Well, this has gone down the hill pretty quickly, hasn't it? Risking involvement in this, I think the parent made a poor choice out of the blog's content. Here's what I think could be sensitive:
My choice of content wasn't to show what was sensitive, it was for the contained key phrase "before i made my decision to leave microsoft and come to google" The other guy in this thread claimed to have read the article but said he'd "doubt very highly that Google will offer to hire anyone who's currently employed with Microsoft"
My point was that that was exactly what had happened and he didn't have a clue as to what he was talking about.
As far as the sensitive material. What you posted isn't it. He says on there that " i goofed and put some stuff up on my blog that's not supposed to be there. nothing serious and they didn't ask me to take anything down (even the stuff where i'm critical about the company). i'm learning that google is understandably careful about disclosing sensitive information, even vague financial-related things. the quickest way for me to fix the situation at the time was to take it all down. now i'm back up"
They didn't ask him to take it down, but he edited it. There are other boards around that have copies the old unedited posts before he removed the sensitive stuff.
From the cnet in the slashdot blurb... "On Jan. 26, an edited version of the blog reappeared on the site, with a new entry explaining the on-again, off-again commentary. Gone was the first day's post explaining his reasons for creating the blog, as well as a description of an employee orientation event that vaguely touched on discussions of Google's booming business."
As for his body being accelerated and his blood isn't...
That's only the case in as much as right now your body is trying to accelerate at 9.8 m/s/s toward the center of the earth. Your bone structure and muscles lets you resist it. Your blood is also trying to accelerate towards the center of the earth at the same rate. Your arteries and veins and your heart let you resist that as well.
Your body and blood aren't accelerating at different rates. They both deal with the same acceleration in the same way, with it acting as 'weight'. The problem with weight/acceleration is that your body was designed to handle only so much of it.
Now let's kick it up a notch. blood pooling...
Imagine a test pilot in a centrafuge machine. It takes him up to 6 G's and holds him there for an hour. Just like he was on a planet with 6x earth's gravity.
His body is accelerating at 6 G's.
His blood is also accelerating at 6 G's (otherwise it would all leak out the back of his chair and that would be a 'bad thing';)
His blood resists accelerating as you say, but so does his body (Bodies at rest tend to stay at rest tend to stay at rest, bodies in motion tend to stay in motion and all that). Nevertheless, the back of his chair is causing the lot of them to accellerate at 6 G's.
His heart, however is now trying to pump blood that 'weighs' 6x as much. The heart can't pump the heavier blood as easily or 'high' (relatively) as it could normally. His veins can't constrict as much as they normally would to force blood back into the right areas of the body, because the blood is pushing against them with much greater force. The veins also have valves to prevent blood from flowing back the wrong way, but these may give way under the additional pressure.
The blood is not accelerating at a different rate from the body, it's still in his veins and artieris, and so still in his body. His body is being accellerating at 6 G's and the blood, being trapped inside, is going along for the ride. But it acts as a much heavier fluid. So it starts to pool in the lower extremeties since it can't be pumped efficiently. Depending on how strong his heart is (and resilient his veins are), he might be able to handle 6 G's for a good long while. But if they aren't in quite as good of shape he might not be able to pump the blood well enough and might black out after a few seconds or minutes.
Once again the blood isn't accelerating at a different rate than the body (both are resisting being accelerated), anymore than your blood and body accelerate at different speeds on earth, it just has a higher 'weight' then the body was structurally designed to pump.
The next stage is to crank up the centrifuge chair/other-planet to 1000g's density. 1000 G's. Now the test pilot's ribs are trying to hold up themselves and the muscles etc attached to them. But they weight 1000x as much. The bones werent' constructed to hold such a high weight, so they snap. The 'body' isn't accelerating at a different rate than the... 'body', but it breaks down because it wasn't designed for such mechanical forces. Everything is being accelerated (and trying to resist it). Everything is accelerating at the same rate. It just can't handle the rate.
Just one tiny piece of his large number of comments on MS vs Google on his blog at http://99zeros.blogspot.com/:
" i must be crazy/stupid/irrational/etc. becuase since i knew what i was getting myself into when i joined google, i shouldn't be complaining. while i do admit that i am a little of all of the above, i would encourage people to realize that life is all about compromises and trade-offs. in this particular scenario, before i made my decision to leave microsoft and come to google, i very carefully weighed many things, including (but not limited to):
overall compensation, including the benefits packages
mission and values of the companies
career growth potential and opportunities
scope of work i would be doing
working environment and atmosphere
location
in the end, i decided that google was a better choice; however, by no means was google the clear winner in all categories. different people have different ways to weight different factors and in the end, the equation i set up had google coming out on top. i trust you are all very intelligent people and you know exactly what i'm talking about here.
