Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Mar 2009 11:48 UTC, submitted by PLan
Permalink for comment 353693
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/26/13 18:48 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/26/13 12:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-24
Well, I'd say that Linux has been demonstrated to be useful on a much broader range of different hardware than Solaris. IBM even put it on a writwatch, and uses it regularly on their mainframes. And pretty much everywhere in between where AIX's tight integration with the hardware doesn't make more sense. (AIX doesn't compete with Linux or Solaris as much as some might think.) Much of the reason that IBM was attracted to Linux was to unify their lines of servers. It depends upon the situation, of course. But I'd say that overall there's a pretty good basis for saying that Linux is more flexible today, in 2009. Especially at IBM.
And unlike Sun, they really have no reason to do an about face and push Solaris, except with Sun's existing Solaris customers. Likely, OpenSolaris would be truly opened up (as oposed to the "sort of open" joint copyright situation we see now) and it, and its community, will either float or sink based upon what that community is able to accomplish.
This purchase, if it actually occurs, could actually clean up the landscape a bit. I like the idea.
Edited 2009-03-18 19:58 UTC