Richard, I meant to say the "perceived cost" was less, but its the "perceived cost" thats important.
As you suggest the granularity of costs is also a big factor and is probably one of the major factors responsible for the dearth of servers (Solaris as well as Windows) we have in our "Data Centre". Its made a lot worse by the "Micro Management" and "Bean Counter" accounting that seems to be endemic in the modern world. If some one has a budget and expects to use it to buy a server, it can be very hard to persude them to use an existing box. Especially as we are local government and this means we loose the money for the server, they can't see that its doesn't cover the real costs which are on-going. I still wonder why IBM did nothing to encourage my employer to keep their mainframe. Perhaps they make more money from the steady stream of Intel boxes that keep coming through the doors .... Dave G4UGM > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Troth > Sent: 05 January 2010 19:34 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Moving on: The University of Maine (System) > shuts down mainframe > > > Dave -- > > This is ridiculous. Do you really want to start a religious > war on the value of Windows ... on this discussion list? > > To your two points, cost and flexibility, I dig in for > further analysis as follows. > > COST > > Windows is not more cost effective. It carries a finer > grained price point profile than MVS or VM or even most Unix. > But it is hardly "cost effective" (for servers) in any shop > bigger than a local funeral parlor. Given the availability > of Linux (and before that, low end > Unix) even its smaller per-unit charge is at risk. > > I will abstain from repeating the scalability numbers we all > know and love because I am lazy. You get the point. Windows > is inexpensive at the start but quite the opposite later. > > FLEXIBILITY > > Windows is actually LESS flexible (for servers) when you > consider that it cannot run (traditionally) without a mouse > as well as keyboard. The very idea is counter to anything > like "lights out". But that's just one point. > > What is flexibility? > Linux, traditional Unix, VM, and even MVS have so many more > knobs to turn than Windows does. And Windows presents more > penalty when you start "turning knobs" than do these other > systems. I state this without specific evidence because > having heard the horror stories more than once, I have filed > the info away: one does not adjust Windows. If you disagree, > and the moderator will indulge us, then I will start finding > and posting documented evidence. > > Now to my two points: sexiness and vanity. > > SEXINESS > > Windows is familiar. That at a minimum is comfort. It is > emotional. Salesmen LOVE when you get emotional. Do you > yourself not know Windows enough to drive its menus and > figure out some amount of configuration? But menu-driven > config does not scale past one or two servers, and then we're > back to cost. So perhaps I have stretched and implied that > anything salsemen love is sexy. But I did not mean that. > Windows really is (my opinion) nice looking. > > Windows is graphical ... in its very name. (And as I > suggested in a prior paragraph, one cannot usually turn off > the graphics, which gets us back into flexibility. But I > digress.) Graphics are sexy. 3D is even sexier, but who can > argue that visual offers more immediate gratification than > verbal? Pictures are appealing. > > VANITY > > One definition of "vanity" is a self focus. Windows is an > excellent candidate for per-user service. I prefer Linux in > that role only to avoid corporate entanglement and "closed > source" bondage, NOT because there is something wrong with > the op sys. Windows supports an individual user quite > nicely. But for servers ... not so well. I submit to you > that many customers have decided on Windows because they only > brought in their own experience, and that with the > presentation end. Might as well use the vanity mirror in > your bath room for the furnace at Odeilo. > > Another English definition of "vanity" is triviality or > hollowness. (Am trying to avoid the blunt "lack of value" > because I already said Windows DOES have some value.) Using > Windows for server service in your data center is vanity. > Unless driven by vendor requirements for software that you > chose for other reasons than flexibility or scalability, > Windows is simply NOT the right choice for that infrastructure. > > -- R; <>< > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 07:57, Dave Wade > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:[email protected]] > >> On Behalf Of Richard Troth > >> Sent: 05 January 2010 01:04 > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: Moving on: The University of Maine (System) > shuts down > >> mainframe > >> > >> > >> Actually, Jack nailed it. (And so did Solomon, for that matter.) > >> > >> In context, running "the stuff" on Windows is truly > nothing new under > >> the sun. But some shops will do that because someone > thinks Windows > >> is sexier than VM or MVS or Unix or ... whatever. Vanity! > > > > The reasons folks use Windows isn't anything to do with "Sexiness" > > more cost and flexibility. > > > >> > >> I confess that I find Ecclesiastes depressing, but less depressing > >> than U. Maine shutting down VM. Bummer. > >> > >> -- R; <>< > >
