Slashdot Mirror
Linux to Replace Solaris at Duke
wwhsgrad2002 writes "At the end of the 2004-2005 academic year, the Sun Solaris computers available in public computing labs at Duke University will be replaced. The replacement computers in these spaces will be Dells, running a version of Centos 3.3 as supported by Linux@DUKE. Pragmatic and technical considerations have driven this change, as Linux continues to gain a greater userbase and more third-party commercial software is made available on the platform. Are other universities eliminating Solaris in favor of a Linux distribution?"
Some companies have said that if Sun was doing three years ago what they are doing now (Solaris 10, OpenSolaris, free licensing), they would not have switched to Linux. Consider that Sun still guarantees binary and source compatibility when migrating to Solaris 10 from older versions, while Linux cannot. Linux is very useful, but there are still things that make long-term deployments awkward at times. Mod what you will, but it is true.
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
Hmm, 1/3 the cost, 1/2 the longevity.
Sounds like a good deal to me!
If something's mission critical then it'll be used until it irrevocably breaks down - witness brand new IBM mainframes running executables compiled in the sixties, just because the customer wants to do the same thing, only faster.
Even VAX machines are still being used, and MULTICS wasn't finally put out of use until the year 2000.
Yes, if you're doing short-range projects with relatively trivial applications a Dell machine running Linux is better value; if you'll still be doing the same thing in a decade you'll want something more upmarket. How many people lived in shitty apartments before they got a nice house?
Sounds like a good deal to me!
I think you're trying to be funny, but it is a good deal - if you buy two in a year instead of one, each at 1/3 price, you pay 2/3 the price - thus saving 1/3 the price. Since failure is unpredictable even in expensive equipment, you're going to buy two of your servers for redundancy anyways (right?) - so the longevity argument doesn't even factor in.
Yes Sun boxes will last forever, but who keeps them that long? I would rather have a box that will work reliably for the expected lifespan before it is reasonable to upgrade.
You'd be surprised, a lot of universities and colleges have a lot of old hardware, especially Suns.
Why go with Sun when there are 100 other companies that will give me practical experience in programming?
Ouch. That was a real career blunder on your part. I'm sure that you, like many CS grads, assume that you *deserve* a job programming fresh out of school. The reality is that most of us who became professional developers do have to pay our dues in support. And the experience, even in support, at Sun, would have really set you up on a fast track into some good stuff. I hope your current job is somewhere as prestigious and well-respected as Sun and not some tiny Internet-based startup.
I don't respond to AC's.
If you're just trying to point out that rebooting shouldn't be such a big deal, I catch your drift, but there are other issues here, Namely:
#1. What are the ramifications of applying the patch? What applications do they break?
#2. Is my server even going to come back up?
#3. Why should I have to apply a patch for the "base install" tftp daemon that gives remote root anyway? Why did solaris install this? Wouldn't it be better to leave this to the aptly named "system administrator"?
#4. Though the chances of it happening are small, what if my Server A fails during Server B's update/reboot(With all the patching, I have a lot more downtime on the Server A and B...)? Sun is just going to sell me 4 more? Sounds like they're fixing fundamental system issues with bandaids like "multiple servers" and "redundancy".
It's not really a non-issue, quite the opposite.
And what about time? As a system administrator I firmly believe I don't need to spend a majority of my time considering reboots, and I have the ability to do that with systems like debian.
Overall: More software per server=More Security vulnerabilites=Reboots=More Time Invested=Lopsided TCO equation.
That's just in my company, I understand this doesn't apply everywhere, and debian isn't always the right tool for the job.
I just love this shit. It's hilarious. And it always happens, without fail. When everybody brings out their anecdotes about hardware reliability, someone trashes on pretty much everybody's gear, somebody's worked at a place where any given manufacturer's stuff was junk, and someone out there has had any given vendor's stuff work perfectly.
At least everyone can agree that everyone's stuff used to be reliable. They sure don't meake 'em like they used to...
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.