> Phil Payne wrote: > > > > Doesn't help the 10 MIPS guy. Those that are left, anyway. > > Instead they face a continual squeeze - trying to keep within > > their existing system despite workload growth and path lengh > > changes caused by things like, e.g., LE under VSE. > > > Agreed. Plus each new release of the operating system(s) require(s) +10% more > cpu just to process the same workload as the previous release. Will you get > a price break for the extra cycles needed to process the same work load? I ha > ve not seen one yet! So just by simply staying current you will eventually ne > ed to jump up to the next tier level in hardware/software. You gain nothing b > ut spend more for the privilege. Commercial software vendors generate revenue > by causing sites to needlessly grow simply to stay current no matter what pl > atform you choose. Until "entry level hardware" and "entry level software pri > cing" truly mean "entry level no matter how big a box or how much potential w > ork you will be able to do" the cost of doing IT business will increase until > projects like open source begin to greatly impact the commercial vendor's bo > ttom line and they have to reduce pricing to save their business.
I don't think that's entirely fair. Take linux. We all use Linux, some of us have the good sense to use it on our desktops too. I used to use Red Hat Linux 3.0.3. I installed on a 486 with 170 Mbytes of disk, 8 Mbytes of RAM (the same system that used to run OS/2. Sort of). For years I had a webserver running RHL 4.2, also installed on an 8 Mbyte 486. I now run my office server on a Pentium II 233, 128 Mbytes of RAM (64 would probably suffice though), running (basically) RHL 7.2. Not so long ago (RHL 6.x) my wife was happily using a Pentium 133, 64 Mytes running KDE & StarOffice 5.2. If I install RHL 7.x on a Pentium II with 128 Mbytes of RAM, performance is sluggish, and RHL 8.0 on such a box is pretty terrible. Who has driven this advance? Red Hat? Not really. While it tips buckets of money into Linux development (and Gnome in particular), to a large extent it (and other vendors) just pick up and package what's available. What's driving it, especially the desktop, is people who think it's currently not good enough, and who have the skills and desire to do something about it. And to give the results way for free. Since they get no money directly out of it, there is no incentive for them to push Linux to be ever more demanding on hardware. -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my disposition. ============================== If you don't like being told you're wrong, be right!
