> Nano Server provides just the components you need – nothing else
And that's exactly what I do not trust MS with.
With a well documented history of backdoor ridden bloat ware products it is not quite the company that I accept any non-opensource release to have "just what I need and nothing else".
Though I must admit that the opensource train they are riding lately allows me to look at them them from a very new perspective. But still, MS if you are listening: if it is not opensource, I do not trust you!
> Then this release (and frankly, any MS product) is not for you.
I've certainly re-considered dotNet after it got open sourced recently! It (finally) seemed like a reasonable proposition -- as I explain in my post BTW.
But indeed, Windows, and especially Windows-closed-source-on-a-server, is not my cup of tea. And I don't understand how it could be anyone's tea.
> But some enterprises use MS software
Sure, and this is a start-up forum. :)
Anyway, I upvoted your post for taking the trouble to explain your downvote. Thanks.
Microsoft is super friendly to startups. I can't say details, but they've given us a ton of support. BizSpark Plus ($5K a month free Azure for a year) is great. They've also got marketing help available.
While Azure is overpriced compared to Google Cloud (and maybe compared to AWS - dunno cause AWS pricing is convoluted), having them comp it is really nice. Azure is also a lot more full service than Google's stuff, if you need more than IaaS.
Just curious--I thought all three platforms were committed to essentially matching each other's prices. Has that not been true in your experience? Or is it something specific that's driving up your perceived price of Azure versus the other options?
No, that's trivially untrue, just go try the pricing calculators.
They make a big deal about being the same price on storage and bandwidth. We talked to MS and determined that even after discounts for committing to Azure, the VMs themselves are 50% more than on Google. Without a commit, the price is 200% of Google's.
And even on storage, Azure isn't competitive, even if the price is the same. Their SSD options that are available now are laughable. (A temp SSD drive that erases on reboot - mostly useless.) Their currently-in-preview SSD option is ... awkward and just plain weird. You have to use special VM instance types, then create special storage accounts, then select from 3 presets in terms of space/perf. Azure actually suggests software striping them together to get more perf.
Google's SSD offering is straightfoward and just works and is quite fast. Want more perf? Just get a bigger disk and they scale up the IOPS, no problem, no fuss, no special VM or anything needed.
I'm sort of an MS fanboy, and I really dislike and distrust Google. But after using GCE a little bit, wow, for IaaS I wouldn't ever choose anything else. Everything seems just simpler, easier, cheaper, faster. (Machines boot super quick, the portal is simple/fast, and they have an SSH client in browser as a kicker.)
http://azure.microsoft.com/blog/2015/04/08/microsoft-unveils...
I read:
> Nano Server provides just the components you need – nothing else
And that's exactly what I do not trust MS with.
With a well documented history of backdoor ridden bloat ware products it is not quite the company that I accept any non-opensource release to have "just what I need and nothing else".
Though I must admit that the opensource train they are riding lately allows me to look at them them from a very new perspective. But still, MS if you are listening: if it is not opensource, I do not trust you!