Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Software Linux

New Debian-based Enterprise Linux? 145

Posted by timothy from the rumorous-rumor dept.
arkanoid.dk writes "Sources close to Progeny, Mandriva and Turbolinux report that a new Enterprise Linux distribution is on its way. Apparently, the distribution will be based on Debian 3.1 Sarge and will form the foundation of the next server distributions from the three companies. The three companies hope that the new distribution will enable them to compete with the market leaders Red Hat and Novell Inc's server distributions. An interesting part is that the new system should support both DEB (Debian package) and RPM (Red Hat Package Management) to enable better cross-compatibility with other Linux flavours. The vendor said: 'It will have a nice, Web-based front end for service management, which Sarge lacks. It's basically oriented toward edge-of-the-network type applications, such as ISP software.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Debian-based Enterprise Linux? More

New Debian-based Enterprise Linux?

Comments Filter:

  • How is this new? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stevenbdjr ( 539653 ) <steven@mrchuckles.net> on Sunday July 10, 2005 @02:47PM (#13027523) Homepage

    I've always considered stock Debian stable to be "Enterprise Grade" for a Linux distribution. Between a huge number of architectures, excellent package management, and great security team, it's my first choice for a server distribution.

    Also, Debian has had "RPM compatibility" in the form of Alien for quite some time.

    • Re:How is this new? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Meshach ( 578918 )
      What the actual article is about is how Debian, Mandrake, and some other vendors are joining forces ot create a new enterprise solution.

      It really has nothing to do with the package management choice as the summary suggests
      • Well, if the summary gave the impression, that the package management were the core of this, I'm deeply sorry. The intention was merely to point out that some efforts were taken to integrate some differences in Linux dists (e.g. tha pakage management systems, which _can_ cause grief to some, as they _may_ have to make binaries for several different Package Management Systems
        • I did not mean to sound harsh certainly. I just thought the summary made it sound like the main attraction is that packages from multiple systems can be installed.

          I realize that there is much more to this tool then package management
      • So, the question is, if Debian are involved in a Debian-based Enterprise distribution, will they get off their high horse about Debian Sta(b)le, and get a more reasonable (for most people) release schedule?

        As far as I can tell, anyone that wants Enterprise Linux uses Red Hat, not Debian. Maybe I'm out of the loop, but it doesn't appear Debian's major user base are businesses. And even if they were, is it really such a chore to upgrade every 12 months, when it's Free? Why have Debian taken it upon themse

        • Re:not to beat the dead horse some more, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by g2devi ( 898503 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @04:37PM (#13028071)
          > And even if they were, is it really such a chore
          > to upgrade every 12 months, when it's Free?

          Yes it is. When they have critical systems that work, they don't want to break it under any circumstance. They don't care about what's new and hip (like geeks, consumers, and programmers like you and me). They just want to get work done and they don't want any surprises.

          Most enterprises prefer a 3-5 year upgrade cycle.Some don't want to upgrade 20 old COBOL code, because it works and an upgrade would mean that you have to restart your QA from ground zero. All software has bugs and limitations, but with new software, you have a new set of bugs and a new of limitations (like new memory requirements or dropping old hardware devices). The key difference is that with the old OS, the limitations and bugs are known and workarounds are documented, while in the new OS they aren't. That's why the Linux 2.0 kernel is *still* being patched with security fixes, even though it was first released in 1997 and is really stale. That's why Windows *2000* is still quite popular in enterprise even though everyone knows that move to XP/2003/Longhorn is inevitable, and why some enterprise software still requires Windows NT.

          If it works and security patches (without new features/bugs) are kept up to date, why should you have to "fix" it? The only thing Debian needs to be enterprise grade is a predictable 3-5 year release cycle (or the willingness to support all versions of Debian for this long.) so that enterprises can plan their upgrades and burn in verification in an orderly fashion. That appears to be what the new Debian president is promising.

          The new "United Linux" group just adds a bit more credibility to that promise.

        • As far as I can tell, anyone that wants Enterprise Linux uses Red Hat, not Debian. Maybe I'm out of the loop, but it doesn't appear Debian's major user base are businesses.

