They ask a lot of questions they don't answer, and from my experience with both Windows and Linux, Linux can answer most of those questions far better than Windows. This is a joke.<p>edit: example: "Will patching and security lead to downtime?" There's ksplice and kgraft and more - patch the kernel with no downtime. And even without using either, I can't remember the last time I had to reboot immediately because a patch was that critical, or the last time I had to sit there waiting for my laptop to reboot 3 times trying to install the weekly updates. Windows Update blows.<p>edit: another example: "Proven security development lifecycle". Ha ha ha ha ha!
Oh, look, FUD.<p>>Microsoft: Proven security development lifecycle<p>>Linux: Security threats?<p>You owe me a new keyboard. This one is full of coffee.<p>Also got to love the whole "Linux doesn't do AD" BS. If you still live in 2005, perhaps not, but that's about it. You could also argue that AD is a misfeature, given the almost hilarious insecurity of NTLM password hashes, etc.
In 2014, 97% of top supercomputers are Linux based.<p><a href="http://readwrite.com/2014/07/01/linux-world-domination-complete-why-its-foolish-to-bet-against-open-source-communities?utm_source=fast_coexist&utm_medium=pubexchange" rel="nofollow">http://readwrite.com/2014/07/01/linux-world-domination-compl...</a>
<i>However, sometimes your solution is focused solely on server-side operating systems, and that's where Linux falls short.</i><p>I laughed hard. Also what is with all the question marks on the right side of the table? It's almost like they are not confident with their statements about Linux.
It's getting embarrassing. Are the marketing folks at MS completely clueless or maybe I'm the clueless one?<p>First it was the "Don't get scroogled" campaign, now this.<p>Oh, and the iPhone funeral fiasco too.<p><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/10/microsoft-celebrates-windows-phone-7-rtm-with-funeral-parade-for/" rel="nofollow">http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/10/microsoft-celebrates-wind...</a><p>They desperately need a Chief StayClassy Officer.
So the essential argument I'm geting here is this<p>You should use Microsoft server solutions because
1. Microsoft servers work well managing linux solutions
2. Linux systems can't handle microsoft solutions themselves
3. We are uncertain what Linux is capable of/how secure it is
4. Therefore, you should go Microsoft (QED)<p>Ignoring how blatantly misleading these points might be given that linux is quite mature and we now live in a work of system virtualization (Wine anyone?), the argument here only serves to convince me that I should be using linux solutions instead of Microsoft solutions in my company. If a given solution works for linux (which, despite calling out Active Directory, they don't seem to have ruled out as a possibility) and can also be managed through Azure, then Why on earth would I create an inflexible system that can only be managed through Microsoft branded tech? Am I supposed to be convinced by their skepticism on linux? I'm perfectly capable of researching linux server solutions myself. Am I supposed to be amazed at the flexibiliy of Microsoft servers while simultaneously scared away from the flexibility of using linux solutions? Outside of server use, this doesn't seem like a good argument to use Microsoft solutions at all.
Same old same old FUD campaigns. Perhaps Microsoft will never get a clue, but it doesn't matter to me because I'm not using any of their software.<p>Also, you can't claim that your systems are secure and then not have the code publicly auditable. That's preposterous.
So, like others here I don't trust javascript, so I run HTTP switchboard. I got the following message:<p>"you may be trying to access this site from a secured browser on the server. Please enable scripts and reload this page."<p>"a secured browser on the server"<p>where "secured browser" == one that has JS disabled (?)<p>"on the server": what is "something you shouldn't do on a server"
Microsoft seems to be touting their support for various Linux distributions on their server products. I can't help but be reminded of the massive miscalculation IBM made in OS/2 development: they went to great lengths to make sure it supported Windows applications, which simply encouraged developers to write interoperable Windows code rather than OS/2-specific code, despite the technical advantages of OS/2.
The answer should have been Active Directory.<p>Everything else in that page is a lie.<p>- The cloud as we know it is built on Linux.<p>- Web development has moved to Linux. Rails, Django, Laravel, Nodejs, all run better on Linux.<p>- Git works better in Linux, both as a server and as a client.<p>- The security issues are more severe in Windows.<p>And yes, MS AD is a killer feature.
The page doesn't load for me. My recursive resolver (unbound) just gives SERVFAIL.<p>I did a bit of digging, and apparently you need to follow a ridiculously long CNAME chain just to resolve the domain:<p><pre><code> www.whymicrosoft.com. CNAME whymicrosoft.sharepoint.com.
whymicrosoft.sharepoint.com. CNAME prodnet17-37a0001.sharepointonline.com.akadns.net.
prodnet17-37a0001.sharepointonline.com.akadns.net. CNAME prodnet17-37ipv4a0001.sharepointonline.com.akadns.net.
prodnet17-37ipv4a0001.sharepointonline.com.akadns.net. A 157.55.62.117
</code></pre>
For me, that's a typical example of why I avoid Microsoft stuff. They promise the world, but never seem to get the details right.
Despite the page, I will mention this: corporate vendor support is sufficient for teams that don't have the technical expertise to either roll out a new technology or troubleshoot problems on their own. This is partly why Red Hat Enterprise Linux is so popular, among other reasons. When there is a technical, competent, and strong administration team in house, most of those concerns go away. When there isn't, licenses for commercial support make sense.
FUD rising to a new level:<p>Persistent threats and dedicated attackers can slow your projects and put your IT environment at risk with Linux projects.
Ultimately, I wonder what development environment people prefer? For me, POSIX APIs and GNU/Linux extensions are far simpler to work with to do what I need and get the performance I want. Windows development just seems very heavy, and the APIs, while comprehensive, are incomprehensible.
Throwing around the "cloud" buzzword, in spite of recent development on cgroups, CoreOS/etcd, Project Atomic and yes, even systemd, was funny enough. The paragraph on "security threats" was by far the most hilarious though, because you could tell they really had nothing worthwhile to say, but had to include it for the FUD value.