Slashdot Mirror
GoDaddy.com Dumps Linux for Microsoft
RobertB-DC writes "Bargain-basement registrar GoDaddy.com has decided to move all its parked domains to Microsoft servers, saying that they'll provide 'a technology platform that is security-enhanced, highly scalable and easy to manage.' This is a shift away from Linux, a decision met with derision by other registrars such as Gandi.net, which greeted the news with the headline 'Go Daddy and never come back'. Late last year, GoDaddy.com had some 'issues', shall we say, with non-Microsoft browsers."
Since most of these parked domain names are just misspellings of respectable sites or total nonsense, full of links to casinos and places to get prescription drugs, which no one would ever actually register and use for hosting, does it really matter what OS the server is running?
An OS is no good without applications on top of it.
If GoDaddy doesn't have the wherewithal to develop applications for Linux, maybe they'll have better luck with Windows. It gives them the ability to use ASP.Net on the server side with all the benefits that entails.
I use GoDaddy for my hundreds of domain registrations....too bad to see them make this decision. Not to be a blatant Microsoft troll, but it is nearly generally recognized in the server community that Linux/Apache is a more secure solution than Windows. Why would GoDaddy site security as their reason to change vendors?
Read the only personal Runyon page out there.
I think we can all agree that, at the very least, Linux SERVERS are better than Windows servers.
And, GoDaddy should at least know that much.
So, the question is, why are they doing it? Do you think Microsoft is paying them to do this? Did management's preconception that "Windows is what we use on our desktops, so it MUST be good for our servers" override any rational thought? Did they think it would trick customers who didn't know better and think, "They use Windows, just like our own computers, it must be good"?
Any thoughts?
Want a high quality FOSS RTS game? Try Warzone 2100!
MS is just pissed off that they keep loosing market share on netcraft so the likely dropped godaddy a big ole wad of cash to move all those worthless
.net is. Being a ex asp programmer I grabbed the latest copy of visual studio and had a little go with
parked domains to IIS servers....To think there is a technical reason or advantage is pure hog wash...
And don't give me a bunch of bull about how great
it.....guess what, it is still the same buggy piece of crap it always was.
Got Code?
I have half a dozen myself, and the only reason I have this many is Go Daddy is so inexpensive. As far as parking domains, who cares? It's just a "under construction" or whatever site. For real hosting you pick one of the innumerable other options that give you PHP/MySQL etc. for a few bucks a month, or more elaborate if your traffic needs it.
My experience with GoDaddy shows that the company takes advantage of people with little technical experience by confusing them. Visit the GoDaddy website yourself and see what you think. It's filled with ads, especially when you are in the second and third pages of registering a domain.
I'm guessing Microsoft paid GoDaddy to change. That would fit with my conception of the behavior of both of them.
I beg the Linux zealots not to do their thing right away. GoDaddy will come back sooner or later. Nothing can hide a fact, nothing! We've seen this before. They will come back. May be this is part of the incompetence I have seen in US companies lately. I hope I am wrong.
Oh c'mon, Go Daddy is not suddenly the bad guy because they chose a different technology platform. They didn't choose it to make Linux advocates resentful or to make Microsoft partners happy. It was a business decision. They think it will help them for their specific need. If Mac OSX would have been more helpful to their business they would have chosen it instead, or Atari OS or whatever. So what if they had problems with non-Microsoft browsers in the past or not; the author tries to draw a correlation but it's irrelevant. The author is just acting stupid I'm afraid to say. I mean, the issue is very interesting in and of itself, but I want to see mature discussion. Let's not put Go Daddy down because we prefer apples over oranges. I would rather see mature discussion about the switch. Indeed the good posts are already coming in ...
costs roughly in line with Linux when you take into account administration/management costs and that MSFT was bending over backwards to meet their needs.
Translation:
Costs are the same, but it costs money to switch, therefore MS is trying to buy their business.
The fact that only the "parked" (read: bare pages with no interactivity and exceptionally low risk) will be changed means that GoDaddy is trying to take them up on it without really taking any risk.
Basically Microsoft approached us and offered us a pile of cash
How pathetic is it to buy customers?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Ok, so you were involved. Just out of curiosity, why the change? I can not see any advantage to you unless there is more income coming in from elsewhere.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I think they're about to find out the difference between pre-sales and after-sales service.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Chris ,
Php Programmers.
This is what I don't get about Linux zealots. As I understand it, Linux distros are open source so you can change things under the hood if you want. If GoDaddy has a team of well skilled Linux programmers and admins on staff, shouldn't they be able to change the code to a form that will suit their needs?
And if that is true, what does it matter if the release is no longer supported and was originally intended as a testing system? I thought the whole point of Linux was to be able to change it to suit your needs and support it yourself if you had the skills.
In the romanization of Hindi and other languages of India, bh, dh, and gh are used for so-called "voiced aspirates". The difference between these and their unaspirated counterparts b, d, and g has nothing to do with tongue position. Rather, it is a matter of what phoneticians call phonation type. The ordinary b, d and g have modal voicing, in which the vocal folds vibrate in the usual way. The "voiced aspirates" have what is called breathy or murmured voicing, which results from the vocal folds being held together rather loosely. The glottal source spectrum of murmured sounds is much noisier than that of sounds with modal voicing. You can listen to a contrasting set of examples here.
Back in my day, the ancient days of IT...three or four years in the dark past, it was big news when a company switched to Linux. These days it's a headline when a company switches to MSFT.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
And do it every time he decides to derail a legitimate discussion by bringing up US politics.
He's the worst political troll on this site, and I'm happy I finally remembered to foe him.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
So basically:
- All the domains that are empty (parked awaiting content) will be served from Windows servers
- All the domains that have content, that somebody cares about, will be served from Linux as before
Gosh, what a victory for Microsoft.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
There's one factor in the open vs. closed source battle that keeps getting overlooked. Open source thrives on two things. First, it is extremely easy for anyone to give it a try. Between open source apps like OpenOffice that are available for Windows to Live CD distros of Linux that can be run by anyone who can burn a CD, the cost of giving them a try is tiny. They don't require an infrastructure of retail sales outlets and various other middlemen. Second, the survival of most open source projects is not dependent on sales.
Open source projects start and thrive in an environment where all they really need is good communication (the Internet) and a chance to gain some mindshare to attract users and developers. Because of the licenses, the projects can outlive individual developers and companies that support them. By driving down transaction costs the cost of starting up an open source project and of its growth are drastically diminished.
Closed source, on the other hand, is tied to the economic fortunes of its owners. Ever stumble on Microsoft's part, including the recent Vista delay, represents a loss or delay of revenue to Microsoft and its partners. Microsoft can weather that storm currently. Not all of its partners can.
Open source will not destroy closed source. It can't. On the other hand, Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. Microsoft is the largest software company. Assuming that the Halloween documents are to be taken seriously, they decided years ago that open source is the number one threat to their business. Since then, they have been completely unable to do anything to significantly slow its spread. Open source projects will outlast their closed source competitors in many cases.
Mod parent a troll. While Gandhi was hardly infallible, there is little documentation to show that he hated kaffirs or was pro-apartheid. One or two isolated quotes does not a character define. An episode of Penn and Teller's show time is not "documentation".