From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: clemc@ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:43:51 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] System Economics (was is Linux "officially branded UNIX") Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Tim Bradshaw wrote: > But the people who have spent 9-figure sums on all this > marginally-functional tin that the Unix vendors foisted on them don't > look at it that way: they just want something which is not Unix, and > which runs on cheap tin. > ​Fair enough -- but I think that this is really another way of describing Prof. Christiansen's disruption theory​. The "lessor" technology wins over "better" technology because it's good enough. I'm curious for the Banks, in your experience - which were the UNIX vendors that were pushing 9-figure UNIX boxes. I'll guess, IBM was one of them. Maybe NCR. What HP, Sun, DEC in that bundle? > Linux is not Unix, and runs on cheap tin. > I ​believe that the point you are making is that "white box" PC's running a UNIX-like system - aka Linux could comes pretty close to doing what the highly touted AIX, NCR et al were doing and were "good enough" to get the job done. ​And that's not a statement about UNIX as much as a statement about, the WINTEL ecosystem, that Linux sat on top of and did an extremely impressive job of utilizing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: