speculate on when and how microsoft will fail.

[Train]

Based on the ads/reviews I've seen, I didn't think the Surface was anything other than "me too" in the tablet space.

Then I saw this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wG1b0yBJHLM
and was like holy crap, the Surface 2 is pretty bad ass, and that's only the RT? That blows my android tablet to smithereens.

 

[Puppies04]

You raise some interesting points Anarchist420














































Said literally no one ever.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The real question is:

When does the regular consumer no longer need a Windows x86 PC and a copy of Office to function in society?

And the answer is any day now.

 

[ultimatebob]

The real question is:

When does the regular consumer no longer need a Windows x86 PC and a copy of Office to function in society?

And the answer is any day now.

We're already there, as millions of Mac users and Linux users without MS Office can already attest to.

OK, OK. Perhaps the Linux users aren't "regular" consumers, but you get the idea.

 

[geecee]

Not to mention the fact that Microsoft makes money on every Android smartphone sold.

http://www.businessinsider.com/micr...er-year-from-android-patent-royalties-2013-11

 

[MrDudeMan]

The Linux kernel is either competitive, or dominates everywhere but the desktop.

That's not true at all. Linux obviously has it's place, but it doesn't flat out dominate the server world. It dominates particular pieces of the server world just like Windows Server does.

 

[MrDudeMan]

We're already there, as millions of Mac users and Linux users without MS Office can already attest to.

OK, OK. Perhaps the Linux users aren't "regular" consumers, but you get the idea.

Except if you need to actually do work, Google docs is a massive pile of shit and don't even bother mentioning any of the bullshit the open source community has produced. There's nothing even relatively close to Office for actual productivity. Some people don't need it at home, but a lot of people still do. There is no viable replacement. I love Office and I'm far from a Microsoft fanboy.

 

[Ns1]

Except if you need to actually do work, Google docs is a massive pile of shit and don't even bother mentioning any of the bullshit the open source community has produced. There's nothing even relatively close to Office for actual productivity. Some people don't need it at home, but a lot of people still do. There is no viable replacement. I love Office and I'm far from a Microsoft fanboy.

Google Docs is great for collaborative work in a college/informal setting. It is a massive failure for actual enterprise work.

 

[ch33zw1z]

That's not true at all. Linux obviously has it's place, but it doesn't flat out dominate the server world. It dominates particular pieces of the server world just like Windows Server does.

I see less and less native Windows installs, and more and more ESX boxes with Windows VM's. Guess what, ESX is a Linux based hypervisor.

I'm not saying that there's no native Windows installs out there, I'm sure there's lots, it's just not as common as it was even 5 years ago.

At least you still have to pay for licensing

*nix flavors are abundant, running behind the scenes, saving organizations much cash.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Google Docs is great for collaborative work in a college/informal setting. It is a massive failure for actual enterprise work.

I can agree to that mostly. I still find Sharepoint collaborative editing to be far better, but Google docs does have something to offer in this space.

 

[MrDudeMan]

I see less and less native Windows installs, and more and more ESX boxes with Windows VM's. Guess what, ESX is a Linux based hypervisor.

I'm not saying that there's no native Windows installs out there, I'm sure there's lots, it's just not as common that it was even 5 years ago.

I read an article a few months ago about how big companies (> 10,000 employees) are saving money by switching to Windows Server because of the paid support channels. I've experienced that at my current company as well. There's a lot to be said for being able to pick up the phone and get answers in sometimes minutes to serious problems. Obviously there's a few paid support channels for Linux distros as well, but they pale in comparison to Microsoft's support model. When an hour of downtime translates into hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted, the situation changes. It's not all about who can make the most open source widgets or how evil a piece of software appears to be to some people. It's all about getting that shit to work again.

There's plenty of use for Linux servers all over the place - I have three in my house - but it's not a blanket solution like some people would suggest.

 

[Maximilian]

Pfft nothing lasts forever, MSFT included.

I have no idea how that will happen, irrelevance possibly.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I read an article a few months ago about how big companies (> 10,000 employees) are saving money by switching to Windows Server because of the paid support channels. I've experienced that at my current company as well. There's a lot to be said for being able to pick up the phone and get answers in sometimes minutes to serious problems. Obviously there's a few paid support channels for Linux distros as well, but they pale in comparison to Microsoft's support model. When an hour of downtime translates into hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted, the situation changes. It's not all about who can make the most open source widgets or how evil a piece of software appears to be to some people. It's all about getting that shit to work again.

There's plenty of use for Linux servers all over the place - I have three in my house - but it's not a blanket solution like some people would suggest.

Feel free to link the article.

It is a solution. And one that's been used for a long time now. Microsoft's server support is not as bullet proof as you'd like to make it sound either.

You're right, it's not a blanket solution. Domain servers are still going strong.

 

[brianmanahan]

good luck getting same day support.

we have had mainframe hardware fail at 9 pm, and an ibm guy at the data center fixing it a 3 am

i guess thats not technically same day, but i bet it is way faster than you expected

 

[Ns1]

I can agree to that mostly. I still find Sharepoint collaborative editing to be far better, but Google docs does have something to offer in this space.

Except you need a sharepoint admin to set up a reasonable sharepoint site (IndyColtsFan, where you at?). I can setup google docs and collaborate with 5 friends in a few minutes.

 

[Markbnj]

Except you need a sharepoint admin to set up a reasonable sharepoint site (IndyColtsFan, where you at?). I can setup google docs and collaborate with 5 friends in a few minutes.

Agreed, not really the same thing. They have some of the same goals, but only gdocs is available pretty much instantly from anywhere on any device. And their tools have just gotten better and better.

 

[quikah]

I see less and less native Windows installs, and more and more ESX boxes with Windows VM's. Guess what, ESX is a Linux based hypervisor.

ESX is not Linux based.

 

[alkemyst]

ESX is not Linux based.

Too many don't know WTF they are talking about and regardless every one of those Windows VM's needs a license.

Microsoft will not fail anytime soon...probably not in anyone's lifetime here.

Things like Visio and Project as well as many other M$ deals are too high in the market share.

As much as people want to believe Open Office and the like are direct replacements, they lack the fit and finish Office rolls out with.

 

[ch33zw1z]

ESX is not Linux based.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMware_ESX

Sure:

"VMware states that the ESX product runs on bare metal.[7] In contrast to other VMware products, it does not run atop a third-party operating system,[8] but instead includes its own kernel. Until the last release of ESX, version 4.0, a Linux kernel was started first,[9] and is used to load a variety of specialized virtualization components, including VMware's vmkernel component. This previously booted Linux kernel then becomes the first running virtual machine and is called the service console. Thus, at normal run-time, the vmkernel is running on the bare computer and the Linux-based service console runs as the first virtual machine. As of version 4.1, VMWare has dropped development of ESX and now focuses exclusively on ESXi, which is devoid of a Linux kernel.
The vmkernel itself, which VMware says is a microkernel,[10] has three interfaces to the outside world:"

In my very limited experience with ESX (basically server hardware repair and making sure that ESX boots), I get to watch the boot up process.

It appears to load a very Linux like OS. According to the Wiki, up to version 4 actually was a Linux kernel. Since ESX is up to 5.something now, and I'm not an admin, I really can't say what it does. Maybe someone will update the Wiki sometime with more information.

I can tell you one thing, it's not running bare metal windows.

Feel free to further educate me on ESX, be as detailed as possible. I prefer to know.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Microsoft will not fail anytime soon...probably not in anyone's lifetime here.

Something we agree on.

 

[alkemyst]

I wish they would fail in the console market. I credit them with fucking up the console game industry and twisting it into a NFL UFC COD dudebro sausage fest with the original Xbox.

At least there is always your Hello Kitty Beach Volleyball Adventures to tide you over.

 

[quikah]

In my very limited experience with ESX (basically server hardware repair and making sure that ESX boots), I get to watch the boot up process.

It appears to load a very Linux like OS. According to the Wiki, up to version 4 actually was a Linux kernel. Since ESX is up to 5.something now, and I'm not an admin, I really can't say what it does. Maybe someone will update the Wiki sometime with more information.

Linux was used to boot vmkernel (the hypervisor). It then becomes a VM. The hypervisor itself is not based on Linux.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Linux was used to boot vmkernel (the hypervisor). It then becomes a VM. The hypervisor itself is not based on Linux.

So VMKernel, that part that manages CPU and RAM, is not linux based. What about the rest of it?

Linux was used prior to 4, what is it doing now?

cmon, I know you have more detail than that. I can read the wiki

edit, from the wiki:

"ESX uses a Linux kernel to load additional code: often referred to by VMware, Inc. as the "vmkernel". The dependencies between the "vmkernel" and the Linux part of the ESX server have changed drastically over different major versions of the software. The VMware FAQ[17] states: "ESX Server also incorporates a service console based on a Linux 2.4 kernel that is used to boot the ESX Server virtualization layer". The Linux kernel runs before any other software on an ESX host.[9] On ESX versions 1 and 2, no VMkernel processes run on the system during the boot process.[18] After the Linux kernel has loaded, the S90vmware script loads the vmkernel.[18] VMware Inc states that vmkernel does not derive from Linux, but acknowledges that it has adapted certain device-drivers from Linux device drivers. The Linux kernel continues running, under the control of the vmkernel, providing functions including the proc file system used by the ESX and an environment to run support applications.[18] ESX version 3 loads the VMkernel from the Linux initrd, thus much earlier in the boot-sequence than in previous ESX versions.
In traditional systems, a given operating system runs a single kernel. The VMware FAQ mentions that ESX has both a Linux 2.4 kernel and vmkernel – hence confusion over whether ESX has a Linux base. An ESX system starts a Linux kernel first, but it loads vmkernel (also described by VMware as a kernel), which according to VMware 'wraps around' the linux kernel, and which (according to VMware Inc) does not derive from Linux.
The ESX userspace environment, known as the "Service Console" (or as "COS" or as "vmnix"), derives from a modified version of Red Hat Linux, (Red Hat 7.2 for ESX 2.x and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 for ESX 3.x). In general, this Service Console provides management interfaces (CLI, webpage MUI, Remote Console).
As a further detail which differentiates the ESX from other VMware virtualization products: ESX supports the VMware proprietary cluster file system VMFS. VMFS enables multiple hosts to access the same SAN LUNs simultaneously, while file-level locking provides simple protection to file-system integrity."

 

[lxskllr]

That's not true at all. Linux obviously has it's place, but it doesn't flat out dominate the server world. It dominates particular pieces of the server world just like Windows Server does.

What I said is precisely true. I said it competes, or dominates everywhere but the desktop. A majority market share isn't necessary for a competitive product.

 

[rudeguy]

What I said is precisely true. I said it competes, or dominates everywhere but the desktop. A majority market share isn't necessary for a competitive product.

Build in a commands list and wireless drivers and I'll switch today.