Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Operating Systems Software

Three Enterprise Operating Systems Compared 272

Posted by timothy from the or-none-of-the-above dept.
Anonymous Coward writes "Finally, a much awaited review of enterprise OSes. The guys from NW Test Alliance pitted Red Hat, UnitedLinux, and Windows against each other and rated them on several rubrics. Red Hat won by a slight margin on the basis of its high hardware compatibility and strong security integration."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Three Enterprise Operating Systems Compared More

Three Enterprise Operating Systems Compared

Comments Filter:

  • Three? (Score:5, Funny)

    by jejones ( 115979 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @07:06AM (#6292730) Journal
    You'd think that the United Federation of Planets would pick one and stick with it...

    • Re:Three? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Surak ( 18578 ) * <{moc.skcolbliam} {ta} {karus}> on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @07:15AM (#6292775) Homepage Journal
      Yeah, I know. The triple-boot scenario is a real pain too. The Romulans show up, start firing on us, and we're like "Quick. Fire photon torpedoes!" And, well, sadly the photon torpedo driver is closed source and no one's reverse-engineered one for Linux yet, so we have to sit there and take a pounding while the damn ship boots Windows 2349 Starship Edition.

      A real pain, let me tell you.

      • Re:Three? (Score:5, Funny)

        by agentZ ( 210674 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @07:22AM (#6292806)
        Hi, I'm Clippy! I seem to be unable to comply! Would you like to use the Photon Torpedos wizard to plot a firing solution?

        • Re:Three? (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Please select the next step:

          [ ] The firing solution worked. The Romulans have been destroyed.

          [ ] The firing solution worked, but the Romulans were only damaged. Fire again.

          [ ] The firing solution failed. The Romulans are still attacking.

          [ ] I want to try another weapon.

          [Next] [Back] [Cancel]

      • Re:Three? (Score:4, Funny)

        by notque ( 636838 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @08:19AM (#6293073) Homepage Journal
        Yeah, I know. The triple-boot scenario is a real pain too. The Romulans show up, start firing on us, and we're like "Quick. Fire photon torpedoes!" And, well, sadly the photon torpedo driver is closed source and no one's reverse-engineered one for Linux yet, so we have to sit there and take a pounding while the damn ship boots Windows 2349 Starship Edition.

        Reverse-engineered?

        But what about the Ultra-Super-Terrorist Stoping-DCMA ver 9.4 Beta?

        If you even consider reverse engineering anything, Windows 2349 will not only catch you, but deliver punishment as well.

        *shakes violently in thought*

        No more Blue Screen of death.....

  • Not actually a comparison with Windows (Score:5, Informative)

    by Brento ( 26177 ) * <brento AT brentozar DOT com> on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @07:07AM (#6292739) Homepage
    Read the article. There's a graph with some stats on Windows vs the two Linux distros, but it's not a comparison between all three - only between the two Linux distros. The last page makes it pretty clear when they only rate the two Linux distros, and Red Hat wins that comparison.

    This is *not* a long-awaited comparison between Windows and Linux. It's not even a long-awaited comparison between Linux distros - the whole article spans a whopping three pages, and it's woefully incomplete.

    • Comparison of Windows and Linux: Apple and Orange (Score:5, Insightful)

      by reverend0 ( 560833 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @07:12AM (#6292763) Homepage Journal
      Even though it would be "fun" to see a comparison between Linux and Windows, I don't think it really could and should be done. Mr. Gates and Company would like for us to think that it is a viable solution to everything but honestly, as we all have discovered, there is no silver bullet. So what Windows may be good at something Linux may suffer at and vice verca. Now to know each ones strengths is truely valuable.

      However what the article does with the two linux distros is good. Now we are comparing two OSes designed for the same general tasks and let them duke it out.

      But in the end, I would like to see some list of strengths.

      • Re:Comparison of Windows and Linux: Apple and Oran (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tim C ( 15259 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @07:24AM (#6292821)
        That's true enough, but if you're designing an enterprise system, you're going to want to use whatever's best.

        A more comprehensive set of tests may have shown that, in fact, Windows 2003 Server is best, at least ignoring cost, licensing, etc. Without making this "apples and oranges" comparison, you don't know.

