Sorry UNIX, Linux & .Net will rule server market

[peter2002]

Linux and .Net to trounce Unix

The future is anything but bright for proprietary Unix operating systems. According to a new report, flavors of Unix from the main vendors--hardware heavyweights HP, IBM and Sun--will lose out to Linux, and even Microsoft's emerging .Net.

In its Server Operating Systems--Winners and Losers in the Open/Proprietary OS Market report, Butler Group backs the two-pronged Linux and Microsoft market. Linux is "the long-term winner by a knockout", with .Net "outperforming between 2005 and 2008".

Over the next three years Linux will rapidly penetrate file and print servers, typically replacing Windows NT, low-end servers will move to Linux, and high-end servers will eventually move to .Net and Linux.

Butler Group believes there will a move away from proprietary operating systems towards open environments where IT managers can have more control.

The forecast is arguably most worrying for Sun. Out of the large server companies it has given the least backing to Linux. Most hardware companies are hedging their bets with the open source OS, a single flavor of Unix and often Windows too.

Butler Group concluded: "In the long term, 2009 onwards, Linux is the winner with .Net runner-up."

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-976049.html

 

[sparkleytone]

linux will go nowhere in the server market if it still only supports 8 processors. datacenter servers are going to have way more than that, and they need something very stable to utilize that power. also, I personally don't see .Net, Palladium, nor Longhorn making anywhere near the impact that m$ is betting on.

 

[bousozoku]

The monolithic (all-in-one) core that Linux has will most likely be its undoing when its market share rises dramatically because it just isn't made to scale, as sparkleytone mentions about processors limited to 8. I've worked with machines that regularly have 12, 16, or 24 processors and the operating system has to be very precise and efficient to use these. Linux is not that yet.

It's a cheap conclusion to say that Linux will rule because they've made a dramatic appearance, and will continue to do so, but it will require companies like IBM, HP, and Sun to make it work properly. No matter how inexpensive and reliable it seems, Linux is still a hack job.

 

[BenderBot1138]

Use the Force L(in)UX...

Yea, that word "will" definitely makes me think it's more mission statement than realistic projection. If only we could just "will" things to happen, there wouldn't be the shortage of Jedi's that there currently is!

There was a plan prior to December 1941 that projected brave new inroads into new US markets as well. They only got as far as Pearl Harbor before being obliterated.

Who's got the most widely distribute UNIX based OS... WE DO!

 

[ddtlm]

sparkleytone:

linux will go nowhere in the server market if it still only supports 8 processors

A monolithic kernel need not be limited to 8 processors. Future versions of Linux can and will scale better. It was only within the past few years that even two processors started working well.

bousozoku:

The monolithic (all-in-one) core that Linux has will most likely be its undoing

Call me cynical, but I'm going to bet that you're all about microkernels cause, well, thats whats in OSX so that's whats best. Or perhaps you've just been flooded with pro-OSX spewage, but in any case "they" say OSX can scale to some huge number of processors, but seeing as how it handles even two so poorly I'd hate to see it squander 32. My Linux machine regularly embarrasses my newer, higher-clocked, faster-memory Mac in contests of smooth multitasking. Perhaps in a couple years OSX will gain a smooth feel...

 

[BenderBot1138]

Limey Linux Lover...

Wow ... *blink* *blink* urk...

Did someone (ddtlm) say Apple does not have a "smooth feel" at MacRumors!

Click Here to see about multiple processor performance, and why not check out what EB and SL had to say about their feeling on Linux.

Certainly Linux is useful to some people, but OS X is so smooth and powerful - really fast and sleek... Jaguar is advanced and a clear step forward. C'mon ddtlm... admit it... you love having a Jaguar in your Jungle.

I'm interested to hear more what ddtlm thinks after reading the above...

 

[sparkleytone]

Originally posted by ddtlm
sparkleytone:


Future versions of Linux can and will scale better. It was only within the past few years that even two processors started working well.

ummm...so what exactly are you trying to say here?? you know already what future versions CAN do?? It was only in the past few years that 2 work well...so we can expect them to get past 8 with no problems?? ....... What?!?!?

 

[bousozoku]

Originally posted by ddtlm
bousozoku:


Call me cynical, but I'm going to bet that you're all about microkernels cause, well, thats whats in OSX so that's whats best. Or perhaps you've just been flooded with pro-OSX spewage, but in any case "they" say OSX can scale to some huge number of processors, but seeing as how it handles even two so poorly I'd hate to see it squander 32. My Linux machine regularly embarrasses my newer, higher-clocked, faster-memory Mac in contests of smooth multitasking. Perhaps in a couple years OSX will gain a smooth feel... [/B]

Who said that I was even talking about Mac OS X? I've been working with microkernels since before they were called that.

I hope that Apple gets its operating system to work more smoothly, but my dual 800 does okay anyway...BeOS was more efficient, but it didn't have any applications. Linux has little for me or the desktop...Mac OS X has little for the server so far...it will improve.

 

[jadam]

if you want reliability and power get a mainframe. NOTHING i REPEAT NOTHING can beat mainframes. They are probally one of the most redundant systems ever designed. Lots of MainFrames have 100% uptime, never going down once. For example some mainframes will have 4 processors Cores(say 16processors per core or whatever) now, it will execute code on half the processors in one core, and the same code on the other half, if the results dont match, it shuts down that processor core and runs over to the next one. Crazy ****, and everything on Mainframes is hotswappable except for the processors, well they are... I doubt ANY fortune 500 company uses a Microsoft OS for their server. They most likely use IBM or some other companies MainFrames fro teh the Stock Market, probally 32 or so mainframes also. hehe.

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by BenderBot1138
Wow ... *blink* *blink* urk...

Did someone (ddtlm) say Apple does not have a "smooth feel" at MacRumors!

Click Here to see about multiple processor performance, and why not check out what EB and SL had to say about their feeling on Linux.

Certainly Linux is useful to some people, but OS X is so smooth and powerful - really fast and sleek... Jaguar is advanced and a clear step forward. C'mon ddtlm... admit it... you love having a Jaguar in your Jungle.

I'm interested to hear more what ddtlm thinks after reading the above...

I don't know what ddtlm thinks, but if you ask me, you're right, OS X is smooth alright. So is a snail, but that doesn't mean I'd want to enter it into a race against a... whatever. OS X is hands-down the poorest performing desktop/workstation/server OS there ever was, and that's not an exaggeration. When you need a minimum of 384MB to be able to multitask between a web browser, an MP3 player, an email client, and a word processor without swapping, you know you've got big problems. When you open up your trusty calculator and see that it consumes 50% of a 550MHz CPU just having its buttons clicked, and it takes up 12MB of memory even when cleared, and then you figure that that kind of ridiculous resource usage is commonplace not just among OS X's apps but within OS X itself, hopefully you come to the realization that something is not right here! Apple has improved OS X's performance since the public beta, but not a whole lot. They would need to give it a massive across-the-board performance boost to make it even competitive performance-wise with its next closest competitor, which would be... I don't know... IRIX? And that's really saying something, because IRIX for a while was considered the mother of all bloated operating systems.

Linux's support for multiple processors is coming along. It's not ready for the big mainframes yet, but companies like IBM and SGI are helping this to change. In Apple's corner, it doesn't matter if OS X supports a million processors if no hardware it runs on has more than two. (And in reality, OS X doesn't even support two very well.)

 

[ddtlm]

BenderBot1138:

Did someone (ddtlm) say Apple does not have a "smooth feel" at MacRumors!

Pretty much. My Linux machine and Mac are similar in most respects, with hardware advantages all going to the Mac. I run both with 2x folding@home 24x7, and when I run other things (openGL apps are my favorite) I can see the difference in smoothness like night and day.

kleytone:

ummm...so what exactly are you trying to say here?? you know already what future versions CAN do?? It was only in the past few years that 2 work well...so we can expect them to get past 8 with no problems?? ....... What?!?!?

The Linux kernel developers are very smart, very dedicated, and very talented. It is a forgone conclusion that they will scale Linux beyond 8 processors. In fact, you should keep your eyes on the current 2.5-series kernels, because they probably support 8 CPUs very well already.

bousozoku:

I'm glad to see you've got other reasons for being pro-microkernel.

alex_ant:

In my case OSX manages to get higher framerates while giving a poorer experience (in whatever openGL app I'm messing with).

 

[springscansing]

That article is absolutely ridiculous to claim to see how things will be in 2009.

 

[bousozoku]

Originally posted by springscansing
That article is absolutely ridiculous to claim to see how things will be in 2009.

You're right. They're basically no one trying to grab attention again. There are several companies, which give advice, to which executives listen. This isn't one of them.

ddtim:

I am more skeptical and cynical than you are.

Microkernels offer the advantage that they can be upgraded quickly and separately from the application access layer. I've been using machines which use abstraction layers since the late 1980s, protecting investments by hiding the hardware. If you look at IBM's System/38 minicomputer and AS/400 and iSeries midrange machines, you will find that the hardware has been okay for the time, but the o.s. has always been bigger than the times. Those machines didn't even require a programme recompile when moving from CISC to RISC processors.

 

[sparkleytone]

isn't that one of the fundamental ideas of UNIX?? abstraction to the nth degree. why should an OS *really* care what platform its running on?? i know you have your technical issues, but overall this would be a nice philosophy to follow.

 

[ddtlm]

bousozoku:

Those machines didn't even require a programme recompile when moving from CISC to RISC processors.

What are you talking about? Programs are either: A) interpreted/emulated B) bytecode C) machine code. A is slowest, B is middle, and C is fastest. Type-C cannot be separated from the instruction set of the hardware. RISC and CISC are properties of the hardware that cannot be changed without breaking compatibility with type-C programs. The kernel is irrelevant in all of this.

sparkleytone:

Abstraction from hardware usually means ability to run on different hardware with only a recompile.