http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-7720536.html

hehehe
:D :D :D

I'd love to hear your comments about this...
personally I think amazon should've used freebsd

Originally posted by muppie
I'd love to hear your comments about this...
personally I think amazon should've used freebsd

I would disagree. You have to think big. Amazon needs enterprise size software and SERVICE. The key being service. HP and Red Hat offer such service contracts but I know of none for FreeBSD. At least not any of the major players.

So Yahoo and Hotmail who are using freebsd aren't getting support?

Very interesting article, thanks for posting...

I've consulted with several FreeBSD gurus, and here is what:

FreeBSD has commercial support:


http://www.freebsd.org/commercial/consulting.html

http://bsdsearch.com/dir/support/commercial.php

do you think will this be acceptable to people working on windows from years to swtich to kde or gnome desktop. i don't like gnome. KDE is cool but laks windows kinda look and use.

i think they did this with there server software which saved there bucks. anyway amazon is going down by number of visitors these days. i read it in some article on news.com and now google is on top.

Originally posted by muppie
I'd love to hear your comments about this...
personally I think amazon should've used freebsd
I think that they are using Linux for the desktop,
based on the reference to KDE & StarOffice.
I don't know if FreeBSD all that good as a desktop
OS.

From what I understand in the article about Amazon and Linux, they are using Linux for their Web Servers, and not for the desktops.

Secondly, FreeBSD is just as good as Linux to run KDE, GNOME or any kind of X based applications.

Thirdly, Linux is inconsistent and non standard from one distribution to another. The update process is hard. Contrast with FreeBSD which only comes from ONE source (with a team of hundreds of very competent programmers) this maintaining a unified standards and with a very consistent structure. The update process for FreeBSD is easy with its package management system perhaps only rivaled by Debian's.

Anyway it is still better for Amazon to use Linux than Windows for their servers. (Were they using Windows?)

Originally posted by mahinder
do you think will this be acceptable to people working on windows from years to swtich to kde or gnome desktop....


When OpenOffice (http://www.openoffice.org) gets out of beta next year, many corps are going to have a tough decision to make. Should they continue to pay $200 per year per seat for Microsoft Office (of which they only use about 20% of the functionality), or should they switch to the free OpenOffice?

What would you do if it were your money?

Wow thanks for the link. For my company I will definitely use a freebsd (or linux / other open source o/s).
Normal office simply need:

- spreadsheet
- word processor
- email
- accounting packages (can be run under wine or a unix solution)

which can be catered by these opensource software.

Anything else to add?

Why would Hotmail use FreeBSD? It's an MSN service! Wouldn't it make sense for it to use Windows?

Originally posted by delemtri
Why would Hotmail use FreeBSD? It's an MSN service! Wouldn't it make sense for it to use Windows?
They bot the software/service. It was FreeBSD back than. I know they tried to switch to FreeBSD two years ago, and a year ago, and actually got some of the servers to use win2000.
Yet, I believe they still using FreeBSD for most of the servers.

My account must be on one of the Windows servers... ;)

Originally posted by delemtri
My account must be on one of the Windows servers... ;)
Why? Is it constantly crashing?

Guys, the linux thing is a red herring. Amazon didn't save money though reduced software costs; Amazon saved money through reduced hardware costs. They had been using $50K+ Sun servers, and they suddenly realized that PCs could be used instead. The choice of linux was entirely arbitrary.

It crashes a bit. But I guess I can't complain, it being free and all.

This is snip from the article. Is there a hidden cost or something that I don't know here?


But there are hidden costs to Linux, Microsoft argues. "I think a lot of customers are lured by the apparent low price of Linux," said Doug Miller, director of competitive strategy for Microsoft's Windows division. "They don't have a real issue with Linux, but it ends up costing them in the long run."

Originally posted by certify
This is snip from the article. Is there a hidden cost or something that I don't know here?



Linux is for dabblers who love tweaking and tends to be more stable. Windows is for those who don't want to tweak and want ease of use.

There are benefits in each, and like the AMD and Intel debates, it's a matter of personal choice which is better to use.

I prefer NT, mainly because it can take all the apps I wish to use.

<Shrug>