Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:05:49 -0800 From: Robert Clark <res03db2@gte.net> To: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> Cc: "Jeremy C. Reed" <reed@reedmedia.net>, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Infoworld Unix reviews Message-ID: <20010131130549.A44924@darkstar.gte.net> In-Reply-To: <00bf01c08b5a$4eb24f80$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>; from tedm@toybox.placo.com on Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 11:49:14PM -0800 References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0101302234490.4548-100000@pilchuck.reedmedia.net> <00bf01c08b5a$4eb24f80$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 11:49:14PM -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG
> > [mailto:owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Jeremy C. Reed
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 11:09 PM
> > To: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG
> > Subject: Infoworld Unix reviews
> >
> >
> > I read a short article in January 15's Infoworld ("Six flavors run the
> > gamut: The good, the bad, and the ugly"). It didn't mention BSD, but
> > quickly ranked a few "Unix" systems: Irix, AIX, Tru64, HPUX, UnixWare, and
> > Solaris.
> >
> > I am curious about some of the statements and opinions -- and I am seeking
> > some further comments in regards to comparing with the BSDs.
> >
> > For example, they tested 10 "corporate" applications and the systems
> > scored between 0 out of 10 and 10 out of 10. These applications are:
> > Oracle 8i database, IBM WebSphere Application Server, Adobe FrameMaker 6,
> > iPlanet Enterprise Web Server, Microsoft Internet Explorer, Sybase ASE,
> > Lotus Domino, ChiliSoft ASP, Vitria BusinessWare and SAP.
> >
>
> To kind of understand where they are coming from and how their article fits
> in with the Open Source operating systems, you really have to look at the
> overall UNIX market, including both Linux and FreeBSD and the rest of them.
>
> As we all know, Linux is out there on a _very_ large number of systems.
How many boxes has Linux saved from the dumpster? How does this affect
the whole market?
Windows puts machines into the dumpster, and Linux pulls them out?
How many (exclusively Linux) people will apply to a posted sysadmin job?
What has that done to the sysadmin job market? What will it do?
>
> Now, it's very debatable how many Windows installations have been displaced
> by Linux. Obviously, the Linux people would like to say millions, but
> I have my doubts as to whether those non-Microsoft servers and desktops
> would really have bene running Windows if Linux wasn't available. After
> all,
> years before Linux or FreeBSD existed, OS2 was going very strong - even won
> InfoWorld's Software-of-the-year award in 1995, the year Win95 was released.
>
> But, there is no question that a _significant_ number of _commercial_
> UNIX's have been displaced. One casualty that immediately comes to mind
> is SCO - how many of us have seen a small business SCO server recently?
How many really good (commercial) UNIX variants does the market need?
Is SCO proof that commercial UNIX and open hardware don't mix?
>
> Yet, in many ways the Open Source UNIX revolution has been responsible
> for a rebirth of UNIX among the commercial UNIX vendors.
>
> So, faced with increasng encroachment of the low-end workstation UNIX
> systems
> on one had, yet an increased interest in UNIX on the other, the commercial
> UNIX vendors have gone the only route left open to them - they have pushed
> into the high-end mainframe market that used to be the exclusive domain of
> IBM, and other old-line computer companies most of us have never heard of.
Midrange systems are growing faster all the time. But they are doing so
with "PC" technology. PCI is everywhere.
It might be arguable, that the PC hardware has eaten up the market.
Economy of scale?
>
> People running 512 CPU's and terabytes of RAM are NOT in the PC server
> market, which is where FreeBSD and Linux is today. This article, listing
> apps like Sybase, Oracle, Domino, and SAP is clearly aimed at the very
> high-end, multiprocessing, multiuser mainframe UNIX market where these
> commercial UNIX vendors are all players.
Mid range systems are SMP, because its a way to make incrementally
faster systems, without having to rewrite software for a distributed
system.
Will SMT replace SMP? It has many of the advanteges without some of the pitfalls.
>
> > Which of these applications run (non-native or native) under a BSD? Also,
> > I am interested in opinions -- which of these applications are important
> > and which don't matter?
> >
> > The review also mentioned "Standard" and they all were either Unix 95 or
> > Unix 98. Does this matter to the BSDs? Or what does this mean to
> > developers beginning with BSDs? How do the (non-official-Unix) BSD's
> > compare in regards to these Unix 95/98 standards? Any examples?
> >
> > Some advantages and disadvantages listed included:
> > - scales to 512 CPUs and 1TB of ram
> > - 64-bit CPUs "are solid performers at deceptively low clock speeds"
> > - ultra-fast server I/O subsystems
> > - Linux source code portability
> > - "inscrutable" manuals and support documents
> > - "borrows pieces from several Unix implementations to create a
> > versatile, broadly compatible operating environment"
> > - "holes in System V compatibility make application porting difficult"
> >
> > Any thoughts in regards to BSDs?
> >
>
> We are seeing a "creeping" effect with BSD. Today, BSD is prevalent on
> the uniprocessor PC servers, your talking anything from lowly 486's to
> P3's. There is some movement into multiprocessing PC servers, but few
> companies are producing standard PC hardware that will hold more than
> 4 CPU's. This is because Windows NT's performance increases drop off
> after 4 CPU's. There are a few large-scale FreeBSD sites, Yahoo and
> Hotmail come to mind, but they are not the norm.
>
> Because of the tremendous power increases of PC server hardware in the
> last few years, PC servers are creeping more into use with tasks that
> used to be relegated to high-end custom UNIX hardware. BSD is creeping
> into this market just as these servers are spreading into this market.
High end UNIX hardware is becoming more homogenous? High end UNIX
hardware is becoming less custom?
>
> As the higher-end UNIX hardware becomes more of a commodity, and we start
> seeing regular use of 8-way and higher standard systems, your going to see
> some erosion of the high-end Solaris and other UNIX'es to increasing use
> of FreeBSD. Of course, at the same time those systems are going to be
> moving into the 1000-cpu systems and even larger.
>
> > Basically, I am looking for ideas on how I can promote BSD using some of
> > these examples. (I want to develop some strong arguments for BSD in
> > comparison with "official" Unix's.)
> >
>
> There are some serious problems with developing an argument for FreeBSD
> verses Solaris (for example) along these lines that you would have
> to overcome. Here's the ones that I fel exist:
>
> 1) Cost used to be cited as the major criteria, but with the release of
> Solaris 8 and it's new pricing structure (essentially free for up to 4
> CPU's) the importance of this is greatly diminished.
>
> 2) As you get into the higher and higher end UNIX applications, you start
> to see some very strong preferences from the app vendors. Take Oracle,
> for example. If all your doing is setting up an Oracle server for
> 200 users, if you call Oracle they will say "Use whatever you want, Linux,
> NT, Sun, whatever) But, if you were setting up an Oracle server for
> 2 million users, they would say "Run it on Solaris"
>
> 3) "UNIX Standards" is a red herring. Most people that run the apps that
> you mention start out by picking the app, then seeing what OS that their
> install is the most well supported under. Few consumers know or care about
> UNIX standards. This is a technical argument reserved for developers.
>
> 4) The war is over UNIX vs NT/Win2K. It's not over BSD vs Sun. The largest
> problem that people have is bringing the CEO's and other non-technical types
> over to the UNIX camp. The arguments you use saying how much better FreeBSD
> is over NT are essentially arguments over how much better UNIX is over NT.
> They are usually applicable to ALL UNIX's, not just FreeBSD. Once
> you've won the non-technical types over, they quickly lose interest in
> which UNIX it is that they have bought off on.
>
> If you really want to "develop some strong arguments for BSD in
> comparison with "official" Unix's" your going to have to leave the
> applications arena and focus on purely technical arguments, like how
> fast is the disk I/O, etc.
Or grow a killer-app that uses many low cost computers to its
advantage.
>
>
> Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com
> Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide
> Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com
>
> > I just found the article online at
> > http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/fixup.pl?story=http://www.infowor
> ld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/01/15/010115tcunix.xml&dctag=operatingsystems
>
> Jeremy C. Reed
> http://www.reedmedia.net/
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010131130549.A44924>