On 09/08/10 13:36, usafverteran wrote: > You're using an article 7 to 8 years old to base your conjecture? Why would > they spend millions developing AIX if it was being killed? > > You also fail to realize transportation, finance, insurance, banking, retail, > defense, and all sectors of the economy run AIX. They have no intention of > running their operations deemed critical to cheap x86 hardware running Linux. > > POWER is the first chip to have decimal floating point on-chip! > > There is something to be said for developing your operating system to run on > your hardware (AIX and POWER). That way you can expoit RAS. This isn't > possible with x86 and Linux. I have seen so many Linux servers crash with no > explanation why. Clusters that are unstable. > > AIX is stable. That is what many companies want, so they continue to buy a > solid architecture. > > But whatever, kebabble.
Well, we can infer one of several possibilities: 1. IBM was lying, and they never had any intention of killing AIX. Doesn't seem likely; it is hard to imagine a scenario where this would make sense. 2. They changed their minds but didn't announce it. 3. The original plan was very long term. Number 2 seems the most likely to me. -- blu It's bad civic hygiene to build technologies that could someday be used to facilitate a police state. - Bruce Schneier -----------------------------------------------------------------------| Brian Utterback - Solaris RPE, Oracle Corporation. Ph:603-262-3916, Em:[email protected] _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
