Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Dec 2005 18:37 UTC, submitted by Robert Escue
IBM Unix isn't a flashy market. But what distinction there is has been going to Sun Microsystems lately, by making its Unix-based Solaris operating system available as open-source software. Last week, IBM moved to put its AIX Unix operating system back on everybody's radar by revealing plans to create a development center on its Austin, Texas, campus to speed up AIX development.
Order by: Score:
Looking a gift horse in the mouth
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Dec 2005 19:38 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I certainly know that IBM contributes to all things Open Source, and that they can spend money on whatever they deem appropriate from a competitive standpoint.

That being said, I still wish that this story announced that IBM was spending $200 million toward a new Linux development center, instaead of AIX.

Reply Score: 0

Jody Member since:
2005-06-30

They spend millions on AIX and billions on Linux. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Reply Score: 1

Robert Escue Member since:
2005-07-08

And just where do you get that IBM spends billions on Linux? How about sharing with the rest of us.

Reply Score: 4

Anonymous Member since:
---

"And just where do you get that IBM spends billions on Linux? How about sharing with the rest of us."

This is very well known:

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-249750.html
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-825723.html
http://linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/interviews/4768/2/
http://www.forbes.com/execpicks/2003/07/30/cx_mh_ld_0730ibm.html
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_33/b3745097.htm

It costs a lot to employ engineers, and provide them with everything they need...

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

"And just where do you get that IBM spends billions on Linux? How about sharing with the rest of us."

and 1 more link:

http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/ltc/localization.shtml

This shows a map of the 38 Linux Technology Centers, and says that they employ 650 people.

Reply Score: 1

Robert Escue Member since:
2005-07-08

One billion does not equal billions of dollars, from the original post "They spend millions on AIX and billions on Linux.". The engineers you talk about were paid out of that billion dollars.

And I am reasonably sure that the technology centers link employs people who work on a lot more than Linux. I am willing to bet there are people who support AIX, Tivoli, MQ Series, DB2, and other IBM products as well. A total of 650 people world-wide is not that many when you think of it.

Reply Score: 1

fluffybunny Member since:
2005-10-05

I think you are mistaking the reason for the technology centers.

The technology center for Linux is to enable partners and IBM engineers employed to work on Linux to port over as well as create new means and features and function for Linux as well as to allow Linux to run well on IBM hardware. They do also work on certains softwares, ie. EVMS and others that works on other platforms.

These people employed in LTC, do not work on other softwares you mentioned, AIX, Tivoli, MQ Series, DB2 etc. etc.etc. Maybe for software testing or something else, but this is usually handled by the said division.

These people sometimes work with the other groups to enable porting or support on Linux but they are not allowed to talk to each other on technologies of the different platforms. To do so means to go through a lot of red tape as well as an oversight committee.

How do you think the SCO case is trying to make this out, by saying that engineers working on AIX are talking to Linux engineers and allowing for them to transfer technology from AIX/UNIX to Linux.
This is in fact not true, as AIX engineers are not supposed to talk to the Linux engineers about their products, and the means to do so.

Reply Score: 1

Robert Escue Member since:
2005-07-08

Do you know this for sure, or are you just speculating? And how much experience do you have with IBM Global Services? At least I worked on a project where I dealt with IBM for just over a year, so I am not limited to reading and guessing about what IBM does.

For all of the noise made about IBM's support of Linux it still comes down to that 650 people to me indicates a weak commitment, considering not too long ago IBM announed that they were going to lay off 15,000 people.

Reply Score: 1

tbostick78 Member since:
2005-12-16

It's really not difficult to find an earnings report:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9731750/from/RL.5/

Do you really believe IBM spends "billions" on linux? Now THAT would be philanthropy!

Reply Score: 1

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

To be fair, IBM cannot let AIX stagnate while it builds up Linux. AIX is still their bread and butter, and Solaris hasn't exactly been moving at a snail's pace!

