Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Network Businesses Operating Systems Unix

The Steady Decline of Unix 570

Posted by samzenpus
from the slow-slide dept.
stinkymountain writes "Unix, the core server operating system in enterprise networks for decades, now finds itself in a slow, inexorable decline, according to Network World. Jean Bozman, research vice president at IDC Enterprise Server Group, attributes the decline to platform migration issues; competition from Linux and Microsoft; more efficient hardware with more powerful processor cores; and the abundance of Unix-specific apps that can now also run on competitor's servers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Steady Decline of Unix

Comments Filter:
  • Uh huh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MightyMartian (840721) on Monday August 19, 2013 @02:56PM (#44610017) Journal

    So the bulk of Unix's decline comes from competing *nixes, in particularly Linux.

    News at 11.

    • Re:Uh huh (Score:4, Funny)

      by mtrachtenberg (67780) on Monday August 19, 2013 @02:58PM (#44610035) Homepage

      Nah, it's not Linux eating into UNIX's market share. It's stuff like the Debian, RedHat, Android and Ubuntu OS's.

      • Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:06PM (#44610143)

        Why do we even need to have this conversation? If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck it isn't a duck unless it is branded a duck? This is so fucking stupid. Linux is a UNIX type of operating system, so UNIX isn't in decline.

        • Re:Uh huh (Score:4, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:10PM (#44610201)

          >>>W
          >>>>H
          >>>>>O
          >>>>>>O
          >>>>>>>S
          >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>H

        • Re:Uh huh (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:15PM (#44610249)

          Because we here at Slashdot like to be accurate, especially when poking holes into other's arguments.

          Linux is a kernel, nothing else. It's the distributions which are supposedly eating into UNIX's market share, but really just chewing away at Redmon's marketshare.

          UNIX market share only appears to be dwindling because it takes less hardware to do the same jobs they were doing just a few years ago.

          People are consolidating 10 to 20 servers onto single or two small/medium sized servers.

          Total server counts go down, productivity goes through the roof - the numbers are just that numbers, without any details as to why they've shrunk.

          • Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Insightful)

            by MightyMartian (840721) on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:23PM (#44610371) Journal

            Other than to honor market doublespeak, so far as I'm concerned, you can lump Unix in with Linux, OS-X, QNX and the other variants and -likes that make up the *nix ecosystem. It's a helluva lot easier to port an application from Unix to, say, Linux, than it is to port from Unix to Windows, unless you use a compatibility layer like Cygwin. Man, I wouldn't want to use Cygwin too much on a production server. The only time I ever did it was to get a decent radius server running on a Windows machine. It worked reasonably well, but I was very happy to move to a Linux server due to glitches.

        • Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Insightful)

          by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:37PM (#44610525)

          Linux is a UNIX type of operating system, so UNIX isn't in decline.

          The article is mainly talking about the Unix versions like HP-UX, Solaris, etc... and the iron used to run them, focusing on installations that require many 9s of reliability, fault-tolerance / fail-over and up time. Their argument is that those systems are more mature, reliable and capable (and more expensive) than most Linux systems. Many installations are realizing that they don't need that all that and less "capable" Linux and/or x86 systems are just fine - for many things. Personally, I believe in using the right tool for the job, not necessarily the best and/or most expensive tool. The trick is defining the job correctly.

          • by Darinbob (1142669)

            However, some modern Linux distributions are probably much more reliable and professional than the "real" big box Unix systems were in 1990.

        • Re:Uh huh (Score:4, Interesting)

          by gravis777 (123605) on Monday August 19, 2013 @04:00PM (#44610779)

          No kidding. I had to go back and read the headline twice after reading the blurb and the article before it made sense.

          Well, no DUH that Unix is loosing ground to Linux. I honestly cannot remember the last time I saw a data center with true UNIX machines (oh wait, yeah I can, it was 14 years ago, unless you want to include OSX as a UNIX, in which case that was five years ago). This has been happening for like 15 years.

          When I saw the headline, I was thinking "*nix is loosing ground to Windows?" (which also wouldn't have been a huge surprise).

          No news here.

        • Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Funny)

          by Sylak (1611137) on Monday August 19, 2013 @04:01PM (#44610789)

          If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck it isn't a duck unless it is branded a duck?

          It's not a DUCK®, it's a Waterfowl That Attenuates Quacking Noises. For copyright reasons, of course.

    • Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Informative)

      by who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) on Monday August 19, 2013 @02:59PM (#44610049)
      The decline is from the price point. My last place of employment had 1 HP UX server that costed upwards of 25K for software and specific HP hardware to run on. migrating to windows cost a fraction of that in OS licenses and hardware, even though it took 8 windows servers to do what the one UX server did, it was still cheaper.
      • The decline is from the price point. My last place of employment had 1 HP UX server that costed upwards of 25K for software and specific HP hardware to run on. migrating to windows cost a fraction of that in OS licenses and hardware, even though it took 8 windows servers to do what the one UX server did, it was still cheaper.

        Agreed, but for one thing: Amortization.

        In a previous position, one of my clients had an ancient IBM 9370 mainframe going. Mind you, for the business size (about 200 employees) and what they used it for (a string of automotive dealerships), it was 1) overkill when purchased (they overestimated their expansion plans by couple of factors), and 2) hellishly expensive. I think they paid a solid 7 figures for it, but cannot remember exactly how much.

        Thing is, its amortization schedule was roughly 2 decades at le

        • Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Chris Mattern (191822) on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:34PM (#44610499)

          Thing is, its amortization schedule was roughly 2 decades at least if I were to guess. They bought it in 1984, I last saw it in 1999, and I bet it's still running today if their CFO has anything to say about it. Anything after the amortization date is pure gravy for them, methinks.

          If only it didn't require power and A/C, and if only it didn't require support. Power costs for one of these beasts is most likely all by itself more than it would cost to buy a modern replacement.

          And support from IBM is astronomical, if it's even available. If you're not paying for support, well, that's another kind of cost. But you won't find out about it until the bill comes due.

          • Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Funny)

            by SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:47PM (#44610639) Homepage

            If only it didn't require power and A/C, and if only it didn't require support. Power costs for one of these beasts is most likely all by itself more than it would cost to buy a modern replacement.

            That's why we have OS X. It's powered by the users own sense of self importance.

            It's Unix certified too.

        • Re:Uh huh (Score:4, Informative)

          by mellon (7048) on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:43PM (#44610581) Homepage

          Added bonus: they can use it to heat their building in the winter. I once spent a couple of months sitting next to one of those babies in an un-airconditioned space in the summer. Despite being close to the water, where it was consistently cool outside, that machine kept it nice and toasty inside. I still twitch a little if you say dazzdee [wikipedia.org]. You can keep amortizing a machine while it's powered off and in a warehouse, and save yourself a bunch of money emulating a 370 in software on some reasonably powerful Xeon server. Or just sell the thing for scrap and write it off as a loss.

      • Re:Uh huh (Score:4, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:44PM (#44610607)

        server that costed upwards of 25K

        "cost" works fine there. Please. I'm begging you.

      • Re:Uh huh (Score:4, Informative)

        by s.petry (762400) on Monday August 19, 2013 @04:31PM (#44611117)

        By this statement "windows cost a fraction of that in OS licenses and hardware" means that you have no clue how proprietary Unix works. Buying the hardware gives you license to the Unix. Hardware maintenance means you pay for maintenance on your Unix. If you jump into your time machine, long ago you used to have to pay extra for compilers and custom graphics drivers. Never did you have to pay for the Unix (no, SCO does not count!)

        When you move to PC based hardware, especially when moving to Windows, you lose up time and get instability. SunOS, HP-UX, AIX, and Irix were always very stringent on hardware. This increased price of course, but damn if I don't have Sun E3s that still run from the 1980s. That, and they simply work without people putting their hands on them at all. Compared to Windows and weekly reboots? No thanks!

        Linux adds some of the stability to the bulk hardware, but the bulk hardware is simply not as good. Making bulk means you lack the amount of QA put into proprietary hardware. Issues with driver compatibility are not as easily seen when you can mix and match what ever is cheapest. Our Dell and HP is not "bad" per-say, but not like it is with IBM P Series, Sun, or HP Unix.

        8 machines to replace 1 does not save money. This is typical bean counter bullshit (fuzzy math) and not reality. A decent server is at least $2.5 K means you spent $20,000 on just hardware. Add OS licenses, AV protection, TS for remote admin work, Software do to _anything at all with_, additional network support, load balancing or HA to compensate for down time, and admin time, and you have nearly doubled the $25,000 you claim was too much for Unix.

    • Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Funny)

      by PPH (736903) on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:02PM (#44610087)
      Likewise, there has been an alarming drop in the number of people who use Kleenex when they blow their nose.
    • So Unix is dying *yet again*? I hate that trope.

    • Re: Uh huh (Score:3, Informative)

      by samkass (174571)

      The biggest UNIX vendor in the world-- Apple, Inc.-- has had its UNIX laptops increase in market share in almost every quarter for the last 5 years. And although it's not certified UNIX like its desktop sibling, iOS is based on the same core... not sure what value differentiating this specific market segment offers. In the server, Linux seems to be doing just fine, and is close enough to UNIX for it not to matter.

      • Yeah; I've been wondering what exactly they mean by UNIX here -- are we talking POSIX compliant OS (they almost all are these days), something based on BSD/AT&T code (BSD derivatives like OS X and FreeBSD, plus SVr3+ derivatives like HP:UX) are are we talking purely SVR 4+, and thereby mean SCO offerings when we say UNIX?

        See http://www.levenez.com/unix/ [levenez.com] for a nice list of UNIXes. Interestingly, Windows NT isn't there, even though it is POSIX compliant.

    • Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gstoddart (321705) on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:03PM (#44610111) Homepage

      Combine that with the fact that Solaris is now in the hands of Oracle, who are squeezing out everybody who doesn't have a support contract and pissing off people who used to use it ... or that HPUX is still in the hands of HP (where technology goes to die) ... and what's even left?

      AIX is still around, but I have no idea of how widespread. Beyond that, I'm hard pressed to think of another commercial version of UNIX I've encountered. (That doesn't mean they don't exist, but they were never in any shops I was in.)

      That pretty much leaves Linux as the primary UNIX-like-thing for most people.

      • Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Funny)

        by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:09PM (#44610189) Journal
        Apparently SCO UNIXware [xinuos.com] is still around, though I assume that it's more of an absurdist performance art piece with a couple of legacy customers than an actual operating system at this point.
        • by gstoddart (321705)

          Apparently SCO UNIXware is still around

          Must be those people who paid the extortion fee.

          I find it astounding that any organization wouldn't have long ago asked themselves WTF they're running it for -- and I can't imagine there have been any updates to it in a long time.

          Or, it's alive and thriving -- I have no idea. It's been a dead horse for years to me. If someone told me they'd be putting in a new server with SCO Unixware on it -- well, I'm not sure of how long it would take me to stop laughing.

          • by kotj.mf (645325)

            It's still surprisingly big in retail - it runs a crapton of local back-end stock keeping applications at the major retailer that I worked for awhile back, and I've since heard that they've virtualized it to deploy on their "next generation" in-store platform.

            20 years ago, it was really the only game in town for Enterprise UNIX(tm) on Intel, and given how much it costs to design, buy, and deploy ANYTHING that's going in to 2000+ remote locations, it's going to stick around for quite a while more.

      • by loufoque (1400831)

        Isn't IBM pushing RHEL these days?

      • by jitterman (987991)
        I'm at a mid-sized hospital, and we have AIX for one specific application that is about 3 minor revs behind. Our current plan upon upgrade is to move to the Linux release (there is also a Windows release, and while we have plenty of Windows servers, our systems team wants this app on Linux). Like you, I'm not sure how many people use AIX, but we are leaving it for Linux.
    • Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Funny)

      by telekon (185072) <canweriotnow.gmail@com> on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:06PM (#44610141) Homepage Journal

      "Reports of my decline have been greatly exaggerated."
          -- UNIX

  • How long has Netcraft been confirming BSD dead?
    • by morcego (260031) on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:02PM (#44610079)

      BSD confirmed Netcraft is dead.

