Microsoft slams Linux for 'support issues'

The question is, what does this new MS Windows Cluster bring that Linux Cluster doesn't already have? Is this another vapourware MS is releasing just to say they have it too? What is the cost? why is it better than Linux clusters? ...

There are a lot of questions MS needs to answer to the cluster market.

We must remember that Microsoft sells themselves as innovators. So, they're simply innovating ten years after the Beowulf. What's wrong with that?

There are a lot of areas where I worry about Linux being able to overtake MS. I even worry that IIS could overtake Apache httpd someday.

But HPC? No way. (disclaimer: I suppose some of MS's victims have thought "There's no way that Microsoft can possibly...)

What does an HPC product need? Well, it needs to be reliable. It needs to be easily remotely administrable and the administration needs to be friendly to customers automating it in a flexible way. It needs to be low-overhead lest all that processing power get eaten up in overhead. And it needs a low per instance price for the software. Free would be really nice. (Don't underestimate the value of "free as in beer".) Likewise, don't underestimate the value of "free as in freedom" with respect to customization for the particular implementation. Clusters are not running spreadsheets and wordprocessors, and are not being implemented by Joe "I just wanna have the internet and check my email" Sixpack.

If the above paragraph reads like a listing of Windows' greatest weaknesses that's because it is.

I'll let someone else address the issue of how well MS handles product support. I wouldn't know.

" I'll let someone else address the issue of how well MS handles product support. I wouldn't know."

In a word, pblpblpblpblpblpblpblpblpbl.