Posted on 11/01/2001 4:09:34 AM PST by amigatec
Well, then if they'd switched from Microsoft they would be saving even *more* time and money, likely.
Somebody wake up the Mac Moonies. They must be sleeping in this morning. ;-)
Earlier this year Bezos promised to turn a profit by the end of the year, now they're talking about pro forma profits. What a laugh Bezo=Bozo.
I just cracked open my latest shipment from Microsoft yesterday, and I think it only contained the "Home" and "Professional" versions. I don't know why they would leave out the "server" version of XP if it exists as I do get the "server" versions of the NT OSs. (I have a "developers' subscription." I think MS's idea is to allow people like me to try out whatever I write on all the platforms it might be used on, so that's why I get all this stuff. I only use about 0.05% of it!)
ML/NJ
Tellingly, the article doesn't provide us with a breakdown between the Linux savings, and those from lower telecomm bills.
Given that this article is basically a Linux press release, I have to conclude that the Linux savings weren't the major factor in the cost savings.
Tellingly, the article doesn't provide us with a breakdown between the Linux savings, and those from lower telecomm bills.
Given that this article is basically a Linux press release, I have to conclude that the Linux savings weren't the major factor in the cost savings.
Along those lines, look at this snippet: HP supplied Amazon's Linux servers, large numbers of thin, rack-mountable models with Intel chips...
IOW, Amazon not only went from UNIX to Linux, but also from very expensive Sun machines to relatively inexpensive PC-type machines.
Linux undoubtedly enabled them to do this -- but it really means that the cost savings was hardware-related, and not because running bits through Linux software offers any intrinsic cost-savings.
Which is to say, Amazon probably would have cut costs significantly had they switched to a Microsoft-based system, too. Linux vs. MS might have a cost difference, but it'd probably be small as compared to the savings due to using PC-type servers.
Absolutely correct. The Unix workstation is being squeezed from both sides -- mainframes are making a comeback, and PCs are cheaper and increasingly more capable. Their market base -- mostly technical folks -- can increasingly get satisfactory results from standard PCs, and they can do it for one hell of a lot less money.
For example, a software development environment for a Sun workstation costs several thousand dollars. Similar capability costs under a thousand for a PC. If I get similar performance -- plus the added advantage of trouble-free compatibility with the rest of my computer network -- what would I buy? In most cases it's an easy choice.
Such a switch works with Linux, because your licensing costs are $0. But, if you put Microsoft software on those servers, your licensing costs would be through the roof. I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up costing more to run PCs running Windows/Exchange/MS SQL Server, etc., than enough big Sun boxes to do the job. You're talking licensing on the order of ~$35,000 a box for database machines, and several thousand for other machines. Where's the big savings from moving to PC hardware in that scenario?
You're kidding, right? Where are you getting your information? Microsoft?
Actually Microsoft servers are much harder to maintain then Linux servers. Because of Microsoft's lack of true programming, they are a security nightmare, as well as the code itself being released to the general public before being properly tested.
How many of you out there that run any Microsoft software, can actually state you have close to zero problems? Not many I would guess, while the die hard Linux fans have zero or as close to zero problems, as you can get. I say this from a programmers perspective, having been in this field since 1976. Programmers now use other programs and code "Modules" to write programs with.
Programs used to be designed with size and durability in mind, now its "get it out fast" so we can get our R and D back quickly, without regard to us the consumer. The long and short of it is, Linux in both the long and short run will give huge cost savings over any modern OS.You will also find Linux/Unix specialists to be a better trained and knowledgable bunch of folks
God Bless America..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.