Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Please compose all posts in Emacs.

Moderators: phlip, Moderators General, Prelates

kmatzen
Posts: 214
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:55 pm UTC
Location: Ithaca, NY

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby kmatzen » Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:45 pm UTC

hintss wrote:
kmatzen wrote:
webgiant wrote:
kmatzen wrote:
[Windows Server]
I don't think it needs to be rebooted often if configured properly. A lot of servers do run this and if they needed to be rebooted that often, then I don't think server farms would stick with them. There is lockin, but if a company is losing so much money from downtime, then they would probably migrate.

Why can't Microsoft port this "does not need frequent rebooting" property to it's regular Windows OS? Are they idiots or do they just hate the non-business users?


My Windows desktop downtime, for the most part, as been due to buggy drivers or applications produced by 3rd party vendors. I pretty rarely have to boot my Windows 7 desktop. When I do, it's usually after I install some driver for new hardware or if I installed some utility that didn't know how to play nice with the registry. If you have a production-grade server, then you probably will be more careful with what you install by first performing a test deployment. Plus, the hardware you use with a large deployment will probably be verified for compatibility and stability before you order 1000s of units for your data center.

so...you don't use windows...

anyway, windows should get a package manager made by microsoft. should get rid of the bajilllion updaters slowing windows down...


So, I wasn't careful and made a typing mistake.

User avatar
hintss
Posts: 1294
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:19 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby hintss » Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:08 am UTC

Thesh wrote:Well, it doesn't need to be a package manager like linux. An update manager with an API for applications to add themselves to would allow microsoft to ship it, but not maintain it. That way you can schedule all your updates to check at certain intervals so they all happen sequentially at a time of your choosing (e.g. wednesday morning at 2AM).

but then, you'd have apps not coming out of the system correctly, and such. Then you would have to check to see if the app is still installed.

They should replace the registry with .conf files

also, I live in Irvine, what city are you in?

kmatzen
Posts: 214
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:55 pm UTC
Location: Ithaca, NY

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby kmatzen » Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:04 am UTC

hintss wrote:They should replace the registry with .conf files


Do you mean abolish the registry entirely? It offers some nice things like atomic commits to prevent race conditions between two apps, but it comes into question why two apps should be modifying the same configuration. Windows does support configuration via ini files or whatever you want your program to use, I guess. The existence of it as a database rather than a set of flat files helps with performance a bit, but I think it's somewhat nice to have configuration files in the same folder as the application so that when you uninstall it, you can just look and be like, yep, the configurations are gone and not lingering in some massive tree that I may not otherwise know about.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6568
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby Thesh » Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:44 am UTC

hintss wrote:also, I live in Irvine, what city are you in?


Simi Valley.

The existence of it as a database rather than a set of flat files helps with performance a bit


Parsing a text config file takes milliseconds, and only needs to happen at program startup. You can protect against race conditions by simply locking the file for writing (which usually happens just by opening a file for writing).
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

kmatzen
Posts: 214
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:55 pm UTC
Location: Ithaca, NY

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby kmatzen » Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:21 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
The existence of it as a database rather than a set of flat files helps with performance a bit


Parsing a text config file takes milliseconds, and only needs to happen at program startup. You can protect against race conditions by simply locking the file for writing (which usually happens just by opening a file for writing).


Yeah, I guess with modern file systems, this isn't an issue anymore.

User avatar
Sc4Freak
Posts: 673
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:50 am UTC
Location: Redmond, Washington

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby Sc4Freak » Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:22 pm UTC

The registry is not quite ACID-compliant, but it's not that far off. The registry looks like it's ACI but not D - it's only as durable as the underlying filesystem it's sitting on. The registry doesn't do journaling or anything like that and relies on the filesystem to "do the right thing".

It doesn't matter so much these days because most modern filesystems support those features anyway. Even NTFS has Transactional NTFS which allows you to group a bunch of file operations into a single atomic transaction, meaning that configuration files can do the same thing as the registry. I believe .NET has moved away from the registry to store user data - by default in .NET to store application settings you use a standardised XML format with an easy API to access it. Doing it this way is also cross-platform.

kmatzen
Posts: 214
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:55 pm UTC
Location: Ithaca, NY

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby kmatzen » Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:34 am UTC

Sc4Freak wrote:I believe .NET has moved away from the registry to store user data - by default in .NET to store application settings you use a standardised XML format with an easy API to access it. Doing it this way is also cross-platform.


Right. They now have you use app.config files or web.config if it is an ASP.NET web app running in IIS. They also have a sense of inheritance. There is a top level config that everything inherits from and then they inherit on a directory hierarchy basis.

johnkeates
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:18 pm UTC

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby johnkeates » Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:43 pm UTC

Here is an answer and an opinion:

They have a server version because inadequate people apparently need to set-up servers too. Windows doesn't add anything to IT environment for experienced people with knowledge.
You can argue about examples of big companies using windows, but that doesn't change the facts about what someone with knowledge can do. For those big companies it's money that matters, and if they started out small, with windows,
they will continue to use windows because of the vendor lock-in. They can't go anywhere else, because they'd have to get rid of all the information stored up till now. There are ways to transfer/move/export, but there is no useful, fast, reliable way.
Windows isn't used for the technology, because there isn't anything in windows that you can't get anywhere else. It's always about the money, and quantity makes a product cheap. Windows isn't real quality, it's only quality to those who don't require much from their systems, because they are okay with the trouble, the resource management and the reboots, downtime and constant fear of something going wrong. (Those things are more like the problems as seen by the desktop users in the companies using windows server with windows clients - the system administrators have a different take on the whole thing, but hey, they just do what the big boss told them (Microsoft) and aren't responsible if it's not working)

Stuff like Active Directory (LDAP with extra's) and Filing services (Samba really isn't that efficient or fast) aren't that hard to configure on a different system. Exchange is a good concept, but it's way better implemented with DAV-based protocols, and maybe more imap-alike mailing systems. Microsoft's SMTP server is a bust, so let's not talk about that, we all know there are better things out there, but with Exchange you don't have a real choice. The deployment services aren't that special, and the update services are stupid as they are implemented right now. Most of the things done between Windows Clients and Windows Server like policies, remote application installations etcetera, are very easy to do on different systems. Most of the GUI-stuff done by the sysadmins on Windows Server systems are quite slow/lame and can de done way faster on a CLI shell, which Microsoft tries to implement with the PowerShell, which is too complex for beginners, and too limited for sysadmins who want to do everything from the CLI. The Windows Server version without a GUI sucks at best, because most of Windows's server software requires a GUI. Then there is no clean way for remote access, it's always KVM-like emulation, or some unsecured, slow, unsupported Telnet session.

It's something where specifically Linux rocks at, distributions like CentOS, Fedora, and Debian have everything without requiring to get software from a third-party. You just deploy your server system via PXE, have it pull a designated configuration from your configuration server, configure itself and once it's up, add itself to your favorite monitoring suite. It's something that's done fast, clean, and easy. You can mass-execute things from a cron server via SSH, so it's secure and centralized, but decentralized and fast at the same time. Now with windows you have the automated installation, and there is windows via PXE, but it's all a PITA, even with the recent tools won't work consistently.

D'oh, I lost what I was going to write about, I had it all in my head but in the middle of it I had a small moment a la genius, which I wanted to write up elsewhere and quickly implement to test it. Now, when I rember what I was going to write, I will edit this post ;) Anyway, how is it you guys see this server item?

Oh, a quick addition:
About the software-requires-windows riddle, you can run most .NET stuff on Linux, you can operate most Windows applications in combination with Unix and Linux servers, and, there is the other part where employees 'need windows': fist, the argument about windows at home was that you used it at work, so you bought whatever you used at work for home usage. Now it's the other way around? That's stupid! On the other hand, it's even more stupid to not have interchangeable IT infrastructure. Binding yourself to one system or one vendor is the worst thing possible, you need to have at least a plan B and plan C, with everything in it.. If you don't, you will run in to problems eventually and die a slow and painful death. (Like with Adaptec RAID arrays, if your controller dies, you are in TROUBLE - software raid isn't the solution, but RAID arrays with open recovery solutions is, that said, having a system that decides for you if your hardware still works or not, THAT is stupid.)

