Re: OpenQM vs. Everything Else

Hi Tony,

The net is full of references to packages that work on kernel 2.2.a
but not 2.2.b, or 2.4 but not 2.6, etc. Kernel v2.4 is up to 2.4.32
and 2.6 is up to 2.6.15. Have a program that now uses JFS? You need
v2.4. Something else makes use of sysfs? You need v2.6. So what
happens when you update a kernel? You need to update system startup
scripts and config routines. You also need to update some core
packages - let's just take a couple basic packages which required
updates from 2.4 to 2.6: binutils, gcc, make, nfs-utils, ppp, and
procps. Anything that uses these program/packages may need to be
brought forward, and any packages that someone installs may have a
dependency on these programs and thus the updated kernel.

Can we update the kernel without updating everything else? Sure, but
how many VARs or end-users are going to do that? Maybe Glen will do a
PickSource survey on this but I'd bet that better than 90% of the
people who "support" Linux really only install stock distros. At some
point these VARs or their end-users are going to feel compelled to
update some piece of software, perhaps something as critical as their
MV DBMS, and rather than tweaking a kernel or hunting for current
dependencies they will probably opt to just reinstall the entire OS.

Why all the drama?

# apt-get install kernel-image.x.x.x.x
# shutdown -r now
# exit

Three lines and (depending upon connection speed) a few minutes. Not
wanting to do the Ford/Chevy thing but that was your original
comparison: As I remember simply installing SP2 of WinXP takes 1/2 hour
to 45 minutes with a T-1, many reboots later ... as often as not breaks
things.

BTW - the above is one of the few things that require a reboot on
Debian, virtually everything else can be upgraded while running -
Debian is simply not drama queen. I don't use them but folks tell me
that Gentoo and Ubuntu are as boring as is Debian.

Before I get any deeper I'm admittedly nowhere near your level with
Linux or that of people like Martin, Doug, or other "engineer" types
who work with this stuff every day. I think I've proven my case from

And this puts you in a position to be arguably the most vocal leader
here on these matters?

Second is lack of information. People (not just Dawn) make comments

My Mac experience is probably about on par with your self proclaimed
level of Linux knowledge. Have you seen me make any statements about
Mac beyond things like "I think that people have openQM running on
Macs"? Would my "dabbler's level" knowledge qualify me to pontificate
on its suitability for anything - here or in an guru's blog?

I'm apparently not the only one clinging to this platform - many
companies are desperate for something to knock:
jBASE = RedHat only
http://www.jbase.com/support/faq.html#version
U2, RedHat and SuSE:
<http://www-306.ibm.com/software/data/u2/editions/index.html>
Revelation = RedHat among many others (Go Mike!)
<http://www.revelation.com/Revelation.nsf/byTitle/Product+Information?OpenDocument>
Reality = RedHat only(?)
<http://www.northgate-is.com/reality/v12.php>
D3 = RedHat only
<http://www.rainingdata.com/products/status***/pick.html>
Univision = RedHat only
<http://www.fastfreenet.com/support/univision/1NewInUniV/VER8XX/CurrentSupportedPlatforms.htm>
And the only Linux distro mentioned on the QM download page is RedHat:
http://openqm.org/downloads.htm

Let's say RedHat is a poor distro. Exactly who's fault is it that the

Those who continue to use (and therefore support) it? One of the things
that Linux means is choice. If the companies you mention above have
written their packages in such a way that the FHS differences defeat
using their products perhaps you should bring the folly of this to
their attention.

As an aside: openQM easily and painlessly runs on every distro (like
six or seven of the most popular) on which I have tested it. This
includes cross-platform (Intel/PPC). People have told me that they have
run it pretty easily on Mac OSX. Perhaps other vendors could take a
page from Martin's standards / compatibility book?

providers of one of the most popular Linux distros can't seem to get
it right after over 10 years? Are all of those people who work there
incompetent?

Dunno, not really my problem. Before you jump on Joe's bandwagon and
begin claiming that "Tom refuses to use xxx". Please attempt to
comprehend that I _do_ use RedHat. Preferences are preferences. Hell, I
still support filePro in several sites ... and foxPro/SCO - am I going
to recommend either of these for a new installation? Under the right
circumstances maybe but I sort of doubt it.

I frankly don't understand all of your drama with RH either, it's a bit
flakier than the best in the package management department, but not
impossible to use as some suggest.

And BTW, I use CentOS, not RedHat.
http://www.linux-magazine.com/issue/65
Looks like Linux Magazine needs something to knock too:
April 2006 Cover story: "CentOS - This community-based enterprise
Linux delivers stability and longevity without the high price"

Will read in my spare time ...

I have no interest in knocking RH or anything else - I use and support
it as needed. A few years ago I made the decision to move all of my own
machines (and new installations wherever I could) to Debian. In these
few years, the only regret I have had about this move is that I didn't
do it sooner. For no reason other than the very issues that seem to
plague you: Debian is boring. No drama.

Yup, real poor implementation.

Not sure what this reference means but if you are required to upgrade
or re-install the entire OS for the sake of running a single
application I would agree.

This is a regular game we play - I make a statement, you ask me to
back it up, I do, you ask again as though I didn't the first or second

Not a game Tony. You make outrageously ... ehm, inaccurate statements.
Your
substantiation is in the form of stuff like "The net is full of ...".
Surely you understand that the net is full of "Windoze sucks", "AOL
sucks", "PICK sucks", UV sucks" and so on. What is the point of
parroting this crap as truth?

time. I believe I've mentioned ghostscript and imagemagick in the

Yes. And I use both of these packages on machines running RedHat (yes I
still have a few) and Debian. Imagemagick is a key ingredient of one of
my web hosting packages - I've never had a stitch of trouble with
either. Once more, this isn't something I read in USENET, it is daily
life. Reality.

You are by your own admission a leader here. When a techie guru makes
such wildly misinformed statements, I would expect someone to request
substantiation. Guess that job has fallen to me. <g>

past, I've forgotten others. I've provided yet more examples above,
if you don't get it this time, tough.

Chalk it up to different experiences I guess.

What's worse, changing your Linux OS often requires a hardware upgrade as well,

I regularly restore backups from state of the art servers onto ancient
hardware (PII 350 beaters) to test my clients' MondoRescue DVD's. The
other way 'round works as well.

There are a number of VARs here who might verify that they can't
upgrade their DBMS because that requires an OS upgrade and they can't
upgrade the OS because it requires a hardware upgrade. You may be
able to restore data onto old hardware but chances are slim that
drivers for the old hardware are available for current distros. I
know you haven't tested this - what reason would you have to load old
drivers into a new system? And would you really attempt to load
drivers into an old system used just to test the backup media?

Of course I do. Regularly. You don't? Man, if I relied on *thinking*
that I was protecting a client's system ...

I think not. No fault there implied, I understand what you're trying to

Why the need to negate things that you know not? Compatibility and
restorability is part of what I being paid for. People might reconsider
their priorities if this isn't part of their service.

do. I'm just saying your ability to restore bits to an old system
doesn't imply that someone can move forward to new hardware. Again,
it's easy to find great wailing among Linux users that some driver is

Are your opinions on Linux all based upon complaints that you find in
USNET or somewhere? If one were inclined and had the time I suspect
that similar tirades could be assembled against Windoze ... or Mac ...
or Mother and Apple Pie. What is the point? If the same amount of time
were to be invested in learning and doing, the prejudices might
disappear. Or not.

no longer available in their new distro for even for the new kernel.

And still I don't get the drama. Passing mention was made above about
restoring to widely different hardware. I have two disks - both backup
disks from freshly built running systems. Each of these is a setup for
my preferences, one for servers and one for desktops. I use these
instead of the install sets to perform new installations. These have
been installed on machines ranging from P 166MMX machines through
modern multi-processor monsters and the brand new laptop on which I am
typing this.

The only failure I have experienced in hundreds of installations was
an old **** machine with a bastardized proprietary RAID controller.
That one took an extra twenty minutes to find someone who had munged
the RH drivers that manufacturer had supplied. <a bit of spoonfeeding>
Note that in this case from a HW point of view that RedHat would have
been a better choice.

Again understand that this is not from reading USNET but from
experience. A couple of months ago I installed Debian on an i486 EISA
machine to pull data from an old hard drive. No particular drama. Not
even all that slow (CUI only).

My "not so with Windows" wasn't appropriate on my part. Sorry. I've
been saying right along that I'm not trying to prove Windows is any
better than Linux, I don't think it is better or worse. My point
continues to be that Linux is simply equally as fragile, and that
while people talk about Windows/Microsoft as being so evil I still

Who has called Windoze/Microsoft evil? As with RH and even (approaching
evil?) SCO, I use and support Windoze every day. I work hard to make
people aware of the pitfalls of trying to deploy any of the preceding
in inappropriate situations.

don't see Linux as having matured into anything worthy of replacing it.

Yeah, Apache/Linux (ferinstance) might begin catch up one of these
days. <g>

And we will likely continue disagree. Windoze has matured into
something that works fairly well in SOHO situations and is often the
appropriate choice there.

What I wanted to say about the hardware was that we can load Windows
XP on very old hardware (link to some site recently posted here on

And almost run - as well as Linux with mismatched HDC drivers?

this very topic) because functional generic drivers for these devices

As I have mentioned several times in this thread, I install Linux on
varieties of ancient hardware on a daily basis so my experience here
has been quite different.

are available in the install media. "Progressive" Linux developers

Out of curiosity, why would you as a self described beginning user
continue to choose "progressive" distro's when it appears that they
keep biting you on the backside?

have a tendency to remove support for old hardware from the core, and
most developers don't want to update old drivers to work in newer
kernels.

Haven't seen that either. In fact an old flatbed scanner that became
useless with the advent of W2K and XP suddenly began working when
introduced to Debian. All anecdotal - and can lead to whichever
decision you wish.

Debian (slightly un-progressive in the 'stable' branch) offers several
kernals on the default install media and excellent suggestions for
which to select that will install on almost _anything_.

Tks,
-Tom

.