Reply Score: 2

Googlesaurus Member since:
2005-10-19

"To be fair, IBM cannot let AIX stagnate while it builds up Linux. AIX is still their bread and butter, and Solaris hasn't exactly been moving at a snail's pace!"

I don't believe IBM has any intention of allowing AIX to stagnate, and I would say this investment speaks clearly of their future direction.

It's all about making money for IBM, even if they have to support their enemies, or jump off a cliff to do so.

Reply Score: 1

true blue
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Dec 2005 19:53 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

IBM can not be trusted. This is the best example of why. The billions to linux is marketing to get ibm global services in the door. Maybe they are going to spend 200 million on open sourcing AIX but I doubt it. It looks like they are getting ready to abandon Linux. They are supporting solaris on blade centers for christ sake. We should not trust them

Reply Score: 1

RE: true blue
by suryad on Wed 21st Dec 2005 01:31 UTC in reply to "true blue "
suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

Trust? What does trust have anything to do with it? You are getting to use an OS for free so shut up! Its IBM's money they do whatever they want with it! Honestly when is the last time you have contributed to the Linux community as much as IBM has? I am not defending IBM or anything like that. IT is just that I dont get what trust has to to with IBM spending money on AIX development and on Linux.

Reply Score: 1

Other possibilities ...
by Robert Escue on Tue 20th Dec 2005 20:08 UTC
Robert Escue
Member since:
2005-07-08

Maybe IBM isn't getting the ROI that they were expecting with Linux and decidied to spend some of their money on AIX instead. And maybe their customers are not satisfied with Linux on Power and want AIX instead.

Either way it sends an interesting message to the world.

Reply Score: 1

Consolidation
by Tyr. on Tue 20th Dec 2005 20:12 UTC
Tyr.
Member since:
2005-07-06

while IBM touted the $200 million it will invest in the center over two years, that figure includes a lot of existing IBM AIX developers, customer-relations specialists, and partner-relations staffers

So it's a move to consolidate rather than any real new investment. It does however make for good free publicity.

Reply Score: 1

AIX is still alive?
by mini-me on Tue 20th Dec 2005 20:49 UTC
mini-me
Member since:
2005-07-06

I thought it had one foot in the grace, like IRIX and the rest.... weird.
How 'bout they make AIX for x86 so we can run it on our nice brand spanking new intelMacs ?

Reply Score: 1

RE: AIX is still alive?
by CodeMonkey on Wed 21st Dec 2005 17:55 UTC in reply to "AIX is still alive?"
CodeMonkey Member since:
2005-09-22

IBM is not too concerned with the home market. They abandoned their home PC line a few years ago and are strictly business machines now. That said, the business market is what AIX is for. MacTel machines seem to be geared much more towards the home-user though which is not the market AIX is geared for. Also the architectures and directions for POWER and x86 chips seem to be taking vastly different directions. x86 is heading more towards higher efficiency at lower clock speeds where POWER is going much more twoards very high clock speeds (POWER6 is supposed to be ~5-5.5 GHz). This could present some incredible challenges in OS design if trying to optimize for vastly different CPU performance scenarios.

Reply Score: 1

Linux doesn't do everything...
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Dec 2005 21:28 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Believe it or not, Linux isn't the solution to all problems, especially when it comes to supporting older customers that have been using big iron IBM systems longer than Linux has existed. There's a huge amount to say for backwards system compatibility, which Linux simply doesn't have for existing AIX users.

If IBM serves their customers, they make more money. If they serve ideology for the sake of serving ideology, that doesn't promise them anything more than publicity amongst the geeks of the world. A huge portion of IBM's older customers want more of the same reliable stuff they've been using: AIX and other things, for such markets as banking.

IBM exists to make money, and to make money, they need to provide what the customer wants, whether that's AIX, Linux, Solaris, whatever, and the services associated with supporting that. If that's evil, then I guess all entities that like to stay financially solvent long-term are evil. As long as there's profit to be made servicing Linux, IBM will support it. As long as there's profit to be made servicing and selling AIX, they'll do it. If people insist on Solaris support and are willing to make it profitable, sure, they can and will do that, too: after all, they've supported Windows-based systems in the past, even while selling and promoting all their other solutions. It's all about making paying customers happy, not making whining geeks happy who don't control budgets.

