On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Greg Byshenk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 03:04:28PM -0700, Jon Forrest wrote:
>
> > But, the question remains. How can Microsoft compete with free?
> > How much better will they have to be than standard Linux
> > clusters before they get any mainstream interest? What technical
> > features could they add that couldn't be added to a Linux
> > cluster?
>
> The thing to remember is that a cluster (even one running "free" --
> as in beer -- software) is not without cost. Apart from hardware,
> licenses (if required), etc., a business will also have to find
> (and pay) someone to build and maintain the cluster.
>
It is VERY important to be clear about one point. This argument must
NOT imply that using
proprietary software to built a cluster does not require any
work-force (someone) or no training needed to operate it. At the end of the day
building a cluster is a technological business, you need to hire
someone or a monkey
in order to click on buttons for installation or maintenance. Having
proprietary software is NOT a necessary and sufficient condition that
professionals
working on these products need less training then free software counter parts,
("free" as in freedom, NOT free beer software).
> A former co-worker of mine now works elsewhere, at a company where
> they are looking to build a cluster for some research he will be
> doing, and it will almost certainly run Windows. And this is not
> because there is something "better" about Windows, but because they
> are a Windows shop, and thus the cost of hiring or training staff
> would more than outweigh any savings on licenses.
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
