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.

 

[Tarwn]

Not to mention that with 100+ servers you have a significantly higher hidden cost in power: power to turn them, power to keep them cool, etc.
Plus it is much more difficult to keep them all running the same hardware, which means you either have to keep them all under warranty or keep a whole lot of spare parts handy. Course one counter-argument would be you can let one node die and replace it with a new machine, but still...

Don't get me wrong, I like Linux about as much as I like Windows, and vice versa. I think there are many places where Linux can (and does) fit, but I would never shoehorn it into every possible job. That's why you should never depend on a single OS or machine type to be your "toolbox", otherwise you'll be sitting there with a hammer when the job calls for a powerdrill.

My commentary before this has been in opposition to the proposed point that Linux is only used for non-critical systems because several large Linux users are blogging sites, etc. There are numerous installations of Windows out there running non-critical apps (like domain parking).

There are also numerous services out there that are every bit as critical as banking that are running on all kinds of OS's. For every Bank system that has to stay up, I guarantee there are at least 10-100 (if not more) manufacturing/industrial systems that have to stay up just as much. And just as many more that have lower uptime requirements, but still have to perform reliably inside their uptime windows. I wish I could remember what the nuclear plant process systems down the road were running on, because that would fit in real well right about now as an example

 

[coffeysm]

I don't care what people use. As long as I have a job to do I will be happy!

 

[Sympology]

Coffysm

That's why we rely on badly written, buggy & porly designed programs ;-)

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

 

[MasterRacker]

Anyone who's got time could register and watch a net seminar put together by Intel and IBM on putting together a Unix to Linux migration strategy.

http://www.cmpnetseminars.com/TSG/?K=4DD&Q=414

_____
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]

 

[mikeydidit]

I have been watching this for a while now and thought I would throw some more potatos in the stew.

I work on the telecomm side of the house. The push from all the major players in the telecomm switch world is also to go from Unix to Linux. This has been going on about 5 years now. The new processors are mostly IP connect type devices which is one of thes reasons they have changes. Of course the push to connect everyones phone to a network jack (VoIP) was another reason. I am learning something that I have never had to do before. REBOOT every 180 days. The newer switches will even throw in an alarm when you get close to the reboot date. First the first time in almost 18 years of working on telephones switches I now see the redhat logo on one of my new systems.

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."
(Plato)

 

[kHz]

For the previous 18 years I take it the swithes were running on a Unix variant and they didn't need reboots every 180 days? How often or what cases did cause reboots?

Just curious.

I have one guy I work with who keeps pushing Linux for, it seems, everything. He doesn't have a lot of experience with AIX and always finds a reason that Linux is better than AIX at this or that.

Maybe in 20 years Linux will be as stable as AIX or Solaris but come on, it isn't acceptable for everything.

Is the world going to come down to only Windows and Linux?

Help me!!!

 

[buck2506]

That sounds like another forum I read. A new topic has been opened for people transitioning to Linux. It is interesting to read the posts about "Now I have Linux installed what do I do with it?" Both the host and moderator are really pushing open source as the wave of the future.

One of the things that I find funny is that both of them are still running MS programs under crossover office and wine because there is not an acceptable substitute.

 

[chrissie1]

Help me!!!

I'll start a petition to save AIX. And perhaps we could ask Bono and U2 to do a concert.

Christiaan Baes
Belgium

"My new site" - Me

 

[mikeydidit]

The old system did not EVER need to be rebooted. It just worked. The newer systems have to be rebooted every 180 to avoid corruption in the software (according to the manufacture).

I had a problem with one of these systems a while back and the first thing I was told to do by the manufactures technical support group, was to reboot it. If that didn't work then shut it off and turn it back on and call them in the morning if that didn't fix it. Shutting it down and restarting it did fix it.

I am not sure about how the Linux vs. UNIX affect you guys, but it doesn't seem to be a better idea in the telecomm switch world.

Well got to go for now. Time to reboot my voicemail system…….


"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."
(Plato)

 

[pgmr777]

180? That's not so bad, we are on 30, or less if it clogs up first, what is the advantage over Windows? Oh it's "free", and you get no support, yah.

 

[Grenage]

pgmr777: You have switches running on Windows!?


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

 

[Sympology]

We do (TeleVantage). Nearly always hardware, bodged installs or (more often than anything else) ISDN Provider issues.

Stu..

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

 

[Grenage]

It's quite surpising how much stuff does appear to be running on windows these days. Many of the CCTV systems available are using HD recorders on Win. Naturally they're just workstations in a fancy chassis, always going wrong, too!


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

 

[pgmr777]

Not sure which Windows you're Grenage using but ours (2003 Enterprise) are very solid.

 

[Grenage]

Compared to previous versions of windows, yes I agree.


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

 

[Sympology]

I agree 2003 is great for PABX's (2000 can be a little unreliable).

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

 

[Sympology]

Oops I see us going of on a tangent here...

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

 

[mikeydidit]

Avaya tried the windows based units on the modular messaging (voicemail/VE mail)system. While they have made it work, lets just say it's not the best thing that ever happened in the telecomm world. Lots and lots of problems.

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."
(Plato)

 

[pgmr777]

Well the os is not always to blame for everything, even the almighty AS400 can be brought down by memory leaks in an application, or a misconfiguration, I'm not saying you have bad code, but without a full analysis and investigation into the actual cause I don't think it's fair to use the standard "it's Windows" mantra, we had problems initially with our 2003 servers but in all cases it turned out to be code and/or configuration issues. 2000 was a little more finnicky, but 2003 seems as solid as anything out there, IF properly configured and utilized, Linux is no different, but the lack of official support worries me. Yes this is way off track, sorry.

 

[Grenage]

Don't get me wrong, it's not like windows falls over every week. In my previous post referring to windows being used in other appliances, I mean in instances where the process is far too simple to justify the use of the system. A basic/cut-down unit would be more suitable, there are so many 'appliances' out there which are literally no more than a windows workstation with a quickly (and often poorly) written bit of software ontop.


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