The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
Reply-To: "fred bartoli"
From: "fred bartoli"
References: <3D6E8E0E.email@example.com> <3D6FDA8F.firstname.lastname@example.org> <3D7185FA.7060408@BOGUS.earthlink.net> <3D729879.87AE09FB@bellatlantic.net>
Subject: Re: IBM chip fab will use Linux
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 19:28:33 +0200
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
Organization: Guest of ProXad - France
NNTP-Posting-Date: 02 Sep 2002 19:27:23 MEST
Donald Shepherd a écrit dans le message :
> Eric Bohlman wrote:
> > Chris Carlen wrote in
> > news:3D7185FA.7060408@BOGUS.earthlink.net:
> > > Mike wrote:
> > >> This is a multi-billion dollar fab. You can bet that the OS cost was
> > >> not a significant consideration.
> > >>
> > >
> > > The OS cost isn't the point. The cost of control system failures in a
> > > multibillion $$$ fab would be huge. Thus, it is likely that the test
> > > of control platforms was done very carefully. Repeat: The cost I'm
> > > talking about is the cost of the control system failing. Very high,
> > > therefore reasonable to conclude that the test-beds were optimized,
> > > thus failure points to OS platform. Result not inconsistent with well
> > > established industry experience. Not a religious argument by a long
> > > shot.
> > Note also that OS cost != license fee; in any setup with more than a few
> > machines, license fees are probably the smallest factor in OS cost.
> > of downtime, as you point out, is one of the bigger factors.
> > requirements are another: if OS A requires significantly fewer admins
> > 1000 machines than OS B, that will likely swamp out any difference in
> > license fees.
> > The fact that Windows requires payment of a license fee whereas Linux
> > doesn't is almost always a red herring.
> Here's my take on all this: IBM wants to be King of Corporate Computing
> Since they can't do that with Microsoft, they are betting on Linux. They
> probably polishing their version of Linux right now. Right now, Corporate
> America sees Linux as a geek toy. IBM needs to change this image to
> Being able to say "We're running our chip fab with Linux." is part of
> In-house beta testing is also a plus.
Well, given the cost of off time in a $billions factory, I really don't
think that IBM will play that game just to "buy" a good new image to their
piece of software. The point is undoubtly reliability.
About the same point a friend of mine that is currently administrating a
2000+ machines parc tells me that windows servers *have* to be restarted at
least once a week. Unix/linux ones they have are *never* restarted.
Also run on the same hardware windows serves less clients than linux. Sure
this again is not the reason for IBM choice, but this might be a good
additionnal reason for personnal use (of course provided SW is available).
> I have an old 5 slot IBM PC gathering dust. I got it with the optional
> documentation that included schematics, BIOS listings, and a manual for
> cassette basic. It was built by grownups for grownups. None of my later
> machines ever had documentation that even came close. I don't think Big
> Linux would be a bad thing.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup