Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

USA Today says "Linux waddles from obscurity"

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the and-when-usa-today-gives-you-props-you've-made-it dept.

JCallery writes "The Money section of Monday's USA Today carried a feature article entitled "Linux waddles from obscurity to the big time Momentum builds as upstart operating system proves it can compute". It carries a discussion of time and monetary savings in business, basic Sun and Microsoft arguments against Linux, growing popularity with Wall Street, Hollywood, and government organizations, and the credibility of Linux due to alliances with other industry companies."

39 of 413 comments (clear)

  1. Linux is the only option. by Quasar1999 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With the price of WinXP, even though I do like it, it's way too prohibitive to run throughout an entire business.

    The functionality is pretty close to that of WinXP, so why pay $300 a copy? Sure it requires a bit more elbow grease to get configured just right, but it works great, and with distro's like Mandrake, it's almost easier than Windows to install...

    --

    ---
    Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    1. Re:Linux is the only option. by NetJunkie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Who pays $300? On the price of a new PC Windows XP adds about $100. For that you also get support from the vendor (in my case Compaq). Go buy a PC with Linux preloaded from someone like Dell. It's usually the EXACT SAME PRICE.

      The idea of loading up an unsupported OS from download makes most managers nervous. They'll happily pay the $100.

    2. Re:Linux is the only option. by Paul+Neubauer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not the only option. There are the BSDs, for example.

      But you are right about the fairly easy install of Mandrake, which I tried recently. It was one of the easier installs I've done. And getting things going that weren't part of the default install for the way I had selected turned out to be almost trivially easy.

      I still do use Windows, for now, but I think things are at the point where I could make the jump to Linux without much difficulty. It's now not that things are hard or even obscure as they had seemed before, but just different.

      The big thing for some might be Windows-only programs they need to run, especially for work. At home the transition can be eased by using cross platform programs where possible on Windows, so that when (if) a jump is made the transition isn't so jarring as many of the applications will then be familiar.

      --
      I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
    3. Re:Linux is the only option. by Telastyn · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem is of course that any business large enough to have enough machines where $300 a machine is a costly amount, also likely has some "Enterprise level" crap ass software that only works with windows (Exchange, most any CRM package, most any financial package)

    4. Re:Linux is the only option. by ericman31 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The idea of loading up an unsupported OS from download

      I'm an IT manager and it doesn't make me nervous. I can purchase a CD set of RedHat 7.x with whatever level of support I want. I can purchase one copy of it and install it on ALL of my PC's and servers. That means I can purchase all of my computer equipment that will run Linux with no OS installed, saving anywhere from $100 to $10,000 on the price of the equipment.

      Get the facts a bit straighter

      --
      In my universe I'm perfectly normal, it's not my fault you don't live in my universe.
    5. Re:Linux is the only option. by shepd · · Score: 3, Informative

      >On the price of a new PC Windows XP adds about $100.

      That's home edition. Its so castrated, I, a home user, am entirely angered after purchasing it.

      I decided to set up a samba domain server to make my life of logging in between my laptop and my XP desktop easier. I like to keep settings between logins, and I like to keep my bookmarks between sessions. I also like a little privacy.

      Lack of Domain support in XP Home Edition makes this impossible. Removing this feature is like selling a door that cannot have a deadbolt added to it. No thanks.

      And, over here, in most shops (such as future shop) Windows XP Professional is $500. Blech!

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    6. Re:Linux is the only option. by iapetus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What does the availability of MS Office have to do with the functionality of the OS? And yes, you can run MS Office through Wine, or you can use OpenOffice instead, which does a damn fine job of working with MS Office files IME.

      As for the installation issue, I installed Mandrake 8.2 and Windows 2000 (with SP1) on a machine as recently as last week. One went on without a hitch, automatically setting up suitable partitions, installing all required software, connecting to the internet and downloading security updates. The other threw a hissy fit because it didn't like the format of the drive it had just formatted itself and went into a vicious cycle of rebooting. No prizes for guessing which was which.

