Slashdot Mirror
Linux: Look before you Leap
juniorboy sent us JP Mogenthal's latest piece from Internetwork, this timing cautioning people about Linux and along the way tries to get at the root of why people are switching.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
At first I dismissed this as
the FUD you expect from the entrenched mass media who fear that Open Source will jeopordize their advertising revenue (how much as RH spent on marketing vs. MS?).
However, I checked out JP's company and YIKES!
The purpose of JP's company, NC Focus, is:
"Assisting companies to build systems faster, cheaper, & better!"
To do this JP's company provides the following service:
"We offer the best of the analyst and implementation consulting worlds. NC.Focus provides subscription-based research to keep companies updated on emerging tools and technologies. This research is written from the perspective of the customer implementing solutions today."
The company's web pages are almost free of references to Bill gates many products, instead extolling the virtues of Java, XML, COBRA, etc.
Almost sounds like the perfect home for Unix, Linux or FreeBSD, eh?
Given JP's internetweek column, I wonder what NC.Focus is it advising it's customers regarding Linux?
Executive Profile
JP Morgenthal,CEO & Director, Research
JP Morgenthal has been involved with the computer industry since 1986. He successfully ran his own software consulting practice from 1994 through 1996 when he transitioned to become one of the leading analysts covering the middleware and distributed computing market.
Morgenthal is a recognized leader in the industry. Over his career, he has acted in the roles of developer, educator, author, analyst, columnist and conference chairperson. Most recently Morgenthal was named the Vice-Chairperson of the Enterprise Integration Council, a new collaborative effort developed to assist companies navigate the onrush of new technologies in the Enterprise Application Integration space. He has also been named chair of the XML Working Group for ACORD-a group delivering standards for the insurances industry.
In addition to being Director of Research, Morgenthal provides high-level strategic consulting on corporate IT directions regarding E-Commerce, ERP, supply-chain integration, and data architecture.
Morgenthal has a very strong technical background. He has over a decade of experience designing and implementing distributed applications for the banking & finance, brokerage, computer software, and manufacturing industries. Throughout his years of experience, Mr. Morgenthal has implemented and researched most of the major distributed computing technologies including: TCP/IP, DCE, CORBA, COM/DCOM, XML, Java & Web/Internet. He is considered an authority on enterprise application integration technologies, such as directory services, security, distributed file systems, asynchronous messaging, and database middleware.
-- not anonymous, my company's firewall is just really annoying. nosilA (alison@andrew.cmu.edu)
Linux is not based on anything. The original motivation to write Linux may have come from Minix, and most of the interfaces come from Unix (now POSIX), but the code is clean.
Paranoia isn't an infectious condition, it's a way of life
So Linux is controlled by a small group of hackers who continue putting out patches, forcing people who have customized kernels to keep re-testing. And this is a bad thing!
...
Lovely argument there, eh? It's not enough to have free OS code that you can customize, the hackers who wrote it must also step aside and stop working on it so that they don't break customized, unreleased versions of the software maintained by your shop!
Nobody forces you to use the latest kernel. Moreover, if you obey the major interfaces within the kernel, your code will remain compatible. If you upgrade to a new kernel, you have to re-test and possibly change your code. This is no different than if you were doing application level coding in any operating system. If you develop, say, a middleware service application for NT, you have to re-test everything if you decide to support the lastest service pack.
I recently upgraded the Mobitex radio modem driver from supporting only the 2.0.x kernels to 2.2.x. It was pretty easy despite the quantum leap in kernel revisions. Some of the network driver interfaces had changed---for the better, I might add. Adapting the code made some of it it simpler and cleaner. The only real sneaky thing was that the tty line discipline receive callback can now be run in a true interrupt context right from the underlying serial driver, rather than as a mere bottom half callback! So the reentrancy assumptions in the driver had to be re-evaluated, and stricter locking had to be put in (at which point I went straight to using the new SMP friendly spin locks). So most of the porting issues were caught at compile time, and the rest by prudent code re-reading and re-evaluating of old assumptions.
