To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I think my point is perfectly valid - one of the points even explains it clearly.
<quote>
#1: Server Core. Here is where the world could really change for Microsoft going forward: Imagine a cluster of low-overhead, virtualized, GUI-free server OSes running core roles like DHCP and DNS in protected environments, all to themselves, managed by way of a single terminal.
If you're a Unix or Linux admin, you might say we wouldn't have to waste time with imagining. But one of Windows' simple but real problems as a server OS over the past decade has been that it's Windows. Why, admins ask, would a server need to deploy 32-bit color drivers and DirectX and ADO and OLE, when they won't be used to run user applications? Why must Windows always bring its windows baggage with it wherever it goes?
</quote>
"Imagine a cluster of low-overhead, virtualized, GUI-free server OSes running core roles like DHCP and DNS in protected environments, all to themselves, managed by way of a single terminal."
The only "new" thing about this would be that it would be running Windows instead of Linux/BSD/QNX/Whatever.






Member since:
2007-05-17
|Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to |reinvent it, poorly.
|
|<author>HenrySpencer
Those who do not understand the internet are condemned to troll it, poorly.
Me.
Edited 2007-05-29 23:38