7 ms·

Vendor management comes with a real cost (typically in terms of time). This might be more contentious, but I believe that people that are still using Windows S

• orf 13y ago
  That and the fact that Windows server ties in nicely with the Windows workstations that the company uses. I use Server 2008 R2 (and upwards) at work and its really not bad, it's miles ahead of the previous versions which were horrible to use. Is it not possible that people use this stuff because its useful?
  • kaeawc 13y ago
    If you have a Windows server and you're writing .NET code the only option (of you want the latest .NET version) is to use Windows workstations. That's like saying OSX runs great on Macbooks. It is designed to do that.
    • orf 13y ago
      I'm saying Windows Server ties in nicely with the desktop versions of Windows (managing permissions and accounts, AD, email, network resources etc). Its like saying OSX server works great with Macbooks. And my point was perhaps the reason people are using Windows server is not because Linux is too hard and unfamiliar but because just maybe it's a better fit.
    • Retric 13y ago
      I think your missing the point. "It just works" is a huge selling point.
      • away_thrown 13y ago
        At best you can "it just works if you already know it well"; having done Windows development at three separate jobs, I still find it fiddly to get a dev environment working on Windows. If everything in the MS ecosystem "just works" then I am either willfully overlooking its great features or like so much else, it's a function of what you know best. There's little to gain by switching to another OS if you have enough money for licenses and you know its ecosystem well.
• radicalbyte 13y ago
  Microsoft's tooling is easier to use and they've got a massive training/certification programme. Because it's so easy, there are a factor more Microsoft admins around than there are Linux admins. And they're fairly productive. Plus, Microsoft software works really well together. Windows + Windows Server + SQL Server. Works great. Linux is great if you have highly skilled technicians to support it. There's way more tweaking involved than with Windows; this makes it ideal for anyone running a centralised model where they're deploying thousands of identical machines (like the web). It's not so great for corporate environments where there's a high level of variance.. It's basically the Ford vs Ferrari argument: Microsoft enables companies to employ average quality labour to produce a "good enough" result. Ferrari employ top engineers to produce an extremely high quality result. Ford scales, Ferrari doesn't.
  • Retric 13y ago
    I think it's the other way around if a protect has less than 100 servers MS may be cheaper if you have 10,000 then Linux is probably cheaper.
    • yulaow 13y ago
      The problem is that some of MS products have really nonsense license costs. I just say: MSQL server.
      • xradionut 13y ago
        The licensing cost for SQL Server have increased over the years and limiting some of security features to the top tier sucks ass in this environment, but the training, documentation, knowledge sharing and community is better than any other technical community, closed or open sourced that I have found.
      • radicalbyte 13y ago
        Compared to MySQL, sure. But that's like comparing a spade to digger: both can make a hole in the ground, but you'll want the digger to do some real work. It doesn't compare as well to Postgres - but the better tooling may well make it worth the $10k in licence fees. That's a month of engineer time in maintenance. SQL Server's cheap for what you get when compared to the commercial competition. Informix is pretty much dead (and had horrible tooling). Oracle is even more expensive. And compared to Oracle, Microsoft look like angels. Ingres is a bit of a joke. The big expensive MSSQL licences also include some pretty nifty BI tools, including decent implementations of data mining algorithms.