Jonathan Thompson

Reply Score: 2

One size fits all?
by jonas.kirilla on Tue 20th Dec 2005 21:29 UTC
jonas.kirilla
Member since:
2005-07-11

Why has everything got to be about Linux? Why should we replace the Microsoft monoculture with a GNU/Linux monoculture?

Linux dominationists share the "one world order" mindset with the Microsoft diehards.

Reply Score: 5

RE: One size fits all?
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Dec 2005 21:55 UTC in reply to "One size fits all?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Linux dominationists share the "one world order" mindset with the Microsoft diehards.

Well said.

Reply Score: 1

RE: One size fits all?
by Celerate on Tue 20th Dec 2005 22:31 UTC in reply to "One size fits all?"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

I don't see GNU/Linux as a monoculture. The open nature of the software means that it can be modified to no end without paying royalties and entirely different software can result from that. If anything GNU/Linux makes it easier to create diversity.

"Why should we replace the Microsoft monoculture with a GNU/Linux monoculture?"

As I said above, my standpoint is that Linux is not a monoculture. I'm also intrigued at how you could imply that a Windows monoculture is any better than a "GNU/Linux monoculture", at least with Linux competition isn't crushed illegally as soon as it poses a threat.

"Linux dominationists share the "one world order" mindset with the Microsoft diehards."

Don't mistake the odd overzealous fan with the entire community, I for one welcome different operating systems but still preffer Linux. In no way am I contributing to killing off other operating systems and in no way do I invision a world with only one operating system, no matter what it is.

In my home there is no monoculture, there are Windows boxes and Linux boxes all safely behind a router and with individual firewalls on each machine to boot. I would even like to add at least one Mac to my home network when I have enough money to justify the expense.

Besides, the reason people asked why IBM wasn't investing in Linux instead was because AIX wasn't mentioned in so long the assumption was that IBM had already dropped it, and IBM has put a lot of support into Linux so it was assumed that IBM had chosen Linux as a replacement.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: One size fits all?
by Simba on Tue 20th Dec 2005 23:06 UTC in reply to "RE: One size fits all?"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

" at least with Linux competition isn't crushed illegally as soon as it poses a threat."

Yeah... In Linux competition is only crushed by the fact that they have to compete with something that is free. But for some reason, it seems to be ok that Linux drives commercial competetion down the toilet, but it is not ok for Microsoft to do the same thing. Don't you think there is a bit of a double-standard going here?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: One size fits all?
by cr8dle2grave on Tue 20th Dec 2005 23:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: One size fits all?"
cr8dle2grave Member since:
2005-07-11

Huh? Linux does not drive "commercial competetion down the toilet". In fact according to IDC the overall Linux market is expected to reach over 35 Billion by 2008 and is the fastest growing segment of the global server market by a considerable margin. In any case, the conventional justification for competitive markets is not that it makes it easier to earn a buck, but rather that it makes it easier for the consumer to save a buck.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: One size fits all?
by Simba on Tue 20th Dec 2005 23:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: One size fits all?"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"Huh? Linux does not drive "commercial competetion down the toilet"."

Of course it does. Look at what it did to commercial UNIX.

"segment of the global server market by a considerable margin."

No disagreement there. But the vast majority of the "global server market" running on Linux was never paid for in any way, shape, or form.

"In any case, the conventional justification for competitive markets is not that it makes it easier to earn a buck, but rather that it makes it easier for the consumer to save a buck."

Sure. And that's the conventional justification for those in the U.S. who claim that outsourcing to India, China, Russia, etc. is good for our economy. It makes it easier for consumers to save a buck. And yes, it does make it easier for consumers to save a buck. But it also puts people out of work, and causes factories to close, and companies to scale back on benefits, and give paycuts, and sometimes even go bankrupt.

So at what point does the consumer saving a buck become not worth the cost to other peoples welfare?

Edited 2005-12-20 23:50

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: One size fits all?
by cr8dle2grave on Wed 21st Dec 2005 00:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: One size fits all?"
cr8dle2grave Member since:
2005-07-11

_Of course it does. Look at what it did to commercial UNIX._

Efficient markets are a bitch. Compete or die.

_But the vast majority of the "global server market" running on Linux was never paid for in any way, shape, or form._

The "unpaid for" segment of the Linux market passes entirely under the radar screen. The measurable part of the market (the 35 billion dollar part) consists of that which is paid for.

_And that's the conventional justification for those in the U.S. who claim that outsourcing to India, China, Russia, etc. is good for our economy. It makes it easier for consumers to save a buck. And yes, it does make it easier for consumers to save a buck. But it also puts people out of work, and causes factories to close, and companies to scale back on benefits, and give paycuts, and sometimes even go bankrupt._

It is good for the economy. Perhaps not good for individual software engineers in the US (or widget welders in the rust belt), but good for the economy as a whole.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: One size fits all?
by Simba on Wed 21st Dec 2005 00:11 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: One size fits all?"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"It is good for the economy. Perhaps not good for individual software engineers in the US (or widget welders in the rust belt), but good for the economy as a whole."

It doesn't matter how cheap things are if people don't have jobs and can't afford to buy them. A good economy cannot survive skyrocketing unemployment.

And I can't agree with turning a highly skilled occupation (software engineer) into a commodity where the average starting pay is less than the average starting pay for an apprentice plumber.

Edited 2005-12-21 00:14

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: One size fits all?
by cr8dle2grave on Wed 21st Dec 2005 00:21 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: One size fits all?"
cr8dle2grave Member since:
2005-07-11

_And I can't agree with turning a highly skilled occupation (software engineer) into a commodity where the average starting pay is less than the average starting pay for an apprentice plumber._

Guess what? Nobody has any choice whatsoever in this. Comparative advantage (a basic economic principle) simply favors pushing many forms of software development to areas with significantly lower costs of living (given that there is a sufficient level of education to make it possible). The only other alternatives are protectionist tarif schemes, which history has shown to give rise to market distortions with highly unfavorable results. Not to mention that it would be almost impossible to impose import tarifs on software, given the the ease with which digital products are distributed.

Reply Score: 1

addendum
by cr8dle2grave on Wed 21st Dec 2005 00:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: One size fits all?"
cr8dle2grave Member since:
2005-07-11

_So at what point does the consumer saving a buck become not worth the cost to other peoples welfare?_

Theoretically such a tipping point may exist, but it hasn't been observed in practice. This is no different than all of the highly skilled craftsman put out of work in the earlier years of the 20th century by vastly more efficient industrial processes. Maturing markets may make for a bumpy ride at times, but thus far it still seems to be the road which leads to the greatest expansion of wealth and quality life for the greatest number.

Reply Score: 1

RE: addendum
by Simba on Wed 21st Dec 2005 00:22 UTC in reply to "addendum"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"Theoretically such a tipping point may exist, but it hasn't been observed in practice."

It most certainly has been observed in practice. GM, who is often considered an economic indicator of the health of the entire U.S. economy, is almost certainly going to file bankruptcy. Why? A lot of it has to do with the fact that they can't compete with low cost imports from Japan and Korea. And often, those imports are dumped in the United States at less than what it costs to make them in order to destroy U.S. competition.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: addendum
by cr8dle2grave on Wed 21st Dec 2005 00:29 UTC in reply to "RE: addendum"
cr8dle2grave Member since:
2005-07-11

Rubbish. GM was already once bailed by the Federal Government back in the 70's in spite of trade legislation which was designed to protect their place in the market. GM should have been allowed to die a long time ago. In any case, my point stands: the median standard of living and aggregate wealth in the US is up considerably from where it was in GM's heydays.

