Re: Why is SUN falling so far behind IBM?
From: JEDIDIAH (jedi_at_nomad.mishnet)
Date: 07/27/04
- Next message: Gary Galloway: "Network Adapters Not Showing Up"
- Previous message: JEDIDIAH: "Re: Why is SUN falling so far behind IBM?"
- In reply to: Don Davis: "Re: Why is SUN falling so far behind IBM?"
- Next in thread: Robert Mazur: "Re: Why is SUN falling so far behind IBM?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:57:56 -0500
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 2004-07-26, Don Davis <aixdude@yahoo.com> wrote:
> mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com (Mike Cox) wrote in message news:<3d6111f1.0407251701.425a6918@posting.google.com>...
[deletia]
>> SUN was high-end reliable computing that boasted you could write your
>> app on an Ultra and move it to a SUNFIRE. IBM now has that message
>> because now you can write your app on Linux and run it on a Mainframe.
>> Fun too how much money IBM makes from JAVA.
>
> I think everyone is missing the point. Hardware and operating systems
> are necessary evil's in providing an environment for an application to
> run.
>
> Applicatons are where businesses make their money. Until vendors stop
> charging on a per processor basis, (real or virtual if using LPAR,
> micro partitioning, VMWare... etc) the cost of the app is what
> matters. In the meantime, from a cost standpoint, I want the world's
> fastest one-way processor. If that's not fast enough to run the app,
> the next best alternative is the world's fastest two-way.... etc.
>
> It makes no sense to acquire a low cost hardware platform (choose your
> vendor),
> a free or low cost operating system, (choose your OS), then fork over
> several hundred thousand dollars for an enterprise class database
> product. (Other software products are also moving to number of CPU
> based pricing, or charging by the client, if client/server)
Sure it does. The low cost operating system may be optimized by the
high cost application vendor to operate best with the application with
minimial extra cost.
This is where Free Beer and Free-as-in-speech converge.
Oracle can contribute to the Linux kernel in an effort to get more
of shrinking IT budgets for themselves. They can push out Sun and
they can push out Veritas giving their customers an apparent bargain
while still getting their usual arm+leg.
>
> What I would really like to see is an open source database (like
> MySQL) with
> advanced features, like triggers, stored procedures.. etc. This would
> take most
> of the price gouging out of software sales, and make hardware and OS
If you think triggers and stored procedures are what make an enterprise
RDBMS advanced then you have no real understanding of the problem domain.
> software important again. Right now, the harware/OS software component
> is such a small fraction of the total costs of ownership, I'm not sure
> it really matters. Both have reached commidity status. Just my
> opinion, comments welcome.
--
It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate.
They brought us the email virus.
In my Atari days, such a notion would have |||
been considered a complete absurdity. / | \
- Next message: Gary Galloway: "Network Adapters Not Showing Up"
- Previous message: JEDIDIAH: "Re: Why is SUN falling so far behind IBM?"
- In reply to: Don Davis: "Re: Why is SUN falling so far behind IBM?"
- Next in thread: Robert Mazur: "Re: Why is SUN falling so far behind IBM?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
