- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Red Hat's open source success story built on killing complexity in IT
|
|
|
Comments (5)
Given that a number of RH employees are directly involved in cranking up the complexity of Linux user space, that claim sounds hollow (if not downright fraudulent).
I think the message of the article is not that RH has made the software less complex to use, rather RH has been raking in the dough by selling its services to manage the complexity of running GNU/Linux.
I do have a problem with the article implying that GNU/Linux is somehow more complex than other server OS options. Meaning it's an OS with a bunch of applications to manage and running GNU/Linux is no more complex than running Microsoft Server. However, while you can pay for a service contract with Microsoft to manage the complexity of Microsoft products, there is no GNU/Linux to contact for a GNU/Linux service contract. Red Hat provides those support services and is one company among several, but is a rather popular one.
I find it funny that the author calls AWS a 'new RH' ... it made me think of "The Three Amigos":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoZ_4nNNn9M
I do have a problem with the article implying that GNU/Linux is somehow more complex than other server OS options. Meaning it's an OS with a bunch of applications to manage and running GNU/Linux is no more complex than running Microsoft Server. However, while you can pay for a service contract with Microsoft to manage the complexity of Microsoft products, there is no GNU/Linux to contact for a GNU/Linux service contract. Red Hat provides those support services and is one company among several, but is a rather popular one.
I find it funny that the author calls AWS a 'new RH' ... it made me think of "The Three Amigos":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoZ_4nNNn9M
Quoting:running GNU/Linux is no more complex than running Microsoft Server
sure, but why would you want to run microsoft server?
i don't think the implication is that GNU/Linux would be more complex, but rather, as we all here believe (or know) Linux to be more stable and reliable for server use, there is simply enough demand for redhat to grow their business.
greetings, eMBee.
The way I see it, after many years of managing VMS, Windows & Linux servers, there is no other reason to use Windows server except for applications that run only on Windows.
Managing Windows cost more because data centers need more servers to run applications, more support personal, less reliable, & more rountine maintenance.
Managing Windows cost more because data centers need more servers to run applications, more support personal, less reliable, & more rountine maintenance.
> ...there is no other reason to use Windows server except for applications that run only on Windows.
Agreed, and they're probably best run as virtual machines. Unfortunately, there are a lot of applications that run only on Windows.
Agreed, and they're probably best run as virtual machines. Unfortunately, there are a lot of applications that run only on Windows.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post