Re: Lindows Issues

["Nate Amsden" <subscriptions () graphon com>]

Jonas M Luster said:

> Now, you and I know that neither RedHat, nor Oracle is
> "unbreakable". And we'd know that one even without having seen the
> gaping holes in both products - we know it, because we know that
> there is no such
> thing as "unbreakable". Oracle knows that, too. But by assuming

i don't know about others, but when i first saw the
unbreakable linux ad on the back cover of some magazine(forgot
which), the first thing i thought of is not security, but
reliability. that is running a cluster of 4 systems(what this
ad touted) is(in their view) an extremely reliable setup.

though i do have a mind for security, i do believe oracle/redhat's
unbreakable ads are trying to show that they are unbreakable
by being reliable, for those that cannot tolerate much
downtime, at the same time as having a lower cost then
the competition(their opinion).

it seems to be part of oracle's push towards lower cost
systems, i remember reading an article or seeing on CNBC
how oracle was replacing much of their existing RISC-based
backend at their own company with low cost IA32-based linux
clusters. since i have not used oracle  so i do not know how
much lower cost this is, but that is the message i got when
i saw the reports.


nate
(debian gnu/linux user all the way)