My Professor Says Linux Sucks and Is Not Real Unix. 2867

We have all agreed that Luna Lane was probably a WinTroll trying to discredit Linux by comparing it to Solaris.

What I tried to provide was the typical scenario where a Solaris user would reccomend Solaris over Linux as being vastly superior.

Sun has yet to successfully implement a version of Solaris which works effectively and reliably on a wide variedy of Intel-AMD "IBM Compatible" PCs. Of course, this term is no longer relevant since IBM no longer makes PCs as an OEM.

Linux has been far more effective at supporting a far broader spectrum of PCs and providing more of the available features for those machines.

Sun does sell some Intel-AMD workstations and those machines will run both Linux and Solaris quite effectively. It would be hard to make a case for the superiority of one over the other on the same Sun hardware.

Solaris on the SPArC, is a very different story. The SPArCStation is a very nice machine, and it's easy to see why a Sun lover would sing the praises of Solaris on SPArC over Linux on Intel-AMD.

The fact is that both operating systems are very good.

Linux gives you unlimited users, very few usage restrictions, and support from a variety of software vendors, support vendors, and hardware vendors.

Which is "Better" is more a function of your existing support network.

By the way, this isn't a new debate. Similar arguments were made against Linux as a server. Over time, the industry trend is for Sun environments to migrate to fewer and fewer more powerful machines, while Linux environments tend to migrate to more machines, each doing more specialized work.

For me to give an unqualified "Linux is Better than Solaris" with the implication that Linux is better in every possible workload situation, just wouldn't be an accurate statement. There are certain environments where Solaris, AIX, HPUX, or OS-390 are far better solutions than Linux on Intel.

There are even some situations where Windows is better than Linux. For example, if you have a shop where absolutely nobody knows anything about Linux (because you have fired or driven away all of those who have bothered to learn Linux), you have an organization that is too small to have a full-time UNIX-Linux administrator, but too large to depend on remotely managed support (8-20 employees), and your Windows administrator is also an office administrator or other nondedicated employee, and this person insists that he will only learn Linux if you send him to off-site dedicated training in an an extended training and Certification program, then Linux is probably not the best choice for that organization.

Keep in mind, in the scenario above, you have deliberately painted yourself into a corner and created a situation in which you have intentionally made anything other than Windows unworkable. This is a situation caused by deliberate and willful decisions and actions made and taken by top level IT management, and the IT manager or administrator should be held accountable for the unexpected costs related to the inability to explore Linux or UNIX.

When Linux talent does walk into the door, you can drive it away, or you can nurture it. If you attempt to force someone who really knows Linux, who has taken the initiative to learn it on his own time, using his own personal resources, and without direct hourly compensation, to abandon that knowledge and "stick with Windows", you are likely to lose the very type of talent you most want in your organization and your IT organization.

What you will be left with is an IT organization addicted to the status quo, committed to keeping practices, proceedures, and solutions that are not necessarily cost effective, and most importantly, may not be as flexible as the tactices your compebreastors are using.

It's like the football coach who recruits lots of mediocre players, but then lets them skip practice, decline to do drills, and doesn't seem to care if they can run the plays effectively. The result is a team that won't be going to the championship.