        I support open source as much as the next person, but I also support using the best tool for the job.

        • Re:Comparison of Windows and Linux: Apple and Oran (Score:5, Interesting)

          by arkanes ( 521690 ) <arkanes.gmail@com> on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @09:08AM (#6293390) Homepage
          I was at the Windows 2003 launch in NY, and the dude giving the presentation touched briefly on Linux (it was very interesting, actually - he certainly didn't dwell on it, was basically dismissive). They did show some benchmarks (against Redhat 5, oddly enough) but the impression given was that they aren't interested in competing in a pure performance arena. He was hyping Windows 2003 as an end-to-end solution, because of all the bundled middleware and groupware and whatnot. And lets be honest, if thats what you want, Linux isn't going to provide it - certainly not out of the box.
        • A more comprehensive set of tests may have shown that, in fact, Windows 2003 Server is best, at least ignoring cost, licensing, etc.

          Windows is a great platform for getting a full network setup. Fresh from the install, you can get most network services configured and running very quickly.

          Where Windows breaks down is in flexibility. As soon as you want to do something slightly differently than MS expects you to, you run into a brick wall. If you're lucky, there's a company that's already developed a sol

      • So what Windows may be good at something Linux may suffer at and vice verca

        You're new here, huh? ;)

        I wish I had mod points today. I'm actually seeing some rational discourse.
    • A nicer comparison would be Suse, Mac OS X Server, and Windows 2000 Advanced Server.

      • Re:Not actually a comparison with Windows (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @07:33AM (#6292861) Homepage Journal
        I'd like to see comparisons on a number of purposes (webserver, database server, etc) done on a range of identical hardware (low-end, mid-range, and high-end servers, or as equivalent as possible in the case of OSX) where the OS installations are done by technicians who are intimately familiar with their particular OS. I'd like to also see these stats updated from time to time with significant new releases from each company.

        It bothers me when I see people with a whole lot of experience on one OS and some experience on another OS criticizing something about the one in which they have little experience, and this applies in any direction. As one who has far more experience in Windows than in Linux, I wouldn't expect to be able to set up a well-configured RH web server (working on learning), though I could probably get something basic in place. I've seen the reverse when dealing with Unix people, who have difficulty understanding some of the ways in which Windows handles things.

        So far, most of the tests I have seen have either not been comprehensive enough, or have been slanted by the bias of the testing group. I've seen few examples of tests including OSX server, and it would be nice to see how well some OSes scale *down*, since not everyone can afford a $10K or more server for their first foray into whatever it is they want to do.

        • Re:Not actually a comparison with Windows (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jonadab ( 583620 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @08:43AM (#6293213) Homepage Journal
          Quite so. Webserver, I can just tell you, Linux will walk away with,
          but I'd be very interested to see such a comparison for the database
          server, (SMB) fileserver, thinclient server, and whatever other
          categories the people organising the comparison think important.
          (Print server is probably not necessary any longer, at least not
          with the high-end hardware, now that you can get a really nice
          network printer with a full maintenance contract and also use it
          as a color photocopier on the side... but I'm sure there are
          other uses for which the comparison could be done.)

          > It bothers me when I see people with a whole lot of experience on
          > one OS and some experience on another OS criticizing something
          > about the one in which they have little experience, and this
          > applies in any direction.

          I have more experience with Win9x than any other OS, but I criticise
          it more than any other OS except pre-X MacOS. Actually, in general,
          I tend to criticise OSes in direct proportion to how much experience
          I have with them, because it's by experience that you learn the
          foibles, the things that are _wrong_ (not just different) with an OS.

          I switched to running Linux full-time on my desktop about a year
          ago this past April or so (though I'd multibooted for a while before
          that), and I'm getting now a pretty good feel for what's wrong with
          Linux (or, at least, with Mandrake).

          > So far, most of the tests I have seen have either not been
          > comprehensive enough, or have been slanted by the bias of
          > the testing group.

