and it’s easy to see how people might mistake it for an official EU initiative – but it’s not.
One more thing about the logo—maybe it’s worth rethinking. The mouse cursors replacing the familiar stars kind of look like missiles being launched or fighters, at least to me. That imagery doesn’t really match the message the abbreviation “EU” is meant to convey.
Last but definitely not least, I find the choice of Fedora as the base a little surprising. Since Fedora is largely developed in the U.S. (by Red Hat, which IBM owns), it doesn’t exactly scream “European.” With a strong European option like (open)SUSE available, Fedora doesn’t strike me as the most obvious foundation for a project calling itself EU OS.
For more information, visit the project’s website.
It would be much easier to just use a product like ubuntu which is ready to use today and it offers official support. There is no need to create another distro that is not needed.
i agree canonical is a british company based out of london so it would make more sense to use them instead of microsoft
Nothing New : https://lab.abilian.com/Tech/Linux/Sovereign%20OS%20-%20%22EU%20Linux%22/
Well since Fedora is based off Linux Kernel which was created in Europe, doesn’t exactly scream that Fedora is any more American than EU OS would be European does it.
Yes the name sux, but currently it is about gaining attention and did exactly that which made you post about it. The name can (and likely would be) changed, same for the logo. What pathetic nitpicking that is by you.
It’s very excluding by focusing on being EU. Not all of Europe is in the EU political market. Of the 44 countries which can be considered as having a presence in Europe only 27 are in the EU, in fact 2 of the top 4 populous countries in Europe are not in the EU (not that we want Russia there anyway), and almost 50% of Europe’s total population.
Again, EU are being just like Russia and US, trying to make themselves an elitist little club.
I agree with Bobby that the logo is terrible and the name misleading since it is not an official EU initiative. That said, I hope to see numerous citizens, businesses, and EU governments work to advance FOSS to remove dependence on US made software.
With that in mind I think that basing it on Fedora is a bad idea since it is maintained by a US company. I would rather see it based on Debian or Arch (I am a Manjaro user). Someone else in this thread already suggested SUSE, but since it was bought by Novell (an American company), I’m not as excited by that option.
As far as desktops/window managers go, there are numerous mature options (I also love some of the immature options as a Hyprland user).
Someone else mentioned forking the Linux kernel. Two things, one is that I don’t believe most people would consider the Linux kernel to be an American product regardless of where Linus currently lives; and two, is that lots of distros have already forked the kernel in some way so this really isn’t such a big deal as long as you leave a path for getting updates from the mainline kernel for security and performance purposes.
In full disclosure, I am a US citizen that is very unhappy with some of our elected/appointed officials. I want the EU, Canada, Greenland, and other places to show that they can not be bullied.
Hi!
SUSE is not owned by Novell for a few years now, it’s an independent company and it’s Germany-based AFAIK.
Regarding the Linux kernel, while it’s in fact a worldwide project, its infrastructure is US-based, hence the recent banning of contributions from countries under US embargo. This could be a bigger problem going forward.
I agree with your other points though.
Cheers!
Ricardo, thank you for the correction on SUSE. Clearly I have not tracked that distro very closely. It looks like it does have a lot of good things going on as I was just reading about the SUSECON. As far as how US based the kernel is, I expect it would be difficult to push that too far before a minor fork appears in a non-embargoed country that accepts the foreign patches that eventually merge back into mainline. As far is the embargo goes for developers that are no longer allowed to participate currently, I am sure that the EU would have banned the same Russian developers that LF had to ban, but I concede your concerns.
Maybe the EU can create its own version of GitHub and legally copy over all the most important projects. I suspect most developers don’t care about all the political wrangling and would simply appreciate more high quality code contributors. I do want to see a work around to avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water and getting the EU a head start by working with so many FOSS programs.
Fedora based. :((
Yeah, an American distro on an American kernel. Europe should start thinking about forking the kernel, to begin with, asking Linus himself to come back home and lead the project. Then, maybe, fork GNOME and/or KDE. America is no longer our friend and I wouldn't be surprised if European developers are banned at some point like Russians were.
“American Kernel” is based off a “European Kernel” at the end of the day. You are choosing to be ignorant of the full history, and it isn’t about being “anti-american” the kernel is free. It’s is about not putting money in American' business pocket. So it doesn’t matter if it is based off the best possible choice, that being Fedora which works out of the box for more systems than any other distro.
Get your head into the game and stop being a racist. It’s about where money goes, not about where people come from. U Knob!
One has to ask why not use SUSE as a base.
As for the UI, I thought that GNOME was started because Stallman was unhappy about it using QT as a toolkit. QT is based in Finland, and as I understand it, much of the KDE development is done in Europe.
Why base it on anything…. Just contribute to SUSE and stop reinventing the wheel.
I agree we do not need another distro that is not much different then what we already have. there are already multiple options like suse and ubuntu.
My thoughts exactly re: SUSE/openSUSE, seems like the obviuos choice.
The Qt toolkit 1.x was not free software, KDE thought that since their desktop was, it shouldn’t matter that Qt wasn’t.
That of course wouldn’t fly with the GNU project, which purpose was to build a Unix clone composed of only FOSS, so GNOME was born as a completely free alternative.
Trolltech (the company which developed Qt at the time) eventually dual-licensed their product, offering a GPL/LGPL license to FOSS projects such as KDE to use.
Then there’s the KDE Free Qt Foundation which intends to keep Qt free in the event of a hostile take over of the Qt project.
Cheers!