RE: why linux? -- MIDRANGE-L

I've been sitting here for 20 minutes trying to decide if I should respond
further to this thread is if so, how.  Obviously I decided to respond.  I
hope I can respond in a useful way.

Let me say first that I talked to someone who teaches argumentative
writing and she mentioned an author who said that people are not convinced
by facts, but by a (sometimes forced) paradigm shift in thinking.  So I
won't try to present several facts and then say that anyone is silly for
not believing them.  Instead let me present personal experience as the
reasons for thinking the way I do.

Also, I don't want to convince you.  I want you to draw your own
conclusions.  I hope to provide useful information that will help you in
reaching whatever conclusions you do.

You are free to conclude that I am nuts ;)

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, jt wrote:

> | -----Original Message-----
> | [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Scott Klement
>
> | Windows also crashes regularly...  Linux, BSD and OS/400 do not.
>
> I sure hope you are not implying a comparison of Linux and BSD to OS/400,
> because they're not in the same league.

My experience is that they are in the same league, meaning that crashes of
the OS are extremely rare.  In my experience I have had 1 non-hardware
related failure of OS/400 - that's pretty dang good.  I have had a few
more such failures on linux, but not more than 3.  And I do a lot more
messing around on linux than I do on OS/400.  So in my experience, they
are in the same league.  I even have some numbers (I don't mean these to
be represented as facts about linux in general, but rather as my current
experience) on current uptimes.  I only mention them because uptime
numbers can sometimes be useful in assessing overall system stability:

home machine:  up 5 days
main office firewall/smart smtp/web/router:  up 225 days
main office intranet email/web/DNS/file/print server: up 72 days
my office desktop machine:  up 14 days
multihosted web/email/DNS/ftp server:  up 206 days
customer 1 server:  up 364 days
customer 2 server:  up 157 days
customer 3 server:  up 37 days
customer 4 server:  up 74 days

Each customer's server is doing web/email/DNS/routing/firewall/file/print
serving.  In every case uptimes measured in less than years are the result
of power and UPS failures, system upgrades, change of location, or simply
because the machine has only been in place for that long (i.e. customer 4
has yet to ever restart their machine).  This results in an average of
128.2 days of uptime.  Note that these numbers indicate continuous
availability, i.e. there has not been any downtime, planned or unplanned,
during the days listed.  When you consider that 2 of the 9 machines listed
are my desktop machines an average of 128 days is pretty dang good.  Even
better than the uptimes for those same customer's AS/400s.  Those AS/400s
have not had any unplanned downtime over the course of the last year that
could not be attributed to user error.  But the planned downtime of those
machines means that overall their linux computers have been more
available.

Now of course those planned downtimes on the AS/400s are there for a
reason.  But this experience shows that linux is not giving any hiccups in
reliability.  So for this apples to oranges comparison I have no reason to
think that just because I like apples I won't like oranges as well.  IOW,
so far there is nothing to indicate that linux is any less reliable than
OS/400.

So, going back to the subject of this thread, "why linux?"  Reason number
1 for me is reliability.  Because that has been my experience so far.

> | Every time I read one of these "religious wars" where people adamantly
> | defend Windows, I always find myself thinking "What would Microsoft have
> | to do in order for these people to lose faith in them?"   And, I can't
> | imagine anything!
>
> I ask the same question about RMS, ESR, Linus Torvalds and Lawrence
> Lessig...  Same conclusion!

This one is tougher to discuss in a setting where purely business reasons
are demanded, i.e. "show me the money" type reasons.  Nevertheless, it
does have some reason to investigate "why linux?" so bears thinking about.

If Richard Stallman were to say, "I cease to believe that knowledge should
be freely accessible" then I would stop listening to what he has to say,
and admittedly lose faith in his writings.  I hesitate to say "lose faith"
because of the religious overtones;  I mean it in only the most secular
way.  All of the people you mention are just people and not deserving of
any kind of worship.  They aren't cult leaders.  But they do champion
ideas - ideas which are powerful and compelling.  The idea is that
knowledge should be freely accessible.  Science has been building on this
idea for a long time.  That it should be applied so widely is what makes
it so exciting.  I can learn.  You can learn.  We can improve ourselves.

So reason number two for "why linux?" is knowledge should be freely
accessible.  That is my experience - and what a great experience it has
been!

> | I mean, if the OS being unstable doesn't do it --
>
> I've heard plenty of comments that Linux and BSD are just as stable as
> OS/400.  But these comments invariably compare apples and oranges because
> the workload is so different.  Compare the stability of OS/400
> simultaneously running Windows, Linux, and a VAST MULTITUDE of different
> applications..
> .. to these other OS, if they can (HA!), and then let's compare stability.

I talked about stability and reliability already, so let's not repeat that
again.  But workloads is worth discussing.  OS/400 doesn't run windows or
linux, they run by themselves either on a dedicated processor, processor
partition, or within a virtual machine.  This splitting is handled usually
by the underlying hardware/firmware or by advanced translation to provide
the virtual machine.  Virtual machine technology is not unique to OS/400.
Both windows and linux (and many others) have the same technology
available.  So in that respect the workload is no different.  My
experience is that the virtual machines for linux work great and don't
create any stability problems.  Splitting hardware in a way to permit
running a different OS on a partition is not unique to the AS/400 either,
but it isn't done on cheap hardware.  You have to spend big money to get
it (big being more than $10,000).  Multiple OSes done this way don't
affect each other's stability, so further discussion along this topic is
probably pointless.

But the topic of workloads is still interesting.  My experience has been
that linux can handle a very wide range of workloads and still be
completely stable.  A wider range than the AS/400 even, since all the
stuff we do on the AS/400 is database transaction software.  We never have
hard real time needs or audio or graphics or 3D or time syncronization or
routing or firewall or science applications run on the AS/400.  But I've
done all of those things and more on linux.  And it was stable under all
those different types of workloads.  I haven't run a linux machine with
thousands of simultaneous users, but I have created thousands of
simultaneous processes and it was stable.  So again, my experience gives
me no reason to suppose it is any less stable than OS/400.

So reason number three as to "why linux?" is that is handles a vast array
of different workloads very well.

> | and the security being
> | an afterthought doesn't do it
>
> That would be all flavors of *nix, if I understand correctly.  OS/400 was
> designed with security in mind FROM THE BEGINNING in the late seventies...
> *nix...???

Originally designed as a multi-user system, unix was developed in an
environment that was not hostile.  In those days, the system had to
protect users from each other's mistakes, not so much from other user's
abuse.  Fortunately, the design to protect users from each other also fits
the malicious outsider model well.  Over the years the model has been
refined to the point where the security options available to me far exceed
my needs and those of my customers.  My experience has been that linux is
secure enough that I am largely worry-free.  I sleep very well :)

> | -- and the almost continual compatibility
> | problems don't do it --
>
> I can't comment on OS/400 *nix on compatibility, so it may be just as bad.

Scott was talking about the compatibility problems in windows.  But
compatibility issues exist on every platform, even OS/400.  OS/400 is a
shining example of backwards compatibilty - very well done.  But that
doesn't mean I can compile code back to any version.  Nor can I use free
form since I'm on V4R1.

> | and the fact that they make up new standards
> | instead of following existing ones doesn't do it....
>
> See previous discussion on standards.  (Especially the part about how
> useless a lotta standards are.)

Some standards probably are useless.  But my experience is that they are
useful more often than not.  It is an agreement to use standards that
allows our computers to work together.  In my experience having a
published standard enables me to increase the capabilities of my systems.

> | what will?
>
> Probably nothing, in both the case of people who adamantly defend *nix as
> well as those who adamantly defend Windows.  These mostly being non-issues
> with OS/400.

Non-issues meaning that OS/400 does not have people who adamantly defend
it?  Or that those adamant defenders of OS/400 can be swayed in their
views?

> | And then I wonder why I enter these discussions.  Since if Windows being a
> | piece of junk doesn't convince you to try something else, certainly
> | nothing that I say will.

I'm wondering if my participation is a mistake.  It's been 2 hours now
that I have spent working on this email and I'm nervous that I still
haven't said things very well.  I'm trying very hard to talk directly to
people's concerns and I'm afraid that someone will think I'm not listening
or that I'm simply spewing out what I've been brainwashed to do.

> Of course, if one's priority is taking a stand on a moral crusade then Linux
> fits the bill nicely.  And if running on a desktop is a high priority, then
> OS/400 just plain sucks (at least 'till a few years out, I would imagine).

To me doing the right thing because it is right is a very strong reason.
For me, linux does fit into my value system in many ways.  And I believe
that moral reasons are always more important than business reasons.  I do
not expect anyone else to feel the same way.  I feel lucky that my
business uses products that match my value system.  I do not force my
values on anyone, including my customers.  Using linux gives me great
satisfaction and contributes to the happiness I have at work.  And my boss
certainly likes me more with a smile on my face.

Whew!  2 1/2 hours on one email message!  That's got to be a new record.

James Rich