It's funny because Microsoft is known for selling their solutions but in my experience their main problem is they don't know how to sell solutions. A lot of the white papers they put out are just laughable.
If what is being said in this post is correct (and my personal anecdotal evidence suggests it is) than Microsoft needs to hire the best Ruby and Python developers they can find. Have a program written in both languages on a Linux stack and then write the same program on a Windows stack. Then open source it all so anyone who knows ruby or python can point to code mistakes that might inhibit performance.
Once that's all done MS should stress test all the solutions and publish the results.
The Razor engine is the most credible thing MS has given the development community in a while so there's no time like the present.
Once that's all done MS should stress test all the solutions and publish the results.
This is lose-lose for MS. If it turns out they do worse or the same then they lose. If they do better, even much better, people just say its MS funded, please ignore.
And for any non-trivial app there are 1000! different ways to build it. Even if they happened to find the optimal non-MS implementation, someone will say it isn't. And unless you implement all 1000! of them you'll simply have people saying, "No one would do it that way".
By that logic Microsoft might as well pack it up and close shop. Because any act they would take would be an act funded by Microsoft. So if they can't do anything because people will say it was funded by Microsoft than they can't do anything at all.
But you did get me thinking and I wouldn't see anything wrong with them having someone else do the actual tests. Hand it off to CNet, ZDNet, AOL or whoever. Provide them the funding and let them run the tests. I don't think any big media company would say no.
>By that logic Microsoft might as well pack it up and close shop.
Jan 31, 2011
Microsoft Corp.'s net income for the latest quarter fell slightly from a year ago but the software giant still beat Wall Street's expectations despite the weak personal computer market. Net income was $6.63 billion, compared with $6.66 billion in the same period last year.
I don't think MS is losing to much sleep over the never-ending discussion between programmers whether the MS stack is as scalable as open source alternatives.
There are several live sites that prove it can scale. Most sites chose the alternative. At the end of the day its an interesting conversation, but why do people care so much? If I choose to give a couple grand of MY money to MS, why does that bother some people so much?
They are known for selling to larger orgs, because MS partners can pull in local MS heavy hitters when necessary to convince targets to pull the trigger. I wouldn't say their whitepapers get them much in the way of sales.
In my view, the more status-conscious the sales target is, the more easily MS can sell to them. It's not really the tech that seals the deal.
If what is being said in this post is correct (and my personal anecdotal evidence suggests it is) than Microsoft needs to hire the best Ruby and Python developers they can find. Have a program written in both languages on a Linux stack and then write the same program on a Windows stack. Then open source it all so anyone who knows ruby or python can point to code mistakes that might inhibit performance.
Once that's all done MS should stress test all the solutions and publish the results.
The Razor engine is the most credible thing MS has given the development community in a while so there's no time like the present.