          I think it's fair to say that Debian has a relatively large following on the small/home office desktop, whereas RedHat does not. However this doesn't mean that Debian hasn't been competitive with RedHat/FC in enterprise environments.

        • The license price, free or not, is the most trivial part of the real cost of upgrading a business server. downtime and labor cost far more then the licenses... unless of course you use slave volunteer or student labor.
    • Debian is "Enterprise Grade" if you've spent years with Debian. I honestly don't think I'd be capable of administrating a Debian server, and I've been running Debian-based distros for the past 5 years, yet I know for a fact I can administrate Windows servers (being a previous System Admin) with about the same time frame of experience.

      The problem is how deeply intricate services in Unix are. Everything has to be put in a certain folder. Everything has different runlevels. Everything's got different start
    • I don't mean to be rude, but if you're using Debian, what you're doing probably isn't "Enterprise Grade".

      Supporting many varying architectures, and allowing you to install every Tetris clone ever written is great, but most corporations I've ever worked with are more interested in stability and making sure there's a decent support path if say I get hit by a bus, or when there's a problem and the three vendors for the proprietary software running on a particular Linux box all start pointing fingers at each

      • Re:How is this new? (Score:2, Informative)

        by Burz ( 138833 )
        Well, in my experience RedHat/FC is not the place to go for stability. The changes between upgrades are too radical to keep many 3rd-party commercial apps running without expensive upgrades. Once you step outside of their walled garden (going beyond the usual RH-supplied services) then you're asking for trouble.

        From RH 7.1 to 7.3 to 8 to 9 was some of the most harrowing experiences I've had with Linux.

        Transitioning from Debian stable to testing (and following the changes in testing) has allowed myself and

        • Re:How is this new? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by menscher ( 597856 )
          Not sure how you got modded "informative" with that troll.

          Here's a hint: The original RedHat linux (version 9) and Fedora Core are not supposed to be used in the enterprise. They have RHEL for that. Which, incidentally, does not change. Patches get backported, which ensures stability.

          If you were really trying to run a production system on Fedora, then you deserve what you got. Which, hopefully, was fired.

          • Re:How is this new? (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Burz ( 138833 )
            Its less stable as a platform, which is why I said it keeps breaking 3rd party software.

            When you've paid for an office full of VMware 3.2 and Rational Rose in a development environment, its rather off-putting when these apps advertised as RedHat compatible will only run on newer distros that are UN-related to RedHat. Having a workstation with RHEL did not help this problem. In this scenario, VMware required the customer to upgrade their product ($$$) and Rational stopped playing the game and drew the line
      • Huh? Debian's most famous asset is stability... they actually think hard about how to keep the system stable for long periods, across upgrades.

        Other linux vendors seem to think more about a flashy first impression; they generally work well if you never change much from the release you bought or use any non-mainstream software, but as soon as you try to upgrade something ... watch out!

        Clearly there's room for a layer of "paid responsibility" on top of Debian though, someone who will do the dirty work when
      • Oh, come on, that was minimum effort at best. True, at the time of this writing, you got one biter, but that's hardly a success story on Slashdot.

        I'm assuming you're a troll because it would be rude of me to assume that you're an idiot.
    • The one thing that would make yet-another-debian "new" and more importantly viable for the enterprise would be a non-absurd name.

      In particular, it shoud

      • not be named after the packager and his girlfriend (no offense intended, Deb and Ian)
      • not have it's up-to-date release be called "unstable" or "testing"
      • not be named after the end-users nor users of drugs [answers.com] like "user linux" (no offense Bruce)
      • should not be named "humanity, caring, and harmony" in any language (no offense to the Ubuntu guys; but CEO's

      • "should not be named "humanity, caring, and harmony" in any language (no offense to the Ubuntu guys; but CEO's would probably something that implies 'unfair competitive advantage' rather than charitable sharing."

        This is a misconception that often comes up on Slashdot. The Ubuntu / Debian people are likely all about "humanity, caring, and harmony" and not at all about "'unfair competitive advantage' rather than charitable sharing.". Those who criticise and who don't understand, those not politically / et

      • should not be named "humanity, caring, and harmony" in any language (no offense to the Ubuntu guys; but CEO's would probably something that implies 'unfair competitive advantage'...

        But "Microsoft" has already been taken?!

        *Appologies - I don't normally do the MS bashing thing but the temptation was too great!!

      • And unless you already know where the Debian name came from, who would guess upon looking at it, that is the contraction of two names ?

        I think Debian has a nice, neutral ring to it, very suited to use as a brand name, and certainly more creative than MS's usage of day-to-day words.

    • Alien is not any way of "RPM Comaptibility". It's merely away to convert RPM into something looking like .deb package.

      The real dual-packagements is when you can install RPM package and have it cooperate - provide "provides", require "reuqirement" - for any .deb package. It's when both dpkg and RPM somehow share package database. It's when rpm package can fulfill deb package "require" dependency. When both dpkg and rpm knows all "provides" of all installed .deb and .rpm packages. It's when RPM obeys dpkg-di
      • Not hellish hard, done already for lsb packages. Alien would need to convert rpm packages' dependencies too, like it does for lsb packages already. So converted rpm packages would play along with the central Debian package database.

        Even if that works, it is still a bad idea. Packages are made and QA tested by a distributor for their own distribution. Dependencies are only really meaningful for one distribution. Different distributions have different policies, different infrastructure packages to depend on.

        • Not hellish hard, done already for lsb packages.

          LSB packages are RPM packages. LSB just took an older version of RPM and made it their "standard". Which is why Debian has stayed separate with their .deb format, as they weren't consulted nor were their concerns addressed by the LSB "standard".

          The package formats aren't really the issue anyway, the issue is all the detailed rules (explicit, written down, implied, and/or undocumented) that are applied by each distro in how and where packages and their co

    • Re:How is this new? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @05:30PM (#13028325) Homepage Journal
      I do not know if Linux needs a new "Enterprise Grade" Linux distribution. A good small office server distribution would be welcome. Way to many small and medium sized companies are using Windows for their server.

  • Deb and RPM (Score:2, Informative)

    by HoserHead ( 599 )
    Supporting both deb and rpm formats isn't that big a deal - Debian itself supports both, through both rpm itself and alien.
    • The worse problem is, even though debian supports RPM (through dpkg re-wrapping rpms basically), the apt system doesn't realize a dependency has been filled (or at least, that's been my experience).

      Secondly, WHAT THE HELL IS WITH THE DISTRIBUTION MADNESS????? Why can't they just talk to the Ubuntu people (the only people who really have a chance at a new enterprize debian-based system, but only if they play their cards right), and work out the differences?

      • Re:Deb and RPM (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jbolden ( 176878 )
        Ubuntu's focus is a consummer desktop. What does that have to do with enterprise servers?

        • Re:Deb and RPM (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Afrosheen ( 42464 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @03:45PM (#13027792)
          If their focus was really for a consumer desktop, they'd knock off the bullshit with Java, Flash, and other desktop must-haves. They have alot of stuff in their wiki that describes the painful steps you have to take to get things working right.

          Oh and I hope you don't plan on using dvd::rip or other dvd creation tools that require mplayer. Mplayer segfaults all over the place due to an audio bug and the ubuntu devs have done nothing to fix it.

          The kings of the linux desktop will remain Suse, Mandrake and maybe even Fedora until the Ubuntu devs take their distro more seriously. I like it and run it but it's definitely got alot of weirdness they need to work out.
          • Ubunto cares about license issues. Anyway all you have to do is add a few extra repositories and then apt-get or whatever.
            • so what would be so hard about a script or menu-clickable item that changed repos for you?

              "Do you want to install Flash? Y/n"
              y
              This will change repositories and update your system to include flash in your browser(s) etc. Sure?

              Why not include the multiple repositories that you need to install all the desktop stuff in different apt.conf files?

        • Ubuntu is a Desktop Linux, yes, but it is more than that as well.

          Before Ubuntu started, the project UserLinux started, and Ubuntu shares with it plenty of its qualities. In fact, they started at the same time with so many similiar qualities, I'm totally not surprised that one of them died, and the other lived.

          Secondly, business machines are Desktop Machines. They are also Laptops. They are also Workstations. They are also Servers of many different kinds. You can't just say a business machine is one of
          • 1) Where are you getting this stuff about UserLinux and Ubuntu being similar. UserLinux was on OEM product to create a Linux with a very small set of supported packages which was relatively easier to write to and support. Ubuntu was a consummer product.

            2) Enterprise means
            a) Very high reliability
            b) Long lifespan for support contracts
            c) High levels of paid support and technical services available
            d) Lots of QA with configurations and various expensive apps

            How is that at all similar to what a consumme
            • 1) Small set of supported packages? That's Ubuntu main. :-)

              2 a+b) See the recent Ubuntu Foundation and extended support lifecycle announcement.

              2 c) From Canonical and partners around the world, for Ubuntu on desktops and servers.

              2 d) Know what the answer to a+b means? :-)

              (see my answer re: consumer desktops earlier in the thread)
              • You aren't the original poster but those are good answers. I think you are proving that at least Mark and Canonical have the intention of trying to make Ubuntu more enterprise oriented (though there are inevitable conflicts between desktop and enterprise and I see no signs they are going to go the same way as RedHat and Debian and side with the enterprise).

                The main point however which you get and the GP doesn't get is that enterprise and consummer desktop aren't the same thing.
        • Ubuntu is not solely focused on the "consumer desktop" market, it just happens to be extremely good at it. :-) See the recent announcement of the Ubuntu Foundation and extended support lifecycles for Ubuntu 6.04 -> that's definitely not being done for the consumer desktop market. :-)
          • I'm going to disagree with you here. I think Ubuntu is pretty much a consummer desktop distribution that has been hugely succesful. The general belief is that having had a succesful desktop distribution the next step is to move to related fields and the most obvious is server based. I don't agree, I think keeping the focus on the desktop is what led to Ubuntu being as succesful as it was.

            Mandrake/Mandriva similarly was a far better desktop distribution than RedHat primarily because they consider their c

  • RPM is the only thing the article focuses on? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by vansloot ( 89515 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @02:52PM (#13027548)
    I'm more interested to find out what kind of administrative tools they would bring to the table. Debian has had RPM support for a while.
    • 1. APT fully recognizing RPM-installed packages (for satisfying dependencies etc.)

      2. Letting apt (even dpkg) uninstall/upgrade any RPM packages that are already installed. This doesn't mean an RPM repository has to be maintained, only that apt be able to upgrade an RPM package with a DEB when necessary.

  • Supported hardware? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Krankheit ( 830769 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @02:54PM (#13027563)
    It disappoints me that distributions that are forked off of Debian often fall short of it by not preserving some of Debians greatest assets, like being the NetBSD of Linux dsitributions so I can run Debian on my x86 desktops, and my PPC Mac Mini. I tried Xandros, which is based off of Debian a while back (not for myself, I was running Slackware back then) and it was okay for x86, but required alot of mucking around just to change the window manager to one that the user preferred. Also, it is x86 only, which is too bad (I know about Ubuntu, but I want one distribution for all desktops if possible, but I don't mind different iteraitons of *BSD on server/router) Lets hope this one will at least support both PPC Macs and x86 PCs.
    • Will enterprise users really want support for hundreds of architectures? Enterprises tend to have lots of servers the same, and strict EOL policies. It's home hobbyists that will have 400 sparcs, mips and alphas from various ages. If the users demanded it it wouldn't be too hard to add support back in, but I don't think for this kind of market they need to support unusual hardware.
      • I never said anything about Debian on a server. I use mostly FreeBSD and NetBSD for that. But as far as Debian on the desktop, I think it is perfect for enterprise desktop use. Once it is setup, with NFS for file access form the FreeBSD server, anyone can use it, even my grandmother, grandmother and uncle are able to use icewm and Firefox (with webmail) for checking e-mail, using usps.com, playing mp3's, OpenOffice, etc., and some of them have never used a computer before. I am going to have to disagree abo
        • I can't imagine a real enterprise adding 20 mac minis to 50 x86 desktops. There are policies and things, if you did switch it would be the whole lot, and it would be a long term thing.
          • No enterprise (worth of enterprise-class) phases out every equipment at once. The norm is to have 3-6 "generations" of workstations. You buy 1/5 of your equipments, move stuff around, phase out 1/5 of the stuff -- those of the "older generation".
      • It's home hobbyists that will have 400 sparcs, mips and alphas from various ages

        Yes, Sparc/MIPS/Alpha/PARISC is hobbiest-dabbler territory.

