On CBS MoneyWatch: Which Credit Cards are Best?
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 23 of 31:
Next »
« Previous
Your point is???
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make but "Big Iron" systems are expensive to purchase, maintain and operate. A 6 figure annual maintenance fees are not in anyway unusual (many are much higher). Administrators are paid more money. Just ask IBM and they will tell you it is much more expensive to maintain an entry level AS/400 or RISC (let alone mainframe) than "Intel" class machines. But they will also tell you that if you want reliability, scalability and performance for heavy workloads, then these machines are the answer.

You are not making a valid comparison because the design is completely different. For example; why can IBM make a very secure Linux port for a mainframe? Simple; they control the OS and every single piece of hardware. You don?t have many hardware choices from different vendors on big iron class machines. Contrast this with Intel class machines where even the processor can be different. Now add all the video, network, and many other cards and you are going to have a difficult time writing efficient code.

Don?t delude yourself into thinking you cannot run mission critical applications securely and reliably on Intel class machines. It is almost always the software (OS or applications) that is responsible for scalability, reliability and security. Sure you get this out of the box with big iron. But for the cost to purchase and operate one; you had better. To use your example of Oracle; did anyone say that they are not running critical applications on Intel machines? After all, Linux runs on Intel and all you said was they are switching to Linux (which has nothing to do with whether the hardware is big iron or not).
Posted by: MG_z   Posted on: 05/27/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

lol  eLurker | 05/26/04
Assumptions of study?  richard@... | 05/26/04
Assumption was, you say what we want or we don't pay you  oldskool | 05/26/04
Spin vs. reality  catlord17 | 05/26/04
For most, Linux is much cheaper. In some cases they might be about equal.  DonnieBoy | 05/26/04
I would go further.  doe_z | 05/26/04
The key is to use at least 5% Linux Desktop, or as much as you can.  DonnieBoy | 05/27/04
Reminds me of TV ads  STDog | 05/27/04
Ford: "Toyotas aren't cheaper!" (nt)  ryusen | 05/26/04
You know what is cheapest????  DonnieBoy | 05/26/04
basic math shows that MS is most costly OS ever  oldskool | 05/26/04
And then there is Fedora, Debian, Gentoo,...  Richard Flude | 05/26/04
Exactly: are companies buying Linux or a distro?  Anton Philidor | 05/27/04
Reply  MG_z | 05/27/04
Making a profit on open source.  Anton Philidor | 05/27/04
Re-read the "study" and your post  Richard Flude | 05/27/04
I think you nailed it...  Anton Philidor | 05/27/04
linux is better than windows in some ways  blahblahblah | 05/26/04
This is the wrong tactic  Linux_Developer | 05/26/04
Waaaa, Waaaa, Waaaa....  Da-Man | 05/27/04
Another INFOMERCIAL from Microsoft  George Mitchell | 05/27/04
Servers still are expensive, desktops called servers are cheap  oldskool | 05/27/04
Your point is???  MG_z | 05/27/04
Who Cares What You People Say!  Da-Man | 05/27/04
Proprietary SW was what makes IT work, turn the page  oldskool | 05/27/04
spare evengels...  ryusen | 05/27/04
5 years isn't long enough and assumptions are unknown  escoles@... | 05/27/04
excellent point, re-buying all the SW kills MS cost model  oldskool | 05/27/04
There is some truth  MG_z | 05/27/04
Simple Rules for Posting  jLindler | 06/10/04
Microsoft: Linux isn't cheaper  bear2bar@... | 05/27/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

Meet Doc