Enterprise Linux's exaggerated value #2: the support you're forced to buy
Yesterday I began what will probably end up becoming a series of posts about how y'all need to rethink the meaning of the word "enterprise," and related, the value of support. In specific, I called out how "Enterprise Linux," (usually meaning Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Novell's Suse/SLES/SLED)
is overvalued because the packages you pay for often need to be replaced with packages you don't pay for.
Another problem with Enterprise Linux is the way it's sold. You buy the bits and support
together. People might think it's hard for an open source software vendor to just sell the bits, when technically, so much of it is "free," and its easier to just imagine all those software dollars are actually paying for "support" (representing commercial man-hours, not free) but the simple fact is many organizations would love to pay for the bits they could technically get for free, and just do without the facade of expensive support, when the support they get from other resources is more responsive.
Photohosting site smugmug was in that boat, and
blogged about their issues with Novell and Redhat.
...we loved Red Hat Linux, we loved how good they were at building & testing their software, we loved their mechanism for delivering software updates. We just didn’t need support.
We got on our knees, begging and pleading with Red Hat to let us pay for a “software updates only” license. They wouldn’t have it. “Support comes bundled with updates”, I was told, “no ifs, ands, or buts”. I *want* to pay Red Hat for the valuable service they do for us and the community. I just don’t want to pay for the part we don’t need - human support.
I would really like to pay Red Hat for all their hard work building and testing the software. .. It’d be the right thing to do. But Red Hat won’t let me.
The company ended up going with CentOS, a clone of Red Hat Enterprise Linux I'll write about another time. Again, you'll notice the author isn't trying to avoid paying for the software, he just doesn't want to pay for a service ("support") he doesn't need.
WHAT WE CAN DO
Many of us who use Linux in commercial situations are more than happy to pay for it. Let's feel comfortable paying for it in different ways. We need to get over the traditional model of a single, central body of developers and supporters being embodied by a single company. There are different currencies and parties involved. Give back to your providers creatively with money, bug fixes, documentation, and sharing your best practicies. Take the time to identify the upstream developers and projects and consider funding them directly. Publicly share your challenges and success stories on the internet, the attention will help future users and the developers by making their project less of an unknown quantity for future users.
But most importantly, be willing to break free of this totally broken tradition of thinking paying a bunch of money to a central body in some way solves your technical problems and protects you. It may make certain people in your organization
feel safe, but take the time to run some numbers. What value have you really gotten out of support in the past? Put the burden of determining value on those who sell it.
Labels: business, cent os, centos, enterprise, linux, novell, open source, red hatredhat, sled, sles, supports, suse
Enterprise Linux's exaggerated value #1: its "tested" packages are too old to use
One of the supposed benefits of
enterprise (what that word really means reserved for another post, but a good place to start is
here)
Linux is that the included packages are "tested" and "hardened" (what does that even mean??!?) for the
enterprise. The problem is, in the time it takes to test, these packages have grown quite old, increasing the chances that a sysadmin will need to replace them with software from elsewhere. For security reasons, and technical compatibility reasons, you're often forced to upgrade packages.
And you can't just grab updates from the vendor, because even the
updates are really old, only marginally newer than the package that you're trying to replace. So you uninstall the vendor package, and either grab a package from elsewhere, or compile the source. And try to remind yourself what exactly you're paying for again...
An example? The just-release Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 comes with an RPM for Firefox 1.5.x. What?
A common dismissal of Ubuntu (not typically described as "enterprise linux") is that "it's fine for the casual user, but not for the enterprise."
Frankly, its packages are more appropriate for the enterprise than any enterprise linux i've seen. For this reason alone I'm very excited about its increasing acceptance in the business community. Even if it
starts at the periphery...
Labels: business, enterprise, linux, novell, red hat, redhat, ubuntu
Novell + Sun. Two ships passing in the night
Wowza... so much hub-bub yesterday about
Sun open-sourcing Java. It almost drowned out this news:
Using patents as competitive tools in the free software world is not acceptable. Novell, as a participant in numerous debates, discussions and conferences on the topic knew this to be the case. We call upon Novell to work with the Software Freedom Law Center to undo the patent agreement and acknowledge its obligations as a beneficiary of the Free Software community.
And somehow this gets connected to the Sun Java announcement. Samba isn't the only one bugged by the Microsoft/ Novell arrangement. While Sun already had plans to open source Java, they had not decided on a license. It turns out that Sun decision to use the GPL is directly related to the Novell/ Microsoft agreement.
Sun CEO
Jonathan Schwartz writes:
... one of the strongest motivations to select the GPL was the announcement made last week by Novell and Microsoft, suggesting that free and open source software wasn't safe unless a royalty was being paid. As an executive from one of those companies said, "free has to have a price." That's nonsense.
Free software can be free of royalties, and free of impediments to broadscale, global adoption and deployment. Witness what we've done with Solaris, and now, what we've done with Java. Developers are free to pick up the code, and create derivatives. Without royalty or obligation.
Those that say open source software can't be safe for customers - or that commercially indemnified software can't foster community - are merely advancing their own agenda. Without any basis in fact.
They're also fighting a rising tide.
Related:
Labels: copyright, gpl, law, legal, license, microsoft, novell, patents, software, strategy, sun, technology
