Slashdot Mirror
Is It Time To Split Linux Distros In Two?
snydeq writes Desktop workloads and server workloads have different needs, and it's high time Linux consider a split to more adequately address them, writes Deep End's Paul Venezia. You can take a Linux installation of nearly any distribution and turn it into a server, then back into a workstation by installing and uninstalling various packages. The OS core remains the same, and the stability and performance will be roughly the same, assuming you tune they system along the way. Those two workloads are very different, however, and as computing power continues to increase, the workloads are diverging even more. Maybe it's time Linux is split in two. I suggested this possibility last week when discussing systemd (or that FreeBSD could see higher server adoption), but it's more than systemd coming into play here. It's from the bootloader all the way up. The more we see Linux distributions trying to offer chimera-like operating systems that can be a server or a desktop at a whim, the more we tend to see the dilution of both. You can run stock Debian Jessie on your laptop or on a 64-way server. Does it not make sense to concentrate all efforts on one or the other?"
This is already done. For instance, I personally use Turnkey Linux for my servers and Debian Linux for my workstations. Both of these use Debian as their back end repository system, but Turnkey Linux has a system setup tuned specially for working within a virtualized server environment, whereas Debian Linux is more general purpose (which is what a workstation needs)
Betteridge's law of headlines. No. The article doesn't say a whole lot. Just makes the assertion that "servers" and "desktops" are different, and lightly appears to dislike systemd. Tries to make the assertion that the security concerns are different on the desktop and on the servers, but doesn't provide a strong argument for that assertion (or really any assertion it makes).
Except Microsoft went this EXACT same route of merging them all into a single system starting with Windows 2000. The kernel and most packages are shared between Windows Server and Windows (workstation). The only real difference is that Microsoft charges additional licensing fees to make a few more bucks on the additional features in Server. In desktop windows, features are specifically limited (like the number of file sharing clients), but this has NOTHING to do with code, and EVERYTHING to do with licensing. There is no other real reason why services on Server wont work with the desktop version of Windows. Look at the number of business applications that install Microsoft SQL Server on the desktop, as an example.
Linux simply has the freedom to not be locked down by licensing requirements.
I am a linux sysadmin, and many of the packages required for desktop use not only don't apply to me, but are pretty well useless. I would love to see a distribution where any dependency on X11 was not only stripped out - but *compiled* out. I would love to see a distribution where systemd was not getting its mitts into everything.
It's called gentoo.
Video of some good progressive thrash music
Err, you realize that for the most part, these are changeable via registry settings...?
As a server guy, I'd love it if the way to configure network devices doesn't direct me to the graphic menu... My server *does not* have a GUI and those kind of directions are useless. I also have multiple NICs, vlans and bonding. It doesn't work like a desktop with 1 network connection at a time,
right-click "My Computer" | properties
Click "Advanced System Settings"
Click "Advanced"
Under Performance Click "Settings"
Click "Advanced"
you will find a radio option for optimizing windows for programs or background services
as the man said, it all comes down to licensing. in the past, MS locked the number of active cpu's depending if you bought home or pro (I think XP had this, not sure)
There are still some Debian derivative distros that haven't changed to systemd yet, since Debian haven't released "Jessie" yet; the first Debian stable release with systemd as default init.
There is also a handful of other, rather small distros (forks of Gentoo and similar). But the basic problem with all those non-systemd distros and the systemd opponents are, that they seem unable to attract developers, and they don't cooperate either. They can barely maintain basic forks of udev, so when udev gets kdbus support, forks like "eudev" will begin to really differ from "udev".
The entire non-systemd infra structure will start to decay further when no big distros are supplying developers to maintain it. ConsoleKit have basically been bit-rotting for years now, and the systemd opponents haven't even started to _plan_ for a replacement.
At best the non-systemd distros will have crude Desktop Environment support. They will also have problem with Wayland support. Without DE support, it will become even harder to attract developers.
As things are looking now, I don't think any non-systemd distros will survive for long. IMHO, they only have themselves to blame for that, they have focused all their energy on hate attacks on named open source developers and negative campaigning against systemd, instead of focusing on making a constructive alternative.