9 Replies Latest reply on Oct 8, 2012 3:15 PM by eric

    Linux implementation


      How about a Linux version, even if it is the reduced feature set 'player' version some have been touting


      So we could use a Raspberry Pi device to provide low-cost high-feature databases in markets that are currently inaccessible?

        • 1. Re: Linux implementation

          One of the biggest sellings points of FileMaker to my clients has always been its stability. I'm not talking about server uptime and performance stability (not to downplay the importance of these aspects!), but upgrading-your-OS-is-unlikely-to-require-a-rewrite-of-your-application stability. Linux is notorious for fragmentation and the latter variety of instability. It would be a royal pain in the butt for a company as small as FileMaker to support Linux, and I suspect there's similar reasoning behind the apparent lack of plans for supporting Android. (It's much easier for an app to support open source platforms with an army of open source developers.) The Linux culture is also inconsistent with the product that is FileMaker. On the spectrum between "give me control of all the minutae" and "don't make me think about details outside of my business logic," Linux leans to the former, and FileMaker leans to the latter. Does the size of FileMaker's "give me control of all the minutae" market justify the expense of supporting Linux?

          • 2. Re: Linux implementation

            FileMaker 5.5 Server ran on Red Hat Linux, which was quite interesting.  And while I find it interesting to get FileMaker or FileMaker Server to run on Linux, I think I would place a higher priority on getting FileMaker running on Android or Windows Mobile.  That would really sweep the mobile world and probably bring many more users than bringing FileMaker to Linux.  Of course I would be happy if FileMaker themed layouts worked with IWP.  I'm sure FileMaker has much more coming in the future and I can't wait for it!

            • 3. Re: Linux implementation

              I can see the logic of the arguement against, I was looking at a TCO thing to introduce proper business software into markets completely outside our current reach, particularly in the developing nations.


              And given that the computing deparment inSouthampton built a supercomputer with 64 of them in an array for under £2500 just maybe some thinking otuside the box IS required in these discussions.

              • 4. Re: Linux implementation

                That does sound interesting and I'm always interested in FileMaker spreading in popularity.  But FileMaker's target audience is not the open source free software like MySQL/PostGres with free front ends like PHP.  And as everyone knows, free may be free, but the development cost sure isn't and that is the benefit of tools like FileMaker for accomplishing goals much more quickly and often with a TCO very compeititve or cheaper than the so called "Free" solutions. 


                The one selling point for FileMaker to consider Linux is that they already have it working on a Unix system, the OS X.  So porting it to Linux would not be near as much work as recreating FileMaker for a whole new operating system like Android. 

                • 5. Re: Linux implementation

                  In those years(2001),  an expert developer (Catalán) (www.fm-club.org), tested, with the following results.


                  Equipo #1 - Win2000 IBM Netfinity 5500 Pentium 3* 1G HD UWS160 18Gig Raid 3

                  Equipo #2 - MacOS Powermac G3 400MHz HD UWS/adaptec 40MB/s

                  Equipo #3 - RedHat linux 7.1 Pentium 2* 400 HD IDE ultra ATA 7200


                  measures: Disk KB/sec,     Network KB/sec,       transactions/sec


                  Equipo #1 - 1339    196     711

                  Equipo #2 - 230      120    243

                  Equipo #3 - 6520    356    2184  

                  • 6. Re: Linux implementation

                    How about at least porting the the Web Publishing Components?

                    A manager here keeps threatening to run the webservers on Linux.

                    • 7. Re: Linux implementation

                      Interesting...Thanks for the input!


                      BTW< I mistakenly referred to the version that used to run on Red Hat as being in the Sever 8 days; it was actually in the 5.5 days.



                      • 8. Re: Linux implementation



                        There's no reason you can't run your webservers on linux, we do that currently with v12.  http://www.goya.com.au/blog/filemaker-server-and-linux-webserver




                        • 9. Re: Linux implementation

                          I guess that's the alternate or three-server model, but that's a good start.
                          I was thinking that it would be nice to al least port the WPE, but now that I see the alternative, there doesn't seem to be as much of a win in porting just the WPE.