121–130 of 166 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't think Windows Server is anywhere close to a monopoly, unless you define it narrowly, like Windows Server is a monopoly for Exchange installs or something like that.
They're a monopoly for companies that are already locked into Win32 or Win32-specific applications.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I admit my experience is mostly with JS deployed on Linux, but ASP.NET seems like a good framework with awesome tooling. Also using the same language on the frontend and backend is very useful and I consider C# the best option for Windows frontend work. Not that I'm saying NodeJS backend with Website/Electron frontend is bad, but ASP.NET backend with WPF frontend seems great as well, just with more enterprise-oriente…
Legacy ASP.NET web pages might be harder to migrate, however, newer web sites can also be implemented using ASP.NET Core MVC. It seems other departments in Microsoft do understand that their code base needs to be able to run on a Linux OS, otherwise they are at risk of losing market share. Even SQL Server can run on Linux now.
Well, it certainly "runs" on Linux, but there are many limitations and bugs.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/linux/sql-server-linux-...
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/linux/sql-server-linux-...
And this is typical when porting a flagship application to its non-original OS. I've seen similar issues with Oracle on Windows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also, not sure what huge risk you are talking about here besides licensing pricing? The many business risks of being 100% tied down to a single provider (Microsoft). Licensing is one, but also what would happen if Microsoft decided to kill off a service that your product depends on? You'd have to invest in finding an alternative and rewriting your software. Or what if Microsoft sells that service to another company…
Both replies to me earlier comment mentioned vendor lock in. Is there any greater vendor lock-in then integrating AWS thousand and one services? Is it really riskier to trust MS to not kill a product then Google? Is the answer really to write everything yourself from the OS up? I don't disagree that MS could do any of what you mentioned but I'm not sure AWS/GCP etc wouldn't be as likely to as well.
> the bad old days of Microsoft being an anti-competitive bully are dead and buried. Wait, there are people who genuinely believe this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because giving something more to the customer would not cost them anything. There used to be this belief that things are worth as much as the cost to produce them + some margin for the maker. And things were made so they will benefit their consumers. Unfortunately more and more companies these days look for ways to get not what something is worth but to get from consumers as much as possible, to squeeze them like lem…
Key error in your argument: "would not cost them anything." Of course they would lose profit on the customers that would pay for X instead of .8X. "if i can buy the same hardware at 20% less cost why would I buy it at the full cost?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it isn't okay for NVIDIA to try and charge me tens of thousands for a quadro card instead of just letting me virtualize my Geforce 1080. In fact, it's so not okay, that I don't play ball and I use hacks to get my 1080 support virtualization and pass-through. It's also not okay for Apple to restrict what hardware I can run their software with. I have run hackintoshes and OS X VMs. I voice my support and concern…
That is not voting with your wallet. Voting with your wallet would be not using anything from NVidia and Apple to start with, including the business opportunities it might entail.
That's RMS thinking. If you don't mind, I'll expand on it. Voting with your wallet includes not paying into third party workarounds because their existence depends on the bad actors to exist (in some cases).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Over time what you're implying here is true, but in the short term there are a lot of people stuck on .net Framework and it's difficult to get off of it. It should absolutely be done, any company with old .net framework solutions that are not actively looking at moving them to .net core is being foolish. But lots of companies are foolish.
“It should absolutely be done, any company with old .net framework solutions that are not actively looking at moving them to .net core is being foolish.” If it only were that easy to move to Core. I thought I could sneak that transition into a few projects but there are a ton of little obstacles that make such an effort lots of work.
The fact that you can target .net standard with framework means TODAY you can sequester your framework specific things behind DLL's and put everything else on .net core officially.
I honestly think there's going to be a huge consulting/freelance market for it soon.
I wasn't trying to imply that it's easy, just that everyone should be planning out how to do it so they can do it slowly over the next few years rather than all at once in panic mode.
Props to MS for ensuring the two can live side by side the way they have. It makes the transition a LOT easier if you're smart enough to start it early and let it have a long tail.
I've personally done this a few times already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you name a business that doesn't offer you a discount commensurate to the amount you spend with them? Why wouldn't Microsoft give you a discount on your windows license if you're also using their cloud?
This practice is a form of "bundling" in the antitrust sense, and while it is not inherently illegal different rules apply to such behaviors if you've been found to have monopoly powers.