Recently in Scientific Linux Category

Red Hat has a Linux desktop plan. It's just a little difficult to figure out exactly what it is.

I think Red Hat knows this. And it's OK with it.

One day Red Hat bigwigs are saying that they are not interested in aggressively pursuing the Linux desktop market, that Ubuntu has much of it sewn up, and why do it anyway when all the money is in servers and the support Red Hat so richly provides to those who want it?

Good question.

But I see a strategy in there somewhere. Steven J. Vaughn-Nichols, late of Ziff Davis, now writing just about everywhere else, including his own Practical Technology, has met recently with a bunch of Red Hatters. In SJVN's recent post, the Red Hat people still push Fedora, the community distribution that serves as a testing ground for future Red Hat Enterprise Linux releases, but the company is sometimes not-so-quietly working on making its flagship RHEL product a better fit for the desktop — and laptops, too. And Red Hat does see a niche for RHEL apart from the server:

What Red Hat is working on is continuing to make RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux) business desktop friendly. Whitehurst said many business customers want the Linux desktop. They don't want to move their desktops lock, stock, and barrel to RHEL, or any other Linux desktop. What Fortune 500 companies do want though is to start moving up to 25% of their desktops to Linux.

Why? Because they want the benefits of Linux. Besides the usual advantages of improved TCO (total cost of ownership) and improved security, Red Hat's corporate customers want a Linux desktop that can be carried as a virtual machine on a USB key and can be be managed by Red Hat's management tools. Is this for someone who wants a Windows XP Home replacement? No. It's not. It is, however, something that can catch the attention of CIOs who want a Windows XP Pro replacement.

And who can resist SJVN's money quote from Red Hat's Jim Whitehurst?:

"There are companies that sell hundreds of products for millions of dollars and there are companies that sell millions of products for hundreds of dollars. Guess which kind of company Red Hat is?"

It's a riddle, right?

OK, forget about all of that. Just read Red Hat's own press release for RHEL 5.2, which not only talks up all the work they're doing to make suspend/resume work but highlighting the inclusion of desktop applications that aren't a generation too old for office use. I'm talking about OpenOffice 2.3 and Firefox 3, the latter of which just had its final release this week.

Here are a few quotes from the RHEL 5.2 press release:

"We took part in the beta program of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.2," said William Cattey, Linux Platform Coodinator, MIT Information Services & Technology. "Re-basing the Red Hat Enterprise Linux desktop to have the latest Firefox, OpenOffice and Adobe Reader is very important to us because it gives our users the same key applications available on other platforms."

"LVM is very satisfied with our experience using Red Hat Enterprise Linux Desktop on the certified Lenovo T61 and X61 laptops," said Werner Schmidt, LVM's CIO. "We have deployed over 2,000 Lenovo laptops running Red Hat Enterprise Linux Desktop and plan to roll out several thousand more over the next several months."

The key in all of this is the corporate/enterprise connection, the idea not of wholly changing desktop platforms but bringing needed diversity to the desktop with Linux where appropriate, and leveraging the whole Red Hat relationship with server customers to solve problems on the desktop while adding incremental revenue and giving those customers even more reasons to stick with — and continue paying for — Red Hat.

And all those management tools, most of which I know nothing about, that Red Hat offers to keep servers in line and up to date — all that stuff can also make desktop management a more orderly procedure than the absolute mess that's going on now with Joe Worker's desktop PC.

Not that Ubuntu isn't also working on corporate, managed solutions for desktop PC management, but when it comes to paying for support, Ubuntu doesn't seem to be offering any deep discounts over what Red Hat is charging. And if a huge enterprise already has a lot of Red Hat on the premises, a little more doesn't hurt, right?

And there's another side to this valuable coin: While Ubuntu is mainly thought of as a desktop system, it's no secret at all that parent company Canonical is making a huge push into servers, with certifications coming for use on hardware from any number of vendors, commitments of long-term support and the same kind of sysadmin-helping tools that help leverage things for Red Hat.

So if Ubuntu is leveraging its desktop success to build a potentially lucrative server business, Red Hat needs to expand its own desktop commitment to keep and grow the already lucrative server market it currently dominates.

Who wins?

Damn near everybody, I figure. More competition means better products, most of which can be had for free. Remember, if you don't want to pay for Red Hat, there's always Fedora, or the RHEL clones put together by CentOS and Scientific Linux. And if you're deploying Ubuntu in an enterprise situation, you can pay Canonical, or leverage the substantial Ubuntu community to solve problems.

