High-profile anti-Unix site runs Unix (Microsoft's Unix Bashing site runs on Unix server)

cnet ^

[mattdono]

I concede that point and, as Gorons pointed out, it is definitely a red face situations. But, as Gorons also points out, Netcraft has caught AOL running IIS.

I think, at most, this is an embarassing situation.

[mattdono]

Agreed, but it's still a gross metaphor. Agreed?

Note that I didn't challenge the phrase's validity; rather, I challeged its gross factor.

[jpsb]

Yea, how about the Chevy dealer drives a Ford and so does his wife, in-laws and children.

[jpsb]

And one more things, the Fords that the Chevy dealer drives have had there Ford logo's replaced with Chevy Logo's. I think that just about covers it.

[PatrioticAmerican]

" "AFTER MICROSOFT ACQUIRED HOTMAIL"... "

As though SM could simply wiggle their nose and all would be MS. Are you sure they are not converting? Do they need to?

Your point was made that MS is running UNIX for Hotmail, as though it was a deliberate decision by Microsoft and not a decision by the people who created Hotmail.

The Borland incident was not a widespread event. It was by a few people, and, I believe, by contractors working at Microsoft.

Did you pass your interview, and if not, are you bitter about that and are making attempts to slam Microsoft?

[AFreeBird]

But, as Gorons also points out, Netcraft has caught AOL running IIS.

I'm not surprised by this since Steve Case (AOL) had to basically make a deal with the devil (Gates) to keep OEM inclusion of AOL software on pre-loaded PC's. In return, Case installed IE on all systems (whether desired or not, whether it was already installed or not) when installing AOL software. This is what p*ssed me off about M$ (well, one of them anyway) some time ago, and M$ has done their level best to continue with that crap ever since.

Now AOL is free of its shackles of IE (and M$) and is now shipping Netscape as the internal AOL browser for their 35 million customers.

[dwollmann]

What would be more embarassing, running an anti-UNIX site on UNIX/Apache or running it on Windows/IIS and having it rooted, defaced and (probably permanently) offline within a couple of days?

Where's that UNISYS uberbox that's supposed to be "the way out?" What was UNISYS thinking?

Maybe Microsoft should kill the UNISYS deal and figure out how to cluster all those game consoles they'll be eating when they pull the plug on the XBox product.

[HamiltonJay]

No, my point was it was designed and running on Unix then MS took it over and tried to move it to MS Windows and FAILED miserably, and went back to Unix. Finally they did get it moved over to IIS server on the front end long long after their first attempt. This is fact my friend, not bashing.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Naw, it was quite perfectly understandable what he said.  And it was true that MS had the devil of a time running Hotmail under NT.  It was a minor scandal at the time that they had to go back to Un*x.  Enterprise ready?  In your dreams.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Er, I think that you are getting cross-threaded.

[Lael]

Unisys Corporation, Blue Bell, PA 19424 US

Question...why is Unisys carrying Microsoft's water.

What is the business tiein??

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Yeah, but to be fair, DEC has been myopic in the marketing department since the early 80s.  They could have had the powerpc market if they hadn't been so short-sighted.  There has been no economic reason for them to have such huge prices for the alpha chip.  Kinda sad, really, because the alpha chip is so far out in front of the pack technically, it aint even a horse race.

[Gorons]

Unisys is the only company that has the technology for Microsoft Datacenter Server...

Specifically it's a server that supports up to 32-way symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) and up to 64 gigabytes (GB) of physical memory. It provides both 4-node clustering and load balancing services as standard features.

Unisys licenses the technology to vendors like Compaq and others ...

[PatrioticAmerican]

If Microsoft products are not Enterprise ready, then how is it that Microsoft, itself, with 45,0000 employees use their own products and technologies?

I don't know why the Hotmail NT conversion didn't go so well. I haven't talked to any team members, but perhaps it was the skill of the people and not the products?

[ColdSteelTalon]

and an AS/400 is a legacy system

And you don't know what your talking about. The AS/400 (now called iSeries) has been called a legacy system by people who like Unix/NT and who want to sell some products. They said it was a legacy system 8 years ago. Well guess what, the iSeries is still in 90+ percent of all fortne 500 companies and why??? because it just doesn't crash as much as Unix/NT. And when you depend on mission critical apps the the I and ZSeries machines are just unbreakable...

[HamiltonJay]

Partiotic,

If you put enough thrust behind a rock, you can make it fly. But that doesn't mean your flying rock is a good a feasible solution? No.

In the server realm microsoft products in general cannot compete with Unix products in terms or reliability, scale or cost. I have servers that are at 100% CPU utilization 24/7, service thousands of users a day and that have uptimes of 4 years, (that means they have not gone down because of a OS problem (MS blue screen of death) in over 4 years. No MS OS I have seen or worked with can even come close to this performance. Not to mention the OS they are running was Free, not several hundred, much less several thousands of dollars like MS.

Microsoft is a fine company, they have some really smart folks working there. But they don't produce, or haven't yet produced an OS close to Unix in the server market, in terms of reliability, flexibility or scalability. For the desktop they dominate, where uptime and throughput and security are key, they just are not in the same league. MS is also a marketing driven company, not a technology driven one... you can get away with outrageous claims that cannot be backed up in the desktop realm, in the server realm you have to perform.

[HamiltonJay]

Cold,

Actually my experience with the AS/400 is most companies have a large investment of code etc in their AS/400's they don't want to move to other systems... and quite frankly why should they? Not to mention hard to move old entrenched JCL coders out of their ruts :)

[ColdSteelTalon]

Actually my experience with the AS/400 is most companies have a large investment of code etc in their AS/400's they don't want to move to other systems... and quite frankly why should they? Not to mention hard to move old entrenched JCL coders out of their ruts :)

That's true to an extent. Companies now though are looking into and implementing alot of Linux front end apps on the 400/iSeries using logical partitioning and running front end web servers that can tap right into the DB2 database and display data such as images of bills and such from a browser directly from the 400/iSeries. Even the green screens can be accessed from a browser with HTTP server, which is a licensed program that allows the iSeries/400 system to behave like a web server. But the main reason why companies are not moving off the iSeries is reliability both hardware and operating system.

OS/400 has its database management system (DB2) built into the operating system. Messages of errors and error recovery are integrated with the operating system. The same is also true for hardware recovery and mangement. There are no separate drivers for hardware on the iSeries. It is all integrated at the microcode level in the operating system. Since outside drivers are not relied upon for hardware servicing and recovery, fixing a problem is as simple as downloading a fix and applying it, in many cases the system is still up and running when doing this.

Our shop has 10 iSeries/400 systems in it and the total uptime for the year for the past few years is 99.99 percent. In a typical year we are down for two hours on a single machine. The Unix/NT world does not even come close to that kind of up time.