__/ [ wd ] on Sunday 21 May 2006 20:24 \__
> On Sun, 21 May 2006 19:39:06 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> __/ [ wd ] on Sunday 21 May 2006 17:53 \__
>
>>> Pay web hosts to use Windows?
>>
>> Yes, it's true. Rewards for migration to IIS. After all, Apache is better
>> *and* free, so why change? It allows them to change their sales pitch.
>> Ironically, both Ballmer and the head of the servers team at Microsoft
>> have confirmed that Open Source is ahead in the server room. They admitted
>> the truth. Then came some clueless guy FUD'ing it on BBC World, only one
>> week later.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Roy
>>
>> PS - If you need references, just ask.
>
>
> I believe you. If you have a link handy about the rewards that MS pays to
> hosting companies, I would be interested in bookmarking that one. If you
> don't have it handy, don't worry about it.
Here is just one:
,----[ Quote ]
| GoDaddy was
| using Apache (I assume on Linux) because it was a great technical
| solution. They didn't switch to IIS on Windows Server 2003 for any
| technical reason. The switch was accompanied by a press release by
| GoDaddy, containing Microsoft promotional language. Now, I've changed
| many servers from one thing to another, but I've never made a press
| release about it. GoDaddy wouldn't be doing that unless Microsoft had
| offered them something valuable in return. There has been talk in the
| domain business that Microsoft has been offering the large domain
| registries a wad of cash to switch their parked sites. There is no
| other reason to do this than to influence the Netcraft figures.
`----
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=15108
Here is what another Web host said:
> If they offered me the sort of deal they have offered other hosts it would
> be very difficult to resist simply because of the potential amount of money
> involved.
> The only thing that would hold me back from doing it is my previous
> experience with Windows in a shared hosting environment, which was not,
> good, reliable or scaleable.
> The main problem was getting the different bits of software to talk to each
> other.
> Because they were closed source you couldn't do it very easily.
>
> [...]
>
> Microsft pays hosts to move to Windows.
> Usually its very cheap or free licensing for a period plus paying part or
> all of their advertising budget, allowing them to make virtually 100%
> profit for several years.
> I have even heard of them paying the hardware bill for one host.
|
|
