Quote:
| Originally Posted by Bantam And your point is?
Hold on... you're getting upset cause I'm taking the holy name of Microsoft in vein?
Oh - and as a SVR4 Systems Administrator (HP and Siemens (and Pyramid)), MCSE, CCNE, CCSA and Oracle DBA I think I have used all of the above systems and more. You forgot JD Edwards. I thought Systems Union were the accountancy sponges?
Oh - and don't forget IBM buying Lotus / Corel / Aldus et. al. 
Microsoft's software is only in the last 12 months becoming secure and configured the way it should be (locked down by default). For example, it's only recently I'd consider using Windows Server 2003 as a web server over Solaris or Apple XServe, and that's only because of contingency issues, and also they have implemented a decent load balancing algorithm.
My problem with Microsoft is that people have only been using Microsoft products because it was the easy / lazy option, but dangerous nonetheless. Easy to install, easy to run, no access issues etc.. - and that's because the default install was everyone open with no security. Most of the viruses doing the rounds now are based on the fact that their default install was inherently flawed and as such was designed that way because it made people's life easier.
I'm all for an easy life, but not one which gets attacked through the methods meant to make life easier. |
ahh no no you misunderstand me. I couldnt care less about MS either way. what bothers me is when people simply slag them off for practices which are widely performed throughout the industry by most if not all of the major players. the only thing more silly than that is criticising MS simply becuase they are successful. From a business perspective, its somewhat farcical to criticise MS. you might not like the fact that they just buy and rebrand software. you might hate that fact that their software is not secure. you might stay up all night swearing about the fact that their software is widely used through familiarity with a GUI rather than any valid technical knowledge about its functionality or security, but the simple fact is that they are just doing what everyone else does, and doing it better. From a business perspective, you just cannot argue with the bottom line.
I have endless argument with unix and linux developers, whose software is superior in just about every way in terms of both functionality and security to MS server products, but so many of them seem to miss the fact that it doesn't matter. People are buying Microsoft, and the ideals and dreams of software engineers matter not one jot compared to the turnover and net profit figures at the end of the day (or financial year at least).
do I have a point? probably not, I rarely do
I can MS-Bash with the best of 'em, but I like simply taking the opposite perspective now and again to see what happens