[Sussex] Windows Server 2003 overtakes Solaris 9 on the web

[Steve Dobson]

Geoff / Mark

On 14 April 2003 at 15:14 Geoff Teale wrote:
> Mark Wrote:
> -----------
> > It's a ridiculous _HEADLINE_, but the story behind it was 
> > fairly balanced.
> 
> Hmmm, the explicit comparison of Windows 2003 Server with Sun 
> Solaris 9 in this particular field is setting out to be
> provacative, and is completely irrelevant.  I think this is
> just making a story up where there isn't one.  That was my
> point, it's a ridiculous story to write at all.

I have to agree with Geoff here.  My little look at the data
over lunch [1] showed me how little of the data is being examined.
In my view unless we can see these numbers in terms of the whole
picture there is little (if anything) to see here.

What percentage of Windows/Solaris platforms have been upgraded?
Why software is installed is far more important than the numbers.

The article says that Sun haven't upgraded their main website 
to Solaris 9 - and why should they if it is stable, working and
secure?  The fact that Microsoft is running pre-release code
(for which I read beta) may say more for the buggy state of
Windows Server 2000 - although I suspect it has more to do
with features.

While I applaud Microsoft for public testing their software in
this while what does this say for support?  Why should we all
rush out to buy the very latest version of a software product?
While I can see the benefit to Microsoft's cash flow I do not
see that this necessarily the best move for all their clients.

Steve

[1]
http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/sussex/2003-April/002604.html