free "enterprise" Linux distro [LWN.net]

free "enterprise" Linux distro

Posted Oct 9, 2003 10:45 UTC (Thu) by tomsi (subscriber, #2306)
In reply to: free "enterprise" Linux distro by snitm
Parent article: An Evening with Bruce Perens

One import thing that Debian is missing is a decent installation program - like SuSE/RedHat/Mandrake et.al.

This is needed, because people who aren't used to linux will probably balk at the current install routines.

Other important issues.
* The stable version must be more up-to-date than the official stable debian level.
* Some of us need Oracle certification; other people needs other certifications.

Just my 2 cents.

Tom

(Log in to post comments)

free "enterprise" Linux distro

Posted Oct 9, 2003 13:33 UTC (Thu) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link]

I have to agree with that.. I did an install recently of the stable product and while it was better than it was 2-3 years ago.. it was not what I could sell to management. I am not talking about pretty pictures etc etc. I am talking about putting a floppy/cdrom into 20 machines and having them installed and updated in 15 minutes.

Now while this is probably possible with Debian.. it wasnt as easy to figure out as the Red Hat install.

free "enterprise" Linux distro

Posted Oct 9, 2003 14:20 UTC (Thu) by snitm (subscriber, #4031) [Link]

with regard to debian stable needing to be more up-to-date (I agree); but I'd imagine that debian's _unstable_ is likely more stable than alot of what we'll see from RHEL3.0 in the initial release. RedHat hasn't won me over with their distribution quality/stability. That said, I hope I'm pleasantly surprised with RHEL3.0 because ultimately I'm forced to support it ;)

free "enterprise" Linux distro

Posted Oct 9, 2003 22:01 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

Even Debian unstable is rather backward compared to the leading GNU/Linux distributions. It has Gnome 2.2 (not 2.4), Xfree86 4.2.1 (not 4.3), etc. At least KDE is only one point release behind, and KDE 3.1.4 only shipped in September so this is good. But given the lengthy process to get a release out, I fear that sarge will be a year behind the competition on the day it ships. Debian seems to do very well with packages that don't have complex dependencies, packaging nearly everything under the sun. But they seem to be having far more trouble with X and the big desktops.

Now, Debian labors under some handicaps: the fact that they support 11 architectures often means that they have to make packages work on oddball hardware that the upstream developers haven't seen.

Decent installer non-issue for enterprise distribution?

Posted Oct 9, 2003 14:40 UTC (Thu) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link]

I can see how you'd want a gee-whiz installer if you were a home user, or a business owner wanting to do the work yourself.

But if this is really meant to be an ``Enterprise'' (as in at least hundreds of desktops plus the servers needed to support them and the corporate workload), I'd expect the support staff to be perfectly comfortable with debconf. Set up a server, a firewall, and a desktop, and clone as needed. Once that's complete, apt-get should lower the maintenance level to well below that needed by RPMs.

And if I were running a corporate server, I'd be perfectly happy with `stable', 'cause it sure is, and that's what I'd want. If an `unstable' package is the only one meeting a requirement, then install it, but if the servers run smoothly and do what's asked of them, what do I care what level they're running at?

Certification (especially Oracle and their ilk) is another question, but if they certified against `stable' we have yet another reason to stay put until necessity calls.

Decent installer non-issue for enterprise distribution?

Posted Oct 9, 2003 17:57 UTC (Thu) by tomsi (subscriber, #2306) [Link]

I can understand that large organizations can cope with debconf; but there are other markeds for an Enterprise level servers, eg. the SOHO market. Those markets needs an easy to use installer with sensible package choices.

I have never used apt-get myself, but I must agree that it sounds like a good choice for the day-to-day maintenance needs.

I think that one of the reasons that Oracle et.al. don't certifiy against "stable" is that it is too conservative (IMHO).

Decent installer non-issue for enterprise distribution?

Posted Oct 11, 2003 17:45 UTC (Sat) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link]

Oracle doesn't certify against stable because to have Oracle certify you, they need support staff from your company in their call centers. You, the OS vendor, have to pay for this. Even if Debian had the money, it would be a violation of the Social Contract to spend it on overpriced support staff for a proprietary company.