|
Originally Posted by mindgam3
although slightly old, why did microsoft themselves use a unix OS for their hotmail servers? It cant be that bad...
|
You are missing the point entirely.
|
Originally Posted by mindgam3
Plus why does (arguarbly the largest, at least on of the largest server providers) IBM have unix based OS on all of their servers?
|
They are not. Compaq supplies tens of thousands more servers than IBM could even cream of producing.
No really - IBM makes a lot of money from smaller numbers of vastly more expensive computers than the Intel based server market does.
|
Originally Posted by mindgam3
I'm in no way implying that unix based OS for servers rule the world but its a much larger proportion than u think.....
|
No it isn't..
|
Originally Posted by mindgam3
late lasy year HP also announced that their highest end linux based servers were faster and than their own windows equivalent..... If you're being supplied by a certain company and you've got basically the same 2 servers to choose from but ones faster because it has linux on, which one are you going to choose?
|
Again you miss the point.
The server you buy will be the server that most effectively delivers on the business requirement and solves the problem being addressed at the time of the purchase.
Speed means nothing if the system does not address the overall business requirement.
There is a lot more to enterprise solution design, architecture and deployment than "who has the biggest dick" ..
I will give you a practical example:
You have a specific business need to address a billing/pricing/estimation and customer relation management application problem.
You have x amount of data to manipulate, x number of clients to serve, and x number of transaction to host and manage on the backend.
The servers that are deployed as a possible Web-based Interface for the Customer Query Module, the Database Management Module, the Nth Tier Application Server Module, the EDI Interface Module, the Terminal Presentation Module will all be dependant of the server platform the Vendor providing the solution has developed that section of the application for... period..
In the real world this will probably involve a lot more Wintel based pieces than you care to know, admit or see,
-- in the above scenario expect to have Unix, Wintel - perhaps some Linux, some AS/400 and greater IBM pieces - and so on and so forth..
Just because Linux this or Unix that or WIndows another does not mean that's what the solution is made of.
Behind all of this, you need to have END USERS that in a productive manner need to access and manipulate this business driven solution - without them even the greatest planned and designed IT infrastructure means jack shit.
No matter what you learn at University during your MIS degree - the real IT departments of the business world is not driven by the ideal model of this or that - they are driven by budget and solution requirements first - and techy factors last.
Just the same way Ferrari makes nice 360's for the Gucci crowd -- they have made less money from EVERY Ferrari 308/328/348/355/360/430/nnn ever produced and ever to be produced than Ford made from the F150 pickuo last year alone - Business runs of utility and reliability for the task at hand - not performance numbers alone...
The bottom line - there are numerically more Windows servers deployed in Houston alone, than Linux servers deployed in the entire world at the moment..
I don't know if you can appreciate just how many large energy companies maintain 3 or 4 or 5 campuses with perhaps a 1000 Wintel servers per location..
Granted they also have perhaps 60 or more Unix servers per location - and perhaps 50 or so Linux boxes - but until you see and understand and appreciate the economies of scale at work - which can be mind boggling at times..
Not an argument perse - but a "Linux would not need to be advertised as much if it was that big" issue.
When last did you see a Compaq Proliant commercial?
They sell themselves - which is why HP bought Compaq.
IT behind Ferrari
Linear Mode
