Slashdot Mirror
Oracle Switching To Linux
Bill Kendrick writes: "This Computerworld story quotes Oracle CEO Larry Ellison as saying 'We'll be on Linux no later than the summer, so we'll be running our whole business on Linux." When asked what this means for Unix vendors like Sun... "It will be several years before the big machine dies, but inevitably the big machine will die.' Ouch!"
Oracle Corp. is about to replace three Unix servers that run the bulk of its business applications with a cluster of Intel Corp. servers running Linux, Oracle Chairman and CEO Larry Ellison said yesterday.
I think we can chalk this up as a win.
Oh yeah, big win! Linux replaced THREE SERVERS! 783,472,991 to go!
Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?
Hmmm, gonna be pulling some late nighters there. I'll give him that its good talk. But I bet this is one case where the "sales" department hasn't told the support department their pitch yet.
"YOU TOLD THE CUSTOMERS WE'D DO WHAT?"
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
Unforturnately for Larry, the same quote is being said to him by the Free Software movement....
www.eFax.com are spammers
...to hear the purveyor's of insanely expensive commercial software boasting about how they're switching from expensive commercial software to free software?
Perhaps Sun should announce their commitment to PostgreSQL.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
.. i wish he would stop dancing around topics all the time, and just be blunt for once...
I don't know anyone who would want their production Oracle database on Intel hardware. You can't just keep throwing faster cpus into the same outdated backplane and expect to get the kind of throughput performance that a db requires.
Additionally, who with a production system isn't going to want both the hardware & software reliability and 24/7 support of the caliber that Sun provides?
Don't get me wrong, I love Linux & use it as my primary platform. But I wouldn't deploy my db back-end on it. We used Suns at my last job for very good reasons.
He may take the Sun out of Oracle, but he won't take the Sun out of the users, and if Oracle starts slipping on the Sun support, there's always Sybase.
Michael J.
Root, God, what is difference?
So THIS is how he plans to get rid of the competition. (Pictures of MIG flown by Larry flying over competitors corporate HQ, surface to air missiles a-flying). Can we all chip in and buy one of these for Linus?
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
So there you are, some Big Company, with this nifty Linux cluster running Oracle, saving money on the OS and servers, but being bled white by Oracle's per-transaction fee structure.
And then somebody discovers this "PostgresSQL" thing....
Payback's a bitch, innit?
DG
http://autocross.dsm.org/books.html
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
This is a natural move for server (as opposed to host) vendors. Applications like Oracle typically are the only things on the server, or run with only minimal software designed specifically to run with them. (LDAP servers are another example, at least in the corporate space.) By using an existing OS that they can modify as they wish, they can optimize the system for their database, and vice versa. Because the OS is in use elsewhere, there are a number of available tools for administrators to use on their systems. At once, Oracle makes itself independent of large companies like Sun or Microsoft, and can potentially make a better product in the bargain. My guess is, there will be a specific flavor of Linux and specific supported hardware, once Oracle releases this into the marketplace.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
I think there's some typos.
;)
"We'll be on Linux no later than the summer, so we'll be running our whole business on Linux."
I think he meant to say: "We'll be owning Linux no later than the summer, so we'll be running the whole business of Linux." I can't really back that up, unless you take the fact that Larry Ellison said it as proof
Seriously, this would be good for Linux in the big picture. Most of us would stick with our MySQL and PostgreSQL servers, but with Oracle...Enterprise credibility goes up. Additionally, all the industry behemoths (AOL/TW, Oracle) would fare well to bolster Microsoft's competetors.
I might burn some Karma for saying this, but Linux is symbolically a pawn, being used by the giant corporations for leverage against their current giant corporation rivals.
I also wonder how market share affects this. Linux is growing in the server market. Oracle isn't being used in these machines. Which means less money for Ellison. I wonder how this will work out. Any suggestions?
Chaos, Mayhem, and Destruction: Not
Actually, it is licensed to run based on the number of cpu's. RAC (real application clusters) cost an extra 50%. Last I checked, you could download 9i for linux intel (just watch those system requirements very carefully, your favorite distro is most likely not covered)
All of that said, if oracle can get you to get rid of your 72CPU SunFire 15K and replace it with a 128 single cpu intel boxes..... (extra intel boxes to make up for the lost ram and system bandwidth in the 15K)
Lets see what that would cost ya...
list price for a 72 cpu license for a single box is 2.9 million. List price for those 128 cpu's w/ RAC will cost ya 7.6 million.