      I remember the days when Windows was easy to install and Linux wasn't. Those days are gone.

      --
      ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
      Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
    7. Re:Linux is the only option. by The_Shadows · · Score: 3

      Where I'm interning right now we can purchase one copy of all MS software for use on all our Desktops too. Of course, that doesn't cover the servers. And the cost is about $300000/yr, which includes support and updates to all software.

      The main reason is because the user want Windows. The team here would very much like to go Linux, but the users are the real hold-up. Honestly, $300000 / year could do a lot here.

    8. Re:Linux is the only option. by 13Echo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The users don't know what they want. They'll just use whatever is in front of their faces. What they don't want is to have to "re-learn" their software.

      And they don't have to relearn much of anything, if they have the right Linux (Windows-Like) environment put in front of them (Lycoris, Mandrake, Suse... Etc). It isn't like you have to force a Gentoo and Blackbox machine with Star Office 5 and Pine in front of the users. There are choices.

    9. Re:Linux is the only option. by 4of12 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The main reason is because the user want Windows. The team here would very much like to go Linux, but the users are the real hold-up. Honestly, $300000 / year could do a lot here.

      You might be surprised at what your users "want".

      Sure, many have invested their precious time in climbing the learning curves of Word, Excel, Outlook, etc. and can't be bothered to learn alternative open source applications.

      But others, usually the more technically adventurous types (like yourself) are willing to try out something new, to invest the time just in case there happens to be a reward for the risk.

      Most sites just use Linux as an under-the-radar server OS that is cheap and reliable.

      But do take the next step of building up a nice desktop version for your site. With a little tuning, the new Linux desktops can be made into something productive for your users.

      After a while, others will notice the new boxes and Linux growth will sell itself as people begin to ask questions that never get asked in the monoculture environment where there are no alternatives.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    10. Re:Linux is the only option. by swillden · · Score: 5, Informative

      And yes, you can run MS Office through Wine, or you can use OpenOffice instead, which does a damn fine job of working with MS Office files IME.

      And, at least for me, OpenOffice is a *better* tool than MS Office. It has a significant feature that MS Office lacks, which is an open, and easy to use file format. I've recently discovered that the XML files that OpenOffice reads natively are extremely easy to generate programmatically using standard XML tools. I create a lot of highly-structured documents, like legal documents and software design documents, which are a b*tch to make tight and consistent when you have to edit everything by hand.

      So, I create custom XML schemas that define tightly structured "documents" in which I only have to define each thing once, and then use XSLT to transform them into other, more "human-readable" formats. The XSLT stylesheets also "expand" them, implementing all of the structure that is useful to human readers, which means the very redundancy that is such a pain to manage manually.

      What I've discovered recently is that OpenOffice files are very easy to generate with XML/XSLT (well, and Zip, you need Zip), and they can then be saved as RTF, MS Word, etc. I'm working on some other stylesheets now that will automatically generate OpenOffice presentations from my documents as well (which are easily convertible to PowerPoint, if necessary).

      Oh, and OpenOffice is no slouch when it comes to manipulating MS Office files, either.

      However, all of this Office stuff is a red herring when it comes to the Linux/Windows debate, sine both office suites run on both platforms.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    11. Re:Linux is the only option. by J+Story · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What I've discovered recently is that OpenOffice files are very easy to generate with XML/XSLT (well, and Zip, you need Zip), and they can then be saved as RTF, MS Word, etc. I'm working on some other stylesheets now that will automatically generate OpenOffice presentations from my documents as well (which are easily convertible to PowerPoint, if necessary).

      This is interesting. How about working up a mini How-to about this? I bet more than one person would be interested in in your approach.

  2. Linus is still obscurity by asv108 · · Score: 4, Funny
    From the article:

    What a long way Tux has traveled in the 12 years since Linus Torvald

    Torvald? You think USA today could manage to get the creator's name right? I've never seen an article misspelling Gattes, Balmy, and Ilison. Other than that, you couldn't ask for a better PR article for Linux.

  3. What we need now are USA Today polls and graphs by Navius+Eurisko · · Score: 4, Funny

    that have a Cowboy Neal option. :)

  4. Upstart by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Momentum builds as upstart operating system proves it can compute

    It never ceases to amaze me how an 11-year-old implementation of a 30-year-old design is called an "upstart".

    1. Re:Upstart by FreeUser · · Score: 5, Funny

      It never ceases to amaze me how an 11-year-old implementation of a 30-year-old design is called an "upstart".

      For the same reason that a structure based on a 2000 year old design, using 50 year old construction techniques, materials developed anywhere from 10,000 years ago to 20 years ago, and architectural designs that are ten years old, is still called a "new building" when it is built.

      For that matter, the hardware all our operating systems run on is based on a 70 year old material sciences, a basic transister design that is 60 years old, and semi-conductor technology that is at least 40 years old.

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  5. This is why I hate reading about IT in the media by qurob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Unix servers took 17 hours to calculate how much cash the bank needed in reserve to offset its investment risk. The Linux servers made the same calculation in 11 minutes.

    What they'd do, upgrade from 20mhz Sun boxes to Pentium III 933's?

    These kind of performance comparisons are just SILLY

  6. Microsoft FUD Parroted by Steve+B · · Score: 5, Informative
    The main flaw I found in the article was the paragraph:
    Microsoft paints Linux as a threat to intellectual property rights. Software developers who make their applications Linux-ready risk losing their proprietary products to the public domain, Microsoft warns.
    The lack of rebuttal, and use the word "warns" (which implies a notification of a real threat) rather than a more correct one such as "claims" or "asserts", gives undeserved credibility to this shibboleth.
    --
    /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
    1. Re:Microsoft FUD Parroted by aengblom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The lack of rebuttal, and use the word "warns" (which implies a notification of a real threat) rather than a more correct one such as "claims" or "asserts", gives undeserved credibility to this shibboleth.

      As a journalist, one should never use such words as "claims" or "asserts". Why? Because both words inject the idea that the JOURNALIST doubts this. Microsoft "warns" is clearly attributed to the MICROSOFT. (To be a real stickler, it should be says/said) Further, the use of PAINT should certainly be enough for you. It implies that this is microsoft's "deliberate attempt to take certain materials and make them look like IT wants them to look". Don't require the writer to be biased towards your side. Especially when you're right ;-).

      --


      So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
  7. 17 hours to 11 minutes!??!!?!? by isa-kuruption · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Then Dresdner discovered a bonus: Linux, the upstart open-source operating system, was not only cheaper -- but also faster. The Unix servers took 17 hours to calculate how much cash the bank needed in reserve to offset its investment risk. The Linux servers made the same calculation in 11 minutes.

    Come on! They must be leaving out ALL kinds of information here! What kind of machines were they running before? SparcStation 2's? These machines must have been 10 years old! There is no way just simply switching from SOME-OLD-UNIX(R) to Linux is going to improve the performance this much. I'm sure they would have seen a similar performance increase if they upgraded to Sun Fire V120's too.

    In fact, there MUST have been some porting of the algorithms used to calculate this data. I'm sure some programmer looked at it, realized it was poor, 10 year old code, and modified it to run faster.

    This isn't a valid one-to-one testiment to how Linux is faster than any other UNIX system out there and really shouldn't be in the THIRD paragraph of the article! (if at all!)

    1. Re:17 hours to 11 minutes!??!!?!? by iabervon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I bet they replaced *really* old UNIX boxes with Linux boxes. Moore's law gives you about '92 for when machines were 1/92 as fast as they are now. Probably it's a calculation they only care to do once a day, and they couldn't justify buying a new UNIX box to do it if it was still getting done on time. The thing about Linux is that you can just buy a machine if you feel like it, because the hardware is cheap. And whenever you buy a machine, it's significantly faster than the machines you had before.

