Re: [cobalt-users] RaQ4

["RH Linux" <rhlinux@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

WELL SAID!


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kris Dahl" <krislists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: [cobalt-users] RaQ4


> on 7/19/00 4:05 PM, Will DeHaan at will@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > Brian Curtis wrote:
> >>
> >> http://www.cobalt.com/products/raq/howmuch.html
> >>
> >> Cobalt RaQ 4r (256MB DRAM, Dual 20.4GB HD RAID 1)  $3,999.00
> >> Cobalt RaQ 4r (512MB DRAM, Dual 30.4GB HD RAID 1)  $4,799.00
> >>
> >> Kind of steep IMO since it's software raid, still IDE internal drives,
and
> >> only supports 512mb PC100 RAM.
> >
> > The high price does include commercial software. ASP is $795.  Notice
> > that the minimum RAM configuration is now 256MB, all SKUs include the
> > extra hardware features found in the "3i" so you'll be able to add many
> > more ethernet/disk/coprocessing components.
>
> How about offering a version that doesn't have ChilisoftASP?  In my
opinion,
> to the vast majority of the clients, the ASP package doesn't offer enough
> value to warrant the additional cost.  I realize it is now a 'Cobalt'
> product now, but people are not going to want to purchase something they
> aren't going to use.  Its the same reason why it sucks to have to buy
> licenses for MS software on normal PCs... its costs the consumer
regardless
> of weather they want it.
>
> And personally, just the fact that you *have* to have Chilisoft ASP
> installed is enough for me to completely abandon it.  It was bad enough
that
> Cobalt is choosing to support it more/instead of PHP. I think that is
great
> that PHP is now going to be officially supported, and realize that their
are
> costs involved with offering it.  But I think that if you choose to not
have
> ASP installed, but have PHP installed as well there is value--and people
are
> willing to pay for it.  At the same time they shouldn't have to pay the
same
> amount as the 'bundled' asp version of the Raq4.
>
> I think you guys are making a big mistake, first with purchasing
Chilisoft,
> second for supporting it, and lastly for bundling it.  The company is
> essentially alienating the community that they base their products along,
> and it is definitely not an open-source project.  If the source was
> released, I would be singing a different song.
>
> Actually, its directly affecting Cobalt's coffers at this point.  We just
> ordered 3 new VA Linux servers today.  The reason I recommend VA over
Dell,
> HP, SGI and Cobalt and other "Linux Friendly" OEMs?  Mostly because of
their
> support of the software that I use.  VA Linux saved me $200 on a MySQL
> license for funding the development.  VA is doing stuff like Sourceforge,
> Geocrawler, etc.  Things that make my life easier as a developer and as a
> administrator.
>
> Cobalt goes the exact opposite.  They go out and buy a company that
> essentially is supporting closed source software (IDEs like VisualInterDEV
,
> Windows NT, etc).  Then they keep it to themsleves, but essentially
control
> the licensing so they can give bundle it with their systems.  It would
have
> been okay if they had of purchased it with the intention of OSing it.  But
I
> bet the licensing deals with Microsoft make that difficult.
>
> If VA had of been in a similar situation, they would have said: "We need
to
> support dynamic content, etc., on our machines.  PHP is pretty darned
good,
> its open source and pretty popular.  Instead of buying a company like
> ChiliSoft, lets help fund and develop PHP, and spend the remainder funding
> and developing an IDE.  That way we have all the advantages of an Open
> Source solution, speed, satiability, security of PHP, while trying to null
> MS ASP's 'advantage' on the developer tools.".
>
> We made our commitment--Cobalt didn't gain our business due in no small
part
> because Cobalt was unwilling to do the same.
>
> For those that are not aware, I used to work for a Cobalt TrueBlue
Reseller.
> I still administer several Cobalt machines and keep up to date on them.
> I've been a fan for a long time.  We don't have any Cobalt gear at my new
> place of employment, and the above listed reasons explain some of the why.
>
> > It's not the fastest thing out there, but performs comparably to
> > mid-grade P3 processors with Cobalt Linux.   We're not running Excel
> > here, people ;-)
>
> True...  But the on-die cache helps quite a bit when building dynamic,
> serving database stuff, etc.  I wonder why no-one in the industry is using
> AMD chips in a server role.  I think I know why: no SMP, non-intel
chipsets
> can be a bit flaky, can't get any AMD boards with built in SCSI (that I
have
> found), etc., etc.
>
> I'm not a die-hard Intel fan.  Whatever processor is best for the job.
The
> old MIPS chips rocked.  Low power usage, etc.  PowerPC's are pretty nice,
> UltraSPARCs and Alphas rock as well.  I have production servers running
> PowerPC chips, and they are great.
>
> I used to be a partner at a AMD, Cyrix and Intel authorized dealer.  I
used
> to run AMD.  On the desktop.  And we got burned big time on the K6
> chips--the longer they ran the less consistent they got.  I don't know how
> many K6 chips I replaced after being a year of use.  They were awesome
when
> they first came out, fast, etc.  But after a while they started to drop
like
> flies.
>
> Perhaps they have worked out those problems--I haven't heard many Raq3
> owners that have had their K6's die.  So I imagine a lot of that is gone.
> But I have a hard time going with a vendor that hasn't always been as
stable
> as another vendor.  Its the same reason why I spend the extra 30-40% on a
> IBM hard drive over Maxtor.  I don't care if the Maxtor is as fast as the
> IBM.  The IBM drives have been rock-solid for the last 20 years.  3 years
> ago Maxtor drives were considered utter crap.  A track record is
> important--at least to me.
>
> > cpu MHz         : 448.219344
> > bogomips        : 894.57
>
> FYI, as if bogomips means anything
>
> Intel PIII 450
> cpu MHZ           : 451.033
> bogomips          : 901.12
>
> I'd love to see this message being read by the product development groups.
> We are Cobalt's target market... listening to us is a good idea.
>
> -k
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cobalt-users mailing list
> cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To Subscribe or Unsubscribe, please go to:
> http://list.cobalt.com/mailman/listinfo/cobalt-users
>