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.
Thread beginning with comment 76314
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: One size fits all?
by Simba on Tue 20th Dec 2005 23:06 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: One size fits all?
by cr8dle2grave on Tue 20th Dec 2005 23:41 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: One size fits all?
by Celerate on Tue 20th Dec 2005 23:58 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 Parent Score: 1