maybe your company should try hiring experienced and/or technically inclined people. Creating solutions isnt a chicken-or-egg problem. Maybe they should try making an SQL server and figuring the damn thing out?
or maybe the lawsuit was just a ploy by Apple to milk out some of MS's money. Apple v. Microsoft = Spike Lee v. "The Spike Network". But I guess extortion is ok when they do it to MS, right?
Perhaps Apple realized that they would probably lose the case, and their company was going down faster than a crack whore, so they accepted a compromise that would benefit both companies. But neither of us were really there, so we are all just guessing anyway.
Well if that's the case, show me where I can download the source to XP so I can fix a few bugs;-) No? Didn't think so. Bye bye troll;-)
And here I always thought they did it by reverse-engineering Apple's Macintosh OS, selling the (incredibly buggy) results as pre-installed software on cheap Asian-sourced hardware, and undercutting everyone else just enough that people would buy it. A couple of decades of arm-twisting and other illegal practices later, and we have the current MS...
Well, you would be mistaken. Win32 architecture bears no resemblence to Apple's OS, but you would actually have to understand how they work to know that. Most people, like yourself, thing "Hmm, one has a GUI, and so does the other... they much be the same!" You are essentially saying that Ferrari ripped off Ford because they both have red cars with four tires and a steering wheel.
I think the analogy would be close to your car stalling in the middle of a highway, all the warning lights frozen on and the ignition key jammed solid.
As I keep saying, if somebody who knows what they are doing can get it to work, and you cant, where does the problem lie? Hmmm... couldnt be you, could it?
In any event, have YOU ever taken a car into a mechanic that has its bonnet welded shut, and legal threats plastered all over it warning the garage about the consequences if they have the temerity to take a look at how it works, and what the problem is?
That analogy is equal parts stupid, paranoid, and incorrect. But, since you obviously dont really know Windows, I dont see why anybody should be expected to take your 'expert' opinion on the matter.
I like to get my expert opinions from actual experts, thank you.
But then the problem has now become dependant on the AD backend, the user's machine being part of that domain, the machine name itself, (often) the user's account, etc...
Well, its a shame you find the whole model of security on AD annoying, but thats what it is. If you dont like it, dont use it; Im not complaining that my screwdriver makes a bad hammer.
Windows security is based on trust relationships between the computer and the domain (or, by extension, the active directory). Meaning you cant just plug a strange computer to the network and expect it to be able to use network resources. There are ways to circumvent this requirement, but it isnt all that easy and still requires an account and password.
The fact of the matter is that this is the Windows security model, and people dont try to learn it; they just complain about it. Oh well, the info is out there, and its not MS's fault people choose not to educate themselves.
Any time I've tried to find out anything nontrivial on TechNet I've come up empty. A recent example was optimizing SMB to tell it that it was perfectly fine to fragment packets so that I could get better TCP/IP SMB throughput.
there is a book which I think its called "Windows NT Plumbing". My copy is at the office, but its most likely in there.
Any monkey can say they support Windows and their typical response is "reboot, hmm ok, reinstall" -- I don't know of any other operating system where that is SOP and acceptable. You can have tons of "windows support" if that's their response.
The only place Ive seen that kind of support is at Best Buy. You arent having them support your servers, are you?;)
I agree, reinstalling the OS isnt a way to fix the problem. I only do that on servers which I havent built, and if they act flakey. I need to be able to trust my hardware, but that only happens if I trust the person who built the server (which is a real short list).
Oh yeah, thank you MS for embracing and extending so many technologies and locking everyone in to the MS way of doing things. That's made life so much better...
Seems to me that linux and mac are still doing things their ways... there are lots of other people making non-MS software, last I checked. Dont know what more can be said.
Win95 support has been terminated. You can't upgrade your Win95 system for whatever reason
More specifically, they dont recommend upgrading any Win9x/ME system to 2000/XP- the registries are completely different, and it will break whatever applications you are using on that system. Plus, Win95 is pretty old, isnt it? Anyway, my last job had lots of Win9x clients. They paid lots of people to fix Win9x clients, and I know several stores which still do so.?
My hard drive failed. That's not Maxtor's fault
If its a Maxtor drive, it is. I dont see how you can MS for a hardware failure.
2. I sometimes use google. It actually links back to a lot of technet articles. As I said, MS really needs to work on their technet search engine.
I think the issue is just experience. When something breaks, I can think for a minute on what process the issue is supposed to go thru, and see where in that process the error is occuring. From that, I will know approximately what is going wrong. Im guessing any other OS would troubleshoot the same way, its just that (as I mentioned), a lot of other people dont put the time into learning the steps that Windows, Exchange, etc, go thru; nor should they if they arent Windows experts. But its just like everything- some people are experts, some people arent.
3. The only testing Ive heard of with that would be the CCIE tests, where they throw you in a room with a broken network and tell you to fix it. You may want to look into examples of how MS does their test questions now, its pretty different than standard multiple guess questions from the past.
Hmm, Ive never found there to be a lack of information on administrating windows; a quick search of Amazon.com should turn up literally hundreds, along with (as my favorite feature) user reviews and critiques on which books are good, which arent.
Yes you can get tools there that will get the job done. A phillips screwdriver is a phillips screwdriver wherever you get it from. But I've yet to pay $30 for a tool somewhere else that wasn't superior in some fashion to the $3 equivelent in the dollar store. If you saw a more complex tool, even say, an rj45 crimper in the dollar store for $5 would you buy it and use it to crimp the ends being plugged into even a 16port switch? I should hope not.
Nothing spends easier than other peoples money, thats for sure. That mentality is what makes people pay $700 for a toilet seat. BTW, I have a crimper that costs $7.50, and it works just as well as any other Ive ever used. Ive never found crimp tools to be the essence of hi-tech that other have, I suppose.
It's that it's EXTREMELY easy to become an MCSE, and on windows they use these things called wizards that eliminate the requirement to actually know how a service operates beneath the surface
And of course, you speak authoritatively on this because you've taken all the MCSE tests, and you have used those wizards, right? Of course not, you just go by what others on Slashdot say.
I found the MSCE tests to be easy, but if I wouldnt have had about five years of Windows experience prior to that, Im not so sure I would have. Also, the only thing the wizards "do" for you is remove some of the headaches of needing to manually enter certain things. For example, setting up the DNS service on Win2k no longer requires you to manually insert each domain, subnet, the reverse lookup addresses, etc. But you still have to know what you are doing, or it will turn out misconfigured. Its a convience, not a substitute for knowledge, so please dont try and tell me how great the wizards are.
They may not entirely fool their co-workers, but they'll fool the boss and that's all that counts. After 5yrs of this they will have learned enough to be as qualified as they should have been before getting the job to begin with. I've worked with these people, I know.
And can use the same description for a guy who was a Unix and Checkpoint Firewall admin. Coaching to pass HR and interviews is nothing new, and it certainly isnt only MS (or even IT) related. Opinion via anecdote is generally a very poor substitute for fact.
However based on the few dozen tech related employee's I DO know and the experiences I've had with Microsoft technical support, I'd like to extend my statement...
Im sorry, but anybody who bases a company's knowledge on office workers and phone support people really cant be trusted to give an unbiased account of that company's technical competance. If a person were so good, they wouldnt be jockeying the phone support- I thought we all understood that.
When it's a microsoft product however, in my experience people are more likely to call a tech shop than microsoft and more likely to get it fixed by calling any random tech shop.
Thats because they contact people with real world experience, rather than a minimum wage pseudo-technical phone support person who is only going to search TechNet (something which you *should* have done before calling them...). Ive only called MS twice, and both times it was after exhausting all other avenues. Both times it also needed to be escelated beyond the support desk, and I was contacted regarding issues which were in beta stage of being added into technet; my call just got me a Hotfix somewhat earlier.
Last, let me guess, you are building servers that perform a fixed function, all the time, you have less than 10 genuinely unique setups which you build
I have built so many servers I cant even name a number. To ballpark I would say around 100, a mix of NT4 and Win2k (maybe 60-70 NT4, i guess... Its old hat, so I dont keep count). Ive done tons of migrations of old servers to new, about 10-20 were exchange servers, Ive seperated functions on machines which had
That sounds like a good MCSE Motto:
"If you cant be smart, you can at least act superior."
Hmm, I think "Im rubber, youre glue", or perhaps "I know you are, but what am I" would have been more the more appropriate fifth grade mentality response, but I suppose yours will work.
I do not need an abstraction layer protecting me from the horrors of the hardware/OS interface.
Hmmm, the Hardware Abstraction Layer doesnt do anything LIKE that... sounds like you are just swinging around jargon in an attempt to look like you know what you are talking about... The HAL was something MS used to make NT independent of the processor it was running on; at one time there were HALs for RISC and i386. They moved away from that direction for the most part, but there are still seperate uni- and multi- processor HALs. Also, there are now 64-bit versions of the HAL, for both Intel and AMD.
I wouldnt call that protecting me from the horrors of the hardware/OS interface (whatever thats supposed to mean).
I do not need a monopoly telling me what I can and can't do with the hardware I bought. I do not need forced upgrades, poor security, bloated code, and a GHz or better procesor to type a letter or browse the internet.
I use Windows, and I have none of those things. Just more anti-MS FUD, but I suppose we are in the right place for it...
Most of all, I don't need Clippy to help me do my work!
Hmmm, Ive never used Clippy myself. Honestly, I dont see why a little cartoon character face on a help file should generate such paranoia, but people are afraid of midgets and clowns, too.
Linus, Raymond, RMS, Cox and crew do not care if I upgrade my motherboard or get a new hard drive, so why do I have to get permission from Microsoft when I try it with XP?
Ive never had a problem with product activation, but thats probably because I always use the enterprise version. However, even people I know who use XP Home have never had an issue with activation. Score another one in the accute paranoia box.
The configuration for pretty much everything is plain text and documented freely instead of hidden behind a single-point-of-failure binary registry and anonymous GID identifiers
This has never been an issue for me, since TechNet documents just about anything you need to know. Understanding how the registry works helps a lot, too, and Ive never found the registry to be a single point of failure (well, misconfiguration can be that on any platform).
The system internals are all public and I can access any part of it I need without gagging NDAs and/or paying for the privilege
Ive been working on Windows servers for almost ten years, and I have yet to even see an NDA.
I am not tied to one megacorp with a penchant for monopolistic practises and stifling innovation
Ah, the typical Slashdot line makes its appearence. This is like when a Republican cant think of anything to say, so they just shout "Well, Clinton got a blow-job!"
IMO, Microsoft has done more for innovation in the last ten years than any other company. Before Win95 everybody was content to have their own little sand castle, and to hell with anybody trying to make a complete system. One company did Terminal Emulation, one did virtual memory, one did Winsocks, you had to buy protocols, you had to buy browsers, etc. By the time you got done putting together a system which would do what you wanted, your costs were well over $2000. I say thank goodness for MS flipping everyone the bird and including components into the OS, so you could just buy the OS and have a network client, or a computer which can access the internet, all without having to purchase and install three seperate pieces of software.
Look up the computer history; MS became dominant on the desktop because everyone else didnt care about the desktop, and were trying to make mega cash on servers/networking.
Basically my beef with Windows and my desire to use Linux stems from the simple fact that when something does go wrong, I can fix it far easier and without paying for the privilege.
If most companies had Linux systems, they would need to pay for the privilege of getting it fixed; more people know how to support MS than Linux, and they are most likely already employees.
And in those cases when Microsoft is either unwilling or unable to fix something, I can always hire a programmer to fix it for me.
I cant for the life of me figure out how this would apply to any real-world scenarios... Its basically like me saying its Ford's fault that my fan belt broke, and they should be responsible for fixing it. Heaven forbid you bring the car in to a mechanic...
1. you can set printers using Active Directory 'policies', which will replicate to all the machines you specify in that domain. BTW, there is a lot of new functionality with AD; Im not quite an expert on it yet, because Im still stuck supporting a lot of NT4 machines, and regular Domains; people are scare to migrate to AD for some bizarre reason (IMO too many consultants are just fool companies into thinking it's a big expensive undertaking).
2. Windows is extremely well documented; I never lack for reference material, and TechNet is often the first and last place I need to look up a problem (but their seach feature could be more robust, to put it politely).
3. The Windows 2000/XP/2003 tests use more scenario questions. Its not a written test, but since A-B-C-D only gives you a 25% chance of being right, its hard to get an 80% by random chance or 'learning' the questions; many testing sites also use adaptive tests, which get progressively harder as you answer correct questions, but higher scores can only be achieved this way; also, missing softball questions will easily fail you on an adaptive test.
This is kind of an odd thing to say. After all, when do we throw a Windows admin at a Solaris system?
As I said, its the misconception people have that Windows is 'easy', and anybody can do it. So they try, and fail; for the most part, its hard NOT to work in IT and have no exposure to Windows, but they think being an expert on one platform somehow makes them an expert on another, and so to mask their lack of knowledge, they just say Windows is stupid and not made 'correctly'. Never mind the fact that they dont really understand that most things access the registry in some way, or how to deal with the APIs, proper Windows troubleshooting, etc.
I dont pretend to be an expert on anything but Windows: it would be nice to get the same consideration from system engineers dealing with other platforms.
My work desktop environment right now is Win2K due to various contraints (office automation apps, a few Windows machines I have to keep an eye on, etc). Yet I go to quite a bit of trouble to make that environment as Unix-like as I can. I really prefer that environment. And I've been able to pull off a few things recently that have had my coworkers wowed (thanks to Cygwin).
Thats funny, I tend to try and make my Windows networks more Netware-like. Im not really an expert on Netware, but when I was learning networking I worked in a place with a really good implimentation of Netware as the NOS (and Ive seen really bad implimentations, too, so just having it isnt a meter of quality [like everything else]). Apparently, lots of other people are this way as well, because there are lots of tools to add things like 'real' logon scripting (KiXtart, ScriptLogic) and other network admin stuff.
Someone claiming that a *nix admin should just learn to fix Windows instead of complaining about it sounds more like ignorance to me than insight.
Im saying if you have to do something, do it right. Complaining doesnt fix problems, nor does sticking your head in the sand and acting like something is 'wrong' just because they dont want to understand it. As I said, theres nothing wrong with not wanting to learn it, but acting like it's worthless knowledge is insulting to those who actually know what they are doing.
So it's a safe bet you buy all your tools from the dollar store?
Whats wrong with tools from the dollar store? I have a really nice mini-screwdriver set from there, some decent wire cutters, and a few other things. Like most people who try and live by witty comments like that, you are making a comment based largely on your own ignorance, and mask that ignorance with ridicule. BTW, avoid dollar store flashlights, and just stick with Maglite.Most of them do not get exposed because pretty much any idiot can work on a windows system
Pretty much any idiot can work on any system. I know very big morons who 'work' on AS400s, Netware servers, Sun Unix servers, etc; idiots are truly OS independent. All you do is bolster the belief that anyone can work on Windows because it has a GUI, which isnt true, and is really a diservice to the people who understand the Windows architecture and therefore are able to build very stable servers. It has rules, best practices, and limitations just like *everything* else.
I think it's a fairly safe bet to say I know more about windows than 90% of the tech related employees at Microsoft.
I think its safe to say you dont know any tech related employees at Microsoft.
I think it's a fairly safe bet to say I know more about windows than 90% of the tech related employees at Microsoft.
Thats pretty strange, because the servers *I* build have 99.999% uptime. You must be doing something wrong, and I think that pretty much negates your previous claim to knowledge.
There is a base level of brokeness you achieve when there are no nonOS memory leaks, all patches are applied, and none of the drivers have yellow flags and all diagnostics APPEAR to turn up reasonable results. But I assure you, even then, it's STILL broken.
Then it could be a hardware issue. Bad memory is often the culprit; I once had a goofy time with one server which never worked right; we eventaully contacted the vendor, and there were some problems with the motherboard. Another time a wire was obstructing one of the processor fans. A good rule of thumb is to not blame the OS; there honestly ARE servers out there which work properly, so there has to be some other cause at work. You can follow the OSI model, start at the bottom, and work your way up.
As I said, people like to just throw up their hands and blame Microsoft; actual troubleshooting, research, etc, is too tedious. Its not MS's fault companies put out faulty equipment, bad drivers, etc.
Blah blah blah. MS is just as good, if not better, than any other NOS.
Its also quite easy for people to make fun of things they dont understand; I love how people always say MS stuff is simplistic, until they need to fix it. Then they just say its poorly designed. Maybe if they spent time trying to understand how the OS or application does things, instead of complaining about it, they could fix it.
Oh well. I guess nothing is going to snap people out of thier comfort zone. If you cant be smart, you can at least act superior.
Where is the TANG?
on
Eating in Space
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
I'd like to get some TANG in space. And I dont mean the orange drink.
It will probably be easy for mobo makers to make use of this as an optional feature, much like SATA, USB 2.0, etc. Then you just need to have an antenna lead from the mobo, and enable it in the BIOS: it will work just like parallel/serial ports.
Great. Now we can have a new breed of viruses which spread their payloads via DNS. I think Berkley is going to have to put in some overtime making a new point release to prevent this from happening...
I guess one could sarcastically say thanks for the proof of concept, real good job. But then again, its better they did it and let everyone know it could be done, rather than having to find out about it 'in the wild'. I just hope its easy to prevent.
Im glad to see Novell adding further to their product line-up, and hope it goes well for them. Ive always liked Netware, ever since my first exposure to it at 4.1
BTW, its pretty lame dissing on MCSE's- the paper ones generally get exposed in the real world, and since there are lots of us out there who can fix most NT issues with our eyes closed, I can very much say a real MCSE is an asset to any company. Its not like there arent paper CCNAs, CNAs, etc.
But its easy to make fun of someone else, especially when they can fix things you cant; most *nix people just wave their hands and complain about Microsoft instead of actually *fixing* the Windows servers. Its a poor craftsman who blames his tools.
This game must really suck badly if they need to resort to shock advertising. They are just trying to get the media to advertise for them, like Running With Scissors did with Postal and Postal 2. Sadly, P2 didnt do so well because it was a shit game (I liked the original quite a bit).
Im sure we will see EA go out of business long before Nintendo does.
Nintendo has long been doing the 'right' thing, despite not being #1. They are able to just put their stuff out on the market and turn a profit; they dont have a "#1 at all expense" complex. IMO, the quest for #1 has been a greater downfall than focussing on a single market ever has been.
BTW, Pepsico is very diverse (but its a good example of not worrying about #1 and focusing on being a profitable company). Dr. Pepper/7Up, Inc. is a very appropriate example; they have 16% sales of the N. American market.
Anyway, Nintendo is making serious bank on having the #1 handheld gaming system for the past several years. With the release of the GBA SP, they have a sleek product which is selling to tons of people who previously would never have owned a GameBoy.
Personally, I would like to see a GBA/PDA/Phone, but if they are focusing on just Games, I guess that may never happen. Oh well.
I was reading an article (maybe a year ago) from a guy working with Nokia doing the cellphone OS. He basically said they are really buggy, since the company just wants to get the phone out, and not give them time to make a solid (and secure!) OS.
Since newer generations of phones, with new features, are just being made with upgrades to the old OS, that means new bugs and security holes are just being layered on top of older ones...
Anyway, it will probably be for the best when 'standard' phone OS's become mainstream; I would be all for being able to upgrade security/functionality on my phone. IMO, Palm messed up HUGE time on this one- they could have literally owned the small device market.
Slashdot Mirror
maybe your company should try hiring experienced and/or technically inclined people. Creating solutions isnt a chicken-or-egg problem. Maybe they should try making an SQL server and figuring the damn thing out?
Perhaps Apple realized that they would probably lose the case, and their company was going down faster than a crack whore, so they accepted a compromise that would benefit both companies. But neither of us were really there, so we are all just guessing anyway.
Well if that's the case, show me where I can download the source to XP so I can fix a few bugs ;-) No? Didn't think so. Bye bye troll ;-)
Name some bugs. Cant do it? Bye bye moron.
Good thing he wrote it as an article, tho. Thats the only way anyone around here actually reads anything contrary to the zealot dogma.
I am prepared to be modded down for telling the truth.
Every school child needs to be force fed Linux!!! Yah!! Then maybe people will stop buying M$!!!
You dont really work on servers, do you?
See, these are the kind of big projects the Open Source community should be focusing on! Oh wait, they have no focus. Never mind.
Dont listen to her lies! She wasnt a prisoner, she was just visiting!
Well, you would be mistaken. Win32 architecture bears no resemblence to Apple's OS, but you would actually have to understand how they work to know that. Most people, like yourself, thing "Hmm, one has a GUI, and so does the other... they much be the same!" You are essentially saying that Ferrari ripped off Ford because they both have red cars with four tires and a steering wheel.
I think the analogy would be close to your car stalling in the middle of a highway, all the warning lights frozen on and the ignition key jammed solid.
As I keep saying, if somebody who knows what they are doing can get it to work, and you cant, where does the problem lie? Hmmm... couldnt be you, could it?
In any event, have YOU ever taken a car into a mechanic that has its bonnet welded shut, and legal threats plastered all over it warning the garage about the consequences if they have the temerity to take a look at how it works, and what the problem is?
That analogy is equal parts stupid, paranoid, and incorrect. But, since you obviously dont really know Windows, I dont see why anybody should be expected to take your 'expert' opinion on the matter.
I like to get my expert opinions from actual experts, thank you.
Well, its a shame you find the whole model of security on AD annoying, but thats what it is. If you dont like it, dont use it; Im not complaining that my screwdriver makes a bad hammer.
Windows security is based on trust relationships between the computer and the domain (or, by extension, the active directory). Meaning you cant just plug a strange computer to the network and expect it to be able to use network resources. There are ways to circumvent this requirement, but it isnt all that easy and still requires an account and password.
The fact of the matter is that this is the Windows security model, and people dont try to learn it; they just complain about it. Oh well, the info is out there, and its not MS's fault people choose not to educate themselves.
there is a book which I think its called "Windows NT Plumbing". My copy is at the office, but its most likely in there.
Any monkey can say they support Windows and their typical response is "reboot, hmm ok, reinstall" -- I don't know of any other operating system where that is SOP and acceptable. You can have tons of "windows support" if that's their response.
The only place Ive seen that kind of support is at Best Buy. You arent having them support your servers, are you? ;)
I agree, reinstalling the OS isnt a way to fix the problem. I only do that on servers which I havent built, and if they act flakey. I need to be able to trust my hardware, but that only happens if I trust the person who built the server (which is a real short list).
Oh yeah, thank you MS for embracing and extending so many technologies and locking everyone in to the MS way of doing things. That's made life so much better...
Seems to me that linux and mac are still doing things their ways... there are lots of other people making non-MS software, last I checked. Dont know what more can be said.
Win95 support has been terminated. You can't upgrade your Win95 system for whatever reason
More specifically, they dont recommend upgrading any Win9x/ME system to 2000/XP- the registries are completely different, and it will break whatever applications you are using on that system. Plus, Win95 is pretty old, isnt it? Anyway, my last job had lots of Win9x clients. They paid lots of people to fix Win9x clients, and I know several stores which still do so.?
My hard drive failed. That's not Maxtor's fault
If its a Maxtor drive, it is. I dont see how you can MS for a hardware failure.
2. I sometimes use google. It actually links back to a lot of technet articles. As I said, MS really needs to work on their technet search engine.
I think the issue is just experience. When something breaks, I can think for a minute on what process the issue is supposed to go thru, and see where in that process the error is occuring. From that, I will know approximately what is going wrong. Im guessing any other OS would troubleshoot the same way, its just that (as I mentioned), a lot of other people dont put the time into learning the steps that Windows, Exchange, etc, go thru; nor should they if they arent Windows experts. But its just like everything- some people are experts, some people arent.
3. The only testing Ive heard of with that would be the CCIE tests, where they throw you in a room with a broken network and tell you to fix it. You may want to look into examples of how MS does their test questions now, its pretty different than standard multiple guess questions from the past.
Hmm, Ive never found there to be a lack of information on administrating windows; a quick search of Amazon.com should turn up literally hundreds, along with (as my favorite feature) user reviews and critiques on which books are good, which arent.
Nothing spends easier than other peoples money, thats for sure. That mentality is what makes people pay $700 for a toilet seat. BTW, I have a crimper that costs $7.50, and it works just as well as any other Ive ever used. Ive never found crimp tools to be the essence of hi-tech that other have, I suppose.
It's that it's EXTREMELY easy to become an MCSE, and on windows they use these things called wizards that eliminate the requirement to actually know how a service operates beneath the surface
And of course, you speak authoritatively on this because you've taken all the MCSE tests, and you have used those wizards, right? Of course not, you just go by what others on Slashdot say.
I found the MSCE tests to be easy, but if I wouldnt have had about five years of Windows experience prior to that, Im not so sure I would have. Also, the only thing the wizards "do" for you is remove some of the headaches of needing to manually enter certain things. For example, setting up the DNS service on Win2k no longer requires you to manually insert each domain, subnet, the reverse lookup addresses, etc. But you still have to know what you are doing, or it will turn out misconfigured. Its a convience, not a substitute for knowledge, so please dont try and tell me how great the wizards are.
They may not entirely fool their co-workers, but they'll fool the boss and that's all that counts. After 5yrs of this they will have learned enough to be as qualified as they should have been before getting the job to begin with. I've worked with these people, I know.
And can use the same description for a guy who was a Unix and Checkpoint Firewall admin. Coaching to pass HR and interviews is nothing new, and it certainly isnt only MS (or even IT) related. Opinion via anecdote is generally a very poor substitute for fact.
However based on the few dozen tech related employee's I DO know and the experiences I've had with Microsoft technical support, I'd like to extend my statement ...
Im sorry, but anybody who bases a company's knowledge on office workers and phone support people really cant be trusted to give an unbiased account of that company's technical competance. If a person were so good, they wouldnt be jockeying the phone support- I thought we all understood that.
When it's a microsoft product however, in my experience people are more likely to call a tech shop than microsoft and more likely to get it fixed by calling any random tech shop.
Thats because they contact people with real world experience, rather than a minimum wage pseudo-technical phone support person who is only going to search TechNet (something which you *should* have done before calling them...). Ive only called MS twice, and both times it was after exhausting all other avenues. Both times it also needed to be escelated beyond the support desk, and I was contacted regarding issues which were in beta stage of being added into technet; my call just got me a Hotfix somewhat earlier.
Last, let me guess, you are building servers that perform a fixed function, all the time, you have less than 10 genuinely unique setups which you build
I have built so many servers I cant even name a number. To ballpark I would say around 100, a mix of NT4 and Win2k (maybe 60-70 NT4, i guess... Its old hat, so I dont keep count). Ive done tons of migrations of old servers to new, about 10-20 were exchange servers, Ive seperated functions on machines which had
Hmm, I think "Im rubber, youre glue", or perhaps "I know you are, but what am I" would have been more the more appropriate fifth grade mentality response, but I suppose yours will work.
I do not need an abstraction layer protecting me from the horrors of the hardware/OS interface.
Hmmm, the Hardware Abstraction Layer doesnt do anything LIKE that... sounds like you are just swinging around jargon in an attempt to look like you know what you are talking about... The HAL was something MS used to make NT independent of the processor it was running on; at one time there were HALs for RISC and i386. They moved away from that direction for the most part, but there are still seperate uni- and multi- processor HALs. Also, there are now 64-bit versions of the HAL, for both Intel and AMD.
I wouldnt call that protecting me from the horrors of the hardware/OS interface (whatever thats supposed to mean).
