My experiences trying to leverage the power of Linux in the enterprise
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: My experiences trying to leverage the power of Linux in the enterprise

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1

    My experiences trying to leverage the power of Linux in the enterprise

    I used to work as a consultant for a Fortune 500 company (more than 10,000 employees). As an expert in the field of IT consulting, I think I can shed a little light on the current climate of the open source community, and Linux in particular. The main reason that open source software, and Linux in particular, is failing is due to the underlying immaturity of the technology and the perception of the viral GNU license.

    I know that the above statements are strong, but I have hard facts to back it up with. At the Fortune 500 company that I worked for, we wanted to leverage the power of Linux and associated open source technologies to benefit our server pool. The perception that Linux is “free” was too much to ignore. I recommended to the company that we use the newest version of Linux, version 9.0. My expectations were high that it would outperform our current solution at the time, Windows2000, which was doing an absolutely superb job (and still is!) serving as web, DNS, and FTP servers.

    I felt that I was up to the job to convert the entire server pool to the Linux technology. I had several years experience programming VB, C#, ASP, and .NET Framework at the kernel level. I didn’t use C, because contrary to popular belief, ASP and VB can go just as low level as C can, and the latest .NET VB compiler produces code that is more portable and faster than C. I took it upon myself to configure and compile all of the necessary shareware versions of software that we needed, including sendmail, apache, and BIND. I even used the latest version of gcc (3.1) to increase the execution time of the binaries. After a long chain of events, the results of the system were less than impressive..

    The first bombshell to hit my project was that my client found out from another consultant that the GNU community has close ties to former communist leaders. Furthermore, he found out that the ‘x’ in Linux was a tribute to the former Communist philosopher, Karl Marx, whose name also ends in ‘x’. The next bombshell to hit my project was the absolutely horrible performance. I knew from the beginning that Linux wasn’t ready for the desktop, but I had always been told by my colleagues that it was better suited for a “server”. As soon as I replaced all of the Windows2000 servers with Linux servers, the Linux servers immediately went into swap. Furthermore, almost all of the machines were quad-processor x86 servers. We had no idea that Linux had such awful SMP support. After less than 1 day in service, I was constantly having to restart servers, because for some reason, many of the servers were experiencing kernel panics caused by mod_perl crashing apache! The hardship did not end there! Apparently, the version of BIND installed on the server pool was remotely exploitable. Soon after we found that out, a new worm was remotely infecting all of our servers! We were not expecting this, because our IIS servers running on Windows2000 had never experienced a worm attack. Microsoft has always provided us with patches in the unlikely event that an exploit was found. It took us hundreds of man-hours just to disinfect our Linux servers! After just 48 hours of operating Linux servers in our server pool, we had exhausted our budget for the entire year! It was costing us approximately 75% more to run Linux than Windows2000.

    Needless to say, I will not be recommending Linux to any of my Fortune 500 clients. In the beginning, we thought that since Linux was such “old” technology, it would be more mature than anything on the market. We also found out the hard way that rag-tag volunteer efforts responsible for Apache and BIND simply are not able to compete with the professional operations of Microsoft. I guess the old saying is true; “You get what you pay for!” Needless to say, I will be using Microsoft’s “shared license” solution for my enterprise clients, rather than the communist GNU license.

    As it stands now, I do believe Linux has some practical uses. I think it will be useful in a University setting for first year computer science students to compile their “Hello World!” programs on (provided that gcc won’t kernel panic the machine). Simply put, Linux just doesn’t handle the rigors of a real-world work environment.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    461
    Is this a TROLL?

    Seems like a bunch of BS to me, if you are a consultant for a fortune 500 company, please tell me the name so I can laugh my ass off everytime I see them in the news. Also send me your name so I dont ever hire you.

    Assuming that your story is true, and you did migrate them to all linux read the rest.

    Sounds to me like you don't have the foggiest idea what you are doing.

    How much experience did you have with linux before starting your migration project? Did you have any experienced techs? It doesnt sound like it.

    Did you even test any of this? Did you even consider security,
    Linux version 9 doesnt exist, do you perhaps mean Redhat Linux 9?

    Much like windows, verifying that you have the proper versions and patches installed, as well as verifying security is you problem, not microsofts, or redhat, or suse, it is the administrators job to verify that the system has been patched and secured.

    You, or your guys should have verified that BIND was updated, and secured, or used a different dns server

    Did you even test your webservers with mod_perl and apache before migrating?

    As for the Karl Marx stuff, and communism, get a life.

    If the situation you describe is true, then you are an IDIOT, as well as the fortune 500 company which hired you.

    Also, if true, it sounds like the investors in this company have a very very very tight case against management for not performing due diligence when hiring you, or approving your migration plan. Assuming there are any damages, lost income, etc.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    106
    communists!!! hahahahahahahahaahah if your post dj28 is a joke funny funny if not you are a joke hahahahahahahahah

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1
    This is my first post here *waves hello

    IchNiSan summd up everything in his post but i would like to add my part

    I used to work as a consultant for a Fortune 500 company (more than 10,000 employees). As an expert in the field of IT consulting, I think I can shed a little light on the current climate of the open source community, and Linux in particular. The main reason that open source software, and Linux in particular, is failing is due to the underlying immaturity of the technology and the perception of the viral GNU license.
    If you are a so called expert why couldnt you get your linux boxes up and running ?.(j/k) I dont think open source software is failling at all if anything it is becoming more popular i have used linux for about 2 and a half years now and it has become much more wide spread from your day to day users because of the GNU license. If you think open-source software is bad i feel bad for you why deprive people of knowledge ? in my opinion thats just wrong

    I know that the above statements are strong, but I have hard facts to back it up with. At the Fortune 500 company that I worked for, we wanted to leverage the power of Linux and associated open source technologies to benefit our server pool. The perception that Linux is “free” was too much to ignore. I recommended to the company that we use the newest version of Linux, version 9.0. My expectations were high that it would outperform our current solution at the time, Windows2000, which was doing an absolutely superb job (and still is!) serving as web, DNS, and FTP servers.
    So all the millions of servers on the net are wrong to use a linux based operating system ?

    I felt that I was up to the job to convert the entire server pool to the Linux technology. I had several years experience programming VB, C#, ASP, and .NET Framework at the kernel level. I didn’t use C, because contrary to popular belief, ASP and VB can go just as low level as C can, and the latest .NET VB compiler produces code that is more portable and faster than C. I took it upon myself to configure and compile all of the necessary shareware versions of software that we needed, including sendmail, apache, and BIND. I even used the latest version of gcc (3.1) to increase the execution time of the binaries. After a long chain of events, the results of the system were less than impressive..
    What exactly would you call "less than impressive" did you do a "minimal" server install or did you just pop in the freshly burned ISO's and just start the install ?. There could have been alot of issues here because of microsoft dominating the PC market did you check on the vendors site for supported hardware ? did you download and install new drivers at all (which i recommend)? these 2 thing alone could have saved you some grief and helped in server performance

    The first bombshell to hit my project was that my client found out from another consultant that the GNU community has close ties to former communist leaders. Furthermore, he found out that the ‘x’ in Linux was a tribute to the former Communist philosopher, Karl Marx, whose name also ends in ‘x’. The next bombshell to hit my project was the absolutely horrible performance. I knew from the beginning that Linux wasn’t ready for the desktop, but I had always been told by my colleagues that it was better suited for a “server”. As soon as I replaced all of the Windows2000 servers with Linux servers, the Linux servers immediately went into swap. Furthermore, almost all of the machines were quad-processor x86 servers. We had no idea that Linux had such awful SMP support. After less than 1 day in service, I was constantly having to restart servers, because for some reason, many of the servers were experiencing kernel panics caused by mod_perl crashing apache! The hardship did not end there! Apparently, the version of BIND installed on the server pool was remotely exploitable. Soon after we found that out, a new worm was remotely infecting all of our servers! We were not expecting this, because our IIS servers running on Windows2000 had never experienced a worm attack. Microsoft has always provided us with patches in the unlikely event that an exploit was found. It took us hundreds of man-hours just to disinfect our Linux servers! After just 48 hours of operating Linux servers in our server pool, we had exhausted our budget for the entire year! It was costing us approximately 75% more to run Linux than Windows2000.
    *quietly hums the X-files theme song

    Needless to say, I will not be recommending Linux to any of my Fortune 500 clients. In the beginning, we thought that since Linux was such “old” technology, it would be more mature than anything on the market. We also found out the hard way that rag-tag volunteer efforts responsible for Apache and BIND simply are not able to compete with the professional operations of Microsoft. I guess the old saying is true; “You get what you pay for!” Needless to say, I will be using Microsoft’s “shared license” solution for my enterprise clients, rather than the communist GNU license.
    Why not linux is fun scared in case you recommend it to a customer and s/he ends up landing your job in a year or two's time ?

    As it stands now, I do believe Linux has some practical uses. I think it will be useful in a University setting for first year computer science students to compile their “Hello World!” programs on (provided that gcc won’t kernel panic the machine). Simply put, Linux just doesn’t handle the rigors of a real-world work environment.
    Well they would probably be learning C or C++ or perl or java or some other linux based programming language since they are learning it on a linux system and tell me this Mr Expert what exactly in your world is a real-worl enviroment ? .
    Just because you couldnt get the hang of linux doesent mean to say it shouldnt come recommended its a highly stable and very fuctional operating system and it would kick ass at up-time's compared to any windows based server

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    103
    VB .Net as fast as C? You have got to be kidding. 1) I remember hearing that VB 6 used VC++'s compiler to product the binaries in the first place. 2) VB .Net is not even going to be as fast as the older VB let alone C. Test a few basic loops in each language and see for yourself which language produces the faster code. Interpreted or JIT compilations just aren't that fast. Every layer of software you add above the hardware layer is going to slow it down. I have heard for years how JIT compilations can be as fast a C, but I have yet to actually see this with my own eyes.

    Please note that this is not meant to slam VB. The perfect programming language is in the eye of the beholder.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •