Unix Isn't Dead

windows bios world writes: "Compaq, Sun, SGI, and IBM are releasing new machines running Unix. From cnet.com: 'Compaq has begun shipping test versions of a new line of AlphaServer Unix servers using the EV7 "Marvel" version of the company's Alpha processor. ... As expected, IBM released on Monday its p670, a 16-processor machine that's essentially a smaller version of Big Blue's top-end 32-processor p690 "Regatta" server introduced in late 2001.' Also, Sun teamed up with Sony to release video-on-demand servers." And of course, there's OS X.

Comments

But linux is killing unix..for better or for worse

[Ars-Fartsica]

Linux has been rapidly peeling away proprietary unix market share for the past three years. A positive sign in that it signals the "arrival" of open source software, but there are some serious competitive considerations with respect to Win2k. Microsoft has demonstrated that they can move fast and will likely be a first adopter of pervasive system technologies (LDAP, integrated XML, etc.), and the linux community will be more dependent on shops like RedHat and IBM to migrate in this functionality in a purposeful manner.

That said, both linux and Win2k are set to completely consume the server markets. Solaris, AIX and True64 simply won't be in use in ten years. On that I will bet.

FUD through "positive assertions"

[mmusn]

That submission is rather like the underhanded question of "when did you stop beating your wife?". I can't quite tell whether the poster is deliberatly spreading FUD or whether he has just fallen too much for Microsoft propaganda.

Of course, UNIX isn't dead. A large part of our business and government infrastructure runs on it. Even more software is written using UNIX APIs, and this includes a lot of Windows software. UNIX isn't at risk: there is just too much of it, supported by too many vendors and on too many platforms.

The operating system perpetually at risk is Windows, which is a single vendor solution and stands and falls with Microsoft. When Microsoft abandons Windows, there won't be any more. If you want to know what the future of Windows holds, just look at VMS.

For now, let's ask the opposite question: how much of the supposed success of Windows is really hype? How many IT managers think that their infrastructure is running on Windows when it's kept together by UNIX machines? How many Windows-licenses does Microsoft double and triple count for machines that are running Linux or BSD?

Re:FUD through "positive assertions"

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't quite tell whether the poster is deliberatly spreading FUD or whether he has just fallen too much for Microsoft propaganda.

The fact that Compaq/DEC and HP were slowly backing away from UNIX isn't FUD in the slightest. It was their stated business plan. (And SGI's business plan was to go out of business. But maybe that's changing.)

And, I have to ask, what sort of hole have you been living in for the last 10 years? Commercial Unix has lost market after market to cheaper hardware running NT, and recently, Linux/BSD. Reports of it's death have been exaggerated, but it hasn't exactly been growing, except on the high-end.

Re:OSF Mach

[cpeterso]

the NT source code was (illegally!) based on "Micah" the operating system that Dave Cutler was working on at DEC before he moved to MSFT in 1988

Cutler was working on a new hardware system called Prism and its new object-oriented operating system was called Mica (not "Micah"). The following article has more details, plus some "startling" comparisons of VMS and NT implementation details.

Windows NT and VMS: The Rest of the Story: Is NT really new technology?

Silly people *tsk,tsk,tsk*

[powerlinekid]

Unix has been around 30 odd years. It runs graphic development machines (IRIX), industrial big iron (AIX, Solaris), desktop machines (Linux, MacOS X), gateways, routers, firewalls (*BSDs). And its been doing this for years. As the saying goes "if windows was built for the internet, then the internet was built for unix". Unix is clean and well thought out. It mixes commercial and open source and has a 30 year track record of being reliable, stable and once you get the hang of it amazingly easy. Windows on the other hand has been reliable for 2 years (Win 2k in my opinion is the only MS OS i'd trust for critical stuff, XP is too bloated and buggy, and we won't even get into the 9x line or older NT's). I think that this whole anti-unix campaign is pure Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Microsoft is scared. All of the markets (server, desktop, big iron, embedded systems) that MS is interested in, have unix challengers. I choose Mandrake and OS X over windows any day, even if it means some things I can't do as of now. But the thing about Unix is it's ability to adapt and grow. Between Irix, Aix, the hundred and 20 Linux distros, Free/Open/Net BSD, Solaris, MacOS X and countless others, thats a hell of a community working together. Most of these systems use GNU software (emacs, gcc, etc). Microsoft realizes now that they're not breaking into those markets as easy as they thought. They're not gaining server market share. They're not gaining embedded market share. They're definitly not gaining big iron market share (datacenter from what i hear is a disaster). And all this time, their one true market possession (desktop) is stagnet and is in danger of slipping in the future. MS realizes they can't compete with the raw numbers, and are hoping to save themselves some time or kill any chance of unix expansion. They're in a hell of a fight, the Unix world isn't netscape, lotus or any of those little companies. Unix is the big guys, like IBM, Sun, Sony (linux for ps/2 I imagine is going to be a future trend), Apple but more importantly Unix is also the faceless targets. The guy up at 3 in the morning hacking on gcc, or linux's vm system. MS just can't compete with that, and thats something I like to see. MS losing its own game.

