You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
The way they did it is by guaranteeing corporate support. If you're a giant corporation and you depend on your computer systems then there's literally no options. You pay Microsoft whatever they want. Because the only alternative is to use open source software which if it breaks for any reason, you are fully responsible. You can put as many layers of management between you and that decision as you want every time the system stops working there will be one fewer person between yourself and that mistake.
This isn't really accurate either. There's an overwhelming preference for linux in the server market, even though MS offers more support options.
If there was ever a smaller alternative company doing the same thing it wouldn't matter, the investors would always say "why didn't you go for Microsoft, obviously".
There is: Red Hat. They're pretty successful.
That's how Microsoft got ahead. If open source solutions ever scaled to suit corporations without breaking down because "blib-xyzlgbt.10076.xcc" suddenly needs "x11z7.bto" to be on the latest version then Microsoft would have a problem. But that has never happened.
Like I said, most important servers run linux, not windows. It's not even the cost: Compared to all the other overheads a windows licence isn't that much extra. Sysadmins prefer linux because it's typically more stable and more secure (or at least securable).
Where microsoft reigns supreme is the desktop market, especially government institutions. They spend good hard cash making sure that governments worldwide use their OS/office suite. That dominance is becoming irrelevant with the increasing importance of mobile and cloud apps though. Email transitioned to online interfaces a long time ago, and office software is getting there. Even high end computationally intensive software companies like autodesk are flirting with online-only software.
It's only a matter of time before it doesn't really matter what OS you run, you'll mostly have access to the same software. When that happens microsoft is doomed. Azure is their last hope.
It has been my experience that managing a server with nix is a nightmare. That's why I would always pay someone else to do it, but even when I do it still occasionally breaks down. Usually when it's upgraded.
Well, managing servers in general is a pain in the ass. I won't say linux makes it foolproof, just that the general trend (and the trend among sysadmins I know personally) is that they prefer it. Maybe it's just bias, but either way the server market is not the cornerstone of microsofts' dominance.
I was more talking about how Microsoft got ahead, at this point it's true almost all public facing servers are Linux. I would suggest almost all private or internal servers still are not though.
Friend of mine does server deployment for IBM, it's a mix depending on what the client wants, but he seems to mostly work on linux ones.
Ones that are Linux are far out of date because everyone's rightfully afraid to touch them.
That's also true, but again that's a general feature of critical infrastructure. For example, 747s still have their software upgraded by floppy disc, because it works and no one wants to risk switching to another format in case it doesn't work. Heck, back when the y2k bug happened a bunch of companies had to entice fortran programmers out of retirement because they were still running their code from back in the 60s.
If been hearing variations on this for 20 years.
Well, it's been happening for 20 years. Microsoft have at best plateaued, at worst they're in decline. Their major new product launches tend to go down like a lead balloon and their old products are mostly kept around for legacy reasons.
The only real success they've had breaking into a new market since windows/office is the xBox and the console market isn't exactly something that'll keep a corporate juggernaut afloat on it's own.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Broc_Lia ago
This isn't really accurate either. There's an overwhelming preference for linux in the server market, even though MS offers more support options.
There is: Red Hat. They're pretty successful.
Like I said, most important servers run linux, not windows. It's not even the cost: Compared to all the other overheads a windows licence isn't that much extra. Sysadmins prefer linux because it's typically more stable and more secure (or at least securable).
Where microsoft reigns supreme is the desktop market, especially government institutions. They spend good hard cash making sure that governments worldwide use their OS/office suite. That dominance is becoming irrelevant with the increasing importance of mobile and cloud apps though. Email transitioned to online interfaces a long time ago, and office software is getting there. Even high end computationally intensive software companies like autodesk are flirting with online-only software.
It's only a matter of time before it doesn't really matter what OS you run, you'll mostly have access to the same software. When that happens microsoft is doomed. Azure is their last hope.
[–] [deleted] ago (edited ago)
[–] Broc_Lia ago
Well, managing servers in general is a pain in the ass. I won't say linux makes it foolproof, just that the general trend (and the trend among sysadmins I know personally) is that they prefer it. Maybe it's just bias, but either way the server market is not the cornerstone of microsofts' dominance.
Friend of mine does server deployment for IBM, it's a mix depending on what the client wants, but he seems to mostly work on linux ones.
That's also true, but again that's a general feature of critical infrastructure. For example, 747s still have their software upgraded by floppy disc, because it works and no one wants to risk switching to another format in case it doesn't work. Heck, back when the y2k bug happened a bunch of companies had to entice fortran programmers out of retirement because they were still running their code from back in the 60s.
Well, it's been happening for 20 years. Microsoft have at best plateaued, at worst they're in decline. Their major new product launches tend to go down like a lead balloon and their old products are mostly kept around for legacy reasons.
The only real success they've had breaking into a new market since windows/office is the xBox and the console market isn't exactly something that'll keep a corporate juggernaut afloat on it's own.