>>> On 9/6/2012 at 03:16 AM, "R.S." <[email protected]> wrote: > To make long story short: IFL can be cost effective because of ISV > licenses. Linux is (in theory) free, but Oracle and other are not.
Let's not keep propagating the myth that Linux is free as in "no cost." The classic statement is that it's "free, as in free speech, not as in free beer." See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The confusion in English is why many have taken to using Free/Libre, since the French separate free (freedom or Libre) from free (no cost or gratis). > Assuming free software only it's very hard to justify spendings on IFL. Almost as hard as justifying paying for z/OS, DB2, etc. Right? Yet people do it all the time, for very solid business reasons. It is _not_ just about the cost of acquisition, or at least shouldn't be. > BTW: Licensing models do change. How can one be sure that Oracle will > keep the model unchanged? Maybe they will start using "price per MIPS" > model? How can one be sure the sun will come up tomorrow? There are no guarantees in life, and when Oracle is involved things get even less sure. However, other companies are willing to support the business model that IBM has adopted for specialty engines. (Just about everyone except SAS Institute.) And just in the last month, I saw Oracle advertising a job opening for someone to drive certification of Oracle products on Linux for System z. As I said, no guarantees for the future, but that gives me enough confidence to continue recommending people at least look at consolidating their workloads on System z. Mark Post ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