          Indeed, and that goes both ways. Microsoft pays some "Research"
          group to prove NT is better, and then the Linux blogs post stories
          showing that Linux is better, written by Linux geeks. I don't
          trust either side of that. And then of course Apple will tell
          you that Mac OS X is the best; it might be a _little_ easier to
          believe they know what they're saying if they hadn't said that
          about Mac OS 8 and 9 too, which didn't even have multitasking,
          but even then I'd still rather hear it from someone who gave
          each system a fair shake.

          And yeah, I'd want proponents of each OS to configure that OS,
          and then the people doing the judging to compare. Either that,
          or all three OSes should be left in their out-of-the-box state,
          in which case it might matter deeply which distro is selected
          to represent Linux.

          • it might be a _little_ easier to believe they know what they're saying if they hadn't said that about Mac OS 8 and 9 too, which didn't even have multitasking,

            Who told you they didn't have multitasking? I've been runnng multiple prgorams at once on Macs since System 7 days. IIRC, Multi-finder was in 6, but can't remember what exactly i did and whether it qualified as multi-tasking.

            I think that waht you meant to say is that they didn't have pre-emptive multi-tasking. Co-operative is still a version of m

          • Any sensible management is going to want to have some sort of control over how that big color printer is used. And if they have heavy print tin, they are going to want to be able to control the print queues. This is supposed to be _enterprise_ dammit! Not just a big MFP stuck next to the water cooler.

            Sadly, the effective print monitoring tools like MegaTrack and FollowMe don't seem to run on Linux yet. Sadly because the sort of organisations that want to use enterprise Linux on X86 boxes may well be interes

        • You're not fooling anyone (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          I never once met any person with sound Unix and/or Linux knowledge that couldn't point-and-click their way through Windows administration (I've worked with at least 20 said individuals over time). Winodws is not very powerful, and hence, it provides a person with very little in terms of administration and configuration. Windows admins are 99.9% of the time far behind Unix and Linux admins in terms of overall IT competency. Everyone in the industry knows this, this is why Unix and Linux admins make more mon
          • There's a difference between being able to run through a basic configuration and being able to thoroughly configure something. Like I said, I could get a RH box up and running as a web server, but it would not be the best configuration.

            I've seen plenty of MCSE's that know nothing more than the book told them, and sometimes less. I've seen far too many that have used only the cram books to pass them, and this leaves them with even less knowledge. The instructors know enough to teach the book, and occasio
          • Y'know, I have to disagree. Windows adminning with wizards/point-click is sorta like Linux adminning with mini-HOWTOs. It gets the job done, but until you read the manual and stick your head under the hood, you're not really doing it.

            Admittedly, most windows "admins" are crap, but for the same reasons that most viruses target windows--the market is bigger.

    • Re:Not actually a comparison with Windows (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I completely agree, this whole test and this write-up is garbage. The tests were barely described and there is no detail given to any exact settings used on any of the three platforms. Their simple little tests were no basis for any sort of OS comparison. This is the kind of worthless Linux advocacy that needs to not get posted on /. Good well-documented tests that include a lot of meaningful, specifically-listed criteria are good, but stuff like this is a waste of people's time

    • Yep. (Score:2)

      by pb ( 1020 )
      Also, note that Windows scored a 4.25 in their earlier review, better than both Red Hat's 4.13 and UnitedLinux's 4.00. However, I don't think it'd be fair to compare those ratings across reviews; I just mention it to showcase how far off-base "Anonymous Coward" is here, and how little fact-checking (err... zero) Timothy does in his article posting.

      But hey, why should /. editors have to read the articles? Most of the other people here don't either.

  • BUT... (Score:2, Funny)

    by brunes69 ( 86786 )
    Will all thes eoperating systems also have the voice of Majel Roddenberry?

    I think NOT!
  • According to note at the bottom of the article, the results for Windows Server 2003 came from a previous test (I didn't bother to try and search for it, asthey didn't provide a direct link). It would seem that the comparison would be more valid if the tests were all done at the same time, or at least on the same hardware and have some statement to that effect.

    I'm not trying to knock on the test, but just pointing out that even smal changes in hardware components or settings can make a big difference.

    Othe

  • RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ... James ... ( 33917 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @07:10AM (#6292754)
    This isn't a Red Hat vs. UnitedLinux vs. Windows review. The declare Red Hat the victor over UnitedLinux. The compare some things, such as max tcp connections and file transfer times against Windows, but never do they declare that Red Hat has better hardware support or is easier to configure than Windows.

  • OS X Server (Score:3, Insightful)

    by seletz ( 192331 ) <`stefan.eletzhofer' `at' `eletztrick.de'> on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @07:11AM (#6292759) Homepage
    Well, among others they definitely missed OS X Server.

  • non-enterprise notions of "transactions" (Score:5, Informative)

    by LinuxParanoid ( 64467 ) * on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @07:15AM (#6292776) Homepage Journal
    One never knows whether a journalist/reviewer/linux-advocate really understands what an "enterprise"-ready OS is. For the purpose of this post, I'm not arguing whether Linux is or isn't one. But I had to laugh after seeing a chart showing "Successful transactions per second" and doublechecking their footnoted definition of transactions.

    OLTP? Database? TPC-C? No. A transaction was downloading 20 4k-byte files.

    --LP
    • amen to that.

      although i am a huge linux fan, anything that says it compares "enterprize OS's" and doesnt include solaris, AIX, et all is begging to be laughed at.

      especially if they include windows.

      oh and of course they didnt test anything on an enterprize class system either.

      but hey.... its has CLUSTER ! [sunsource.net] support !!!

  • Biased (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @07:22AM (#6292810)
    The guys from NW Test Alliance pitted Red Hat, UnitedLinux, and Windows against each other and rated them on several rubrics. Red Hat won by a slight margin

    So, they compared RH (Linux), UnitedLinux (Linux again) against Windows (not Linux). Guess which OS has 66% chances of winning, given that, honestly, modern Linux distros and Windows are very close in features and user friendliness ?

    What's more, for one such comparison test where a Linux distro wins that gets posted on Slashdot, how many get ignored my Taco & Co because the Windows OS wins and not Linux ?

    Finally, I would have much preferred a Windows vs RH vs MacOS X review : see, I don't plan on buying a Mac, but I'd like someone to describe OS X to me and compare them to similar KDE or Windows features, for example. Yes, I know they don't run on the same platforms (well, RH could) but I'd like to see a detailed comparison chart with Windows, RH and MacOS X compatibility ratings and desktop features/ease of use. Now /that/ would be much more interesting IMHO ...

    • So, they compared RH (Linux), UnitedLinux (Linux again) against Windows (not Linux). Guess which OS has 66% chances of winning, given that, honestly, modern Linux distros and Windows are very close in features and user friendliness ?

      This is one of the silliest assertions of numbers I have seen. It might be true if the comparison were Linux versus Windows, and you were rolling dice to determine the outcome, in which case the comparison is useless. If it is a valid comparison, it takes only one to win, a

    • Why is this being modded up? Even *if* windows was being compared to the extent that UnitedLinux and Red Hat were, which it wasn't, if someone is running the same tests on the same machine using different OSes that are designed to do the same thing, then who cares how many or which OSes they choose to compare? You really are saying that, in a race between between cheetahs and turtles, if you add more turtles, they have a better chance of winning. Ugh.

      B

  • Somewhat bogus (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tarquin_fim_bim ( 649994 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @07:24AM (#6292824)
    Enterprise distos are all about clustering and load distribution, but these tests are caried out on single machines. What is the point?

  • Poor article (Score:3, Insightful)

    by vmp17 ( 680763 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @07:38AM (#6292876)
    Since when three pages are enough for enterprise os comparison?

  • Thanks a lot! (Score:3, Funny)

    by jaymzter ( 452402 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @07:38AM (#6292879) Homepage
    Good spoiler right at the end of the article synopsis... Totally ruined my urge to RTFA. At least you didn't spit out some nonsense about Harry Potter dying at the end of Matrix Revolutions

    • At least you didn't spit out some nonsense about Harry Potter dying at the end of Matrix Revolutions

      You mean... you mean you didn't know? Oops.

  • Enterprise Operating Systems (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @07:42AM (#6292900)

    Why didn't they include any Enterprise Operating Systems in their comparison of "Enterprise Operating Systems"?

    I mean, like Solaris or AIX.

  • Just in case anyone missed this connection: UnitedLinux was founded by four companies, including SCO. Please bear this in mind when making purchasing decisions.

    From www.unitedlinux.com [unitedlinux.com]:

    "The four partner companies in UnitedLinux LLC - Conectiva, the SCO Group, SuSE Linux and Turbolinux"... ... ...
    • And in the article, SCO refused to send a copy of their distribution (as opposed to the other three members of United Linux), and then pulled out of the evaluation.

      Perhaps they were afraid that being beaten in an Enterprise setting might make it harder for them to prove that their code is responsible for Linux's Enterprise Readiness.

  • Reviewer doesn't know jack! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cdc179 ( 561916 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @07:48AM (#6292926)
    What is this reviewer smoking? Statements such as,

    The wizard worked well and mostly made astute choices, although it divided our disk arrays into seemingly bite-sized devices with seven partitions. By contrast, the UnitedLinux distributions divided the two disks we used into larger chunks, which is a better way to reserve server space for future operations.

    Shows that Tom Henderson doesn't know what he's talking about. How could anybody think that one large partition is better than lots of smaller ones. If one is consentrating on enterprise level systems one would be using LVM and have lots of partitions so they could add drives as they go and increase the partition sizes on the fly.

  • Meanwhile, from someone who didn't fail statistics (Score:5, Insightful)

    by panurge ( 573432 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @07:59AM (#6292968)
    The conclusion is not justified by the scoring system. If points are awarded in intervals of half a point, as they seem to be here, then the quantisation error of each score is +/-0.25 points. A difference of half a point between the cumulative scores is just too small to be meaningful.

    This isn't to say that the conclusion is wrong - it may be entirely correct. It's just to say that I get pissed off by pointless "scoring systems" that are apparently objective (they're numbers...) but are actually completely subjective and just intended to give a spurious authenticity to the conclusion. If they said "We think Red Hat's security is better and that's a reason to prefer it", fine.

    And if you don't understand why a result based on a scoring system where the difference in scores is less than the expected uncertainty of the result is not valid, then what are you doing trying to benchmark a technical product?

    Oh well, rant over for now.

    • Well we could always go to the "pinball score inflation system".

      As you can see windows is very good for a desktop operating sytem, which gives it another 8 million points. KDE on Linux while not being perfect also did quite well so it only scored 2 million below windows. Emacs comes in at a low score of 3 million total as a desktop operating sytem. In our next review we will be showing the differences between file servers... as soon as our point system is upgraded to a 64 bit processor
      • Excellent. But can you imagine the reaction of the advertisers in the comics?

        I suspect a lot of these scores are actually designed to stay close to a norm to protect from the wrath of suppliers. It's often instructive to compare product reviews in French, Italian and German magazines to those in the English speaking ones. Their journalists seem to work on the basis that US lawyers and marketeers can only read English and Spanish and won't find out what is being said about their boxes. I remember a French ph

  • Is it some new kind of puzzle? I thought rubik's one was hard enough.

  • Aren't we missing something? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Theovon ( 109752 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @08:08AM (#6293013)
    Two Linux distros and Windows doesn't exactly constitute a good sampling of "Enterprise" operating systems. I'd have thought they'd pick one Linux, Windows, and say, Solaris. Or HPUX or AIX or SOME other OS that's been used heavily on servers. Hell, even VMS and OS/390 would qualify.

    But I didn't read the article. Yeah, I know. Flame me. I'm sure they have their reasons for such a small sampling.
  • Anyone that really knows operating systems knows for a fact that Windows is not even in the same league as a Linux box. Hell it doesn't even come close to matching the abilities of Linux. This was a informative article but I would like to see more information on the new RedHat advanced server distro. Advanced Server 2.1 has worked very well for us but I cannot wait to get my hands on the enterprise distro with the new LVM. it rocks.
  • WTF is an "enterprise" anyway? Oooooh, a really big and important company with really important computer needs...?

    "Enterprise" is the edition of Microsoft you buy if you've got far too much money and you want all the features enabled, I know that much.

    But "Enterprise" ? WTF? And SME- small to medium enterprise ? Whoah, it's like a really big company except it's small... What?!

    Oh, I've got it now- "Enterprise" is a way of describing computer systems or companies so I know in advance that they're really bo
    • WTF is an "enterprise" anyway?


      The way i'v learned it, is that if you use "workstations" you are an "enterprise", if you use "desktops" then you are just a corporation.

      • Enterprise is a widely mis-used term, but essentially it refers to any company.

        Enterprise software is a niche market for software that aims at companies where procurement of software is managed at a corporate level, removed from the immediate IT infrastructure. That is to say that the grunts who maintain the hardware may get to feed information into the decision-making process, but ultimately, they're not even in the department that buys the software and/or hardware.

        This presents many interesting differen
      • I don't know how the word originated, but the definitions I've read agree that it refers to any system where the hardware is cheaper than what it would cost if the hardware failed.

        This leads to a lot of money spent making sure that everything is right about the system -- hence often the bureaucracy the following poster identifies with the word.

        -Billy

  • Linux/Windows Not Enterprise! (Score:4, Informative)

    by gypsyx ( 128424 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @08:56AM (#6293290)
    Um... Neither Windows nor Linux are enterprise operating systems. PC hardware is just that: hardware good enough to run on your personal computer. Yes, I've heard all about how Linux runs on just about every computer invented. But let's stop and think about that. Linux lacks so many features found in the commercial operating systems. Why someone would want to run Linux on a GS1280, Superdome, E10k, or S/390 is completely beyond me. If you can afford the big hardware, you can afford the OS licensing. Why would someone choose Linux over Solaris, AIX, HP/UX, or Tru64? Easy: Ignorance. Either that or they think that the developers don't deserve to get paid for making a superior product. The Linux toy cannot seriously be compared to a commercial, enterprise grade UNIX or non-UNIX operating system.

    Anyway, I'd like to see a comparison for the major players of the real enterprise OS market: z/OS, OpenVMS, Solaris, AIX, Tru64, and HP/UX.

    • Re:Linux/Windows Not Enterprise! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by NullProg ( 70833 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @09:52AM (#6293736) Homepage Journal
      Why would someone choose Linux over Solaris, AIX, HP/UX, or Tru64? Easy: Ignorance.

      Not really. Linux scales nicely on enterprise hardware. Think about it from an IT/Mangement point of view. An O/S that can run the mainframe, departmental server, desktop, and the POS terminal out front will cut maintenance, support, training, and developement costs.

      The Linux toy cannot seriously be compared to a commercial, enterprise grade UNIX or non-UNIX operating system.
      Maybe, but this toy is being used by Google, Charles Schwab, Home Depot, E*Trade, and many more.

      Enjoy,
    • Why someone would want to run Linux on a GS1280, Superdome, E10k, or S/390 is completely beyond me. If you can afford the big hardware, you can afford the OS licensing.

      One obvious reason is that with Linux you are free to do with it what you want. You can just as easily afford to pay someone to configure and alter it to do what you want it to do. Something you don't get simply handing over money for proprietary software licences.
    • According to the handful of sources I just checked (Webopedia [webopedia.com], Net Lingo [netlingo.com], and this [tased.edu.au] among them), an enterprise is simply a business organization. From Webopedia: "In the computer industry, the term is often used to describe any large organization that utilizes computers. An intranet, for example, is a good example of an enterprise computing system."

      I find it hard to believe that Microsoft or Linux would not fall under the category of "enterprise" products here. Certainly, Microsoft and Linux develop enterp

    • PC hardware is insufficient to run a proper production server, but there is Intel-based hardware that is, and a cluster of PC hardware is, as well.

      If anyone knows what is necessary for an enterprise system and is willing to suggest it, it's got to be Oracle. Oracle's platform of choice, both for suggesting to customers and for the customer databases they host, is now Linux. For that matter, IBM is largely moving to Linux these days, despite being in the middle of your list.

      In the particular case of IBM, t

  • Defining "Enterprise" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @09:10AM (#6293405) Homepage

    They are talking here about small server environments rather than Enterprise IMO. This is not done by the sort of people who could size up a Data Warehouse or an SAP solution. I mean do I care about the download speed ?

    OS/390, AS400, HP-UX, Solaris, AIX those are what the Enterprise runs on. The Web-site however has a choice. Yes I know that you can run Linux or Windows under SAP if you want to but this was not a comparison that matters to the enterprise.

  • No OS/400? No OS/390? WTF, Windows?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GojiraDeMonstah ( 588432 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @09:37AM (#6293618) Homepage
    I thought the title said Enterprise OS. All of the >$10 Billion/year companies I've written software for run *nix on Sun and/or *nix and/or an IBM OS on medium to big iron. They are not running Windows as an "Enterprise" platform.

    I'm not talking email servers where a few poor sap CIOs got talked into running Exchange farms, or similar unfortunate tragedies with IIS, I'm talking the ERP stuff that runs the factory, accounting, payroll, and other stuff people have to bet their businesses on.

    I realize OS/390 and Windoze are apples and oranges, but come one, they said ENTERPRISE. Now if they mean "Enterprise" as 2 guys and a van and a laptop, then hell yeah bring on the Windows. Otherwise, it's like having a review of the world's fastest street cars pitting Acura vs. Mazda vs. Toyota. The Lamborghini and Ferrari folks are tapping their feet and rolling their eyes. Put DB2 on an S/390 and on the bitchinest Windows box you can get your hands on, then do the test. I dare you.

  • E-mail support (Score:5, Informative)

    by Andrewkov ( 140579 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @09:39AM (#6293634)
    We made several tech support queries to SuSE and Red Hat using a third party's credentials. We sent via e-mail four questions to both providers that ranged from neophyte to advanced, to both providers. Red Hat replied with the answers within an average of two hours, and SuSE within eight. All answers were correct, but the replies from the Red Hat staff added more information about the suggestions they proposed.

    This is an interesting test that I haven't seen done before. Interesting to note that Suse took much longer to reply to the emails, although the article doesn't mention if the Suse support people are located in Germany, and if the time zone difference could be the cause. Red Hat's more detailed responses sounds like a plus, though. Although I would like to have seen the actual questions and responses. Anyway, this sort of thing is important for a company like mine, where we use Linux, but can't (or won't) afford 24/7 support (I should mention that Linux isn't a primary platform here, we do have 24/7 vendor support for our mission critical systems). So getting a quick response on emails is a big selling feature.

  • Which Enterprise are they talking about? A-E or NX-01? And how do they know what OS will be around in the 22nd, 23rd or 24th century?

  • No Novell? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Friendly ( 160067 ) on Wednesday June 25, 2003 @10:42AM (#6294213)

    WTF? Nice to see that the Novell was once again left out of the testing. Why don't you Linux Zealots try and broaden your horizons. After all the recent Novell is "Linux's best friend" posts the last couple weeks and still they get no respect. Novell would rape your Linux in such testing. Also Novell is now giving away 5 user Small Business Licenses. You have to jump through some hoops to be able to get your hands on it, but it is pretty painless. Novell is by far the best NOS out there, it is mature, stable (600+ day uptimes any one), and has great applications. Also most if not all on Novell'a apps run on UNIX, Netware, Linux and Windows.

    For the love of god Linux is not the end all be all of NOS, if you hate M$ that much (I do) look at all the alternatives. Free does not make it better.

    Friendly

  • BIOS? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by vmfedor ( 586158 )
    "After we changed a BIOS value, UnitedLinux correctly found the multi-CPU configuration and adjusted to it."

    This might be a stupid post to make, but doesn't Linux bypass the BIOS? Just curious.

  • I'd be interested in seeing how XFS [sgi.com] and NTFS/WinFS compare to each other in terms of large/small file performance, lots of file accesses, etc. Does anyone know of any such comparisons?

  • Enterprise? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TheToon ( 210229 )
    Really? Three "Enterprise" OS? RedHat, UnitedLinux and Windows?

    Bah!

    None of them are really ready for the enterprise. What if they compared Unix (AIX, HP-UX, Solaris) with z/OS (MVS) or OS/400?

    Linux and Windows are still condenders, imho. They have their uses in parts of an "Enterprise", but are any of them ready to kick out the operating systems that sits at the heart of todays very large corporations?

Slashdot Top Deals

Garbage In -- Gospel Out.

Close