Again, as other posters have, you've overlooked the fact that this was a branch office with 4 workstations. They didn't NEED a server.
A "professional" would never have recommended a Windows Server - even SBS - for the minor purpose of providing a central disk for 4 workstations to access.
Personally I think the RAID was overkill, but since the Promise stuff is cheap, maybe it made sense to enable a bit more hard disk reliability.
The rest of your post is entirely correct - small Linux servers are nicely suited for small business - at least if there is a Linux consultant available to handle the odd problem (the same is true of Windows servers which DESPERATELY need a Windows consultant when the inevitable reliability or security issue occurs.)
I had a client which was a small law firm. They installed a Red Hat (9.0, IIRC) file server. The clowns who installed it put everything but the kitchen sink in the install, including games, no less (for a file server!). So the space on the disk got tight, and eventually the X server ran out of space in/tmp and crashed. BUT the file serving function just kept on keeping on. The only issue the client actually had was she couldn't run their backup program since it required a GUI. Try crashing Windows desktop and still be able to serve files...
And there IS NO free version of Acronis. The Acronis 7.0 offer was only if you got a certain European PC magazine and could access the Acronis site for a free serial number.
I get $500 a month for unlimited support if you have 12 machines and one server or less, $1,000 for double that, and $2,000 for double that. Includes remote monitoring (not continuous yet, but hey, I'm cheap.)
Branch offices with 4 workstations probably can't even afford my $500 rate,unfortunately. So, hey, they can have me for ten hours a month for $250.
If the office is full of good-looking girls, they can have me for a lot less!
This was an office with 4 workstations. They needed a place to dump files for access - not a server. He's gonna automate their backup to DVD (although I don't know why he needed the size disks he was using for 4 PCs - maybe he intends to keep a LOT of backups? Maybe it's video stuff?)
What branch office with 4 PCs is gonna pay God knows what for a Microsoft server license?
The small businessman I just signed a contract with told me he'd switch to Linux in a heartbeat if it ran the Adobe software he needs to convert media - he explicitly said "Windows is not reliable." He has a software background, so he's a bit smarter than your average clueless CEO, I'll grant you.
Which is why you pay $35/hour to me (or $25 if you buy blocks of time - or $500/month for unlimited support if you have 12 machines or less with one server, $1,000 for up to 25 machines and 2 servers, $2,000 for double that).
I don't go anywhere to do any work without the Ultimate Boot CD for Windows! As long as the system can support XP (older machines can't, so I have to use the older Boot CD which is DOS-based), I can boot XP anywhere and have numerous utilities available. In fact, my UBCDW has so many antivirus and antispyware utilities on it that I'm thinking of making a couple more CDs with different sets of utilities on it to do other things. I'd do a DVD version, but a lot of people still don't have DVD drives in their machines.
I'm going to add some utilities to several 2GB flash drives and eventually convert one of my older 60GB hard drives into an external USB inclosure and load it up with EVERYTHING - along with a boot CD to access it.
Then - bring it on! I've got over 1600 utilities that can pretty much handle any issue I'm likely to encounter (knock wood, tomorrow I'll run into one I can't...)
Gotta admit, though, the guy was screwed when there were no drivers on the Promise disk. And it is a pain that you can't use a vanilla XP install CD to replace system files in a Systems File Check (although I understand the security reasons for it) or do much of anything else except run a Restore Console.
Do what I do - download the books as ebooks from some illegal ebook site. If there's any interest in a book at all, somebody's made an ebook out of it already. Might be harder to find than a popular song, but it's probably out there somewhere.
The same thing is happening to publishers as is happening to other media - they just don't realize it yet, but physical books are obsolete. Their business model is going to have to change just like the music industry - except I suspect they're going to find it a lot harder to accept that than even the music business has.
I didn't say replace the CAR, I said replace the PARTS!
That's HOW you make a car run seven - or ten or fifteen - years.
It's the same with a server. You're suggesting running the car for ten years without changing a part just to avoid putting in a part that won't work right. While software isn't as simple as a car part, this is still incorrect.
And it doesn't take five years to plan a production environment upgrade - that's ridiculous. The PLANNING can be done in a month - it's the actual upgrade that can take a while if done properly over time. And even a test cycle could be done in a relatively short time.
