Evidence from users in the real world shows that for large workloads, the mainframe offers power, security, administration licensing and management benefits – but, in an x86 world, many IT departments simply don’t consider running their Linux apps on anything but traditional servers. IBM’s system z platform offers the …
I know I may be picky about these things but it would be nice if the subject line for this article would mention that it was an advertisement for IBM...
Yeah, I was going to say the heading should be "IBM solution is the best, says IBM employee"
On subject of the message, I was under the impression that the reason most companies simply don't consider using anything else than Linux servers is that they are vastly cheaper and easier to manage. Proprietary solutions were always better, but stopped being used because the "power, security, administration licensing and management benefits" were not worth the trouble and lock-in. What percentage of IT workers can manage such a system, compared to a Linux server? How easy is it to find replacements?
This appears to be Big Blue saying "don't run your linux stuff on commodity hardware, buy our mainframes and run linux there", rather than anything about proprietary operating systems.
Mainframes are an amazing piece of kit and I have no doubt they can outperform a whole heap of x86 stuff, but you really could buy a whole heap and then some for the cost of System Z couldn't you?
- Vid Hubble 'scope snaps 200,000-ton chunky crumble conundrum
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Windows 8.1 Update 1 spewed online a MONTH early – by Microsoft
- Google offers up its own Googlers in cloud channel chumship trawl
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? Why can’t I walk past Maplin without buying stuff I don’t need?