/powerlinekid

Re:OSF Mach

[n9hmg]

Actually, they still run on Digital Unix. They just renamed it, like they did when they renamed OSF/1 to Digital Unix. DEC was the only company from the OSF consortium to stick with the project, which was designed to make all the vendors' unices compatible -- O(pen) S(ystems) F(oundation (or was it federation?)). It was originally kind of created by DEC, IBM, and I think HP and maybe some others. Before that, they were mostly using Ultrix.

from The setiathome platforms list:
47) alpha-compaq-T64Uv4.0d/EV67 87171 9.952 years 1 hr 00 min 00.4 sec
from the setiathome cpus list
15) Alpha EV67 31882 3.701 years 1 hr 01 min 00.5 sec

The format is platform/cpu, number of units completed, total cpu time contributed, average cpu time/unit completed. It's mor readable in setiathome,s tables.
All the best performers on that list are Alphas, running Tru64. Those suckers have been in the Ghz range for many years, long before Intel or AMD. Are Sun, IBM, or HP there even yet? I know they're getting close.

Not to mention GNU/Linux for several years

[FreeUser]

Not to mention GNU/Linux, since 2.2.x on 64-bit architectures.

I believe most of the *BSD variants are 64-bit capable as well these days.

Indeed, AFAIK the only 'mainstream' OS that is struggling with 64-bit and so late to the game is ... Microsoft Windows.

But with their propogandists to convince everyone who'll listen that 64-bit computing didn't exist before their johnny-come-lately (and johnny-can't-do-it-quite-right-for-several-more-it erations) operating system finally gets a modicum of 64-bit capability, many will look at 64-bit computing as another Microsoft "innovation," reality be damned.

The question isn't whether Unix is dead...

[throx]

...but why Timothy is trolling. Are hits really that bad?

Re:I wish it would die

[2nd Post!]

The unix mindset has become too pervasive in the midrange computers. Nobody is implementing new ideas because everything has to be `posix compliant'.

What do you mean by midrange? Workstations? Small servers? Big appliances?

What do you call new ideas? What do ideas have to do with posix compliance, or lack of compliance?

Linux is nice but has not advanced the state of the art.

Then you mention Linux, and state of the art. Does that mean OS X is fair game for me to mention?

OS X adds displayPDF and vectorized resolution independent displays. It adds FireWire, Bluetooth, 802.11b, and gigabit ethernet to the hardware mix; it's pushing LCD displays (and the accompanying trend of color managment and color profiling of digital display technologies), DVD-R as a video content creation tool, and high end video, film, and TV creation tools on 'low end' hardware.

That's not even mentioning future enhancements to the OS itself now that it has caught up to bar, in terms of memory protection, multitasking, multiprocessing, and stability.

Can you tell I like Macs and OS X?

Don't pigeonhole IBM or Sony

[Ars-Fartsica]

The only vendor on your list who is truly sold out to unix is Sun. IBM doesn't care - they'll put whatever OS is popular on their computers. IBM may be backing linux, but they are selling Win2k. Sony is just off of the map - what they are doing has little bearing on enterprise computing.

Now once you get down to the players who are 100% unix, you'll notice that combined they aren't even half of the market cap of MSFT, and probably occupy less rack space (don't smirk - there is a lot of Win2k in the colos these days).

Re:OSF Mach

[oingoboingo]

This hasn't stopped the traditional Unix vendors bragging about their new 1GHz chips, after spending most of the last 12 months or so downplaying the 1GHz + raw clock speeds of Intel and AMD CPUs. Face it...Sun, IBM, SGI, HP and Compaq are only too happy to talk endlessly about superior architectures and special 64-bitness when their chips are lagging in raw clock speed. But as soon as they hit the magic 1000MHz...witness the breathless hype spewing from IBM about the POWER4, and the recent press releases from Sun about their new Blade 2000 workstation ("the industry's first 1 GHz 64-bit workstation!")