Dell, Canonical tag team on Ubuntu Server tune-up for PowerEdgies

Enterprises don't want to just know that an operating system will run on a piece of iron, they want to know who they are entitled to yell at when it stops working properly. And that's why a new support agreement has been inked between Canonical, the commercial entity behind the Ubuntu Server distribution of Linux, and Dell, one …

[h3]

Canocial is not enterprise ready. (Don't think it ever will be it is a Mickey Mouse type outfit).

Their LTS releases never actually get fixed properly.

You cannot report a bug and expect an engineer to develop you a hotfix.

It is a joke the way they work.

Redhat / Oracle (Sun used to be better) / IBM / Microsoft cannot be compared in any way shape or form to Canonical.

(This is excluding the current Unity / Unity 2.0 / New Wayland nonsense. If they want to do that fine but you are not going to get anything decent without putting in a proper amount of effort and resources).

[Anonymous Coward]

Canocial is not enterprise ready. (Don't think it ever will be it is a Mickey Mouse type outfit).

"the long-term support variant of Ubuntu that most enterprise customers go with for their iron."

In what country is that? Most of the enterprise world still uses Redhat and Suse when they have to use Linux.

[Shannon Jacobs]

Lonely Linux Distro Desperately Seeks Lively Business Model

What sort of personal ad should Ubuntu write?

I'm only saddened by the failure of superior software against superior business models. I actually think the keys to Microsoft's success are (1) Ignoring the end users and selling to the manufacturers, (2) Evading all liability for product flaws, (3) Having a good business model. In contrast Apple succeeds by (1) Praying upon people who want to be trendy, (2) Removing real freedom and choice from their software, and (3) Having a good business model. Notice the pattern?

Ubuntu is using the big-donor business model. That depends on Shuttleworth having deep pockets and making good decisions. The increasing focus on the server side (as in the article) tells us he's getting to the bottom of his pockets. The minor part of the big-donor is that the donor make good decisions (or delegate to someone who makes good decisions), and the declining usability of non-server Ubuntu says all we need to know about that.

I think Linux desperately needs some better business models. The one I would favor involves getting the end users to target their donations to support the features they actually want. Lots of small donors could, in theory at least, make a difference.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you having a laugh?

Businesses want long term support. Until Ubuntu LTS is supported in the way RH do with RHEL for 10 years (SUSE is in the same game as RH here) Ubuntu Server will just be a silly toy/also ran/wannabe in this game.

Even Microsoft has a better idea of server support than Canonical.

I know that if I proposed Ubuntu as the Linux Distro of choice to my server customers I'd be laughed off the premises.

As I see it, this move by Canonical is just another attempt at trying to make themselves relevant in an area where RH/SUSE/IBM and Oracle have it pretty well wrapped up already.

[bailey86]

This could be a very compelling partnership - can MS kill it off?

Good grief - the Micro-shills are in here quick.

Couple of points from someone who's adminned a couple of these distros.

Ubuntu LTS has been supported extremely well on the desktop - we've had laptops running 10.04 flawlessly - updates have all worked perfectly. To the extent that I stick to the LTS versions on laptops for myself or co-workers and for other machines I've set up for friends, family etc. They don't care - all they know is that it works all the time - doesn't chuck up errors, doesn't slow down etc. The nice thing for me is that after the install I don't get called - effectively the same reliability as Macs.

SUSE/SLES is way, way behind as a distro - compared to Debian it is simply nowhere near as good. It needs some serious investment to get up to parity - and I doubt it will ever happen. It's kinda OK for running the basics - but for most sysadmins the tools/apps/services are simply not in the package repositories. As I said - Debian is so far ahead it shows how stagnated SLES has become. One thing SLES can offer is that it can almost be used by non-linux admins as they can just stay stay inside Yast - but Yast ain't perfect.

The last time I used pure RH was a while back but it was fine and well supported - provided you were happy to pay the bucks. Best of luck to RH - to me they have done everything right and provide an excellent service.

Which leaves Ubuntu - based on Debian - on Dell as a fantastic option for enterprises who want managed Linux boxes. First off - it's not SLES. Second off - it might be a more cost effective than RH. At least it should provide some competition. Thirdly - most importantly for experienced sysadmins - IT'S DEBIAN! As Arthur Shappey would say - BRILLIANT!

So, a Debian based distribution with professional support from Canonical and Dell - this could be very compelling if it's done well. I especially like the idea of the tie-up between the hardware and software guys - that could work well for the client as they can let the the two support sides to sort things out between themselves.

I know of one enterprise where the head of web would be very interested in moving from HP/SLES to Dell/Ubuntu. In fact, we ourselves buy HP exclusively because it has the best Debian support - if Dell are working closely with Ubuntu (which means good support for Debian hardware-wise) then we might consider them again for our server purchases.

Now for the main question. How hard will MS now lean on Dell to kill this off? How much leverage do they still have?

If Dell move ahead with this it will seriously show that MS are losing their stranglehold and are slipping downwards. For Dell it's the chance to get big in the Linux server space - but MS may threaten to take Dell down by lowering the Win7/Win8/Svr2008 discount rates. If they don't threaten to lower the rates then it might show that MS need Dell more than Dell need MS.

Remember, Dell have periodically released Ubuntu laptops but this has been kept low key. I get the feeling that someone inside Dell has been trying to get into the Ubuntu/Linux space for years - maybe now they've been given a high position in the server division.

Finally - and this could be the reason the shills have been so fast and furious. In a world running on web servers (and where clients only need a browser) this could be part of a serious paradigm shift type problem for MS. The last thing they want is Dell providing fantastic and supported servers running Debian.

[Fatman]

Re: ... can MS kill it off?

That was my first thought also!

How loudly would Microsoft's (damn, I spelled it correctly this time) cash scream once Dell goes private, and M$ money flows into Dell's coffers? I doubt that this would ever get off of the ground.

Microslop is losing the battle, and like the wounded dinosaur that it is, will stop at nothing to kill off any competitor. We Linux users still remember those boasts about Linux infringing on "x" number of M$ patents. While I am supportive of the concept; business world realities say this is a non starter; because after all, would you NOT expect M$ to exert influence on Dell's operations while it is a creditor???