Hi all, > Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 18:24:45 -0500 > From: Hironori Ito <hito@rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> > To: brahms-soft-l@lists.bnl.gov > Subject: [Brahms-soft-l] life after redhat Sorry I didn't answer sooner, but I've been a bit out of the loop for a while. Note, that this mail, just like the mail it replies to, is rather long. Print and read in the little room, so you can flush it as the piece of s**t it is without further ado :-) [That's this mail, not Hiro's] > Hello. As some of you might know, RedHat is changing their business > course (to make money!!!) Why they've changed their policy is beyond me - they were in the black before. > But, it is (or will be) making a very BIG mess not only in BNL > but also in entire DOE (and probably entire physics or scientific > community). Ah, history bits us in the behind. Just emphasis the point of being vendor independent :-) > The reason for this mess is that RedHat will stop supporting many of > their products (up to RH9) at the end of April 2004. I think it includes RH 9 too. That is, no more RH 9, but some limited support. > There will be no RH after 9, and they will force their customers to a > subscription based service with quite high price tag. (The cheapest > price is about $180 per year per computer!!!) Just to put people a bit at ease - the Fedora project is still free (as in beer), and can be used by individuals as well as institutions. There are obvious issues concerning support, but more on that further down. > The problem we (or at least people in DOE labs) have is that we are > obligated to update our ecurity patches as they arrive. I think everybody is obligated to keep their system up-to-date when it comes to security patches. After all, the weakest point of the internet, is the single unprotected machine, most often sitting in someones home. > For RedHat machine in BNL, this was accomplished by RedHat network, > which is a paid service (small price) with very easy web interface. `easy web interface' - you got to be kidding me. If you've tried `apt-get' (default on Debian, available for Red Hat), you'd say that the RH Network service is a joke. > (And, we have never paid for use of RedHat linux OS.) I find that somewhat appalling. At NBI the SysOp has always bought at least one copy of the CD-ROM sets, as a small token of appriciation and support to a company that provides us with a usefull product at a very small cost. I'm a bit shocked that BNL has not found it to be the reponsible thing to do. > But, with the subscription based system, we have to pay to use it as > well as its support for patches. You'll almost always have to pay for support, unless you can live with the support of a user mailing list (which often, however, out-performs professional support :-) > As a result, there was a meeting in BNL physics department (not RCF) > (there will be more meeting for physics as well as entire BNL). So, > here is the first report from that meeting. > > 1. None of us is interested in paying $180 (at least) per year per > machines to use linux. (I thought that this is the reason physics > community moved away from VMS.) Hmm. The price is a bit steep, but to think you can get a free-lunch entierly, is probably a tad naiive. I thought people moved away from VMS because it was obsolete (hi Kris :-) > 2. Negotiation between RedHat and DOE (not just BNL) is under way. The > price might get lower for DOE lab. (not necessary for other people. > This might be a problem if people want to use exactly the same system at > your own home/institution.) (Rumor: RedHat wants to have $1.3M from > DOE for assumed 25k linux machines($52 per pc). ) There's a certain amount of prestige in closing a deal with goverment agencies like the DOE, so my guess is RH could be pressured even lower. For individuals that like to have a similar system at home (or on their laptop, or what not), they could still use Fedora, having a low upgrade frequency. Hmm. I'm not too fond of the term `PC'. Usuallly people mean `Intel ia32 + Windoze' (a.k.a. WinTel), and they usually oppose that to an Apple produced computer (be it a PowerBook, or what not). The thing is, `PC' stands for `Personal Computer', and a laptop, stationary computer, workstation, and so on are all personal computers. What is not a personal computer, are for example servers, super-computers, thin-clients, cluster, and similar. In a way, `PC' is an antiquated term, as what most people use now a days is some sort of personal computer. The point is, that `PC' is not tied to one specific (class of) vendor/manufactor - you can put WinTel boxes in a cluster, run a large(?) NT server, put GNU/Linux machines in a cluster, run Linux on a 8-way server, put MacOSX on nodes in a cluster, not to mention the G5 pounding away as a server, and so on. Finally, one can run GNU/Linux on a pile of architectures, ranging from the poor ia32 chip, to the reknowed Alpha, including various Motarola chips, and what not. Linux isn't married to ia32/ia64, or the Motarola chips, as certain other kernels are. > 3. Not many people are eager to change from RedHat to other linux. Now, this I do not understand. The whole point of the various distributions getting LSB-certified is to provide interchangability. Red Hat 9, SuSE ?, Mandrake, Caldera Linux (who ever would use that!), etc. are all LSB-certified. Debian GNU/Linux isn't entirely there, but that's do to some very subtle stupidities in the LSB definition that prevents that. These issues are being worked out from both ends. > 4. What are other alternative? There are many other linux out there > without subscription fees: Debian, Suse, Mandrake, Fedora, etc... > (I can hear very loud cheer for certain one from the other side > of Atlantic ocean :) ). Debian rules! > Here is the brief description for some of them I know. > a. Debian: Pros---truly community linux (no business association). Which means that it will never ever require a per-year, per-machine licence, or similar. > Linux hard core favorite. Cons--- support for third party That means, that you'll get the best community support available _at_ _all_. I've had little experience in using the `debian-user' mailing list, as I've mostly sorted things out my self, but other people tell me it's really good and fast. > software objectivity and oracle??? It does not matter to > us, but it matters to other collaboration in RCF.) I believe that Objectivity and Oracle comes are RPMs. These can easily be installed on Debian GNU/Linux systems. In fact, there are people workign on making `apt-get' (the Debian installation system) much more RPM aware. I've personally installed Objectivity on my Debian GNU/Linux system some years ago, which was quite painless. The two most often heard critisms of of Debian GNU/Linux are: * Hard to install. With the new `debian-installer' software, this has become dramatically much easier. I recently used that to install Debian GNU/Linux testing (sarge) on my new laptop. That went somewhat smoother than I'd expect (especially as `debian-installer' was in alpha at the time). * Out-dated software. True, the current stable release is not as up-to-date in terms of software as say RH 9. However, the software is much more stable. I think I've said it before, but Debian `unstable' is only slightly more unstable than RH, while testing and stable beats RH by miles. Finally, it's possible to use some of the `un-official' back-port sites for back-ports of newer software to stable. I used to do that a lot, and was quite happy with it. The major benefiets of Debian compared to RH, are * It's stable. 'nough said. * Maintanence is easy as hell. The superiour dependency tracking of Debian makes it any SysOps wet-dream. * It's secure. Seccurity patches are always back-ported to the current stable release. Say a security flaw was found in software X, and corrected in version Y. Then, if the same flaw is found in the version Y-N, which is the one in stable, the Debian security team will back-port the corrections very quickly. In addition, it's very easy to harden your system, using e.g., the NSA patches, and so on. * Support is superiour (and free :-) * Wast amount of packages. There are much more software readily available to Debian users than to RH users. * Better intergration. OK. This sounds like a MS-sales pitch. However, Debian is much better at making the system coherent than most other distros, thanks to strong policies and adherence to those policies. Another oft over-looked advantage is, that Debian provides much more than GNU/Linux. There's also Debian GNU/FreeBSD, GNU/OpenBSD, and not to mention GNU/Hurd. That's nice, as GNU/Linux may not always be the appropriate OS for some tasks. After all, the BSDs have a much higher reputation as a server OS. What Debian gives you, is consistency across multiple OSs. Oh, and I forgot to mention `Debian GNU/MacOSX' (a.k.a. Fink), and Debian GNU/Win [1]. > b. Suse or Mandrake --- business association (like old RedHat). SuSE is rather expensive, but not as expensive as RH. SuSE is rather popular in Europe, including in the physics community. > Suse has large support from