Re: The Landan response: f**k off and do one mate.
"unreasonable changes to my conditions of employment"
Big IR35 fail there.
42400 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
Since as long as I can remember in computing the goal of the multiuser machine has been to present each of the users with the illusion that they were operating their own individual machine by slicing up the resources, especially processor time and memory. My experience of that goes right back to being a user on an experimental system running on a 1904 (the illusion was somewhat shattered by the fact that I managed to crash the entire 1904).
The core task facing system developers was how to provide that illusion with minimum resources but maximum performance and security.
Roll forward a good many years from that and I found myself running Unix boxes of various sizes for various businesses which were rather less experimental. Under Unix we would be running an instance or maybe more than one instance of an RDBMS server and each instance might run one or more databases and against a database we would have applications serving individual users. As far as possible the users would indeed see what looked like individual machines - they would certainly get menus tuned to their roles in the business. Not totally isolated, of course, because their activities amended the contents of the database they were sharing: only one user would be able to enter an order for the last item in stock, etc. The overhead for that was one kernel with its data structures in memory, (usually) one RDBMS server with its data structures and the applications with their per-user data structures in memory.
The modern trend seems to be to have an overall kernel/hypervisor - either as 2 layers or a hypervisor running on bare metal - with its/their data, and then a host of virtual machines, each with its kernel, it's own data, running - what? A database, a web server, whatever application sits on that combination? Whatever, all with their own memory allocations. Even if the virtual machines were to share the same code images in memory they're all going to need their individual memory allocations for kernel data, server data etc. as well as the application memory for the individual tasks. The while the kernel/hypervisor is going to be busy hypervising doing all the usual kernel tasks of managing time, memory and IO for the virtual machines, each virtual machine kernel is going to be doing the same thing for each process running on it, including the virtualised IO.
As I understand this proposal it's a means of paring back the resources seen by each virtual machine to reduce bloat. If one were to wish to go further the virtual machines could be eliminated and the single layer of kernel could oversee the services directly and maybe one database instance could run all the databases for the services etc.
OK, I've heard the sneers about cattle vs pets. What we ran weren't pets, they were work horses.
"My concern would be why is this some sort of bespoke project rather than just what everyone else uses for the bog-standard business practices (ERP, HR and bank reconciliation?"
HR and payroll should be common with other businesses. Rented property management will have commercial packages available, even specialist social housing packages have been developed for housing associations. But managing electoral registers or bin collections isn't something that a regular business requirement.
"Gosh, if only there were other places who needed those!)."
There are. Other councils. That's why it makes sense to sponsor a modular local government administration system; modular because the various functions are distributed differently between different tiers in different parts of the country.
High pay is essential for a successful consultation.
The people at the bottom of the pile usually have a good idea of what's wrong and what needs to be done. But those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing will disregard such information - it can't be worth much because it comes from someone on a much lower pay scale.
Successful consultants aren't blinkered by this attitude. They ask those in a position to know best and present it to management with a high price tag on it. Because it cost a lot it must be worth a lot.
"Installation remains a pain point for many Linux distros"
I think the pain point is largely that it asks the installer to make choices about partitioning. This is not an issue for an OS that just tramples anything on the boot drive even if the partitioning it sets up becomes a problem for later updates.
Likewise in Debian land, run any updates due on the current version, switch the distro name in /etc/apt, run another upgrade and reboot. I'd hope that this is now expected across Linux distros. Perhaps, to appease the "Oh, it's the command line" mouth-foamers perhaps there should be a GUI version (maybe there is somewhere but as CLI is often the far slicker way to do things I stick to that).
However there's always the need to install on new H/W or to replace Windows. And on the matter of Windows, which Liam raised in the article, I think there's a need for an installer that starts out from a PoV of "Oh dear, I see you've got Windows. Let's make space, install something better but let you keep your old data available." and automate that. If, as I suggested earlier, it could use Wine or virtualisation to run any installed Windows applications that weren't going to be replaced with Linux ones, so much the better.
Having said that SWMBO's laptop threw a H/W wobbly so I dragged out an old one of mine, W7 vintage, only to discover that the resident version of Debian was so old that its repositories were "archived" as were at least the next two succeeding ones. So that did involve a reinstall of Devuan.
Criminal legislation tells you what not to do. What's needed is legislation that tells you what to do when you get something wrong, irrespective of whether it was deliberately, negligently or anywhere in between. Lack of that allows the gross foot-dragging we're seeing in operation there.
"but the good guys - still the majority hopefully"
I know you're thinking about businesses as a whole but you have to extend this to the people who work there. How far back do you have to go through el Reg articles to find a report of someone, possibly in public service roles who turned out not to be one of the good guys? If you collected this toxic waste on the basis that it's of value to the shareholders you'd better contain it very safely. If you don't then your shareholders should expect to be heavily penalised for your failure. At the very least they'll expect you to have insured against it and in turn your insurers will be weighting up the risk and charging you for it. Non-compliance shouldn't be a free ride.
"used for corporate hospitality events for some years afterwards."
Also to celebrate allegedly successful sales projects - but only if you were on the manglement side. If you had to make it work when told about it the morning it was going live you were too late, the places had already been booked.
It seems to have been the classic second system effect. Multics, of course, was the one you build to throw away,
Seriously, I think the reason Unix succeeded was that it was built simple so everything could be layered on top. The Unix design was and is flexible. By building stuff in that had previously been layered on top it would have become less flexible. Assumptions become limitations.
"Eighth Edition Unix didn't have much industry impact, and little if anything drew significantly upon the Ninth and Tenth Editions!
The initial industry interest - and wider interest in general - grew out of the releases, primarily into academia, of the early versions. When AT&T were allowed to sell it as a product they set up a separate division that went its own way with System III (Was there a System I or II? I never encountered anything between &th ed & III myself) and later In FOSS parlance they forked it.
" Likely some BSD + GNU would have replaced the commercial expensive Unixes for servers, routers, eink ereaders etc if Linux had never existed."
Alternatively SCO could have realised that it was competing with free but not, as yet, as good. If they had aimed for a mass market - cut the price for single use, provided a free student edition or whatever it's just possible we might all, and I'm not confining this to Linux, users, have been using Unix on the desktop now. Linux would have got the chance to become as good.
They released a developer's disk that was actually free, but I don't think it was available for long and was only licenced form 6 months' use. In practice that wasn't enforced so it was useful for anyone freelance supporting the paid for deployments. With a bit of prompting they got involved in the long running court case with Linux, took their eye off the ball and lost the SMB server market they'd dominated.