Very Computer

I've been reading up on UNIX system administration as it is a career path
I would like to follow inside my company.  I've had minimal exposure to
UNIX through some of the work I've done over the past year and a half.  My
company is a fairly big company(> 30,000 not including outside
contractors) and because of that fact they are very very strict on
standards and system security.  

I am soon to receive a new excellent computer.  My question is what is a
solid UNIX implementation for Intel that adheres to most of todays
standards but offers other options as well.  I've read that IBM AIX is
good at this but I don't really know if AIX has been written for Intel(I
doubt it).  I've already purchased an inexpensive Linux implementation but
I'm not sure if I would learn what I really need.  My company basically
now deals with HP although we still have many Solaris Systems when Sun
Microsystems was the chosen vendor.  I know of Solaris for Intel.  If
you've used this or are using it now I would be interested in how much
you've liked it or disliked it.  Please make any suggestions of an
implementation that would be good.  

 Intel? Try Linux. It's fairly easy to install, is free, has a huge
follwing, thus much help is available, and it uses the same file system
as unix.
-

: >doubt it).  I've already purchased an inexpensive Linux implementation
: but
: >I'm not sure if I would learn what I really need.  My company basically
: >now deals with HP although we still have many Solaris Systems when Sun
: >Microsystems was the chosen vendor.  I know of Solaris for Intel.  If
: >you've used this or are using it now I would be interested in how much
: >you've liked it or disliked it.  Please make any suggestions of an
: >implementation that would be good.  

:  Intel? Try Linux. It's fairly easy to install, is free, has a huge
: follwing, thus much help is available, and it uses the same file system
: as unix.

But the key is that Linux is _NOT_ Unix.  It looks like it and acts like it,
but it really isn't.  I'd recommend paying a little extra and getting Solaris
x86.  By doing that, you are using a real UNIX that is System V.4 compliant,
has a solid backing and following.  Linux is neat, having the source is very
nice, but it isn't, and won't ever be fully standards compliant.   That's not
what it was written for.

-bill
--

My opinions, not OIT's. "It's kind of fun to do the impossible" -- Walt Disney
"There's a million fine looking women in the world, but they don't all bring
you lasagna at work.  Most of them just cheat on you."  -- Silent Bob

If you are looking for standards, Sun Solaris runs on the x86 and only costs
~$100, at least for students ... Sun has always been one of THE major players
on the UNIX world, and avoids some of the quirkinesses of Linux/(FreeBSD?)

--
T |        Christopher Curtis       |                                  | O
E |   Sun Lab System Administrator  |  If at first you don't succeed,  | S
A | Florida Institute of Technology |     skydiving is not for you.    | /
M |       Melbourne, Florida       N|N                                 | 2

Quote:>If you are looking for standards, Sun Solaris runs on the x86 and only costs
>~$100, at least for students ... Sun has always been one of THE major players
>on the UNIX world, and avoids some of the quirkinesses of Linux/(FreeBSD?)

As far as quirkiness is concerned, I'd say it's the other way around.
Linux is much less byzantine than Solaris (or SunOS), in my experience.

Todd

While I appreciate that both Linux and commercial Unix implementations
(such as Solaris) both have their place (I use Linux at home, and
Solaris for both x86 and Sparc at work), I would just like to point
out that the above statement is not strictly true. It all depends on
what standard you are discussing. Linux _is_ POSIX.1 compliant. It is
_not_ SVR4, but it _is_ POSIX. In any case, whether or not it is
standards compliant is something of a moot point for me -- I evaluate
any software based solely on whether it allows me to accomplish the
tasks I need to do. To that end, my home PC (a soon-to-be-upgraded
386SX/16) runs Linux because it fulfills my needs, and the servers I
administrate run Solaris, because Solaris does what they need to do.

/MC

: >If you are looking for standards, Sun Solaris runs on the x86 and only costs
: >~$100, at least for students ... Sun has always been one of THE major players
: >on the UNIX world, and avoids some of the quirkinesses of Linux/(FreeBSD?)

: As far as quirkiness is concerned, I'd say it's the other way around.
: Linux is much less byzantine than Solaris (or SunOS), in my experience.

: Todd

Agreed. One of my jobs at work is System Administrator of a Sun network
running SunOS 4.1.3. At home (and connected via PPP to the network), I
run a Linux box. I have found that Linux is the best compromise between
the BSD and SYSV schools of thought... And it is enough like both that
one can easily and quickly figure out the differences...

Only an opinion...But *MY* opinion...
--Brad

"My network would run flawlessly...If it weren't for those pesky users..."