[plug] M$-bashing.

[Leon Brooks]

Greg Mildenhall wrote:
> ostensibly an article on the IT sector's attitude to W2K adoption,
> but it is dwarfed by the Bug Report Special a third of the way
> down the page. It is comforting to know that some things in the
> IT industry never change.

A few golden quotes:

    "NT's directory services have been fairly widely deployed, even
    given its reputation as a dog..."

    "This conversion will require people to really do some work."

    "On the other hand, there's no stopping Linux being the key
    alternative to Windows 2000 for as far as we can see."

    "They [telcos] need a platform that actually runs 24 hours a day,
    and on bigger hardware configurations [than Windows has allowed]."

    "Microsoft is [still] promising what Windows users have long
    craved -- an operating system that is stable, reliable, and
    secure."

...from the buglist special, a list of more than 50 significant upgrade
bugs covering a few pages' worth...

    "if you had tighter security prior to the upgrade, those
    settings are gone. If you want them back, Microsoft says you
    need to reapply any custom security settings." All 1300 of
    them. Mmmm.

...many of the bug reports include mention of common software packages
which are unquestionably broken under Windows 2000, so will require the
purchase of an update for the program - when one becomes available - in
order to continue using it under W2k.

I might note in comparison that upgrading my own kernel from 2.0.36 to
2.2.5 broke zero installed packages, and I expect that upgrading to
2.4.* will require me to load an ipchains module to make NAT work
properly.

-- 
Confidence is the feeling you have before you understand the situation.
If at first you don't succeed, try a shorter bungee. When in trouble,
when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. The two great secrets
of success are: don't tell anyone everything that you know.