Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 23:49:14 -0800 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: "Jeremy C. Reed" <reed@reedmedia.net>, <freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Infoworld Unix reviews Message-ID: <00bf01c08b5a$4eb24f80$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0101302234490.4548-100000@pilchuck.reedmedia.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----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.
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?
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00bf01c08b5a$4eb24f80$1401a8c0>