Slashdot Mirror
Dvorak On Linux And "The Big Time"
Cyberllama writes "John C. Dvorak's latest commentary is up at ZDnet. " I've been seeing this story came across quite a bit today. Dvorak offers an insightful commentary on Linux and "The Big Time" (He uses IRC servers as an example), although one that I don't necessarily agree with. In a switch from the normal take, he sees strong growth on the desktop, while predicting Linux won't grow in the workhorse server area much. Can anyone confirm or deny the allegation the IRC servers and Linux mentioned in the piece? Update: 09/21 06:29 by H :Click below - proof is below that Linux does at least some of the machines.
[root@brain:~]# queso -p 4400 dallas-r.tx.us.undernet.org
204.178.73.175:4400 * Linux 2.1.xx
[root@brain:~]# queso -p 6667 Haarlem.NL.EU.UnderNet.Org
194.178.232.52:6667 * Linux 2.1.xx
Dvorak article is one sided, incomplete, unfounded, subjective, and seeks to destroy a 'technological-ideology' if you will.
... just think about it. 90% of linux related posts come from immature linux zealots who refuse to acknowledge any other OS for their strengths, blindly defending their choice of linux variant as the end-all of every computer related problem. Well, to those who this applies to, before you blast Dvorak for his stance, please re-evaluate the way you present your opinions. As it is now, you look just as stupid as he does.
And you know what?? It sounds very, very familiar.... Maybe not his point, but definately the style.
I know, I know!! It is the typical over-zealous linux supporter's statement, except reversed!! This time, the table has been reversed, and linux is getting unfair treatment!
All the slashdotters read that article with their hearts nearly stopping, wondering how could anyone be soooo uncompassionate, and so blind at the same time.
Really
To the small minority who constructively defend Linux, while acknowledging its weaknesses, I commend you. If Dvorak was to have had a more open mind like yours, I know his article would have been much different, celebrating Linux for its true strengths.
Those who can love linux and acknowledge its shortcomings are the only ones who will help us overcome them. Those who claim it's perfection and deny it's weaknesses are only hurting our cause, and not promoting the positive growth of Linux.
-Pika
It's just that, his tone angers me. He takes the approach that Linux is A Bad Thing because it has weaknesses. That's absurd. Everything has weaknesses. Linux just overcomes its weaknesses quickly and efficiently.
There's no need for taking an inflamatory tone when stating facts....he could have written the same article, state some of the same facts, and said merely "due to these shortcomings, there are times when Linux isn't the best solution." If he'd done that, I wouldn't be so angry.
Werd.
Well, I know _many_ small IRC servers do. Most IRC servers are running FreeBSD. But most developement for IRCd is done for FreeBSD. Posibly because awhile back in linux you had to apply patches to get many file descriptors. However, if you look through dalnet's old server descriptions you will find voyager.dal.net and ohare.dal.net ran linux. Both of those servers actually have quit dalnet since then. Albeit, I forget the name of the network they moved though. I'll see if I can find the URL for the server descriptions a little bit later.
I was the one who originally ported ircII and ircd to Linux in 1992. Linux networking was just not stable enough at the time to maintain connections. I would lose my connections every few hours, so I ported everything to 386bsd 0.1 and everything was stable and rock solid. This is what originally gave Linux a bad rep in the IRC community. All the time I was running a 386bsd server, I was still developing for Linux though, because for all else, 386bsd was a dog.
Efnet and dalnet have few linux servers because the HUB servers refuse to link a Linux server. This has been the case for over 5 years. You have a couple choices. Use *bsd, use solaris or find a network that will link you.
This has little to do with linux's current ability to perform as an IRC server and alot to do with the fact that HUB admins are "old school" and of the opinion that linux isn't UNIX and its a toy.
-- You can be a geeklord too
I code for DALnet, and yes - we dont like Linux on our servers, for a number of reasons I'll touch on in a sec..
First of all, I've seen a few posts to the effect that IRC doesnt eat much system resources. Allow me to be blunt - thats a load of crap. Our present version of IRCd (Bahamut) eats resources like a bitch, and it outperforms our old IRCd (Dreamforge) by about three times. Allow me to show you some stats:
Random DALnet server:
Current local users: 2081
35795 ircd 2 0 51768K 48976K select 161:22 47.95% 47.95% ircd
This is on a PII 400. The idea that Client servers dont require as many system resources as hubs is an uneducated assumption. Hub servers use substantially less CPU (and FD's for that matter) than client servers. They do, however, use slightly more RAM for buffering data flow.
