Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Hard is it to Manage Different Unices?

Posted by Cliff on from the it's-all-about-the-flava dept.

vrmlguy asks: "Where I work has several Unix-based servers, all running the same vendor's OS. We are getting ready to buy another big server, and management wants to get bids from other vendors. However, our staff is only familar with our current vendor's OS. Yes, I know that any two flavors of Unix are more alike than not, and yes, I know about the Rosetta Stone for Unix that makes it easy to transfer skills. I want to know about the down-side: What's the difference in the cost of operations between a mono-culture and a shop running two or more vendors' OSs?"

2 of 372 comments (clear)

  1. Coptic is the Unix of choice. by Chagatai · · Score: 4, Informative
    As Greek was the telltale language that helped greatly with the Stone, I would have to side that HP-UX is about as close as you will get. I work on a daily basis with the major business-tailored Unices, AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, and Linux. As all of these other posts have said, commands to perform one action on one OS greatly differs from another. But I have noticed that HP-UX seems to be an amalgam of the other three Unices listed above.

    For example, on Solaris (without Veritas Volume Manager), you have to "carve out" your disk filesystem by filesystem, and work with devices in /dev/dsk/cAtBdCsD format. On AIX, the concept is totally different with Logical Volume Manager, wherein filesystems can be created on the fly. But HP-UX uses both in an odd fashion, forsaking slices and using a "castrated" form of LVM. This is just one example, as you will find other things in HP-UX such as the useradd command being identical to Linux and Solaris, and the SAM tool being very close to AIX's SMIT utility.

    In the end, as you will find, there is no uber-Unix that will carry over to all of the other flavors. IMHO, HP-UX is as close as you will get. But, my personal preference of all Unices is AIX due to its ease of use (an IBM tool easy to use? I know it sounds like an oxymoron) and robust capabilities, combined with Linux integration in the most recent versions. Flame as you will, I'm interested in hearing anybody else's insight.

    --
    --Chag
  2. the cost is in hardware by josepha48 · · Score: 5, Informative
    If you are like the shops that I have been in then the biggest cost of running more than one UNIX is the hardware.

    1) You can install the same shell on just about all UNIX's. Most people where I am prefer tcsh as it has some nice features.

    2) You can standardize on scripts, either use csh (blah) or sh. We prefer sh as it is found on just about EVERY unix (Sun, HP, AIX, BSD's, Linux).

    3) Avoid vender extensions to the basic shell. HP has done some aweful things there in its bourne shell and they are not compatible with Sun and in some cases Linux either. I.E. Always use `cat foo` and not $(cat foo) in sh scripts. There are other things like that.

    There are problems in supporting more than one UNIX, but there are also workarounds if you do it right.

    --

    Only 'flamers' flame!