    2. Re:17 hours to 11 minutes!??!!?!? by pjrc · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Come on! They must be leaving out ALL kinds of information here!

      Yep, I'd say so. For example, I just don't buy this:

      ... switch to the Linux computer operating system in 1999, it did so to save money ... So it replaced 32 computer servers, based on the time-tested Unix operating systems, at an average cost of $50,000 each, with 40 Linux servers, at $3,000 a pop.

      I don't care how expensive those old unix systems were (when they were new), replacing them with ANYTHING costs more than simply continuing to use the existing machines that are already owned.

      Yeah, yeah, I know, maybe they mean new unix boxes would have been $50k vs $3k unix boxen, maybe. But that's not what it actually says. The article is so loose with the language that they probably are comparing NEW boxes at $3k each to OLD boxen at $50k each. Sounds like the real benefit was computing the cash requirement faster, and a fair comparison would have actually compared the cost of new linux servers against the cost of new unix and windows servers, and the resulting performance of each. But that's a lot of work... maybe almost as difficult as it would be for Byron Acochido (the author of that article) or his editor to proof read their text from a critical viewpoint and edit it to be factually correct.

      Of course, the poorly worded loose language works in Linux's favor in this case, so it must be ok. If it were in Microsoft's favor, would I be screaming FUD?? Hmm...

      --
      PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
    3. Re:17 hours to 11 minutes!??!!?!? by Fished · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I don't care how expensive those old unix systems were (when they were new), replacing them with ANYTHING costs more than simply continuing to use the existing machines that are already owned.
      Actually, you're very wrong here.

      In Enterprise systems, you have to have hardware support - you can't just assume that the box will keep working or that you will be able to fix it. It is not at all uncommon for the hardware support costs on a very old box to be substantially more than it would cost to replace the box. This is part of how OEM's encourage people to upgrade - the older the boxes get, the more the support cost, until finally the upgrade is the thing that makes the most sense.

      Often, replacing old hardware Just Makes Sense.It's kind of like the point you reach with a car where the repair bills are more than a car payment would be.

      --
      "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
  8. Cost of Servers... by TibbonZero · · Score: 3, Flamebait

    So it replaced 32 computer servers, based on the time-tested Unix operating systems, at an average cost of $50,000 each, with 40 Linux servers, at $3,000 a pop.

    Why in the world did each server cost them anything? They already had 32 servers, and I am sure Linux would have ran on them, so why didn't they save the 96,000 and just use existing hardware..

    In addition, they make it sound like "Unix Hardware" is more expernsive than "Linux Hardware", which while Linux works on just about anything, I don't see why they didn't use 3,000 dollar each machines for Unix in the first place. I don't see a 47,000 difference, unless they were stupid and just scrapped important stuff like memory, RAID, good mobos, redundant Power supplies, etc...

    The Unix servers took 17 hours to calculate how much cash the bank needed in reserve to offset its investment risk. The Linux servers made the same calculation in 11 minutes

    I don't think that if they had ran the same software on the unix servers, with the same hardware, that they would have had a speed increase really. Perhaps it was that they upgraded to new servers for the Linux, and used 8 year old Unix servers? That would make a good speed difference. I am glad that Toms hardware doesn't measure that way....
    ie. "Well, Linux certainly beats Windows 95, we put Windows 95 on an old 386sx, and Linux on a spanking new Dell server, and found that Linux must be the faster of the two..." Retards...

    Oh, an yea, I like linux, but this article is backwards.

    --
    Tibbon
    tibbon.com
    1. Re:Cost of Servers... by Corrado · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why in the world did each server cost them anything? They already had 32 servers, and I am sure Linux would have ran on them, so why didn't they save the 96,000 and just use existing hardware..

      The old boxen were possibly on lease. When they stopped paying for the software/maintenance, the hardware went back as well.

      In addition, they make it sound like "Unix Hardware" is more expernsive than "Linux Hardware",

      "Enterprise Hardware" is more expensive than "Desktop Hardware". You have things like redundent power supplies, network cards, memory. Not to mention things like really big I/O busses and serious enterprise stuff that common PC hardware falls down at. This is my main argument against using MS Windows for anything "Enterprise".

      --
      KangarooBox - We make IT simple!
  9. Faster too...? by phoenix_orb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From the Article:

    The Unix servers took 17 hours to calculate how much cash the bank needed in reserve to offset its investment risk. The Linux servers made the same calculation in 11 minutes.

    -------------
    I just woke up, but if my math is correct, this is almost 9300% faster?!? I cannot believe that just the optimizations of Linux have done that.

    Linux is fast, but they didn't even mention the fact that the new hardware was quite a bit faster then there legacy Unix systems. It is a bias in the way of making Linux appear even better, so I can't argue too awful much, but consider this point.

    No program that I have switched over to Linux (IIS to Apache, etc) have gotten that kind of speed gain. The only thing that I have seen with that kind of performance increase was when I put novell 3.12 on a P3 1.3 ghz (from a 33 mhz 486) :)

    I didn't read the article online (I read it at lunch yesterday in the dead tree edition... Had a nice army of Tuxes on the cover of the section).

    --
    Blah Blah Blah.
  10. The Media reaction is interesting by ericman31 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For a long time the media took everything MS said as the literal truth. So today, when a newspaper that lives and dies by it's advertising is running a front page article that praises Linux and doesn't fully support Microsoft, it's an interesting situation. I'm sure that Microsoft is an advertising customer of USA Today and this article is hardly in their best interests. Will Microsoft use the same sort of threat tactics against the newspaper that they did against PC manufacturers? Probably not, since the media usually doesn't threaten easily, but MS isn't known for being smart about PR either.

    This sort of thing will become more and more prevalent though because people are interested in it, and newspaper/magazine readership drives advertising sales. Media coverage will help to build momentum for Open Source software, which will help to build interest in reading about it, creating a neat little circle that helps immensely.

    Over all a good article for the non-IT folks and helpful to the Open Source cause.

    --
    In my universe I'm perfectly normal, it's not my fault you don't live in my universe.
  11. In other news by af_robot · · Score: 5, Funny

    Same story, two years later:

    The Germany-based bank sought a less-costly way to calculate risks associated with its portfolio of investments. So it replaced 40 Pentium II computer servers, based on the Linux operating systems, at an average cost of $50 each, with 50 Windows.Net servers based on Intel Xeon VI processors, at $50,000 each.
    The Linux servers took 11 minutes to calculate how much cash the bank needed in reserve to offset its investment risk. The Windows.Net servers made the same calculation only in 3 minutes (not including several reboots time)
    With a better and more frequent handle on its finances, the bank could shift tens of millions of dollars from its reserve account to active investments of MSFT

  12. Quit being so negative. by El_Smack · · Score: 5, Insightful


    This article isn't for us. It is for our bosses, and their bosses, and so on and so on. It is a momentum builder. So the next time you mention Linux, instead of blank stares, your boss will dig into his memory and find a positive image of Linux as a REAL OS, and it will be a little easier to get him/her to go with your suggestion to use our OS of choice.
    Use this article for what it is, and don't complian about what it isn't.

    --


    There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
    1. Re:Quit being so negative. by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It may be a 'real OS', but it still has some problems to shake out. I have 4 very experienced software engineers sitting behind me (who all have background in Unix and Linux) who have switched over to Linux for development. They have all had little niggling issues that took DAYS to work out. Linux does not provide an 'easy to use' enough interface to troubleshoot and fix these problems like Windows does. Linux may be cheap/free, but there's still the adoption cycle that costs time and money. Will it be worth it over time? Well I hope so. I'd love to see Linux become more successful.

