OSNews

He keeps referring to *ALL* open source *nix clones as "GNUs"

Sorry dude, only Linux and HURD should be called that name.

The BSDs are an entirely different beast all together.

(And GNU zealots, please don't start with the "*BSD wouldn't be anywhere without GCC" bull-crap)

The Apples were instant-on? Oh my god! BeOS is too slow now!

If BeOS would have all the feature included in OS X 10.2.6, it would be much slower. It's easy to boot fast when an OS doesn't do much.

If you have an ACPI system, just put your system to sleep (suspend to RAM) and you get a near instant start-up, plus no need to close down all your apps. I'm hoping once Linux 2.6 comes out someone will develop a nice GNOME GUI for controllong stand-by settings, etc.

A very intelligent man this Christophe de Dinechin =)

A whole lot of the links are broken.

Great interview, by the way. I use HP-UX and GNU/Linux all day. Nice to see that someone at HP cares about their product. Too bad GNOME is not going to be supported - CDE is ridiculously dated.

>A whole lot of the links are broken.

All links are working for me.

Machines keep getting faster, boot times haven't really changed much since windows 3.1. Nobody will buy a product that takes a few hours to boot.

This guy sounds dumb with a capital D.

http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=03/06/30/5087031

If BeOS would have all the feature included in OS X 10.2.6, it would be much slower. It's easy to boot fast when an OS doesn't do much.

I think you meant to say, "It's easy to boot fast when an OS isn't saddled with decades of cruft".

HTH!

The guy likes WindowMaker. Sweeeet. He obviously is smarter then the masses running the bloated heaps of shit know as Gnome and KDE.

Plus, any company that has liquid cooled CPUs in their boxes is a-ok with me.

Good interview. But I disagree in some parts in special the "unfortunally paragraph": "The downside is that the GNUs tend to not do anything particularly well, with a few exceptions (BSD's security is an example). Linux doesn't scale exactly as well as HP-UX, and it's user interface is not yet as consistent and newbie-friendly as MacOS X. "

If GNU not do anything well, why HP/UX packaged Open Source applications? HP/UX have a better Web server than Apache (I know that is not GNU but is Open Source)? This friend doesn't use GCC?

In the same phrase, please remember that MacOS X is based in FreeBSD.

In the scalability side, as he knows, NEC has probed Linux scalability in one 32 Itanium 2 server and Intel report 600.000 tpmC in one 32-way Itanium 2 Linux server. Is not 600.000 tpmC @ 32 procesors very amazing compared to 750.000 tpmC @ 64 proc?

Regards,

Bryam

If GNU not do anything well, why HP/UX packaged Open Source applications? HP/UX have a better Web server than Apache (I know that is not GNU but is Open Source)? This friend doesn't use GCC?

He uses 'GNUs' to refer to the GNU/Linux operating systems (and also BSD's, etc...) and not to GNU applications like gcc and what have you. Read and understand.

"Do you see HP-UX eventually being phased out in favour of Linux?"

HP are using Itanium to migrate their existing PA-RISC customers over, but it's a double-edged sword - attracting new customers to HP-UX on Itanium is going to be very tough when there's BSD, various Linuxes and even Windows that can run on exactly the same Itanium hardware as HP-UX does.

In the long run, you can see Itanium Linux dominating the 64-bit server platforms, taking market share from every one of its rivals, even Solaris. Yes, there's AMD efforts which provide 32/64-bit backwards compatibility (Intel are catching up with that towards the end of the year), but in 5 years time, I suspect the Itanium family will be the #1 64-bit server chip out there. Linux will have 50%+ of that 64-bit server market and the rest doled out between Solaris and Windows primarily...

Yes, there's AMD efforts which provide 32/64-bit backwards compatibility (Intel are catching up with that towards the end of the year), but in 5 years time, I suspect the Itanium family will be the #1 64-bit server chip out there. Linux will have 50%+ of that 64-bit server market and the rest doled out between Solaris and Windows primarily...

I guess that explains why you're not an analytic. Linux might have some small market share as today but geeez, 50%? More like 5%. It's not even close to offering what Solaris offers...

See if things are good, people who know that use them. Period.

He's talking about servers, not about desktops...

Mr. Bryam wrote: In the scalability side, as he knows, NEC has probed Linux scalability in one 32 Itanium 2 server and Intel report 600.000 tpmC in one 32-way Itanium 2 Linux server. Is not 600.000 tpmC @ 32 procesors very amazing compared to 750.000 tpmC @ 64 proc?

Well, no. Clustered vs. non-clustered results on the TPC-C test are not comparable because TPC-C is so darn easy to partition. For example, a database running TPC-C on a NUMA cluster of 32 two-way systems would kick in the teeth of a real 64 processor box, ceteris paribus. That stack of dual processor systems is certainly cheaper, too. But the 64-way system would crush the cluster on anything that couldn't be partitioned the way TPC-C can.

Yours truly,
Jeffrey Boulier

PS Any chance that the PRE tag could be added to the "allowed HTML" list? Can't think of any quick way to explain the concepts without pretty ASCII pictures. :0)

In response to someones preemptitive strike against GNU, I would just like to extend my gratitude to all free and open source developers, terms which are used interchangably, as I am very grateful for the tools they have made available to me such as TCP/IP, GNOME, GCC, KDE, and other things under a myriad of free licenses, both copyleft and non-copyleft, respectively. I love my freedom and see no reason to attack anyone who has helped to ensure those freedoms, such as the Linux, GNU, and BSD projects.

Let's all keep in mind that this guy is an HP-UX Engineer.

I think it would be a little much to expect him to gush about how great Linux is and how HP-UX is doomed with a capital D.

I won't buy anything from HP. My mom bought a monitor from them for $500 and it died on her two years later. It was worse quality than her eMachine. I'm not buying a workstation from some comapny who can't provide quality across the board. That is the point of a brand. If I buy something entry level from Sun or SGI I can be sure it will be top of the line (even if it is Intel or Linux).

OS X is based on Next interface. It uses the Mach kernel. It uses network components as part of FreeBSD. The insides are based on Darwin and is GPL.

>The insides are based on Darwin and is GPL.
No, it isn't. Darwin is released under Apple's APSL.

Mr Jeffrey Boulier wrote: "Well, no. Clustered vs. non-clustered results on the TPC-C test are not comparable because TPC-C is so darn easy to partition. For example, a database running TPC-C on a NUMA cluster of 32 two-way systems would kick in the teeth of a real 64 processor box, ceteris paribus. That stack of dual processor systems is certainly cheaper, too. But the 64-way system would crush the cluster on anything that couldn't be partitioned the way TPC-C can. "

It was one non-clustered result: http://news.com.com/2100-1010_3-1013764.html?tag=fd_top

Regards,

Bryam

I looked at the article. Very interesting. Unless I missed something though, I'm not sure we can say for sure whether or not the database was clustered -- running flat out oracle or OPS the way the Sequent boxes did. It seemed very coy with all details of the test.

Does Linux support NUMA?

Anyway, still a ways to go to catch IBM. 32-way power 4 @1700Mhz w/ DB2 scored 764,000. November availability. Anyone want to give me $6,349,223 so I can buy one and run my own tests?

Eh, Sun has me sufficiently brainwashed that I ignore TPC-C. I'd still take the six mill though.

Incidently, Oracle on Linux/x86 has really been improved. Oracle 8.1.7.4 was a step backwards from 8.1.7.3, which wasn't itself so hot. But 9i is really sexy...

Yours truly,
Jeffrey Boulier

There's a fair bit of Numa support in the development kernel from what i remember, go to
http://kernelnewbies.org/status/latest.html

for everything new that has being added into 2.5 since it started.

<EM> He keeps referring to *ALL* open source *nix clones as "GNUs"

Sorry dude, only Linux and HURD should be called that name.

The BSDs are an entirely different beast all together.

(And GNU zealots, please don't start with the "*BSD wouldn't be anywhere without GCC" bull-crap)</EM>

I respectfully disagree, but I admit that my choice of nomenclature is largely a matter of personal preference.

Stallman's point about saying "GNU/Linux" is that the GNU movement was started to create a free Unix clone, and that this included both the applications and the kernel. Today, on any free OS, including BSD, you find mostly the same (user-space) stuff, and a lot of it can be attributed to GNU origin. Apple ships tons of GNU tools with their BSD-based MacOSX. Only the kernel really differs. The rest is (according to gnu.org) about 30% GNU, and 70% the rest, including the kernel. In all cases, on a typical system, GNU in general represents the most important single contribution (even more so if ranked by usefulness rather than by line of codes, IMHO).

In that respect, I see really no difference between BSD and Linux. This is the reason I disagree with your comment. BSD may have had self-standing implementations with zero GNU contribution. But today, any BSD system needs GNU stuff to be really usable. I probably wouldn't use OSX much without bash, gmake, gnu tar, gzip, gcc or emacs!

By the way, I don't really like calling Linux systems "GNU/Linux", simply because it's long in the mouth. And it sounds petty, if you ask me. On the other hand, I think that the GNU project deserves some recognition. Calling all "freedom-compatible" systems with a large GNU genom "the GNUs" seems like a good way to remind people of the GNU contribution. And it's short, and it sounds good.

But, again, that's just me.

Didn't anybody ask :

1. But wasn't the Alpha a better chip than PA-RISC will ever be (moot now they're moving to Itanium but still . . .) ?

2. Isn't Tru64 still a better Unix than HP-UX will ever be (probably had more customers too before Compaq/HP started to provaricate over the future OS roadmap) ?

:-)

Jeffrey Boulier wrote: "Does Linux support NUMA? "

A pair of link:
http://lse.sourceforge.net/numa/
and
http://home.arcor.de/efocht/sched/

Regards,

bryam

Well, I should point out that out of the small list of GNU software you provided only gcc, emacs, and bash do not have identical BSD versions. The entire BSD userspace, ps, top, tar, etc are all BSD licensed programs with no help from GNU.

If you need emacs, gcc and bash to make a system usable, then nearly no system including HP-UX can be considered usable without GNU. Sure, gcc is not needed, but emacs and bash have no non GNU versions. There are certainly alternatives, but the BSD systems come by default only with those alternatives anyways. The only thing the BSD systems rely on GNU for is gcc. It's very unfair to call them GNU systems as certainly gcc does not constitute 30% of the system.

Besides, the real reason people get upset when BSDs are linked with GNU is the differing philosophies. The GNU people are very much anti-corporate or anything non-free in the FSF sense. Many of the BSD developers are not out there to topple any corporation, but rather just to provide a good system. Also, many BSD users do not consider GNU software to be 'Free' in comparison with BSD based software.

I suspect that's where most of the tension is coming from.

Thank You!!!

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I'm also curious what the 30% is in reference to...lines of code, bytes of code, bytes of binaries, number of binaries, or some other metric entirely?

I have to admit, I do like bash...but emacs...YUCKY!!!...LOL
And gcc is nice for the very verbose error messages and its ubiquity if nothing else (not quite as nice as IBMs Jikes Java compiler though, damn I love that piece of software)

If "decades of cruft" means everyday features, I rather have the cruft and leave BeOS behind, thank you very much. Frankly, if BeOS had a vector graphics system - would it be near as fast as OS X? Well, it might be faster, but not by a whole lot.

You may have a bad experience with HP, but I don't think it is fair. Many monitors though matter the brand, both LCD and CRT in very very different ways die out faster than counterparts even from the same model family! If everyone could be guarenteed 100% uptime for monitors, that would be an engineering feat not comparable to anything done before.

Besides, if you refuse to buy a server from the same company that makes your spoiled monitor, forgive me for saying that you are plain stupid. There are many different autonomous departments of HP, the quality of servers aren't affected in any way by the poor quality of HP monitors - they are from two very very different set of engineers, manufactured in different locations, etc.

Well, it is your consumer choice, but frankly, you are limiting yourself from one very competitive company. Your loss.

Tru64 is one of the worst Unixes in stability and features. I don't remember who did the ranking, but HP-UX was the best and the lowest ranked outside of SCO and the Linux world.

I can't remember who, but someone said tru64 sucks so it must be true...

Interesting analysis of a solid O/S that continues to be a leader in stability and features.

TruCluster continues to be the best clustered UNIX offering, way better than MC Service Guard.

I have my doubts as to whether or not HP can deliver on it's promise of incorporating tru64 advanced features into HP-UX.

Markets dictate which products live and which ones are retired, but I'm not alone in the belief that tru64/Alpha is/was far superior to HP-UX/PA-RISC.

As an alternative for bash, there is the standard sh, which is not as enhanced as bash, but still a program like bash.

For the rest, I find it stupid that, while BSD has yacc and make, many programs need bison and gmake to compile.

And then, in some ways I do not like GNU. For example, if you download findutils it will not compile. This is a known bug, but it has not been fixed in five years! There has not even been an update in five years!

The GPL can be restrictive, too. And too long and not-understandable. For example: if I write a package under the GPL, I need to also place the installer under the GPL. But what if I want to use that installer with another product, which is not GPL? That would not be allowed if anyone except me would make a contribution to the installer.

Did anyone notice that he admitted that he prefered to use Apple OS X as a desktop at home? Very interesting, though I am not personally an Apple fanatic, and my PC and printer are coincidentlly from HP. :-)

I also was a bit annoyed by his calling BSD "one of the GNUs". Even RMS wouldn't call BSD "GNU/BSD"; although it assimilated some GNU tools much of it's userland and all of it's kernel is BSD. (If it weren't for gcc being better, for example, it might still be using a non-GNU open source compiler early non-encumbered *BSD came with; and *BSD's libcs are not from GNU either...) I guess such terms as "the GNUs" make sense if you're trying to distinguish a propritary Unix from the free competition to laypeople, but he should have known better than to make such gross oversimplifactions on a OS enthusiast site. :-)

Raj wrote: [i]Isn't Tru64 still a better Unix than HP-UX will ever be (probably had more customers too before Compaq/HP started to provaricate over the future OS roadmap) ? [i]

I don't know about better, but it certainly didn't have as many customers. The story goes that while the VMS move from VAX to Alpha showed how well a transition of architectures can be managed, DEC's Unix transition was handled very badly. As a result, Digital Unix slipped into the middle tier of Unix vendors and never fought its way back to the top.

Oh, and thanks for the NUMA links, guys!

Yours truly,
Jeffrey Boulier

A bit off topic but the guy who complained about the HP monitor lasting 2 years..........

I have had 2 Acer monitors-one lasted 4 years the other lasted 6 months.
Its all a matter of how they were built and mostly good luck.
But to put down every product HP makes because of one faulty product you bought is insane. For all you know the monitor could of been built by some other company and had a HP badge stuck on it.
Companies dont always make all thier products themselves-esp in the world of IT

>DEC's Unix transition was handled very badly. As a result,
>Digital Unix slipped into the middle tier of Unix vendors
>and never fought its way back to the top.

We write software for the Alpha/Tru64 and its been fairly painless - we've even managed to help Compaq/HP sell decent spec servers (multiprocessor ES40/ES45's and better) on the basis of how well our compute codes run on it. For our sector (molecular modelling, informatics) raw power is paramount and this platform certainly delivers.

While the Itanium is good (Itanium 2 is even better) at this early stage its still only a fraction of the Alphas speed. Intels bug-ridden compilers don't help much either . . .

At a rough guess I'd say HP-UX was placed just behind Tru64 and Irix in the mid-tier Unix world (behind Solaris and AIX) in terms of sales.

Lets face it - no one ever sang the praises of HP-UX and PA-RISC - theres either a massive marketing problem or the arch just isn't very good.

Still the Alpha & Tru64 are now heading to the great processor / os graveyard in the sky . . .