[rescue] Appropriate OS for Alpha?

[Chris Petersen]

On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 09:58:15AM -0500, Eric Dittman wrote:
> > > > At least development on NetBSD/Alpha will continue. 8-)
> > > That's true.  Damn Compaq for killing the Alpha, and damn
> > > HP for killing Tru64.
> > 
> > I hate to say it, but if it comes down to either HPUX or Tru64,
> > I'll take HPUX.
> 
> We've got a huge installation of HP/UX systems, and the Unix
> guys are constantly applying patches.  There seems to be more
> patches coming out for HP/UX than any other OS we've got, which
> is saying a lot (I think about the only OS we don't have in-house
> is Irix, but I could be mistaken on that).
> 

Okay, I *will* stick my foot out close to my mouth and slightly defend HP-UX
here, since I did do daily admin on it for 3+ years...

HP has a very different philosophy about operating system releases than
most.  Recall, for example, how *LONG* HP-UX 10.20 was the current release
(or for that matter, available release).  10.20 was released in June/July
1996.

HP-UX 11?  November 1998, I'm fairly sure if my memory's correct today.  11
was buggy as all get out at first, granted.  It wasn't really a going
concern for anyone until 1999 or so.

The point is that HP spans multiple generations of hardware with one point
release of an OS.  Their philosophy has changed away from point releases or
Hardware Releases (like Sun).  Instead, they follow an "ACE (Additional Core
Enhancements for workstations)" or "HWE (hardware enhancement for servers)" 
mentality (I think AIX is similar).  Many, many, many of the patches 
released on a quarterly basis on the support CD are new hardware support or 
new feature support (a la SGI). 

In reality, the only patching I had to handle when I was dealing with it was
the appropriate ACE/HWE plus a Quality Pack (the required patches to fix any
real bugs).  Some of the other patch highlights include:

- library updates
- Associated product fixes
- Documentation updates

etc., etc...I think HP is so visible on the patch front because they roll so
much together under one umbrella.  I mean, I *know* a chunk of the patches I
used to load were specifically for the developer products on one guys
station because he wanted the latest/greatest.

That said, HP does have a pretty good patch mechanism.  Oh, and one last
disclaimer - I wasn't responsible for any security-related patching.  That I
imagine could be a whole 'nother ball of wax.

> When I see what problems are being fixed, I wonder if HP does any
> kind of quality control or testing for HP/UX.
> 
> Remember the "HP" in HP/UX stands for "Hourly Patch".
> 
> > (Yes, they're both anal rape, but hpux doesent hurt as bad)
> 
> I like Tru64 better than Solaris and HP/UX.

Much agreed.  Maybe I spent too much time with SunOS, but I just never
completely got switched over into the Solaris world.  Set me down in front
of just about any other common Unix variant and I'm fine.  Solaris, and I
feel like I'm stumbling about blind in my own house but not able to find
anything.  Think Talking Heads "Once in a Lifetime"...

Chris

-- 
Chris Petersen			  E-mail: havoc at apk.net
Systems Engineer, ExperTeam Services, EDS PLM Solutions