Microsoft has developed its own Linux: in-house software-defined networking OS

Post by Ruxbin » Tue, Sep 22, 2015, 5:43 AM UTC

buffoon wrote: post #11

junto wrote: post #2

Microsoft are now moving quickly to allow users to run .NET on all platforms. How long until they decide that Windows Server is no longer worth investing in? Or are there too many Microsoft server products earning good profits (i.e. Exchange and BizTalk), to make that switch a realistic future expectation? I'm genuinely interested to hear people's opinions on their thoughts of the future of Microsoft and Windows Serv…

Heavy Windows server user here. We have 100+ windows server 2008 R2 and 2012 R2 machines in production and a massive .Net/C# codebase. Currently it's a complete bastard of an operating system. It's expensive, hard to manage even with powershell and DSC etc, difficult to update, difficult to provision, complicated and to be honest absolutely terrible licensing hell that costs us days a year. Hyper-V just adds complexi…

You're right in that Windows is complex operating system but how is it any different than CentOS? Sure, Powershell/DSC does make life easier but how are these utilities necessarily any worse or better than a combination of bash, python, kickstart?

Exchange Onsite deployments aren't dead, on-site email is dead. Unless, you're "too big" for the cloud (>20k users) because of then Exchange is an option.

Keeping data On-Premise has always been a challenge, SAN are expensive but that's what it takes if you want data locally.

I can't comment on the rest but we're comparing Apples to Oranges here.

Post by throwawaykf05 » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 10:52 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #156

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Way to quote selectively there. "It sometimes sucks" occurs more frequently for many people than many would like to admit. I work for a company that uses a ton of open source and open sources a ton of its own technology. Even for us, the GPL is poison. We're not allowed to touch GPL code. And we're not alone in this sentiment. A large number of open source enthusiasts decry the viral nature of the GPL, precisely beca…

If GPL is cancer for a company, then what then is proprietary licenses? nuclear bombs? Toxic waste? Ticking time bombs? I don't think such language is nice. It is damaging to civil conversation and can only alienate people more. No one likes hearing that what they create is like toxic waste.

How are proprietary licenses any better or worse than the GPL? It totally depends on what the terms of the license demand.

Note that it is not the code that these people produce that is toxic, it is what they demand in return (via the terms of the license) that is. The language may not be nice, but it is descriptive of the situation the GPL puts many people into. The GPL essentially seeks to impose the ideology adopted by a subset of folks onto the rest of the world. "We believe code should be free, so if you want to use our stuff, your code must be free too, regardless of what you believe or what your business needs are or what is practical." That is not a very nice stance to have, and so many people do not say nice things about it.

Think of it like someone saying, "Here, I'll do you a favor, but you must change your religion". Having different ideologies is perfectly fine, but enforcing them on others is not.

Re: Microsoft has developed its own Linux: in-house software-defined networking OS

Re: Microsoft has developed its own Linux: in-house software-defined networking OS