Most missed analysis I have read recently...
Jan 18, 2005
11:42 AM EDT
|As beginning I wish to state that this text was one of the most missed analysys I've read recently. Despite of lack of reasoning, misinterpreted numbers and FUD I don't find any "hey this guy may have a point!" thing. You know the thing what you sometime get when reading some biased analysys - sometimes there is this one point that author is right to some extent (but analysys anyway is fautly) - in your text I don't see *any* valid point/argument.
I wan't to give some background on me - I am IT specialist with CS background - right now I work as IT Analyst and study more business oriented stuff (as I need to know business processes in my work). This may have no significance to you but I just to wan't to state my perspective...
You have made some points, name them:
1. Linux is not free (as in beer) since it requires to be installed, operated, supported by staff - yes, this is true. Nothing new here.
2. You can't get Linux with support contracts - this is not true - you can get support from vendor directly (think buying Red Hat, paying them additionally for support) or indirectly (think buing Red Hat, paying some other firm (probably local) to do the support). You can get that - just do some research - question is it cheaper? But you haven't answered this question you just lied that you can't get it in the first place. As for Red Hat put here any commercial Linux vendor (you are from Russia/Moscov so maybe ASPLinux would suit you - here you go: http://www.asplinux.ru/services/) or free as Debian - you can install Debian for free and then hire some external firm to maintain it. Question is cost.
3. You misunderstood numbers (as reffering to Solaris market share) - yes maybe it has not dropped down but it has not rised also. And Linux market share has rised significally (and Windows also) - replacing other unices. So if something is not growing (and there is a place for it) it is actually getting smaller as the concurence is getting bigger.
4. I don't like fact that you are stating some arguments as is - you don't explain anything but state f.e. "Linux kernel releases are late" or "Linux is unupgradeable" etc. - OK but *nobody* knows what you mean giving such opinions... Please reason them because now we may belive you or not - I don't belive you. Please explain to us what you meant by saying so?
5. You state that "Linux (compared to other commercial offerings) guaranties no support..." - OK Solaris has timeframes for support Windows has timeframes for support (in fact quite funny some people are now hot with Windows NT being unsupported soon) than Red Hat has support timeframes and also Novell does. So please tell us where is the difference? Also consider scenario (quite stupid scenario but read it) - Sun as a firm ceases to exists (f.e. they go bankrupt or bomb wipes its HQ out) - you are left with Solaris. And now the same with RH - you are left with RH - but with RH you got *source* *code* and that *is* *the* *guarantee* *of* *support*. I could go longer here but I am certainly sure that you will again loose a point reading it so I won't....
And the last thing - now I will make fun of what you have written, especially this quote:
> Purchasing commercial hardware that runs > commercial software is the best choice available.
LOL - what did you mean? I actually know that you meant hardware dedicated for platform (you can get nice multiprocessor Itanium servers designed for Linux) but where can I get uncommercial hardware (such thing even exists?) for free? It looks like your choice in fact is the only one... :)
Also saying that SPARC workstations will be *always* cheaper that Intel/P4 ones is like silly. :) Also considering Solaris as viable worksation OS is silly (if it is so good on workstations why does Sun sell Linux for Intels?).
And last word - considering support/maintainance cost please keep in mind that such cost are always in proportion to hardware and licenses costs. So when you have $5000 a month staff and $500 a month system - system cost is insignificant. When you have $500/m staff and $500/m system this proportion change. Now keep in mind that system (hardware/licenses) costs (be it any system) are static everywhere. Staff costs different depending on country (you should know that already - you Live in Russia, I live in Poland for that matter). So when you get cheap staff (like Russia, India) it plays less in this proportion than systems... I know you still don't get it.
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!