Future of Unix because of Linux 14

[kHz]

Unix has been around for over 30 years and runs more mission-critical and high-availability servers than any other OS (though some will argue Mainframes).

There are many Unix variants, but the most successful commercial are: AIX (IBM), Solaris (Sun), and HP-UX (HP). There are also open source variants that are successful, namely: FreeBSD and Linux.

Linux was first developed in the early 90's and it has taken a decade for it to reach into data centers.

Why are the tentacles of Linux becoming so far-reaching? I would like to see hard numbers because people mostly tout Linux is free, therefore we will save on the bottom line. Is this argument true? Most large corporations that use Red Hat ES or SuSE (SLES) pay a lot to Red Hat and/or Novell for software support. Then the company has to pay for hardware maintenance for their Dell- or HP-x86 based servers. Does this really save a company money? If you purchase hardware from IBM or Sun, you don't have to pay for the OS, and I am sure the HW/OS support contracts are not significantly less than a combined Red Hat/Dell or SLES/HP contracts.

Another thing I despair about is what is happening to Unix. I really like working on very large scalable, parallel machines like the old IBM SP2 complexes and like working on the old IBM pSeries p670/p690 servers that have LPARs. And I like working on Sun E6900s and even the midrange enterprise Sun E2900s. But they all seem to be going away and being replaced by Linux on x86 HW.

I think Linux is fine for some applications in a business, but I don't think it is the only solution. I work for a very large corporation and Solaris is on its way out, replaced by Linux, and HP-UX is not going to be purchased any longer but is giving way to Linux, and AIX is running databases and will have some growth, but most future growth is going to be Linux.

This is not a bashing of Linux and I won't get into a This Unix vs That Unix tit-for-tat. What I want to know is why the pushing of Linux for buniesses? As stated earlier, I don't believe it is significantly less in terms of savings than IBM or Sun.

And AIX is very stable and durable. It has taken on more of IBMs Mainframe technology and will be incorporating more of that technology in AIX v6 when it is released. Linux doesn't have behind it what IBM and Sun and HP have put into their versions of Unix over the last 15-20 years.

Plus x86-based hardware isn't anything like the hardware of a p690 or Sun E6900. I don't believe it has the redundancy or HA quality that the high-end servers of HP, Sun, and IBM have.

I don't think Unix is going anywhere in the next 20 years, because Windows and Unix make up the greatest majority of installed OS's. And even if one debuted, it took Linux 10 years to being getting into data centers, so it would take that long for a new OS to make in-roads, and that would be after lengthy development. Microsoft keeps delaying the release of Vista and that isn't a completely brand new OS. So I think Unix is safe for 20 years (or more).

But what am I going to be relegated to? Linux on cheap Intel hardware? Plus I also don't really like the fact that everyone out there sells themselves as knowing Unix because they use Linux at home on a cobbled-together PC. I have put in over ten years of learning the intracacies of AIX and RS/6000 and pSeries hardware and Solaris and Sun Fire hardware, and I find it difficult to classify someone who has toyed with Linux on a PC at home sell themselves as a Unix professional.

 

[Sympology]

I don't work with Linux or Unix, so maybe an outsiders view may help.

Linux is FREE, however, people do pay large sums for software support, documentation, media, upgrade paths etc. In business, you can't rely on getting an issue and "hoping" someone, sometime will fix it.

You say why are people moving from AIX,HP-UNIX, Solaris, etc. We'll you've kind of answered that yourself.Your looking at different systems, with different license costs, with different support issues, with different hardware etc etc. One platform, reduces running costs (training, people you can employ, outsourcing) and, in theory, is easier to keep track of what is going on.
You also ask if you are doomed to running on cheap x86 that aren't as good as mainfarmes. Look at the Top 500 Suprcomputers (

http://www.top500.org/list/2006/06/100)

and see of those are x86 units. Hardly low end stuff are they?

The future of powerful machines, imho, is no longer with Massive mainframes in a datacentre, but with multi device, multi processor, cluster servers running either Linux or the new Windows HPC (

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/ccs/default.mspx)

Stu..

Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[buck2506]

I agree with you. However I approached this problem from a different angle. I work for a small, small company(5 employees).
Last year we moved up to a point of sale/inventory management set-up. I priced everything, pc's, software and peripherals. Looked at Linux very carefully, savings would have been $240(I know this doesn't sound like much but for a small company it is). The problem I ran into was that to get a business ready version of Linux with tech support the cost was not free (Windows XP $140 vs Xandros Business $125) then couple the problems of hardware support and the free or low cost aspect of Linux is gone.

The other problem I ran into was a lack of software for pos/inventory control. What I found was extremely expensive and the companies that produced it did not care to talk unless the discussion included multiple stations and stores.

I read another forum were the host changed over from Windows about 2 years ago and several members have changed in the last year and now they are all experts. Granted most of them have been in the feild for many years with some experience in UNIX on an enterprise level but from the discussions it appears on a user level.