Apparently you never bothered to read his current blog, let alone the stuff that was deleted.
So we have established that you can't read, and you are in terror from some frat guys that tormented you in your past. Seek therapy.
You can. At the same time you cannot relate with someone who does not have the financial security to tell a company,"Change your contract or find someone else."
The guy this is about already HAD A JOB AT MICROSOFT and did not have to accept a contract he was offered from Google. Having the financial security of a job at MS, he could easily have told them,"Change your contract or find someone else."
Seriously though, yes, that can kill you, but acceleration alone can as well. See the other reply in this thread. No change or difference in accelerations is needed to kill you.
If you're financially secure enough to turn down work then you have no ground to stand on when arguing the details of the case of someone who makes $45k/year in SF.
So, because you chose to live in one of the most expensive parts of the country (or world?), and the job market there for the type of work you desire to do is not as good as you would like it to be, I can't look around for a job with a fair contract? I don't think so. I've got plenty of ground here, thanks.
Reading my employee agreement and keeping track of the number of rights delegated to both me and my employer makes me bitter how?
It wasn't that. It's the assumption that being fired for giving out company details that you knew were not to be given out in any way equates to some frat guys harassing, bullying, and intimidating you. And your story about how cruel your mom was with your allowance. None of those things were relevant to him talking about private company matters on the internet.
Well, you can't get to once rate of accelleration from another rate with out changing it. Duh. That's why I said slowly, so there would be no sudden change.
The point is, it doesn't matter how quickly you got to that 20 G's of accelleration,or if you had always been at it.
Imagine you are a human somehow born in a rocket accellerating at a constant 20 G's. No change in accelleration. You've always been accelerating at 20 G's, and always will. Ok? No change in acceleration. 20, period. It's now 10 seconds after you've been born. Your blood is now starting to accumulate in the 'lowest' parts of your body. Why? Your human heart cannot pump blood against a force of 20 G's. Your brain starts running out of oxygen. In a few seconds you pass out. Then in another minute or so, you die. All this time you have been going at a constant acceleration of 20 G's, and all parts of your body are under exactly that exact same acceleration. You are however, quite dead. Acceleration alone *can* kill. No change in acceleration is needed.
Really? I bet if we put you in a rocket, and had it accelerate and the acceleration built up very very very slowly, you would still turn to jelly when the acceleration finally hit 20 G's.
Sorry, no. I've never been in a frat and wouldn't want to be. Thanks.
The company had a policy that said 'you will not discuss these things publicly'. He did. There is nothing terribly unfair about that. No one ridiculed, taunted him, or intimidated him. He talked about private company business, of a publicly traded company, which has trade secrets, internal forecasts, etc, that they don't want reveled, and the SEC doesn't want them to randomly reveal.
If you had a hard live and all the bullies picked on you, I'm sorry. It appears it's skewed your vision on every other aspect of life. That's too bad, try to get over it, but it doesn't mean this was a bad contract.
So why sign the contract? If you read his blog, he had a job at MS before. He left it to go work for Google. No one twisted his arm. There was no gun to his head. He didn't have to either work for Google, or let his 6 children starve. He already had a good job. It was his decision to go, and his decision to sign whatever contract he signed.
If you agree to abid by a contract, don't, and get fired. Don't be shocked or upset.
If someone gets to choose what's free speech, and what isn't, it's NOT FREE SPEECH ANYMORE
Really? Try going to your local movie theatre and screaming 'Fire' when you are in it. The cops who take you away will explain it to you very clearly. Not all speech is protected. You aren't allowed to give out insider information on a company for instance.
And depending on what he actually posted, Google would have had the right to have certain things removed and it wouldn't be considered censorship. Ex. The SEC doesn't like folks giving out insider information, companies are allowed to keep trade secret information private, etc.
Someone needs to figure out an efficient way of makeing use of the huge surface area on the lid of a laptop for cooling. When in operation, it's facing away from you, so you wouldn't feel all the heat from it. The problem is tranferring the heat to a part that has to hinge away from the area that's making the heat. Plus there might be problems if it transfers too much heat to the LCD screen rather than to the air on the surface away from the user. It just seems a shame not to be able to take advantage of all that surface area.
The other big thing missing from the review (unless I missed it) was the noise levels of each PSU. For a lot of us, quiet machines are important, and knowing how close to silent a PSU runs is one of the key features besides power output and reliability.
More to the point, you seem to be promoting ( in general, perhaps not in specific cases ) being open to a multi-platform environment
Depending on the situation, as always. It's great whenever possible and justified. Here, I obviously think it's the best think for the situation at my work. We are decent sized and have diverse needs. We also have a dedicated IT staff that's large enough to provide some IT expertise in different platforms.
In other smaller companies (like Mom&Pop shops) a single platform may be the best way to go in many cases. They would likely have a more limited set of application needs, and possibly either no direct in-house technical expertise, or an in-house guy who only knows really one platform (and may wear other hats in the company as well). Staying with a single platform might be best for them in many cases, be it windows, OSX, Linux, or what have you.
I was just trying to get you to admit that there are some serious issues when using Windows on a regular basis
Of course I'll admin Windows has problems. Anyone who doesn't isn't worth talking to. But the same can be said of anyone who thinks OSX is the answer for all windows users.
i.e. that the author of the article had a valid question.
That's just the thing, I don't know that it was a valid question. The author asked "Why haven't they jettisoned the foul beast from Redmond and migrated en mass to the Macintosh or even Linux?" I think it's rather obvious from all the points we've been talking about. Anyone suggesting ditching windows for Mac (or Linux, or whatever) across the board for all users is simply a fanboy and not thinking about the complex issues involved. It's just as ridiculous as me asking 'why haven't all Mac users jettisoned Apple and migrated en mass to Windows?' or 'why haven't all Linux users jettisoned Linux and moved to OSX for a much better interface', etc,... Because the different platform has a different set of benefits and problems and the people using it feel it is more appropriate to meet the needs for their job at hand.
Basically, anyone who would ask such a question hasn't thought very deeply, and shouldn't be in charge of picking the OS for anyone except themselves on their own home computer.
If you want to ask why is it that Apple doesn't seem to be meeting the needs of a higher percentage of PC users, that's fine. But asking why everyone hasn't jettisoned windows is just fanboy/hater crap.
Your answer to that question seems to be that for some uses of Windows, it's problems aren't great enough to outweigh the benefits ( application availability, previous investments and replacement costs being the ones you mentioned ), and that switching to OS X or Linux or anything else that currently exists isn't always the 'right' answer.
Yep. No one OS is the right answer for anyone. There are a multitude of factors that impact which is right for any particular job. Options are a good thing.
I do find it odd that you seem to think being able to use Exchange is a good enough reason to put up with trying to defend Windows security-wise, though...
I don't think in most cases that Exchange alone is probably a pressing enough reason to stay with Windows vs another OS, but it is certainly can be one of the benefits of staying with windows in situations where it is called for. My main point in the Exchange discussion was that the integration of Exchange is it's main selling point, and that a collection of random applications in is place is just not the same. It can be replaced, but not by anything that truly comes close to matching it's features and integration.
I would truly love it if some opensource developers, or even a 3rd party, would come along and produce a true Exchange killer, but it just hasn't happened. If someone comes up with a good one, I'll be the first onboard, but until then Exchange still functions much much better for many organizations than that ra
And that's a wonderful thing if you have the time and skills to go over the source for each app you use. Most companies don't have that luxury. Most of the time their network admins are already busy with the tasks they already have to preform. The company is in the buisness of producing widgets, not auditing sourcecode for portscanners. If they can farm out the job to a company that will do the work for them, they will.
The problems vs the benefits of any OS are going to vary drastically depending on the companies needs. What apps do you have to run? What systems do you need to interact with? What are your customers needs? What are your suppliers needs?
As far as problems, does windows have a lot? Heck ya. Does OSX have problems? Heck ya. Do OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Linux, Solaris, QNX, OpenStep, etc, have problems? Heck ya.
Sorry, there is no one-best-tool for all jobs. Whether something is 'good enough' is going to vary according to those parameters on the individual situation at hand. Someone asking if it is 'good enough' for all situations obviously isn't looking for the best tool for an individual job. They are looking for some miracle cure. It doesn't exist.
For some companies, for some of their machines, Windows may be 'good enough', for others it won't be. There are going to always be drawbacks to any OS you chose. But you have to make a decision based on benifits, vs problems, vs cost. Switching to OSX is going to be great in some situations, but in others it will be a needless expense. We use windows in some places because it is the right tool for the job at hand. In other places we use OSX, OpenBSD or FreeBSD, because those are the right tools for the jobs they are doing.
If you aren't prepared to think about and use the right tool for your job at hand, regardless of your political beliefs or personal favorite OS, maybe you shouldn't be making the OS choices for your organization.
Please re-read the GPL again. If you distribute the binary (even installed inside a machine) you must make the source code available (at least on request, and at no more expense than is reasonable to copy it on media and distribute it).
Slashdot Mirror
My choice of content wasn't to show what was sensitive, it was for the contained key phrase "before i made my decision to leave microsoft and come to google" The other guy in this thread claimed to have read the article but said he'd "doubt very highly that Google will offer to hire anyone who's currently employed with Microsoft"
My point was that that was exactly what had happened and he didn't have a clue as to what he was talking about.
As far as the sensitive material. What you posted isn't it. He says on there that " i goofed and put some stuff up on my blog that's not supposed to be there. nothing serious and they didn't ask me to take anything down (even the stuff where i'm critical about the company). i'm learning that google is understandably careful about disclosing sensitive information, even vague financial-related things. the quickest way for me to fix the situation at the time was to take it all down. now i'm back up"
They didn't ask him to take it down, but he edited it. There are other boards around that have copies the old unedited posts before he removed the sensitive stuff.
From the cnet in the slashdot blurb... "On Jan. 26, an edited version of the blog reappeared on the site, with a new entry explaining the on-again, off-again commentary. Gone was the first day's post explaining his reasons for creating the blog, as well as a description of an employee orientation event that vaguely touched on discussions of Google's booming business."
As for his body being accelerated and his blood isn't... That's only the case in as much as right now your body is trying to accelerate at 9.8 m/s/s toward the center of the earth. Your bone structure and muscles lets you resist it. Your blood is also trying to accelerate towards the center of the earth at the same rate. Your arteries and veins and your heart let you resist that as well.
Your body and blood aren't accelerating at different rates. They both deal with the same acceleration in the same way, with it acting as 'weight'. The problem with weight/acceleration is that your body was designed to handle only so much of it.
Now let's kick it up a notch. blood pooling...
Imagine a test pilot in a centrafuge machine. It takes him up to 6 G's and holds him there for an hour. Just like he was on a planet with 6x earth's gravity.
His body is accelerating at 6 G's. ;)
His blood is also accelerating at 6 G's (otherwise it would all leak out the back of his chair and that would be a 'bad thing'
His blood resists accelerating as you say, but so does his body (Bodies at rest tend to stay at rest tend to stay at rest, bodies in motion tend to stay in motion and all that). Nevertheless, the back of his chair is causing the lot of them to accellerate at 6 G's.
His heart, however is now trying to pump blood that 'weighs' 6x as much. The heart can't pump the heavier blood as easily or 'high' (relatively) as it could normally. His veins can't constrict as much as they normally would to force blood back into the right areas of the body, because the blood is pushing against them with much greater force. The veins also have valves to prevent blood from flowing back the wrong way, but these may give way under the additional pressure.
The blood is not accelerating at a different rate from the body, it's still in his veins and artieris, and so still in his body. His body is being accellerating at 6 G's and the blood, being trapped inside, is going along for the ride. But it acts as a much heavier fluid. So it starts to pool in the lower extremeties since it can't be pumped efficiently. Depending on how strong his heart is (and resilient his veins are), he might be able to handle 6 G's for a good long while. But if they aren't in quite as good of shape he might not be able to pump the blood well enough and might black out after a few seconds or minutes.
Once again the blood isn't accelerating at a different rate than the body (both are resisting being accelerated), anymore than your blood and body accelerate at different speeds on earth, it just has a higher 'weight' then the body was structurally designed to pump.
The next stage is to crank up the centrifuge chair/other-planet to 1000g's density. 1000 G's. Now the test pilot's ribs are trying to hold up themselves and the muscles etc attached to them. But they weight 1000x as much. The bones werent' constructed to hold such a high weight, so they snap. The 'body' isn't accelerating at a different rate than the... 'body', but it breaks down because it wasn't designed for such mechanical forces. Everything is being accelerated (and trying to resist it). Everything is accelerating at the same rate. It just can't handle the rate.
Wrong once again. That's the edited version of his blog. The fireable stuff was already removed. RTFA.
Just one tiny piece of his large number of comments on MS vs Google on his blog at http://99zeros.blogspot.com/ :
" i must be crazy/stupid/irrational/etc. becuase since i knew what i was getting myself into when i joined google, i shouldn't be complaining. while i do admit that i am a little of all of the above, i would encourage people to realize that life is all about compromises and trade-offs. in this particular scenario, before i made my decision to leave microsoft and come to google, i very carefully weighed many things, including (but not limited to):
overall compensation, including the benefits packages
mission and values of the companies
career growth potential and opportunities
scope of work i would be doing
working environment and atmosphere
location
in the end, i decided that google was a better choice; however, by no means was google the clear winner in all categories. different people have different ways to weight different factors and in the end, the equation i set up had google coming out on top. i trust you are all very intelligent people and you know exactly what i'm talking about here.
Apparently you never bothered to read his current blog, let alone the stuff that was deleted.
So we have established that you can't read, and you are in terror from some frat guys that tormented you in your past. Seek therapy.
You can. At the same time you cannot relate with someone who does not have the financial security to tell a company,"Change your contract or find someone else."
The guy this is about already HAD A JOB AT MICROSOFT and did not have to accept a contract he was offered from Google. Having the financial security of a job at MS, he could easily have told them ,"Change your contract or find someone else."
Seriously though, yes, that can kill you, but acceleration alone can as well. See the other reply in this thread. No change or difference in accelerations is needed to kill you.
So, because you chose to live in one of the most expensive parts of the country (or world?), and the job market there for the type of work you desire to do is not as good as you would like it to be, I can't look around for a job with a fair contract? I don't think so. I've got plenty of ground here, thanks.
Reading my employee agreement and keeping track of the number of rights delegated to both me and my employer makes me bitter how?
It wasn't that. It's the assumption that being fired for giving out company details that you knew were not to be given out in any way equates to some frat guys harassing, bullying, and intimidating you. And your story about how cruel your mom was with your allowance. None of those things were relevant to him talking about private company matters on the internet.
The point is, it doesn't matter how quickly you got to that 20 G's of accelleration,or if you had always been at it.
Imagine you are a human somehow born in a rocket accellerating at a constant 20 G's. No change in accelleration. You've always been accelerating at 20 G's, and always will. Ok? No change in acceleration. 20, period. It's now 10 seconds after you've been born. Your blood is now starting to accumulate in the 'lowest' parts of your body. Why? Your human heart cannot pump blood against a force of 20 G's. Your brain starts running out of oxygen. In a few seconds you pass out. Then in another minute or so, you die. All this time you have been going at a constant acceleration of 20 G's, and all parts of your body are under exactly that exact same acceleration. You are however, quite dead. Acceleration alone *can* kill. No change in acceleration is needed.
But then I'm not as bitter of a person as you appear to be.
The company had a policy that said 'you will not discuss these things publicly'. He did. There is nothing terribly unfair about that. No one ridiculed, taunted him, or intimidated him. He talked about private company business, of a publicly traded company, which has trade secrets, internal forecasts, etc, that they don't want reveled, and the SEC doesn't want them to randomly reveal.
If you had a hard live and all the bullies picked on you, I'm sorry. It appears it's skewed your vision on every other aspect of life. That's too bad, try to get over it, but it doesn't mean this was a bad contract.
If you agree to abid by a contract, don't, and get fired. Don't be shocked or upset.
Really? Try going to your local movie theatre and screaming 'Fire' when you are in it. The cops who take you away will explain it to you very clearly. Not all speech is protected. You aren't allowed to give out insider information on a company for instance.
And depending on what he actually posted, Google would have had the right to have certain things removed and it wouldn't be considered censorship. Ex. The SEC doesn't like folks giving out insider information, companies are allowed to keep trade secret information private, etc.
Someone needs to figure out an efficient way of makeing use of the huge surface area on the lid of a laptop for cooling. When in operation, it's facing away from you, so you wouldn't feel all the heat from it. The problem is tranferring the heat to a part that has to hinge away from the area that's making the heat. Plus there might be problems if it transfers too much heat to the LCD screen rather than to the air on the surface away from the user. It just seems a shame not to be able to take advantage of all that surface area.
But those jobs at the comic book stores just don't pay that well.
One question. How loud is it? I'm looking for a beefy PSU, but I'd like a silent one, or as close to it as I can get. Thanks.
The other big thing missing from the review (unless I missed it) was the noise levels of each PSU. For a lot of us, quiet machines are important, and knowing how close to silent a PSU runs is one of the key features besides power output and reliability.
Depending on the situation, as always. It's great whenever possible and justified. Here, I obviously think it's the best think for the situation at my work. We are decent sized and have diverse needs. We also have a dedicated IT staff that's large enough to provide some IT expertise in different platforms.
In other smaller companies (like Mom&Pop shops) a single platform may be the best way to go in many cases. They would likely have a more limited set of application needs, and possibly either no direct in-house technical expertise, or an in-house guy who only knows really one platform (and may wear other hats in the company as well). Staying with a single platform might be best for them in many cases, be it windows, OSX, Linux, or what have you.
I was just trying to get you to admit that there are some serious issues when using Windows on a regular basis
Of course I'll admin Windows has problems. Anyone who doesn't isn't worth talking to. But the same can be said of anyone who thinks OSX is the answer for all windows users.
i.e. that the author of the article had a valid question.
That's just the thing, I don't know that it was a valid question. The author asked "Why haven't they jettisoned the foul beast from Redmond and migrated en mass to the Macintosh or even Linux?" I think it's rather obvious from all the points we've been talking about. Anyone suggesting ditching windows for Mac (or Linux, or whatever) across the board for all users is simply a fanboy and not thinking about the complex issues involved. It's just as ridiculous as me asking 'why haven't all Mac users jettisoned Apple and migrated en mass to Windows?' or 'why haven't all Linux users jettisoned Linux and moved to OSX for a much better interface', etc,... Because the different platform has a different set of benefits and problems and the people using it feel it is more appropriate to meet the needs for their job at hand.
Basically, anyone who would ask such a question hasn't thought very deeply, and shouldn't be in charge of picking the OS for anyone except themselves on their own home computer.
If you want to ask why is it that Apple doesn't seem to be meeting the needs of a higher percentage of PC users, that's fine. But asking why everyone hasn't jettisoned windows is just fanboy/hater crap.
Your answer to that question seems to be that for some uses of Windows, it's problems aren't great enough to outweigh the benefits ( application availability, previous investments and replacement costs being the ones you mentioned ), and that switching to OS X or Linux or anything else that currently exists isn't always the 'right' answer.
Yep. No one OS is the right answer for anyone. There are a multitude of factors that impact which is right for any particular job. Options are a good thing.
I do find it odd that you seem to think being able to use Exchange is a good enough reason to put up with trying to defend Windows security-wise, though...
I don't think in most cases that Exchange alone is probably a pressing enough reason to stay with Windows vs another OS, but it is certainly can be one of the benefits of staying with windows in situations where it is called for. My main point in the Exchange discussion was that the integration of Exchange is it's main selling point, and that a collection of random applications in is place is just not the same. It can be replaced, but not by anything that truly comes close to matching it's features and integration.
I would truly love it if some opensource developers, or even a 3rd party, would come along and produce a true Exchange killer, but it just hasn't happened. If someone comes up with a good one, I'll be the first onboard, but until then Exchange still functions much much better for many organizations than that ra
And that's a wonderful thing if you have the time and skills to go over the source for each app you use. Most companies don't have that luxury. Most of the time their network admins are already busy with the tasks they already have to preform. The company is in the buisness of producing widgets, not auditing sourcecode for portscanners. If they can farm out the job to a company that will do the work for them, they will.
You just know that has to be a nice conversation starter in the bars. ;)
As far as problems, does windows have a lot? Heck ya. Does OSX have problems? Heck ya. Do OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Linux, Solaris, QNX, OpenStep, etc, have problems? Heck ya.
Sorry, there is no one-best-tool for all jobs. Whether something is 'good enough' is going to vary according to those parameters on the individual situation at hand. Someone asking if it is 'good enough' for all situations obviously isn't looking for the best tool for an individual job. They are looking for some miracle cure. It doesn't exist.
For some companies, for some of their machines, Windows may be 'good enough', for others it won't be. There are going to always be drawbacks to any OS you chose. But you have to make a decision based on benifits, vs problems, vs cost. Switching to OSX is going to be great in some situations, but in others it will be a needless expense. We use windows in some places because it is the right tool for the job at hand. In other places we use OSX, OpenBSD or FreeBSD, because those are the right tools for the jobs they are doing.
If you aren't prepared to think about and use the right tool for your job at hand, regardless of your political beliefs or personal favorite OS, maybe you shouldn't be making the OS choices for your organization.
Then why the hell post a 'solution' when you don't know what the problem is?
Psst. Read the article. It has zero to do with WPA or encryption. It has to do with bad programing, bad passwords, and general bad administration.
Please re-read the GPL again. If you distribute the binary (even installed inside a machine) you must make the source code available (at least on request, and at no more expense than is reasonable to copy it on media and distribute it).