old-www/LDP/LG/issue39/bullington.html

225 lines
12 KiB
HTML

<!--startcut ==========================================================-->
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<title>Comparison of Server-Based Operating Systems LG #39</title>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#000000" LINK="#0000FF" VLINK="#0000AF"
ALINK="#FF0000">
<!--endcut ============================================================-->
<H4>
"Linux Gazette...<I>making Linux just a little more fun!</I>"
</H4>
<P> <HR> <P>
<!--===================================================================-->
<center>
<h1><font color="maroon">Comparison of Server-Based Operating Systems</font></h1>
<H4>By <a href="mailto:sean@funwithdirt.com">Sean Bullington</a></H4>
</center>
<P> <HR> <P>
The world of computers has shifted in recent years.
8088s have given way to 64-bit out-of-order executing
multiprocessor systems, monochrome green displays have improved to 32-bit
true color, and even mainframes have almost disappeared in favor of
workstation clusters and client-server based systems. In the modern day
business world, the market for server-based operating systems is extremely
competitive and very lucrative for the businesses involved. Companies
such as Sun Microsystems and Microsoft battle constantly to gain ground
in the race to provide a better operating
system to sell to their customers. Microsoft's Windows NT and
Sun's SunOS/Solaris operating systems are extremely full-featured,
usually well supported and fairly efficient in terms of their usage
and implementation. However, one of the biggest challenges facing these
commercial operating systems today is not whether Microsoft will edge
out Sun or vice-versa, but whether non-commercial operating systems, such as
Linux or the BSD distributions, will prove strong enough to edge out the
bigger corporations. Both Linux and the BSD variants run on many different
architectures, have growing application and technical support options,
are increasingly efficient, and best of all, are freely available.
<p>
One of the main concerns when considering a server for running your
business is whether or not the operating system has vendor support
for the applications you need and use. Both Sun and Microsoft excel in
having major vendors supporting their platforms due to their longevity in
the server market and their mass amounts of market share. Linux and BSD
however, are slowly and steadily gaining ground against the giants. As the
free UNIX systems become more well-known and widespread, vendors such as
Netscape, Hewlett Packard and others are investing time
and money in providing applications and hardware adapted for these
systems.
<p>
The portability among these varying systems is improving as well
and is a major consideration in their race against each
other. For example, if you run Solaris on a SPARC, you can buy a product
called SoftWindows (http//www.insignia.com/SoftWindows/) which allows a SunOS
user to emulate Microsoft's Windows 95 in a window on the desktop,
running virtually all the Windows applications. The rest of the
UNIX world also has emulators such as DOSEMU for DOS applications,
and WABI or WINE for Windows-based emulations. NT falls short in this
respect, lacking well-developed emulators, and it does
not easily support the same shell-scripting languages (other than Perl)
that can be quickly shared across most UNIX platforms. While this may
not seem to hinder NT currently, as Linux and BSD grow up in
the corporate market it will become a larger factor. Companies looking
to switch from SunOS might find it easier to go with a free operating
system which is compatible with their current one, saving the cost of
upgrading virtually 100% of their hardware and software.
<p>
Software support for your operating system is unquestionably a
useful benefit, but what happens if the software for your system is
incredibly complex and requires various configuration changes to your
operating system? Simply having the product available for a system is
not enough; the issue of technical support is extremely important in
today's market. Commercial operating systems are
well-supported--they
have no choice. If a company wants to market an OS today, it
must provide timely end-user support to the customer
with a problem. Both Microsoft and Sun have corporate support options which
involve people working diligently on your problem until it has either
been fixed or a workaround has been established. Of course, there are
exceptions to this rule and not every problem found is immediately fixed,
especially in Microsoft's case. The point is that support is guaranteed
(usually) to be there when you have questions. This has been one of the
major drawbacks in the free-OS world.
<p>
The main method of support for both Linux and BSD is not one on which
most corporations would be willing to rely on. Support
for Linux and BSD is usually done through either newsgroups or various
sources of information on the World Wide Web. No one is required to
answer a question posted to a newsgroup, and indeed while most people who
organize the individual distributions of each OS will provide support,
there is no requirement that they do so. If the system goes down,
often it is strictly up to the end-user to dig around and find
what information he can to solve the problem. For instance, if a Linux
user were to call up Patrick Volkerding (the man behind the Slackware
Linux distribution) and tell him he better solve their problems or they
will speak to his manager, the user will most likely hear a &lt;click>
on the other end of the phone line as he hangs up. An interesting note,
however, is that many of the people responsible for the distributions
will be more than happy to answer questions. Theo de Raadt, the man
behind the OpenBSD distribution, welcomes questions, and often
answers (and sometimes argues) questions posted to newsgroups. Good
luck in getting Bill Gates to involve himself in a 50-message thread over
the ease of installing security patches to Windows NT. The bottom line,
however, is that technical support is one of the biggest considerations
large companies have when choosing an OS, and while the free-OS
world may be catching up, it still has a long way to go.
<p>
A third major comparison between server-based operating systems would
be how efficient and customizable the system is to an end-user's
needs. Differences in this comparison range from extremely high-level
(various fonts and colors or virtual desktops) to very low-level (kernel
customization, configuration and efficiency). Commercial operating systems
tend to be much easier to install, walking you through what needs to be
installed and how it will be done. Again, this is a requirement when
you are charging money for your software. Making an
easier to use product has great appeal and is one of the largest marketing
strategies in use today in the computer industry. Both Microsoft and
Sun have attempted to make their installations visually pleasant and
almost ``hold-your-hand'' simple. The commercial systems
also release patches and minor updates to keep their systems usable,
for example of NT's service packs or Solaris'
update clusters. By charging for their software, the vendors usually feel
some degree of responsibility for fixing and updating their products to
keep them usable. Sometimes this is free, and other times the
software company will change the version or name of its OS and charge
customers to upgrade.
<p>
The world of the free operating systems works somewhat differently. Many
times the installation is so confusing and non-intuitive that 95%
of the people who use computers today would not be able or willing to
muddle through it. The systems are getting to be more user-friendly,
and distributions such as Slackware and Red Hat offer a semi-graphical
install which is more intuitive than Open BSD, which goes so far as
to require the user to know how many cylinders his hard drive has on
it. While this might not be that difficult for a user who is familiar
with all the components of his system, a small business owner in need
of a simple server might be scared away. The usability issue goes back
to the fact that because the developers of these distributions receive
no monetary gain for each installation, they can make it as easy or as
difficult as they desire, which is completely understandable. The same
reasoning applies to patches and updates. Ironically, patches and updates
are generally faster to appear when problems arise in these free operating
systems because of the nature of support for Linux and BSD. Because the
source code to these operating systems is free, many users take it upon
themselves to code bug-fixes and produce patches. Updates to low-level
software such as the Linux kernel come out frequently, offering better
support and many bug fixes over previous versions. This results in faster
problem solving and even in the availability of patches which are so
obscure that larger vendors such as Microsoft or Sun would not devote the
time and resources to providing. Sun has even started to recognize the
benefits of enthusiasts and hobbyists using their operating system and
has started offering Solaris for free (the user pays just the media and
shipping/handling fees--see http://www.sun.com/solaris/freesolaris.html).
<p>
Operating systems control how we work, what we work on, and how
our businesses are run. As business competition heats up, financial
considerations in upgrading and replacing computer equipment can become
vital to a company's continued success. Commercial operating systems
are tested products which come from a company that will
provide support for their product. Most commercial operating systems
also provide better software support, as software vendors are willing to
develop their products for an environment they know will be well-used
and thus profitable. Non-Commercial operating systems offer a number
of positive reasons to choose them over a commercial OS, but they still
have a couple of key drawbacks. Scarce software support and non-reliable
technical support often provide managers with enough reason to choose
a commercial operating system over a free one. While many companies
are using free operating systems and are very successful at it, most
are not willing to stake their business on whether or not their system
administrator can figure out why their server is down by looking through
a comp.os newsgroup. Just don't be surprised if you come to work one
day to find that your company has decided to go with FreeBSD and
<b>qmail</b>
to run their new mail system rather than upgrading to Windows
NT and shelling out the cash for Exchange Server.
<p>
<h3>Resources</h3>
<p>
Linux.
<p>
Slackware - www.slackware.org (commercial or free download)<br>
Red hat - www.redhat.com (commercial or free download)<br>
Suse - www.suse.com (commercial)<br>
Debian - www.debian.org (free)<br>
Caldera OpenLinux - www.calderasystems.com (commercial)<br>
Other Misc. Linux Distributions -
ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/distributions<br>
<br>
BSD.<br>
Open BSD - www.openbsd.org (free)<br>
FreeBSD - www.freebsd.org (free)<br>
NetBSD - www.netbsd.org (free)<br>
BSDi - www.bsdi.com (commercial)<br>
<br>
Sun Microsystems.<br>
Solaris/SunOS - www.sun.com/solaris (commercial, free for non-commercial
use)<br>
<br>
Microsoft.<br>
Windows NT - www.microsoft.com/ntserver (commercial)<br>
<!--===================================================================-->
<P> <hr> <P>
<center><H5>Copyright &copy; 1999, Sean Bullington <BR>
Published in Issue 39 of <i>Linux Gazette</i>, April 1999</H5></center>
<!--===================================================================-->
<P> <hr> <P>
<A HREF="./index.html"><IMG ALIGN=BOTTOM SRC="../gx/indexnew.gif"
ALT="[ TABLE OF CONTENTS ]"></A>
<A HREF="../index.html"><IMG ALIGN=BOTTOM SRC="../gx/homenew.gif"
ALT="[ FRONT PAGE ]"></A>
<A HREF="./bennet.html"><IMG SRC="../gx/back2.gif"
ALT=" Back "></A>
<A HREF="./sevenich.html"><IMG SRC="../gx/fwd.gif" ALT=" Next "></A>
<P> <hr> <P>
<!--startcut ==========================================================-->
</BODY>
</HTML>
<!--endcut ============================================================-->