Comment Re:FreeBSD (Score 1) 123
What 14 years?
http://web.archive.org/web/199...
If RH never made another release, there would be similar disruption.
I doubt it. There is an OSS-based fork with many of the features RH clients actually use. Its called CentOS, and that alone is what drives the RH ecosystem. Very few customers actually *run* RH, and those who do usually do it for compliance and certfication issues (think about SAP and Oracle installs).
That doom theorycrafting is irrelevant to my question.
You made no question.
That's also irrelevant. They are distros from a business standpoint. CentOS being interchangeable with Fedora since forever. How they came to be is a footnote.
CentOS has a user base that is probably an order of magnitude bigger than RH. So proportionally, you're just agreeing with me. They are small fish.
My question was about relative usage and some way to measure that metric other than guesswork, as a challenge to the assertion that RH is "a marginal player". systemd adoption in RH is mentioned in 100% of the "discussions" on the topic. So someone here is showing bias.
RH is a company. There are already established metrics for that. Its a mix between revenue and net profit, usually. And as I've shown you, RH is a marginal player.
If you were going to address the issue in an objective manner, you might note Debian, tends to identify itself when you run fingerprinting on servers (e.g. Apache and Nginx). Debian tends to be the most common identifier! Nobody believes the bulk of the responses (with no OS identifiers) are all non-RH (some will be slack, some debian, some gentoo, whatever), so that's an interesting metric that isn't definitive.
No one cares about webservers, and I've never seen anybody buying linux (so, RH customers) to run Nginx. Webservers are a commodity, and can be run in whatever you want. There is nothing that makes debian or linux by itself more interesting than the rest. Many new-breed sysadmins are used to ubuntu, thats why they choose debian.
think I understood completely. Attempting to derail into some form of "RH can be replaced" discussion, is of no interest to me.
RH *can* be easily replaced. Its one of those companies that have no real added value in their stack, other than support. See the evolution of sales of RH and compare it to other players, and you'll easily find out that.
Calling RH a marginal player is simply disingenuous, as of today.
The numbers are there. Like it or don't - it is a marginal player.
Also, SAP and CA's sales income is irrelevant for comparison here, since they aren't in the operating system business.
No, they rely on operating systems as a critical part of their business. The day that operating system is a liability, well.. then business sizes matter a lot.
If RH made a change that impacted Oracle or CA - Oracle or CA would have to adapt.
Are you kidding me? RH is the cheap stuff. Oracle pitches the Solaris solutions for the high-end customers (and that is the big reason they bought Sun), and they maintain their own RH-based fork - Unbreakable Linux. So basically, a prime example of what I said.
I continue to hear this and see absolutely no evidence of it. I see evidence to the contrary, in the US, India and Europe, over the last 20 years. Generally, it's RPM/RH that is first listed. It's not alphabetical. This isn't because they are lucky. The simple explanation is that RH is the most frequently used and therefore put at the top as a simple matter of UI layout (most common choices go to the top of a list, within reason).
Here: http://investors.redhat.com/re...
You can also see the report from CA, where they make more in a quarter than a full year of RH: http://www.ca.com/us/news/pres...
This is a fun game, pick me a list that shows more Debian love!
If you rank popularity from the links of the packages, you provably are missing something. I'm a FreeBSD/OpenBSD user, some of the development of Nginx was done in FreeBSD, and you don't even see packages for it in your list. See the flaw in your methodology?
It's what you'd find that you didn't like.
It still is a huge limitation, as you cannot easily sync a local dataset with a remote one.
I assume that's why you ignored Red Shift.
RedShift has a limitation of 16TB per node. Its nice, but not really "big data". Its more like RDS on steroids, and I think RDS is "so-so". Also, you either use sync from/to amazon interfaces, or you're stuck with JBDC, so basically the same limitation you mentioned apply.
I recommend against MSSQL not because it's not a good DB
I'm assuming this is based on your extensive MSSQL experience, right?
but because it's cumbersome to work with outside of the Microsoft ecosystem.
Well, at least MS has half-decent tools for it. Other than Oracle, they're the only player with a decent GUI interface.
You mainly interface with it using ODBC and that's a pain outside of Windows.
Or JBDC. It depends. Its not really Microsoft's fault if it doesn't work in your environment, is it?
You're stuck with windows boxes on the back end AND on the front end.
