5 ms·
The less developers cater to Windows, the better. Remember that usually it's the other way around, Windows receives support from driver/software developers, and
by nukeop 8y ago
The less developers cater to Windows, the better. Remember that usually it's the other way around, Windows receives support from driver/software developers, and it's seen by most as a feature of Windows. At any rate, Windows is a subpar choice for any server needs, so it's for the better.
- 2trill2spill 8y ago> At any rate, Windows is a subpar choice for any server needs, so it's for the better. This is simply not true. While I prefer a FreeBSD or Linux server to a Windows server, saying Windows is a subpar choice for all server needs is disingenuous and wrong. What if I need to run software on a server that only runs on Windows or I can only get commercial support from the vendor on Windows? Clearly Windows in the better server choice if it's the only operating system that can run the software I need. The UNIX == Good and Windows == Bad meme needs to die. Use the best tool for the job, sometimes that's a Unix OS sometimes it's Windows.
- nukeop 8y agoThis doesn't mean that Windows is better, it just means you have no other choice because you were forced to by a vendor who didn't provide a native Linux binary.
- 2trill2spill 8y agoBetter software support does make Windows better in that circumstance. It doesn't matter what features or strengths Linux has over Windows if I can't run the software I need.