[dextorious]

"""This is just sugar coating for the crap they're covering."""

Yes, please, do reduce an elaborate article discussing technical and business trade-offs into a silly anti-MS rant that wouldn't be out of place in Slashdot circa 1999 for us.

[kermitthehermit]

>I had full executive support in investigating a port, but had I brought forth a proposal to proceed I would have faced arguments from many that I was undermining Microsoft’s entire business plan.

See? Read that part "I was undermining Microsoft's entire business plan", please. That also includes the monoculture and the perfect vendor lock in.

The main issue is that you can't easily move to another platform when your entire app / system runs on MS software. If you use Oracle's DB or something else for an app with a DB, you could move away from Windows if you decided to, provided you are ready to and can make the required changes to your app's code.

As for "my rant", it looks like the porting to *NIX was just an idea, not something they were seriously considering. I never expected them to do it because some people would choose not to buy Windows licenses and just buy SQL Server licenses, not both.

That's hardly a rant. It's just the long story of MS vs. the "viral" open source / free software.

[dextorious]

"""That's hardly a rant. It's just the long story of MS vs. the "viral" open source / free software."""

That's hardly a story.

Company wants you to use their products instead of OSS/whatever alternatives. News at 11.

[oakgrove]

MS keeps SQL server windows only primarily because they want people to buy Windows. Duh. How is that anti-MS? Naive much?

[dextorious]

I mean the whole tone and the other arguments of the parent comment. Skipped them, much?