5 ms·

Because it performs well, and the cost of Windows licenses ends up being a rounding error if you have paying users. I've administered Linux boxes for years, and

• bad_user 10y ago
  Windows being a rounding error is kind of a myth perpetuated by people that haven't been in the position to buy Windows licenses for a company. First of all most software developers are not working in the consumer space. And for B2B you often get asked to have an on-premises option, either because the company doesn't trust you with their data, or because non-stop Internet connectivity can be a problem. And when deploying on-premises, the cost of the Windows licenses do matter a lot. If the clients are just web browsers then you can save the company a lot of money, since the clients can be just terminals powered by whatever you can get your hands on. But if you assume Windows clients, well, the costs can be huge. And on the server side, remote maintenance is way cheaper with Linux boxes, because well, you can control anything on a remote Linux machine, securely, reliably and for free. Add to that the licensing cost of Windows, which isn't cheap because you can't run a server on Home edition. Basically if your solution assumes Windows in any way on the customer's side, you're just adding unwanted cost that could have been your profit. And SQL Server is simply unjustifiable.
  • UK-AL 10y ago
    Considering most boring corporates run windows as their main server OS, I think it be an easier sell to run windows for on premise applications.
    • bad_user 10y ago
      In my experience dealing with boring corporations, that's another myth. Yes, they run Exchange. But all new developments I've seen happen on Linux boxes, precisely because it's easier to outsource IT.
      • rpeden 10y ago
        Perhaps it depends on how boring/conservative the corporation is. At a past job where we worked with big banks, they'd sometimes look at you suspiciously if your application didn't run on Windows Server. That's just anecdotal, though. Maybe we were just unlucky and worked with odd customers.
        • UK-AL 10y ago
          No. It's not odd. The vast majority of corporations have an IT department who's main skill is windows management. And for good reason. There still lacks a decent Active Directory/Group Policy/ Exchange open source combo.
    • eeZah7Ux 10y ago
      > Considering most boring corporates run windows as their main server OS You are confusing "boring corporations" with "boring stack" (as in: stable, reliable, non-hipster)
      • UK-AL 10y ago
        No I mean boring corperates. You know companies that make office furniture.
  • rpeden 10y ago
    I apoligize; I should have explained what I meant more clearly. Like the author of the original post, I'm writing from the perspective of running a relatively small SaaS app. I've had to use both Windows and Linux VMs on Azure, AWS, and elsewhere for applications like that and I haven't found the cost of Windows boxes to be prohibitive. In other circumstances, such as the ones you mentioned, you're definitely correct. I was only trying to explain why one might choose Windows, not why everyone should. :)
    • bad_user 10y ago
      You've got nothing to apologize for, you've shared your experience, I've shared mine. And don't get me wrong either, I'm all for "use what you know". Plus speaking of Microsoft's dev stack, they seem to care less and less about Windows and .NET Core is very attractive imho.
  • gregmac 10y ago
    > And when deploying on-premises, the cost of the Windows licenses do matter a lot. Sort of. My understanding is with Datacenter, you license the virtual host (per-processor cost) and can run as many VMs on it as you want. So the incremental license cost of is zero, if you already license that way. Other editions have some limits, so "it depends". But it's not just a "your solution uses Windows, so your customer must buy a license". The other factor is support cost. If you're selling to an organization that can handle Linux, that is probably cheaper. If you're selling to an organization that only has Windows expertise, it's probably going to suck a lot of your support time to get them running on Linux -- and even though you may be able to do remote support more efficiently than you can with Windows, you're still going to be doing more of it.
    • bad_user 10y ago
      Well my experience is that we've had to always provide support. I had to deal with customers running Windows, but those customers that lacked a capable IT guy didn't have the actual know how to actually maintain a Windows server. And when that server crashes due to poor maintenance, guess who gets called. Basically as a provider, you can never trust the customer's capability for maintaining the server that your solution runs on. It's much better to decrease your costs for delivering the required support. Otherwise you're going to find yourself guiding somebody on what buttons to click in the Control Panel, for getting the damn network to work, on the phone, on a Saturday.
      • majewsky 10y ago
        But that's not specific to Windows servers. Have fun guiding the non-IT guy at the other end of the line to install that important OpenSSL update on a Linux terminal.
      • flukus 10y ago
        This has always been a good reason to stick with MSSql. In future I think dropping a postgres docker image on their windows server may become the norm though.
  • FLUX-YOU 10y ago
    >And when deploying on-premises, the cost of the Windows licenses do matter a lot. I'm not sure why you'd pay for licenses if the company is forcing you to have your product deployed on-premises. You would be an individual owner among the rest of the licenses which are owned by the company. That just sounds really dumb to do for both sides of the deal. Is this normal?
    • majewsky 10y ago
      I don't think he was going to purchase the license for the customer. The point is that the license cost contributes to the quote, no matter who purchases it in the end.