Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Migration
How big was Go Daddy's move from Linux to Windows?
By Jay Lyman
on
April 20, 2006 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
Microsoft makes it sound like the big daddy of server migrations, but GoDaddy.com's move from Linux to Windows isn't exactly the glowing endorsement Microsoft makes it out to be.
The approximately 4.5 million domains that moved are, after all, inactive parked domains -- meaning few people are pointing their browsers at them. As for domains that actually do get Web traffic, plenty of those still remain on Linux at GoDaddy.com, something Microsoft failed to mention in its press release last month touting the domain transfer.
"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," says Go Daddy Group President and COO Warren Adelman.
The obvious question is, did Microsoft pay Go Daddy or offer any incentive to move its parked domains to Windows? Adelman declined to clear up that issue one way or the other. "We can't discuss the technical aspects of our industry relationships."
News of Go Daddy's move to Windows brought some criticism from Linux supporters and Microsoft foes, including Go Daddy customers threatening to leave the company as a result. Adelman, who generally downplayed the move as a simple "technology refresh," says the news of the migration may have been misunderstood by some in the open source community.
"I think there was a little confusion in the open source world," he says. "This was for one particular part of our infrastructure for parked domains. We are totally committed to a heterogeneous environment. It was just one piece of infrastructure." Adelman also says the reference to "parked domains" may have been missed by people who "read what they want to read."
They could also have been thrown off by Microsoft's headline for the release: "GoDaddy.com to Migrate Entire Hostname Portfolio Onto Microsoft Solution for Windows-Based Hosting."
Adelman declined to indicate how many of his company's hosted domains are still supported by Linux, but stressed that Go Daddy continues to rely on Linux and Apache Web servers for much its 13.1 million-and-growing stock of total domains.
"Certainly Linux running Apache is an integral part of what we do here at Go Daddy," he says. "We look at each particular piece of infrastructure or offering and look at what makes the most sense from a technology standpoint. It really depends on the particular application and piece of infrastructure."
So why the actual switch from Linux to Windows, giving Microsoft the opportunity to claim itself best for inactive Web sites? Adelman explains Go Daddy was in the process of making decisions as it was re-writing code and assessing ongoing projects, evaluating technologies based on factors such as operational support and amount of coding required. "We were looking at a technology refresh, and we decided to move in that direction. It was something that happened in the course of what we do when we look at areas to change and improve."
While the move to park sites with Windows, and Microsoft's press release on the matter, stirred some discussion, Adelman indicates the hosting company has not suffered from it at all. "There hasn't been any real backlash. There absolutely hasn't," he says. "I think people did have concerns, but once they talked to us and really understood what was going on, they didn't act on it."
Adelman echoes Go Daddy CEO and founder Bob Parsons, who highlighted the company's support for the open source software and communities it uses. Go Daddy this week announced a $10,000 donation to the OpenSSH project, used extensively by Go Daddy, and described by Parsons as "integral to online security."
Adelman also refers to Go Daddy's ongoing offer of free SSL certificates to legitimate open source projects, which began a year ago. "We continue to offer those certificates to open source projects free."
"We're committed to the open source community and to using open source tools," he says.
Comments
on How big was Go Daddy's move from Linux to Windows?Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
I'm with you. I believe all the MS ads and press releases without question. I mean, shoot, if you can't trust the most duplicitous firm in the history of the world, who can you trust?
Re:Well Bruce Perens made it out to be a HUUUUGE d
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 21, 2006 09:58 PM
Linux lost to Windows?!?!?!? Say it ain't so!!!!
I will not listen to this.
I will not think of this.
I will not look at the situation objectively and see why and what needs fixing.
I will not wonder why anyone would choose to leave the superior and free product for an inferior one that they must pay dearly for.
I will continue to ignore reality and deny that any of this makes any difference.
La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La
I would love another glass of FLOSS Kool-Aide!
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Linux lost to Windows and GoDaddy isn't going to be the end of it.
I will not listen to this.
I will not think of this.
I will not look at the situation objectively and see why and what needs fixing.
I will not wonder why anyone would choose to leave the superior and free product for an inferior one that they must pay dearly for.
I will continue to ignore reality and deny that any of this makes any difference.
La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La
I would love another glass of FLOSS Kool-Aide!
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Linux lost to Windows and GoDaddy isn't going to be the end of it.
Honesty and the Microsoft message being mutually exclusive, the presence of MS trolls here is the surest sign that we are carrying honest, informed content. MS hates that. It makes their toes and the ends of their shoes curl up, like it did the Wicked Witch in the Wizard of Oz.
Ouch, I've been stabbed by your pointed retort! Puhlease!
Come on Joe, I know that you can present a better argument than simple and baseless name calling. As for claims of "informed content", I have to ask where? The article contains no informed content. I contains wishy washy marketing dodges and completely fails to answer the question of why GoDaddy switched.
It's not a troll to point out that, rather than looking at the issue and trying to figure out why GoDaddy, or any company, would choose Windows over Linux and then address those issues. But, you and the fanboys would rather shout "troll" and "FUD" while burying their heads in the sand. Meanwhile the borg cube continues lumbering towards them.
Let's look at some facts. 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 and the fanboys claim is slower, less secure, more prone to failure and harder to manage. The fact that the servers are used for parking does not negate the fact that GoDaddy chose to switch the servers to a different OS.
Even if all other things are equal, there is considerable difficulty, effort and expense involved in any OS switch. Aren't you curious as to why GoDaddy is willing to do this? Are you so intoxicated with the Kool-Aide that you yourself dispense that you will not accept any other possibility than Microsoft paid them to do it?
Aren't you curious why GoDaddy would want to spend more money and effort maintaining the "harder to manage servers" for parked domains? I'm very curious and if that simple fact makes me a troll in your mind then perhaps you should re-evaluate your position. I'm sure that you wouldn't like to see your "liberation army" hoisted on its own petard.
Come on Joe, I know that you can present a better argument than simple and baseless name calling. As for claims of "informed content", I have to ask where? The article contains no informed content. I contains wishy washy marketing dodges and completely fails to answer the question of why GoDaddy switched.
It's not a troll to point out that, rather than looking at the issue and trying to figure out why GoDaddy, or any company, would choose Windows over Linux and then address those issues. But, you and the fanboys would rather shout "troll" and "FUD" while burying their heads in the sand. Meanwhile the borg cube continues lumbering towards them.
Let's look at some facts. 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 and the fanboys claim is slower, less secure, more prone to failure and harder to manage. The fact that the servers are used for parking does not negate the fact that GoDaddy chose to switch the servers to a different OS.
Even if all other things are equal, there is considerable difficulty, effort and expense involved in any OS switch. Aren't you curious as to why GoDaddy is willing to do this? Are you so intoxicated with the Kool-Aide that you yourself dispense that you will not accept any other possibility than Microsoft paid them to do it?
Aren't you curious why GoDaddy would want to spend more money and effort maintaining the "harder to manage servers" for parked domains? I'm very curious and if that simple fact makes me a troll in your mind then perhaps you should re-evaluate your position. I'm sure that you wouldn't like to see your "liberation army" hoisted on its own petard.
Oh, and a professional troll at that.
GoDaddy probably just had some legacy IIS boxes lying around and decided to move their parked domains to 'em, freeing up the Linux boxen for more active domains.
> 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.
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.
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]
Who is this we that asked if there was a payoff? Since when does not responding to an accusation prove collusion? You go out of your way to make a lot of baseless and unsupported accusations and inuendos.
If an anonymous crack monkey asked me if I was guilty of collusion, I wouldn't dignify them with an answer either.
You are a moron who is suffering from delusions.
Who is this we that asked if there was a payoff? Since when does not responding to an accusation prove collusion? You go out of your way to make a lot of baseless and unsupported accusations and inuendos.
If an anonymous crack monkey asked me if I was guilty of collusion, I wouldn't dignify them with an answer either.
You are a moron who is suffering from delusions.
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?
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?
So the question is WHY??? Why would they do that?
That's what I asked repeatedly in the past few posts but, I was mocked ridiculed and labeled a troll and a Microsoft shill. If really wanting to know why makes me a troll then so be it.
There only remains one other possible explanation which you seem to dismiss out of hand
I dismiss nothing. I simply say that the completely unsupported assumption (ASSUMPTION) that GoDaddy was paid off by Microsoft is NOT the only possibility. It is you that are dismissing all other possibilities "out of hand" and ASSUMING that the only possibilty is a payoff.
Other possibilities, no matter how slim they are or how unwilling you are to consider them, include:
1. Linux wasn't up to the task.(Unlikely)
2. The new ad system that they have tied to parked domains may have needed technology or features that Linux/Apache weren't up to. Perhaps it required<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET!
3. Linux systems were requiring too much maintenance for a free service. Possibly Windows would require less maintenance or Windows maintenance would be cheaper labor wise.
4. Some as yet unannounced service/feature needed Microsoft software.
5. Microsoft offered direct payment or future discounts to encourage the switch.
As you can see, there are a lot of possibilities and in the complete (COMPLETE) absence of any hard evidence I am unwilling to jump to the same conclusions that everyone else here seems to be so convinced of. Instead I prefer to ask why and look at the situation objectively. If for instance option 3 turned out to be the case, that would make a big difference to how I do business in the future.
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.
I sincerely hope that I am never on trial with you on the jury. You are convinced that there was a payoff because, they issued a press release and their marketing department has a lot of money? That's ludicrous! By your reasoning, we should suspect Pepsi Corporation because they issue press releases all the time and their marketing department has a LOT of money.
Are you stuck on stupid? Or, has blind zealotry caused you to abandon all logic?
That's what I asked repeatedly in the past few posts but, I was mocked ridiculed and labeled a troll and a Microsoft shill. If really wanting to know why makes me a troll then so be it.
There only remains one other possible explanation which you seem to dismiss out of hand
I dismiss nothing. I simply say that the completely unsupported assumption (ASSUMPTION) that GoDaddy was paid off by Microsoft is NOT the only possibility. It is you that are dismissing all other possibilities "out of hand" and ASSUMING that the only possibilty is a payoff.
Other possibilities, no matter how slim they are or how unwilling you are to consider them, include:
1. Linux wasn't up to the task.(Unlikely)
2. The new ad system that they have tied to parked domains may have needed technology or features that Linux/Apache weren't up to. Perhaps it required<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET!
3. Linux systems were requiring too much maintenance for a free service. Possibly Windows would require less maintenance or Windows maintenance would be cheaper labor wise.
4. Some as yet unannounced service/feature needed Microsoft software.
5. Microsoft offered direct payment or future discounts to encourage the switch.
As you can see, there are a lot of possibilities and in the complete (COMPLETE) absence of any hard evidence I am unwilling to jump to the same conclusions that everyone else here seems to be so convinced of. Instead I prefer to ask why and look at the situation objectively. If for instance option 3 turned out to be the case, that would make a big difference to how I do business in the future.
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.
I sincerely hope that I am never on trial with you on the jury. You are convinced that there was a payoff because, they issued a press release and their marketing department has a lot of money? That's ludicrous! By your reasoning, we should suspect Pepsi Corporation because they issue press releases all the time and their marketing department has a LOT of money.
Are you stuck on stupid? Or, has blind zealotry caused you to abandon all logic?
The link from the word "criticism" in this article points to a prior Newsforge article that is just a link to what amounts to a press release. There were 4 comments on the Newsforge article.
That was the criticism? 4 people?
That was the criticism? 4 people?
if it made any damn difference!
I agree 100% with the ALL the points of view on either side of the issue. Nothing like sitting on both sides of the fence and telling people what they want to hear.
What does having a fence post up your ass feel like, anyway?
"We were looking at a technology refresh, and we decided to move in that direction."
Guh?
Where can I find this technology refresh? Is it in the Bronx Zoo, next to the orangutan? Let's move in that direction!
Ooh, isn't it lovely! It makes me want to buy Microsoft products, and maybe a corn dog and orange soda! What do you think sweetie?
Blibbaty blabbety framistat buzzword snorkelfeeb.
And oh yeah, getting money is a "technical" issue. The technology of the ball-point pen on the checkbook: Gravity, capillary action of the ink in the little tube<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
Guh?
Where can I find this technology refresh? Is it in the Bronx Zoo, next to the orangutan? Let's move in that direction!
Ooh, isn't it lovely! It makes me want to buy Microsoft products, and maybe a corn dog and orange soda! What do you think sweetie?
Blibbaty blabbety framistat buzzword snorkelfeeb.
And oh yeah, getting money is a "technical" issue. The technology of the ball-point pen on the checkbook: Gravity, capillary action of the ink in the little tube<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! (ROTFLMAO) Your entire post is funny, but as a Chem major, that last line in particular is great. Talk about hittin' the nail on the head!
I'm with you; GoDaddy had no *natural* business case to move from a Free (and free) platform to a non-Free (and non-free) platform. This whole incident reminds me of Newham in the UK, who, until they got MAJOR financial concessions from Microsoft, were all set to go with GNU/Linux and OpenOffice.org.
I'm with you; GoDaddy had no *natural* business case to move from a Free (and free) platform to a non-Free (and non-free) platform. This whole incident reminds me of Newham in the UK, who, until they got MAJOR financial concessions from Microsoft, were all set to go with GNU/Linux and OpenOffice.org.
"While the move to park sites with Windows, and Microsoft's press release on the matter, stirred some discussion, Adelman indicates the hosting company has not suffered from it at all. "There hasn't been any real backlash. There absolutely hasn't," he says."
If they were a customer of mine they'd lose my business: I refrain from supporting Microsoft or Microsoft partners who allow their name used in FUD.
If they were a customer of mine they'd lose my business: I refrain from supporting Microsoft or Microsoft partners who allow their name used in FUD.
My reponse is to move all of my domains from Godaddy to 1and1, where they will be parked on Linux. About 120 domains in all. You'd think people would learn.
I am doing the exact same thing right now:-)
Moving your parked domains to 1&1? Yea that'll show em!
Is this the same 1&1 that makes most of its money through <a href="http://order.1and1.com/xml/order/MailExchange" title="1and1.com">Microsoft Exchange hosting???</a 1and1.com> 1&1 is one of the biggest Microsoft hosting services around! You must be joking, right? 1&1 is nearly all MS.
Is this the same 1&1 that makes most of its money through <a href="http://order.1and1.com/xml/order/MailExchange" title="1and1.com">Microsoft Exchange hosting???</a 1and1.com> 1&1 is one of the biggest Microsoft hosting services around! You must be joking, right? 1&1 is nearly all MS.
I'm sorry. I missed why any of this was a big deal. GoDaddy paid or was paid for something, and they implemented it. For Parked Domains (that is, domains for which people aren't doing squat with), who cares? It just means Microsoft Software is being used to host domains that have no content of value. At least, not of value to the purchaser of the domain.
"I'm dropping GoDaddy because it's hosting my not-as-yet-used website on Microsoft and not Linux." Whiners. Host it yourself.
In reality, as GoDaddy is offering FREE parking as part of their domain registration, what does it matter how the FREE parking is hosted? And yes, that's FREE as in beer; it's also FREE as in libre, because when you want to use your domain as a website, you get to choose your own OS as well as your own hoster, just by changing the DNS settings.
"I'm dropping GoDaddy because it's hosting my not-as-yet-used website on Microsoft and not Linux." Whiners. Host it yourself.
In reality, as GoDaddy is offering FREE parking as part of their domain registration, what does it matter how the FREE parking is hosted? And yes, that's FREE as in beer; it's also FREE as in libre, because when you want to use your domain as a website, you get to choose your own OS as well as your own hoster, just by changing the DNS settings.
GoDaddy paid or was paid for something, and they implemented it.
Nice insertion of a double entendre! Do you have ANYTHING to backup the assertion that Microsoft paid GoDaddy to switch? Can you even prove that GoDaddy got a really good price on the software? Of course not!
who cares? It just means Microsoft Software is being used to host domains that have no content of value.
I care because I have been hearing this tired old mantra about how much better Linux is than Windows at everything including slicing bread but, especially web hosting. And if that is true, this switch, by major web host, move makes no sense at all. If Linux is cheaper, better, more secure and easier to manage then why stop using it in favor of a more costly solution? Are you saying that Linux not capable of hosting 'valueless content'? Or are you saying that Linux so 1337 that it cannot sully its hands on such 'unworthy content'?
The fact that GoDaddy would switch from Linux to Windows to host anything at all screams volumes to me! It's a big deal! The fact that you can't see that or are unwilling to admit it says a lot about you.
Nice insertion of a double entendre! Do you have ANYTHING to backup the assertion that Microsoft paid GoDaddy to switch? Can you even prove that GoDaddy got a really good price on the software? Of course not!
who cares? It just means Microsoft Software is being used to host domains that have no content of value.
I care because I have been hearing this tired old mantra about how much better Linux is than Windows at everything including slicing bread but, especially web hosting. And if that is true, this switch, by major web host, move makes no sense at all. If Linux is cheaper, better, more secure and easier to manage then why stop using it in favor of a more costly solution? Are you saying that Linux not capable of hosting 'valueless content'? Or are you saying that Linux so 1337 that it cannot sully its hands on such 'unworthy content'?
The fact that GoDaddy would switch from Linux to Windows to host anything at all screams volumes to me! It's a big deal! The fact that you can't see that or are unwilling to admit it says a lot about you.
Do you have ANYTHING to backup the assertion that Microsoft paid GoDaddy to switch?
Do you have ANYTHING to backup YOUR assertion that they were NOT paid by microsoft?
The fact that GoDaddy would switch from Linux to Windows to host anything at all screams volumes to me!
Does to me to - they look for revenue from all sources - including Microsoft's marketing department. The fact that you can't see that or are unwilling to admit it says a lot about you.
Do you have ANYTHING to backup YOUR assertion that they were NOT paid by microsoft?
The fact that GoDaddy would switch from Linux to Windows to host anything at all screams volumes to me!
Does to me to - they look for revenue from all sources - including Microsoft's marketing department. The fact that you can't see that or are unwilling to admit it says a lot about you.
I didn't realize I made a double entendre. I also didn't realize that I asserted that Microsoft paid GoDaddy. I said "GoDaddy paid or was paid for something..."
Translating that to better ability to parse: Either GoDaddy paid for something and implemented it, or GoDaddy was paid for something and implemented it.
I am not indicating an assertion in one way or the other. I didn't even mean to suggest that GoDaddy got a deal on the software. However, it was a business decision that GoDaddy made.
I am not saying that Linux is incapable of sullying its hands on unworthy content. I'm just not in a position to care what software hosts parked domains. Just as I'm not in a position to care whether a private company uses concrete or asphault or grass for their own parking lots.
The fact that I don't care what a real business does -- legally -- with its own equipment should speak volumes to you. It means that I respect the ability of a corporation to make its own choices with its own revenues. You just happen to have glossed over the fact that once content does run on the domains, it's really up to the owner of the domain to determine the (Apache/IIS) foundation.
If GoDaddy said, "We're not providing any Linux to live (non-parked) sites," I'd understand your concern and frustration. Then again, I use GoDaddy for registrar and DNS and pretty much host elsewhere -- not because I don't like GoDaddy's hosting, but because I can host these things myself. Above all, *that* should tell you a lot about me.
If you feel that GoDaddy has made a mistake, and that mistake seriously affects your life or lifestyle, I'm sorry for offending your sensibilities by offering an objective point of view.
Translating that to better ability to parse: Either GoDaddy paid for something and implemented it, or GoDaddy was paid for something and implemented it.
I am not indicating an assertion in one way or the other. I didn't even mean to suggest that GoDaddy got a deal on the software. However, it was a business decision that GoDaddy made.
I am not saying that Linux is incapable of sullying its hands on unworthy content. I'm just not in a position to care what software hosts parked domains. Just as I'm not in a position to care whether a private company uses concrete or asphault or grass for their own parking lots.
The fact that I don't care what a real business does -- legally -- with its own equipment should speak volumes to you. It means that I respect the ability of a corporation to make its own choices with its own revenues. You just happen to have glossed over the fact that once content does run on the domains, it's really up to the owner of the domain to determine the (Apache/IIS) foundation.
If GoDaddy said, "We're not providing any Linux to live (non-parked) sites," I'd understand your concern and frustration. Then again, I use GoDaddy for registrar and DNS and pretty much host elsewhere -- not because I don't like GoDaddy's hosting, but because I can host these things myself. Above all, *that* should tell you a lot about me.
If you feel that GoDaddy has made a mistake, and that mistake seriously affects your life or lifestyle, I'm sorry for offending your sensibilities by offering an objective point of view.
Ok, aside from the mealy mouth doublespeak non-sense spin Go Daddy is trying to feed everyone and assuming there is some truth in there.
But frankly this technology refresh sounds exactly like that brown stuff that bulls leave on the ground.
What the hell would be the point to migrate inactive websites from a free OS and server environment to an OS and server environment you have to pay for?. Where is the dollar justification in that? None that I can see..... unless Go Daddy was offered some, ahem, enticements to make it worth their while.
I can see a scenario where it might be more cost effective to move their parked domains to WinXX.
Since they don't need to have the domains do anything they can be all maintained and run by interns for no pay. Plus, they got a generous "investment" from the Paul Allen Foundation.
See? Simple.
And, like others have said, it doesn't mean jack $#it. The only thing that we, as a community, have to counter is the MS propaganda machine. Something we do quite well on a daily basis.
...Turn a molehill into a mountain.
Microsoft...
Is there any discomfort they can't cause to the world?
Microsoft...
Is there any discomfort they can't cause to the world?
Microsoft may have been practicing some misdirection. What else were they doing while we were looking at this?
Yep....that should be done any day....2005...no 2006...no 2007? Maybe.
Nice to hype what you don't have yet.
-Chris
Nice to hype what you don't have yet.
-Chris
Nice to hype what you don't have yet.
Indeed. It creates a buzz that feeds upon itself and causes people, even Linux users, to line up outside stores at midnight waiting for its release. This creates sales in the billions of dollars. It's all good for Microsoft and, to a lesser extent, the consumer.
To me, the funny thing is people such as yourself who are upset or angered by the delays. This indicates a heightened desire to acquire this product. You don't hate Vista or Microsoft. You hate the wait.
You just can't stand it, can you?
Indeed. It creates a buzz that feeds upon itself and causes people, even Linux users, to line up outside stores at midnight waiting for its release. This creates sales in the billions of dollars. It's all good for Microsoft and, to a lesser extent, the consumer.
To me, the funny thing is people such as yourself who are upset or angered by the delays. This indicates a heightened desire to acquire this product. You don't hate Vista or Microsoft. You hate the wait.
You just can't stand it, can you?
Articial increase on netstat stats about IIS usage
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 21, 2006 11:00 PM
Nice for Micosoft.
For the same price, they did got a nice migration to cover for the marketing press, and a huge increase on netstart stats about "domains hosted on IIS".
For sur, the fact that this is totaly artificial (using on insecure, innefficient, hard to maintain and over-priced softwares isn't that dangerous for hosting only parked -non used- domains, but it's enough to boost the stats) will not stop microsoft to aledge about an increasing popularity for their server solutions.
Now, GoDaddy, show me how you'll do for active domains...
For the same price, they did got a nice migration to cover for the marketing press, and a huge increase on netstart stats about "domains hosted on IIS".
For sur, the fact that this is totaly artificial (using on insecure, innefficient, hard to maintain and over-priced softwares isn't that dangerous for hosting only parked -non used- domains, but it's enough to boost the stats) will not stop microsoft to aledge about an increasing popularity for their server solutions.
Now, GoDaddy, show me how you'll do for active domains...
""We can't discuss the technical aspects of our industry relationships.""
why - it's not like the competition is going to come and try to beat the deal - linux, solaris are already free. so why can't we discuss it.
why - it's not like the competition is going to come and try to beat the deal - linux, solaris are already free. so why can't we discuss it.
it's not like the competition is going to come and try to beat the deal - linux, solaris are already free. so why can't we discuss it.
You're looking at the wrong competition. GoDaddy doesn't want to discuss it because they don't want to give their competition, the hundreds of other registrars and hosting companies, any insight into GoDaddy's operations.
Free information may be good for software hippies but, it is bad for business.
You're looking at the wrong competition. GoDaddy doesn't want to discuss it because they don't want to give their competition, the hundreds of other registrars and hosting companies, any insight into GoDaddy's operations.
Free information may be good for software hippies but, it is bad for business.
The dead giveaway for Microsoft underhanded backdoor weaseling is the non-answer to questions about it. For example:
"This was for one particular part of our infrastructure for parked domains. We are totally committed to a heterogeneous environment. It was just one piece of infrastructure."
Golly. That statement says nothing. Here's more:
"Adelman explains Go Daddy was in the process of making decisions as it was re-writing code and assessing ongoing projects, evaluating technologies based on factors such as operational support and amount of coding required. 'We were looking at a technology refresh, and we decided to move in that direction. It was something that happened in the course of what we do when we look at areas to change and improve.'"
Total gibberish.
That's it. There is nothing concrete about the change in the entire article. It's a dead giveaway that M$ greased somebody's palm to get bragging rights on all those domains. I don't see another explanation. I may have been born in the dark, but it wasn't last night.
"This was for one particular part of our infrastructure for parked domains. We are totally committed to a heterogeneous environment. It was just one piece of infrastructure."
Golly. That statement says nothing. Here's more:
"Adelman explains Go Daddy was in the process of making decisions as it was re-writing code and assessing ongoing projects, evaluating technologies based on factors such as operational support and amount of coding required. 'We were looking at a technology refresh, and we decided to move in that direction. It was something that happened in the course of what we do when we look at areas to change and improve.'"
Total gibberish.
That's it. There is nothing concrete about the change in the entire article. It's a dead giveaway that M$ greased somebody's palm to get bragging rights on all those domains. I don't see another explanation. I may have been born in the dark, but it wasn't last night.
The obvious question is, did Microsoft pay Go Daddy or offer any incentive to move its parked domains to Windows? Adelman declined to clear up that issue one way or the other. "We can't discuss the technical aspects of our industry relationships."
This kind of doubletalk on the part of Adelman would appear to be a resounding "yes" answer to the question posed by the author of the article. If MS did not pay, why give a double talk answer, and if MS did pay, it's a given that the contract with MS includes a "tight-lipped" clause, therefore, the doubletalk answer above.
So the conclusion of "saved money" from the MS press releases is that GoDaddy went from a situation where they had to pay something, however small, to maintain and manage the parked domains on a Linux machine, to paying nothing to manage and maintain the parked domains on a MS box.
Therefore, provided that not all the true facts are released (typical MS behaviour) it can be "spun" to appear as a situation where MS is less costly than Linux. In this case, it is, but only because MS is footing all of the bill, and maybe even paying them some extra hush-money as well.
Parked Domains? "Infrastructure?" OK, so you're spitting out web pages and maybe logging some statistics (to later be proccessed by Linux, or probably even a *BSD). This isn't the rocket science of the web, and you don't pay rocket scientists to do it. MSCE's are cheaper than high quality OSS Admins, and point and click IS easier than httpd.conf. Parked domains are like spam. Sure, if you cant spam for a week because of a crash, that sucks, but it's not mission critical. The spamming shall continue next week. There are very likely times (however few of them) when Microsoft products have a lower TCO. Perhaps this is one of those times.
OSS is supposed to be adaptable to whatever works best. If we're not able to adapt our minds to a scenario like above, what's the point?
So there's your politics. I will now proceed to dogmatically state that Micrsoft and Go Daddy have had some very large handshakes. Handshakes that are so big, everyone can see the wad of green sticking out.
Microsoft is exactly like the Communist Chinese Government. Everyone knows the dastardly evil committed, and there's even evidence. They're just really good at denying what they just did right in front of your face. (I don't mean to compare the crimes themselves, just the reaction to them. There is no comparison to the things done by History's Communist Governments.)
OSS is supposed to be adaptable to whatever works best. If we're not able to adapt our minds to a scenario like above, what's the point?
So there's your politics. I will now proceed to dogmatically state that Micrsoft and Go Daddy have had some very large handshakes. Handshakes that are so big, everyone can see the wad of green sticking out.
Microsoft is exactly like the Communist Chinese Government. Everyone knows the dastardly evil committed, and there's even evidence. They're just really good at denying what they just did right in front of your face. (I don't mean to compare the crimes themselves, just the reaction to them. There is no comparison to the things done by History's Communist Governments.)
The article contains no informed content. I contains wishy washy marketing dodges and completely fails to answer the question of why GoDaddy switched.
Exactly. Most other Microsoft written press release wins" contain info on why the switch took place, such as "most techs in company MCSEs, not enough Linux techs", or "can't find Linux techs as easily as MSCE monkeys", or MCSE monkeys cheaper than Linux gurus" or similar. Whatever the excuse, Microsoft always takes the opportunity in the press releases they write then get the target company to sign as their own words, Which still leaves the question, why? When it comes to setups such as GoDaddy's, where they are hosting a huge number of web pages, how else do you beat the competition when the competition is free and the target company must have techs that understand the OS because they had the servers working for years? In fact, the situation shows that GoDaddy received not only an incentive up front, but one that is also ongoing, since the free competition has a large advantage over time, month after month being free, costing nothing, month after month not requiring hardware upgrades as new releases come out, month after month of continued savings on licensing, audit compliance costs, and more.
The only reasonable explanation for the migration is that GoDaddy received from Microsoft a flat payment up front, and an ongoing incentive to stay with Microsoft for a time period known only to GoDaddy and Microsoft. That still leaves the question, why? On a move such as this, what would cause Microsoft to be distracted enough to care about picking up its head from its current concerns and looking at web server market share? My guess is that since one of the market areas that Microsoft is drawing attention to is that they have a cheaper TCO solution for web serving (among claimed others) then it is targeting its current advertising/marketing push to this area. In addition, it may have a new product in the pipeline ready to rollout (Vista web server?), so its priming the pump so to speak. One last and most likely reason is that it had some tough questions to answer to analysts and/or industry consultants, and in order to draw attention away from bad numbers (Linux market share percentage growth on servers vs. Microsoft, etc.), they decided to spend a little money prior to the analyst/consultant event or Linux event or computing event, so that they could have the headline of "switched web servers" available and ready to spin going into the event. They pay for 3 months worth, 6 months worth, etc., then they get the kick of Windows Vista gaining market share into web surfing, then later on when they need the headline again, they open up the wallet once again and get another large registrar to migrate under similar terms as GoDaddy's sealed deal. This is a no-brainer. They have the cash to burn, they are relying on perception since reality will expose them, so they are putting their massive cash reserves to what they believe is good use.
"While the move to park sites with Windows, and Microsoft's press release on the matter, stirred some discussion, Adelman indicates the hosting company has not suffered from it at all. "There hasn't been any real backlash. There absolutely hasn't," he says."
If there has been backlash, would you admit to it? Or would you prefer to spin that there hasn't, so anyone contemplating avoiding you or switching would think they were the only ones and being unreasonable? I'm still blocking EV1's ip space because of their support of SCO by buying into SCO's scam licensing. We still have a permanent ban in place on doing business with any company hosted on EV1 servers. I haven't purchased a single gallon of gas from Exxon/Mobil since the Valdez disaster. I'm going to switch my domains from GoDaddy to other registrars first as they come up for renewal and second once the renewals are done, the long term paid versions as well.
Ok, aside from the mealy mouth doublespeak non-sense spin Go Daddy is trying to feed everyone and assuming there is some truth in there.
Exactly. Actually reminds me of their mealy mouth doublespeak non-sense spin regarding their help desk and some of their secondary services. First, it's your fault you are having a problem, Second, you are the only one having a problem, third, you are using a non-standard browser or email client, so we can't help you, and so on and so on and so on...
But frankly this technology refresh sounds exactly like that brown stuff that bulls leave on the ground. What the hell would be the point to migrate inactive websites from a free OS and server environment to an OS and server environment you have to pay for?. Where is the dollar justification in that? None that I can see..... unless Go Daddy was offered some, ahem, enticements to make it worth their while.
Exactly
Nothing like non-answers
The dead giveaway for Microsoft underhanded backdoor weaseling is the non-answer to questions about it. For example:
"This was for one particular part of our infrastructure for parked domains. We are totally committed to a heterogeneous environment. It was just one piece of infrastructure."
Golly. That statement says nothing. Here's more:
"Adelman explains Go Daddy was in the process of making decisions as it was re-writing code and assessing ongoing projects, evaluating technologies based on factors such as operational support and amount of coding required. 'We were looking at a technology refresh, and we decided to move in that direction. It was something that happened in the course of what we do when we look at areas to change and improve.'"
Total gibberish.
That's it. There is nothing concrete about the change in the entire article. It's a dead giveaway that M$ greased somebody's palm to get bragging rights on all those domains. I don't see another explanation. I may have been born in the dark, but it wasn't last night.
This post is a good analysis. There's enough MBA doublespeak in there that it brings up the question, why didn't Bob Parsons himself respond? After all, Bob Parsons is the face of GoDaddy. The founder. The one with the radio show. And he gives the task of responding to a potential damaging interview to a subordinate? What really happened here is that what regularly gets done, Microsoft writes up the press release and gets someone from the company involved to sign off on the statements as if they were his own. So when questions come back, the questions get kicked back to the same MBA double talker at Microsoft that wrote the original release.
This story is a big bag of dog shit. MBA double talk as excuses for why they migrated so that 1, they attempt to diffuse pissed off FOSS developers which are GoDaddy's target audience for domains and web development and 2. they attempt to spin the story with MBA double talk designed to "educate" suits as to when and why migrating to Microsoft is appropriate, in the process of making decisions as it was re-writing code and assessing ongoing projects, evaluating technologies based on factors such as operational support and amount of coding required. and We were looking at a technology refresh, and we decided to move in that direction. It was something that happened in the course of what we do when we look at areas to change and improve, just like when companies are now starting to consider whether to do a technology refresh as Vista comes out. And while you suits are considering doing a technology refresh, please use one of our magic Microsoft calculators which happen to show Vista rollouts with a better TCO than staying with Windows XP, 2003, and 2000 regardless of what numbers you plug into the calculator. Anyone ever try their calculator and not get a recommendation to migrate to their latest Operating System on all levels?
All this story (Microsoft getting GoDaddy to migrate) shows is that Microsoft is scared enough of analysts and consultants dwelling on the tremendous growth of Linux in the server space year after year after year after year compounded, with a tipping point being reached for Linux on the desktop between foreign sales and rollouts of Linux on the desktop combined with states, cities and organizations all joining in on insisting on open standards, combined with US government increasing use and support of FOSS in civilian and military applications, combined with FOSS owning the market in embedded Operating Systems, and you are beginning to see Microsoft in panic mode. OpenOffice, Mozilla/Firefox capturing 20+% of browser market share when Bill Gates himself said they would always have over 90% market share just some six months ago, Oracle on Linux, IBM on Linux, SAP on Linux, here a Linux, there a Linux, everywhere a Linux...where does it end? Will Bill wake up from this nightmare?
Bill once said that his worst nightmare, his nightmare scenario would be that someone would invent a newer technology that would replace Windows, and that "all this" would go away.
Bill, welcome to your worst nightmare. Welcome to the Jungle.
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/qeqez" title="tinyurl.com">Extinction</a tinyurl.com> is the process in which companies die out. If the start up rate is less than the death rate over time, extinction results. Extinction is a natural result of evolution. Microsoft is going extinct because they are unable to adapt to changes in the business environment or compete effectively with other companies. Well over 99 per cent of the companies that have ever existed have gone extinct.
I though Bob stood for those old fasioned american values (ala Chris reeve in superman) - not the new american values of Enron - do anything you think you can get away with and if you caught get some spin doctor to weasel you out of it.
godaddy saves millions on microsoft desktop, servers, etc over upcoming years (godaddy must spend a bunch on this anyway to accomodate a portion of its customers). godaddy can now claim some ms prefered or authentic crap. godaddy gets some assurances that other hosters wont get similar deal. godaddy becomes main choice for ms business [whatever.. the only business redirection here is from godaddy to ms when ms figures out the hosting business]. godaddy takes risks that the brand harm from foss people will be less than the positives [notice the remark: "There hasn't been any real backlash. There absolutely hasn't" the tone of this statement gives me the impression that perhaps MS is not going to insure godaddy for goodwill and other business losses from foss community. How do you spell relief to a godaddy executive: lose less than 10% of old clients so that they got the better "half" of the deal with MS].
This is all speculation. I am sure the truth would shame this fiction.
This is all speculation. I am sure the truth would shame this fiction.
Well Bruce Perens made it out to be a HUUUUGE deal
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 21, 2006 01:20 AM#