| January 2004 | ||||||
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
| Dec Feb | ||||||
Wednesday, January 28, 2004Why is Linux a winner when it comes to utility computing?
Nevatia: Utility computing makes hardware less relevant. It doesn't matter if it's proprietary, a mainframe or a commodity Intel box. The operating system doesn't matter either, and that makes Linux a winner. You don't care what you're running as long as you reach your service levels. Utility computing levels the playing field for Linux. Linux promotes commoditization, and it comes out a winner.
I think that Linux makes sense primarily from the licensing cost standpoint. Service levels seem to be very similar. Support issues still weigh in M$ favor. So the big difference is whether M$ will adjust their licensing to compete with Linux in utility computing. As Linux makes inroads and Linux support issues drop, M$ loses its monoply pricing and the easy money. Small businesses is M$ saving grace.
Comments [] TrackBack [] 9:20:13 AM Google It!
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. The licensor permits others to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work. In return, licensees must give the original author credit.
