Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
With Linux, enough is sometimes too much (InfoWorld)
Here's an InfoWorld article that says
that most Linux distributions come with too much other stuff.
"You could argue that it never hurts to have too many options, but I
disagree. Under the hood, any Linux PC is a system of incredible
complexity. Adding more applications to the mix only increases that
complexity and gives the end-user more blind alleys to wander
down. Anything that raises the barrier of entry to Linux is harmful, no
matter how good the intentions."
(Log in to post comments)
With Linux, enough is sometimes too much (InfoWorld) Posted Mar 28, 2005 21:38 UTC (Mon) by havoc (guest, #2261) [Link] This guy is going to be standing there looking at the ground, trying figure out if "those are deer tracks or elk tracks" when the clue train hit him.
With Linux, enough is sometimes too much (InfoWorld) Posted Mar 29, 2005 3:17 UTC (Tue) by gervin23 (guest, #13977) [Link] that's got to be the funniest comment i've ever come across.
Re: With Linux, enough is sometimes too much (InfoWorld) Posted Mar 28, 2005 22:02 UTC (Mon) by jimwelch (guest, #178) [Link] If you want a simple disto, that limit your options (at least at install) there are distros that follow this philosophy. They only include one or two of each type of program (web, mail, desktop). The other versions are available (apt-get, etc.)
I shudder when this triggers memories of the old TV commercial about communism. The speaker complains about too many kinds of soap to choose from, so he wants to decide which kind of soap may be sold.
Re: With Linux, enough is sometimes too much (InfoWorld) Posted Mar 28, 2005 22:45 UTC (Mon) by jd (guest, #26381) [Link] It wasn't an advert, and communism didn't come up a whole lot, but the same theme was used frequently in the original TV series of "Doctor Who". Oh, and just remember - there is no such thing as The Macra!
With Linux, enough is sometimes too much (InfoWorld) Posted Mar 28, 2005 22:39 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Gosh. Call centers ? Support desks ? What is this guy smoking and where to get it ? I mean: how much importance distribution size is for call center ? Answer: zero. System for call center is never system installed with "default" options. It's custom-tuned reduced functionality system installed from single image on 100 (or more) desktops. Local system administrator is change - not distribution creator. My biggest grief with "too-many-stuff" in distribution is that unless you are using gentoo (or other source-based distribution) it never works "as designed": either you have installed 1000 packages just to view simple .avi file or you can not install support for "this or that format" (recompilation is necessary since support for "this or that format" is not loaded by demand when available but linked statically). This has [almost] nothing to do with distributions: this is in reality package authors responsibility... Mandrake and some others did good job with PHP despite efforts of PHP developers but they can do only so much.
Re: With Linux, enough is sometimes too much (InfoWorld) Posted Mar 28, 2005 22:41 UTC (Mon) by wildpossum (guest, #17744) [Link] Must have been a writer block week in the office.
Any rollout worth its salt will have planed to tailor the install to just what's needed. What, does he think a big rollout installs by handing around a set of CDs?
With Linux, enough is sometimes too much (InfoWorld) Posted Mar 28, 2005 22:43 UTC (Mon) by jd (guest, #26381) [Link] Picture a scene in a kitchen. You have to do some cooking, using a collection of recipes. Is it too much to have a 1,000 recipe cookbook? Only if you insist on trying to read it all. Copying the five recipes that you want out of the book, and then using the copies, is often more practical. What you don't use doesn't count. It is when your collection is too limited to cover the recipes you want that you'll run into problems.Picture another scene. This time, you are swimming across a lake. Some parts of the lake are very deep. Is there too much water? Only if you insist on covering every cubic foot. If you stick to the surface, then the depth is quite unimportant. What you don't use doesn't count. It is the shallows that are hazardous. Picture a third scene. A geek wants to install Linux on their computer. There are a lot of packages on their collection of CDs/DVDs. Does this matter? Only if you want to install all of them, in all possible configurations. If you stick to a cross-section likely to be interesting and/or useful, the quantity won't matter. What you don't use doesn't count. It is when you can't do what you want that you'll run into problems. Does it matter if Linux comes on 1 CD or 100 DVDs? Provided they are indexed well, are grouped according to probability of being used in conjunction with each other, and you only see the details that you, personally, want to see, then who cares? What possible difference could it make? The problem with distros like Fedora is that they don't sort the files that well and there are only two real levels of granularity - "all" or "nothing". That's poor design, but it has nothing to do with the range of options. Fedora isn't always easy to maintain. I regularly update manually, as yum and up2date get confused easily. But that's still not a problem with the range of options, installed or otherwise. I would like to see distros come with a lot MORE options. Many, many more options. However, the maintenance software would need to be refined to be capable of coping with those options and yet keep the installer within the realms of what the user is comfortable with. But, then, a decent installer is like a decent swimmer - it simply doesn't matter what you don't use, only what you are using right now.
With Linux, enough is sometimes too much (InfoWorld) Posted Mar 28, 2005 22:59 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > The problem with distros like Fedora is that they don't sort the files that well and there are only two real levels of granularity - "all" or "nothing".
I'm not sure what you mean here, but one can install exactly the packages one wants with FC and RHEL.
With Linux, enough is sometimes too much (InfoWorld) Posted Mar 29, 2005 0:21 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] Try removing e.g. cyrus-sasl without breaking dependencies and making the system useless.
With Linux, enough is sometimes too much (InfoWorld) Posted Mar 29, 2005 17:31 UTC (Tue) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] Try removing glibc without rendering the system useless. There are probably several distros that would allow this and I mean who needs anything beyond sash when doing stuff on a machine? Yes Debian allows you to have various optional libraries etc.
With Linux, enough is sometimes too much (InfoWorld) Posted Mar 29, 2005 17:58 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] libc is needed because most included software is written in C. If some system software was written in Perl, it would make sense to require Perl in the minimal configuration. But why does Fedora force me to have an IMAP server or libraries for Kerberos support if I don't need either of them? Fedora and Redhat are traditionally rather sloppy about dependencies.For comparison, I can uninstall the kernel in Debian and use my own kernel without breaking any dependencies. Very handy for doing kernel development.
With Linux, enough is sometimes too much (InfoWorld) Posted Mar 29, 2005 18:43 UTC (Tue) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] glibc is not the only libc.
uClibc is quite popular in the embedded space. newc is also used there (and in cygwin) and there is diet-libc and others.
With Linux, enough is sometimes too much (InfoWorld) Posted Mar 29, 2005 20:03 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] It's irrelevant. It's up to a distribution to standardize on certain libraries. It's fine with me that FC made a choice for me what C library to use. What it not fine with me is that FC won't let me uninstall e.g. Kerberos support while I have no Kerberos server around.
With Linux, enough is sometimes too much (InfoWorld) Posted Mar 30, 2005 11:05 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > But why does Fedora force me to have an IMAP server or libraries for Kerberos support if I don't need either of them?
I explained about libraries before - it's a dynamic linking thing. I think you are confusing cyrus-sasl with something else - it is not an IMAP server. It is a set of libraries and an authentication server. And, you can turn all of it off.
With Linux, enough is sometimes too much (InfoWorld) Posted Mar 30, 2005 11:01 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] Well, that's the thing - if you want a distro that "just works", you have to have dependencies on many things. SASL is a pretty basic authentication and security layer and many apps need it. Once an app is dynamically linked with a SASL library, RPM will automatically make it a dependency. Otherwise, the app won't be able to start.
The alternative is to not support SASL. Or have two sets of binaries. Or some other choice that would simply complicate things even more. Same deal with Kerberos.
Why are these libraries such a problem for you? Each application usually has ways of using exactly the authentication method you want.
With Linux, enough is sometimes too much (InfoWorld) Posted Mar 29, 2005 7:50 UTC (Tue) by frazier (guest, #3060) [Link] > Picture a scene in a kitchen. You have to do some cooking, using a collection of recipes. Is it too much to have a 1,000 recipe cookbook?
It would be a lot more demanding if non-poisonous recipies had a tendency to become poisonous overnight like out-of-date software can be from a security perspecive. It's way more demanding if you are running a support line and they're asking for specifics on a few of the rarely used recipies.
When you have a business computing environment where the ability to have some mastery over a need (like databases) can be spread over multiple databases (PostgreSQL, MySQL, Firebird, etc.) and multiple versions of each, it weakens/fragments the depth of the workforce overall on a single database system. You'll do a better job of preparing that Southwest Chipolte Fajita Burrito recipe if you've spent more time on making it than you will if you never made one before because your time was spent primarily on fast food style tacos and frozen burritos.
The amount of people who genuinely benefit from 3+ text editors on a system is far outweighed by the amount of distributions which readily offer that today in a readily accessed install profile.
> Only if you insist on covering every cubic foot. If you stick to the surface, then the depth is quite unimportant.
You can stand in the shallow waters if need be and drown in the deep waters that you don't need and may not be aware of:
> Does it matter if Linux comes on 1 CD or 100 DVDs?
If your DSL line is scrappy it does. If you are doing an installation 500 desktops, this is trivial or at least it should be. (as others have mentioned)
Regardless, extra software is extra overhead. Extra software is liability. Extra software fragments expertise in a company, and makes finding outside service for a given piece of software more difficult.
As others have pointed out, there are some holes in the story. The core arguement is reasonable, however. Extra software equals more fragmentation of knowledge and more security risk. It is more difficult to relate to and thus more difficult to adopt as well.
-Brock Frazier
With Linux, enough is sometimes too much (InfoWorld) Posted Mar 29, 2005 17:08 UTC (Tue) by jd (guest, #26381) [Link] I think we might differ on what is optimal, but there's no doubt that your reply is extremely thought-provoking. The issue of security is especially poignient and I would agree with you in the general case. I generally take the line that if you have N independent implementations of the same program that are essentially interchangable, then it is not totally catastrophic if (N-1) of those implementations contains a serious vulnerability, because there will still be one you can use that is safe.This is only meaningful because most distributions collect software developed elsewhere, rather than write their own, so the effort spent on ensuring drop-in replacements exist would not have been used to improve the security of the software regardless. Note that I'm making three key assumptions here. Firstly, that the alternatives ARE drop-in replacements, secondly that the effort involved in building and testing the distribution does not - and cannot - significantly verify the correctness of any piece of software, and thirdly that users are able to, with very minimal effort, switch from vulnerable software to secure alternatives without having to know any of the specific details. If all of those three requirements can be met, then the distribution will handle the contingency of security holes and will not leave systems vulnerable while patches are developed. On the other hand, if any one of those requirements either isn't met or can't be met, for whatever reason, then you are absolutely right. Adding more packages increases the risk. Not only does each package pose a risk, but each interaction also poses a risk. The maximum number of potential interactions between N programs is !N. Therefore a distribution with N programs has a maximum of N+!N places in which security holes could exist. When having a large distribution, considerable care has to be put into maximising the failsafe aspect and minimising the risk aspect, if you want a product that is secure.
With Linux, enough is sometimes too much (InfoWorld) Posted Mar 29, 2005 18:48 UTC (Tue) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] If you have 500 desktops, then you should build your custom distro, which will basicaly be a subset of a popular distro (so you won't have to spend too much time keeping track of security updates) with a few extra packages you realy need and are not in the distro.
All the desktops will then install and update from a local apt/yum/urpmi source and no more issues with bandwidth.
Hmm, pretty lame... Posted Mar 28, 2005 22:58 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > Much more, as a matter of fact. Installing Fedora Core 3, the community-maintained distribution that forms the core of Red Hat (Profile, Products, Articles) Enterprise Linux, means downloading either four CDs or a 2.6GB DVD image. For the Linux hobbyist, that's great. But for business environments, I wonder whether it isn't entirely too much.
I've only installed a full RHEL/FC once, as a matter of curiosity. Otherwise, one uses kickstart or some other method to deliver exactly the desktop one needs.
A company I used to work for had Microsoft select licensing. Literally dozens of CDs were delivered to us every year. And yet, we picked only what we wanted to install.
How can you have "too much" software?
With Linux, enough is sometimes too much (InfoWorld) Posted Mar 29, 2005 0:57 UTC (Tue) by neoprene (guest, #8520) [Link] "Open EnterpriseWith Linux, enough is sometimes too much Streamlined distributions could serve businesses better"
Within the parameters of what a _business_ needs its up to the IT-guy to decide what packages goes into the boxen.
The IT-guy obviously knowns that, but this writer is clueless.
"...means downloading either four CDs or a 2.6GB DVD image. For the Linux hobbyist, that's great. But for business environments, I wonder whether it isn't entirely too much."
Well wonder no more, businesses have the phat pipes for just that, just one download for those 50,000 work stations.
With Linux, enough is sometimes too much (InfoWorld) Posted Mar 29, 2005 4:15 UTC (Tue) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] The only reason I can see for the big CD sets is when they are in stores, magazines, books, or the like. If you're just downloading a distro to install, the right thing is really a single CD containing the things necessary to get a bootable system with support for critical-path hardware and enough packages to run the package manager. Then get packages as you want them.
Distros for every taste... Posted Mar 29, 2005 4:40 UTC (Tue) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link] There are numerous stable distros that go to bizarre extremes to be minimal.There are numerous stable distros that go to bizarre extremes to package all code ever written with each release. There are numerous stable distros that do not go to bizarre extremes and occupy what they feel is a happy medium.
Pick one.
Distros for every taste... Posted Mar 29, 2005 6:22 UTC (Tue) by tyhik (guest, #14747) [Link] Hey, this way you just convert the problem of choosing between packages to choosing between distros. There's always a reason to complain :)
This was just a column that needed filling. This was just a way to say why this guy likes ubuntu. He promised to tell us more about ubuntu in his next columns, so the emphasis will probably shift to something else from the excruciating number of choices with linux.
With Linux, enough is sometimes too much (InfoWorld) Posted Mar 29, 2005 9:01 UTC (Tue) by pointwood (guest, #2814) [Link] I agree with him in certain ways. There's an advantage to having a basic install and after that only install the applications you need. Why have loads of applications that you'll never use, installed? You'll needlessly have to keep them updated with security patches which "hurts" both you and especially the repositories.
With Linux, enough is sometimes too much (InfoWorld) Posted Mar 29, 2005 9:08 UTC (Tue) by NightMonkey (subscriber, #23051) [Link] Of course, you could just forgo the standard distros, and go with a meta-distro like...
Gentoo or, for the daring, Linux From Scratch. *ducks*
Season to taste. As small or as fat as you want, and great tools to keep down the cruft. And, yes, even on a desktop-oriented system. And I only have the bloat that I want to have with my Gentoo systems ;).
With Linux, enough is sometimes too much (InfoWorld) Posted Mar 29, 2005 21:43 UTC (Tue) by nealbirch (guest, #22490) [Link] Gentoo was my choice after years of playing around with different distros. After I learnt my way around emerge, I backed up the config files, scrubbed the / drive (home was on a separate drive so I wouldn't lose my records) and did a basic system emerge, then emerged those things I used most, letting the system take care of dependencies. Now, I have only what I use and the things that are required for that. I am looking at another system scrub, as I need to install udev and feel the need to remove the cruft that has slowly settled on my drive. The amazing thing is that I haven't really had any issues that were show stoppers, and if I didn't run ~x86, I wouldn't have had them. Dang the need to be bleeding edge, anyway!
The initial problem is finding what works for me, and what doesn't. Gnome and kde were overkill, though I prefered kde, I switched to xfce for simplicity sake. When my 33 yo stepson asked for help with linux, I pointed him to gentoo, helped him get started with it, now he is a compulsive updater (I emerge-sync once a week or so) and called occasionally with questions, now he calls and tells me about his triumphs.
I don't have too much stuff, though there are lots of choices out there. Slypheed-claws, pan, firebird, jpilot, openoffice, nwn, gimp, gvim, nvu, gaim, pysol, dailystrips, xscreensaver and nethack, with xfce4 as the window manager, serves my needs. Under the hood, there is apache2, postfix, sshd, clamd, cups, webmin, samba, apcuspd and the other usual suspects. It all works. The only thing that requires less maintenance is my ibook.
With Linux, enough is sometimes too much (InfoWorld) Posted Apr 1, 2005 13:38 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Funny that you claim to need Gentoo for having just what you need. Heck, I did it with Slackware, then Red Hat, now CentOS or Fedora Core. There are others do it with Mandrake, SUSE, and Debian. Some Ubuntu users come to mind too. Even seen a few *BSD users doing the same... No, this has absolutely nothing to do with the distribution, it is entirely a user-discipline-when-selecting-what-to-install thing.
|
|||||||||||||