In your column concerning whether Linux really costs less than other RISC-based Unix vendors, you say, "The day I see an announcement that a fortune 500 company has starting using Linux as a replacement for AIX on an IBM pSeries using logical partitioning, then I'll start believing in the words more."
Oracle Corporation set a mandate almost two years ago to centralize its servers and switch from Solaris to Linux as its preferred hosting platform. I believe Oracle has been using Linux servers for virtually all their internal hosting for more than a year and a half now. Wouldn't that qualify as a Fortune 500 company using Linux as a replacement for a RISC/Unix architecture?
Or do you only take into account companies that switch from IBM hardware and AIX? Wouldn't you agree that the title of your enterprise solution white paper is somewhat misleading, as it does not seem to address the "costs" of Linux versus Unix/AIX/Solaris/etc. "head-on"?
We're not talking about the same thing here. I know there are fortune 500 companies that have replaced their Unix systems on Risc with Linux on PCs. I was talking about Fortune 500 companies that are replacing Linux with Unix on RISC Platforms, not PCs. How many big companies run Linux on their Risc Servers? That is what I wanted to know. Regarding the cost factor, you're never going to really be able to drill down to the level that you're looking at, because in most cases you will require more Linux Servers then AIX or Solaris servers to do the same tasks. The prices will also vary, depending on the volume discounts that you get with your company. You may get Oracle licenses at 50% cheaper than I do, depending on existing agreements that you may have.
Good luck with whatever choice you make!
This was first published in October 2003