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.

 

[pgmr777]

Hmmm, well I know that 2003 is a continuing evolution of the old NT, "real" multitasking kernel whereas "workstation" to me means XP and the like (which is very good imo), going back to the truly awful "fake" multitasking 95/98 line, which was really DOS underneath. Really apples and oranges. I love my 2003s, but as I said I have to be VERY careful what I put on them, but that is true of anything, I can crash a Mercedes as well as Hyundai if I'm not careful..
Ok now we're WAY off on a tangent, I'll try to stop.

 

[Sympology]

Just to kinda throw a spanner in the works, but does anyone see Linux going the way of Windows. Let me explain.

Linux is like Windows was in it's early days. It did it's job, but in order to get it to work with anything remotely non standard, was a bit of a pain. Take networking for example, in 3.11 you had to load drivers manually, reconfigure them for different manufactures. As the variants of windows moved on, more and more of this became more automatited. But as a consequence of this we're seeing the OS consume more and more hdd and ram space. It's getting slow and hungrier.
As Linux is trying to get more and more user friendly, I can see it getting more and more bogged down. Some of the advantages people state of Linux (less hungry on resources) and speed, could very easily disappear. As more and more features are added, then I predict it will get slower and slower, and quite possibly, less stable.
I alway go on about my Atari Falcon. 16mb Ram, 32mhz, 850 HDD (which was huge). This could blow nearly every pc out of the water when it came to Audio and graphics. The simple fact was, the OS and programs had to efficient so were forced to be well written.

That's my view anyway..

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

 

[Grenage]

Yup, Stu. I agree with you completely. Still, at least there are many distributions with varying levels of compromise.


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

 

[Sympology]

I think this is what MS may have now realised.
Servers should be reliable, quick and scalable.
Home pc's lots of pretty features, easy to use and lots of toys.
Work pc's somewhere in the middle.

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

 

[Sympology]

Of cours Linux, could suffer the too much choice issue. How on earth does Mr Bloggs decide what "flavour" he wants.
Ask most people and it's narrowed down to the above scenarios.

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

 

[gbaughma]

The simple fact was, the OS and programs had to efficient so were forced to be well written.

I couldn't agree more. When you were limited to 64K of RAM (like I was on my Radio Shack CoCo 2), you *had* to be efficient in your code.

Now, take Microsoft Word for example. Try this simple test. Type "Hello World" in Microsoft Word, then save it as a web page. *Then* open the HTML source it generated.

HOLY CRAP! It's NUTS. I mean, really now people, 63 LINES OF CODE to put 2 words on the screen? And that's without any font formatting or anything! Sheesh! Talk about your bloatware!

It all goes back to the old saying "Intel Giveth, Microsoft Taketh Away".

I remember getting Rainbow magazine (a magazine dedicated strictly to the Color Computer line), and they'd always have their "One Line Program Contest". A complete program, but it had to be written in one line of code. And some *amazing* programs were written, too. Everything from graphics demonstrations to calculators to file copy routines, you name it, it was written in one line of code.

I hate to say it, but those *were* the "good old days" in computing.



Just my 2¢

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

http://parallel.tzo.com

 

[RandeKnight]

But as a consequence of this we're seeing the OS consume more and more hdd and ram space. It's getting slow and hungrier."

True, but at least you have the option. You can still run linux off a 1.44M floppy if you don't need much more than a commandline.
I'm running a mediacenter version (GeexBox) which comes in at 8M.

If you decide to run a full bells&whistles distro that tries to emulate Windows XP, then it will bulk up a lot.
And if you decide to run a slightly cut down version that only tries to emulate Windows 95, then you don't have to worry so much about it being phased out because a single company decides it's not profitable anymore to support it.

 

[bwtc]

Anyone remember this quote...

"640K ought to be enough for anyone"

Also, does anyone know why the first "compression" program was written? It wasn't to compress programs to save space -- it was to bypass the FAT limit on a floppy disk; disks were running out of FAT room... and keep in mind that we are not talking 3.5" disks -- we are talking 8" & 5 1/4" disks, in the days before "double-sided, double density" came into play.

Ah, the good 'ol days...

 

[kHz]

"Intel Giveth, Microsoft Taketh Away"

 

[Sympology]

I remember my Atari peers swooning at my 850mb drive. I'd never fill that ! Of course the Falcon was the first affordable Direct to Disk recorder, so I often had to use my WangTek drive !

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

 

[Grenage]

640K ought to be enough for anyone

Wasn't this urban legend? I mean, Bill gates never actually said it, did he?


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

 

[Trevoke]

No, Bill Gates never said that. He -might- have said something like 'it'll be enough for now' or 'that's all we can give them now' but he never gave such a limiting statement.

"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"

 

[Welshbird]

Off off off topic I know. I just read this further up the thread and had to read it two or three times;

Hospitals are usually running a UNIX box for their billing.

The hospital/treatment center I work for is running UNIX for their billing

It'll be that 'otherside-of-the-pond' what is 'ee talking about thing then!

Sorry, will stop interrupting now.

Except just to say Mac's do have a scroll on the touch pad - two fingers scrolls, and a two-finger tap is a right click. S'lovely.

Fee

The question should be [red]Is it worth trying to do?[/red] not [blue] Can it be done?[/blue]

 

[Sympology]

Except just to say Mac's do have a scroll on the touch pad - two fingers scrolls, and a two-finger tap is a right click. S'lovely. "

Think you'll find that is standard on most Windows laptops as well and has been for several years, catch up. O and mine can be a Theramin as well...Ooooweeeeooooooweeeeeeoooooo

(If you don't know what a therimin is, think the 50's sound effect when something eerie happend).

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

 

[Sympology]

Ooo just found my glidepad can also be a drum pad and etch-a-sketch (TM)

Stu...

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

 

[Trevoke]

Macintosh now have two-button mice as well.

"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"

 

[kHz]

Back to the original topic.

I do believe Linux is a popular fallacy. True, IBM and others are putting money into it, but it still isn't used for mission-critical databases or other type of apps (generally).

I read a Gartner report yesterday that has large, mission critcal databases running on SPARC, POWER, etc., through 2010 (the length of their report). Even mid-size databases will be split between x86_64 and Power.

Plus IBM is forging ahead with AIX and has VERY impressive innovations they are adding, technologies that won't be available on Linux. And not only are they taking the lead with their OS, they are doing this on the hardware side, too.

IBM isn't going to forgo AIX and Power hardware to Linux on a pizza box. Sure, as I mentioned, they are developing for Linux, but I think that is a tactical decision that is part of their broader strategic plan.

I read a current IBM paper that said Linux doesn't scale performance-wise over 8 CPUs. The paper said the "sweet spot" is 4-8 CPUs.

With the three major Unix variants (AIX, Solaris, HP-UX), they are whole operating systems. When you get these, as well as *BSD, you get a complete operating system, not just a kernel. And this leads to greater stability.

Too many are being fed the misconception of Linux as enterprise ready.

 

[Welshbird]

Think you'll find that is standard on most Windows laptops as well and has been for several years, catch up

Not on any Windows laptop every used in my company!

But am happy to accept that its true.

Fee

The question should be [red]Is it worth trying to do?[/red] not [blue] Can it be done?[/blue]

 

[pgmr777]

kilohertz: "Linux on a pizza box"...
is the pizza free too? then count me in!

 

[kHz]

Pepperoni, Sausage, Hawaiian, whatever your preference!

Just call 1-800-DOM-INOS!!