>Large Enterprises like support and upgrade contracts and stuff like that.
>They want someone to point a finger at when things doesn't work.
>So even if the support for the commercial products aren't any better
>they have some kind of garantee since it's on paper.
Actually, I don't think that's such a big deal. Large enterprises expect
that they will have to hire competent administrators, they don't assume
that a $500/yr support contract will suffice. The big issue is the
pool of competent administrators, and Linux's is fairly small, compared
to Solaris, HPUX, or Netware.
Quote:>Linux scales really well up to a certain point, and the simplicity of it
>makes it a better high-availability solution than the big guys.
>For instance, you can't compare Linux with NT.
Sure you can. And it compares very well in most areas. But if your
system is such that downtime costs you $3000/minute, neither is an
appropriate choice.
Quote:>But if you are in need of real high-end no Unix will do.
Actually, the high-end Unices are getting much better. Sun and HP have
365x24x7 solutions that look different from MVS, but they work nearly as
well (and cost nearly as much.)
--
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.