Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 5th Jul 2012 21:21 UTC
Windows Microsoft is continuing its efforts to simplify its product lines, and has cut the number of versions for the next release of Windows Server down from twelve to just four: Datacenter, Standard, Essentials, and Foundation. Pretty straightforward. Windows Home Server gets axed, but then again, I don't think anybody bought Windows Home Servers anyway.
Permalink for comment 525652
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
TemporalBeing
Member since:
2007-08-22

"Why? I can't see any advantage MS-Windows would have over UNIX.


We are doing for our customers.

My employer does consulting for multinational corporations.

If you compare UNIX installations (Solaris, Aix, HP-UX) to Windows, it might not be worth it to keep them around.
"

If you leave out Linux, then yes. However...

These are usually the type of reasons we hear:

- Windows licenses are cheaper than commercial UNIX ones


Now compare to Linux - no license fees. Just a minor support fee which equals the yearly support for Microsoft any way, and is no worse up front than the initial server license without any CAL licenses. Or, of course, you could forgo the support fee altogether, but those big multi-nationals like the support train.

- Many UNIX boxes are proprietary hardware


And Linux will typically use a lot of that same hardware if you desire (especially if you get the support from the vendor - HP, IBM, etc.) or you can move to cheaper boxes just like with Windows. And guess what? Nearly all server class boxes that run Windows equally run Linux.

- Java can run anywhere


Not necessarily, especially if someone wrote a path incorrectly for loading a file, accessing a configuration file, etc. Minor bugs to the Run-Anywhere method, but sometimes Java gets tied to the OS too. Just saying...

- Some are actually porting applications from Java to .NET


So going from a language that performs equally on diverse platforms to one that may perform better on a single platform whose owner only wants you to be on that platform so you'll have a larger cost to move off later...yeah, that makes sense.

- Sometimes those systems are just legacy and what they are doing can be easily done in Windows as well.


And those legacy applications can probably be moved over to Linux for less.

- Cluster management tools are much better in the Windows world


Here's a good one. Linux Cluster Management is world-class. There's a reason Linux runs on nearly all super computers, and clustering is one of them. Windows Cluster Server is nothing in comparison.

- Some systems are not worth to move to UNIX compatible systems, because they need to be rewritten anyway


Except you can minimize what you rewrite, or just move them as they are. IBM, HP, etc. all have the ability to help you move those legacy applications to Linux.

- Linux/BSD are evil (due to open source)


Well, They've probably been running BSD for a while, but you can blame the MS FUD engine on that one.

- Some dude in upper management decided to do it


And here's the difference. Instead of listening to their employees they are instead listening to the marketing drivel and making top-down decisions influenced solely by outside factors instead of bottom-up decisions that take into account the actual needs of the organization.

Of course, the person that made the decision won't be there to see the project fail, and the company spend twice as much to do the next iteration which will likely fail too. The position probably turns over in 5 years or less, and these projects take 6 years or more.

Reply Parent Score: 2