Red Hat Network for the Masses 218
Outland Traveller writes: "A few months ago I sent some feedback to RedHat concerning their then $30/month RHN subscription service. I asked them to consider offering a $5/month low end version more suitable for home users with multiple computers. I'm sure that a plenty of other people offered the same suggestion, but I was still surprised when I opened my email this morning and found that the exact service I asked for is not only being offered, but that fast access to iso images has been added as well, among other improvements. I guess I now have to put my money where my mouth is :) Seriously though, this should be good news for people who download RedHat's .iso images but want to financially support RedHat in a way that makes sense."
I'd prefer to paypal them. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I'd prefer to paypal them. (Score:4, Insightful)
But these are only my $5/month worth of comments.
Re:I'd prefer to paypal them. (Score:5, Insightful)
After using Redhat linux for a couple of years, I decided to buy the upgrade to 7.0 last summer instead of just downloading it. For one thing it was simpler to get the CDs in the mail than to figure out what to download and roll my own. I also felt good supporting a company that's treated me well (RHAT +150.00 in two weeks...) in the past. But I never did activate my support, because it was only good for X number of days and after that I'd have to pay almost as much monthly as I'd paid for the bundle. I decided to save my code until I absolutely needed the support.
I'd feel more comfortable activating my support today, knowing that I'd only have to pay $5/month upkeep for a bit less service, than I'd have felt activating the support when I got the 7.0 CDs. I've always been in favor of choices, end-user empowerment, the idea that the person using software should be able to make the decisions. In that light I think Redhat has made a good move here. The more expensive option is still available to those who can afford it and would like the "VIP" treatment, but the cheaper option probably appeals to more people.
Remember that Redhat is a corporation, and needs to make money. I'm willing to bet that there are at least six times as many people willing to pay $5/month as there are people who are willing to pay $30/month. Offering the lower grade of RH Network will likely be a profitable decision as well as one that pleases consumers. Maybe I'll buy stock again
Of course, I still ain't subscribing to the support unless I really need it! But when that day comes I'll be much happier that there's a less expensive option.
Shaun
Re:I'd prefer to paypal them. (Score:4, Informative)
better give 5 minutes of your time... (Score:1)
instead of those $5...
www.debian.org
Re:better give 5 minutes of your time... (Score:2, Funny)
If I use RedHat, I obviously won't report anything to the Debian bug tracking system.
Also, you seem to equate 1 minute to 1 dollar.
If that was true, 5$/month for RedHat Network would be a nice investment, since it's very likely that a subscription would save you at least 5 minutes a month (searching, downloading and installing updates manually can take a lot of time sometimes).
Re:better give 5 minutes of your time... (Score:2)
That might not be totally bad. Microsoft's installation process is a breeze and it usually works. So is Red Hat's. Can't say the same thing about certain "pure" distros.
Re:better give 5 minutes of your time... (Score:4, Insightful)
My favorite bit from the improvements (Score:4, Funny)
Re:My favorite bit from the improvements (Score:1)
What about Beowulf clusters? (Score:4, Funny)
Thank you.
Mandrake has something similar (Score:4, Interesting)
http://mandrakelinux.com/en/club/
Re:Mandrake has something similar (Score:4, Interesting)
the real-men-use-apt dept. (Score:4, Redundant)
Re:the real-men-use-apt dept. (Score:4, Funny)
(I'm sure soon someone will degenrate this to 'real men use as...')
-fester
Re:the real-men-use-apt dept. (Score:2)
Don't let them bug you. Nobody mistakes them for part of the story, and Slash is far enough removed from a news site that the editors ought to be able to relax and have a bit of fun.
$5 is better than nothing (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I'd much rather see the in-store retail versions of RedHat drop in price to the $10-15 range for the latest version. I'd be more than happy to pick up a copy (can't have too many Linux install CD's lying around). Most of the documentation can be found online, and there are probably a lot of people like many that just want the CD's and don't really care so much about support. Right now, the current list price for RedHat 7.2 is $59.95, and it can be bought for $48.95 [buy.com] at buy.com. This company really ought to think their strategy. The distro market is pretty competitive right now, and 59.95 is a hell of a lot of money to spend on a free OS.
Re:$5 is better than nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that selling boxed copies in stores is Red Hat's primary motivation. I think their going after the enterprise. That's why they want to sell subscriptions at $30/mo/machine. You buy, or download, one copy of RH and install it on as many machines as you want. But if you want enterprise level support to keep those machines "up2date" then you can pay the monthly fee.
If you're big enough, you can buy the soon to be released "Red Hat Network in a Box" where you can run you're own completely autonomous Red Hat Network w/in your own corporation. (Info from a Red Hat guy who recently visited our LUG.)
Box sales in stores is likely to always be part of their market. But IMHO, it's not their primary target.
Re:$5 is better than nothing (Score:1)
Then they need to improve up2date (Score:2)
Red Hat is a basically quite good product, and I like it a lot. But based on past experience I wouldn't pay a nickel for up2date. (Ok, maybe I'd pay a dollar [but NOT a dollar / month!].)
.
Re:$5 is better than nothing (Score:1)
On the other hand, I don't know what people who don't know about "free" software think about shelling out $60. My guess is, they're reading the box and thinking "geez, thousands of programs on 7 CDs and still much cheaper than Windows. Plus, my buddy said it's really cool. Ok."
Re:$5 is better than nothing (Score:5, Informative)
I know how much they are paying because I work for the company that hosts their FTP servers. Trust me...they sit upon dual OC-48 feeds, right on the backbone which means low latency. I don't know what kind of bandwidth they commit to each month but I do know our company loves them. But that kind of access costs. You folks should appreciate the free downloads and help when you can. I have always bought my Red Hat CD.
Myxx
Re:$5 is better than nothing (Score:1)
I usually buy the box set when it comes out just to do my part to kick in. I think I'll probably sign up for this for the very same reason.
Re:$5 is better than nothing (Score:3, Funny)
I noticed at that buy.com page, under the section where it says "customers who bought this product also bought", the first thing listed is Microsoft Visual Basic C++ Std 6.0. There are some confused or soon-to-be-disappointed people out there.
They discontinued the "download version" (Score:2)
Mandrake has done something similar. The download version now no longer comes in a box, it's just $5 per cd. It's simply not worth the effort for the distro companies to make these cheap versions, which is why they are now making various types of subscription services.
Red Hat has never (okay, I take that back, maybe at some point they did, but not for very long) expected to make money selling their distro to consumers. Where they make their money is selling to corporations, and the home version is basically just advertising.
Open Source up2date server (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Open Source up2date server (Score:3, Informative)
Very good thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Licence v6.0 for Red Hat Linux???!!!*joke* (Score:1)
I know the various distibution makers HAVE to make money but I cant see that this adds any REAL value to the product by subscribing.
Im sure someone will now inform me other wise...
Send them your money (Score:4, Funny)
RH puts out a decent product and will probably be the last Linux standing tall at the end. Just give'em the $60 bucks and prove that you are more than a 1337 h4x0r and someone who actually cares about this whole Open Source, anti M$ thing.
Open Source != Anti-MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Too slow, chicken marengo... (Score:5, Interesting)
From my experience of Red Hat [redhat.com], even if I did want to upgrade to a more recent version of Red Hat Linux, I wouldn't trust it to an automated system. I upgraded a Red Hat 6 production server to Red Hat 7 last year, and so many things broke I was quite disappointed.
I guess this service will be useful for those home users who want to automatically pull down the latest security patches, tho.
(For those who don't know, the quote [geocities.com] is from Red Dwarf [reddwarf.co.uk], a British comedy.)
Actually, this still doesn't give me what I want (Score:2, Interesting)
Red Hat Network is an Internet solution for managing one or more Red Hat Linux systems. All Security Alerts, Bug Fix Alerts, and Enhancement Alerts (collectively known as Errata Alerts) can be retreived directly from Red Hat. You can even have updates automatically delivered directly to your system as soon as they are released.
So this service does not actually offer the ability to upgrade to the next Red Hat Linux version; it only offers patches for your current version.
Does this mean Red Hat still has no upgrade facility other than rebooting the server and booting from the install media? If so, then despite the RHN being a useful service, it seems that Red Hat still doesn't provide the functionality I want.
If I could do a live minor upgrade (such as 7.1 -> 7.2) of a Red Hat system it would definately be a step in the right direction.
I also wonder how a major upgrade (such as 6.2 -> 7.2) could be made smoother, considering the substantial changes between major versions.
The Red Hat Network is a good start, but some more tools are needed to ensure that upgrades are easier to perform, and are more likely to succeed.
Re:Actually, this still doesn't give me what I wan (Score:2)
FWIW, I recently upgraded a RH6.2 machine to 7.2 (actually 7.2.x, since there are several packages that have been released since 7.2) using up2date and had no problems. up2date finds all the dependancies and gets everything you need. Granted, I did have to reboot when it was done in order to load the new kernel, but it was much easier (and had less downtime) than upgrading from the CD.
Re:Too slow, chicken marengo... (Score:1)
At work I caved in and decided to just move everything to RedHat. I hope RedHat works on up2date/rpm/whatever so you can move from one release of the os to another with minimal breakage just like FreeBSD and Debian. If I ever colocate a box there is not a chance in hell it will run RedHat. My first choice would be FreeBSD just for ease of maintenance. When you can't get to the machine physically without a lot of time/effort/$$$ why run something that is simply inefficent for your purpose. That's the way I see it...
Re:Too slow, chicken marengo... (Score:2, Informative)
Oh wait, THEY ALREADY HAVE. It's called testing and if you had read any debian news within the past year you would know about it.
Re:Too slow, chicken marengo... (Score:3, Informative)
But testing does still break periodically. Testing is - well - relatively untested.
Debian is a great distribution and definitely has its niches, but it seems fair to ensure that people don't think the testing version is comparable to what RedHat is offering. RedHat releases undergo a good amount of testing. With Debian testing, you're the one doing the testing.
If you can't afford some down time now and then, or if you aren't comfortable doing a bit of command line work when your X server suddenly doesn't come up after an upgrade, you need to steer clear. Stick with ancient Debian 2.2, which may be the most stable release on the planet, or look elsewhere if you need the newer whiz bang stuff without giving up a ton of stability.
"Fast" ISO Downloads (Score:3, Interesting)
Update the dev server, test, compare with production, and schedule an update...
mmmm.. nice.
On the other hand, I haven't even been able to *start* a download from the supposed fast servers. I wonder if everybody is download extraneous isos for fun now.....
Old model (Score:1, Troll)
The reason is obvious: dependancy hell. I've had enough of it. Any system which uses RPMs is simply too hard to maintain.
If RPM5 comes out in the next month or so and supports a high-quality dependancy resolution system I might still stick with RH, but I don't expect it to.
TWW
Re:Old model (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Old model (Score:1)
Right now it is simply too hard for a "average" person to update and install software on their box, For example, say my mother wishes to install the new version of evolution, she goes to the web site and there are 20 different types of packages to install (one for each distro), so she takes a punt, and then finds out that there are 20 different dependant packages, For linux to progress there need to be two standard install systems, consisting of a binarie version and another source version, for EVERYTHING IMHO. Doing this my mother would simply have to download one file, double chick and the programs installed, and by not having to think to much avoid confusion
People aren't dumb rather they tend to get the shits when they have to do a whole host of things just to "install fscking outlook clone".
Personally Im curious to why it seems to be taking so long, after all RPM's haven't really changed much since Red Hat 5.
Also while Apt get is definitely a step in the right direction but a newbie might think that having to download other programs when they have just downloaded the principle package a bit "rich".
Re:Old model (Score:1)
What like?
Generally, I think the Sorcery Linux model sounds pretty good. I find that I'm compiling more and more software on my systems so a source-based method appeals and also gets rid of the "which version" issues with binary distros.
TWW
Re:Old model (Score:2)
Difficulty to install stuff?
Gamming issues?
Try Mandrake Linux Gamming Edition:
WineX for your gamming needs.
Nice GUI/CLI for unified install
urpmi (the CLI) solves "dependency hell". The front-end "rpmdrake / MandrakeUpdate" is the nice GUI front-end.
In two words: it works.
Re:Old model (Score:2)
The reason is obvious: dependancy hell. I've had enough of it. Any system which uses RPMs is simply too hard to maintain.
Then, Try Mandrake Linux 8.1 and urmpi.
This is an "apt-get
Pretty cool. It works. Really. Give it a try. I love it.
Re:Old model (Score:2)
Difference between subscriptions (Score:1, Interesting)
Do the $30 subscribers get more bandwidth, faster access to updates, or even more stuff?
Redhat has to offer something to still get people to get the more expensive subscription
Re:Difference between subscriptions (Score:5, Informative)
But for the lazy, the $30 is really targeted at Enterprise customers. It offers support for things like multiple admins, grouping systems to perform updates on a group, etc... It's suited for running more than 4 or 5 machines in your apartment. Think hundreds, or even thousands, in the workplace.
What about Red Carpet? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What about Red Carpet? (Score:1)
In a similar note I wonder how the hell debian.org can afford the bandwidth for all the apt-get'ing. I know there are plenty of mirrors but still...
Re:What about Red Carpet? (Score:2)
Re:What about Red Carpet? (Score:2)
For multiple machines, RHN apparently can update multiple machines from one Web interface, which I'll bet is a lot more convenient.
Re:What about Red Carpet? (Score:2)
When you try to upgrade to RedHat 8.x, you'll find out. The hard way.
Re:What about Red Carpet? (Score:2)
Red Carpet would work fine for keeping your system updated if you wanted to do it. I like the idea of being able to set a cron job that runs up2date and forget about it.
I like it (Score:5, Interesting)
Also the Instant ISO program. I hope they have the bandwidth, because I intend to take full advantage of it on release day. Saves me from a trip to the store, 2 or 3 weeks later.
I've come to love RedHat over the last 4 years of using it since switching from Slackware at RH 5.1. I'm pleased with the convenience this service offers, and I am quite happy to give them $5 a month to keep my server running well.
GPLed Alternatives (Score:2)
There's really no need to pay for this sort of thing. Searching for "redhat update" on Freshmeat reveals 5 GPLed update tools. I even wrote one myself to meet my university's specific needs. Download it, run it with -writeconfig, edit the config file to point to your favorite mirror, copy the script to /etc/cron.daily, and you're set for automatic update retrieval.
Beyond basic "rpm -Fvh" functionality, it can be configured to send mail to a specific address when updates arrive, ignore certain packages (with regexp support), and write a script which performs the updates when run.
It's called HURL (Hurl Updates Redhat Linux), and you can get a copy here [brandeis.edu]. Drop me some mail if you like it or have suggestions.
Re:GPLed Alternatives (Score:2)
Free software is a totally different mindset. There will always be a way to "beat the system", but if everyone does this there will be no commercial system to beat. Some may think this is a good thing, but we all owe a lot to companies like Red Hat, even if you use a different distrobution... even if you use debian.
Re:GPLed Alternatives (Score:2)
As far as personal use goes, people who are cheap wouldn't buy RHN anyway and would just do their own updates. At least this way their machines can be secure.
Should people not use the GIMP because they could buy Photoshop? Certainly the free software movement owes Adobe a debt for their ideas, if not for their code.
Proxy/Satellite Servers for RHN Workgroup (Score:1, Interesting)
Has anyone actually used these servers with the workgroup service? I couldn't find any reference to them in the Red Hat Network Workgroup User Reference Guide 1.0 [redhat.com].
For that matter, has anyone used the Workgroup service? Opinions?
Maybe I'm missing something... (Score:2)
Re:Maybe I'm missing something... (Score:4, Funny)
(Note: This isn't a flame. It *would* have been a flame if I had added that last night I showed his girlfriend that I also knew how to manipulate digits.)
Re:Maybe I'm missing something... (Score:1)
Oh well, foot, mouth, etc... flame was well deserved.
Re:Maybe I'm missing something... (Score:2, Informative)
I sent the same sort of feedback (Score:5, Interesting)
At home though, I have a 10 machine lab, most of which run Redhat on them. But still, if I want to get RHN, that's $240 per year. Like I told Redhat, I can get a Windows license cheaper than that, and that includes free use of the Windows update service. So if I have a two year upgrade cycle, I've paid $440 to Redhat, while paying about $200 to Microsoft. The difference being that if I remember correctly, that $240 annually to Redhat covers up to 10 machines, while the Windows fee only covers one. Still though, it's not like I grant myself a large IT budget for home.
Now that the cost for a home user to sign up has come down, I can definitely see myself using it. It makes updating much easier, and it allows me to do my part in supporting the Linux distribution that I prefer.
Re:I sent the same sort of feedback (Score:3, Insightful)
You're going to run a 10 machine lab of Windows machines for less than $240 including upgrades to their latest OS, or are you talking about just buying one copy of Windows for all 10 machines?
Re:I sent the same sort of feedback (Score:2)
Your home IT budget is bigger than you think.
Am I Missing Something? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Am I Missing Something? (Score:1)
Yeah, why are people so happy about this, when they would be foaming at the mouth if Microsoft wanted to charge you $5/month?
The difference is that Red Hat is not pointing a gun (or a team of salespeople or lawyers) at your head and forcing you to sign up for this. You can buy (or download) one copy of Red Hat, install it on your 1,000 machines, and never pay them another cent, if that's what you want to do. The fact that RH gives you that option make people (including me) happy. So far, I've chosen not to subscribe to any Red Hat services. That may very well change someday, but when I want it to.
Re:Am I Missing Something? (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple - I can install RedHat for free. I have to buy M$ at a cost of $100-$200 every year or two for each machine. Too expensive for me for what I get.
Thats why I never used RHN - too expensive for my little LAN of 5 or 6 machines. But $60/year for the service seems like a great deal. And I can't help but feel lik ewhen $ goes to RedHat its almost a donation where money sent to M$ feels like gettin grobbed - can't explain why though :)
Re:Am I Missing Something? (Score:2)
And I can't help but feel lik ewhen $ goes to RedHat its almost a donation where money sent to M$ feels like gettin grobbed - can't explain why though :)
Because they release everything (or most) as open source?
Difference between update sub and software sub (Score:5, Informative)
what's the difference between this kind of subscription and Microsoft's ?
If you don't pay Red Hat, you can still use the software you have, and you can get new software off rpmfind [rpmfind.net]. If you don't pay Microsoft, on the other hand, you lose your right to use the software because under a rental agreement, you are not the owner of a copy, and in the United States, 17 USC 117 states that the owner of a copy can dictate terms of use.
Still too much $$$ (Score:2)
For these people, RedHat costs 3x more to keep updated than windows. Granted, more software comes with RedHat, even in the stripped down versions.
Still, I think more reasonable support contracts for individuals can only help these distro companies. I've been asking the same from Mandrake every chance I get, but to no avail.
Uh, Mike (Score:2)
I guess those "real men" don't have to work at a company that makes any money.
I sent similar feedback. (Score:1)
I usually buy a packaged version when it comes out, it keeps me current, gives a little back to RedHat, and gives me the n days of support. But only one machine. With 2 at home (as I figure many have with one 'user' machine and a firewall) I could use RedHat Network for updating, but I had to keep switching machines in order to use up2date. For me, the $5 / month is worth the time savings in using up2date vs. doing the individual downloads of each fix. As someone else said, guess I'll now have to step up to the plate and pay it
business use (Score:1)
Service was free when I bought the 7.0 Box Set (Score:1)
I purchased the 7.0 boxed set some time ago and originally the service was supposed to be offered for a limited time. RedHat then decided to give the service for free to one system if you bought the boxed set. I still have free access.
Are they still giving the service away for free if you purchase the official boxed set? I've used Caldera 2.4 and Debian 2.4, but I came back to RedHat because of the RedHat Network service. I did use apt-get extensively when I had Debian, but I found RHN easier to use. Just my opinion. This is the right price for this service, and I posted this opinion to RedHat's feedback form. I'm going to get my brother and sister to sign up, as I got them to start using RedHat some time ago at 7.0. Of course, my brother still uses Windows for Everquest.;(
RHN vs. Red Carpet (Score:4, Insightful)
Red Hat Network doesn't look as elegent, but it has more functionality overall. RHN gives you emails of critical updates and errata tailored to your actual systems. It gives you a single point of management for multiple computers. One thing that I tried yesterday was to schedule the install of new RPM packages on one of my tower systems from my laptop. It worked great! Also, I love how you can exclude packages from being upgraded. It's very annoying to have to click on every individual update manually in red carpet just because if you hit "update all" it will update a package you want left alone (usually replacing a more up to date version with a downgraded ximian version).
I'm used to periodically checking for updates manually, and then pushing them down to each system as needed. This saves a lot of time if you can spare 60$ a year for each additional system (you get one system free).
Isn't this the real "Entropia" ? (Score:1, Funny)
"I'm a 40th level Zealot with the staff of ESR and a hair from the beard of RMS, I'm gonna kick your ass"
Seriously though, accountants love this "constant revenue" model. That's why you'll see it take over. A little money now, and a little money forever!
Donate? (Score:1)
"Seriously though, this should be good news for people who download RedHat's .iso images but want to financially support RedHat in a way that makes sense."
I don't know about you guys, but isn't the best way to make money to offer a service or product that people are willing to pay for because it's good; rather than hoping on donations because people like the company?
That said, I have no clue wether this service is worth the money or not, I am merely reacting to the wording of some of the posts. To me it sounds like some of you are looking for an excuse to donate money to RH. They should be able to survive without you being kind to them. That will never work out in the long run. So, I hope that those of you who will pay for this will be paying for the right reason; because it's worth it, not because you want to be nice to RH.
Oh. I guess this is troll -1.
Two final issues with RHN (Score:5, Insightful)
1) RHN would NOT store my machine configuration on their servers. I see no reason this can't be stored on my machine.
2) Red Hat would coordinate with Ximian so that their releases coincide. Let's say $9/mo for Red Carpet and RHN combined. This would cover all system and basic desktop updates; both RH and Ximian might want to keep a level or two of premium service beyond this basic service.
Maybe even offer different desktop subscriptions, so that $9 might get you RH+GNOME, or RH+KDE.
Re:Two final issues with RHN (Score:2, Informative)
This is _optional_. You don't have to do this.
Re:Two final issues with RHN (Score:2)
Bandwidth. If they have to interrogate every system to see if it wants the S/390 updates and the Sparc updates etc. every time, that costs them more money than the disk space to store your architecture.
Re:Two final issues with RHN (Score:2)
Thanks for the correction. Is this new? I don't recall seeing this option the first (and last) time I tried RHN.
Content-Addressable Web (Score:2)
Stay tuned for the O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conference [oreillynet.com] where we will be unveiling a companion set of technologies to the CAW that will change distribution of open source content forever!
If anyone wants to know more about CAW before the conference, please contact me at justin_at_onionnetworks_dot_com
--
Justin Chapweske, Onion Networks [onionnetworks.com]
The one thing I don't like about Redhat linux (Score:2, Insightful)
Since FAM is not a "well known service", the only way for the system to work is to...
1) fire up ye olde sunrpc portmap on port 111 listening to the whole world (ARRRGH!!! Hello Lion/Ramen) and have FAM register itself with portmap.
2) FAM is then assigned a random port (could be above or below 1024) and listens to the whole world (ARRRGH!!!) on that port. Other programs can query portmap to find out which port to talk to FAM on. Oh yeah, the "-L" (local listen only) commandline option *IS IGNORED IN THE DEFAULT LAUNCH MODE* (i.e. xinetd). So *OTHER COMPUTERS CAN MONITOR YOUR FILE CHANGES*. ARRRGH!!!
Linux users have long laughed at Windows where *DESKTOP CLIENT PROGRAMS* are security holes. But here comes Redhat with a "feature" that, out-of-the-box, makes your filesystem activity viewable by the entire internet as well as exposing two open ports. WTF were they thinking when they did that ? More succinctly... were they thinking when they did that ? Planet earth calling Micro^H^H^H^H^H Redhat; isn't it time your boss man sent out a memo telling his programmers to put security ahead of features ?
How many newbie end-users are going to know how to properly update portmap and hosts.deny and hosts.allow and iptables to protect themselves? Redhat should've set the port number in
Been done before.. (Score:2)
1.) As a sys admin, if you're smart and value your time, you'll be using mostly diskless workstations to begin with. No, I don't mean what Sun calls diskless workstations. I mean ordinary full-featured PC's with no hard disks. Or if they do have hard disks, it's only for a cache of the networked filesystems. So there, right off the start, you don't need this RHN silliness because by very nature, diskless workstations don't need updated, only the server does.
2.) So lets say you're a home user with only 3 machines, making it silly to set up diskless workstations. There's still a better way. First, you use Debian. One machine is your 'test box.' Use both the Debian testing and unstable sources. (unstable is rather misleading if you think that implies the kinda useless mess that is Mandrake's 'cooker' tree. Debian unstable is quite stable enough for all but heavy production systems) So anyways, once a week, on your test box, you do:
apt-get update; apt-get upgrade
This will upgrade *everything* installed on the machine as packages. Most likely everything is fine, but if you're worried, use the test box for a couple days to make sure everything is stable. All other machines should have a weekly cron job that uses your test box as a package source and performs the same operation.. but 2-3 days after the test-box upgrade, just in case something broke.
It's that simple. The RH people need to wake up and realize that they need to sell an actual solution if you're going to make money. Repackaging free software is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
You dont need money... ?! (Score:2)
The RedHat ISO images have been available for downloads for years. Numerous ftp sites around the world mirror them. (check
I understand the interest for 'update -u' (which is the RedHat equivalent of the Debian 'apt-get upgrade'), but that's been also running for over a year now and having used that on a dozen or so boxes I've never payed a dime for that.
Besides, the rpms and srpms are always available on numerous ftp mirrors in the redhat directories, and will continue doing so. After all they cannot charge for the software, only for the service. And ftp mirrors around the world is also something that they cannot charge for, which actually is the kind of service I'd be willing to pay for...
For the record, the RedHat up2date service has been well worth the $5 a month, even $30 for a bit older (i.e. working) users.
Re:WHY PAY ? (Score:5, Interesting)
I use debian. I love apt. But I'm considering moving some of the machines I support to red hat. For $5/mo/machine, it is really nice to have a single place where I can check on the status of packages and patches for every machine I manage. I don't know of a way to do this (currently) in debian.
Of course, I imagine it's only a matter of time before someone writes a post-install plugin to apt that will allow for an installation update to be written to a db or web page. So it's not inconceivable that debian gets a similar feature. But for now it doesn't exist, and it makes red hat very attractive for managing a non-small numbers of linux boxen.
Re:WHY PAY ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Done
350 machines. Need to track the package status of 350 machines. How exactly, are you going to tell me the status of 350 machines using that technique without going to each of the individual machines? Right now, you either:
The point is that the red hat network (allegedly) manages large numbers of machines better than debian. Of course, this is untested by me, right now. But it's an attractive feature.
Re:WHY PAY ? (Score:1)
But if I was going to do it, I'd do it with debian.
0 4 * * * apt-get update && apt-get upgrade && upgradestatus
Where upgradestatus would be a perl script that takes the output of "dpkg -l" and formats it in some intelligent way, then uploads it to an SQL server.
I would think that would give you awesome centralized package management, and you'd immediately know when systems are out of date, or when they fail their upgrades.
You may be saying "well, I don't want to write it myself, it should come with the OS!" and that may be true. But if it did, do you think you would use it the way it was? Or would you customize it to suit your own needs?
Maybe theres a reason nobody has done this yet. Probably because everyone already does it in their own way.
BTW, instead of pushing the status to a central server, I push out all my changes with an expect script. Even with 650 machines, I'd rather watch them as they get upgraded to make sure there isn't a failure. If theres too many machines, then you can devide the work up between several people and have them all watch upgrades.
But thats just me.
problem: dpkg is interactive (Score:1)
I believe that the purpose of a service such as redhat's is that you answer all of those questions once for your 300+ machines and then it goes and does all of the installation, with those answers.
it would be nice if debian supported such a thing, but I don't know of any particularly good way to handle it.
Of course, for a single machine, if you're decently stilled, debian is an absolute dream.
Ganymede? (Score:2)
I don't know enough about this, but it seemed to me that Ganymede could be extended to manage everything, not just directories. Ganymede 1.0.9 [utexas.edu]
Re:Ganymede? (Score:2)
Ganymede could be extended to do a lot of things, due to its intrinsic flexibility and programmability, but it was never made for management of software distribution. If you wanted to have the Ganymede server act as a repository of software installation information on multiple systems, you probably could do that, but most of the interesting work to handle software distribution would have to be developed from scratch. If someone were so moved, Ganymede might be a nice starting point for something like that, but I imagine that by the time you were done, it wouldn't look a very great deal like the current system.
Which is perfectly fine with me, of course. ;-)
Ganymede everywhere? (Score:2)
Jon, earlier you told me that Ganymede could not easily be extended to manage software configurations, because of its lack of ability to cause execution.
Disclaimers and cautions: I respect whatever you say. You certainly know more than I about management of large networks. I know that it is possible that I could be wrong because of insufficient appreciation of how things work.
Now that I have said that, I have an opinion:
I think that we should want only ONE repository of information about each computer. I think that, philosophically, a repository should not be anything else than a repository. We don't want the database of information to go out and start changing things. We don't want this because of a realization that the program that takes action based on information should be different than the program that contains the information.
I think it is far better that each supplier of software write a configuration routine that queries the Ganymede repository and makes the necessary changes. This routine would be a plug-in to Ganymede. Potentially there would be thousands of plug-ins.
This, to me, seems like the only sensible division of labor. The software supplier has his or her own preferred language and ways of accomplishing things, and the configuration repository should not interfere with that.
Once software configuration is managed by Ganymede, it is only another step toward using Ganymede to manage pre-installation information.
What attracts me to Ganymede is that there seems to be very high quality of infrastructure. Ganymede has the extensibility to thousands of machines that is necessary. If we get started down a road toward improving open OS management the new methods must be extremely extensible.
Conceivably, a software installation routine could do anything it liked, any way it liked, but it would not get started until it had queried the Ganymede repository and would not be considered completely finished until what it did was entered into Ganymede.
There needs to be ONE place for ALL information about each computer on a network. There needs to be a GUI tool for having a quick look at this information. Is there a better infrastructure already available than Ganymede? Ganymede may not be very close to being able to do this, but can you mention a better starting point?
I think modesty is fine, but not when it becomes misleading. The facts seem to be that Ganymede is an excellent start on something that needs to be everywhere.
To make all of this work, Ganymede would have to be such that it could easily manage any number of computers, from 1 to 100,000.
Is anything here in error?
Re:Ganymede everywhere? (Score:2)
I think that we should want only ONE repository of information about each computer. I think that, philosophically, a repository should not be anything else than a repository. We don't want the database of information to go out and start changing things. We don't want this because of a realization that the program that takes action based on information should be different than the program that contains the information.
Sure, but Ganymede actually is designed to actively respond to data loaded into it. If you want a simple repository, you want something like MySQL, or PostgresSQL, or a simple LDAP server.
For software distribution and management, tools like apt-get or rpm, when combined with something like cfengine [iu.hio.no] or OpenNMS [opennms.org] might make better sense, I would think.
I think modesty is fine, but not when it becomes misleading. The facts seem to be that Ganymede is an excellent start on something that needs to be everywhere.
Well, I'm pleased that you have a high opinion of Ganymede, and I certainly wouldn't want to discourage anyone from making a go of building something like what you are suggesting based on it, but as I say, it's not really what I was designing for.
If you'd like to throw ideas of this kind around, by all means, send email to the Ganymede-dev mailing list and see if you can find someone else who's interested in pursuing this sort of thing. If nothing else, it would be more appropriate for me to respond in depth there.
Volution (Score:2)
There needs to be ONE place for ALL information about each computer on a network. There needs to be a GUI tool for having a quick look at this information. Is there a better infrastructure already available than Ganymede? Ganymede may not be very close to being able to do this, but can you mention a better starting point?
Michael, if you want to see a system designed more along the lines I think you are suggesting, do take a look at Caldera's Volution [caldera.com] network management product.
Only a free product will be popular enough. (Score:2)
Jon, I know you might think I am being hasty, but I had a look at the Volution web pages. My strong impression is that this product is going nowhere. Those people are not up to the considerable intellectual challenge of making Volution popular. Also, there needs to be a free product that is shipped with every distribution of Linux.
Re:WHY PAY ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Have 350 Deb machines to manage? Check out FAI [uni-koeln.de]. We're using it with about 20 machines, and it works OK. Initial setup is a pain, but once that's done, it's quite powerful and flexible.
Re:WHY PAY ? (Score:2)
Re:WHY PAY ? (Score:1)
And everytime i tried to upgrade the testing branch, something went broken...
Bye
Re:WHY PAY ? (Score:1, Insightful)
If you don't believe in paying for the products you use, you're either communist or a terrorist (maybe both).
You obviously have no idea of what you're talking about. Here's a hint: buy a dictionary, look up communism, L-E-A-R-N.
There's nothing un-American about wanting something for free or not paying for what you do get. If anything, it's probably more American to not want to pay for things that you get, hence this whole discussion. After all, people weren't willing to pay $30 to RedHat, so how is $5 any better?
I won't even touch your terrorist reference...honestly, if you wanted to be a troll, you could've done much better with your choice of words...
Anyway, who's to say that only Americans are on Slashdot? :-)