Unreliable Linux Dumped from Crest Electronics 960
nri writes "The Age writes, Linux misses Windows of opportunity. Crest Electronics chose a Linux operating system, then seven months on, the company chose to abandon it for Windows.
Mr Horton says. ".. the machine would basically, putting it in Windows terms, core dump or blue screen at random. It would run for weeks or so and then just bang, it would stop....I fully support Linux but if I had to make the decision again I'd pick Windows. A big reason is the fact Windows was up and running in two hours at all the right patch levels. The installation of SAP took two days on Windows, the installation on Linux Red Hat took two weeks. The total cost of ownership is actually lower in this case than with Linux because of the hidden costs of the support.""
Lets see in seven months (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lets see in seven months (Score:5, Insightful)
But hardware/driver issues aside, I don't believe Windows can be more stable than linux. If you don't have to run Windows for some specific compatibility/software requirement. Linux can be a far superior experience.
Re:Lets see in seven months (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither are perfect nor will they ever be, but getting good support for Linux just seems easier.
Re:Lets see in seven months (Score:5, Funny)
That's if you're lucky, normally they'd throw a chair at you.
Re:Lets see in seven months (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, he sure sounds like someone who would go running back to "beloved Microsoft".
And who in their right minds lets any mission critical server auto-patch itself, regardless of operating system. That's just utter madness!
No, it's efficiency and good systems management.
Of course, what they mean here by "automatic updates" are updates distributed from an internal updates service (WSUS) after being approved, not "automatic updates" from windowsupdate.com.
My other friend (yes, I have two!) put it best I think, when he said "I hope the guy got a major payout from Microsoft, because such a public display of incompetence makes him unemployable.".
The numbers say he's saved his company money and made their systems more reliable. That usually makes you *more* employable, not less - at least with the people who actually do the hiring that don't care about Operating System holy wars, at any rate.
Re:Lets see in seven months (Score:5, Informative)
Right tool for the right job. Most of the time I think Unix is the better tool, but sometimes you don't need a swiss army knife. Sometimes you need a hammer. Windows is a very effective hammer
Re:Lets see in seven months (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lets see in seven months (Score:4, Insightful)
Hell, if you have the expertese, you can even fix it in-house.
Try doing either of those with Windows :)
Re:Lets see in seven months (Score:4, Informative)
Windows vs Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
Choose the product that best suits your needs. If Linux doesn't cut it, get Windows. If Windows doesn't cut it, get Linux.
Re:Windows vs Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Windows vs Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
But, seriously, BSD > any Linux flavor > Microsoft's sorry-excuse-for-an-OS.
The BSDs don't have the fragmentation that Linux has. If anyone asks me what is my OS, I say simply "FreeBSD". By that I qualify my package management, my system boot scripts, where my conf files are, how the system works. "Linux", on the other hand, can mean a bunch of things: maybe the kernel, maybe one of those hundreds of distros, each with its own idea of package management, file placement, system configuration, or boot method. Of course, they are all Linux, they all run roughly the same software (Apache is Apache no matter in which Linux distro you run it), but the details, the little differences, do hurt Linux (okay, Stallman, GNU/Linux, as you wish) by making it into a moving target for support and maintenance.
Back on topic, that Linux machine must have had some hardware flaw. Bad memory comes to mind...
Re:Windows vs Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
More than a few Linux kernels have had some memory management issues. If he was using RedHat 9 he'd be having the same problems we had - had to reboot every few days.
Just do a google search on kswapd and cpu for some examples. If you bother to look around I'm sure you can find other stability problems with Linux.
I use FreeBSD, SuSE Linux and Windows 2000 at home. They all have their uses. They have their strengths and weaknesses.
Unlike what the fanatics believe, Linux isn't that much better than Windows. Even in terms of security and stability.
That said, I'd still prefer to use FreeBSD/Linux for most server stuff.
Re:Windows vs Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
You're noting that the name "Linux" covers a broad range of things, and comparing it to the name "FreeBSD" which refers to one thing. You're then trying to say that "the BSDs don't have the fragmentation that Linux has". I call bullshit. Your example proves nothing remotely near that. It proves that FreeBSD isn't fragment, but then neither is the Debian project's distribution.
If I say "I run BSD" then there at least 3 different systems I could be running. Would you then say that "the BSDs have fragmentation just like Linux does"?
Inversely, if I say "I run Debian" then "I qualify my package management, my system boot scripts, where my conf files are, how the system works".
Sorry, I'm not normally this harsh, but what was your point again? If you try to compare Linux to FreeBSD then yes Linux will appear more fragmented. But how about we compare FreeBSD to Debian shall we? Apples to apples? Does your argument that it "damages" Debian still hold?
Re:Windows vs Linux (Score:5, Informative)
Do the same applications run on each of the *BSDs without recompliation? I tend to doubt it, but I haven't tried it ...
No, it's not. Is it Apache 1 or Apache 2? The two are very different. Which modules are configured? Default configurations vary wildly. Yes, if you know what you're doing you can easily bring them under control, but for an amateur who's just using the Apache that came with his installation, things can be VERY different from distribution to distribution. (Personally, I find myself installing my own Apache and similar daemons, even if one is provided for me, on *BSD, whatever Linux, Solaris, etc. -- it just makes things easier, starting from a known quantity. And more secure.) It's not up to Stallman. Call it whatever you want. Your *BSD box has a lot of GNU stuff on it tooIn any event, certain hardware devices have buggy drivers, even in the latest versions of whatever Linux kernels and distributions you prefer. The vendors generally make Windows drivers, where the Linux drivers are often reverse engineered, and it often shows in the quality.
For the *BSDs, the drivers you get are generally more reliable than those in Linux, but if you've got some new device, where Linux would support it (and the driver might have some issues), *BSD is likely to not support it at all.
But I do agree with you too -- FreeBSD does make a better server than any of the Linux distributions. However, the commercial application support is very spotty. However, I've heard that the Linux emulation is quite good, and it can run most Linux applications with little trouble. Though that just sounds so ... wrong ... to use it for a production server. But if it works ...
Re:Windows vs Linux (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Windows vs Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides the reference they were running IBM hardware, I wonder what their configuration was. That's the tough part of these kind of articles. Very little information and a conclusion. Sure it was IBM certified hardware and it was ruled out as the problem. Perhaps the RedHat engineers simply screwed up. Not like that couldn't happen
"We asked the customer to do a diagnostic test and the customer never responded, so it was impossible for us to address the issue," Mr McLaren says.
I wonder why they never bothered to respond to RedHat. If it was important then they would have worked with the Vendor. I'd like to see someone work with ANY Operating System and ignore their vendors help. With these tidbits of information, it's difficult to take such a conclusion seriously.
Re:Windows vs Linux (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Windows vs Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
True, of course, but in this case it looks like someone seriously screwed up the configuration. By default neither Linux nor Windows will crash every two weeks, so somebody came along and made it worse. I don't know much about SAP, but if it took two weeks to install and configure on Linux and only two days on Windows, then the people who did on Linux it are either incompetent or the software is not very good on Linux, which is
Obviously not the best distribution (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obviously not the best distribution (Score:5, Funny)
Windows users looking for a smooth transition...
Re:Windows vs Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
What I cannot understand he
Re:Windows vs Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Windows vs Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite true... (Score:3, Interesting)
Everyone knows the Apple Store, one of the largest online stores, runs on.. oh, wait.
We do know that Macs are useless for clustering [apple.com] and could never be used to build a supercomputer [macnewsworld.com].
I know, old ideas die hard.
Re:Windows vs Linux (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Windows vs Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
I, we - the team I work in, have recently finished a migration of SAP4.6 on windows to SAP4.7 on solaris. The windows installation was formerly the largest single installation of SAP on windows in western europe, and it had severe scaling and support problems.
I also know from some years back, this having been discussed in an interview I attended, that Unilever, who before they switched held the crown for the largest installation of SAP on windows, switched to Digital UNIX (before it was Tru64) for exactly the same reason.
SAP on any OS has a hefty hardware requirement list. In addition, to my mind, they make some stupid recommendations about memory. Viz - for our setup we have multiple V440 and V490 suns with 16GB memory, and SAP want (and, on some servers, having hit this problem, *need*) THREE or FOUR TIMES that in swap. I would have suggested either less databases on each machine, or more memory (not sure if 16GB is the physical limit for V440/490) or just bigger machines, but then it's not my job to spec these things.
Anyway, having vast quantities of swap actively used as working memory may have contributed to the instability of a SAP system on linux, if as someone suggested that VM on linux is currently not as good as it could be.
while tomcat on linux can be a pain (Score:3, Informative)
sum.zero
Re:Windows vs Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
To me, the interesting thing about this is that it's newsworthy enough to publish on TheAge.com
It isn't exactly a publication with IT personnel as a target demographic either, but rather laymen in the general population. Perhaps the $100 Million marketing campaign [slashdot.org] has already begun.
There's no debate. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There's no debate. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There's no debate. (Score:5, Funny)
I've never hired a dog that was an MCSE.
I did hire an elephant once. He remembered everything and worked for peanuts. We never had a second problem with a computer if he troubleshot the first one. Amazing what a good stomp will do to a system.
Re:There's no debate. (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem of course is that most hiring managers can't tell the difference between the will work for food guy and the guy who can actually save your company when its systems are down and millions of dollars are on the line.
Re:Qualified is the operative term. (Score:3, Interesting)
I find 00 buckshot works quite well.
Seriously though, IIS runs really poorly on Linux too. Insist on such combinations and you get what you deserve. Did anyone investigate SAP before spending two weeks trying to get it running? I also find it quite hard to believe that they were getting crashes every week or so. Although I avoid RedHat...
Re:There's no debate. (Score:3, Insightful)
Boss: I want result X. Sys-admin: Oh that's easy. In theory you do acts A, B and C. In theory it takes about Y weeks to do it. Boss: Great, I'll let you get to it. Y weeks later. Boss: So how is it going? Do you think you'll be able to finish it in a timely manner? Sys-admin: I've barely started, I don't know your platform, I only know the concepts.
To say a great sys-admin shouldn't know a platform, only conce
your admins are not qualified (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:your admins are not qualified (Score:5, Informative)
Re:your admins are not qualified (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:your admins are not qualified (Score:5, Informative)
from TFA: "We asked the customer to do a diagnostic test and the customer never responded, so it was impossible for us to address the issue," Mr McLaren says.
Re:your admins are not qualified (Score:3, Insightful)
"So what'd they say? They have any bodies they can throw at us?"
"Nah, they just told me to run a fricking diagnostic. They're not interested."
Re:your admins are not qualified (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't put it past RedHat to have some kind of filtering like that for their muckity-muck engineers so that they make sure they send the right guy for the job.
But if you ask for help, someone asks for clarification or a bit more info THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE ON SITE FOR, it's your fault if you refuse their assistance.
Re:your admins are not qualified (Score:3, Insightful)
BillG: "For heaven's sake don't run it. We don't want them to know we've deleted
Re:your admins are not qualified (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:your admins are not qualified (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never encountered it.
windows code dumps (Score:5, Funny)
whereas you can expect windows to core dump periodically and predictably.
Re:windows code dumps (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I've had that happen enough to care about - years ago, with older copies of NT, running on flaky/overheated/bad-sectored hardware. But I run things like SQL, or file services, or IIS under 2000/2003... and have machines that cook along without me doing anything month after month after month. No BSDs, etc. Yes, patch = boot, and that's a few moments of taking a machine out of a cluster for a minute... but not because the machine hangs while doing anything routine. For that matter, not even when I'm doing something non-routine.
This whole "Windows just crashes all the time" stuff, especially on the server side, is pretty much FUD. Bad RAM and drives can piss off Linux, too. Flaky commercial third-party apps can gum up any OS. But I sure don't have anything like the problems that so many people love to rant about - and even though I only have a running sample of a few dozen specific machines that I actually consistently lay hands on every week, you'd think that the mythical "predictably, always crashing" Windows server would rear its ugly head at some point. But it doesn't. The FUD's an anachronism.
Re:windows code dumps (Score:5, Insightful)
*nix usually gets a better reputation because corporations haven't had much opportunity to hire the off-the-street administrator with a degree in law and a certificate saying they can setup a server. That's changing and, as such, you'll start to hear more and more stories about *nix migrations gone bad and the like.
Of course, the major difference is that MS is just now learning to try and lock down their machines by default and force the user to unlock what they want to use. This makes the bad Windows admin have a higher likelihood of failure because they start with a bad setup and have try to fix things, instead of starting with good setup and trying to make things work with it.
Re:windows code dumps (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder what the hell they are doing that causes the system to crash? Or did they check for hardware problems before deciding to pull the plug? The only times I've had Linux crash in more than 10 years of using it were related to serio
Wndows BSOD (Score:5, Interesting)
Odd that the Windows terminology for the blue screen of death now seems to be the standard term for a computer crashing. Or maybe that's not so odd.
(please don't mod this as funny, I am very serious here.)
Re:Wndows BSOD (Score:3, Funny)
Looks like somebody noticed that funny mods don't get ya karma anymore;-)
I wish he would have given us more info. (Score:5, Insightful)
When problems do happen, the open source community is notorious for getting them fixed very quickly. If he were to provide us, the community, with more details about the problems he encountered, I just know they could be solved for him and potentially for many other users in a similar boat.
Re:I wish he would have given us more info. (Score:3, Informative)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.0 was the distro. More info would've been nice, but they DID give this one (which a lot of people seem to be asking about).
Re:I wish he would have given us more info. (Score:3, Informative)
Well ITFA it said they were running RHEL 3 and for the server it was an IBM server ... no exact details on the hardware.
The server was also setup by a contractor that Redhat had recommended per specs that SAP had provided.
Re:I wish he would have given us more info. (Score:3, Informative)
RTFA. SAP install on RHEL 3.0 on SAP-certified IBM servers. Also in the article:
Re:I wish he would have given us more info. (Score:5, Interesting)
* 2 weeks to install to SAP standards? Hmm. How about 1 day to install Linux, and the rest is setting up SAP and testing? 2 days to install on Windows? How much testing was included there, eh?
* "Software updates had to be manually installed to ensure SAP certification." So that's like, rpm -Uvh the_update.rpm. The HORROR!
* "We asked the customer to do a diagnostic test and the customer never responded, so it was impossible for us to address the issue," Mr McLaren says. Most folks who are serious about making it work would probably get back to them when having these problems. Almost sounds like some geek personalities were the problem, not Linux.
RedHat, IBM and SAP are all cool about running this setup - but the IT department of this consumer electronics distribution company can't handle it effectively? I think I can see where the problem is...
The cynic in me suspects they got a VERY good deal from MS for publicising this move.
Re:I wish he would have given us more info. (Score:3, Insightful)
1 day. WTF?!?!? I routinely sell embedded server systems (using Whitebox Linux) that update themselves (a la yum) and have it all set up in under 15 minutes.
Maybe those SAPs really outta learn what an installer script is - I can (no kidding!)
1) load an installer CD (maybe 10 minutes for a "minimal" install)
2) stick in an installation CD, and run the installer
3) Have a functioning, self-tested software install in a total time (
Re:I wish he would have given us more info. (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a good hunch you're right. I think I'll post anonymously and let you know that at one point I've worked for EV1Servers. When they first offered Windows servers, I saw the press release that we were releasing. It was full of quotes about how we love our Windows servers, and how easy it is to install and set up Windows. It included graphs comparing Windows and Linux setup times, and how we can push out Windows serv
What is SAP? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What is SAP? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What is SAP? (Score:5, Informative)
One doesn't usually run anything from SAP without a small army from SAP (or one of their annointed consulting firms) completely stroking the install. They don't usually tolerate failed installs. And there's usually a LOT of money involved in these installations, and a lot at stake. SAP products are rarely used with modifications and customization to both the infrastructure and the apps themselves.
Smells fishy. (Score:5, Insightful)
The key point to note in TFA is..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Looks like 'new manager' syndrome to me...
Re:The key point to note in TFA is..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Good point - the first thing a lot of new managers do is tell you that everything that was done before they got there was done the wrong way. Also two weeks does make sense - if you have to learn on the job.
Even when you aren't learning on the job it makes sense to kick a test system around for a few weeks if it is a major change of complicated production software with some consequences if it's down for a while or runs incorrectly. After that you
Re:The key point to note in TFA is..... (Score:3, Informative)
"Crest's IT manager, Anthony Horton, oversaw the deployment of SAP on Linux in November 2004, after inheriting the decision when he took the job. Having previously run SAP on AIX - IBM's version of Unix - Horton was comfortable with deploying such a mission-critical application on Linux."
This isn't a Windows guy.
Re:The key point to note in TFA is..... (Score:4, Funny)
a joke:
The old manager, on his way out of his old office, with his possessions in a box hands Three Envelopes to his successor.
Old Manager says "here, this is all you need to know. When you get in a jam, just open these envelopes in order; #1,#2,#3."
New Manager moves in chugs along for a few months and then runs into a jam with his superiors. They are upset about performance/output whatever.
He thinks, "AHAH! I'll open one of the Envelopes!". He opens #1, in it a paper says "Re-organize".
He says "AHAH!" and proceeds to shuffle staff for 12 months. Make org charts and take synergy meetings.
New Manager chugs along for a few months and then runs into a jam with his superiors. They are upset about performance/output whatever.
He thinks, "AHAH! I'll open one of the Envelopes!". He opens #2, in it a paper says "Re-organize".
He says "AHAH!" and proceeds to shuffle staff for 12 months. Make org charts and take synergy meetings.
New Manager chugs along for a few months and then runs into a jam with his superiors. They are upset about performance/output whatever.
He thinks, "AHAH! I'll open one of the Envelopes!".
He opens #3, in it a paper says "Get three envelopes...".
core dump != blue screen (Score:5, Insightful)
When Windows blue screens, it means *the operating system* has done something it wasn't supposed to do (like try to read memory that isn't valid) and the operating system bails. Often, it will return execution to the next instruction and hope things will be okay. It almost certainly isn't. You're basically screwed.
The equivalent in Linux is an Oops. They don't happen that often on production systems. A crappy properitary program doing things it's not supposed to is *not* a Linux problem nor an Open Source problem. It's SAP's problem.
This is a testimonal about the crappiness of SAP and nothing more. They obviously didn't do enough testing on Linux.
Real Story - SAP implementation fails miserably (Score:5, Informative)
I just left a company that was $10M and 2 years behind on their "$2M" SAP implementation. It's a joke. Once SAP gets their foot in the door, they flood your company with incompetent consultants and rebuild your business around SAP-approved procedures and architecture. At the end of this clusterfuck you end up WAY over budget and desperately looking for a scape goat. Clearly Crest Electronics chose Linux.
SAP products require patch after patch, and take MONTHS to really install. We had a team of engineers working around the clock (literally) for 5 months to get our base systems set up to SAP specs. Even then we would receive "mystery" patches, frequently resulting in system crashes as they weren't designed to work with other patches. Bottom line - SAP is the problem. They churn out highly unstable software and have armies of consultants who will sweep problems like this under the carpet or find something else to blame.
Re:Real Story - SAP implementation fails miserably (Score:3, Informative)
Out in the world, there's a software configuration management (SCM) tool called ClearCase. It's developed by a company called Rational, which is now known as a subsidiary of IBM.
As best as I can tell, the only reason anyone uses this thing is because it integrates cleanly into another product, Rational Rose (a UML modeling tool). Or in my case, because the company says it's a standard (no matter how many stories I hear that every project that uses it
Re:Real Story - SAP implementation fails miserably (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Real Story - SAP implementation fails miserably (Score:5, Insightful)
User A: I used SAP and had lots of problems and it didn't work and the consultants took lots of money and re-engineered everything around their system. SAP is always crap.
User B: I've used SAP for years and had no problems. You must be the problem. Never mind that I know nothing about your situation or your dealings with SAP I'm going to call you a liar and say SAP is wonderful.
Neither of you are being reasonable, but man, pass the popcorn! This is entertaining! Just like Jerry Springer.
I Have My Doubts About the Guy (Score:5, Informative)
Blue screen is a Windows thing but core dump is not [wikipedia.org].
Crest Electronics is trialling Microsoft's Windows Server Update Service, which allows automatic patching for the operating system and other Microsoft software on servers and desktop machines across a corporate network. Its benefits are one of the key reasons why Mr Horton stands by his decision to switch from Linux to Windows.
"We run Linux on our web server and for an accounting package with great success and we do use the auto-patching in those environments,"
I work in a Windows shop but we don't do automatic patching. We don't patch until we've done extensive testing on our own to make sure it works in our environment first. SUS/WUSS/whatever is great in the sense that it allows you to control how patches to your Windows workstations are distributed. You can change the workstations' auto-update behavior so they only update from your SUS servers, etc. But the automatic update thing, from what I've heard, is rarely used in a production environment. In fact, Microsoft gives you a considerable amount of control over its behavior, probably because in recognition of the dangers of auto updating in a production environment.
Mr Horton disagrees: "It might be fine for things like security patches, which don't impact SAP certification rules but with some patches you still actually have to check the release levels and then check against the SAP site. Otherwise SAP might ask you to roll back to the previous version before they will support it."
Give me a break! The same thing happens in the Windows environment. It took Bloomberg and our other vendors a while before they supported Windows XP SP2. When SP2 first came out, a lot of vendors blamed SP2 for problems that may or may not have been SP2's fault. It took Windows vendors a while to adpot SP2 as well.
In any case, the whole patching issue he takes with Linux seems absurd. Just a few days ago, I think our server guys patched their cluster with a Microsoft service pack. Now the cluster refuses to fail over properly. Patching in a production environment is ALWAYS a big headache if you want to do it right. Unfortunately for our server guys, we don't have a spare cluster sitting around for them to test patches on like they normally do with other servers.
I don't have any doubts... (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, just listen to him. He outsources everything. He seriously believes all operating systems are the same. He complains about having to spend two days a month updating and testing. Then he goes on to include this work in an increased "total cost of ownership" for Linu
I see. Tell me more! (Score:5, Funny)
*nix incompetence (Score:3, Insightful)
"We asked the customer to do a diagnostic test and the customer never responded, so it was impossible for us to address the issue," Mr McLaren says.
These Crest guy's didn't even have the ability to use support properly.
and
"We run Linux on our web server"
The entire company has 1 webserver? Unless he was missquoted this guy doesn't have a clue what his IT department should be doing.
Nuff said.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
$h**&&@7#7 register link (Score:3, Insightful)
Fortunately, the bugmenot bookmarklet did the trick.
About the story : so we have *one* situation where a problem happenned between SAP and linux. That kind of conflicts happens all the time in IT. Either you solve it or you change one component.
In both cases, drawing general conclusions on the abandonned product is common but unfair and a sign of lower qualifiquations.
Times are changing! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like: a dog bites a man is not news, but a man bites a dog is. That's telling.
Re:Times are changing! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's 'news' only in the navel gazing world of /. Meanwhile, the rest of the world just keeps on doing business.
Two Weeks! (Score:5, Informative)
Only an absolute moron would admit to that. You have idiots working for you fire them immediately! With absolutely no experience with any unix/linux system and very little windows experience, I setup a mail server, webserver and started creating a website for a company. I did that back in 1996 with RedHat 5 & a Linux for Dummies Book. Linux has come a long way since then. If they can't figure out how to install a modern linux distro in less than 4 hours, you should not be let near any computer ever! I could build a PC clone system from parts and install Fedora Core 4 configure it with apache, mysql, ftp and secure it before lunch. I've done it several times at work.
Re:Two Weeks! (Score:3, Funny)
I have a BS in ECE Comm so my experience is a lot less than what those working on this system but more than an average computer user and I was able to install YellowDog Linux on a PowerMac 6100 in about 3 hours, in April of this year. It mainly took that long because it was over 10Mb enet (which was faster than the 2x CDROM). Then it on
Re:Two Weeks! (Score:5, Insightful)
It was just bizarre. Out in left field.... way, way out. They implemented an entire routing protocol, kind of like IP, but very poorly. It was completely unrelated to any other form of routing I've seen.
From what I remember, you had to install the router software on a PC that had a modem. That was going to do the call out. (VPN wasn't common at the time, you had to use a modem for a network backdoor.) But then you had to configure the client to talk to that PC over the network... and you also, if I remember correctly, had to tell it about every hop it had to take in the foreign system.
