Vista - How Microsoft will compete with 'free'

How do you compete with free? That's the question Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's CEO, is trying to answer every morning when he goes to work. On the server software side, Windows Server is doing well, especially with the Exchange e-mail server and the unheralded but very good collaboration server, SharePoint. These products have matured, they're relatively easy to set up and manage by IT organizations. The Exchange component is a spectacular success: it manages e-mail, contacts, calendars for hundreds of thousands of organizations all over the world. Even Apple finally embraced Exchange: the iPhone now syncs well with Microsoft's server and the next version of OS X promises "native" Exchange support. In plainer English: Apple's Mail, Address Book and iCal programs, for example, will sync with Exchange "out-of-the-box" just like the iPhone does. (This will be a relief to suffering Entourage users. Entourage is Microsoft's own Outlook sibling on the Mac, but it is a poor relative and lacks Windows' Outlook depth and polish.) Seeing that Windows Server generated more than $20 billion last year, one is tempted to think everything is going swimmingly.

Unix is the problem or, rather, the free Open Source implementations of its function set called Linux and FreeBSD, to name the best-known variants. While Windows Server and Exchange still reign for many Enterprise applications, tens of millions of Web sites run on Linux of FreeBSD software. Further, the Open Source nature of such software encourages sophisticated users to modify the operating system to fit their specific hardware configurations or applications requirements. For example, Google designs and manufactures (!) its own servers and customizes the Open Source OS they run. There's even a rumor they "roll their own" 10-gigabit Ethernet switches but I don't know vouch for that one. In any event, imagine how much the Google account would be worth to Microsoft if the Mountain View company used Windows Server? Knowledgeable readers will immediately object: Google running Windows Server isn't realistic. Not for price reasons but because Microsoft's server software isn't technically suitable for large "server farms" such as Google's. True. It'll be interesting to look at what Microsoft uses for its own Live cloud. In the past, Microsoft has had to resort to "other" server software for applications such as Hotmail. But, "scalability issues" (the ability to grow to serve very large server farms) aside, Microsoft is losing against free server software for the millions of simpler Web servers sprouting all over the world. And, as Linux and its cousins mature, they will inevitably make inroads in Enterprise applications where Microsoft still leads. Open Source competitors to Exchange do exist, they're not yet a strong threat but, if they keep improving, they will erode Microsoft very juicy server business.

Full Article: How Microsoft will compete with 'free' | Outside the Lines - CNET News

I guess the article writer kinda forgot that Hotmail wasn't always a Microsoft property. Hotmail a long time ago was it's own company and not related to MS in any way. They also didn't use Windows for their environment. When MS bought Hotmail, they inherited that environment. With something like Hotmail, you don't just flip a switch and boom, everything switches from whatever OS to Windows. It has to be a slow and gradual process.

The reasons why companies use Windows servers has been discussed all over the internet for years. There's no need to regurgitate it, tho that guy seems to have missed all of the memos.

Yeah...the Author looks new to IT

Id like to see the numbers for that, I dont come across many Linux servers at work or even browsing the web

I agree. There are a number of sweeping assumptions made in the Article. However the core info was good and worth the read. Thanks dmex

Microsoft is one source for patches that are tested and qualified. You don't get that with Linux. Microsoft tools are more robust for installing applications. I can go into IIS admin to install a web server. In Redhat it was 10+ configuration files to manually edit.

I love it....Linux/FreeBSD are only 'Free" if your time is worthless. While I dont work with Windows in a professional manner (ok well, my desktop is Vista), I am a AIX admin, I stand by my assertion.