        However, businesses do rely on x86, x86-64, PowerPC (IBM servers), Itanium (HP, etc), and S/390, so multi-arch support is very important to some.
      • Support for Intel, Sparc, Alpha and Power should do it for most, I'd think.
    • As a Xandros user, I remember having to wrangle with dependency problems in X1 and X2. But version 3 is synchronized with Debian Sarge and installing non-Xandros debs has been a breeze.

      With that said, Xandros does put considerable emphasis on their OS having a particular desktop evironment KDE, so I'm really not surprised that swapping out the desktop is problematic. Personally I wouldn't want an OS where the basic GUI could be changed willy-nilly, and distros that stick to one DE have recognized the need

  • You know its going to suck when... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ArmorFiend ( 151674 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @03:01PM (#13027599) Homepage Journal
    A distribution that advertises that it supports multiple packaging formats is telling you two things:

    1) We don't put enough time into our packages to make our package system fully functional.

    2) We, and our users, approach the package system in a hackish way.

    Yes, Debian has 'alien', but they're not really advertising it, nor would I reccomend using it except in extreme circumstances (e.g. no source.tar.gz). That these guys advertise this compatibility speaks very ill about their distro, IMO.
    • Or maybe they've put the effort in to actually get the two working and compatible?

      It can be done. I'm writing this on a slackware system that uses emerde [freaknet.org]. I can emerge or use gentoo binary packages for programs, and I can use slackware packages. The two fit together perfectly, the programs update the "database" of each packaging system from the other one. Although it would be harder with the more complex rpm and deb, I don't think it's impossible.

      • Apart from that, it makes sence if they want to retain backwards compatibility. On another note, I'd be glad if I heard that they'll be moving their desktop distributions to apt, too. Mandrake is nice, even at the default theme, but the rpm packets just kills it.
      • I'm guessing that if they're doing this they'll be doing it via smart [smartpm.org], a very nice looking potential successor to apt. Basically it does the dependency resolution/download/install that apt does (with more powerful dependency resolution algorithms and a built in GUI) but does so via a pluggable backned system which means it can access apt-deb resositories or yum repositories or apt-rpm repositories, and even slackware packages.

        My reason for guessing smart is the answer is that its a Conectiva initiative, w

    • You know someone hasn't read the article when... (Score:4, Informative)

      by LibrePensador ( 668335 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @07:18PM (#13028975) Journal
      he complains about something that isn't actually raised. Mandrake is not going to be using alien, neither is Debian. They are both going to be using a new package tool, called SmartPM. Google for it.

      The tool is able to use debian and rpm repositories natively. It also does a lot of good things that no other tool, yum, apt or urpmi currently does. The people doing the research for it are current and former apt and urpmi developers and they have done their homework.

      So, stop spreading misinformation about something which you have not taken the time to understand.
      • The entire idea is just silly to me. Lets install apache from a .deb, then install mod perl from an rpm from a different distro. That'll work great!

        Ditto cups, gnome, kde, x.org, you name it, any large package that's factored into small parts by distributions is just begging for trouble.

        Better to have one distro that gets it right.

        (and, no, I didn't read the article, and your post _is_ informative, btw)
    • That these guys advertise this compatibility speaks very ill about their distro, IMO

      Well in *my* opinion the majority of people do NOT share your opinion about compatibility. I don't think I've ever heard an average end user of PCs (or any other product for that matter) say "hmm...this product interoperates with multiple standards...that means it sucks. I'll pick this other one that's only half as compatible with other people's stuff--since they didn't think of interoperability it must be better at othe

      • Linux will never, ever achieve dominanace if every distributor has to maintain its own packages of every popular application demended by its users.

        Uh, I thought there was public consensus on this that packaging software is the whole point of the "distribution" concept! What is it you think distributions are supposed to do, if not this?!

        People will not switch to Linux if you either have to live with the packages maintained by a single organisation or be TRULY "hackerish" ahd compile parts of the syst

        • Uh, I thought there was public consensus on this that packaging software is the whole point of the "distribution" concept! What is it you think distributions are supposed to do, if not this?!

          The problem is that there is no standard so the whole point is completely lost! It's fine and dandy to say RPM is a standard packaging method but I can't just say (for example) I don't like SuSE's Apache RPMS so I'll just use Mandrake's instead--they are both RPMs sure, but if I try that you'll get mired in "depende
  • I don't know much about Progeny, so I was going to go to Wikipedia to read up more about it. But I'm having trouble accessing the http://en.wikipedia.org/ [wikipedia.org] sites! The http://www.wikipedia.org/ [wikipedia.org] page loads fine, but the search itself keeps failing. I have noticed these problems for several days now. Is Wikipedia having some severe server troubles?

    If they are, then maybe they need to switch to a Debian-based distro rather than using Fedora.
    • Wikipedia is working fine here, including the search function and displaying of entries. Here is Progeny:

      From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progeny_Linux_Systems [wikipedia.org]
      Progeny Linux Systems
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

      Progeny provides Linux platform technology. Their Platform Services technology supports both Debian and RPM-based distributions for Linux platforms. Ian Murdock, the founder of Debian, is the founder, CTO and Chairman of the Board. Progeny makes a distribution of Linux called Progeny Deb

  • What about Oracle certification? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cduffy ( 652 ) <charles+slashdot@dyfis.net> on Sunday July 10, 2005 @03:07PM (#13027632)
    The reason my employer is spending big bucks on enterprise Linux (well, not quite so big now that we switched to SLES9) is simple: Oracle (the company, not the product) supports RHEL or SLES, and nothing else. Sure, we could run our databases on Gentoo if we wanted -- it works fine in practice -- but Oracle's terms prohibit that in a production environment, and we'd rather like to continue being able to use the expensive support we're paying for.

    If these folks get Oracle certification, I'll be thrilled to have them in the marketplace. Otherwise, as far as my employer and I are concerned, they're "enterprise" in name alone.

    (Oh -- and if you're considering Oracle, count the extra cost of a certified OS in as part of what you'll be paying for it. That, and the hair loss and headaches).
  • Yes, Novell should be very concerned here. Their product though good, is heavy and YaST is as slow as hell. I hope the new distro will be apt-based. Even better would be that it becomes based on autopackage http://autopackage.org/ [autopackage.org] because the packages could the be able to install on [any] distro.
    • I hate it when people tout autopackage as a panacea. On it's own website it says that it's not intended to be a replacement for traditional package management systems, it's supposed to supplement them. What benefit do you think would come from using an autopackage based distro? One package for all distros? You can already install .debs and .rpms on all distros using alien. Regardless, if you're not using the native package management system that your distro uses, the result isn't always perfect.

      Also, want
    • Speculating, but the furture of SuSE management is with ZenWorks and iManager. YaST works reasonably well for exactly one machine, but that scenario is rare in the Real World; Novell is king of managing /networks/ (as opposed to machines).
  • An interesting part is that the new system should support both DEB (Debian package) and RPM (Red Hat Package Management) to enable better cross-compatibility with other Linux flavours.
    This isn't all that interesting, you can get rpm and apt running on most distros. I mean, already Debian has debs for rpm, you can just apt-get it. Similarly, Redhat has rpms for apt.
  • Just what we need, yet another 'enterprise linux project'.

    For the slow ones out there, that was sarcasm..

  • Another OpenLinux ? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by abelikoff ( 412709 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @03:50PM (#13027821) Homepage
    Am I the only one who feels, this looks like yet another OpenLinux project? Several 2nd and 3rd tier Linux distributors joining together in a futile effort to knock RedHat off it's throne...