One quick thing on the IRC protocol - most large networks are using TS3 at this point, which includes a few bandwidth-saving perks (such as SJOIN).. the protocol handles the ~40K clients on DALnet in about an 8MB resync.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. As far as i know, there are no DALnet servers running Linux. Most are running FreeBSD, and we have a few BSDi and Sun/Solaris boxes. Linux doesnt work for our client load for a few reasons:
- We need FD's. 256 (or 1024) just arent enough. And patching is a real pain.
- Security issues. Someone mentioned the fact that pre-2.0.31 kernels wont be linked. Remember teardrop?
- I've personally enjoyed the fun of occationally needing to hack sections of the IRCd to get it to compile - although this is rare, and no exception for other OS's.
I develop under FreeBSD. We work mostly under FreeBSD. Linux doesnt do exactly what we want. The same is true to a company that wants software X developed on and for SCO or something equivilent. Personally I think that Linux is an underpowered OS, but I havent played with it in ages.
One little sidenote - if there are any linux developers reading this - PLEASE make FD's a configurable option in kernel compile. Then maybe someone could easily stick up an IRCd and run up the clientload a few thousand and see how it performs. Until then, I refuse to expend extra energy looking into a different OS.
Note: My opinions. Not DALnets.
Epiphani@dal.net
Perhaps moderator mode should hide posters' identity.
In general, FreeBSD is better for me than the Linux distributions I've used because it has an integrated source tree for the entire BSD environment (kernel and user). That means there's a single source tree for the bulk of what I use, and that the bulk of what I use is developed (or at least ported), maintained and distributed by the same people. Even where I have to use external code, the `ports' tree provides a mechanism by which it can be maintained, scrutinised and approved by FreeBSD contributors.
/usr/local for external files installed via the `ports' tree, rather than dumping them into the standard tree (shudder).
The bottom line for me is that the standard FreeBSD distribution provides a full, traditional UNIX environment, without all the unwelcome additions Linux distributions seem to add. My experience with Linux distributions was that they took up much more disc space, but provided much less that was actually useful to me.
From a technical perspective, FreeBSD is better for me in the following respects:
VM: On my systems, the performance of the FreeBSD virtual memory system under load has been much better (more responsive, better throughput).
Filesystem: I've run into occasional filesystem corruption on Linux, owing to its default use of asynchronous writes for metadata. FreeBSD doesn't use asynchronous writes for metadata by default, and its `soft updates' scheme provides a completely safe mechanism for writing metadata asyncronously (as opposed to the blind approach Linux takes, which can leave the filesystem in an unusable state).
Filesystem Layout: The Linux distributions I used had quite different filesystem layouts, all of which differed from traditional BSD and System V layouts. FreeBSD (and NetBSD/OpenBSD) uses the BSD filesystem layout, which has been around for a long time, and is fairly good (logical, consistent). FreeBSD also uses
TCP/IP: The TCP/IP implementation in BSD is the reference implementation, so its behaviour is better known and documented. It's also supposedly faster, although TCP/IP bottlenecks are not something I run into (I tend to run into memory and network-bandwidth bottlenecks), so I've not noticed a difference.
From a technical perspective, Linux was better for me in the following respects:
Hardware support: I've got one perhipheral (by a defunct manufacturer) that won't currently run under FreeBSD. I can get by without it, but I miss it.
On balance, FreeBSD's advantages make it much more useful for me. For you, it sounds like the reverse is the case. If, however, support for your hardware is added, you may want to give FreeBSD another chance.
1. Linux was insecure and unmanaged.
2. Linux only supported 256 FD's, and later 1024 FD's.
The insecurity of linux in the begining was well known, it was a hackers OS. Plus, you'd have a lot of unknowns. No REAL packaging system besides tar files, it was a hit or miss proposition based on your admin.
However, File Descriptors (FD) is one of the major reasons. For all of the 1.x kernels, you only had 256 file descriptors. and it was a pain to hack in more. when 2.0 came out, I believe you were still limited to 256, but it was a bit easier to put more in. Some of the later 2.1.x kernels allowed 1024 by default, which 2.2.x does as well. Anyway, other OS's, like Solaris, default to unlimited soft FD's. (hard FD's are still at 256 though). For every IRC connection, you need a FD. So... by using linux, you're automatically limited to 256 or 1024 people. Even if you hack in more, you still have a hardcoded limit. Once again, it's the admin that makes the difference. and as the major irc nets take off, they want something more substantial than 'I heard this admin is good.'
Anyway, I base this on the fact that I used to run irc.ilstu.edu (EFnet) on an AIX machine. We could have ran it on a linux box, but it was just easier with the constant kernel thrash happening on linux to keep it on the AIX box. I now run chat.gamespy.com (and used to run 3dnet.net before it died) and that is on a linux box. and it was a pain to hack in the 4096 FD's we currently have. hence, I would have prefered Solaris at some points. However, Apache was much easier to setup on there, even though that required a lot more FD's as well. You have IRC nets all over the place that use Linux, it's just the history that stop it on the huge networks.
As far as the total article, I see things opposite, of less linux desktops and more linux servers. If you've seen the things that Cobalt is doing, you'd see what a server can do with a microkernel. But the business side of linux just isn't up to speed yet, so it will stay in the hands of geeks and out of the hands of biz guys. which is fine by me.
Gonzo "GoNINzo" Granzeau
--
Gonzo Granzeau
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
As an aside, I notice that Dvorak likes to accuse Linux advocates of being groudlessly optimistic. I in turn find him to be groundlessly pessimistic. Linux might not be the answer to every possible need, but it's more likely to achieve that end than any piece of bloatware that microsoft is likely to put out.
Something I've observed is that some of the "big time networking guru's" that Dvorak alludes to have been around too long! That is, they've been around so long that the first time they tried Linux is WAS a buggy system that couldn't stand up under high loads.
Many of them promptly went to *BSD for the market segment that Linux is targeted at. Also, I've got to say that BSD does seem to be preferred for MUD's, which are from a programming perspective very similar to IRC.
However, this doesn't really validate Dvorak's conclusion that Linux will not be able to compete in the server market. (I've been reading his stuff for ten years and still haven't seen him be right). IRC is a very specialized application that you don't see much of in the "real world".
I do think that Dvorak is right about Linux's big area of growth being the client -- there are just more of them out there. However, I think he's missing the boat calling for the low end client: until something is done about netscape and staroffice being pigs Linux doesn't run as well on low power machines as does windows '95.
The real need I see for Linux is more tightly focused distributions. I don't think every distro should try to be both a client and a server. This would result in much cleaner installs for both servers and much faster, more robust clients.
-- Slashdot sucks.
I saw this "they aren't running NT either" comment a few times on ZDNet, too. Why do people insist on doing this? You're only proving one of Dvorak's points for him -- that is, when you criticise Linux, don't expect a reasoned response. Too many people do this. "Linux can't do X". "Ah, neither can NT, yah, booh, sucks to you!". It would be both more interesting and better for Linux to hear some explanation of Dvorak's assertion about Linux not being able to run an IRC server: whether it's true, are there any examples of heavily-loaded Linux IRC servers, etc. We do ourselves a disfavour by assuming that anyone criticising Linux has ulterior motives -- promoting NT, for instance, as many people seem to think.
IIRC, some of the old DALNet servers were Linux when it was just a feldgling offshoot that was considered a joke by the Undernet/EFNet crowd. It's been a real long time since I gave a care about IRC archetecture though, so I could be wrong.
The fact that IRC is such a ridiculous hog is becasue the IRC protocol was really never intended for tens of thousands of users and thousands of channels. AFAIK they still require every server to know about what every user is doing. That in itself is sort of ridiculous for a system that is supposed to provide global chat, but you'll find no crowd, ANYWHERE, more unruly than the IRC folks when it comes to change.
-Rich
"The fact is, Linux has yet to prove itself at the top of the food chain, and until it can run eBay, for example, it will remain the "in-between" OS."
Umm, the last time I checked, eBay didn't stay up all that much. Maybe they should try linux.
This was in 1998, I believe.
