Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business

UnitedLinux Pushes Into Telecom Market 111

Posted by timothy from the sounds-reasonable dept.
An anonymous reader writes "It would seem that UnitedLinux is pushing into the telecomms market according to this article at ITWorld. Is this the first market they are trying to meander into? I perticularly like this quote: 'Telecommunications grade servers must meet specific standards regarding electromagnetic interference, electrostatic discharge, corrosion, grounding and seismic durability.' Hmmmm."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UnitedLinux Pushes Into Telecom Market More

UnitedLinux Pushes Into Telecom Market

Comments Filter:

  • I find it perculiar... (Score:3, Funny)

    by rindeee ( 530084 ) on Thursday January 16, 2003 @09:16PM (#5099168)
    ...that you perticularly like that quote.

  • just to test that +1 bonus situation (Score:5, Informative)

    by RealAlaskan ( 576404 ) on Thursday January 16, 2003 @09:19PM (#5099192) Homepage Journal
    Here are some links on carrier grade linux. Usually I'd post this anonymously, but I want to test ...

    one [osdl.org], two [commsdesign.com] (looks interesting), three [applied-computing.net] (looks interesting and authoritative).

  • Aparently Linux vendors see "Phase 3 style" profit in carrier grade linux. Even Red Hat [redhat.com] is getting into this. Lets hope it works out better than embedded linux.
    • what's wrong with embedded linux? All sorts of devices are based either on the embedded linux project, it's commercial cousins, or people simply using vanilla linux in embedded applications.
      • I think embedded Linux is great. The problem is that it hasn't been the profit generator that Red Hat was hoping it would be. Embedded Linux's time is coming. However, Red Hat and other Linux vendors really need something is going to catch on right away and start generating revenue.

        • 1) I work in a company that is currently shipping _3_ VoIP products that run embedded Linux, and it's been working pretty well for us.

          2) That is absolutely one if the funniest sigs I have EVER seen :)
          • I work in a company that is currently shipping _3_ VoIP products that run embedded Linux, and it's been working pretty well for us.

            The question is, though, did you pay some embedded Linux company boatloads of money, or did you just port/package it yourselves? Most companies do the latter, which is why embedded Linux is a success, but embedded Linux companies are failing. It is also why UnitedLinux's "telecom push" looks good to suits, but will also fail to make money.

        • The problem is that it hasn't been the profit generator that Red Hat was hoping it would be.

          That's because RedHat resisted moving into the embedded linux market until the last minute. Either way, people using linux in their embedded devices usually just want engineering work and a development environment. Montevista is making a fortune selling just that, and so are other companies and independant developers. Just because RedHat didn't figure out a buisness model that works until 6 months ago doesn't mean other people haven't been making money all along. I've personally worked on two embedded ports in the last three years. Each one paid well over $400,000 and was worked by three engineers. Seems profitable to me.

          RedHat is not linux. RedHat is just a tiny piece of the puzzle that happens to be publicly traded.

  • Wha? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MoThugz ( 560556 ) on Thursday January 16, 2003 @09:24PM (#5099222) Homepage
    I know that Linux has better stability, eager support community, consistent development, excellent growth potential among others.

    I fail to see what the hell has Linux got to do with tolerance of interference, electrostatic discharge, corrosion, grounding and seismic durability... Last I check those features weren't built into the kernel.

    That has more to do with how and where you put the servers than what OS those servers where running.

  • NEBS Certification (Score:5, Informative)

    by Tony ( 765 ) on Thursday January 16, 2003 @09:25PM (#5099227) Journal
    NEBS certification (to which your favorite quote refers) is a hardware standard pretty much required for most telecom installations. I have no clue why a Linux distribution representative is talking about hardware, unless they plan on selling compact-PCI or VME-bus hardware with UnitedLinux pre-installed.

    Anyway, the NEBS certification requires testing for the amount of time the hardware smokes after being set on fire, how well it withstands water damage, and such. This is the kind of hardware you buy when five nines just aren't enough.

    • Re:NEBS Certification (Score:2, Informative)

      by lowlands ( 463021 )
      > This is the kind of hardware you buy when five nines just aren't enough.

      In over 10 years in telco datacenters I have come across lot's of equipment that was NEBS certified and did *not* have 5 nines requirement. Actually there are many elements in a telco's network that don't meat that criterium by design. Too darn expensive. To give you an example: 1 linecard for a Lucent 5ESS switch (stone age pile of junk that indeed runs close to forever) is over $1,000. That's a lot of money to recoup from the one or max two subscribers that are hooked up to that card. Although NEBS is partially a requirement for 5 or 6 nines, there are many other things to consider like software.

      Needless to say I have never seen a Microsoft 5 nines solution. Would be surprised if it actually excisted. I did have a field day once on a Internet Call Diversion trial at WorldCom's datacenter in central London where those silly people from Alcatel actually brought in a couple of Windows boxes. The Alcatel people were even surprised that WCOM did not accept a solution that had to be rebooted at least every twelve hours. And that was on a slow day in the trial environment :) We won the order off course.

      Cheers, Patrick

      • Needless to say I have never seen a Microsoft 5 nines solution.
        But I've seen some 9 fives solutions...

        (OK, old joke, but I had to say it).
      • If that's the same 5ESS switch that most ISDN lines I've ever been aquainted with have been hooked up to it would not take long at all to recoup the cost since those people are still paying tons o' money (up to $250/mo) for that service last I checked.
        • I think that would be a US customer and there you would be right. Not many Telco's in the US jumped on ISDN like they did in Europe. What little availability there was was accompanied by a rather steep pricecurve. ISDN service in Europe is only $40/mo while my American collegues always told me that that same service in the US was many times that $40 we pay. Your $250/mo would suggest a payback time of the infrastructure of less than a year. Big sign that the telco's really weren't interested as basic voice equipment normally enjoys about 3 to 5 years.

          On the other hand an E1 (T1 +512Mb/s) on a country to country leg was more than $10,000/mo until not too long ago in Europe. I'd rather pay the hefty ISDN pricetag and enjoy the friendly priced T1's in the US.

          Cheers, Patrick

        • Nope. In TN, we still have cheap ISDN.

          I'm paying about $35/month for my line.

          I'm not even using it for data anymore, I just kept it because it's cheaper than 2 analog lines.
      • 5 9's is the requirement for the overall solution, not an individual component. How many times have you seen a 5E rebooted? I've witnessed only one. Ever. When was the last time you picked up a handset and got no dialtone (let's ignore "line down" issues)?

        The only line cards I've ever dealt with in "real" Telco (not a Digiboard POS) have 4 lines per side, with two sides per card. You're supposed to be able to fail over a line from one linecard to another line card, although I never actually saw anything use that facility (I dealt with T1 bundles and SS7, so I never dealt with the physical line cards). Those cards are then placed in shelves, each of which can fail over. Those shelves are placed in cabinets, each of which can fail over. Those cabinets communicate over two busses, each of which can fail over, and those busses talk to any of a number of CPUs, each of which can fail over.

        At any rate, I've NEVER seen a 5 9's single component, but I HAVE seen 5 9's systems.
    • NEBS compliance is so much fun! Two of my favorite requirements:
      • There are very tough requirements about things a circuit board must not outgas when heated (eg, by a fire). Many of the outgas products from heating a board made with standard fiberglass and epoxy are highly toxic. This is dangerous for central office craftpeople who are expected to be trying to extinguish the fire without the benefit of the kind of breathing equipment a fireman would normally be using.
      • For every N frames more than six feet tall (I think that's the height limit, it's been a while since I really looked), the vendor must provide a stepladder made of oak. Basically it's because oak has been tested to be nonconductive, meet strength requirements, etc. No one has been willing to pay to certify some other material. Sort of like the obsolete processors in the space shuttle -- no one has been willing to pay the cost for certifying another processor to NASA specs.
      The only thing I can think of off hand that might be affected by Linux (versus some other OS) would be alarms. Central office equipment is often required to provide alarm signals using relative large voltages or currents, which would require device drivers for relay boards or other ways of handling that much power.
      • There are very tough requirements about things a circuit board must not outgas when heated (eg, by a fire). Many of the outgas products from heating a board made with standard fiberglass and epoxy are highly toxic. This is dangerous for central office craftpeople who are expected to be trying to extinguish the fire without the benefit of the kind of breathing equipment a fireman would normally be using.
        not just boards, people who out gas are also disliked in the office place by those without a fireman's breathing equipment

  • An oxymoron: (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16, 2003 @09:26PM (#5099232)
    CGW (Carrier Grade Windows)

  • It's not so much UL pushing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ObviousGuy ( 578567 ) <ObviousGuy@hotmail.com> on Thursday January 16, 2003 @09:27PM (#5099239) Homepage Journal
    As it is UL being pulled into the markets. And though the article has a couple instances where UL is being brought in as test servers, there is no evidence of a wide-scale demand for Linux to replace existing telecom servers.

    Linux has always been a small-scale server OS, best used for printer sharing, file sharing, and web serving. It can be loaded onto big iron without much trouble, but it still suffers performance (in the general sense of the word, not just speedwise) issues compared to commercial big iron Unix.

  • Odd choice of market (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kruetz ( 642175 ) on Thursday January 16, 2003 @09:27PM (#5099240) Journal
    For UnitedLinux to choose such a market is definitely unusual, but is it really related to UnitedLinux being what it is, or is it a group seeing a potentially large market for their product?

    I mean, I think that UnitedLinux may have chosen this route not because it's the sort of thing they're aiming for in particular, but that they believe it's a market where Linux may be one of the best available solutions. If this is the case, however, shouldn't they perhaps be aiming to establish themselves in a "core" market first, before aiming at something like this?

    Then again, perhaps they have a bit of time and effort to burn, and if they do succeed then things may work out very well for UnitedLinux in other areas.

    OR, OTOH perhaps this is one of the markets they've had in mind for a while and just haven't made that information public before. If they'd let everyone know ages ago that this was what they were looking at, then some other vendor may have beat them to it. (Just a suggestion - I don't think this is actually the case)

  • great, just what we need.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16, 2003 @09:27PM (#5099242)
    GNU/AT&T

  • NEBS compliant hardware required (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ToasterTester ( 95180 ) on Thursday January 16, 2003 @09:32PM (#5099264)
    I've used Sun carrier grade hardware, don't know of any Intel based. Does any exist?
  • I can't see why anyone would be upset about this (like some of the previous posers^H^H^H^H^Hposters), unless, of course, they are part of the Microsloth FUD patrol...

    I would rather have a Linux cluster running my VOIP network than the alternatives. At least I would be able to fix the damn thing in under 4 hours.

    • I can't see why anyone would be upset about this
      You can't see why people would be upset about a Linux industry spokesperson publishing obvious FUD?

      -a
    • Sun huh?

      This is funny. I know the Sun repair guy better than I know my wife. We deployed 50 or so sun boxes - and have had nothing but problems (all hardware related).

      On the other hand, I haven't had to reboot our Linux boxes at all in 6 months of testing...(running on Dells of all things).

      Seems like someone is trying to blow smoke where the sun don't shine...

      P.S. My original post was not a troll or start a holy war between Sun and Linux users - I was just trying to point out my own real world experience with this issue. Someone needs to Mod the Moderator.

      P.P.S. 'Linux FUD' - now that is by definition an oxymoron. The simple fact that Linux is open obviates the concept of FUD being applied to Linux - you can go look for yourself if the allegations are true or not in the code, unlike some other OS manufacturers who shall remain nameless.

      An example might be helpful: Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is not a backdoor into your Microsoft OS at this moment? If you answered 'NO' then you are correct. On the other hand, can you verify if there is a backdoor in the Linux OS that is running on your system? The answer is 'YES'. Since you can not veryify the validity of the claim that Microsoft has or does not have a backdoor - it is valid to say as much - and saying same is not FUD. On the other hand, it *is* FUD to say the Linux OS has a backdoor - because you can read the kernel code yourself and compile it exactly as you like (modifying it as needed if there were a backdoor present).

      A statement by anyone saying Linux is not suitable for carrier grade service is FUD, plain and simple - take it from someone who is working with it and other OSs in just such an environment.
    • P.P.P.S -

      Look '^H' up HERE - then you will be enlightened.
  • I can definitely envision a scenario like this: Space Robot Bonanza [somethingawful.com]

    .

  • On a related United Linux Note (Score:5, Informative)

    by orpheus2000 ( 166384 ) on Thursday January 16, 2003 @09:34PM (#5099274) Journal
    IBM, AMD Become Part of UnitedLinux

    This [linuxtoday.com] should have been somewhere on Slashdot...
  • And you've got a CLEC in a box. Stable OS, hardened hardware, and a kick-ass piece of application software [asterisk.org].

  • Smart market to move into (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cylcyl ( 144755 ) on Thursday January 16, 2003 @10:05PM (#5099405)
    Frankly Telco Central offices are some of the most *NIX friendly environment because reliability is more important than beauty. Many telcos staved off the insurgence of Window's dominance in the corporate world and continued with using *NIX.

    So this is one territory which Linux can move into more easily because it can show clear functional improvement paths and will be less resistance because they were already using *NIX
    • They're *nix friendly because AT&T developed UNIX, and all the telecom standards and protocols. Just like any other business, telco people hate to deal with change, and prefer to spend extra on legacy and compatibility. In this case, the legacy extends to special testing done to ensure the reliability of the OS itself, which nobody can do to DOS or Windows but Microsoft, and Microsoft doesn't see telco infrastructure as a significant market because they'd have to supplant all of the ingrained telco systems. But they'll probably take care of that next year.

  • There is a reason for those requirements. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by joejgarcia ( 301170 ) on Thursday January 16, 2003 @10:46PM (#5099547)
    I used to install TOLD systems in Bell South's COs and all electicity coming into those places gets converted to DC, run through a boatload of WWII style Sub batteries and converted back to AC where need for some of the more modern equipment, but not much. (I tried to steer clear of the rapidly bubbling batteries). Anyway this is a server enviroment that is built on the military and technology requirements of the WWII era, and hasn't changed since then. Heck 4 years ago they were just upgrading from AT&T/Lucent 3B24s to 3B25s (yes AT&T/Lucent still make a unix box they just call it a 5ESS switch, it's real time too).. What was the big difference, they were moving from reel to reel to 5mm DATs. Heck one place I was at they were just finishing the replacement of a 1A1 switch which used punchcards and rotary switches.

    It's not so much that the OS needs to be approved of those requiremnts as it is the hardware. Problem is Bell South's thinking when it comes to this stuff is so stuck in a time warp they can't separate the two. Pretty good move actually because once they approve of something it usually takes them between 25 - 50 years to end of life stuff. Can you say support contract boys and girls? There you go good!

  • Interesting Choice (Score:3, Interesting)

    by occamboy ( 583175 ) on Thursday January 16, 2003 @10:48PM (#5099554)
    On the one hand, a telecom server is an excellent place to put Linux -- Linux is stable, fast, powerful, remotely accessable, and flexible, just what is needed in a piece of equipment that ought to sit and do its thing for months on end without human supervision*.

    On the other hand, there really is not much of a telecom market these days. Why go after a business that is rapidly shrinking?

    *And, in a telecom server, few users will be irritated by the hideous screen fonts that plague most distros.

    • Re:Interesting Choice (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Not much of a telecom market? You've been reading too much stock market hype.

      Basic telco service (phones, DSL, data switching) is growing at a steady rate. It just isn't growing at the artificial, bullshit rate that people *though* it was during the 90s.

      Carriers are trying to save money. Equipment still needs to be purchased and servers need replaced/upgraded. Most telco stuff is either Sun w/Solaris or HP w/HP-UX. However, I have also seen rooms of racked Dell's running Red Hat 7.1 at Verizon and similar setups at AllTel, Bell South and Qwest.

      Take a look at the price of a Sun E3500, E4500 or SunFire 6500 and you'll see why the telcos are a prime market for Lintel.
  • The phone company I am doing work for is eliminating most of their standards on grounding, electrostatic discharge, EMI, and the like. Maybe a little too late?
  • It's good to see Linux expanding into the telco enviroment. There is a local group of hams here in northwest washington that have a small tcp/ip network using packet radio that I am a part of. All of the machines are old dell p133 boxes bought from boeing surplus running suse linux, uptimes have been as long as 3 years. I'm sure windows machines wouldn't be able to run that long. I have never been able to get NT to have uptimes of more that 2 or 3 months without having to reboot for one reason or another...

  • Not the only "carrier-grade" linux (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Chirs ( 87576 ) on Friday January 17, 2003 @12:56AM (#5100011)

    I work for a fairly well-known telecommunications equipment company, and I can say that we have more than one product that is based on Linux.

    Rather than use any of the off-the-shelf solutions however, we basically rolled our own distribution, including userspace and kernel mods (yes, we ship the source for the mods to GPL'd code) as well as totally custom software to provide the real "carrier-grade" touches.

    The "seismic durability" thing just means that all equipment used must be able to withstand certain specified vibration levels for certain amounts of time. This is most likely part of the whole NEBS compliance issue, which most telcos require (and is legislated in many places).

    Our setup uses compactPCI blades with a gig or more of RAM and GHz+ processors. Not what most people think of when they think "embedded linux", but its fun to play with.

  • That's nothing (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So you think that's funny. Then you should try working in the defence industry. I used to think that MIL standards where funny ( particularly the one about fungus ) until I saw what was required to simply make a box to put something in

    * MIL-STD-2073 DOD Standard Practice for Military Packaging
    * MIL-STD-794 Parts and Equipment, Procedures for Packaging and Packing
    * MIL-P-116 Preservation Methods
    * MIL-STD-648 Design Criteria for Specialized Shipping Containers
    * MIL-HDBK-304 Military Standardization Handbook, Package Cushioning Design
    * MIL-C-4150J Transit and Storage, Waterproof and Water-Vaporproof
    * MIL-T-21200 Test Equipment for use with Electronic and Electrical Equipment
    * MIL-T-28800 Test Equipment for use with Electrical and Electronic Equipment
    * MIL-T-4734 Transit Cases for Ground Electronics Equipment (USAF)
    * MIL-STD-454 Standard General Requirements for Electronic Equipment
    * MIL-STD-810 Environmental Test Methods and Engineering Guidelines
    * FTMS-101 Federal Test Method Standard, Test Procedures for Packaging Materials
    * MIL-STD-130 Identification Marking of US Military Property
    * MIL-STD-1472 Human Engineering Design Criteria for Military Systems, Equipment and Facilities
    * MIL-I-45208 Inspection System Requirements

  • Can someone please explain what "carrier grade" linux is? I work for a company that uses standard RH 6.2 for PBXs that can push 300,000 busy calls an hour, basically a mini ESS. The servers seem to be doing fine without any special modifications. Plus I finally get to spend my day working in a mainly Linux environment ;-)
    • Carrier Grade Linux (CGL) is basically just plain old linux with some "real-time" modifications in the kernel, and some QA. The main thing that seperates a CGL distribution from other distributions is the marketing. Intel is pushing CGL to all the big telco equipment makers that are thinking of switching to Intel hardware. United Linux is 10 months late to the party. Montavista is releasing their third CGL soon, and RedHat is also already done with theirs. There are a few other companies out there that are mostly done too. Somehow I'm not surprised that a project of Mr. Love's would be too little too late.

      We use CGL when we're selling our clusters to telcos because by the time we get there they've already been sold the CGL bill of goods. In reality we wish we could use debian, and we typically replace the kernel with our own for performance reasons anyway. The CGL distros out there right now are a waste of money in my opinion.
  • The quote, is not UnitedLinux's issue to worry about. Software has nothing to do with electromagnetic interference or any of that. They need to worry more about making linux suitable for my grandma than seismic activity in hardware.
  • What about the POSIX committees? They're supposedly "standardizing" the *nices. Also, GNU/Linux is a kernel, not an OS! This sounds like the Microshaftation of "Linux" into some perverse Frankenstein with potential closed-source, IP, patent and other GNU scoffing uses for corporate gain. "Leverage" the Linux community w/o contributing anything. End-of-rant.

  • Suns lunch (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Smid ( 446509 )
    Sounds to me as if they've identified one of Suns niches which is quite lucrative, and want it...

    Why's Sun so successful there?

    1) Hardware stability. Those things are built like german tanks. Good quality disks and memory, none of the cost cutting the mass market demands on their servers.

    2) Realtime kernel/scheduling. Hardware timers at nanosecond accuracy.

    Ok, the 1st is one of those things which do exist nowadays, but the big PCs makers haven't really identified that niche yet. So you'll probably end up with too much hardware for the stablitity it provides (a web server box for a small telecomms app).

    The second is one of those things which bites at the name UnitedLinux. People love the linux kernel, because it is fair scheduling. They don't like the idea that one process can get _all_ the cpu, and its up to the code writer to make sure it doesn't. There are patches to the linux kernel such as rtlinux and rtai which provide this, but across the board?

    Strikes me as if united linux would have to be less united than it should be...

Slashdot Top Deals

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken

Close