Alexander The 1st
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:47 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby Alexander The 1st » Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:42 pm UTC

johnkeates wrote:About the software-requires-windows riddle, you can run most .NET stuff on Linux, you can operate most Windows applications in combination with Unix and Linux servers, and, there is the other part where employees 'need windows': fist, the argument about windows at home was that you used it at work, so you bought whatever you used at work for home usage. Now it's the other way around? That's stupid


This is a strategy Apple tried with education first, but Windows got it right for consumers - the one's who could actually afford the computers were the ones with a job, and if businesses used Windows, it was sensible to get it. Plus, games got developed for it more consistently, with backwards compatibility since working adults would update their computer when their IT infrastructure, as then they knew it would be useful for them as well as their kids.

And now Apple realised that the strategy involved getting into consumers first [via business users who were used to it], they decided to go consumer with the iPhone/iPad, and watch IT be requested by business users as consumers to support it, much like how Windows desktops are locked in because business users as consumers wanted to use it at work and home, and integrate their knowledge of the UI they got at home.

It's not stupid; it's thinking ahead. Once you've got critical mass [see: Facebook], you can do whatever you want to a subset of your users [In Microsoft's case, IT businesses; for Facebook, users - as opposed to advertisers, or advertisers as opposed to users, depending on their preference], and they can't budge, because the larger majority of users will demand it gets used.
...YOU DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING...

User avatar
Mr. Burke
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:56 pm UTC

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby Mr. Burke » Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:49 pm UTC

johnkeates wrote:The Windows Server version without a GUI sucks at best, because most of Windows's server software requires a GUI. Then there is no clean way for remote access, it's always KVM-like emulation, or some unsecured, slow, unsupported Telnet session.

You realize of course that one usually administers Server Core installations with remote Management Console sessions? Then there's also the possibility of using starting cmd (and only cmd) as a RemoteApp, which gives you pretty much the same effect as an ssh session.

johnkeates
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:18 pm UTC

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby johnkeates » Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:11 am UTC

I just typed up a big post, but the forum software apparently isn't configured to allow people to type stuff so it lost my post and made me login again (which made me tired and mad so I'm going to sleep now).

What I was going to say is:

- Business and technology aren't the same
- Numbers are very good at displaying average things, not if something is actually any good
- Windows is average, because it's an all-round product, not really suited for anything
- Business isn't average, life isn't average, both require specifics, windows requires concessions if used in combination with either

- RemoteApp is the WORST way to do remote management - it's like: OS -- CMD -- RDP -- IPC -- RPC -- TCP -- RPC -- IPC -- RDPC -- OS and that versus: OS -- Shell -- SSH -- TCP -- SSH -- OS where SSH is actually secure, and most of microsoft's management protocols partially rely on SMB which even at this very minute is flawed in a very bad way (all windows smb servers are instantly DoS-able with 1 packet - it's not been patched for months), plus it's not very secure, unless Kerberos is used.

- RPC / named pipes via tcp isn't really the way to go, it's slow, insecure and doesn't allow for anything manual, which is required in dynamic environments
- Management console = GUI, meaning windows always requires a GUI for functionality. Most software running on a windows server also requires a GUI, even most Services (without visible GUIs) do. (dependency related)

User avatar
Sc4Freak
Posts: 673
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:50 am UTC
Location: Redmond, Washington

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby Sc4Freak » Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:44 am UTC

I'm not entirely sure why you'd consider using CMD in the first place. Powershell is available for Server Core and is a vastly more powerful command-line shell. It natively supports remoting, negating the need for ssh or RemoteApp.

And there isn't anything particularly wrong with a GUI. It's there if you choose to use it. If not, everything is accessible through the command-line if you prefer that (or if you need to automate tasks).

- RemoteApp is the WORST way to do remote management - it's like: OS -- CMD -- RDP -- IPC -- RPC -- TCP -- RPC -- IPC -- RDPC -- OS and that versus: OS -- Shell -- SSH -- TCP -- SSH -- OS where SSH is actually secure, and most of microsoft's management protocols partially rely on SMB which even at this very minute is flawed in a very bad way (all windows smb servers are instantly DoS-able with 1 packet - it's not been patched for months), plus it's not very secure, unless Kerberos is used.


Source? I'm not aware of any current zero-day vulnerabilities for Windows Server (2008 and 2008 R2, don't know about earlier version though).

johnkeates
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:18 pm UTC

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby johnkeates » Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:15 am UTC

Well, I can't remember the exact problem because at most of my managed companies and data centers I only use Linux and Unix for outside-facing systems, (it's a configuration where a gateway wouldn't suffice) and only some back-end servers with software required by clients requiring windows are stull running the server OS, so I don't really worry about windows related things anymore. Last time I checked it had something to do with KB942624, which was supposed to fix something (a remote code execution exploit) but instead introduced a DoS attack vector. Now, I might be wrong, because I don't remember that having anything to do with the SMB2 vulnerability, so it could have been a patch that was produced later on (around august) but like I said before, windows servers are now handled as black boxes, with permanent deny-all rules and only very small whitelists for required services.

User avatar
hintss
Posts: 1294
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:19 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby hintss » Fri Dec 03, 2010 4:12 am UTC

last I checked, apple fell out of preference when a rumor started that the company was going to die, so no one bought the computers, causing sales to go way down...

johnkeates
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:18 pm UTC

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby johnkeates » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:12 pm UTC

hintss wrote:last I checked, apple fell out of preference when a rumor started that the company was going to die, so no one bought the computers, causing sales to go way down...

Last time I checked, buying a computer from company that is worth more than the biggest software manufacturer (Microsoft being the software guys and Apple being bigger than Microsoft - it's true, check the monetary stats) isn't a bad thing to do.

You might of course be trying to express your favor for a different system, or your hate towards a specific brand, but that really doesn't have anything to do with what you've posted.

User avatar
Sc4Freak
Posts: 673
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:50 am UTC
Location: Redmond, Washington

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby Sc4Freak » Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:39 pm UTC

A company's market capitalisation is the sum value of all outstanding shares, and has nothing to do with a "worth" or "size" of a company. Business valuation needs to take into account assets, cashflows, goodwill, etc. Share price doesn't factor into it.

Besides, there was a long period of time where Apple was on the brink of bankruptcy. It's only recently that Apple started to become successful.

johnkeates
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:18 pm UTC

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby johnkeates » Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:23 pm UTC

Sc4Freak wrote:A company's market capitalisation is the sum value of all outstanding shares, and has nothing to do with a "worth" or "size" of a company. Business valuation needs to take into account assets, cashflows, goodwill, etc. Share price doesn't factor into it.

Besides, there was a long period of time where Apple was on the brink of bankruptcy. It's only recently that Apple started to become successful.


Sure, but there was a time when Microsoft didn't exist and Apple did, so if history is a factor, than that has to count as well. Just like the time before Windows and MS-DOS (taking PC-DOS out of the picture), Microsoft just made software, but Apple was making Operating System software, so there you go, history all the way.

And yes, there was a period where Apple sucked really bad at EVERYTHING, and they almost 'died' and Microsoft had to save them, together with NeXT's technology and Steve Jobs's ego, but then again, history.

Now I'm not saying Apple is the winner, or that Microsoft sucks, or that one Operating System is better in an absolute sense, but the things I've posted so far (after lurking for some time) are all from a technological perspective, with servers in mind, and people with real knowledge (so not the kind of knowledge you get by reading some books, getting a Microsoft certificate and doing what you're told for the rest of your life), the knowledge to do and make whatever you want with whatever technology is at hand. Apple doesn't automatically win, but neither does Microsoft. Mac OS X is nice for the Unix/BSD part, Windows is fine for GUI-only people. But technology isn't quantity over quality, and that's what Windows software is: quantity over quality. From a business perspective, that's very good. That's the only perspective where it's good.

User avatar
hintss
Posts: 1294
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:19 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby hintss » Sun Dec 05, 2010 4:34 am UTC

johnkeates wrote:
Sc4Freak wrote:A company's market capitalisation is the sum value of all outstanding shares, and has nothing to do with a "worth" or "size" of a company. Business valuation needs to take into account assets, cashflows, goodwill, etc. Share price doesn't factor into it.

Besides, there was a long period of time where Apple was on the brink of bankruptcy. It's only recently that Apple started to become successful.


Sure, but there was a time when Microsoft didn't exist and Apple did, so if history is a factor, than that has to count as well. Just like the time before Windows and MS-DOS (taking PC-DOS out of the picture), Microsoft just made software, but Apple was making Operating System software, so there you go, history all the way.

