 |
 |
| ActiveWin | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Network |
|
ActiveMac |
|
ActiveWin |
|
ActiveXbox |
|
DirectX |
|
Downloads |
|
FAQs |
|
Interviews |
|
MS Games & Hardware |
|
Reviews |
|
Rocky Bytes |
|
Support Center |
|
TopTechTips |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows XP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
Apple/Mac |
|
Xbox/Xbox 360 |
|
News Search |
|
XML/RSS Newsfeeds |
|
Pocket PC Site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows XP |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Windows 8 |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox 360 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Xbox/Games |
|
Fable 2 |
|
|
|
Applications |
|
Windows Server 2008 R2 |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Adobe CS5 Master Collection |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Microsoft Express Mouse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Interviews |
|
Mike Swanson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Advertise |
|
Affiliates |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
 |
How Linux lost the battle for your desktop | |
|
||
| Time: 05:38 EST/10:38 GMT | News Source: *Linked Within Post* | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
This may seem like a weird time to go to Wall Street to announce a new operating system, but that's what Microsoft did Monday. At a technology conference in New York, the software vendor formally detailed its Windows HPC Server 2008 software, a high-performance computing version of Windows offering some features that may appeal to bailout-seeking financial services firms. First, the new release -- the successor to Microsoft's Windows Compute Cluster Server 2003 technology -- will do far less damage to corporate bottom lines than bad subprime mortgages have inflicted. HPC Server 2008, which can scale from two to 2,000 or more server nodes, costs $475 per node, with each consisting of between one and four processor sockets. |
||
|
Read Only Comments Return to News |
Displaying Comments 1 through 21 of 21 |
This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com. |
| #1 By 3653 (65.80.181.153) at Thursday, September 25, 2008 06:25:07 AM |
|
Redefining victory... isn't the same as winning.
And sorry, but it takes a special kind of idiot (even beyond the usual opensource brand of idiot) to get excited by a victory where the OS is limited to ATM machines, routers, and traffic lights. B O R I N G. |
| #2 By 54556 (67.131.75.22) at Thursday, September 25, 2008 08:19:54 AM |
| "ATM machines, routers, and traffic lights" Lets see, we talking about devices that affect public safety and finances. Yep, sounds boring. Lets talk about grandma sending email instead! |
| #3 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Thursday, September 25, 2008 08:42:53 AM |
| #1: It's hilarious statements like that that give one the impression you haven't a clue. FOSS is currently in every data centre, in every server room, of every major company & government in the world. |
| #4 By 92283 (70.66.78.103) at Thursday, September 25, 2008 01:50:32 PM |
|
"FOSS is currently in every data centre, in every server room, of every major company & government in the world. "
Yup. But just because it is on a lot of cell phones on the belts of the techs doesn't mean it is actually running on any servers in those rooms. |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Thursday, September 25, 2008 02:10:35 PM |
|
#4: You also show your ignorance when you say silly things like that. Here, have a read. I think this article definitely applies to you:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080924-does-ideology-trump-facts-studies-say-it-often-does.html |
| #6 By 92283 (70.66.78.103) at Thursday, September 25, 2008 02:34:13 PM |
| #5 Nice try. But you never offer any facts. FAIL. |
| #7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Thursday, September 25, 2008 02:49:13 PM |
|
#6: Sure, I'll furnish all the proof you want, just as soon as you supply the proof that Linux is only on IT tech's cellphones.
|
| #8 By 141874 (71.58.225.185) at Thursday, September 25, 2008 05:00:40 PM |
| I have a Linux powered toilet seat. So innovative! |
| #9 By 92283 (70.66.78.103) at Thursday, September 25, 2008 05:27:23 PM |
|
#7 " ... only on ..."
When did I say "only on". You have a reading comprehension problem. I said "...doesn't mean it is actually running on any servers in those rooms". Prove that Linux is in every server room of consequence. |
| #10 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at Thursday, September 25, 2008 07:01:23 PM |
|
We are a Fortune 500 company and have no Linux servers - only Unix and Windows Servers. This post was edited by rxcall on Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 19:01. |
| #11 By 23275 (71.91.9.16) at Thursday, September 25, 2008 08:43:25 PM |
|
We ran many different distros (but mostly RH AS) for customers whose dev teams were more familiar with Java RMI, Oracle, and Apache/Tomcat than they were .NET
We ran all of it from the command line for them for many years and their applications were frankly amazing - in some cases, stunningly brilliant. Regardless, it was agony for them, us and their shareholders (of which I was one). Candidly their devs would state that they wish that they had time to learn .NET and how to develop for it. Their applications, despite what they were capable of, were terribly slow and costly to build, deploy and sustain. Their company is no more and the servers, most of which I owned and provided them, now run W2K3 R2. Other customers we have had "were" running one distro or another of Linux. They left that *nix platform for W2K3 - not at our recommendation - we were engaged AFTER their decision to move in most cases. In one specific case, we converted an ad agency from *nix, OS X to Windows client and server. While we're a tiny example, I can say that I have never seen a company go from Windows to Linux, or from .NET to another dev platform. |
| #12 By 92283 (70.66.78.103) at Thursday, September 25, 2008 09:03:15 PM |
|
We have a couple hundred servers (small I know).
