From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 25 08:01:30 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EB5A16A4CE for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:01:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.192.90]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC14643D58 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:01:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from tedwin2k (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.197.130]) j1P81Xb99987 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:01:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:01:32 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <522548025.20050224180220@wanadoo.fr> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 Subject: RE: Fwd: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:01:30 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Anthony > Atkielski > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 9:02 AM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Fwd: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD? > > > Daniel writes: > > > would not these things be worthy of implementing in FreeBSD? this way > > other big companies would use it, pay you guys for it and > FreeBSD will > > grow stronger... > > There are other obstacles to deployment of FreeBSD in large > organizations. The main one is a lack of formal, guaranteed support. > This afflicts Linux, also, to some extent, depending on the > distribution. Even for "supported" Linux distributions, the support is > often very limited in comparison to that available for systems such as > Solaris, Windows, or even Mac OS X. > Not for Red Hat, at least not anymore. The entire reason for making Red Hat commercial was to emulate as closely as possible the same type of $upport $tructure and co$ts that Microsoft provides. > > The problem is that the largest companies need more than just a > technically superior operating system. That's why they are > still buying > Solaris and Windows. > This is a gross simplification of the realities. The reality is they are still buying Solaris because the back end apps they run on it - big company apps that is, like Peoplesoft and SAP - require it. And they are still buying Microsoft Windows because they don't have a choice - because the low-end desktop computers that business purchase all come with Windows preloaded on it. And they are still buying Microsoft Office because their users are demanding it. But if you think that support is the reason for large companies buying Windows, I have a bridge to sell you. Every large company admin I've ever talked to with a Microsoft support contract all say that their paid support sucks. The only good thing I've ever heard about Microsoft support was the per-incident Developer support, which is $250 per incident, and is handled by a completely separate group than the regular paid support. Microsoft understood years ago that if you want to lock in the business market, the key is to lock in the application developers to your platform. Businesses if given a choice would go for Linux - but they aren't given a choice because the applications they want to run don't run on Linux - because Microsoft has in many cases told those application developers that if they offer Linux versions of their products, they won't get the same level of support from Microsoft than if they remain loyal. (this is one of the behaviors that was stopped by the antitrust trial - however, many ISV's still to this day will tell you that they believe they get better support from Microsoft if they don't support Linux) Years ago I worked for Symantec, and it is this very reason why for years no Symantec applications were offered for Linux. At the time the CEO, Gordon Eubanks (who was apparently pushed out of or got tired of Symantec around 2000 or thereabouts) prohibited development along those lines. (Eubanks was asked in 1999 by Bill Gates to testify in support of Microsoft at the antitrust trial) This was done solely to enable the Symantec development team to get inside information about Windows from Microsoft. This also is why Microsoft fought the idea of divestiture of Office applications which was proposed as a remedy for the trial. (indeed, it's the only remedy that made any sense at all) With Office apps supplied by a different company post-trial, it would be illegal for them to give special data to the Office company in exchange for preventing a port of Office to Linux. Since they own Office and have succeeded in killing off all other business office suite vendors, they can prevent new ones from getting a foothold by using their inside information tricks, and they can refuse to port to Linux. None of these dirty tricks are "needed" by businesses, contrary to your assertions. Ted