Linux Operating System

Linux Operating System

Name:

Institution affiliation:

Linux Operating System

Practically, there are hundreds of various versions of Linux Operating System (LOP), from small-embedded machines and robotics, to almost all of the best 500 supercomputers. Distributions, as people severally refer to the systems, is due to customization of bundle that has productivity software and operating system. They are usually distributed over the internet free of charge usually free of cost; there are many nice versions of commercial operating systems customized for enterprises (Information Resources Management Association, 2011). In this paper, the assessment will compare Linux server and workstation products; distributers of Linux like Red Hat, Mandrake and SUSE/ Novell. Majorly, they are popular brands that offer commercial support basics and business services (Popp, 2011). In this regards, most entities conduct feasibility studies when acquiring a computer system to determine the usability and viability of the system. Most entities analyze the notion of installation and upgrading to evaluate cost effectiveness in terms of benefits accrued and end-user requirement. Linux systems have proved friendly and cheap to most entities especially those dealing with technologies. As such, the paper will offer a framework on Linux systems including workstation and servers.

Conceptually, vendor provided software fit a wide range of sets where one can install to a desktop or powerful system configuration like Blackbaud’s Raiser Edge (BRE). It can cost nothing to work with it but can also cost huge amounts of money per year. On the other hand, a sole vendor or one item in a broad system of consultants’ providers and implementers to make it run smoothly can support the software (Hausman & Cook, 2010; Blagodurov & Fedorova (2011)). On the contrary, open source systems are locally made, marketed and passed on by a detached community of experts. As the term implies, people can simply view, change, and download instructions in the system provided they have some expertise in computer science. On the other hand, Zellweger, Gerber, Kourtis, & Roscoe (2014) assert that the system allows people to edit or modify the operating essences of attributes of the system; thus, a simplification of applications. In this regards, programmers find the system user friendly and an excellent system to engage in programming.

In relation to total cost of ownership, several factors come to play like maintenance subscriptions, small footprint images of operating system, deployment of tools and centralized administration and, support for various hardware and applications. People have realized significant success on Linux servers, as it is relatively cheap and fast for enterprises to change specific servers. Essentially, this is due to many servers relying on working of a single application such as network infrastructure and web servers (Hausman & Cook, 2010; Zellweger et al, 2014). Subsequently, costs of hardware purchase is greatly reduced and their manufacturers like IBM and HP provide technical support as well as maintenance problems giving users confidence on Linux Operating Systems (LOP).

On the other hand, Linux on desktops is completely different where users run several combinations of system application on their PCs. Therefore, migration costs would be high as replacing all applications would be hectic. Alternatively, few applications preferably of low or fixed function such as platform automation or data entry can be considered on PCs as a low cost migration (Landy & Mastrobattista, 2008). As a result, PC vendors normally leave decision to end users for support and custom builds on Linux as preferred. Overall, a challenge arises on Linux support on PCs; thus, an enterprise must deliberate changing OS on its desktop. However, for those who understand the working of open systems, Linux systems eases usability and allow people to develop or engage in various applications.

Different distributers offer varying costs of ownership where SUSE point of sale operating system one pays for maintenance subscriptions as well as services that increase value of one’s business enterprises. For one, licensing fees is eliminated; that being so retailers with many locations derive enormous savings on software licenses (Popp, 2013; Blagodurov & Fedorova (2011)). Open source versions of Red Hat and Canonical are as well cheap as services as subscription and maintenance are most valuable to the companies. However, both have versions that are branded specifically to user’s needs, which might be expensive to install, and overall ownership such as CentOS (Red Hat version).

Comparatively, all vendors have training and servicing expenses where packages tending to be hard to learn for end users are costly in the end as provision will take longer. In open source, flexibility in terms of extensible code base, data model and APIs provide customers with ability to modify in accordance with current needs. Whilst vendor options usually tie an organization to their terms and conditions, open source allows freedom of control to product’s features and conditions. However, updated and well drafted documentation in vendor based OS is easy for every released version as it is individual’s job to write it and keep it updated. Moreover, organizations have ease of starting and running commercial OS especially due to experience with open source projects and vendor support and training. Alternatively, open source is free to try to update; when you download the full version one can set up a prototype and after careful customization one can freely update to new features in the future (Popp, 2013). More selection of what and when to update, configure and install is upon oneself as opposed to vendor-based versions.

In essence, a build-up of own needs by researching and analyzing available options on other factors rather than cost. Evaluation with due diligence and comparing features is critical not only by being driven by temptation of free open source system with no concrete set of needs but also purchase of commercial alternatives without consideration of open source alternatives.

In regards to reliability, people expect several risks in software products various types of OS companies have their own way of dealing with the flaws. For instance, open source OS 1 is on its own commercial OS and provide service to current issues. On the other case, open source OS solve their problems by community based developers who have interests of users at heart as they created in accordance with worst ideas foregone for the best (Landy & Mastrobattista, 2008). Communication through chat sessions, events, websites and conferences bring out most nagging issues to developers knowledge thus sidelining intermediaries in sales, marketing and management.

Performance of all type of OS whether open source or vendor based, smart ways to provide accessibility to tap into data and product features are of concern to both and, when viable extend it. Options to extend functionally should not be derailed by lack of well-defined modular architecture or data locked into a marooned structure. Typically, data access should be available to organizations always unless failure is part of their strategy. Complexity in implementation will be hectic since to get the software running with all customization required would need a lot of work. In definition, applications effectiveness relies on least customization involved- definitely, this works best for open source unlike for commercial packages. In comparison, change of set up will spike complexity and high costs.

In reality, open source operating systems and vendor-based ones will have no difference as such but, one should be critical to analyze features, costs accrued and attributes for each. After that, unique criteria of each model should be brought up. In choosing open source, one normally focuses on community of experts thus taking total control on software design. Although, a different course of sequence of actions and more work regarding support in the long run it is viable altogether. Conclusively, there is no direct answer to software choice, open source is not cure to all apparent issues though worth consideration. Vendor systems have no monopoly in distribution, but offer faster and simplified choice for easy needs (Popp, 2013). The choice made should not overwhelm user, rather one can break down requirements and considerations to know of options viable effectively.

Red Hat Linux (RHL) is an established company, which offers servers to corporate bodies with variety of service options to clients thus making it suitable for corporate network. Distribution includes current version of Linux kernel and most of the major application packages required by most people. They have worked their way to be the greatest general-purpose company with good riddance on servers and desktops too. However, problems arise in introduction of substandard kernel parches making custom-made products difficult. Red Hat Linux (RHL) introduction and installation is thorough where graphics have all information required to set up a server. Partitioning of disks is easily done either with a GUI utility or solved automatically even for Linux users who are new (Yu, 2013). Like any other distribution, one can choose preferable categories or specific feature options. Established systems have plenty of servicing from Web and Red Hat staff themselves making it appropriate for corporate clients, as they require high levels of support.