On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:09:46PM -0700, Jim Sibley wrote: > Alan wrote: > > > Its just that PC's are so cheap its > > easier to use several for a job _IFF_ you can solve > > the management problem. > > That _IFF_ is not only non-trivial technically, but > also not not-trivial financially! > > You but one cheap PC or a hundred cheap PC's, you > still have a bunch of cheap PC's. > > One of my favorite examples is that our company still > has MS pervasively in the office and once a month we > get a note from IT security to put on a patch because > MS did it again. So it takes me 15 minutes, so what? > Well, with 300,000 in the company, thats 75,000 > MANHOURS. IT security doesn't care - the manhours > doesn't come out of its budget!
And if you had all of those Office machines as separate images on a giant T-Rex, those IT folks would still have to manually patch each and every image separately, and spend 15 minutes on that. As for "cloning", "patch distribution" etc.: those solutions are exactly "solutions (?) to the management problem". As you mentioned in the beginning, just cramming many images on one mainframe won't make it go away. -- Tzafrir Cohen +---------------------------+ http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir/ |vim is a mutt's best friend| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +---------------------------+