3 OpenVMS, 1 Tru64 Unix (about to be replaced by a Windows version) and the rest Windows. |
| #13 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Friday, September 26, 2008 08:38:46 AM |
|
#9: When did I say "only on". You have a reading comprehension problem.
You clearly implied Linux was only on some of their cellphones and not in the data centre as a server. Prove that Linux is in every server room of consequence. If it was even possible, why would I do such a thing? Besides, I don't have time for that now. I'm too busy reading up on how MS yet again has failed to furnish any meaningful documentation, despite their constant claims of their desire for interoperability: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080925-judge-microsoft-documentation-unfit-for-us-consumption.html http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2538179220080925 I love the quote form Groklaw's PJ: "I doubt it means much, I'm afraid. I've heard this before, for years." |
| #14 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at Friday, September 26, 2008 08:42:32 AM |
| #13: Nice topic hijack! |
| #15 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Friday, September 26, 2008 09:12:36 AM |
| #14: It wasn't really going anywhere anyway. Mystic Sentinel was right; once parkkker gets involved in a thread, it's essentially dead due to the influx of nonsense. |
| #16 By 92283 (142.32.208.234) at Friday, September 26, 2008 12:01:17 PM |
|
"You clearly implied Linux was only on some of their cellphones and not in the data centre as a server. "
No. I said that. I was very clear. Linux is NOT in every server room of consequence. It might be in some. Most likely in a position of replacing an old Unix box. You FAILED and BAILED. |
| #17 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Friday, September 26, 2008 12:24:12 PM |
| #16: I said FOSS, not Linux. And it may very well be in every major data centre in the world. How do you know it isn't? Funny how you're not quite so picky with statements made by others, such as mini-moore claiming Linux is only good for ATMs, traffic lights etc. Where were your manufactured outrage and your schoolboy-esque, unoriginal FAIL statements then? |
| #18 By 23275 (71.91.9.16) at Friday, September 26, 2008 02:04:00 PM |
|
is FOSS really in anything? I mean absent a commercial activity, which might use FOSS under the GPL in some way, but is it really FOSS? I submit it isn't and in so stating, suggest that in many cases, FOSS DOES have real value - but again, only when exercised by a commercial activity that builds on it and services a closed commercial product. It is highly improbable that "FOSS" in any pure sense of what that is held out to mean, exists in any datacenter, or even small equipment rooms. Linux distro's do in much rarer cases than I would have expected, but packaged by commercial enterprises (RH, Suse, etc..). Even these aren't as "open" as some would suggest and they are delivered in ways that are every bit as closed as other commercial products (Microsoft).
So what really is the fuss about? In the case I listed above, the dev team really drove what the company used as its platform. The risks associated with that were clearly defined in their articles and company documents. Their products were great, but cost far too much to scale, or modify and in the end, they could not turn inside the market. It comes down to the strengths in a platform as they align with business and operational needs and objectively, Microsoft has a more powerful platform that is in the end cheaper to operate and scale/grow from. I've done it both ways and supported both ways and where it matters to this thread, FOSS doesn't work for as many businesses - if it did, they would use it and the market would reflect that. Artificially constraining Microsoft isn't the answer either. |
| #19 By 92283 (142.32.208.234) at Friday, September 26, 2008 02:13:17 PM |
| #17 Just another BAIL by Latch on one of his usual unsupported piece of garbage statements. |
| #20 By 15406 (99.224.104.110) at Saturday, September 27, 2008 06:30:05 PM |
|
#18: I'm not sure I understood what you were getting at, but this comment today was enlightening:
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/151568/ballmer_still_searching_for_an_answer_to_google.html 'Microsoft does "very well on balance" when it comes to software developers, he said. But the company has two areas of weakness, according to Ballmer: high-performance and technical computing -- which is important to Microsoft because "there are 5 million engineers and they use a lot of compute power" -- and in Web server applications, where it is losing out to Linux and PHP. "Forty percent of servers run Windows, 60 percent run Linux," he said. "How are we doing? Forty is less than 60, so I don't like it. ... We have some work to do."' |
| #21 By 92283 (70.66.78.103) at Tuesday, September 30, 2008 10:15:48 PM |
|
The 60/40 split for Apache is well understood. Most domains running Apache are parked domains. Its an illusion.
When one hosting company switched their parked domains from Apache to IIS, "Microsoft gains 4.7 percent share while Apache loses 5.9 percent." http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2006/04/06/april_2006_web_server_survey.html I think we can infer that 80% or more of Apaches domains are parked domain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_parking |
