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 76391
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: One size fits all?
by Celerate on Wed 21st Dec 2005 01:01 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: One size fits all?
by Simba on Wed 21st Dec 2005 01:31 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 Parent Score: 1