I've actually been impressed...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| caitlyn Aug 06, 2009 2:26 PM EDT |
I've actually been impressed with the quality of the comments and the discussion over on O'Reilly this time around. LXers are invited to add their two cents even if they disagree with me :) While I likely won't write more about CentOS anytime soon this may lead to new articles on the role of community vs. corporate vs. other organizations in FLOSS in general. |
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 06, 2009 2:56 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, you wrote exactly what I was thinking regarding the ephemeral nature of software projects that depend on a very small number of volunteers. I think we're at once extremely grateful that these groups are providing software for us. But there's a lot to be said for having the peace of mind that comes with a project with many more "failsafes" as far as the structure and governance of the development and security teams. ------------- I just went over to the O'Reilly link, and I, too, am impressed by the depth and quality of the discussion. To choose among RHEL, CentOS, Scientific Linux, Ubuntu, Suse, etc. is not as clear-cut as some might think. For those who favor a RH-type distro, however, it's very nice to have so many choices (including Fedora). I'm not sure what Novell is gaining by either not encouraging or not allowing any SLES-like distributions beyond OpenSuse. You lose a lot of mindshare. |
| caitlyn Aug 06, 2009 3:04 PM EDT |
Thanks, Steven. It took me a very long time to come to that conclusion. The situation with Lance Davis at CentOS was really only a minor hiccup at that distro that was blown way out of proportion. To me, though, it was important because it caused me to rethink what FOSS projects are, what they mean to me, and how I should apply those thoughts to my business and my life in general. Yes, I greatly respect the folks who do something just because they can for the good of the community. Dag Wieers is a great example from CentOS. He has built thousands of packages for RHEL/CentOS/Scientific Linux to try and make it a better desktop computing experience and fill in the gaps. He has done tremendous work. What, G-d forbid, happens to that work if something unfortunate happens to him? I also remember Patrick Volkerding's health scare a few years back and the concerns it raised regarding Slackware. I may admire what Mr. Volkerding has done with Slackware but I sure can't recommend it for business use. This week I've worked a lot with two distros, Pardus, which is funded by the Turkish government, and Scientific Linux, which has well funded laboratories and universities behind it. Neither is less free or less open than a community project. Both have community involvement. They also have the foundation and backing to assure their futures. |
| bigg Aug 06, 2009 3:39 PM EDT |
In what way are any of these distros safer than Slackware? Take Scientific Linux. That's really unsafe. If one of those organizations has to take a cut in funding, there goes Scientific Linux. What if the Turkish government stops supporting Pardus? Depending on funding from politicians is not much different from going to Vegas to build up operating funds for a business. If Shuttleworth gets tired of Ubuntu, that distro goes down the drain. All you have is the assurance that the code is open and can be picked up by the community. You talk about PV's health scare as if that is a unique event. |
| caitlyn Aug 06, 2009 4:32 PM EDT |
@bigg: Lets just say I disagee with you 150% if that is possible. Scientific Linux has the backing of multiple government institutions around the world. Fermilab and CERN, for example, have been around for decades. Any one of them taking a funding cut wouldn't seriously impact SL since the others could and would take up the slack. Are you really trying to tell me they are less stable than a one man show? Really? Seriously? There was a report last year which I reported on for DistroWatch about how many millions of dollars Pardus has saved the Turkish government and Turkish business. See: http://www.osor.eu/case_studies/a-new-kid-on-the-block-the-t... Do you really believe a major government is going to cut something that saves it money? Do you really believe that governments are less stable than a handful of volunteers? Do you really believe that government backing does nothing to insure stability? I find it hard to believe that you are even making this argument seriously. |
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 06, 2009 4:55 PM EDT |
Regarding Ubuntu, since it is based so heavily on Debian, there's that option. And the Shuttleworth millions still don't account for the huge community of developers and users that work on and with the distro. I bet it would do fine w/o Canonical. |
| bigg Aug 06, 2009 7:20 PM EDT |
> Are you really trying to tell me they are less stable than a one man show I was talking about Slackware, not a one man show. Yes Patrick does much of the work. However, a lot of work is done by others. Why is it okay to assume that others will do the work for Scientific Linux, with a very small user base, but not for Slackware which has many times more users with much technical expertise? I also never said they are less stable than Slackware. You made a clear, authoritative, unambiguous statement that relying on Slackware is very dangerous and that it is much riskier than relying on these other distros. I disagree. > Do you really believe that government backing does nothing to insure stability? You can only ask that question if you have not had years of experience working with governments. A prominent example is the Texas Supercollider project. With governments and nonprofits, you get a memo that starts with "Effective immediately...", and that's it. No appeal. No additional funding. No argument about what should be done. A decision is made and the project is dead. So yes, I would classify any project that is heavily dependent on government funding or the funding of a research institution as extremely risky. I've seen too many examples to not be scared away. |
| garymax Aug 06, 2009 8:24 PM EDT |
|
| garymax Aug 06, 2009 8:28 PM EDT |
( |
| caitlyn Aug 06, 2009 8:53 PM EDT |
I am not, nor have I ever been, a Vector Linux dev. Sorry, garymax, I wish I could claim that one on my resume. @bigg: I have worked for government, or at least for a very large federal government contract on site at a U.S. government agency. Scientific Linux has the advantage of being supported my multiple governments (U.S., E.U., Swiss, others...) so no one government can pull the plug. I also doubt that the user base is as small as you make it out to be. So, yes, I do have more confidence in its future than in Slackware's. Slackware, which doesn't even implement PAM, is also unsuitable for enterprise use from a security standpoint. That's an entirely different discussion, of course. Having worked for Red Hat and with the Vector Linux devs I sure wouldn't want my business to depend on a small distro, even a very good, well thought out one that gets security patches out on time. |
| garymax Aug 06, 2009 9:11 PM EDT |
|
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 06, 2009 9:12 PM EDT |
Slackware sure seems to put out security patches on time. That's one thing I've noticed. And the team supports releases for a helluva long time. Both points in Slackware's favor. |
| caitlyn Aug 06, 2009 9:19 PM EDT |
@Steven: I agree with both of those points. @garymax: I was a volunteer packager at one point and a repo maintainer for a few months. That's how I got my name on the crawl. Right now I'm nothing but a user and I am seriously thinking of applying my standards for business to my own usage as well. If I do that, which seems likely, I won't even be a user anymore. |
| jdixon Aug 06, 2009 9:43 PM EDT |
> So yes, I would classify any project that is heavily dependent on government funding or the funding of a research institution as extremely risky. While I don't want to get too involved in the larger discussion (I assume my views on Slackware are well known to all concerned), I must agree with bigg about this particular point. Government funding can and does disappear overnight, often with little or no warning. Being backed by a government is not a panacea. Corporations, even large ones, can also disappear almost overnight (Enron and Worldcom are good examples). There are very few certainties in this world. |
| tuxchick Aug 06, 2009 10:37 PM EDT |
Even when a distro fails it's not catastrophic for its users. Inconvenient, but not a major problem. Just pick up another one and move on. |
| jdixon Aug 06, 2009 10:51 PM EDT |
> Even when a distro fails it's not catastrophic for its users. From a business perspective, it's slightly more difficult when you're talking dozens to possibly thousands of machines, some of which are mission critical and can't easily be removed from service. For that reason, I can understand Caitlyn's point. I just think she's overestimating the stability of corporate and government support. |
| tuxchick Aug 06, 2009 10:58 PM EDT |
True jdixon, but nowhere near as disruptive as when a closed, proprietary application or OS goes toes-up. Compare to upgrading to a new Windows release-- that is the definition of pain. Or worse, losing your OS entirely, like OS/2. |
| garymax Aug 06, 2009 11:08 PM EDT |
|
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 06, 2009 11:10 PM EDT |
From my perspective, the decision NOT to use a distro maintained by a small group or individual is a painful one. When I'm testing out distros, that's one thing. Now I'm at a point where I was actually using this stuff for my day-to-day computing, and I need: 1) things to work, 2) patches to be swift, 3) upgrades to be easy, 4) all the apps I need to be there and easy to install, 5) development to be ongoing and 6) a reasonable expectation that the project will continue. I keep backups. I can roll out new installations. But for productivity's sake, I'd rather not be forced to do that. |
| garymax Aug 06, 2009 11:38 PM EDT |
|
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 06, 2009 11:49 PM EDT |
I like my cabinets to ship with GNOME and OpenOffice ... |
| caitlyn Aug 07, 2009 12:14 AM EDT |
@tuxchick: OS/2 is alive and well. It was sold to Serenity Systems and is now called eCommStation. A new version came out earlier this year with all the latest hardware support. Die hard OS/2 users suffered no disruption at all if they were willing to shell out for an upgrade. @Steven_Rosenberg: You made my points exactly. I think that's also what enterprise users look for, plus they almost always want commercial support from the distributor to be available even if they choose not to buy it. It is seen almost as an insurance policy. @garymax: I am really sick and freaking tired of the Slackware provides higher quality and stability. Pardon my French but... B*LLSH*T! Red Hat Enterprise Linux is every bit as stable and reliable as Slackware. I've supported literally thousands of servers that just hummed along the way they were supposed to. They were also way easier to administer that Slackware thanks to tools like Red Hat Satellite Server. Oh, and they had reasonable enterprise security, PAM and SELinux, which Slackware utterly lacks. Slackware is a technically sound if bare bones distro built to 1990s standards. Very nice if you like that and like puttering. It is not and will never be suitable for business use, which was the subject of this article. For your personal hobbyist use, fine, use what you like. For business? A small group of developers, a single person on whom the distro really seems to depend, a lack of commercial support, no corporate structure... How on earth do you sell THAT? Answer: you really can't. I honestly wouldn't want to anyway. I'd be doing my clients, regardless of size, a great disservice if I did. Slackware fans think there distro is the be all and the end all for Linux. The other 99% of the Linux community will never see it that way. I am not going to drink that Kool Aid and commit business suicide. I can recite the strong points of Slackware all day. It is stable. It is reliable. It is supported for a long time. It has relatively few bugs. It gets security patches out promptly without fail. All those are important things and Slackware does them brilliantly. Patrick Volkerding deserves kudos for all of the above. Slackware is a tremendous accomplishment for a small team. Red Hat also offers all of the above and much, much more in a very professional package with a first class support organization behind it. Slackware has lasted 15 years. G-d forbid something happens to Mr. Volkerding and I am not sure it will be around in another five. Red Hat, a successful and profitable company, isn't going anywhere. Since their code is GPL and has an overwhelming market share in enterprise space if something did happen to the company another company would turn around and service their customers and hire their engineers. You may not see the importance of organizational (corporate, government, or institutional support) but probably 99% of IT Directors and business owners do. That is the world this article addressed. I have to live in the real world. |
| garymax Aug 07, 2009 3:16 AM EDT |
|
| garymax Aug 07, 2009 3:36 AM EDT |
|
| Sander_Marechal Aug 07, 2009 4:46 AM EDT |
Edit: Nevermind. |
| krisum Aug 07, 2009 4:55 AM EDT |
@garymaxQuoting: (Here we go again with yet another caitlyn misread): I NEVER said that Red Hat was not stable, or that it was a bad distro.Sorry but it is you have done the misreading, and probably deliberately so. Here is what you said: Quoting: Now, 7 years later, I consider the difference between, say, Red Hat and Slackware to be along the lines of kitchen cabinetry.And then went on about how Slackware is of higher quality than RedHat's products. Caitlyn's reply was to that point viz. your claim that Slackware is of higher quality. She never made any "misread" regarding your opinion being that RedHat is not stable or made any comment to that effect. Her response was to your comment before which is obvious. She was not talking only about Slackware not being a good fit for businesses, something which you apparently agree with, rather responding more to this claim from your side. What need is there to take context of whole thread when your previous comment was clear and unambiguous that Slackware is of higher quality than RedHat? Now if only you have something to say about the points Caitlyn really made then your comments will make more sense... Edit: since garymax probably had second thoughts on the comments and has removed them, the above can be ignored |
| azerthoth Aug 07, 2009 5:01 AM EDT |
unfortunatly I didnt get to read his comments. bad form garymax, bad form. Makes the conversation non sensical. If you cant own up to what you said, right wrong or indifferent then you probably shouldnt have said them. It also says alot about your character. tisk tisk |
| bigg Aug 07, 2009 7:17 AM EDT |
I'm a bit confused about Caitlyn's argument. I thought the discussion (at least the one I participated in) was about RHEL clones. There's a big difference between RHEL and the clones. If I want support, I go with Red Hat. If I don't want to buy support, the choice is not as clear-cut.Quoting:You may not see the importance of organizational (corporate, government, or institutional support) but probably 99% of IT Directors and business owners do. That is the world this article addressed. I have to live in the real world. This is a statement that has me scratching my head. If you are in that position, I don't see a RHEL clone being an obvious choice, for the reasons stated above. Debian may well be the safest of the stable distributions. |
| TxtEdMacs Aug 07, 2009 8:11 AM EDT |
garymax, I must be going completely deaf. i have not heard any of your comments in this thread. So would you please use sign language and cite a reference to help me interpret their meaning? All these people are yelling at you and all I see are a few quotes, but I heard nothing, nothing ... YBT |
| jdixon Aug 07, 2009 11:17 AM EDT |
> Red Hat Enterprise Linux is every bit as stable and reliable as Slackware. Well, having used both Red Hat and Slackware, I disagree. But the difference is negligible for most people. And... > They were also way easier to administer that Slackware thanks to tools like Red Hat Satellite Server. Oh, and they had reasonable enterprise security, PAM and SELinux, which Slackware utterly lacks. ...are valid points for those who want/need them. For those people, Red Hat is almost certainly the better choice. > Slackware fans think there distro is the be all and the end all for Linux. Not hardly. It's the best distro for me. That doesn't make it the best for anyone else. Especially since "ease of use is subjective". :) > Red Hat also offers all of the above and much, much more in a very professional package with a first class support organization behind it. Well, as already noted I disagree that it offers all of the above. I agree with the rest. > Red Hat, a successful and profitable company, isn't going anywhere. Red Hat could be bought out by any of dozens of companies and shut down completely tomorrow. They've only recently made the S&P 500. > if something did happen to the company another company would turn around and service their customers and hire their engineers. If Red Hat disappeared, most of it's users would probably move to Novell, as that's the company which comes closest to offering the same services. No one else comes close. Either a new company would have to be formed to replace Red Hat, or an existing company would have to expand into that space (Mandriva, perhaps). Neither of those are a given, and there's no guarantee the service would even approach that of Red Hat. > You may not see the importance of organizational (corporate, government, or institutional support) but probably 99% of IT Directors and business owners do. I see that other people want it, and I understand why they want it. The fact that I don't agree with them is immaterial. I'm not them. > I have to live in the real world. That would be the real world as those folks (business owners and IT directors from above) define it. I prefer to live in the world as I see it. Whether my view of the world or theirs is the correct one is a debatable matter. |
| jdixon Aug 07, 2009 11:21 AM EDT |
> If I want support, I go with Red Hat. If I don't want to buy support, the choice is not as clear-cut. With the exceptions that we're talking corporate support on both ends, and that Novell is also an option, that pretty much sums it up, yes. |
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 07, 2009 6:42 PM EDT |
I don't know what the conditions are on the ground, but Red Hat could very well be bought up by any number of other companies, and I don't see any scenarios where that would benefit the Linux community. |
| caitlyn Aug 07, 2009 10:14 PM EDT |
This thread was in response to an article I wrote about CentOS and why I can't recommend it for business use any longer. When the Slackware issue was raised I assumed that it wasn't a non-sequitor. I assumed we were still talking about business use. If you read the original article I had two reasons to object to CentOS for business/enterprise use. The biggest problem is that for the last year they just can't seem to get security patches out on an even remotely timely basis with any sort of consistency. The second is that they are a small group of volunteers who recently had an incident that was, at best, unprofessional and illustrated how small projects can fall apart easily. I offered an alternative for those who wanted Red Hat Enterprise Linux but didn't want to pay for the software subscription. Examples I gave were companies who were saving money by buying fully licensed RHEL for production systems and using the free alternative for non-critical development boxes and for small companies and non-profits who simply can't afford RHEL in this economy. Staying with a RHEL clone has two advantages: first, it is dirt simple to migrate to RHEL later if needed. Second, you are using what the overwhelming majority of businesses and organizations who run Linux in North America use. Finding people who know RHEL is pretty easy. Others, except for maybe Novell/SUSE, not so much. Quoting:That would be the real world as those folks (business owners and IT directors from above) define it. I prefer to live in the world as I see it. Whether my view of the world or theirs is the correct one is a debatable matter. What you are saying is that your argument simply doesn't pertain to my article or my comments. Fine, I accept that. The discussion, as defined by the article, is business and enterprise use. I never, ever criticized your choice of Slackware for personal use. As far as Red Hat stability is concerned, again, I've been part of a team that has supported literally thousands of RH servers. I know of RH servers that have uptime measured in years. It's pretty hard to beat that for stability. Actually, it's impossible. Also note that I never said that Slackware is in any way inferior in terms of stability and reliability. I actually said quite the opposite. My objections were to comments garymax has since removed so they don't make nearly as much sense as they did in context. It wasn't an anti-Slackware rant. It was a rant against how, when compared to kitchen cabinets, Slackware are fine, hand made cabinets worth spending lots extra for and Red Hat are cheap, commercially made, mass produced products that are intrinsically inferior. I called B.S. on that. |
| jdixon Aug 07, 2009 10:59 PM EDT |
> What you are saying is that your argument simply doesn't pertain to my article or my comments. Not quite, but close enough. :) In a perhaps roundabout way, I'm saying the preconceptions that those people bring to the table rule out a lot of options. many of which might otherwise be legitimate. However, I also recognize that there's no point in trying to fight those preconceptions, and that mine are equally problematic. > I never, ever criticized your choice of Slackware for personal use. I understood that. I also agree with you that most business people will find Red Hat a far better fit for what they want then a distro like Slackware, Mepis, or PCLinuxOS, to name three very good example distros. > Also note that I never said that Slackware is in any way inferior in terms of stability and reliability. I actually said quite the opposite. No, you've never impugned Slackware's stability or reliability in any way that I'm aware of. In fact, the only area we disagree on is Slackware's ease of use. > ...when compared to kitchen cabinets, Slackware are fine, hand made cabinets worth spending lots extra for and Red Hat are cheap, commercially made, mass produced products that are intrinsically inferior. Hmm, I can see how garymax gets to that conclusion, but I don't think it's valid. If I were going to use an analogy like that, I'd say it's more like comparing a hand crafted kitchen cabinet to a government spec'ed chemical (or other equivalent) storage cabinet. The crafting may be equally good, but they're aimed at different markets. He's right in that the hand crafted kitchen cabinet is better for your kitchen, but you'd have an OSHA violation if you tried to use it to store chemicals at a business, even if it were capable of doing so, because it hasn't been approved by the government. |
| caitlyn Aug 08, 2009 1:49 AM EDT |
@jdixon: Ease of use is actually not something I consider terribly important for enterprise servers. I expect those to be managed by professionals. I also expect Linux professionals to be completely comfortable at the command line so the lack of some GUI tools in Slackware is a complete non-issue. In other words, within the context of the article and this discussion we probably don't disagree on much :) I actually think Red Hat's GNOME desktop is reasonably pretty and well executed so I'm not sure I'd agree with your analogy either. Of course, pretty is another non-issue on the server. Your point, though, that Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Slackware serve very different purposes and are targeted at very different user communities is right on the mark. In regard to preconceptions by business people about FOSS and community support, it has often been said by many people that business people in general just don't get FOSS. There is a large degree of truth in that. It is also true that a lot of geeks including many technical professionals just can't see things from a business perspective. IME there is a lot of truth in that as well. In my two stretches running a consulting business totaling 13 years of my career I think my greatest strength is not my technical skills. Lots of people have really good technical skills, I think it's that I have been able to look at things from a business owner's or IT manager's perspective, perhaps because I've been in both roles myself. I don't believe I have any great talent for marketing. Quite the opposite. Where I do succeed I think it's likely because I can frame things in a way business people understand and put things in a perspective they are comfortable with. I think a lot of the push back I've received on my comments about CentOS stems from the fact that I have framed things from a business perspective and not from a geek or FOSS community perspective. @azerthoth: I somehow missed your comment before. I, personally, wouldn't impugn garymax' character. All of us are capable of reacting badly in the heat of the moment and saying something we later regret. If that is garymax' reason for deleting his comments I can respect that. I never saw his responses to me except for the brief bit that was quoted so I can't comment on the content. |
| azerthoth Aug 08, 2009 2:37 AM EDT |
perhaps caitlyn, however I am of the firm opinion that words and actions define who we are at our core. You can not unsay something, you can apologize, walk away, or call everyone who doesn't see your point mentally deficient. However attempting to remove proof that you said something right, wrong, or indifferent is unconscionable. |
| bigg Aug 08, 2009 6:53 AM EDT |
@caitlyn If you don't want it to be a discussion about Slackware, don't casually toss out things like, "By the way, you'd have to be insane to use Slackware. As anyone other than nosering-wearing fanbois knows, it is very risky. It'll disappear tomorrow and then you'll have your legs and arms cut off." I didn't understand why you made the comment in the first place, except for the fact that you want to push the buttons of Slackware users, but it's still a fact that you started the conversation on Slackware and some of us felt compelled to respond. |
| jdixon Aug 08, 2009 10:53 AM EDT |
> I actually think Red Hat's GNOME desktop is reasonably pretty and well executed so I'm not sure I'd agree with your analogy either. Well, that's part of what I meant by the crafting being equally good. I'm sorry it didn't come across properly. The cabinet looks just as good, it simply doesn't quite fit into a kitchen setting, if that makes any sense. > ...it has often been said by many people that business people in general just don't get FOSS. There is a large degree of truth in that Yep. > It is also true that a lot of geeks including many technical professionals just can't see things from a business perspective. Again, yep. AFAICT, I'm perfectly capable of seeing things from a business perspective if I want to, I just have very little interest in doing so. |
| caitlyn Aug 08, 2009 1:39 PM EDT |
@bigg: I'm going to call B.S. on you just as I did on Garymax. Patrick Volkerding's health scare and the concerns it raised about Slackware were a primary example of why small distros, including Slackware, which is very close to a one man show, are problematic. It was a perfectly valid example considering the topic up for discussion. Someone can disagree with that with no problem without going off on how superior in every respect Slackware is like Garymax did. My example is nothing like what you wrote. Your recharacterization of my comment is over the top hyperbole at best and an attempt to start a flame war at worst. |
| gus3 Aug 08, 2009 4:49 PM EDT |
@caitlyn: Look at the -current ChangeLog.txt and you'll see that Slackware is far from a one-man show. Patrick thanks many people who pull a lot of weight. If he had to give it all up tomorrow, work on it would continue. |
| bigg Aug 09, 2009 4:29 PM EDT |
@gus Nevermind. Caitlyn is obviously not interested in facts. She has made her point and she's sticking to it. She's defined Slackware as a one-man show and she's defined government funded distros as extremely safe. We'll just have to accept it. |
| caitlyn Aug 09, 2009 5:33 PM EDT |
@bigg: I guess I get to call B.S. on you twice, or perhaps you are totally uninterested in facts and only interested in flaming me. OK, Slackware isn't a one man show. It's a group of volunteers just like CentOS. Same objections apply, of course, but I get my facts straight this way. How many government funded distros did I talk about? Let's see, Pardus and MoLinux weren't mentioned in my article. I guess that makes none. Scientific Linux is funded by multiple institutions which, in turn, are funded by multiple governments. Who isn't getting their facts straight now? No, I don't have to accept your fictions, especially when your fictions are talking trash about me. |
| bigg Aug 09, 2009 6:26 PM EDT |
Just in case it slipped your mind:Quoting:I also remember Patrick Volkerding's health scare a few years back and the concerns it raised regarding Slackware. I may admire what Mr. Volkerding has done with Slackware but I sure can't recommend it for business use. I will leave it at that, because it is obvious to any objective reader that you are (a) defining Slackware as risky, and (b) saying Pardus and Scientific Linux are much safer because of government and institutional backing, and that is what I'm responding to. Call whatever you want. |
| bigg Aug 09, 2009 6:29 PM EDT |
And just in case you decide to edit your post, here is what the last post is responding to:Quoting:How many government funded distros did I talk about? Let's see, Pardus and MoLinux weren't mentioned in my article. I guess that makes none. Scientific Linux is funded by multiple institutions which, in turn, are funded by multiple governments. Who isn't getting their facts straight now? Clearly we have different definitions of "fiction" and "talking trash". |
| jdixon Aug 09, 2009 11:05 PM EDT |
> Clearly we have different definitions of "fiction" and "talking trash". Guys, while it should be obvious I disagree with Caitlyn about the risks associated with Slackware, and about the lack of risks associated with government/institutional backing; she's talking about distros for business use. And whether any of us like it or not, the things most business folks want from a distro aren't the same things you or I want. Seen through that lens, Caitlyn is almost certainly correct about the most suitable distro for their use. Now, whether that lens provides an accurate view of reality is another matter entirely, and I think my opinion on that matter should also be pretty obvious. |
| caitlyn Aug 10, 2009 2:31 AM EDT |
Quoting:I will leave it at that, because it is obvious to any objective reader that you are (a) defining Slackware as risky, and (b) saying Pardus and Scientific Linux are much safer because of government and institutional backing, and that is what I'm responding to. Call whatever you want. That does accurately reflect my views as expressed in the article and here, but as jdixon points out, that has to be taken in the context of the article, which is business/enterprise use. The risk on a personal system is, by comparison, minimal, because changing distros where the quantity of systems is very small is much, much less work. jdixon is also entirely correct that my views represent a business perspective, not a home/geek user perspective, and should be taken as such. If you asked me if Slackware is risky to use at home on a personal machine my answer would be a resounding "no", I have Slackware 13 rc2 installed here. The system is multi-boot so if Slackware were to disappear tomorrow (which is highly unlikely) what have I lost? Again, everything has to be put in context. |
| bigg Aug 10, 2009 6:37 AM EDT |
Context is not relevant. The risk that we are talking about is the risk that Slackware will not be supported in the future vs one of the other distros not being supported. This is a matter of assigning probabilities to events. How the probabilities affect your decisions (which is where context matters) is a different issue. Event 1: PV stops providing updates (security or releases) of Slackware, and the community is unsuccessful at replacing PV, so Slackware is dead and a business relying on Slackware is in serious trouble. Event 2: The institutional or government funding for the other distros ends, so businesses relying on the distro are in serious trouble. There's a simple way to assess risk. If Pr[Event 1] > Pr[Event 2], Slackware is riskier. If Pr[Event 1] < Pr[Event 2], Slackware is less risky. From what I've seen, Pr[Event 1] is much smaller than Pr[Event 2]. This is particularly true given the state of the economy and the fact that institutions/governments are one lunch with a Microsoft rep from dropping the project. |
| gus3 Aug 10, 2009 9:14 AM EDT |
@bigg: Methinks you forgot to turn "<" into "<". (Please, God, let this post correctly so I don't have to edit it...) |
| bigg Aug 10, 2009 10:21 AM EDT |
@gus: Thanks, I actually wanted to use a double < to signal "much less than". Luckily it only ate my last sentence. |
| jdixon Aug 10, 2009 12:03 PM EDT |
> f Pr[Event 1] > Pr[Event 2], Slackware is riskier. If Pr[Event 1] < Pr[Event 2], Slackware is less risky. From what I've seen, Pr[Event 1] is much smaller than Pr[Event 2]. Even if not, Patrick could be replaced. Replacing government/institutional funding? Well, good luck with that. Not to say that it can't be done. There are people who are good at doing that kind of thing. They're called lobbyists, and they're well paid for their efforts. What's that? You're a small business and don't have that kind of money to spend? Well, see my above comment. However, Caitlyn's point still stands. In the environment she's deaing with, the above argument will go in one ear and out the other, and they'll look at you as if you're speaking Greek. If you continue in the hopeless task of trying to explain it to them, they'll eventually call security to escort you off the premises. In such an environment, Slackware is not going to be considered. Oh, the IT department may use it internally for one off projects or personal IT use, but management will never hear about that, and will threaten to fire folks if they do find out. To do her job, Caitlyn has to deal with the reality those folks define, whether it actually exists or not. Doing otherwise puts her out of a job. |
| caitlyn Aug 10, 2009 1:17 PM EDT |
@jdixon: Thank you. That is precisely why context DOES matter and why the article was framed the way it was. The title itself talks about business. |
| bigg Aug 10, 2009 2:34 PM EDT |
Let's end this discussion. I don't think it is useful to go on. |
| krisum Aug 12, 2009 1:10 AM EDT |
Quoting: Replacing government/institutional funding? Well, good luck with that.Why so? Just as with any other FOSS project it could as well be picked up by anyone interested so even in such a case it will, arguably, still not be any worse off than Slackware or CentOS for that matter. |
| bigg Aug 12, 2009 6:19 AM EDT |
> even in such a case it will, arguably, still not be any worse off than Slackware or CentOS for that matter That's not the point. Caitlyn is arguing that government and/or institution funding make a distribution safer. I read such statements with shock. |
| jdixon Aug 12, 2009 10:05 AM EDT |
> ...Just as with any other FOSS project it could as well be picked up by anyone interested... Yes, it could. What's that got to do with government/institutional funding? |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!