Linked by Rahul on Thu 23rd Oct 2008 14:25 UTC
Linux ServerWatch writes about the slow but sure death of UNIX by the onslaught of Linux and customers moving from older proprietary UNIX systems to commercially supported open source enterprise Linux distributions. "Linux does have one killer feature that is driving the switch: lower cost. Many companies are discovering Linux to be extremely attractive from a cost perspective. Take the experience of Sabre, a travel company that replaced Solaris with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) running on x86 machines, resulting in lowering costs 90 percent (with a three-fold speed gain to boot). These potential cost savings, which include hardware maintenance costs savings, are not to sniffed at."
Thread beginning with comment 334781
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Calling OS X a true UNIX is a bit of a stretch. They bought the certification, most GNU/Linux distros could too, if it made sense. The underlying OS is an even worse mix mash than most Linux implementations, not that average users care about that, Apple scores big on the stuff that matters to Joe Blow.

OSX is very much a UNIX! Just as much as Sun OS, AIX, HP/UX...

Having worked on kernels for many years! there are _no_ OS's out there that I know of that are more of a cluster phuck! than the Linux kernel. Including FBSD, Darwin, vxWorks.

Linux is what you get when you have too many cooks in the kitchen! Spaghetti everywhere!


Reply Parent Score: 2

krreagan Member since:

HAHAH!!! Yes thats why more of the top 500 computers use Linux than ANYTHING else. Even FBSD.

Look at uptimes!


Reply Parent Score: 1

Doc Pain Member since:

Linux is what you get when you have too many cooks in the kitchen! Spaghetti everywhere!

Those who work as developers sometimes get upset when searching for proper documentation in Linux. Sometimes, there's a manpage, usually not. The source code isn't as tidy and explaining as expected, in regards of useful identifiers or comments. That's different from what is usually known from the "commercial UNIXes" and the BSDs. There, you usually get excellent documentation, either it is already there (locally) or you can buy it. For example, the BSDs have one of the best documentation philosopies I've ever seen: great handbooks, FAQs, and manpages for everything, not only for the system commands, but for configuration file layouts, kernel interfaces, system calls, maintenance procedures and device drivers. Everything is consistet. But that's usually not the case with the many Linusi and especially with the "two big desktop environments" where documentation is left to others, scattered around in forums, Wikis and even Blogs.

At least to me as a developer, documentation is one of the most important things. I hope that Linux will improve in this regards, but I fear that the attitude "It already works, why write documentation?" will become more and more comfortable...

Reply Parent Score: 6

Kebabbert Member since:

The Linux kernel now exceeds 10 millions lines of code, including comments, empty lines, etc.

If you only count source code, then Linux kernel is 6.4 million lines of code.

I vaguely remember that entire Windows NT was 10 million lines of code? Is that correct?

Is linux kernel growing like mad? Is it difficult to have one monolithic kernel with 6.4 million lines of code bugg free? Hell yes. Is it not as stable as it could be? Yes.

Read what Linux kernel developer says about buggy Linux kernel:

Reply Parent Score: 4