Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Do Operating Systems Matter? Part 1
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | My conclusion, based on the above? If support matters, operating
> | systems matter. If the subject is production systems, then, operating
> | systems matter.
> |
> | What's equally clear, however, is that VMWare's contention, made here
> | at VMWorld, that the role of the operating system is changing is
> | accurate.
> `----
>
> http://www.redmonk.com/sogrady/archives/002496.html
>
> Very recent:
>
> Sun's CEO cites OS as differentiator
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Oracle's and Microsoft's moves to accommodate Linux show how
> | important it is to have an operating system, said Sun
> | Microsystems President and CEO Jonathan Schwartz, promoting
> | Sun's own Solaris OS.
> `----
>
> http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1919211241;fp;2;fpid;1
Had Schwartz had plenty of wine with his dinner?
I think we all had a fairly good idea that an OS was pretty important on a
computer. Personally I don't have a single computer without one.
JBoss maybe will erode some of Oracles market, because it gives database
application developers good access to a wealth of SQL database engines.
Code can be written with nothing more than the connection string tieing you
to a database vendor, in much the same way as php and Rubyrails can switch
engines in a single line. If Oracle got up the noses of it's users or
really did struggle to make a stable Linux version of their code, then edit
your string and use Postgres or Mysql or any other. But of cause Oracle is
much more than just the database engine, jboss effectively puts the
application side in the bin. Thats the theory any way, I have never seen a
comparison of jboss to other development languages along with the various
database engines, so it might be a long way off being a good rival to
Oracle yet.
But in other areas of remote application development jboss is already seen
as a very excellent product.
As for the communications side, from what I can tell jboss isn't really
covering that side. Oracle on a mainframe may yet be hard to kick if you
have to service many sub-systems and clients. But only because Oracle don't
yet have a properly stable version of Oracle for large applications running
on Linux.
Schwartz didn't actually give a reason for not likeing thin clients. But I
like them and I can give a reason. The vast majority of company computers
are over spec, most are never upgraded or added to in any way from the day
they are bought until the end of the expected natural life (3 years). So
why not chop them down, you can get good prices on thin clients when you
buy a few at once. Then as more applications move back onto the server
(current trend) or the Internet, then is there always going to be a need
for a full local OS/applications set for each job area? The answer is 'no'.
An OS of some kind obviously, but the applications can be independant of OS
when running inside something such as jboss. The OS can simply be something
to stand jboss on while it does it's work. Redhat, Suse, Ubuntu, Sun, zx81,
vic 20, mums old washing machine controller (though it doesn't let you open
the door for 40 minutes after it's finished anything) ....
|
|
