We have two explanations why companies dont buy big Linux SMP servers. Which one is more reasonable?
1) Linux can handle everything, both SMP and HPC. The reason Linux does not snatch the high end lucrative market worth billions, is because it is is not profitable, it is vulnerable. But Linux could take that market, if Linux companies wanted to. But they dont want that. They have better things to do, than to become millionaires. No Linux company does want to become the next IBM or Oracle or HP or Google or Apple. They dont want that. Why? (I dont know, ask the Linux supporters here).
2) Linux and Windows dearly wants to go into the high end lucrative market, but Linux and Windows does not cut it. That is the reason no one makes big SMP Linux servers. Even if you recompile Linux on an existing big 64 cpu SMP server such as HP Unix Superdome, the biggest Linux configuration is for 8 cpus (16 cpus if you make a cluster of two 8-cpu nPars)
Which explanation is more reasonable you think?