Hans-Christian Andersen
hans.andersen at phulse.com
Wed Jan 16 13:45:00 CST 2013
Ward Cunningham can call it what he likes. In my opinion, calling it a "possessor" rather than a "server" is just a way of describing of how your data is being handled and was a political statement by Ward. As far as I'm concerned, a server is a computer that provides a service or services in which one or more users interact with through a client of some sort and not directly (ie. monitor, keyboard and mouse). And all those servers (or possessors) need to run an operating system with a software stack on top. > Please correct me if you think I'm wrong and you see that SMB servers role is in fact growing nowadays. (I'm putting corporate lan/wan servers out of my view as I'm not working for large business/corporations...) I would argue it is growing, but, even if it weren't the case, why are we are only focusing here on SMB servers, when that is only a small fraction of what Linux servers do in this world? > OK - this is why I proposed to "pigeonhole" discussing that stats till January 2014 when, I suppose, there will be no way for MS to publish "misleading" stats... It is still curious that they would do that. - Hans On 2013-01-16, at 4:31 AM, Salakhetdinov Shamil <mcp2004 at mail.ru> wrote: > Hi Hans -- > > I have just accidentally got read the following Ward Cunningham's (@WardCunningham) tweet from 12th of January, 2013: > > "Servers no longer serve, they possess. We should call them possessors." If I'm not wrong with my understanding of the verb "possess" ( save, keep, maintain, preserve, retain, hold (down), withhold ) he uses then that tweet is in accordance with my current "pure servers" market understanding - I mean, servers, and SMB-market servers especially, are becoming more and more "possessors" or just keepers of backup data - files, media, databases with true (IT/automation) services going served via "Cloud" - whatever server technology is used to keep the cloud services functioning. And here TCO would be mainly "cloud" hosting costs assuming development and consulting costs are nearly equal and backup local servers costs could be neglected. Desktop hosts for MS Windows-driven PC would be higher but not that much for my customers to concern. Please correct me if you think I'm wrong and you see that SMB servers role is in fact growing nowadays. (I'm putting corporate lan/wan servers out of my view as I'm not working for large business/corporations...) > > <<< > I was only pointing out, in response to your email, that Microsoft's claim of 60 million Windows 8 > desktop licenses sold is misleading and that Microsoft is unwilling to clarify those numbers... which is curious. >>>> > OK - this is why I proposed to "pigeonhole" discussing that stats till January 2014 when, I suppose, there will be no way for MS to publish "misleading" stats... > > > Thank you. > > -- Shamil > > > Вторник, 15 января 2013, 23:43 -08:00 от Hans-Christian Andersen <hans.andersen at phulse.com>: >> >> Well, I was personally more interested in the discussion about how Linux in the server market. I was only pointing out, in response to your email, that Microsoft's claim of 60 million Windows 8 desktop licenses sold is misleading and that Microsoft is unwilling to clarify those numbers... which is curious. >> >> - Hans >> >> > <<< skipped >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > dba-Tech mailing list > dba-Tech at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-tech > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com