And while some of us can't imagine paying thousands of dollars a year for support on a server, that kind of thing starts to make sense in the enterprise when you weigh it with your own labor costs.

It's an equation that has worked in Red Hat's favor for a long time. And a few extra variables in said equation are just part of the game.

I've heard of quite a few people still running Debian Sarge -- the stable version of Debian before Etch went stable in April 2007. As per Debian policy, support for what is referred to as "old stable," in this case Sarge, is slated to last for a year after the next Debian release is declared "stable" (Etch).

So now we're bumping up on March 31, 2008, and Debian is telling users about the end of updates for Sarge:

One year after the release of Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 alias 'etch' and nearly three years after the release of Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 alias 'sarge' the security support for the old distribution (3.1 alias 'sarge') is coming to an end next month. The Debian project is proud to be able to support its old distribution for such a long time and even for one year after a new version has been released.

The Debian project released Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 alias 'etch' on the 8th of April 2007. Users and Distributors have been given a one-year timeframe to upgrade their old installations to the current stable release. Hence, the security support for the old release of 3.1 is going to end in March 2008 as previously announced.

I've heard incredible stories about people running servers with Sarge and having incredible uptimes stretching into full years and beyond. And I'm as loathe to upgrade something that "just works" as much as the next lazy guy, so I understand. Three years seems like a long time ... and if you want more than three years, there's always Red Hat/CentOS/Scientific Linux and Novell's Suse (really just Red Hat Enterprise Linux clones CentOS and Scientific Linux, because what kind of cheap person like myself is going to pay year after year for updates?).

But going three years without needing to do a reinstall is a pretty great thing. And if you start with a Debian release before it goes stable -- like Debian Lenny, which is still in Testing but appears pretty darn reliable to me -- you'll probably get more than three years. At this point, I imagine that most Debian users think of Etch -- the current Stable -- as too old. That's true for desktop users, but if your hardware likes Etch, I really see no reason to move to Lenny unless you want newer versions of all of the packages.

For me, Lenny is working pretty well on the $0 Laptop (Gateway Solo 1450), and Etch is doing great on the $15 Laptop (Compaq Armada 7770dmt). And this desktop/server I just set up? I used Etch just because I know it works. And I know that getting Lenny to perform well on the Gateway means I'll be able to stick with it for what could be four years (but actually might be less because the wait between Etch and Lenny becoming stable is probably going to be much shorter than the wait between Sarge and Etch ... or at least that's what I think is going to happen).

Yeah, I probably won't be running Lenny three years from now ... but you never know. As I said recently, Lenny is looking very, very good.

Ubuntu 6.06 LTS -- the distribution's first "long term support" release -- now has a new installer that incorporates some 600 bug and security fixes and makes installation easier, especially on servers.

It's no secret that Canonical, the company that runs Ubuntu, is making a big play both for the desktop and more-lucrative server markets, and a big part of that play is the LTS release. And even though the next Ubuntu release -- 8.04 (due 4/08 ... also known as April 2008) -- is going to be a Long Term Support release, with fixes, patches and the like for three years on the desktop, five years on the server, there's still quite a bit of time left for the current Ubuntu LTS, which will be supported until June 2009 on the desktop and June 2011 on the server.

The new installer -- you don't really need it if you can successfully use the old installer, already have a 6.06 LTS install (like I do) and have done all the updates -- underscores Canonical's commitment to the LTS concept. While the twice-yearly releases of Ubuntu get most of the light and heat in the uber-geek community, there are many who depend on the relative stability of the LTS release to keep their hardware running. That's especially true on servers, where major upgrades every six months are impractical at best and detrimential at worst -- nobody wants to break a system that's been running well.

And the LTS is vital as a counterweight to Red Hat Enterprise Linux and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server/Desktop, both of which are supported for years on end.

I'd like to say that Debian Stable (currently Etch) and Old Stable (Sarge) are equivalents, but since you can't pin down a date certain for length of their support, there is a bit of an unknown factor there, although once the Stable release goes to Old Stable, you pretty much know that the new Stable release won't give you too many problems.

Sure, many desktop users generally want something more cutting-edge, mainly something like the regular Ubuntu releases, but there are many people -- and many situations -- that warrant hanging on to a Linux installation as long as possible. Over the time I've used Ubuntu and Xubuntu (from 6.06 LTS through 6.10, 7.04 and 7.10), I've seen some parts of the installation improve dramatically, I've seen hardware work better, then worse, and occasionally not at all.

And we all know an individual or organization that hates doing major upgrades, ever. Those coming from a Windows or Macintosh background aren't all used to major OS upgrades. In the case of Windows AND Mac's OS X, major upgrades almost always cost money. $129 for an OS X upgrade might not sound like much, but paying that much every couple of years when your computer runs just fine the way it is? No thanks. That's why I'm still running OS X 10.3 on my Mac. And Windows? I have a disc for Windows 2000, and I'm not about to pay ANYTHING for the privilege of upgrading my sole Windows box (which I boot maybe twice a year) to XP.

And in Linux, just because we can change out distros 10 times a day if we wish, it doesn't mean that we have to -- or should. For people who crave the stability of long-term releases, one thing generally drives upgrade: newer software they need to get their work done, and new hardware that needs new software to run properly.

I did this most recent Ubuntu 6.06 LTS installation for testing purposes, but I've stuck with it because it just works. On this test box, it's flawless. On my Gateway Solo 1450 laptop, it manages the fan as well as 7.10 (i.e. not at all without a cron job; but well with said cron job), but less well than 7.04 (which has the ACPI working with no coding needed). (Note: I'm not currently running Ubuntu at all on the Gateway laptop, which is currently dual-booting the Slackware 11-based Wolvix Hunter 1.1.0 and Debian Lenny, which I upgraded from the stable Etch.)

Using Ubuntu 6.06 LTS on this test box, sure I'm stuck with Firefox 1.5, OpenOffice 2.0, GMOME 2.14.3 and Evolution 2.6.1, but everything works. And there's nothing I do that I can't do with applications of this "vintage." If I this machine had wireless and it didn't work with 6.06, I might feel differently about LTS, but with the hardware I have now, LTS is a good fit.

So if you're looking for stable, supported releases, especially ones that won't cost you anything, it's nice to have Ubuntu LTS as a choice along with CentOS and Scientific Linux (both free versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux), SUSE, Debian and Slackware.

As far as stable, long-term releases go, I have run CentOS (3.9. 4.2 and 5), Debian (Etch and Lenny) and Slackware (12), as well as Ubuntu LTS, and Ubuntu holds up very well on the desktop in this crowd. It's more flexible, as far as adding software, than CentOS and Slackware -- it doesn't have as many packages as Debian, but it does have plenty -- and the desktop and menus are a bit more tame than Debian's, with a better out-of-the-box experience, especially for inexperienced users.

And the support available from other Ubuntu users is a major component of the distro's success. All the advice may not be of the best quality, but there's just so much of it that you're bound to find the right answer to whatever it is you're asking. Not that the Debian community isn't helpful (I love DebianHELP and the Debian User Forums, but they just don't have the sheer volume of the Ubuntu Forums. Like I said, there's a lot more noise among the Ubuntu people ... but that's the price you pay, I guess.

And since Ubuntu is based on Debian, what you learn in one community is more often than not directly applicable in the other.

Another thing I discovered today: I enjoy reading the Planet Debian blog posts from Debian developers, and I had no idea that there's a Planet Ubuntu as well. Both are more than worth adding to your favorites and checking on from time to time.

Over the past year, I've used both Debian and Ubuntu extensively, and I always say that Debian isn't as "hard" to use as some would make it appear. Nor is Ubuntu a relative cakewalk. Both require, at times, a bit of wading into the muck to make things work. As far as installation goes, Debian's installer -- upon which Ubuntu's "alternate" installer is very closely based, is quite good, and has succeeded for me many more times than Ubuntu's live CD and alternate-CD discs, but Ubuntu works often enough.

What Ubuntu has that Debian lacks is a marketing plan. For some -- especially the average Linux user (read: geek) -- having no marketing plan is, in and of itself, a marketing plan of sorts. Nobody's trying to make Debian "cool," or giving you reasons why you should or shouldn't run it. And while there are a few Debian evangelists out there, and a few for Slackware as well, there's nothing approaching the fervor over Ubuntu.

That might be good, or bad, depending on how you look at it.

A lot of people are running Debian and Slackware -- they're just quieter about it, I guess.

Anyhow, this post has gone on for far too long. All I want to say is that I'm in favor of long-term, "stable" releases with defined periods of support and a smooth upgrade path, and I'm glad that Ubuntu has pretty big foot in this very door.

And I like the fact that 6.06 LTS will be supported for over a year after the next LTS -- 8.04 -- is released a few months from now.

My test box seems to like Debian-based distros and dislike Fedora and SUSE. I've never been able to get Fedora, SUSE to even boot, in fact, on this VIA C7-equipped ECS EVEm motherboard. Early in the booting process, the system resets itself, and just keeps rebooting, never getting anywhere.

So on my test box, I give up, but the Red Hat-derived CentOS 5.0 and Scientific Linux 5.0 do load in my Dell Optiplex 3 GHz Pentium 4 work box, on which I can explore them as live CDs but not actually install them to the hard drive.

CentOS 5.0 loads OK, if a little slow (it was flummoxed for a minute by an unused SATA port), but upon launch looks much like Fedora, which is should, since CentOS is a Red Hat Enterprise Linux clone. It's a way to get Red Hat functionality for servers and desktops without paying Red Hat fees.

Just like in Fedora, CentOS runs a nice GNOME desktop with the usual apps. But there's no information anywhere on the root password, so I can't configure my static IP and get Internet into the box. If you have a DHCP connection, no doubt this isn't a problem, and you might like using a RHEL workalike. But since I need to do a little configuration, the CentOS live CD isn't of all that much use to me.

So I pump the Scientific Linux CD into the Dell. It's another RHEL clone, this one made by a group of real scientists, including those at Fermilab.

During the boot process for Scientific Linux, I'm told the root password is sluser; so are the standard, non-root login and password. Simple enough.

It boots, and since Scientific Linux, like CentOS, is based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5, the app choices look pretty much the same. Only the desktop art looks different. I'm quite comfortable in GNOME, since I also have a Debian box that is set up with it.

So I configure the network. I've never done a static IP configuration (or any other kind) in Red Hat before, and it takes me a few minutes. But I manage to get Internet flowing through the box. I also start Open Office Writer on one workspace, the GIMP on the next.

Even though this is a live CD, things are surprisingly snappy (I'm running with 512 MB of RAM). Since Scientific Linux is a RHEL clone, I give much credit to Red Hat. While the Raleigh, N.C.-based Linux leader is known for its server installs, this system is functioning quite well indeed as my desktop for the moment, and I wouldn't hesitate at this point to make Scientific Linux (or Fedora or RHEL, for that matter) my default desktop OS.

Now I haven't tried to install any additional apps, and I am running this on my best box, so this all goes for a new, modern system. I'm not saying that Dell made an error in shipping their new non-Windows desktops and laptops with Ubuntu, but here I am using a polished desktop environment, Flash is already installed, sound works right away with no configuration, and the thing is more responsive than Ubuntu, at least in this live CD environment (the Ubuntu live CD doesn't run nearly as well, but since I haven't done a Linux install to this box, I can't vouch for the way it works with a hard drive install).

Before I reboot and get back to my "real" work, I figure I'll try to install some applications and see how that works. I go to the Applications menu and select Add/Remove Software. There's not much there -- most of the apps are already installed. I have Open Office, but I want to install AbiWord. Where is it?

I find Yum. I figure out how to add the repositories. Then Yum crashes. I reload. I add repositories again. I can't seem to find AbiWord, but it just might not be there. Clearly I need some Red Hat tutoring. That's where six months of Debian, apt and Synaptic will get you ...

But overall I'm impressed with Scientific Linux (and by extension RHEL). Aside from the package-management trouble (which at this point I think is solely due to my inability to figure it out), this is a fine desktop setup. And did I mention that it's fast?

All I need now is a new PC that I can install either CentOS, Scientific Linux or Fedora on -- maybe Dell will sell me one.

Scientific Linux has quite a pedigree, according to DesktopLinux.com. Developed by Fermilab, CERN and other heavy-science types, the distro is based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux recompiled from source (which must be available according to the GPL license under which Linux is released) and is said to be mostly compatible with RHEL.

I've wanted to try CentOS, the other free "remix" of RHEL, but I would rather try a live CD first. Scientific Linux has it, and I'm downloading the ISO now. I'll report later on how well it works.