Slashdot Mirror
Which Red Hat Should Be Worn in the Enterprise?
weatherbug asks: "I've recently been appointed as a member of a team to help determine the direction our organization is headed with Red Hat Linux. Currently we're using multiple versions from Red Hat 6.x through Advance Server 2.1. However, now that Red Hat has effectively separated their distributions into a 'consumer' (Red Hat 8,9, etc) and 'enterprise' (Red Hat Adv. Server 2.x, etc), we
aren't sure which version we want to adopt. A Red Hat salesman recently told us that the 'consumer' version of Red Hat was mostly for hackers and hobbyists who weren't concerned about stability and wanted the most up-to-date software, while the 'enterprise' version would be more stable and have a five-year product lifetime. As a long time Linux system administrator, I feel that this is a sales tactic and that there really is no compelling reason for us to ever use the 'enterprise' version. After all, it is Linux and it is open source, and we have enough in-house talent to not need Red Hat support. Why would we ever need or care about a five-year product lifetime? Am I wrong, and if so, could you set us straight? We'd be interested to know what other large organizations have decided to do."
For now, our company has been deploying Red Hat 7.3 with all the latest bugfixes and security releases patched in. However, 7.3 is ending its product life at the end of this year, so we may have to "rethink" our strategy with using Red Hat.
-- 4 8 15 16 23 42
I think there's more to it than just some support and a 5 year lifetime... Enterprise addition will support many things that the other versions do not: 2 CPU's & massive amounts of memory for example
I have often regretted my speech, never my silence.
-Xenocrates
ive tried pretty much all of the RH versions, and I find that RH 9 is the best. I have never had a single crash once, ive never had any trouble with any of the configuration utilities, and ive never had to mess around with hardware issues(kernel modules and so on). It might just be that RH 9 suits the hardware im using very well, but I cant say the same things about any of the previous versions. Well thats my suggestion.
Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
You could roll your own, ala Gentoo or LFS. Since you are bound to have many server or workstations that will need the same packages, you could have a machine(s) dedicated to creating the environment you want, and then distribute it from there. No need to compile on each machine. This will be streamlined, and potentially more secure. Of course this could be way more work than you are will to put in.
Great Linux Site
After using Redhat 8, and then redhat 9, I can definately say that their talk about stability/bleeding-edginess of their consumer versions is true so maybe the rest of what they're talking about is too. You will definately want to ensure that whatever version of Redhat you choose is compatible with whatever software you're using. For instance, I use a perlTK app at work, the version that came with Redhat 8 AND 9 was missing things and wouldn't run the app. CPAN also refused to work, in the end I had to use a third party rpm to get my app working. However, once it got going it seemed to be fine. Just make sure what you want to run is compatible, setup a test box maybe, I mean you can't lose by using the free version to test it then decide from there.
I know that if you have Oracle in your environment, Red Hat is going to push you to use Advance Server 2.1. Too be honest there is not really that much difference between the two except how they configured the kernel and advance server is specialized for clustering. Which you can do on your own. But if you are looking for support for products like Oracle or any other corporate solutions go with advance server. If you are just using it for email, web server, file server, etc (isn't linux wonderful) then stick with the "consumer version". It's cheaper.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. --Edmund Burke
If you ever want to run an Itanium2 with Linux you'll need Redhat Advanced Server. And cough up the dough too. For both the machine and the software license. Intel did a deal with Redhat to give first shot at itanium2's for porting. And with an Itanium2 there is a lot of porting to be done.
I'd personaly go with an opteron myself. You dont need to reorganize your software for the architecture so it will run efficiently. Also you are not tied to Intels linux compilers which are pretty poor quality for the itanium2. Gcc has been ported to the itanium2, but it has not been optimized well yet. And Intels compiler is just very very buggy.
RedShodan --------- Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes.
This was recently discussed on the Beowulf list.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Gentoo is a source distribution. I really wouldn't want to administer a big enterprise network by building packages all the time and building packages on an Enterprise class server is just a waste of server resources. The server is suppose to be serving and not compiling.
Sure I can dedicate one machine to compiling but in the end I am redoing work that is already done for me.
7.x - obsolete for business (EOL 6/30/03) 8.x - replaced by 9.x 9.x - good for desktops, at home or work, provided that *if* your company pays for Red Hat support, you don't expect to get any help. AS (Advanced Server) 2.1 - good for business, but being replaced shortly. AS - New upcoming version (3.0 or 2.2?) is the next step from AS 2.1. 8+ way CPU support, 16GB RAM, etc. ES - Business server version for small/mid sized businesses. 1 or 2 way CPU systems. WS - Business desktops. Basically, the AS, ES, and WS offer 5 year support. That probably doesn't matter to a home user, but to a business, it's good to know you can build a server and then only need to patch it for the next 5 years, without worrying about whether the next glibc upgrade will break your applications. You don't need to buy the 5 year support plan now, but if you have a problem in 6 months or a year and need extremely fast help, you probably won't get it with a "home user" release. What Red Hat is saying makes perfect sense. AS, ES, and WS will be basically the same system. WS will include desktop components that AS and ES don't need. AS will include kernels for beefier systems and will include clustering software - things ES users won't need. All three will be thoroughly tested and will provide a solid, unchanging (save for patches) target. Home users will still be able get the latest and greatest. As to your answer, if you're doing this for a business, go with AS, ES, and WS. The only reason you should be using Red Hat 9.x in a business is for your desktop if you're 1337 and want cutting edge software.
When someone has a problem with the server, do you want them calling you when you're on vacation, relaxing at home on the weekend, sleeping, etc., or would you rather have them call Red Hat support?
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
You folks realize that AS currently consists of RH 7.2 with a few updates. AS is still using a bloody 2.4.9 kernel!!! Go look at the srpms on redhat's site.
s e/ 2.1AS/en/os/i386/SRPMS/b /redhat/linux/updates/ent erprise/2.1AS/en/os/SRPMS/
http://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterpri
http://ftp.redhat.com/pu
There are a handfull of pacakges that aren't in 7.2, but you can download them. This will change with the next release, but right now it's pretty much RH 7.2.
It's all about the support, and certifications people!!!
IANALBIPOOGL (I am not a Lawyer, but I play one on GrokLaw.)
I've never been a big fan of Red Hat. We replaced our Red Hat 6.2/7.0/7.1 servers here with Debian (some stable, some testing) and haven't looked back. There's something so comforting about never having to worry about versions and upgrades -- it's as if we've got infinite support.
Plus, I've found IRC people (what I refer to as "REAL tech support") most helpful on debian-related channels. How many times have you called up Red Hat because you needed support? Google and mailing lists are probably a more effective method anyway.
If you know your Linux, Debian is probably what you want. If not, there are several options besides Red Hat. Don't be afraid just because the name is different!
***Security Information
Debian takes security very seriously. Most security problems brought to our attention are corrected within 48 hours.
Experience has shown that "security through obscurity" does not work. Public disclosure allows for more rapid and better solutions to security problems. In that vein, this page addresses Debian's status with respect to various known security holes, which could potentially affect Debian.
Keeping your Debian system secureIn order to receive the latest Debian security advisories, subscribe to the debian-security-announce mailing list.
You can use apt to easily get the latest security updates. This requires a line such as
in your /etc/apt/sources.list file.
***There is no god
Whoops. Websphere officially supports Red Hat AS 2.1 and Suse 8.1 Pro, not RH 7.3.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
You have to consider 2 things...
1. RedHat 9 is only going to have 1 year of errata published for it.
2. RedHat Advanced Server is going to be the target for a lot of Enterprise application vendors.
For #1 - what are you going to do for errata after 1 year? Upgrade to RedHat 10? Find another source of binary patches, or hope that some other commercial entity decided to build them? Build them yourself? You need to figure this out
For #2 - many application vendors like Oracle are aiming at RHAS, simply because the "commercial" 8/9/10... distros are a target that moves too quickly. I assume that others (Veritas, etc.) are in the same boat.
My organization is small enough that people running Linux on their desktops take care of themselves and the Linux servers are few enough to be upgraded as needed. However, if your orgzanization is larger you need to consider what RHAS provides. I'd be interested in what people who have larger RH deployments are doing...
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
"I feel that this is a sales tactic and that there really is no compelling reason for us to ever use the 'enterprise' version. After all, it is Linux and it is open source, and we have enough in-house talent to not need Red Hat support. Why would we ever need or care about a five-year product lifetime? Am I wrong, and if so, could you set us straight?"
Well I'll try to set you straight without being patronising or snide about it.
In an enterprise environment, a business is run on stability and predictability. Red Hat is free, which is fine, but how much money will your company pay to make sure that someone is there to take responsibility for but fixes over the next five years? I'll give you a hint--if you're a private, profit-making company and YOU are expected to fix the OS after a year, then get out now--you'll be living in hell for another year until your company goes under.
As cliche'd as it is, companies buy solutions. I don't want to buy Red Hat v8 or 9 or SUSE whatever, or slackware or Windows XP or Solaris--I want to buy a system that does the job I give to it, and I want a vendor to back it for at least half a decade.
If you're a professional company, don't even consider trying to 'do it yourself' with hobbiest level software. Get a conservative, supported package; and work with the vendor as much as possible. Don't waste time and money trying to go it alone.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
You seem to miss the major points! Companies requested a longer time between versions for a few reasons to save money and increase profits:
1. Re-use training material over an extended time.
2. Fewer upgrades mean fewer re-training sessions.
3. Consistancy improves worker performance, re-learning reduces productivity.
4. Companies pay for support of the "Enterprise" operating system, drivers, and applications to insure that support will be there when system administration staff goes through changes.
Summary: Re-developing training materials and re-educating workers takes resources away from production. While remaining competitive requires maintaining "state of the art" companies, continual re-tooling can deprive a company of the consistent and timely product required for profitability.
Great election for the server side (and personal workstation), but what about the workstation/desktop? FreeBSD can not be a LDAP/NIS+ client already, which invalidates it for that use. So, what to install in that boxes? GPL'ed Red Hat is what has been elected in my organization, but now we have a problem since Red Hat dropped Alpha support. We are looking a replacement for those machines....
But I have to admit that if FreeBSD gets a good LDAP and Java support, it will be the best solution, I'm sure (well may be not in any case, but in most of them).
ints on IA32 (i386 -> Pentium 4) have always been 32 bits. The length of int is the machine's native register size. On Itanium, UltraSPARC, MIPS64, it is 64 bits. Linux does not run on 16-bit systems.
IMHO, relative to RH8:
Setting the locale to en_GB.UTF-8 or whatever (instead of en_GTB), thus breaking Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Shipping versions of RPM older than 4.1.1
Shipping Mozilla 1.0.1 and galeon 1.2.6 as the latest errata
Not providing an update to XFree 4.3, which seems critical for hardware-assisted GL to work well with ATI Radeon cards
Not including ALSA, despite being required for lots of current sound cards
Not including ACPI support in the kernel and updating the battstat-applet in the gnome-applets package accordingly (required for laptops bought in the last year or so).
Shipping a very old version of ImageMagick
Leaving the netprofile functionality broken because of a simple typo in /etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit
Shipping an old version of xpdf
That's just a quick list culled from the set of custom packages I built to make RH8 "usable". I still prefer RH to the other distros, but I can see that their Free distros are going to become increasingly a proving ground for features before they're incorporated into RHEL.
--
So for the canned answer go to:
http://www.redhat.com/mktg/which_rhl/
But most of the folks in this thread have summed it up just as well.
1) If you need 5-7 yr lifecycle, extended product/tech support, ISV certification, go with the Red Hat Enterprise Linux line
2) If you are more of a do-it-yourselfer, need more recent bells and/or whistles, have a smaller deployment, with less dependance on third party solutions go with Red Hat Linux (or the vendor that you already know, etc)
A few things I wanted to clarify:
When the fellow mentions the "stability" trade off, that means stability of the API/ABI, libraries, etc... not how often it crashes or not.
Also tech support and RHN are indeed available for both lines. There was a post that indicated that we took away RHN for his product. We limited the free/demo RHN product. While he could have purchased the full version, switching to BSD worked for him.
Lastly, for those who have pointed out the gap we seem to have left between hobbyist and enterprise, we are looking into that as well. We are always looking to fill in the gaps in our offering.
Some companies have a large amount of (legally required) testing that goes into the selection and deployment of a new OS. This testing costs a great deal of time and money and so is done infrequently (thus the large number of institutions still running windows 3.1 and HUGE number still running nt4). These types of organizations need a garuntee from the distributor that the software will be supported for enough time to break even on the testing cost or they can't justify using the product. There are many contracts written between businesses and Microsoft garunteeing a product support lifetime and RedHat is wisely working on the same sort of situation to win over some of those businesses.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
I read all the mod 5 posts. One thing missing is the licensing and related costs/accounting/restrictions.
Advanced server follows microsoft style licensing, and bsa style auditing.
Don't take my word for it. Read the Red Hat licensing on Red Hat's site. Here's one clause, and here's the entire eula (don't know if the links are still good, copied from an old mailing list post, you may have to adjust the link a bit).
A while back, there was a discussion by one of the online tech news sites, concerning licensing for red hat advanced server. I'm sorry to say I didn't save it, as this discussion came up in a mailing list recently. But when I pointed the people on the mailing list to Red Hat's docs on licensing, they were a little surprised to say the least.
Basically, you can't copy advanced server to more than one server. You can't update the additional server, unless it is a legitimately licensed copy on the additional server. You can't exchange email with other companies discussing workarounds or what's part of Redhat's patching of advanced server (or just not with someone else who doesn't have a licensed and paid for copy(?)). Some of this is taken from the licensing wording itself, and some is taken from the discussions and observation from the online tech news site. And I if I remember correctly, they used an example of two or more companies that were exchanging info on this and were forced to stop.
Red Hat's revenue model for advanced server follows microsoft's/bsa's revenue model, and allows for audits ala bsa style, to make sure you aren't running any unlicensed copies of advanced server.
Why this never gets mentioned in articles touting linux, I'll never know. Maybe the authors aren't aware of how restrictive the advanced server licensing is. This throws out the window (no pun intended) the argument of not incurring licensing mainetenance costs, or management of the licenses. Totally destroys it.
Not dumping on gnu/linux. I run suse, and will be switching to debian due to the pain in the ass of upgrading, and the damn rpm dependency bullshit.
Why was the salesman touting advanced server? And dumping on the "consumer" version? If you could freely copy the consumer version to all of your servers without paying for the individual copies, and just pay for a maintenance contract, or if you had to pay for each server, for a very expensive license, and were prohibited from copying to additional servers without paying, which would you choose?
And with all these observations, I still believe microsoft is a screaming sell, and Red Hat is a screaming buy.
See what happened to VA Software last week? They surged on butterball ballmer's statements on linux, even though VA Software doesn't even have anything to do with linux anymore. The investors were just trying to find any stock even remotely related to linux, and buying. Wait and see the downdraft/updraft between microsoft and Red Hat when investors and analysts finally admit that microsoft will be shrinking, not growing, going forward. butterball's comments, and gate's comments earlier are simply preparing investors for the coming implosion. And the investors and analysts have their head in the sand. And are blind to what's happening outside the US.
I don't know who told you that stuff.. but its not a question of stability. Its a question of two and only two things...
... you will want to have whatever systems are connected to it FULLY qualified by the manufacturers most likely. If they only qualify one or the other (i.e RH Regular or Advanced) then buy that.
1. Red Hat Advanced (Server, Enterprise, and Workstation) are subscription based products... they come with a full year's support from Red Hat. If you want that support, buy this product.
2. Some manufacturers (HP, Storagetek, IBM, etc. etc.) are strapped for dollars to certify their hardware on different versions of Linux. They may or may not certify your product on "Red Hat Regular". If you are buying, say for example, a $250,000 SAN device
RHAS v2.1 is basically RH v7.2 with some added features like clustering and a year's support.
RHAS V3.0 (I think) will be based on RH v9.
-KevinJ