We're also not talking about server software not evolving quickly. In that situation, you don't have to upgrade the server software itself. We're talking about the OS needing upgrades due to lack of support - which is part of the business of software. Software cannot be supported forever or even the number of years desired by businesses using it. That's a simple fact. The manpower on the part of the software producer isn't there to do that for the number of customers using it. While you can probably easily find a car mechanic who can support a car built ten years ago, it isn't that easy to find the equivalent in software due to the complexity of software and the economics of supporting the few people using it. A software company is not a single mechanic.
There might be room for a company which does nothing BUT support old software, but it wouldn't be a development company, it would be a maintenance company and the economics would be different.
It would be nice if software were as modularized and documented and controllable as a car part, but it isn't. Business needs to accept that fact and use scheduled upgrades to deal with it. The upgrades might be three or five years, or less or more, but it has to be done. The difference between Microsoft Windows and Linux distros is that it's possible to control WHEN the upgrade is done to a greater extent with Linux distros.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is primarily a combination of laziness and an indifference to opportunities costs.
I responded to your post. You seemed to be complaining that your clients couldn't run Red Hat server products because they didn't support newer hardware or newer versions of apps that your client obtained. GP post pointed out that if you run a non-server OS, you can't expect the same level of support - which is true.
My point was that that's how it is with server (and enterprise) software: you either go with what hardware is supported or you try to get around that by running a non-server OS with no support except yourself, the community and Google. Those are your choices, industry-wide.
Oracle won't support its database on anything but supported servers, either. That's the way they run their business. But you CAN run their database on various other versions of the supported distros. You just won't get support from Oracle. Come up with a problem and you'll have to rely on Google, Oracle forums or Oracle consultants. That's not necessarily bad, it's just the way it has to be done.
The issue is how much risk does management want to assume - or pay to avoid. If you can't afford to pay for risk avoidance, use a non-server OS like Fedora and deal with the risk of no support. If you can, don't - buy Red Hat and live within the limitations of the server OS.
The problem, of course, as always, is that client management want to have their cake and eat it, too. That's why they prefer Microsoft - they get to pay for the privilege and take it in the butt via reliability and security and vendor lock-in issues - which are more abstract than supported hardware and apps and harder for idiot management to understand and thus ignored as cost and risk factors. Then, when their proprietary app vendor goes belly up or is acquired by another company and the app discontinued or screwed up, they find themselves in a bind. They forget that this is WHY companies used to develop in-house or via contracted developers - because there weren't any app vendors in their industry years ago. And if their niche is small enough, there may not be any again.
Which is why I recommend companies PLAN for time-developed contracted or in-house development of core applications rather than rely on external vendors. Everything a company depends on for its survival should be second-sourced. Would any company rely on only one shipper? One janitorial service? Companies take second bids for all their critical needs all the time - escept in software.
They assume that just because there is (maybe) more than one product in their critical app market that they can ignore the OS they're running on - just because Microsoft is so big NOW that it doesn't look like it's going out of business. ALL companies are likely to go out of business sooner or later (with the possible exception of Lloyds of London). The only question is will YOUR company go out of business BEFORE or AFTER your supplier does? One advantage Linux has is that it's a movement rather than a company. It's much more likely to survive a nuclear strike on Redmond, Washington, from North Korea, than Microsoft is...:-)
Responding to "Flamebait" makes me as dumb as you, but...
Look, stupid, it has nothing to do with "Linux developers". It has to do with a monopoly called Microsoft and it's legal contract entanglements preventing hardware companies from supplying Linux on OEM machines and hardware developers from providing cheap or free drivers for Linux. It also has to do with corporate management that doesn't understand the OSS development and distribution model. They're learning but it will take some years yet.
I'll grant you that there are "too many" distros (in some sense), most of which are irrelevant to the uptake of Linux in any event for that very reason, and that OSS developers seem enamored with eye candy and multimedia projects (not that there's anything wrong with developing either) instead of making a buck developing and supporting critical enterprise infrastructure software and vertical industry packages, but this has nothing to do with Linux developers per se.
