Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My startup is Microsoft-based, here's why

jitbit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 209 posts

Re: My startup is Microsoft-based, here's why

#151

Post by rottyguy »

While the article speaks of server costs and such, lest us not forget (from wikipedia but, I believe, attributed to Larry Wall):

"The design of Perl can be understood as a response to three broad trends in the computer industry: falling hardware costs, rising labor costs, and improvements in compiler technology. Many earlier computer languages, such as Fortran and C, aimed to make efficient use of expensive computer hardware. In contrast, Perl is designed to make efficient use of expensive computer-programmers."

Thus having your people accomplishing things in a more efficient fashion trumps all :-)

Re: My startup is Microsoft-based, here's why

#152

Post by Toshio »

codeulike wrote: post #105
ebbv wrote: post #91

I don't see what the anecdote about the other person has to do with your story. It seems like you're citing it to try to imply that Linux can be expensive, but that's not really a valid point based on that anecdote. Their software costs were $0/mo of that $3000/mo. Linux has nothing to do with whatever reasons they had for such expensive server costs. There is no question that whatever their server costs, they would…

Linux has nothing to do with whatever reasons they had for such expensive server costs. It might do. The point is that Node/Ruby etc aren't particularly efficient compared to C# and the CLR, so you need more Server power for a given application. For example StackOverflow ran from a single windows server in the early days, they didn't add a second one till Oct 2008 http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2008/10/adde-a-second-s…

> "The point is that Node/Ruby etc aren't particularly efficient [...]"

Any hard data you can point to in support of this rather bizarre statement?

Re: My startup is Microsoft-based, here's why

#153

Post by etherael »

jf22 wrote: post #141
etherael wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SQL databases in general don't scale well once they've maxed out a single machine, cross server joins are never going to be pretty and there's a pretty good reason why denormalising data and the adoption of NoSQL solutions with baked in clustering is taking off in a big way. Re NoSQL solutions on windows, theoretically possible, sure, but which NoSQL solution targets windows as its primary platform rather than an aft…

Your first sentence is has 0% to do with the tech stack. RavenDb. Yes: https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-2612 http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/develop/nodejs/

> Your first sentence is has 0% to do with the tech stack.

It does if the target area is massively underrepresented in the tech stack in question. It's just a plain old fact that there are far more options for NoSQL storage layers built with linux first in mind than there are windows. Just like there are far more options for games toolkits and libraries built with windows first in mind than there are for linux.

RavenDB I had never even heard of before, but it does look like it fits the bill of NoSQL datastore that primary targets windows, compared to the competition though that doesn't come near to nullifying my point that it's a vastly outscaled matchup. Also, if you even want clustering in RavenDB, you need an enterprise license. There are many completely free NoSQL datastores for linux that handle clustering just fine without an enterprise license.

Re MongoDB, it's good that they fixed that, however;

https://jira.mongodb.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?sorter/f...

So there are 117 Windows specific issues with mongodb, many of which have not been touched for years or months, and none of which affect linux.

I couldn't actually find any tickets which only pertained to linux, though maybe they're there they're certainly not as common.

Re: My startup is Microsoft-based, here's why

#154

Post by etherael »

51Cards wrote: post #145
etherael wrote: post #116

2 SP3's from OVH would be both cheaper (89*2) and have way, way more bang for the buck than a single weak amazon instance. (E3 1245v2 8 ht cores @ 3.4ghz , 2 x 120GB SSD in soft raid and 32gb memory) If you wanted to run windows on those, you'd need to buy two licenses pushing an extra 50$ a month onto the price. You also wouldn't need to screw around with spawned instances in failover, and you could actually use the…

> Cons; > Everyone has to use Windows. That is a personal opinion. To me it's not a "Con", just a personal choice. I work on both platforms (Windows and Linux) and I don't view either one as a Pro or a Con. Just a different environment. If it's not your first choice doesn't make it a bad choice, which I think summarizes a lot of the article in question.

It's a con because everyone has to use windows, not because of using windows, an open source tech stack typically works just fine with both Linux and Mac using devs, and has leftovers for windows users. An MS stack? Everyone's stuck using windows, and many people hate it. That's what's bad about it, not that windows is necessarily bad in every use case.

Re: My startup is Microsoft-based, here's why

#155

Post by tommis »

ebbv wrote: post #91

I don't see what the anecdote about the other person has to do with your story. It seems like you're citing it to try to imply that Linux can be expensive, but that's not really a valid point based on that anecdote. Their software costs were $0/mo of that $3000/mo. Linux has nothing to do with whatever reasons they had for such expensive server costs. There is no question that whatever their server costs, they would…

I'm curious, why would you disqualify a SaaS product solely because it's based on MS?

Re: My startup is Microsoft-based, here's why

#156

Post by tinco »

eddieroger wrote: post #68

This was the most relevant bit, far as I can tell: >> Because I love C# Fair enough. If I liked C#, I'd live in a Microsoft world, too. I don't, though, and without this being a language war, the ones I like are easy enough to set up on Linux, and tend to be a heck of a lot more stable and easy to install, too.

> Fair enough. If I liked C#, I'd live in a Microsoft world, too.

That says more about you than about C#. I like C# too, I think it's the best imperative statically typed language out there. If you'd take the time to research it you'd find that it's easily the most advanced and developed language out there period.

Still, I think the whole statically typed idea is not feasible for large applications. So I use Ruby for professional stuff, and C# for performance critical things (like videogames).

Visual Studio lifts a lot of the pain of developing on Windows (which is still rather painful).

Re: My startup is Microsoft-based, here's why

#157

Post by yatendra »

For my side projects I use Visual Studio express editions (free) and use postgres (local) for one and mongodb (hosted at mongolab) for another for storing data. I host both of them on 1 VPS with single core and 1 GB of RAM. So All I am paying extra is 2$ a month for a windows vps instead of a linux vps, and I think that 2$ extra that I am paying is well justified.

Re: My startup is Microsoft-based, here's why

#159

Post by antihero »

51Cards wrote: post #145
etherael wrote: post #116

2 SP3's from OVH would be both cheaper (89*2) and have way, way more bang for the buck than a single weak amazon instance. (E3 1245v2 8 ht cores @ 3.4ghz , 2 x 120GB SSD in soft raid and 32gb memory) If you wanted to run windows on those, you'd need to buy two licenses pushing an extra 50$ a month onto the price. You also wouldn't need to screw around with spawned instances in failover, and you could actually use the…

> Cons; > Everyone has to use Windows. That is a personal opinion. To me it's not a "Con", just a personal choice. I work on both platforms (Windows and Linux) and I don't view either one as a Pro or a Con. Just a different environment. If it's not your first choice doesn't make it a bad choice, which I think summarizes a lot of the article in question.

It's a massive con. I work on Linux primarily and when there's a ASP.NET project, I'm forced to use an operating system I hate, it destroys my workflow, and forces me to either partition my laptop or work in a VM which is slow. Everything takes bloody ages to install, and are huge files (MSSQL is 4GB, Visual Studio is 1.5GB, MSSQL manager is like 1GB...wtf?!).

It would be interesting to see someone build a Django-like platform on top of C#.

How does IronPython perform?

Re: My startup is Microsoft-based, here's why

#160

Post by dragonwriter »

codeulike wrote: post #105
ebbv wrote: post #91

I don't see what the anecdote about the other person has to do with your story. It seems like you're citing it to try to imply that Linux can be expensive, but that's not really a valid point based on that anecdote. Their software costs were $0/mo of that $3000/mo. Linux has nothing to do with whatever reasons they had for such expensive server costs. There is no question that whatever their server costs, they would…

Linux has nothing to do with whatever reasons they had for such expensive server costs. It might do. The point is that Node/Ruby etc aren't particularly efficient compared to C# and the CLR, so you need more Server power for a given application. For example StackOverflow ran from a single windows server in the early days, they didn't add a second one till Oct 2008 http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2008/10/adde-a-second-s…

> The point is that Node/Ruby etc aren't particularly efficient compared to C# and the CLR, so you need more Server power for a given application.

Node and Ruby aren't Linux (they run on all kinds of platforms, including both Linux and Windows), and Node and Ruby aren't the only alternatives to C# and the CLR (either on Linux or anywhere else).

Post reply on HN