    The problem is, each distribution has its own set of goals. Or at least it better have - otherwise there is no reason for it to exist. And while there are different sets of goals, there will always be problems with maintaining a unified base.

    The main problem, however, is that "enterpriseness" of the distribution is not about the choice of package format or a set of packages, or a cute name. It is about support. RHEL per se is not much different from dozens of other distributions on the market. It is the support behind it that makes it so attractive in the eyes of the IT industry. And this is really what any join effoer for another enterprise-ready distribution should be about.

    • OpenLinux? You mean the SCO/Caldera product? No, I don't think it sounds at all like OpenLinux! Perhaps you meant UnitedLinux? Yeah, Connectiva (now half of Mandriva) and Turbo were both members of UnitedLinux Coalition, so this very much looks like another stab at the same thing.

      There may be problems maintaining a common base or there may not. UnitedLinux tanked for completely unrelated reasons: one of the players (Suse) got bought by Novell, and another (Caldera) went insane, renamed themselves to T

  • I may just be snarky today (it's hot) but... (Score:5, Funny)

    by smchris ( 464899 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @03:58PM (#13027862)
    It will have a nice, Web-based front end for service management, which Sarge lacks.

    So the distribution will install Webmin and a range of the modules by _default_? Yipee! I've been waiting for that innovation. NOW I'll be able to use linux!

    • Yeah, actually. Usable defaults is a good thing, makes a world of difference to a lot of people, and yes, is something Debian historically lacked. Remeber the install asking you every module you wanted to use, on a PnP bus? Do you reckon that turned anyone off Debian?

      Those who've used Linux for awhile probably know useradd, passwd and chage. For those who don't , and who need to achieve a task, having easily discoverable ways to doing things is an essential.

  • No commercial support from the software vendor (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DexterF ( 862428 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @04:12PM (#13027937)
    What debian lacks is somebody who is paid for getting called by your PHB or similar and get yelled at. Then eventually fixes something. Imagine going to freenode/#debian and inquiring about IBM DB2 issues you can't handle yourself. When the asbestos cools down your boss wants to know what the support droids said. Your answer?

  • Emphasis on wrong side (Score:4, Insightful)

    by alucinor ( 849600 ) on Sunday July 10, 2005 @04:38PM (#13028080) Journal
    The article seems to make it sound as if these companies are bringing a lot to Debian, but as many others have pointed out, all these touted enhancements already exist. So really, what the article should emphasize is that these companies are acknowledging they need the support of the Debian world behind them, in order to compete against the strong de-facto corporate standards being set out there by RHEL and SLES. Apparently the LSB alone wasn't strong enough. Whether these companies have anything worthwhile to contribute back to Debian waits to be seen, however. Hopefully they'll be willing to donate resources in the form of either funding or developer time to the foundation if their new distros are successful.
    • Possibly they are bringing something to Debian.
      The RPM package format has features which DEB does not and vice versa. Current integration usually involves either using alien to convert the packages thereby losing the package format specific features or maintaing 2 seperate databases and losing proper dependency resolution as a result.

      • Rather in integrate one with the other ... why not develop the next generation package management system that can handle .deb's and .rpm's and has the best features of both systems?

        While they're at it, they could include functionality to install/upgrade/remove from .tar.gz.

        Now, THAT would be functionality worthy of testing a new system.

        If, as it appears, they are only going to add .rpm's to the install, there's no reason to even try it.

        We've already gotten to the point where individual package managemen
  • It means "RPM Package Management" as of a few years ago.
  • who are looking to try a Debian look at ubuntu. (www.ubuntu.org)

    I just loaded it yesterday. Very stable and looks to be well supported. The multimedia support is somewhat lacking however.

    They'll even send you some pressed CDs for free. (They're even paying the shipping.)
  • I know I'm going to get scolded for this but what would be great is something like an Ubuntu style mail server. What I mean by that is a less generic, easily installed and configured mail server that is free but commercially supported. There are a number of Exchange style offerings available such as OpenExchange, Kroupware, etc. but all of them are either a mess to install or entangled with a proprietary offering. I have maintained Linux based mail servers since '95 but I'm currently having troubles sell

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close