Novell: Why we don't need a third Linux distro(novell.com)
novell.com
Novell: Why we don't need a third Linux distro
http://www.novell.com/prblogs/?p=3070
29 comments
This is anecdotal evidence but in western Europe[1] Ubuntu Server seems to be vastly more popular than either CentOS or RHEL.
[1] With the exception of Germany, where SUSE Enterprise appears to be most popular.
[1] With the exception of Germany, where SUSE Enterprise appears to be most popular.
in the German startup area it's all about Ubuntu/Debian and maybe some centos/gentoos.
I guess only the big old customers stick with SuSE. I don't know a single person anymore using SuSE…
I've recently helped to install a new server farm for a media company. We've choosen Ubuntu 10.04 LTS + chef (opscode) + REE + kvm.
I guess only the big old customers stick with SuSE. I don't know a single person anymore using SuSE…
I've recently helped to install a new server farm for a media company. We've choosen Ubuntu 10.04 LTS + chef (opscode) + REE + kvm.
We recently started to migrate a number of CentOS servers to Ubuntu LTS.
We found that stability to be on par with CentOS, with the primary advantage of Ubuntu being that we have more up to date packages in the main distribution.
We have a number of people running Ubuntu on their workstations which was another benefit of "unifying" the underlying platforms.
BTW, yes apt is awesome
We found that stability to be on par with CentOS, with the primary advantage of Ubuntu being that we have more up to date packages in the main distribution.
We have a number of people running Ubuntu on their workstations which was another benefit of "unifying" the underlying platforms.
BTW, yes apt is awesome
Are you using Canonical's Landscape thing? It seems that with every release they actually make something useful for the server deployments, not just fluff features.
I have zero experience in deploying Linux in a commercial environment, only home / hobbyist usage; but I wonder why Ubuntu is ahead of Debian?
(I assume we're not talking desktops here.)
(I assume we're not talking desktops here.)
I started running debian back in 2000 or so, and was happy with it for a while, but now I've mostly converted to ubuntu LTS releases on the server.
I find that debians support cycle for stable is troublesome for long lived servers, as the support lifetime is unknown, other than it's a year past the release date of the next stable version. That means that the minimum lifetime before needing to recheck everything for stability is one year plus however long until they release a new stable.
In contrast, ubuntu is at 5yr support for their longterm releases, with a known 2 year cycle in-between. Which means that even if you install in the worst possible time in the cycle, a new install will be supported for three years.
I really like those extra two years of security updates.
(edit for iPad text entry)
I find that debians support cycle for stable is troublesome for long lived servers, as the support lifetime is unknown, other than it's a year past the release date of the next stable version. That means that the minimum lifetime before needing to recheck everything for stability is one year plus however long until they release a new stable.
In contrast, ubuntu is at 5yr support for their longterm releases, with a known 2 year cycle in-between. Which means that even if you install in the worst possible time in the cycle, a new install will be supported for three years.
I really like those extra two years of security updates.
(edit for iPad text entry)
Maybe commercial support is easier to get? That would be a biggie for a business. Possibly more up to date packages? I am just speculating though.
[deleted]
Enterprise linuxes avoid many of the Debian ideals like the plague. On Debian, you are required to make a gajillion choices and to some extent are responsible for piecing together a competent system yourself; on RHEL and Ubuntu, you make a few, and retain the power to drill down and make choices, but you always start with the same solid template (roughly)
Debian is great for one or two machines, but based on my experience with it I can't imagine using it for 10,000 boxes
Debian is great for one or two machines, but based on my experience with it I can't imagine using it for 10,000 boxes
I mostly see thing the other way: for a machine or two, especially a desktop, Ubuntu is great. It made a bunch of decisions for me in advance that are mostly good, and I can override them if I need to. For a datacenter full of servers, I probably have a very specific configuration in mind and don't want anything extra. Debian seems most suited to that scenario.
Most of the time, with disk space as cheap as it is now the extra stuff isn't even worth the time spent deciding what to keep.
As for requiring a very specific configuration, most of the time that is only in one corner of the machine. I would even hazard that if you have strict requirements for every facet of the machine that differ from the defaults (and this machine is not handling super-sensitive information, super-high performance jobs, or publicly accessible) then you are doing it wrong.
As for requiring a very specific configuration, most of the time that is only in one corner of the machine. I would even hazard that if you have strict requirements for every facet of the machine that differ from the defaults (and this machine is not handling super-sensitive information, super-high performance jobs, or publicly accessible) then you are doing it wrong.
I don't see it as a disk space issue. Extra stuff installed inherently means more exposure to potential security issues. That's undesirable.
I think I've heard that Suse is more popular outside the US?
In any event, another good reason for running RHEL is when there' a legal requirement that you can't use "freeware". Mostly the place I'm at develops on CentOS and then pays Red Hat for what we ship simply because then we'll have paid someone for what we ship.
In any event, another good reason for running RHEL is when there' a legal requirement that you can't use "freeware". Mostly the place I'm at develops on CentOS and then pays Red Hat for what we ship simply because then we'll have paid someone for what we ship.
What a weak argument. Vendor X suggests that vendor X and Y are plenty of choice, that you don't need vendor Z.
A better blog post: Oracle just screwed your J2EE ecosystem, hope you don't deploy their version of linux for even deeper vendor lock-in there too.
A better blog post: Oracle just screwed your J2EE ecosystem, hope you don't deploy their version of linux for even deeper vendor lock-in there too.
Sadly, American car companies could have probably wrote the same article about the impending Japanese car imports (market leadership, infrastructure (dealer & mechanics), no market demand).
A third distro?!
