Discussion:
Alaska Airlines Switches to Linux
(too old to reply)
Sinister Midget
2004-02-02 18:39:36 UTC
Permalink
http://www.computerworld.com/managementtopics/ebusiness/story/0,10801,89634,00.html?nas=LIN-89634

http://spod.cx/s?427

Jarvis said that while Alaska Airlines expects the ITA software to
reduce costs compared with Sabre, the real driver for the shift was
that ITA's technology will enable the airline to make its Web site
more of a revenue generator. "We plan to grow our [online] revenue to
$1 billion by 2005," said Jarvis. The airline currently earns 30% of
its $600 million in passenger revenue through its Web site.

QPX uses XML technology and a component-based architecture that
scales linearly, said Jeremy Wertheimer, ITA's founder and CEO. "It
processes and confirms availability for [trip] pricing in less than
one-tenth of a second" by running algorithms that more efficiently
analyze airfares and routing options, he said.

"This is a huge improvement in the number of itineraries we can
process," said Jarvis. When Alaska Airlines was using the
mainframe-based Sabre system, it often had to make more than 40
different data requests to produce one screen of itinerary options.
"Now we do it all with one trip to the data source," Jarvis said.
--
Aren't you glad you use linux? Don't you wish everybody did?
Mike Cox
2004-02-02 21:13:41 UTC
Permalink
If they their business model is so bad that they have to skimp money like
that, I'd be worried if I were an investor. Real companies use Windows
2003, and maybe an IBM pSeries running AIX.
paul cooke
2004-02-02 19:15:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Cox
If they their business model is so bad that they have to skimp money like
that, I'd be worried if I were an investor. Real companies use Windows
2003, and maybe an IBM pSeries running AIX.
I'd be more worried about money being poured down the drain when companies
use microsoft's products...

You do realise that those who command the purse strings are now asking
serious questions before releasing money these days...

This is why Microsoft is so worried... their revenue stream is being
questioned everywhere... and the next "shearing session" won't be until
late 2006 when Longhorn is released... That's a long time to have to depend
on their current products...
--
COMPUTER POWER TO THE PEOPLE! DOWN WITH CYBERCRUD!
John
2004-02-02 22:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by paul cooke
Post by Mike Cox
If they their business model is so bad that they have to skimp money like
that, I'd be worried if I were an investor. Real companies use Windows
2003, and maybe an IBM pSeries running AIX.
I'd be more worried about money being poured down the drain when companies
use microsoft's products...
You do realise that those who command the purse strings are now asking
serious questions before releasing money these days...
This is why Microsoft is so worried... their revenue stream is being
questioned everywhere... and the next "shearing session" won't be until
late 2006 when Longhorn is released... That's a long time to have to
depend on their current products...
Not only that, but Longhorn is going to require new hardware as well. I
think a lot of companies are tired of having to upgrade their hardware
every three years just to keep up with MS's bloatware. After all, why junk
perfectly good equipment simply because MS came out with a new product?

The other problem with Longhorn, I think, is going to be custom-built apps.
Many companies have developed their own software to perform various
functions. I've seen on many occasions where apps written for Win9x OS's
don't work on NT-based OS's (Win2k & XP). Rewriting or retooling those
costs a lot of money. Also, don't forget, that if the app can't be redone
for the new OS, bye-bye data. (Or roll the dice and attempt to convert it
to a new app for the new OS.)

The more you look at it, the more Linux makes good business sense.
Linønut
2004-02-03 00:40:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Not only that, but Longhorn is going to require new hardware as well. I
think a lot of companies are tired of having to upgrade their hardware
every three years just to keep up with MS's bloatware. After all, why junk
perfectly good equipment simply because MS came out with a new product?
I think this factor is significant in the adoption of Linux. Even
Windows weenies admit that Linux can rejuvenate old hardware.
--
No, I won't fix your Windows computer!
Mark Gary
2004-02-02 19:35:50 UTC
Permalink
I was minding my own business, when twat of twats, Mike Cox barged in
Post by Mike Cox
If they their business model is so bad that they have to skimp money like
that, I'd be worried if I were an investor. Real companies use Windows
2003, and maybe an IBM pSeries running AIX.
twat!
--
Mark Gary
System Powered by Gentoo Linux 1.4
Registered Linux User #329755 - http://counter.li.org
email me at : ***@mark (reverse and remove nospam)
John Bailo
2004-02-02 20:11:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Cox
If they their business model is so bad that they have to skimp money like
that, I'd be worried if I were an investor. Real companies use Windows
2003, and maybe an IBM pSeries running AIX.
Windows 2003 is not used by any production website, anywhere.
ToddT
2004-02-04 14:40:52 UTC
Permalink
and the american army is nowhere near bagdad...
Post by John Bailo
Post by Mike Cox
If they their business model is so bad that they have to skimp money like
that, I'd be worried if I were an investor. Real companies use Windows
2003, and maybe an IBM pSeries running AIX.
Windows 2003 is not used by any production website, anywhere.
The Ghost In The Machine
2004-02-07 01:00:07 UTC
Permalink
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, ToddT
<***@SPAMmaritz.com>
wrote
on Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:40:52 -0600
Post by ToddT
and the american army is nowhere near bagdad...
Post by John Bailo
Post by Mike Cox
If they their business model is so bad that they have to skimp money like
that, I'd be worried if I were an investor. Real companies use Windows
2003, and maybe an IBM pSeries running AIX.
Windows 2003 is not used by any production website, anywhere.
Microsoft is currently hosting 20.88% of all websites, down 0.12% from
January.

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html

Unfortunately, the Microsoft component is not broken down into
NT/2k/2003 subcomponents. Google Zeitgeist might give us
a clue but there's a huge bias as Google is primarily concerned
with the web browser, not the web server, and this is rather
outdated information even were it accurate anyway:

http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/zeitgeist-nov03.html

The indications are that WinXP is 42%, Win98 27%. If these
figures are even close there's probably 11% or so of sites
being hosted by Win2003 -- but I doubt they're close.

Note the 4% other. Is that other Linux? Or what? There's
also the issue of Linux browsers morphing into IE for
purposes of avoiding "anti-IE roadblocks". Apparently
there's a few lazy website developers out there.

So the answer is, "I don't know". But I doubt it's 0%.

It would be interesting to see if IBM has a PC-x86 emulator
running under AIX -- not WinE (although WinE might be
very useful) but a virtual machine that simulates a home
PC system, complete with video card and possibly a Blaster
sound card. One might even install Linux on it.

Or perhaps they merely sell VmWare, which would also work.
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Joseph Haig
2004-02-02 22:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Cox
If they their business model is so bad that they have to skimp money like
that, I'd be worried if I were an investor. Real companies use Windows
2003, and maybe an IBM pSeries running AIX.
I thought MS was supposed to be the cheap option.
John
2004-02-02 23:54:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Haig
Post by Mike Cox
If they their business model is so bad that they have to skimp money like
that, I'd be worried if I were an investor. Real companies use Windows
2003, and maybe an IBM pSeries running AIX.
I thought MS was supposed to be the cheap option.
He switches arguments depending on the point made. One time, MS is the cheap
option, now it's the Cadillac option. Don't mind him, as you'll never get a
consistent answer.
Mike Cox
2004-02-03 02:44:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Post by Joseph Haig
Post by Mike Cox
If they their business model is so bad that they have to skimp money
like that, I'd be worried if I were an investor. Real companies use
Windows 2003, and maybe an IBM pSeries running AIX.
I thought MS was supposed to be the cheap option.
He switches arguments depending on the point made. One time, MS is the
cheap option, now it's the Cadillac option. Don't mind him, as you'll
never get a consistent answer.
Actually I don't swtich arguments. Linux has ZERO upfront costs, so if
you don't have any cash, that is what you go with just to put off
bankruptcy. Eventually the higher TCO will get you with Linux though,
but that does give you some time at least to revamp your business plan.

So in short if you don't have *any* money than Linux will get you an OS,
but for long term viablility you get a lower TCO with Windows. The IBM
pSeries is good for mission critical stuff like company database use,
payroll, and ect. It has stuff like a service processor, chipkill
technology, redundant power supplies, the ability to switch processors if
one fails-without shutting down the pSeries!
Daniel Rudy
2004-02-03 07:52:57 UTC
Permalink
And somewhere around the time of 02/02/2004 18:44, the world stopped and
Post by Mike Cox
Post by John
Post by Joseph Haig
Post by Mike Cox
If they their business model is so bad that they have to skimp money
like that, I'd be worried if I were an investor. Real companies use
Windows 2003, and maybe an IBM pSeries running AIX.
I thought MS was supposed to be the cheap option.
He switches arguments depending on the point made. One time, MS is the
cheap option, now it's the Cadillac option. Don't mind him, as you'll
never get a consistent answer.
Actually I don't swtich arguments. Linux has ZERO upfront costs, so if
you don't have any cash, that is what you go with just to put off
bankruptcy. Eventually the higher TCO will get you with Linux though,
but that does give you some time at least to revamp your business plan.
You forgot that in the current bear market where money is tight all
around, companies large and small are doing everything they can to save
a dime.
Post by Mike Cox
So in short if you don't have *any* money than Linux will get you an OS,
but for long term viablility you get a lower TCO with Windows. The IBM
pSeries is good for mission critical stuff like company database use,
payroll, and ect. It has stuff like a service processor, chipkill
technology, redundant power supplies, the ability to switch processors if
one fails-without shutting down the pSeries!
A testement to IBM technology. I wouldn't expect anything less. But,
in reguards to Linux, alot of people are pissed off at Microsoft because
Microsoft keeps blaming the IT departments for being lazy and not
applying the necessary patches. If Microsoft didn't have all those
security problems and have a default install being unsecure, then there
wouldn't be a problem.
--
Daniel Rudy

Remove nospam, invalid, and 0123456789 to reply.
JEDIDIAH
2004-02-03 13:09:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Cox
Post by John
Post by Joseph Haig
Post by Mike Cox
If they their business model is so bad that they have to skimp money
like that, I'd be worried if I were an investor. Real companies use
Windows 2003, and maybe an IBM pSeries running AIX.
I thought MS was supposed to be the cheap option.
He switches arguments depending on the point made. One time, MS is the
cheap option, now it's the Cadillac option. Don't mind him, as you'll
never get a consistent answer.
Actually I don't swtich arguments. Linux has ZERO upfront costs, so if
So does Solaris SPARC, the "leading Enterprise Unix".

NO ONE pays for their unix. It "comes free" with the hardware.
Post by Mike Cox
you don't have any cash, that is what you go with just to put off
bankruptcy. Eventually the higher TCO will get you with Linux though,
but that does give you some time at least to revamp your business plan.
[blather removed]
--
There's no reason not to contribute to the stone soup if those |||
contributions are not critical to your competitive edge. / | \
paul cooke
2004-02-04 08:48:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEDIDIAH
Actually I don't swtich arguments.  Linux has ZERO upfront costs, so if
So does Solaris SPARC, the "leading Enterprise Unix".
NO ONE pays for their unix. It "comes free" with the hardware.
b0ll0x... Unix has licensing costs with per seat stuff and other costs.

if it came free there wouldn't be a real reason for Linux or BSD to exist...

Please sir... I'm purchasing this x86 box... where's my free Unix for it???
--
COMPUTER POWER TO THE PEOPLE! DOWN WITH CYBERCRUD!
JEDIDIAH
2004-02-04 17:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by paul cooke
Post by JEDIDIAH
Actually I don't swtich arguments.  Linux has ZERO upfront costs, so if
So does Solaris SPARC, the "leading Enterprise Unix".
NO ONE pays for their unix. It "comes free" with the hardware.
b0ll0x... Unix has licensing costs with per seat stuff and other costs.
No it doesn't. ANY reputable commercial Unix vendor sells their own
hardware and provides support for same. This includes Sun, IBM and HP.

Commercial Unix software costs reall $$$, but that's a separate matter.
Post by paul cooke
if it came free there wouldn't be a real reason for Linux or BSD to exist...
Please sir... I'm purchasing this x86 box... where's my free Unix for it???
This is enterprise computing we're talking about, not playing around in
your basement. Without Linux, there would be NO enterprise computing on
x86.

SCO still is and always was, just a big joke.
--
There's no reason not to contribute to the stone soup if those |||
contributions are not critical to your competitive edge. / | \
Daniel Rudy
2004-02-03 07:47:35 UTC
Permalink
And somewhere around the time of 02/02/2004 13:13, the world stopped and
Post by Mike Cox
If they their business model is so bad that they have to skimp money like
that, I'd be worried if I were an investor. Real companies use Windows
2003, and maybe an IBM pSeries running AIX.
Real companies who know what they are doing do not run Windows on
mission critical systems.

Mike Cox, you are a idiot.
--
Daniel Rudy

Remove nospam, invalid, and 0123456789 to reply.
Rui Malheiro
2004-02-03 14:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Cox
If they their business model is so bad that they have to skimp money like
that, I'd be worried if I were an investor. Real companies use Windows
2003, and maybe an IBM pSeries running AIX.
No, no, no. *Real* companies use relay runners carrying stone blocks. And
drumms.

- --
Rui Malheiro
"Um outro mundo é possível"
.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...