Re: Linux (see smaller server Iseries)

["James W. Kilgore" <eMail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom,

Although I understand your concept, it does not hold water in the real world.

Now, this may be a bad comparison, but, although GM sells a lot of Chevrolets
there is still a customer demand for Cadillacs.

To say that Linux is the "death bell" for all other OS's is like saying that the
consumer world will universally agree to a single choice.

Like C is the language of the future, and Java solves the problems of C and is
now the true portable language of the future. And we -all- now either use Java
or flip burgers.

IMHO, the offering of Linux on an IBM platform makes IBM a "me too" player in
the Linux world.  That's all, nothing more.  The muscle that IBM has may make
them the kick butt player in the Linux world, but Linux does not rule the world
any more than Windows or OS/400 or MVS or *nix does.

thomas@inorbit.com wrote:
>
<<snip>>
>
> The way out for IBM would be to have higher profit margins on the Linux 
>servers (at least as a percentage of server cost.)
>
> Unfortunately, if that actually worked, then there'd be no incentive to 
>continue OS/400 (or whatever.)
>