Oh surveys say alot about deployment?? Well in that case, according to Slashdot surveys, 95% of the world is running Linux!! Go back to third grade before you get hurt.
I'm sorry but you seem to have mixed up a simple rating with most widely deployed. A RATING says NOTHING about deployment. It is merely someones arbitrary system of judging. I said it before and will say it again... let me know when you find a chart for deployment of DB's in enterprise level businesses.
When you can tell the difference between a rating system and actual deployment numbers, THAT will be a day of celebration for the halfwits.
Doesn't cost a dime. In fact, I worked at a place thart got their software added by default on new DELL's and DELL paid THEM! In this instance, DELL would have to pay NO ONE and would thus save more money than they could even think of.
As far as their 'integrating it', they merely add it to the image that they burn onto new systems. TADA! Boy, that's hard work... mere minutes. That costs what, a couple thousand???
Actually, MySQL is #1 for being deployed on more servers than any other. No other stats are available as to who is more commonly used by enterprise customers. If you know of a recent study that says what database is used by more 'enterprise' level companies, please let me know.
Naturally they are significantly lower. But even at $200 per new box, that is a major expense. Preloading Open Office is nothing. DELL should be offering that as a default and then Microsoft Office for the markup on new PC's.
King of the Desktop perhaps but not King of servers. Sure they show more REVENUE but as for deployment, Linux still dominates and has been squeezing Microsoft more and more out of server space. While Linux eats into UNIX market share, they also are eating into Windows market share as well.
Don't believe it? Look at what the most widely used Web server is. Look at what the most widely used DB is. look at the most popular scripting languages. And now keep in mind that they all come installed by default on almost all Linux distros.
They can keep putting money into trying to convince people that Microsoft Clusterfuck Edition can replace Linux clusters. That's cool. Just another money pit for them and a great way to divert resources into a nowhere scheme. And sure they have loads of funds but they still have to answer to shareholders and they are not pleased that the stock has stagnated for so long and they won't be pleased when didvidends stop getting payed and products not being sold or delivered on time do to them focusing on a product that will go nowhere.
The entire open source world and all companies supporting open source (IBM, Google, Sun, Amazon, etc.) are all starting a bait and switch where Microsoft throws mony into duplicating anything that it thinks may be a threat. This is turn causes them to waste funds and resources on red herrings when the actual threat is something else entirely.
These past 5 years have seen Linux and open source go from obscurity to mainstream in the business market. The next five years will see it go from obscurity to mainstream in the consumer market.
Yeah, they are stupid. But I have bills to pay. I suppose you are the one exception in the world that is able to tell CEO's how to run their company and they listen.
So fans at home keeping score may not find slanted stats and spurious findings useful and professionals will? Wow. It's amazing how using your logic, you can feed a line of shit to a professional but not to those 'fans at home'. No wonder Linux is kicking Windows ass.:)
Yes... because all those 386's that Amazon and IBM and other companies use are apparently housed in their parents basements? Fascinating logic if you can call it that.
I suppose those other NON-386 servers running Linux are also housed in CEO's parents basements as well, huh?
I dunno. I see changes in market share (as in total servers running said OS) as a fairer determination of changes in the industry. Sales mean nothing if you are removing the OS to install something else; they use this argument for desktop systems without Windows, so why is the reverse false?
Sales also mean nothing when the OS is free. This seems to be a rather arbitrary report meant to slant one sides findings. Naturally, it's in Microsofts favor. Go figure.
How the hell will they get complete and accurate figures for all the new servers that run Linux when the OS is free in most cases? And how many of those servers with Windows on them were immediately replaced with Linux? I have worked at many shops where we freely install Fedora or Mandrake on Servers including servers bought from DELL that come with Windows preinstalled.
I love when they quote these sales figures because they mean next to nothing compared to an OS that is free and when most major hardware vendors are just NOW getting on board with Linux and even then, just half heartedly.
Don't know what he is going to do for them. Have a friend that used to work for them and the new CRAY up here in Seattle is working on clustered super computers running Linux. Don't think that's going to translate.
You'd think that a multi-BILLION dollar company could assess a good deliverable date after more than 10 years.
What were they thinking? Let's see, we missed the last million deliverable dates on all our other products due to not evaluating for enough time to complete the project, rather than actually giving us enough time to do this right, let's put it out on that premature date regardless of whether it's finished or not.
Seriously, can someone show these people how to timeline and test?
The reason they are suddenly changing their tune is because they believe that the industry may be switching to LIVE SERVICES. If your service (such as Excel Live) doesn't work in one browser because you chose not to follow industry standards, that will mean that people will use another service.
Microsoft is afraid of people trying others services so they will want to make sure that they build code that is interoperable with other browsers especially now that Firefox has anywhere from 10-25% of the market share.
Yes, and my mom has been saying for the longest time how she wants to operate a supercomputer. Several mom and pops can now own and operate super computers too.
Again, i think the original writer was correct. Supercomputers are for enterprises and government agencies. Even some medium size businesses would have a cluster. But they all have a fulltime sys admin. And if the extent of that sys admins abilities is just a MCSE cert, then god help your company when the latest exploit hits.
Also, keep in mind that if this is using a Windows interface (rather than a shell prompt), it is using easily 3X the resources that a Linux machine without X-windows installed would.
Finally, since when has a first version of of any Microsoft product worked great?? There is a reason why everyone waits til the third edition to really adopt a Microsoft product. But in this case, they are fighting an uphill battle against something that is more scalable, faster, more stable and cheaper by far. Plus it's been tested time and time again.
If Windows could handle the load (and if Microsoft was worth it's salt as an server OS), they would stop using Linux to do all their load bearing. The day Windows cluster appears in the top 10 supercomputers is the day George Bush comes out of the closet, marries Dick Cheney and decides to become an atheist.
Sorry but I've seen retards run businesses and manage to do well due to their support network around them. After all, how many rocket scientists have you seen go to business school in comparison to the number of frat boys?
I believe the frat boy to intellectual ratio to be rather high.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh surveys say alot about deployment?? Well in that case, according to Slashdot surveys, 95% of the world is running Linux!! Go back to third grade before you get hurt.
I thought they just threw chairs? No wait... that's management.
So go back to using Access, you no-wit.
I'm sorry but you seem to have mixed up a simple rating with most widely deployed. A RATING says NOTHING about deployment. It is merely someones arbitrary system of judging. I said it before and will say it again... let me know when you find a chart for deployment of DB's in enterprise level businesses.
When you can tell the difference between a rating system and actual deployment numbers, THAT will be a day of celebration for the halfwits.
yes. it's call up2date. duh.
Or YUM or YAST. Depending on your distro.
Let's also point out that most major Linux distros have faster patch cycles rather than a month (or two or three or more in Windows case)
Score another point for Linux. And at the buzzer it's Linux 3, Windows 0.
Doesn't cost a dime. In fact, I worked at a place thart got their software added by default on new DELL's and DELL paid THEM! In this instance, DELL would have to pay NO ONE and would thus save more money than they could even think of.
As far as their 'integrating it', they merely add it to the image that they burn onto new systems. TADA! Boy, that's hard work... mere minutes. That costs what, a couple thousand???
Actually, MySQL is #1 for being deployed on more servers than any other. No other stats are available as to who is more commonly used by enterprise customers. If you know of a recent study that says what database is used by more 'enterprise' level companies, please let me know.
Nope. MySQL passed Oracle ever so recently. SQL Server was passed a LONG time ago.
Naturally they are significantly lower. But even at $200 per new box, that is a major expense. Preloading Open Office is nothing. DELL should be offering that as a default and then Microsoft Office for the markup on new PC's.
King of the Desktop perhaps but not King of servers. Sure they show more REVENUE but as for deployment, Linux still dominates and has been squeezing Microsoft more and more out of server space. While Linux eats into UNIX market share, they also are eating into Windows market share as well.
Don't believe it? Look at what the most widely used Web server is. Look at what the most widely used DB is. look at the most popular scripting languages. And now keep in mind that they all come installed by default on almost all Linux distros.
They can keep putting money into trying to convince people that Microsoft Clusterfuck Edition can replace Linux clusters. That's cool. Just another money pit for them and a great way to divert resources into a nowhere scheme. And sure they have loads of funds but they still have to answer to shareholders and they are not pleased that the stock has stagnated for so long and they won't be pleased when didvidends stop getting payed and products not being sold or delivered on time do to them focusing on a product that will go nowhere.
The entire open source world and all companies supporting open source (IBM, Google, Sun, Amazon, etc.) are all starting a bait and switch where Microsoft throws mony into duplicating anything that it thinks may be a threat. This is turn causes them to waste funds and resources on red herrings when the actual threat is something else entirely.
These past 5 years have seen Linux and open source go from obscurity to mainstream in the business market. The next five years will see it go from obscurity to mainstream in the consumer market.
Yeah, they are stupid. But I have bills to pay. I suppose you are the one exception in the world that is able to tell CEO's how to run their company and they listen.
Can I come and live in your dream world too?
So fans at home keeping score may not find slanted stats and spurious findings useful and professionals will? Wow. It's amazing how using your logic, you can feed a line of shit to a professional but not to those 'fans at home'. No wonder Linux is kicking Windows ass. :)
Yes... because all those 386's that Amazon and IBM and other companies use are apparently housed in their parents basements? Fascinating logic if you can call it that.
I suppose those other NON-386 servers running Linux are also housed in CEO's parents basements as well, huh?
I dunno. I see changes in market share (as in total servers running said OS) as a fairer determination of changes in the industry. Sales mean nothing if you are removing the OS to install something else; they use this argument for desktop systems without Windows, so why is the reverse false?
Sales also mean nothing when the OS is free. This seems to be a rather arbitrary report meant to slant one sides findings. Naturally, it's in Microsofts favor. Go figure.
How the hell will they get complete and accurate figures for all the new servers that run Linux when the OS is free in most cases? And how many of those servers with Windows on them were immediately replaced with Linux? I have worked at many shops where we freely install Fedora or Mandrake on Servers including servers bought from DELL that come with Windows preinstalled.
I love when they quote these sales figures because they mean next to nothing compared to an OS that is free and when most major hardware vendors are just NOW getting on board with Linux and even then, just half heartedly.
Don't know what he is going to do for them. Have a friend that used to work for them and the new CRAY up here in Seattle is working on clustered super computers running Linux. Don't think that's going to translate.
You'd think that a multi-BILLION dollar company could assess a good deliverable date after more than 10 years.
What were they thinking? Let's see, we missed the last million deliverable dates on all our other products due to not evaluating for enough time to complete the project, rather than actually giving us enough time to do this right, let's put it out on that premature date regardless of whether it's finished or not.
Seriously, can someone show these people how to timeline and test?
well in order to corner the market on live service, they have to destroy their own business model. :)
It's like chopping off one foot to save the other.
The reason they are suddenly changing their tune is because they believe that the industry may be switching to LIVE SERVICES. If your service (such as Excel Live) doesn't work in one browser because you chose not to follow industry standards, that will mean that people will use another service.
Microsoft is afraid of people trying others services so they will want to make sure that they build code that is interoperable with other browsers especially now that Firefox has anywhere from 10-25% of the market share.
They can't afford to ignore other browsers now.
Yes, and my mom has been saying for the longest time how she wants to operate a supercomputer. Several mom and pops can now own and operate super computers too.
Again, i think the original writer was correct. Supercomputers are for enterprises and government agencies. Even some medium size businesses would have a cluster. But they all have a fulltime sys admin. And if the extent of that sys admins abilities is just a MCSE cert, then god help your company when the latest exploit hits.
Also, keep in mind that if this is using a Windows interface (rather than a shell prompt), it is using easily 3X the resources that a Linux machine without X-windows installed would.
Finally, since when has a first version of of any Microsoft product worked great?? There is a reason why everyone waits til the third edition to really adopt a Microsoft product. But in this case, they are fighting an uphill battle against something that is more scalable, faster, more stable and cheaper by far. Plus it's been tested time and time again.
If Windows could handle the load (and if Microsoft was worth it's salt as an server OS), they would stop using Linux to do all their load bearing. The day Windows cluster appears in the top 10 supercomputers is the day George Bush comes out of the closet, marries Dick Cheney and decides to become an atheist.
Also make it use less than 32MB of RAM; right now XP sucks about 128MB RAM just to run Windows.
LOL! Mod parent up!
So I can rebuild the Windows kernel??? I can rebuild IIS??? I can rebuild Office, SQL Server, and all the others? I'll believe this when I see it.
Sorry but I've seen retards run businesses and manage to do well due to their support network around them. After all, how many rocket scientists have you seen go to business school in comparison to the number of frat boys?
I believe the frat boy to intellectual ratio to be rather high.
I'm sorry you feel that way.