As in enterprise support for Linux distros.
It's more complicated than that. F'rinstance on Debian you can
# apt-get install oracle-xe
I would like to see the stats from Linode et al. on deployments. My sense is that Ubuntu is growing faster than the other distros.
http://www.linode.com/about/ - In the Interesting Statistics box.
48% of deployments are Ubuntu
24% of deployments are Debian
16% of deployments are CentOS
4.3% of deployments are Fedora
3.1% of deployments are GentooThey are right; we have RHAT/Fedora and Debian/Ubuntu, no need for 3rd enterprise (or pretty much other) Linux distro.
I kinda agree with the article but is like Microsoft saying: "Who needs Java when you can have .NET?" They would say that wouldn't they?
I can't figure out what they are trying to get at with this article. I can't help but feeling that they sound a little desperate.
I can't figure out what they are trying to get at with this article. I can't help but feeling that they sound a little desperate.
Yeah, Novell probably needs to ask itself if we really need a _second_ "enterprise" Linux distro.
The way Ubuntu is growing, RedHat had probably better start worrying about the same ...
The way Ubuntu is growing, RedHat had probably better start worrying about the same ...
I don't see Ubuntu and Redhat serving the same market personally. I use Ubuntu everywhere but on some large servers, Redhat was the choice. They had the drivers and were a supported vendor for the hardware we got. To me that's two markets.
I cannot help but wonder what portion of the 95% domination Novell contributes. I cannot help but suspect this is a case of a tiny nobody pretending he's best buds with the 800-lb gorilla that doesn't even know he's there.
I mean, sure, it adds to 95%- but who's to say Novell isn't only 3% by itself?
I mean, sure, it adds to 95%- but who's to say Novell isn't only 3% by itself?
Well, obviously I have not more numbers than you. But Suse (and later OpenSuse) was very prominent for a long time in Germany (according to empirical references providing the best l10n experience combined with commercial support).
They lost a lot afterwards/in the last years, but I'd still say that they are relevant (mind you - without running Suse here.. I'm running a distribution that didn't get mentioned here and has no commercial support..):
- The OpenSuse BuildService [1] is really awesome. Think Ubuntu PPAs, just without the limitation of being for a single distribution/release. It's basically a build system that serves everyone and is still actively improved day by day. Want to build packages for Ubuntu, Suse, Fedora? It can do it for you..
- If you have looked at Suse Studio [2] once, live, you'll agree that this is an awesome product for a lot of deployments. Think "Let me create my linux based appliance with a few clicks using a nice interface".
- Novell still funds a lot of desktop stuff. Granted, RedHat is probably bigger. But if you think "Gnome" you probably see right away that they are both deeply involved and actively moving the platform forward.
- Suse improved zypper (the yum/apt-get/aptitude alternative) by _huge_ amounts concerning speed and usability and it is now for all intents and purposes at least equivalent to the competitors
- Remember the outcry of the open source community after Novell made the agreement with Microsoft regarding the patent protection (fail to find the correct words, you probably know what I mean) for .Net technology: If you are afraid of the risk there, you'll be a customer of Novell I guess.
I agree that RedHat is probably the bigger one (and the "we gained 5% claim is therefor maybe misleading), but - pulling numbers from ... nowhere.. I'd rather put them at 30 (Novell) vs 60 (Redhat) % of the market.
1: https://build.opensuse.org/
2: http://susestudio.com/
They lost a lot afterwards/in the last years, but I'd still say that they are relevant (mind you - without running Suse here.. I'm running a distribution that didn't get mentioned here and has no commercial support..):
- The OpenSuse BuildService [1] is really awesome. Think Ubuntu PPAs, just without the limitation of being for a single distribution/release. It's basically a build system that serves everyone and is still actively improved day by day. Want to build packages for Ubuntu, Suse, Fedora? It can do it for you..
- If you have looked at Suse Studio [2] once, live, you'll agree that this is an awesome product for a lot of deployments. Think "Let me create my linux based appliance with a few clicks using a nice interface".
- Novell still funds a lot of desktop stuff. Granted, RedHat is probably bigger. But if you think "Gnome" you probably see right away that they are both deeply involved and actively moving the platform forward.
- Suse improved zypper (the yum/apt-get/aptitude alternative) by _huge_ amounts concerning speed and usability and it is now for all intents and purposes at least equivalent to the competitors
- Remember the outcry of the open source community after Novell made the agreement with Microsoft regarding the patent protection (fail to find the correct words, you probably know what I mean) for .Net technology: If you are afraid of the risk there, you'll be a customer of Novell I guess.
I agree that RedHat is probably the bigger one (and the "we gained 5% claim is therefor maybe misleading), but - pulling numbers from ... nowhere.. I'd rather put them at 30 (Novell) vs 60 (Redhat) % of the market.
1: https://build.opensuse.org/
2: http://susestudio.com/
Ironically I read this as "We've got Ubuntu and RedHat/Fedora/CentOS; we don't need Novell."
o CentOS - which is pretty bog standard for large web environments that are RPM Based that need to, for whatever reason, stay close to the RHEL platform.
o RHEL - For anybody who needs RedHat Support, or needs to be able to tell Oracle (or other enterprise vendor) they are running on a supported platform. Or they are just PHBs that need the comfort of deploying "Supported" environments.
o Ubuntu - This is a bit of an outlier, but we have a number of Debian Snobs who have a preference for the apt/dpkg/deb way of doing things, and Ubuntu, particularly LTS, seems to have some mindshare here.
Nobody mentioned Suse, though this is in Silicon Valley, and I get the sense that Novell doesn't have as much presence here.