> Let's say you ran a large, profitable company like IBM. Software revenues around $12 billion.
> You're risking a lot in supporting something like Linux. OTOH - IBM achieved its utter dominance of the industry in the late 1960s using a public domain operating system. > Contrary to popular belief, it is not the silver bullet of all IT, and it is not the most stable operating > system in existence (nor even close). I think the solution to this problem is perhaps not what most people expect. The RAS of an operating system is one thing, and there's no doubt Linux has a way to go to catch z/OS. The RAS of a hardware platform is another issue. Put the two together and what happens? In the case of Linux on zSeries, not a lot. But z/OS on zSeries is a different issue - the operating system has a lot of active support for hardware RAS built in - some of which would be difficult if not impossible to implement in Linux. The unique selling proposition of zSeries is in fact no such thing - it's the unique selling proposition of the _combination_ of zSeries hardware with an operating system that can support hardware RAS. I hate the word 'synergy', but it applies. Linux/390 gives ready access to the platform for Linux applications. However - there aren't actually all that many, and most of them are not very scalable. I see system reliabilty and security becoming more important than ever in 2002. We've had a run of very pervasive email viruses and I'm convinced we're in for a phase of destructive activity by those sympathetic to Bin Laden and his ilk. If IBM can only deal with the price issue, z/OS would be ideally placed as the provider of highly secure environments. I'm not anti-Linux or anti-Open Source - quite the reverse - but I see greater potential for developing the z/OS market than the Linux/390 market over the short and perhaps medium term. -- Phil Payne The Devil's IT Dictionary - last updated 2001/12/22: http://www.isham-research.com/dd.html