Lots of smaller, "cheaper" systems can often cost less overall. This is not the case here, where the price delta more than makes up for the cost of the big sun box, and we dont even have to get into the argument over the extra cost involved in managing 128 different systems. (besides, RAC is not a 'shared nothing' cluster, so management of large clusters is a real pain)
anyway, larry is always going to need sun to produce the big boxes for its big clients.
...it's a win for Intel. Larry says nothing in the article about the capabilities of Linux except that it's better than Windows "if you're on the Internet."
What he really liked, apparently, was the fact that the hardware was cheap and easily replaceable. It's a win for clustering, certainly, but is it a win for Linux?
As glad as I am to hear that a big company like Oracle is making the move to Linux, I think that without the "core" Linux community remaining vigilant, it could result in problems down the road.
On one hand, having a larger user base is definately a GOOD THING. Proving that Linux can provide the infrastructure for one of the world's top companies is a GOOD THING.
Problems arise in the mid to long term possibilities. Will Sun ultimately lose so much business that they're driven out of the software market? Despite the fact that they seem to be sunsetting, they're still a software/OS player, and the more players in the field, the better the products (my belief is that Linux has achieved so much partly because it had Sun, SGI, Be, MS to prove itself against) all around. Its not like MS can provide Linux with any great technical challenges to overcome...
And am I alone in worrying that having so many big companies like IBM, Oracle, God forbid AOL/TW using Linux may end up with them pushing development away from the needs of the average user? Sorof like getting a loan from the Mafia, you never know when or how you're going to pay up.
Some men spend their entire lives trying to kill themselves for having been born. --Ross MacDonald
Some of you may disagree with me, but Sun has contriubuted a lot to the OpenSource community. They have programmers working on the Mozilla, GNOME and most especially OpenOffice projects. All of these projects seek to provide highly usable and OpenSource alternatives to Microsoft software, namely, InternetExplorer, Windows and MS Office, respectively. They have (in a highly restricted way) opened up the source code to Java and have offered the JDK and all other Java API's for Linux.
Now, ironically, Linux is eating into Sun's market share, to the delight of OpenSource zealots, who decry Sun simply for being a for-profit corporation. I get the sense that many OpenSourcers are rooting against Sun, and I believe that's an entirely counter-productive position to take.
Microsoft is the enemy of OpenSource, not Sun. Sun may not have open-sourced Java and Solaris, but, hey, they need to make money just like everybody else. Sun has many OpenSource products and has contributed much to the community.
OpenSource and Linux will lose a great deal if Sun goes out of business, and not vice-versa.
This space left intentionally blank.
Intel-based servers may be cheap and all, but I do not look forward to a future where the RISC-based manufacturers, such as Sun, IBM, and SGI, are totally displaced.
Reality is that traditional RISC-based workstations and servers, such as Sun's higher-end Ultra and Blade workstations, are really a joy to work with. They are amazingly robust and flexible, since they typically are the result of long and thorough development and testing efforts. They tend to have useful lifetimes of about a decade, where they keep finding new roles and finally get mothballed after enjoying a last hurrah as a print server. They have genuine firmware, so you don't have to jump through flaming hoops to bootstrap the system they way you want to. Their enclosures are very well engineered for easy maintainence, fewer moving parts, and good airflow. And on and on...
Whenever I see the inside of an Intel-based server, I am a bit disappointed. Working with one tends to be disappointing as well. Truth is: you do get what you pay for.
I hope Oracle doesn't learn too many hard lessons these next few years.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
It seems from a lot of people's comments that they think that Larry is saying that Oracle will finally support Linux. Well, Oracle has run on Linux for awhile now, though it's been a lower priority. Patches come out for Solaris versions first, then Linux and Windows.
All Larry was saying that at Oracle they'll be running their own product on Linux rather than Solaris. From which we can presume that they'll start making Linux a higher priority when it comes to patching...
Those big machines aren't going away anytime soon. There's a reason why Intel hardware is so cheap. It's just plain not as reliable as Sun's.