 

[dilettante]

If you go into a modern data center you won't see any "massive mainframes." Indeed, the mainframes there often have a rather small footprint compared to the racks and racks of inefficiently used Windows, Solaris, and HPUX hardware.

These things are wasteful of real estate and burn power (and throw heat) like there is no tomorrow.

The trend I see in the future isn't clustering at all, which will simply exacerbate the problem. Instead we will more likely see more systems like HP's Superdome series that have massive memory configurations and 32 or more processors (and the equivalent with x86 family processors). These can use hardware partitioning but more importantly VM technologies to virtualize servers.

The real problem is crappy applications, whether for Unix/Linux or Windows. Ones that can't "play well" with others on the same server, yet end up utilizing the server maybe 2% to 10% for most of a given 24 hour interval.

Virtualization will allow these crappy apps to be crammed into a smaller number of physical boxes. Boxes which can be managed toward a more economical utilization level of around 66%. No more racks and racks of dedicated mail and web servers. In big shops file servers are already being replaced by virtualized SAN/NAS megaboxes.


Linux on the server would never have proliferated without the current "got an app, spend a box" mentality. Linux saves money in our world of crappy app development. Virtualization lets this continue, without incurring the OS licensing costs for every VM that many other choices carry.

 

[gbaughma]

Linux doesn't have behind it what IBM and Sun and HP have put into their versions of Unix over the last 15-20 years.

I'm not sure I agree with that statement..... granted, Linux doesn't have 15-20 years, per se, of development behind it... but in the manner of MAN HOURS, Linux would have much more.

Look at it this way. 1 person working 1 hour on the OS... 1 man hour. A team of IBM people... be it 50 or 100 people, working on the OS for an hour, 50 or 100 man hours.

But, take Linux... open-source, thousands and thousands of people improving, troubleshooting, developing drivers, apps, etc. I would wager that Linux has *millions* of developmental hours into it.

The other nice thing about Open Source like that is that vulnerabilities are discovered and repaired faster, and there's no "back doors".... because everyone would know about them.

In terms of man-hours, Linux would have to be the hands-down winner, just because of the open-source nature of the project.



Just my 2¢

"In order to start solving a problem, one must first identify its owner." --Me
--Greg

 

[spookie]

Hi,
Also Linux being Open Source can be source modified according to our needs.That is not the case of UNIX which are properietery.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never set a goal because u never know whats going to happen tommorow.

 

[onoski]

Khz, just because you have been working using mainly Unix and it's hardware platforms does not necessarily mean some one can learn this in a short space of time. Be it Unix, Linux or Windows OS anyone with some back bone and determination can learn this and strive in that environment after a few months. I am talking from experience and I ain't jack Bauer either or a genious. Unfortunately that's the way the I.T is and would continue to stay that way.

The reason why am saying this is because from reading your post it sounds more like your blowing your trumpet and no else can claim to know what you know because of the years of your experience on Unix etc. I hope I don't sound like am attacking you because am not. I work in I.T myself doing a jack of all trade type of job and I have pretty much learn everything apart from some sort of programming. Well come to the world or I.T just keep advancing yourself and career and you'd wouldn't put too much emphasis on a OS platform etc.

 

[MasterRacker]

The real problem is crappy applications, whether for Unix/Linux or Windows. Ones that can't "play well" with others on the same server, yet end up utilizing the server maybe 2% to 10% for most of a given 24 hour interval.

You hit the nail squarely. Where I work, I've coined the term "crapplication". We have so many of these, the whole IS dept. has adopted the term, even our IS Director.

_____
Jeff
[small][purple]It's never too early to begin preparing for [/purple]International Talk Like a Pirate Day
"The software I buy sucks, The software I write sucks. It's time to give up and have a beer..." - Me[/small]

 

[Grenage]

Linux really is the 'alternative' OS though, it should be welcomed as making inroads that companies and individuals that there is a completely viable alternative to Microsoft. That's no easy task in todays environment.

Few things make me cringe more than seeing how surprised most people are to find that other operating systems are available. The vast majority do not see the operating system as an optional piece of software, but as the computer itself.

I think linux has a real community feel about it which draws people in. I for one welcome anything that pushes people away from microsoft products.


Carlsberg don't run I.T departments, but if they did they'd probably be more fun.

 

[dilettante]

I wouldn't count out the *BSDs either for many purposes.

 

[kHz]

I have FreeBSD installed on one of my home PCs that is at 6.1 and it started out with 3.x. I actually prefer BSD to Linux but I don't make the decisions at work.

I also had lunch with a friend a couple of weeks ago, who works at a Fortune 500 company I used to work for. He said they are talking about getting rid of Solaris and going with - you guessed it, Linux.

Linux it seems is becoming in a way what Windows wants, to be everywhere and on everything. I think it is fine for some things, but not the end-all that everyone is making it out to be.

And doesn't Torvalds still control the kernel? BSD has a core team of developers as does Sun, HP, and IBM. How much control does he maintain, and is that really good?

 

[eyeswideclosed]

If you look at real mission critical systems, large financial systems etc, nobody is using linux, it's ok for little websites but it's real UNIX, mainframes, AS400s, Enterprise servers (yes, even Microsoft, sorry to bust your religion linuxheads), SQL Server (NASDAQ), Oracle on Sun or Windows. When you're responsible for billions of dollars or lives, religious "communites" become irrelevant, this is serious business. We have 5 billion dollars assets under management, we run AS400 and Windows Enterprise 2003/.NET, and SQL Server, 60,000 users, we never have problems with stability or support, we are not going to risk everything on a "free" os that is worked on my people sitting in their bedrooms, waiting for a "fix", get real. Oh and guess who Torvalds works for now, that's right, time to wake up kiddies.

 

[gbaughma]

eyeswideclosed:

I would agree. If it's mission critical (Banks, mining, medical), it's an AS400.

I *LOVE* that machine.



Just my 2¢

"In order to start solving a problem, one must first identify its owner." --Me
--Greg

 

[eyeswideclosed]

Gbaughma, indeed, its stability is nothing short of phenomenal, it has literally gone years without a reboot, and then only for an upgrade, ours gets the crap beat out of it all day every day, never a hiccup.

 

[Sympology]

That's one thing with Linux. If you find a flaw and your system goes t*tsup. Who do you shout at to get it resolved?

Who do you sue, when that bug costs you millions?

Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[Grenage]

That's why there are business support options for Linux, that or an in-house coder of course.



Carlsberg don't run I.T departments, but if they did they'd probably be more fun.

 

[eyeswideclosed]

Yah, I'm going to recommend to our ceo that we run the business on some freeware, and oh, if there's a bug we can fix it ourselves, ooh what a privilege, freedom from tyranny! Then I will reactivate my monster account..

 

[kHz]

The argument that Linux is open source and you can modify the code isn't useful in the context of choosing an OS for a business. I have never worked anywhere that a company said "modify that kernel!"

The cost of those businesses (Novell and Red Hat) that sell support is very costly and negates any savings one has over choosing IBM, Sun, HP.

Linux is a fine OS if you want to run a web server or email or some other apps, but I don't want to use it to support massive databases that have to be up for years without going down and generate hundreds of millions per year in revenue plus support tens of thousands of users. I am sorry, I don't want to run those apps on Linux on Intel hardware. I want AIX on Power hardware or Solaris on Enterprise Sun Fire hardware.

Interesting link on kernel code being used:

http://www.gcn.com/print/23_23/26945-1.html

Which brings interesting thoughts. One of the benefits of using Sun or IBM hardware and their OS (Solaris/AIX) is that it is optimized for the hardware and so are their compilers. The article states that corporations have their developers submit changes for approval. How can Sun submitting a kernel change for their hardware and IBM submitting a kernel change for their hardware and HP submitting a kernel change for their hardware all lead to an optimized OS for Power or Sun Fire hardware? At some point aren't the changes one wants going to confilct with the other's changes? Of course, the core development team approves all changes, but IBM kernel developers know what is best for their hardware, yet they are at the mercy of an outside development team approving or disapproving their changes?

I know Sun's Sun Studio 11 C compiler produces faster and more efficient binaries on Sun hardware than gcc compiled code, even though gcc compiles fine (ok, there are some exceptions I have found) on Sun hardware. Isn't Linux going to become a general kernel that isn't optimized for hardware but really a generic kernel that works on any hardware? That is going against what you want for a massive database server.

 

[Trevoke]

kHz : I am 23, which makes me the new kid on the block who uses Linux at home. I don't go and pretend that my usage of Linux makes me a professional (though we do have a bunch of boxes here at work which run Linux -- and they are DEC ALPHA, not x86).

I feel your pain - on the other hand, employers should rather be able to tell that you know more than a guy who's still happy about having enough facial hair to shave.

I also don't really understand why you get so agitated. AHS, ASS, no?
Some suck more than others, fair enough, but all are good to accomplish one or two tasks. Let every OS be where it should be and all will be good.

"That time in Seattle... was a nightmare. I came out of it dead broke, without a house, without anything except a girlfriend and a knowledge of UNIX."
"Well, that's something," Avi says. "Normally those two are mutually exclusive."
-- Neal Stephenson, "Cryptonomicon"

 

[eyeswideclosed]

I find it funny that linuxheads constantly bash other os's based on nothing more that repeating what they heard, rumors and unfounded innuendos ("windows sucks!"), but when you say anything bad about their os, even if it's true, they have a meltdown.

If more than 1 goose are geese, why aren't more than 1 moose meese??