Hatin' the Haters - Dealing with a lack of reason.

I just wan to say that I hate it when people complain about MS products and actively state that things will not work for what we want to do with it and when pressed to explain the details of what requirements it will not meet can only come up with "Well, I just distrust anything that comes out of Microsoft." I'm not married to Bill. I'm no fan boy and technology is not a religion to me. But it clearly is to some people.

If you don't have to manage it, only have to use it, and it does in fact perform the requirements asked of it why go around to other people in the company and try to poison the well?

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

it_consultant

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Well, that's just it - I've evaluated them in the past, and found them lacking. That means I've had to turn to other solutions to fulfill the needs.

Now, it's entirely possible that between now and then, Microsoft caught up, but because a vendor finally managed to achieve parity is not a compelling reason to change, particularly if it means a significant increase of opex and capex. If the majority of the infrastructure is unix based, and it meets or exceeds your needs, but now a Microsoft solution could also fill those needs, why would you change? There has to be some compelling reason and a significant ROI to make that kind of change, and it simply hasn't bee there for every existing infrastructure I've worked in. On the flip side of that, if you have a Microsoft solution, and you're looking to drive cost down, then a unix solution that achieves the same goals can have a significant ROI just from forgoing the licensing costs.

Now, I realize that's generalized, and I understand that the kind of business you're in can have a significant impact on those kinds of decisions as well.

Assuming you have a MS infrastructure the savings you have from licensing woes gets quickly eaten by consulting hours. I can tell you from personal experience that I have seen far more organizations go from free and open source email platforms to MS Exchange than I have seen the other way around.

If you are starting with no network, and you have to put one in, then MAYBE a UNIX solution will cost less, but I doubt it. You will still probably deliver a Windows desktop to your users unless you want to spend a long time training your staff. Interoperability between UNIX and Windows works but it is not nearly as smooth as an all MS or all UNIX network.

On a side note, how many people have worked on "linux" networks that have a couple of virtual machines running a windows domain so people can have exchange? I have seen two, I was helping my cousin (a UNIX admin) with some migrations.

Forsaken_GA

Claymoore wrote: »

Here's a good reason - you've already paid for it. If you have some type of volume license agreement with an Enterprise Client Access License, you already have Forefront licenses. It's strange to see clients go with a competitor when they already have MS licenses. I have seen clients choose Google Mail over Exchange - even though they had Exchange CALs - and you know that decision was made due to politics or religion and not features or cost. I have also spoke to clients about OCS/Lync because they have the licenses in their EA, and if it can provide anything even close to the service they could get from Cisco, they will deploy it because they have essentially already bought it.

Well, ok, I suppose you can make an argument for that. But here's the thing - what if the solution doesn't fill our needs? At that point, deploying it because we've paid for it is foolish. Or maybe we don't have the talent on staff to manage it, but we do have the talent to manage other solutions. Then it becomes a matter of whether or not it's cheaper to hire someone to manage that solution, which adds to cost, or leverage the talent that we're already paying money to. The Google Mail vs Exchange arguement is a good one. Being an Exchange admin for a good size company is pretty much a full time job, pretty sure that the capital outlay for using Google Mail instead is cheaper than hiring someone to fill the role.

Now, sure, you could go force your staff to learn those technologies so you can deploy them and develop those skillsets, but I've noticed that's a damn good way to induce turnover. If my manager came to me and told me I all of a sudden had to learn and deploy Microsoft network security solutions, I'd quietly start looking for other employment, unless they could make a really good case for why this solution is better than what we're currently implementing. because we already paid for it is not a good case

@Forsaken_GA - Totally off topic, but I just noticed the 'Winter is Coming' in your sig. Have you read the Song of Ice and Fire series? A Dance With Dragons *might* finally be published in July.

