Re: www.microsoft.com sure needs a lot of silicon

In article <5kvjll$fv6_at_panix.com>, Bryan Althaus <bryan_at_panix.com> wrote:
>Michael Parson (mparson_at_roloc.bl.org) wrote:
>: In article <5ksobd$hvb_at_panix.com>, Bryan Althaus <bryan_at_panix.com> wrote:
>: >Colin Smith (colin_at_mellifluous.europe.dg.com) wrote:
>: >:
>: >: I think Linux is going to hurt the big name unixes more and more in the near
>: >: future. They may not be able to compete and to be honest I think they deserve
>: >: everything they get.
 

>: >The big name Unixes only care about selling hardware. The OS comes with
>: >the workstation. Only Sun sells their Solaris OS for INtel. But the bottom
>: >line is no company is going to save a few pennies going with Linux unless
>: >there is another benefit above cost.
 

>: Source. Getting source is the biggest reason. Supporting the hardware
>: that I want to use. If I have a problem with a particular driver, I can
>: probably find the email address of the coder and exchange ideas directly
>: with him AND get the problem solved.
 

>My hardware works fine and I don't have *any* source. I run a Tyan
>dual PPRO 200 MHz box (1CPU), Adaptec 2940UW, IBM 2GB UltraWide HD,
>16X EIDE CD-ROM, Matrox Millenium 4MB, 3COM 10/100 3C900 and a Sound Blaster 32.
 

>: >Applications? Nope. Solaris Sparc kicks Linux' butt. More stable
 

>: What kind of applications are you talking about? 'Office-suites' types?
>: Linux has Applixware, a bog-standard office package for UNIX sytems.
>: Other Apps? check out the Linux Commercial-HOWTO, it lists /plenty/ of
>: applications: http://sunsite.unc.edu/LDP/HOWTO/Commercial-HOWTO.html
 

>Where is Oracle, Sybase and Informix? If I want 'Office-suites' I'll
>run Windows 95.

I've never used Oracle or Informix, but I have run the SCO version Sybase under Linux (iBCS). The native RDBMS have proven to be better suited for our needs. Empress has a rather nice SQL engine.

>: >can do I/O a PC just can't touch. Better development environment?
 

>: And the Linux/PPRO can do fp that the UltraSparc just can't touch, just
>: look at the specs being fed into all of these DES cracking contests going
>: on net-wide. The PPROs are beating the pants of the UltraSparcs.
 

>Solaris can run on PPRO (see above). How many application or fp intensive?

I suppose if your definition of an application is a database, then you're right, the fp spec doesn't much matter.

>: >Call me when an IDE like Java Workshop or Visual Workshop C++ show
>: >up on Linux. This is professional tools for professionals. And what
>: >does Linux have compared to say Solstice on Solaris?
 

>: It's not all point-and-clicky like Visual-foo from MS, but Emacs is
>: a pretty damn robust development environment.
 

>Now I see why you run Linux! Visual Workshop is from Sun as is Java
>Workshop.

I run linux cuz I don't know about a particular Sun product? Oh... Thanks for letting me know why I do what I do.

Actually, I run Linux here because that is what was running when I was brought on board. They were running an outdated RH package, but it was easier to upgrade to current RH than to try and convince them that it would be in their best interests to change OSes.

>: >In any case, I see alot of Solaris Sparc servers and workstations with
>: >PPRO/Pentium PC's running Solaris x86 and WABI. This way you still
>: >got your windows apps when you need them.
 

>: Wabi has been available for Linux for a while now.
 

>For $200. It comes with Solaris. And if I want Motif/CDE more $$$. The
>nice attraction of Linux is that it's FREE.
 

>:>: I mean why bother with Sun or Dec if you can do the same job for a fraction
>:>: of the price on a PC running Red Hat or Caldera Linux? SCO is already
>:>: feeling the pinch.
 

>:>If I run Solaris x86 on the same hardware as Linux, how much more expensive
>:>is this? Since most companies already have Solaris Sparc in-house, using
>:>Solaris x86 would make much more sense than Linux.
 

>: You can't always run Solaris x86 on the same hardware as Linux x86.
 

>If it's on the Sun HCL it will.

My statement said covered this, yours has that nifty 'If' in it.

>: My roommate bought a shiny new Micron PPRO with some top-of-the-line
>: cards in it. He spent hours on the the phone with Sun's Support
>: trying to get the proper video drivers and updated net-card drivers
>: to get Solaris x86-2.5 to work.
>: Not to mention the megs and megs of 'Recommended patches' that he had to
>: dl after he got the OS installed.
 

>Solaris 2.5.1 is the latest version not Solaris 2.5. Once the OS ships,
>recommended patches are put up for download. If the hardware is on the
>Sun HCL, then your OK.

At the time, 2.5 /was/ the current release. He just recently installed 2.5.1, still had to go to sun to get updated drivers for his video card (Number9 Imagine 128 8meg). Turns out that there is more different between the 4 and 8 meg versions of this card than just the amount of RAM on it.

>: Linux installed the first time, had X11 up within minutes of the first
>: reboot.
 

>Ok, no one has ever had problems installing Linux!? Please. I'm sure
>the people at Microsoft are saying how can we make Windows 95 as
>simple to install and use as Linux.

Sure, people have problems everyday installing Linux. People seem to have problems installing just about any OS out there, depends on how stupid-proof you make the install, or how intelligent the person doing the install was. Hell, the first time I installed Win95 I had to start over 3 times. I don't even want to think about my first Linux install.

>: Once I recompiled the kernel to include only the hardware that he had,
 

>Why recompile? On Solaris boot -r. It's a dynamic kernel. Why should
>you ever need to recompile a kernel? This went out with SunOS 4.1.3.

I'll admit, this is a nice feature of Solaris, kinda surprised me that this was all I had to do when I installed the SCSI/WD controller.

>: I've run more OSes than I care to think about in production
>: environments, they all have their problems, and they all have their
>: positive sides, but I'll take an OS that i have full source for
>: any day.
 

>: >Solaris x86 desktop with one years worth of FREE updates (which includes
>: >Solaris 2.6) is $275. This includes WABI and CDE (Motif).
 

>: RedHat Linux 4.1 $49.95 www.redhat.com
>: Wabi for Linux 199.00 www.caldera.com
>: CDE for Linux 274.95 www.xig.com
>: ------
>: 523.90
 

>: Ahh, but you also get FULL SOURCE to your OS! What do you pay to
>: get that with Solaris? =)
 

>Game over. Linux is no longer free. There is no way I paying $500
>for Linux. Linux's biggest thing in it's favor is price, it's FREE.
>If it cost money, Linux would never have taken off.

Linux will /always/ be free. RedHat is just one commercial implemtation. Paying for RH Linux gives you a couple of things. First off, it gives you an 800 number to call if you have a problem. Second, it gives you a commercial X server so that you don't have to twiddle with XFree86. Third, it gives you a CDROM that you can keep handy (or use as a coaster, whatever...) You can still get the full RH distribution for free from their ftp site or any one of a number of mirrors, you just lose the things listed above.

>Who gives a damn about source except hackers? I saw UNIX source code in
>college (4.3BSD) and back then I learned a few things (like grep goto
>*.c comes back with alot of output), but in my present profession,
>just gives me an OS that corporate america runs on and some good
>development tools along with the exact RDBMS they run.
 

>As a C++ coder I'm sure I would love looking at some .c modules :)
 

>: >http://www.etools.com/gold.html
 

>: >: Linux is cutting across all the markets. PC, low-med Unix. The big problems
>: >: will start when Oracle & the other major DB vendors start to release the
>: >: Linux versions of their flagship products.
 

>: >Not gonna happen. Because Oracle, Informix, and Sybase are in this game
>: >for not only the money, but the contracts. How many Linux people will
>: >pay UNIX prices for an RDBMS? Oracle cost thousands of dollars.
 

>: We did. Check out Empress (www.empress.com).
 

>Your company is not exactly Oracle.

My company is not related to empress, I was just pointing out to you a very good RDBMS that runs under Linux that costs 'UNIX prices.' It's got a pretty snazzy developing environment and my db programmers seem to like it a lot.

>: >When your done buying your raid drives and Oracle and etc. the cost
>: >of the OS is meaningless. At that point why run Linux?
 

>: Cuz it performs.
 

>Oh, that could explain why I never see Linux at any of the banks I work at,
>or down on Wall St. Other OS's perform to, it just can't be a religious
>thing.

It can be a thing where people only run Name Brand OSs. If they do have PCs in the office, what are the odds that they are a big name clone manufacturer like DELL or DEC? At least those arguing religiously can generally argue for positive points on point they are trying to defend, people that buy Name Brands for the sake of buying Name Brands tend to not have a real reason. Please don't toss 'onsite hardware support' at me, that is my job as network/sysadmin.

Offices that have computers in them w/o having a person whose job it is to maintain them deserve the prices they paid for their onsite maintainence contract. The rest of the people tend to be happier when there is someone just down the hall who can tell them why the printer isn't working instead of having to call up some nameless support drone who will have to dispatch a techie to the site to turn the non-function printer back on.

I'm backing out of this thread now... I have nothing against Sun or any of it's OSes (ok, I wasn't too fond of Solaris 2.0/SunOS 5.0, or Interactive UNIX). I'm not even much of a fan of Linux, but I like to be flexible and be able to work with whatever UNIX varient the company that pays my rent decides to run. Holy wars prove nothing about the OS and often prove much about those that get involved in them, flexibility gives me job options. =)

From a JAVA and C++ developer's point of view, maybe all the visual tools help you get your job done better. As a sysadmin, I'd rather install and maintain RH Linux. As a Perl developer, I'm pretty happy under any OS that has a decent perl ported to it.

-- 
Michael Parson
BL.ORG
DNRC