Sun, Redhat, Suse, & MS. 3

[zepharoo]

I have my own opinion to this question, but I would like to get your thoughts.

In the next 5 years, what role do you think unix-based OS's (i.e. Sun, Suse, Redhat, etc.) will play as opposed to the role they are playing now?

Additionally, do you think MS will always have the market sewed-up?

Thanks,

Zepharoo

 

[Stevehewitt]

I think it depends heavily on the way that the interface is designed; linked in with Marketing.

Currently, no matter what any of you guys say, Linux is command based. It may have a UI on top, but it is greatly limited and almost all troublehooting requires knowing how to use the console including many commands.
This is no good to home users and small businesses who just want to install their new video card from PC World to play Doom3.

Once the console orientated design of the Unix children goes, and when someone finally creates a UI for Linux that makes sense and is logical to locate the tools you want, then MS will have a real challange and not just something they can shrug or pay off.

Saying that, MS still has the Win 9x / ME era tied around it's neck by many of the posters on this website in that many people have not recognised the leap from WinNT4 / Win98 to Windows Server 2003 / Windows XP SP2.
MS are trying a lot harder. Support is second to none, security has jumped dramatically (and if standard networking principles are applied like a AV and firewall then security can match other other OS out there) and the ease of use is the best in the market.

I think that Linux will raise to the challange and will take market share from MS which will scare the crap out of them. But I also think MS won't go down without a fight and will keep on improving their products to match their Linux competitors.

This means that the only real winners are us. The customer and the consumers. The IT pro's and the home users. More choice, better products, lower prices.

Long live competition!

 

[jwenting]

substitute *nix for Linux in your post.

ALL *nixes are console oriented, something that's likely impossible to change without a major rewrite of the entire core system.
In fact, the vast majority of the GUI tools available for Linux (mainly, to a lesser degree for other variants as well) are nothing more than a thin shell around shellscripts.

I fully agree that the image of Windows being unstable and insecure while Linux is rockstable and secure is wholly inaccurate.
Without firewalls and expertise on the part of the users a *nix machine is highly vulnerable and unstable if used as intensely as a typical Windows machine is.
If you don't keep up (often using painstaking patching by hand of patches downloaded from a variety of sources) to date with security updates you're no less vulnerable to exploits than is a Windows system that's not kept up to date.
What makes *nix systems SEEM more secure is the simple fact that there are far less users around and most of those are more competent than the average Windows user.
Few of them scream they're not going to install a security update because it may make their machine a few tenths of a percent slower when running a game (something I see time and again with Windows users) or because they don't trust the manufacturer of their OS...

 

[CajunCenturion]

Support is second to none

It is much closer to none than second.

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Stevehewitt]

jwenting
I agree with your post, and when I've brought this point up before I've just had a flood of post from *nix admins denying it through and through - so it's nice to have some support!
As far the console under UI, I agree to the extent that although Win9x was crap, the way the UI worked was great in terms that you hardly ever needed to go to command prompt. If memory serves me correcly, Win9x was based on DOS / console but just a lot more tightly integrated. Same with WinNT3.51 and Win3.x. All crap OS's, but they were all based on the DOS system (E.G. "Exit to Dos") but you didn't have to go into DOS to install drivers, for common troubleshooing or to correct a bad video setting! (Don't hold me to this, I could be very wrong!)
Sure you may have to go into command prompt to do some advance troubleshooting even in Windows Server 2003 (AD Schema restores etc.) but general admin and support - no need.

CajunCenturion
I can't think of a single company that provides better all round support than Microsoft. (Hate them or Love them)

Knowledgebase - (Bloody huge, comprehensive and free)
Home users - Free phone support
Business Licencing - Free phone / online support
Updates - No subscription, no charge, easy to use
Technet / MSDN - Again, free (documentation) detailed and lots of it

I don't like M$ ethics and they could do things a hell of a lot better - and this isn't a dig at *nix or non M$ products, but their support is, IMHO, the best compared to the competition.

 

[MasterRacker]

I think it is possible to put a good, solid, consistent GUI on top of *nix. From what I understand, that's what you have on Mac OS X. The only problem I've heard of is that Jobs won't let them move into the 21st century in terms of understanding that a mouse HAS to have 2 buttons and a wheel.

The GUI is the key especially on the desktop, but even in the server world. A person supporting a small business that maybe build a new server once a year should not be expected to remember a thousand arcane command lines to configure it. A good GUI can lad them through 90% of setup. You know you need to set something, but it's been a year since the last time you did it, a good GUI can lead you to the setting. I have no problem with turning the GUI off when you're done with it to speed the box, but it needs to be there.

*nix is not going away and neither is Windows. As Linux matures, competition will heat up and both products will improve. Linux will gain market on the desktop but I think Windows will continue to gain in the datacenter. Especially the small to mid-size business. Win2003 Server is actually a pretty good product. Yes, Windows has some architectural problems, but a product doesn't have to be perfect under the hood to be a very useful product.


