The future may be bright- but I miss the good old days! 18

[guestgulkan]

Take me back to the 1980's when engineers really were engineers.
Computers were new, and you could still go down to
Maplins for a packet of discrete electronic components.
Assembly language was the thing
Ethernet? About 10 people the world knew what that was.
It was like the pioneering days of the old west.

Now, engineers have been reduced to simple 'black box' changers and any half-wit can become an engineer or programmer.

I suppose it's all in the name of progress, but for me the fun and personal job satisfaction has gone.

 

[svanels]

The great ignorant mas of computer users do not know Unix, what it does, how it is spelled, nor care about it.

The plug in your television you do not need to know the laws of physics.

"...why isn't UNIX as popular as Win2k/NT4 Server?"
the answer is simple: Win2k/NT4 Server have the Great Marketing Machine of Micro$oft pushing them.

The others are technocrats who understand all about technology but not about publicity and marketing.

Steven van Els
SAvanEls@cq-link.sr

 

[Stevehewitt]

Whoa! Sorry if I upset anyone. I personally have very limited experience with UNIX. I simply couldn't get on with it. That doesn't mean I a "Windows-Clicker"! I can write in C+, VBS Scripts, run networks (from 5 users to 500), MCP Win2k Server, and do websites in PHP/HTML/JS etc. I'm nothing special at all, but I considor my self a skilled worker.

My experience with UNIX is that by the time you have trained somebody to use it, they could already have done the task 200 times over on Windoze. I'm know fan of the M$ machine, but I do think its a simple to use, out of the box solution for the majority of businesses who do not have the time to employ specalist staff who know UNIX/Linux at £1000 a day or to train people up on it on a 7 day course at £200 a day!

This is where Windoze excels, it will run (sorta ;-)) out of the box, with an easy to use GUI which most technical users can get on with for most basic network needs. No training, no specalist staff. Its just there.

Steve Hewitt
Systems Manager

 

[manarth]

AIXSPadmin - you said "This is an ignorant statement" about Steve's suggestion that Windows is more popular than Unix.

To be honest, this is a bit harsh. Steve's sentance was unclarified (he didn't state what area he was referring to) but I don't think his statement was ignorant.

Total the number of operational PCs (macs, etc - just don't include the calculators!), group by operating system - my guess (apologies, too lazy to find any stats / references) is that Windows would take the majority.

So even unclarified, Steve's statement isn't that far a cry from accurate.

Even in server world (given you're discussing Win NT / 2k server) I'd suggest there's a chance M$ outweighs Unix - because of it's ubiquity and easy of use.

Steve: I agree, "it's just there." OK, so M$ has it's own idea of where "there" is, but hey, I can live with that


<marc> i wonder what will happen if i press this...[ul][li]please give feedback on what works / what doesn't[/li][li]need some help? how to get a better answer: faq581-3339[/li][/ul]

 

[AIXSPadmin]

Unix DOES own the data center! That is a fact. Most web servers are Unix. That is a fact.

As for Winblows, a couple of nights ago I shutdown my PC and went to bed - it was working. The next morning I turn on my PC and lo-and-behold the networking was *&%#ed up! Spent a half-hour trying to get it working again to check my email. No luck. So a reinstall, which took over 2 hours and I was back and running.

Contrast this with my BSD machine. I can do a complete setup with a 'net install in under an hour - more like 45 minutes.

Yes I have to compile my kernel to get sound whereas Winblows sound works out of the box, but I have to install drivers and so forth, but with BSD just do a compile - kind of a tradeoff.

But the fact is the way Micro$ucks handles dll's is ridiculous and if they could figure it out, maybe they could alleviate some of their problems using the Unix method of object files.

The Fortune 500 insurance company I used to work for had something like 120 Notes servers; they did a test to see if they could use Unix - yes they could, and it would have used 5 servers. But alas, they didn't want to incur the cost of buying 5 new Unix servers (though I believe politics had the real answer.)

For an average home user Winblows is the best option because they can install and just run it, but that does not make it the best OS. OS/2 by IBM was better than Winblows, but IBM never marketed it hard and Micro$ucks is just pure and simple a great marketing machine. X-Windows by MIT debuted before Winblows and is stable. Mac's have the greatest share of the graphics business (desktop pub, etc.) but they are such a minor player anymore they are really insignificant.

Even if another OS was developed to compete with Winblows or Unix it would be over a decade before it became popular if it was indeed accepted by the public. Linux has been around a decade and it has been just the last, maybe 3 years that it has gotten headlines. Then if an OS did become popular, develop apps for it, or for business if it needed to run a different database, etc., you have to convert code and data - a VERY long and costly process that most businesses won't do unless they had to (such as no more vendor support.) That is one of the reasons for all of the legacy code still around on mainframes in Cobol. The cost of converting it is too high, and is cheaper to just maintain.

So that said, for the next 10-20 years, the primary OS's will be Winblows and Unix. Though they will evolve and change, they are the dominant one's now and in the near future.

 

[CajunCenturion]

Although I do not wish to get into the UNIX vs Windows debate, I would like to point out that this debate, is for the most part, restricted to the PC aspect of IT. That is not to take anything away from a quite valid discussion, but simply to point out that this debate is scoped to the PC environment. Once you get away from the PC, UNIX can be a player for a little while, but once you get to the mid-range and larger machines, the mainframes and supercomputers, neither of these two OS's will be in the picture.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[strongm]

Of course OS/2 Versions 1.0, 1.2, 1.3 were written by IBM and Microsoft, not just IBM, although Microsoft's contribution to 1.3 was significantly reduced by the fact that they had a public falling out with IBM of the direction OS/2 was going, and stopped contributing to the projects in 1990. Even 2.0 still contained Microsoft code...

And NT arose from the OS/2 3.0 project...

 

[AIXSPadmin]

&quot;...but once you get to the mid-range and larger machines, the mainframes and supercomputers, neither of these two OS's will be in the picture. &quot;

Actually, the standard operating system on Cray vector SMP machines is UNICOS, which was adapted from UNIX System V and was also influenced my the Fourth BSD.

IBM has many of the Top 500 Supercomputers and most of them are based on the SP which uses AIX and some IBM Regatta systems which again use AIX. AIX of course is a version of UNIX.

Also on the Top 500 (#5) list is a Linux cluster.

Hewlett-Packard also ring in on the Top 500 list of Supercomputers with the AlphaServer, which runs Tru64 UNIX.
HP also has SuperDome's which are their high-end UNIX servers.

Some other Cray machines are running Beowulf clusters.

And one last thing. An SP complex that is not run in parallel is not a Supercomputer but is a midrange computer. So the &quot;Once you get away from the PC, UNIX can be a player for a little while...&quot; comment is not accurate at all.

 

[Tarwn]

<sidenote>Er...how exactly does a Cray run a beowulf cluster?
I could see, perhaps, it running as a cluster, unless of course you had several crays clustered together...
</sidenote>

<information>
handling dll's...see Windows 2003, ie .Net Server
</information>

I don't see how any of the other points have anything to with the good old days, but hen this seems to be a catch all type of post anyways. As for reinstalling an OS to fix a networking problem...well...I think I;ll leave that one alone...

-Tarwn

_{01010100 01101001 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101111 01101011 00101110 01100011 01101111 01101101}
^{29 3K 10 3D 3L 3J 3K 10 32 35 10 3E 39 33 35 10 3K 3F 10 38 31 3M 35 10 36 3I 35 35 10 3K 39 3D 35 10 1Q 19}
Get better results for your questions: faq333-2924
Frequently Asked ASP Questions: faq333-3048

 

[Stevehewitt]

I cannot say that one OS is better in general than another, as I simply do not have the knowledge of multiple O/S to compare. My statement was simply trying to say that Windows will work out of the box. If you have 500 users on a network which would cost more? Train new IT staff, get specalists in and code parts of the OS as well, or use Windows?
I also appologise if I did sound ignorant - that (obviously ;-)) wasn't my intention. And again, I am not in a position to have an argument about which OS is better as I do not have the experience.
But from what I have seen they both excel in different areas. UNIX seems to be the choice for large companies needs reliable data storage, whilst Windows seems easier for the majority of networks and general server usage.

Thanks! (and Sorry!!!)

Steve Hewitt
Systems Manager

 

[CajunCenturion]

AIXSPadmin - Some good points. I wasn't really taking into account the various derivatives of UNIX that manufacturers had adopted for their own machines. That was an oversight, and I stand corrected.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[manarth]

Steve - I really wish that windows would work out of the box =) Having said that, I don't know if it would make my job easier, or do me out of a job altogether!

Windows is great for people without the time / effort / energy / mindset to work a language based (command prompt based) operating system like Linux (yes, contrary to popular belief, Linux IS command based, despite several implementations emplying GUIs).

Whilst windows is great out of the box, I feel it's important to stress that administrators cannot sensibly administer a network without a reasonable knowledge (basically, a network adminstrator's technical knowledge) about stuff like networking, security, and system integrity.

I know any number of people who can operate a windows environment (client version of windows + office + whatever package their company happens to use), but would be completely lost given a server to setup. At the end of the day, if you're going to set up a reasonable scale office network, you need to know what TCP/IP is all about, otherwise (no matter how good your knowledge of windows) you'll be stuffed when it comes to understanding stuff like subnet masks and default gateways.
Hey - for some diversionary entertainment, read the posts in the TCP/IP forum!

hmmm...maybe I should have stuck all that in <rant> </rant> tags! ah well =)

<marc> i wonder what will happen if i press this...[ul][li]please give feedback on what works / what doesn't[/li][li]need some help? how to get a better answer: faq581-3339[/li][/ul]

 

[chiph]

Ahhh. I miss my Model 28 Teletype!

http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/hqm/japan/teletype/

(Used to work on them in the Air Force ... they were the only wired communications systems that would work after an EMP nuke went off)

Chip H.

 

[ANFPS26]

Yes, I miss the model 35, 40, and 43. I worked for Western Electric, AT&T, and Lucent in the Bell System. After 1984 the telecommunications industry just disappeared. It never was the same. I long for the good old days before 1984.

http://www.vauxelectronics.com/gil/tty/teletype_corp.htm

Jim

 

[Morsing]

I'm sorry to go on with the Windows/Unix discussion here but as AIXSPadmin seems to be the underdog here I though I might step in and defend him

Windows more popular than Windows?? No, that statement is useless.
Unix definately has the server market and if you know anything about Unix servers you know that they're much more powerful than Windows PCs. Where I work, one of our Unix servers could take our whole 30 PC Citrix farm in processing power with no problems. So counting power alone, the installed Unix base would by far win the fight. And I don't think that anyone here will argue that Windows is more stable than Unix.

That you're able to get started with Windows in ten minutes is not an advantage. If you're an IT person you need to understand the systems and sorroundings you work with and Windows prevents that. Also, Windows limits the use of the computer to an extreme degree.


Windows is not easy to use unless you grew up with it.
I know I'll be flamed for this statement but the problem with these kind of discussions is that most people are used to working with Windows and sometimes nothing else.
I am so unfortunate that I have to use Windows at work. I have never had a Windows computer and I have never used one outside work, so I know how un-intuitive it is to use if you didn't grow up with it.
My Windows computer at work break all the time if I try to use it for anything else than just opening a programme. Customise Windows to my liking?? HA! That's a joke!!
Windows is a nuisance.

The cost of ownership is lower for Unix when you take administration in account. Unix requires a lot less work than Windows.

At the three places I've worked the balance has been something like:

1. Me 25 servers / MS guy 2 servers and 35 workstations
2. 2 people for 45 Unix servers / 4 people for 10 Windows and 3 OS/2 servers
3. 2 people for 30-40 Unix servers / 6 Windows people for 30 Windows servers

But basically Windows and Unix are meant for different jobs. Unix in the form of Linux has been eating some of NTs market but I doubt that Windows will ever enter the enterprise Unix market.