And yes, there was a period where Apple sucked really bad at EVERYTHING, and they almost 'died' and Microsoft had to save them, together with NeXT's technology and Steve Jobs's ego, but then again, history.

Now I'm not saying Apple is the winner, or that Microsoft sucks, or that one Operating System is better in an absolute sense, but the things I've posted so far (after lurking for some time) are all from a technological perspective, with servers in mind, and people with real knowledge (so not the kind of knowledge you get by reading some books, getting a Microsoft certificate and doing what you're told for the rest of your life), the knowledge to do and make whatever you want with whatever technology is at hand. Apple doesn't automatically win, but neither does Microsoft. Mac OS X is nice for the Unix/BSD part, Windows is fine for GUI-only people. But technology isn't quantity over quality, and that's what Windows software is: quantity over quality. From a business perspective, that's very good. That's the only perspective where it's good.

erm, what I said about the bad rumor about apple was from what I remembered from reading Steve Wozniak's book. as a somewhat funny sidenote: Steve Wozniak's solution to iPhone multitasking and battery life: carry 2 iPhones. (this was before 3GS and 4.0 and all the newer iPhone related stuff)

User avatar
brandtsound
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:26 pm UTC
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby brandtsound » Tue Aug 02, 2011 6:29 am UTC

johnkeates wrote: ... And yes, there was a period where Apple sucked really bad at EVERYTHING, and they almost 'died' and Microsoft had to save them, together with NeXT's technology and Steve Jobs's ego, but then again, history.

Now I'm not saying Apple is the winner, or that Microsoft sucks, or that one Operating System is better in an absolute sense, but the things I've posted so far (after lurking for some time) are all from a technological perspective, with servers in mind, and people with real knowledge (so not the kind of knowledge you get by reading some books, getting a Microsoft certificate and doing what you're told for the rest of your life), the knowledge to do and make whatever you want with whatever technology is at hand. Apple doesn't automatically win, but neither does Microsoft. Mac OS X is nice for the Unix/BSD part, Windows is fine for GUI-only people. But technology isn't quantity over quality, and that's what Windows software is: quantity over quality. From a business perspective, that's very good. That's the only perspective where it's good.


Apple also makes servers- I get (have to?) play with them every day at work ~ but they are mostly just a nice GUI built on a UNIX server system (hmm.. very similar to OS X).

Not to turn this into an OS X vs Windows vs Unix/Linux/(pick a flavor) debate, but what I see as a big point in the debate is that: Windows is good if you want something to run on whatever you put together if you aren't all that Command prompt savy, Apple is good if you want a computer put together for you that will just work with less control over hardware/software variables (an advantage apple has always had because they design & build the hardware), Linux is good if you want control over all of the variables. It works the same in servers- a Linux server will provide a high level of customization with the highest learning curve: apple & microsoft have very GUI-oriented servers (which sometimes do very weird things).

I have also used Windows Servers, but that was in the Win 2k Server days and those were rather frustrating!

Overall, a nice mix of all 3 (or "X" since there are unlimited numbers of Linux flavors) would be good for overall internet success- diversity on the net means a more stable environment that a single worm/virus/trojan can't wreck as much havoc in.
~ brandtsound, inc. ~

Deviltry
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 10:55 pm UTC

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby Deviltry » Sun Aug 07, 2011 8:28 pm UTC

archeleus wrote:(Do not consider this a Unix vs Windows flame thread)

Since most (if not all) servers are running nix based operating systems, what does Microsoft have to gain by continuing the releases of its server versions of windows? After all it is expensive, needs to be rebooted often and way less secure than any nix distribution.

Thoughts?

Way less secure? Hmm, ISS7 is way less secure then Apache? Right.

OT: not every server does primitive stuff like serving web pages. For instance big and wealthy corporations need serious stuff - like Exchange server. Name at least one half decent open source Exchange replacement - booo yeah, that's why Microsoft servers prospect.

Also, having one platform for everything is just... unspeakably nice. C# and .NET on desktop applications, on Windows Phones and on the Web. Heck, even a xBox 360 in the lounge room. Ofcourse you, dear Linux zealot, will never ever understand this, because even the BASE system is fragmented - random packages (that's why I like FreeBSD - base system is from FreeBSD, not from random packages...).

johnkeates
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:18 pm UTC

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby johnkeates » Sun Aug 07, 2011 9:01 pm UTC

Deviltry wrote:
archeleus wrote:(Do not consider this a Unix vs Windows flame thread)

Since most (if not all) servers are running nix based operating systems, what does Microsoft have to gain by continuing the releases of its server versions of windows? After all it is expensive, needs to be rebooted often and way less secure than any nix distribution.

Thoughts?

Way less secure? Hmm, ISS7 is way less secure then Apache? Right.

OT: not every server does primitive stuff like serving web pages. For instance big and wealthy corporations need serious stuff - like Exchange server. Name at least one half decent open source Exchange replacement - booo yeah, that's why Microsoft servers prospect.

Also, having one platform for everything is just... unspeakably nice. C# and .NET on desktop applications, on Windows Phones and on the Web. Heck, even a xBox 360 in the lounge room. Ofcourse you, dear Linux zealot, will never ever understand this, because even the BASE system is fragmented - random packages (that's why I like FreeBSD - base system is from FreeBSD, not from random packages...).


Is google running Windows? No. Is, for example the London Exchange using Windows? No. Is Shell running Windows? No. Is over 90% of the supercomputers in the world running Windows? No.

Just screaming that Windows is better/faster/more secure/easier/more widely deployed is plainly STUPID. Why? Because no single piece of software can do it all.
Sure, for the .Net cheapos, it's nice to be able to run on desktops, servers, mobile devices and gaming consoles (be honest, you'll need XNA to do usefull things on ALL of those devices), but if you widen your perspective, you see that .Net software will run on the Mono CLR, most of the time that is, and C runs on EVERYTHING. Then, there is Linux (the kernel) and the GNU userland software. Sure, you can do the RedHat thingy and have 1000 of vendors serving you little bits and pieces (well, it's not like Microsoft has one guy coding ALL the software, right? Think about that for a second...), or run a fancy SuSE setup, but if you, for example, run Debian or CentOS, you'll see that there are vendors who'll get you ALL of it, using ONE place to get your software. That's something that is not even remotely possible with Microsoft's operating system or software.

To put your device-rage in to a bit of perspective: Linux runs on everything where windows could run, but Linux also runs on everything where windows cannot. (A list, if you need one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_supported_architectures) So no more 'but .NET / Microsoft / Windows runs everywhere!' for you.

When it comes to webservers, the security depends on the people configuring the servers. (Well, security depends on that in ANY case)
If I configure a Linux box, Unix box or Windows system, it is secure. If I give any software/hardware combination to a random retard with the 'I know about computers' line coming out if his mouth, it doesn't matter how/what/when/where, but the system will be insecure.

It is easy to exploit IIS7 (you meant that, right? Or did you mean International Space Station 7), because it contains the same bugs as other Microsoft software, because of the large shared codebase in many components.
It is easy to exploit Apache, because you can put on your reading glasses and read all the code to search for bugs.

If you are smart enough, you shouldn't really care, because you'd be able to use ANY system to do ANYthing. If one were to state that one operating system can do something that another operating system cannot do, it is a lie. It's never the product, but always the people using (or in case of closed source) or creating the software. Choosing software with limits that makes something that needed to be done impossible, would be one's own fault, since the limits can probably not be overcome if the source is not available.


Oh, and don't cry if you misread my text and think it's contradicting itself. It's not.

User avatar
cjmcjmcjmcjm
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:15 am UTC
Location: Anywhere the internet is strong

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby cjmcjmcjmcjm » Mon Aug 08, 2011 4:55 am UTC

Exchange servers, eh? Aren't those the thing you use to get everyone's e-mail in your uni to be auto-suggested on you iPod?
frezik wrote:Anti-photons move at the speed of dark

DemonDeluxe wrote:Paying to have laws written that allow you to do what you want, is a lot cheaper than paying off the judge every time you want to get away with something shady.

drewder
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:47 am UTC

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby drewder » Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:17 am UTC

johnkeates wrote:
Sure, but there was a time when Microsoft didn't exist and Apple did, so if history is a factor, than that has to count as well. Just like the time before Windows and MS-DOS (taking PC-DOS out of the picture), Microsoft just made software, but Apple was making Operating System software, so there you go, history all the way.

