I've got a new Dell PowerEdge R520 server ordered up with a Windows Server 2012 R2 Standard OEM license. Unfortunately, I didn't order any media and since it's our first 2012 R2 server, I don't already have a disc. I notice Dell are charging £25 for a 'media kit', which is a complete rip off and you can probably only order them with a server. I wonder if the server will come with a mechanism to 'burn your own' recovery media.

I bought a Windows 2012 R2 FOUNDATION ROK 1 CP Dell, Now I have to downloaded and installed Windows 2012 R2 standard in my server(Download from Microsoft site) I Use key of 2012 R2 FOUNDATIO to Activate the Windows 2012 R2 standard. I can't activate and I don't want reinstall,What should I. Download the Frost & Sullivan. Licensing options now vary between Windows Server 2012 R2 and Windows. HPE Microsoft Windows Server Reseller Option Kit (ROK).

Unfortunately, I'm going to need install media straight away, since the new server is meant to be a Hyper-V host and I need to install 2012 R2 onto the VM's I create. Dynamics Ax 2012 R2 Demo Data Download more.

I wonder if this means that Microsoft will decide to update the Skype client for Linux, which has been in perpetual beta for a while now without feature parity. Development of the Linux client seemed to stop at the time of the Microsoft acquisition. If I'm not completely mistaken the Linux client always was quite a bit behind the windows version even before the MS acquisition - and certainly always in beta.

But then imho every new version of skype got worse and worse, so I really don't see that as a problem (and personally as long as skype allows conference calls, messaging and desktop sharing [which doesn't seem to be working on the newest versions anymore? Heard something from a friend today] I don't think I need anything else). I'm not surprised at the Linux-based hosts. One reason (that hasn't been brought up yet) could be that it was just easier to develop the hosts on Linux than on Windows due to the existing code base.

Why re-invent the wheel, right? Well, that contrasts with the constant complain that the Skype software on Linux and Mac OS X does trail the Windows version. As the super nodes used to be powered by the very same code that runs your Skype on your computer, you'd think that the Windows version of that code was more advanced, got way more testing, etc.

So it is surprising after all, that the vital part of the network infrastructure is run on Linux by Microsoft. But then I'm no expert in Skype software. This sounds like a May Fools Joke Why would you want to replace a P2P distributed infrastructure, that is actually working, that has never been hacked with a hosted server farm running your biggest competitor's OS?

May as well shoot yourself in the foot and go all the way. They've got the oomph to create their own OS from scratch, for example, the original Xbox was a stripped down version of Windows 2000 If anything it would be a great chance to advertise Windows on Azure 'now running Skype' Nah check your sources, this one sounds too far off. Microsoft is much more friendly with the Linux community nowadays. It is even one of the largest contributors to the Linux kernel. No they aren't.

When their HyperV drivers finally moved out of staging and into the main kernel, they were credited with that 2.5 years of work during a roughly 6-month window looked at by the most recent linux development report. This one-time blip amounted to 1% of the changes in that time, making them the 17th largest corporate contributor to Linux in that time. Their contributions are valuable, but they aren't 'one of largest contributors' to the Linux Kernel, regardless of how most media coverage spun the story. And there is no way it was 2.5 years work - there was only 2 years between when they originally open sourced Hyper-V and when they released their big update. Likely there was some work done outside the period of the report but that's also likely true of many companies. It's also being 'spun' by the Linux Foundation themselves - they note that Microsoft is one of the 20 largest contributors in 2011.

The problem many Linux folks have with this characterization is that: 1. It is commit based which means something a bit different in the msft case b/c 2.their initial driver submission (and subsequent ones for awhile) were not of good enough quality to leave staging, 3.this is likely the only thing msft will contribute to the kernel.

H-online.com/open/features/Kernel-Comment-Taking-a-partial-view-1517272.html That link is a prettyinteresting summary, though it doesn't mention the threat/promise to drop the HyperV code if Microsoft didn't get its *ss in gear and fix up the code to acceptable standards. I suppose the most telling part is the part about the code shrinking 60% in the process. I'm surprised Microsoft allows you to comment publicly about its infrastructure. I work for a company that comes up on occasion in the forums but I can't correct even the most egregious inaccuracies. This is hardly a big secret. Bing runs on Windows.

We're not embarrassed by saying that. EDIT: And honestly how is anybody with at least moderate knowledge of the server OS world going to be even remotely surprised by this? I'm shocked that the myth that Microsoft properties 'need' to run primarily on Linux (or something that isn't Windows Server) persists despite widespread evidence to the contrary, both in terms of measured performance and publicly available data. Could it be because some people still remember the Hotmail migration(s)?