Cheers

Henrik Morsing
Certified AIX 4.3 Systems Administration
& p690 Technical Support

 

[Stevehewitt]

When I said that Windows was more used than Unix overall. Not just the server market. I appoligise that I don't have a source for this statistic, but I'm sure its changed by now anyway - about a year ago I was on the net and it said in a news atricle that nearly 80% of computers has got Windows installed on it! I cannot say which OS is better, because I haven't got the experience in UNIX to compare to Windows.
All I'm really saying is that for a a small branch office of 100 people with part time IT support then Windows would be more appropiate. I have not been on a training course before, and had only even use Win98/Win2k Pro. Yet I managed to set a fully working Domain for the mentioned 100 users. I knew nothing about networking or Servers - yet I managed as Windows is a logical process. Even more so now, as most basic stuff is done in a wizard!! IMHO UNIX isn't as easy to use as Windows.
And regarding reliability it looks like NT is getting a lot better!

Steve Hewitt

 

[AIXSPadmin]

MicroSucks is trying to garner (am I subconsciously thinking of Jennifer from ABCs Alias and the film Daredevil ) more of the server market in the data center with their new Winblows 2003.

MicroSucks is a GREAT marketing machine, they should actually diversify and start a subsidiary that does PR, communications and marketing, because that is what they are best at - not developing good software.

And the name &quot;Micro...&quot; should they not be leaving this name behind? Well they cannot really because everyone knows who MS is. But could this be hurting them really? In the data center, with all of the servers and MS wanting to become or take over the midrange market, being stuck with a moniker that shouts SMALL, they should open a new division for the midrange market.

Another thing, the second half of their name &quot;Soft&quot; is of course from software. Look at the midrange players who use Unix - IBM (AIX), HP (HP-UX, Tru64), Sun (Solaris) - each of them develop HARDWARE too, besides the OS. I know MS has partnered with Intel for the hardware but when you go into the midrange market and buy a server from IBM, you get an OS developed for hardware.

No matter that the processor of the PC keeps doubling in speed, it is nowhere in comparison to say, IBMs PowerPC with copper technology. And with the Regatta you can dynamically LPAR, and with AIX 5.3 which is in development you will be able to slice a cpu to install 10 OS images on one cpu. MS and Intel changing the processor and making Winblows for that processor only goes so far. You need hardware that is built for enterprises. A PC is a PC, not an enterprise server. MS and Intel have a long way to go.

 

[svanels]

Some more gasoline on the Unix x Windows debate:

I am not interesting in stuff like to set-up ISP, mailbox, servers and that kind of things.

Lets talk about support, that is what counts.

Industrial environment, distributed control system, system running for years now. Hardware failures become more frequent. The OS must be upgraded to acomodate the new components and technology used.
You find out that about 90% of the money you need buying at your original manufacturer will be used to buy the expertise of the same guys that originally worked for them....and got layed off.

Tecnical support from the manufacturer is plug 'n prey.

Remembers me of the british automobile industry, some cars were that solid that they never broke....and when the parts were needed, the manufacturer not existed anymore.

Steven van Els
SAvanEls@cq-link.sr

 

[jack1955]

Morsing said:
At the three places I've worked the balance has been something like:

1. Me 25 servers / MS guy 2 servers and 35 workstations
2. 2 people for 45 Unix servers / 4 people for 10 Windows and 3 OS/2 servers
3. 2 people for 30-40 Unix servers / 6 Windows people for 30 Windows servers

Jack1955 said-
1 person to administer 3 AS/400 supporting 500-1000 interactive users, 1000's of batch jobs, 1000's of database transactions as a server PER DAY! Multi-billion $$ manufacturer. Every day. I think that beats UNIX and Windows servers.

 

[Tarwn]

err...mines bigger

 

[jack1955]

Your WHAT is bigger?