I agree. In addition it's applications programming, and usually custom applications or web sites. It's annoying to walk onto a project and find a 'developer' whose development ability is basically a little Java or VB (which he does poorly) and that's about it. Very few 'developers' now-a-days can seem to write any code at all.
All the stuff about Linux being and intel operating system and performance is just FUD. I think the fact that Linux runs on anything from a palm pilot to a z800 is proof of porability. If raw performance were all that mattered, it's really tough to beat Linux on 1-2 processor intel. In fact go to spec.org and compare for yourself. But raw performance isn't the only thing. Neither is bang for your buck. If I bought bang for the buck I wouldn't buy SUN or RS6000.
One reason to have multiple boxes is separate environments. This is exactly where the z800 solution is great. I give a set of applications and environments (DEV, QA, INTEGRATION, PROD) their own virtual linux boxes. I don't have to maintain a rack of machines, I just have to maintain 1 machine. In fact I probably don't even maintain that because somebody like PRC does it for me.
The real problem for SUN is that their 1-4 processor line of machines is in danger of being swallowed up by Linux on Intel. Or in this case Linux on z800 as companies swap out a rack of (mauve?) boxes for 1 black box from IBM. With intel hardware I can get it shipped overnight and with mainframes capacity is a phone call away. Anyone else had the pleasure of waiting 4 weeks for a SCSI disk from SUN?
This is also why SUN wants to make people think that Linux is okay for "edge environments" where people really weren't buying SUN hardware in the first place. Sun wants to keep it out of 'serious' computing because they realize they 1) don't make intel chips and that's going to be the lion's share of the Linux server market and 2) why pay premium SUN prices if it's just another Linux box?
In an ideal world there would be a search for prior art and the patent would not be granted in most cases. Many of the 'patented' inventions first showed up in a disertation or journal article somewhere.
But even if the patent process was perfect, if visicalc had patented the spreadsheet and IBM patented the database, and so on we'd never be able to evolve software. Because there is no patent on the spreadsheet anyone (Microsoft, OpenOffice, Corel, etc.) is able to create their implementation of a spreadsheet. Likewise, there is a thriving industry in databases.
The problem with software patents is they are too much like patenting the thing being created. For example, no one holds a patent on a writing instrument with an ink resevoir. Instead you hold a patent on a particular thingy which allows your pen to write upside-down or under water, or in dirty, gritty environments. So, if I have a patent on all writing instruments with ink resevoirs I can sue fountain pen makers, ball point pen makers, felt tip pen makers, etc. This, unfortunately is why software patents are evil.
But let's still say the patent is obvious, is prior art, or too broad and is thrown out. It still requires you to go through a patent fight. And you DO NOT want to be in a patent fight with Microsoft. (They only feed their lawyers raw meat and keep them in steel cages). So, even if you wind the patent fight your business is dead anyway. You have nothing but several years of attourney's fees and heartache to show for it.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. In addition it's applications programming, and usually custom applications or web sites. It's annoying to walk onto a project and find a 'developer' whose development ability is basically a little Java or VB (which he does poorly) and that's about it. Very few 'developers' now-a-days can seem to write any code at all.
That's always been the problem with the battle field, no good comfort food like macaroni and cheese.
All the stuff about Linux being and intel operating system and performance is just FUD. I think the fact that Linux runs on anything from a palm pilot to a z800 is proof of porability. If raw performance were all that mattered, it's really tough to beat Linux on 1-2 processor intel. In fact go to spec.org and compare for yourself. But raw performance isn't the only thing. Neither is bang for your buck. If I bought bang for the buck I wouldn't buy SUN or RS6000.
One reason to have multiple boxes is separate environments. This is exactly where the z800 solution is great. I give a set of applications and environments (DEV, QA, INTEGRATION, PROD) their own virtual linux boxes. I don't have to maintain a rack of machines, I just have to maintain 1 machine. In fact I probably don't even maintain that because somebody like PRC does it for me.
The real problem for SUN is that their 1-4 processor line of machines is in danger of being swallowed up by Linux on Intel. Or in this case Linux on z800 as companies swap out a rack of (mauve?) boxes for 1 black box from IBM. With intel hardware I can get it shipped overnight and with mainframes capacity is a phone call away. Anyone else had the pleasure of waiting 4 weeks for a SCSI disk from SUN?
This is also why SUN wants to make people think that Linux is okay for "edge environments" where people really weren't buying SUN hardware in the first place. Sun wants to keep it out of 'serious' computing because they realize they 1) don't make intel chips and that's going to be the lion's share of the Linux server market and 2) why pay premium SUN prices if it's just another Linux box?
In an ideal world there would be a search for prior art and the patent would not be granted in most cases. Many of the 'patented' inventions first showed up in a disertation or journal article somewhere. But even if the patent process was perfect, if visicalc had patented the spreadsheet and IBM patented the database, and so on we'd never be able to evolve software. Because there is no patent on the spreadsheet anyone (Microsoft, OpenOffice, Corel, etc.) is able to create their implementation of a spreadsheet. Likewise, there is a thriving industry in databases. The problem with software patents is they are too much like patenting the thing being created. For example, no one holds a patent on a writing instrument with an ink resevoir. Instead you hold a patent on a particular thingy which allows your pen to write upside-down or under water, or in dirty, gritty environments. So, if I have a patent on all writing instruments with ink resevoirs I can sue fountain pen makers, ball point pen makers, felt tip pen makers, etc. This, unfortunately is why software patents are evil. But let's still say the patent is obvious, is prior art, or too broad and is thrown out. It still requires you to go through a patent fight. And you DO NOT want to be in a patent fight with Microsoft. (They only feed their lawyers raw meat and keep them in steel cages). So, even if you wind the patent fight your business is dead anyway. You have nothing but several years of attourney's fees and heartache to show for it.
Too bad we can't patent stupid ideas so we could stop this "stuff" in its tracks. Or patent the alphabet and deny the BSA the right to use it.