Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Red Hat Can Recapture Developer Interest

Posted by Soulskill on from the cookies-will-do-the-trick dept.

snydeq writes: Developers are embracing a range of open source technologies, writes Matt Asay, virtually none of which are supported or sold by Red Hat, the purported open source leader. "Ask a CIO her choice to run mission-critical workloads, and her answer is a near immediate 'Red Hat.' Ask her developers what they prefer, however, and it's Ubuntu. Outside the operating system, according to AngelList data compiled by Leo Polovets, these developers go with MySQL, MongoDB, or PostgreSQL for their database; Chef or Puppet for configuration; and ElasticSearch or Solr for search. None of this technology is developed by Red Hat. Yet all of this technology is what the next generation of developers is using to build modern applications. Given that developers are the new kingmakers, Red Hat needs to get out in front of the developer freight train if it wants to remain relevant for the next 20 years, much less the next two."

37 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. They probably can't by kbrannen · · Score: 2

    For the "big stuff", much of what's listed in the summary, they probably can't create the bandwagon. The reason developers jump on something like that is because it's already in widespread use. All the "big stuff" already has leaders. The best RH could hope to do is to buy some of those out and take them over.

    OTOH, do we developers want that? Look at the controversy surrounding systemd, directly developed by RH. If that's a sample of what they do, I'm not so keen for their solutions.

  2. IT departments, on the other hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From working in Linux-based IT for nearly a decade now, IT departments get very frustrated by Red Hat's package management and the concept of needing both an Entitlement and various Channels to get updates; on the flip side of this summary is Ubuntu, which IT departments can't stand due to it's constant change and instable nature. Every IT department I've worked in and with seems to prefer administering and deploying Debian and battles with devs on Ubuntu and management on Red Hat.

    1. Re:IT departments, on the other hand... by Omicron32 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here here.

      Give me a Debian box over Ubuntu any day.

    2. Re:IT departments, on the other hand... by swv3752 · · Score: 2

      Really? As Linux System Administrator, I like Red Hat. I despise Ubuntu, for instability. The LTS versions of Ubuntu have been problematic in my experience.

      I do find CentOS to be easier to maintain, but usually get stuck trying to convince management to let us deploy.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    3. Re:IT departments, on the other hand... by Zeromous · · Score: 2

      I'm with you but debian is rock solid. I hate ubuntu but find working debian to be sweet sweet stability. Unfortunately it almost never handles the latest new new that developers wantwant.

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    4. Re:IT departments, on the other hand... by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd also prefer RHEL over all others, except for the costs (which are inconsequential to me, usually). I too get stuck trying to push CentOS...most shops I've been at want to be able to point the finger at someone, hence paying for RHEL. What's odd is, the shop I've been working at for the past year actually uses Ubuntu LTS, so I've (unfortunately, or perhaps, fortunately, in the name of expanding my knowledge) had to learn the system pretty quickly. Haven't had any problems with it so far, an actually I'm impressed with the LTS version's stability (while originally I abhorred it for no actual reason, heh). Seems like a cross between RHEL's stability and Fedora's up-to-date packages.

    5. Re:IT departments, on the other hand... by armanox · · Score: 2

      My SGI and Sun knowledge are why I'm employed....

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
  3. All of these are supported by Red Hat by StuartHankins · · Score: 3, Informative

    Every one of these is supported by Red Hat. Call them out for other things, but do your research first. I'm upgrading MySQL from 5.1 to 5.5 and many of these are specifically in new Red Hat Collections.
    https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Software_Collections/1/html-single/1.1_Release_Notes/index.html#sect-Installation_and_Usage-Install

    1. Re:All of these are supported by Red Hat by StuartHankins · · Score: 2

      Looks like the article I linked is out of date ("As of October 1, 2013, MySQL 5.5 packages have been added to the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.10 Beta, and therefore will be in the forthcoming GA release."). 5.10 was released on 2013-10-01 according to https://access.redhat.com/articles/3078#RHEL5

      Thanks for pointing it out. I've commented on the article requesting it be updated.

  4. Developers prefer Ubuntu? by jpschaaf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't think that's a cut-and-dry sort of thing. As a developer, I hate the fact that Ubuntu is changing so quickly that I can't keep up. Leading edge is fine, but bleeding edge gets blood everywhere.

  5. Red Hat move too slowly by Omicron32 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The great benefit of Red Hat is that it's stable and supported for a very long time, like 20 years. They don't change anything major in a release, and releases are few and far between. This is great for 'Enterprise' stuff, but the web is moving quickly and package support for RHEL boxes isn't great.

    Having said that, where I work we have lots of stuff on RHEL/CentOS, and more and more stuff on Ubuntu. The Ubuntu stuff keeps me awake at night - literally. It's always falling over. I have never experience a kernel like the one the Ubuntu team are putting are. It's absolutely atrocious. The biggest problem is that the software we need to use has better support for Ubuntu than RHEL, so we're stuck using a dire OS to run it on.

    The RHEL and CentOS boxes we have are rock solid stable and have never really given us significant issues. I walk into the office and get a new Ubuntu problem every day.

    (FWIW I use Debian for all my own stuff exclusively, so I know my way around Debian-derivatives - this isn't a configuration issue).

    1. Re:Red Hat move too slowly by thule · · Score: 2

      CentOS is great! They have done a great service to the Linux world. Even more awesome is that RedHat now supports the project!

  6. last phrase is reversed by Chirs · · Score: 4, Informative

    That last sentence should have been, "....remain relevant for the next two years, much less the next 20."

  7. Depends on the developer's background by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Ask her developers what they prefer, however, and it's Ubuntu"

    Ask a developer who has recently made or tried to make the transition from Windows to Linux and they expect inconsistency, plus doesn't everyone use it? Ask a seasoned Linux dev and they wouldn't touch Ubuntu with Bill Gates' $INSERT_APPENDAGE_HERE

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  8. Docker & RedHat's Software Collections by thule · · Score: 5, Informative

    The tension is stability versus the latest tech. RedHat purposely moves very, very slowly. The same can be said about Debian stable. As an admin I like slow moving targets. The problem is that developers want to use the latest stuff. So what does RedHat do about this? I think they are trying to solve it in two ways. First is their Software Collections. These are packages that site outside the base OS and are easy to pivot to the newer version. This allows for multiple versions of things like Python to be installed in parallel. Very handy!

    Another thing that is helping quite a bit is Docker. RedHat is big on Docker. By packaging containers as apps, this allows a developer to easily control the dependencies outside of the OS that the app is running on. This makes everyone happy! Fedora is tracking some interesting tooling with Docker (geard, os-tree).

    I like that RedHat tries to solve bigger problems than just packing and releasing a distro. They are trying to make things manageable (see FreeIPA, OpenLMI, RDO, CloudForms, oVirt)

    Personally, I like RedHat. I like Debian. I run Fedora on my desktop and notebook. I maintain a CI/CD pipeline on RedHat at work. I never jumped on the Ubuntu bandwagon. It seems to me that Ubuntu has made quite a few more mis-steps in their short existence than RedHat has over the years. I get the feeling that a lot of people are just dropping back to Debian, which is just fine with me!

  9. No offense to Unbuntu but.... by Larry_Dillon · · Score: 2

    When someone asks me to connect to a Linux server, I think "Cool". When I find out it's Ubuntu I think they probably don't know much about Linux or they wouldn't be running Ubuntu as a server. My sampling is probably biased, but most of the Ubuntu user's I've met are beginning desktop users.

    --
    Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
    1. Re:No offense to Unbuntu but.... by bobbied · · Score: 2

      I would disagree with you. Despite the desktop-ness of Ubuntu, the distribution comes with a lot of things set up right. RedHat, on the other hand, assumes you're an idiot and treats you accordingly. Which of the two has rm aliased to 'rm -i' by default? RedHat. I'm not a fucking DOS user, I know that I want to delete something, this is supposed to be UNIX. Which of the two limits each username to 1024 threads/processes (ulimit -u)? RedHat again, a supposedly enterprise server distribution. Which one has /sbin only in the PATH of the root user? RedHat again. I don't want to fucking 'su' or do the full path to run ifconfig.

      Plus, RedHat are the one pushing for new and untested systemd. That's another example of something you don't expect of a stable server distribution.

      No, RedHat is not 'cool' or stable. They're fishing for consulting dollars, and they're trying to monopolize Linux mindshare by pushing systemd (themselves being the authors), and injecting it as a dependency everywhere else.

      First, you are so not thinking "production", system management and security. You are obviously a newbie Linux user/developer who has never deployed anything where security was important.

      NEVER, and I mean NEVER, use "root" to do anything, at least not directly, you apparently do. If you want "ifconfig" to work for you, put it in your PATH, if you want it to run for everybody, put it in the skeleton account or modify the necessary files at the system level. Some folks don't want this kind of stuff to show up for the "normal" user anyway, because what on earth do they need 'ifconfig' for anyway?

      Red Hat has a long list of problems, but the stuff you are wining about are not on the list (except for systed complaint), unless the "short between the monitor and the keyboard" counts as a Red Hat problem. The systemd thing really shouldn't be an issue for you though. Once you get it working and the system boots as you want, don't mess with the thing and you won't have an issue with it anymore. Better yet, stick with the Red Hat tools to configure everything and you shouldn't have an issue configuring it either.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  10. Mission Critical ... Red Hat... LOL.. by lp_bugman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why? Red Hat has been the one distro that spearheaded Linux adoption in the enterprise. It's stable has very long support life cycle and if you do not want to pay licensing you can (and many startups do) use Centos.
    I hear people complaining about rpm/yum. Guess what. Many of us have extensive experience with it and have no problems with it. Creating repo cache is fairly easy and allows you to have a total control of what is deployed to your server. And yes I do like dpkg and apt-get. They are very nice tools.
    The main reason I see ubuntu getting traction is because of RedHat making RHEL not available for download and because developers got their first steps in ubuntu. because "it's easier" and has a nicer "desktop".
    I think RedHat needs to backpedal in Fedora/RHEL and go back to a single distro. Something like *Desktop/Developer edition (RHDE) and *Enterprise Edition (RHEL) and build a nice and focused distro with all the common repos already enabled in RHDE. So that newbies can have a better experience. Developers need to easily get running thing need on a fresh build of (RHDE). Something like this: yum install passenger-puppet-master (and bam!) yum install maven
    yum install django
    yum install passenger-rails-app
    yum install saltstack
    yum install eclipse-openjdk-stack
    Just a few samples but you get the idea. Make it easy for the developer and they will come.

    --
    BSD licensed software can't be stolen....
  11. Re:Mission Critical ... Red Hat... LOL.. by machineghost · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you're kind of missing the point. Developers don't think "hey, I know Ubuntu/Mint, and it works great for me, but yum just got a little bit friendlier? Forget everything I know, I'm installing Red Hat."

    People change distributions with a purpose. For me personally the odyssey was:

    Mandrake: because (I kid you not) it came on a CD in a Linux magazine
    Gentoo: because of the performance gains
    Mandrake: because (unlike Gentoo) you don't have to spend half your life compiling
    Ubuntu: they did all the annoying stuff (eg. making Flash work) for me
    Mint: Shuttleworth gave the middle finger to Ubuntu community vs. Mint 3s their community

    The point is, no one is going back to Red Hat unless it offers something significant that their current distro doesn't (besides just yum). Making Red Hat one distro instead of two doesn't give me a reason to leave Mint. Making yum friendlier doesn't give me a reason either. At best changes like that might help stem the tide of departing Red Hat users ("why do I need Ubuntu, Red Hat finally got friendly") but if Red Hat ever wants to become a dominant distro again they have to offer a compelling reason to switch.

  12. Development cycle by caitriona81 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Agile developers expect agile everything. Ubuntu happens to just be a happy compromise between agile and waterfall.

    If you look at RHEL, it's 5-10 year old packages, kept alive by an enormous engineering team that backports fixes to old, dead software, which creates a huge pile of technical debt for any developer trying to use "modern", highly modular frameworks.

    As far as developers go, In the Ruby, Python, and Node ecosystems, anything that's not the latest doesn't exist. They don't use the system package management, they use gem, pip, and npm. They really don't care about the underlying OS, until it gets in the way, and getting in the way is exactly what a decade-old OS does.

    Just to throw out an example. Take some modern ruby on rails application, say Discourse. (discourse.org). Go download a tarball from github. Now try to make it work with nothing but software from the official RHEL repository. Let me know how that works out for you. After you tear out all your hair and skin trying to do that, try to get the pieces from 3rd party repos that will make that work. See how much you have to bring in as far as new libraries and new packages just to make it work. It's still a nightmare even with the 3rd party repos, and that RHEL support contract doesn't cover them - every single piece that's likely to break your application, is now outside of your support agreement, so your company is now wasting at least $799/year for support.

    As soon as they start trying to develop on RHEL, the dirty hacks start. There are things missing - the versions of software that they need to make their dependancies work don't exist on RHEL. They end up in a kind of dependancy hell fighting with libraries that are a decade too old to compile their dependancies. One thing leads to another. Eventually, you recreate an entire current OS in /usr/local, or install one piece by piece from 3rd party repositories. At that point, it's not RHEL anymore. It might still say it's RHEL, but it's a bastardized system that looks more like an evil child of Gentoo and Fedora. (both of which are fine distributions by the way, just they aren't meant to crossbreed). The only thing you have left of RHEL at that point are the parts your application doesn't care about, which is probably not much.

    Or, you can attempt to containerize with kvm, chroots, or lxc, which, while not breaking the underlying system as badly, means the application is really running on something other than RHEL.

    If Red Hat wants developers back, they are going to have to be able to deliver a product with an agressive delivery schedule, maybe even a rolling release, and be able to deliver the kind of support to make operations feel good. That's a whole new territory, that nobody has touched yet, but if they are up to the challenge of keeping decade old software on life support, they are probably up to the challenge of an agile OS.

    1. Re:Development cycle by visualight · · Score: 2

      "As far as developers go, In the Ruby, Python, and Node ecosystems, anything that's not the latest doesn't exist. They don't use the system package management, they use gem, pip, and npm. They really don't care about the underlying OS, until it gets in the way, and getting in the way is exactly what a decade-old OS does."

      ^^These developers are idiots and don't deserve support.^^

      Yeah, I'm aware of everything wrong with that statement, but it's a perspective that's valid for a lot of people. This culture evolved from a flood of Windows refugees that didn't even *try* to work with distributions, or, even worse built a business model that depended on and promoted circumventing it. ( *.io ).

      Fuck them, because most of the time they *don't* actually have a compelling technical reason to be on the bleeding edge of project X, they just *start* there to begin with, and spend 0 seconds looking at distro tools. Yeah , I'm looking at you RoR.

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    2. Re:Development cycle by neurovish · · Score: 2

      Agile developers expect agile everything. Ubuntu happens to just be a happy compromise between agile and waterfall.

      If you look at RHEL, it's 5-10 year old packages, kept alive by an enormous engineering team that backports fixes to old, dead software, which creates a huge pile of technical debt for any developer trying to use "modern", highly modular frameworks.

      As far as developers go, In the Ruby, Python, and Node ecosystems, anything that's not the latest doesn't exist. They don't use the system package management, they use gem, pip, and npm. They really don't care about the underlying OS, until it gets in the way, and getting in the way is exactly what a decade-old OS does.

      Just to throw out an example. Take some modern ruby on rails application, say Discourse. (discourse.org). Go download a tarball from github. Now try to make it work with nothing but software from the official RHEL repository. Let me know how that works out for you. After you tear out all your hair and skin trying to do that, try to get the pieces from 3rd party repos that will make that work. See how much you have to bring in as far as new libraries and new packages just to make it work. It's still a nightmare even with the 3rd party repos, and that RHEL support contract doesn't cover them - every single piece that's likely to break your application, is now outside of your support agreement, so your company is now wasting at least $799/year for support.

