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.
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).
It can be done. I'm writing this on a slackware system that uses emerde. I can emerge or use gentoo binary packages for programs, and I can use slackware packages. The two fit together perfectly, the programs update the "database" of each packaging system from the other one. Although it would be harder with the more complex rpm and deb, I don't think it's impossible.
I am trolling
Ubuntu's focus is a consummer desktop. What does that have to do with enterprise servers?
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.
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?
> And even if they were, is it really such a chore
> to upgrade every 12 months, when it's Free?
Yes it is. When they have critical systems that work, they don't want to break it under any circumstance. They don't care about what's new and hip (like geeks, consumers, and programmers like you and me). They just want to get work done and they don't want any surprises.
Most enterprises prefer a 3-5 year upgrade cycle.Some don't want to upgrade 20 old COBOL code, because it works and an upgrade would mean that you have to restart your QA from ground zero. All software has bugs and limitations, but with new software, you have a new set of bugs and a new of limitations (like new memory requirements or dropping old hardware devices). The key difference is that with the old OS, the limitations and bugs are known and workarounds are documented, while in the new OS they aren't. That's why the Linux 2.0 kernel is *still* being patched with security fixes, even though it was first released in 1997 and is really stale. That's why Windows *2000* is still quite popular in enterprise even though everyone knows that move to XP/2003/Longhorn is inevitable, and why some enterprise software still requires Windows NT.
If it works and security patches (without new features/bugs) are kept up to date, why should you have to "fix" it? The only thing Debian needs to be enterprise grade is a predictable 3-5 year release cycle (or the willingness to support all versions of Debian for this long.) so that enterprises can plan their upgrades and burn in verification in an orderly fashion. That appears to be what the new Debian president is promising.
The new "United Linux" group just adds a bit more credibility to that promise.
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.
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.Yeah, and for that matter, can Debian at last quit pissing about how it's the One, True, Honest-To_God Pure, Holy, Sacramental, Big Kahuna Free Software Linux and everybody else is shit, now that they're going enterprise?
Be careful with your pronouns. I'm not sure who you mean by "their" as your statement implies that the Debian organization is going enterprise. This just simply isn't the case. The article speaks of a "trio of companies," not the Debian organization. This sort of makes your point moot, because Debian's official releases can continue to reject software that has licensing terms that don't mesh with Debian and people packaging their own distros, enterprise or not, can continue to roll in whatever they want. In any event, no one forces you to use Debian. If you think apt/deb is broken, you're entitled to that opinion.
"Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman