Mike McMullin wrote:
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 09:01 -0500, James Knott wrote:
What's really amazing is that companies use Windows for servers and then wonder why the servers fail!
Mayhap it's because it seems that Windows sets up easy but is a bear to maintain, but Linux is bear to set up and less problematic (IME) to maintain. "If it's that hard to set up, what do I have to do to keep it running?", and MS feeds that fear.
I suspect that often the people who make the decisions don't know there are superior alternatives. I work in the IT industry and the hands on tech types, such as myself, know about the alternatives and would rather work with them, but... My background includes various minicomputers from DEC, Data General and Pr1me, DOS, Windows, OS/2, Netware, VAX/VMS, Pr1mos and others, so I know of the various alternatives, and know from hands on experience that Windows is inferior. However, some CEO or manager who can't figure out how to do simple things in Windows makes the call on what gets used.