__/ [ The Ghost In The Machine ] on Wednesday 16 August 2006 22:00 \__
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron Quark
> <hadronquark@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote
> on Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:25:03 +0200
> <87hd0csfls.fsf@xxxxxxxx>:
>> 7 <website_has_email@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Google talks up smart software for reliability
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | However, Pike did say that nowadays Google's servers are
>>>> | custom-designed and run Red Hat Linux with a modified kernel.
>>>> |
>>>> | [...]
>>>> |
>>>> | Pike said he doesn't believe Google could have achieved this level of
>>>> | reliability with Windows.
>>>> |
>>>> | "It was a good decision [to choose Linux] because it made it so
>>>> | flexible in the way you can do it," he said.
>>>> |
>>>> | [...]
>>>> |
>>>> | Pike then jokingly said if Microsoft's claims about the number of
>>>> | Windows administrators required per server were true compared to
>>>> | Linux, "Google would be a much bigger company".
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;1225434946;fp;2;fpid;1
>>>
>>>
>>> If Google invalidated micoshaft sys admin studies, then there
>>> is no reason for ANY small, medium or large sized businesses,
>>> educational establishments, charities and governments to
>>> believe micoshaft funded studies ever again.
>>
>> Who or what is "micoshaft"? Some kind of census company?
To elaborate, the number of machines that one sysadmin at Google is
responsible for, is vast. Imagine yourself rebooting and patching some
under-performing Windows servers. Imagine the cost and the poor
infrastructure one can devise to combine the power of the Windows machines
(HPC). In an interview I was told that one skill Google seeks is the ability
to connect large networks. Windows XP Professional Edition cannot even VNC
to more than one machine at a time, unless I am misinformed.
> 7's imaginary friend, apparently. The real McCoy (Elijah, even!)
> is of course at
>
> Microsoft Corporation
> One Microsoft Way
> Redmond, WA 98052-6399
>
> as listed in
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/contactus/?WS=mscorp
>
> Google can invalidate what it likes, but it and IDC are going to
> have an interesting time of it. Microsoft may want to purchase
> Google then reimplement its database servers using Microsoft
> SQL Server, for a 41% savings, according to IDC.
>
> (Color me skeptical, but that's the figure.)
It's a good thing that Google was a Linux company since day one. Otherwise,
at point time along the way, Microsoft could present some big bucks and
eliminate an enemy. Google have since become a foster home to Open Source
and Linux. And Microsoft cannot be happy about this. Google shows Linux in
its full glory and serves as a role model/poster child.
>>> If you develop something new, switch to Linux technology and
>>> save tons of money in the process.
>>> Where better to start than a personal tour of some of the
>>> hundreds of livecds http://www.livecdlist.com
>>>
>>
>> Live CDs are great.
>
> But Microsoft is better, according to IDC. Whom to believe?
> An interesting question.
Ghost, you're crazy! *smile* $Employer has had you brainshed.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
roy pts/1 cg001a.halls.man Tue Aug 15 07:09 still logged in
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
|
|