I'm a huge fan, have been every since the first book, which I read about a year after it's release. The years long wait between books has been painful! He actually did finish Dance and turned it into the publisher, so the July release date is good, and I can't wait. It'll be out a few weeks after the finish of the first season of the HBO adaptation!

Forsaken_GA

RobertKaucher wrote: »

Then I don't suppose that you would run around like a ninny and tell everyone how bad something is after the choice had already been made by the sr. staff and there was already a team working on the project. And that is what upset me the most. If you and I disagree on SharePoint, that's fine. But if you are actively making my job harder to do... Well...

No, I don't believe in sour grapes or spilled milk. I don't believe in proselytizing either. For example, you won't see me starting any threads about how much I hate Microsoft, but I will speak up in threads like this where the subject is already broached. And I'm not going to go full of vitriol and try and force my opinions down other peoples throats. I will state my viewpoint, and I try to make it very clear, that what I say is my opinion, and not the Gospel according to Forsaken. Folks can then decide if I know what I'm talking about, and whether they should maybe consider my viewpoint. If I get overruled, I roll with it, and if the environment becomes unconscionable, I will leave. Life taught me a long time ago that the IT infrastructure does not revolve around me

for example, the guys who manage our workstations have a need to be able to handle asset management in a better way than we have been. They've been trying to accommodate all of our needs when it comes to our operating system preferences, but that's just been a huge pain in the rear for centralizing it all. So we're all losing our custom installs, and Windows7 is mandated across the enterprise, so they can use Landesk. All of us Linux nerds will get Red Hat VM's to do our actual work out of.

This doesn't make me happy, and while I may feel it's not the best solution for me personally, I understand that it's the best solution for the company as a whole. And I can live with it, as long as I have some sort of Linux running, I will be just as effective at doing my job.

Continuing with that decision, we presently deploy a jabber server and OCS for intra-company communication. The tech guys pretty much all use jabber, the non tech folks pretty much all use OCS. But since we're all going to be running Windows 7, we're going to lose our jabber server and standardize on OCS company wide. That decision, I'm actually in favor of, only because right now, I'm forced to use both of them, and I don't have any particular attachment to jabber, or hate for OCS - they both do the job adequately, and it will actually make my life easier to standardize on one or the other.

These decisions all make sense. However, if we walked in tomorrow and found out we were going to transition all the database servers to MS SQL, or all the web servers to IIS, there would be a massive revolt from the tech folks, because that decision makes absolutely NO sense (the company's product and platform was developed on unix, and that's what they hired people for, so to make that kind of swing would be incredibly foolish without being prepared to replace a good number of people, and encourage turnover is rarely wise for a company)

Forsaken_GA

Turgon wrote: »

Commercial reasons are important, they often hold sway. So does scale and familiarity which has a cost associated with it. I have seen decisions go the way of vendor x because there is someone to beat up when things go wrong as opposed to opensource.

Yup, that's primarily the reason why we pay Red Hat. We used to run Debian servers, but upper management was very unhappy with the lack of commercial support, and so the migration began.

Forsaken_GA

it_consultant wrote: »

Assuming you have a MS infrastructure the savings you have from licensing woes gets quickly eaten by consulting hours. I can tell you from personal experience that I have seen far more organizations go from free and open source email platforms to MS Exchange than I have seen the other way around.

I agree. And that's why I grudgingly acknowledge that Exchange in particular is best of breed for it's niche. Some companies may be perfectly happy using a POP/IMAP server and maybe using something like Google Calendar for their scheduling needs, but there does come a point where the integration Exchange offers makes it a much better choice. As a tech nerd, I freaking hate Exchange, and I'm very glad I don't have to manage it. But I've yet to see another solution that can provide the same services as well as Exchange can, and as an end user, I have to admit it's usefulness.

But I'll tell you this - MS Infrastructure can eat up the consulting hours just as easily as anything else. We paid out some serious cash to Neverfail and LANDesk consultants for our implementations.

