| It's an imperfect analogy so we're all going to take what we want from it. Here's my take: Windows enabled businesses to start doing business without a ton of r&d. It was ubiquitous and supported and functional. At the same time, with Linux you could invest all your capex into a datacenter and 1Us and build clusters for cheap and transfer all that money you would have spent on a complete system on opex to develop one. In some cases it's just plain necessary, and has some great success stories. Sadly, I'm seeing a lot of businesses throw away time and money on NIH, justifying it with restrictive budgets. They claim they have to build all their solutions from scratch, rather than pay for managed ones, because it's cheaper. Those people often don't understand the true cost, and are wasting both time and money, when they could be buying ready solutions to start churning out products. But then again, there are businesses that literally do not need to move fast, improve their products, increase efficiency, etc. For them, spending money on tech is more a hedge against an uncertain future than a business decision. They'll invest in anything if they think it makes them relevant. So, Windows vs Linux is probably less important than the underlying motives of a given business, and whether it's managed well. Anyway, neither of them disappeared, and there's still good cases for both. |