For this deal to have any kind of upside for Microsoft, they need to focus their energies on combining their search technologies and their AdWords technology and ignore everything else, let the existing Yahoo org run it.
Don't waste your efforts on branding, don't waste your efforts on trying to consolidate your data centers, keep your eye on the ball.
I don't know, was Hotmail a billion dollar company with thousands of employees and thousands of servers? If not, maybe there is no point in drawing analogies.
I don't think MS wants to buy Yahoo for an opportunity to convert another server farm to Windows. Maybe they will convert, maybe they won't, but that is not really the most interesting aspect of the whole thing. Does it really make that much of a difference, anyway? The actual web servers and databases are available for both Linux and Unix, so application developers should not feel a difference. The rest is for the system admins to figure out.
Personally, I expect MS to switch to Linux eventually (might be a couple of years still). They did good research in User Interface design, which could come in handy for designing a fancy Gnome skin. With falling hardware prices, it seems difficult to sell Operating Systems in the future.
i think you're underestimating the importance of the underlying technology. my job is mostly writing linux programs on a mac. if my boss came to me today and told me that my new job is writing windows server apps on a windows pc, i'd be looking for another job. i'd be willing to bet that a whole lot of yahoo engineers feel the same way.
and personally, i think microsoft would sooner die than switch to unix. i can't see them giving up like that.
if the situation gets really rough and they're finally forced to do something drastic, i think it would be writing a brand-new-from-scratch operating system, which would allow them to ditch 20-plus-years of legacy apps and APIs, the main thing that's holding them back. if they were to do that, i might actually get interested in them again.
What do you mean by server apps? Maybe I am living in fantasy land, because I was a Java developer most of the time, but I couldn't care less if my web applications run on Linux., OS X or Windows, if the system admin can ensure me that it is secure (or at least takes the responsibility for it). And all other web development languages, Perl, Python, Ruby, PHP and so on are all available for Windows, too, so where is the problem?
Does Yahoo have any other desktop applications besides the useless messenger? If not, then everything else is web applications, so most of their engineers should be fine. Only the sysadmins might be in trouble, IF MS decides to switch over to Windows servers anyway.
I know MS switching to Linux seems unlikely, but wouldn't it be cool? ;-)
I just don't think that MS are the evil empire most people seem to make them out to be. They solved some really hard software problems, that for example Apple never had to solve (hardware compatibility). They really did useful research in usability. They never were a monopoly. And they made some bad design decisions, but to their defense, a few years ago security wasn't the big topic that it is today. I can't think of an excuse for Vista, though.
Personally, I also use Linux, btw., I am definitely not a MS fanboy.
That would be suicide for them, since they make their money by keeping their customers and hardware partners locked in.
Imagine if the next version of Red Hat sucked as much as Vista. Most Red Hat users would move to another distro without thinking about it or worrying much about things like device driver support. But Microsoft users are stuck with whatever Microsoft decides to support.
I think that's part of the reason virtualization is such a hit. For the first time many users are realizing there's a way to put some of the Microsoft worms back in the can where they belong.
Culture clashes that happen in integration are the most destructive parts of acquisition. Sure, yahoo and microsoft culture may not mix all that well, but if they do it the right way it COULD work. Whether they pull it off right is really anyone's guess. Cisco's success was integration. Microsoft is no Cisco, thats as much as I can really say.
Don't waste your efforts on branding, don't waste your efforts on trying to consolidate your data centers, keep your eye on the ball.