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.
Why Microsoft? Microsoft vs. Linux
11–20 of 40 posts
Re: Why Microsoft? Microsoft vs. Linux
#12However, 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.
Microsoft is a shadow of its former self now it's focused on selling locked down phones and web services instead of any actual software.
Re: Why Microsoft? Microsoft vs. Linux
#13Then why doesn't the market leading companies use M$? Because it's not worth it.
Some do, some don't. Unless you have a very specific market in mind, then perhaps you're right.
In general, however, your statement is on the same level of correctness as Microsoft's advertisement linked here.
Re: Why Microsoft? Microsoft vs. Linux
#14FUD rising to a new level:
Persistent threats and dedicated attackers can slow your projects and put your IT environment at risk with Linux projects.
Re: Why Microsoft? Microsoft vs. Linux
#15Oh, 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.
Technically they are right. Linux is only a kernel. You need other software to run AD, so they are covered legally! ;-)
Re: Why Microsoft? Microsoft vs. Linux
#16Same old same old FUD campaigns. Perhaps Microsoft will never get a clue, but it doesn't matter to me because I'm not using any of their software.
Also, you can't claim that your systems are secure and then not have the code publicly auditable. That's preposterous.
Re: Why Microsoft? Microsoft vs. Linux
#17Fair enough, if you need AD, .NET, SQL Server etc. then choose Windows server. For everything else, Linux wins.
Would you like to elaborate by answering the questions posed there ? Concisely or verbosely.
Linux Wins. Windows Sux is not the cookie-cutter answer I would expect on HN.
Re: Why Microsoft? Microsoft vs. Linux
#18Microsoft seems to be touting their support for various Linux distributions on their server products. I can't help but be reminded of the massive miscalculation IBM made in OS/2 development: they went to great lengths to make sure it supported Windows applications, which simply encouraged developers to write interoperable Windows code rather than OS/2-specific code, despite the technical advantages of OS/2.
Re: Why Microsoft? Microsoft vs. Linux
#19Oh, 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.
Technically they are right. Linux is only a kernel. You need other software to run AD, so they are covered legally! ;-)
Ah, the FSF argument. I guess saying GNU/Linux was too wordy for Microsoft anyway, with their whole Metro concept being "having information density and options is bad".
Re: Why Microsoft? Microsoft vs. Linux
#20Same old same old FUD campaigns. Perhaps Microsoft will never get a clue, but it doesn't matter to me because I'm not using any of their software. Also, you can't claim that your systems are secure and then not have the code publicly auditable. That's preposterous.
Security through obscurity is best security, didn't you know?