[jacquesm]

> Picking what technology will run your business is something that really needs to be done on a case by case basis, based on your knowledge and your business.

We're definitely in agreement there. The main criterium is: use what you know how to use. So if you're comfortable using the MS stack then go for it, otherwise, probably better to avoid it.

[pdpi]

> The main criterium is: use what you know how to use. So if you're comfortable using the MS stack then go for it, otherwise, probably better to avoid it.

So, would it be fair to say "So if you're comfortable using the Linux stack then go for it, otherwise, probably better to avoid it", or was that your parting jab against MS?

[jacquesm]

No, since Linux & FreeBSD are license free they have intrinsic advantages over Microsoft.

[wfjackson]

Yet we see that StackOverflow is fast and scaling really well with demand while Reddit still has load issues after seven years.

[ansible]

Reddit does get about 15x the traffic SO does. But there are too many confounding variables to draw any conclusions about Linux vs. Windows.

[tim333]

Reddit has rather more complex database queries than StackOverflow so that's not really apples to apples

[notwedtm]

Genuinely curious as to how you came to that conclusion.From the outside looking in, they both look like they would serve similar queries.

On top of that, SO's search feature is (IMHO) loads better than Reddit's.

[integraton]

StackOverflow uses ElasticSearch (open source, Java) for search.

[cwyers]

Yes, it is possible (and common) to run Linux or one of the BSDs for free. But at large scale, a lot of people opt to pay one of Red Hat/Oracle/SuSE/Canonical/etc. for their free Linux ANYWAY. Buying Windows also means buying support. How much of this cost advantage goes away if you're paying Red Hat et al support fees?

[rjbwork]

The fact that you guys are even talking about "buying windows" and "buying support" when talking about buying into the Windows Azure stack shows that you most likely haven't used it much, if at all, and aren't quite sure what you're talking about.

[cwyers]

I haven't used it much; I have used AWS a bit more, and there I recall you had to pay more if you wanted an instance on Windows or on RHEL proper rather than using CentOS or Debian. Those costs probably do add up to a lot more as you scale up (although it's silly to look at that in isolation). But he's comparing using Azure to self-hosting on your own hardware, I think.

[rjbwork]

Yeah, you don't pay extra for Windows itself on Azure, costs the same for a 2012 R2 DataCenter VM as it does for a small 2008 worker role, as it does for a Linux VM. You would have to pay for software like Oracle or SQL Server though, obviously.

Also, we don't have to worry about managing VMs at all so we don't generally think about those sorts of things except for a couple of very niche uses like our chat bot or QA testing VMs.

[CHY872]

This will factor in, but you can't make such sweeping statements - many parts of different stacks have their own intrinsic advantages.

Certainly, a silicon valley company of 10-20 employees will likely have costs of over $1000 a day - any software or hardware licensing will pale in comparison to this until the product is big.

[pessimizer]

I read it as saying that the benefits of not basing your business on a proprietary platform are lower than the benefits of going with a stack that you already have some expertise at. You may read differently.