Red Hat Not Seeing Microsoft, Ubuntu as Threats 241
Ian Price writes "Red Hat is shrugging off Microsoft's entry into the cluster computing space after Microsoft announced that it has completed the code for its Windows Compute Cluster Server 2003 targeting high-performance computing. From the article: 'Scott Crenshaw, general manager of enterprise Linux platform at Red Hat, dismissed Microsoft's entry into cluster computing. "They're playing catch-up," he said. "Linux is often associated with high-performance computing, but Windows has never achieved that on a large scale."' Crenshaw also commented with respect to Ubuntu: 'Their user base is still small, so we're not seeing the impact of it [Ubuntu] so far.'"
Famous last words (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Famous last words (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Famous last words (Score:4, Informative)
Why Linux is Da Bomb! (Score:4, Interesting)
Given that I'm not Microsoft, or Red Hat, I'd rather be a Red Hat stockholder than a Microsoft stockholder.
Also, I'd rather be monetizing services for rapidly spreading open-source software, than trying to get developing nations to pay for my proprietary software.
I urge you to focus on the direction and rate of the change, rather than the magnitude of the status quo.
There are too many people in the world not using computers yet. Eventually, most will. But if everyone paid Windows licensing fees, many developing nations would have to hand over most of their GNP to Microsoft. That's absurd!
In my humble opinion, it makes sense for India, China and several other developing countries to throw their collective might behind internationalized open-source software running on commodity hardware. When there are literally a million eyeballs scouring OSS for bugs, we'll see phenomenal changes in this playing field!
If intellectual property were enriched Uranium, intellectual property law would be the mechanism in an atomic bomb that prevents critical mass, and an economic boom.
Re:Why Linux is Da Bomb! (Score:2)
Re:Why Linux is Da Bomb! (Score:2)
Re:Famous last words (Score:2)
Lies [yahoo.com], damn [yahoo.com] lies [yahoo.com], statistics! [yahoo.com]
Re:Famous last words (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Famous last words (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Famous last words (Score:2)
Re:Famous last words (Score:2)
Re:Famous last words (Score:2)
More interesting is whether Vista will be capable of cluster computing: AS the legacies of DOS have falle
Re:Famous last words (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you steal something you invented ?
Re:Famous last words (Score:2)
At "casual" end of the market, a Windows version of XGrid - there's a hell of a lot of mostly-idle Windows machines out there.
Microsoft's buisness plan (Score:2, Insightful)
They absolutely done it more than once. Im suprised how microsoft keeps getting away with it.
Re:Microsoft's buisness plan (Score:2, Interesting)
"It is a race between PROGRAMMERS, to create idiotproof programs, and GOD, to create better idiots. So far God is winning".
If you leave the jokes apart, God is helping Microsoft to get away with it, by creating better idiots;)
Re:Microsoft's buisness plan (Score:4, Interesting)
I just don't have to reboot anymore.
It's worth the driver hell that one often has to go through on a new system. Systems shipped with Linux? Probably a great idea.
Even more strange... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Even more strange... (Score:2)
Except that (Score:5, Insightful)
If RH starts loosing market share, it'll more likely be to other Linux distributor or other opensource os, like suse,ubuntu,debian,openbsd,etc.
It's not the whole Linux community of developppers ingoring they adversaries, it's only *a* specific solution vendor.
You can kill distribution, but it's much harder to kill Linux as a whole.
Netscape Navigator almost disappeared back then, because it depended on a sinle company and that company failed to notice the threat and lost market shares.
That and I'm sure Microsoft will manage to build something that sucks in terms of scaliability, reliability and above all : possibility of customisation and reasonnable per-CPU license price.
Some labs build huge clusters, this new Windows flavor must cost less than the "Windows Beginners Edition [a.k.a. 3rd world edition]" (*) and provide impeccable service, otherwise it can't compete with opensource softwares.
Plus, unlike in the browser case, Microsoft can't try to leverage its desktop OS monopoly : you can bundle a browser on a widely deployed OS, but you can't "bundle a cluster" inside the OS - that sentence doesn't make sense.
Clusters are mostly custom build to specific needs, by people who have enough technical knowledge to assemble whatever they need. Windows Cluster-flavor must attract them by its qualities, not because laziness drives them to choose whatever option came with the box...
(*):
Re:Except that (Score:3, Insightful)
You're working under the false assumption that price is the sole/major factor when organisations choose products and services.
