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 525998
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

"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.

He already said it is cheaper, they obviously looked at it for their needs, not what you reckon it would cost.

True. However, he didn't break down into the why, and what I listed is how Microsoft does licensing.

For instance, here's the formula:

Cost = X + C(M)(N) + S(N)

Where X = the cost for the license of the server OS, C = the cost of each Client Access License, M is the number of clients, N is the number of years for the system to be used, and S is the cost of each year for support.

For Microsoft you can use the formula as is. For Enterprise Linux versions such as RHEL and SLES it becomes:

Cost = X + S(N-1) = S(N)

As X is basically the cost of 1 year of support which is free for that first year (typically).

This is, of course, what Microsoft doesn't want you to know. They can't compete on price, so they try to make it out to be more about the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) where they muddy the waters to make it look like they are actually cheaper when they're not.

"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.

New hardware and more expensive Redhat Support, no.

If you are purchasing new hardware from a Tier 1 vendor - which is basically HP, Sun/Oracle, IBM, Dell, and a couple others - then there will be support from Red Hat and SuSE as these systems get prime support up-front and they all have developers working on Linux to integrate their hardware offerings.

If you're looking to put together a large enterprise system and you are not using a Tier 1 vendor, then you need to re-evaluate who is doing your purchasing/etc as they are likely an idiot.

"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...

The same argument can be made between any migration, I have come upon many things such as hard-coded paths in PHP applications that have stopped things from running.


"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.

You just contradicted you last point. Also there is Mono.

Mono is for all intents and purposes a dead-end. No one is supporting it any longer, not even it's founder. They've moved on.

And Mono was never really a viable alternative to start with - why? Because it only represented the core, and 90% of the functionality used in .Net applications would never be available.

Mono is to .Net like using C++ and saying you can never use a Class.

If there's anything else you mean by this, then please explain - but Mono does not solve the issue, and .Net runs only on Windows, so they are indeed going from a multi-platform language (Java) to a single platform language suite (.Net).

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

There is no proof of this and it is purely conjecture.

Those legacy applications are most likely POSIX complaint, which Linux does support. The Tier 1 vendors do provide wrappers functionality so that an AIX/HP-UX/Solaris/etc application can run on Linux as the return values and behaviours can be slightly different where POSIX is ambiguous. That is well known, not conjecture.

The wrapper functionality makes the porting to Linux very easy, and cuts costs substantially - in many cases it just runs as the intent is to use them on binaries that can't be ported.

"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.

He is not doing super computing. It depends what you mean by cluster, Microsoft Server Farm tools are pretty good ... not all of them are supercomputer ;-)

Just because you are not doing a Super Computer does not mean you are not using the same tools, and the various tools for cluster management of any size are far superior to what Microsoft provides.

Yes, Microsoft has come a long long way in their support for clustering computers since 2000. But it still does not compare to what other system have.

"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.

He knows more about those apps than you do, maybe the code is just so legacy it isn't worth porting or maintaining compared to the price of a rewrite.

True, but did he get the right information from the right people? Did they do the comparison correctly? From what is shown in the thread, it's not likely.

Linux isn't magically the answer, and have you seen IBM consultant fees.

True, Linux isn't magically the answer. True too IBM's fees are high. But we don't know if he's dealing with IBM, HP, or another vendor. For all we know he could be dealing with Microsoft's Xenix as the original Unix system - in which case MS won't offer any help moving to Linux, or if they do they'll make it significantly cheaper to go to Windows. (Yes, Microsoft owns their own official Unix variant.)

So there's not enough information to say more than I did.

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

That doesn't make anysense. There maybe legal issues offering solutions that have GPL source in them. You don't know the circumstances.

You obviously misunderstood what I said.

BSD is a Unix Variant. For him to say that BSD was not an option is like saying that Unix is not an option. FreeBSD may be open source, but AIX/HP-UX/etc all had incorporated some of the BSDi Unix from which FreeBSD/OpenBSD/etc were derived. So in all likelihood they were running BSD variant of some sorts already.

"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.

More conjecture.

No. He explicitly stated it was a top-down decision made by the upper echelons of management. That is exactly who Microsoft markets to, and who they purposely mislead.

So the CEO/COO/etc who made the decision likely made it based on Microsoft's marketing materials instead of consulting their employees to get a real answer which often would be very different.

For instance, many large organizations are already running Linux even if the upper management doesn't know it. It is very possible that they were already able to run their legacy applications on Linux without any costs for porting, but they didn't consult their own employees and thus didn't find out that that may have been the case - in which case, they already have all the in-house knowledge to move off the Unix systems to a Linux-based system, no need for retraining costs, etc.

So did they really make an informed decision? We won't know.

"Of course, the person that made the decision won't be there to see the project fail, and the company spend twice...
Conjecture again. " [/q]

No, that's how companies have been running for the last 30 years.

Reply Parent Score: 2