Re: [tlug] VMWare GSX Server

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

>>>>> "Patrick" == Patrick Niessen <tlug.niessen@example.com> writes:

    Patrick> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:54:00 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull
    Patrick> <stephen@example.com> wrote:

    >> >>>>> "Patrick" == Patrick Niessen <tlug.niessen@example.com>
    >> writes:

    Patrick> No doubt that it is possible to run GSX on Gentoo, but
    Patrick> its a matter of liability and safety.

    >> OH MY GOD!!!!

    Patrick> Stephen I think you have a theoretical point there.

Yes, I am a theorist.  The point I am making is 100% practical.  You
have unlimited liability for the reliability of your systems; your
vendor's is limited.

It's possible that the point doesn't apply to you; if you look at what
I wrote, you'll see that I already accounted for that.  What I
objected to was the general implication that avoiding open source and
using commercial software instead is (clearly) a matter of liability
and safety.  For your ass in the short run, true, you won't get fired
for buying SuSE or Red Hat.  For your company's in the long run, it's
not clear at all.

Are you aware that Japan has the highest rate of business closure in
the OECD, higher even than the notoriously Darwinian U. S. of A.?  The
reason is that in Japan it is small organizations that buffer larger
ones as much as possible.  And that is despite the much higher social
and economic penalties paid for bankruptcy here.  (There's also the
fact that many small businesses in Japan are hobby businesses, which
survive only by decreasing the owner's net worth by 10%-20% a year.
Hard to compete with someone who considers that acceptable....)

    Patrick> Yes it is true that one can work so hard and make it work
    Patrick> in the end, but would it not be nicer if it justs works?

I hope your business planning is not conducted on the basis of
pleasant fantasies like that!  Would you put it in those terms to an
investor (whether a stockholder or your parent company)?

Of course it would be nice.  But would it not be a bloody disaster if
after paying the money and waiting several weeks for the vendor's
"best effort support", you get to learn everything you already know
about Gentoo all over again for Sucy or Rude Hat, with the yen
draining out of your business by the minute, and the water already
gone under the bridge measured in units of "hyaku man" or "sen man"?

The "theoretical" point is that the sysadmins for whom everything
"just works" (and have reliability stats that have been known to make
young girls squeal[1]) are the ones who ask the questions I proposed.
Note that I didn't give any answers; I just objected to the implicit
answer that you gave (and continue to give, without presenting even as
much support for your opinion as Josh Glover has done).

Another way to put it is, "how did Apache get the dominant market
share it has?  Through the hard work of web admins who learned all
about their unsupported open source platform, and made it reliable
enough to dominate the commercial offerings."  You know, there was a
time when Netscape Server and IIS were serious threats to NCSA httpd,
and a lot of web admins made the decision to go with the commercial,
"supported" webservers.  (They are still employed, but their stock
options are way underwater. ;-)

True, any commercial Linux has _most_ of the advantages of Gentoo
... but it doesn't have the advantage of your greatest expertise.
Isn't _that_ what is going to count most at crunch time?

Now, if you're pretty sure that the crunch isn't going to hit in this
area, then going with the commercial, "supported" product makes a lot
of sense.  But then, I already said that....

    Patrick> I think most professional organisations work to
    Patrick> standards.

Up to the point where they want to be successful organizations.  Right
there they switch to _setting_ standards (at least, trying to).  Of
course the converse logic also applies: the organization has to do
both to succeed in the long run, whether it starts as a "professional"
organization or an "innovative" one.  Maybe you're in the "follower"
department and can get away with only the former.  I can't judge that,
except to note that you said "small" business (or "small" branch of a
large business, maybe).

The bottom line is that the only sure route to success is "hustle",
ie, working harder than you think you should have to _now_ so that you
can either make it look easy, or avert a disaster, when the crunch
does hit.  In a big organization there will be a Department of Hustle,
and maybe you're not in it.  But these days, it's often a good bet
that the IT department is just the Hustle Department by another name....


Footnotes: 
[1]  .sig collectors: that's not mine, it's from jwz,
http://www.jwz.org/doc/, on how Netscape screwed the pooch on mailbox
indexing.

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.