3 ms·

Isn't the answer to that question trivial? Microsoft needed Windows monoculture to succeed and the way to do that is to completely and totally strangle any Wind

• kermitthehermit 15y ago
  >I had full executive support in investigating a port, but had I brought forth a proposal to proceed I would have faced arguments from many that I was undermining Microsoft’s entire business plan. Yes, you're right. That's what it was actually about. MS was (and still is) trying to kill all competition. Building products for the competition is a sort of approval and a confirmation that the particular product is worth using.
• dmethvin 15y ago
  Aw c'mon, at least read the article and don't trot out a knee-jerk argument. It makes many valid points about how well Microsoft could really succeed in selling a Unix-hosted product when their heart was in Windows. Just by flipping the question around I think it buries the issue pretty well: If your Unix enterprise app needed a SQL server, why would you look to Microsoft?
  • azakai 15y ago
    Why wouldn't you? Microsoft is a major software vendor. If they make a solid DB for Unix, why not consider it alongside Oracle and other major software vendor's offerings? You would consider it on the merits of the product. None of the reasons in the article make much sense to me except for the one left for last, that it just doesn't make overall strategic sense for Microsoft: Microsoft's model is pushing Windows, and selling SQL Server for an alternative OS is a bad idea (it's a good idea for SQL Server revenue, but bad for overall Microsoft revenue). As others said, Gates would have veto'd SQL Server for Unix, that's the bottom line.