Windows was around for more years than Linux - and more importantly, based on DOS which had another ten years of commercial developer support - which is why there are more apps on Windows than Linux. (UNIX for the first ten or fifteen years was server only, so it doesn't count in the desktop sweepstakes.) Also, the business model of support vs software sales is a newer model that scares a lot of people who only want to make money from software development.
Linux developers know perfectly well that Linux needs more and better apps and certainly more hardware drivers.
Both will be forthcoming - which is the point of TFA.
Yes, the difference between Linux of five years ago and Linux today is like a Model T vs a Lamborghini.
Hell, even Red Hat 7.3 had KPackage which was in some ways better than the package management Fedora Core 5 uses. I rarely had to use RPM on my old Red Hat. Synaptic on my current Ubuntu is easy. Nowadays, setting up your repositories is the hardest thing you'll do concerning software installation. That still isn't as automated as it should be.
The ONLY problem Linux has today are idiot distro organizations who don't test their install and software update systems properly, leaving stupid bugs in them to bite the unwary new user. And of course application quality varies widely, perhaps more so than on Windows (at least compared to Windows commercial software if not to Windows shareware and freeware, much of which is also crap.)
Aside from a couple minor things one would class as "annoyances" (an odd and not apparently harmful "server overload" message that pops up when the system is heavily stressed by multimedia, and a couple desktop crashes apparently caused by the wallpaper changer), my Kubuntu 6.06 works fine and is easy to install software on (as long as the software is provided via the Synaptic or Adept package managers - or the third party software install procedure wasn't designed by an idiot.) There ARE things that could be substantially improved for end user usability, of course - but that's true on Windows as well.
as I've said here several times before that the OSS community gets on the stick and starts writing things like OSS critical enterprise infrastructure software and vertical industry packages instead of 3D eye candy and media players for home user desktops.
You may have FUN writing the latter - but the former is what will put bread on the table - even if issued as OSS. The eye candy and media players will get installed in some distro and you won't make a dime supporting them. Supporting the infrastructure software or the vertical industry you understand will make you money.
Linux per se is fine. What's lacking is good testing of the desktops and the apps running on them by undermanned distro organizations - and OSS software that handles enterprise level requirements and vertical industries.
Five years ought to be just about enough time to pull this off - and preferably sooner if ESR's analysis earlier is correct that 2008 is the last window of opportunity before Microsoft locks down the corporate market.
As for the rest, my guess is that in most cases with any medium or large business, business needs (new services, new marketing, new regulatory, whatever) are going to force doing all that anyway, regardless of what the OS vendor actually does.
I'd like to see a survey of companies who will admit to having run the exact same server for five years (recent years, not ten years ago) with no changes.
Most of the stuff you mention is either something that shouldn't take "man years" of effort, or, in the case of porting software and QA, depends on factors outside of the OS itself and are even more likely to require changes over a five-year period in today's environments.
Finally, all of this stuff is a matter of IT management PLANNING. If your planning is decent, an OS upgrade should not be a make or break event. Waiting until the last minute and doing it when you HAVE to do it is how you get "man years" of effort involved.
Just as the best way to maintain a car is to know hoe many miles each part is certified for, then replace it BEFORE it breaks, the best way to maintain a server is scheduled upgrades - not trying to run it into the ground for five or more years.
Just because Fedora Legacy isn't running a patch service any more doesn't mean that those older FC distros are now useless.
The original source of many of those patches are the developers of the software supported by Legacy. Those developers - or other interested third parties - are likely still to develop patches. Those patches can probably be obtained and applied by sys admins who need them.
It just isn't going to be as easy as going to one place and downloading a set of patches, or getting them pushed to your system automatically.
Even on Windows, there are people running projects now that collect Windows patches, put them on a CD or in a bundle and provide a tool to automatically apply them, to make things easier for sys admins who don't want to or can't for some reason use Windows Update Service. I would expect this sort of thing to be done for "orphan" Linux distros to some degree, if it isn't already.
Obviously, as the Legacy project shows, depending a corporate infrastructure on such a service is not wise. But the Legacy situation doesn't mean every distro older than FC5 or FC6 is useless.
Also, even if CentOS goes belly up and there is NO source of RHEL other than Red Hat, well, that's business in the corporate world.
Try getting Windows (or Apple) for free. That's your other choice.
