> Yeah, might be true to some extent - but the reality > is different. Normally you have Windows, Solaris, > zOS, AIX, HP NonStop and maybe Linux.
This is partially true, to the extent that you will have a salad of operating systems and hardware in small to midsize shops. Large shops have these areas strictly separated. For example, when you do system administration, you only do one flavor of UNIX on a very restricted set of hardware platforms and architectures. Same applies to system engineering (this stipulation actually comes from system engineering themselves), if you go to any of these big players to do system engineering, you end up designing platforms and networks based on one kind of a UNIX operating environment... usually Solaris, by and large. Solaris is bread and butter in very large environments because it scales in almost unbelievable ways. And, when you do system engineering, or even system administration at these shops, you practically never see the hardware in your entire career; that's what an army of grunts in the UNIX HW support department is for (yet you're the one that calls the shots on which HW will be supported); all you do is make a phone call, and a system magically comes on-line or the CD/DVD is changed. Now the real interesting thing about shops this huge is that they save enormous amounts of money by standardizing on one UNIX operating environment and a restricted set of hardware. We're not talking hundreds of thousands of dollars/euros/francs, but try hundreds of millions -- per year! Another interesting fact (and I've tried this at home!) is that, if you take their engineering practices and methods, and do the exact same thing for yourself, the methods scale in the opposite direction as well. I save considerable amount of money at home by doing the exact same thing these large shops do: platform standardization, clearly defined policies and procedures, requirements management. As it turns out, these guys aren't stupid (which is why they have so much money). So you see, the "reality" in this case is very relative -- it all depends on how big the shop you're working in is. The bigger the shop, the simpler the dilemma. > And yes, it's > true that a lot of companies migrate from Solaris to > Linux. I have heard no complaints from a single > company or that they regretted that. Try Oracle. Classic example that did exactly that. Started going to Linux, then switched back to Solaris and made it quite clear to everyone that that's where they're going. > Now some > companies are beginning to think about OpenSolaris - > the problem about this is that they want support for > this . Maybe in the United States. In Europe, they suffer from a different problem: lack of expertise. Small to midsize shops don't give a rat's ass about support here (they're small shops in comparison to the US), their qualm is that they either can't find, or can't afford people that are good enough to put Solaris in. Meanwhile, Linux "experts" -- mostly kids who've installed Linux on their PC at home, are to be had for a dime a dozen, by the cartloads, wagons, you name it. The experts are employed at the huge shops described above, so there's actually a starvation of talent going on. Except that those guys aren't aware of it because they don't even realize how badly they need Solaris. > This is not how it works. Once they've decided to > migrate to Linux they'll most certainly _not_ migrate > back two years later. No management of any company > could do something that stupid. Hehe, one of the first things you learn when you become a manager is, sometimes it's just plain cheaper to cut your losses and start anew than risk getting laid off when the next wave of downsizing comes. Not exactly what I would call the right reason, but that's the cold reality of most managers. Of course, there are always those who are smart enough to drop a failed project because they realize it's actually cheaper for the company to start with a clean slate. > What do companies want? Most of them want a product: > > - that's independent from a vendor - that's why many > choose Debian - and not Red Hat or SUSE - > - they need a business desktop / they need a reliable > server > - they want professional support for it. > > Something like: > - an "OpenSolaris" distribution (open sources, not > only from one vendor, a community product) > - JDS / reliable server environments are there > - SUN would have to offer professional support for > that product Again: you have a highly US-centric view on this (and I should know from my own experience). It doesn't work that way in Europe. Different mentality, different priorities. This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