Edited 2005-12-21 00:40

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: addendum
by kaiwai on Wed 21st Dec 2005 07:08 UTC in reply to "RE: addendum"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

It most certainly has been observed in practice. GM, who is often considered an economic indicator of the health of the entire U.S. economy, is almost certainly going to file bankruptcy. Why? A lot of it has to do with the fact that they can't compete with low cost imports from Japan and Korea. And often, those imports are dumped in the United States at less than what it costs to make them in order to destroy U.S. competition.

Question: Why are companies, forced in the US to not only pay the outragious taxes, but then pay for the healthcare and superannuation of its employees when in ever other country (those funny little nations in that mystical 'over seas' realm) seem to get those nifty things paid for via the TAX THEY PAY TO THE GOVERNMENT EACH WEEK IN THEIR PAY AS YOUR EARN TAXATION!!!!!!!

If GM is dying, its dying because of crap leadership from the top of the US administration, and nothing to do with 'cheap imports'.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: One size fits all?
by kaiwai on Wed 21st Dec 2005 05:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: One size fits all?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Of course it does. Look at what it did to commercial UNIX.

*looks around* hmm, I still see UNIX shipments growing, their margins aren't a high as they used to, but thats competition, UNIX is now being challenged, so they've lowered their price; considering that they're now shipping MORE UNIX systems than they did in the past, with a mild 2% drop in revenue, I'd say they're not doing too bloody bad considering the circumstances.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: One size fits all?
by Simba on Wed 21st Dec 2005 05:58 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: One size fits all?"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

uh... I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers. But I would be very interested in seeing sources. They've suffered far more than a 2% drop in revenue. And commercial UNIX shipments are not growing (with the exception of Solaris, which is only growing because they have matched Linux's price and made it free)

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: One size fits all?
by kaiwai on Wed 21st Dec 2005 06:45 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: One size fits all?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Solaris SPARC shipments are UP, POWER based server shipments are UP, HP shipments are UP the *ONLY* company *NOT* shipping more is SGI, but they were never in the 'UNIX Business for the enterpise' matrix anyway.

2% was the steepest decline, but they still, out sell, in terms of revenue, than Linux or Windows server combined. Linux and Windows are low margin, high volume gear, the UNIX vendors get the gist and are adjusting accordingly - SUN is making their OS available on Opteron and making Opteron a corner stone of their stratergy, and IBM are working with Linux to spur the adoption of the POWER architecture - so its actually all good for UNIX vendors.

UNIX shipments are based on MACHINE shipments NOT software shipments, there is a BIG difference.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: One size fits all?
by Celerate on Tue 20th Dec 2005 23:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: One size fits all?"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

"Yeah... In Linux competition is only crushed by the fact that they have to compete with something that is free."

Well in that case there wouldn't be Microsoft and Apple today would there. There wouldn't be Adobe or Intuit or Corel, the list goes on. There are even several Linux distributions that cost money and they are doing well, take Mandriva and Linspire for example. People don't simply use Linux because it's free, that is part of the appeal but the real reason they use it is because they like it.

"But for some reason, it seems to be ok that Linux drives commercial competetion down the toilet, but it is not ok for Microsoft to do the same thing. Don't you think there is a bit of a double-standard going here?"

Microsoft broke laws, they leveraged their existing OEM customers and user base to commit anti-competitive acts against several companies throughoug their history. Microsoft killed off products that were both better and less expensive than their own rather than compete fairly and have to innovate to keep a dominant market position.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: One size fits all?
by Simba on Wed 21st Dec 2005 00:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: One size fits all?"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"People don't simply use Linux because it's free, that is part of the appeal but the real reason they use it is because they like it."

Hobbiests don't use it because it is free. Most businesses that use it do use it because it is free. Look at most Linux case studies of large businesses that are using it. What is the most common reason? Not technical surperiority. Not open source. But "Cause it saved money".

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: One size fits all?
by Celerate on Wed 21st Dec 2005 01:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: One size fits all?"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

"Most businesses that use it do use it because it is free. Look at most Linux case studies of large businesses that are using it. What is the most common reason? Not technical surperiority. Not open source. But "Cause it saved money"."

Companies get some distributions for free, other's they have to buy boxes sets and they do actually fork over for that, but the real money flow is in commercial support. Companies that can afford it don't stop at just getting Linux, they also pay for support so they have someone to turn to when things go wrong, and someone to call on the carpet when things really go wrong. There is money flow and it is significant.

The businesses that don't pay for support are sometimes still willing to buy a copy of the distribution they want to use. The reason they don't pay for support is because they cannot afford it, in which case were they to use any other OS they wouldn't be paying much if anything for that either.

Saving money is different from getting something entirely for free. Companies can still make a profit from offering something(s) for less than the competitors, and if the competitors don't want to lower their prices then they can just sweaten the deal on their higher prices by offering something more.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: One size fits all?
by Simba on Wed 21st Dec 2005 01:31 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: One size fits all?"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"ther's they have to buy boxes sets and they do actually fork over for that, but the real money flow is in commercial support."

Sure. and those businesses that to pay for commercial support are supporting all the ones that don't. Hence why Red Hat's lowest level of support contract is more expensive than Sun's higest level of support contract.

"The reason they don't pay for support is because they cannot afford it, in which case were they to use any other OS they wouldn't be paying much if anything for that either."

That's not true. A lot of them don't buy support simply because they don't think they will need it, even though they could easily afford it.

"Companies can still make a profit from offering something(s) for less than the competitors,"

They can. But as I aid, Red Hat doesn't. Red Hat's lowest level of support is more expensive than Sun's highest level of support.

The vast majority of Linux distros running on servers, are not paid for. If they were, then Red Hat should have a lot more market capitalization value than they do considering how popular Red Hat Linux is.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: One size fits all?
by Celerate on Wed 21st Dec 2005 04:35 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: One size fits all?"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

"Sure. and those businesses that to pay for commercial support are supporting all the ones that don't."

It's obvious you're going to argue this all week just for fun, so this is my last answer and after that you'll be arguing with yourself.

Companies build business models around providing a product for free and then making money off the services that people then pay for to accompany the free product. In this case the free product is a Linux distribution and the service people pay for can be any combination of the following:
- Access to a special package repository
- Priority access to new software
- Service by phone and e-mail
- Early access to new versions

People and companies will often try a free product before paying anything, this introduces them to the product and gives them a good chance to find out that they like it. If they do like it they'll often pay for some subscriber extras if they can afford it, if not they'll often pay for a boxed set to reward the company for making a good product. The fact that the product is available freely for an indefinite period of time doesn't stop people from paying for it, if anything it encourages them to keep using the product and increases the already good chances that perspective customers will pay for it.

If people don't pay for the product other costomers don't pay extra to cover for that. Free versions are given away through low cost means, usually as a download which by being hosted on several third party mirrors and costs very little compared to income.

"That's not true. A lot of them don't buy support simply because they don't think they will need it, even though they could easily afford it. "

Saying "A lot of them" isn't true either. Sure some people can afford to pay for support but don't because they don't need it. Either way, as I've stated above the ones who don't pay don't cost the company much either, and they could easily become paying customers when presented with the bonuses of what a marginal amount of money can get them. Even if people only buy a boxed copy of the distribution with printed manuals, extra software on a CD, and nice looking profesionally made CDs that's still enough to support the company and please the customer.

"They can. But as I aid, Red Hat doesn't. Red Hat's lowest level of support is more expensive than Sun's highest level of support. "

Actually that proves what I've said, Sun is trying to make more money by selling for less than Red Hat, and assuming customers feel the product is worth the price they'll bite. If Red Hat offers more features, better support or some other bonus with their higher price then they can price higher and still have lots of customers. The point is that most people care more about what they are getting for the price than what the price itself is.

"The vast majority of Linux distros running on servers, are not paid for."

Actually the vast majority of comercially run Linux servers are on payed support contracts. I've spent a long time looking at different commercially run web hosting services, all the ones that offer Linux also have contracts with the distributiors that offer support contracts.

You're saying that looks like nothing more than a wild assumption, or at best hearsay.

"If they were, then Red Hat should have a lot more market capitalization value than they do considering how popular Red Hat Linux is."

Again this either a wild assumption or hearsay.

You think you know how much Red Hat is making off sold support contracts, as well as how many people use Red Hat Linux on servers? I highly doubt that.

Red Hat also isn't the only distribution providing Linux, they wouldn't get payed for people using Novell Linux, Novell would. The same goes for people using Linspire, if they want support they don't pay Red Hat, they pay Linspire.

Reply Score: 1

RE: One size fits all?
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Dec 2005 22:44 UTC in reply to "One size fits all?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Linux can't become a monoculture.

it would require far to much. As long as there is at least one distribution per country there will never be a monoculture strong enough to spread viruses like windows does. There are far to many subtle variations in each one for such an event to occur.

Besides with Linux any company could produce a unique OS to go with their computer hardware. Optimized for that hardware, Like Apple Does for OS X. Dell and Linspire, HP and novell, Red Hat and Levono.

that would produce a long term viable hardware market. Unlike the current offerings where hardware makers get 1-2% profit and mSFT gets 400% because bill Gates says hardware should be free. Even though it costs more to produce a million PC's than it costs to produce a million copies of Windows.

Reply Score: 0

RE: One size fits all?
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Dec 2005 12:47 UTC in reply to "One size fits all?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Oh you mean redhat. I hate redhat, too.

Reply Score: 0

v RE: One size fits all?
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Dec 2005 23:39 UTC
A lot of reasons for this
by Anonymous on Tue 20th Dec 2005 23:58 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Aside from legacy motive (and I speak as an AIX operator and a diehard Linux fan) there are a LOT of features and things AIX on Power has that Linux lacks, such as dynamic resizing of LPARs, tightly (and i mean real tight) integrated LVM and SCSI support, and a decent, unified system configuration interface.

The world of proprietary UNIX does offer several advantages Linux generally does not give out, and while I'd prefer that, in the interest of improving FOSS, they'd dedicate that money to an IBM Linux distro, the fact is that there is still quite a bit of customer demand for AIX. It is really a nice OS for business and for its hardware. Perhaps this was a cheaper(because the foundations for a lot of wanted features are already there) and more cost-effective (because AIX costs an arm, leg and left nut) maneuver.

Reply Score: 1

RE: A lot of reasons for this
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Dec 2005 14:53 UTC in reply to "A lot of reasons for this"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Mostly agree, however AIX itself is not that expensive, it's just that you have to buy IBM hardware to run it on.

Reply Score: 0

AIX is cool
by SEJeff on Wed 21st Dec 2005 00:20 UTC
SEJeff
Member since:
2005-11-05

Althought I'm not a fan of the AIX default shell (csh), AIX is a damn solid OS and has some really cool features of all of the 'Nix variants I administer

Reply Score: 1

RE: AIX is cool
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Dec 2005 14:54 UTC in reply to "AIX is cool"
Anonymous Member since:
---

The default shell on AIX is ksh.

Reply Score: 0

patents
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Dec 2005 00:52 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"Not to mention how the Linux crowd whine about people breaking their precious GPL, while Linux steals from over 200 patents"

Pointless rumor. Can you even list a SINGLE one of them?

Reply Score: 0

RE: patents
by Googlesaurus on Wed 21st Dec 2005 03:28 UTC in reply to "patents"
Googlesaurus Member since:
2005-10-19

""Not to mention how the Linux crowd whine about people breaking their precious GPL, while Linux steals from over 200 patents"

Pointless rumor. Can you even list a SINGLE one of them?"

I can't name a single one of them.

I'm absolutely positive some of the largest Unix vendors and others, including Microsoft, can name many.

The "dirty little secret" is they will go after Linux when the time is right, and not until.