I do not need a monopoly telling me what I can and can't do with the hardware I bought. I do not need forced upgrades, poor security, bloated code, and a GHz or better procesor to type a letter or browse the internet.
I use Windows, and I have none of those things. Just more anti-MS FUD, but I suppose we are in the right place for it...
Most of all, I don't need Clippy to help me do my work!
Hmmm, Ive never used Clippy myself. Honestly, I dont see why a little cartoon character face on a help file should generate such paranoia, but people are afraid of midgets and clowns, too.
Linus, Raymond, RMS, Cox and crew do not care if I upgrade my motherboard or get a new hard drive, so why do I have to get permission from Microsoft when I try it with XP?
Ive never had a problem with product activation, but thats probably because I always use the enterprise version. However, even people I know who use XP Home have never had an issue with activation. Score another one in the accute paranoia box.
This has never been an issue for me, since TechNet documents just about anything you need to know. Understanding how the registry works helps a lot, too, and Ive never found the registry to be a single point of failure (well, misconfiguration can be that on any platform).
The system internals are all public and I can access any part of it I need without gagging NDAs and/or paying for the privilege
Ive been working on Windows servers for almost ten years, and I have yet to even see an NDA.
I am not tied to one megacorp with a penchant for monopolistic practises and stifling innovation
Ah, the typical Slashdot line makes its appearence. This is like when a Republican cant think of anything to say, so they just shout "Well, Clinton got a blow-job!"
IMO, Microsoft has done more for innovation in the last ten years than any other company. Before Win95 everybody was content to have their own little sand castle, and to hell with anybody trying to make a complete system. One company did Terminal Emulation, one did virtual memory, one did Winsocks, you had to buy protocols, you had to buy browsers, etc. By the time you got done putting together a system which would do what you wanted, your costs were well over $2000. I say thank goodness for MS flipping everyone the bird and including components into the OS, so you could just buy the OS and have a network client, or a computer which can access the internet, all without having to purchase and install three seperate pieces of software.
Look up the computer history; MS became dominant on the desktop because everyone else didnt care about the desktop, and were trying to make mega cash on servers/networking.
Basically my beef with Windows and my desire to use Linux stems from the simple fact that when something does go wrong, I can fix it far easier and without paying for the privilege.
If most companies had Linux systems, they would need to pay for the privilege of getting it fixed; more people know how to support MS than Linux, and they are most likely already employees.
And in those cases when Microsoft is either unwilling or unable to fix something, I can always hire a programmer to fix it for me.
I cant for the life of me figure out how this would apply to any real-world scenarios... Its basically like me saying its Ford's fault that my fan belt broke, and they should be responsible for fixing it. Heaven forbid you bring the car in to a mechanic...
2. Windows is extremely well documented; I never lack for reference material, and TechNet is often the first and last place I need to look up a problem (but their seach feature could be more robust, to put it politely).
3. The Windows 2000/XP/2003 tests use more scenario questions. Its not a written test, but since A-B-C-D only gives you a 25% chance of being right, its hard to get an 80% by random chance or 'learning' the questions; many testing sites also use adaptive tests, which get progressively harder as you answer correct questions, but higher scores can only be achieved this way; also, missing softball questions will easily fail you on an adaptive test.
As I said, its the misconception people have that Windows is 'easy', and anybody can do it. So they try, and fail; for the most part, its hard NOT to work in IT and have no exposure to Windows, but they think being an expert on one platform somehow makes them an expert on another, and so to mask their lack of knowledge, they just say Windows is stupid and not made 'correctly'. Never mind the fact that they dont really understand that most things access the registry in some way, or how to deal with the APIs, proper Windows troubleshooting, etc.
I dont pretend to be an expert on anything but Windows: it would be nice to get the same consideration from system engineers dealing with other platforms.
My work desktop environment right now is Win2K due to various contraints (office automation apps, a few Windows machines I have to keep an eye on, etc). Yet I go to quite a bit of trouble to make that environment as Unix-like as I can. I really prefer that environment. And I've been able to pull off a few things recently that have had my coworkers wowed (thanks to Cygwin).
Thats funny, I tend to try and make my Windows networks more Netware-like. Im not really an expert on Netware, but when I was learning networking I worked in a place with a really good implimentation of Netware as the NOS (and Ive seen really bad implimentations, too, so just having it isnt a meter of quality [like everything else]). Apparently, lots of other people are this way as well, because there are lots of tools to add things like 'real' logon scripting (KiXtart, ScriptLogic) and other network admin stuff.
Someone claiming that a *nix admin should just learn to fix Windows instead of complaining about it sounds more like ignorance to me than insight.
Im saying if you have to do something, do it right. Complaining doesnt fix problems, nor does sticking your head in the sand and acting like something is 'wrong' just because they dont want to understand it. As I said, theres nothing wrong with not wanting to learn it, but acting like it's worthless knowledge is insulting to those who actually know what they are doing.
Whats wrong with tools from the dollar store? I have a really nice mini-screwdriver set from there, some decent wire cutters, and a few other things. Like most people who try and live by witty comments like that, you are making a comment based largely on your own ignorance, and mask that ignorance with ridicule. BTW, avoid dollar store flashlights, and just stick with Maglite. Most of them do not get exposed because pretty much any idiot can work on a windows system
Pretty much any idiot can work on any system. I know very big morons who 'work' on AS400s, Netware servers, Sun Unix servers, etc; idiots are truly OS independent. All you do is bolster the belief that anyone can work on Windows because it has a GUI, which isnt true, and is really a diservice to the people who understand the Windows architecture and therefore are able to build very stable servers. It has rules, best practices, and limitations just like *everything* else.
I think it's a fairly safe bet to say I know more about windows than 90% of the tech related employees at Microsoft.
I think its safe to say you dont know any tech related employees at Microsoft.
I think it's a fairly safe bet to say I know more about windows than 90% of the tech related employees at Microsoft.
Thats pretty strange, because the servers *I* build have 99.999% uptime. You must be doing something wrong, and I think that pretty much negates your previous claim to knowledge.
There is a base level of brokeness you achieve when there are no nonOS memory leaks, all patches are applied, and none of the drivers have yellow flags and all diagnostics APPEAR to turn up reasonable results. But I assure you, even then, it's STILL broken.
Then it could be a hardware issue. Bad memory is often the culprit; I once had a goofy time with one server which never worked right; we eventaully contacted the vendor, and there were some problems with the motherboard. Another time a wire was obstructing one of the processor fans. A good rule of thumb is to not blame the OS; there honestly ARE servers out there which work properly, so there has to be some other cause at work. You can follow the OSI model, start at the bottom, and work your way up.
As I said, people like to just throw up their hands and blame Microsoft; actual troubleshooting, research, etc, is too tedious. Its not MS's fault companies put out faulty equipment, bad drivers, etc.
Its also quite easy for people to make fun of things they dont understand; I love how people always say MS stuff is simplistic, until they need to fix it. Then they just say its poorly designed. Maybe if they spent time trying to understand how the OS or application does things, instead of complaining about it, they could fix it.
Oh well. I guess nothing is going to snap people out of thier comfort zone. If you cant be smart, you can at least act superior.
I'd like to get some TANG in space. And I dont mean the orange drink.
It will probably be easy for mobo makers to make use of this as an optional feature, much like SATA, USB 2.0, etc. Then you just need to have an antenna lead from the mobo, and enable it in the BIOS: it will work just like parallel/serial ports.
I guess one could sarcastically say thanks for the proof of concept, real good job. But then again, its better they did it and let everyone know it could be done, rather than having to find out about it 'in the wild'. I just hope its easy to prevent.
BTW, its pretty lame dissing on MCSE's- the paper ones generally get exposed in the real world, and since there are lots of us out there who can fix most NT issues with our eyes closed, I can very much say a real MCSE is an asset to any company. Its not like there arent paper CCNAs, CNAs, etc.
But its easy to make fun of someone else, especially when they can fix things you cant; most *nix people just wave their hands and complain about Microsoft instead of actually *fixing* the Windows servers. Its a poor craftsman who blames his tools.
This game must really suck badly if they need to resort to shock advertising. They are just trying to get the media to advertise for them, like Running With Scissors did with Postal and Postal 2. Sadly, P2 didnt do so well because it was a shit game (I liked the original quite a bit).
Nintendo has long been doing the 'right' thing, despite not being #1. They are able to just put their stuff out on the market and turn a profit; they dont have a "#1 at all expense" complex. IMO, the quest for #1 has been a greater downfall than focussing on a single market ever has been.
BTW, Pepsico is very diverse (but its a good example of not worrying about #1 and focusing on being a profitable company). Dr. Pepper/7Up, Inc. is a very appropriate example; they have 16% sales of the N. American market.
Anyway, Nintendo is making serious bank on having the #1 handheld gaming system for the past several years. With the release of the GBA SP, they have a sleek product which is selling to tons of people who previously would never have owned a GameBoy.
Personally, I would like to see a GBA/PDA/Phone, but if they are focusing on just Games, I guess that may never happen. Oh well.
Since newer generations of phones, with new features, are just being made with upgrades to the old OS, that means new bugs and security holes are just being layered on top of older ones...
Anyway, it will probably be for the best when 'standard' phone OS's become mainstream; I would be all for being able to upgrade security/functionality on my phone. IMO, Palm messed up HUGE time on this one- they could have literally owned the small device market.