>
>Really? As if linux has not had it's worms?
>
>I think blaming Windows here is a tad bit short sighted. What we
>hopefully can be glad for is that most of the people on this list
>(hopefully) is good at upgrading their systems.
Well yes and no.
First of all MS has to take some of the blame for advertising NT as an easy
to use and administer system that does not need a competent sysadmin to set
up and run. They hammer this point repeatedly whenever the subject of Linux
VS Windows comes up. You really can not blame people for not hiring
"expensive unix sysadmins" and letting some semi competent windows user run
the NT network.
Secondly MS has to take the blame for creating an operating system that
needs to be brought offline for even the most routine patch. People put off
patching their windows systems because it means coming in at midnight after
everybody else has gone home.
Finally It's very very important to remember that Windows is a PRODUCT not
a PROJECT. NT costs a lot of money no matter how you slice it. You expect
that something you paid for and which is supposedly guaranteed and backed
by the largest and the richest company on the planet should actually be
better then the PROJECT run by volunteers. In other words I would expect
linux to be much worse then windows alas it's the other way around.
----------------------------------------------
Tim Uckun
Mobile Intelligence Unit.
----------------------------------------------
"There are some who call me TIM?"
----------------------------------------------
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
