Re: Should there only be 1 OS, or multiple?
- From: richa03@xxxxxxxxx
- To: Richard.Goulet@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 05:57:23 -0800
Good discussion.
However, I tend to disagree with the statement that all *nix's are the
same under the covers. Some have better subsystems than others.
I have seen some major improvements over the last couple of years with
Linux and I think it is getting very close... That being said, I
still think Linux is not considered "enterprise" by a large number of
shops, most of them being large, older businesses where HP or Sun have
had a foothold for tens of years.
Lastly, I do believe we will see an even greater adoption of Linux for
backend and middle tier processing in the coming years if not total
domination of Linux in the enterprise. This is due in no small part
by companies like Amazon and Yahoo who have contributed to the
development of the Linux kernel immensely.
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
- » Should there only be 1 OS, or multiple? - John Thompson
- » RE: Should there only be 1 OS, or multiple? - Goulet, Richard
- » Re: Should there only be 1 OS, or multiple? - John Thompson
- » Re: Should there only be 1 OS, or multiple? - Niall Litchfield
- » RE: Should there only be 1 OS, or multiple? - Mark W. Farnham
- » RE: Should there only be 1 OS, or multiple? - Matthew Zito
- » Re: Should there only be 1 OS, or multiple? - Nuno Souto
- » Re: Should there only be 1 OS, or multiple? - David Ballester
- » Re: Should there only be 1 OS, or multiple? - Niall Litchfield
- » RE: Should there only be 1 OS, or multiple? - Goulet, Richard
- » RE: Should there only be 1 OS, or multiple? - Goulet, Richard
- » RE: Should there only be 1 OS, or multiple? - Goulet, Richard
- » Re: Should there only be 1 OS, or multiple? - richa03