|
Several years ago, a manager of our company voiced issues that he felt
were major obstacles in recommending Linux as a platform on which we might
install.
Recently, several clients have requested the consideration of Linux as
a viable installation option and the email that contained his concerns
was forwarded to me, and I was asked to respond to the original concerns.
Before responding, I did a little research and found some very telling
information at the following sites:
The story of the Linux Kernel by Linus Torvalds, its creator, and
Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 versus Unix
which is an article telling the benefits of unix in general over the windows
environment. The former explains why Linux is so much faster than
any other operating system, including other Unix platforms, and the latter
includes specifics dealing with Linux and how cost-efficient it is.
Here are my thoughts on Linux/uniVerse from the perspective of
addressing the concerns voiced by management. Since these concerns
were stated several years ago, we may find, upon closer inspection
and a revisit of the issues, that we can propose a viable and acceptable
alternative upon which to run the legacy product.
Issue 1: the dynamic nature of open source and specifically
the Linux kernel.
A: All kernels change with each new release. The fact that Linux
changes are open source causes them to be made more rapidly. This is
positive because fixes are available almost immediately. Another major
advantage of the open source kernel is this: If we have an issue that we
consider major, we can submit to the open source community our recommendations
and affect a change in our favor that would become permanent. Future "tuning"
would become unnecessary for that issue. We would never have to be directly
involved in developing the kernel. Currently, when we have to make OS level
changes, we have to rebuild the kernels of HP, IBM and other platforms. This
won't be affected by whether or not the kernel is open source or not, other
than those changes we regularly have to make in HP and IBM kernels becoming
permanent for future releases. With the Linux kernel, we could adjust the
settings we need to, build the kernel, and use it for all our applicable
installs. Build the kernel once, distribute it many times. That's not only
unfeasible with our other vendors, but impractible and would be disallowed
by them. We could also just have HP or IBM or Varmark do it for us, since
they now support Linux the same way they support their other OSes. This
becomes an argument FOR rather than AGAINST Linux.
Careful consideration, however, has been made by our vendors, as to which
distribution of Linux to choose. They have made the choice of RedHat Linux
because it has been packaged as a solid, reliable server. Over 80% of all
servers installed worldwide during 1999 were Linux servers. The vast majority
of those were RedHat servers.
Issue 2: qualifying device drivers.
A: The Linux kernel is a macro-kernel (See
http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-1999-03/lw-03-opensources_p.html
for the benefits of a macro-kernel), unlike all other "commercial"
vendors, such as SCO, HP, IBM, etc. This means that all the drivers for
peripheral hardware are NOT part of the kernel. This makes a much faster,
more stable and more robust kernel. Hardware devices for which drivers are
necessary are added to the kernel as loadable modules, similar to the way
Netware uses the NLM. This allows for further streamlining of the kernel,
adding to speed and interoperability. Device drivers for peripheral hardware
is becoming a higher priority for vendors. To alleviate concerns for device
driver issues, it is recommended that hardware be assembled from easily
obtainable and readily available inventories. The performance of Linux
alleviates the perceived necessity of other operating systems of assembling
the computers from leading edge components. Using second generation parts
becomes not only desirable, but adds a significant level of trust in
hardware that has already been proven "in the field" so to speak.
Issue 3: application tuning and performance, distribution,
patches to the OS, etc.
A: Issues dealing with performance are highly in favor of Linux as
it has proven to outperform every other OS on which we currently install. The
distribution of the OS and patches thereto are done by the open source
community, various vendors, such as RedHat, Debian, etc. and once a single
source is chosen, we can burn our own CDs for cost and distribute the kernel
as we see fit. This is a tremendous advantage because we can address our
concerns once, burn that into our distribution master CD and then not have
to re-tune every client we sell.
Issue 4: Our company should focus on the continued
development and maintenance of our legacy software, rather than
diluting it with Linux OS support and maintenance for which there is little
to be had in return.
A: We currently do no OS research and maintenance for other platforms
and have no cause to believe we would need to do so for Linux. There are more
vendors who support Linux than any other OS on which we currently install.
In this regard, Linux becomes just another platform we might offer without the
added cost of maintaining it. Varmark, HP, IBM and others offer support on
a 7X24 basis. We don't do OS support now. We wouldn't have to do it for Linux.
Summary: Linux is virtually free. It has an unlimited user license.
It has proven to be incredibly fast, versatile, reliable and predictable.
There is potential to serve our clients a product that outperforms every
other platform on which we install. It might be considered prudent to offer
it as an alternative to NT/2000, HP, IBM or other high-cost,
high-maintenance platforms.
|