I think you need to review your history. Microsoft is older than apple.

johnkeates
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:18 pm UTC

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby johnkeates » Sat Oct 22, 2011 2:52 pm UTC

drewder wrote:
johnkeates wrote:
Sure, but there was a time when Microsoft didn't exist and Apple did, so if history is a factor, than that has to count as well. Just like the time before Windows and MS-DOS (taking PC-DOS out of the picture), Microsoft just made software, but Apple was making Operating System software, so there you go, history all the way.

I think you need to review your history. Microsoft is older than apple.


Since (this is a guess) you probably CAN read (but just didn't), read this:

Operating Systems (i.e. Mac OS and Windows) on the timeline of history:

Mac OS (1984) and then Windows (1985). So in 1984, in the market for GUI Operating System Software did NOT contain Windows and DID contain Mac OS. So, that was the time where Windows/MS did not even exist in that market.

Anonymously Famous
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:01 am UTC

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby Anonymously Famous » Sat Oct 22, 2011 3:59 pm UTC

Actually, the Apple Lisa was the first with a GUI, and it came out in 1983, before Windows, "a graphical extension for MS-DOS," which was released in November of '85

But "Microsoft entered the OS business in 1980 with its own version of Unix, called Xenix," so it was into Operating System software before that (a flavor of Unix to boot, too! I didn't know that before). MS Dos was initially released in 1981.

But Apple's Apple II, their first "all-in-one" computer, came out in 1977. Sure, it didn't have a GUI, but it ran Basic, and had a spreadsheet program that could run on it.

But Paul Alan and Bill Gates made an Altair simulator and a Basic interpreter for the Altair months before forming Microsoft in 1975. They were founded 3 days short of a year before Apple as a company.

(All of this information came from the Wiki entries for Microsoft, Apple Inc., and Apple II)

So yes, Apple had the first computer with a GUI, but Microsoft wasn't too far behind. Microsoft was making Basic interpreters before Apple was even a company, though, and that's pretty much what the first Apple computers could do, run Basic. In fact, the Apple II plus, released in June 1979, ran a version of Basic authored by Microsoft.

So who came first? Microsoft as a company. Microsoft as a software developer. Microsoft as an OS developer. Apple as a company with an OS with a GUI interface. Microsoft as a company with an affordable OS with a GUI interface (The Apple Lisa was prohibitively expensive for many. The Macintosh, released in early 1984, was also pretty expensive). Apple as hardware manufacturer (I don't believe Microsoft does anything hardware except for the X-Box).

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby EvanED » Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:30 am UTC

johnkeates wrote:
drewder wrote:
johnkeates wrote:
Sure, but there was a time when Microsoft didn't exist and Apple did, so if history is a factor, than that has to count as well. Just like the time before Windows and MS-DOS (taking PC-DOS out of the picture), Microsoft just made software, but Apple was making Operating System software, so there you go, history all the way.

I think you need to review your history. Microsoft is older than apple.


Since (this is a guess) you probably CAN read (but just didn't)


For someone berating someone else for not reading, you are certainly unfamiliar with what your own post says. I've bolded the relevant part for you.

Anonymously Famous wrote:Apple as hardware manufacturer (I don't believe Microsoft does anything hardware except for the X-Box).

MS does peripherals; e.g. they make what is unquestionably my favorite keyboard. (I know they were making joysticks like the Sidewinder by the mid-90s.)

Anonymously Famous
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:01 am UTC

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby Anonymously Famous » Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:32 pm UTC

EvanED wrote:
Anonymously Famous wrote:Apple as hardware manufacturer (I don't believe Microsoft does anything hardware except for the X-Box).

MS does peripherals; e.g. they make what is unquestionably my favorite keyboard. (I know they were making joysticks like the Sidewinder by the mid-90s.)

Yeah, my wife mentioned a Microsoft mouse that we own sometime after I'd posted. Do you know if they make them, or do they just allow other companies to brand them with the Microsoft name?

johnkeates
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:18 pm UTC

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby johnkeates » Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:50 pm UTC

Why did you quote me on the 'not reading' part? He was not reading and I was, right?

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby EvanED » Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:41 pm UTC

Anonymously Famous wrote:Yeah, my wife mentioned a Microsoft mouse that we own sometime after I'd posted. Do you know if they make them, or do they just allow other companies to brand them with the Microsoft name?


I don't know, sorry.

johnkeates wrote:Why did you quote me on the 'not reading' part? He was not reading and I was, right?

No, you weren't reading, and apparently still aren't.

There was a discussion about the companies' capitializations and how Apple was almost dead at one point, then:

You said: "there was a time when Microsoft didn't exist and Apple did"
drewer said: No, Microsoft was around first.

Then you accused him of not reading. For some reason.

johnkeates
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:18 pm UTC

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby johnkeates » Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:52 pm UTC

EvanED wrote:
Anonymously Famous wrote:Yeah, my wife mentioned a Microsoft mouse that we own sometime after I'd posted. Do you know if they make them, or do they just allow other companies to brand them with the Microsoft name?


I don't know, sorry.

johnkeates wrote:Why did you quote me on the 'not reading' part? He was not reading and I was, right?

No, you weren't reading, and apparently still aren't.

There was a discussion about the companies' capitializations and how Apple was almost dead at one point, then:

You said: "there was a time when Microsoft didn't exist and Apple did"
drewer said: No, Microsoft was around first.

Then you accused him of not reading. For some reason.



The HID hardware is Microsoft's own, so they do manufacture hardware, just not computers.

I accused him of not reading, and now I am accusing you of the same, since my point was about Apple being there with a GUI OS, and Microsoft not.

User avatar
Emu*
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:47 am UTC
Location: Cardiff, UK
Contact:

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby Emu* » Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:37 pm UTC

Anonymously Famous wrote:(I don't believe Microsoft does anything hardware except for the X-Box).


if I remember correctly, the xbox is almost entirely a Foxconn product.
Cosmologicon wrote:Emu* implemented a naive east-first strategy and ran it for an hour, producing results that rivaled many sophisticated strategies, visiting 614 cells. For this, Emu* is awarded Best Deterministic Algorithm!

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby EvanED » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:35 am UTC

johnkeates wrote:I accused him of not reading, and now I am accusing you of the same, since my point was about Apple being there with a GUI OS, and Microsoft not.

That part of the discussion started with mention of about companies turning away from Apple because they were fearing it would go under, and turned to a mention of a comparison of the size of Apple and MS.

Note that it was not a discussion of the worth of the product lines or anything like that, it was a discussion about the companies. Now, it would not have been hard to steer the discussion in that direction -- but that's not what you did. (Or at least, that's what you did very poorly.)

A discussion of the times each company was founded made sense and was reasonably relevant at the time, and that's what you posted. And you got it wrong.

johnkeates
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:18 pm UTC

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby johnkeates » Mon Oct 24, 2011 3:52 pm UTC

EvanED wrote:
johnkeates wrote:I accused him of not reading, and now I am accusing you of the same, since my point was about Apple being there with a GUI OS, and Microsoft not.

That part of the discussion started with mention of about companies turning away from Apple because they were fearing it would go under, and turned to a mention of a comparison of the size of Apple and MS.

Note that it was not a discussion of the worth of the product lines or anything like that, it was a discussion about the companies. Now, it would not have been hard to steer the discussion in that direction -- but that's not what you did. (Or at least, that's what you did very poorly.)

A discussion of the times each company was founded made sense and was reasonably relevant at the time, and that's what you posted. And you got it wrong.


Of course you can have your own interpretation of what I wrote, or for that matter, what the world is like. Good for you.

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby EvanED » Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:09 pm UTC

johnkeates wrote:Of course you can have your own interpretation of what I wrote, or for that matter, what the world is like. Good for you.

True, I interpreted the thread, but "there was a time when Microsoft didn't exist and Apple did" leaves little to interpretation. You might have intended to talk about Windows vs Macs, or OS software, or whatever, but you didn't.

Anyway, I'm probably done with this.

tyboy
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:56 am UTC

Re: Why does Microsoft have a server edition of windows?

Postby tyboy » Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:49 am UTC

Emu* wrote:
Anonymously Famous wrote:(I don't believe Microsoft does anything hardware except for the X-Box).


if I remember correctly, the xbox is almost entirely a Foxconn product.


Really though... what isn't?

I'm sure someone is subcontracting the manufacturing, but the mice have mostly been uniquely designed for quite a while. They are selling a rebranded version of some Razr products these days.


Return to “Religious Wars”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests