Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On 10 May 2007 15:05:07 -0700, Dean G. wrote:
>
>> Linux is already way ahead of Microsoft on the server level, so the
>> rational decision would be to skip Longhorn. Why pay Microsoft to
>> break things when reliable server technology is free ?
>
> I guess that really depends on what you're talking about.
>
> Certainly, there are some things Linux does better, and I think that's a
> function of how much effort Microsoft places on a given function. DNS,
> for instance, has a lot more options under Linux than Windows.
>
> However, Longhorn has a huge number of improvements on the server side.
> For instance, it has "core" roles in which it's not running a GUI or
> anything else besides the core functionality, and that includes DNS,
> ActiveDirectory, DHCP, File and Print, Windows Media Services, and soon
> Virtualization so that you can run a host virtualization server in "core"
> mode.
>
> Another killer app for Longhorn server is IIS7. There is so much cool
> stuff going on with IIS it's crazy. On top of that, IIS7 appears to carry
> on IIS6's highly robust nature (in 4 years, IIS6 has only had a couple of
> security vulnerabiliites, and none of them critical).
So... Longhorn is really a Linux/OSS catch-up. Nothing new here.
--
....................
http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
|
|