Not to mention that with what Oracle charges for it's very confusing clustering software, it was actually cheaper for my company to buy one more expensive Sun server to run Oracle on than lots of cheap ones + the clustering software. Since Oracle licences are a recurring expensce, and we just had to buy the Sun server up front, the disparity gets even worse.
That reminds me, I have to take the opportunity to rant about Oracle pricing now. They actually charged us for a second license because our Oracle software is located on a NFS-shared network filer. This way, if the hardware of the DB server takes a shit, we can quickly mount the filesystem Oracle lives on, and start it on another box.
They even said they would not have charged us a second license if we had a second machine powered off, which we brought up in the event of a hardware failure. They claimed that Oracle was providing us the benfit to be able to failover quickly. Umm, no, the network filer is. BEA doesn't charge us for this setup. iPlanet doesn't charge us for this setup. Why should you get to?
It's Cnet's domain, along with news.com, computers.com, etc.
I remember when I worked for ZDNet in '96 we used to make fun of CNet, our main competitor at the time, for purchasing such general domain names. "What, do they think they own everything?"
A few years later, they bought ZDNet.
Considering that the article says they're replacing some older HP hardware with the new Linux setup, I'm curious to know what boxes they propose to run the Linux on... assuming they had the beefiest HP hardware from 3 years ago, those would be some big boxes; a V2500 or V2600 could hold up to 32 CPU and 32Gb of RAM, as I recall...
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
Let's see...
Oracle are saying that big servers will eventually die and be replaced by clusters of smaller servers running Linux.
IBM are saying that clusters of smaller servers will be replaced by mainframe-class servers running Linux.
Place your bets please, ladies and gentlemen.
I have had oracle 9iAS running on Linux for a year.
It is very poorly supported by oracle.
I had to do a lot of tweaking, (editing kernel headers, etc)
However, since i got it to work, it has totally outperformed the windows NT implementation.
For one thing, it has uptime of 200+ days.
It almost makes you wonder if Oracle is going to create a Linux distribution of their own, and then have THAT as the only thing that Oracle will run on; this would eventually result in Oracle, basically, being bootable; it becomes an 'appliance application,' as I call them. After all, anybody running Oracle anyway is running on dedicated hardware, and Oracle likes raw disks; filesystems just slow things down, after all. Wonderful idea, if you ask me.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
It's not a huge win because they are replacing three servers, it's because they are Oracle. I'm sure when the IT department heads hear that Oracle trusts Linux enough to place the bulk of their business systems on it, a lot of them will take it very seriously.
The article also said that they would also provide FULL system support for Linux. That's a really big plus. The IT managers know that if they deploy Linux that Oracle will back them up if anything goes wrong.
Big, big win.
.
load "linux",8,1
One would think Microsoft is in some serious trouble with all of the large corporations you hear out there switching to Linux solutions. But ask yourself this: What systems do you think these companies were already running? More often than not, I'd wager they were using UNIX, and the reason they switch to Linux is to reduce costs.
Switching to Linux, when all of your sysadmins know Windows, is going to cost in retraining. If your shop runs UNIX, the sysadmins will be ready to roll with Linux.
So, you see, those who tout Linux and decry Microsoft are really taking an ironic stance. They are helping MS (by hurting their competition) when they advocate Linux.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Actually, they will probably only support one or two major distributions of Linux, and they will probably subcontract out to the Linux vendor some of the Linux problems.
This actually makes a lot of sense for Oracle. After all, they want you to spend as little on your hardware and operating system as possible. After all, they are selling a database and applications, not Solaris licenses. If they can cut Sun out of the loop that is billions more in potential profits for them. Their solutions become less expensive (and more competitive) without any loss of profit margin.
The fact of the matter is that the operating system is quickly becoming a commodity. In a few years even Microsoft won't be selling their operating system (that's why they are so desperate to move to a service and support type business).
back in the day, many of our clients *insisted* on using Oracle for the most trivial of applications, like BBSes or a phone-lookup service. They thought that by paying truckloads of cash their apps would be faster or something. Hell, even mySQL and Postgres would be overkill for some applications... The clients would rather pay than think!
