As experts does IBM make better lattes than computers? Are they going into competition with Starbucks?
At the first IBM Index developer conference in San Francisco, California, on Tuesday, I spent the morning at a Kubernetes workshop learning that when apps on the IBM Cloud Container Service fail to deploy, the reason may not be obvious. The presenter, IBM cloud program manager Chris Rosen, framed the event as an opportunity to …
when apps on the IBM Cloud Container Service fail to deploy, the reason may not be obvious.
So a whole morning on this. any chance they spent some of this time providing some insight as to where you should start looking. Or did they basically shrug their shoulders and wish you good luck sorting out that crap.
"In the cloud, he explained, that translates to workloads that cost half as much to run under memory-based pricing as a standard VM."
Shouldn't this include a disclaimer along the lines of "comparing a poorly configured Java application on an overpriced IBM cloud service to a Java application on Z where the memory pricing is a separate line item. This may not match any real world conditions'.
Unless IBM have examples that can't be right torn apart in seconds...
They've got some technologies that might be valuable.
Their mainframes, while priced high, and aimed at legacy customers, are far more secure than Windows servers, and, in fact, I think that z/OS has an advantage over Linux and even BSD in this department. But if they made that tech available at competitive prices - would it sell enough to pay for its development? Or would it just throw away money by cannibalizing their existing customer base?
So I can understand why they're paralyzed... but the world does need genuinely secure servers, and IBM is uniquely positioned to meet that need.
But if they try to meet that need with what they have, and it fails, they could lose a big revenue stream for no return. I wish I knew what to recommend to them.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021