In other words, it would be like having to manually configure your PC with every hop between you and Slashdot before you could read web pages. And if one of the hops changed, well, too bad. No Web for you.
There was more, too, lots more, but I have lost the details. All I remember is that it was problem after problem after problem for DAYS. And this is relatively simple software.
The documentation was horrible too. It made no sense at all. (which shouldn't be that surprising, really, since the program made no sense either.) SAP was kind of bleeding edge in one regard, and provided fairly complete Web documentation. Sadly, instant access helped clarity not a whit. I ended up taking three or four days and making repeated calls to SAP to get the stupid thing working. It felt like I was trying to push my head through a cheese grater. I'm not an idiot... I was learning IP routing at the time, and I can assure you, it was _trivial_ in comparison.
In some ways(the bad ones), SAPRouter reminded me of learning Netware for the first time. Netware was full of weirdnesses that didn't make sense at first. But after you'd been working with a given feature for awhile, nearly always there was an 'aha!' Netware had a payoff for the struggle... you'd finally see why they had modeled a given problem the way they had, and it was inevitably elegant, powerful, and aesthetic all at once. It was hard to figure out their context, but once you did, their solutions made beautiful sense. They thought out problems incredibly thoroughly, and solved them completely.
SAPRouter wasn't like that. It felt like, well... like a bureaucracy that's very sure of its own brilliance. They reimplemented, badly, what IP was already doing. It was grossly inferior, complex when it didn't need to be. Once I understood their context, and why they solved the problem how they did, my conclusion was that they were idiots. It felt like something designed by people who had *no idea* what routing is or how it should work.
To be fair, it was nicely stable once it was up. I didn't have to fool with it anymore after it was (finally) running.
Basically.... don't be so serenely certain these admins are idiots. The reason you're good at figuring this stuff out is because smarter people than you (or me) took the time to make it (relatively) easy. They chose good models and clean implementations, so the programs are fairly easy to configure and use. You being good at building solutions from open source stuff is partially your brainpower, but the lion's share of the credit goes to the original designers. You had an easy time of it because, for the most part, the software is fairly easy. It could have been far, far worse.
It could have been SAP.
AHA - I know whats was wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
blue screen at random - costs more for most (Score:4, Interesting)
when your servers on windows will blue screen at the middle of the production day that wiwill most likely cost a lot more on the long term in productivity loss and people sitting in their offices not being able to access resources
yes i can install windows box in 30 minutes with webserver, however i have bsd boxes running 365days+ with dns/apache restart and having a good sleep while my non windows machines run is just cheaper me than having a blue screened server for 8 hours and loose customers or receive pages to "fix that crap" in the middle of the night
of course your mileage might vary
just a note: how can an installation of a software last 2 weeks vs 2days ? Same software ? I know sometimes clicking a defult config together takes less time than building a config file (text) from a bad template/example but 2 weeks ?
God created all that in 1 week! (including basics for SAP and Linux in a way) -OK He knows more than us I guess
he never really attempted to fix it (Score:5, Funny)
thats says it all in a nutshell i think. he's a retard.
Subject (Score:5, Interesting)
"I fully support Linux but if I had to make the decision again I'd pick Windows. A big reason is the fact Windows was up and running in two hours at all the right patch levels. The installation of SAP took two days on Windows, the installation on Linux Red Hat took two weeks. The total cost of ownership is actually lower in this case than with Linux because of the hidden costs of the support."
I feel like I'm reading a Microsoft brochure. And keep in mind that I *like* Windows as a desktop OS, for the most part.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Non sequitur (Score:3, Interesting)
Case in point. The most unreliable system I ever installed was a Linux server for a small retail management installation (2 registers, one se
Re:Non sequitur (Score:3, Interesting)
Keep in mind that the table was something to the effect of:
CREATE TABLE stuff (
recno INTEGER PRIMARY KEY DEFAULT NEXTVAL('rec
Re:"A" Linux Operating System? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've run busy mail servers hosting about 6,000 email addresses. I've seen a server run with a load average between 2.0 and 20.0, 24x7 for WEEKS ON END without any complaints. A full megabit of traffic, 24x7, just for EMAIL...
I've seen millions of website hits per month, month after month, year after year. No complaints, reliability simply excellent. And, I've seen this using Linux kernel 2.2, 2.4, and 2.6.
Sorry, pal. Maybe it's true for some other slashweenies, but in my experience, the reliability of Linux IS truly legendary, and is why I've standardized on Linux anywhere I can possibly use it.
Heck, when I'm putting together a new, high-capacity system, one of the first things I do is load a series of "torture tests" and run them. I put the server through its paces, running with a load average between 5.0 and 10.0, compiling the kernel or PHP in a loop, copying files, reading large files into memory and clearing memory out, while stressing whatever service the server will be using. (EG: if it's a mail server, while all the above is running, I have a script sending 10,000-20,000 emails per hour to 25 pseudo-accounts, while another script POPs them all to the bit bucket. If it's a web server, I have 10-20 wget shell scripts beating the webserver continuously)
Hour after hour, for a week or so.
A few disclaimers:
1) I make sure all the components for a high-capacity server (esp. the chipset & NIC) are on the RedHat compatability list.
2) When I'm buying hardware for a cheapie embedded server, I try to buy hardware that's been on the market for at least 6 months or so.
With this formula, I've had nothing but stellar results!
Re:Sometimes this doesn't suprise me (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, this is a general problem with common modern programming languages. Dealing with dependencies is just hard since we've had a reuse model that is largely based on saving disk space by having one copy of a function.
Today, I'm convinced we need a system where every version of every library is stored and programs are able to use whatever version they have been tested against.
Re:Sometimes this doesn't suprise me (Score:5, Insightful)
for example, if you only have one copy of zlib on your system, and it's managed by the OS vendor (up2date, apt, or similar), then you only have one copy of zlib that can be exploited, and you only have to worry about applying your vendor's updates to keep all of your zlib activity patched.
if you have 80 copies of zlib, each one shipped by a different application that uses the library, you've got a frigging mess on your hands, and you've probably got no hope of patching them all if there's a security bug.
what we need is more centralization of libraries, not the wild-west free-for-all that would result from what you're advocating.
Re:Sometimes this doesn't suprise me (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, this is another difficult problem. How do you ensure that security updates are applied.
If you have something better than a linear versioning system, then you can distiguish between security updates and other sorts of updates. I still think you need a system where you have multiple versions of libraries that are functionally differ
Re:Sometimes this doesn't suprise me (Score:3)
Even if you want to install something that isn't packaged for your distribution, you can still install the dependencies with the package manager, and what they depend on recursively will also be installed.
Oh, you can update everything on your system with one command, too.
Things have vastly improved since the days of manually tracking down software. Well, in Linux they have.
Re:blue screens? (Score:3, Interesting)
A) You are admitting you truly know nothing about the NT architecture.
B) And it is normally called Kernel Panic, or a Random Reboot in your world.
C) If you never saw any OS fail in ALL YOUR YEARS ADMINING, are you sure they are really years?
RTFA (Score:3, Informative)
RTFA or shut up.
X11 (Score:3, Insightful)
I couldn't disagree more. There are usability issues, documentation problems, missing features, etc. None of this is caused by X. I have seen _zero_ evidence that X11 is in any way a problem. The protocol is great, and I think we'd be nuts to ditch such a powerful, network transparent facility. As a developer, I'm not fond of the Xlib APIs, but there's work to replace Xlib now. The XFree86/XOrg implementation of the server could be better built s
Re:Flamewars! Begin! (Score:3, Insightful)
You're the troll, not the trolls.
Re:Different results (Score:3, Interesting)
The only reason to reboot a 'nix system is if you're patching the kernel. We've got systems (bastion systems that do email filtering, very stripped down) that have uptimes coming up on two years. Yes, the applications and services have been upgraded and/or patched a few times, but the (linux) kernel hasn't needed it, and it's still going strong. (Heck, we even discovered one crazy process that leaked about a meg of memory a da
Re:Days VS Months (Score:3, Interesting)
I have had much more patch downtime on Windows because it has to restart (usually minutes) while on Linux only the services usually need restarting (usually less than a second), but even then we install patches during off-hours, and most patches are really optional.
We run mostly Linux se