I left the industry after clients started using similar glassy-eyed statements about Java. Both Java and Oracle have their place, but considering Oracle's insane price and administration overhead, it needs quite a bit of research before deployment.
In the dark bowels of a cubicle farm at Oracle...
Programmers slouch in front of their computers...
And read these fateful words..
Spoken by their master...
Perhaps in haste and bravado...
We'll be on Linux no later than the summer,...
First there is silence...
Then, in one collective voice...
For all to hear...
"Oh shit!"
The problem with Oracle licensing is that on Intel its in $ per MHz whereas on Sparc/PARISC/MIPS/etc. it's $ per CPU. This is what makes the 'big iron' competitive with the smaller machines, paying 25$ per Mhz on a dualie 2.2Ghz P4 is more expensive than paying for a 4 CPU license for an E450.
The article said they where working with Red Hat on the deal. I would assume that they are going to come up with a tight distrobution with just the essentials for Oracle. They'll stick with super stable kernels, nothing fancy.
;)
In a situation like that, support shouldn't really be a big problem, at least no bigger than normal.
I guess if you're installing your 8 processor Oracle database server on a LinuxFromScratch box, you'd probably be on your own.
.
load "linux",8,1
Couple reasons why Sun still will be preferable to off-the-shelf, commodity Linux boxes for many a year (with or without Oracle's blessing) - and how to change it! (Disclaimer, we run Linux on our web and DB boxen and do NOT use Oracle (Sybase ASE in fact) and were burned by Sun in a deal we wanted for some 280's).
Banks and others with lots of cash have traditionally enjoyed the "Let's buy a couple really really big boxes and replicate them everywhere" mindset and I don't think that will change. Clustering is way cool but I am not convinced the TCO is far less to cause large customers to switch their entire mission-critical, multi-billion dollar a day transactional systems to Linux.
They will stay with what works for a long, long time. Why Larry's pronouncement of 'support' is interesting is that Linux is, for the most part, unsupported. Sun has hundreds (if not more) of engineers around the world on standby -- if your E10K goes down at 4AM they probably know about it before you do (since they have all sorts of neat things built in) and are already on the scene. With Linux? Not so much -- but Oracle is going to try and push the fears of 'what if it goes down at 4am!' out of their minds by saying "That's ok, we can fix it!". Linux and Intel need to offer much of the same features - I know Compaq has neat little remote monitoring cards with their servers, something like that which hooks into Linux and is a commodity (like video cards, or RAID cards, etc.) would help a lot.
Yes, there is an inherent 'single point of failure' with big boxes. That is why they 'cluster' (in name only and not a special type of software) by replicating all their data from their master to several slaves. Currently Sun platform usually has MORE than ample room for growth and you buy 3 E15Ks simply to have warm-standby machines in case the first goes down (and you can always use the other two as readers).
From a TCO standpoint it is far easier, faster, and cheaper to replace a single machine (under warrantee) than it is to have 20 small ones go down at night. Yup - you need to have redundant supplies on hand for the 'worst' situation - and if you have 100 Linux boxes in a nice array and an earthquake hits you now have to order 100 new boxes to replace your destroyed ones. Sun can get you a replacement (or replacements) installed and configured long before the first truckload of new PCs arrives.
Further, you have to configure and maintain 100 boxes vs. a small cluster of Sun machines. I haven't had much experience in large-scale clustered Linux systems but I would surmise that making a kernel change on 100 Linux boxes would take more time and $$ than to 3 Sun machines.
Plus, Sun's 64 bit architecture beats the pants off of Intel -- and in a large DB app you NEED that extra I/O (which is why a 220R with 450MHz x 2 CPUs will spank any dual Intel system out there). I have yet to see any head-to-head comparisons of Itanium and UltraSparc III, so perhaps Intel can rip that from Sun someday.
Thanks,
--
Matt
Ok, i'll bite:
for starters, you are comparing a dual cpu box with a quad cpu box. The quad's always cost more per cpu. Simple matter of the fact that it is harder to get 4 cpus' to talk together compared to only 2 (why do you think intel has yet to produce a 64 way smp server.... sun did it 5 years ago, cray did it before them.) You also have to look at things like backplane contention (are all of those cpu's on the same bus? sucks to be you if they are)
anyway, yes, sun boxes cost more than their intel counterparts in the low to mid range. That said, I have yet to find an intel box that does what the X1 can do for the low end, and once you get to 8 ways systems, intel starts to disappear from the map (and the sun boxes are the same cost or cheaper).
