If WinServer2019 was made free to use tomorrow,would you start using it

Microsoft made their consumer OS basically “free” and in doing so loaded it with so much telemetry, data collection, bloatware, and dark patterns, that it is unusable without significant and ongoing intervention.

So, no, I would not want them to have to find alternative income streams from their server OS.

Simple answer, No. Microsofts overall approach to licensing is complex enough that you have to be an expert in their license to even have an inkling of an idea what is permissible and what isn't. The OS layer is just the tip of the iceberg. It's not immediately useful in and of itself without things like SQL server, IIS/Asp or whatever their web app layer is these days, etc. The would have to shift gears on pretty much every technology to make it worthwhile for a Linux/*nix stack developer to look in their direction.

Former Senior Windows SysAdmin here --worked in large scale infrastructures and was the lead in a team dedicated to securing hundreds/thousands of servers.

My answer: No f*ing way.

I've seen too many times that pattern of "oh we fixed this security flaw on a patch tuesday only to realize it opened a backdoor in some other way". Securing Windows boxes is a pointless rat race. They have backdoors in them, guaranteed.

I administer a few Windows Servers. Unless you're heavily in the MS ecosystem (Azure, AD etc.), or have software that only run on Windows, I can't think of too many advantages that Winserver has from a server management perspective. Maybe the admin GUI?

I understand that even on Microsoft Azure, most of the VMs being hosted are running Linux.

https://build5nines.com/linux-is-most-used-os-in-microsoft-a...

Active Directory is a blessing compared to the hellish OSS alternatives. Don't reply with suggestions to use FreeIPA. It can be just as bad or worse.

I've been using Linux for a long time, Windows servers have only been a small part of my experience. At one point I decided I was going to invest more in the open source side of things, I learned Linux / Python / Bash / Go / Nginx and Apache, etc. I can use .NET and Windows server but I prefer not to. I guess at this point what I'm saying is, it's too different from what I've invested my skills in. I'm going to guess that others probably feel the same way. Linux has huge mindshare in this space and making Windows server free is not going to convince people to switch.

Going against the grain here, yes, I would.

Professionally I haven’t been very involved in deployment, but my experience deploying personal projects to, and configuring, Linux servers has taught me that the process is confusing, poorly documented and difficult. Don’t get me wrong, it’s doable and I’ve done it (likely poorly), but after a day of stitching together steps from blogs and frequent back-tracking and starting from scratch, you have to wonder if there isn’t a more user-friendly way.

I’d hope that windows server offers this, though I don’t know that it does, as I haven’t much experience with it. As windows is considerably more GUI centric than Linux that could be a big plus for me personally. I’d certainly check it out, at least to compare the experience to Linux.

But currently, given that windows servers are not free, Linux wins hands down.

No. Even if open sourced, no. There would be no benefit to me in doing so (client or server) as it only has value for Windows users, which I no longer am. I was a Windows user long enough to be able to say with a fair degree of certainty that its code base would have little that I'd be interested in.

Look at it this way: if IBM released for free, or open sourced, a port of its mainframe OS for PCs how many people would start using it? Unless one already had a significant investment in IBM mainframe software, probably not very many.

I'm all for competing ideas and alternate Operating Systems but don't view commercial platforms as the place to look these days for good ideas/implementations.

I'd stay on Linux.

I've had too many experiences with sysadmin automation working out of the box on Linux and being a total pain on windows to consider a switch.

For example: a project at $work was to deploy osquery on all our servers, and write some of the data it produces to Kafka. The Windows package was delayed for about 9 to 12 months compared to the Linux packages, due to a chain of bugs, these bugs being fixed but not released, then the release was tagged but there were no official builds etc.

Various config management tools seem to have only half-baked Windows support, and so on.

I might use it as a desktop, or for servers that had to run Windows-exclusive software, but I wouldn't go out of my way to use it if Linux was available as an option.

It would be a huge expense for us to convert anything to "Free WinServer". We would have to redevelop all of our infrastructure for deploying software, porting and testing the software, configuring, monitoring, and deploying machines... We're probably talking six figures of time and on top of that the opportunity cost of not working on something else. We already have tools and experience for using Linux for everything that doesn't absolutely require Windows.

We really only run Windows for: MS-SQL, our dev workstations, and the backup server for the dev workstations.

One real pain point for running Windows is the regular BSA or similar audits. We try very hard to make sure that we are properly licensed, but when the auditor comes knocking we have to spend around a week going through and verifying everything, making sure that no licenses have expired, etc...

Even buying servers is made harder with Microsoft... "Ok, the license price specifies X per core and Y for memory, so to hit the licensing and system sweet spot we need this many cores but no more and this much memory."

With Linux we can just pick the system sweet spot for our use, and then at the end of the year we send donations to open source projects we use. That can sometimes be painful, (had problems with paypal for some of the most recent donations), but the licensing terms are much more obvious and less specialized.

No.

.net core runs on Linux. Why would I invest in a new Windows server?

We have a datacenter license which isn't really that expensive, relatively speaking. Windows isn't the expensive part. It's everything else.

Our SAN is expensive. Easily 10x the cost of the raw storage.

VMware is expensive. Backup software, management software, Exchange, our wireless network solution, our MDM solution, that's all expensive.

RHEL isn't free either.

I wouldn't. I'm an ASP.NET Core dev which is a MSFT technology and it runs better on Linux.

I still choose Windows for development.

Personally? No.

I gain nothing from Windows except overhead, particularly when it comes to servers.

I generally pare my servers down to little more than the kernel, a firewall and my very small handful of binaries for my application.

The TCB would need to be open-source, e.g. Hyper-V, MinWin (or whatever the smallest core of windows is called these days). There are several virtualization-based security features in modern Windows, that would be especially useful if the hypervisor could be inspected and collaboratively developed, even if a Microsoft CLA were required for code contributions, and they retained patents. An OSS TCB would ensure absence of telemetry. They can still sell closed-source components that run on the OSS TCB.

All of the languages I want to write software in work the same or better on Linux compared to windows. All of my administrative and user experience is with Linux. Linux seems to have better performance for almost every possible use case, and has ZFS. I just don’t see any compelling reason to use Windows Server for anything other than legacy. MS would have to cut me a sizable check each month for my trouble.

It depends on the use-case, but probably no. For most use-cases I can think of (Active Directory), the cost is already negligible for a business.

What use-cases would be attractive for free versions? I can think of one, VMs. But that experience already sucks. Windows images are larger, slower to boot, and harder to automate.

It could be quite useful for CI though. And more CI providers might start offering Windows platforms if it became free.

I wouldn't start using it for things I currently use Linux for. The overhead is just to high.

However, I might start to split my Windows Server VMs into multiple ones, so one VM per function. Currently to conserve licenses, we put multiple roles on one VM (and sometimes they have different requirements wrt. RAM or CPU heavy, or critical vs non-critical...)

So far, the only use I've had for running Windows machines was running Adobe After Effects for a render farm, because you can't run the Adobe suite on Linux. I struggle to imagine workloads I'd want to run on Windows machines voluntarily honestly, but I'm also unfamiliar with the ecosystem from a sysadmin perspective.

As a decades long FreeBSD and Linux user, I can say no, I would not use Windows on a server come hell or high water for jobs that are already better served on open source platforms. It is seldom the best tool for the job and Microsoft's own metrics show that Linux will become predominate even in Azure.

This is a good point. Most people when comparing the popularity Linux vs Windows Server or Apache vs. IIS ignore the fact that Windows Servers costs a bunch. A proper comparison would be if both were free or cost the same. I wonder how the server wars would have turned out if that were the case.

No. The point of Windows Server at its peak (around 2000) was that it was an easy to manage server OS.

I don't want to manage any servers. No boxes, no kubernetes, no anything. I have have some code, I pay my cloud provider for an execution environment and that's it.

What would it buy? Unless the org suddenly switches to a different tech stack that requires winserver, it’s kinda the worst of both worlds - none of the upside of Windows, none of the huge open source ecosystem of Linux.

No. If it had something you needed, and that you could only get from Windows, you'd be using it already. Any shop that can make use of an alternative pretty much already does, and would have no reason to switch.

I know great strides have been made in recent years, but Microsoft would have to communicate a much better 'configuration automation' story to significantly move the voluntary adoption needle for this crowd.

I probably would have a few years ago, now-a-days almost everything I do seems to be deployed as a linux container directly or linux containers by way of 'cloud functions'

funnily enough I use windows as my workstation os

Very small (less than 20 people) non-tech businesses, especially those with on-site culture can actually benefit a lot from such a deal.

The management UI's are actually useful and almost a must have for many people.

It might cause me to upgrade current windows servers instead of migrating them to Linux. But I doubt I'd start new projects with it.

If mssqlserver also became open source then that might change my mind.

I would have put it in a virtual machine to play windows games more easily. Gaming on windows server 2019, how fun is that!

The cost is stepping in the Microsoft tarpit. No chance in hell I'm getting near it.

I'd prefer to avoid the skillset lock-in, even if it was free.

This is something I call a “wish in one hand, sh*t in the other , see which fills up faster” scenario. There is no way Microsoft could make as much as they do now on Server if they switched to a “services and consulting” model.