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]

In my job I have now I (unfortunately) have started having to use Linux every single day.

The reason I say unfortunately is because the more I use it, the more it really does come across as something with an open source feeling.

Though open source is in no way negative, with regards to using it as a Unix replacement it is.

AIX, Solaris, and HP-UX mostly work out-of-the-box, while you still have to "tinker" with Linux to get a lot of things to work - things that work perfectly in the big 3.

For some purposed Linux will work, as I have said before. Such as for a web server or email.

Companies think it is free and that is the appeal. However, the licensing costs are fairly high as well as support contracts. And once the time of and administrator is calculated when trying to do something the cost is even higher; if that specific function doesn't work as anticipated and needs "tweaking," though it would have worked as expected with no additional time or cost on the big 3.

If I am paid to do Linux, fine. That is a company decision. But lo-and-behold, truth-be-told, it isn't any less expensive than AIX or Solaris.

 

[pgmr777]

I hope we never have to use it, I can barely get my apps finished on time working on systems where you don't have to tweak anything and they just work, what app developer has time to fiddle with kernels and drivers? Absurd.

 

[Sympology]

Fee, you proberbly have IBM thinkbricks..... with the finger denting nipples...

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

 

[kebabbert]

sedj,
"Not sure I agree with that ... we've got a few Intel x86's with 8 CPUs, and they run like the wind. Much quicker than the 32 CPU Solaris/Sparc T2000 we've got - and about half the price (both machines purchased within a few months of each other). Plus the Solaris/Sparc box only has 1 floating point unit. How crazy is that ?"

I wouldnt look it that way. The T2000 has one CPU with 8 cores. Each core can handle 4 threads, totaling 32 threads. Thus, the machine has only one CPU running at 1.2 GHz. That is the reason the machine has one single floating point unit. I think it is unfair to compare one CPU to 8 intel/AMD x86 CPUs. Of course 8 x86 CPUs running at 2-3 GHz would be faster than one single CPU running at 1.2 GHz. For certain tasks (multithreading) the T2000 gives serious bang for the bucks, but not for say, number crunching.

There are studies that show that one x86 server normally idles for 60% of the time, waiting for data from RAM. As soon the T2000 stalls (waits for RAM to catch up) it just switches to another thread while waiting for the data. Hence the T2000 hardly idles at all. That is the reason it outperforms x86 CPUs on certain tasks (multi threading). 8 cores capable of handling 4 threads each, capable of switching thread in only one cycle is a new paradigm. T2000 hardly ever just waits, it always does some useful work. The T2000 does not have elaborate out-of-order speculation cache units as the x86 have. The design is instead quite simple and clean, somewhat like the Cell CPU.