Why Virtualization isn't all that.

There are certain situations I can agree virtualization can be useful and efficient.

Development/ programming is probably the best environment. One can write code and test it without worry of botching the whole system up.

There are lots of people who push, aggressively, for use of virtualization in servers though and that is an area I strongly disagree with. Especially where Linux and OpenSource is concerned.

Now, everyone has their own opinion and is entitled to it. Some folks are just very excited about the perceived potential in virtualization in regard to maximizing resource effieciency.

The state of computer hardware to date, is made to go bad. It is made to be replaced, not repaired.

It is a concept called "planned obsolescence" and was generally made notorious by AT&T after Ma Bell broke up.

Instead of leasing telephones, they created cheap phones, made of cheap parts, designed to fail after a certain amount of usage. This allowed them to make more money in phone sales by selling the first phone, then replacement phones. A repairman didn't come out to fix the phone anymore. You go to the store and buy another.

They designed it that people wouldn't have to wait very long before the phone needed to be replaced.

The same technological snakeoil is sold by computer and electronics makers today.

The hardware that makes up the computers we use, even those we use as servers, is not made to be hardy and reliable. It is made to fail efficiently. Techs don't really spend a lot of time rebuilding hard drives anymore. They replace hardrives. Repair not only costs too much, but requires more time and training than most are willing to invest in it.

The story is the same for power supplies, optical drives, memory sticks, circuit boards, etc...

Nothing is exactly cheap either. Oh sure, market prices rise and fall, based on supply and demand (whether that demand is artificially created or not) but on the whole, hardware prices increase over time rather than decrease.

If you are a company or person with the financial resources available and willing to allocate to hardware, you can afford to keep a stock of replacements parts, even entire replacement computers ready in the wings to slide in as a backup or failover in case the server should have a hardware breakdown. Then, in this situation, virtualization might be answer for you.

If you do not have the financial resources available or designated to maintain such stock in hardware, the idea of keeping all those services on one machine may be tempting, but are you really willing to risk that motherboard or powersupply going down at the worst time? How long can your servers, all of them on the one machine, be down in order to repair/replace it?

An hour? Two hours? 30 minutes even? What is acceptable down time to have not just one or two services down, but several of them?

Have you ever heard the old saying of not putting all your eggs in one basket? Do you keep all of your money in one bank account? Wise people have learned since the stockmarket crash so many years ago that one does not do that if one wants to keep their money.

If you save a bit of money each month by having all those servers on one physical machine, how much will it cost you in lost production and down time when that one machine fails and those many servers go down without the pre-requisite backup hardware in place?

Yes, virtualization can and does have a place in the server world. It has a limited scope and in that can be a well funded and prepared IT departments every dream.

If you are not that well funded and prepared IT dept, you are taking big risks and I hope you never experience that nightmarish hardware crash.

Exactly who, is Linux for?

Is Linux for everyone? Is Linux destined to be the Great Replacement? Will Linux ever reach billions on billions of installs in the world?

Not likely.

If Linux isn't for everyone, then who is it for?

A) Linux is for people who want a computer but can't afford to buy one. Believe it or not, in the home user market, there are a lot of people in the lower income scale who cannot rush out and buy a new PC. You can forget a Mac entirely.

These people finally do get a computer in their house by getting a donated one, someone hands one down ( like my cousin bought a new one, and gave the old one to me...kind of thing ).

Now, if the computer is a hand me down of some kind, it will likely have a corrupted version of windows on it and/or have some hardware issues because whoever got rid of it tried to upgrade Windows, but the hardware wasn't up to snuff.

So, the inheritor of the hand me down PC wants to install an OS that is free, as in cost and gets them that basic user functionality.

B) Linux is for Hobbyists and techs. I fall into this category and somewhat the first also. I don't have a lot of money and I hate to waste a perfectly good machine that MS has decided is to old to work with. So I like to use Linux to revive an old PC and expand my own knowledge and experience at the same time. There are a lot of people like me.

C) Linux is for business. Linux is like golf, you learn the basics of it easily, then can spend a lifetime trying to master it. For business users in a business environment, it can provide a clean, directed interface and experience that allows businesses to be more productive and focused. For business admins and techs, it allows a high level of control and flexibility to manage and customize a single sytem or an entire network to their needs.

D) Linux is for people who "Do" things. People who are interested and confident of learning how to handle adversity and change.

One of the biggest gripes people have in the IT industry is the idea that modern OS's have 'dumbed down' users to a level that can be considered non productive. Instead of capable, intelligent and knowledgeable users, we have a legion of users that stop all work at the first hint of something different. They stop and wait for someone else to come and handle the situation.


E) Linux is for people who like to have the feeling of 'control'. I fit here too. I don't want what someone else thinks I need. I know what I need. I just want to make it happen without taking out a loan or going broke to do it. I also don't need some condescending nerd to stand over my shoulder to change things I should be able to change myself.

