Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Was I Too Tough on RHEL 5?

Filed under
Linux

In the April 2/9, 2007, issue, I gave Red Hat's Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 and its brand-new Xen virtualization features a bit of a hard time with regard to the limitations of its management tools. Relative to the products of VMware, the current market/mind share leader in x86 server virtualization, Red Hat's Xen implementation has a decidedly do-it-yourself nature—less pointing and clicking and more configuration file editing and documentation digging.

During an e-mail exchange about the review, a reader challenged me on whether it was fair to criticize RHEL 5's graphical user interface limitations and remarked on his disgust at finding how many tasks in VMware are point-and-click-oriented. Disgust seems to me like a pretty extreme reaction to a software interface, but I think that people chafe at the idea that an inferior product with a newbie-oriented interface—the archetype of which being Windows—might trump an arguably technologically superior option that greets you instead with a blinking command-line cursor and a trove of config files.

As the reader also pointed out, GUIs typically make things easy by limiting flexibility, and having your hands tied isn't fun, even if the binding is being done by a friendly wizard. To be sure, I felt my own GUI-borne pain during my testing of VMware's Virtual Infrastructure 3, which regresses significantly from VMware's typically good cross-platform compatibility record by supporting only Windows for its VI3 management client. Along similar lines, while testing Virtual Iron 3.5, I felt the pinch of lacking direct control of the virtualization nodes that Virtual Iron governs instead through the graphical interface to its management server.

Full Story.

More in Tux Machines

Open Source History: Why Did Linux Succeed?

One of the most puzzling questions about the history of free and open source is this: Why did Linux succeed so spectacularly, whereas similar attempts to build a free or open source, Unix-like operating system kernel met with considerably less success? I don't know the answer to that question. But I have rounded up some theories, which I'd like to lay out here. First, though, let me make clear what I mean when I write that Linux was a great success. I am defining it in opposition primarily to the variety of other Unix-like operating system kernels, some of them open and some not, that proliferated around the time Linux was born. GNU HURD, the free-as-in-freedom kernel whose development began in May 1991, is one of them. Others include Unices that most people today have never heard of, such as various derivatives of the Unix variant developed at the University of California at Berkeley, BSD; Xenix, Microsoft's take on Unix; academic Unix clones including Minix; and the original Unix developed under the auspices of AT&T, which was vitally important in academic and commercial computing circles during earlier decades, but virtually disappeared from the scene by the 1990s. Read more

Red Hat goes to work on OpenStack network convergence

Red Hat has fully embraced OpenStack’s Neutron in a convergence-targeted virtualisation package. The Linux shop has released Red Hat Virtualisation 4, a package that subtly drops the reference to “Enterprise” held up until and including version 3.5 The intent seems to be for Red Hat’s virtualized Linux stack to become the platform for convergence, as opposed to merely a server density play. Read more

Schools that #GoOpen should #GoOpenSource

The #GoOpen campaign is a terrific first step toward open education. It raises awareness of alternatives to costly and inflexible textbooks and provokes conversations about the nature of curriculum platforms and vendors. But to #GoOpen is to go only part way. Schools with the courage to embrace OER materials can amplify cost savings and student learning when they #GoOpenSource. At Penn Manor School District in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Linux and open source software are the foundations for more than 4000 student laptops, classroom computers, and district servers. We've saved hundreds of thousands of dollars by going open source in both the server room and the classroom. However, schools don’t have to take the plunge into desktop Linux all at once. Choosing even one open source upgrade to proprietary software can provide dramatic budget relief. Here are four open source software platforms that saved our district from resorting to bake sales: Read more

Univention Corporate Client 3.0 OS Switches to Unity, Based on Ubuntu 16.04 LTS

Softpedia was informed by Univention's Maren Abatielos about the release and general availability of the Univention Corporate Client (UCC) 3.0 GNU/Linux operating system and management system for thin clients, PCs, or laptop computers. Read more