[TriLUG] interesting server stats
kevin at flanagannc.net
Thu Apr 7 20:22:26 EDT 2005
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 13:42 -0400, Matt Frye wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2005 11:34 AM, Marc M <linuxr at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think a lot of companies have the mentality that
> > 'we can't trust OSS because we need a major-name vendor to blame if things
> > go awry' -- a really gutless, wimpy management mentality.
I see a lot of that gutless management, but on the other hand I
understand, some companies are willing to go for it, risks bring
rewards, but other companies only want small returns if they are fairly
> It's really not that simple. I work everyday to get Linux into the
> data center, but I can tell you first hand that much of the "problem"
> is lack of vendor support for Linux. Applications that are certified
> for Solaris, HP-UX, and AIX are not always available for Linux. Not
> even close. Other reasons include regulatory requirements, and yes,
> manager stodginess, but it's often out of their control.
I have been on an evaluation project for Linux servers in the Data
Center, it's taken WAY too long, but we are nearly done. I expect to
start work on automating the OS load in about a week. We aren't just
going to bring in a box, we evaluated things like, support structure, #
of support staff that man the phones, management tools, integration with
existing infrastructure. In a way it's good because no pinheaded
manager can say that application X can't go on Linux because it's "not
ready for prime time" so long as the app is supported on Linux it's as
good a choice as Windows or AIX.
> > Maybe HP will *get* some vision...
> HP and HP-UX is not a good example. The real problem with HP is that
> they wrote off their own processor architecture years ago. HP should
> be keeping HP-UX around for chip development purposes so that PA-RISC
> can improve. That way they can move changes into their architecture
> that they have tested, but that may not have been accepted by the OSS
> community. Incidentally, this is the reason why AIX will never really
> go away.
HP wrote off more than one good chip, well not really, but they missed
the Alpha with the demise of DEC, and it's sale to Intel (sort of). HP
still has great X86 server products, a bit more, but some of the
features that are available for the enterprise just aren't available
from Dell. There's still a lot of products that they are coming out
with that have roots back to DEC. All of Storageworks.... I wonder how
HP hasn't been able to eat EMC's lunch.
> Fiorina couldn't drive the business they needed, but that's a separate
> issue. That was a function of melding two different companies'
> cultures together, one of which still had the later-years-of-DEC
> albatross hanging around its neck, and then trying not to cheapen one
> brand while merging production lines.
Carly did some good, I think that the Compaq/HP/DEC threesome could have
gone even worse, she did put some muscle behind OSS.
> > Let's hope the new CEO/team understands better where
> > the industry is going than where it has been.
> Here's to hoping brother.
Here's hoping too, even if you aren't a fan of HP it's good to have more
than one actual engineering company out there developing systems rather
than just putting parts together which is how I see Dell.
> Matt Frye
Kevin Flanagan <kevin at flanagannc.net>
More information about the TriLUG