Longhorn Server Scrapped

punkass writes "Microsoft announced Tuesday that plans for .Net Server, aka "Longhorn" have been scrapped and they will instead focus on the the release after that, code-named Blackcomb. NT4 came out in 96, 2k in 2000, and Longhorn was due out in 2005-06...Blackcomb seems to be a long time between releases."

Comments

This is good.

[Penguinoflight]

The longer Microsoft has between releases, the longer Linux has to come up with great releases. Just think how many security patches there will be between 2000 and blackcomb... that's not fun and sysadmins know it.

Re:This is good.

[4of12]

They seem to be desperately out of tune with their users in the server market

It's because they don't compete in a normal market anymore.

When you essentially own a marketplace, such as they do with desktop PC operating systems, then you can make a lot more decisions that your customers don't like but have to accept because the alternatives have disappeared or are considered too drastic (MacOS, Linux, etc.).

Actually, the competition they seem to be desperately out of tune with their users in the server markethey've endured trying to enter the server market has been good for them and their customers: each revision of NT was compared with UNIX. Early revs were laughable, but MS had a target to aim towards in terms of reliability and scalability. Finally, with Win2K they have something where they don't get laughed out of the room anymore. I doubt whether it would have been as a good product as it is without the competition.

They face a more serious threat in the future with their server operating systems. If they strongly leverage their desktop dominance in Windows and Office, then they can insure their servers are the only brand that works in a networked environment.

But if services are standardized and commoditized, which is what customers really like for their effects on price and quality (as in the PC hardware market), then open source flavors of UNIX will have already eaten their server marketplace for breakfast when they finally trot out some shiny chrome-plated Blackcomb .NET product that "does everything and more".

Re:This is good.

[ergo98]

Security patches are to be reckoned with. However, the long interval between new Windows server releases means that there will be large differences inbetween versions. If there's something that the IT departments don't like, it's large differences...So - I really have to wonder what crack Microsoft is smoking.

Obviously not as potent as the stuff you're smoking. Here are the facts as I see them. Please feel free to disagree.

• IT departments HATE non-stop tiny changes, each of which requires new testing, and likely breaks several of their applications. This can be seen in the reality that many shops still use NT 4.0 even with its successor 2000, and its successor XP, available. Hell, most IT departments shun at even installing service packs.
• Microsoft has oft been berated for doing what Apple now is the champion of, which is pushing minor changes as new versions (see 95, 98, 98SE, Me) and getting people to pay up. People don't like being "behind" when applications start using some esoteric feature of XP that adds little value, but suddenly renders obsolete their 2000 base.
• Because Microsoft has moved at such a rapid rate, many organizations have simple ceased moving with them: By the time they get a plan together and start to act, they're behind again. There are still a large number of organizations that aren't using Active Directory. There literally is such a thing as being too-rapid in your development (at least in areas where users and IT have to move with you) because the early-adopters will give up, and the late adopters will always feel that something better is just around the corner.

Let's skip them, and do it ourselves.

[ka9dgx]

The goal of the next version (as I understand it) is to allow virtual folders, so that you can search everything with a common set of tools.

Let's build a virtual folder driver for Windows 98 and upward, to allow APPLICATIONS to virtualize the information they manage. It would be nice to have an email manager than presents emails as a list of files, or folders. Sending could be as easy as copying files to a folder, and then specifying an address. (To.txt?)

A virtualized database would present a list of folders in place of a table, with the fields being individual files, some read only (sequence numbers, keys, etc). To update the data, you just write to the file containing the appopriate field. If you wanted to add a field, you just copy a new file into the folder.

There is great power in letting an APPLICATION control the virutalization of the OS, this is why the idea of GNU/HURD is important for the future.

If APPLICATIONS can virtualize, then you get a freedom to innovate that would give Bill nightmares.

Virtualizing the address space for existing millions of users and applications could do more to help freedom to innovate than pretty much anything it's going to take Microsoft years to come up with.

Who's with me?

--Mike--