Debian Linux Mint

[yogi]

Here's a novel idea. What if some day Ubuntu disappears? It's been talked about, but don't know if it will really happen. If Ubuntu goes south so do a lot of distributions based on it, such as Linux Mint. So, in order to prepare for a possible disaster, the folks at Mint made a version with Debian at it's core. Yes, Debian. I may try it some day, but if you want to look at it before I do, here's the link: https://linuxmint.com/download_lmde.php

[Kellemora]

Ah yes, LMDE. Basically, Linux Mint Debian Edition is built directly on Debian without sitting on top of Ubuntu.

Linux Mint built on Ubuntu was to take advantage of the bells and whistles Ubuntu had, but folks wanted more bells and whistles than Ubuntu provided, which is why Linux Mint even exists.
But it is no real problem to drop back and build in Debian and add the bells and whistles themselves. It's all open source so anyone can add or remove what they want from their own Distro.

Like Red Hat, Ubuntu is a paid for service driven operation.
The only difference between Red Hat and Ubuntu is Red Hat's free version is renamed CentOS, while Ubuntu keeps their recognized name and product, but sells the service package as a separate entity under the same name.

Although the Linux kernel is used nearly everywhere now, it takes GNU and an OS to make it a functional OS.
Most of the mainframes that use LInux instead of UNIX, also have GNU and quite often Debian headless.

Hmm. I don't think GNU is going anywhere, and neither is Debian.
There is a chain here perhaps you don't understand yet.
GNU is the Upstream OS on which Debian runs.
Ubuntu is built on top of Debian, with ties back to Debian's compilers, they sorta work together to ensure everything works as it should. Debian adds a patch for Ubuntu, and if it is well accepted, the patch becomes part of Debian.
Linux Mint runs on top of Ubuntu, and merely adds a few bells and whistles Ubuntu may not have.

Here is a link, if you scroll down a couple of posts, there is a picture, and someone else comes up with a major section of commentary.
https://unix.stackexchange.com/question ... -on-debian

[yogi]

The flow charts are interesting and just add verification to how many Linux OS's have deteriorated into one confusing mess. With so many hands in the development, it's perfectly understandable how some of the problems I've seen lately could escape into the wild. I have to wonder if the current state of development is what ol' Linus Torvalds had in mind from the very start. I'm all for openness and transparency in design. But, when that idea is taken to an extreme, I lose interest.

We deliver Ubuntu

At the heart of everything we do is Ubuntu, an open source software platform that runs everywhere from the Internet of Things to the cloud. Our services ensure that it is certified for use on devices, PCs, servers and cloud infrastructure — public or private.

Oddly enough, I don't see Canonical in the family tree. Where exactly do they fit in?

[Kellemora]

Canonical is who developed Ubuntu, and handle all the service accounts.
Not much different as not seeing Apple in the MAC family tree.

Linus Torvalds only made and maintains the Linux kernel, which as you know is useless without GNU, and an OS.
One of the reasons it took off like it did, was because as you've mentioned before, it is scale-able.
It can be modified to suit the needs of the user, and parts they don't need chopped off.
This makes it the ideal kernel for both mainframes and server farms.
Also being free was a big part of why supercomputers thrived without being stifled by Micro$oft.

As the world changed over from mainframes to small supercomputers and server farms, Micro$oft refused to budge on their per computer fee. Even at $10.00 each computer, when you are talking about thousands of computers, you are talking about some really big bucks to use the NT kernel. Why pay Mickey$oft a million dollars for a fixed-kernel with no options when you can use a scale-able kernel for free?
Mickey$oft really missed the boat with their greed and caused Linux to be the go-to kernel for the top 500 supercomputers, and nearly every server farm out there.
Most early mainframes used UNIX, or their own in-house developed kernel which cost them big bucks to create.
But as CPU manufacturing became more standardized, even mainframe builders quick kicking against the thorns and went with what was already available and working perfectly.

One question I see pop-up a lot is why is the Linux kernel so huge.
For one, they took a different path than Mickey$oft, and embedded nearly everything in the kernel.
This does not mean the stuff added to make life simpler for home desktop users can't be lopped off and the kernel trimmed back down.

You can sorta think of the Linux kernel like Bootstrap. Most folks will just use the entire Bootstrap file for their CSS needs. Think Desktop or home user creators of their own html. While the more advanced users will trim down Bootstrap or just use the portion of it they need.
Users can make no changes to the NT kernel, they must use it as-is, and without knowing exactly what's in it.

[yogi]

I seriously doubt the top 500 supercomputers on this planet are using a virgin Linux core. Each one of those computers have customized kernels to suit the needs of the task involved. Same for CPU design. It's not your everyday processor that you can pick up at Best Buy on sale. Some folks think that because one kernel is used as a foundation the end product retains the original form. It's not true. All I can add here is that when you call Android Linux, you are making the same mistake.

It's possible that Micorsoft missed the boat by not catering to the server market. But you will have a hard time convincing me that they are not laughing about it all the way to their banks. LOL

[Kellemora]

Mickey$oft garnered the desktop market, and then later the laptop market, which isn't much different.
What else have the got ahead start on? I can't think of anything.

I'm not the one who started calling any computer that uses the Linux Kernel, Linux.
There are many OSs out there that are not GNU or Distro's on top of GNU.
Yet they are all called Linux!
Android is built on GNU/Linux so is rightfully known as Linux, based on the historically used convention.

Just because millions of line of code have been added to the Linux kernel over the years to facilitate desktop and laptop users. Most of those add-on lines are not included in the Linux kernel used in coffee pots, automobiles, mainframe computer, or supercomputers. They still use the basic Linux kernel with what add-on lines they want to use with it, and even make some of their own specialized add-on lines.
Because of all these add-on lines included in the kernel, it has grown quite large.
NT used a different route and kept the add-on's to the kernel as a separate package.
Even so, the NT kernel still has tons of coding in it not required by mainframes and supercomputers, but the makers of those computers have no way of weeding out of the NT kernel the lines they don't need.
If the NT kernel is as great as you claim it is, why isn't it on all the mainframes, supercomputers, and server farms?

[yogi]

If the NT kernel is as great as you claim it is, why isn't it on all the mainframes, supercomputers, and server farms?

because ... it was designed to power desktops and laptops and workstations.

[Kellemora]

Good Answer, hi hi.

[yogi]

I think even Microsoft regretted the fact that they had to get into server side software. The market there certainly wasn't as lucrative as PC's. But things have a way of changing, especially at Microsoft. They are among the top cloud computing service providers these days. I hear you saying it's all done on Unix/Linux servers, but they are the owners of Microsoft Azure. It's their lifeline now that PC's are dying off.

[Kellemora]

Yeppers, Mickey$oft jumped on the Cloud Server Farm market alright, and probably have the most of anybody right now.
What is cool about their Azure software is they can run something like 96 servers per rack. That is totally awesome to say the least.

Here is a list of the top ten cloud servers:
https://datacenterfrontier.com/top-10-cloud-campuses/

It doesn't show what software they are using to run these systems.
I checked a couple and it appears they are using Linux or Both Linux and Microsoft.

Interesting stuff.

[Kellemora]

You made me go look. Here is what I found.
Most of the Cloud Server companies are charging this way.
Linux servers: 4.95 to 6.00 a month.
Microsoft servers: 9.99 to 20.00 a month, the higher price is due to the licensing fees.

[yogi]

Those Facebook servers look an awful lot like the Amazon ones. If memory serves me right that is the case in fact. Amazon doesn't handle all of Facebook but it is a significant share. I'm a little surprised that Google allowed photographing of it's data center. From what I understood it was under high security rules. People are hardly allowed near it and certainly not cameras. Also, I don't really know what OS is on the cloud servers. I do know Google invented it's own because nobody else could do things fast enough.

[Kellemora]

Google has tours of one of its server farms, but the visitors are all behind glass in a hallway, not inside the actual server area. I think it is the one in Iowa?

I've been through ORNL several times since moving down here. They have a huge activities center which is what we really go to see and do. Of course this is a supercomputer, not a server farm.

Locally, one of the Cloud Computing centers is SH Data, less than 4 miles from me.
I stopped in to visit, and was just annoying enough to them, they let me look through an open door for about 15 seconds at their computing and server farm, and also at their cooling system in the next section of the building.
Here is a link, but ignore the top header photo completely, that is just a computer generated image.
If you scroll down to the second picture where it says Managed Services, this is the first row you see looking in the door.
https://www.shdatatech.com/
What I found most interesting about their layout is all the cabinets are on wheels, and each cabinet is independent, meaning they are not hooked together.
This seemed odd since all the cables and cooling equipment is more or less rigid mounted. Hard to tell looking for a few seconds through a doorway. Perhaps the cabinets are just pushed against the rigid ductwork? But then there is all the cable tubes running up to the ceiling.

Naturally they didn't tell me anything at all about their system, only the services they provide.

[yogi]

I think you're right about Google having tours because I read an article by a guy who took a tour of one of the facilities.

I can understand the server cabinets being on wheels. They must be hot swapable much like RAID storage devices. I can only guess about the rear connections. They eventually must connect to fiber but how it's done is anybody's guess.

[Kellemora]

I do know companies can lease an entire rack from that company.
What's in a rack I have no idea.
And it is supposed to be backed up to another off-site system somewhere.
Something they call co-something or other.
My take is companies share storage space for backups with each other.

[yogi]

I think you are right about shared storage. It takes a hell of a lot of computer power to back up a data center; probably something the same size as the original center. I've read about some companies who have huge buildings full of servers just to absorb DDoS attacks. Certain web sites and company data centers cannot be shut down due to such attacks. That kind of thing has to take up even more space and power than backup servers. It's just one more reason to own stocks in power companies.

[Kellemora]

I know the new supercomputer at ORNL uses 13MW (Megawatts) of power.
I would hate to have their electric bill, hi hi.
But they do claim their newest supercomputer uses half the power as much smaller supercomputers.

I have no idea how much power my neighbor uses, but do know the electric company put up a new transformer just for him, plus he has that backup power system in his back yard. Actually, that is what the wires from the transformer go to. Must be like a UPS system of some type? He is very hush hush about nearly everything. I guess he figured I was no threat so told me a few things, but then again, not much.

[yogi]

I'd think ORNL would have a few nuclear reactors laying around that might be useful for producing power to the super 'puter. The guy running the ISP service better have some good backup capability. A lot of people would be affected if he went down for any reason. It only takes one major outage for people to start looking for a new source.

[Kellemora]

Several years ago, I had a few UPS units. At first they seemed OK. All the computers and monitors ran off the UPS, and the UPS just maintained its charge.
This was not like my house with a generator that AFTER the power went out, the Generator would kick in, relays would change to power the house from the Generator, then things would come back up again.
The computers got their power from the UPS, so if the electric went out, they didn't even flicker, since they were technically already running on the batteries.

Other than the batteries going bad really fast, the main problem I've had with every UPS and the reason I quit using them, was because even when we did not have a power outage, they would suddenly cycle for no reason and cut power off to the computers. When this began happening more often than we had power outages, I quit using them.
Shame really because I had a row of four of them lined up, one for each computer and monitor, and the associated switches like the LAN switch and KVM switch, and probably a USB hub. The only thing not on UPS were the printers.

Oh, after having to replace the batteries a couple of times, I decided to go with a set-up similar to what I had in my ham radio station. Deep Cycle Marine batteries in a vented to outside cabinet. Much cheaper to replace and lasted a whole lot longer than the batteries inside the UPS units.

I've seen some UPS units that do not have batteries at all, they use a capacitive storage system. Sound dangerous to me. How do they prevent sudden arcs or voltage spikes? I guess I shouldn't ask because I have a couple car battery boosters for when you have a dead battery that uses capacitors instead of batteries too. Small, lightweight, and always works.

[yogi]

I never used a UPS, but did think about it. They required maintenance of the battery for one, and seemed to be too costly for what I would get from them. We didn't have power outages very often and when we did I never lost any equipment due to line surges. The main reason I didn't bother was because the Internet would go out along with the power. What good is the computer without a network? That's one of the advantages of having a smartphone. It's always on.