      Here you go, seems straightforward and easy enough: https://meta.discourse.org/t/i...

      If modern, highly modern frameworks are interested in getting into the big enterprise space, then they will dedicate the time to making their software work with RHEL. If a company is running Ubuntu in production, then they don't particularly care that much about stability, have a small server install base, or a team that can hack around enough to make things work.

  13. If you can install it, who cares? by msobkow · · Score: 2

    If you install the newer packages you want, who cares what the "default" package is?

    Personally I'd much rather a distro that lets me choose which version of packages to install rather than shoving one down my throat randomly during updates of the system.

    Granted, the Debian stable I run isn't full of the latest shiny, shiny, but it isn't causing update problems by rolling out new versions of packages, either. Both Debian stable and RedHat RHEL are focused on stability, not bleeding edge development. No one in their right mind runs production systems on untested versions of packages, and no one (not even banks) can afford to do constant regression testing on the latest releases of software just because it's "new."

    I'm constantly surprised at how many people opt for downloading the "production" version of my own project, even though that really was just a peg in the dirt of functionality, not some big fancy schmancy roll-out that went through more testing than other releases. There are bug fixes and new features in the latest and greatest, but a lot of people don't want that -- they want that peg in the dirt, and are content to wait for an SP1 to get access to the new features and bug fixes.

    Don't forget it can often take a few months to properly regression test software. It isn't just an issue of booting with the latest version and making sure it starts running -- it's testing how it responds to having network cables yanked, power flipped off hard, sometimes even yanking hardware components while a box is running. Serious servers aren't something you just push out after running them with a dozen users for a week.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  14. Re:Mission Critical ... Red Hat... LOL.. by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

    Dude, the question was about Enterprise servers. Do your development on Mint, that's just fine, but are you really going to deploy your production enterprise application on a farm of ... Mint servers? really?

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  15. Re:Mission Critical ... Red Hat... LOL.. by machineghost · · Score: 2

    From the summary:
    "Ask her developers what they prefer, however, and it's Ubuntu"
    "Given that developers are the new kingmakers"

    The whole point was that developers influence the choice of distro on the server, based on their preference for a development distro. I'm not quite sure how you missed that.

  16. Re:Mission Critical ... Red Hat... LOL.. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The whole point was that developers influence the choice of distro on the server

    There must be cases where this is true. However, it's really unclear to me why most developers would care and why they would feel themselves qualified if they have competent sysadmins to work with.

    When I've got my sysadmin hat on, most of the developers I work with are developing on Macs. They have no hangups about their code being deployed on EL systems in a big data center. Nobody is clamoring for a shelf full of MacPro tubes to deploy on.

    When I've got my developer hat on, I usually write on a Fedora machine. But I'm not daft enough to try to run Fedora on a server and have to worry about the maintenance cycle. I put my configs in a puppet module that pushes the code out to whichever VM I'm going to run it on, regardless of the OS, hypervisor, hardware, or country that code is bound for.

    If my code doesn't run on a particular distro, then my code is probably broken (or my devops is hosed).

    Maybe there are some startups with a bunch of kids and one third-careeer CEO and they all tell him what's going to happen. Good for them, I guess. Someday a sysadmin might come in and help them fix their stack. Let's not speak of the failwhale.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  17. Preaching to the choir by laffer1 · · Score: 2

    I work at a large university. IT gave us two options for operating systems on our servers, Redhat or Windows. They also offer a DIY vmware setup. Rather than having IT manage our servers, I have to do it just so we can run Ubuntu. It is impossible to run certain packages like OpenCPU on Redhat because no one ever bothered to port it. Before you jump to the conclusion that linux is linux, it's really not. You can blame Ubuntu for going off the beaten path or Redhat for not keeping up with the times but some software packages only run on one linux distro without considerable effort. Conversely, the only supported backup solution for our servers is IBM tivoli crap and I went through hell to convert the rpm based installer into something that would work on Ubuntu LTS. IBM doesn't get that Ubuntu (or debian derived) distros are popular now either.