The DalNet Server application has this to say about Linux:
The question is... how long has this statement been in there... and is it still true?
Dvorak is in the business of generating hits for their website. He's infamous for creating flame bait. See the stuff from a few weeks ago relating to his comments about the Ibook (calling it girlie...)
I could choose to dispute his claims concerning
IRC, others have done that already. Just look at the style of the article -it's completely incoherent. First - Linux can't be good because it doesn't run IRC, then he babbles about no standard choice for X environments (how that relates to IRC I haven't a clue), etc. It's just a strung-together bunch of inuendo and half-truths with no significant research behind it.
Just ignore him - we've all got more productive things to be doing - like writting useful free code!
Have you compiled your kernel today??
I can't talk on the IRC issue, its been years since I've used IRC, but I seem to recall there being some sort of an issue with the networks themselves, not with the robustness of the platform. In the early days of Linux, I saw that a lot for Usenet, IRC, and other network tasks that "old school" administrators saw as being the realm of the "real" Unixes. Sometimes it'd be tough to get the feed in the first place, not to deal with it once you got it.
The eBay comment, though, I thought was an interesting one. I could say with virtually 100% certainly that you could EASILY get a Linux-based system to perform more reliably than the current system, but that's not the fault of Solaris and itsn't a Solaris vs Linux issue, its simply a network application architecture issue.
Dejanews has the right idea, boatloads of Linux systems with a good application architecture, and you'll never have any downtime.
Admitted eBay has an interesting situation in that the nature of auctions where users can have bids automagically updated means running a lot of business logic on the database server, which can really move the bottleneck to the actual server software and the stored procedures, not the OS itself. My understanding is eBay runs Oracle, and Oracle has always struck me as being a real bitch to get good redundancy on and replicated servers that can cleanly fail-over.
A site like e-bay could easily be reliably run on Linux systems using a well designed architecture though, with database servers (running Oracle on Linux) that are handling only portions of the site, and a lot of inexpensive front-end servers. Adding a tier in front of that, made up of http-accellerators, would make the system even more robust.
Salon and dejanews both show that properly done, you can do high-profile with Linux. Certainly more so than you can with NT, particularly if you don't have millions to throw at hardware.
- Dvorak seems to dismiss Linux/Apache as a server contender because he fees it cannot currently handle super high-load jobs, and is thus only well-suited for medium instensity servers. These 'in-between' servers, as he calls them, are the workhorse of the internet and represent most of the servers out there. I don't see how he can contend that filling this niche is not a victory for Linux. He doesn't attempt to address the dizzyingly fast evolution of this OS, or admit that it very well may be handling these high-end applications in the future. I am very happy to see Linux used for all but the most demanding server tasks, which are still relegated to Unix. This is a validation of free software, not an arguement against it.
- He thinks Linux will own the desktop because MS will sooner abandon its market share than price Windows competitively for $200 machines. There is no way MS will give up this market. They will either price Windows down, or come out with a cheap version in between what are now Win98 and WinCE to be used in iToaster-type machines. Expect it to be Win98 with a few key dlls removed (much as NT workstation is NT server sans a few dlls). I expect they'd price it at $10-$20 OEM. It is absurd to argue that MS is going to roll over and give up Windows on the home desktop without more justification than Dvorak gives.
- UnderNet may not run Linux, but my web hosting service (Hurricane Electric) does. They host a lot of relatively high-traffic stuff. I haven't noticed any down time in the two years I've been using them. They let me telnet in, run custom scripts on the server, have PhP and MySQL, and charge less than $10 a month. They're also really fast. I haven't seen anyone able to provide this price/service combination on an NT or Unix system.
Dvoraks columns seem to be hit or miss, sometimes he's dead-on insightful, but others I think he goes too far to deliver a viewpoint outside the mainstream. I fear this is more a case of the latter.I can remain silent no longer. It is time that the manufacturers of internal combustion engines accept the fact that no IC engine can drive the major steamships of today. These engines are fine for emergency power on your weekend sailboat, but it takes coal, lots of coal, to turn water into steam to move the Big Ships across the Big Seas!
It's time that IC supporters recognize the fact that there are exactly two modes of transportation in the world today, million tonne displacement steam ships and single passenger motorscooters (notwithstanding the fact I just mentioned a third, pleasure watercraft), and that since they can't drive steam ships (today or any day, so say I), then they should focus on the only other market niche in existence!
(Silly? No sillier than Dvorak ranting and raving about Linux's perceived (or simply alleged) failure to perform well in certain extreme causes while ignoring the 800-pound elephant turd in his eye that is NT servers pressed into duty to replace "doesn't require a 20-MB GUI front end, so it must be bad" Unix server.)
I have coded and worked with IRCD. wIRCD, windows varients are rather unstable. And no, not all ircd is devloped for BSD. Most of the people that are responsible for Hybrid, the efnet ircd, run boxes (with linux) that run ircd fine. Elite IRCD runs better from linux than bsd. I guess it really depends on what version of irc you want to run. I'd be happy to answer any IRC related questions you have.
Bombtrack "The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking" -Albert Einstein bomb@prankyWA
Has anyone else noticed that it is becoming more common to hear a *bsd slanted article where the author talks about Linux in the same way we talk about Windows?.
:).
Something is wrong with this.. its not how its supposed to be. We are supposed to get along with our *bsd brothers and sisters. We are not against them.. we are with them.. for the good of software everywhere
Every Free OS installed is a wonderful thing for us all. every installation of Linux at the expense of Freebsd is a BAD THING.. every Freebsd install at the expense of Linux is a BAD THING.
Picking the best OS for the job is one thing. Spreading FUD with no facts to back it up is another. If linux really can't cut it as a Efnet IRC server, where are the facts? HUB admins have not allowed someone to link a major linux server so how do they know if it can not perform?
-- You can be a geeklord too
For that reason, it is reasonably fair to say that the Dvorak essay is significantly flawed.
It is, after all, not particularly informative when Dvorak comments that Linux isn't used on the big IRC servers when he makes no comment on what is actually used for the purpose, or why.
The only implication that the gentle reader could reasonably guess, from the vendors mentioned in the article, is that the big IRC servers are all running on NT.
Is it therefore a "Pro-MSFT, Anti-Linux" piece? Probably not.
It's certainly not a "Well-written, well-argued, well-defended" pice.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Linux technically inadequate for IRC? Rubbish. No doubt 50 people will go out and prove that this week just to make Mr. Qwerty look bad.
Much of the success of Linux, by the way, might be attributed to the fact that Linux folks are busy writing software instead of hanging out on IRC. I doubt the fact that we're not the main host of IRC servers has much to do with Linux' current technical limitations.
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens.
I think Dvorak was just wanting to get more fame by putting this crap on zdnet.
204.178.73.175:4400 * Linux 2.1.xx
dallas-r.tx.us.undernet.org.
194.178.232.52:6667 * Linux 2.1.xx
Haarlem.NL.EU.UnderNet.Org
I'm sure there are more.
Dvorak: how about checking stuff before you spew it out?
This is a completely valid response. This is Dvorak's evidence that linux isn't ready for "The Big Time". Well if the M$ flagship can't do it either, why is he bitching about linux? Why isn't he making the observation about both?
When unfair criticism is made we should point it out. You will never win if you allow the terms of victory to be defined by your opposition.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I the most part I agree with your statement. But remember, although he didn't specifically state NT in his article, he did say that Linux at least needs to be good enough to power eBay, which is currently "powered" by NT. I assume he was talking about the front-end.
Not that Linux *can't* power eBay. We don't know that, we just know that eBay has decided to use NT. Did they ever do some field trials and determine that Linux couldn't handle the load? Or did they just choose NT because that's what you were supposed to use on the servers?
The whole point of his article was that because Linux couldn't do everything, it shouldn't do anything. (except power low-end black boxes) But that's wrong. When I am evaluating what to run an e-mail server on to handle 120 users, one of my criteria is *not* whether the OS can handle 10,000 IRC users.
There are many OS's that all have different strengths. So let's use each OS to it's fullest strength, and not restrict our OS choice to one OS that supposedly can do "everything". Use FreeBSD for your IRC servers, use Solaris for Database, use linux for web servers. No problem with that, is there? Dvorak seems to imply that there is
I don't know about you, but I don't advocate using Linux in any area where there is a better solution. Does anyone? Oh, except drooling, adolescent kiddies on /. that don't really have any position of influence.
-Brent--