Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Do Operating Systems Matter? Part 1
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | My conclusion, based on the above? If support matters, operating
> | systems matter. If the subject is production systems, then, operating
> | systems matter.
Virtualization has been a key strategic element of servers for a few
years now. Whether it's AIX LPARs, BSD Jails, or Partitions in Solaris
or HP_UX, the ability to partition a large server into smaller servers
has put new life into not only the minicomputer market but also
mainframes. A single *nix server can often act like 30-100 smaller
*nix servers, and a Z-Series server running ZVM can act like over a
THOUSAND smaller *nix servers, in addition to the classic MVS, TSO, and
CICS environments.
The typical "cost" for a Linux VM on ZVM can be as low as $500 per
"server".
> | What's equally clear, however, is that VMWare's contention, made here
> | at VMWorld, that the role of the operating system is changing is
> | accurate.
> `----
It's very true. In fact, one of the advantages of virtualization is
that one could put Solaris on a system as a VM to a Linux host, or
Linux controlled Xen machine, and not have to worry about how the
drivers were configured, how to interface to the various hardware
components, and how to interface to peripherals and storage systems -
since Linux/Xen can do all of that.
Even Linux is easier to manage when you create a "base" Linux system,
and then run the "real" Linux system as a VM/Xen client.
Ironically, this could even make life simpler for Microsoft. Linux,
with it's ultrafast context switching can handle lots of the "grunt
work" and then Microsoft can focus on what it likes to do best, which
is user interfaces and user support systems. If you want the MS-Office
system with the dancing paper-clip, you can have it, but you can also
have other Linux windows showing the real-time value of your mutual
fund, or track 200 stocks in real time on 4 display windows, charting
relative changes in percentages over a particular period.
You could track sales calls, proposals, and closings in real-time, and
even track call volumes to help with forcasting.
You could use BASE for some applications, and use Excel for those
really compex macro-loaded spreadsheets.
Instead of "either or", virtualization has made it possible to get
"best of breed" from both Linux/OSS and from
Windows/Office/Project/Visio.
The one side-effect of this is that Microsoft will be held more tightly
to standards compliance. For example, if I create a UML document in
Visio, it will be much more important to make sure that it can be
imported to StarUML, or Posieden, or Rational Software Architect.
On the other hand, with OSS software available to define the reference
model for the standard, it's much easier to determine where there are
deviations and to make sure that all applications are in compliance
with the standards.
As a result, the OSS and MSFT applications (along with other
proprietary applications) can complement each other, rather than trying
to exclude each other.
> http://www.redmonk.com/sogrady/archives/002496.html
>
> Very recent:
>
> Sun's CEO cites OS as differentiator
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Oracle's and Microsoft's moves to accommodate Linux show how
> | important it is to have an operating system, said Sun
> | Microsystems President and CEO Jonathan Schwartz, promoting
> | Sun's own Solaris OS.
> `----
>
> http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1919211241;fp;2;fpid;1
There are two schools of thought here. On one hand, there are
companies like Apple and Sun, who want to make Hardware, OS, and
software, and sell their own package - but not license it to other
companies at reasonable terms.
On the flip side, you have companies like HP, Dell, IBM, Toshiba, and
Sony who want to avoid the hassles of having their own proprietary
system that may, or may not, work with a competitor's system. These
companies are acutely aware that most larger companies don't have a
single-vendor solution anymore. Even companies that "can" offer single
vendor solutions, realize that they must support other products. For
example, WAS and DB2 need to run well on Linux, Solaris, AIX, HP_UX,
ard ZOS, because their customers already have those machines. On the
other hand, they aren't so interested in creating another monopoly like
Microsoft. This is why you see the major vendors courting BOTH
Novell/SUSE and Red Hat for servers. In the desktop, it's quite likely
that you will also see competition, possibly between SUSE, LinSpire,
and possibly UBUNTU. I'd include Red Hat, but their desktop systems
seem to be more focused on Unix Admin consoles rather than as
standalone workstations that can do things like hibernate, sleep, or
run really user-friendly software.
|
|
