Compound Thinking

Can we Learn about Server OS’s from Microsoft?

Before NT 4 came out Microsoft was non-existent in the server market, then by the time Windows 2000 Server came out Microsoft was one of the largest players in the same market. We also know that NT 4 Server was unstable crap, so what happened? How did Microsoft make a huge dent in the server market with such a troubled product?

The most important of which is the fact that Microsoft already owned most of the desktop market. At the most basic level people would much rather not have to support two different operating systems.

This is something that is already happening in the Ubuntu world, just this morning I talked to someone who moved all his Red Hat and Debian servers to Ubuntu. He started with Ubuntu on his desktop, and loved it, and decided that it would be easier not to have to deal with all those differences.

Beyond that Microsoft made it pretty easy to integrate their desktop with their server. And sometimes they did some crazy possibly illegal stuff to make sure other server systems wouldn’t work as well with their desktops. This only worked because they had a monopoly on the desktop, and it was only possible because they weren’t particularly interested in taking the moral high ground.

Of course Ubuntu has neither the monopoly or the slippery moral stance of Microsoft. So, Ubuntu is taking the exact opposite approach on this front, the server should just work, and it should just work with as many client OS’s as possible.