Why Microsoft? Microsoft vs. Linux

#1

Post by matthiasv » Wed, Aug 06, 2014, 12:09 PM UTC

Why Microsoft? Microsoft vs. Linux
whymicrosoft.com

Re: Why Microsoft? Microsoft vs. Linux

#2

Post by gregmorton » Wed, Aug 06, 2014, 12:27 PM UTC

In 2014, 97% of top supercomputers are Linux based.

http://readwrite.com/2014/07/01/linux-world-domination-compl...

Re: Why Microsoft? Microsoft vs. Linux

#3

Post by petepete » Wed, Aug 06, 2014, 12:37 PM UTC

Fair enough, if you need AD, .NET, SQL Server etc. then choose Windows server. For everything else, Linux wins.

Re: Why Microsoft? Microsoft vs. Linux

#4

Post by leni536 » Wed, Aug 06, 2014, 12:38 PM UTC

However, sometimes your solution is focused solely on server-side operating systems, and that's where Linux falls short.

I laughed hard. Also what is with all the question marks on the right side of the table? It's almost like they are not confident with their statements about Linux.

Re: Why Microsoft? Microsoft vs. Linux

#5

Post by openbsddesktop » Wed, Aug 06, 2014, 1:36 PM UTC

Then why doesn't the market leading companies use M$? Because it's not worth it.

Re: Why Microsoft? Microsoft vs. Linux

#6

Post by blueskin_ » Wed, Aug 06, 2014, 1:37 PM UTC

Oh, look, FUD.

>Microsoft: Proven security development lifecycle

>Linux: Security threats?

You owe me a new keyboard. This one is full of coffee.

Also got to love the whole "Linux doesn't do AD" BS. If you still live in 2005, perhaps not, but that's about it. You could also argue that AD is a misfeature, given the almost hilarious insecurity of NTLM password hashes, etc.

Re: Why Microsoft? Microsoft vs. Linux

#7

Post by robinhoodexe » Wed, Aug 06, 2014, 1:38 PM UTC

Laugh of the day

Re: Why Microsoft? Microsoft vs. Linux

#8

Post by vezzy-fnord » Wed, Aug 06, 2014, 1:38 PM UTC

Throwing around the "cloud" buzzword, in spite of recent development on cgroups, CoreOS/etcd, Project Atomic and yes, even systemd, was funny enough. The paragraph on "security threats" was by far the most hilarious though, because you could tell they really had nothing worthwhile to say, but had to include it for the FUD value.

Re: Why Microsoft? Microsoft vs. Linux

#9

Post by Gracana » Wed, Aug 06, 2014, 1:39 PM UTC

leni536 wrote: post #4

However, sometimes your solution is focused solely on server-side operating systems, and that's where Linux falls short. I laughed hard. Also what is with all the question marks on the right side of the table? It's almost like they are not confident with their statements about Linux.

They seem to only have one real point, that microsoft products work best with microsoft products. The rest of it is just building up a sense of vague uncertainty. I would have thought Microsoft could make better arguments than that.

Re: Why Microsoft? Microsoft vs. Linux

#10

Post by TallGuyShort » Wed, Aug 06, 2014, 1:43 PM UTC

They ask a lot of questions they don't answer, and from my experience with both Windows and Linux, Linux can answer most of those questions far better than Windows. This is a joke.

edit: example: "Will patching and security lead to downtime?" There's ksplice and kgraft and more - patch the kernel with no downtime. And even without using either, I can't remember the last time I had to reboot immediately because a patch was that critical, or the last time I had to sit there waiting for my laptop to reboot 3 times trying to install the weekly updates. Windows Update blows.

edit: another example: "Proven security development lifecycle". Ha ha ha ha ha!