Slashdot Mirror
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."
Plans have been scraped?? Ow! That must hurt!
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.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Longhorn is the codename for the next general Windows release, ie meant for the desktop, it's not .NET Server which is something entirely different and without any of the SQL based filing system stuff
Microsoft announced Tuesday that plans for .Net Server, aka "Longhorn" have been scraped and they will instead focus on the the release after that, code-named "Foghorn".
My studio - www.graylands.ca
Longhorn is the "codename" for the release *after* Windows .NET Server.
.NET Server is already at the Release Candidate stages, I highly doubt they're scrapping it...heck, I already received my free Leatherman Pulse tool engraved with the OS' name for trying out the software. :)
Windows
... even Debian releases faster. HeHe
Life sucks.
<ob_editor_bitching>How about a little fact checking, eh?</ob_editor_bitching>
Corporate Jenga: You take a blockhead from the bottom and you put him on top...
So, let's look at some interesting facts:
1. MS Puts back the release of its latest Server OS.
2. MS is pushing a new licensing model where companies pay annual fees regardless of upgrades, but then get "discounts" on future upgrades.
So, does the new licensing plan allow them to basically, delay new technologies? It seems that, with their latest scheme, it reduces their motivation to release newer/better products.
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
Now what am I gonna do with my Beta copy?
X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
Longhorn refers to the next version of the Windows Server OS. I sometimes wonder whether the editors do any fact checking or even read the articles...
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
After all, we have auto-updating now, and since Microsoft is completely dedicated to battling Linux, et. al, with the lower Windows TCO, no one will need to pay for an upgrade cycle for years! In fact, all of the Windows administrators who've installed SP3 can now rest easy knowing that the boys and girls in Redmond are diligently uploading security patches, bug fixes and feature enhancements to your machine when-ever and where-ever it needs it.
...
Isn't life great, MCSEs? No more staying up all night reconstructing servers, praying that the tape backups were current, etc.
I wouldn't know, though. I changed my systems over to Red Hat, and keep up with the errata, and amuse myself by opening a sessions and typing in "uptime"
If you read the article, it is the version AFTER .Net Server that has been scrapped--code name Longhorn. .Net server has already shipped Release Candidate 1 and RC2 should be out shortly. The final .Net Server should be out next year. Longhorn server and desktop versions were due out in 2004. Since it take corporate environments a couple of years to roll out a server upgrade, MS figured .Net Server would never get implemented by most IT departments(i.e. they wouldn't sell many copies of .Net Server).
Now, MS is just going to skip the Longhorn release in 2004 and instead go to the Blackcomb release.
Didn't all those people who signed up for the subscription did so on the premise of a new upgrade every 2 years or so? So now MS gets to take their money and no product to show for it.
Maybe not enough people signed up?
One of the key paragraphs says:
.Net Server, to take off slowly because many businesses have either recently moved to Windows 2000 or are in the process of doing so. A majority of customers, then, would begin introducing .Net Server in late 2004--around the same time as the planned release of the Longhorn desktop and server software versions.
Analysts expect the company's upcoming server software,
And that about covers my experience, too. Server overhauls take much longer intervals then changes in the desktop segment, where they install a new Windows every 3 years or so (doesn't matter, they are largely compatible versions, anyway... no admins, don't kill me, aaarrrghh).
So it actually makes sense to come out with a new server only if the changes are really signifcant and if the interval since the last major roll-out was more than, say, 5-6 years ago. Besides, nobody has money to throw at a new unproven technology right now (and in 2 years all the same), anyway.
I might agree with you, but remember the biggest complaint in the previous scheme was unecessary upgrades? MS can't seem to win, first they catch fire for too many upgrades with little value, now they are critized for not upgrading.
I bet there are a lot of sysadmins out there who would prefer to pay MS not to release "upgrades."
The delay "is a response to what our customers are asking for."
I want to have customers like that..
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--
Personally, I don't know why Microsoft would have released .NET server next year, and then followed a year later with Longhorn. It doesn't make any sense. Every shop I've ever worked in or worked with as a consultant had a general rule of never upgrading Microsoft's server platform until it had been out for at least 6 months, if not a year. By the time these guys finished doing a deployment of .NET, Longhorn would be hitting the streets. At least by pushing the schedule back to Blackcomb, they are getting to a more reasonable timeline.
Personally, I think Microsoft should maintain a 4 year release cycle on their server OS, and a 2 year cycle on the desktop OS/productivity suite. Anything shorter and you are going to outrun your customers. I mean, if you are running a big, multisite network with 2000+ users, do you really want to deploy an OS upgrade every year or two? Hell, I know of at least one large, multinational company that is still standardized on NT 4.0 Server and Windows 95 (and as far as I know, they are going to milk it as long as they can). Besides, a 4/2 cycle is pretty close to your average lease times on hardware, which simplifies deployment since you can time your OS upgrades with your hardware upgrades (at least, on the desktop).
The only thing Microsoft gets by releasing a new OS every year is a lot of people skipping versions. Maybe they finally clued in to that fact?
Actually, Windows NT 3.1 (the first release) was a multi-cpu architecture operating system that ran on Intel, Mips, Alpha and eventually the PPC platform. It was Posix compatible and compatible with most well behaved Windows 3.1 apps. It had a version of Office for it and even a TCP/IP stack before the Internet was popular.
.net server is Windows NT 5.11, expect to see it in about 6 weeks.)
I'm not sure what OS you're talking about, but it wasn't Windows NT.
I won't even begin to get into the fact that longhorn was supposed to be a point release and not a new revision. (This would be Windows NT 5.2 if MS marketing didn't ruin a perfectly good version numbering scheme) (BTW,
"Internet Explorer." Ok. Explains what it does. "NT". Ok, it's an acronym of sorts. People like those. "XP," same thing except it uses the letter "x" which people just adore in acronyms. "Intellimouse." Sounds nice and maybe people will think they become brighter when they use it, good call.
"Blackcomb"?
Marketroid #1: "Ooo! Bob! I have it! We'll combine the word 'black' -- dark and insidious -- with the word 'comb,' which is something that most of the people using our services pine longingly for the use of!"
Marketroid #2: "Jesus, Tim, you're a !@#$ing genius! I love you!"
My
Limekiller
The bigger they are, the harder they fall. Is it possible that MS is starting to lose control of it's own software? Maybe we are seeing the boundaries of what can be accomplished in a restrictive, closed source development environment.
Kindly name me one major innovation from the past ten years that I can take home to my Linux install that isn't a copy of a MS innovation.
OSS definitly gets better qualitity--but I have yet to see an example or hear a theory that gives OSS an innovative edge over closed-source.
Please feel free to correct me if you can.
That is because Microsoft trademarked the word "Hailstorm".
Look for these other upcoming releases:
"Insecure (tm)"
"Monkey-manageable (tm)"
"Vulnerable(tm)"
"Bloated(tm)"
"Unstable(tm)
"Internet(tm)"
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
The idea is for example, viewing a picture would use the same user interface as listening to a music source.
That way, when I need to figure out how to zoom in on the picture I'm viewing, I'll remember the UI from zooming in on the music... er, no...
Well, anyway, when I need to know how to pause the music I'm listening to, it will be the same as pausing the picture... no, that can't be right either...
Well, at least it will simplify the needlessly complex interface of current music players and picture viewers, which make it very hard for new users to... er...
Why was this a good idea again?
The funny thing about innovation is that it happens everywhere. Take the upcoming version of MS Office which touts two technologies that have debuted in Free Software first. The XML formats for Office are nothing more than a ripoff of OpenOffice's XML formats, and Outlook's new virtual folders are lifted directly from Evolution and it's VFolders.
There is no question that Free Software is doing a lot of mimicking of commercial products, but that is simply because Free Software hackers are building a desktop from scratch. It's pretty tricky to build a word processor that doesn't look like MS Word, or a spreadsheet that doesn't resemble Excel. Especially considering that one of the major goals of these projects is to get people to switch to the Free Software products. Part of convincing people to switch is making the transition as easy as possible.
When you get outside of the desktop, where Free Software has to copy Microsoft to even be considered, then it is clear that Free Software has done quite a bit of innovation. The reason for this is simple, with Free Software you don't have to start from scratch each time you have an idea. Instead you can add a bit on to an already existing product.
The remedy in the DoJ case mentioned Longhorn by name. Did anyone think Microsoft wouldn't just invent some reason to say of their next product, "This is not the Longhorn you are looking for"?
Nope, no sig