|
|
| Linux Continues to Grow in the Enterprise |
 |
|
Thursday, October 02 2003 @ 06:05 PM EDT
|
There is an article on SearchEnterpriseLinux.com, "Maturity Makes Linux Less of a Gamble for the enterprise" that says that Linux continues to grow in the enterprise and says 2.6 "promises more enterprise features that will drive adoption deeper into the data center as well" :
"More enterprises have been less reticent to gamble on Linux during the last 18 months. Once solely a perimeter infrastructure play, Linux is now finding its way onto mission-critical database transaction servers, high-performance computing clusters and even the desktop. . . .
The article tells an interesting tale about the effect the SCO Group's threats had in Canada. Daniel St. Gelais, a consultant with Quebec City, Canada's InfoTech, tells how he recently delivered a Linux-on-the-desktop presentation to the local government there, but they were afraid to migrate. That was at first. However, there is more to the story: "Recently, however, things reversed course again for the Quebec government, St. Gelais said, once it saw that IBM and Red Hat Inc. were countersuing. 'They are open and ready to be part of a pilot to use open-source software, especially Linux,' said St. Gelais. 'I advise anyone not to be afraid to make a Linux proposal to their decision makers.'
"Many high-profile enterprises, meanwhile, are grounded in Linux. Online travel agent Orbitz recently moved off of Sun's Unix OS, Solaris, to Red Hat Linux at a 10x cost reduction and a 2x performance boost, said chief Internet architect Leon Chism. Others like Lithonia Lighting, a $1.3 billion lighting manufacturer, and Dallas Airmotive, a Texas-based airplane engine manufacturer, each saved more than $500,000 doing Unix-to-Linux migrations." Scalability is the selling point, the article points out, in addition to money saved. A Lithonia spokesman is quoted saying he "spent $250,000 on hardware for the production rack, and he estimates he would have spent three times that amount on a Unix environment. 'We got the stability we needed and by buying Intel servers, you can add on the fly. That's the beauty of clustering -- that, and the redundancy,' he said." Meanwhile, the SCO suit is driving adoption of Linux in Australasia, according to Red Hat in this ZDNET article, because people ask questions and then Red Hat gets to explain, which seems to resolve any worries. And finally, someone sent me this link to David Stutz' "The Failure of Shrinkwrap Software," which explains to the old-fashioned what is wrong with selling software as if it were a product like shampoo.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, October 02 2003 @ 06:23 PM EDT |
A brief word on Submissions: some of the ideas I am getting are
wonderful, and I'm definitely using a lot of what I am being sent and will
do more in the future.
I have a request. If possible, attach a url to any statement of fact. It'll
save me hours of research time, and time is the one thing I lack. (Well,
one of three things, the other two being enough bandwidth to keep up
with Groklaw's phenomenal and ongoing growth and, of course, money.)
Because I do Groklaw only in my free time, after work, time is the
biggest issue, although I see the interconnectedness of all three. So if
you could help me out with urls, I'd be grateful, but if you lack the time
too, just submit anyway, and I'll do the best I can. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stevem on Thursday, October 02 2003 @ 06:44 PM EDT |
I personally think it quite valuable that there is at least one regular poster
who does try and look at this whole issue from TSG's perspective.
We don't have to agree with them - and we probably wouldn't.
But critical thinking and being able to examine both sides of an argument are
valuable skills and should NOT be derided or criticised for doing so.
At the very least it helps us all to better marshall our own arguments and
thoughts, And heaven forbid, TSG may actually have a valid point. No matter how
excellent a job they seem to have done on inserting both feet into their
collective mouths.
Finally, as for TSG's misdirecting comments. This is an evil way to win
arguments and co-incidentally get better prices from salespersons.
ie "We have been offered a really great price from company X.
<pause> We feel that a price of $Y would be appropriate."
No-where have I stated that $Y is what company X offered. But the implcation is
that that they did.
Politicians are also past masters at this sort of speak. So realistically, none
of us should be surprised that TSG are trying the same tactics. Just be aware of
it.
It still amazes me that journalists always seem to fall for it tho....
- SteveM
PS PJ and team, as ever you're doing a fantastic job!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 02 2003 @ 11:24 PM EDT |
1. A UNIX book I was reading yesterday says that Sun made significant
contributions to System SVR4
If the book is correct and Sun did (the point is an sort of an aside to a
different point in the book so there is not much detail), it is possible other
companies did too, knowingly (this is additional to BSD code issue)
2. As the particular functionality in question is in subsequent UNIX versions, I
think it likely atleast some of the code is present in System V.
3. It also seems unlikely that Sun or any other significant contributor (and
there may be many) simply transfered all their copyrights to AT&T.
4. Additional support for this theory is the Ransom Love interview where he
states Intel has some copyrights in the AT&T code base, which prevented him
from open sourcing it.
5. So I think it is a fair assumption, System V includes BSD code (as already
known), and copyrighted Sun and Intel contributions. There may be more.
6. I do not know, but I do not even think it implausible there are copyrighted
by IBM contributions in System V.
7. SCO should certainly be aware of these contribution by third parties (they
were aware of Intel's in Ransom Love's time - and Ransom Love hints there are
others too).
8. My conclusion, is that not only does SCO not own UNIX in general (see that
Shifting Sands of SCO article), but there a reason to doubt that they own even
all the non-BSD System V code. And they know it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 02 2003 @ 11:47 PM EDT |
Some people may not remember that Dave Stutz is a former Microsoft manager
that left the company back in (about) Jan. 2003. A version of a letter that he
sent around MS when left is still available for viewing if you follow the above
link and click on ``writing''. It's supposedly ``sanitized''. I guess that
means the version on his web site is toned down, less caustic in content. (Boy,
what I'd give to see the original.)
--
RT [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 12:05 AM EDT |
Google comments on SCO
http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/enterprise/story/0,2000048640,20279307,00.htm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 12:14 AM EDT |
SCO is only considering whether to terminate SGI's license
http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/31742.html
Plenty of Stowell and DiDio quotes here
Key Points:
1. SCO only considering
2. SCO says its been specific, SGI says it hasn't
3. A month ago, Stowell said SCO and SGI in talks. Now he says no talks. SGI
said no talks.
4. A quote - Yankee Group senior analyst Laura DiDio told LinuxInsider that SCO
has been aware of "blatant SGI violations" for a year, and the lack
of action thus far indicates SCO may not want to take additional legal action.
"I don't think [SCO] wanted to do this," she said. "They
wanted to keep it focused on IBM because they didn't want to bite off more than
they could chew."
5. DiDio says indemnification important
6. SGI says no its not
7. SGI says they believe SCO's claims to be without merit.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SGI again - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 09:10 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 03 2003 @ 12:54 AM EDT |
I can't contain myself!
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37244-2003Oct2.html"
target="blank">Microsoft Named in Class Action Suit[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
