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.
Thread beginning with comment 525569
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08

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.

These are usually the type of reasons we hear:

- Windows licenses are cheaper than commercial UNIX ones
- Many UNIX boxes are proprietary hardware
- Java can run anywhere
- Some are actually porting applications from Java to .NET
- Sometimes those systems are just legacy and what they are doing can be easily done in Windows as well.
- Cluster management tools are much better in the Windows world
- Some systems are not worth to move to UNIX compatible systems, because they need to be rewritten anyway
- Linux/BSD are evil (due to open source)
- Some dude in upper management decided to do it

Reply Parent Score: 3

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

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

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.

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.

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.

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


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

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 ;-)

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

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.

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.

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.


Conjecture again.

Edited 2012-07-07 19:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

These are usually the type of reasons we hear:

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


Let's remember that they can start using GPL software without even having to read the GPL.

You are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which is licensed under the GPL. You only have obligations if you modify or distribute the software.

-- https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html

Reply Parent Score: 1

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

That can still stop or complicate "hey, that software we were doing for our needs turned out good, maybe we can sell it to others".
Or, in the volatility of corporate setting, can easily bring headaches with spun off divisions and such.

Don't look at it like Free Software advocate - corps adopt it more or less only when they can exploit it to their benefit.

Reply Parent Score: 2