While I can't applaud the "go kill yourself" comment, I find it refreshing that a few people actually post to these forums in a less-than-M$-is-the-devil fashion. So many posters take the OPLP (Obnoxious Pretentious Linux Punk) stance that everything is wrong with Microsoft and the status quo and that the only correct answer is free/open love/software. Even the wonderfully sardonic CmdrTaco sunk to pandering depths with his post of this article.
While I feel it's easy to respect those with non-dogmatic viewpoints (pro or anti M$), people who are slaves to the "popular attitude" usually vilify them.
Does M$ force us to buy their products? Maybe; through their reduced support of older products and their deals with new machine manufacturers. But blaming them for making money is like blaming commercials for an irritating TV experience. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, that's the way things work right now. You can turn off the TV, rent videos/DVDs, watch PBS or pay channels. The same thing goes with our industry.
It's time for the crybabies to cease assailing our ears.
You want to play? Here's the field, here's the rules. Don't decry the teams as awful just because they score. And no, they don't cheat. Cheating is when you break the rules. In our industry, the consumers make the ultimate rules and there aren't too many of them.
You want a different game?
Get some others to go with you and start a new one... (Of course, I guess I have the same choice in forums, don't I?)
My father and grandfather both worked for IBM starting in 1941. They worked under the idea that mainframes were the only answer and were surprised by computers on the desktop. I started in various UNIX platforms (yes, I still consider LINUX different than UNIX). I work with every major platform available. I'm not installing XP, but I can't argue with the success M$ has contributed to our industry.
Make your flames good 'cause my filter is set above the crap. (prolly even above the score of this post;-)
You're right about the functionality in Outlook Web Access being better under 2000, but that exposed directory structure can bite you.
Although you can see and manipulate many of the directories involved, the standard file management routines don't quite work like the Exchange Manager. Using something other than the EM can cause irritating/serious permission problems, etc.
A good sysadmin also has time to find out what others in the profession think; hence the differentiation between zealot posters and those with some insight and logic.
I've always found it interesting that many of the posters in these forums sound like religious zealots rather than REAL sysadmins or coders. Some responses to this parent will fall under the same category. Sure, we all have our favorites and experiences. I cut my teeth on Sun and HP platforms well before Solaris and CDE in the UNIX world. I loaded some of the first NT back when only primary M$ partners could get it (scary). But most systems are are owned by companies that are capitalist in nature.
The one common thread in all of the varying OS/hardware/networking/cabling crap I've dealt with through the years is the fact that CEOs, CIOs, CFOs and CXXXOOOs don't care what wonderful/demon organization brought the systems to you, they want it running 24X7 with only minimal scheduled maintenance. Laugh if you want, but I've stayed employed doing just that (yes, even with NT). Barring perfect uptime, (which is a myth), the way these management knuckleheads get their warm fuzzies is if you can show them a company that you can yell at if things go wrong.
Linux hasn't had that. I don't care what utopian OSzealot induced nirvana you live in, most of the real world has investors and managers that (no matter how much they may praise you and depend on you) really want as many people on a problem as they can get. And before you say it, the legions of dedicated opensource/freesource coders don't count because they can't be held accountable. No matter how much we believe in the cooperative model, the fact remains that Linux is having a hard time getting through the bonehead fence of "free must mean no one to yell at". Software distributed via more traditional means will help to continue the mainstreaming of Linux because it fills in the gaps between old methods and new ones. I don't care if there isn't really someone capable on the other end of the phone (my teams fix most of our own problems because the support geeks are usually 7 steps behind us), but the perception of support in the management mind is real.
Also, when you're running a mainstream OS (read HPUX, Solaris, NT, AIX, Novell), you have the chance to start slipping in shareware/freeware/homegrown utilities and apps as you deem appropriate. The management weenies only see the good results and think they're running from the native systems. Once you have them dependant upon the product, then you let them in on the background (if you have to). This will be one more method of getting the best products on our systems and keep our pagers from going off in the middle of the night.
Slashdot Mirror
While I feel it's easy to respect those with non-dogmatic viewpoints (pro or anti M$), people who are slaves to the "popular attitude" usually vilify them.
Does M$ force us to buy their products? Maybe; through their reduced support of older products and their deals with new machine manufacturers. But blaming them for making money is like blaming commercials for an irritating TV experience. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, that's the way things work right now. You can turn off the TV, rent videos/DVDs, watch PBS or pay channels. The same thing goes with our industry.
It's time for the crybabies to cease assailing our ears.
You want to play?
Here's the field, here's the rules. Don't decry the teams as awful just because they score. And no, they don't cheat. Cheating is when you break the rules. In our industry, the consumers make the ultimate rules and there aren't too many of them.
You want a different game? ... (Of course, I guess I have the same choice in forums, don't I?)
Get some others to go with you and start a new one
My father and grandfather both worked for IBM starting in 1941. They worked under the idea that mainframes were the only answer and were surprised by computers on the desktop. I started in various UNIX platforms (yes, I still consider LINUX different than UNIX). I work with every major platform available. I'm not installing XP, but I can't argue with the success M$ has contributed to our industry.
Make your flames good 'cause my filter is set above the crap. (prolly even above the score of this post ;-)
salasia, out.
Danger, Danger Will Robinson.
You're right about the functionality in Outlook Web Access being better under 2000, but that exposed directory structure can bite you.
Although you can see and manipulate many of the directories involved, the standard file management routines don't quite work like the Exchange Manager. Using something other than the EM can cause irritating/serious permission problems, etc.
A good sysadmin also has time to find out what others in the profession think; hence the differentiation between zealot posters and those with some insight and logic.
I've always found it interesting that many of the posters in these forums sound like religious zealots rather than REAL sysadmins or coders. Some responses to this parent will fall under the same category. Sure, we all have our favorites and experiences. I cut my teeth on Sun and HP platforms well before Solaris and CDE in the UNIX world. I loaded some of the first NT back when only primary M$ partners could get it (scary). But most systems are are owned by companies that are capitalist in nature.
The one common thread in all of the varying OS/hardware/networking/cabling crap I've dealt with through the years is the fact that CEOs, CIOs, CFOs and CXXXOOOs don't care what wonderful/demon organization brought the systems to you, they want it running 24X7 with only minimal scheduled maintenance. Laugh if you want, but I've stayed employed doing just that (yes, even with NT). Barring perfect uptime, (which is a myth), the way these management knuckleheads get their warm fuzzies is if you can show them a company that you can yell at if things go wrong.
Linux hasn't had that. I don't care what utopian OSzealot induced nirvana you live in, most of the real world has investors and managers that (no matter how much they may praise you and depend on you) really want as many people on a problem as they can get. And before you say it, the legions of dedicated opensource/freesource coders don't count because they can't be held accountable. No matter how much we believe in the cooperative model, the fact remains that Linux is having a hard time getting through the bonehead fence of "free must mean no one to yell at". Software distributed via more traditional means will help to continue the mainstreaming of Linux because it fills in the gaps between old methods and new ones. I don't care if there isn't really someone capable on the other end of the phone (my teams fix most of our own problems because the support geeks are usually 7 steps behind us), but the perception of support in the management mind is real.
Also, when you're running a mainstream OS (read HPUX, Solaris, NT, AIX, Novell), you have the chance to start slipping in shareware/freeware/homegrown utilities and apps as you deem appropriate. The management weenies only see the good results and think they're running from the native systems. Once you have them dependant upon the product, then you let them in on the background (if you have to). This will be one more method of getting the best products on our systems and keep our pagers from going off in the middle of the night.