If you are starting with no network, and you have to put one in, then MAYBE a UNIX solution will cost less, but I doubt it. You will still probably deliver a Windows desktop to your users unless you want to spend a long time training your staff. Interoperability between UNIX and Windows works but it is not nearly as smooth as an all MS or all UNIX network.

About the only interoperability our users need to our unix infrastructure are file shares, and Samba integrates just fine for that. We've basically got two sets of infrastructure - the infrastructure that provides our product to our clients, and the infrastructure that supports our staff in their productivity. Our production infrastructure has absolutely no microsoft solutions anywhere in it. Our internal infrastructure is a mixed breed, and the fights over what to use internally is very much a political and religious minefield as opposed to a technical interoperability obstacle, with a few notable exceptions. So much functionality is achieved through web based systems these days, that the interoperability concerns become more along the lines of 'will this work properly in IE, FireFox, and Chrome' and 'what version of Java do I need to run this damn thing properly?'.

And relatively speaking, the cost of rolling out windows desktops is hardly impacting the bottom line at all. The OS is pretty much given away with the purchase of the box these days. It's the Enterprise solutions that will cost you some serious money. For example, the decision to deploy MS SQL Server vs. Mysql is primarily going to be driven by what kind of developers you have, and what kind of DBA's you have. Or, if you're going to add the expense that MS SQL is into the budget, you also have to give an Oracle solution a fair look.

it_consultant

Depending on the talent and the development a *NIX network can often be the best choice for a production network. What I don't particularly appreciate is people judging the performance of MS server products based on the behavior of their desktops. I guess its not fair for me to judge linux based on the hours I spent trying to get the wireless on my laptop to work during my ill fated attempt to run Ubuntu as my primary OS.

Windows consultants can be terrible. The best way to avoid huge consulting costs over the long run is to do it right the first time. Unfortunately a lot of MS guys are just not very good at big implementations.

Forsaken_GA

it_consultant wrote: »

Depending on the talent and the development a *NIX network can often be the best choice for a production network. What I don't particularly appreciate is people judging the performance of MS server products based on the behavior of their desktops. I guess its not fair for me to judge linux based on the hours I spent trying to get the wireless on my laptop to work during my ill fated attempt to run Ubuntu as my primary OS

Oh, I agree with this entirely. There is a huge distinction between desktops and servers, and just because you hate XP, is no good reason to judge 2k3/2k8 as pieces of crap. They have different goals and aims, and just because they look alike on the surface is not a fair assesment.

All of my dislike for Windows server products comes from my days of deploying NT/2k server based solutions (for a long time, 2kpro was a perfectly adequate desktop OS for me). This is where I gained my opinion of microsoft solutions as being bug infested, security hole riddled, inflexible pieces of crap. It left a bad enough taste in my mouth, that I have no desire to go back and reevaluate, because I've already moved on and found solutions that I like and do what I want them to. I don't dislike microsoft because it's what the cool kids do, I dislike it for very direct and very personal reasons.

Now, I realize that due to the nature of IT, I may be forced to reevaluate that opinion at some point in the future. And if that time comes, I'll do it (or get the hell out of the game, whichever option seems better!).

Fortunately, I don't see a market trend for infrastructure network devices that run an embedded windows install emerging (checkpoint being the only thing that comes remotely close), so I doubt that'll be a problem. My involvement in my companies OS jihad is very, very peripheral, and I like it that way.

RobertKaucher

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

No, I don't believe in sour grapes or spilled milk. I don't believe in proselytizing either. For example, you won't see me starting any threads about how much I hate Microsoft, but I will speak up in threads like this where the subject is already broached. And I'm not going to go full of vitriol and try and force my opinions down other peoples throats.
...

All of what you said is perfectly respectable. I've rolled out Jabber, actually it was Open Fire, at places and used LAMP for different publishing solutions. But my boss did not hire me for that. He hired me to develop and administer systems for and that integrate with SharePoint/MS SQL. All I ask is that these guys not make my life more difficult.

Forsaken_GA

it_consultant wrote: »

If you are starting with no network, and you have to put one in, then MAYBE a UNIX solution will cost less, but I doubt it. You will still probably deliver a Windows desktop to your users unless you want to spend a long time training your staff. Interoperability between UNIX and Windows works but it is not nearly as smooth as an all MS or all UNIX network.

Actually, now that I think about it, I did overlook one aspect of interoperability, and that's user management. And that's a fairly major issue. While you certainly can integrate a unix environment to auth against AD, it takes some effort, and folks need to decide up front in a deployment how they're going to deal with that.

I suspect that this will become a non-issue in a few years, assuming Microsoft can leave the damn API alone, and they do seem to be becoming more amenable to interoperability with products they don't make, which will be good for everyone.

For now though, having a mixed environment may end up being that you have two authentication sources (usually LDAP for the unix side.. god help anyone still using NIS), so whether or not you want to deal with that can have a large impact on the decision of what solutions to deploy.

Forsaken_GA

RobertKaucher wrote: »

All of what you said is perfectly respectable. I've rolled out Jabber, actually it was Open Fire, at places and used LAMP for different publishing solutions. But my boss did not hire me for that. He hired me to develop and administer systems for and that integrate with SharePoint/MS SQL. All I ask is that these guys not make my life more difficult.

Yup, I think that's a perfectly reasonable request. I may rib our windows admins occasionally, but it's always good natured. And they're perfectly ok with ribbing right back.

I'd recommend that you get hold of a copy of Network Warrior, and make some copies of a section in the last chapter of the book - How not to be a computer jerk. Discreetly distribute those copies to the jerks and to your boss, and see if maybe they can take a hint (and if they can't, and your boss actually reads it himself, he'll see the behavior when it occurs)

RobertKaucher

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Yup, I think that's a perfectly reasonable request. I may rib our windows admins occasionally, but it's always good natured. And they're perfectly ok with ribbing right back.

I'd recommend that you get hold of a copy of Network Warrior, and make some copies of a section in the last chapter of the book - How not to be a computer jerk. Discreetly distribute those copies to the jerks and to your boss, and see if maybe they can take a hint (and if they can't, and your boss actually reads it himself, he'll see the behavior when it occurs)

Lol, my copy, which is totally dog eared and nearly destoryed, is on loan at the moment. This guy isn't on my team. My boss knows what's going on - he is doing this with my users. And honestly he is one of my users. So he is also a "customer." Makes for a delicate situation. I'm over it. I just needed to vent.

Forsaken_GA

RobertKaucher wrote: »

Lol, my copy, which is totally dog eared and nearly destoryed, is on loan at the moment. This guy isn't on my team. My boss knows what's going on - he is doing this with my users. And honestly he is one of my users. So he is also a "customer." Makes for a delicate situation. I'm over it. I just needed to vent.

In that case, allow me to refer you to one Simon Travaglia. I've always found him to be very inspiring when it comes to dealing with problematic clients (I can't use the word customers anymore, they've beaten that one out of me)

it_consultant

I think I take a different approach to this problem then a lot of people. I have a really hard time listening to people complaining, especially other techs. If you whine a lot about having to use Windows you rub me the wrong way. You should be able to use ANY operating system very competently without trouble. If I were to sit in a meeting for a client I knew had a Windows network, and their developer was recommending replacing IIS with Apache, I owe it to him / her and listen to their reasoning. If the same person is constantly complaining about having to use Windows, I shut down a little when they push to use a different OS.

Almost every network I am on has some sort of virtualization, so setting up a Red Hat box for a web developer is no big thing if they want to try it out. Windows guys have to display a little flexibility as well.

tpatt100

In defense of Microsoft, of the largest corporations in America, I read they are the only (If I remember reading correctly) American company that increased hiring in the US rather than overseas. Not sure if Bill Gates has much to do with it but with him and Warren Buffet talking publicly about helping Americans more than ever, my hats off to Microsoft for doing what they did.

Claymoore

I saw this over on slashdot and it reminded me of this thread:
BBC News - Superbrands' success fuelled by ***, religion and gossip

I searched high and low for answers. The Bishop of Buckingham - who reads his Bible on an ipad - explained to me the similarities between Apple and a religion.

And when a team of neuroscientists with an MRI scanner took a look inside the brain of an Apple fanatic it seemed the bishop was on to something.

The results suggested that Apple was actually stimulating the same parts of the brain as religious imagery does in people of faith.

If some people have a religious fanatacism with their particular flavor of tech, no wonder it is hard to reason with them or convert them!

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

I'm a huge fan, have been every since the first book, which I read about a year after it's release. The years long wait between books has been painful! He actually did finish Dance and turned it into the publisher, so the July release date is good, and I can't wait. It'll be out a few weeks after the finish of the first season of the HBO adaptation!

Wow, I only picked up the series last year (when I decided to read some fantasy beyond Tolkien) so I at least got to read the first 4 immediately. Dragging out a series like this is tough on the fans. I would like to say I will pout and refuse to buy any more of his books until he completes the series, but I know my resolve will last a week at most.

I was excited about the series (particularly the casting of Sean Bean and Peter Dinklage) and only kept HBO so I could watch it. Unfortunately I only caught the first episode and missed the rest when life got in the way. Now I need a free afternoon to catch up and I'm not sure when that will happen.

RobertKaucher

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

In that case, allow me to refer you to one Simon Travaglia. I've always found him to be very inspiring when it comes to dealing with problematic clients (I can't use the word customers anymore, they've beaten that one out of me)

LOL - We call this guy PFY!

Forsaken_GA

it_consultant wrote: »

I think I take a different approach to this problem then a lot of people. I have a really hard time listening to people complaining, especially other techs. If you whine a lot about having to use Windows you rub me the wrong way. You should be able to use ANY operating system very competently without trouble. If I were to sit in a meeting for a client I knew had a Windows network, and their developer was recommending replacing IIS with Apache, I owe it to him / her and listen to their reasoning. If the same person is constantly complaining about having to use Windows, I shut down a little when they push to use a different OS.

yeah, I can work on a windows box in a pinch. Honestly, the biggest issue I have with windows from a workstation standpoint is lack of a good internal ssh client. I spend so much of my time buried in CLIs, that putty just doesn't cut it for me. When you're used to simply opening up a new term window, and off you go to the races, it's frustrating and impacts my productivity when I have to use GUI elements to get a term window open. The fact that all I need to be able to move from one linux box to another is my ssh key and my bashrc file and I'm able to get to work immediately is a huge boon for me. I can achieve pretty much the same functionality on windows if install Cygwin, but I don't appreciate the additional ramp up time.

If Microsoft ever decides to go the Mac OS route and rebuild their OS on a unix core, I'm sure my dislike of them will vanish in a hurry

Forsaken_GA

Claymoore wrote: »

Wow, I only picked up the series last year (when I decided to read some fantasy beyond Tolkien) so I at least got to read the first 4 immediately. Dragging out a series like this is tough on the fans. I would like to say I will pout and refuse to buy any more of his books until he completes the series, but I know my resolve will last a week at most.

Yeah, I ain't going to lie that it's been tough. I just hope to god the man finished the series before he dies. It was bad enough with Robert Jordan (though I have to admit, I'm actually enjoying Sanderson's wrap-up novels). It was bad enough having to suffer through Frank Herbert's death and the appaling wrapup of the Dune series by Kevin Anderson.

It's been especially hard for me, as Daenerys is easily my favorite character in the series, and other than the one teaser chapter he put up on his website, there has been no new Daenerys material for over 10 years. Same with Jon Snow.

But yeah, I'm a fan. My entire home network/server farm/lab has their hostnames setup after ASoIaF places and people hehe

I was excited about the series (particularly the casting of Sean Bean and Peter Dinklage) and only kept HBO so I could watch it. Unfortunately I only caught the first episode and missed the rest when life got in the way. Now I need a free afternoon to catch up and I'm not sure when that will happen.

I'm also very happy with the casting so far, they did extremely well. I've been a little disappointed with the way they're handling Ned Stark. While reading the book, he was the character who drew me in, and so many of his good lines have been cut from the series. I understand that with only 10 episodes, time is at a premium. Fortunately, all of Tyrion's good lines have been included. HBO renewed it for a second season based solely off the response from the pilot episode, and I'm hoping that they'll extend the season by a couple episodes. Assuming they do a book a season, then by the time they get to Storm of Swords, 10 episodes won't be nearly enough without gutting so much of the story.

and I think I just committed a threadjack!

it_consultant

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

yeah, I can work on a windows box in a pinch. Honestly, the biggest issue I have with windows from a workstation standpoint is lack of a good internal ssh client. I spend so much of my time buried in CLIs, that putty just doesn't cut it for me. When you're used to simply opening up a new term window, and off you go to the races, it's frustrating and impacts my productivity when I have to use GUI elements to get a term window open. The fact that all I need to be able to move from one linux box to another is my ssh key and my bashrc file and I'm able to get to work immediately is a huge boon for me. I can achieve pretty much the same functionality on windows if install Cygwin, but I don't appreciate the additional ramp up time.

If Microsoft ever decides to go the Mac OS route and rebuild their OS on a unix core, I'm sure my dislike of them will vanish in a hurry

I would dislike it if Microsoft went to the UNIX kernel. The fact they developed their own says a lot. I would, however, like to see MS become more UNIX like in a couple of key ways. Namely, you can set up a paired down UNIX box that runs on 128MB of RAM with no problem and add only the components you want in order for you appliance to do whatever task you want. In this scenario even with 100% memory utilization the appliance is stable. Windows made the right step with Server 2008 Core but its not quite there yet. Waiting on Server 2012...

L0gicB0mb508

Hey guys did you know that Microsoft operating systems run on the souls of orphan children? I read it on the internet, so I know it's true. This is why I will no longer support Microsoft products.

Also, Unix is for dirty hippies. Take a shower hippie!

Pash

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

If Microsoft ever decides to go the Mac OS route and rebuild their OS on a unix core, I'm sure my dislike of them will vanish in a hurry

Why though? I mean you did mention that the lack of a bundled ssh client is the only thing you really dislike in the MS desktop world. Microsoft is different and that is fine. It is just another market share, all be it the lion share of the desktop market.

Vista was poor, there is no arguments for that and MS openly admitted it themselves but honestly nobody can say Windows7 is a poor OS. It really does the job for a home/business desktop. I can honestly say I have tried many linux desktops recently and none of them can really compete with Windows 7's ease of use, ease to support and never mind the fact it is incredibly user friendly.

Forsaken_GA

Pash wrote: »

Why though? I mean you did mention that the lack of a bundled ssh client is the only thing you really dislike in the MS desktop world. Microsoft is different and that is fine. It is just another market share, all be it the lion share of the desktop market.

There's a difference between being able to function in an OS, and actually liking it. As I said, I can work effectively in Windows when I need to. There's a whole lot more I could pick to dislike about Windows in the desktop world (for starters, I'm not a huge fan of the registry. Not quite sure what nimrod thought that architectural design was a good idea), but it's mostly under the hood stuff that doesn't impact daily usage. I think Windows would be a much better product with unix under the hood, but I realize that's a passing whim, they're not likely to try that out anytime soon.

Vista was poor, there is no arguments for that and MS openly admitted it themselves but honestly nobody can say Windows7 is a poor OS. It really does the job for a home/business desktop. I can honestly say I have tried many linux desktops recently and none of them can really compete with Windows 7's ease of use, ease to support and never mind the fact it is incredibly user friendly.

Perhaps not, the linux desktop still isn't quite there for the average user.

I can certainly make the argument on behalf of OS X, though (which is actually the OS I prefer overall)

ally_uk

The way I see it though is that your average Joe / office worker does not know what SSH is all they want is something that works out of the box with minimum configuration and added hassle. To allow them to carry out there everyday work related tasks, CLI, GUI's, Config files, are all things they simply do not care about as long as they have the tools in front of them minimum downtime and at the end of the day have something they are familiar with, Familiar being the keyword here.

Dont get me wrong Linux is great as a operating system but I still think it is not user freindly when something goes wrong,

I prefer Microsoft Products in enterprise environments, despite what the haters say if setup and configured correctly they are robust, Windows 7 as a Operating System is excellent I have been running it nearly two years now and havent had any major issues.

I think the NIX vets simply dismiss Microsoft because of there past mistakes and are to stubborn to actually get hands on and learn the new technologies Microsoft have come a long way since the days of NT.

Turgon

ally_uk wrote: »

The way I see it though is that your average Joe / office worker does not know what SSH is all they want is something that works out of the box with minimum configuration and added hassle. To allow them to carry out there everyday work related tasks, CLI, GUI's, Config files, are all things they simply do not care about as long as they have the tools in front of them minimum downtime and at the end of the day have something they are familiar with, Familiar being the keyword here.

Dont get me wrong Linux is great as a operating system but I still think it is not user freindly when something goes wrong,

I prefer Microsoft Products in enterprise environments, despite what the haters say if setup and configured correctly they are robust, Windows 7 as a Operating System is excellent I have been running it nearly two years now and havent had any major issues.

I think the NIX vets simply dismiss Microsoft because of there past mistakes and are to stubborn to actually get hands on and learn the new technologies Microsoft have come a long way since the days of NT.

To be honest with you I think NT get's a bum rap. Yes there were issues but one of the biggest problems was too much of it hitting the streets with too few people designing, installing, migrating and supporting it properly. We did it right when I was around it and there were no major issues.

CodeBlox

I often hear people saying crap like "Vista sucks!" yet they never give any reason why. It doesn't have to even be Vista, but I find it annoying when people say something like this and can't back it up!

it_consultant

Turgon wrote: »

To be honest with you I think NT get's a bum rap. Yes there were issues but one of the biggest problems was too much of it hitting the streets with too few people designing, installing, migrating and supporting it properly. We did it right when I was around it and there were no major issues.

That is a lot of it. I can find few things of any substance that Windows can't do that Linux can. In most cases it comes down to preference, web designers generally prefer Apache to IIS etc. I say, let them have it one way or another. We should all be talented enough that we should be able to operate in different OS environments. I am no Linux ninja but I can certainly read manuals and CLI guides.

UnixGuy

RobertKaucher wrote: »

If you don't have to manage it, only have to use it, and it does in fact perform the requirements asked of it why go around to other people in the company and try to poison the well?

May God help you ! the IT world is full of children and fan boys, It's not always possible but I just don't acknowledge their existence. it works..

Pash

CodeBlox wrote: »

I often hear people saying crap like "Vista sucks!" yet they never give any reason why. It doesn't have to even be Vista, but I find it annoying when people say something like this and can't back it up!

Except with Vista you really can. It was bloated, slow, lacked good driver support and the features expected of a flagship OS. It had no XP emulation with it, which made it a completely in-efficient for businesses to adapt where they run legacy apps. Microsoft admitted themselves that Windows Vista was a commercial failure and as soon as Windows 7 was released their upgrade path suggestion was Windows XP to Windows 7 straight away.

It is fair to say that Microsoft aren't the only company that release bad products. However with their resources, experience and grip on the market they should never release something like Vista in the first place.