[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPL'ing Solaris won't save SUN
From: |
Peter Köhlmann |
Subject: |
Re: GPL'ing Solaris won't save SUN |
Date: |
Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:07:03 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KNode/0.8.0 |
begin UNIX admin wrote:
>> They don't. And CEOs don't either. If you talk to people in IT, SUN
>> is becoming the definition of clueless. Most Unix shops are now run by
>> Linux advocates, look how quickly Linux is replacing Unix. If Linux
>> advocates don't guide the PHB to SUN (and they won't if it doesn't
>> have a TRUE Linux strategy), then IBM will get all SUN's business.
>> Funny how quickly the tables turn. Throughout the 90's SUN was eating
>> IBM's mainframe business, and now SUN is totally clueless.
>
> But that doesn't make Linux better. In fact, Linux has severe problems
> when it comes to integrating it into the enterprise infrastructure, for
> example into an NIS/NFS/AutoMounter/CacheFS network.
Such as?
> Linux support is more expensive than Sun's own.
Sayxing so does not make this true
> The only thing it has
> going for it is bigger (not necessarily better) PC-bucket HW support and
> the fact that in runs on ultra-cheapo PC-bucket hardware. And therein lies
> the misconception that Linux is cheaper.
Tell us more about this
> But it is not cheaper, it is more expensive than Solaris. Well actually,
> we can't even compare it with Solaris, because Linux is just the kernel,
> and not an OS. So much for our
>
Our? Since when is an Outhouse Fast Shit user one of "we"?
>IT-takeover-one-size-fits-all-magically-solves-all-problems-and-generates-to
> ns-of-money-runner-upper.
Good thing that you don't know anything about what you're talking about
--
Linux: Because rebooting is for adding new hardware
Re: GPL'ing Solaris won't save SUN, Rich Teer, 2004/08/23
Re: GPL'ing Solaris won't save SUN, UNIX admin, 2004/08/24