If that were the case, Windows would have been wiped out by Linux 5yrs ago. Not only has it failed to wipe out Windows, we're still having the "is it ready for t
Re:Famous last words (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd think one of the things about having a company is that you'd be able to take the talents of all the people in it and create an organization that could both innovate technologically, and bring those technologies to market competitively. But over the years I've come to doubt this. It's rare to have a company that does both; perhaps Google.
Microsoft has consistently waited to for other companies to prove that a technology is f
Re:Famous last words (Score:2)
Re:Famous last words (Score:2)
Interesting choice of analogy.
Obviously there is one significant factor which makes it a poor choice, that is the monopoly Microsoft has on the desktop and their ability to preload their competing product, Internet Explorer, on every PC that ships with Windows in their monopoly controlled desktop market.
And also note how significant work went into developing IE until Netscape was pu
Re:How Google trends see the situation (Score:2)
Re:How Google trends see the situation (Score:2)
Just like MS (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sure Microsoft said the same thing about Red Hat. Pride goes before a fall Red Hat.
Re:Just like MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would Ubuntu be a threat? (Score:2)
But I do agree that RedHat needs to beware o
Re:Why would Ubuntu be a threat? (Score:2)
Agree in general with parent post. I think comparing RH with MS or Ubuntu is an apples and oranges thing.
It might be interesting to compare RH with Novell and IBM. All three are offering Linux support services to the same general market, and each is bringing a very different history and orientation to the party. But neither MS nor Ubuntu are directly addressing this market.
Re:Just like MS (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think RedHat and Microsoft see themselves in direct competition to each other -- RedHat's focus is on the enterprise Unix market and competitors like Sun. That pisses Microsoft off because they were waiting for UNIX to collapse and the customers to come running to Windows. But RedHat hasn't done a thing to MS's existing markets.
On the other hand, Ubuntu is very much potential competition to RedHat because the sof
Re:Just like MS (Score:2)
Re:Just like MS (Score:2)
That's true, however Canonical will have an uphill battle in the enterprise desktop/server market against Red Hat.
Consider - if you are wanting to deploy desktop Linux across your organisation for whatever reason, which name are you likely to trust more? Red Hat, a profitable, established company that has many (100+) developers recruited from the open source community supporting its products. Or Canonical, a very new entry into the game, funded primarily by the [finite] wealth of a millionaire, with on
Re:Just like MS (Score:3, Insightful)
I would take this more seriously if Red Hat were beating Microsoft on any significant measure. At best they might be winning the server OS market, which Microsoft never had. Microsoft has considerably more revenue and profit (something like a hundred times more).
Anyway, there's no evidence that Microsoft and Red Hat compete. Red Hat mostly competes with unix providers (Sun, HP, etc.). Xandros and Mandrake are the o
Re:Just like MS (Score:2, Informative)
That doesn't conflict with what they said. RedHat couldn't give a shit about installs on home PCs - that's no longer the market they're going after. What they care about is entiprise class distros.
Yes, they want to pick up debian customers (increasing the size of the market), but the customers they really want, are the ones already willing to pay for linux (increasing their market share).
Re:Just like MS (Score:2)
"Home PC installs" aren't where you're likely to see Debian or where you're likely to find legions of people that are unimpressed with Redhat's level of quality and have felt that way for some time.
Althought those "home pc in
Red Hat doesn't need to do much. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fix your package manager!
I am sick of downloading packages from weird websites, version conflicts, and typing this stupid and overly long command into the shell over and over, hoping - nay, praying - that RPM won't spit out another conflict error this time. YUM seems tacked on, and I've never gotten it to work properly.
I switched to Ubuntu, even though it had less polish and was so deep in development, simply because application management actually worked, and things were in a logical order (supported, unsupported, universe, multiverse).
Maybe it's not practical, maybe I'm talking out of my ass having not used a Red Hat operating system since Fedora Core 3, but it's the only thing that prevents me from using Fedora at home or on a server, and the only thing that prevents me from recommending it to friends.
Re:Red Hat doesn't need to do much. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Red Hat doesn't need to do much. (Score:5, Informative)
Fedora's catching up fast, but Debian and Gentoo are still in the lead with respect to the number of applications available within their main package repositories. That's why their package management tools appear to work better - it's actually down to all the hard work that's been put in by the package maintainers though; the tools are nothing special (rpm provides equal or better functionality to dpkgs and ebuilds, and apt is available for rpm as well as yum).
The trouble is that the lesser number of packages for Fedora/RH encourages newbie and intermediate users to indiscriminately install packages from random places, with the expected results. If, however, you pick a handful of co-operative package repositories (e.g. dag + rpmforge only, or fedora extras + livna only, or ATrpms only), things work out pretty well. For packages that aren't available, it's best to learn to roll your own, either by porting packages from other versions/distros, or upgrading existing packages, or from scratch.
Re:Red Hat doesn't need to do much. (Score:2)
That said, I ditched Fedora and went to Ubuntu. Ubuntu/Debian and Gentoo have done this correct from the begining. It seems really tacked-on with Fedora.
Re:Red Hat doesn't need to do much. (Score:2)
In theory, yes, in practice no, as long as you stick to repos whose maintainers talk with each other. :-)
For packages that you really want from an incompatible repo, you can temporarily enable the repo (on the yum command line even - no config file hacking necessary) at install time, but leave that repo disabled for the purposes of 'yum u
Thanks (Score:2)
Question: "roll your own"? That sounds hard... is it hard? Where to start?
Re:Red Hat doesn't need to do much. (Score:2)
On the other hand, I suspect we'd end up with multi-year instead of multi-month release cycles as we attempted to stablise and integrate such a huge selection of packages with respect to each other.
Be careful what you wish for... :-)
Re:Red Hat doesn't need to do much. (Score:2)
Gentoo certainly isn't for everyone but I REALLY like being able to just update stuff when I want to update stuff, and not get locked in to some distro's arbitrary release cycle. It rea
Re:Red Hat doesn't need to do much. (Score:2, Interesting)
The nice things about portage are (1) it works (FC4 users on AMD64 machines attempting to use RPM aren't able to claim this, doubly so if they attempt t
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:mv foobar-1.0.{0,1}.ebuild (Score:2)
RPM works almost exactly the same way. rpm -ivh the src.rpm you have, edit the .spec file to refer to the new version of the upstream tarball, then run 'rpmbuild -ba' on the .
Re:Red Hat doesn't need to do much. (Score:2, Funny)
'The noble Atreides' => Fedora
'The evil Harkonnen' => Debian
'The insidious Ordos' => SuSE
Fremen => Ubuntu
Sardaukar => Gentoo
Re:Red Hat doesn't need to do much. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Red Hat doesn't need to do much. (Score:2)
That's going to be far easier with a more robust package manager. Debian's approach to this is well suited for the problem. Bughat's is not.
I would run my cluster on Debian (or Ubuntu) if my cluster app vendor supported it.
Re:Red Hat doesn't need to do much. (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember when tech websites were clamoring over the latest Fedora release as much as they're clamoring over Ubuntu now. Red Hat almost got it right, except for one thing.
Fix your package manager!
I am sick of downloading packages from weird websites, version conflicts, and typing this stupid and overly long command into the shell over and over, hoping - nay, praying - that RPM won't spit out another conflict error this time. YUM seems tacked on, and I've never gotten it to work properly.
I have
Re:Red Hat doesn't need to do much. (Score:3, Interesting)
Lets take these claims one at a time, shall we?
Re:Red Hat doesn't need to do much. (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, I really liked this conversation and learned new things. What I don't understand is the bad manners: why did you feel you had to say that? Let's see what happened in the conversation:
mok00 starts with a good reply that shows some real knowledge. He also includes the comment "...rpm is vastly superior to dpkg when it comes to..."
dondele
Re:Red Hat doesn't need to do much. (Score:3, Interesting)
Assuming you mean rpm vs dpkg, this is irrelevant. rpm has very few problems to fix.
I am sick of downloading packages from weird websites
If you're running RedHat, you shouldn't really be doing this anyway, you should be using up2date.
If you need packages not supplied by RedHat, there are repos for RedHat.
But, this has nothing to do with "fixing the package manager", it is more about the available packages on RedHat. However, a lot of the packages *I* need that are missing on RedHat
Re:Red Hat doesn't need to do much. (Score:5, Informative)
YUM works very well in FC5, it has made keeping software up to date really easy, far more than on windows. everything does it pretty much strait away; so for me it's great. They do have a GUI one aswell, but that doesn't seem to be as fast and I like the information... so run it from the command line
You also don't need to look through random websites, you already get 3 repositories with the distro, but it's really easy to add another (I've got livna) in there. These will contain pretty much all the software you could ever want to find
you really should consider trying fedora again. it's such a good little OS. anyway, if you do you should go to http://www.fedorafaq.org/ [fedorafaq.org] it contains a load of helpful information about how to get everything going. Also, it's not fedora's fault that some proprietary stuff doesn't work out of the box - it's free speech and wants to stay that way - we really should be praising them for this, not condeming them because it might take a little more effort to get some things working. Anyway, give it a go.
yum is no help for RHEL (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:yum is no help for RHEL (Score:2)
Re:Red Hat doesn't need to do much. (Score:2)
Granted, I'm a Debian user, but since Ubuntu's uses debian's package management, I'd wager a guess that it's a great deal better than the state of FC's package management.
Re:Red Hat doesn't need to do much. (Score:2)
Re:Red Hat doesn't need to do much. (Score:2, Informative)
In related news... (Score:2)
RRRRiiiigggghhtttt... Microsoft may be a newcomer to the cluster market, but just because it's a Microsoft product doesn't mean it's "omg sux0r". Only time can tell if the new Windows cluster system will be decent. However, it is illogical (and bad business practice) for Red Hat to be "unconcerned" about new competition.
Re:In related news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In related news... (Score:2)
Re:In related news... (Score:2)
No, it means that just about anything that you would ever want to run on a cluster has never been ported to a Microsoft OS and for some based on the linux experience it would take a few years to do so once it is decided that it is worthwhile to do it. Without the software there really isn't much point.
I'm probably biased because I putting in a few unpaid extra hours at the moment to r
Re:In related news... (Score:2)
At my last job, we had around 500 or so compute nodes at our site (more globally). The system we wrote to manage the jobs was seriously tailored to a Unix-like platform. It would also be non-tri
Re:In related news... (Score:2)
Decent or not, I think it will be as difficult for MS to break into the high performance market as it is for Linux to break into the desktop market. Lets look at desktops:
1. All the relevent people know how to use and administer Windows
2. Theres a big, well established library of software for Windows (yes, there are usually equivalents under Linux but they aren't well known established industry tools as far as most users are concerned).
Now
Re:In related news... (Score:2)
I have to imagine that if developers can't figure out how to create and deploy an app without some sort of help from the gui, then they're not likely to be able to process complex parallel algorithms.
Microsoft has been into clustering for years. (Score:5, Interesting)
They've had several clusters into the Top500 several times.
A couple examples are a NSCA self-made cluster of NT machines that reached rank 207 in June 2000 top500 list. It consisted of 256-processor production supercluster, which consists of 128 Hewlett-Packard machines with dual 550-MHz Intel Pentium III Xeon processors.
These early efforts were typified by statements like:
"Couldn't barely get the benchmark done before the entire cluster would go done"
"If one node failed the entire cluster would go down"
And stuff like that.
That's the first time NT posted a top500 standing. They had earlier efforts going back several years.
About every single top500 list since then had a Microsoft-based cluster somewere.. Until recently.
Now Linux, which started gaining ground about the same time that Microsoft started with clustering research, now dominates the top500 list.
Good luck on that one, MS. I also like how their P.R. stuff always makes it sound like Microsoft just started getting into clustering.
Re:Microsoft has been into clustering for years. (Score:3, Funny)
http://news.com.com/Bot+herders+may+have+controll
Re:Microsoft has been into clustering for years. (Score:2)
Like, what the managed to achieve in terme of security and stability, buy putting huge amount of money into the their OS developpement, and telling everyone that this time, this next-gen version of Windows will be stable and secure, we promise !
(All the way from Windows 95 up-to the not yet released Vista).
Yeah sure. To me it looks like that the only time something successful comes out is when they pour moeny into marketing.
indeed, ubuntu is unlikely a threat (Score:2, Insightful)
As for MS, well, they are usually able to strike a balance between "does not suck TOO much" and "has microsoft on the name" that appeals to a lot of people, even on corporate servers etc. Still, maybe the HP
Focuses on the desktop? (Score:2)
Red Hat Not Seeing Microsoft, Ubuntu as Threats? (Score:2)
In most cases confessing a threat means your competition has just as good or better product. If the company can't claim some other detail like monopoly abuse or control over distribution channels or whatever, they will just publically "dismiss" the threat, but you know they are working frantically to fight it, and having really bad nightmares every night about it.
The most ridiculous example of this "strategy" recently was the public mocking of th
Gandhi (Score:5, Funny)
- Then they fight y...
