The point is that, given that Linux is already reasonably popular, you would think that some (maybe not all, but some) system vendors would offer dual boot on some of their configs. I mean, why not?
If you are the sort of person that wants to run Linux on their box then you are the kind of person that dosn't mind installing it themselfs (infact you would probably by the kind of person that WANTS to install it themselfs)
Therefor, why would the likes of Dell, IBM, etc waste there time installing it for you?
As a IIS systems admin, I would feel better if Microsoft had enough trust in their patch's stability that they installed it on ALL of their own production enviroment servers before release.
Yes I might delay the patch release by 2 days, but SirCam took at least 1 month to develop after details of the exploit were released by Microsoft.
I think you might be on to something here. I mean with IEs Javascript you can't even close a window that you didn't open. So how then can they justify users editing your default homepage
You wouldn't be saying that if it was your mom in the building when Mr. McVeigh did what he did.
and to the moderator that said this was insightful: go fuck your self.
this is not intended to be a troll.... but if making Linux easy to use was as achievable (at least in the sort term) then it would have been done by now and everyone would be using Linux. The fact is that it is hard to make Linux easy to use.
My experience with Compaq has been fairly positive.
We're a "Microsoft house" that used to run 5 servers as "Intel White Boxes". These use to require a re-boot every week, and usually had a catastrophic failure every 6-12 months. (Maybe we were just un-lucky?).
Since then we have replaced our 3 most heavily used servers with high-end Compaq equivalents. (1 Proliant 6400 & 2 Proliant 5500s), and I have not had a re-boot a box for 8 months now. (Even the 'Intel White Boxes', go figure)
Yes upgrades are expensive (au$1000 for 128 meg ram, au$3k for a XEON processor), but who cares when the gear just works.
Some people might say that that's what we get for being a "Microsoft house", but then again I go to many businesses in the same field as us that are "CF and/or Linux houses" that have development teams of 3 or 4 people, and have achieved no where near what we have. (I'm a developer AND systems admin).
So if you want to look it in terms of cost, we pay 10-20 times the price for our hardware, but our IT staff costs are 1/3-1/4 of our opposition. Or to put it another way our TCO is ½ of our opposition in the first year alone.
Oh and by the way: We actually have a Linux box, which we use as a firewall (maintained by an external company because I would not have a clue as to how to administer it).
I want my kid growing up using Linux and Star Office, then the day they start their first job and their boss shows them to their MS Windows/Ms Office box they say "Whats that?".
If 90% of the desktop world is using MS Windows & MS Office then surely they are the skills that my child needs to learn!
I find it funny how so many people can criticize Microsoft for hefty system requirements; At the moment I am running 3 instances of Visual Basic, Word, MMC, Interdev, 2 instances of Terminal Services client, & SQL server.
All running on Win2k SERVER (used for development of COM components) on a K6-233 with 196mb ram, and I don't have a problem with things running to slowly.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that, given that Linux is already reasonably popular, you would think that some (maybe not all, but some) system vendors would offer dual boot on some of their configs. I mean, why not?
If you are the sort of person that wants to run Linux on their box then you are the kind of person that dosn't mind installing it themselfs (infact you would probably by the kind of person that WANTS to install it themselfs)
Therefor, why would the likes of Dell, IBM, etc waste there time installing it for you?
Yes I might delay the patch release by 2 days, but SirCam took at least 1 month to develop after details of the exploit were released by Microsoft.
PDFs came with their own e-mail client In acrobat 4 or 5 try File/Send Mail.
I think you might be on to something here. I mean with IEs Javascript you can't even close a window that you didn't open. So how then can they justify users editing your default homepage
You wouldn't be saying that if it was your mom in the building when Mr. McVeigh did what he did. and to the moderator that said this was insightful: go fuck your self.
Note to moderators: this is not flame bait, it's funny!
this is not intended to be a troll. ... but if making Linux easy to use was as achievable (at least in the sort term) then it would have been done by now and everyone would be using Linux. The fact is that it is hard to make Linux easy to use.
My experience with Compaq has been fairly positive. We're a "Microsoft house" that used to run 5 servers as "Intel White Boxes". These use to require a re-boot every week, and usually had a catastrophic failure every 6-12 months. (Maybe we were just un-lucky?). Since then we have replaced our 3 most heavily used servers with high-end Compaq equivalents. (1 Proliant 6400 & 2 Proliant 5500s), and I have not had a re-boot a box for 8 months now. (Even the 'Intel White Boxes', go figure) Yes upgrades are expensive (au$1000 for 128 meg ram, au$3k for a XEON processor), but who cares when the gear just works. Some people might say that that's what we get for being a "Microsoft house", but then again I go to many businesses in the same field as us that are "CF and/or Linux houses" that have development teams of 3 or 4 people, and have achieved no where near what we have. (I'm a developer AND systems admin). So if you want to look it in terms of cost, we pay 10-20 times the price for our hardware, but our IT staff costs are 1/3-1/4 of our opposition. Or to put it another way our TCO is ½ of our opposition in the first year alone. Oh and by the way: We actually have a Linux box, which we use as a firewall (maintained by an external company because I would not have a clue as to how to administer it).
I want my kid growing up using Linux and Star Office, then the day they start their first job and their boss shows them to their MS Windows/Ms Office box they say "Whats that?". If 90% of the desktop world is using MS Windows & MS Office then surely they are the skills that my child needs to learn!
I find it funny how so many people can criticize Microsoft for hefty system requirements; At the moment I am running 3 instances of Visual Basic, Word, MMC, Interdev, 2 instances of Terminal Services client, & SQL server. All running on Win2k SERVER (used for development of COM components) on a K6-233 with 196mb ram, and I don't have a problem with things running to slowly.