Perhaps it is very simple, perhaps it is that with Microsoft, there are more "knowns" than there are "unknowns" and with the Linuces it is the reverse and that upon discovering this, in this case, time and costs favored Windows 7 over the benefits assumed to exist within the FOSS/OSS mix.
"let the requirements and practical considerations drive." I don't much like Cache (the database technology), because too few know how to leverage it and way too many devs end up using its embedded cut-down Apache web server, vice installing a separate version of Apache (even on Windows) or using IIS 7/7.5. Regardless of the OS, or the beef in the hardware, if so configured (as many do), the app will hit a ceiling if exposed to much use.
That said, whether I like it or not doesn't matter - I still have to support it for many medical applications and practice suites, because Cache is what is used by many developing software in that industry.
I'm not especially fond of RHAS, or their commercial support costs for udpates (which are required of places like banks subject to regulation by the FDIC and other). I prefer to use less costly and what I think are more capable tools on a proven baseline. Regardless, sometimes the requirements differ and we run them, or as is most often the case, run a mix. In all cases, the requirements of the developer ultimately decide such issues. Ultimately, they have the product the customer bought and one has to support them if it is to work. In so many cases, people develop on and for Windows clients and servers using Microsoft tools - so why are we suprised it works this way?
|