Slashdot Mirror


On The Death Of Unix

An anonymous reader writes "In an interview with Red Hat Asia Pacific boss Gus Roberston, he tells ZDNet why he believes Unix will be dead since in future, there will only be two operating systems left (for corporations). "We don't see ourselves competing against Microsoft. We are taking market share away from Unix," he said. However, IDC counters Robertson's claim saying Unix market share has actually been increasing in that part of the world."

34 of 350 comments (clear)

  1. Which Unix? by wiredog · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Linux is, essentially, Unix. So are the various flavors of BSD.

    And then there is the newest Unix on the block, a BSD variant, known as OS X. A User Friendly Unix.

    1. Re:Which Unix? by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Funny

      sco unixware of course, the unix of real men!

      doh!

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Which Unix? by idiotnot · · Score: 5, Informative

      OSX is not Unix. It's not even a BSD, really. It's OpenStep, which is cocoa, mach, etc. etc. The BSD subsystem runs in the same address space as mach for performance reasons, but OSX is not running a BSD kernel. Get a mac, install NetBSD or OpenBSD (or even Linux), run dmesg, and compare it to the dmesg output of Darwin, and you'll see the difference.

      Don't get me wrong, I love OSX. But calling it Unix is a bit misleading.

    3. Re:Which Unix? by mwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed, we must speak carefully when discussing "the death of Unix". Do we mean "Unix(tm)", or "Unix and all that other stuff that looks pretty much just like it"? The former could indeed be killed off by the remainder of the latter; the latter group still has a long future IMHO.

    4. Re:Which Unix? by tiger99 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Windows and the old MAC os have no resemblance whatsoever to Unix. Mostly, no preemptive multitasking, always no fork()/exec(), a pathetic memory mismanagement system (Win 9x), a 16-bit DOS core (Win 9x), no true pipes, only simulation by temporary files, mostly no symbolic links, never hard links, absolutely no portability to other hardware platforms, a vile messed-up (like Bill's apology for a brain) set of 70,000 APIs.........

      If any of those systems are a form of Unix, then a monkey is in fact a horse.

  2. RH != UNIX? by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Red Hat isn't marketing a UNIX clone, then what's it marketing now? Last time I checked, Linux is a UNIX clone. Sure, it's not SCO UNIX(R)(TM), but it's still UNIX. Sometimes I wonder whether these MBAs really know what the hell they're trying to sell or if they just have a form process to market anything.

  3. Any article by cubicledrone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That asks "is $TECHNOLOGY dead?" is FUD.

    Period.

    --
    Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
  4. Oh really? by GeckoFood · · Score: 4, Informative

    That doesn't quite wash. Several government agencies here in the US have made a steady migration from Windows to UNIX or Linux. It appears that more are getting on the bandwagon, too. Such being the case, I can't see UNIX losing too much ground, at least in business. Maybe in the home market it has lost ground, but there seems to be a healthy move in favor of UNIX in the workplace in certain areas.

    --
    Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
  5. A very academic debate... by jkrise · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The more important thing that's dying is unaccountability in software - whether Microsoft or *nix from HP, Sun, SGI etc. Linux has ensured that s/w firms talk first about featiures from user's point of view, not the code itself. And that's a big victory - not whether Linux is taking marketshare from Unix or Windows.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
  6. Wrong strategy by KamuSan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd rather have RH aiming at MS' market share. If he just wants to compete with other Unices, then in the end MS will prevail.

    The combination of Palladium in OS and hardware would be really uncomfortable for up-and-rising Asian countries.
    I think that now is a big chance to gain a lot of market share with Linux or BSD. Those countries don't have a lot to spend (yet) and you can ask yourself if they will want to commit themselves to Microsoft vendor lock-in (read: License 6.0). I wouldn't if I were them.

    So Linux/Un*x vendors should unite, and not compete (too much). If they will, then the third dog will grab the bone.

    1. Re:Wrong strategy by KamuSan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, MS sucks as a company, but it's products are ok
      (read: good enough).

      The whole problem with MS is that it doesn't compete on quality, or price, but it sells through vendor lock-in (read: through the nose).
      MS has a broad product suite, where each product has hooks into their other products. If you buy product X, then you need product Y, or it only really really works nice with product Z. And the more products you buy, the more you need to buy their other products.

      The main vector for this extremely contagious MS disease are their OSes. Their OSes are the bait in 'bait, hook and switch'.

      So, if you think you can compete with MS by providing a better product, and you think that more competition will provide this better product, think again. MS doesn't compete by providing better products, it just grows it's market share and then let their weight do the work. The only way to compete with MS is to prevent them from growing their market share too much. And if you just concentrate on competing with other Unices, then you (and the other Unices) will lose, because behind your back MS will eat the total Un*x-likes market share.

      Look at it from a PHB point of view. Say that there is a 75% market share of Un*x-likes and a 25% market share of Windows-likes (which is in effect 25% for Windows itself).
      What OS would you choose, an OS with a 25% market share in a fragmented market of total 75%, that means 18.75% of the total market, or an OS with 25% of the total market? Let alone that the position of this last OS will be perceived as more stable, because there is so much turmoil in the Un*x-like market.

  7. Re:Sad but true by __past__ · · Score: 4, Funny
    "Unix is dead"
    As somebody has said about Lisp, which is also dying for longer than most of its competition exists:

    It doesn't seem any deader than usual to me.

  8. RH == Unix clone ?? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Partially right...

    In the future there will be 2 os's. Windows and Unix.

    I consider Linux/*BSD/Solaris/AIX/MacOSX/etc Unix.

    Some variants may have orginal AT&T code while some do not.

    But unless you get into the embedded market, Unix and Windows are the 2 main players.

    #3 Netware is now going to turn into a Linux in the near future.

    I agree though that opensource is eating up Unix more then Windows but its still unix.

  9. It's just like a bad TV commercial... by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I don't use [product] any more."

    "What? but, Agnes you've always used [product].

    "Nope, now I've switched--to *NEW*, *IMPROVED* [product]. It's even tastier, more absorbent, and 22.6% faster-acting!"

  10. Taking a moment for clarification. by fireboy1919 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Linux is not Unix. Essentially, Unix is something that comes from the Unix codebase, which, essentially, Linux does not. Linux implements Posix, just like a Unix, but it does so many other things better.

    This is a good way to point out the similaries and differences. Linix and Unix both do posix. Linux is not Unix.

    --
    Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    1. Re:Taking a moment for clarification. by wiredog · · Score: 4, Informative

      I apply the duck test. If it looks like Unix, acts like Unix, etc, then it's Unix. Of course, it's X Windows plus the GNU tools that make Linux look/quack/swim like Unix.

    2. Re:Taking a moment for clarification. by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Linux is not Unix. Essentially, Unix is something that comes from the Unix codebase, which, essentially, Linux does not. Linux implements Posix, just like a Unix, but it does so many other things better.

      Use Unix. Use Linux. Then just try to tell the difference. I've been there; there's essentially no different from a user's point of view.

    3. Re:Taking a moment for clarification. by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Insightful
      There's essentially no different from a user's point of view.

      There certainly is from the shell scripters point of view though. Ever tried porting a script that some one wrote on Linux making full use of the GNU tools featuritis to, say, stock Solaris. Oh Man!

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    4. Re:Taking a moment for clarification. by fireboy1919 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Color 'ls' is nonstandard; autocompletion is nonstandard; bugfixes are nonstandard; many useful X apps are nonstandard.

      Unix has not moved with the demands it's users and GNU has. GNU is free, and available on all those other platforms. It implements all the standards, and then goes beyond the call of duty.

      This is why it's good to switch to GNU.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    5. Re:Taking a moment for clarification. by Loconut1389 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      i think we're talking two different levels. There's the OS, then there's tools. Shell scripting may seem like a basilar activity, but its really not a part of the operating system's core, which seems to define whether something is UNIX or not.

      Now, given that GNU stuff is available everywhere, UNIX therefore -has- those capabilities if installed, just like anything else (Linux or otherwise). UNIX has not 'moved with the demands' as you say because those features have already been implemented, why reinvent the wheel, just install an rpm/pkg/whathaveyou.

      since when does having X windows, or a particular app have any bearing on whether the os you're running is technically a UNIX, a Linux, a NeXT, a windows, etc system?

      So if I ran DOS with Norton Commander installed, its not dos anymore because i installed something non-standard?

      Anyway, IMHO, i dont think its a matter of 'switching to GNU', its simply 'using GNU'. Heck, even cygwin on windows can use GNU stuff for the most part. Installing GNU utilities on your windows box does not make it a unix.

      Come to think of it, that may be the prime example. Cygwin looks like a unix, walks like a unix etc, to quote another poster, but its the kernel that really defines what the system technically is.

    6. Re:Taking a moment for clarification. by metamatic · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Ever tried porting a script that some one wrote on Linux making full use of the GNU tools featuritis to, say, stock Solaris.


      No, because only idiots write and maintain complicated code in shell script when there are tools like Perl and Python available. Shell script should only be used for trivial stuff.

      (Yeah, go ahead, mod me flamebait, I'm still right.)
      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  11. wha?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    how the hell did a troll end up as a story?

  12. On the death of Red Hat... by Noryungi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Reality check, Red Hat:

    We don't see ourselves competing against Microsoft.

    Too bad for you, because Microsoft certainly thinks that Linux is its number one competitor. And don't kid yourself: they will do whatever is needed to crush you.

    Oh, and if you think you can steal market shares from, let us say, Sun, without them making a fuss, I think you are mistaken too. Last time I checked, Sun is still worth more money than Red Hat...

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
  13. Sorry, but Linux != UNIX by isa-kuruption · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Various reasons... but in any case...

    The death of UNIX was predicted 20 years ago... it was prediced 10 years ago.

    History is doomed to repeat itself in the eyes on unenlightened RedHat employees. Sorry, but although many Fortune 500 companies are now deploying Linux, very few of them are deploying Linux to replace their traditional UNIX systems which they have BILLIONS of dollars invested.

    So give me a break... UNIX will be around for another 20 years, believe it or not.

  14. Unix is dead, long live unix by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Proprietary Unix is dead or dying, long live open Unix, i.e. Linux and uh.. BSD.

    Quality free open software is, to state the fairly obvious, a category killer, i.e. software against which it makes no business sense to compete. This is good news if you are a user, bad news if you were a competitor.

    --

    My Karma: ran over your Dogma
    StrawberryFrog

  15. UNIX is generic, there are hundreds of versions by fruey · · Score: 4, Insightful
    UNIX... FreeBSD... Linux... Hurd... HPUX... Solaris... OSX... I could keep on going a long time

    Because Microsoft dominates so much in "the Windows Operating System" it has caused this kind of thing to become the norm in the press. That's what is so sickening.

    Microsoft Windows XP is what most non geek people understand as an "operating system". If they even get as far as having operating system in their vocabulary. Most non geeks I talk to think that Office is part of Windows. MS Windows 2003 server by default is :

    • A multitasking kernel including many low level device drivers as standard
    • A windowing system with an API used by millions of software developers
    • A collection of standard software (file manager, web browser, text editor, media player, movie maker, email reader, instant messenger, plus a host of system tools and easy to play, fairly addictive simple games - yes even in the server version)
    • A set of user management tools, active directory tra la la, free web server etc etc
    • etc etc - I could mention the hardware abstraction layer, print spooler and all that

    UNIX is really the foundation for a system which does not compete with Windows directly anyway, which is why there are so many vendors and flavours. Each has their own approach to one or many of the software options included but within the Windows Kernel, but within userspace and API territory. Especially stuff like file managers, browser integration, and multimedia.

    Linux is just a kernel. You need another set of tools before you have anything half decent to run. Most people have GNU stuff, plus some other random addons from here, there and everywhere, plus for desktop use at least a window manager from KDE, Gnome or something a bit more minimal.