corporation. Actually most often via support of Red Hat. I'd say, that modulo the packaging format, the support from ISVs for SuSE is as good as it is for Debian. Mandrake is perpetually on the brink of foreclosure. > c. Fedora --- community supported RedHat. This is a sort of like > Debian. (Debian wanabee???) It's nothing like Debian. At least not in the technical respects. It's still based on the horrible RPM format, and does all the horrible things that RH did. Remember, people in Debian are often professionals that fell very strongly about quality, and for that reason chose Debian. > Basically the same as the current and/or future RedHat. I think RH are going to reap as much as they can off Fedora for their main product line, much like Netscape/Mozilla and StarOffice/OpenOffice. > Cons--- Since it has just started, its future is very unknown. As you said, Fedora is in a way a Debian-wannabe, and I think the relavent people i.e., the develoepers, are going to see that, and go with Debian. I think Fedora is essentially dead. I know people had similar remarks to Mozilla and OpenOffice. No one will touch those, and the commercial line (Netscape and StarOffice) will have to do all the work. Well, Netscape is gone while Mozilla lives on, while OpenOffice and StarOffice are both doing pretty well. However, the situation with Fedora is different. Fedora already has a renowned alternative in Debian. Neither StarOffice nor Netscape really had any OpenSource/FreeSoftware alternatives. Sure, Konqueror was around, but not really there yet, same for KOffice and GNOME Office. Applix is just to damn expensive. > d. Fermi or CERN linux --- Here, it gets interesting. Some big > Labs are thinking (or already making) own version of linux. If > you are interested in Fermi linux, go to > http://www-oss.fnal.gov/projects/fermilinux/ . I haven't had first hand experience with Fermi-Linux, but I just skimmed the release notes. The add-ons they put in are not impressive, and most of it you get with Debian automatically. Many of their changes are FermiLab centric. > If you are interested in CERN linux, go to http://linux.web.cern.ch/linux/ Ah, this one I know. It's bad. Not much going on in that one, except they added some CERN packages, and messed up a few places. CERN `evaluating' Debian BTW. [2] Oh, and at CERN they have a totally different policy than at BNL. Each machine is maintained by the however uses it, though sometimes by a group supervisor. Ones home directory is on AFS, and firewalls take care of internal and external security. > (Note: Both of them are based on RedHat. It is unclear now what they will do in the future.) I guess they'll have to give up RH (and choose Debian :-), or base their stuff on Fedora. > Anyway, I will report as I hear more information (or rumors :) ). Please do. > If you have a particular favorite, Do I need to say which? > you should make sure your words are heard by the people in the > higher-up of a food chain at every big/small lab. (well particularly > at a big lab). I'm screaming off the top of my lounges: SWITCH TO DEBIAN, SWITCH TO DEBIAN. Sometimes I try to meditate to will them into switching - mostly I get white noise. > Your opinion might actually count. See my previous remark on white noise. I'll bet you they'll start ranting like: `Oh, but we've always done this and that, so we'll stick to that, no matter that the alternative you suggest is technologically superiour or even cheaper.' Those old UNIX-hackers with their long beard and hear, and those young hip Windoze yuppies trying to sell their grand-mother, are some of the most conservative people I've ever met, and the least likely to be receptive to reasoning. > (Ok, That is not entirely true. I don't think RCF is switching to Mac > OSX no matter what you say in the near future. Sorry, Apple fans!!!) Why would you ever switch to MacOSX (other than the machines are really sexy :-), when you can get a proper BSD or Microkernel for free? (both beer and speach). Anyway, that's my 0.02 cents worth. Yours, -- ___ | Christian Holm Christensen |_| | ------------------------------------------------------------- | | Address: Sankt Hansgade 23, 1. th. Phone: (+45) 35 35 96 91 _| DK-2200 Copenhagen N Cell: (+45) 24 61 85 91 _| Denmark Office: (+45) 353 25 404 ____| Email: cholm@nbi.dk Web: www.nbi.dk/~cholm | | [1] http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/Debian-w32/Debian_GNU_win.html [2] https://wwwlistbox.cern.ch/earchive/forum-debian-evalReceived on Fri Nov 14 08:25:49 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 14 2003 - 08:25:52 EST