RE: Should there only be 1 OS, or multiple?

From: Matthew Zito <>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:30:43 -0500
Message-ID: <>

As an ISV, I would definitely prefer to only support one operating system when supporting Oracle, but the reality is that different operating systems have different strengths and weaknesses. And competition breeds innovation. Looking at it another way, if you didn't have any other choice than Oracle, what would ever incentivize Oracle to add new features/cut costs/offer a quality product?  

The ongoing competition between major software vendors like IBM, Oracle, Sun on multiple fronts has created benefits for the consumer (us) - we get new features and functionality, the ability to force price concessions, and even the ability to select different technologies based on their strengths.  

For example, windows as a server is great for small-to-medium environments where they don't have dedicated technical teams. IBM AIX has great virtualization and resource allocation capabilities way beyond what anyone other than (maybe) Solaris has to offer. Solaris in my mind is making a great showing as the third x86 OS in the server environments, with Solaris x86 (I realize it's a lower-tier platform for Oracle, I mean in the general sense). HP-UX.....well, I'm not so sure what that's really great at. It runs on pa-risc, I guess. Linux is good overall, but I know a lot of UNIX purists who sniff at the proliferation of distros and folks like Red Hat's willingness to fundamentally change major administrative pieces of the OS across releases (I can sympathize).  

The most important thing is for an organization to try to minimize the number of different OSes that they deploy internally, because that's a nightmare.  



[] On Behalf Of Niall Litchfield Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 3:59 PM To:
Cc:; Subject: Re: Should there only be 1 OS, or multiple?  

I suspect even you would concede that this argument only applies to the server environment - I disagree there as well as it happens - on the desktop pretty much everything but windows is irrelevant, on mobile devices there are only a couple of real players. I guess you could summarize what I am saying by saying that in distinct markets there tend to be distinct kings of the pile, and for good reason.  

As to the server environment, it seems to me that the choices most people will be making over the next say 5 years will be between Linux and Windows, since most people will be looking for application servers, web servers and the like. Take for example rket-share-battle-microsoft-gains-2/ which is a year or so old, but I'm not sure I'd count someone with 2/3rd of the servers shipped as an irrelevant side show.    

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Goulet, Richard <> wrote:


    There is only one OS of any real consequence, Unix. Sure there are a pile of different flavors from HP, IBM, Linux, Sun, etc....., but at the core their all the same. Windows is one of those sideshows that just doesn't seem to understand how irrelevant it is.  

Dick Goulet
Senior Oracle DBA
PAREXEL International
 information transmitted in this communication is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please destroy any copies, contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA

Received on Wed Nov 26 2008 - 16:30:43 CST

Original text of this message