UNIX Systems

[Galaxiom]

Anyone else have to work with Unix systems? Do you actually enjoy it?

Unix has an undeniable reputation for reliability often running for years without a glitch. However this is best expalained by comparing Unix to a car.

Unix doesn't get flat tyres because solid rubber tyres can't get punctures.
Unix doesn't have trouble with the battery because it is crank started.
Unix windscreen wipers don't fail so long as you don't lose the rag.
(My problem with Unix is I lose my rag too often.)

Sure Unix is relaible but the ride is terrible.

 

[Brianwarnock]

When I joined the charity I worked part time for back in 93 it had a SCO-UNIX system running a UNIPLEX database for their insurance business. I purred happily away on a 386 for years, the girls loved its instant response to questions, but new management circa 2004 didn't and I finally converted it to ACCESS just before I retired in 2006.

I had written a Cobol routine to extract data for analysis on the OFFICE system so I guess it made sense but despite much more powerful PCs the ladies did not like the slower response times.

Brian

 

[rodmc]

Solaris wasnt that bad, plus if your counting Linux in amongst UNIX OS's, then SuSe and Ubuntu I quite like!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

You should try running OpenVMS. I've run those things for years. Literally, the last time an OpenVMS went down on me was when the swap drive failed (massive head crash). It was not unusual to find an OpenVMS at some of my former sites with track records like, "Only goes down for scheduled software upgrades" or "Only goes down for scheduled hardware upgrades."

In our Navy Reserve office, we had some Alphas running OpenVMS. The main reason that they went down in 2005 was Katrina flooded the city and made it impossible for us to get diesel fuel for the generators - but we had activated our alternate site in Ft. Worth by then. They went down for the last time this spring - because we replaced them with something called an Integrity server - basically running the IA64 Intel architecture.

Since about 1996, I have NEVER had an OpenVMS system fail because of software glitches that didn't start from hardware issues. Before that, I had a VMS running on a VAX that stayed up despite a physically failing memory. We ran for another 186 days AFTER the memory fault trapped a bad spot in our arrays. VMS just paged its way around the offending address. Memory was slow to arrive that year - back-ordered because of labor disputes in S. Korea.

UNIX is actually like it is because it HAD to be stripped down to have limited features. It was originally a Bell Labs project for controlling communications switches in an austere environment. They couldn't FIT the bells and whistles. So they HAD to pare it down to the raw bedrock of what they needed. Now it is true that when they did so, they were left with a stable core and I'm the first to admit that the core is quite stable. It's just that it has no excuse to be unstable. It does so little.

But that's just the third leg of the stool with Unix, Windows, and OpenVMS. As always, it isn't the one that is technically better that gets sold the most.

 

[Steve R.]

The evolutionary fork of Unix, as I am sure you know, is Linux. So far, I have found Linux to be suitable for the desktop environment. In fact, I would say that for many office uses Linux would be better and significantly cheaper than the MS Windows environment.

Many eons ago, I ran an office UNIX system. Picking-up with Linux has been fairly painless. Many old UNIX issues, such as poor device drivers seem to have been significantly reduced with Linux. There are now good drivers for printers, sound, and video cards.

 

[Lightwave]

I heard that after years running under windows XP the international space station is going to move its laptops to Linux.

http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs...-linux-drop-windows-red-hat-into-airlock.html

I like the tag line
In space no one can hear you scream at windows 8 metro screen.

 

[Galaxiom]

The real problem with Unix/Linux is they are not operating systems at all but collections of multiple flavours in a dog's-breakfast of variations.

The same operation can have different commands in the different flavours or worse, the same command with different syntaxes, sometimes even different syntaxes among versions of the same flavour.

 

[Steve R.]

The real problem with Unix/Linux is they are not operating systems at all but collections of multiple flavours in a dog's-breakfast of variations.

The same operation can have different commands in the different flavours or worse, the same command with different syntaxes, sometimes even different syntaxes among versions of the same flavour.

What you say has validity, but I would advocate that is a "benefit" of a dynamic open-source evolving system. Unix/Linux could do with some house-cleaning to remove obsolete programs that have been replaced by updated programs. Nevertheless, Unix/Linux is superior to MS Windows.

 

[Galaxiom]

Unix/Linux could do with some house-cleaning to remove obsolete programs that have been replaced by updated programs.

That is not possible because all the different flavours have taken their own paths. They are never going to agree to standardise their syntaxes. Moreover that cannot be done because scripts have been written to use the particular syntax.

Nevertheless, Unix/Linux is superior to MS Windows.

That is a bit like Harley Davidson mototcycles. Enthusiasts laud them as the greatest motorcycle in the world while the reality is they are clunky pieces of rubbish.

And like some motorcycle enthusiasts who have never even riden a Harley, there are people who don't even use Unix that will tell you that it is superior.

 

[Steve R.]

We will have to leave it as a mutual difference of opinion.