    As a *BSD guy, I find both Ubuntu and Redhat irritating but at least ubuntu has apt-get. Funny thing is I started on Redhat 5.0 in '99 or so as my first *nix like os. Back then they had a desktop that didn't suck though.

    --
    MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
  18. Trendy != Better by Etcetera · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given that developers are the new kingmakers, Red Hat needs to get out in front of the developer freight train if it wants to remain relevant for the next 20 years, much less the next two.

    It's very hard to avoid a snarky response, but I'll try.

    * Developers are not kingmakers
    * Developers are not system administrators
    * Developers don't understand operations
    * Developers often don't understand scale engineering unless they can abstract it away by not thinking too hard about anything
    * Red Hat Enterprise Linux (and its derivatives) are not intended to be shiny new, but to be reliable
    * Use Fedora if you want bleeding edge, or re-package things yourself. RPMs aren't hard.

    --
    Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
    1. Re:Trendy != Better by raarts · · Score: 2

      Totally agree. Developers: write software to run on customers' systems, and not on your own desktop.
      If their distro does not support the packages your software needs, include them in your delivery package.

      You won't get very far in the enterprise market if your product doesn't support CentOS/RHEL. Bad for business.

  19. Re: Mission Critical ... Red Hat... LOL.. by kiphat · · Score: 2

    That's not how I see it. The admin determines what distro is used by the company. The developer has to comply with the company standard. Not the other way around.

  20. Re:Mission Critical ... Red Hat... LOL.. by unrtst · · Score: 2

    Another thing to consider is debugging. As a developer, you want to debug on a system that's as close as possible to the machine where the bug occurred. Obviously it's easier to be sure that your environment is the same as your server's (and that you're seeing the same problem the server saw) if the two run the same distro.

    Two words: virtual machine

    Even if you were to run the same OS and version on your primary desktop as your server has, you're still VERY likely to end up installing stuff that the server does not have (ex. maybe you want to use eclipse and the latest JDK for it, or you need a newer version of python for some VCS tool you use). In any case, you are better off running the code on a vm that is very similar to production.

  21. Re:Huh? by ruir · · Score: 2

    I have switched to Debian back already in 1997 from RH. One of my subordinates installed some our servers in Ubuntu back in 2006/7, and it was a terrible experience I do not want to repeat.

  22. Ubuntu vs. Linux by acscott · · Score: 2

    Why do devs choose Ubuntu over Linux? (Ok, I'm baiting, but really why do they choose it?)

    RedHat does have MySQL, so some of the presumptions of the post are false. True, RedHat now is moving into MariaDB a MySQL branch currently, fork in the future. But RedHat is a great choice for developers. What about Tomcat or JBoss? Their long support window and awesome packaging makes a great choice for risk-averse organization. I see lots of orgs adopting these app servers supported by RedHat.

    I see it as a difference in startups and other businesses (those other businesses being shooting stars, cash cows, dogs, etc.). Startups _need_ to produce something fast, but it doesn't have to be maintainable, strongly supported, etc.

    Gotta go, but keep in mind some of the assumptions here...

  23. Re:Mission Critical ... Red Hat... LOL.. by Darinbob · · Score: 2

    Because Red Hat just works? Somewhere along the line I was surprised that ubuntu got popular because there so much controversy with it. Maybe it's a generational thing, as Red Hat feels like Unix and Ubuntu feels like Windows.

    And besides, once you have gcc and vi or emacs, what more does a developer need?

  24. Re: Mission Critical ... Red Hat... LOL.. by armanox · · Score: 2

    You mean where management ignores the sysadmin and developer's requests and says you're using this because we paid for it.

    --
    I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
  25. Re:Dump SELinux and systemd, make it easier by armanox · · Score: 2

    Doesn't work that way. For the business world, Red Hat IS Linux. And a lot of things that get pushed in other distros start in Fedora (RH).

    --
    I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
  26. Re:where do they come from again? by BitZtream · · Score: 2

    ... because hadoop is a database ... except that its not, in any way ...

    And everything makes more sense to be in a nosql key-value store than something with structure and integrity.

    With a 3 digit id I would have expected a better response than that from your age alone ... mind blowing.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager