Using Debian in Commercial Environments? 506
sydb asks: "I am currently persuading my employer to try out Linux. We are heavily dependent on IBM software technologies just now, and it's a very conservative operations organization. As a challenge, I am trying to persuade them to use my preferred distro but there are hurdles: IBM doesn't officially support Debian as a platform, though I have anecdotal evidence that most of it can be persuaded to work (with alien etc). Does Slashdot have experience shoe-horning Debian into this kind of scenario? Most importantly, how have things gone getting IBM support? My rationale for pushing Debian boils down to its vast array of packages available to apt-get, easy upgrades, apt-get itself, and the overall quality and consistency of the system."
Go HP! (Score:5, Informative)
PS: No, I am not an HP employee.
IBM has helped us out... (Score:5, Informative)
They won't support the software, but they will support their hardware running it.
Notes from a former IBM employee. (Score:5, Informative)
I used to work for IBM in the division that developed DB2 for Windows, OS/2, Linux, and various Unicies (but not OS/400 or other "big iron" systems) three years ago, and worked on code for DB2 v6 through to v8.
At that time, our Linux testing was primarily against Red Hat and a few others (from hazy memory, Turbo Linux, Red Flag, and one other I don't recall at the moment). Debian was not tested at all for any of their products. Red Hat was their primary focus, and seemed to be the Linux platform most of the developers ha on their desktop systems (although a lot of the Unix development was actually done through AIX-based systems).
Things may have changed since this time, but I haven't seen any outside evidence of this. Do you really want to try running these applications on platforms and with packages that the original vendor hasn't done any testing with? The IBM products you mention are not cheap -- why risk having them break by running them on an unsupported platform?
If you're a big account, talk to your IBM account rep and tell them you'd like to move to Debian. You'd be suprised how much IBM will do for a big account (or, at least, would do when I was there).
Yaz.
what do you mean? (Score:4, Informative)
If you're simply saying that it does things differently from RedHat, then who says that the way RedHat does things is "the standard"? As for "special config tools", etc, why are Debian's config tools "special Debian config tools", and RedHat's config tools not "special RedHat config tools"?
It seems to me that your either saying that Debian doesn't adhere to standards (such as FHS), which would be a good criticism (even though sometimes standards are wrong), but in which case I'd want some examples; or you're saying that it doesn't do things the "RedHat" way, which is like complaining about it because all of its programs aren't in C:\Program Files.
PS: Personally, I use Gentoo.
Simple question (Score:3, Informative)
Doing something like this is just like trying to use Perl or Python (or Java or whatever) in an all-C/C++ shop for the first time. It may be the best solution for the problem you happen to be solving. But if the company doesn't consciously maintain a knowledge base in the "new" technology, any of the new work is essentially dead once the author leaves. Same thing applies to a new OS, a new third-party app, or whatever.
The best technology solutions are maintainable, extendable, and reusable. And the most common error is to overlook maintainability.
I have done exactly what you want to do (Score:5, Informative)
First, the install on Debian isn't smooth. I tried the latest stable Debian as well as some updated packages that I knew I'd need. I installed Websphere and had some problems. Stuff worked, eventually, but it was a pain that I wasn't willing to deal with on an ongoing basis (fixpacks and such). Java GUIs were particularly troublesome, although the web console is really all you ever need. Java problems worried me a lot.
I tried Suse and Red Hat's enterprise offerings, which I had been given demo disks for, as well as their free counterparts. One major hurdle with Red Hat was that there are some major Java threading issues with RHEL 3.0 and Red Hat 9 and above, so I'd be stuck with RHEL 2.1 or RH 8. I decided to go with Suse 8.2, which is supported as a development platform (no free Linux is supported for production use).
What I found on my distro adventures is that IBM supports anything, but they do complain about it. For instance, even our old environment had RH 7.3 while only 7.2 is supported. During my Debian install it was IBM who helped me get it working. When supporting these distros they constantly question the Java version and go through a checklist of software versions to make sure everything's ok. But like I said, they will support it.
While I have gotten bad support from IBM before, overall they are much better than any other company I've had to deal with on an ongoing basis. They really do try to help out. A couple times I've had some idiot at their help desk so I asked to be transfered to someone else, but other than that they've been great.
SuSE or RedHat... (Score:3, Informative)
With that said, use SuSE. The last thing we need is more RedHat customers. Competition is vital to keep Linux from turning into a RedHat-only proposition (in the enterprise). Support SuSE, at least keep it a duopoly between Novell and RedHat - they'll beat each other up and keep things fair.
Re:Conservative and don't like Debian? (Score:3, Informative)
*distcc Knoppix for the initial install
Re:Getting what you pay for (Score:2, Informative)
I am in a similar situation, working for a software company that mostly runs AIX, DB2, etc, plus some Windows servers. We develop a lot of software in-house, and are a reseller of some IBM products. The company is slowly moving to Linux, and we considered a while ago which distro to base ourselves on and eventually chose RedHat.
I personally use debian on my work desktop (I'm writing from Debian right now), and have managed to get all the necessary IBM software running on it. However I would recommend going with RedHat or SuSE on your servers. Debian is great, but politics and support issues will both be much less hassle if you go for the "recognised brands". And RH/SuSE are damn fine distros too. The "yum" tool available with the latest RH releases is quite close in functionality to apt-get and family.
Re:Why dont (Score:3, Informative)
The round hole is our operations organisation. The square peg is the task we are trying to complete. I see Debian as the sledgehammer that might get it all to work.
Our only issue here is support. That's it. In practice, I have no doubt Debian will live up to our requirements better than the competition. I have many years experience of Debian, RedHat and Suse and I know that Debian makes my life easier than the others.
Re:Dear slashdot (Score:2, Informative)
But, it sounds like you want RedHat with yum -- it's the apt-get for rpm distros, somewhat as alien is the rpm-compatibility utility for debian distros (I'm not comparing yum and alien precisely here, just
Re:if it's just apt.... (Score:5, Informative)
It's also about the number of packages in the release. Debian is several times the size of either RedHat or Suse. We don't want to spend time compiling software and building RPMs, we just want to get on with doing our job.
Keep the Debian all Open and you're fine (Score:4, Informative)
Debian Philosophy says: "Just recompile your app from source"
Commercial interests says: "Just use a supported distribution for our application"
The best thing you can do is keep the Debian box all stuff that complies with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) and you'll be fine. If you need something that's no in Stable or not a late enough version in Stable, check out http://backports.org for expanded/updated packages. My last job used an old dual proc P3 running Woody to host our development "all-in-wonder" box - CVS, Bugzilla, CVSZilla, Wikki, development intranet web pages and some supporting tools. We used an rsync via ssh to a Solaris box w/ tape for nightly backups. It worked like a champ for a small team (4 devs, 1 manager & an occasional tester) without blinking. I'm sure would have scaled up at least 5 times that before the hardware we were running it on became the bottleneck.
Re:Dear slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
This machine will need:
* A DB2 client
* Maybe run WebSphere for the testing of in-house scripts
* A Tivoli Storage Management agent. Or maybe not, there are other ways to have backups, like syncing to another machine.
The question is about adjusting management mindsets and dealing with IBM in what I expect to be a very small number of support calls. It's not about choosing the right technical solution, because I have ample justification for Debian being the right technical solution.
Re:Conservative and don't like Debian? (Score:5, Informative)
The only IBM software we need to use in "production" is a DB2 client and probably a TSM agent. We could avoid the TSM agent.
We would probably want to run WebSphere on it for testing purposes - testing of scripts before they reach the environments our developers use.
My concerns are more about persuading management that an "unsupported" distribution could be a goer, and what I expect to be a small number if contacts with IBM support.
So I understand your thinking, but in this case it's misplaced.
Re:Conservative and don't like Debian? (Score:4, Informative)
Call IBM Global services. You'll be surpised what they support.
For the right price, they happily support Oracle [from a competitor] running on Solaris [from a competitor] and Ingres [from a competitor] running on NT [from a competitor].
I think you may be talking to the wrong group in IBM. If you guys have the cash to pay them, they'll gladly support Debian (though possibly through a partner company).
No, Debian is the ultimate conservative distro (Score:5, Informative)
Comparing Debian to Mandrake, Suse, Slackware or even RHEL I think you will find that Debian it the most cautious about adopting new versions of core libraries, graphics system or the kernel.
gradual change (Score:2, Informative)
But you are dealing with an organization with lots of people who are used to doing things one way, and it will take them time to learn. If you want to convert them over to Linux (and there are lots of good reasons for doing so, including cost and security), pick a distro with a feel as close to Windows as possible. I think (for better or for worse) SuSE meets that goal. RedHat is probably also pretty good in that regard. Both also have commercial support and companies behind them, which makes management happy (even if you don't actually need it).
Change organizations gradually, otherwise you will have a revolution on your hands.
Re:Dear slashdot (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Support? (Score:3, Informative)
I think you are confusing who you are getting support from. If you buy "shrink wrap" (albeit expensive) software from IBM - or anyone else - there is a level of support that comes with it.
"Outsourcing" has a completely different connotation. If means, beyond the shrink wrap software, installing it, configuring it, and potentially a huge amount of customizations. Does the solution they provided conform to the spec that you gave them at the beginning? You seem to think "support" means "free work after the contract is done". It doesn't.
IBM is huge. Let me rephrase. Think of a huge company, and then think of something even bigger then that. Thats IBM.
It is entirely possible, even likely, that the IBM outsourcing team that worked on your project does not work within 1000km of the IBM application team. While the outsourcing team could probably could get the app developers on the phone, a software customer with a high level software support contract could very well do so just as easily.
If you want support for customizations you've done to a already custom solution (or rather, support for making customizations), Id suggest skipping the outsourcing team and go direct to the app group.
Notes from a current IBM employee who uses Debian (Score:4, Informative)
If you get a chance to talk to anyone from IBM, make it clear that you'd really like Debian support. Then use a supported distro. Really, this is the best advice you're going to get.
I like and use Debian on all of my computers, including my company-provided T40 laptop. I do it because I like it and because I'm willing to put in the extra time it takes to make it all work. And it does all work, including DB/2 and Websphere and Lotus Notes and bunches of other stuff.
But I still wouldn't recommend it.
Why do I do it then? When I started using Linux on my laptop (my primary workstation), the only officially-supported desktop operating system in IBM was Windows 95. Given that there was no official IBM Linux distro, I picked what I liked, and I struggled through all of the issues to make it work. I stick with Debian because (a) I like it and (b) it's not clear that migrating to the internal (Red Hat) distro would save me any time, 'cause my system works great.
However, if I had to install a new Linux image for work right now (instead of just migrating my old Debian image), I'd go with the standard build, mainly so that I'd get support, and so that every non-Free app I have to install wouldn't be such a pain. I've always run unsupported desktops ever since I worked at IBM -- the OS/2 load they gave me when I started back in 1997 lasted two days -- but it has of late become more and more painful in direct proportion to the amount of internal Linux support, ironically enough.
So my current opinion is that if you're running commercial software on production systems, you should use a supported distro, which means Red Hat or SuSe, pretty much -- and not just with IBM software. Those are the platforms that are supported by all the vendors of commercial Linux software.
Similar situation (Score:3, Informative)
Now contact all parties involved and tell them you need support. Oh yeah, my distro is Debian. Everyone from IBM hardware to IBM Software to SteelEye will tell you to go suck rocks and come back with a supported distro.
When we did our TSM install, we had an issue with RedHat 2.1 and the 3582 Tape Library Driver. We called IBM and they provided a driver but it only worked on RedHat 3.
What did we do? We upgraded the box. What good is our nice shiny infrastructure if there's no backup?
Now everyone will bitch and moan that you shouldn't lock yourself in like this or that you should just run whatever distro you want. We designed everything about our enterprise app to be portable. If we get tired of Websphere, we move to Tomcat which is our development platform anyway. If we get tired of DB2, we move to Oracle or Postgres or some other database. We aren't using any DB2 SQL.
But until that time, I like the fact that I can make one call and get the support I need. It's IBM hardware running IBM software. The only non-IBM stuff is the OS and SteelEye LifeKeeper. IBM actually worked with SteelEye for us on a DB2 issue with our SAN.
Having said all that, we do use a few unsupported configurations. Our app uses CUPS for server-side printing. Those boxes are Gentoo. Our datawarehouse is mysql running on Gentoo. The interesting part is that I've actually gone unsupported in one area and that's the warehouse. I had to do a bit of engineering to get Gentoo and my two Fiber Cards to recognize the SAN properly. That and I did a custom ebuild of TSM for backup purposes.
All of this leads me to say one thing, if you value your job, stay supported and keep distro zealotry out of the way. If the company is willing to spend on IBM hardware and software then the cost of a SELS or RHAS license is nothing. It will pay off the first time you call DB2 or WAS support about an issue that, while not having ANYTHING to do with the underlying OS (other than it's Linux), they won't help you because you decided to go unsupported. Explain that to your boss as you're being escorted out the door.
Re:Conservative and don't like Debian? (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.ibm.com/linux
Support (Score:5, Informative)
However, it sounds like your Enterprise has already standardized around IBM. As good as Debian is, I can't see how it's good enough to lose an enterprise support agreement, even if it's just a few machines.
Maybe you can threaten the sales people to go to HP if they don't amend the support contract to include Debian. They probably will know you're bluffing, but it might help.
Misinformed (Score:1, Informative)
Obviously you don't realize what kind of problems Linux has with enterprise integration, interface stability, and plain UNIX incompatibility.
But, I do hope you'll get what you want! Then, when you have to integrate "your favorite Linux distro" into an NFS/NIS/AutoMount/CacheFS environment, you'll start sweating... Zucker kommt am Schluss.
I'm just going to be starting a new job at a company that wants to grow. Sadly, they actually think Linux is the way to go, and that it'll magically solve all their growing pains.
Because of their misinformation, I'll have to actually push corporate UNIX (Solaris, HP-UX, IRIX) into the door and educate them on Linux. How bizzare.
People, get a grip! Learn corporate UNIX first, so that you can make an EDUCATED decision and know the pros and cons. Linux has its place, but IT IS NOT in the enterprise. It makes for good web servers , DNS or FTP appliances, and hopefully a good desktop in a few years, but that's where it starts and that's where it ends.
The whole Linux setup is just one big hack, UNIX wannabe. If it only did it right, at least that'd be something...
Re:Why don't you try .... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:What have you been smoking? (Score:3, Informative)
Naturally, we paid money for this service, and we were a 'partner', but practicly everyone could become one of them by using their software, and asking nicely.
In the end, it turned out the bug was in the CTOs fancy string classes, but still - we had excellent support from the vendor. (Who happened to be Microsoft, not that that matters)
I have worked on bugs for individual customers, (am actually on site at the moment doing one). So really, it is you that has no clue. Maybe one day, you'll leave school, get a job working support (asuming its not taking the calls), and you may be out on site, fixing bugs, having the CEO call you because he's been called by the customer CEO, and generally being caught up in the mad panic that happens whan a bug affects a customer. even if you work development, you'll end up seeing this happen - especaly if the developer who worked on the buggy code is dragged out to find out what went wrong.
and, yes, even shrink-wrap-only companies like MS, or consultancy-companies like IBM will do excellent support work for bug fixes for you, if you pay for it.
SUSE (Score:2, Informative)
With SUSE, you can run YaST remotely from a terminal window and perform your on-line updates. You can choose from doing them manually or automatically.
Also, considering IBM put $50 million in the Novell purchase of SUSE, it may even be the safest bet for a supported platform
15+ debian servers for 4+ years (Score:4, Informative)
We're mostly developers, which is probably what made us attracted to debian in the first place. We have a developer in our group that wears the sysadmin hat (ducks) but he is both a black-belt problem solver and a good admin. I enjoy the anal-retentiveness of debian-devel and its great to see so many minds focusing on a project.
We put a lot of faith into Debian. Our servers run all of our models and our execution platform, which trades enough securities every day to put my face on MSNBC if something goes horribly wrong.
We do use 3rd party libraries in our software development, and as far as they know, we're running Redhat like we're supposed to. I have yet to have a conversation with someone in tech support that is really a Linux guru. I'm not going to claim to be one, either; however, the code I support is only used by my group. The people I usually talk to in support are usually developers, too. If our group had to support 3rd party executables, then Debian probably wouldn't work so smoothly.
All these negative comments about Debian have suprised me a little bit. Perhaps I don't read /. often enough. And no, I probably wouldn't recommend Debian to any of my peers outside my company. But I don't think "Using Debian in Commercial Environments?" is a ridiculous question, either. It can work without a headache for a troop of coder monkeys writing in-house software.
Re:Debian is the most _stable_ distro. (Score:3, Informative)
I think your numbers are low. The current consensus seems to be that the old version of stable will be supported for one year after a new version of stable is released. If the release cycle stays the same, it's more like 3 to 4 years total.
Re:Your employer doesnt employ you to smoke crack (Score:2, Informative)