Microsoft has long used a LARGE number of linux and unix systems. They;'re simply better at high transaction and high bandwidth functions. Even Server Core is not that good at these kinds of things. Azure is not meant for simple, conenction oriented workloads, it;s meant for VDI, virtual aplications, and distributed computing, not hosting services.

Most of MS's web sites sit on Linux today, not their own servers. I've worked in Bing for over seven years and I can tell you this is wildly factually inaccurate.

Care to cite your sources? I'm surprised Microsoft allows you to comment publicly about its infrastructure. I work for a company that comes up on occasion in the forums but I can't correct even the most egregious inaccuracies.

I know this is a random question but I just noticed your username. You don't happen to a mentor for FRC Team 229 are you? I'm not surprised at the Linux-based hosts.

One reason (that hasn't been brought up yet) could be that it was just easier to develop the hosts on Linux than on Windows due to the existing code base. Why re-invent the wheel, right? This is pretty much it. They've only owned Skype for about six months, it will take a couple of years to rewrite it to fit into thier Azure cloud, which is where its likely headed. They took the migration of Hotmail from BSD to Server slowly to avoid any disruption, they'll do the same thing here. If any of it is running on Linux in five years, I'd be suprised. Microsoft has long used a LARGE number of linux and unix systems.

They;'re simply better at high transaction and high bandwidth functions. Even Server Core is not that good at these kinds of things. Azure is not meant for simple, conenction oriented workloads, it;s meant for VDI, virtual aplications, and distributed computing, not hosting services. Most of MS's web sites sit on Linux today, not their own servers. As someone who spent more than a decade at MS, um, no, they do not. There are third party service providers MS contracts for specific jobs, like Akami, who do use Linux, but Microsoft corporate does not use it in any capacity internally or for any of their owned public facing services.

Furthermore, Live Messenger is far more popular and widely used than Skype, offers similiar functionality, and the back end runs on Windows Server, there is no reason to believe that Skype could not be handled if it were written for MS's cloud. Also, as a veteran of several large technology companies, MS's internal network is a model of reliability and stability. I have never worked in a better environment where everything 'just works' 99% of the time, especially given that they do not heavily lock down workstation usability like most other places I've worked. It was honestly one of the things that kept me coming back whenever I'd wander off to another company for a year or two. That said, I'm not there now. Since they write the software, their home shop BETTER be stable running the OS that is THEIR baby. If you can't eat your own dog food you shouldn't be selling it to others.

I'd bet inside Cupertino that Apple's internal setup is also rock solid, and in RedHat I'm sure they have quite a reliable, working and solid Linux desktop environment. Microsoft is probably the one company out of the 'big 3' right now that supports more platforms than the other guys. Apple makes their stuff sorta kinda work on Windows (meaning if it is in iTunes, it will work on Windows), but they make nothing for WP7 and nothing for Android, it is OSX and iOS only. ITunes on Windows was nothing more than an absolute necessity to make the iPod a success. Google makes apps for Windows because they have no where else to deploy apps to, but are working hard on the whole browser as an os thing. They too only make apps for Android, and nothing for WP7 or iOS.

What are you high? Not only are the vast majority of Google's core products inherently cross-platform as web apps like Search, Gmail, Docs, Voice, YouTube, etc. But even their collection of native apps supports way more platforms than MS does, overall you'd be hard pressed to find a Google service that doesn't work at least partially on all three operating systems, the same is certainly not true for MS. EDIT: And honestly how is anybody with at least moderate knowledge of the server OS world going to be even remotely surprised by this?

I'm shocked that the myth that Microsoft properties 'need' to run primarily on Linux (or something that isn't Windows Server) persists despite widespread evidence to the contrary, both in terms of measured performance and publicly available data. Could it be because some people still remember the Hotmail migration(s)?

If people are basing their opinions of Windows Server on a migration that happened a decade ago then I would not consider them to have even moderate knowledge of the server OS world. They too only make apps for Android, and nothing for WP7 or iOS. You may want to that a OK sorry, they have less capable counterparts for some other moble platforms that don't have the feature set of the android equivelant. Therefor making you rather have an android if you actually use those apps.

In case anyone else is confused about Google's Android strategy, it is not about OS dominance, but service usage. Google is an advertising company they do not care about platforms, they care about people using the web, and they care about people using Google services when they use the web. Android was created by Google such that they would not get locked out of the lucrative mobile business as more people move to doing things on their phones instead of computers. Google doesn't care what phone platform is dominant as long as Google services are being used. Therefore it is in their interest to always have high quality applications on all phone platforms, high quality websites for all browsers, high quality experiences for all desktops. The iOS applications Google has made are very high quality, and I doubt that there is any active plan to reduce the quality of Google's iOS products in order to convince people to use Android.

This doesn't make any sense anyway since you don't attract people to your products by doing a bad job. There is no incentive for Google to make bad applications on iOS or any other mobile platform, they give Android away for free. And, people forget that Microsoft had their own UNIX operating system for a while. Microsoft Xenix was spun-off, and Microsoft decided to rectify their lack of a real operating system, LAN server and RISC architecture support by partnering with IBM on OS/2, which they later had the confidence to turn into their own proprietary offering, Windows NT.

I wonder if this means that Microsoft will decide to update the Skype client for Linux, which has been in perpetual beta for a while now without feature parity. Development of the Linux client seemed to stop at the time of the Microsoft acquisition. The thing to remember is that Microsoft didn't want to be in the OS business.

Several ex-Microsoft people have discussed this in books. It was hard to find good people for OS work because the best talent wanted to do applications, which was regarded as more glamorous. The OS was far less visible back then, when GUIs were still not the rule outside of Apple. The bad experience with IBM and some other incidents lead Gates and other leaders within the company to accept that they couldn't rely on other companies to do what they felt was needed.

This had a big payoff down the road but they lost years to fruitless partnerships that couldn't achieve their goals. IBM especially was a problem because they were internally conflicted. OS/2 was regarded as highly undesirable competition by other parts of IBM and created no end of problems getting all of the ships on the same course. If Microsoft had come to this realization earlier they could have proceeded with what became NT a lot sooner and had a more mature code base that much sooner.

It's similar to the internet problem within the company. It wasn't, as some claim, that the company was oblivious about the internet.

There was a lot internet use within the company well before the Web. The real issue was the question of what it would take to make the internet into a ubiquitous consumer service. Within Microsoft the belief was that broadband was a critical factor and that it would always be a niche market on dial-up.

That was a mistake and they had to do some serious catch-up to overcome it. I use Skype for phone. I pay for the worldwide telephone service and it's still the best/cheapest option for VOIP calls to regular phones -- runs on Linux, Windows, iOS, Android, Win7 phone, etc. Maybe a lot of users have signed up for LM because they sign up for other Live services but I don't know anybody (as in know personally, not a general everybody) who still uses it. The trend seems to be pointing to apps that integrate nicely with smartphones. Everybody we know carries an iPhone or Samsung Galaxy so they could in theory install the Skype app to voice/video chat with us. But people hate signing up for yet another account and we simply could never convince any friends or family to use it (or anything else).

So while I use Skype to call regular phones worldwide, I never use it to video chat with anybody other than my mom. (The same trend exists for LM, YM, ICQ, QQ, Google Chat -- if you previously used it and have a community, it makes sense to keep using on your phone -- otherwise, it's a huge barrier to get somebody outside to join.) What has gotten very good traction is Viber, TangoMe and to a lesser extend FaceTime. With Viber, it sends you a SMS code for you to activate your account. With TangoMe, you just type in your phone number or your email address if you are using a wifi-only device.

Minimal signup, integration with your contacts list, automatically rings your phone w/o the need to startup the client first. You'd think FaceTime would have a lot more traction but we techies seriously underestimate how clueless the general public can be. Without an explicit FaceTime app on iPhones (like it is on iPads), I had to walk several friends through the process of 'Setup ->FaceTime ->Activate'.

(One friend couldn't even do this is and is waiting for her overseas trip to China for me to activate her account.) So seriously, it has been easier for our friends to go with add-on apps (Viber, TangoMe) because it's the same sequence of steps they use to install free games. (Only techies go through all the Setup options.).

As for MS using Linux servers internally, it shouldn't be surprising, it's always been a more powerful server platform, or at the very least Microsoft is now proving that Linux' price is definitely not it's only advantage as I can't imagine them having to 'buy' licenses for something they own the copyright too. Whether that advantage is quicker development, scaleability, lower overhead, modularity or otherwise, who knows, but Microsoft obviously value it for this role more than their own product. Except, they don't. MS uses Windows server internally. Skype was purchased only six months ago, not enough time to rewrite its back end.

It will be migrated to Azure as soon as they rewrite the server side software. Linux has not been a 'better' server platform for at least 8 years now, at best its equivalent, but the fact that Windows Server has destroyed Linux in everything except the web server market, I'm not sure most admins consider it to be to be even equal to Windows Server anymore. Odds of Microsoft admitting this if true? I had a friend who worked at Compaq back in the day. They had some Unix systems in their data center, and the engineers there were obliged to physically cover them up when Microsoft reps visited. And your 0% turned into 100% within minutes.

Why would Microsoft deny this? It is a company they acquired months ago. They can't just shut down any server that's not based on Windows just because. Hotmail ran on Unix boxes for about five years after it was acquired. And there was no reason why they couldn't have migrated them right away, it just made no financial sense to shut down machines that were running just fine. They are a business, and they have other priorities than fanboyism.

Brace for 'Microsoft using Linux' jokes - Windows Server is a solid platform but it was simply not designed for this use case. Microsoft learned to swallow their pride and accept the multi-OS ecosystem. Actually, MSFT has been using Linux in-house for years, especially on anything they want to actually be secure (most of their perimeter network, for example).

I don't think anyone's ever accused MSFT of eating their own dogfood; it's like fast food, how many McDonald's employees do you know that would actually eat at the one they work? I'm not surprised at the Linux-based hosts. One reason (that hasn't been brought up yet) could be that it was just easier to develop the hosts on Linux than on Windows due to the existing code base. Why re-invent the wheel, right? This is pretty much it. They've only owned Skype for about six months, it will take a couple of years to rewrite it to fit into thier Azure cloud, which is where its likely headed.

They took the migration of Hotmail from BSD to Server slowly to avoid any disruption, they'll do the same thing here. If any of it is running on Linux in five years, I'd be suprised. Actually, if memory serves me, they didn't do any migration at all for quite a while, then (unsurprisingly) ran into massive issues once they did start it. Particularly amusing (and reported on) given that their entire stated purpose for buying Hotmail was to move it onto Windows Server as a publicity move to get WinServer more market visibility. They quickly went back to just going after ignorant management who didn't know any better, while the techs weeped at having to support the POS.

So this means that they can now comply with wiretap orders? All you tinfoil hat conspirators do know that Skype creates direct P2P connections and that the actual call/video traffic is not going through the supernodes or host servers, right? They just exisat to help establish the calls and post status information, and in rare cases host a call when a P2P connection cannot actually be made (firewall issues). Most calls could not be monitored even with this system.

Also, who said microsoft would let them, without some pretty damn strong court order and warrant? Google doesn't care what phone platform is dominant as long as Google services are being used. Therefore it is in their interest to always have high quality applications on all phone platforms, high quality websites for all browsers, high quality experiences for all desktops.

I wished their Android applications would be of much use. They are built with the goal to get people to use the Internet, but not to fulfill the functions that are required to make them useful. Take for example Google Navigation. It is entirely useless if you don't have an internet connection: * It can't find an initial route, when it can't speak to its servers * It can't reroute (other than the fastest track back to the original route) when it can't talk to its servers * It can't store a reasonable amount of maps locally * It shows you routes going against the traffic * It does not appear to share maps with other apps seemingly built on Google maps, such as My Tracks, etc. I don't exactly want to be paranoid here, but doesn't this also make it absolutely cake for Microsoft (by themselves, or under government request) to monitor communications passing over Skype by completely removing any possibility of anonymity?

There's been talk of governmental access to Skype already existing, but this would essentially be the final nail in the coffin of Skype being considered for any kind of secure conversation. Uh, anyone using Skype for secure communications is doing it wrong. While the Skype protocol is closed-source that doesn't mean it's secure.

Actually, at least prior to acquisition by MSFT, skype calls (audio only, AFAIK, not text or video) were end-to-end encrypted with a key generated while the two distant ends are establishing connection. This is one of my reasons (besides lack of authority) that Skype refused to give the US gov a backdoor: it'd require rewriting everything and weakening security. That's not to say that it'd be ideal security, but it was secure enough that the US gov made a non-trivial and yet unsuccessful effort to get at it. Microsoft is probably the one company out of the 'big 3' right now that supports more platforms than the other guys. Apple makes their stuff sorta kinda work on Windows (meaning if it is in iTunes, it will work on Windows), but they make nothing for WP7 and nothing for Android, it is OSX and iOS only. ITunes on Windows was nothing more than an absolute necessity to make the iPod a success. Google makes apps for Windows because they have no where else to deploy apps to, but are working hard on the whole browser as an os thing.

They too only make apps for Android, and nothing for WP7 or iOS. Google Chrome: Win, Mac, Linux + Android Google Earth: Win, Mac, Linux + iOS, Android Picasa: Win, Mac Sketchup: Win, Mac ---- Safari: Win, Mac, iOS iTunes: Win, Mac, iOS QuickTime: Win, Mac, iOS ---- IE: Win, WP7 Office: Win, Mac, WP7 Some shitty iOS apps like the Xbox Live one that crashes on sign-in: Actually, Picasa has some integration with the stock Android photo program as well, or at least with the Google+ sub-implementation of Picasa. If you install the Google+ app on the Android device, it has the ability to integrate your web albums into the default photo-viewing application, and you can even tell it to download local copies right there. I especially like the auto-upload feature, so pics and video I record automatically gets uploaded to Google+ and placed in a private album so I can easily share it. And, people forget that Microsoft had their own UNIX operating system for a while.

Microsoft Xenix was spun-off, and Microsoft decided to rectify their lack of a real operating system, LAN server and RISC architecture support by partnering with IBM on OS/2, which they later had the confidence to turn into their own proprietary offering, Windows NT. I wonder if this means that Microsoft will decide to update the Skype client for Linux, which has been in perpetual beta for a while now without feature parity. Development of the Linux client seemed to stop at the time of the Microsoft acquisition. The thing to remember is that Microsoft didn't want to be in the OS business. Several ex-Microsoft people have discussed this in books. It was hard to find good people for OS work because the best talent wanted to do applications, which was regarded as more glamorous.

The OS was far less visible back then, when GUIs were still not the rule outside of Apple. The bad experience with IBM and some other incidents lead Gates and other leaders within the company to accept that they couldn't rely on other companies to do what they felt was needed. This had a big payoff down the road but they lost years to fruitless partnerships that couldn't achieve their goals.

IBM especially was a problem because they were internally conflicted. OS/2 was regarded as highly undesirable competition by other parts of IBM and created no end of problems getting all of the ships on the same course. If Microsoft had come to this realization earlier they could have proceeded with what became NT a lot sooner and had a more mature code base that much sooner. It's similar to the internet problem within the company.

It wasn't, as some claim, that the company was oblivious about the internet. There was a lot internet use within the company well before the Web.

The real issue was the question of what it would take to make the internet into a ubiquitous consumer service. Within Microsoft the belief was that broadband was a critical factor and that it would always be a niche market on dial-up. That was a mistake and they had to do some serious catch-up to overcome it. Interesting revisionist history you're writing here. Rather than systematically destroy all of your baseless claims individually, I'll just link you the wiki, which appears to follow the actual history. As to networking, well, they're _still_ trying to figure that one out, maybe if they hadn't insisted on their piss-poor NETBEUI when TCP/IP worked better and predated it, but they, they wouldn't own it, and MSFT isn't a big fan of things it doesn't own / can't corrupt to be incompatible with things they don't own.

As for MS using Linux servers internally, it shouldn't be surprising, it's always been a more powerful server platform, or at the very least Microsoft is now proving that Linux' price is definitely not it's only advantage as I can't imagine them having to 'buy' licenses for something they own the copyright too. Whether that advantage is quicker development, scaleability, lower overhead, modularity or otherwise, who knows, but Microsoft obviously value it for this role more than their own product.

Except, they don't. MS uses Windows server internally. Skype was purchased only six months ago, not enough time to rewrite its back end. It will be migrated to Azure as soon as they rewrite the server side software. Linux has not been a 'better' server platform for at least 8 years now, at best its equivalent, but the fact that Windows Server has destroyed Linux in everything except the web server market, I'm not sure most admins consider it to be to be even equal to Windows Server anymore. The fact that Windows dominates the market cannot only be attributed to the maturity of windows server.

It has a LOT to do with Microsoft vertical integration and leveraging products so that once you are committed to a Microsoft environment it's VERY hard to get out without ripping whole chunks of infrastructure. Also, Microsoft tends to lump many applications into a single product even if there are other single products that do what one part of their monolithic products (like Outlook, Sharepoint, etc) do. Wiki is a good example. Sharepoint is a horrible wiki compared to a bunch of other stuff out there (Confluence comes to mind), but shops once they have sharepoint and start deploying it believe that it's the be all end all to document sharing and collaboration. Take outlook.

Sure, integration is nice but why does mail, calendar, notes and everything else have to be in ONE application. It means that if you don't like a piece of outlook you are SOL unless MS fixes or improves it.

Another point is risk. When was the last time you heard somebody being fired for choosing Microsoft if the product failed on MERIT (not implementation)? If you deploy a MS product and some part of it sucks an IT shop can just throw up their hands and say 'Everybody uses it, it's not our fault'.

If you decide to go out on the edge and try some new product that is NOT MS and it fails for ANY reason you are going to get the flak. If I wanted to insulate myself from criticism concerning product selection I could just go Microsoft (in the vanilla corporate world and federal government) from bottom to top and be SURE that I would not have to worry about getting yelled at for choosing a product that was mediocre. It's the same for CISCO. When was the last time you had anybody be fired for choosing either one of those vendors as a product.no matter how badly the product sucked balls.

People keep saying how many great software engineers work at Microsoft. For $8.5B and counting, couldn't they have designed this system from scratch and bypassed all the cruft that comes with Skype? Other than the user base (who are mostly cheapskates looking for free international telephony), what is the vaunted 'value proposition' of this acquisition? They already have. Windows Live Messenger has many of the capabilities of Skype. But who uses that?

The value of Skype is not it's technology, rather its userbase and good name IMO, the value of Skype to Microsoft is more about being able to break out to the conventional phone network almost anywhere in the world - Live Messenger certainly doesn't do that. Lync is (and indeed, many other vendors' products) are making big strides in replacing conventional office PBX systems. With the federation abilities built in, and, this mean bypassing regular phone lines. Get Skype integrated, make it easy and free/cheap for Skype users to call Lync-using businesses and vice versa and you've got even less PSTN use. Indeed, rather than needing a load of lines into your office and various gateways for Lync, you could just branch out to Skype if you needed to go over PSTN. MS already offer a limited Lync service via Office 365 - they really want that to be a viable replacement for your own telephone system.

That means DDI numbers in, and the ability to dial out to PSTN. Buying Skype is presumably a quicker and more cost-effective route than building a worldwide phone network from scratch.

People keep saying how many great software engineers work at Microsoft. For $8.5B and counting, couldn't they have designed this system from scratch and bypassed all the cruft that comes with Skype? Other than the user base (who are mostly cheapskates looking for free international telephony), what is the vaunted 'value proposition' of this acquisition? They already have. Windows Live Messenger has many of the capabilities of Skype. But who uses that?

The value of Skype is not it's technology, rather its userbase and good name IMO, the value of Skype to Microsoft is more about being able to break out to the conventional phone network almost anywhere in the world - Live Messenger certainly doesn't do that. Lync is (and indeed, many other vendors' products) are making big strides in replacing conventional office PBX systems. With the federation abilities built in, and, this mean bypassing regular phone lines. Get Skype integrated, make it easy and free/cheap for Skype users to call Lync-using businesses and vice versa and you've got even less PSTN use. Indeed, rather than needing a load of lines into your office and various gateways for Lync, you could just branch out to Skype if you needed to go over PSTN. MS already offer a limited Lync service via Office 365 - they really want that to be a viable replacement for your own telephone system. That means DDI numbers in, and the ability to dial out to PSTN.

Buying Skype is presumably a quicker and more cost-effective route than building a worldwide phone network from scratch. I've used Lync, and compared to CISCO's Jabber UC client and Jabber Video for Telepresence desktop applications.it's not there. I can do 1080p at 10Mb/s using Jabber Video from a core i5 desktop. 720p on a core two duo. It uses GPU acceleration, lync does not.

In addition The Mac Lync client is inferior in terms of video quality, codecs and features compared to windows Lync. We have a mixed shop of Mac and PC, feature parity is key. In addition Jabber has native SIP with existing Tandberg, Polycom, etc room VTC systems is missing (sure blujeans.com can transcode but it sucks balls quality wise). Lurking in the background is Apple. If they come out with a kick ass TV that includes video conferencing and a camera WATCH OUT.

Skype could be marginalized pretty quickly. MS so far has shown (and Skype formerly) no interest is providing interoperability between Skype calling and any other vendor.

As for MS using Linux servers internally, it shouldn't be surprising, it's always been a more powerful server platform, or at the very least Microsoft is now proving that Linux' price is definitely not it's only advantage as I can't imagine them having to 'buy' licenses for something they own the copyright too. Whether that advantage is quicker development, scalability, lower overhead, modularity or otherwise, who knows, but Microsoft obviously value it for this role more than their own product. Except, they don't. MS uses Windows server internally.

Skype was purchased only six months ago, not enough time to rewrite its back end. It will be migrated to Azure as soon as they rewrite the server side software.

I don't think you read the article properly, there was no backend before, the supernodes used to just be regular users with enough bandwidth and resources. Since its introduction in 2003, the network has consisted of 'supernodes' made up of regular users who had sufficient bandwidth, processing power, and other system requirements to qualify. At any given time, there were typically a little more than 48,000 clients that operated this way.~50,000 'supernode' clients being dynamically selected by bandwidth and computing resources doesn't seem like a 'Linux backend' to me. So maybe six months is not enough to 'rewrite' a backend for Windows Server, but it's apparently enough to write one from scratch.

Internally at Microsoft. Linux has not been a 'better' server platform for at least 8 years now, at best its equivalent, but the fact that Windows Server has destroyed Linux in everything except the web server market, I'm not sure most admins consider it to be to be even equal to Windows Server anymore. Yes it's 'destroyed' Linux in everything except the, and the mainframe market which IBM's System Z has long had a stranglehold on. So what server market exactly does it 'destroy' Linux in?

If your claim relies on disingenuously separating Linux from virtually identical systems that have Unix certification, then you could almost get away with the assertion that they have equal share. Any specific areas where you can actually describe how Windows Server is more capable? .and LibreOffice being free, cross-platform, with a more complete feature-set, and arguably more user friendly than both. That was a good one.

Keep up the good work. Sorry for rocking your fanboy boat, but user-friendliness is not simply a function of how accustomed you've become to some particular interface, divided by how far the product in question deviates from that. If you don't believe me, just ask all those people lapping up iOS products, I'm sure you'll find they love the GUI despite it being radically different to Windoze;]. Lurking in the background is Apple. If they come out with a kick ass TV that includes video conferencing and a camera WATCH OUT.

Skype could be marginalized pretty quickly. I truly doubt that a new TV, regardless of usability and other features, will alter the VoIP/video conferencing landscape all the much. First, most video conferencing is done in business meeting rooms, or on mobile devices if it's done at all. Second, even if video conferencing takes off among consumers, I doubt many people will want to expose their entire living rooms to the camera installed in their television. (But who knows - people seem more than willing to tweet every bowel movement and post their duckface photos to the social site of the day.) As for Apple, Facetime has not been a runaway success, nor have third parties embraced the supposedly open protocols.

Part of that may be the newness of the technology and application, but not everything they touch turns to gold. I think global VoIP is the kernel of Skype's success, but the technology to run it is not in itself a barrier to entry for anyone who wishes to enter the market.

Microsoft already had the technology, along with a huge existing userbase, so I still wonder why they spent $8.5B on something that they now have to rebuild almost from scratch. Any specific areas where you can actually describe how Windows Server is more capable? Until Linux has anything nearly as capable as Active Directory, it won't penetrate the corporate market.

Edit: I didn't see your later post where you referred to Windows as 'Windoze'. Serial Audials One 11 Review. If I had, I wouldn't have bothered responding. You mean like the LDAP that AD is modeled on (and takes from) and the standard user and group policy tools built into every linux distribution that offer more granular control that MSFT does?

Or did you really mean 'until Linux requires expensive third party solutions like HBSS in order to provide useful control'? Also, those 'niche markets' happen to be the markets with A) the highest demands made on the system, B) the highest need for security. So what you're really doing is agreeing with what's been asserted: Windows isn't better, and significant reasons for its prevelence in what areas it _is_ commonly used are too to reasons completely unrelated to actual performance, stability, or security.

As to penetrating the corporate market, I think you might want to take a look at some tiny, niche companies that no one has ever heard of, like Amazon, IBM, Google, and various governmental agencies and educational institutions the world over, including the US. Hell, one of the pieces of equipment I maintain in the USAF depends entirely on a linux laptop for the vast majority of its configuration (and the system itself may also be UNIX or linux-based, I'm not sure; you'd be amazed just how much penetration linux has in the embedded OS market, such as most DVD and BRD players, TVs, and even microwave ovens). Yes it's 'destroyed' Linux in everything except the, and the mainframe market which IBM's System Z has long had a stranglehold on. So what server market exactly does it 'destroy' Linux in?Those are small, niche markets. There are millions of servers all over the world at companies small and large that don't have any exposure to the outside world.

Microsoft owns most of that market. Until Linux has anything nearly as capable as Active Directory, it won't penetrate the corporate market.

The web, the most niche market of them all! But seriously, while I know what you're getting at, that most medium-sized, non-tech corporations have Windows serving all sorts of bullshit like Java apps and IE6-only internal crap. Danathar highlights an excellent point, that this very likely to be caused by bureaucracy and scapegoating rather than the platform's actual merits. Another point is risk. When was the last time you heard somebody being fired for choosing Microsoft if the product failed on MERIT (not implementation)? If you deploy a MS product and some part of it sucks an IT shop can just throw up their hands and say 'Everybody uses it, it's not our fault'. If you decide to go out on the edge and try some new product that is NOT MS and it fails for ANY reason you are going to get the flak.

If I wanted to insulate myself from criticism concerning product selection I could just go Microsoft (in the vanilla corporate world and federal government) from bottom to top and be SURE that I would not have to worry about getting yelled at for choosing a product that was mediocre. It's the same for CISCO. When was the last time you had anybody be fired for choosing either one of those vendors as a product.no matter how badly the product sucked balls. +1 for telling it like it is Danathar. And yes Linux does have something more capable than Active Directory, it's called the CLI + plus a competent SysAdmin but that's often not very palatable to upper management. +1 for telling it like it is Danathar. And yes Linux does have something more capable than Active Directory, it's called the CLI + plus a competent SysAdmin but that's often not very palatable to upper management.

You seriously think that LDAP + competent SysAdmin is better than ActiveDirectory + competent SysAdmin? I take it you have never use Active Directory then. I tried both (LDAP and Active Directory) and as of RHEL 6 and Windows 2003, Active Directory is still better than LDAP. You're familiarity with a product does not indicate superiority of a product. Linux and LDAP offer more, and more granular control than AD.

Add expensive third-party solutions, such as McAfee's HBSS, and you actually come close to equivalent functionality and control (when it works). +1 for telling it like it is Danathar. And yes Linux does have something more capable than Active Directory, it's called the CLI + plus a competent SysAdmin but that's often not very palatable to upper management.

You seriously think that LDAP + competent SysAdmin is better than ActiveDirectory + competent SysAdmin? I take it you have never use Active Directory then.

I tried both (LDAP and Active Directory) and as of RHEL 6 and Windows 2003, Active Directory is still better than LDAP. No, I don't think LDAP alone offers more than Active Directory, especially considering that Active Directory is mostly just a frontend for LDAP anyway. I do however think the OpenLDAP frontend is about as good as Active Directory. But when you add that OpenLDAP is cross-platform, open-source (more customizability) and the unmatched Unix-based permissions system. Linux is definitely more flexible and powerful in terms of management. No, I don't think LDAP alone offers more than Active Directory, especially considering that Active Directory is mostly just a frontend for LDAP anyway. I do however think the OpenLDAP frontend is about as good as Active Directory.

But when you add that OpenLDAP is cross-platform, open-source (more customizability) and the unmatched Unix-based permissions system. Linux is definitely more flexible and powerful in terms of management. Whoa, I'm pretty damn sure you haven't use Active Directory if you think OpenLDAP (on RHEL6) is better. Hint: Integration with other Microsoft programs like Exchange, Sharepoint bla bla bla.

In the last ten years or so, Micorosft has made it very hard for Microsoft shop to switch. That's why the only viable alternative to Active Directory is ITDS and not OpenLDAP. Actually, MSFT has been using Linux in-house for years, especially on anything they want to actually be secure (most of their perimeter network, for example). I don't think anyone's ever accused MSFT of eating their own dogfood; it's like fast food, how many McDonald's employees do you know that would actually eat at the one they work? Lol 1) Citation needed. All of the boundary machines I've ever hit there are Windows Server based. I've never, ever seen any evidence of Linux in any role at Microsoft beyond competitive analysis and their open source lab.

The only time Linux ever comes into play in conjuction with Microsoft servers is when the server is hosted by a third party, such as Akami. Not coincidentally, those are the only servers that have ever been hacked. 2) Microsoft has repeatedly publicized 'eating their own dogfood' and from my experience over a decade there, its true. It is frequently required that your mailbox will get moved to a dogfood Exchange server, and there is intense pressure to do your daily job functions on the upcoming versions of Windows and Office. You can choose to disbelieve this I suppose, but I do not know any MS employees who have never been frustrated by this policy at various times.

Actually, if memory serves me, they didn't do any migration at all for quite a while, then (unsurprisingly) ran into massive issues once they did start it. Particularly amusing (and reported on) given that their entire stated purpose for buying Hotmail was to move it onto Windows Server as a publicity move to get WinServer more market visibility. They quickly went back to just going after ignorant management who didn't know any better, while the techs weeped at having to support the POS. MS attempted first to migrate to NT Server 4. The metric I heard at the time was they realized it took two NT hosts to replace one BSD host.

However what came out of that was a new network stack, based on BSD's network stack, that went into Server 2000. That permitted the migration(MS publicly talked about their use of BSD code as well, this is not a secret). Vista(Server 2k8) has a rewritten network stack that is not based on the Win2k/XP(Server 2000/2k3) code base at all, and it is even higher performing.