I've been working on my first major Linux project in the last week.  Having to learn a lot in a very short period of time.  Good stuff.  [corrected a typo, kind of a funny one, here]
One of the things I'm learning is just how mainstream Linux is really becoming.  eWeek's Steven Vaughan-Nichols explores the TCO (total cost of ownership) of Linux vs. Windows 2003 in his column this week, and declares Linux the hands-down winner.  Many of his reasons are in my team's "free isn't free" set of presentation slides (oh, haven't used those publicly yet...soon enough), but you can read for yourself...

there's this one itty-bitty problem with Server 2003: Where are the server applications?  You know, like, Exchange 2000 or 5.5.  It turns out you can't run them on Server 2003.  And to add salt to the wound, there are many others of Microsoft's own applications that won't run on Server 2003.
Oh, and IBM gets a plug, too:
Groupware ... You say you want groupware? Ever hear of a program called Lotus Domino, back-engine for a little program called Notes? It runs on Linux, too.
Anyway, this is really the key point:
There's only one good reason to upgrade to Office 2003 that I can see, and that's to make use of its real-time, group work-collaboration and presence capability. With it you can work with co-workers on group projects when they're available over the network.
Cool, right? But to make use of that functionality, you need Office 2003 as well as Server 2003; SharePoint Portal Server 2003, which comes with Server 2003, for document sharing; and Office System 2003 Live Server (formerly Greenwich) for presence and instant-messaging support. Oh, and you must be running Active Directory, too. That's an awful lot of expensive software, and -- one more time -- most of it's not available now anyway.
What was Microsoft thinking?
Someone know why he isn't referring to the product as Windows Server 2003?  Just curious.

Post a Comment