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.

 

[kHz]

Of the top 50 hosting providers, about 25-30 are Linux, about 10 FreeBSD, a couple of Solaris, and about a dozen Windows.

If Linux was the problem then all of those sites wouldn't be able to handle the load and degrade so badly they would have to be rebooted just like this guy on here.

Give me a break. It degrades? Are they running an app server? Is the app server queueing up? Give specifics. Obviously millions of sites run Linux and aren't having problems.

 

[Grenage]

I think the main reason so many people have such a tainted view of Linux, is because they simply don't know how to use it. If you took someone who had never used windows before and gave them XP, you'd have the same problem. A lot of people also tend to install Linux on a 'test' machine, which is a collection of crap hardware spanning a decade - shock horror when it crashes! Then you've got the people who simply start thinking "I don't know what to do, it's all different - bugger it I'll just go back to windows, the license cost isn't an issue, because I'm using a warez copy anyway!".

I'm not saying that's always the case, but I'll wager it is 99% of the time.

Linux is great, I moved over to it on a permanent basis not long ago, but it is different.


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

 

[Sympology]

Here's one problem with Linux. It's not easy to get.

I live in the UK. So pretend I'm average Joe bloggs, off I pop to the largest supplier of pc hardware .

Just did a search on the site for Linux and got.....

1 result, a Zoom adsl modem!

now do you think I got the same for XP?

So you'll say, "download it for free!". How? If I don't have a pc?
Borrow a friends?
Ok let's find a friend with Linux (we're avioding Windows remember". Suprise, suprise none have it. So in order to get Linux, I have to use a Windows pc.

So I get it off a cover disk on a Mag.

Ooo dear, I have a problem. The web doesn't work. Who can I ask? A fiend? Nope, no idea how to use it...Mmm now we're stuck....


Anyway to cut it short.

Linux is fine for Techies, for people who have the time and energy to hunt for drivers, support and trawl though manuals. It's reliable and pretty secure. But at the end of the day, that's where it's stuck at the moment.

joe Public doesn't want Secure and Open Source. They want easy to use, support (peer) and compatible with anything they buy. They don't want to HAVE to learn to use a new system. Would you go to the effort of learning to drive a car completely from scratch again, just to drive a differnt make? You may, but most people wouldn't.



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

 

[jshurst]

StuReeves, I feel the exact same way. I don't pretend to know very much about Linux, but I am a computer programmer and I would never recommend it to someone like my grandmom. Just take the wireless card on my laptop for example. You need to compile and install the ndiswrapper then get a windows driver, oh, and if you want encryption (WPA) you'll need a the wpasupplicant, who the heck nows what that means?! And as far as using the command prompt, like like it, but the average user wants to point and click. Then you get into which desktop GUI you want. IMO Gnome might be good, but looks like Win95, KDE crashes (at least it did pretty regularly for me using Kubuntu). I like XFCE, but the interface is quite different.

Ease of use and aesthetics is what the Linux community should be focusing on now, they have a decent OS, it just needs a polished GUI.

 

[Grenage]

Imho Linux is easier than windows, if you were learning them from scratch. You can get CD's of Linux from most of the major distro's sites and if you're using it on most systems it will install the correct drivers from the off.

Yes, it might be tricky to start with, yes it might not be as widespread - but that's no reason not to encourage people to use it. The more it's used, the more support will be available and the more development will be done. The market is way too biased towards microsoft products, it's not healthy. Standardisation on that level is for the perfect world, not the corporate world.

Your argument is very similar to that of a political party saying "don't throw away your vote on a third party".


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

 

[jshurst]

I'll vote for Linux as soon as it catches up with Windows on ease of use and available drivers (once again, why do I have to do so much to make the linux kernel work with a ALPS touchpad mouse? - if I wanted a one button, no scrolling touchpad then I'd get a Mac)

For the record I've tried Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Debian, Knoppix, DSL, CollegeLinux (which IMO was the best) and Fedora Core and I wasn't happy with any of them.

I'm happy with the Microsoft regime...I make a living off the .NET framework and SQL Server (although in the future I might live to regret those words ;-)

 

[eyeswideclosed]

Khz you seem to think that because you're not having problems with it nobody else can? People complain about Windows all the time yet my 2003 servers are running heavy duty apps all day every day with no problems, we never reboot unless it's for an upgrade, yet I know there are people out there who have problems with it, I don't deny that. If a system is not set up and configured properly and code is not properly written any os can crash. OS400 is the absolute best, most rugged os ever built, yet I can crash it with one improperly written query.

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

 

[Jdowsky]

Linux afficianados get very upset when you point out any flaws in their tool, and there are many, which is why serious mission critical systems will not use it, but it is fine for chat sites and what not.

 

[Grenage]

which is why serious mission critical systems will not use it, but it is fine for chat sites and what not."

Oh sorry, but what? Please, please try and back that claim up.


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

 

[kHz]

eyeswideclosed, just give me some evidence to back up your claim that it is Linux. You haven't done that yet, even though I asked a number of times before. You just repeat your claim that it's due to Linux.

 

[stefanwagner]

The topic started with 'future of unix and linux'.
A market-research is found here:

http://www.line56.com/articles/default.asp?NewsID=6077

Meanwhile, it became mostly a dispute Windows vs. Linux, from fortune 500 companies running servers to grandma using a desktop.

Here you find an article about mission-critical enterprise and linux:

http://fscavo.blogspot.com/2005/07/linux-in-mission-critical-high.html

Here about linux-clusters - a sector where windows is a perfect stranger:

http://www.itjungle.com/breaking/bn111405-story01.html

Here about the nasa, introducing penguins:

http://www.linuxvalue.com/jpl.shtml

Perhaps someone remembers tux on mars? I would call that mission critical:

http://searchopensource.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid39_gci1157697,00.html

Here is a list of linux-users

http://www.3till7.net/2005/11/01/everyone-uses-linux/

Here is a presentation of the linux-strategy of the 'Deutsche Bank' - biggest bank in europe afaik:

http://www.silentpenguin.com/archives/2003/06/deutsche_bank_a.html

and a german one about the Allianz-insurance - again not a webshop size company:

http://www.computerwoche.de/job_karriere/itmacher/570274/

Didn't I mention linux in Hollywood? Here we go:

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5472

and here:

http://www.linuxtoday.com/high_performance/2003100201126OSBZHE

That's facts and sources.

seeking a job as java-programmer in Berlin:

http://home.arcor.de/hirnstrom/bewerbung

 

[eyeswideclosed]

Khz I really don't care that much about it dude sorry, but I can tell you that no banks or insurance companies are using a freeware os that relies on hacks who don't get paid for fixes, but as others have said it's great for blogs and chat sites, that accounts for most of the installed numbers we see. Don't take it personal dude, relax, everything will be ok.

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

 

[onpnt]

http://news.com.com/2110-1001-984570.html

http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=3582

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,39020351,2086009,00.htm

http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1824

Pretty good articles

http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=177102427

http://www.banktech.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=57703550

General FAQ faq333-2924
5 steps to asking a question faq333-3811

 

[Grenage]

Nice links onpnt, I think they pretty much blew the previous statement out of the water.


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

 

[ecommpgmr]

onpnt interesting information but not really useful unless one knows exactly what applications are being ported over and the criticality level, large corporations have many application layers of varying degrees of importance, what is the core database and host? we use 4 different operating systems for various application layers, the highest criticality levels being assigned to aix or as400, the lowest to windows/linux, each is well suited to its task.

 

[onpnt]

I didn't realize that was the topic at hand. The topic of the thread is, "Future of Unix because of Linux"

Not who runs what better, but who is throwing the other out the door and going with something else (in this case Linux)

General FAQ faq333-2924
5 steps to asking a question faq333-3811

 

[Soliardi]

Ecomm" you are spot on, each to what it's best for, I'll take a Mac on the desk, a mainframe or Solaris on the back, Enterprise '03 on the application layer, Linux for noncritical or maybe email.

 

[Annihilannic]

In response to ecommpgmr and eyeswideclosed regarding use of Linux for business critical applications, I work for a Fortune 500 manufcturer who run their most important order management applications (Oracle Applications 11i and Oracle 10g RAC) on large Linux clusters. This was an upgrade from a Sun Solaris, Enterprise 10000, Oracle 8i, Oracle Apps 11.0.3 solution.

The Linux cluster has proved to be more performant and reliable and less costly than the previous solutions, however I'm aware that this can also be attributed to newer and more mature clustering and database software and hardware technologies.


Annihilannic.

 

[Tarwn]

Heh, just found a random post in some mailing list. Apparently one of the non-essential internal services Prudential uses Linux for is as a PDC.

 

[kHz]

At my last job they were talking of moving the Oracle database off Solaris 8 on a V240 onto HP hardware and Oracle RAC with Linux.

They kept saying look at the perf metrics of the proposed solution compared to what we had. Of course I said, "the hardware is 5 years old!" And their reply was, "look at how much faster it is." And I would say, "yes it is 5 years old of course it is faster, try looking at newer Sun hardware and compare it to the HP/Intel." And their reply was, "look how fast the new system would be."

I left shortly after that.

I also recently read an article of a large bank(?) that went from 2 mainframes to 144 Linux/Intel servers and decreased their costs drastically. (the article might have been from a link from a previous post.) But is managing 144 servers really a step forward?

Where I work the servers are multiplying faster than rabbits because they want all this x86/Linux stuff instead of a larger consolidated servers. I see the argument that the x86 servers are much less expensive, but if you replace a few servers with 100+ servers then your management costs just increased significantly. And what about scalability? If I run on an IBM/AIX p5 550 then I have more scalability than a system that is running 144 servers in a cluster (most likely), because if the cluster has to grow they add more servers, whereas the 550 wouldn't need anything added (maybe mem or cpus).

I heard an argument recently for Linux over Unix because it has multiple filesystems available (ReiserFS, JFS, ext2, ext3, etc).