    • by gstoddart (321705)

      I have no idea, but Netcraft has been confirming (or not confirming things) have been dying so long that Netcraft themselves have become a punchline to me.

      Because, other than their periodic confirming that something is dying, I have no idea of who the hell they are or why I'm supposed to care about what they tell us.

      When I see "Netcraft confirms it", it's just another bad internet meme to me. Are they actually relevant to anything?

      • The reason it became a meme is because someone submitted that headline, while netcraft itself was in no position in the industry to confirm much of anything. That's the joke. Someone actually thought "netcraft confirms it" meant anything at all, and it was funny. And reiterated about whatever the next few articles were. Meme became ensconced.

        • by gstoddart (321705)

          That was kinda my point ... Netcraft confirming something has been a meme on Slashdot as long as I've been using Slashdot.

          And that's at at least 2 or 3 weeks I think. ;-)

  • by cyfer2000 (548592) on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:05PM (#44610125) Journal
    If OS X is Unix, what do you call iOS. And if we take Linux as a kind of Unix, how about Android? Or maybe the title should be written as "the steady decline of Unix Server License sale"
    • by blueg3 (192743)

      I don't know if iOS is a certified Unix, but OS X is. Linux is not.

  • by Fished (574624) <amphigory@gmaCOMMAil.com minus punct> on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:08PM (#44610173)

    The distinction betwen "Linux" and "UNIX" is virtually meaningless. All of the traditional proprietary unixen are massively customized from the original System V/System 7 sources over the past thirty years -- such that it's hard to say that they have a common core even. The only real difference is a marketing difference.

    So, say it with me!

    Meh.

    • System V (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:31PM (#44610449)

      My experience was on AT&T Unix System V. I used to jokingly refer to it as REAL UNIX with a hint of faux snobbery and a straight face.

      While working on a Linux system, I was using some command line utility (doesn't matter) and the command kept wrapping. Ran it - errors. Retyped - errors. Retyped - finally worked.

      Anyway, a skilled Linux user was watching me, typing away and then running my command - the syntax worked like it was a AT&T System V UNIX, BTW.

      Said Linux dude said, try this - and he proceed to do the same thing with the same program but with like one or two flags and then the args.

      It worked.

      There have been quite a few time savers (I won't call them improvements) built into Linux.

      I can't blame them - some of the most common things that we did in Sys V were overly verbose.

      Anyway, wanted to share that - gotta go; there's a Matlock marathon and it's Pizza and Banana pudding night! Betsy has got the hots for me and she so young - 68! I'm gonna have a GOOD time tonight!

    • by TheCarp (96830)

      agreed, however, there are some distinctions that may be interesting here, the Unix/Linux one is really putting it in the wrong spot. The big difference is hardware. Linux runs on many different types, though, typically "PC Server" hardware, X86, whatever you want to call it.

      Commercial Unix has come to mostly be, tied to hardware vending. Nobody, to my knowledge, goes out and buys an off brand system and installs HP/UX on it. You COULD do that with Solaris but generally, you are either going to buy Sparc ha

  • by Frogg (27033) on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:09PM (#44610185)
    The article completely neglects the fact that OS X is a fully certified Unix, and, whilst OS X might not be overly popular in the server market, it certainly has a very large percentage of the desktop market. So yeah, perhaps the old-school companies that provide Unix OSes for servers may be in their 'last days', but Apple's OS X has brought Unix to the masses via the desktop, so Unix certainly isn't going to die any day soon.
  • One can get Linux or *BSD on commodity hardware for a fraction of the cost.
  • Moronic analysts (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wiredlogic (135348) on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:17PM (#44610291)

    Errol Rasit, research director at Gartner, concurs that the primary cause of Unix weakness over the past decade is migration from the RISC platform to x86-processor based alternatives, which can run many Unix workloads, usually at attractive price/performance ratios.

    x86 has been implemented on a RISC based core ever since the PentiumPro. RISC won. It didn't wither away. That transition made possible a performance boost allowing Intel to compete against the home-grown processors of the traditional Unix vendors who lacked the cash to invest in fab advancements needed to match pace.

    Such are the fools pandering their vaunted "analysis" to the media these days.

    • Re:Moronic analysts (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Em Adespoton (792954) <slashdotonly.1.adespoton@spamgourmet.com> on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:52PM (#44610687) Homepage Journal

      Errol Rasit, research director at Gartner, concurs that the primary cause of Unix weakness over the past decade is migration from the RISC platform to x86-processor based alternatives, which can run many Unix workloads, usually at attractive price/performance ratios.

      x86 has been implemented on a RISC based core ever since the PentiumPro. RISC won. It didn't wither away. That transition made possible a performance boost allowing Intel to compete against the home-grown processors of the traditional Unix vendors who lacked the cash to invest in fab advancements needed to match pace.

      Such are the fools pandering their vaunted "analysis" to the media these days.

      Sorry, but it didn't win. RISC didn't get clobbered by CISC or vice versa; rather, they both got consumed by VLIW. VLIW pipelining made the debate over instruction set complexity meaningless, as you get custom sets based on which pipeline is used, due to long instruction chains. You could argue that at the core of each VLIW chip you have a RISC; but you could also argue that the result is really an extremely CISC. It's kind of like arguing about Toyota vs Ford, when in reality, they both have components made by Honda and Mazda, as well as each other these days.

      So Errol Rasit's observation is valid. There was a migration -- I know, because my old 32 and 64-bit RISC code is a headache to port to x64, unless it is abstracted. The current registers however handle old CISC x86 code just fine.

  • by dwheeler (321049) on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:19PM (#44610327) Homepage Journal

    "Unix" - as they define it - is going away. But what's really happening is that old implementations of Unix are being replaced by modern implementations and re-implementations of Unix.

    Servers are increasingly using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, etc. On the client side, the #1 smartphone (by popularity) is Android, based on Linux. The #2 smartphone is iOS, based on Unix. On the desktop, Macs are running MacOS, also based on Unix.

  • What's this? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by joh (27088) on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:20PM (#44610339)

    Neckbeard teasing? Or what?

    Unix (in some incarnation) is running the world. It runs on servers, on embedded systems and basically all tablets and smartphones (both Android and iOS are Unix).

    I cannot believe I'm wasting 30 seconds on this. Die, Slashdot, die.

  • by Tough Love (215404) on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:28PM (#44610417)

    This guy seems to be blissfully unaware that FreeBSD is Unix. With Apple selling millions of handsets, Unix is obviously not in decline. Just squeezed out from one role (by Linux) and taking on a new one.

    Obviously, this might change in the future, but from the moment, Unix is doing to opposite of declining. Troll article. If there is a story in there somewhere, it is the rise of Linux in the server room.

  • by dickens (31040)

    Between OS-X, IOS and Android, this discussion is more than a little comical.

  • by sl4shd0rk (755837) on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:40PM (#44610559)

    I was soooo glad when we finally decommissioned our last Solaris box. It's not that Unix got worse it's just the alternatives got better. Also the proprietary RISC based hardware underpinning much of commercialized Unix lost out to cheaper PC commodity stuff. Again, it's not that RISC sucked, it's the fact that the lazy proprietary paradigm couldn't figure out how to evolve past the "Screw, em. They're locked in. They _CANT_ switch" model.

  • by Bill_the_Engineer (772575) on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:56PM (#44610747)

    IDC Enterprise Server Group simply reported that revenue generated from the sale of commercial Unix is declining and IBM is overtaking HP in that segment of the market.

    NetworkWorld took that little factoid and turned it into "The last days of Unix" article despite the fact that the actual article mentions Linux as being a competitor. I'm sure BSD is also taking a good chunk of market too.

  • Hold on.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by LoRdTAW (99712) on Monday August 19, 2013 @04:06PM (#44610847)

    The Steady Decline of Commercial Unix - FTFY

    Most of the the big Unix vendors have either switched to Linux or offer Linux as an alternative (eg IBM). Apples OSX since Leopard has received official "Open Brand UNIX 03" certification. iOS is not mentioned and most likely is not certified as the certification is unnecessary. But iOS is still based on OSX which is Unix certified and before certification, Unix like. Open Solaris was the only truly open source Unix but Oracle put a stop to that. Now OpenIndiana and illumos have replaced them and I don't believe they can carry the Unix brand.

    Unix like operating systems such as GNU/Linux, and to a lesser extent, BSD have replaced commercial Unix operating systems. They both provide two of the most critical parts of Unix: POSIX and X windows. From there many programs originally written for a major commercial Unix vendor be it IBM's AIX or SGI's IRIX can quickly be ported to Linux or BSD with minimal effort. Just look at what Linux can run on:
    * Embedded systems with tens of MHz and a few megs of ram to the worlds largest supercomputers with thousands of nodes.
    * Just about every every high powered ARM embedded electronics hobby board runs Linux such as the Raspberry Pi, Beaglebone UDOO and others.
    * Linux is also pushing into hard real time markets previously dominated by QNX, LynxOS and VxWorks. National Instruments now has an ARM version of their CompactRIO running real-time Linux. Previously they used an embedded Power CPU from Freescale running VxWorks.
    * The Linux kernel is the foundation for Android which is dominating the smartphone and tablet market.

  • by tekrat (242117) on Monday August 19, 2013 @04:07PM (#44610869) Homepage Journal

    Never mind the submitter, or Slashdot for even carrying this story.
    Mod the Original Article as flamebait.
    Whoever even bothered to write the article in the first place needs to lose his license to write tech journalism. Author is clueless. Sure, *pay-for* unixes are dying. HOWEVER, Free/Open Source Unixes are thriving.

  • Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gweihir (88907) on Monday August 19, 2013 @04:12PM (#44610921)

    While true UNIXes are in decline (a true UNIX shares source-code with the original UNIX), clones (Linux) are very much alive and that is what counts. Even some true UNIXes (free/open/netBSD) are not doing too badly. There are even more interface-compatible systems that follow the UNIX philosophy. In a nutshell, the only "OS" today that is not UNIX-like and matters is the Windows isle of incompatibility.

  • by mendax (114116) on Monday August 19, 2013 @04:18PM (#44610987)

    As several people have already noted here, this story is essentially a lie, or at least an exaggeration. Linux (for all intents and purposes) *IS* Unix without the trademark. That is one of the reasons why Linux grew to be so popular. A large number of people wanted a Unix but didn't want to pay for it. Just because the operating systems that can legally be called Unix are shrinking in usage (with the notable exception of MacOS and it's close cousin iOS) does not mean that Unix is dead. Unix and that which would be called a Unix in a trademark-free world is alive and well and is exploding exponentially. It's in every pad computer, e-book readers, most smart phones, my Sony Blu-Ray player, airliner entertainment systems, and many, many other places I can't think of at the moment.

  • by toast- (72345) on Monday August 19, 2013 @04:43PM (#44611243)

    In the Engineering CAD world, Unix has nearly run its course. All companies have dropped Unix support for the newest versions and only some maintain Linux/OSX versions for newer unix-like machines. Most are Windows only. Automotive companies, which are notoriously slow in technology adoption have mostly abandoned UNIX

    Ford will retire their UNIX workstations (HPUX) for suppliers and customers in February 2014. These are largely HPUX 11.11i.
    Unigraphics NX stopped UNIX support (HPUX, AIX, etc) as of NX 6 but opened support for Linux and OSX as of 8.
    Dassault systems CATIA supported HPUX, AIX (6.1+) and Solaris on V5 - but as of V6 in 2011 they have ended UNIX support and are Windows only.
    Pro Engineer quit most UNIX except Solaris until Pro Engineer / Creo 4.0 - at present they are Windows only.

  • by maliqua (1316471) on Monday August 19, 2013 @05:10PM (#44611565)

    solaris ruined by oracle who even cares if it exists anymore, HP-UX has been a disaster longer than i have been alive, SCO decided to burry itself IRIX was too niche oriented.

    UNIX isn't losing half the team didn't show up now they have to forfeit

Testing can show the presense of bugs, but not their absence. -- Dijkstra

Working...