Some of the changes in the upcoming release of Windows Server 2008 are a response to features and performance advantages that have made Linux an attractive option to Microsoft customers. One of these is the fact that Linux has less of a surface area, which led customers to believe that Linux is inherently more secure, Bill Laing, the general manager for Microsoft's Windows Server division, told eWEEK. "Having less surface area does reduce the servicing and the amount of code you have running and exposed, so we have done a lot of work in 2008 to make the system more modular. There are more than 30 components not installed by default, which is a huge change," Laing said. "We also have server core, which doesn't have the GUI, so I would say that is a response to the options people had with Linux that they didn't have with Windows."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
they had been good features you'd have listed a few at least, now you will go into ad hoc mode where you start listing things in linux that aren't in vista just to say you weren't lying
Clearly YOU have not tried any of those Linux versions. There is no need to say anything about them.
Vista users will not listen, as they are still trying to convince themselves they made a good purchase and did not just pour money down the sink, and Linux user do not need to listen as that is just preaching to the choir.
Microsoft CANNOT remove IE from Windows, they said so in a court of law..
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Windows/Article/ArticleID/20715/20715.h...
Now, if you really want to see what Linux offers over Vista, have a peep at this...
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/568086/ubuntu_with_beryl/
Edited 2007-05-19 07:14
Member since:2005-07-10
Raver31 - Really that was the best you could come up with for Linux features? Woobly windows, 3_useless_D desktop?
Microsoft surely wants more OSS fanboys like you 
To the point though, i use Windows full time and i tried going to Linux few times. Recently in fact i even installed Ubuntu on my laptop (wrong choice of hardware i know).
I however did not find anything that i did not have in Windows. Something were different, some were not very high quality and overall there was nothing magical about Ubuntu.
I removed it and put back XP on it. The reason i put back XP was:
1. Power management did not work on Ubuntu
2. Most of the tools i needed were only on Windows like IDA pro, metrowerks codewarrior, yahoo messenger client with video support.
3. I had all the equivalent OSS tools as well like gcc, vim etc.
So running XP was like getting the best of both worlds.
Edited 2007-05-19 07:24
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:2007-05-17
Clearly YOU have not tried any of those Linux versions. There is no need to say anything about them. Vista users will not listen, as they are still trying to convince themselves they made a good purchase and did not just pour money down the sink, and Linux user do not need to listen as that is just preaching to the choir.
Now, if you really want to see what Linux offers over Vista, have a peep at this...
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/568086/ubuntu_with_beryl/
Excuses. You'd have listed the features that set linux apart in the first place if there were any, posting ad hoc arguments just to prove people wrong shows you were full of it. As it is, windows has lots of programs that do similar 3D window things and nobody really uses them or wants them which is why MS didn't add them to Vista, with DWM it would have been easy and near-free performance wise to add any of these effects, they are goofy and geeky, not mainstream and useful, so they are not going into MS OS's by design.
Microsoft CANNOT remove IE from Windows, they said so in a court of law..
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Windows/Article/ArticleID/20715/20715.h.....
That doesn't include the exact wordering that MS used, and it does not matter, when MS said it could not be done, it meant within time restraints, because any code can be changed with enough time, they just meant that there wasn't enough time to change windows to seperate IE and the judge disagreed. This was before Vista, by time Vista came around MS had enough time to seperate IE, which raises the question, why aren't you just happy with the outcome and leave it at that, you wanted IE seperate and got it, and are still complaining, obviously you just want MS destroyed and could care less what you say.
Edited 2007-05-19 17:49
Member since:
2007-05-17
You stated that Vista can't compare against several linux distributions, but you didn't provide specifics or any kind of proof, so you are full of it. If they had been good features you'd have listed a few at least, now you will go into ad hoc mode where you start listing things in linux that aren't in vista just to say you weren't lying but they will as I said be features you didn't want to talk about without being cornered so they aren't any good on the whole to the vast majority of people. And your comment on IE being removed despite MS saying this isn't possible is obtuse, they obviously meant within time and money restraints IE could not be removed but of course that wouldn't be true forever, they've rewritten the relevant code, something they couldn't do back then. You didn't know this yet I bet you consider yourself some kind of 'l33t' computer user. Hysterical.
Edited 2007-05-19 06:47