Slashdot Mirror
New Debian-based Enterprise Linux?
arkanoid.dk writes "Sources close to Progeny, Mandriva and Turbolinux report that a new Enterprise Linux distribution is on its way. Apparently, the distribution will be based on Debian 3.1 Sarge and will form the foundation of the next server distributions from the three companies. The three companies hope that the new distribution will enable them to compete with the market leaders Red Hat and Novell Inc's server distributions. An interesting part is that the new system should support both DEB (Debian package) and RPM (Red Hat Package Management) to enable better cross-compatibility with other Linux flavours. The vendor said: 'It will have a nice, Web-based front end for service management, which Sarge lacks. It's basically oriented toward edge-of-the-network type applications, such as ISP software.'"
I've always considered stock Debian stable to be "Enterprise Grade" for a Linux distribution. Between a huge number of architectures, excellent package management, and great security team, it's my first choice for a server distribution.
Also, Debian has had "RPM compatibility" in the form of Alien for quite some time.
Could this open some eyes and increase interest in alternative (Linux, Mac) offerings?
Supporting both deb and rpm formats isn't that big a deal - Debian itself supports both, through both rpm itself and alien.
I'm more interested to find out what kind of administrative tools they would bring to the table. Debian has had RPM support for a while.
It disappoints me that distributions that are forked off of Debian often fall short of it by not preserving some of Debians greatest assets, like being the NetBSD of Linux dsitributions so I can run Debian on my x86 desktops, and my PPC Mac Mini. I tried Xandros, which is based off of Debian a while back (not for myself, I was running Slackware back then) and it was okay for x86, but required alot of mucking around just to change the window manager to one that the user preferred. Also, it is x86 only, which is too bad (I know about Ubuntu, but I want one distribution for all desktops if possible, but I don't mind different iteraitons of *BSD on server/router) Lets hope this one will at least support both PPC Macs and x86 PCs.
Powered by caffeine and sugar; BSD
Because when the founder of the OTD dies, Debian will still be there.
A distribution that advertises that it supports multiple packaging formats is telling you two things:
1) We don't put enough time into our packages to make our package system fully functional.
2) We, and our users, approach the package system in a hackish way.
Yes, Debian has 'alien', but they're not really advertising it, nor would I reccomend using it except in extreme circumstances (e.g. no source.tar.gz). That these guys advertise this compatibility speaks very ill about their distro, IMO.
I don't know much about Progeny, so I was going to go to Wikipedia to read up more about it. But I'm having trouble accessing the http://en.wikipedia.org/ sites! The http://www.wikipedia.org/ page loads fine, but the search itself keeps failing. I have noticed these problems for several days now. Is Wikipedia having some severe server troubles?
If they are, then maybe they need to switch to a Debian-based distro rather than using Fedora.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
I used Slackware for two years on my desktops and laptop. Even with the lack of package management features, I didn't mind it. It was a very solid distribution that served my x86 desktop machines well, and it still runs on my x86 laptop. I purchased a Mac Mini from Apple to put Linux on. After checking some reviews, I decided Debian was the way to go for my PPC desktop machine. I like Debian so well that I decided to put it on all my other desktop machines. It has served me well. Now I still have my Slackware x86 laptop, and my Debian {x86, PPC] desktops with ReiserFS. Of course, I keep all my C source to my coding projects and mp3's on my FreeBSD server, with NetBSD running my Apache server for playing with PHP, and OpenBSD for firewall. If Slackware had a mature Mac PPC port, I would run it.
Powered by caffeine and sugar; BSD
for the next Debian release in, what, the year 2015?
The reason my employer is spending big bucks on enterprise Linux (well, not quite so big now that we switched to SLES9) is simple: Oracle (the company, not the product) supports RHEL or SLES, and nothing else. Sure, we could run our databases on Gentoo if we wanted -- it works fine in practice -- but Oracle's terms prohibit that in a production environment, and we'd rather like to continue being able to use the expensive support we're paying for.
If these folks get Oracle certification, I'll be thrilled to have them in the marketplace. Otherwise, as far as my employer and I are concerned, they're "enterprise" in name alone.
(Oh -- and if you're considering Oracle, count the extra cost of a certified OS in as part of what you'll be paying for it. That, and the hair loss and headaches).
So, now we have a Debianesque United Linux. Is Mandriva going to pull a SCO and hose up the entire thing? Or is it going to generally suck and no one will pay it any mind?
"It will have a nice, Web-based front end for service management, which Sarge lacks."
Not really. Debian has aptitude, which can be used as command line utility or as a very nice text based front-end.
Though it's nice to see another Debian disro, I can't say that presented "enterprise" features would sway me to switch from Debian.
I would highly recommend Debian though, for we use it heavily to run our production apps and with good success.
And here is where the problem lies. One true distro of mine is not Slackware.
Why reinvent the wheel?
Trouble is that you don't know who invents and who reinvents anymore.
Choice and diversity are not always the best case (although I must admit that I love both of them, they are still the leading reasons why I use linux). As much as they mean freedom, they also mean work replication, which automaticaly leads to splitting of work force (for example, zillion of groupware suites but still no calendaring as in Exchange, I hope that OGO and "Evolution for Windows" will correct that) instead of concentrating in one point. Which is reason why linux is not centric OS like OSX and Windows. Too many choices is not the same as best marketing option.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Yes, Novell should be very concerned here. Their product though good, is heavy and YaST is as slow as hell. I hope the new distro will be apt-based. Even better would be that it becomes based on autopackage http://autopackage.org/ because the packages could the be able to install on [any] distro.
It's kind of funny... Someone (probably a Debian lover) cooking up his fantasy and posting it onto the internet. Or sending it to a newspaper...
No, it's not gonna happen folks.
how long until
OK, OK... I had my tongue in my cheek when I wrote that, you know?
Of course there isn't "one true distribution". BUT... I do still
wonder what exactly is the point at this stage of introducing Yet
Another Linux Distribution. It looks to me like a more or less
desperate attempt to regain lost market share.
Well, I must confess that although I call it "slackware", it might
be more accurate to call at least my main machine a "slackian"
or "debware" box. The basic install is 100% slackware (actually,
I do believe there's still the odd corner here and there left over
from SLS 1.03, but that's another story); but my first reaction if
I need to install something extra is, go to www.debian.org and look
for the debian package. For sheer range of packages and for ease
of finding just what you want on the wbesite, Debian is unbeatable.
Soon there will be more distributions than users
Is there a Haiku localisation (en-HK) to translate my OS?
Thought Enterprise was coming back.
http://xs4.xs.to/pics/04481/p556222.gif
Just what we need, yet another 'enterprise linux project'.
For the slow ones out there, that was sarcasm..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So, the question is, if Debian are involved in a Debian-based Enterprise distribution, will they get off their high horse about Debian Sta(b)le, and get a more reasonable (for most people) release schedule?
As far as I can tell, anyone that wants Enterprise Linux uses Red Hat, not Debian. Maybe I'm out of the loop, but it doesn't appear Debian's major user base are businesses. And even if they were, is it really such a chore to upgrade every 12 months, when it's Free? Why have Debian taken it upon themselves to be the platform for hardcore companies that can't afford to upgrade, evar, even though most companies seem to think Red Hat == Linux?
Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
The problem is, each distribution has its own set of goals. Or at least it better have - otherwise there is no reason for it to exist. And while there are different sets of goals, there will always be problems with maintaining a unified base.
The main problem, however, is that "enterpriseness" of the distribution is not about the choice of package format or a set of packages, or a cute name. It is about support. RHEL per se is not much different from dozens of other distributions on the market. It is the support behind it that makes it so attractive in the eyes of the IT industry. And this is really what any join effoer for another enterprise-ready distribution should be about.
It will have a nice, Web-based front end for service management, which Sarge lacks.
So the distribution will install Webmin and a range of the modules by _default_? Yipee! I've been waiting for that innovation. NOW I'll be able to use linux!
I do still wonder what exactly is the point at this stage of introducing Yet Another Linux Distribution. It looks to me like a more or less desperate attempt to regain lost market share.
No, either they started cooperating in money and workforce or they just wanted free publicity. Others is just as you said. Desperate attempt.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
What debian lacks is somebody who is paid for getting called by your PHB or similar and get yelled at. Then eventually fixes something. Imagine going to freenode/#debian and inquiring about IBM DB2 issues you can't handle yourself. When the asbestos cools down your boss wants to know what the support droids said. Your answer?
There is a lot of autopackage bashing, mostly unfounded.
Of course a Desktop LSB is also the way to go but I was told the group was closed.
the new system should support both DEB (Debian package) and RPM (Red Hat Package Management)
Come up with a goddam standard already!
Other OSes make it so easy you don't even have to think about... like technology, designed to make things easier for us, should behave. Especially in the area of software installation, which is not a terribly complicated a concept to begin with (get software A ready to run on computer B).
Now finally an article about ham radio on slashdot. This has made my day!
The article seems to make it sound as if these companies are bringing a lot to Debian, but as many others have pointed out, all these touted enhancements already exist. So really, what the article should emphasize is that these companies are acknowledging they need the support of the Debian world behind them, in order to compete against the strong de-facto corporate standards being set out there by RHEL and SLES. Apparently the LSB alone wasn't strong enough. Whether these companies have anything worthwhile to contribute back to Debian waits to be seen, however. Hopefully they'll be willing to donate resources in the form of either funding or developer time to the foundation if their new distros are successful.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
I was scrolling by and read the title as "New Lesbian-based Enterprise Linux?"
And then I noticed it wasn't a lesbian based Linux... Thanks for ruining my dreams Slashdot.
1. APT fully recognizing RPM-installed packages (for satisfying dependencies etc.)
2. Letting apt (even dpkg) uninstall/upgrade any RPM packages that are already installed. This doesn't mean an RPM repository has to be maintained, only that apt be able to upgrade an RPM package with a DEB when necessary.
In particular, it shoud
- not be named after the packager and his girlfriend (no offense intended, Deb and Ian)
- not have it's up-to-date release be called "unstable" or "testing"
- not be named after the end-users nor users of drugs like "user linux" (no offense Bruce)
- should not be named "humanity, caring, and harmony" in any language (no offense to the Ubuntu guys; but CEO's would probably something that implies 'unfair competitive advantage' rather than charitable sharing.
- not contain any swear words (damn small linux, etc).
- not to start with K or G just based on the packager's desktop religion-flamewar (no offense gnoppix and kubuntu)
I don't mean to bash the debian derivitives; the other linux distro namers are just as lame, with my CEO unlikely to appreciate "slackware" "devil", "puppy", "gogo", "tinysofa", "kate os", "whopix" and most of the others based on name alone without even considering their merits.Sorry, but you posted this to the wrong website;
Michael Sims doesn't work here anymore.
Rather in integrate one with the other ... why not develop the next generation package management system that can handle .deb's and .rpm's and has the best features of both systems?
.tar.gz.
.rpm's to the install, there's no reason to even try it.
While they're at it, they could include functionality to install/upgrade/remove from
Now, THAT would be functionality worthy of testing a new system.
If, as it appears, they are only going to add
We've already gotten to the point where individual package management systems handle 99% of the issues for 99% of the people.
The next step is to advance the technology. Not just to shoehorn one system's packages into a different system's architecture.
It means "RPM Package Management" as of a few years ago.
No enterprise (worth of enterprise-class) phases out every equipment at once. The norm is to have 3-6 "generations" of workstations. You buy 1/5 of your equipments, move stuff around, phase out 1/5 of the stuff -- those of the "older generation".
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
he complains about something that isn't actually raised. Mandrake is not going to be using alien, neither is Debian. They are both going to be using a new package tool, called SmartPM. Google for it.
The tool is able to use debian and rpm repositories natively. It also does a lot of good things that no other tool, yum, apt or urpmi currently does. The people doing the research for it are current and former apt and urpmi developers and they have done their homework.
So, stop spreading misinformation about something which you have not taken the time to understand.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
Lesbian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer. An operating system is the set of basic programs and utilities that make your computer run. Lesbian uses the Linux kernel (the core of an operating system), but most of the basic OS tools come from the GNU project; hence the name GNU/Linux.
Lesbian GNU/Linux provides more than a pure OS: it comes with more than 10000 packages, precompiled software bundled up in a nice format for easy installation on your machine.
Best regards, A.C.
OpenLinux? You mean the SCO/Caldera product? No, I don't think it sounds at all like OpenLinux! Perhaps you meant UnitedLinux? Yeah, Connectiva (now half of Mandriva) and Turbo were both members of UnitedLinux Coalition, so this very much looks like another stab at the same thing.
There may be problems maintaining a common base or there may not. UnitedLinux tanked for completely unrelated reasons: one of the players (Suse) got bought by Novell, and another (Caldera) went insane, renamed themselves to The SCO Group, and started suing everyone in sight.
This new effort still has some pretty big players. Mandriva and Turbo may not be household names in the US, but the former basically owns the Latin American market and has a big share in Europe, and the latter used to be number one in Asia (though I'm not sure that's true any more). The interesting thing is the switch to a Debian base. Connectiva (now Mandriva) is the company that originally modified Apt to work with RPM, but Turbo's never shown any interest in anything Debian-related before.
As for support, you're right, that's an important issue. So it's a good thing they've got Progeny along, since Progeny is basically the commercial support wing of Debian. After Ubuntu (which has the backing of a crazy-but-charming billionaire), Progeny is probably the company that employs the most Debian developers. (Including, I believe, the current project leader, Branden Robinson, though you should double-check before you quote me on that.)
I agree that this doesn't all necessarily spell a recipe for instant success, but on the other hand, I think they've got all the right elements present to at least have a shot. I doubt they'll take the US market away from Red Hat any time soon, but I could easily see them going to number two in Europe, and number one in much of the rest of the world. We'll just have to see how it plays out.
Not only have they been providing commercial support for Debian for years (and providing employment for many Debian developers), but apparently they're doing well enough at it that some fairly decent-sized companies (neither Mandriva nor Turbo is exactly tiny) are interested in teaming up with them.
The entire idea is just silly to me. Lets install apache from a .deb, then install mod perl from an rpm from a different distro. That'll work great!
Ditto cups, gnome, kde, x.org, you name it, any large package that's factored into small parts by distributions is just begging for trouble.
Better to have one distro that gets it right.
(and, no, I didn't read the article, and your post _is_ informative, btw)
That these guys advertise this compatibility speaks very ill about their distro, IMO
Well in *my* opinion the majority of people do NOT share your opinion about compatibility. I don't think I've ever heard an average end user of PCs (or any other product for that matter) say "hmm...this product interoperates with multiple standards...that means it sucks. I'll pick this other one that's only half as compatible with other people's stuff--since they didn't think of interoperability it must be better at other stuff anyways".
The fact that multiple methods of package management are supported by a Linux distro doesn't mean it is "hackerish"--it doesn't HAVE to anyways. It means the distributors recognise that there are two prominent standards and that end users demands require both. Being debian based this distro's repository will be DEB only. There is nothing "hackerish" about wanting to have 3rd party programs distributed as RPMs "just work" even if the system is natively Debian-based.
Like it or not, RPM is the leading format in the enterprise space--it is the native format of Red Hat, SuSE and Mandrake. Support for RPM is also a requirement for Linux Standards Base (LSB) certification. I and many others consider LSB compliance to be a requirement. RPM is not going away and people just have to learn to accept that. Similarly, the Debian format has its own merits and with so many distros being Debian variants it is a defacto standard that RPM adherents have to accept.
It might not be the most "idealistic" or technically elegant thing to do, but supporting both major package management formats is the most professional and business-sound decision to make. Linux will never, ever achieve dominanace if every distributor has to maintain its own packages of every popular application demended by its users. People will not switch to Linux if you either have to live with the packages maintained by a single organisation or be TRULY "hackerish" ahd compile parts of the system from source or shoehorn 3rd party packages into the system with things like "rpm --nodeps" and crap.
Think about it...one of the biggest complaints about Microsoft is "vendor lock-in", where nothing works quite right unless you buy into MS end-to-end. Well, if Linux distributors followed your mentality then they risk falling into that same trap. I want a solid, stable, easy to manage OS on which to base my systems. I actually DON'T want the distro comapny to put so much time and effort into its package repositories. The folks responsible for Apache, Sendmail, Postfix, MySQL, PostgreSQL etc should be able to make LSB compliant packages that I can just click on and install. I really don't care if I can't get every package I need from the same people who put together the distro--I just want to be able to get it SOMEHWERE and have it work!
Anyways, I wish the good people behind this new enterprise linux all the best, and hope that their talk of "compatibility" is substantial.
Yeah, actually. Usable defaults is a good thing, makes a world of difference to a lot of people, and yes, is something Debian historically lacked. Remeber the install asking you every module you wanted to use, on a PnP bus? Do you reckon that turned anyone off Debian?
Those who've used Linux for awhile probably know useradd, passwd and chage. For those who don't , and who need to achieve a task, having easily discoverable ways to doing things is an essential.
This sure sounds like Componentized Linux which is Ian Murdock's other project besides progeny.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
who are looking to try a Debian look at ubuntu. (www.ubuntu.org)
I just loaded it yesterday. Very stable and looks to be well supported. The multimedia support is somewhat lacking however.
They'll even send you some pressed CDs for free. (They're even paying the shipping.)
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Though suse might not be the lightest distro around the one thing it does have is options! On top of that layer Novell tools and you have a good combination. There is (or at least was last year) exciment in Provo about what they are going to able to provide to Linux and vise versa. IMHO that type of attitutde is great for business and for Linux as a whole. The issue I see when distro's colaberate is what we saw with United Linux. Though if you ask me United's issue (other than SCO) was that is was an after thought to what the individual distro's had going on in their own spaces. One again my look at is "I don't care the distro, Linux in Enterprise is great no matter what"
Debian was my first distribution, and to tell the truth I found it a bit awkward. A friend helped me with the really hard stuff -- all the Unix I remembered from university was ls and rogue. I was using it at first as a simple "modem sharer", to split a dialup connection between a Windows 95 and a Windows 98 box; but also it was set up with an Apache server and cgi-bin directory, so I could try out stuff before uploading it to my web site.
Following an abortive attempt to build a dual-boot Debian/Windows 98 box {mainly aborted because I had lost the post-it note with the W98 serial number on it, it was the small hours of the morning, none of my mates were awake and I wanted it working NOW!} I ended up building a single-boot box with Mandrake 8.2.
Mandrake taught me about Linux, but I hit its limitations quickly. And I really did not like the RPM system. I think most of the packages on that box were compiled from source. I tried a newer Mandrake, which was very slick but now even more limiting; and Slackware, which was sort of good {no barriers} but left me crossing my fingers a lot; and I ended up coming back to Debian. Only this time, I went with Testing rather than Stable. I also did a Gentoo stage one install, just for the experience. I can thoroughly recommend it to anyone who may have to deal with a poorly server. The Gentoo fans are right on the mark about the Portage system, it is the dog's bollocks -- but so is APT. It's as much about the size of your package repository as anything. {Also, Gentoo's source-based distribution sidesteps neatly around the PINE licence issues.} Whichever you get used to first, is worth sticking with.
As for the Debian vs. Ubuntu bitching, what are you smoking? To all intents and purposes, Ubuntu is Debian. Perhaps a case of "too like me for me to like" ?
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I know I'm going to get scolded for this but what would be great is something like an Ubuntu style mail server. What I mean by that is a less generic, easily installed and configured mail server that is free but commercially supported. There are a number of Exchange style offerings available such as OpenExchange, Kroupware, etc. but all of them are either a mess to install or entangled with a proprietary offering. I have maintained Linux based mail servers since '95 but I'm currently having troubles selling a Linux solution over an Exchange server simply because my coworkers and managers can't wrap their heads around the Debian+Postfix+CYRUS+SASL+SpamAssassin+LDAP+KITCHE NSINK concept. Something like LinuXchange would be easier for them to grasp. Because of some customer requests we're moving from NDS to Active Directory so Novell's offerings are less than popular. What I wish I could find is a Debian based distribution specifically built to supplant Exchange servers.