Hi System5, Having dealt with many customers over the years, the more astute have selected the application they wanted and then selected the OS of the selection provided by the application provider. For example, running a Database which is disk intensive on a server running anti-virus software will result in a performance penalty. In my experience, some decision makers understand this and will run their Databases only on an OS that does not require anti-virus software. Some do run there Databases on Windows but in an isolated network which includes the clients and no anti-virus.
However you wanted a comparison of Solaris v HP-UX and AIX from a user perspective it should not matter. As an Administrator, installation is the important but the ease of tuning and patching I would rate as very important. From my experience patching Solaris is the easiest OS to patch, followed by HP-UX and worst by far is AIX (things may have changed since I last used AIX). When I needed to apply a patch for a specific issue on Solaris occasionally it had dependencies typically there were none, occasionally three of four and the single worst case it was easier to apply a patch cluster. For HP-UX I found that patching required at least six or more dependencies, while AIX always resulted in a CD of patches. >From a tuning perspective all the OSes allowed it but I preferred the Solaris >Dynamic kernel than rebuilding the kernel. I find it that odd that other >Unixes have not adopted the dynamic kernel to simplify administration. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
