Re: Re: First commercial deployment of aurora?

Very true that it *should* be paid, but speaking from experience of 
people that have been long time Sun types and have seen the light, they 
often don't want to.  I mean for gods sake, we already paid out the a$$ 
for the hardware once, now you are making us pay for the os when it used 
to be that the hardware was your license to run the software.  My 
manager is in that position and has vowed to never give sun money for 
software that has always been free...

I must have skipped over that line in the license clause when I read 
it.  Since we are a sun distrib and support provider, I probably forgot 
about it since I figured we were good there ;) ... and in case you were 
wondering, yes, business is slow on the sun front.

T. Ribbrock wrote:

>On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 08:08:56AM -0500, Paul Gienger wrote:
>  
>
>>Well if you want a modern OS and want to be legal about it, linux is the 
>>cheaper way to go... Sun wants you to pay for your Sol9 licenses on 
>>boxes that have capability for multiple cpus, so if you're cheap that's 
>>out.
>>    
>>
>
>:-) I know that, that's why my U10 only has Solaris 9 - 'cause the
>licence is even worse than what you say: You also have to pay for a
>single CPU licence, unless you buy your Sparc fomr Sun directly or
>from an authorized dealer. That leaves most home users like me with
>either an old Solaris 8 licence (from the time it still was free), an
>unlicensed system or any of the free OSes.
>However, as we're talking about business use, I figured that this
>argument would be pretty moot - if Solaris *is* better, the licence
>will (should...) be paid in that case.
>
>
>  
>
>>The other thought is that most of the OSS products out there are 
>>developed on linux, which would make a guy think that they would run 
>>better on it than on solaris. 
>>    
>>
>
>Which causes frequent complains from the Solaris crowd about
>non-portable programming - and rightly so. I had my share of fights
>with OS on Solaris...
>
>
>  
>
>>As a personal point of view, backed up by absolutely nothing, I would 
>>guess that linux in general would be snappier than Solaris of any 
>>flavor.  I don't have a really good test mechanism to find out if it is, 
>>but I do have the hardware to test it out on ;)
>>    
>>
>
>I personally cannot confirm that - my Aurora U5/400 and my Solaris 8
>U10/440 are *very* comparable (and Solaris 9 is supposed to be even
>better - unfortunately, neither Linux nor Solaris 9 can cater for my
>SunPCi card... :-( ).
>However, the biggest argument against Linux coming from the Solaris
>crowd e.g. on comp.os.solaris or comp.sys.sun.* is targeted at multi-CPU
>machines and server duty. If I'm to believe them, Linux is not able to
>scale on those Sparc machines. I certainly don't have the hardware to
>test that... :-}
>
>
>  
>
>><special note> I'm leaving out any sco-ified costs of running linux 
>>since I don't think that's going to be an issue, ymmv </note>
>>    
>>
>
>Pffffff.... ;-)
>
>Cheerio,
>
>Thomas
>  
>

-- 
Paul Gienger                     Office:		701-281-1884
Applied Engineering Inc.         Cell:			701-799-0952
Information Systems Consultant   Fax:			701-281-1322
URL: www.ae-solutions.com        mailto:[email protected]



_______________________________________________
Aurora-sparc-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.auroralinux.org/mailman/listinfo/aurora-sparc-devel
Aurora FAQ: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~mas01r/aurorafaq.html