On the other hand, we have a number of other OS platforms, too. We have about 400 NetWare/OES servers, and close to 300 Windows servers, which are used for specific applications and web servers. We have a limited Active Directory deployment, but mostly for people who have a reason to connect to the OS level of the Windows servers. We also run AIX, Solaris, and have an IBM Mainframe. We are also starting to deploy some Red Hat/Centos servers.
We are currently making plans to migrate our existing NetWare servers to OES/Linux, to maintain our directory, file, and print services. But just about everything else is running on other platforms. I guess in a large environment such as ours, it’s not so important to standardize on a single vendor/platform.]]>
“I *have* been using SUSE Linux since 1999 — version 5.2 IIRC. I upgraded from 9.2 to 10.1 at the end of last
year. Two weeks into the upgrade, the announcement about Novell teaming up with Microsoft came out. I could not believe it. I felt betrayed, to say the least.
After trying a few other free distros, I have now settled on running Fedora Core 6. I like it a lot better than SUSE. There were a few major differences, but it did not take long to get used to Fedora Core.
The main differences are the partitioner programs. I now use a stand-alone partitioner program called Gparted. It boots from a live CD, which is handy. That means whatever Linux distro I choose, I still have access to the same partitioner for setting up my hard drives.
SUSE were a bit slow at upgrading their packages to newer versions. FC tends to be the testing ground for RHEL — the installation screen is virtually identical. I think RH likes to test out packages under FC first, then move them across to RHEL when they are satisfied those packages are stable enough for paying customers.
So Microsoft and Novell shacking up together has done me a favor, by helping me to find what I think is a much better distro. What I learned under Fedora Core should make the transition to RHEL very easy. A lot easier than going from SUSE to FC.”]]>
“In a slightly similar vein, I too had moved from a reliable, robust environment that was dying — IBM OS/2 to GNU/Linux, particularly Novell’s SUSE as a sensible choice for progress and good business.
Novell was chosen over Red Hat, although I was familiar with both, since I had been, prior to the Novell purchase of SUSE, a SUSE GMBH of Gernamy reseller and consultant to small businesses. However, my experiences with and treatment by Novell were equally ridiculous. For more than nine months, I attempted without success to get Novell to work with Hotel Property Management System (PMS) software vendor for implementing and configuring Novell SLES9 with one of my hotel clients.
Not only did they agree with but ignore my concerns about the importance of such project collaboration, since it was the first GNU/Linux install for the vendor, but in the end, referred me to a Novell business partner near the client that had long ago abandoned Novell for Microsoft. The partner even told me that they would not ever recommend Novell SuSE (for which they had no-one trained or interested).
The most outrageous, and culminating point of this saga was Novell’s statement to me, from senior officials, that if a new Novell SUSE-certified partner were available to my client, the present Novell partner — as result of their long established relationship with Novell — could acceptably denigrate SUSE GNU/Linux in favour of Microsoft products and services.
In discussing above development with Novell, as well as my and my clients’ concerns about threats against us made by Microsoft at the “historic patent agreement” meeting regarding GNU/Linux end-user legal suits, we were basically brushed off without any response.
How sick is that?
In the end, I secured a RHEL-certified support company to handle the software/services implementation, which is going extremely well. Not only am I saddened and disappointed about the recent actions of and developments within Novell — those [actions] of Microsoft I expect no different — I could not, under any circumstances at this time, consider doing business with Novell.”]]>
“I work for a small school district in western Montana. I started using Mandrake Linux for the file server that serves the grading and attendance program about 5 years ago. For this school year, I moved to SUSE 10.0. I had some early problems with updates, but it has worked very well for us and will still be on the server next fall. It has been very reliable and trouble-free once I had it set up correctly.”]]>
As far as your arguments about Red Hat opening up their code, can you name anything that was in Red Hat’s “proprietary” database that’s not now in PostgreSQL? Red Hat makes kernel improvements too, and puts them in their products before they get into the mainline kernel. What’s incompatible with Open Source there? The Red Hat Command Center they just acquired last fall, I’m sure it takes time to ensure they’ve got all the licenses they need to make the product Open Source. And it takes time to ensure the code has no gaping security holes, evident to those have the source. As far as their Certificate System, they’ve been promising to release it as Open Source since they bought it. It has been 3 years, but because it’s a security product I’m sure they want to do it right. They still have plans to release it.
Red Hat has a consistent history of releasing what they buy as Open Source, not to mention the code they write in-house. The Netscape Directory Server and JBoss come to mind, as does RPM. Until they falter I’m willing to give them the time they need to get their licensing, and their code, in order. They do need to put some effort into staying in business after all.]]>
After the screwing we endured from Novell I never seriously considered migrating *anything* to SUSE or OES/Linux. Our Linux boxes have always been Redhat, and the (poor) desktop users have been migrated to Windows 2K3 servers, which have behaved shockingly well (much to my shock).
Novell’s been in a downward spiral for years. Heck, I’ll bet they *Still* don’t have a freaking “Netware Client for Linux” that’s worth a crap. It’s a tragic situation, but since we gave ‘em the finger and moved on I’ve been a happier guy.
I just deal with the Linux boxes and security these days. The Linux mostly “just runs”, and the fleet of Windows boxen keeps the security landscape entertaining
Try teaching a “JBoss” or “Red Hat Linux” ‘branded’ class…most folks these days get nasty ‘trademark’ letters from the RH legal department. What are they supposed to call it: “Introduction to an Enterprise-class Linux Distribution derived from sources freely provided to the public by a prominent North American Enterprise Linux vendor administration”? Oh, Brother.]]>
“For the most part, Red Hat — though a proprietary products vendor — stays true to the community spirit of open source software.”
That’s just plain WRONG. Red Hat is emphatically not a “proprietary products vendor.” My goodness, I can’t think of a single thing that Red Hat has ever written that they *didn’t* released under the GNU GPL/LGPL!
Karl O. Pinc mentioned CentOS. Guess what? I use CentOS, and it’s true; it’s a complete clone of Red Hat Enterprise Linux…using Red Hat’s own source code. Matter of fact, I just built a failover cluster with the new CentOS v5, and it works amazingly well.
Please, get your facts straight before you write an article. What you said was a major factual error. Please also correct your article. Red Hat is an open source software development company, not proprietary.]]>