The Steady Decline of Unix 570
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."
Uh huh (Score:5, Insightful)
So the bulk of Unix's decline comes from competing *nixes, in particularly Linux.
News at 11.
Re:Uh huh (Score:4, Funny)
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)
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)
>>>W
>>>>H
>>>>>O
>>>>>>O
>>>>>>>S
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>H
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Uh huh (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
If it weren't Unix, it weren't an Unix variant. But since not all Unices are identical, every single Unix is an Unix variant.
Re: Uh huh (Score:5, Informative)
MacOS X's core OS is open source. You can download the kernel and recompile it and swap yours in if you want to, and all the standard user space stuff is basically FreeBSD.
Also, it is a certified UNIX 03 operating system, so it is more "UNIX" than Linux, which is what I assume you're comparing it to.
Re: (Score:3)
MacOS X's core OS is open source. You can download the kernel and recompile it and swap yours in if you want to, and all the standard user space stuff is basically FreeBSD.
Also, it is a certified UNIX 03 operating system, so it is more "UNIX" than Linux, which is what I assume you're comparing it to.
Just to provide a link to make life easy (source is available up to 10.8.4 and includes BSD licensed stuff. Code for the UI level is not provided.):
http://opensource.apple.com/ [apple.com]
and some documentation to backup what you are saying:
https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/OSX_Technology_Overview/SystemTechnology/SystemTechnology.html [apple.com]
With regards to Darwin, there are two related sites:
- http://darwinbuild.macosforge.org/ [macosforge.org]
- http://www.puredarwin.org/ [puredarwin.org]
Re: Uh huh (Score:5, Informative)
No it isn't open source. They haven't released their code in a long long time.
10.8.4 is the latest and is available: http://opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1084/ [apple.com]
Note you should expect a few months delay between release of a new version of MacOS X and release of the open source components on this site, but up until now they have always delivered.
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Informative)
XNU is a Mach 2.5 kernel with the BSD 4.3 userland layered on top. And it is not "reminiscent of Unix" it is certified Unix.
Re: (Score:3)
It's so closed-source that they make it available on git-hub: https://github.com/opensource-apple/xnu [github.com]
Re:Uh huh (Score:4, Informative)
BSD is AT&T [pre v7] Unix derived. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution [wikipedia.org]
I was doing Unix device driver work in startups since 1981 [v7, system III, system V] and we always referred to them with "Unix" attached (e.g. "Unix System III" or "Unix v7" or "v7 Unix"). Likewise, BSD was "BSD Unix"
POSIX was born out of a desire to produce standards that allowed Unix-compatible systems to be created that were not AT&T derived [i.e. eliminate the AT&T licensing stranglehold]. AT&T could copyright Unix source/binary distros. But, it couldn't copyright the API's [Note to Oracle ;-)]
The non-Unix derived systems that truly aspired to look, act, feel like Unix [and be free] were: Minix, Linux, Mach. No doubt there are others that didn't quite make it to completion. Obviously, Linux took the crown [I loaded my first distro in 1993]. Though not an OS, the other piece of the puzzle is GNU/FSF providing "clean room" reimplementations of the standard POSIX (nee Unix) utilities.
I stopped using the term "Unix" a long time ago. Now, I usually say Linux, *BSD, Solaris, or "POSIX-compliant OS", etc.
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
However, some modern Linux distributions are probably much more reliable and professional than the "real" big box Unix systems were in 1990.
Re: (Score:3)
In five years PCs will be rare, because 99% of people who would use a PC in 2010 use their phone instead.
I can't see that happening in an office unless their 'phone' plugs into some kind of docking station and runs some kind of thin client.
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Are they? Or are they just realizing that a cluster of redundant, possibly virtualized, machines is just as reliable even if each single machine is not? Two linux boxes with 99% uptime each running the same service redundantly is equivalent to one machine with 99.99% uptime but I bet the linux boxes are cheaper.
That all really depends on the requirements and usage. The HP systems I've used are very capable with hardware and software support for redundant and/or fail-over NICs and SCSI etc... as well as a large back plane and LOTS of RAM and CPUs (I once used a Unix system at NASA with 1024 processors.) A cluster of real/virtual systems is not always equivalent. For example, we once had a CPU fail on a T600 and the system simply deconfigured it and rebooted - note: there are / were Unix systems like Tandem Non-Stop on which *any* component could be replaced on-the-fly. Most Linux systems are not as capable in this respect - perhaps we are talking about different types of "reliability."
The upshot (and the point of the article) is that there are more choices and people are taking a harder look at what's actually required. In many cases, smaller, less capable/expensive Linux (or BSD) systems are adequate, but sometimes you really do need something more. It's not a dig against Linux, just that there are different tools for different jobs.
Re:Uh huh (Score:4, Insightful)
All of the redundancy you just mentioned, is now available in VMWARE, abstracted away so that the Hardware practically doesn't matter any longer (as long as it is x86/x64). A failed CPU on a VMWARE box would cause the machines to migrate over to a standby, and be up and running before anyone even knew. And I would get a notification and swap out the blade out of the chassis and be ready for the next "fail over".
As for the upgrading of hardware without ever downing a system, that is easy. VMWARE already handles that by migrading the virtualized box off the affected machine, you upgrade (add ram, CPU etc), reconfigure the VMWARE stack and migrate back. I can migrate the data stores with live data as well. I've replaced both Hardware(CPU, RAM) and Drives Systems(Equalogic to Nimble) while machines were running. This has nothing to do with "Linux" being able to handle it, since VMWARE does it without "Linux" (or Free BSD, Windows ...) ever knowing.
I won't install Server on bare metal ever again. It is more expensive to install on bare metal, but only if you value your time.
Re:Uh huh (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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:4, Funny)
Gnu's
Not
Unix
But Is
For all intents
And
Purposes
I for one welcome our GNUBFAP overlords!
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Funny)
Gnubfap is my next band name.
Re:Uh huh (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly! If GNU wasn't ESSENTIALLY Unix then RMS wouldn't have bothered to name it that! I mean, come on, Unix is right there in the name. Why name it that as opposed to giving it a whole new name of it's own that speaks to what it IS rather than what it ISN'T unless he knew that Unix was so much a part of it's identity that he had to try to define it as not Unix in it's name?
Re:Uh huh (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly! If GNU wasn't ESSENTIALLY Unix then RMS wouldn't have bothered to name it that! I mean, come on, Unix is right there in the name. Why name it that as opposed to giving it a whole new name of it's own that speaks to what it IS rather than what it ISN'T unless he knew that Unix was so much a part of it's identity that he had to try to define it as not Unix in it's name?
Yep--it's even in the original announcement: it's a "Free Unix!" and a "new Unix implementation".
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html [gnu.org]
I'm pretty sure the name was intended to be somewhat of a joke, and with their love of using recursive acronyms to come up with "clever" names (just look at the Hurd...) that's probably the case. But in a way the name is kind of ironic, and likely on purpose, because they weren't allowed to actually call the system "UNIX" and I'm sure they knew that, while at the same time it gets the point across quite well that it's not "really" UNIX--it is a clone.
Re:Uh huh (Score:4, Informative)
Windows NT was certified as POSIX compliant.
Windows NT!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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)
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)
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)
server that costed upwards of 25K
"cost" works fine there. Please. I'm begging you.
Re:Uh huh (Score:4, Informative)
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, Insightful)
Why would anyone in their right mind switch servers from HP-UX to Windows?
Why wouldn't one? Based solely on who_stole_my_kidney's anecdotal argument, and your rather content-free counter-argument, I'd be inclined to follow his advice.
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Insightful)
Because instead of replacing 1 HP-UX server with 8 Windows servers, it could have been replaced by 1 Linux server.
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Insightful)
Because instead of replacing 1 HP-UX server with 8 Windows servers, it could have been replaced by 1 Linux server.
Only if the software runs on Linux. Quite a few important commercial software packages started out on HP-UX and Solaris (and AIX if you were "lucky") and was then ported to Windows once people started using x86-based servers and workstations. Porting to Linux would obviously have been a lot easier, but it didn't happen until later or not at all.
Running such software under Linux either meant running Linux on RISC hardware and using a compatibility layer or running the Windows version in Wine. Neither was particularly appealing.
Re: (Score:3)
C:\YOU\LOSE> tar cf - . |ssh windoze2 "tar xvf -"
Broken Pipe
C:\YOU\LOSE>
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Switching from a serious platform to a limited Fisher Price(tm) My First Server(tm) whose only benefit is the ease of setting up some basic functions. Uh huh. Doesn't sound like a good idea.
You got multiple choices that are not only better, but also similar to HP-UX enough that the migration cost is a tiny fraction of that for Windows.
Re: (Score:3)
Most likely _all_ of the world's largest organizations run Linux. But only _some_ of them run Windows Server 2012. So I think the OP got it right.
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Funny)
while some of the worlds largest organizations run Windows Server 2012.
Larger organizations can hide the TCO of an army of IT people better then small ones.
Re: (Score:3)
Because Unix is architecturally closer to Linux than Windows, would be the obvious answer. But seeing as there aren't many details given about the role of the servers*, it would be wise to reserve judgement in the particular case, even if it makes little sense as general advise.
*Often times under further questioning admins doing similar switches, the irrefutable answer becomes " exchange integration" or something of the like. Someone offering advise can't very well redesign the entire IT operations over cof
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Informative)
I can give the counter-arguments against using Windows:
* You're guaranteed to suffer every month for maintenance (Patch Tuesday), and require multiple machines not just for capacity-matching, but for redundancy if you want anywhere near the same uptime. In spite of an MCSE/MCSA being cheaper, one competent UNIX admin can maintain 3x the machine count than an MCSE/MCSA can - unless you feel like springing for a lot of pricey add-ons/upsells to keep admin FTE headcount down (e.g. automation via SCOM,SCCM and etc). It doesn't take too much for that SA contract cost to match or exceed the HP one, especially if the Microsoft products have the word "Enterprise" in the product title/license.
* All that aside, I haven't even touched on increased space, power consumption, cooling/HVAC, and etc... the costs scale up almost exponentially in larger installations.
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft: "For you the day your servers all went down simultaneously was the most important day of your life, but for us it was Tuesday."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, I'll bite.
I'm a Windows admin, but I just went to a training course to learn about a high-end enterprise product that runs on top of Linux. I've dabbled with Linux-based stuff before (proxies, VMware, ESX, etc...), so it's not exactly new territory, but I figured it's 2013, it'll be interesting to get a glimpse into the current state of the "Linux Enterprise" world.
My experience was this:
-- You still need to patch, or install 140+ dependencies to install one application. Same difference.
-- You still nee
Re:Uh huh (Score:4, Informative)
Oh fuck me, I'll bite.
Hmmm, where to even start with WIndows?
Ok, how about having to spend $1500 plus in training to find the damn shit that Microsoft decided to once again obfuscate behind 16 tabs and buttons in lame, third-grade designed dialog boxes just to set one service preference? I can edit a text file that's been formatted the same for ten years (or more) and setup most common Linux services.
How about, every time a new version of Windows Server hits you have to wonder how many new versions of other software you have to buy just to keep your system secure, and/or running? FOSS wins.
Ever heard of a man page? I know Windows admins also have to do their homework before they can weed their way through the 16 levels of dialog box Hell to get to deploying a...well anything!
Good package management handles dependencies without a problem. At least it doesn't break something every few Tuesdays.
Yep, you still need to reboot, if you don't know how to build your own kernel and modularize services so you can reboot less. Plus, shell scripts are your friend for those little annoying service restarts.
Things aren't automatic in Linux because Linux admins don't like opening up gaping security holes, or maybe just want a little more control over what is going on. Different strokes.
You see command line syntax as "limitations", *nix admins see it as not effing up while on the command line. One wrong space between characters can be bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. Just like turning on one wrong checkbox six levels deep in WIndows dialog boxes. What's the difference? A pain in the ass is a pain in the ass.
"I love the undecipherable command-line wizardry. I'm not an idiot." You contradicted yourself there....see man pages. Also, Google is your friend...see homework.
Of course, the point of my rebuttal is to remind you that we all started at zero no matter what OS we chose to use to serve whatever we need to serve. It's when we forget this and forget the merits of all OSes that we truly have lowered the IQ of the room. Right tool, right job. If you want to be a master mechanic you can't just use screwdrivers. 'Nuf said.
P.S. "Error prone manual labor", from a WIndows admin....That's funny.
Re:Uh huh (Score:4, Informative)
Ok, I'll bite.
Cool - allow me to dispel some bits:
-- You still need to patch, or install 140+ dependencies to install one application. Same difference.
RedHat-based: yum -y install (whatever).
Debian-based: apt-get install (whatever).
Best part is, you can put the whole list in at once if you want [stackexchange.com] in one go.
Windows world? It's gotten better (adding roles and features), but it's still reboot hell at times.
-- You still need to reboot. A lot. More than I thought.
Only if you're patching the kernel or glibc. Protip: If you don't want to bother plowing through reboots just because you don't like restarting services, learn to use the telinit command. ;)
-- Things that really ought to be automatic, aren't. I spent a good 50% of the lab doing really fiddly things like cut & pasting iptables rules to open firewall ports. The installer really should have just done that for me.
Clue: Windows application installers don't usually mod the firewall either (unless we're talking MSFT-branded ones, e.g. SQL Server.)
Binding services together and just generally getting things to start up and talk required an awful lot of error prone manual labour.
'fraid you'll have to be more specific than what you posted, because you're not making sense here. What exactly do you mean by "binding services together"?
I love the disclaimer in the training guide: "Linux configuration scripts do not tolerate typos, are case sensitive, and are not possible to validate before running the associated service." Fun stuff. I can't wait to diagnose random single-character problems in 10 kilobyte files when the only error is that one of a dozen services barfed when started.
You mean like when a seemingly random multi-MB .aspx file has a single typo in it, causing IIS to not run, with only a cryptic (and definitely non-intuitive) generic blurb buried somewhere deep in Event Viewer? Or how about a typo in some config file (lurking under a dozen nested folders) causes SSRS to fall over?
Or are you just arsed over case-sensitivity? ;)
Wow, the 70s called and wanted their limitations back: spaces in file names?
Just like in Powershell, you may want to learn to use quotes or escape chars... and with MSFT moving away from the GUI at the server level, you'd better get used to it.
IPv6? In theory, not in practice.
Now I know you're trolling, or are completely ignorant [allthingsdigital.nl].
GUI config wizards? Nope.
Clue: Wizards are going away in Windows too. Better brush up on Powershell. ;)
Want to make a configuration change to a service without having to stop & start it? You're dreaming!
That's actually an advantage: one can change all kinds of differing network info (IP addy, DNS, NIS/windbind, etc) over ssh (think RDP for grown men ;) ), and not have the machine blink out until you're ready to commit those changes.
An editor more user friendly than vi?
Try EMACS (I kid, I kid...) In all seriousness, there's a zillion of them, with varying opinions. vi on the other hand has the advantage of being universal. I can use it in Linux, HPUX, Solaris, AIX, FreeBSD, etc.
A lot more portable and capable than Notepad, dontcha think?
-- I love the undecipherable command-line wizardry. I'm not an idiot, but how-the-fuck would I know what "-e" does on some random command?
man {so
Re: (Score:2)
Because HPUX sucks more than Windows. It still doesn't mean Windows is any good.
I think they did a South Park episode [wikipedia.org] about that...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Oracle is a flavor of SQL. So is MS SQL Server and PostgreSQL. I'm guessing that you meant MS SQL Server?
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Informative)
I'd be curious to know what exactly the HP-UX server did that could so easily be moved over to a cluster of Windows servers, myself. Apart from believing that one can buy eight servers with Windows Server licences and come out much less than $25k, I'm just trying to sort out what this server would have actually been running that one could simply go "Oh well, we're going to Windows now."
I've found damned few cases in my experience when wholesale moving from one platform ecosystem to another platform ecosystem was a viable activity in and of itself, unless it was part of a long term strategy of retooling and recoding. I've seen some organizations move from Unix to Linux, but generally with the notion that porting apps was relatively easy or had already been done. But to move from *nix to Windows is a big deal, unless you're running everything in Java EE, in which case why would you completely change your ecosystem with other *nix variants out there?
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So Unix is dying *yet again*? I hate that trope.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Uh huh (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
McDonalds? I seem to remember them basically being the ones keeping SCO afloat.
I HATED being a SCO admin in this millennia. In the past they weren't as much of a joke, but they didn't keep-up AT ALL. Their USB support was a nightmare that kept crashing servers. Their boot-disk support was a nightmare I never entirely rangled into working, because floppy disks became too small and their boot CD sup
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't IBM pushing RHEL these days?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Funny)
"Reports of my decline have been greatly exaggerated."
-- UNIX
Re: (Score:3)
"However, reports of our decline are spot on!"
--Eunuchs
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Interesting)
Oracle is the reason that my employer is switching from Solaris to Linux. We were one of Sun's biggest customers, too.
How long has Netcraft been confirming BSD dead? (Score:3)
Re:How long has Netcraft been confirming BSD dead? (Score:5, Funny)
BSD confirmed Netcraft is dead.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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. ;-)
I thought OS X was Unix (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know if iOS is a certified Unix, but OS X is. Linux is not.
Re: (Score:3)
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"
No. The title is right. You are just trying to generalize something that is specifically, and legally defined. You can argue that other systems even, DOS are similar to or like UNIX, but you can't say that they are UNIX.
Mac OS X, client and server are UNIX because they satisfy the Single UNIX Specification.
OS X client is irrelevant to the Network World article, as it's talking about servers, and OS X server is pretty much irrelevant to the server market they're talking about, so "The Steady Decline of Unix Server License Sales" or "The Steady Decline of Unix Servers" more clearly states what's happening than does "The Steady Decline of Unix".
A distinction without a difference (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
And *nix in the form of, say, Oracle Solaris or IBM AIX is more restrictive than the GPL. Linux is just one branch of the unix family.
Overlooking the obvious (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Overlooking the obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps the AC doesn't know, the Open Group, you know, keeper of the Unix specification, has a certification program. Apple participates, and has the certificates to prove it.
Mac OS X Version 10.8 Mountain Lion Certificate [opengroup.org], from the people who own the Unix(TM) specification.
Re: (Score:3)
OS X is a fully certified Unix
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
"Certified" is not a general intensifier. It has meaning. Don't sprinkle it on your sentences like some verbal MSG.
Yes, it does. Are you asserting some meaning other than having been certified as a Open Brand UNIX 03 registered product, which MacOS X has been since version 10.5?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it does.
Nah not really.
Are you asserting some meaning other than having been certified as a Open Brand UNIX 03 registered product, which MacOS X has been since version 10.5?
No, he's asserting that no one cares and it's a meaningless intensifier, because do you know what certified Unix with a capital U (TM) really means? It means certified not quite compatible with the market leader (Linux).
Not suprising (Score:2)
Moronic analysts (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
The king is dead, long live the king (Score:5, Insightful)
"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)
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.
Idiot (Score:3)
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.
I'd mod the OP Flamebait (Score:2, Insightful)
Between OS-X, IOS and Android, this discussion is more than a little comical.
The alternatives got better (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
NetworkWorld sensationalist headline. (Score:3)
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)
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.
Mod down original article (Score:3)
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)
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.
An Un-Story so Move Along, Move Along (Score:4, Informative)
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.
In Engineering - Unix is nearly done (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
No surprise (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Nope...Unix engineers don't have to worry about being publicly humiliated if they checkin bad code. Mostly because the public doesn't really care.