6 ms·

well, as a long time developer in financial enterprise space (18 years) I think MS made a lot of right moves already since Nadela took over. betting all your eg

well, as a long time developer in financial enterprise space (18 years) I think MS made a lot of right moves already since Nadela took over. betting all your eggs on Windows dominance proved to be a faulty (and dangerous) strategy especially since a lot of enterprise started using Linux / open source. For example I know a very major hedge fund that went from Windows everywhere to using every open source database they can get their hands on. The whole container strategy is just much easier with linux as well. it's a very hard battle to win. one big co vs every startup betting on OS.

gr3yh47 9y ago
>a lot of enterprise started using Linux / open source. any major players? entire healthcare industry is married to microsoft, at least the big names. same for lots of major enterprises that i know of
jasonjayr 9y ago
Microsoft could kill Linux's foothold in the server + SMB space right now just by simplifying licensing. Get rid of CAL's. Charge a fixed price for a certain # of simultaneously running Windows instances, no matter how you run it. Even charging an ongoing subscription for this would be acceptable. Simplify the licensing situation for SMBs wanting to run an on-premise redundant systems, without needing diagrams to explain the difference between running, standby, CAL's, virtualization, etc. If you're developing software for a platform, trying to figure out how to optimally license that platform should be the least of your concerns, so you can focus on your product.
- pythonaut_16 9y ago
  This is blatantly false. You're assuming that people only use Linux because they don't want to pay or deal with licensing complexities of Microsoft which is not the case.
  - jasonjayr 9y ago
    That's not the only reason. If the Windows platform brings more to the table than Linux, then for a developer that would weigh more heavily than the complexities of licensing it. I've supported several Windows-centric SMB accounting platforms, including QuickBooks and trying to figure out the right way to license just Windows, in order to support High-availability or redundancy is headache-inducing at the SMB-sized server level.

gr3yh47 9y ago

>a lot of enterprise started using Linux / open source. any major players? entire healthcare industry is married to microsoft, at least the big names. same for lots of major enterprises that i know of

jasonjayr 9y ago

Microsoft could kill Linux's foothold in the server + SMB space right now just by simplifying licensing. Get rid of CAL's. Charge a fixed price for a certain # of simultaneously running Windows instances, no matter how you run it. Even charging an ongoing subscription for this would be acceptable. Simplify the licensing situation for SMBs wanting to run an on-premise redundant systems, without needing diagrams to explain the difference between running, standby, CAL's, virtualization, etc. If you're developing software for a platform, trying to figure out how to optimally license that platform should be the least of your concerns, so you can focus on your product.

pythonaut_16 9y ago
This is blatantly false. You're assuming that people only use Linux because they don't want to pay or deal with licensing complexities of Microsoft which is not the case.
- jasonjayr 9y ago
  That's not the only reason. If the Windows platform brings more to the table than Linux, then for a developer that would weigh more heavily than the complexities of licensing it. I've supported several Windows-centric SMB accounting platforms, including QuickBooks and trying to figure out the right way to license just Windows, in order to support High-availability or redundancy is headache-inducing at the SMB-sized server level.