Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 3rd May 2013 18:27 UTC
Windows "Microsoft's phone chief hates to call the new Nokia Lumia 521 cheap, but the lower-priced smartphone launching in the United States is the company's boldest move yet to win mass market share from leaders Apple and Samsung. The world's largest software company has so far focused on putting its Windows Phone software into expensive, high-end devices - chiefly from Nokia and HTC. But the new model will go on sale at Walmart later this month at an unsubsidized price under $150, relatively cheap for a new phone running up-to-date software without a long-term contract." Windows Phone is racing to the bottom just as fast as Android - with the difference being that expensive Android devices do not fail to sell.
Thread beginning with comment 560642
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

lucas_maximus,

"This is pretty much rubbish since Server 2008 R2. You can install any part you need. Also the GUI isn't doing anything when it isn't being accessed ... I never understood why this was a big deal, it isn't exposed to the outside world (only through RDP)."

It's a matter of flexibility, whether it's important to you or not, linux obviously has the upper hand on customization.


"Microsoft would indeed get nothing out of it."

Indeed. If microsoft were broken up such that each division were free to do what it could without being conflicted with the grand scheme of microsoft's monopoly, I think we'd see greater innovation and competition among those individual divisions. But alas this is all hypothetical since it wouldn't make much sense for microsoft as a singularly controlled entity to allow divisions to betray itself.


"I don't work in the server space, but I doubt it is only a 'few compelling advantages'. I personally like the fact that I don't have to dick about with editing text files to set basic options."


Ok then, what are the compelling advantages for windows&IIS on a server other than .net support? Linux has a higher learning curve, but most who learn it don't regret it one bit. In any case we also have some good graphical configuration wizards for anyone who wants them. Webmin, for example, allows you to provision your services much like you would a router or firewall. You can even configure it to control multiple servers from one control panel (similar to mmc). Much of it boils down to personal preferences, of course.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It's a matter of flexibility, whether it's important to you or not, linux obviously has the upper hand on customization.


You have to wonder for a the usual use cases in which you would be using .NET how many of those configurations matter.




Indeed. If microsoft were broken up such that each division were free to do what it could without being conflicted with the grand scheme of microsoft's monopoly, I think we'd see greater innovation and competition among those individual divisions. But alas this is all hypothetical since it wouldn't make much sense for microsoft as a singularly controlled entity to allow divisions to betray itself.


What you get on the other hand is a lot of support and you benefit from the integration of the products. As I said it is swings and roundabouts. Infinite configurability is only good for about a few use cases.

Ok then, what are the compelling advantages for windows&IIS on a server other than .net support? Linux has a higher learning curve, but most who learn it don't regret it one bit. In any case we also have some good graphical configuration wizards for anyone who wants them. Webmin, for example, allows you to provision your services much like you would a router or firewall. You can even configure it to control multiple servers from one control panel (similar to mmc). Much of it boils down to personal preferences, of course.


I not saying what the benefits are, but I doubt it is just .NET or cost of training.

Personally I have done a lot of Linux stuff and I thought it was a faff for the most part and I did look after quite a few servers via SSH. But I am a developer these days.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

lucas_maximus,

"What you get on the other hand is a lot of support and you benefit from the integration of the products. As I said it is swings and roundabouts. Infinite configurability is only good for about a few use cases."

We both know .net would host fine on linux if ms cared to make it run fine. The additional configuration of linux platforms can be useful from DIY tinkerers to ISPs to web hosts to datacenter deployments. The problem you have is that you think MS should anticipate everybody's needs and that everyone should just accept what MS has decided for them, not all of are comfortable with this arrangement.

There would be benefit to some customers running .net on linux, in fact I think *most* existing .net users who buy managed hosting services couldn't care less that it runs windows in the datacenter. As long as they have a usable control panel and can deploy their .net services, windows is completely irrelevant.

"I not saying what the benefits are, but I doubt it is just .NET or cost of training."

Isn't that shallow? I mean, above you doubted that windows&iis has few compelling advantages, but now your not able to say why. If a business already has windows servers + windows admins + windows expertise, then they could require some additional expertise for the linux server. But if you already have linux nodes in your datacenters then you've already got that covered and since there's no compelling reasons to run windows on hosting servers the main differentiating factor would become platform price. I'm very confident that if .net was not under the MS monopoly umbrella, that MS would have a great deal of competition with .net users running linux (including me).

Reply Parent Score: 2

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I think the solution isn't so black and white anymore, especially for the cloud computing space where hybrid clouds are becoming easier to deploy.

Having a hybrid PaaS and IaaS on Windows Azure gives me the most flexibility. Azure has great PaaS offerings like Service Bus and SQL Azure while being able to load a Linux VM with a great open source offering that isn't on Azure.

Also: Azure supports a host of languages, including PHP and Node with a simple REST based API

The biggest win here is the pragmatic developer who realizes the strength of Platform as a Service but understands that getting there is a long process. Azure IaaS lets you move your Linux infrastructure into the Cloud and manage it with tools familiar to you, all while having it accessible to Azure PaaS solutions.

This also extends to having an on premise and off premise solution using a VPN.

So I'd argue that moving forward, it doesn't matter what you use. Use the solution that makes the most sense to you for the tools and platforms you're invested in. Its a tall ask to tell a Linux guy to move to Azure back when it was just a set of .NET APIs on top of a Cloud. Now its much more rich than that.

Reply Parent Score: 3