[chgs]

This is why the important thing is diversity. The more diverse your ecosystem they less likely you are to suffer a catastrophic failure

If half your tills are windows/defender and half linux/crowdstrike then half your tills are going to be working.

[gruez]

Except that seems like a maintenance nightmare day to day. There's bugs in the linux version but not the windows version, not to mention having to write two sets of software. Imagine having to get your app's prod to work on both windows AND linux.

[midtake]

Agreed. It should be deployed entirely on Linux. Rip and rebuild is much easier on Linux. Using Windows as a server should be seen as a dark pattern in 2024.

For EMS, hospitals, Windows makes sense on the server because they don't know any better. For anyone remotely technologically competent, Windows shouldn't even be considered an option other than as workstations. Linux on the server is the only way and no one can convince me otherwise.

[gruez]

>Using Windows as a server should be seen as a dark pattern in 2024.

>Linux on the server is the only way and no one can convince me otherwise.

Now meet the sysadmin that thinks the same, but for windows for clients. At the risk of overgeneralizing, people are only for "diversity" when it means supporting their preferred underdog platform (eg. linux desktop). When they're the dominant incumbent it's suddenly "dark pattern", "they don't know any better" and "no one can convince me otherwise".

[ssl-3]

Two teams. Two systems. Identical design specifications and goals.

If the results match: Everything is largely proven to be working as-designed, and the output is assumed to be valid. This is an advantage.

If one breaks: Nothing is proven to be working, but that's no worse than we have today with just one system. This is not a disadvantage.