Re: Should there only be 1 OS, or multiple?

I suspect even you would concede that this argument only applies to the server environment - I disagree there as well as it happens - on the desktop pretty much everything but windows is irrelevant, on mobile devices there are only a couple of real players. I guess you could summarize what I am saying by saying that in distinct markets there tend to be distinct kings of the pile, and for good reason.

As to the server environment, it seems to me that the choices most people will be making over the next say 5 years will be between Linux and Windows, since most people will be looking for application servers, web servers and the like. Take for example
http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/enterprise-linux/the-server-market-share-battle-microsoft-gains-2/ which
is a year or so old, but I'm not sure I'd count someone with 2/3rd of the servers shipped as an irrelevant side show.

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Goulet, Richard <Richard.Goulet_at_parexel.com
> wrote:

> John,
>
> There is only one OS of any real consequence, Unix. Sure there are a
> pile of different flavors from HP, IBM, Linux, Sun, etc....., but at the
> core their all the same. Windows is one of those sideshows that just
> doesn't seem to understand how irrelevant it is.
>
>
> *Dick Goulet***
> Senior Oracle DBA
> PAREXEL International
> 978.313.3426
> * information transmitted in this communication is intended only for the
> person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
> and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or
> other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by
> persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
> received this in error, please destroy any copies, contact the sender and
> delete the material from any computer.*
>

-- 
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.orawin.info

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l