Finally, all this says NOTHING about "Linux for the enterprise". "Enterprises" expect to PAY for their software and their support - not get it free. One advantage Linux has is that you CAN get it for free if you want to and can handle a free OS. But that's not Linux's only advantage. And the other advantages are equally or more important than the simple cost of the OS in monetary terms - even if most CIOs can't comprehend those benefits.
One of the obvious points that you overlooked is that there are enough "second sources" for Linux that an "upgrade" (if not a "migration") is rarely forced. That is not the case in Windows. With Windows, you do what Microsoft says - that's it. That is not the case with Red Hat, SUSE, or anybody else.
The only thing we have here with the Legacy issue is some whining from people who didn't understand the distro they were getting or were using it in inappropriate circumstances.
"those of us that JUST PAID FOR IT - a few years ago"
What's wrong with this statement?
I "just" paid for my cell phone four years ago - and today Cingular (who, by the way, bought AT&T FreeToGo cell service a couple years ago, so talk about changing the terms of business!) is refusing to allow any customer to put any more money on the FreeToGo account, forcing an upgrade to their own GoPhone service. The actual cell phone TECHNOLOGY used for FreeToGo is being TURNED OFF on March 31, 2007.
So I go down to the store (at the least minute admittedly, which is how I usually function) and lo and behold, they don't have any of the phones you're supposed to upgrade TO!
So I said "fuck you" to Cingular and switched to a T-Mobile contract with a new, smaller, lighter phone with more features (that I probably won't ever use, but hey.)
But I'm NOT running around saying I "just paid for" my phone...
Slashdot Mirror
Again, as other posters have, you've overlooked the fact that this was a branch office with 4 workstations. They didn't NEED a server.
A "professional" would never have recommended a Windows Server - even SBS - for the minor purpose of providing a central disk for 4 workstations to access.
Personally I think the RAID was overkill, but since the Promise stuff is cheap, maybe it made sense to enable a bit more hard disk reliability.
The rest of your post is entirely correct - small Linux servers are nicely suited for small business - at least if there is a Linux consultant available to handle the odd problem (the same is true of Windows servers which DESPERATELY need a Windows consultant when the inevitable reliability or security issue occurs.)
I had a client which was a small law firm. They installed a Red Hat (9.0, IIRC) file server. The clowns who installed it put everything but the kitchen sink in the install, including games, no less (for a file server!). So the space on the disk got tight, and eventually the X server ran out of space in
And there IS NO free version of Acronis. The Acronis 7.0 offer was only if you got a certain European PC magazine and could access the Acronis site for a free serial number.
See here: http://labnol.blogspot.com/2006/11/acronis-true-i
I get $500 a month for unlimited support if you have 12 machines and one server or less, $1,000 for double that, and $2,000 for double that. Includes remote monitoring (not continuous yet, but hey, I'm cheap.)
Branch offices with 4 workstations probably can't even afford my $500 rate,unfortunately. So, hey, they can have me for ten hours a month for $250.
If the office is full of good-looking girls, they can have me for a lot less!
'Cause he didn't need a server?
This was an office with 4 workstations. They needed a place to dump files for access - not a server. He's gonna automate their backup to DVD (although I don't know why he needed the size disks he was using for 4 PCs - maybe he intends to keep a LOT of backups? Maybe it's video stuff?)
What branch office with 4 PCs is gonna pay God knows what for a Microsoft server license?
They'd be idiots. Even SBS is overkill.
The small businessman I just signed a contract with told me he'd switch to Linux in a heartbeat if it ran the Adobe software he needs to convert media - he explicitly said "Windows is not reliable." He has a software background, so he's a bit smarter than your average clueless CEO, I'll grant you.
Which is why you pay $35/hour to me (or $25 if you buy blocks of time - or $500/month for unlimited support if you have 12 machines or less with one server, $1,000 for up to 25 machines and 2 servers, $2,000 for double that).
There are cheap consultants out there - use 'em.
I don't go anywhere to do any work without the Ultimate Boot CD for Windows! As long as the system can support XP (older machines can't, so I have to use the older Boot CD which is DOS-based), I can boot XP anywhere and have numerous utilities available. In fact, my UBCDW has so many antivirus and antispyware utilities on it that I'm thinking of making a couple more CDs with different sets of utilities on it to do other things. I'd do a DVD version, but a lot of people still don't have DVD drives in their machines.
I'm going to add some utilities to several 2GB flash drives and eventually convert one of my older 60GB hard drives into an external USB inclosure and load it up with EVERYTHING - along with a boot CD to access it.
Then - bring it on! I've got over 1600 utilities that can pretty much handle any issue I'm likely to encounter (knock wood, tomorrow I'll run into one I can't...)
Gotta admit, though, the guy was screwed when there were no drivers on the Promise disk. And it is a pain that you can't use a vanilla XP install CD to replace system files in a Systems File Check (although I understand the security reasons for it) or do much of anything else except run a Restore Console.
Do what I do - download the books as ebooks from some illegal ebook site. If there's any interest in a book at all, somebody's made an ebook out of it already. Might be harder to find than a popular song, but it's probably out there somewhere.
The same thing is happening to publishers as is happening to other media - they just don't realize it yet, but physical books are obsolete. Their business model is going to have to change just like the music industry - except I suspect they're going to find it a lot harder to accept that than even the music business has.
Nope - has to do with Windows 98 running out of "resources" - a known issue with 98.
It's the Windows 98 equivalent of "memory leaks".
I didn't say replace the CAR, I said replace the PARTS!
That's HOW you make a car run seven - or ten or fifteen - years.
It's the same with a server. You're suggesting running the car for ten years without changing a part just to avoid putting in a part that won't work right. While software isn't as simple as a car part, this is still incorrect.
And it doesn't take five years to plan a production environment upgrade - that's ridiculous. The PLANNING can be done in a month - it's the actual upgrade that can take a while if done properly over time. And even a test cycle could be done in a relatively short time.
We're also not talking about server software not evolving quickly. In that situation, you don't have to upgrade the server software itself. We're talking about the OS needing upgrades due to lack of support - which is part of the business of software. Software cannot be supported forever or even the number of years desired by businesses using it. That's a simple fact. The manpower on the part of the software producer isn't there to do that for the number of customers using it. While you can probably easily find a car mechanic who can support a car built ten years ago, it isn't that easy to find the equivalent in software due to the complexity of software and the economics of supporting the few people using it. A software company is not a single mechanic.
There might be room for a company which does nothing BUT support old software, but it wouldn't be a development company, it would be a maintenance company and the economics would be different.
It would be nice if software were as modularized and documented and controllable as a car part, but it isn't. Business needs to accept that fact and use scheduled upgrades to deal with it. The upgrades might be three or five years, or less or more, but it has to be done. The difference between Microsoft Windows and Linux distros is that it's possible to control WHEN the upgrade is done to a greater extent with Linux distros.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is primarily a combination of laziness and an indifference to opportunities costs.
"I don't want to change this machine. In fact last time I tried an update Anaconda failed :-("
What's wrong with this statement?
Time to upgrade, homes.
I responded to your post. You seemed to be complaining that your clients couldn't run Red Hat server products because they didn't support newer hardware or newer versions of apps that your client obtained. GP post pointed out that if you run a non-server OS, you can't expect the same level of support - which is true.
My point was that that's how it is with server (and enterprise) software: you either go with what hardware is supported or you try to get around that by running a non-server OS with no support except yourself, the community and Google. Those are your choices, industry-wide.
Oracle won't support its database on anything but supported servers, either. That's the way they run their business. But you CAN run their database on various other versions of the supported distros. You just won't get support from Oracle. Come up with a problem and you'll have to rely on Google, Oracle forums or Oracle consultants. That's not necessarily bad, it's just the way it has to be done.
The issue is how much risk does management want to assume - or pay to avoid. If you can't afford to pay for risk avoidance, use a non-server OS like Fedora and deal with the risk of no support. If you can, don't - buy Red Hat and live within the limitations of the server OS.
The problem, of course, as always, is that client management want to have their cake and eat it, too. That's why they prefer Microsoft - they get to pay for the privilege and take it in the butt via reliability and security and vendor lock-in issues - which are more abstract than supported hardware and apps and harder for idiot management to understand and thus ignored as cost and risk factors. Then, when their proprietary app vendor goes belly up or is acquired by another company and the app discontinued or screwed up, they find themselves in a bind. They forget that this is WHY companies used to develop in-house or via contracted developers - because there weren't any app vendors in their industry years ago. And if their niche is small enough, there may not be any again.
Which is why I recommend companies PLAN for time-developed contracted or in-house development of core applications rather than rely on external vendors. Everything a company depends on for its survival should be second-sourced. Would any company rely on only one shipper? One janitorial service? Companies take second bids for all their critical needs all the time - escept in software.
They assume that just because there is (maybe) more than one product in their critical app market that they can ignore the OS they're running on - just because Microsoft is so big NOW that it doesn't look like it's going out of business. ALL companies are likely to go out of business sooner or later (with the possible exception of Lloyds of London). The only question is will YOUR company go out of business BEFORE or AFTER your supplier does? One advantage Linux has is that it's a movement rather than a company. It's much more likely to survive a nuclear strike on Redmond, Washington, from North Korea, than Microsoft is...:-)
It's braindead, the way companies are managed.
"I guess I'm just too stupid to use Linux."
Self-awareness is a wonderful thing to see. I congratulate you.
Responding to "Flamebait" makes me as dumb as you, but...
Look, stupid, it has nothing to do with "Linux developers". It has to do with a monopoly called Microsoft and it's legal contract entanglements preventing hardware companies from supplying Linux on OEM machines and hardware developers from providing cheap or free drivers for Linux. It also has to do with corporate management that doesn't understand the OSS development and distribution model. They're learning but it will take some years yet.
I'll grant you that there are "too many" distros (in some sense), most of which are irrelevant to the uptake of Linux in any event for that very reason, and that OSS developers seem enamored with eye candy and multimedia projects (not that there's anything wrong with developing either) instead of making a buck developing and supporting critical enterprise infrastructure software and vertical industry packages, but this has nothing to do with Linux developers per se.
Windows was around for more years than Linux - and more importantly, based on DOS which had another ten years of commercial developer support - which is why there are more apps on Windows than Linux. (UNIX for the first ten or fifteen years was server only, so it doesn't count in the desktop sweepstakes.) Also, the business model of support vs software sales is a newer model that scares a lot of people who only want to make money from software development.
Linux developers know perfectly well that Linux needs more and better apps and certainly more hardware drivers.
Both will be forthcoming - which is the point of TFA.
So there's no such thing as "Windows" then?
You have "98", "2000", "XP" and "Vista"?
I mean, if you're going by the way the DESKTOP looks...
Which is ridiculous.
Uh, yeah, shut your mouth.
Yes, the difference between Linux of five years ago and Linux today is like a Model T vs a Lamborghini.
Hell, even Red Hat 7.3 had KPackage which was in some ways better than the package management Fedora Core 5 uses. I rarely had to use RPM on my old Red Hat. Synaptic on my current Ubuntu is easy. Nowadays, setting up your repositories is the hardest thing you'll do concerning software installation. That still isn't as automated as it should be.
The ONLY problem Linux has today are idiot distro organizations who don't test their install and software update systems properly, leaving stupid bugs in them to bite the unwary new user. And of course application quality varies widely, perhaps more so than on Windows (at least compared to Windows commercial software if not to Windows shareware and freeware, much of which is also crap.)
Aside from a couple minor things one would class as "annoyances" (an odd and not apparently harmful "server overload" message that pops up when the system is heavily stressed by multimedia, and a couple desktop crashes apparently caused by the wallpaper changer), my Kubuntu 6.06 works fine and is easy to install software on (as long as the software is provided via the Synaptic or Adept package managers - or the third party software install procedure wasn't designed by an idiot.) There ARE things that could be substantially improved for end user usability, of course - but that's true on Windows as well.
as I've said here several times before that the OSS community gets on the stick and starts writing things like OSS critical enterprise infrastructure software and vertical industry packages instead of 3D eye candy and media players for home user desktops.
You may have FUN writing the latter - but the former is what will put bread on the table - even if issued as OSS. The eye candy and media players will get installed in some distro and you won't make a dime supporting them. Supporting the infrastructure software or the vertical industry you understand will make you money.
Linux per se is fine. What's lacking is good testing of the desktops and the apps running on them by undermanned distro organizations - and OSS software that handles enterprise level requirements and vertical industries.
Five years ought to be just about enough time to pull this off - and preferably sooner if ESR's analysis earlier is correct that 2008 is the last window of opportunity before Microsoft locks down the corporate market.
Terrorism IS porn - for some of us.
SLAs are an external matter.
As for the rest, my guess is that in most cases with any medium or large business, business needs (new services, new marketing, new regulatory, whatever) are going to force doing all that anyway, regardless of what the OS vendor actually does.
I'd like to see a survey of companies who will admit to having run the exact same server for five years (recent years, not ten years ago) with no changes.
Most of the stuff you mention is either something that shouldn't take "man years" of effort, or, in the case of porting software and QA, depends on factors outside of the OS itself and are even more likely to require changes over a five-year period in today's environments.
Finally, all of this stuff is a matter of IT management PLANNING. If your planning is decent, an OS upgrade should not be a make or break event. Waiting until the last minute and doing it when you HAVE to do it is how you get "man years" of effort involved.
Just as the best way to maintain a car is to know hoe many miles each part is certified for, then replace it BEFORE it breaks, the best way to maintain a server is scheduled upgrades - not trying to run it into the ground for five or more years.
THAT is lazy - and incompetent.
splog = spam blog
Google is your friend.
Also Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_blogs
Why?
In my experience, there's never a reason not to insult monkey-children - there are no easier targets - except their parents (and George Bush).
Just to point something out.
Just because Fedora Legacy isn't running a patch service any more doesn't mean that those older FC distros are now useless.
The original source of many of those patches are the developers of the software supported by Legacy. Those developers - or other interested third parties - are likely still to develop patches. Those patches can probably be obtained and applied by sys admins who need them.
It just isn't going to be as easy as going to one place and downloading a set of patches, or getting them pushed to your system automatically.
Even on Windows, there are people running projects now that collect Windows patches, put them on a CD or in a bundle and provide a tool to automatically apply them, to make things easier for sys admins who don't want to or can't for some reason use Windows Update Service. I would expect this sort of thing to be done for "orphan" Linux distros to some degree, if it isn't already.
Obviously, as the Legacy project shows, depending a corporate infrastructure on such a service is not wise. But the Legacy situation doesn't mean every distro older than FC5 or FC6 is useless.
Also, even if CentOS goes belly up and there is NO source of RHEL other than Red Hat, well, that's business in the corporate world.
Try getting Windows (or Apple) for free. That's your other choice.
Finally, all this says NOTHING about "Linux for the enterprise". "Enterprises" expect to PAY for their software and their support - not get it free. One advantage Linux has is that you CAN get it for free if you want to and can handle a free OS. But that's not Linux's only advantage. And the other advantages are equally or more important than the simple cost of the OS in monetary terms - even if most CIOs can't comprehend those benefits.
One of the obvious points that you overlooked is that there are enough "second sources" for Linux that an "upgrade" (if not a "migration") is rarely forced. That is not the case in Windows. With Windows, you do what Microsoft says - that's it. That is not the case with Red Hat, SUSE, or anybody else.
The only thing we have here with the Legacy issue is some whining from people who didn't understand the distro they were getting or were using it in inappropriate circumstances.
The proper response: deal with it.
"those of us that JUST PAID FOR IT - a few years ago"
What's wrong with this statement?
I "just" paid for my cell phone four years ago - and today Cingular (who, by the way, bought AT&T FreeToGo cell service a couple years ago, so talk about changing the terms of business!) is refusing to allow any customer to put any more money on the FreeToGo account, forcing an upgrade to their own GoPhone service. The actual cell phone TECHNOLOGY used for FreeToGo is being TURNED OFF on March 31, 2007.
So I go down to the store (at the least minute admittedly, which is how I usually function) and lo and behold, they don't have any of the phones you're supposed to upgrade TO!
So I said "fuck you" to Cingular and switched to a T-Mobile contract with a new, smaller, lighter phone with more features (that I probably won't ever use, but hey.)
But I'm NOT running around saying I "just paid for" my phone...
Any time you can say "this is horrible" on
That's why vindicted is better - Microsoft is "vindictive" because they were "indicted"...:-)
Wonder if there's a word for "chair throwing"...
We could throw in "vituperative", I suppose.