Jeff
The future is already here - it's just not widely distributed yet...

 

[Stevehewitt]

Couldn't agree more.

Of course, that raises the question of why isn't the Mac OS X so popular?

Personally I think that this is be cause of the specialist hardware which isn't ideal - especially for the small business.

Steve.

 

[MasterRacker]

Steve, I agree. The limited hardware base is one of the ways they keep OS x more stable. You still pay premium pricing for Macs too.

OS X is based on FreeBSD which also has Intel versions. There are rumors of an i386 version of OS X in an Apple Skunkworks lab somewhere. If that's true and it ever surfaces, the landscape could change.


Jeff
The future is already here - it's just not widely distributed yet...

 

[kHz]

The GUI is the key especially on the desktop, but even in the server world.

Key? I have been a Unix admin for 10 years and have no need for a GUI. It (GUI) is not the key to my productivity, effieciency or effectiveness.

As for Microsoft support - one day I was clearing unused CDs and bought new slim jewel cases and was throwing away the cardboard sleeves. It just happened, without thinking, that I threw away the sleeve that contained my Windows key. Well, I had to reinstall the OS but couldn't without a key. I called MS support. Explained to them what happened and I had purchased the OS at Office Max. They were going to help me (surpised me). But after about 30 minutes and having them give me numerous keys that didn't work, they finally told me, "call the service support line" which of course costs some ridiculous amount of money. I told them thanks, but no thanks. Why would I pay for support to get a key for installation when I already had a licensed copy of the software? I finally got a key from a coworker and his key worked! But MS had me try a dozen keys and couldn't get one to work?

Yes, MS has superior (choking sound) support. And products (laughing). Someday a "Jeopardy" answer will be:
Alex: "The browser commonly associated with swiss cheese."
Contestant: "What is Microsoft Internet Explorer?"

OpenBSD

Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 8 years!

`nuff said.

 

[Stevehewitt]

GUI: That's great for you. What about the next generation that are brought up on OS's that arn't native DOS and Unix? Almost every OS now has a GUI, therefore maybe you don't need a GUI - as I don't need a GUI for Windows admin and support, but it sure helps when teaching and for SME's.

Microsoft: Maybe you should be more careful!

 

[kHz]

What about the next generation
[/qoute]
Maybe they can learn command line like all other Unix people.

Microsoft/Windows base line just blows.

Can Win (doze|blows) report the amount of time spent performing TLB miss processing, and broken down by page size?

 

[MasterRacker]

In the terms of this discussion, the people in the datacenter DON'T MATTER! Of course a GUI is not necessary for everyone. It is however, necessary for the 99.5% of all computer users who view the computer as simply a tool to get a job done. The GUI is also very useful to the 75% of admins who do not eat, sleep and breathe servers on a daily basis.

I don't have to know how to service my engine to drive my truck. The end result (getting the job done) is far mor important than which OS you use to do it. By your logic, our generation should be learning how to shoe horses instead of drive.


Jeff
The future is already here - it's just not widely distributed yet...

 

[kHz]

but even in the server world.

This was YOUR quote.

Then you say

In the terms of this discussion, the people in the datacenter DON'T MATTER!

You brought up servers which are the machines in the data center.

You also say

The GUI is also very useful to the 75% of admins who do not eat, sleep and breathe servers on a daily basis.

I have a life outside of work and wasn't aware that my life was engulfed by these "servers.

 

[kHz]

The end result (getting the job done) is far mor important than which OS you use to do it.

So using your logic, even though Wintel will get the job done running an Enterprise Notes farm, it doesn't matter if it takes 100 servers to do the job, even though Unix OS/hardware can do the same processing on 5 servers? (true example)

And TLB miss processing and other utilities/data are important for identifying performance problems. (unless performance in unnecessary on Windoze)

 

[MasterRacker]

I wasn't trying to say anything about your life outside of work. To try an tie my point together more tightly:

Where is it all going re OSes? In the ideal world, even server admins should not have to go to the command line very often. GUI's are essential to the vast majority of computer users and very helpful to almost ALL. No matter what the guts are, the OSes with a full featured, consistent GUI are the ones that will gain market share in almost all phases of the market.

In the context of this discussion, the OS with the best GUI is the "best" because it is the easiest to use by the most people. Command line Unix will remain the best choice for certain applications for quite a while however this will be a specialized and shrinking niche as even Unixes take on more powerful GUIs.

(In Utopia, you'd have the Windows XP shell with the enhanced Aero 3D stuff I've seen peeks of, layered on top of a BSD foundation. Then you'd have something.)


Jeff
The future is already here - it's just not widely distributed yet...

 

[kHz]

Typing "trapstat -T -c 0" (-T trapstat TLB misses broken down by page size) (-c 0 limited to CPU0) is easier to type on the command line than to click 3, 4, or 5 tabs to get the same information.

But people do prefer to click than type. And Unix would be more popular for the masses if there was a GUI. And even though there are GUIs like Gnome, CDE, etc., they are not popular with Unix admins, and I don't know anyone who has ever used one. For desktops at home, a GUI would have a place and appeal more to people, though.

 

[Stevehewitt]

I competely agree with your first statement kHz,in that a command prompt is more efficient when trying to get specific, often details and complex technical information out of a system.
trapstat -T -c 0 is a lot easier that a good 10 clicks in Windows.

The point is that you have to know that exact command before hand. In a Windows GUI situation you can have a guess and often get to where you want without any reference manuals or help commands. This is slower for the advanced administrator who knows the command, but as MasterRacker was saying, for a small or even medium business - which need technical admin done once every year, why on earth would they want a console over a GUI when they can use a logical, easy to use GUI? One where they don't need to remember long commands and their syntax?

I agree to a certian degree that *nix GUI's are OK for home desktops until they need help to install something or they change a system setting in the GUI that doesn't work with the hardware.
My example was with RH8. I changed the resolution (after spending a good 25 mins trying to find the sodding option) and the screen went blank! Restarted and was greeted with a nice little command prompt instead of my normal GUI logon screen.
Couldn't load the GUI because of the display setting. How the hell am I meant to solve this one as a new home user with no knowledge of *nix console commands?

This is one of the few things that Windows does better than *nix. When was the last time you had to drop to a command prompt to repair a non-networking issue such as bad drivers, incorrect seting etc?

*nix GUI looks nice, and once you know what you are doing in terms of navigating the nightmare of a UI (Why call config apps such stupid names that are unrelated to the task they do!) and basic console recovery commands than *nix is a highly viable and once these issues are solved *nix will give Windows / MS a run for their money.

All
The reason why this is all so interesting, and that the camp is often split into Windows or *nix systems is because the two come from very different backrounds.

Windows wasn't built as a high performance, high avaliability, secure server solution for businesses. And Unix wasn't designed with end users in mind by making it easy to use.

So come 1998 you have the *nix camp that have a great core kernel with it's high security and avaliability but a crap UI that can't be picked up on the fly. Great for the few admins that are trained / have the time to learn it but a waste of space for end users and small / medium businesses.

And Microsoft come out with the swiss cheese look-a-like Windows 98. Buggy as hell, lacked any real networking powers and was a security nightmare.
Crap for any serious network admin or large enterpise (without a lot of downtime and maintenance) but great for your home user in that it was a piece of cake to setup and use.

Jump nearly six years on and the *nix camp have a even more reliable and secure product which now comes with a UI which should help it's appeal towards end users and SME's.
And Microsoft pump out it's latest Windows creation which has kept the UI easy-to-use but still quite powerful but now have a security and reliablity level that is on par with nearly all other OS's.

The stakes are rising. MS have been working on fixing their weekness (crap under the hood) and is well on the way - whilst keeping it's advantage; the GUI.
The *nix camps are pumping out a ever increasing GUI which still needs work but is going in the right direction to ever take off in the end user market - whilst keeping it's advantage of a stable and solid kernel.

 

[hannahsh]

well what is the conclusion? Personally its down to functionality and dare I say it security and most important reliability.

But in the real world its down to the IT managers and costs. If *nixes contractors continue to demand £!!! an hour against Ms ones at £-!!! then from a financial point of view Ms will win - eventually in all areas

I do believe Sun Solaris have to ask themselves where do they fit in to the equation, as an admin bod for 15 years, to me Ms has come on 1000% and others marginally about 50% so in another 15 years at the current rate Ms will have 99.9% market share cos there so far ahead of the game.

That said, when computers some complete with the OS and apps installed then we will have to see which venders choose what and that cant be far away.

Ms is simply a million miles ahead on development, with things like media centre and easy PnP for Ipods etc there is little to no future for any other current OS.

But in business we work to 3 or 5 year purchase cycles. Currently MS Exchange 2003 is about the only real choice, and so where will we be in 2008? Every new cycle of purchase will see a bigger share goto Ms and this will continue, dare I say it the writing is on the wall for most other vendors?

 

[Stevehewitt]

Hear Hear.

Things could very well change, more so on the server front than the desktop. *nix hasn't got a chance for a good 6 years or so of making any dent in the desktop arena.

Again, it depends what the company wants from it's IT. If your a large organisation with 30 or so IT staff then you can probably afford a couple of Unix experts on the books or as contractors.
If you've got 300 users and 4 members of staff then maybe Windows would be more appropiate.

Also, functionality is a big issue. Exchange is a good example. Exchange will become more integrated with Outlook and vice-versa - and I don't think MS do a Exchange for Unix app either.

 

[sostek]

The *nix variants rule the server market right now. When you add that the next version of Samba will include Active Directory support you can pretty much kiss MS dominance of the server market goodbye.

Having dealt with both Microsoft and *nix servers I can say that when you have MS, you reboot once a month whether you need it or not. With *nix you put the server in a remote corner, shell into it now and then to do something but the only time you restart it is when the power fails and the UPS has been exhausted.