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.

 

[gbaughma]

Well, let me sum this up, and hopefully put out the flames before they start up too bad.

Every OS has its own advantages.

Windows: Broad software base, ease of use, broad installation base. Someone fluent with Windows can work on 90% of the machines out there.

Linux: Inexpensive, multi-tasking, not a resource hog. Let's face it, the Internet *RUNS* on *Nix.

AS/400: Rock-solid. For mission critical applications, this is the platform. I wouldn't want my money handled by anything else (the bank I consult for has an AS/400 with Jack Henry software)

Mac: Ummm.... it looks pretty? (SORRY! I was trying to put OUT the flames, not get flamed myself....) OK, seriously... in its day, the Mac rocked on graphics. Standardized hardware and platform. Easy to use, and fairly stable. At least it included the tools to let you recover when it crashed.

So, the bottom line... which OS/Platform is best? It depends on what you need to do! I can't run Cakewalk on Linux. I can't run my e-mail server on windows on the meager server that I have, but Linux hums along on it all day. And I wouldn't think of running critical applications that have to run non-stop for the next 20 years on anything besides an AS/400.



Just my 2¢

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

 

[eyeswideclosed]

Agreed, but also when one talks about windows sucking or not one needs to specify which windows, and desktop or server, 95/98/ME definitely did suck, however XP is very good, and in the server room 2003 has been superb for us, very solid under very heavy loads running many different systems, also whatever os is used, if it is not set up properly then all bets are off, and the apps that run on it must be properly written too, it's the carpenter not the toolbox..

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

 

[kHz]

the Internet *RUNS* on *Nix.

That isn't entirely true. It seems Linux folk are almost as like Windows folk in some respects.

The *BSD servers may have more installed servers than any OS, including Linux, though Linux may be growing faster.

However, look at the servers with the longest uptimes and you will see it is DOMINATED by *BSD. No other OS comes close. If I counted correctly, out of the 50 longest uptimes, 44 are BSD variants and the other 6 are Windows 2000/2003.

My point is to use the OS best suited for the task. But not one OS to handle everything, and think that one OS is the best in everything.

 

[kHz]

oops, thought that said runs on Linux not *Nix. Yes, the internet does run on Unix.

 

[Sympology]

Pretty much agree with choose you o/s and use it.

I disagree with the comment that 95/98 sucked. Compared to what?
I'd say those were possibly amoungst the most important operating systems of all time. Along with the ZX Spectrum (and later C64), this o/s bought computing to the masses. It was easy to use, looked pretty (belive it or not, this is important) and was relativly inexpensive. So to say it sucked is totally wrong? Was it insecure, NO. Controversal I know, but when they came out, the internet was still an almost unknown, internet banking didn't exist and viruses were almost unheard of. So to acuse MS of failing to protect against an unkown threat isn't particually fair. Most people forget that 95/98 was princaplly a HOME OS, it was NOT designed for business use. It was the fact that you could get it so cheap and apps were plentiful, along with the fact that people knew how to use it at home, that business adopted it in such large numbers, that is where problems really started. It was never designed to be secure, it was always ease of use at the forefront, and for that, they should be applauded.
Yes the Mac was easier to use and more secure, but it also cost twice the price for pretty much anything to do with it. If they had not been so arrogant about the superiotity of the Mac and lowered the price, opened up the market (yes they did for a short while, then closed it again), that OS may of become the dominant one.

So as stated above, if you choose the right OS for the requirements then, you should be fine.
I personly use windows XP & 2000. Why? It's what I'm familiar with and does what I want. Why should I spend an age learning to use another OS and a whole bunch of apps? I personally would rather enjoy life than bother relearning what I've taught myself over the last decade. I have no interst in running the web, looking after banking, or calcualting the effects of an Atomic bomb on rare plant species in Borneo !


Stu..

PS yes ME was crap....




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

 

[eyeswideclosed]

Total # of installed os's is meaningless unless you know what they're doing, we use Win 2003/AS400 but it's running very elaborate and heavily used .NET business apps, mutual fund financial transactions, you can't compare that to a linux server running a blog somewhere, not that that's what they're all doing. I want to see business application server numbers, online financial institution transaction web servers, insurance companies, banks, government, health care systems, etc., how many of those are windows or linux or whatever, those are the numbers that would be meaningful to me, and I will bet you will find very few of those running linux with mysql on the back end.

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

 

[gbaughma]

(Sigh) And the war continues.

Well, financial institutions are using either AS/400 or Unix. I know.... I've worked on/with both. I consult for one bank that runs an AS/400, and another that runs SCO.

Hospitals are usually running a UNIX box for their billing.

The hospital/treatment center I work for is running UNIX for their billing, and a huge AD domain with metaframe for 90% of their clients. Their web pages are running ASP.

I guess I had the "best of both worlds" when I was younger... because I was running SCO Xenix (which is where I started with my *nix experience), and Dos/Windows 3.1 as well. I was writing GUI's before Windows was mainstream.

Ahhh... the good old days of having to write my own printer drivers... :S

But, frankly, khz and eyeswideclosed, you guys should know better than to start a "religious" discussion... what's happened here is paramount to walking into a Mac user group meeting wearing a Windows T-shirt.

Pick the operating system that you NEED to do the JOB. That's the bottom line. The OS is really driven by the software that you wish to run.

I mean, I would install Linux on my shiny new Dell at home, except that it doesn't run Cakewalk (my music sequencing program of choice), or the few games I like to play, etc. I have Linux on my server, because I'm running postfix and apache, as well as some spiffy monitoring software for keeping an eye on the hotels who's internet connections I manage. It's totally driven by the SOFTWARE that we wish to run.

If I was HOOKED on Cubase, I would have to run a Mac.



Just my 2¢

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

 

[eyeswideclosed]

Well I don't mean to perpetuate a holy war, it's just I get so sick of the linux/opensource community pointing out total numbers of installed systems, MEANINGLESS, what are they DOING??? Tell me how many banks are using it, then I will be impressed, not by the total number of blog servers.

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

 

[kHz]

But, frankly, khz and eyeswideclosed, you guys should know better than to start a "religious" discussion

Read what I originally wrote... that is explicitly what I was against. And - I haven't said anything negative about ANY OS.

Go back and read it again, because you obviously didn't understand what it said.

 

[gbaughma]

khz:
I apologize. I did re-read the entire thread, and I stand corrected.



Just my 2¢

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

 

[Sympology]

Did people argue over the best typewriter and envelopes in the "good ol' days"?

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

 

[eyeswideclosed]

khz it's nothing to do with your original post at this point, these threads take on a life of their own sometimes!
I never understood getting "religious" about software anyways, like gbaughma says, I just use the best tool for the job, and for me it's windows, .net, and as400.

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

 

[eyeswideclosed]

Stu...the best typewriter was the IBM Selectric! Don't talk to me about hose crap Underhills!!


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

 

[dilettante]

Er, did you mean Underwood?

 

[eyeswideclosed]

No Underhills were the "free" versions of Underwoods, you had to fix them yourself or wait for some kid to do it...
hehheh.

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

 

[daFranze]

[i]gbaughma wrote[/i]
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.

this is the theory, the reality says, most development is made by companies!
Sun shares OpenOffice/StarOffice, but the view changes made to OpenOffice were made by a handfull of people.
Changing sourcecode, writing drivers does not mean: download source, edit source, compile, run. In real life it means: download source, download docs, read docs, read docs, read source, read docs, edit source, compile, debug, edit source, read docs, edit source, compile, ...., run
(I have done softwaredevelopment for 5 yrs in a C++ project, I sometimes have a look at open source, if it does not work)

Best Regards, Franz
--
UNIX System Manager from Munich, Germany

 

[eyeswideclosed]

Agreed. I'll take a real company staffed by professional developers getting well paid to do a job over a million volunteers doing god-knows-what on incomplete software any day. Quality not quantity.

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

 

[gbaughma]

I agree with the professional developers bit, however, when the source is "closed", then you get situations like what Microsoft is doing with WGA....

Or how about waiting for a patch for a LONG time from Palm, because my T3 doesn't work with my cell phone, and it's a driver problem from Palm. Except Palm says that since there's so few people with the problem, they really have no intention of fixing it.....



Just my 2¢

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

 

[eyeswideclosed]

Ok but how many app developers are going to open their os kernel code and attempt a fix, on top of all their other problems they now have to be os programmers? Completely absurd.

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

 

[Sympology]

And what happens when someone creates a driver for your cell phone and promptly wrecks it?



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