GoDaddy, chose to switch existing Linux servers to Windows. This wasn't a new implementation choice, it was a conscious choice to switch pre-existing servers to an OS that costs them money
So the question is WHY??? Why would they do that? Considering that GoDaddy has LOTS of other linux based servers, and according to the article will continue to use Linux servers, Why make the switch, ESPECIALLY if it's going to cost money - and it will. Not only do you have the license cost, but you have the deployment costs. It's a big deal.
Parking domains is a VERY VERY simple task for a web server. It certainly does not need the "Power of dot Net" or any other such sillyness.
Moving to Windows for this application just doesn't make sense from either a technical or business sense (which has already been covered in great painful detail.) There only remains one other possible explanation which you seem to dismiss out of hand - that it did NOT cost them money.
That theory has a LOT behind it: Microsoft's press release being the biggest. MS has a LOT of marketing dollars, and MS itself has admitted that Linux is the number one threat.
So what are YOUR theories? Do you have one that would stand up to logical analysis?
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Stabbed!
Posted by: walt-sjc on April 26, 2006 01:52 AMSo the question is WHY??? Why would they do that? Considering that GoDaddy has LOTS of other linux based servers, and according to the article will continue to use Linux servers, Why make the switch, ESPECIALLY if it's going to cost money - and it will. Not only do you have the license cost, but you have the deployment costs. It's a big deal.
Parking domains is a VERY VERY simple task for a web server. It certainly does not need the "Power of dot Net" or any other such sillyness.
Moving to Windows for this application just doesn't make sense from either a technical or business sense (which has already been covered in great painful detail.) There only remains one other possible explanation which you seem to dismiss out of hand - that it did NOT cost them money.
That theory has a LOT behind it: Microsoft's press release being the biggest. MS has a LOT of marketing dollars, and MS itself has admitted that Linux is the number one threat.
So what are YOUR theories? Do you have one that would stand up to logical analysis?
#