      Despite popular belief, Windows 2000 (and even XP) is reliable. Plus, it's the defacto standard that both software developers and your onboard staff can use. Linux has gotten a lot better over the last couple of years, but it still needs some end-user refinement. When the Linux community starts focusing on GUI design (as opposed to fixing 'bugs'),MS will really have something to wee-wee in their pants about.

      Take a good hard look at OSX. It's built on top of BSD. It's fully functional as an OS, and it's useful! You don't even need to know the root password to get around on OSX. The user uses it, and doesnt feel like he/she's gonna break it. The Linux Community should be observing OSX under a microscope. Apple has put a lot of design effort into this OS to make it useable. This type of usability can be done with Linux.

      Today, Linux is still a niche OS. Chalk me up to trolling if you like, but I would strongly recommend the Linux community listen to my criticisms. The worst case scenario is that Linux becomes a better product.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  13. Oh, I can't resist by The_Shadows · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Linux waddles from obscurity"

    In other news, BeOS left a sharp stinging pain.

    FreeBSD claimed the souls of the damned. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    Sun shined brightly. Mario was unsurprised.

    Windows has been shattered.

    Unix has been castrated.

  14. Re:upstart!!?!?! by 13Echo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the point is just to get more readers aware of what is happening here. A lot of companies are opting to go for Linux instead of the other alternatives.

    In desktops, it is less focused and doesn't have a lot of market share because of a few major factors. The first is the issue with MS threatening OEMs to only sell Windows desktops. This causes the second problem, lack of momentum to catalyze the development of comercial software packages for home users. So what? That will change with due time. Eventually, open source Linux software will be very mature, and different things will start to merge, making way for the commerical, closed software.

    You can't change that. It is showing no signs of slowing down.

    Linux was never intended to be a desktop OS, but continuous tweaking over time will make it an awesome desktop OS (it already is, if you know how to make use of it). If you've used the right distribution of Linux, then you will find that many of them are easier to set up than WinXP. Face it... Most computer users couldn't install Windows, let alone any Linux distribution. If Linux was able to make its way, preinstalled into retail computers, then a lot of things would begin to change... Slowy, but it will change.

    While most of the USA Today readers may have never seen a server (or even know what one is), many of them are hearing about this amazing Linux thing everywhere. On TV, on the radio, on the Internet. My parents are about as computer illiterate as can be, but they are still eager to learn more about this Linux thing that they keep hearing about.

  15. Re:Not to worry... by symbolic · · Score: 3

    Just a little later on, it states:

    ''All the noise and optimism of the early adopters doesn't in any way guarantee Linux will cross into the mainstream,'' says Peter Houston, Microsoft's Windows server products director.

    What this tells me is that M$ is in a state of denial. So be it. All it means is that some day, perhaps a few years from now, a sea of change may sweep over the IT sector, and M$ will be fighting for its life.

    If I were Billy, I'd be lobbying Congress to enact laws that would ensure my existence - how a law that mandates that the government fork over the cost of one XXXP license (or whatever it's called by then) for each citizen on an annual basis? What better way to insulate against unauthorized copying? And, what better way to waste taxpayer money? It's all there - a perfectly American plan.

  16. USAToday Hacked Again? by breser · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are we sure they weren't just hacked again and the hackers put up a Linux story this time?

  17. Torvalds with an S by MsGeek · · Score: 3, Informative

    Although to be fair, Torvalds is not a standard Swedish surname. There are hundreds and hundreds of people named Torvald living in Sweden, Finland and for that matter all over the world.

    If you bothered to read "Just For Fun", Linus explains that his grandfather changed his name from Torvald to Torvalds. There is exactly one family with the surname Torvalds, and it's Linus' family.

    I suspect that somebody with knowledge of Swedish flagged "Torvalds" as a typo.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
  18. Re:No, they're not silly by pmz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Go price an Sun 450 with 4 processors. Then price an equivalent Dell/Compaq. ...