But we are talking about a serious jump between major release series, not from one version to the next within a series. Incrementally supporting successive kernel releases tends to be trivial. Being a responsible developer means that of course you redo all of your usual test cases before approving the software as working with a given kernel, and you document which kernels it was tested with with.
In the case of unreleased in-house changes, it's even easier because you don't owe it to any outside users to support a variety of kernels. You can simply pick a kernel and stick with that for a while as a matter of internal policy.
If you are working on modifying some area of the kernel that is also being ``churned'' by the main developers, and you want them do to certain things your way, then you have to communicate and resolve the issues. Chances are that they won't listen to you if the issues are related to proprietary modifications that aren't being released back into the community. Well doh!
How anyone can twist availabily of source code into a FUD argument against Linux is beyond me. If you don't like the churning, don't stop for drinks at the Kernel of the Week club on the way home every Friday night. Have a prudent roadmap for upgrades.
This fruitcake disgusts me. I have no respect for people who parrot other people's FUD without understanding what they are talking about.
I see no evidence that this dude knows anything about operatng systems internals, and I doubt that he has ever written a line of kernel code. I also don't believe that he has any experience maintaining custom patches against a code base whose mainstream releases are controlled by someone else.
So when he writes that rapid kernel development is a problem for people who maintain modifications, it must be taken with a sizeable crystal of salt. Ditto when he says this or that about Linux SMP; he just heard it from someone, who in turn heard it from someone else, and so on
Into Linux Adoption
JP MORGEN-THRALL
June 14, 1999
It seems I cannot read these days. I'm often seeing Linux touted as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Upon reading these rave reviews, I can't think. Most of this admiration is lost on me because I only know Microsoft Windows, as well as the relatively low IQ I have.
But I think it's critical that we, as a community, keep a perspective on the impact of Linux for the following reasons.
Linux is an open-source project; therefore, all changes are subject to review and approval by people. Companies that add features to the kernel, and then change to a different version will have to change the version, in much the same way as if you do something, you may actually do it.
Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because I love pointy-clicky things. Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition has many fun things that I think come as standard because I never pay for them myself. I haven't a clue what comes with Linux, and I'm too lazy to find out, so I'll just make something up. Whereas Microsoft's products are buggy and barely usable, users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux, most of which I spent working out how to get the | symbol on this keyboard. The most critical of these integrations will be security and access control. I have no idea what this means, but it sounds impressive, yeah?
Linux is just beginning to be retrofitted for symmetric multiprocessing. Huh huh-huh...I said retrofitted! Without robust SMP, Linux servers can support only small companies and run a single application (honest!). If you're running NT you'll be required to manage multiple servers for increased downtime, and you're better off using an abacus.
Also, remember that Linux is still not Windows. One of the reasons for Windows' growth has been the complexity of obtaining a computer without it. Simply because a low-cost alternative is now available, it does not automatically generate more revenue for Microsoft.
Linux is a college student's project gone astray. There are pornographic pictures embedded in the kernel, and it drinks all your beer before throwing up on your brand new carpet. The version that will be supported by Sun Microsystems and IBM on its hardware will fall far short of each of these company's own Unix operating systems in marketing and hype. If you're responsible for operating system selection in your company, be wary of the Linux play. Hey, I'm all for a competitor to Windows, just make sure it's not a serious one.
JP Morgen-Thrall is president of NC.Focus, which provides strategic planning, analysis and psychic predictions of application integration technologies. He can be reached at jp@ncfocus.com.
dylan_-
--
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about concerning app crashes.
You may be talking about desktop issues, which is perfectly valid. But remember that Linux is just now starting to provide comprehensive "idiot desktop" software. We do have a bit of catching up to do in this area - something we're rapidly doing. But if you look at the tried-and-true server issues - Web serving, dialup serving, file/print, DHCP/DNS, mail - you find that they have quite satisfactory stability.
The same with your criticism of the PPP setup. Again, *easy* PPP setup is still a bit new. Before, we all were good enough hackers to not mind the extra setup.
