|
|
Posted by Stu on 06/26/06 15:19
See, you're thinking like an IT person, not a business person. Have
you priced Oracle on Windows lately? The analogy is more like a bank;
if a bank gets you to take free checking, and free savings, and a
mortgage loan, and a line of credit, then the less likely you are to
switch even if somebody offers you a better deal on any one of those
services. If Microsoft has got a customer running Windows and SQL
Server and Exchange and ...., that customer will stick around even if
they can find a better individual product elsewhere.
Zvonko wrote:
> "Stu" <stuart.ainsworth@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1151291106.648074.110690@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> > It all boils down to one thing: the almight dollar.
> >
> > What business reason would Microsoft have for porting SQL Server to
> > another platform? SQL Server has become a vital part of the Microsoft
> > development structure, but it was initially a method to convince
> > administrators to migrate more servers from a UNIX platform to Windows
> > (kind of, "oh, you need a database product? We got one. Now buy some
> > licenses for Wndows servers...")
>
> Oh, no thanks, your competitors have the solution that works fine on all
> platforms for the same price.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be on SQL Server newsgroup if I am not using
> it, but it would be nice if SQL Server works on all platforms. That is the
> thing I don't like Microsoft. They're so deep in profit, that they don't see
> a customer. Why can't you buy SQL Server Enterprise, and run it on Linux?
> What are they afraid of? Bancropcy? Or finding out that Windows platform
> isn't that popular? I wonder ....
>
> Zvonko
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|