You just summarized 2/3rds of the corporate world.
You could start your project with Postgres and find out why you're unhappy with it and plan for a migration to something which is better for you post-hoc: Don't write SQL procs, and don't weave your SQL through a whole lot of code.
You could, and then figure out how to integrate it with your environment. And *WHICH* ODBC driver to choose. So, the pain you just described previously, its right there. With a half-assed, subpar connection driver.
The only OSS solution that comes somewhere *near* what MSSQL does is PostgreSQL, and its a second-class citizen in Windows. And even PgSQL is easily suprassed when looking at features and replication options.
Note: I'm a huge PostgreSQL fan, to the point of writing C# applications with the native PostgreSQL driver without LINQ support.I'd take PostgreSQL over MSSQL everyday of the week if reporting tools, support, features, replication and integration doesn't matter. But saying that MSSQL is bad, is just a silly mantra.
(...) in a FOSS environment the USERS get a say in things?
Well, yes and no. Developers also use their own dogfood, and they're a non-trivial percentage of the userbase.
We know what is good for you, you filthy peasant" top down management bullshit that treats the users as ignorant children
As you frequently post lets-call-it-pro-microsoft-stuff (sometimes you hit the head of the nail, sometimes a finger), it's not too much different from what Microsoft (and other companies) try to do. The idea that "users will get used to" was big with Windows XP, and it was a major success. They try to repeat it ever since and fail miseably (although, I look at the metro interface I personally don't use (as an old fart windows user, I demand some consistency) and I think that with a couple of changes, its friggin awesome - light years ahead of what those guys at Canonical are doing.
Compare this to the Linux side where Red Hat is basically pulling a coup and taking over the whole show
Debian has no vote on - nor does it care - about Red Hat policies.
If RH truly thinks their way is better let it sink or swim on the merits, not because all dissent was crushed.
RH is a minority in the landscape where systemd affects systems. When RH (which is, both in business model and revenue, a small player in the IT panorama) starts to hinder, lets say - Oracle or CA interests, they'll be bough or put in line. The widespread adoption of systemd will force other, smaller distros to adopt it, because of software dependency - we've already seen this this Gnome3 and BSD support. It is perfectly normal that a sane person decides to leave because the project he dedicates his time to is no longer the project he joined, but a pawn of corporate interests (Debian is the "de facto" independant linux distro source, and most of the popular distros extend from it).
In short, this is not about the users. It never was. Its about power plays and politics. In Microsoft world, they'd be guidelines and early adoption sneak previews.
One caution is that Windows is not as secure an OS perhaps because there is a rich set of stuff that is darn hard to replace or eliminate.
I haven't seen one single landline direct-connection to the internet since the dialup/adsl days. Most consumers will have a router. The only exception is 3G/4G adapters, but the topic is about firewalling. And unless you're running a DPI appliance to check for binary malware, you're getting those in your windows machines anyway.
A FreeBSD or Linux based firewall+VPN system can be pruned to an astoundingly short list of services and binaries
As can Windows. And you can also take the easy approach of just closing any external port besides the VPN, leaving only potential attacks on the TCP stack and the VPN layer. I actually find funny people that use firewalls on unix systems "as a checklist item"; Most systems don't even require firewall if properly configured. But yeah, lets badmouth windows and forget the ton of distros that allow remote root login via ssh *by default*.
You open up a good context to make the point that a user should use what they know best. If the poster knows how to manage one system and not the other then the best answer for that user is obvious.
No. If the user knew what was best - or at least the options available - he woudn't be asking this. Having guys following tutorials on the internet to configure stuff is not my idea of "secure", and he'd probably be better buying a dedicated appliance with a nice gui interface.While realizing that you exposed something from the internal system or used a weak password for root after your whole network was compromised does have its educational value, it is a dreadful experience for a non-unix nerd.
Full blown Win-Server software that can get the job done costs more than the hardware.
No, not really. Windows has the easiest internet-sharing and vpn configuration wizard you'lll find. And its not half bad, but...
The above is a rather nice little box. At half this price I would buy two.
I have an equivalent box, Instead of pfSense (which, besides the gui and the easy VLAN setup, is a crappy system for everything else), I run FreeBSD 9.2. And I use it everyday to tunnel into my windows machines with RDP via SSH
A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson
