Report: Linux Management and Monitoring Lacking

Isn't this another one of those "we can't use Linux because it doesn't have Symatec anti-virus" (insert your corporate standard rubbish "AV" there) or "We can't use Linux becase it doesn't have personal firewalls" stories?

I mean, really, the reason why us corporate types writes those dopey monitor scripts is because the Windows-weaned "System" "Architecture" "group" says to do it for the sake of "Application Lifecycle Management", or because of "Enterprise-ready up-time" or some other meaningless phrase which means "do it because I said so, prole".

Oh, no, we couldn't put in an /etc/inittab entry, because that would mean we were writing "non-portable" software. But oh, yes, you can write to "Win32" massively horrible API without being "non-portable".

You can lead a "System Architecture Group" to water, but they will only drink the Microsoft Kool-aid.

Well said! You hit most of my pet peeves about corporate IT there.

I agree with the author on this:

I am not advocating for a feature-limited and GUI-based infrastructure-in-a-box type of solution. Instead, I'm looking at all these critical infrastructure systems and wondering why it takes so much time to get them all jibing with each other. There is no possible way that a one-size-fits-all solution could work, because the Linux world allows (requires) a lot of customization. There are, however, benefits to getting everything tightly integrated.

> There are, however, benefits to getting everything tightly integrated.

Those benefits are balanced out by the fact that if you tightly integrate everything you end up with "a feature-limited and GUI-based infrastructure-in-a-box".

Ok, that's a bit extreme. In my experience, it really has been either "it requires configuration and only then works really well" or (not and) "it puts everything together into a coherent whole but there is stuff it just can't do because we didn't need it to".

Quoting:Those benefits are balanced out by the fact that if you tightly integrate everything you end up with "a feature-limited and GUI-based infrastructure-in-a-box".

Or, on the flip side, you now have a taste of what embedded system development is like.

Been there, done that, learned so much about system integration I'm not sure how much of it I'll ever use again.