Server Makers Push Linux

Rob writes "The bi-annual LinuxWorld trade show is under way this week in San Francisco, and once again the major platform makers are swearing their fealty to Linux and trying to figure out any angle they can to use Linux as a lever to wrest sales away from their competition and money out of their customer bases. The Linux market has largely proven itself (even if it is still dwarfed by Windows and Unix), and now the major server makers are getting down to the brass tacks of marketing as well as broadening and deepening their support of Linux on their platforms." Also FYI, I will be attending the Slashdot BOF session on Wednesday and answering questions. I'm hoping to be able to show people a good demo of Slashdot in CSS!

Comments

CSS?? Slashdot? Godzirrrrra!!

[reidman]

Slashdot in CSS? I feel the very foundations of the earth trembling...

Re:CSS?? Slashdot? Godzirrrrra!!

[helmetnerd]

It will be ok.. as long as it keeps that beautiful shade of green.

Re:CSS?? Slashdot? Godzirrrrra!!

[dduardo]

And it only renders in browsers other than IE.

Re:CSS?? Slashdot? Godzirrrrra!!

[team99parody]

Wonder if it works as well as this slashdot-style in CSS

I still think that's the most impressive CSSification of slashdot because it uses the exact same HTML as this and this and this and even this very different style. Note that all of those are the exact same HTML page, only the style sheet changed.

If a CSS slashdot were that flexible, we could probably have PDA-friendly styles very easily.

Re:CSS?? Slashdot? Godzirrrrra!!

[br0ck]

They've been working on it for a while and you can preview it at SlashCode.

Re:CSS?? Slashdot? Godzirrrrra!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, it's getting cold down here.

- Satan

Re:CSS?? Slashdot? Godzirrrrra!!

[isolationism]

There's no reason it shouldn't. Frankly, there are a lot of reasons for changing the Slashdot display code to make use of CSS2:

• Improved server customisation appearance capability (CSS Zen Garden is proof enough of that even without the slashdot code)
• Lower bandwidth consumption: CSS can be cached; tables and other HTML elements cannot
• Improved user customisability: It is relatively easy to copy a style sheet form a site and customise it to your own needs. I should note, however, that I find Firefox's built in "user style sheet" capability pathetically slow and prefer to have my style sheet preferences substituted using a content proxy (like Privoxy, which is what I use).
• Improved readability/usability in different user agents such as text-based readers (e.g. Lynx/eLinks)
• And of course, massively improved accessibility (WAI/Section 508) if it's done right -- users would be able to define their own font choices, font sizes, colour preferences, and so on, and (additionally) accessible style sheet options could be provided as a profile-based option.

Disclosure: I'm a web designer with enterprise application development experience who is presently employed with a company whose business it is to provide Section 508 accessibility auditing, remediation, and development services. I would almost certainly be willing and able to provide a gratis complete audit (as well as design recommendations) to the Slash source to improve its accessibility and usability for everyone.

Re:CSS?? Slashdot? Godzirrrrra!!

[extrasolar]

There are some really nice designs on that website. It would be nice if the design of slashdot was changed away from the puke theme that it uses now. But chances are we won't be able to choose between different styles.

Servers Might give Linux the Edge

[Ossus_10]

I would think that Linux has the best chance of gaining footing in the OS struggle through server software. While linux would be impractical for my grandmother (due to her lack of computer knowledge), that isn't a hurdle for sysadmins and the likes. Ossus

Re:Servers Might give Linux the Edge

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice FUD attempt.

My mother turned 60 last week, and she has been using Redhat just fine for over 3 years now. My time wasted supporting her PC problems has dropped to a single incident, which was when her ISP changed their dial-up number without notification (according to her).

I no longer have to clean out her spyware, fix virus problems, or any other crap my life was being wasted on when she used to use windows. And should anything require support, I can do it remotely as long as she can connect to the Net.

I'm happy, she's happy. So cut the BS about grandmothers unable to cope with "Linux".

Re:Servers Might give Linux the Edge

[Spellbinder]

you think
your grandmother has to learn the things she wants to do anyway
and it is not harder to write a letter or email and to surf the web with linux than with windows
it might be a bit of trouble to install but i don't think your grandma will install windows by her self
but a windows sysadmin comes with his windows knowledge and thinks he knows how things are supposed to work
he may be able to learn or not
but it is not easy to bring a company with windows to use linux if they had to hire additional peoples which know linux

Re:Servers Might give Linux the Edge

[DogDude]

I'm happy, she's happy. So cut the BS about grandmothers unable to cope with "Linux".

Well, I'm not a grandmother. In fact I used to be a programmer. How about telling me what I'm supposed to do in Ubuntu when I install a new application, then there's no way to start it? I ran into that nice little problem twice just this morning. This is just one reason why Linux is just on my "fun box". I would never use it as is for anything important.

Re:Servers Might give Linux the Edge

[suitepotato]

I too used to be a programmer, as well as end-user software support, in-house software testing, end-user hardware support, working from DOS to OS/2 to Windows XP. Cable modem, DSL, Ethernet, Token Ring, etc. In all cases, 99.9% of the user base is willfully clueless on technology and why should they not be to some degree? Do you need to be able to speed read an Audell's manual before you can drive a car?

Windows is INFINITELY EASIER for end-users than Linux ever has been and ever will be if the Linux crowd stays dominated by snotty arrogant geeks with self-esteem issues who need to pump their egos by doing things because they are hard and not because they are right.

Now, where was it that I read, only today, that as Linux spreads, end-users are demanding things they've taken for granted for years on Windows? And where was it I read of so many Linux/Unix programmers using the dreaded Microsoft's Visual Studio for their IDE as kicking the arse of anything on Linux/Unix that they've tried?

I think we know where it was.

BTW, I use FC3 and I approve of this message.

Re:Servers Might give Linux the Edge

[miraage]

I don't know about yours, but my grandmother is an avid Gentoo user for over a year now.

Re:Servers Might give Linux the Edge

[DogDude]

Ubuntu Universe Reposity. Check the box next to the app. Hit apply. It's installed. Now what readme file are you talking about, and how do I find it?

Re:Servers Might give Linux the Edge

[dhasenan]

There's the problem with package managers. It would be nice if they used metadata including the command needed to invoke the program.

Until then, there's always "apropos ", but it rather sucks.

Re:Servers Might give Linux the Edge

[drsmithy]

I no longer have to clean out her spyware, fix virus problems, or any other crap my life was being wasted on when she used to use windows. And should anything require support, I can do it remotely as long as she can connect to the Net.

Funny, I manage to achieve all that with my mother's computer running Windows.

Fealty?

[saskboy]

"swearing their fealty to Linux"

With highbrow language like that, Linux is going to acquire a reputation as the OS of snobs. That's not good.

I guess swearing fealty is better than opening a sealed OEM package though, you retain more of your rights.

Sweet...

[Mad_Rain]

Also FYI, I will be attending the Slashdot BOF session on Wednesday and answering questions. I'm hoping to be able to show people a good demo of Slashdot in CSS!

Isn't it enough that we bitch and moan about how slashdot works now? Are you sure you want to be trolled in person? ;)

Don't forget

[gowen]

I will be attending the Slashdot BOF session on Wednesday and answering questions.

Please, please, please, could everyone at this session please just ask the same duplicate question over and over again.

Re:Don't forget

[Sven-Erik]

And the 50 first to ask a question shout out "FIRST POST!"

Re:Don't forget

[A beautiful mind]

...with bad grammer.

Re:Don't forget

[Drooling Iguana]

...with bad gramm er.

And spelling too, apparently.

Re:Don't forget

[fonetik]

... and every other person could point out that it's a dupe from when he did that session last Monday.

NOW I have a reason to go...

[zanderredux]

...to see Slashdot in CSS. It will be legendary, if they manage to pull that out.

I still do not believe, but I am willing to pay whatever fees just to see that!

Re:NOW I have a reason to go...

[jZnat]

http://slashcode.com/
Whoa!

CSS

[jericho4.0]

We've alread seen /. in CSS.

Re:CSS

[__aaitqo8496]

And if you want to know more about how it was done, you can actually read the article

Re:CSS

[AsnFkr]

And if you want to know more about how it was done, you can actually read the article

Not around here dude.

Re:CSS

[pavon]

True, but there is a big difference between creating a moc-up of a site using CSS, and actually modifying slashcode to generate it internally. Even so, this is a long-time in comming, and very welcome. Whoever worked on this this - thank you.

Re:CSS

[Ctawp]

Not only that, but if you check out the opensource site of slashdot's code... http://www.slashcode.com/
If you view the source, there isn't a single table tag, it's all CSS (the main page, however comment pages, etc, have some tables). So, despite slashdot's appearance, I'm guessing the newer implementations based off the code are CSS anyways.

I use a Linux server...

[durbnpoisn]

I have a couple of window machines. I have a few Linux machines. But, I will [b]NOT[/b] use a Windows machine for a web server. One of my machines is a Mandrake 9 box running Apache.

It's absolutely awesome, and 100% reliable.

But more than anything else, I don't have to worry about my shit getting hackified. Well, obviously there is always a chance. But, I know it's a helluva lot more secure than any Windows ISS server.

I know I'm not even a zit on the butt of the internet in terms of the stuff I serve up, but, it's relevant that home users like myself trust Linux over Windows.

Re:I use a Linux server...

[durbnpoisn]

For the record... That would not be me. I'm a 36-year old father of two. And my office is upstairs.

So there! Nyah!

:p

Re:I use a Linux server...

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

You say that you won't use a windows machine for a webserver, i can see why and i agree. But you break your own argument when you say that you use a mandrake GNU/Linux box as a webserver, that is, if you talk about ethical issues, a mandrake box is ok, but technically, it has most of the major flaws in windows. For a webserver, i would definately run a GNU box, but not one that tries to emulate windows, and in the process gains all it's issues.

Re:I use a Linux server...

[durbnpoisn]

Wow... I never expected harsh replies for something like this...

Well... To answer your question, the box has been up and running for about 3 years. But, I only use it as like a slave. That is, I remotely host some of my larger files from that box. And it's hidden on an obscure port. (My ISP blocks the usage of port 80.)

By all accounts, going through my logs... I've never had anything other than some people snooping around using their web browser to see if there are other pages to see... I've never seen any evidence of malicious activity.

Question... Why does it matter what distro I'm running? Apache is Apache, is it not? It's not like the software gives a crap if KDE is there or not. It cetainly shouldn't care that Mandrake is there at all...

Just wondering...

I can take that advice to heart, though, that since it's really unneccessary to have a GUI at all, I could use something like OpenBSD, and my server would be even more secure... (Actually, I'm more familiar with Debian, I'd probably go that way...)

Re:I use a Linux server...

[durbnpoisn]

Does being behind a firewall on an obscure port tend to help secure it better, even if my updates aren't up to snuff?

Re:I use a Linux server...

[sevr]

But, I will [b]NOT[/b] use a Windows machine for a web server. Sure. Except that your personal site is hosted on Win2k/IIS. D'oh. Nice try though!

Re:I use a Linux server...

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Post your IP address.

Re:I use a Linux server...

[durbnpoisn]

Touche'!!

Except that I don't own that server. I just host my site there.

I'm talking about what I feel cofortable running in my house.

Re:I use a Linux server...

[durbnpoisn]

127.1.1.0

I'm pretty sure that's it.

Re:I use a Linux server...

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

I should be pissed, but your ignorance is just plain funny.

Re:I use a Linux server...

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

A real server needs a real sysadmin, and a real sysadmin doesn't want fancy tools that automate tasks. More automatization means less control for the sysadmin, and less control for the sysadmin means more problems. That's the problem with windows, and that's the problem with mandrake.

BTW: Linux is Linux is Linux is Just the kernel, please use the word GNU instead.

Re:I use a Linux server...

[smeat]

This is just silly. Debian was very late recently on security updates because of changes in their security personnel. Mandriva has a great track record for keeping their distribution up to date. They have updates out right with all the major distros on the day they are released.

By the way, all Linux distributions running the same versions of software are going to be vulnerable to the same attacks. RPM based has nothing to do with it.

Please keep your packaging FUD to yourself.

smeat!

Re:I use a Linux server...

[The Master Control P]

What major technical flaws of Windows does Mandrake have? I've been using it since 8.2, and I've never had those kinds of technical issues with it. The only real pain in the ass I've continually had to fight is dependency hell, which is inevitable if your RPM source doesn't happen to have a package you want.

The only way Mandrake emulates Windows in the look and feel of things, which you can completely rewrite in Configure your Desktop -> Look & Feel if you wish. As a server, it is powerful and stable. Drakconf gives you the option of a GUI. Shorewall makes configuring your firewall a breeze. After you choose a mirror for security updates, a full update is just 'urpmi.update -a; urpmi --update --auto-select -y --force' away (Note: --force just means default answer to questions is yes, not to force installation).

Honestly, what's so horrible about Mandrake? (Except for what seems to have happened after their merge into Mandriva - $50 for the version that doesn't have gcc or a media player? wtf?)

Re:I use a Linux server...

[pembo13]

That's nice

Re:I use a Linux server...

[Bert64]

Why does your webserver have a locally attached GUI? Can't you manage it from a machine dedicated to the task of being a workstation?

Re:I use a Linux server...

[Bimo_Dude]

You are correct (obviously) about Linux being the kernel. I disagree with your comment about "a real sysadmin," however.

Tools that come with most distributions may or may not provide full control / functionality, but a real sysadmin understands what these tools do, and can choose not to use the tools and do things manually if the tools cannot perform the necessary tasks. If necessary, a real sysadmin can write their own tools.

Automating redundant tasks enables real sysadmins to focus on more important and critical things. Not everything has to be done the hard way all the time.

Re:I use a Linux server...

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Mandrake is a distro with tools that tries to do many tasks automatically, it's init scripts are a mess, and really a pain in the ass to modify manually, there are many parts of the system that can only be modified trough a GUI, since, if you modify them manually, when you reboot the system will ignore your changes and rewrite the file (based on it's own database), also, it's a distro designed so you have to use the provided packages, when you start compiling things on top of the distro, and replace existing parts with new versions not coming from madrake, problems start, since original parts weren't compiled with standard options, for instance, the kernel (that requires an initial ramdisk). It's way to complex and way to automated to be suitable for a server, maybe for your desktop, if you like it, you can put whatever you want on your desktop, but for a server you need something simple, you have to know exactly all the parts of your system, you have to be able to compile certain critical parts from sources easily, you have to make sure that the only one in control is the sysadmin, and not some deamon in the bg that likes to rewrite /etc/* daily.
The rules to decide which system is good for the task are easy

1 - must be free as in speech.
2 - must be free as in speech.
3 - must be free as in speech.
4 - if it's a server, Slackware or *BSD.

Really, it's nice to have some things automagically done, but in the long run, that creates security troubles, and makes automatization created by you hard to implement. A sysadmin needs scripting badly, and mandrake is really not suitable for that kind of thing ...
Actually, this is against ALL GNU/Linux distributions, they all have the same problem, they try to automate, and they alter the standard Unix structure. BSDs do the right thing. There are certain GNU/Linux distros that acts like BSDs, for example, Slackware (And I have used it for over 8 years both at home and in servers, 0 troubles)

Re:I use a Linux server...

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

I agree that a sysadmin has to write it's own tools, I am a sysadmin for a Local telco, i administrate the gk and pbx (gnuGK and Asterisk running on slackware boxes), previously, i was the sysadmin of a hosting company for about 2 years, so i know what it is, and i tend to script _everything_, what bothers me is tools that are built into the distro, and that are part of the design, and so, aren't just easy to not-use. Mandrake has lots of those tools, and it ain't easy to get ride of them. Also, like i said in another post today, a sysadmin needs a Unix system. Currently Slackware and *BSD are the only distros that does it the Unix way, not only they don't come with tools to automate configuration, they also use the standard Unix file system hierarchy, and the standard location for packages, plus, /etc/* have been writed manually, for you to edit manually. Many distros, like deadrat or mandrake, are designed to be edited with tools, and you can see that easily, by looking at the way some config files are written.

Re:I use a Linux server...

[Bimo_Dude]

Many distros, like deadrat or mandrake, are designed to be edited with tools, and you can see that easily, by looking at the way some config files are written.

That's a good point. Going from one distro to another is usually a PITA since all of the config files are in different places. And I have found most vendor-provided tools fairly lacking, and script things myself too.

Perhaps the only real use for these tools (not homegrown) is as part of the attempts to make the OSs more user-friendly for the average Joe-Sixpack. Even in that regard, there is still a long way to go.

Re:I use a Linux server...

[The Master Control P]

'Cause I had a monitor sitting around and the computer I used as a server has a builtin video card. Indeed, I do most maintainence/web writing from my desktop via an SSH terminal. On occasion, it can be useful to have remote GUI display though.

Re:I use a Linux server...

[The Master Control P]

I don't know about manually modifying the init scripts; I'll just have to take your word for it. But I do know that you can just as easily use a text editor on /etc/ to configure Mandrake as Drakconf - I've never seen it overwrite things based on a second database. And I've never had problems dropping in updated versions of programs, either from RPMs or from source, either.

In the end, I prefer some things to be automated. Not all things, not nothing. I like that one command will update the entire system, one more will restart the firewall, etc. For me, Mandrake is enough automation but not so much as to interfere with me doing things my way.