Now, we got the hardware price argument out of the way.
when making a decision, there are 3 major areas to consider: Price, Performance and Reliability. Only an idiot would focus on price when the cost of downtime is a million an hour.
The real reason i purchase sun boxes is not because they are the fastest. You want fast cpu's? Go get an intel box.
here are the main reasons I continue to purchase sun boxes:
#1) Sun's support organization. It is second to none. period, end of story. You have a problem, they fix it. I had a failed disk earlier this week, the support rep's first response was to send a tech on site that day.
#2) When they boast about binary compatibility from $1,000 to $10,000,000, they are not kidding. I can give the developers a low end box and know that the app will still work on a mid to high end box
#3) It just works. I dont get the "what glib are you using", "is that rev XYZ of that nic?" or any of that other crap.
#4) the hardware seems to last forever and ever and ever. And sun supports the stuff for a long time. Every try and get dell to support a six year old box? yeah, good luck.
#5) did i mention the support?
#6) it was built to be managed from a serial port and live on a network from day 1. I love the fact that i can put all of my servers in a colo, walk out, and do the OS install from home. I know that PC's are now beginning to get to the point where you can hook a serial cable up and get them to boot from the net and do an os install. lets face it, there are whole books on how to use jumpstart in the sun environment and do 100% hands off installs. It just works, and it is fully supported.
So, as you can see, there is more to the decision than just cost. In the world that i work in, time is money, and the hardware cost is a very small percentage of the TCO.
If Oracle is going to be working with Red Hat to offer an "official" Linux version of their database, does that mean the end of the (admittedly rather pricy) Red Hat-branded version of PostgreSQL? If not, are they going to offer a migration path for users who start with the Postgres package, and eventually decide that they need the replication/Java support/marketspeak-compilance of an Oracle solution?
(1) Sun's support is great if you are in the right area. Check with companies in smaller centers to see what kind of support they are getting, and how long it takes to get a good engineer out to resolve any serious issues.
(3) Isn't quite true. The OS is only the foundation, and you rapidly find that you need this particular OS patch for Sybase, another for DB/2, another for Encina, Tuxedo, Websphere, ... If you can find a combination of packages that can agree on patch levels, count yourself lucky! The only advantage Sun has here is a better coordination of patches than standalone Linux.
(4) You have got to be kidding! Sun's CPUs, memory modules, and hard drives fail at least as often as other vendors. Personal experience would indicate IBM and HP as the most reliable, but I have no empirical evidence to support that observation.
Your point on price not being relevant is largely true. The cost of the physical hardware is trivial compared to maintenance staff, software licenses, development costs, and cascading downtime.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
These comments I could see in this article are the most stupid uninformed balast I've seen in a long time. Maybe its this way for all articles, but I know my ground here and can judge this.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
Let me guess, you have a multimilion contract and they had a newbey which could use some training :-)...
#2) When they boast about binary compatibility frSo, as you can see, there is more to the decision than just cost. In the world that i work in, time is money, and the hardware cost is a very small percentage of the TCO.om $1,000 to $10,000,000, they are not kidding. I can give the developers a low end box and know that the app will still work on a mid to high end box
eeuh, 2 posibilities here : a) you're talking hw, and i don't understand you at all. The only one which did care for downward campatibilit was INTEL (also only reason why it stayed popular) b) you're talking about software and then it's just stupid. Just recompiling you're app for newer hardware gives you a better performing app. Binary compatibility is just a stinky way to be able to hide theire source.
#3) It just works. I dont get the "what glib are you using", "is that rev XYZ of that nic?" or any of that other crap.
#4) the hardware seems to last forever and ever and ever. And sun supports the stuff for a long time. Every try and get dell to support a six year old box? yeah, good luck.
Right, but for SUN's 1x price I can get a a newer box each year.
#5) did i mention the support?
Euch you mean the part where you get forwarded from helpdesk to helpdesk and finaly get a ticketnumber saying you're in their problem database ???
