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).
|
|
