hp-ux advantages..

[fizan]

can anybody tell me the pros and cons of HP-UX compared to Linux, AIX, and Windows.?

[Yogesh M Puranik · Accepted solution]

Hi Fizan,

Each OS is have its own speacility.

HP-UX :

1]HP-UX is stable OS.

2]HP-UX simple to understand which support LVM and vxfs strongly.

3]For Over temprature , OS automatically shutdown itself.


AIX:

1] AIX is having most advance features in all unix OS.

2]The only OS which having its own database(Called ODM)

3]We can retrive the command along with arguments from smitty using F6.


Linux:

1]It can support on any hardware /its hardware independent

3]Very user friendly.

4]Ususally used for web applications.


rgds


Yogesh

[James R. Ferguson]

Hi:

Do you really believe that asking for the strengths and weaknesses of HP-UX in an _HP_ forum is going to yield objective answers?

Your query _might_ find value if you ask the same question in a Linux, an AIX, and in a Microsoft arena. Then, compare all the responses and make _your_ decision based on _your needs_ and on _your_ value system.

Regards!

...JRF...

[Steven E. Protter]

Shalom,

Advantages of HP-UX.

HP software support. Great.
HP Hardware support. Great.
ITRC forums, best in the business.

Solid OS. Excellent, easy to use patching.

Much higher quality release process than Windows.

Cheaper to own and maintain.

SEP

[Emil Velez]

This type of comparison can get passionate very fast.

In most cases it is the application that your business needs that will drive the OS selection. What OSs are your application vendors supporting the best needs to be your major consideration.

It is in this way that HPUX being very well supported for oracle, oracle apps, SAP, network management tools in many cases has the advanteages over other operating systems and their hardware especially when you look at application benchmarks and application support.

A previous writer is right you will not necessarily get non-bias opinions here since most of us are experts in HPUX and less experts on Linux or other platforms so the platform we know the best will always be better (just because it also is too).

I am starting to work on applications on Linux and the many distributions each with different rpms and the searching for prerequisite RPMs and applications being supported with only certain distributions is quite a challenge personally so I see the lack of standardizations in the linux distros being a challenge unless you stay with only one. Then the choice is which one to pick.

Hope this helped.

[fizan]

Thanks experts.

[Duncan Edmonstone]

Well I masy as well kick off with the non-objective responses!

Yogesh said:

> AIX:
>
> 1] AIX is having most advance features in
> all unix OS.

- I'm not sure that actually means anything - what are "advance features"? I think Sun, HP, RedHat & Novell would argue the point pretty strongly on that one.

>
> 2]The only OS which having its own database
> (Called ODM)

- Ha! That's the first time I've ever heard ODM being called out as an _advantage_ of AIX! It's not like its a full database you can use for free like MySQL - its just a repository for systems configuration data (rather like the windows registry), and to be honest its a pain compared to straight text configuration files...

>
> 3]We can retrive the command along with
> arguments from smitty using F6.

- Yes thats true and *is* a good feature in AIX... that said in some ways a good admin trool like SMIT and smitty (and like SAM or SMH) can become a crutch for bad sysadmins... I've meta a _lot_ of AIX admins who are completely lost without smitty (and some HP-UX admins who rely on SAM/SMH too)

Emil said:

> In most cases it is the application that
> your business needs that will drive the OS
> selection. What OSs are your application
> vendors supporting the best needs to be your
> major consideration.

So9rry, slightly off-topic, but this "the application is king" standpoint has been one of my personal bugbears for many years now - it's one of the main causes of the hideously complex spaghhetti mess that many companies call their "IT infrastructure". How many companies have you seen put in a new OS just cos an application requires it? This is baffling and pushes up the cost of infrastructure management significantly. My take on this is:

"the application is king - as long as it fits in with my entreprise architecture"

In other words - if the app doesn't function with my standard infrastructure stack, the business unit can go jump - unless they are prepared to accept significantly higher costs from IT (heck I don't understand why many companies even let businesses choose apps - they should just hand over their requirements to IT - this stops you getting the app made by a business unit director's golfing buddy.

No - I'm not cynical ata all ;0)

Anyway - back to the question - if I were to call out the *major* advantage of HP-UX, I would say - release lifecycles. HP don't keep rolling the OS to a new version every 5 minutes like many other vendors (which means the ISVs don't have to keep re-qualifying/porting their apps), and server hardware and OS releases are supported for a good long time (generally 10 years or more - compare that to typically 5-6 years for AIX). Linux has some pretty long support lifecycles as well - but x86 server hardware needs to be refreshed so often to avoid "out of support" or "no upgrades available" situations, that it may as well be on a shorter lifecycle. Not having to do OS and application upgrades too often through the life of an enterprise application is a very strong +ve. Not an exciting one (like "advance features"!), but one that actually reduces complexity, risk and cost. (which I'm sure your manager's manager will find exciting)

HTH

Duncan

[dirk dierickx]

"Solid OS. Excellent, easy to use patching."

easy to use patching? compared to what? patching is one of those things on hpux that sucks the life out of me.

compare that to the power of linux package managers (any package manager) and hpux's implementation is a joke.