    So UNIX cannot die, as an abstract concept. Maybe vendors who sell mostly UNIX will lose revenue or market share, but they all have Linux solutions too. HP, Sun (remember Cobalt...), IBM...

    Microsoft, in their entire domination, have got everyone where it hurts - because they supply a COMPLETE system that, while each of the parts is not the best technically, is a package that nobody else is even pretending to supply, except maybe Red Hat, and the other big distros. The press just don't know how to explain that to the public each time so they come up with utter crap like 'UNIX is dying'...

    --
    Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
  16. Wrong by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Red Hat isn't marketing a UNIX clone, then what's it marketing now? Last time I checked, Linux is a UNIX clone. Sure, it's not SCO UNIX(R)(TM), but it's still UNIX. Sometimes I wonder whether these MBAs really know what the hell they're trying to sell or if they just have a form process to market anything.

    No, what he said was exactly right.

    "We are making a product foo, which is a clone of bar. Foo competes mostly with bar, and will kill off bar within a decade."

    How hard is that to understand?

    Weavers are a clone of triscuits, and saying that "triscuits will be dead within the decade, killed by weavers" is an entirely valid statement.

  17. UNIX is a philosophy by peter303 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    UNIX is a philosophy about how to present computing resources to the programmer and user. Some components include hierarchial files, I.O devices are files, pipes of simple applications, and so on. AT7T, BSD, Linux, etc. follow this pretty closely, even if the underlying code is different.

  18. Let me arrange this by ArmenTanzarian · · Score: 5, Funny

    Slashdot article: Something is dead and/or dying

    Discussion:
    It's not dead, I use it all the time.
    It's dead for the following reasons...
    Flame 1...n (although highly informative flamewar)
    Windows sucks.

  19. UNIX is dead? by BeProf · · Score: 4, Funny

    Crap!

    I finally figured out vi!

    --
    You are attempting to read sigs. Cancel or Allow?
  20. The limits of business. by Artifakt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    (Or maybe the limits of reality) - Roberston is in a position to market Linux. He has little or no control over whether customers choose to replace MS or UNIX systems with it.
    Just try to define a business strategy here that would discourage a customer from migrating from UNIX to Linux - Red Hat could offer lousy support for migration, or actually tell sales people to encourage clients to stick with good old UNIX. They could publicly announce that they are there only to compete with Microsoft. Those are not what I would call good business decisions.
    There's also the current climate of tight economics and heavy litigation. Why announce that your goal might be to take on MS toe-to-toe? If that was a long term goal, the company doing it would quietly work at areas such as deskop/GUI development, installer packages, and the like, and not discuss it much. Red Hat may not be David to MS's Goliath, but whoever is David is not going to make any noise until they have at least loaded up on rocks for their sling.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  21. Re:Windows for desktop Linux for servers... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 4, Informative
    but I know too many people that can't even cope with Windows which (despite it's flaws) goes out of it's way to be easy enough for a child to use

    My wife (a militant non-geek History postgrad) has no difficulty in coping with Gnomeish interfaces on a Slackware box I set up for her. (And how many Windows users install their own OSs?)

    I even heard her gloating the other day to a friend who had been bitten by the virus du jour that since she runs Linux it didn't affect her...

    Heh. And who said Linux wasn't ready for the desktop?

  22. About f*cking time by zpok · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apple has been dead what? At least 50 times now.

    BSD, well, let's just not go there.

    Linux clearly is on its death bed, what with all those lawsuits by good wholesome Utahmericans fighting communism and

    MS is clearly making way too much money to be alive much longer.

    Does Unix have any reason to live while others die at least once a week. I say, if Unix doesn't make up its mind soon, let's kill it ourselves!

    Cheers.

    --
    I think, therefore I am...I think.
  23. OSX isn't Unix? by DesScorp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's funny....

    Apple says it is.

    And as far as I'm concerned, Linux and BSD are Unix as well. If it looks like Unix, acts like Unix, etc. Now, had the question been "Will PROPRIETARY Unix die?", well, then maybe you'd have a point. But Linux and BSD have pretty much insured that Unix itself won't die.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel