Bill Moffitt's Weblog

Bill Moffitt's Weblog

All | General | Niagara | Solaris

20040804 Wednesday August 04, 2004

Expensive and Proprietary UNIX in the Orwellian world Another LinuxWorld is here, and so we are once again beseiged with all the stories of the poor, oppressed IT managers who find freedom and higher budgets by replacing their old, proprietary, expensive UNIX gear (usually Sun, since we have, by far, the most UNIX gear installed worldwide) with cheap, open x86 gear running Linux. Now, finally, their lives will be perfect: no longer held captive by a single, rapacious vendor; they'll be able to do so much more with so much less that eventually they'll be able to run entire enterprises with a rack of blade servers, sleep in until 10, and spend their budgets on conferences held in Tahiti.

The problem is, of course, that the sources of these stories are increasingly suspect; when Michael Dell is telling you that the "UNIX mainframe" is dead (what the hell is a "UNIX mainframe," anyway??) you have to wonder if he just might have an axe to grind... especially since his company has decided to cancel all their servers with more than 4 CPUs...

I used to do a lot of work as a Sun spokesperson, and I was called one time to comment on one of these stories. The reporter had a real scoop: a company that was replacing this $100,000 Sun machine with a $3,000 x86-Linux server. The truth is that their business had declined, and the Sun E3000 (a 6-way UltraSPARC II machine with multiple power supplies & other high-end RAS features) they had been running for five years was overkill. They could have easily replaced it with the new SunFire V210 server for about the same price and they wouldn't have even had to buy new software or retrain their sysadmins.

I know that was a surprise to the reporter; I suspect it came as a surprise to the customer, as well, who was told by someone that Sun machines are too expensive. And, hey, the x86/Linux vendor's rep seemed to know what he was doing...

But that's the nature of the Big Lie: tell it enough times and folks accept it as the truth. Solaris is expensive (it starts at $99, and you can use it for free for development or evaluation), it's proprietary (just like Red Hat Enterprise Linux), and it's tied to expensive, proprietary Sun hardware (Solaris has run on x86 architectures for over 10 years, and SPARC is the only major architecture based on open standards - check www.sparc.org).

I understand that it's easy to dismiss me as a Sun Solaris apologist, but I should point out that I'm writing this on my Sony Pentium III laptop running (yep, you guessed it) Linux. My real concern is about the right tool for the job: Linux has some real advantages, particularly in having a community to keep up with all the perturbations in the x86 platform world (new machines, peripherals, drivers, etc.). But when it comes to the servers that run your business, the ones that are absolutely mission-critical, technology matters - you want to have every advantage you can, and that's why we're still pouring R&D into Solaris, even though Michael Dell says it's foolish.

Ah, well... at least it's a good time to start rumors. I gotta go... some folks are taking up a collection to go buy Novell. I'll give 'em twenty bucks.
(2004-08-04 10:48:35.0) Permalink Comments [4]

Comments:

it's proprietary (just like Red Hat Enterprise Linux
Red hat enterprise is NOT proprietary. If you are a Unix user for a while and have use gcc, really there is nothing proprietary out of any Linux since everything can be hacked and the software you put on top is not bound to red hat.
Oracle might be a bigger grip on your regular life than red hat really. Issues on a DB or app are usually more time-consuming than the kernel running or not.

Posted by Alexandro on August 04, 2004 at 02:19 PM PDT #

How many ISV's support anything besides either Red Hat or (if you are lucky) SuSE? For large companies who demand a supported solution and demand accountability, Red Hat is proprietary in the pragmatic sense. As it stands today, my customers are *not* going to deploy on White Box Linux. Red Hat is their *only* Linux option.

Posted by John Clingan on August 04, 2004 at 03:24 PM PDT #

Red Hat doen't have quite the Linux "monopoly" outside of the U.S. SuSE is strong in Europe, and China have their own linux (with Sun's help!) Still many Linux ISVs still only support a handful of distributions and if you're lucky enough to find sources or SRPMs, most well written userland stuff would build just as well on Solaris. If you don't like or need the features of Forte you can build it on gcc for Solaris (sparc or intel) Of course now with linux binary compatibility in Solaris 10, you won't even have to rebuild it.

Posted by bnitz on August 05, 2004 at 12:55 PM PDT #

Red Hat Advanced Server (RHAS) 3.0 is a unique, non-standard, open source implementation of Linux. You can only get RHAS 3.0 from Red Hat. You can download the source (under Project Fedora) and "roll your own", but it is not RHAS 3.0, it is Fedora. ISV apps are supported on RHAS 3.0, not Fedora. Furthermore, RHAS 3.0 is a fork of Linux. RHAS 3.0's kernel is not Linux kernel 2.4, and RHAS 3.0's kernel is not Linux kernel 2.6. RHAS 3.0's kernel is a fork of Linux kernel 2.4, with portions added from Linux development kernel 2.5. If Linus Torvald decides what officially is Linux kernel 2.4.26, or Linux kernel 2.6.7 (the two most recent kernel revs from www.linux.org), those are assumed by the Linux community to be "standard" Linux kernels. RHAS 3.0 (and its Fedora variant) is not a standard Linux kernel. It is unique to Red Hat.

Posted by Mark on August 05, 2004 at 01:25 PM PDT #

Post a Comment:

Comments are closed for this entry.

Calendar

« November 2009
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
     
       
Today

RSS Feeds

XML
All
/General
/Niagara
/Solaris

Search

Links


Navigation



Referers

Today's Page Hits: 29