Now, most of the technical criticism directed at NT from the Linux crowd centers on several issues where Linux does have the advantage:
- Speed.
- Stability.
- Flexibility.
As it just so happens, these tend to be server issues more than workstation issues. I personally think it's a pain when my Windows workstation at work crashes, and I long for my Linux desktop at home; however, when my NT Server crashes, I'd consider that more than just a "pain".
I think most of us will admit that Windows has us beat on usability - today. Considering the rapid rate of advancement we've been seeing, combined with Windows' inertia, I'm sure we'll be caught up soon.
Meanwhile, there are still many things we can beat up on Windows for.
ObRelevance: Besides, most of this Morgenthal's criticisms are still off base. Some of them are demonstably wrong - the integrated list of bundled services in NT EE comes to mind, along with the assertion that none of that comes with Linux - and others are criticisms of strengths, such as the slam on its development model.
I've found myself pondering the same thing as this guy over the past few months, both in my head and in the open with other people. I'm a Linux supporter, no doubt there, but I'm not blind to the fact that Linux isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread, that it's not even as good an operating system as Windows in some key areas.
Everyone talks about open-source and stability as if it's the end-all be-all of the OS market. Guess what, Linux the operating system may be stable, but even with good administration, most of the apps aren't. What good is an operating system to a company if its programs have to be continually restarted? WinNT's instability can be overcome with even moderately good system administration; it's all a matter of how the system is run. I chatted with a customer of ours the other day who runs WinNT exclusively because its cheaper. Why is it cheaper? Because its easier to use, maintain, and runs on almost anything their Intel-based systems can offer. Linux, on the other hand, he said, costs them more to maintain because they have to pay for compilations, extensive management, and the repeated solving of problems given by the apps. And, he says, they get much better support from Microsoft.
Part of Slashdot's (and the Linux community's in general) problem with articles like these is that they conflict with the ego created by Linus' "world domination" speeches. We tend to get so full of ourselves because we feel we're using an inherently better operating system than our competitor and when someone attacks that notion (and this article did it rather succinctly and not maliciously) we ignore what they're actually saying and start attacking the attacker.
Get off your high horse! I've been off mine for a while. When it takes me an hour to setup a reasonably hassle-free way to form a PPP connection on my Linux box and it takes me roughly 10 minutes to do the same on my Windows box, I can literally see the problem areas of Linux and why using it could be more expensive than using a Windows alternatives. Learning curves cost money, too. It's not all about free software and it's not all about open-source in the corporate world. To think thus is to put the same blinders that prevent looking at alternatives in the first place.
You're right, someone who's gone through a PPP setup process can get it done fairly fast. My issue wasn't necessarily getting PPP working, it was getting PPP working properly with the setup I wanted (it still isn't, I've just given up).
And regarding programs, yes, some programs stay up for six months or longer on Linux. Big deal, some Windows stations stay up for that long as well. My point is that a lot of programs that Linux is counting on to provide the same services as Windows aren't up to speed yet, but advocates are pointing to them saying, "See, we have this and we have this." GNOME is the perfect example. I stopped running GNOME, not because I didn't like it (I really did), but it simply crashed too much, even after version 1.0.6. I don't want my GUI crashing on my when I use it. KDE didn't fair much better. If I had been in a mission-critical situation, I'd have been pissed. Not only that, my support options would've been limited. I would've had to pay someone to figure out the problem. Corporate produced software at least provides support and they have the incentive to make sure their product works properly, because people will buy it and they don't want to lose customers (or time to technical support).
People dismiss this as FUD. No, it's not FUD. It's FUD to you because it doesn't happen to you, but it's very real for a company evaluating Linux vs. NT. Their users are not going to be like you. They're going to be more like me, someone who taxes their system by screwing around with it, except that they're a) not going to know their doing it and b) not going to know how to fix it. Say what you will about NT, but it's stupid easy. Windows sells because it's stupid easy to use. You have no reason to go mess with permissions. You have no reason to go fscking with the internals. It works, and when it doesn't work, it tells you it doesn't work and gives you an easy out. When my GNOME panel crashes because it didn't like what I dropped on it or my kppp crashes because it didn't like failing with three different devices, it just disappears. That's not FUD. That's life.
I know how well Linux runs some apps and I know how poorly Linux runs some apps. The majority of stuff that I download is pretty poor code. Linux itself is rather nicely refined, but I would hate to rely on the programs that are available out there.
The author of the article, again, hit on some very good points. I've seen two people address them directly. Everyone else just cried, groaned, or tried to piss on him. I like Linux, too, but unlike some people, I'm not trying to build it up as something it's not.
I sent the following to the author, at the end urging him to post either a correction or a retraction. I strongly urge Slashdot readers with knowhow to fill in the blanks that I left (with cool manners, pocket those flamethrowers) and all Slashdot readers to urge him (again with manners) to post a retraction/correction.
. html . html t m h tml s .html
Sir,
Your article posted on InternetWeek was poorly researched, and quite
inaccurate in most respects. Allow me to point out the deficiencies of
your half-hearted attempt at objective criticism.
"Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft
provides a better value proposition."
This, sir, is a most disingenuous statement. Windows supporters (by which
I presume you mean users) outnumber Linux supporters because Windows has
been the only OS in town for many years. Linux is younger than Windows,
and is fighting a legacy marketshare, not a quality-based one.
Microsoft's business tactics (as shown in the DOJ trial) do little else
but maintain this artificial market dominance which grew out of IBM's
initial market dominance of the PC market in the early eighties. It is
hardly because of proven product quality that Microsoft currently enjoys
the market share that it does.
"Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of
Internet services, including Web, proxy, index, messaging, database,
transaction and firewall services. With Linux, these services will soon be
available as a multivendor product."
In fact sir most, if not all, of these features are already available in
Linux and other free UNIXes, including the BSDs (I personally favor
FreeBSD). For Web services, Apache is readily available and comprises
over half of the webservers in existance(1). Further, proxy and firewall
services are already implemented in Linux and other *nixes, I myself have
set up a FreeBSD firewall on a network I manage. The capability is built
into the OS, it only requires a competent sysadmin. Messaging can be
taken care of in the form of Sendmail(2). For databases, Oracle has
release Oracle8 for Linux(3) and IBM has released DB2 v6.1 for Linux(4).
Surely these databases are strong enough for whatever a company needs.
"Without robust SMP, Linux servers can support only small companies and
single applications. If you're managing multiple servers for increased
scalability, you're better off using multiple NT servers all participating
within the same domain."
SMP support currently exists, as explained on the LinuxSMP site. "The
current ix86 kernel supports Intel MP v1.1 and Intel MP v1.4 compliant
motherboards with between 1 and 16 486/Pentium/Pentium Pro processors."(5)
Clustering can also take care of scaling issues, as the Beowulf project
website can tell you(6). While neither of these technologies are perhaps
completely mature yet, it is reasonable to consider that, given the growth
of Linux in the past four years of its eight year history alone, maturity
will be achieved in short order, perhaps a year or less.
As for your statement of Linux being worthy of only small-scale
operations, perhaps you would be wise to investigate the Linux in Business
website.(9)
"Also, remember that Linux is still Unix. One of the reasons for Windows'
growth has been the complexity of configuring and maintaining Unix
operating systems. Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now
available, it does not automatically generate more people capable of
managing and configuring these systems."
Actually, availabilty of low-cost versions of UNIX (again, the BSDs are
available as is Linux) *does* in fact guarantee that more UNIX capable
people will be generated. It is a matter of availabilty that has kept the
number of UNIXphiles low. Previously, UNIX had been available only for
companies needing the robust and flexible nature of UNIX, and at Academia
in the computer departments and natural science departements. An entire
generation of nerds, technophiles, and engineers is now being exposed to
UNIX. This exposure will absolutely generate more capable people.
Teenagers are learning the joys of the UNIX world, people in college are
getting a chance to experience alternatives to Windows drudegery, and IT
people who would never have thought of using UNIX are trying it, and
liking it. Within a few years, the number of skilled UNIX workers will
have increased dramatically.
Furthermore, as I stated before, the reason for Window's "growth" has
simply been because of historical opportunity. Microsoft was at the right
place at the right time, and had an inside track. Namely Gates' mother
was on a charity board with one of IBM's top executive(7). DOS was the
defacto OS on IBM PCs, and then the clones. Windows was built on the DOS
empire, and NT was built upon that. Linux is inherently more stable, with
less downtime than NT, as exemplified by the following story from
Replacing WindowsNT with Linux(8).
"Life after moving Cats to NT was a nightmare. The system was crashing two
to three times a day with no reason that I could find. I was on the phone
with Microsoft and Cats constantly, but nobody could figure it out.
Microsoft had me apply Service Packs one through three and a few HotFixes,
which helped, but it still was crashing at least twice a week with the
infamous "Blue Screen of Death". After many weeks and about $1500.00 in
phone support from Microsoft, the technical support rep told me that I
should find a better software package than The Cat's Pajamas.
The only option left was to replace the server now and the only thing I
had was the Linux server, so I restored Cats off our Windows NT tape
backup machine to the Linux server and changed the login scripts to
connect the users to this server for the Cats drives. Within one hour, we
,were back in operation.
"After completing the morning duties, we normally run a complete Cats
backup before we continue with closing which usually would take two hours
to complete on the Netware server. The Linux machine was able to do the
entire backup in 45 minutes, cutting a little over an hour off our closing
time. This increase in speed came from a decrease in hardware because the
Linux server was running only 32 MB in RAM and IDE hard drives where the
Netware server had 64 MB in RAM and SCSI drives. The speed increase has
been noticed in daily work also. I get almost daily remarks that the
system seems to be running faster and more reliable."(8)
You may find further such case studies at the Linux in Business
website(9).
In conclusion, sir, I can only strongly suggest that you do more thorough
research before posting a comments such as you made as fact. To do
otherwise is irresponsible at best, and brazenly pernicious at worst. I
am sorely disappointed in the quality of your work, and the bias of your
opinion which I presume to be based on your "facts". I strongly recommend
that you post a correction to your story and perhaps even a retraction.
Certainly you owe it as a point of honor and integrity to correct your
errors.
1.)http://www.networkcomputing.com/1011/1011f13
2.)http://www.networkcomputing.com/1011/1011f12
3.)http://technet.oracle.com/tech/linux/index.h
4.)http://www.software.ibm.com/data/db2/linux/
5.)http://www.uk.linux.org/SMP/title.html
6.)http://www.beowulf.org/
7.)A&E's Biography series
8.)http://citv.unl.edu/linux/LinuxPresentation.
9.)http://www.bynari.com/collateral/case_studie
Until someone pays the Open Group a shitload of money to have Linux tested, it's not. Unix is a trademark.
All dark, caffeinated, sweet carbonated drinks aren't Coca-Cola either.
In an article full of wrong things, the wrongest of them all is:
Also, remember that Linux is still Unix. One of the reasons for Windows' growth has been the complexity of configuring and maintaining Unix operating systems. Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now available, it does not automatically generate more people capable of managing and configuring these systems.
I got my Linux for free (from lsl) two weeks ago. (at price=$0.00 the decision was easy to make:) I'm now capable of managing and configuring a linux system. In short, low-cost Unix made me, and I'll wager, 10,000's of others like me.
By default, I earned the title of resident Linux guru at my company and my boss has already asked me to set up his laptop next week.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
The tight integration of the MS BackOffice is exactly what is pusing me (a MCSE of 3 years - now a RHCE) back to Linux.
Microsoft has so tightly intertwined the BackOffice applications that corruption / issues with one can adversely effect the other.
For example: At a recent (NT only) account, the netlogon service on the PDC had a memory leak. It accepted logon requests but did not properly respond. For this reason all domain logons (and services dependent upon logons (read - everyting)) came to a halt. One service, on one box, stopped the show.
When you create such tightly-coupled relationships with such buggy software you are always in for a ride.
I still do NT, but almost always I throw a Linux box into the mix typically as an Exchange replacement that provides core network services as well (DHCP, DNS, etc...)... And I am looking to do more.
The funny thing is: Microsoft states that they are responding to the customer's will with the new features. Everyone I know is about exhausted with new features - we want stability in the product. Yet all we get is more bug-ridden features. More bug ridden code to cover what was poor system design in the first place.
A college dropout's project gone astray
What?!?
For US$3500 you can get ten users using web, index and transaction services. Firewall? Perhaps he means the limited packet filtering that comes standard on WinNT. Database? I don't remember them throwing in SQL Server. Proxy 2.0 is anonther US$2000. Basically, Enterprise edition with all the stuff he mentioned runs:
$13,000 for an "integrated" WinNT Enterprise solution for 10 users...
Mayhaps he meant Windows Small Business Server. Still, I think the guy needs to see his dealer about the quality of his rock. It's giving him delusions...
Chris
So Buddha walks into a pizza parlor and says: "Hey, make me one with everything."
-- in china, chinese food is just called food.
Linux is an open-source project; therefore, all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a small team that controls this portion of the operating system. Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is released.
So, if I make a few changes to the above, how is this any different?
Windows is a closed-source project; therefore, all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a corporation that controls all of the operating system. Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Windows is released.
I was under the impression this was one of the primary reasons behind the Micro$oft vs. Everyone trials.?.
[deletia]
Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now available, it does not automatically generate more people capable of managing and configuring these systems.
Of course not! I can't think of anything that automatically generates more people for any task; can you? However, I owe most of what I know about computer systems (configuration, hardware, etc), networks, and programming ( GNU!) to my play-time on Linux. Last time I had reason to buy coding tools was back in '92; one of my first-year Uni' courses required Borland's TurboPascal, running on Win3.1.
I couldn't have afforded it otherwise.
--The more you know, the less you know.
>Which distribution are you using?
/var/log/messages it seems to make the connection between the serial port and the ppp interface - I just don't ever get any local/remote IP addresses returned to me.
Well, not to add fuel to his arguments, but when I tried Slackware I had a very rough time with PPP. (I know another distribution - such as Debian - would most likely be vastly easier, but I'm _supposed_ to be learning how to use Linux, right?)
The first time I installed it, everything went hunky-dory. Almost. I couldn't get the connection set up unless I ran the 'ppp-go' script and manually invoked the PPP daemon. Then it would return my IP addresses and away we went. However, my disk had some problems and I had to do some repair work, and so decided to start over fresh with Slack.
After the reinstall, I couldn't quite get Slack PPP working again. It seems to connect, and when I poke around in
I've spent quite a few hours beating on this, so his claim in this area isn't totally inaccurate. On the other hand, I'm a certifiable Linux moron; in my four years of using Digital UNIX (I guess now it's Tru64) at college, I never did much mucking around with it beyond that of Joe Average user.
On the other hand, I'm using what is perhaps the most manual of distributions. I can't imagine that with a distribution like Red Hat it would take even a fraction of that hour to get PPP working.
Setup one Linux box as an NIS server and the others as NIS clients or backup servers. All user managment etc is handled from the main server machine.
/home directory etc to the client machines then the user will have the exact same config and access to files on any Linux box they log onto.
If you use NFS with it to share the
Also check out Coda and OpenLDAP
Although written with all the right pretenses and buzzwords so as to pose as an enlightened well reasoned article, this is about as FUD filled a piece as I have read about Linux recently.
Remember what FUD stands for: Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.
It's making a bunch of observations about things that have just a grain of truth to them (but ignore the positive flip side) so as to scare people away from a product or idea.
Let's examine one of the worst ones in the article, shall we:
Linux is a college student's project gone astray.
PURE flaimbait! Pure and simple! "Astray"?? Gimme a break!
Let's try, "Linux is a college students project starting to become mature." Like a college student when he/she graduates, moving out into the world, making a few mistakes along the way but also starting to make his/her mark in the world.
Linux is an open-source project; therefore, all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a small team that controls this portion of the operating system. Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is released.
And just what the heck is this?
Here he takes two of the most attractive things about open source software (the ability to customize it for one's own needs and the existence of thousands of code testers/debuggers around the globe) and tries to spin this as some sort of negative thing. Get me a shovel!
Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services, including Web, proxy, index, messaging, database, transaction and firewall services. With Linux, these services will soon be available as a multivendor product. Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to work with one another and the operating system's services, users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux. The most critical of these integrations will be security and access control.
Again, misinformation and FUD.
A typical Linux distribution ships with all of these things. And since the web was originally designed around UNIX, fitting web and internet functionality into NT is much more of a force fit then running them on Linux IMHO.
Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft provides a better value proposition.
In all cases for all purposes?
A blanket statement like this, is by very definition FUD. He is basically saying "Linux is not the right choice over NT for ANYTHING."
I'm totally willing to admit that Linux is a young and still maturing OS. It is not the panacea for everything.
But for small to medium sized web based services (html services, mail routing, firewall, etc.) I find it to be THE best "value proposition" available by far.
Far from being an unbiased article, this one was 110% negative against Linux, and therefore, by definition, just a FUD piece.
He's reasonable enough about the way he presents his argument, but it reads as if he's compiled a list of whinges and rolled them out. He's completely missed the flipside of the argument: Open Source (and all that goes with it), stability, and the fact that for some tasks it's a more suitable alternative than NT.
The "available experts" is a good point, though... do we have any numbers indicating the number of Linux-capable admins on the market?
Instead of a million emails to this guy, why don't we take the time to write a concise, polite counter-article/letter and help this man understand the ways of the source. If we tread lightly, we may make an allie instead of burn an enemy.
WTF is he talking about w/ the company adding code that's not accepted. BIG DEAL!! Just pick a kernel version and stick with it. Only switch when necessary for security reasons.
-- Stuart Bain
-- Stuart Bain
Systems Engineer
"...Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to work with one another and the operating system's services, users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux. The most critical of these integrations will be security and access control."
Yeah right. Sure, Microsoft products do integrate themselves into the OS. And the result are user applications crashing the OS kernel. Great idea, guys!
I can't figure out what this guy is saying about security and access control. I hope he isn't suggesting that Windows NT offers more security over Linux!
Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft provides a better value proposition.
I suppose if you value re-booting all of the time to keep your Micros~1 product upgraded and working.
Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services, including Web, proxy, index, messaging, database, transaction and firewall services. With Linux, these services will soon be available as a multivendor product.
Ah. So, my copy of linux came with all of those services for free but they don't count because they weren't created by a corporation?
Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to work with one another and the operating system's services, users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux.
Micros~1 products are designed to work only with other Micros~1 products. What if another company offers a product with more value/ability on the same platform, can you just dump a MS product and insert the competitors? Not without incredible pain. I can replace any product on linux with another and only have to modify a few lines in a script to do it.
The most critical of these integrations will be security and access control.
You must have wrote this article on the back of a napkin in a bar and call asking your pals their liquor-addled thoughts 'research'. Were you actually paid to write this? =P
>Care to wager that the author of this article is a specialist in NT integration?
A visit to his company's web site (NC.focus) doesn't reveal a whole lot of NT integration slant, but the site map mentions XML quite a bit.
If he's just an NT whore, its not very obvious from his web pages.
>all we're doing is supporting the magazine he writes for and making it more likely his editor will get him back for more
Um, he's not a journalist, not that it excuses the crap he wrote but:
"JP Morgenthal is president of NC.Focus, which provides strategic planning, analysis and consulting of application integration technologies. He can be reached at jp@ncfocus.com."
I think the point of linking to stuff like this is so we're all aware of the voices out there that discredit linux. If they have bad/wrong info, we can at leat discredit it. If they make some valid points, it is something for us to think about then use to improve linux.
At first reading, I wasn't even going to dignify this article with a response; but then I "noticed" that Mogenthal is merely suckered into Microsoft's way of thinking about business:
"I can't help but think that most of this admiration is emerging from a revulsion to Microsoft Windows..." ... or perhaps we all just want to use a more stable product ...
---
"... all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a small team that controls this portion of the operating system ..."
--- The difference is, if I PERSONALLY know something about that piece of the kernel, I can also submit my opinion and knowledge of that piece.
The very next sentence:
"Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may ... A far more superior method of developing and customizing than using, say, Visual C++.
find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is released... "
----
"Windows supporters still outnumber Linux supporters because Microsoft provides a better value proposition..." ... oh yeah, and also because Bill Gates can afford to market his product with a Rolling Stones song, like "Start Me Up." Say what yopu will about Microsoft, but they CERTAINLY understand the magic of marketing themselves....
----
"Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services, ...
including Web, proxy, index, messaging, database, transaction and firewall services. With Linux, these services will soon be available..."
--- I'm not saying a friggin' word about this one
"If you're managing multiple servers for increased scalability, you're better off using
multiple NT servers all participating within the same domain."
---- I don't believe this is true. Give us another 8-9 months, and it WON'T be true at all by then.
"Also, remember that Linux is still Unix. One of the reasons for Windows' growth has been the complexity of configuring and maintaining Unix operating systems." ...
---- True, but let's not confuse desktops with mainframes
"Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now available, it does not automatically generate ....
more people capable of managing and configuring these systems."
---- No argument here. Same goes for qualified Oracle DBA's, A+ candidates, MCSE's
"Linux is a college student's project gone astray."
---- Worse case scenario, Linux will become a staple in undergraduate courses on OS theory (similiar to how QBasic has become rather common as a "first" programming language). The Linux kernrl of today will suffice for my future children to learn about what an OS should be. By the time my children are born, OS will be as free yet crucial as BIOS.
"He who questions training trains himself at asking questions." - The Sphinx, Mystery Men (1999)
Linux is a college student's project gone astray.
So what exactly does that make Microsoft?
BLAMMO shaken not stirred
Really? Well it's no wonder that you're using NT for your own company's web site... oh wait, you're not, are you? Your company's site ( http://www.ncfocus.com/ is hosted by i-2000.com, which uses "Unix Ultra Sparc Servers" (doesn't say if it's Linux or Solaris).
Hmmmmm, it seems NT isn't even good enough for Mr. Morgenthal when it comes to performance and reliability.
At the risk of reiterating what most Slashdotters already know, I'd like to comment on this. BTW, none of the below is meant as a slight against FreeBSD or any other open source OS. Linux is the open source environment with which I'm most familiar - and of course, the focus of Morgenthal's article.
On the other hand, with Linux,
On the other hand, once this integration is achieved, it will not be dependent on proprietary protocols (such as Exchange), will be upgradeable at the component level, will not be as susceptible to email attacks, will be more secure and more stable. Etcetera. In a lot of integrations, these would be seen as advantages.
Also, of course, the level of interoperability and integration is increasing exponentially, particularly with Gnome, KDE2, CORBA-compliant applications - and this integration is happening with multiple vendor support.
At the same time, of course, NT scales beautifully -- to a bigger, faster, Intel processor, while Linux scales to faster machines and upcoming processors. SMP addresses performance, not integration, and in this area, Pentium-specific NT isn't likely to maintain a lead.
Going beyond basic configuration becomes very hard very quickly with NT, as the menu/dialog-driven utilities allow limited selections, and have limited debugging options. In fact, one of the most useful tools for administering an NT network is a Linux box with Samba and tcpdump.
A medium sized company's networking needs may be able to be met by NT, but configuration management requires every bit as much of a networking guru as the equivalent *n*x network, and troubleshooting can be far harder.
I'm puzzled by the comments of Linux's inferiority to the Big Boys' Unixes - Linux ease of configuration and use seems to compare very favorably to AIX, HP-UX, etc.
All those products are free with NT Server enterprise.
And IIS, MTS(transaction server), MSMQ(message que) are free to download for all Win9x/NT systems.