Slashdot Mirror
The Increasing Cost of Red Hat Linux?
An Anonymous Coward asks: "I work at a company with a large number of Linux servers in the data center. We're currently evaluating what distribution we want to use moving forward. Upgrading to Red Hat Enterprise from 7.2 would cost ~$350k just for the systems we already have deployed. Due to the change in Red Hat's release policy, we either have to move to Enterprise, or change distributions. Also, we don't have Oracle on any of these systems, but we will need it in the future. This leaves us with rather limited options. I'm interested hearing what other Slashdot readers are running, and planning?"
first post, for natalie portman
Download redhat severn here.
And you don't need to pay for the support just RTFM, if people RTFM'd more, they would save money. And as for oracle, do you really need it? PostgreSQL is really powerful for example, and for small databases MySQl will do.
In our datacenter we use a specialised version of GNU/hurd. I know you may all think you MUST be joking, but we are not. GNU/hurd's modular design means we can write custom modules for our 1000 servers and dynamicly configure them and update them and we hardly never need to reboot. Unlike linux when you need to take it down to upgrade the kernel, you can even update the hurd kernel and the new one takes over without rebooting. We have a 80 million row database managed using a simple kernel level SQL driver. Our server set up costed (in software, not hardware which cost about $2,500,000) us about US$1,000 compared to $50,000 for a linux solution or $18,000,000 for windows datacenter editon solution.
cheapskates do we need to 'support' us anyway?
if you're having trouble coming up with a #, we can help with that to. there's the fuddites, the fedorites, & va lairIE. all fauxking payper liesense stock markup corepirate nazis. whois getting the bad press on robbIE's decaying blog?
we were a little miffed/bemused about that opensourcenow ?pr? bullunder they offered dupe. particularly after they tried/failed to get the urls from us, by offering us a hat & some cds. we thought they'd be @leased original enough to come up with their own slowgun. if we used their silly name, we'd be swarmed buy fauxking legal sparrows before we could say phonIE.
no matter, back on task.
the lights are coming up (no pun intended).
On the other hand, if some of the above made you think - I can promise you that Debian certainly is a viable alternative at least for the machines I've dealt with so far. Unless you want to run Oracle reliably, and have someone to pass the buck to if it doesn't work.
Looks like Redhat wants to charge like Microsoft for their software.
Switching over to FreeBSD as we speak...
Frank Madison
For Unix Based Hosting Visit
http://www.innovativecreations.com
[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]
When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.
Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.
FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.
Discussion
I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.
From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.
There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.
Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.
Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?
Shouts
To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.
To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. I
After the way Oracle treated my last company, I'm surprised the stupid SOBs can survive. I will *never* buy anything from Larry Elison again. Never. And you will get raped if you do; don't trust them.
For one thing, the idiots make you install the entire suite of Oracle products even if you want to only have their database. That's right - you install accounting, payroll,... everything. Takes up a huge amount of space that you have to backup. And, it's such a slow pig. You'll be running on four times the hardware you thought you'd need. And that's only one of the ways Oracle nickle and dimes you to death. There are way more than I can recount in this little box.
If you feel you must go this way, make sure you get your legal department to read the contracts and change them to get some sort of fairness for you and your company. Woe be unto those who don't read their Oracle contracts!!!
Whether you read the contracts or not, if you go with Oracle, bend over and kiss your money good bye!
You've been warned by a former CTO and rape victim.
Please for the good of humanity COMMIT SUICIDE IMMEDIATELY!
I can not STAND people that say "Oh, well, it won't run on anything but Red Hat". Give me a break. The operating system is called Linux, not Red Hat (OK, maybe GNU/Linux). Linux defines the API and the application interfaces (ditto GNUification), and quite simply, everything that runs on Red Hat will run on Debian.
Huh? Each distribution is a seperate operating system. Just because the kernel has the same name doesn't make it the same OS. (That's why we have the distinction between the two, folks.) You might have a point that the "Red Hat + x package" distributions could all be considered a single OS, but Debian, Red Hat, SuSE, Gentoo, and all the big ones are most definitely different OSes.
There are fundamental differences between the ways that the different operating systems work. You're (for the most part) right that most programs that will work on one distribution will work on another (or can be made to work), but to state "There is nothing that runs under Red Hat that can't run under Debian" is just displaying your ignorance.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?