As for security, setting the security level to "higher" during setup, denying all but 4 or 5 inbound ports (web, ftp, ssh, p2p forwarding), and running regular security checks and tripwires is probably enough for most home server/gateway setups like mine. If I ever start getting more traffic, I'll step up security.

Re:I use a Linux server...

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Off course it's ok for your home, or for some small setups, but if you are, as i said in my post, a _real_ sysadmin, and you administrate a _real_ network, you need a real Unix, and currently, that means Slackware, OpenBSD or FreeBSD.

Re:I use a Linux server...

[Issue9mm]

Perhaps then, you should have specified the word 'own' instead of the word 'use'. You clearly USE the Win2k server that your personal site is hosted on, whether or not you own it.

Erph

[B3ryllium]

I can't wait for the day when evangalism gives way to common sense and rational thought. A day when the Slashdot crowd can discuss this topic with equal thought and consideration to both sides of the fence.

What I mean is, I use Linux daily at work - a stripped-down workstation thin client platform that I maintain - and it's simple. I've had experience doing the same sort of thing with Windows 2000 (well, not Terminal Services style, but participating in a domain with roaming profiles and locked-down policies), and it was just a nightmare. But that said, Windows does have its high points. Usability isn't necessarily one of them, nor is interoperatbility/server reliabilitiy, but for many offices it does a bang-up job of getting stuff done.

I prefer to use the right tool for the job, and I think for this particular post, it's sort of a no-brainer that Linux/FreeBSD are the right tools for the job. Or, to put it in an OS War context, Linux/FreeBSD are perfect for the Big Iron, and somewhat adaptable to the Small Iron, but Windows tries and, generally, succeeds at the Small Iron.

Personally, I prefer FreeBSD, but according to Netcraft, it's just me.

The Summer of the Apocalypse

[DrHogie]

First Microsoft switches the XBox to PowerPC chips.

Then Apple switches to Intel processors.

Next, Apple comes out with a multi-button mouse.

Now you're trying to tell me Slashdot is FINALLY switching to CSS?

*runs to a fallout shelter stocked up with beans and bullets*

Re:The Summer of the Apocalypse

[chrisgeleven]

And the makers of Duke Nukem just announced...gotcha

Re:The Summer of the Apocalypse

[unixbum]

And the makers of Duke Nukem just announced...gotcha

In other news... GNU Hurd 1.0 is released.

Re:The Summer of the Apocalypse

[dhasenan]

Microsoft uses PowerPC chips so people don't put Windows on their XBoxes.

Duh!

Uhm...

[Anonymous Cumshot]

The Linux market has largely proven itself (even if it is still dwarfed by Windows and Unix)

Linux is "dwarfed by Unix"? Can someone explain how that works?

Re:Uhm...

[Chemicalscum]

Has anyone got any reliable installed base figures?

Re:Uhm...

[Nos.]

Well, at my desk at work, I have one Windows (XP) box, one Linux (FC3), and one Sun Ultra 10 with Solaris. So, they're all about even on this reliable installed base.

Re:Uhm...

[colins]

They're probably looking at the market in terms of revenue, instead of the number of installed seats.

At about $3.5 million for a 72 processor E25K from Sun, it takes a lot of dual processor Xeon sales to catch up.

According to IDC (http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS001 53905) the revenue in Q1 2005 was about $4.2 billion each for Unix and Windows servers (the first time Windows has pulled even with Unix), and $1.2 billion for Linux server.

So the Unix and Windows markets in terms of server revenue are each currently about 3.5 times the size of the Linux market (based on Q1 2005).

It's interesting to note that Linux unit shipments increased 31.1% in the quarter compared to 2004. Windows unit shipments increased 10.7% in the same period.

-cjs

Windows

[Vandilizer]

Slashdot in CCS

will it be Internet Explorer 7 Complient?

Mahaha......

Sory my bad... had a moment...

It's about time

[thatedeguy]

With the reliability and up-time of UNIX servers and the usability of Linux, it was only a matter of time before this happened and I for one am glad it did.

Re: Windows Server Costs More Than a Server

[was_ms_now_linux]

Of course, they are pushing Linux: The cost of Windows OS software is a significant percentage of the cost of a physical server. Most servers are dedicated to running a specialty product, so why spend money on tons of components that are not being used on that specific server anyway? A Web server just needs freeware Apache and it's far more secure than its IIS counterpart. Why buy COM+, .Net and all the other non-secure garbage you don't want? Doug Hettinger www.SoftwareObjectz.com

Re:Yuo QFail It

[freewaybear]

What's with the pointless racist crap?