Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Red Hat Advanced Server Gets DoD COE Certification

Posted by timothy on from the buncha-cud-chewin-hippies dept.

DaveAtFraud writes "CNET is reporting that Red Hat Advanced server has been certified as a 'Common Operating Environment' (COE) when running on an IBM server by the U.S. Department of Defense. Red Hat Advanced Server is the first version of Linux to receive this certification. The certification clears the way for broader use of Linux in governement computer systems. Its interesting to note that the certification effort was made for the more proprietary (and costlier) Red Hat Advanced Server and not the basic Red Hat distribution." This despite the best efforts of certain lobbyists.

14 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Of course they certify the expensive version by jht · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Its interesting to note that the certification effort was made for the more proprietary (and costlier) Red Hat Advanced Server and not the basic Red Hat distribution

    Why is this even worth noting? Certification efforts aren't especially cheap. If you're going to expend time and resources getting a version of your product certified, why not put the effort into the version that is likeliest to generate enough revenue as a result of the certification to pay for the effort.

    After all, while RedHat is in relatively good financial condition, it's not like they have around $40 billion in the bank (unlike some operating system companies). Certifying Advanced Server is a good use of limited resources.

    That said, any government security certification is a Good Thing in the commercial marketplace, too - it helps when the engineers need to make a positive case to their PHB's, and gives one more "checklist item" that can get marked in their favor when comparing RH to other vendors.
    --
    -- Josh Turiel
    "2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
    1. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by Jim+Hall · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its interesting to note that the certification effort was made for the more proprietary (and costlier) Red Hat Advanced Server and not the basic Red Hat distribution

      Yes, it costs more. But it's about the same as (or less than) support & licensing costs for "big UNIX" like Solaris.

      I think it's incorrect to label RHAS as "proprietary". It's based on a Red Hat Linux boxed set, but I believe they bundle in software from partners.

      Each release of RHAS has a longer lifecycle (something like 14-18 months) so you don't have to upgrade every 6 months when the new Red Hat Linux comes out. You do get a "stepped-up" version of their Red Hat Network support, which we currently use on their boxed sets to stay up to date with erratas.

    2. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is this even worth noting? Certification efforts aren't especially cheap. If you're going to expend time and resources getting a version of your product certified, why not put the effort into the version that is likeliest to generate enough revenue as a result of the certification to pay for the effort.

      After all, while RedHat is in relatively good financial condition, it's not like they have around $40 billion in the bank (unlike some operating system companies). Certifying Advanced Server is a good use of limited resources.

      Amen. Their "more expensive" verion is what makes them money, not the free version. Certification of Advanced server doesn't take away from the benefits of their downloadable version, or other distros in any way.

      If Linux is going to take hold, SOMEONE has to make money with it. People just miss the point: OS software is free as in speech, NOT as in beer. OSS doesn't mean everyone just walks around and works for free. It means programmers contribute code for "free", but make money when they support this code (and the code others contributed "free") to end users. When they add value to it.

      If the GPL did not allow anyone to make any money, in any way, we would not be here talking about Linux.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    3. Re:Of course they certify the expensive version by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, that sometime is true of "open-source" software but free software [gnu.org] is free as in speech, AND as in free beer.

      And it is not likely to ever get certified because there is no way to recover your costs.

      The point being made here is Linux being certified, making it more able to compete with Microsoft in the marketplace. The point isn't to argue over symantics.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  2. This is great by hackstraw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And impressive considering the other certified OSes (Solaris, AIX, HPUX, and NT). I first used the Advanced Server a couple of months ago while evaluating some Itanium2s, and I was plesantly suprised. I really like RH's decision to make the Advanced Server their "Enterprise" class distro with about an 18 month release cycle. Makes my job easier (TM).

    I never thought I would say this, but I've gotten accustomed to using RH. I was a die hard Debian fan, and in philosophy still am. But when it comes to 3rd party support, and announcements like this, I have to say that RH is the distro right now, and probably will be for some time to come (at least in the US).

    For all of the advancements that RH has done for Linux, and in spite of itself, including RPM. I would like for them to get a better package system. Yes, I know theres the apt-rpm or whatever its called, but I'm talking something that already comes with the distro and works on all architectures supported by RH. Someday...

    1. Re:This is great by A+Masquerade · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That said, why DON'T we just package the source tarballs instead of the binaries?

      Source doesn't fix the packaging problem - it just moves it around a little. You still have basically the same problem removing, replacing or upgrading a package with a source based package as you do with a binary

      The killer of this idea for me is that I produce service systems which are designed for a particular (set of) function(s). Part of the philosophy I use is that the systems have only the software I need on them - which makes them more secure (fewer packages to have security bugs, easier to audit). In the case of service boxes they do not have compilers or tool chains on them - don't need anyone fiddling with stuff, if you need to do fixes those are done on a development machine, moved to a test machine and then deployed. Adding a compiler, and the associated tool chain, and the (development - then run times are probably already there) libraries to make stuff build makes my package set much bigger and consequently increases the maintenance task.

  3. Re:Sure DoD uses the regular version.... by syle · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I use it on a box to run apps that I developed that our M$ monkeys haven't matched(or can't) match.

    ...I just bring out a new app coded in Perl that the green suiters can't live without.

    How do these things relate to Linux? No one's arguing that it isn't a good development environment, but perl runs in Win32 fairly easily.

    You say superior services, not platforms, but it sounds like you're taking programs that could otherwise be cross-platform using them to push Linux for its own sake. Or, are you doing something with perl that would tie it to Linux?

    (Ready to be modded into oblivion for implying that Linux should exist just for its own sake...)

    --

    /syle

  4. SRPMs are available by d3xt3r · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All the source is right there on Red Hat's FTP servers. Download it and build it for yourself.

  5. DII -COE compliance is a pain by Karma+Star · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a major achievement for linux, seeing that the only UNIX based system that is DII-COE compliant is solaris. however, anyone who has ever had to read the DII-COE compliance documentation knows that it is ambiguous and very hard to follow. it's easy enough to make any os installation noncompliant by adding in non-DII-COE approved software, or by accidently opening up a port or two on the system.

    --
    Me email iz skyewalkerluke at microsoft's free email service.
  6. Re:Microsft Internally using Linux and Java by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Any links to substantiate this?

  7. Don't do it that way. by dmaxwell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A more sane way to manage source packages on production boxes is to have a machine similar to the production boxes but with the developer toolchain installed.

    The production boxes will still use debs or rpms but the compilation boxes can easily use something like checkinstall to make packages. This won't work in a potpurri environment but it would be fine if there's lots of identical machines. You mentioned that you wanted only particular software on your machines. With source compilation, you can even specify that the software only have certain options compiled in.

    Since the dev toolchains are confined to a few boxes, maintaining those shouldn't be onerous either.

  8. Re:Sure DoD uses the regular version.... by StandardDeviant · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because linux (or any unix really) is a far superior application development and execution environment for the kinds of applications the Original Poster is probably talking about. The Unix toolset is *available* in some cases on NT (I've developed with perl et al on both platforms), but that should not be mistaken for it being *optimized*. Further, Unix/Linux is far easier to admin (speaking as someone who has admin'd both), has lower hardware costs (for x86 Unix), and generally higher throughput. This is of course leaving aside that Unix is *far* easier to secure than NT...

    Don't mistake me for a Unix zealot, if MS came out with something better I'd use it in a heartbeat. But I live in the real world, and I solve real problems under real time and budgetary constraints. Unix lets me solve those problems on spec, on time, and under budget... NT doesn't.

    --

    News for Geeks in Austin, TX
  9. Re:Sorry to be a spoilsport, but... by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of course this rating has no intrinsic value.

    It's simply a barrier to entry that has to be dealt with. This only means that there is one less bullsh*t excuse for someone to not use Linux.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  10. Majorly wrong there bub by Srin+Tuar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How do these things relate to Linux? No one's arguing that it isn't a good development environment, but perl runs in Win32 fairly easily.


    Have you tried to use perl on windows?
    It just isnt the same. Perl proggies typically make heavy use of syscalls such as "fork" and "pipe".

    Performance of these under windows is atrocious, not to mention that the whole windows filesystem/exec is shockingly low performance.
    (Its not designed to be used in the way perl programs typically use it)

    perl is seemingly perfect for linux, with its low forking overhead (comparable to creating a thread or lwp on other OSen) and its I/O subsytem performance.

    Programming, even in high level languages, is a totally different ballgame under windows, if you want performance. You have to do it differently.