This is a future battle which won't rear it's ugly head until the need arises, or circumstances require such action.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: patents
by manmist on Wed 21st Dec 2005 04:37 UTC in reply to "RE: patents"
manmist Member since:
2005-12-18

"
I'm absolutely positive some of the largest Unix vendors and others, including Microsoft, can name many. "

Ya and you know they have patents on Linux.


"The "dirty little secret" is they will go after Linux when the time is right, and not until. "

how did you happen to know their dirty secret. work for them?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: patents
by Googlesaurus on Wed 21st Dec 2005 08:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: patents"
Googlesaurus Member since:
2005-10-19

""The "dirty little secret" is they will go after Linux when the time is right, and not until. "

"how did you happen to know their dirty secret. work for them?"

No, I don't work for them. They don't need me.

The same developers who created some of this stuff DO work for them, and they keep hiring more of them on a daily basis.

Never a better professional witness, than the person dealing with their own work.

Reply Score: 1

IBM Brainless
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Dec 2005 03:52 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

If they had played their cards right, Apple might have let them in on the big server end, with OSX. AIX is so--20th century.

Reply Score: 0

RE: IBM Brainless
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Dec 2005 15:53 UTC in reply to "IBM Brainless"
Anonymous Member since:
---

wow, you are a moron.

Reply Score: 0

Linux patents and Solaris
by Anonymous on Wed 21st Dec 2005 04:59 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I have a pretty good idea that if anyone sued the Linux community, Sun would step in front of the suit with a massive indemnity. They gave the first hint of that with OpenSolaris. they're the hidden white knight in all this wrangling, you just watch.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Linux patents and Solaris
by Googlesaurus on Wed 21st Dec 2005 05:39 UTC in reply to "Linux patents and Solaris"
Googlesaurus Member since:
2005-10-19

"I have a pretty good idea that if anyone sued the Linux community,"

Nobody will sue the Linux community. Cease and desist, will be the method behind the madness. You can't sue someone without anything to loose, but you can certainly make them cease operations at the corporate level.

Will this ever happen? I'll guess along with ya, but my guess is there will be some serious issues to be dealt with at some point.

Indemnity by itself means little. There is nobody who could monetarily support such a claim, including IBM, who wouldn't.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Linux patents and Solaris
by Simba on Wed 21st Dec 2005 05:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux patents and Solaris"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"Nobody will sue the Linux community. Cease and desist, will be the method behind the madness. You can't sue someone without anything to loose,"

Well, they can sue entities and key figures for damages. Obviously, Red Hat would be one likely target. the Free Software Foundation would be another (since they are largely responsible for the GNU tools). Certain key individuals could also find themselves named.

Reply Score: 1

Googlesaurus Member since:
2005-10-19

"Well, they can sue entities and key figures for damages. Obviously, Red Hat would be one likely target. the Free Software Foundation would be another (since they are largely responsible for the GNU tools). Certain key individuals could also find themselves named."

No, and for a lot of reasons....
The key figures as you put it are a lot less key than you assume. Red Hat isn't a target because their pockets are shallow in the grand scheme of things. The FSF is a non-profit "thingy", taken seriously only by those who are willing to take them seriously.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Linux patents and Solaris
by Simba on Wed 21st Dec 2005 21:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linux patents and Solaris"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"The key figures as you put it are a lot less key than you assume. Red Hat isn't a target because their pockets are shallow in the grand scheme of things."

Red Hat's pockets are shallow yes. But if they get sued for more than they can afford out of pocket, their insurance picks up the tab. If they get sued for higher than their insurance policy, then they have to pick it up out of pocket again. If they can't, they have to file for chapter 11 or chapter 13 bankruptcy protection.

The problem here is that you are assuming financial gain would be only motive for suing Red Hat. But it's not. Forcing them into bankruptcy would be another very real motive.

Reply Score: 1

true intention
by Anonymous on Thu 22nd Dec 2005 07:28 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

IBM moved to put its AIX Unix operating system back on everybody's radar by revealing plans to create a development center on its Austin, Texas, campus to speed up AIX development.


So they can continue to add new AIX code into Linux.

Reply Score: 0