Slashdot Mirror
Using Debian in Commercial Environments?
sydb asks: "I am currently persuading my employer to try out Linux. We are heavily dependent on IBM software technologies just now, and it's a very conservative operations organization. As a challenge, I am trying to persuade them to use my preferred distro but there are hurdles: IBM doesn't officially support Debian as a platform, though I have anecdotal evidence that most of it can be persuaded to work (with alien etc). Does Slashdot have experience shoe-horning Debian into this kind of scenario? Most importantly, how have things gone getting IBM support? My rationale for pushing Debian boils down to its vast array of packages available to apt-get, easy upgrades, apt-get itself, and the overall quality and consistency of the system."
PS: No, I am not an HP employee.
We're running Debian on several xSeries systems. At first, we were having problems with server lockups. While it turned out to be a problem with the XFS file system, IBM supported us by swapping out just about the entire server.
They won't support the software, but they will support their hardware running it.
I used to work for IBM in the division that developed DB2 for Windows, OS/2, Linux, and various Unicies (but not OS/400 or other "big iron" systems) three years ago, and worked on code for DB2 v6 through to v8.
At that time, our Linux testing was primarily against Red Hat and a few others (from hazy memory, Turbo Linux, Red Flag, and one other I don't recall at the moment). Debian was not tested at all for any of their products. Red Hat was their primary focus, and seemed to be the Linux platform most of the developers ha on their desktop systems (although a lot of the Unix development was actually done through AIX-based systems).
Things may have changed since this time, but I haven't seen any outside evidence of this. Do you really want to try running these applications on platforms and with packages that the original vendor hasn't done any testing with? The IBM products you mention are not cheap -- why risk having them break by running them on an unsupported platform?
If you're a big account, talk to your IBM account rep and tell them you'd like to move to Debian. You'd be suprised how much IBM will do for a big account (or, at least, would do when I was there).
Yaz.
What do you mean by "doing everything the Debian way"? Are you saying Debian doesn't adhere to the FHS? Or are you just saying that -- while complying with standards relevant to a *nix -- it does things differently than RedHat or SuSe?
If you're simply saying that it does things differently from RedHat, then who says that the way RedHat does things is "the standard"? As for "special config tools", etc, why are Debian's config tools "special Debian config tools", and RedHat's config tools not "special RedHat config tools"?
It seems to me that your either saying that Debian doesn't adhere to standards (such as FHS), which would be a good criticism (even though sometimes standards are wrong), but in which case I'd want some examples; or you're saying that it doesn't do things the "RedHat" way, which is like complaining about it because all of its programs aren't in C:\Program Files.
PS: Personally, I use Gentoo.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Doing something like this is just like trying to use Perl or Python (or Java or whatever) in an all-C/C++ shop for the first time. It may be the best solution for the problem you happen to be solving. But if the company doesn't consciously maintain a knowledge base in the "new" technology, any of the new work is essentially dead once the author leaves. Same thing applies to a new OS, a new third-party app, or whatever.
The best technology solutions are maintainable, extendable, and reusable. And the most common error is to overlook maintainability.
I, too, am in a heavy IBM Websphere and DB2 environment and when we bought new hardware I looked into upgrading the distro from Red Hat 7.3.
First, the install on Debian isn't smooth. I tried the latest stable Debian as well as some updated packages that I knew I'd need. I installed Websphere and had some problems. Stuff worked, eventually, but it was a pain that I wasn't willing to deal with on an ongoing basis (fixpacks and such). Java GUIs were particularly troublesome, although the web console is really all you ever need. Java problems worried me a lot.
I tried Suse and Red Hat's enterprise offerings, which I had been given demo disks for, as well as their free counterparts. One major hurdle with Red Hat was that there are some major Java threading issues with RHEL 3.0 and Red Hat 9 and above, so I'd be stuck with RHEL 2.1 or RH 8. I decided to go with Suse 8.2, which is supported as a development platform (no free Linux is supported for production use).
What I found on my distro adventures is that IBM supports anything, but they do complain about it. For instance, even our old environment had RH 7.3 while only 7.2 is supported. During my Debian install it was IBM who helped me get it working. When supporting these distros they constantly question the Java version and go through a checklist of software versions to make sure everything's ok. But like I said, they will support it.
While I have gotten bad support from IBM before, overall they are much better than any other company I've had to deal with on an ongoing basis. They really do try to help out. A couple times I've had some idiot at their help desk so I asked to be transfered to someone else, but other than that they've been great.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
I've used APT for RPM and to be honest it didn't work properly - the dependency information just wasn't right. I don't get this problem with Debian.
It's also about the number of packages in the release. Debian is several times the size of either RedHat or Suse. We don't want to spend time compiling software and building RPMs, we just want to get on with doing our job.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
As soon as you have a problem, you get the following conflicting and impossible solutions:
Debian Philosophy says: "Just recompile your app from source"
Commercial interests says: "Just use a supported distribution for our application"
The best thing you can do is keep the Debian box all stuff that complies with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) and you'll be fine. If you need something that's no in Stable or not a late enough version in Stable, check out http://backports.org for expanded/updated packages. My last job used an old dual proc P3 running Woody to host our development "all-in-wonder" box - CVS, Bugzilla, CVSZilla, Wikki, development intranet web pages and some supporting tools. We used an rsync via ssh to a Solaris box w/ tape for nightly backups. It worked like a champ for a small team (4 devs, 1 manager & an occasional tester) without blinking. I'm sure would have scaled up at least 5 times that before the hardware we were running it on became the bottleneck.
*** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
Let me be specific.
This machine will need:
* A DB2 client
* Maybe run WebSphere for the testing of in-house scripts
* A Tivoli Storage Management agent. Or maybe not, there are other ways to have backups, like syncing to another machine.
The question is about adjusting management mindsets and dealing with IBM in what I expect to be a very small number of support calls. It's not about choosing the right technical solution, because I have ample justification for Debian being the right technical solution.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
We don't have a working system, this is a new system for a particular job.
The only IBM software we need to use in "production" is a DB2 client and probably a TSM agent. We could avoid the TSM agent.
We would probably want to run WebSphere on it for testing purposes - testing of scripts before they reach the environments our developers use.
My concerns are more about persuading management that an "unsupported" distribution could be a goer, and what I expect to be a small number if contacts with IBM support.
So I understand your thinking, but in this case it's misplaced.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Call IBM Global services. You'll be surpised what they support.
For the right price, they happily support Oracle [from a competitor] running on Solaris [from a competitor] and Ingres [from a competitor] running on NT [from a competitor].
I think you may be talking to the wrong group in IBM. If you guys have the cash to pay them, they'll gladly support Debian (though possibly through a partner company).
They test new packages and software to death before including it into the official version. The current official version of Debian is Woody, and it uses version 2.2 the Linux kernel. I mean really, you don't get more conservative than that. There is something to be said for using older well tested software. Debian is such a solid founation, it is the basis for many other distributions such as Knoppix, Libranet, Xandros etc.
Comparing Debian to Mandrake, Suse, Slackware or even RHEL I think you will find that Debian it the most cautious about adopting new versions of core libraries, graphics system or the kernel.
If you get a chance to talk to anyone from IBM, make it clear that you'd really like Debian support. Then use a supported distro. Really, this is the best advice you're going to get.
I like and use Debian on all of my computers, including my company-provided T40 laptop. I do it because I like it and because I'm willing to put in the extra time it takes to make it all work. And it does all work, including DB/2 and Websphere and Lotus Notes and bunches of other stuff.
But I still wouldn't recommend it.
Why do I do it then? When I started using Linux on my laptop (my primary workstation), the only officially-supported desktop operating system in IBM was Windows 95. Given that there was no official IBM Linux distro, I picked what I liked, and I struggled through all of the issues to make it work. I stick with Debian because (a) I like it and (b) it's not clear that migrating to the internal (Red Hat) distro would save me any time, 'cause my system works great.
However, if I had to install a new Linux image for work right now (instead of just migrating my old Debian image), I'd go with the standard build, mainly so that I'd get support, and so that every non-Free app I have to install wouldn't be such a pain. I've always run unsupported desktops ever since I worked at IBM -- the OS/2 load they gave me when I started back in 1997 lasted two days -- but it has of late become more and more painful in direct proportion to the amount of internal Linux support, ironically enough.
So my current opinion is that if you're running commercial software on production systems, you should use a supported distro, which means Red Hat or SuSe, pretty much -- and not just with IBM software. Those are the platforms that are supported by all the vendors of commercial Linux software.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
http://www.ibm.com/linux
I agree. Debian is wonderful, I use it at home, I use it at work. If your work is expecting to get Enterprise level support, you can get Enterprise level support for Debian with HP.
However, it sounds like your Enterprise has already standardized around IBM. As good as Debian is, I can't see how it's good enough to lose an enterprise support agreement, even if it's just a few machines.
Maybe you can threaten the sales people to go to HP if they don't amend the support contract to include Debian. They probably will know you're bluffing, but it might help.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
We're mostly developers, which is probably what made us attracted to debian in the first place. We have a developer in our group that wears the sysadmin hat (ducks) but he is both a black-belt problem solver and a good admin. I enjoy the anal-retentiveness of debian-devel and its great to see so many minds focusing on a project.
We put a lot of faith into Debian. Our servers run all of our models and our execution platform, which trades enough securities every day to put my face on MSNBC if something goes horribly wrong.
We do use 3rd party libraries in our software development, and as far as they know, we're running Redhat like we're supposed to. I have yet to have a conversation with someone in tech support that is really a Linux guru. I'm not going to claim to be one, either; however, the code I support is only used by my group. The people I usually talk to in support are usually developers, too. If our group had to support 3rd party executables, then Debian probably wouldn't work so smoothly.
All these negative comments about Debian have suprised me a little bit. Perhaps I don't read /. often enough. And no, I probably wouldn't recommend Debian to any of my peers outside my company. But I don't think "Using Debian in Commercial Environments?" is a ridiculous question, either. It can work without a headache for a troop of coder monkeys writing in-house software.