Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.misc -> Re: Intel vs Sparc

Re: Intel vs Sparc

From: Billy Verreynne <vslabs_at_onwe.co.za>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 10:50:44 +0000
Message-ID: <b1vs23$jpc$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>


Rauf Sarwar wrote:

> I agree to some extent. Just by being an open source and "free" is not
> going to cut it for Linux. M$ will just drown it with money.

Pardon me being very blunt, but that is really an extremely ignorant statement.

Marketing a product is not about having me-too features, but me-different-and-better features.

Linux attempting to imitate MS Windows, is _exactly_ what Microsoft would like. Only an idiot goes and play on the field owned by the market leader.

The fact that Linux is Open Source and that there are so many Open Source software for it, is the *PRIMARY* reason behind the decision of those companies and governments to go Linux.

> If Linux
> has any chance of becoming a viable platform

You are thus implying Linux is not? Again, that statement is ignorant. Linux is used in many corporate and government environments as a viable platform.

> that companies can invest money into,

Companies are _not_ interested in investing money into operating systems or software. The fact that the "free purchasing" aspect of Open Source appeals to companies and government, proves that.

Companies want to invest in *solutions*. They can no longer afford to spend money on peripheral things that are not part of the business core and focus. Why do you think there are so many job cuts and restructuring these last years? Because IT departments in companies have become bigger than the sales and marketing departments.

Companies want to focus on their core business using IT solutions. They have no interest in investing in the development of operating systems and hardware. They want to invest in *solutions*.

> If Gnome is the best that Linux can offer to attract Windoze users...
> then it is a sorry attempt.

You are confusing market segments. Linux is not a threat or a big player in the PC desktop market. Linux's strenghts are in the server market.

Sure, there are some Linux purists that will argue and say that Linux can compete in the desktop market and point to "superior technology". But the desktop market is not about technology per se. It is about end-users. How to services _them_.

IMO, Microsoft has little to fear from Linux when it comes WindowsXP Home edition (or whatever they call their desktop offering). Microsoft however has a lot to fear about competition from Linux when it comes to the WindowsXP server market.

> Still... Linux is an excellent platform and with Larry's money and
> marketing behind it.... who knows... it may produce a winner in few
> years.

I fail to see a competition here that is like a 100m or 1500km race, where the race is over after a specific distance and a winner declare at the end.

Linux has already carved itself a niche in a few markets. Rendering farms. Web services. Firewalls. POP & NNTP servers. Dialup servers. R&D platform of choice for many for Unix developers.

People tend to see (or want to see) Linux vs. Windows as some kind of contest where two opponents slug it out in a ring. There is however not a single ring. And there are many other companies providing competing products.

A business decision should not give a rat's ass about who is slugging who in some kind of ring. It should care about the _best_ *solution* for its needs.

Business requirements differ. Culture differs. Budgetary constraints differ. In-house expertise and skills differ.

Business should choose that which meets its requirements. And not whether someone think that product A has a bigger dick than product B.

--
Billy
Received on Fri Feb 07 2003 - 04:50:44 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US