    Sun should know better.

    Interesting thing is, I would still take the Sun E450, since Dell or Compaq don't sell an equivalent machine. The 450 will hold five independent SCSI controllers for 20 drives. All in one enclosure. It's also robust as hell. They don't have to cost more than $10,000, either, if you find a good used one. Plus, once you find out just how much work an E450 can do, it just might be the only server you need for much of a small company's infrastructure.

    Sun competes on things beyond price/performance. Consistency and reliability are one such thing. A more balanced architecture is another (576-bit memory busses, SCSI/FC-AL standard, large CPU caches). Well-engineered enclosures is another. I would also bet that each Sun server design goes through much more testing and quality control than most Intel-based servers (I've read that the UltraSPARC CPUs have a very low errata rate relative to Intel CPUs).

    Sun still makes a strong case for itself in its markets. In some ways the prices can be hard to stomach, but, if a company is to the point of affording a real IT infrastructure, they should be as concerned about risk as much as they are up-front cost. Sun equipment tends to be low-risk and very long-lived. It is somewhat harder to claim this for Intel-server Brand X, although I'm sure there are a handful of winners out there.

    A lot of these arguments apply to IBM (Power), SGI (MIPS), and other hard-core UNIX server companies as well. The prices vary pretty widely, but they all share a core quality that makes them worthwhile as a long-term investment.

    --
    Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
  19. Re:Ummm, consider the source by pnatural · · Score: 4, Funny

    You might as well argue that sentences shouldn't begin with conjunctions.

    And just what in the hell is that supposed to mean?

  20. what horrible journalism by WebMasterJoe · · Score: 3, Funny

    Without the pie charts, USA Today articles just can't stand on their own: Sun has derided Linux... as a "bathtub of code." With so many cooks, Linux is destined to splinter into incompatible versions, Sun says. What is with all the metaphors? Too many cooks splinter the bathtub? And that website is embarrassing - shouldn't they at least put a date on the article? I especially like that last statement "Linux is first on the horizon," Wicker says.Cover storyCover story - is that some sort of superliminal thing?

    --
    I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
  21. Re:No, they're not silly by pmz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We have (had) about 4500 Sun boxen (Servers, workstations, SunRays, etc) ranging from old Ultra-1s to E-10k.

    With that much hardware, what do you expect? That's many thousands of processors, peripheral cards, etc. One call once-a-week doesn't sound bad for such a huge installation of hardware. If all of those machines were Dell boxes, you would probably be making calls several times a day!

    Suffice to say, it seems like EVERY new Sun machine has at least 1 CPU problem (read: ecache error) within 1 month of operation.

    I thought the E-Cache issue is several years old, now, and has been dealt with. Are you talking about brand-new machines delivered within the last few months?

    Other issues could just be the initial shake-down for a newly-installed big server. Electronics fail in a distribution that is heavily skewed towards the first moments of operation. Once the initial "wear-in" period occurs, the server should be good for years with few break-downs, if any.

    However, as soon as one of their techs shows up on site, any number of idiotic things can happen.

    If you don't like their techs, you are fully capable of learning how to fix things yourself. Even big servers don't take a rocket scientist to maintain; it takes a willingness to learn, critical thinking, a static-strap, and some patience. That's it.

    So from my point of view, all that crap about Sun hardware and service being great just doesn't add up. I'd much rather have a fleet of Dells running Linux than one E-4500.

    So, how are you going to manage a fleet of Dells? Also, clusters or grids scale well for some types of computation, but can be a real PITA for general-purpose computing. There is a big difference in applicability between a cluster and a single SMP server.

    Also a thing to note that people don't usually take into consideration: The more processors a machine has, the more likely it is to fail. The more processors you have, the more chances you have for a CPU panic.

    You should be able to work around down processors without much trouble. Thankfully, I haven't had to deal with this.

    --
    Healthcare article at Kuro5hin