5 ms·

Isn't it an age thing mostly? Younger admins hate Microsoft with a passion it seems to me. Or is just my circle of acquaintances?

owebmaster 7mo ago
Well, as far as my experience, we the old generation despise Microsoft even more
- AdamN 7mo ago
  I was gonna say people have been hating on M$FT for decades. It started for me 20+ years ago. I'm glad to see that Azure is creating a whole new cohort of haters - just like good ol' Vista.
- mapotofu 7mo ago
  Classic to pat yourself on the back, push blame, and have no evidence to show you made any kind of change about it. Classic!
  - brazukadev 7mo ago
    wtf does this even mean? Did you reply to the correct thread?
jojobas 7mo ago
You don't get promoted to positions with power to choose for hating Microsoft.
- Asmod4n 7mo ago
  Depends on the field you are in. There are jobs where you can’t get apps that run on anything but windows.
- icedchai 7mo ago
  I worked at a place where someone made the deliberate decision to migrate from Google Workspace to Microsoft 365 / Outlook / whatever it's called today. "Most of our partners use Microsoft", so we have to suffer with it, too.
  - jojobas 7mo ago
    If you're trying to sell to people who use teams, sharepoint and whatnot, and you won't, you're putting yourself in a commercial disadvantage. I was very happy after I got away from MS-stack companies, but I totally understand why one would switch to MS.
    - icedchai 7mo ago
      Yep, I get the reasoning. It's just a terrible experience if you're used to gmail.
raverbashing 7mo ago
More an issue of procedures and processes, MS selling turn-key solutions and how things work on big companies Try managing a directory service even on RedHat and see how it goes.
jiggawatts 7mo ago
Silicon Valley likes to pretend Microsoft doesn't exist. I... get it. The FAANGS needed to scale to a level where paying per-core licensing fees for an operating system was simply out of the question, not to mention the lack of customisability. As a consequence, they all adopted Linux as their core server operating system. Then, as their devs made millions in share options, they all scattered and made thousands of little startups... each one of which cloned the assumption that only Linux was a viable operating system for servers. The mistake here is the same one that caused "Only MongoDB is Web Scale" and "Microservices are necessary for two devs and a PC as our server". Just because a trillion dollar corporation decides on a thing, it does not mean it applies universally. Outside of this bizarre little bubble, Windows is everywhere and Windows Server is still about 50% of the overall server market.
- adrian_b 7mo ago
  That may have been the story, but avoiding paying per-core licensing fees for an operating system is the only sane decision. Operating systems and other applications that demand per-core licensing fees exist only because the people who buy them do not use their own money for this, so they do not care how much money they are wasting. Most companies waste huge amounts of money not only for software, but for many other things, because those who have the power to make purchasing decisions have personal interests that are not aligned with what is really optimum for the company, while those who might have the best interests of the company in mind do not have the knowledge that would allow them to evaluate whether such purchasing decisions are correct. The survival of Windows Server is not justified by any technical advantages. A few such advantages exist, but they do not compensate the huge PITA caused by licensing. I worked at a few companies where Windows Server was used and replacing it with either Linux or FreeBSD was always a great improvement, less by removing the payments for the licensing fees, but by providing complete freedom to make any changes in the environment without the friction caused by the consequences that such changes could have in modified licensing fees.
  - jiggawatts 7mo ago
    > is the only sane decision. Past a certain scale I would agree with you. > the friction caused by the consequences that such changes could have in modified licensing fees Your experience is uncommon. In most corporate settings the IT staff never think about licensing because there is some sort of Enterprise Agreement in place. In my work the only exception to this is SQL Server, which got stupidly expensive over time while falling behind in features.
CalRobert 7mo ago
Europeans bizarrely love Azure.
- connorgurney 7mo ago
  As a European, you’re on your own there…
  - CalRobert 7mo ago
    I see azure in more European job ads (and .net) than I ever did in California…
- r_lee 7mo ago
  from my experience it's more of a business guy/executive thing, they see Microsoft as a reliable, low-risk vendor which can speak their language. "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" type thing
  - CalRobert 7mo ago
    I figured they were risk averse and picking based on name familiarity.
- raverbashing 7mo ago
  I guess it's not so much Europe but "non IT-core companies" might prefer it, also the convenience of having everything into the same bill (workstation licenses, cloud, etc)

owebmaster 7mo ago

Well, as far as my experience, we the old generation despise Microsoft even more

AdamN 7mo ago
I was gonna say people have been hating on M$FT for decades. It started for me 20+ years ago. I'm glad to see that Azure is creating a whole new cohort of haters - just like good ol' Vista.
mapotofu 7mo ago
Classic to pat yourself on the back, push blame, and have no evidence to show you made any kind of change about it. Classic!
- brazukadev 7mo ago
  wtf does this even mean? Did you reply to the correct thread?

jojobas 7mo ago

You don't get promoted to positions with power to choose for hating Microsoft.

Asmod4n 7mo ago
Depends on the field you are in. There are jobs where you can’t get apps that run on anything but windows.
icedchai 7mo ago
I worked at a place where someone made the deliberate decision to migrate from Google Workspace to Microsoft 365 / Outlook / whatever it's called today. "Most of our partners use Microsoft", so we have to suffer with it, too.
- jojobas 7mo ago
  If you're trying to sell to people who use teams, sharepoint and whatnot, and you won't, you're putting yourself in a commercial disadvantage. I was very happy after I got away from MS-stack companies, but I totally understand why one would switch to MS.
  - icedchai 7mo ago
    Yep, I get the reasoning. It's just a terrible experience if you're used to gmail.

raverbashing 7mo ago

More an issue of procedures and processes, MS selling turn-key solutions and how things work on big companies Try managing a directory service even on RedHat and see how it goes.

jiggawatts 7mo ago

Silicon Valley likes to pretend Microsoft doesn't exist. I... get it. The FAANGS needed to scale to a level where paying per-core licensing fees for an operating system was simply out of the question, not to mention the lack of customisability. As a consequence, they all adopted Linux as their core server operating system. Then, as their devs made millions in share options, they all scattered and made thousands of little startups... each one of which cloned the assumption that only Linux was a viable operating system for servers. The mistake here is the same one that caused "Only MongoDB is Web Scale" and "Microservices are necessary for two devs and a PC as our server". Just because a trillion dollar corporation decides on a thing, it does not mean it applies universally. Outside of this bizarre little bubble, Windows is everywhere and Windows Server is still about 50% of the overall server market.

adrian_b 7mo ago
That may have been the story, but avoiding paying per-core licensing fees for an operating system is the only sane decision. Operating systems and other applications that demand per-core licensing fees exist only because the people who buy them do not use their own money for this, so they do not care how much money they are wasting. Most companies waste huge amounts of money not only for software, but for many other things, because those who have the power to make purchasing decisions have personal interests that are not aligned with what is really optimum for the company, while those who might have the best interests of the company in mind do not have the knowledge that would allow them to evaluate whether such purchasing decisions are correct. The survival of Windows Server is not justified by any technical advantages. A few such advantages exist, but they do not compensate the huge PITA caused by licensing. I worked at a few companies where Windows Server was used and replacing it with either Linux or FreeBSD was always a great improvement, less by removing the payments for the licensing fees, but by providing complete freedom to make any changes in the environment without the friction caused by the consequences that such changes could have in modified licensing fees.
- jiggawatts 7mo ago
  > is the only sane decision. Past a certain scale I would agree with you. > the friction caused by the consequences that such changes could have in modified licensing fees Your experience is uncommon. In most corporate settings the IT staff never think about licensing because there is some sort of Enterprise Agreement in place. In my work the only exception to this is SQL Server, which got stupidly expensive over time while falling behind in features.

CalRobert 7mo ago

Europeans bizarrely love Azure.

connorgurney 7mo ago
As a European, you’re on your own there…
- CalRobert 7mo ago
  I see azure in more European job ads (and .net) than I ever did in California…
r_lee 7mo ago
from my experience it's more of a business guy/executive thing, they see Microsoft as a reliable, low-risk vendor which can speak their language. "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" type thing
- CalRobert 7mo ago
  I figured they were risk averse and picking based on name familiarity.
raverbashing 7mo ago
I guess it's not so much Europe but "non IT-core companies" might prefer it, also the convenience of having everything into the same bill (workstation licenses, cloud, etc)