Re: [BLUG] Are source based distributions better for servers?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Steven,

How do you personally handle needing to install software with custom
command line options in something like Redhat?

Steven Black wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 12:20:22AM -0400, Joe Auty wrote:
>> Which sort of distribution do you prefer for servers, and why? What are
>> your general recommendations these days?
>
> Personally, I think source-based distributions are a step backward. I
> administer an old Solaris 8 box which at this point is mostly source-based.
> I build the source. I install the source. I worry about upgrades to the
> source. I use GNU Stow for package management.
>
> I do wonder how the source-based distributions manage security upgrades.
> When they're focused on end-users and desktop machines they don't need to
> worry as much about security upgrades. Let the end-users muck it out. Let
> them subscribe to all the important lists, and install the patches by hand.
> This doesn't work so well in a production environment, though.
>
> The big benefit of binary distros for servers is that package maintenance
> gets a lot easier. Who cares about base system install time? It is
> meaningless as it happens once. The problem comes when you need to
> perform security upgrades, and when your users want you to add software,
> and they want it fast. Worse still, when there's been a single major
> security hole fixed that will require relinking almost all your system
> with an updated library.
>
> How easy would it be if you need to patch zlib or worse yet, libc? I know
> how easy it is to upgrade core libraries on Debian-based systems. I know
> how much impact it has on my users and how much down-time to expect. More
> than that, as it is an automated process there's little to no chance that
> I'll muck it up.
>
> The ease of upgrading is the big reason I have favored Debian-derived
> systems. I'm currently administering Debian 3.1 systems. However at the
> next major system upgrade those will be moving to Ubuntu LTS.
>
> The reason we're migrating to Ubuntu LTS is that there's a clear established
> release schedule. We'll be able to plan software upgrades much the same way
> that we are able to plan hardware upgrades. As we'll be able to plan them
> in-sync, we should have better matched configuration. As we have a clear
> schedule, we should be able to plan our internal development to work around
> it.
>
> Cheers,
> Steven Black
>
> _______________________________________________
> BLUG mailing list
> BLUG@linuxfan.com
> http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

- --
Joe Auty
NetMusician: web publishing software for musicians
http://www.netmusician.org
joe@netmusician.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG7q9oCgdfeCwsL5ERAu1JAJ9RjS0HWmPPQO6c0nLGRBg8iagwwwCcCsrE
/vI+TfCaf9dSbB9av5nUuxA=
=rBxk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

RE: [BLUG] Are source based distributions better for servers?

Steven Black wrote:
> Personally, I think source-based distributions are a step
> backward. I administer an old Solaris 8 box which at this point
> is mostly source-based.
> I build the source. I install the source. I worry about upgrades
> to the source. I use GNU Stow for package management.

I don't think I could make a blanket statement like that. If we were
talking about Slackware, yes, I'd say it's a step backwards. I wouldn't
say the same for Gentoo, however (or even FreeBSD).

> I do wonder how the source-based distributions manage security
> upgrades.

"Repackage" the upstream and make it available, same as the binary-based
distros do? Gentoo, anyways -- I can't speak for all of them as that's
the only one I use.

> When they're focused on end-users and desktop machines they don't
> need to worry as much about security upgrades. Let the end-users
> muck it out. Let them subscribe to all the important lists, and
> install the patches by hand.
> This doesn't work so well in a production environment, though.

*waits for the USSG guys to jump in*

> The big benefit of binary distros for servers is that package
> maintenance gets a lot easier. Who cares about base system
> install time? It is meaningless as it happens once. The problem
> comes when you need to perform security upgrades, and when your
> users want you to add software, and they want it fast. Worse
> still, when there's been a single major security hole fixed that
> will require relinking almost all your system with an updated
> library.

In this age of multi-core CPUs and gigabit connections, I don't think
this is as much of an issue as it used to be. I can still bring this
Gentoo box up to date quicker than I can some of our Windows servers.

> How easy would it be if you need to patch zlib or worse yet,
> libc? I know how easy it is to upgrade core libraries on
> Debian-based systems. I know how much impact it has on my users
> and how much down-time to expect. More than that, as it is an
> automated process there's little to no chance that I'll muck it
> up.

Easy enough? Can it be done as quickly as just plunking down a new
binary package? No, but it works for me. I suppose that's why we have
a choice. =)

> The ease of upgrading is the big reason I have favored
> Debian-derived systems. I'm currently administering Debian 3.1
> systems. However at the next major system upgrade those will be
> moving to Ubuntu LTS.

I have been (was) a fan of Debian for years. The Debian Project seems
to be falling apart, however, due to all the politics. With Debian you
have your choice of rock-solid software that's a few years old, or
bleeding-edge software that can potentially (and will, eventually) hose
your system.

I'm much happier w/ RHEL.

--
Jeremy L. Gaddis
Network Administrator
Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana
812.330.6156 (w) 812.330.6212 (f)

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

RE: [BLUG] LPI certs (was: C/C++)

Steven Black wrote:
> Red Hat still has a bit of a crazy following among many
> enterprise lots. I think they get this by appealing to features
> easy to market to management more than for technical merits,
> personally.

There's a fair number of technical folks who really like RHEL (myself
included). It's stable and reliable as hell, for one thing. RH support
is (usually) pretty good. And definitely not least, RHN *rocks*,
especially if you've got a satellite. Management, provisioning,
kickstarting, etc. There just isn't any other distro I've seen that has
the same management tools. (Not to mention that RH really knows how to
throw a party!)

--
Jeremy L. Gaddis
Network Administrator
Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana
812.330.6156 (w) 812.330.6212 (f)

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] Are source based distributions better for servers?

On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 12:20:22AM -0400, Joe Auty wrote:
> Which sort of distribution do you prefer for servers, and why? What are
> your general recommendations these days?

Personally, I think source-based distributions are a step backward. I
administer an old Solaris 8 box which at this point is mostly source-based.
I build the source. I install the source. I worry about upgrades to the
source. I use GNU Stow for package management.

I do wonder how the source-based distributions manage security upgrades.
When they're focused on end-users and desktop machines they don't need to
worry as much about security upgrades. Let the end-users muck it out. Let
them subscribe to all the important lists, and install the patches by hand.
This doesn't work so well in a production environment, though.

The big benefit of binary distros for servers is that package maintenance
gets a lot easier. Who cares about base system install time? It is
meaningless as it happens once. The problem comes when you need to
perform security upgrades, and when your users want you to add software,
and they want it fast. Worse still, when there's been a single major
security hole fixed that will require relinking almost all your system
with an updated library.

How easy would it be if you need to patch zlib or worse yet, libc? I know
how easy it is to upgrade core libraries on Debian-based systems. I know
how much impact it has on my users and how much down-time to expect. More
than that, as it is an automated process there's little to no chance that
I'll muck it up.

The ease of upgrading is the big reason I have favored Debian-derived
systems. I'm currently administering Debian 3.1 systems. However at the
next major system upgrade those will be moving to Ubuntu LTS.

The reason we're migrating to Ubuntu LTS is that there's a clear established
release schedule. We'll be able to plan software upgrades much the same way
that we are able to plan hardware upgrades. As we'll be able to plan them
in-sync, we should have better matched configuration. As we have a clear
schedule, we should be able to plan our internal development to work around
it.

Cheers,
Steven Black

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] LPI certs (was: C/C++)

On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 06:15:12PM -0400, "Simón A. Ruiz" wrote:
> Sorry to say it, but "Use Red Hat Package Manager", also has a weight of
> 8/8, and nothing has a weight of 7/8. So I can tell that those two will
> both be tested rigorously and above and beyond anything else.

This shouldn't be that surprising. Red Hat was one of the first
Linux distributions to push for certification exams, and IIRC the
first Linux-related certs were all Red Hat Linux certs.

Red Hat still has a bit of a crazy following among many enterprise
lots. I think they get this by appealing to features easy to market
to management more than for technical merits, personally.

Cheers,
Steven Black

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] LPI exams (was C++)

On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 02:13:01PM -0400, Simón Ruiz wrote:
> I'm going through O'Reilly's "LPI Linux Ceritification in a nutshell"
> and, indeed, man pages. I'll also be taking the "LPI Cram Session"
> class at the "Ohio LinuxFest University" two days before the exam.

Perhaps I'll see you at the Ohio LinuxFest.

With regards to the LPI, I don't know if most folks are aware, but
the Ubuntu certification leans heavily upon the LPI exams. Basically,
it is just one final Ubuntu-specific exam after taking the two LPI
exams.

> On one hand, I don't have the 2 years of System Administration they
> designed the exam for. On the other hand, I think I've learned my way
> around pretty quickly, I've got years of practice taking standardized
> tests in school (I'd say I have a knack for them), and I'm dedicated.

I've not taken the LPI exams (yet). However, I have taken the MySQL
exams.

While I also had a knack for standardized tests in school, my
experience of certification exams is that well, they're virtually
nothing like school exams. Expect no stupid clearly wrong answers.
Expect most of the questions to have only almost-correct answers.
Expect more questions which explicitly have more than one correct
answer. ("Which of the following are correct?" Answers are attached
to checkboxes, not a radio buttons.)

Cheers,
Steven Black

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

[BLUG] Fwd: Free/Open Source Research

A lot of people seem to be doing this type of research these days. At
least she gave you several different options to take the survey.

----- Forwarded message from Nordine BENKELTOUM <nordine.benkeltoum@ensmp.fr> -----

Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 07:42:46 +0200
From: Nordine BENKELTOUM <nordine.benkeltoum@ensmp.fr>
To: mark@slugbug.org
Subject: Free/Open Source Research

Hi,

I'm carrying out a study on Free/open source software.

Given the fact that the LUGs gather specialists of this topic, could you ask
your members to take part in our research project by filling in the
following questionnaire available on this link :

http://orthonormed.free.fr

Don't hesitate to transmit the questionnaire to your colleagues or members
of the communities in which you're involved.

Thank you for your participation.

Best Regards

Nordine BENKELTOUM
PhD student
Center for Organization and Management Sciences
Ecole des Mines de Paris
nordine.benkeltoum@ensmp.fr

----- End forwarded message -----

--
Mark Krenz
Bloomington Linux Users Group
http://www.bloomingtonlinux.org/
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug