14 Mar
2017
14 Mar
'17
5:35 p.m.
On 13 Mar 2017, at 21:35, Clem Cole <clemc(a)ccc.com> wrote:
Or in there case, negative value. RH likes to have the world believe they are Linux.
They don't want anything lessening their brand. Certification would make RH <
UNIX I suspect which is not what they want. Certification has always been about the
ISV's, and if they can convince the ISV to test on their implementation directly (and
they have) they don't need it.
Well, in particular a lot of the kind of organisations RH sell to (banks) had experiences
with Unix which were not that good: places I worked spent an enormous amount of money on
very expensive machines with hardware-redundancy features which were at best marginally
functional, and certainly not functional enough to rely on. These features compared very
badly with the things that IBM Z-series machines could do (it might be that the IBM/AIX
machines were better in this regard: I didn't deal with them very much).
Of course we'd argue that this is not the fault of Unix, and that's a different
discussion. 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. Linux is not Unix, and runs on
cheap tin.
--tim