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. firstname.lastname@example.org 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.) >
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.