On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Michael Ryder <mryder1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Brian Mathis <brian.mat...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Michael Ryder <mryder1...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > I too agree with David for the most part. >> > >> > The vast majority of my systems are Windows-based, though I've dabbled >> > in >> > Linux (to setup Nagios, for example), and in general it seems... >> > >> > It seems that Windows "just runs" right out of the box. There is very >> > little need to find a community for information, because there is almost >> > always some software review from CNET or other similar sources which can >> > be >> > used to find what is supposedly a popular application to satisfy a >> > requirement. Buy it, install it, get support from vendor. "Oh, it >> > needs >> > Windows 2003 service pack 2? OK." >> > >> > With Linux, there is far more control *required* to keep the system >> > running >> > properly. "Oh... it needs... some rev of the Perl lib... and then some >> > rev >> > of a graphics lib... and then some rev of Apache... and then some rev >> > of..." It's *nice* to have that level of control, it really is, but it >> > can >> > get out of hand when the developer of said component makes a change that >> > now >> > *forces* you to update some lib that you didn't want to update because >> > another app had a dependency and then there's this massive cascade of >> > updates... >> > >> > I'm sure there's some tool out there to make this easier, and if it >> > exists I >> > certainly don't know about it and will probably get a quick and fiery >> > education from someone. >> > >> > The cost of entry (in getting up to speed) to running a Windows-based >> > system >> > is far lower than Linux, in my humble opinion. >> > >> > Mike >> >> >> It's not true at all that Linux is "required" to have more control for >> it to work properly. What you are talking about is the difference >> between an amateur Sysadmin vs a professional. >> >> The amateur admin will go around installing things from source, >> because he thinks it's the "advanced" way to do things, and in the >> process messing up the whole system with dependency issues like you >> describe. A Pro admin knows that you only ever use the distro package >> management system, and look to the ends of the earth for a package >> built specifically for your distro. If you don't find it you build a >> package yourself that isolates all the custom changes. You never ever >> install from source directly onto a production system. >> >> As for the tools that exist to do this on all systems it is the >> package manager, yum, apt-get, etc... >> > > > I see. > > Let me see if I've got this right. For any given Linux-based application > that I want to install: > - I need to look to the ends of the earth for the pre-compiled binaries for > my Linux distribution and use the package-manager to install it. > - If this package doesn't exist using apt-get/yum/etc, then I need to > - isolate all the custom changes (however that is done) > - build package myself (however that is done) > > And somewhere in this, I'm wait for a Linux professional to tell me that I'm > an amateur if I download Nagios direct from the source and follow their > installation instructions...? Nagios' own instructions say to download the > source and go from there... > (http://nagios.sourceforge.net/docs/3_0/quickstart.html) > > Is this true? building applications from source is the sign of an amateur? > Is this well-known, or something I need to read somewhere? I'll admit to > being a Linux amateur, but I've always tried to learn from what I've read > and never came across anything like this statement. > > Mike
First, please stop top-posting. Everyone else in this thread is clearly posting replies to the bottom. I'm not some crazy enforcer about it like most people, but it certainly would help your arguments if you payed attention to the conventions being used here. Second, please stop with the hyperbole. This is a professional mailing list and we all expect to have respectful discussions. Emulating Fox News style retorts does not make it a respectful discussion, no matter what their advertising tells you. You mean in Windows, I need to: -. Search Google for the name of the software -. Press Enter -. Go to the web site for that software -. Read something on that web site -. Locate the download link -. Click on it. -. Move my mouse all the way from wherever it is over to the "Save" button. -. Wait for it to download -. Open an Explorer window -. Read what's in the Explorer window -. Double click on the folder with the file in it -. Double click on the file itself -. Read the security popup -. Click OK -. Read the install window -. Click Next -. ..... I could go on ..... See! anyone can make anything look complicated, while ignoring the material of the argument. P.S. I have nothing against Windows and use and manage it on a daily basis. Responses to specifics: > Let me see if I've got this right. For any given Linux-based application > that I want to install: > - I need to look to the ends of the earth for the pre-compiled binaries for > my Linux distribution and use the package-manager to install it. > - If this package doesn't exist using apt-get/yum/etc, then I need to > - isolate all the custom changes (however that is done) > - build package myself (however that is done) I see what you did there. You intentionally left out the first, very easy step of "search the built-in package manager for the package" (that Windows has no option of, anywhere). In many cases, this is all you need to do. But sometimes you *do* need to search down the right package, which is what a "Pro" does -- they call him a "pro" because that's what he gets paid to know and to do. There are a few well known package repositories that you would search, like EPEL, RPMForge, etc... And if you have to build it? Then yes, because that's another thing a Pro should know how to do. > an amateur if I download Nagios direct from the source and follow their > installation instructions...? Nagios' own instructions say to download the > source and go from there... Yes. Those instructions are written by developers on how to build the thing from source. Almost all developers are generally ignorant of the issues involved in maintaining full systems/networks, and don't even think about installing things from source. Being ignorant of this is nothing against the developer, as they usually have other things on their minds. But as an SA, you should know better. There are huge problems that can be caused by installing from source. Some packages include the rpm spec files, or whatever you need for debs, so they are acknowledging these issues when supplying them. The instructions on building from source is useful to a sysadmin to help with building the packages, but not installing. > Is this true? building applications from source is the sign of an amateur? > Is this well-known, or something I need to read somewhere? I'll admit to > being a Linux amateur, but I've always tried to learn from what I've read > and never came across anything like this statement. Yes. Maybe installing from source is what has given you the perception that Linux needs constant care and feeding? Problems of your own creation? In the old days, or at least in the days of learning, people used to build from source all the time. Then package managers came about, but the "purists" thought they were silly because compiling things was "not that hard" and had purported magical properties of somehow making the software run "better" (an audiophile's definition of "better") than the ones from the crappy packages. However, these people did not *manage* systems, they just played with them at home. As you yourself mentioned, there are all sorts of issues like library conflicts, etc... when you build from source. Those aren't the only issues, but it's a good start. Enterprise Linuxes handle this through their package managers. They resolve dependencies and make sure everything is as the right version. As soon as you compile and install, you set off a nuclear bomb in your package manager and it is now unable to know what versions of anything you have on the system. It thinks X, but it's really Y. From then on you are committed to maintaining every single installed package from source, not just the ones you installed, but all of them. Redhat pays legions of people to do this, and that gets back to your original point of wanting things to "just work" -- which by the way I agree with. I already know how things work, but it doesn't mean I want to screw around with them all day to make it happen. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.lopsa.org https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
