Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Mar 2009 17:12 UTC, submitted by inkslinger
Windows "Even though Microsoft has, in the past, made marketing capital from synchronising its releases, group product manager Ward Ralston says that the desktop and server groups are two separate units that do not need to be released simultaneously. Windows 7 will should make its official appearance this year, but that major shift in the desktop experience isn't going to be matched with a similar sea-change on the server Operating System front. Microsoft has settled for only a minor upgrade to Windows Server 2008."
Thread beginning with comment 355286
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Completely unimportant
by lemur2 on Thu 26th Mar 2009 23:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Completely unimportant"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

dude, I'm not interested in your opinions on anything to do with microsoft, since all you seem interested in is starting arguments.


Well, if you were at all interested in a way for Microsoft to increase its server share ... there is one right there for the taking. End users are, undeniably, interested in running "mixed" environments on their LANs, comprising Linux, Mac and Windows clients in various mixes. AFAIK, the only possibility to run a common set of servers that will serve all three client types equally well is to run Linux servers.

Microsoft have an opprotunity right there ... why not enable their server product serve all client platforms equally well, and out-compete against Linux servers that can do exactly that?

What does it tell you that Microsoft does not grab this opportunity? How well are Microsoft addressing your needs and choices as a customer by refusing to do this?

What does it tell you that some people are apparently so entrenched in Microsoft-think that they apparently accept the "need" to update all Windows servers and clients together (as opposed to expecting, nay requiring, that a server shoulld serve all possible clients)? After all, what exactly is this thread topic all about?

Reply Parent Score: 0

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

. AFAIK, the only possibility to run a common set of servers that will serve all three client types equally well is to run Linux servers.


Are you implying that Linux clients can't connect to Windows machines? Or Mac clients? Shit, you should've told my home network of Linux/Windows/Macs.

Got an extra doze of teh crazy today, lemur2?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Completely unimportant
by lemur2 on Fri 27th Mar 2009 02:20 in reply to "RE[4]: Completely unimportant"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

". AFAIK, the only possibility to run a common set of servers that will serve all three client types equally well is to run Linux servers.
Are you implying that Linux clients can't connect to Windows machines? Or Mac clients? Shit, you should've told my home network of Linux/Windows/Macs. Got an extra doze of teh crazy today, lemur2? "

No, I'm claiming that Windows servers go out of their way to support Windows clients only, to the extent that the networking, messaging and authentication protocols were deliberately kept a trade secret for many years, until the EU eventually forced Microsoft to publish the specifications for same.

In other words, if Mac and Linux clients can connect to some services on Windows servers, it is not through Microsoft's interoperability efforts that that has come about. In fact, the opposite is true.

Do you deny this is so?

Edited 2009-03-27 02:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2