Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 19:19 UTC
Windows The rumours about Windows possibly being ported to ARM has left a lot of people bewildered; why would you port Windows NT when Windows CE 6.0 is a perfectly capable operating system? Putting all the pieces together, it's actually quite clear why you would want Windows NT on ARM: servers.
Permalink for comment 454710
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
oiaohm
Member since:
2009-05-30

No, I do have full understanding of how both work. Sharepoint is about the only thing Microsoft got right in the past 10 years besides Windows 7.

Linux has been close for years. I remember when people were selling Samba 2 solutions for this years ago (remember Cobalt, who Sun bought? I was running them in 1999).

Yes 1999 Linux was doing quite well. 2000 MS did a illegal action and that was the end of Novell netware and Samba from domination and MS took over.

Court cast had to be fort that was won in 2006 and its taken quite a few years to make up for 6 years of lacking information. The not quite there state being as bad as it is results of an illegal action.

Alfresco pretends to be SP quite well, which in itself was Microsoft's reaction to Oracle's Content Management Server (which started as Internet File System in 1998-1999). However, there are features of Sharepoint that Microsoft pushes that many of the large vendors such as SAP, Kronos, and a very large amount of software vendors use. Your average C-level with purchase-level authority doesn't want to hear "like sharepoint". Project Server in itself is a pretty complex project that sits on top of it as a front end. For every Microsoft product that uses it, there's another 10 industry-specific solutions that do as well.

Alfresso I said pretends to be sharepoint. This is API level. So to SAP it thinks it is talking to Sharepoint but its really talking to Alfresso. Anyone who looks at the user interface knows Alfresso looks different ans has other features that Sharepoint lacks. Ie pretends not like. I have not tried with Kronos but I would not be surprised if it worked as well with Alfresso.

I've spoken with Microsoft many times, especially about their latest push to build applications on top of Sharepoint by hitting the verticals. They are aiming dead at Adobe, EMC, and Oracle with this, who have solutions so expensive for these that they will make you wish for CALs. Those who complain about CALs have never had to license Oracle or Adobe LiveCycle.

Of course they are trying to build vertical on top of Sharepoint to lock you back in.

They are about to lose the vertical of Exchange and active directory that allowed them to destroy Linux and Novel netware from 2000 on with illegally closed protocols. So they have to create something new.


Exchange still has a large amount of the marketplace. I gave that as an example as how Microsoft is transitioning older functionality to newer products.

BTW, I wouldn't run OpenExchange when Google is right there with better functionality and the ability to plug into your LDAP/AD system.

Openchange is not openexchange. openchange can also be used to back end onto google. So you don't need to install google sync on client machines. Basically openchange is a wrapper allowing outlook to see an exchange server but many different groupware servers be hidding behind it. Since it is being a exchange server not a installed add on it cannot be damaged by MS doing updates to outlook unless MS wants to break compatibility with there own servers.

You have no idea of what I was aiming at. Microsoft is trying to replace the idea of CALs, which are the devil, with a subscription-based revenue stream. They actually have all of the technology to put something together that customers can use and is very simple to use. They actually can package it together and sell it. Cisco, via their acquisition of Linksys, also has this knowledge in-house, and has sold products that have this functionality. Oracle, Symantec, Apple, and Google also have the technology, and have implemented it in various forms.

Microsoft is losing money to IBM, Google, Apple, Symantec, Open Source, Cisco, and Intel/McAfee. They have the ability and technology to integrate everything and present a solution to the customers that is a one-box solution.

Canonical (especially since they do a lot of ARM development) or Red Hat, if they had the inclination, could do exactly the same thing with the right hardware and software partners. Novell got bought and neutered by Attachmate/Microsoft and is no longer a threat (and they have the knowledge in-house). They were the Commodore of Linux.

This isn't about having a solution, it's about having an integrated one.

And there are many Linux distributions that are very close to having integrated really to go. Not the players you are listing either.

http://www.zentyal.org/ http://www.clearfoundation.com just to name two.

The keystone landing I am talking about will release new players into the market on equal footing to MS in lots of ways. Past MS in another.

Reply Parent Score: 3