5 ms·

My point was that Android is based on Linux and iOS on BSD. So the split really is BSD & Windows for desktops, Linux for servers, and BSD & Linux for phones. Wh

My point was that Android is based on Linux and iOS on BSD. So the split really is BSD & Windows for desktops, Linux for servers, and BSD & Linux for phones. Who would have predicted this?

heretohelp 14y ago
I'm pretty sure the only thing Windows can compete on, on the desktop, is price. That has to really suck. There are very few niches/users left that actually want Windows > Apple, and most of them begin with "gam" and end with "ing".
- jonhendry 14y ago
  Except there it isn't so much Windows competing on price, as it is the hardware, which is a commodity. The way Microsoft prices Windows, at least at retail, and the way they segment their OS features for different markets, are really annoying and somewhat painful.
- ghshephard 14y ago
  Windows still owns the enterprise. Active Directory / Group Policies still beat anything you can do with OS X, and IT groups have 10 years of experience they don't want to walk away from. But, users are pulling these organizations, kicking and screaming into a world in which everyone wants a MacBook Air/Pro. I really don't envy Microsoft.
  - eridius 14y ago
    Could you elaborate? I'm not particularly familiar with Active Directory, so what makes it so much better than using Open Directory on OS X? Wikipedia says Open Directory even has "Active Directory domain member support", whatever that is.
    - Spooky23 14y ago
      There's almost no comparison. Open Directory is basically a ldap with MIT kerberos that can sort of integrate with AD. Most folks setup a hybrid (referred to as the "magic triangle") where you use AD for user auth and OD for computer policy stuff. It's not very robust, and Apple isn't exactly committed to the notion of server operating systems, so it doesn't get much love. You really need to buy a client app like ADmit Mac, or a server-side solution like Centrify to really work with Active Directory. AD itself is a really brilliant collection of software. Think of it as a fully integrated, smoothly operation bundle of LDAP, Kerberos and DNS -- it "just works". Coming from a Unix background, AD was amazing to me as there isn't any Unix equivalent at all, except maybe for the ancient NIS and NFS integrations. You get single sign on. Robust Access Controls. The ability to trust the identities of external organizations. A policy engine to do all sorts of management activities at various levels. Oh, and it allows you to easily build fault-tolerant deployments without much forethought.
    - fein 14y ago
      The reason that AD is so needed is the ease of implementation with EVERYTHING, as long as its MS(ish) based. One AD account can auth a user to any service running on the company systems. For example, I work for a university as an applications dev; My local box login is the same for every VPN and additional university service that we use. Now, you can do this with OD, but it's not as easy as "built into all windows installations, set it once and forget it".

My point was that Android is based on Linux and iOS on BSD. So the split really is BSD & Windows for desktops, Linux for servers, and BSD & Linux for phones. Who would have predicted this?

heretohelp 14y ago

I'm pretty sure the only thing Windows can compete on, on the desktop, is price. That has to really suck. There are very few niches/users left that actually want Windows > Apple, and most of them begin with "gam" and end with "ing".

jonhendry 14y ago
Except there it isn't so much Windows competing on price, as it is the hardware, which is a commodity. The way Microsoft prices Windows, at least at retail, and the way they segment their OS features for different markets, are really annoying and somewhat painful.
ghshephard 14y ago
Windows still owns the enterprise. Active Directory / Group Policies still beat anything you can do with OS X, and IT groups have 10 years of experience they don't want to walk away from. But, users are pulling these organizations, kicking and screaming into a world in which everyone wants a MacBook Air/Pro. I really don't envy Microsoft.
- eridius 14y ago
  Could you elaborate? I'm not particularly familiar with Active Directory, so what makes it so much better than using Open Directory on OS X? Wikipedia says Open Directory even has "Active Directory domain member support", whatever that is.
  - Spooky23 14y ago
    There's almost no comparison. Open Directory is basically a ldap with MIT kerberos that can sort of integrate with AD. Most folks setup a hybrid (referred to as the "magic triangle") where you use AD for user auth and OD for computer policy stuff. It's not very robust, and Apple isn't exactly committed to the notion of server operating systems, so it doesn't get much love. You really need to buy a client app like ADmit Mac, or a server-side solution like Centrify to really work with Active Directory. AD itself is a really brilliant collection of software. Think of it as a fully integrated, smoothly operation bundle of LDAP, Kerberos and DNS -- it "just works". Coming from a Unix background, AD was amazing to me as there isn't any Unix equivalent at all, except maybe for the ancient NIS and NFS integrations. You get single sign on. Robust Access Controls. The ability to trust the identities of external organizations. A policy engine to do all sorts of management activities at various levels. Oh, and it allows you to easily build fault-tolerant deployments without much forethought.
  - fein 14y ago
    The reason that AD is so needed is the ease of implementation with EVERYTHING, as long as its MS(ish) based. One AD account can auth a user to any service running on the company systems. For example, I work for a university as an applications dev; My local box login is the same for every VPN and additional university service that we use. Now, you can do this with OD, but it's not as easy as "built into all windows installations, set it once and forget it".