back to article Don't be shy, we know you've got .NET code. Why not run it on our Linux cloud – Red Hat

Red Hat plans to welcome Microsoft Windows .NET workloads onto its on-premises app-hosting cloud OpenShift Origin – as it attempts to close the gap between its technology and Pivotal's Cloud Foundry. The upgrade was announced on Wednesday by Red Hat, which will work with Uhuru Software to bring .NET and SQL Server support to …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Almost every enterprise customer has some amount of .NET in their environment," a Red Hat spokesperson explained to us via email.

    Right, cuz they force us to install it, even when unnecessary, just like almost every other M$ product on the face of the planet.

    If I have a Linux cloud, I'll run my native compilers on it, not something that requires a reboot every week for memory leaks and stuck services. A pox on you M$.

    1. harmjschoonhoven
      Linux

      ecma-international.org

      It is a widespread misconception that C# and .NET is a Microsoft® thing.

      These are ECMA-International standards (ECMA-334 C# Language Specification and ECMA-335 Common Language Infrastructure).

      Due to this we have mono-project.com and xamarin.com (love it).

      Ms is, as you might imagine, one of the currently twelve voting members of ECMA-International.

    2. ewozza
      Meh

      Mono on Linux is easy

      Is being arrogant really more important than keeping your clients happy?

      Obviously you try to steer clients to using tech you prefer, for good reasons, but if they insist on .NET, then .NET on Linux is IMO better than .NET on M$.

      Setting up a .NET environment on Linux is a straightforward compile - easy for someone familiar with Linux to do. Of course, you also have to be familiar with IIS / .NET application packages to make the .NET code work ;-).

      Eric Worrall

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Mono on Linux is easy

        "then .NET on Linux is IMO better than .NET on M$."

        Nah - .Net performs much faster on MS Server than with Mono on Linux, Mono is years behind in terms of functionality - and of course there are far fewer security vulnerabities to have to patch on the underlying OS with Windows Server.

        1. Anonymous Bullard

          Re: Mono on Linux is easy

          You obviously haven't used any .NET on Linux, then.

          We've found that our web applications respond much better under stress tests, on the same hardware. Of course, it's not really a fair test since you're also comparing the OS + webserver too, so it might be that mono code is slower than .NET (which you could only compare when running both on Windows) but overall we found there's much gain with mono on Linux. Enough to warrant migration.

          As for functionality, mono supports .NET 4.5 + C# 5, which includes a great deal more than the average ASP.NET/MVC developer uses. Even WinForms is supported (ropey, when I last tried a few years ago), but GTK# is used instead (much richer, and actually maintained).

          And I'm a long-time Windows developer - fortunately I'm one of the few that are open minded enough to investigate alternatives, in the spirit of improvement.

          1. Gordon Stewart

            Re: Mono on Linux is easy

            Just stay away from WCF on Mono. Support is laughable at best.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Right, cuz they force us to install it, even when unnecessary, just like almost every other M$ product on the face of the planet."

      Ermm - no it's an optional install except when required as a dependency by optional OS functions.

      "If I have a Linux cloud, I'll run my native compilers on it, not something that requires a reboot every week for memory leaks and stuck services."

      You must be confusing .Net with Java.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Well, you know

    Almost every enterprise customer has a member of staff with a sexually transmitted disease too. Doesn't mean we should be encouraging it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Well, you know

      Lol @ "Redhat" as a sexually transmitted disease. Full marks due there for the appropriate name too....

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why downgrade?

    If you have .Net applications, and are thus running Windows. Why downgrade to Linux, run the risk of implementation glitches and, of course, the MADSIVE security holes (entire TLS stack is buggered and has been for YEARS. The fallacy of "many eyes").

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why downgrade?

      Yeah, it makes far more sense to run your enterprise on a closed code base which you know is developed by people who we all now know have been compromising their entire code base for the American government for at least a decade. They took it up the arse from the NSA, you should be willing to take it up the arse as well.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Why downgrade?

        They took it up the arse from the NSA, like the BSD IP Stack or the Open SSL implementation of RSA you mean?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Why downgrade?

          They took it up the arse from the NSA, like the BSD IP Stack or the Open SSL implementation of RSA you mean?

          Luckily openssl supports a whole raft of different ciphers, and anyone who was listening knew RSA wasn't the best anymore a good few years ago now. In fact I seem to recall it was just after RSA themselves starting talking about how currently used key lengths for RSA ciphers weren't long enough to ensure against brute force attacks. All them openssl users had options then, they could for example completely switch the cipher their security was based on.

          Still why downgrade to any operating system Linux or *BSD, and the complicated options that brings along... all those complicated choices about how your server should work... that's not a wise choice is it... far better to let that private company who know so much about security that even the NSA consult with them... do it all for you... yes that makes perfect sense, and of course it's all so much easier, when you just fill in the text boxes for your organisation, and do it their way.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why downgrade?

      If Microsoft had a half-decent security reputation you might have a point, but unless you are either a) extremely blinkered or b) know fuck all about security, this is not the case.

      1. ewozza
        Meh

        Re: Why downgrade?

        Don't be a snob :-). I prefer Linux / PHP as a backend server for my apps, for security and simplicity, but sometimes clients have legacy code, or maybe they just plain want to run a .NET component. In these situations, .NET on Linux is IMO a better solution than .NET on M$.

        Eric Worrall

        1. TheVogon

          Re: Why downgrade?

          "Linux / PHP as a backend server for my apps, for security and simplicity"

          LOL - Order of magnitude more security holes than Windows Server / .Net. PHP is the Emmental Cheese of middleware. Not to mention hideously complex and hard to manage across an enterprise in comparison.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Why downgrade?

        Current Microsoft OSs have had far fewer security vulnerabilities that on average have been patched faster (fewer days at risk) than both the major enterprise Linux distributions ever year for the last decade....

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @AC

      Indeed, why downgrade to Linux if you can run FreeBSD :P

      A bit more seriously though: cost reduction, continuity and customer value.

      Microsoft wants you to upgrade to a new environment every once in a while. A long time, that is absolutely true; but when the time comes then Microsoft no longer cares about their customers any longer, then it's all about revenue. Look at where we are now: XP marketshare is even expanding near it's EOL yet Microsoft refuses to acknowledge that for many people the new dinkey toy servers just don't cut it (I'm now referring to the touch crapola which is Metro). TechNet? Thousands of Windows / Microsoft administrators (yours truly included) cried out in pain and were easily ignored.

      As to Metro: sure; on Linux (or my personal preference of FreeBSD) stuff also changes. But in the end you are and remain in control.

      Which brings me to continuity. Linux and FreeBSD are at the core still the same Unix-like commandline based operating systems which they were several years ago. Stuff got added, of course, stuff got removed and stuff got changed. But in the end it's still RPM / yum, DPKG / apt-get and well... yeah.. Those FreeBSD hippies had the audacity to actually change their package manager to something completely different. FreeBSD 10 doesn't use the same tools as previous versions, I guess Microsoft isn't the only one which drastically changes stuff.

      I tell you: instead of typing "pkg_remove -x stuff" I now have to type this instead: "pkg remove -x stuff". Effectively replacing the requirement to type _ with a space, how horrid is that?

      Which brings me to customer value. The powers behind these operating systems actually value and respect their userbase (generally speaking; of course you can always come across some weird guys, happens everywhere. But my point here: they don't force you to do stuff you may not want or like. No one is going to force you to install X (the GUI) on your servers for the only reason of being able to run their own software. Not going to happen.

      If a Linux distribution does this and their userbase doesn't agree then they can (and usually will) run into problems. Because in general it's fairly easy to switch distributions (this holds especially true when looking at "descendents: Debian and Ubuntu for example). As to FreeBSD? Well, hardly anything ever changes there. It's still the main core operating system on which everything else gets installed "on top".

      From personal experience: Microsoft would rather see that we (small company) upgrade our hardware, buy ourselves extra licenses (even though we only need the environment for internal testing purposes) and if we can't or don't want to then their other alternative is the "Cloud". Yeah right...

      FreeBSD on the other hand (personal choice as replacement for our Windows 2003R2 servers) easily runs on our current hardware, can perform the same tasks as the Windows 2k3 server yet also a whole lot more too. Think about extensive IPv6 support for example.

      Sure; Mono isn't fully up to speed with the latest versions of .NET yet. So if you have specific requirements then this obviously won't suffice. But for everyone else..

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @AC

        I'm somewhat convinced that losing Technet was our "reward" for bitching so much about Metro/Modern.

    4. fandom

      Re: Why downgrade?

      Hey! Why are you all taking a troll's question seriously?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Why downgrade?

        "Hey! Why are you all taking a troll's question seriously?"

        Because it is so rediculous to suggest that it is a serious option for the vast majority of cases to run .Net on Linux. 99% of users are going to be far better off on Windows Server.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Why downgrade?

          "99% of users"

          Just because you're blinkered and require the MS comfort blanket - please don't tarnish the rest us!

          It's people like you who give us Windows users (and the industry in general) the bad reputation is has.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Why downgrade?

            "It's people like you who give us Windows users (and the industry in general) the bad reputation is has"

            To be fair, that has more to do with Microsoft. Unless the AC is Bill Gates.

  4. ewozza
    Holmes

    C# / .NET on Linux is easy

    It is not difficult to install a Mono / c# environment on Linux. I did this for a client who had a ASP.NET component they wanted to run on Linux / Amazon EC2.

    There are a few gotchas. You have to be careful with compilation dependencies if you want SSL support, while building the Mono environment, and you have to check which language features are supported on Mono (some of the .NET 4 stuff was not well supported, last time I used this).

    Obviously code which has a strong dependency on explicit Windows components won't work, without refactoring.

    Otherwise it works OOTB.

    Eric Worrall

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: C# / .NET on Linux is easy

      Just because you can doesn't mean that you should...

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like