Does everyone fall into these categories? of course not. Will Windows and Mac always have a place in the OS world? Quite likely, there is always room for healthy 'competition'.

( On a side note, I would like to define 'healthy competition' as something like teammates sparring or competing against each other to make each other a better boxer, or swimmer or whatever. The idea of competition in this sense is not to beat down everyone around you, but to make the individual, the team and the sport itself better. )

Linux is not and never will be for everyone. It does have a place and it is a worthwhile OS and team member of the OpenSource 'movement', which is trying to make software better for everyone.

If you know someone who finds it easier to spend money to pay others to do something for them they would rather not do themselves, so be it, that's the nature of people. We all do it, maybe not in relation to computers, but in some aspect of our lives, we pay others to do what we don't want to do. like mow the yard or clean the house or cook the food or whatever it is we are not interested in.

Computers are not magically separated from the 'real world', and the way people interact with and use computers is the same way we do with any other part of our lives.

To all those people who have gotten themselves worked up to a fever pitch about which OS is best or which distro is best or which nerd writes the best code, I say this to you;

I'll cut your grass if you'll wash my car.

Who is promoting Linux? and who isn't.

We read columns, articles, blogs all the time, telling us where companies should be adopting GNU/Linux, tossing out other OS's and using Open Source software to reap maximum savings.

I agree, many of the big companies who routinely do massive rollouts of desktops and servers in their wide and sundry assortment of office buildings, warehouses and satellite locations could indeed bring GNU/Linux into the "limelight" by choosing it for the next hundreds or thousands of desktop implementations at upgrade time.

But, where do these companies, and even smaller ones, get their advice? who tells them the way to go? Is it all inhouse admins, executives and techs? Nope.

Corporations love to pay consultants. They hire consulting companies for everything from office decoration to IT implementation to auto leasing choices.

Why aren't the consultants recommending GNU/Linux/Open Source? If they are such experts and learned on computer systems, they must have been exposed to GNU/Linux as well as many other OS by now.

Open source is on the Proprietary desktop with OpenOffice and FireFox as well as other apps gaining popularity.

Where are the consultants? What is it that keeps them from pointing big business toward GNU/Linux?

You can walk into many computer shops, and offices of service/support providers to ask them if they support GNU/Linux. The vast majority of them will be a fast and resounding "NO".

Why? (this is a rhetorical question) Is it because certain proprietary providers have made them an offer they can't refuse? Great prices on products,for resale, reduced costs in support and licensing for their business?

Of course they do. Proprietary OS/software providers don't just try to woo over the OEM market, that's just the first nickel in their business.

Support and service is where millions of dollars are made.

A change took place in American production and sales tactics happened when Ma Bell was busted up and AT&T began to sell telephones instead of leasing or renting them to customers.

I am old enough to remember the old phones when you got them from the phone company. The tech may have been old (by today's standards, high tech for back then) but it was solid, sturdy.

They built the phones to take a beating and just plain work back then. Why, because the phone company owned the phone and it was in their best interest to build a product that wouldn't need to be repaired or replaced often.

After the breakup, AT&T capitalized in the worst way on the idea of "planned obsolescence", which is intentionally making something that will have an expiration date. Their phones made for sale to customers were made to break or need replacement parts within a certain amount of time so as to require consumers to spend more money. The service field was re-invented.

The computer industry has taken that approach and run with it. Everything that is electronic and computer driven is designed to have parts that can be repaired, now a days more often replaced, to ensure continued revenue in the after-market area. Oh yes, they will tell you that using the cheap parts allows them to sell cheaper products and make the products and technology available to a larger group of consumers.
This is a happy ( for them) side effect. They get extended revenues on one product line and an excuse for making cheap crap.

There was the day when people were proud to pay just a little more for something that was known to be solid, sturdy and stable. High quality.

Unfortunately, so many consumers have either bought into and accepted the concept and practice themselves or simply resigned themselves to being victims of the trend that most people don't brag about the great product they got, they brag about how cheap they got it.

Call Mssrs Ballmer, Gates and Jobs what you will. They may be evil corporatists, but they are not stupid or alone. They have helped raise an entire industry to keep consumers in pasture.

They helped create an service and support industry that would sell their souls and allegiance to them for a dollar.

MS and Apple are not going to fix every customers computer or device themselves, no, they need middlemen, techs and consultants who pay tremendous amounts of money to be 'certified' to work on a computer and fix it and protect the warranty provided by MS or Apple or whoever. "You want to work on our products and not void the warranty? You want to get discounts on parts and access so as to make some of the money you spent on training for certification back? Dedicate yourself to us, serve us and we will make you rich."

OpenSource and GNU/Linux turns that model on it's ear. Anyone can get the information to be trained to work on and with OpenSource OS's and software. You can pay someone to train you or study on your own. You can take certification tests much less expensive than others and be a viable service provider in the OpenSource market. People may not have to pay for the software, but people are people and will always need help. They are willing to pay for it.

If we want to get OpenSource and GNU/Linux into the world of the 'big boys' We need to have the attention of the advisers to the Kings. Sometimes the old saying " It's not what you know, it's who you know" is more uncomfortably true than we want it to be.

A visit to the linux shop

Alright, I admit it. I fell for it.

I saw yet another article posted by someone who apparently has nothing better to do than beat dead horses. I cannot say I am in a much better position because here I sit, making one last attempt to clue someone in on something most of us see as obvious.

The view espoused by so many bloggers and other 'writers' who cannot come to terms with the number and volume of distros available, that somehow there are 'too many', is akin to that of a child who complains in a candy store that because he or she cannot make up their mind from the great variety that it is a fault of the shop and candy makers for making too many types of candy.

Let's take 'root beer barrels' into consideration. If one goes into a candy store of any worth, it will have anywhere from 3 to 5 brands of root beer barrel candy.

These overtaxed choosers would undoubtedly say that there are simply too many types of root beer barrels, because that chooser only happens to like one or two them and that should be good enough for anyone.

Let's look at it from the shop owner and candy maker's point of view though.

Each candy maker has their own recipe. sure it's a rootbeer barrel, but one makes it a bit more bitter, another makes theirs a bit 'creamier' yet another's recipe calls for a smoother taste and so it goes.

There are apparently many ways to produce a rootbeer barrel that can afford the makers of each to find different ways to present their candy.

Let's go back to the shop owner. Is his shop for only one customer and once he finds that one customers likes he will never again stock the others? Of course not, that's ridiculous. The shop serves many different people and people have different tastes. The more varieties the vendor can afford to carry provides something that might appeal to each individual customer.

Let's visit another comparison. This one to address the commercial concept of a market only being able to hold a limited number of makes or varieties.

Let's talk teddy bears. There are more varieties of teddy bears on the open market than one could shake a stick at. I am sure many of these would be 'writers' would agree from their views of 'too much is too many' that there are also too many types of teddy bears available. Why, isn't a sampling of five or so enough? I mean for goodness sake, these are just teddy bears we are talking about.

Yet, we see a proliferation of vendors carrying huge assortments of teddy bears. They can be found online, in malls, mail order, you name it, they are everywhere.

As a matter of fact, I can think of at least one successful chain where they allow customers to choose from a large variety of designs and then 'make their own' teddy bear. They start with one of, let's say ten, 'main' types of teddy bears. They then progress down a line where they can stuff that bear to their preference, hard packed for a very firm bear, less firm for a more 'cuddly' bear and any degree of firmness in between.

Customers then select inserts like a 'heart' or a music box or the like to insert into the bear, if they like and proceed to have the bear sewn up in front of them.

After that, oh ho, after that, there is an entire store of accessories and anything at all you can possibly imagine to adorn and further customize that teddy bear to ones own preference and intent.

Doesn't that sound familiar?

If we start with one of say six 'basic' Linux distros such as fedora, debian, opensuse, gentoo, slackware and mandriva.

Take one of those to start one's foray into Linux, this would be one of the 'basic' teddy bears known to appeal to most folks in design and presentation,.

After inspecting said 'main' distro, one decides they want or need some functionality to further enhance their Linux experience. They can then follow a chart posted on the wall, pointing to derivative versions that list the modifications making each one a little different.

We then choose a derivative that most closely matches our needs and wants, and yet, there is still something that doesn't quite make it an exact fit for our needs. we are in a niche market and our use of linux must match that niche. So, being the handy people we are, we take it upon ourselves to modify it till we have it fit as best as it possibly can or at least until new applications and features become available that further fit the need and niche.

We are also good community members, we realize that we obtained this OS for free and paid no licensing for it. We paid no fee to be able to change it for our specific needs, and we want to give back. Here we share our version with others. We add it to the chart on the wall for who knows, perhaps there are others who fall into the same niche as we do and if they come browsing the chart on the wall in the Linux store, they will find a version that is tailor made to fit that niche, or at least close enough to minimize the amount of customization they would need to do.

There is plenty of room for all the various distros, no matter how small or how 'niche' they might be. Others will use them, or they won't.

Who are these bitter and opinionated people who feel compelled to tell us when they think it is too much? Did they suddenly buy the Linux store? Are they the Minister of Availability now? I should hope in an open community and an open market that there is no such person as a Minister of Availability.

The users, the consumers, will decide which ones stay and which ones do not. If a blogger who wasn't patient enough to make their own bear wants contentment, perhaps they should shop where the bear is made for them, the work is done in a back room and the end result is 'you get what we give you, but we guarantee it". There are lots of shops like that in town, I'm sure one of them would be glad for your business, just as the Linux shop is glad to have mine.