Oh, wait... You say it's RedHat ignoring Microsoft and not the other way around??Microsoft and Ubuntu not a threat (Score:5, Insightful)
Ubuntu market and RHEL market is totally different. Ubuntu is "now" heading toward Enterprise desktop environment with support, but Ubuntu had and always has been about average joe's Desktop PC while RHEL had and always has been about heavily toward Enterprise customers. So I think, by reading the article, it looks like RH is taking Ubuntu as not a competitor, but rather as a grassroot movement trying to reach that "critical mass". And to be fair, Crenshaw did point out a very good point here. That is, popularity doesn't count for the vendor certification which is the industry embracing OS distro with hardware and software for better customer support and that is what Enterprise customers look for.
Microsoft being in cluster market so late in the game, it's fair to say that MS had failed to grab the market share early on. So the statement in the article is accurate. Who knows if MS will monopolize cluster market share in coming years? But this statement is on the bull's eye.
"Linux is often associated with high-performance computing, but Windows has never achieved that on a large scale."
This has been the case for Microsoft. When Win2k Data Center edition was coming out, I was hoping better support for complete cluster suite, but wasn't satisfied with MS's offering with half baked solution and limitations. Besides, call me crazy, but 200+ cluster nodes, there is no way single Windows cluster node installation will be easier than a kickstart/NFS/bash script of RHEL cluster node. I don't know, maybe there is similar thing for Windows... I'm not a Windows guy, so I'm not sure. Please do correct me.
Re:Microsoft and Ubuntu not a threat (Score:3, Insightful)
Ubuntu right now is your classic dotcom strategy -- blow through venture capital to get "eyeballs" and then figure out later how to build revenue out of that. And if Ubuntu can't figure it out, they end up just like Mandrake and Corel and al
Re:Microsoft and Ubuntu not a threat (Score:2)
Sounds like that is exactly where they are going
http://www.ubuntu.com/support/paid [ubuntu.com]
just like say
Fedora / CentOS --> RHEL
or
OpenSUSE --> SUSE Linux Enterprise Server
or
OpenSolaris --> Solaris
, seems like they are all working on the
"here try our stuff for free!" approach , closely followed by the "but if you want business/ enterprise support, well you can pay for that"
no such thing as a free lunch , but there is nothing like free advertising.
Note : yes i know CentOS isnt fedora,
Re:Microsoft and Ubuntu not a threat (Score:2)
So you'd rather they provide no support at all? That's a bit silly. You sound like you're allergic to anything related to money. You should probably get that checked out.
Re:Microsoft and Ubuntu not a threat (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft and Ubuntu not a threat (Score:3, Insightful)
While this is true and i do agree with you. you still need to pay for those products up front.
unless i am missing something the support service offered by Ubuntu / Canonical ( spl ) are support contracts
this still leans towards comunit
Re:Microsoft and Ubuntu not a threat (Score:2)
It's great that Ubuntu offers a support service, but they're not really going to build a profitable business that way. It's going to come down to how well they successfully market their business products. Or, maybe as another poster pointed out, it's a
Re:Microsoft and Ubuntu not a threat (Score:2)
Ubuntu has a $10 million foundation [wikipedia.org] behind it to provide for the future development of Ubuntu should Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, keel over. A major difference between Ubuntu and the f
Re:Microsoft and Ubuntu not a threat (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft and Ubuntu not a threat (Score:2)
Total. RedHat. Apologism.
No. Ubuntu Linux IS real product now (and also well thought-out ideas for profit), because it has stuff which works [tm], so in my opinion, it can't be compared with any dot com example. About money - you propably don't get it how BIG is Debian in Enterprise. Just because it had no serious commercial entity so far, doesn't mean that it doesn't have market share. It could even larger than RedHat.
So, no. Ubuntu is DIRECT competitor to RedHat, because it is RedHat fault
Re:Microsoft and Ubuntu not a threat (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft and Ubuntu not a threat (Score:2)
The real strength of Free Software in it's ability to tell the market to sod off.
Re:Microsoft and Ubuntu not a threat (Score:4, Interesting)
Close, but not quite. Ubuntu is a classic dotcom strategy by one of the winners in the dotcom game - and it's a safe bet that Shuttleworth is out to do it again. How did he win the first time? By building a highly visible company and then selling it, to great personal advantage. A lot of what Canonical is doing makes a lot more sense when you keep that in mind. They don't need to figure out how to build revenue, they just need to get eyeballs and market share, so that the company has considerable sale value.
As for Redhat, they probably don't consider Ubuntu to be a threat because they realise this. Redhat's market is, as has been noted, high-end enterprise users. That means that both Redhat and their users must be run by people with a deep understanding of the business world. Anybody with considerable business experience can see what Canonical are doing - it's not like they're trying to hide it, even if they don't go out and announce these things. The important thing is that enterprise users don't want to buy from a company who might not still be there in five years time. Redhat have 'staying power' - they've been through a lot and they're still playing at the top levels of the market, so they feel good to enterprise users. Canonical just doesn't smell like that. It smells like a rich kid's toy, and when he gets tired of playing he'll cash in and make a stupidly huge amount of money, and then the company could become anything. It's just not a safe bet that Canonical will still be there and doing the same things in five years. So enterprise customers are going to feel uneasy about Ubuntu, and go with the safer Redhat instead. Anything they want will just be duplicated by the Redhat engineers anyway.
Redhat are playing in the 'big business' game now. That means they have slightly perverse priorities, but they aren't stupid and neither are their customers. A lot of things change when your customers aren't stupid.
Re:Microsoft and Ubuntu not a threat (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft and Ubuntu not a threat (Score:3, Informative)
As long as Mark Shuttleworth is willing to pour his not-inconsiderable personal fortune into Ubuntu, they're not going to be hurting for money.
Shuttleworth said in his Slashdot interview [slashdot.org] that he views Ubuntu almost as a not-for-profit:
ubuntu is getting stronger by the day (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ubuntu is getting stronger by the day (Score:2)
I have run Linux on/off for 10 years (including previous Ubuntu releases without hassle).
MP3s don't work in dapper (Kubuntu).
I have tried finding which libraries to install, and the documentation is broken (i.e., following the directions on the Kubuntu home page does not work).
Back to FreeBSD methinks... at least the docs work.
(K)Ubuntu is nice, but really... if *I* (i.e., a fairly competent *nix user) can't get MP3s working out of the box within 10 m
Microsoft? Not a huge market.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even with all of this though programs can be made to work. I have something like 100 custom programs that needed installed on my clusters. NCBI tools, Bio apps, stuff like that. All of them are coded to Unix environments. Compiling them on windows would be a total pain in the butt! I keep hearing that new programs will be made to work but I don't see that happening all that much. Most new programs are forks of old programs. (At least in the Bio/Geo worlds.) I still have TONS of fortran stuff out there. Lots and lots of stuff that only compiles against GCC 2.95. These things need modified in order to work with a newer version of the SAME OS.. you think a total change is going to happen?
Plus.. The cost of the OS can be killer. When you are talking $1200-$3400 a node an added $500 is huge! Our Mac OS cluster cost us $50k in software licenses. And its 50 nodes. Even if Microsoft drops the price to $100 a pop that is still REALLY expensive. $100 a pop across 50 nodes pays for a bunch more nodes!
So I guess what I am saying is that unless Microsoft starts writing tons of its own apps it won't break into the cluster world very fast. They will be luck to grow as fast as Apple has (%1 of the top 500 list in 4 years).
One thing I find commical.. (Score:3, Insightful)
What now in 3 years they are going to release Cluster Server 2005....
And we're supposed to be worried about it? Their software is admittedly at least 3 years behind the times right there in the title of the software it says so.
Re:One thing I find commical.. (Score:2)
I was just thinking of like car ads and such "Buy the new 2003 Chevy Tahoe! All new for 2007!"...
If you're gonna use years to version your products at least use the right year.
Nightmares... (Score:4, Funny)
2) An interactive assistant - Microsoft PaperClip - grows fast and takes the world under its control
3) Finally Vista runs at decent speed. Modest Min Sys Req - a cluster
4) The_Big_Bang_simulation.vbp
This is silly (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft Windows is often associated with desktop computing, but Linux has never achieved that on a large scale.
So RedHat is basically saying that (RH)Linux will never ever be able compete on the desktop. Then why are they putting all the effort in it?
People are forgetting (Score:2)
What is the problem? (Score:3, Informative)
Ubuntu is biggest threat to RedHat and Microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's another: RedHat and Microsoft will both be seriously damaged by Ubuntu.
Reasons why:
- Opensource is the only trend Microsoft can't fight with money. As technology progresses, some applications (such as Netscape, Office, and Windows) become mature, old technologies, with little money left to go after. That's when open-source takes over. I'm a Microsoft fan, but I see t
Re:Why would they? (Score:2)