Slashdot Mirror
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.
How about a fricking link?
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Who ever said unix is dying? thats BS!! go to netcraft.com and see what 80% of the people use for their webservers, UNIX! GOD BLESS UNIX
keanmarine.com
Here's a link to the actual story. It'd be nice if the /. editors could include it.
Aww, c'mon. Laugh, it's funny.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
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.
"Tru64" Unix is what DEC I mean Compaq puts out on Alpha-based computers. It's based on Mach 2.5 I believe.
Apple's OSX is based on Mach 1.0 I believe so there's a sort of kinship there.
And now for some stuff I'm less sure of:
1. MSFT Windows NT used to run on Alpha CPUs albeit not using the full 64-bits of addressing those CPUs can do. Rumor has it that DEC got a real sweetheart deal on NT licensing because 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. Comments in the NT source code in the mid-90s confirmed this allowing DEC to get a bit of leverage when dealing with MSFT.
2. Sort of in contrast the first edition of "Inside Windows NT" described an operating system that just could have been Mach 1.0. A lot of the original NT was very reminiscent of Mach 1.0 except less rigorously done. I don't imagine there was any real similarity between the OS described in Helen Custer's book and the real NT though. Mach and Unix were scrupulously ignored in the bibliography and index of "Inside Windows NT" 1st edition. At the time MSFT clearly wanted to emphasize the "N" in NT as "new" even though it wasn't.
People here spend so much time staring at Microsoft that without noticing they start believing the Microsoft Marketing Department holds keys to the future in its hand. So eventually every phrase said in Slashdot is formed as an answer to reality as marketed by Microsoft, even when no question was asked.
Funnier still, since the [non-]linked article never states Unix was dead or dying.
...but why Microsoft Windows considers itself really alive.
Windows is a teenager--and a rude, aggressive, unpredictable one at that--compared to the various Unixen out there.
To paraphrase "Dark Paladin" in a recent article about his Mac OS X conversion: Microsoft Windows is like your class president that didn't do shit. Linux is like a super-smart, sexy redhead girlfriend that's also a bit insane. Mac OS X is like the geeky girl at school who shed her braces and became a total hottie--and still wants to spend all her time hanging around with you.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
If the article title was 'ALPHA isn't Dead. Unix's lifespan really isn't in jeopardy.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
btw, when did News.com become News.com.com ?? What is this, 1999 or something? I wonder how much money they blew on purchasing Com.com. That was a great investment..
cpeterso
Does anyone know of a website or anything that could perhaps show me the way out?
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?
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
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
There's a difference between an OS being used and an OS being a viable platform for future growth.
For example, there's LOTS of people using VMS. Is VMS a viable platform anymore? Probably not, it's just easier for people to buy a newer faster Alpha for their apps then trying to port an app built around VMS features to Unix or Windows.
What you will likely see is that, as Linux gets better, Solaris/AIX/Irix/etc will get pushed to platforms where Linux isn't yet viable.
For a company who makes higher-end servers, Linux makes perfect business sense. The OS doesn't sell the hardware, the hardware forces you to use a particular OS, unless it's Windows. Thus, if you can lay off 25% of your OS development staff and put the other 75% to making Linux work on your platform, you save money and get geek points. Your only risk is that nobody else will make the gamble and you will be left holding the bag. Or that your hardware innately sucks and people are buying it because they got locked into your OS many many years ago.
Gentoo Sucks
X can be easily installed (from what I've been told, I intend to try it tonight). Go to fink.sourceforge.net. Their stuff is pre-compiled and packaged using dpkg.
The one thing about OS X from user viewpoint is that you just don't see Unix or can even tell it's there... I had to hunt in the app folder to find the terminal app to open up a shell. Not that that was difficult, but the box I saw in the store had terminal in the dock.
I can't imagine asking my boss to drop 150 large on a Starkitty.
"Well sir, we can either go with the IBM p670 or the Sun Starkitty."
"The IBM or WHAT!?"
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
IRIX 6.5
/ index.html
s /ds/ds-sol8oe/
"SGI Fifth Generation 64-Bit UNIX Operating System"
http://www.sgi.com/software/irix6.5/
AIX 5.1
"AIX is fully integrated to support existing 32- and 64-bit hardware..."
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/aix/os
Solaris 8
"Designed for multiprocessing and 64-bit computing..."
http://www.sun.com/software/solari
Tru64 UNIX
With a name like that, do you have to ask?
http://www.tru64unix.compaq.com/index.html
Any questions?
Unlike many Windows servers, my experience with UNIX servers has been that its longevity is one of its endearing qualities. Services running on UNIX servers tend to have a very long usable lifespan, IMHO due to the fact that the underlying system runs well enough that the application tends to be updated before the system needs to be.
But there is a caveat with using UNIX. The people who can successfully design, architect, administer, and maintain UNIX servers are a tight knit bunch, and as a result of its longevity, they don't tend to move around very often because a given server may be alive far longer than the average Windows server. Additionally, it's been my experience that the longer an individual concentrates on a given subject, such as a single UNIX server, that the more in-depth knowledge they begin to amass about that OS and therefore, they become even more valuable/pigeon-holed into a given organization's IT plans.
This combination of longevity and expertise results in a decreased pool of available personnel available for UNIX projects to organizations at any given time, compared to what I perceive as a larger pool of available Windows talent at any given time. Does this necessarily lead to new projects being run on Windows because the only available talent is Windows? Perhaps...
My vision of UNIX's biggest fear, is that it won't necessarily die, but be bred out of existence because new projects tend to be addressed by whatever resources are available at that time, and if there aren't any available UNIX experts, then nature abhors a vacuum and the projects will be filled with whomever is available at that time.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
I'm not dead!
I'm not!
I'm getting better!
I don't want to go on the cart!
I feel fine!
I think I'll go for a walk.
[singing] I feel happy. I feel happy.
(etc. Credit due the fine fellows of Python)
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
Not to mention GNU/Linux, since 2.2.x on 64-bit architectures.
... Microsoft Windows.
t 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.
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
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-i
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Microsoft releases Windows/X, a BSD-based unix with an open-source layer called Freud and a graphical interface called Water. The OS uses twin APIs; a cleaned up Win32 called Soot and (uh) Chocolate.
...but why Timothy is trolling. Are hits really that bad?
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't think this story quite passes my "Flanders" test:
[Rod shows Todd a headline: "Playtime Is Fun"]
Todd: [gives thumbs-up] Go with it!
If your headline can be substituted for "Playtime Is Fun" in the above, and it is still funny, then the story has failed the Flanders test.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
Comment removed based on user account deletion
(With apologies to Monty Python)
PHB: Bring out your dead!
MS: Here's one.
Unix: I'm not dead.
PHB: What!?
MS: Nothing.
Unix: I'm not dead!
PHB: Ere', he says he's not dead.
MS: Yes he is!
Unix: I'm not!
PHB: He isn't?
MS: Well, he will be soon. He's very ill.
Unix: I'm getting better!
MS: No, you're not. You'll be stone dead in a moment.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
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?
GPL Deconstructed