[Linux-aus] Re: [Talk] Computerworld: Linux 'not ready' for enterprise IT

[Con Zymaris]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 11:20:36AM +1000, David J N Begley wrote:
> Earlier today, Con Zymaris wrote:
> 
> > Let's follow the logic:
> [...]
> >  software updates," Whyte said. "We are missing out on the latest
> >  Linux features because the commercial software we are using can't
> >  keep up with the kernel development. Hence, we are locked in to older
> >  versions."
> [...]
> > So, what Andrew Whyte is saying is that because vendors (Sun, Oracle, IBM
> > etc.) can't keep up with advancements with the Linux kernel, then Linux
> > isn't ready for the enterprise.
> 
> Actually, I interpreted this as being because the commercial software vendors
> (eg., Oracle, etc.) don't keep up with latest advances in the underlying
> operating system (the kernel being an easy target here), he's stuck running
> older versions of Linux in order to support those applications.

I interpreted this the same way. 

No, it's not a Linux-specific problem. Yes, it is a problem if you need
features in the enterprise application that you can't have because that
requires a newer kernel. No, it doesn't mean that Linux isn't 'enterprise
ready', it just means that vendors aren't keeping up, which as I
suggested, is only a problem if you're missing out on must-have underlying
OS features.

> 
> This is a real problem, but it's not a Linux-specific problem (for example, we
> have to run older versions of Solaris in order to be covered by Oracle support
> for certain versions of Oracle - and you have to run certain versions of
> Oracle in order to be covered by support for the apps running atop Oracle,
> etc.).

Which is the same for any platform Oracle (Peoplesoft et al) run on. It 
only becomse a 'Linux is not ready for the enterprise' problem when you 
don't have kernel-level features in situ that you absolutely need.

> 
> Then again, maybe I'm just plain wrong - it's been a long day already...

hehe.

I am also in discord with Andrew's comment about the disparity between
installs for Solaris and Linux. Explicitly:

 "The choice to move to Linux from Sun was prompted partly due to cost and 
 the applications " Blackboard (an online course content system) and the 
 Veritas clustering software  both run on Solaris so at least there would 
 no wasted knowledge investment if we needed to migrate back," he said. 
 "It took me two weeks to build the Linux clusters which would have taken 
 two days with Solaris."

I know many would claim the complexity of installs (particularly when you 
couple extended toolsets like Perl, Python, Apache and a hundred others) 
on a clustered Linux domain is far less than the corresponding Solaris, 
but that all boils down to what you are used to. YMMV. This isn't, once 
again, a problem with Linux.

I've cc:d Andrew Whyte in so he can respond. We may be mis-interpreting 
his notions and comments to the journalist.

Cheers,

Con Zymaris
EDITOR
AUUGN - Australian Unix Users Group Newsletter
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
Con Zymaris <conz at cyber.com.au> Level 4, 10 Queen St, Melbourne 03 9621 2377 
Cybersource: Unix/Linux, TCP/IP and Web App. Development  www.cyber.com.au