Future installments will include Sim Mess Duty, Sim Standing Guard in the Rain, Sim Blister, and Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High.
Nice way to belittle the work and sacrifices that I and millions of other people throughout the world have given in protecting YOUR rights. Yes, guard and mess duty sucks, but it's a part of military life. So does PT, first call at zero-dark-thirty, inspections, shining boots, cleaning weapons, endless makework, etc.. but it's all a necessary part of military life in order to keep discipline.
As for "Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High", that's an issue with the leadership, not the men and women who go when given the order. It's easy to criticize and ridicule from the safety of one's Aeron office chair. It's another thing entirely to raise your hand and swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Don't knock it until you've tried it.
It is their fault that the default "sa" account has a null password by default.
Incorrect. SQL not only warns you of a blank sa password, it requires you to click on a checkbox before you can proceed any further with a blank sa password. Have you ever installed MSSQL before, or are you just speaking from FUD?
Have any of you considered the fact that MS writes software that runs on the Mac? Look at the list of software from the story and, gee... it says Office for Windows and MAC.
'All that is required for Evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.'
Jeez, I can skip the soap operas on TV and get all my melodrama right here on/. I suppose the next article we'll see timothy post will be a 3 day old piece with the quote "with great power comes great responsibility".
I love this quote: Sun responded to the campaign in a statement. "Sun still does not see Microsoft as a real threat in the datacenter market where reliability, availability, serviceability and security are key," the company said. "As for Unix being 'inflexible,' 'expensive,' and 'complex,' we feel those are terms much better suited to the closed and proprietary world of Windows."
Like Solaris never had security holes, their source code is widely available for anyone to download, and their systems are made from standardized and off-the-self hardware components that don't cost a lot to replace. Oh yeah, and Solaris doesn't cost a lot, either.
One of my coworkers took the RHCE. The multiple choice test was OK... he said a few people started bawling, but it had been a pretty brutal week leading up to the test. The hands-on tests really wiped out a lot of people. The final test, which requires the test taker to set up a Linux server with certain services and recompile the kernel leave very little time for error.
There are perhaps thousands of people in the world that have obtained CISSP certification.
If my CISSP number is any indication, there are slightly less than 30,000 worldwide.
There are perhaps a few thousand people in the world who can credibly claim to be expert in the disciplines of computer security. Almost nobody in the latter category is a member of the former.
Is this a case of knowing what one doesn't know? I'm SANS certified and a CISSP. I wouldn't consider myself an "expert" in security. I'd be highly dubious of anyone calling themselves a security expert. I'm certainly "security aware", and strive to make my networks as secure as possible. Thankfully, my external systems have been locked down enough to resist any breaking attempts so far (knocks on wood). Oh yeah, they're Windows servers, too (you anti-MS zealots can STFU, thank you). Am I an expert or just lucky so far? Management says I'm an expert.
I didn't particularly care for the way the CISSP exam was written and administered, but while studying for it, my eyes were opened to a few things I haven't considered before. Before, I was tightly focused on the technical side of securing systems, and hadn't realized that there are operational and administrative security issues to be dealt with. Something good does come from these tests.
Security certification is a bad idea.
Maybe, but it's certainly good for me when it comes time for my reviews, or when I'm looking for new work. That's what it all really boils down to: how many letters you can get behind your name. Management doesn't know which certs are worthless and which might actually mean something. They're also convinced that GIAC, MCSE, CCNA, CISSP, (acronyms ad nauseum) is better than someone who's had 10-15 years hands-on experience. They use it as a hiring tool because it helps them save time.
Everyone here expects that the slime be used directly on a rioting crowd, preventing their dispersal. Use a little non-linear thinking, people!
The slime can be used as an area-denial tool, to prevent rioters from reaching certain areas, and to channel them to places where they can be better controlled.
At where I work, we deal with ridiculously large databases (SQL and Oracle), and we need to make sure we always have up-to-date backups of those databases and associated other files at all times.
We do have an EMC, but we don't use it for backups (GASP!). Instead we use it as fast,fast,fast storage LUNS where our databases live. Once EMC's snapshot software catches up to us, we'll snapshot a LUN and then spool it out to tape.
In the meantime, depending on the size and activity of the database being backed up, we'll either to a database export out to NAS (Maxtor 4400s) and then have our Veritas NetBack server with an ATL autloader (2 LTO drives and holds 20 tapes) back up that, or we'll do a backup directly from Oracle, SQL or the server itself.
Backing up to the NAS units works well for our large databases, because we've had issues with NetBack aborting backup jobs when doing direct backups because it wasn't finished by the time the backup window closed.
Microsoft is a called a monopoly, yet still there are other OS's, other browsers and other Office Suites.
Not to get into the old, tired "Microsoft is a monopoly" gig, but is AOL's position truly a monopoly? After all, the also own ICQ, and aren't blocking 3rd party access to that... there is only one movie theater here in town. Is that a monopoly? Or is the fact that I can go one town over where there are 3 theaters, and all of them better than the local one not make that a monopoly? Dammit, I want a Federally funded SDDS sound, rocker chairs with cupholder, coliseum seating uber-mega-ultra googleplex where I live right now! It's a monopoly, I tell you!
There is a standard? IMUnified [imunified.org] was supposed to create one, but there site seems to not have been updated in some time (I e-mailed their contact to learn why). The IETF had a task force or something to hammer one out, too, but I've not heard a peep from them either.
Then it sounds like the Official People are either too busy, or don't think this problem deserves the attention you think it does.
Everytime something has come out that interoperates with AIM, I've tried it -- as have many others. I've done this because I saw it as a better mouse trap (because, again, I think AOL's AIM client SUCKS!!!) But we always have to drop it because AOL starts to block it. I can't get my "buddies" to switch off AIM because their buddies won't. So, if I want to chat with them, I have to use AIM too.
Yeah, imagine that. AOL actively defending their intellectual property. You know why? The one time they don't, that's going the be the legal foothold someone needs to wedge themselves into AIM's network becasue AOL didn't slap down someone infringing on their property.
AOL doesn't have a monopoly on e-mail users, so they allow interoperability. Its adds value to their service, so their users have good reason to stick around.
AOL also didn't create the SMTP protocol, either. They could, if they wanted to (and I'm sure a lot of people here would encourage it) close off their SMTP gateways and go back to their AOL-only email standard.
But AOL *does* have a monopoly on IM users (AIM and ICQ combined are HUGE), so they're going to be stubborn and lock out the competition.
And there aren't alternatives like MSN Messenger, IRC, Jabber, Y! Messenger and $DEITY-knows how many others? A monopoly? Surely you jest!
Maybe not in the legal dictionary, but in my dictionary, this is *anti-competitive* and I want to see something done about it. I just hope someone with more legal knowledge than I can find the proper legal support to put this fight upon.
Anticompetitive, or looking out for one's interests? Remember, the AIM protocol is proprietary, and not the IM standard. They choose who can use it. Did Cerulian ASK for interoperabilty, or just force their way in? If I invent something, don't I have exclusive rights to my product? How many other IM clients are out there on the market? Now, how many are STANDARDS based? Why haven't there been a mass migration over to a standards-based IM client? Can't someone build the better mousetrap, or is everyone with a C++ compiler just sitting around anc complaining about how unfair it is? I see a market for a product, and everyone else here isn't doing a damn thing. Pity.
Be careful what you wish for in regards to someone with more legal knowledge commenting- it swings both ways. The way I see it, AOL could slap Cerulian with a couple DMCA violations for writing patches to get around AOL's blocks.
How much does it cost to access the AOL network with an AOL client if you are not a memeber of AOL?
It has a real cost on AOL if you're using Trillian because Trillian doesn't have ads, does it? Advertisers start getting data that people aren't seeing their ads, they stop advertising with AOL, which has a real effect on AOL's pocketbook.
2. The FCC ordered them to demonstrate iteroperability. They chose their victim.. I mean, partner, to be some dot-com that is now bankrupt and defunct (nice loop-hole spotting, AOL!). I'm trying to find links on this to back this up, and I'll post them here when I find them (just couldn't let this go unanswered).
AOL complied, didn't they? Maybe instead of just barging in, and demanding access to AOL's proprietary network, protocol and userbase, the creators of Trillian could have *GASP* asked AOL if they could play. When someone uses my car without my permission, I call that theft.
AOL accepts e-mail from non-AOL SMTP servers. These e-mails traverse the AOL network, tying up their resources, and ultimately being converted into some AOL format for display in AOL. Why don't they block that? Oh, because it adds value to AOL by allowing its users to interoperate with the rest of the world. The difference with IM is that AOL owns 90% of that world (ICQ & AOL), so they don't see any value added.
Because if AOL rejected email, none of their users would stick around, would they? Gosh, if 10 year old kids didn't get their 120+ porn spams a day, they'd have to switch to WebTV!
Re:Why the moaning?
on
AOL vs. Trillian
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
but they don't want just that...they *want* you to use their network...*but only* with their client. It's a simple matter of protecting their revenue stream....or in this case, potential revenue stream.
And this is bad, why? AOL is in the business of making money. I think some people forget that... businesses make money. Letting some "freeloaders" in are going to detract from that, along with opening potential security issues (as if they don't have enough of their own) because now there's uncontrolled, unchecked software accessing their clients. It's their user database and their IM protocol they developed. They're entitled to include/exclude whomever they see fit. There are IM standards available for anyone who wants to write a standards-based IM client. This isn't hurting anyone except the freeloaders.
Wouldn't you love to see AOL go before a Senate Hearing for unfair business practices?
Unfair in what way? That they're defending their intellectual property? Since when is it unfair to restrict access to one's own network? AIM isn't an Open Source, public network. It's proprietary.
People bitch about Win2k reaching 40 million lines of code. But when it's an open-source project, all of a sudden bloated software is something to take pride in...
Well, perhaps making money is not a bad thing, but when you abuse your monopoly power and take away people's freedom doing it, I think it is a bad thing. And that is what I see.NET as.
Don't like.NET? Don't use it. I don't see BillG and his BlueShirts going around, throwing marmots into people's baths if they don't switch over to.NET... Has your freedom been taken away? Mine? Theirs?
OK, so if I object to Microsoft's tactics in the marketplace I'm 'against capitalism'. Nice logic.
Where did I mention Microsoft's business tactics? I merely stated that yes, Microsoft writes software that puts money in Bill Gates' pocket, but in this case the whole.NET framework is free. Don't let your blind, reactionary hatred of all things Microsoft interfere with your reading comprehension skills. I tire of this same old crap from the "anti-M$" crowd... anytime they get backed into a corner, they start screaming about predatory business practices, monopolies and the end of the world as we know it (and I feel fine).
This is worth a 4 rating?! Jeezus Christ... Oh wait, I forgot. It's patently anti-Microsoft, therefore gets automodded up at least 3 points right off the bat.
Ironically, your.sig says that all generalizations are false, which is EXACTLY what your 4 points are. The story doesn't support any of these 4 points you make. In fact, point 1 is blown neatly away by the author, when he informally suveys his fellow students at the beginning of the module, and nearly ALL the students had exposure to Linux.
None of these other "points" you make are supported in the article either. I can't see how people can honestly consider your post "insightful", unless "insightful" now means "blatant anti-Microsoft FUD, devoid of fact or truth".
This just goes to show how idiotic and bigoted some of the/. editors can be.... And shows the glaring bias "anything but Microsoft" that some people have. Grow the fuck up, timothy. Maybe one day when you learn to become a real administrator, you'll learn that each OS has its own strengths and learn to build networks on those. Tim: have you even called MS Tech, or are you just tooting the same tired old ant-MS line again? Does it ever get old, tim?
I've had to call MS support 3 times this year. And each time, I've had my answer resolved. Twice my money was refunded to me. MS Tech Support even followed up each time to make sure that the issue was actually resolved so they could close the incident ticket out. The techs were friendly, knowledgeable and more importantly, they got the job done in an efficient manner.
I've had to call RedHat's support line once. Thank the Gods it was only once. The support guy couldn't even answer a basic X-Win problem, and I never did get a promised followup call that would hold the answer I was seeking. I'm also thankful that I didn't have to pay for that call...
The only thing that even comes close to Microsoft is Cisco's support service, and only then if you buy into one of their support contracts.
Slashdot Mirror
Future installments will include Sim Mess Duty, Sim Standing Guard in the Rain, Sim Blister, and Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High.
Nice way to belittle the work and sacrifices that I and millions of other people throughout the world have given in protecting YOUR rights. Yes, guard and mess duty sucks, but it's a part of military life. So does PT, first call at zero-dark-thirty, inspections, shining boots, cleaning weapons, endless makework, etc.. but it's all a necessary part of military life in order to keep discipline.
As for "Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High", that's an issue with the leadership, not the men and women who go when given the order. It's easy to criticize and ridicule from the safety of one's Aeron office chair. It's another thing entirely to raise your hand and swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Don't knock it until you've tried it.
It is their fault that the default "sa" account has a null password by default.
Incorrect. SQL not only warns you of a blank sa password, it requires you to click on a checkbox before you can proceed any further with a blank sa password. Have you ever installed MSSQL before, or are you just speaking from FUD?
How is this Microsoft's fault? Is it their fault because someone has to deliberately put in a blank password to create this problem?
Have any of you considered the fact that MS writes software that runs on the Mac? Look at the list of software from the story and, gee... it says Office for Windows and MAC.
/. anti-Microsoft machine.
More FUD from the
'All that is required for Evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.'
/. I suppose the next article we'll see timothy post will be a 3 day old piece with the quote "with great power comes great responsibility".
Jeez, I can skip the soap operas on TV and get all my melodrama right here on
Edmund Burke and Uncle Ben....
I love this quote:
Sun responded to the campaign in a statement. "Sun still does not see Microsoft as a real threat in the datacenter market where reliability, availability, serviceability and security are key," the company said. "As for Unix being 'inflexible,' 'expensive,' and 'complex,' we feel those are terms much better suited to the closed and proprietary world of Windows."
Like Solaris never had security holes, their source code is widely available for anyone to download, and their systems are made from standardized and off-the-self hardware components that don't cost a lot to replace. Oh yeah, and Solaris doesn't cost a lot, either.
One of my coworkers took the RHCE. The multiple choice test was OK... he said a few people started bawling, but it had been a pretty brutal week leading up to the test. The hands-on tests really wiped out a lot of people. The final test, which requires the test taker to set up a Linux server with certain services and recompile the kernel leave very little time for error.
There are perhaps thousands of people in the world that have obtained CISSP certification.
If my CISSP number is any indication, there are slightly less than 30,000 worldwide.
There are perhaps a few thousand people in the world who can credibly claim to be expert in the disciplines of computer security. Almost nobody in the latter category is a member of the former.
Is this a case of knowing what one doesn't know? I'm SANS certified and a CISSP. I wouldn't consider myself an "expert" in security. I'd be highly dubious of anyone calling themselves a security expert. I'm certainly "security aware", and strive to make my networks as secure as possible. Thankfully, my external systems have been locked down enough to resist any breaking attempts so far (knocks on wood). Oh yeah, they're Windows servers, too (you anti-MS zealots can STFU, thank you). Am I an expert or just lucky so far? Management says I'm an expert.
I didn't particularly care for the way the CISSP exam was written and administered, but while studying for it, my eyes were opened to a few things I haven't considered before. Before, I was tightly focused on the technical side of securing systems, and hadn't realized that there are operational and administrative security issues to be dealt with. Something good does come from these tests.
Security certification is a bad idea.
Maybe, but it's certainly good for me when it comes time for my reviews, or when I'm looking for new work. That's what it all really boils down to: how many letters you can get behind your name. Management doesn't know which certs are worthless and which might actually mean something. They're also convinced that GIAC, MCSE, CCNA, CISSP, (acronyms ad nauseum) is better than someone who's had 10-15 years hands-on experience. They use it as a hiring tool because it helps them save time.
Everyone here expects that the slime be used directly on a rioting crowd, preventing their dispersal. Use a little non-linear thinking, people!
The slime can be used as an area-denial tool, to prevent rioters from reaching certain areas, and to channel them to places where they can be better controlled.
At where I work, we deal with ridiculously large databases (SQL and Oracle), and we need to make sure we always have up-to-date backups of those databases and associated other files at all times.
We do have an EMC, but we don't use it for backups (GASP!). Instead we use it as fast,fast,fast storage LUNS where our databases live. Once EMC's snapshot software catches up to us, we'll snapshot a LUN and then spool it out to tape.
In the meantime, depending on the size and activity of the database being backed up, we'll either to a database export out to NAS (Maxtor 4400s) and then have our Veritas NetBack server with an ATL autloader (2 LTO drives and holds 20 tapes) back up that, or we'll do a backup directly from Oracle, SQL or the server itself.
Backing up to the NAS units works well for our large databases, because we've had issues with NetBack aborting backup jobs when doing direct backups because it wasn't finished by the time the backup window closed.
Microsoft is a called a monopoly, yet still there are other OS's, other browsers and other Office Suites.
Not to get into the old, tired "Microsoft is a monopoly" gig, but is AOL's position truly a monopoly? After all, the also own ICQ, and aren't blocking 3rd party access to that... there is only one movie theater here in town. Is that a monopoly? Or is the fact that I can go one town over where there are 3 theaters, and all of them better than the local one not make that a monopoly? Dammit, I want a Federally funded SDDS sound, rocker chairs with cupholder, coliseum seating uber-mega-ultra googleplex where I live right now! It's a monopoly, I tell you!
There is a standard? IMUnified [imunified.org] was supposed to create one, but there site seems to not have been updated in some time (I e-mailed their contact to learn why). The IETF had a task force or something to hammer one out, too, but I've not heard a peep from them either.
Then it sounds like the Official People are either too busy, or don't think this problem deserves the attention you think it does.
Everytime something has come out that interoperates with AIM, I've tried it -- as have many others. I've done this because I saw it as a better mouse trap (because, again, I think AOL's AIM client SUCKS!!!) But we always have to drop it because AOL starts to block it. I can't get my "buddies" to switch off AIM because their buddies won't. So, if I want to chat with them, I have to use AIM too.
Yeah, imagine that. AOL actively defending their intellectual property. You know why? The one time they don't, that's going the be the legal foothold someone needs to wedge themselves into AIM's network becasue AOL didn't slap down someone infringing on their property.
AOL doesn't have a monopoly on e-mail users, so they allow interoperability. Its adds value to their service, so their users have good reason to stick around.
AOL also didn't create the SMTP protocol, either. They could, if they wanted to (and I'm sure a lot of people here would encourage it) close off their SMTP gateways and go back to their AOL-only email standard.
But AOL *does* have a monopoly on IM users (AIM and ICQ combined are HUGE), so they're going to be stubborn and lock out the competition.
And there aren't alternatives like MSN Messenger, IRC, Jabber, Y! Messenger and $DEITY-knows how many others? A monopoly? Surely you jest!
Maybe not in the legal dictionary, but in my dictionary, this is *anti-competitive* and I want to see something done about it. I just hope someone with more legal knowledge than I can find the proper legal support to put this fight upon.
Anticompetitive, or looking out for one's interests? Remember, the AIM protocol is proprietary, and not the IM standard. They choose who can use it. Did Cerulian ASK for interoperabilty, or just force their way in? If I invent something, don't I have exclusive rights to my product? How many other IM clients are out there on the market? Now, how many are STANDARDS based? Why haven't there been a mass migration over to a standards-based IM client? Can't someone build the better mousetrap, or is everyone with a C++ compiler just sitting around anc complaining about how unfair it is? I see a market for a product, and everyone else here isn't doing a damn thing. Pity.
Be careful what you wish for in regards to someone with more legal knowledge commenting- it swings both ways. The way I see it, AOL could slap Cerulian with a couple DMCA violations for writing patches to get around AOL's blocks.
That with Cerulian already circumnavigating AOL's blocks twice so far, that AOL hasn't brought them up on DMCA violations.
How much does it cost to access the AOL network with an AOL client if you are not a memeber of AOL?
It has a real cost on AOL if you're using Trillian because Trillian doesn't have ads, does it? Advertisers start getting data that people aren't seeing their ads, they stop advertising with AOL, which has a real effect on AOL's pocketbook.
2. The FCC ordered them to demonstrate iteroperability. They chose their victim.. I mean, partner, to be some dot-com that is now bankrupt and defunct (nice loop-hole spotting, AOL!). I'm trying to find links on this to back this up, and I'll post them here when I find them (just couldn't let this go unanswered).
AOL complied, didn't they? Maybe instead of just barging in, and demanding access to AOL's proprietary network, protocol and userbase, the creators of Trillian could have *GASP* asked AOL if they could play. When someone uses my car without my permission, I call that theft.
AOL accepts e-mail from non-AOL SMTP servers. These e-mails traverse the AOL network, tying up their resources, and ultimately being converted into some AOL format for display in AOL. Why don't they block that? Oh, because it adds value to AOL by allowing its users to interoperate with the rest of the world. The difference with IM is that AOL owns 90% of that world (ICQ & AOL), so they don't see any value added.
Because if AOL rejected email, none of their users would stick around, would they? Gosh, if 10 year old kids didn't get their 120+ porn spams a day, they'd have to switch to WebTV!
but they don't want just that...they *want* you to use their network...*but only* with their client. It's a simple matter of protecting their revenue stream....or in this case, potential revenue stream.
And this is bad, why? AOL is in the business of making money. I think some people forget that... businesses make money. Letting some "freeloaders" in are going to detract from that, along with opening potential security issues (as if they don't have enough of their own) because now there's uncontrolled, unchecked software accessing their clients. It's their user database and their IM protocol they developed. They're entitled to include/exclude whomever they see fit. There are IM standards available for anyone who wants to write a standards-based IM client. This isn't hurting anyone except the freeloaders.
Wouldn't you love to see AOL go before a Senate Hearing for unfair business practices?
Unfair in what way? That they're defending their intellectual property? Since when is it unfair to restrict access to one's own network? AIM isn't an Open Source, public network. It's proprietary.
It's AOL's software, AOL's servers and AOL's IM protocol. Why should they feel compelled to allow 3rd party software to access their network?
The first person who blames Microsoft for this is going to get SUCH a pinch...
People bitch about Win2k reaching 40 million lines of code. But when it's an open-source project, all of a sudden bloated software is something to take pride in...
Well, perhaps making money is not a bad thing, but when you abuse your monopoly power and take away people's freedom doing it, I think it is a bad thing. And that is what I see .NET as.
.NET? Don't use it. I don't see BillG and his BlueShirts going around, throwing marmots into people's baths if they don't switch over to .NET... Has your freedom been taken away? Mine? Theirs?
Don't like
OK, so if I object to Microsoft's tactics in the marketplace I'm 'against capitalism'. Nice logic.
.NET framework is free. Don't let your blind, reactionary hatred of all things Microsoft interfere with your reading comprehension skills. I tire of this same old crap from the "anti-M$" crowd... anytime they get backed into a corner, they start screaming about predatory business practices, monopolies and the end of the world as we know it (and I feel fine).
Where did I mention Microsoft's business tactics? I merely stated that yes, Microsoft writes software that puts money in Bill Gates' pocket, but in this case the whole
As I see it, both .NET and C# was created by M$ to earn some more bucks for Bill's wallet.
.NET framework and C# being absolutely free and available for download.
You make it sound like capitalism is a bad thing, despite the
This is worth a 4 rating?! Jeezus Christ... Oh wait, I forgot. It's patently anti-Microsoft, therefore gets automodded up at least 3 points right off the bat.
.sig says that all generalizations are false, which is EXACTLY what your 4 points are. The story doesn't support any of these 4 points you make. In fact, point 1 is blown neatly away by the author, when he informally suveys his fellow students at the beginning of the module, and nearly ALL the students had exposure to Linux.
Ironically, your
None of these other "points" you make are supported in the article either. I can't see how people can honestly consider your post "insightful", unless "insightful" now means "blatant anti-Microsoft FUD, devoid of fact or truth".
This just goes to show how idiotic and bigoted some of the /. editors can be.... And shows the glaring bias "anything but Microsoft" that some people have. Grow the fuck up, timothy. Maybe one day when you learn to become a real administrator, you'll learn that each OS has its own strengths and learn to build networks on those. Tim: have you even called MS Tech, or are you just tooting the same tired old ant-MS line again? Does it ever get old, tim?
I've had to call MS support 3 times this year. And each time, I've had my answer resolved. Twice my money was refunded to me. MS Tech Support even followed up each time to make sure that the issue was actually resolved so they could close the incident ticket out. The techs were friendly, knowledgeable and more importantly, they got the job done in an efficient manner.
I've had to call RedHat's support line once. Thank the Gods it was only once. The support guy couldn't even answer a basic X-Win problem, and I never did get a promised followup call that would hold the answer I was seeking. I'm also thankful that I didn't have to pay for that call...
The only thing that even comes close to Microsoft is Cisco's support service, and only then if you buy into one of their support contracts.