Enterprise Linux: is it broken?

Enterprise Linux: is it broken?

Posted Nov 4, 2004 14:16 UTC (Thu) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
Parent article: Enterprise Linux: is it broken?

I do agree with other posters that Red Hat has done a huge amount to advance Linux kernel development, as well as lots of other OSS and the idea of a Linux-based desktop as a whole. Not only that but they _do_ serve as an example that it is possible to make money with OSS, and that's very important. I think they've done a very good job and I don't begrudge them their fees.

However, there are problems... I actually don't think the problems are so much the fault of Red Hat per se but they are the central figure. The problems are not with the amount of money being charged; that's missing the point. The problem, as Bruce Perens so accurately stated, is with VENDOR LOCK-IN. If you are an enterprise customer and you want to use a Linux-based server or desktop you really have an almost impossible uphill battle to use anything but Red Hat. All enterprise customers have 3rd party applications that they want to run on their servers and desktops: things like ClearCase, Oracle, etc. These 3rd party applications are currently certified and supported only on specific versions of Linux. While most 3rd party applications do support more than one Linux distribution, the only one you can be 100% guaranteed that everyone, all the time, will support is Red Hat. This is a very difficult barrier to overcome when dealing with enterprise IT organizations. This gives Red Hat a huge amount of clout in the Linux space: it's hard to select anything else and once you're there, it's hard to move away. I think the idea behind LSB, UserLinux, etc. is exactly correct: what we need is a credible way for 3rd party applications to be certified on a platform which is not tied to a specific vendor. This allows a true choice when it comes to support options.

I do have to take exception to some of the responses regarding Red Hat though: we are a pretty large enterprise customer of Red Hat, with hundreds of RH servers and thousands of desktop deployments. I must say that our experience has not been all peaches and cream. The idea that you can make "changes to the kernel, OS, and packages" is just wrong: if you modify these things, especially the kernel, then you have voided your support contract with Red Hat and they will not support you. One example: we have a requirement to run UML on our desktops and under no circumstances will Red Hat support the inclusion of the SKAS patch into our kernels (for Red Hat Enterprise Workstation 3), even though this patch is fairly small and straightforward. We face the choice of either changing our entire simulation model, or going outside of support. Given the cost of support, which is not at all cheap, this really chafes. _IF_ we had an alternative for support then Red Hat would be forced to be more competitive and perhaps our experience would be better.

A single (for practical purposes) vendor for Linux has all the same issues as a single vendor for anything else.

---

(Log in to post comments)