Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on April 25, 2006 01:46 PM
> Aren't you curious why GoDaddy would want to spend more money and effort maintaining the "harder to manage servers" for parked domains?
Actually this makes perfect sense if Microsoft paid them. I'm not saying Microsoft paid them. I'm just saying that it makes perfect sense if Microsoft paid them.
> This wasn't a new implementation choice, it was a conscious choice to switch pre-existing servers to an OS that costs them money and the fanboys claim is slower, less secure, more prone to failure and harder to manage.
See previous answer.
The 64K question then becomes was Microsoft not willing to pay for a switch of active sites or would that price simply have been too steep even for them?
A 32K question might be to how many Microsoft products did the payoff extend?
Another biggie question might be what was the cost per syllable for the Godaddy official statements on the press release?
Another: who came up with "technology refresh," MS or godaddy?
Another: what cost MS more, permission to the quotes used in the press release or permission to the obviously misleading title of the press release that misrepresents the facts [at least if you look at the principle bold-typed clause]?
The great thing is that we asked about the payoff. We were curious. Godaddy simply didn't answer. They could have said, "no we paid typical costs [whatever that means.. I guess this is part of godaddy's business secrets] and we did so because the Microsoft solution was best. So good in fact that we are moving over half our active sites to them over the next year." They could have said that, but they didn't.
Godaddy did however say this, and maybe this will quench your curiosity, "it was one relatively small technology migration we did for several reasons, and it certainly didn't represent a wholesale change in our philosophy of heterogeneity and open source community."
I guess godaddy was right, relatively speaking, moving over parked domains was a relatively small event. So small, relatively speaking, that Microsoft was able to afford the price Godaddy needed to cover their transfer and maintenance costs.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Here's another stab.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 25, 2006 01:46 PMActually this makes perfect sense if Microsoft paid them. I'm not saying Microsoft paid them. I'm just saying that it makes perfect sense if Microsoft paid them.
> This wasn't a new implementation choice, it was a conscious choice to switch pre-existing servers to an OS that costs them money and the fanboys claim is slower, less secure, more prone to failure and harder to manage.
See previous answer.
The 64K question then becomes was Microsoft not willing to pay for a switch of active sites or would that price simply have been too steep even for them?
A 32K question might be to how many Microsoft products did the payoff extend?
Another biggie question might be what was the cost per syllable for the Godaddy official statements on the press release?
Another: who came up with "technology refresh," MS or godaddy?
Another: what cost MS more, permission to the quotes used in the press release or permission to the obviously misleading title of the press release that misrepresents the facts [at least if you look at the principle bold-typed clause]?
The great thing is that we asked about the payoff. We were curious. Godaddy simply didn't answer. They could have said, "no we paid typical costs [whatever that means.. I guess this is part of godaddy's business secrets] and we did so because the Microsoft solution was best. So good in fact that we are moving over half our active sites to them over the next year." They could have said that, but they didn't.
Godaddy did however say this, and maybe this will quench your curiosity, "it was one relatively small technology migration we did for several reasons, and it certainly didn't represent a wholesale change in our philosophy of heterogeneity and open source community."
I guess godaddy was right, relatively speaking, moving over parked domains was a relatively small event. So small, relatively speaking, that Microsoft was able to afford the price Godaddy needed to cover their transfer and maintenance costs.
#