Why aren't people developing for Windows Server more?
I know it sounds like a crazy question to ask, but why aren't people developing for Windows Server as much as they use to. It is cheaper to license per physical server or vm compared to RHEL, OEL, and SUSE enterprise, and it is easier to manage.
4 comments
It's 3am and I've been woken up to deal with a production problem of reasonable seriousness. After login, I'm assaulted with the appstore's recommendations for things like sports news and various games they think I want to know about.
At the time, I couldn't imagine how anyone thought that putting this sort of thing onto their flagship server OS was a good idea.
I realized about then that Windows was lost, MS didn't have the desire to promote it, and it became clear that their only real play was Azure and spyware.
At the time, I couldn't imagine how anyone thought that putting this sort of thing onto their flagship server OS was a good idea.
I realized about then that Windows was lost, MS didn't have the desire to promote it, and it became clear that their only real play was Azure and spyware.
OEL is free, and Windows is most definitely not easier to manage than Linux.
I beg to differ. Oel is oracle, so that's bad news. As for the mgmt, if you already have windows servers, you're probably using system Center. Adding an extra box to that is easier than adding a single Linux box. As for why, I would guess that 99% of apps now are web based. The company I work for build web apps and, yes, we have windows services that run on windows boxes. Most things have moved into iis though...
> Oel is oracle, so that's bad news.
Sure, but it is still free, and even if you wanted to avoid them, you could go with Alma or Rocky, or even Ubuntu Server, all of which are also free.
> Adding an extra box to that is easier than adding a single Linux box.
Sure, managing both Windows and Linux servers is more difficult than managing just one OS is. That doesn't make Windows easier to manage than Linux, though.
Sure, but it is still free, and even if you wanted to avoid them, you could go with Alma or Rocky, or even Ubuntu Server, all of which are also free.
> Adding an extra box to that is easier than adding a single Linux box.
Sure, managing both Windows and Linux servers is more difficult than managing just one OS is. That doesn't make Windows easier to manage than Linux, though.