#6) it was built to be managed from a serial port and live on a network from day 1. I love the fact that i can put all of my servers in a colo, walk out, and do the OS install from home. I know that PC's are now beginning to get to the point where you can hook a serial cable up and get them to boot from the net and do an os install. lets face it, there are whole books on how to use jumpstart in the sun environment and do 100% hands off installs. It just works, and it is fully supported.
Correct yourself here too.. you are talking about the UNIX way, not about the SUN way. The same can easily and much cheaper be achieved on PC hw with a free unix like bsd or linux.
So, as you can see, there is more to the decision than just cost. In the world that i work in, time is money, and the hardware cost is a very small percentage of the TCO.
Please stop glorifying SUN, the only reason you need them is because they have an IT department with a legal department to back them up. (which is the key for most of their businesses) For the rest it's just a big corp not much diffrent from M$ : some brilliant guys and lot's of morron's acting important
--red
This is slightly OT, but I can't find it anywhere else (i.e., Google), so whatever.
The true meaning of Oracle is:
One
Rich
Asshole
Called
Larry
Ellison
I found the majority believe that:
:D
:) No matter how you calculate, Sparc's license fee is at least 1.5 more expensive than Intel's. I've the price sheet on hand. However, if you'd really find a way to run Oracle on Sparc cheaper, don't hesitate to tell me!!! :)
1) Linux = Intel
2) Larry on Linux = Larry bids SUN and other UNIX vendors farewell
3) Why Oracle while we can get PSQL?
4) PSQL can *never* replace Oracle
5) It's a conspiracy! Larry wants to squeeze more from us because Oracle cost more on Intel platforms!!
I just speak from a DBA's standpoint, that:
1) As many has pointed out, Linux is not necessary = intel. Oracle being on Linux doesn't mean abandoning others.
2) If you have really admin/develop on Oracle you must know that Oracle relies heavily on Java, and Java is SUN's. I can only see Oracle and SUN would get more close than any other time in history.
3) & 4) PSQL can *not* beat Oracle now, if you get to know more about Oracle you'd understand how insufficient PSQL is. However, it doesn't mean PSQL, or any other DBMS, can't beat Oracle in the future. I still remember the day when Oracle 5 was regarded as 'cheap' and 'pathetic loser' among DBMS. Look at Solid DBMS, it goes from free to a very successful commercial DBMS in just a couple of year.
5) I failed to find a way to buy a cheaper Oracle for non-intel platforms, compare Mhz by Mhz.
My guess(again, from a DBA's view) is that Larry is not satisfying with the database business in midrange systems. Oracle works great on mainframe and it generates multi-billions profit, while it's always been a big trouble support midrange market because the variety is vast(you name it, SUN, AIX, HP-UX...all with lines of different hardware and software version). Compare to Linux it is relatively simple(note relatively).
Frankly I'm not sure whether Larry and his crews would like to use Linux to fight in midrange market, I'd really doubt about it not because I've little confidence in Linux, but because I felt that even Oracle staffs has then same attitude to Linux as those in Microsoft, that Linux is good for fighting below-midrange market. Of course, I'd disagree if they ask me - I run parallel-replicated Oracle server with Linux's load-balancing with RAID 5 and JFS. It's very depending on how many Linux developers/admins can support the midrange market.
It would appear the Solaris on Intel has come to the end of the road. Here is the quote from Sun's website.
However, even if Sun wasn't end-of-lifing Solaris for Intel, there are obvious reasons why Oracle can't base their future business plans on the availability of a low-cost version of Solaris on Intel based hardware. The most obvious of these reasons is that Oracle doesn't own Solaris. If Oracle were to start suggesting to their customers that they run Oracle on free copies of Solaris for Intel (instead of Sun's Sparc hardware) then Sun is bound to notice, and they would almost certainly change the license for their Intel version. After all, they can't really let their free Intel version of Solaris cannabalize sales of their Sparc hardware.
Linux, on the other hand, is safe because Oracle has as much control over it as they need. Since Oracle has access to the source code they can easily customize Linux to their particular needs.
Larry is right, it sucks to be in the operating systems business right now. Especially if you are trying to sell a Unix-like operating system (although Microsoft is feeling the pinch as well). Linux on commodity hardware continues to improve at a remarkable pace, and you can't beat the price.