[THIN] Re: [OT]:RE: Re: Win2k SP4
- From: "Lucas Boyken" <lboyken@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:13:25 -0500
Thank you for the sanity check...
Lucas W. Boyken
Computer Systems Associates
Account Manager / Technical Representative
lboyken@xxxxxxxxx
Company Phone: 800.222.7601
Office Phone: 515.332.2751
Fax: 515.332.5687
-----Original Message-----
From: Braebaum, Neil [mailto:Neil.Braebaum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 3:39 AM
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] Re: [OT]:RE: Re: Win2k SP4
This debate has raged for years and years, and will continue to
with polarised zealots on either side.
Each of which, normally misses the most significant point.
Businesses *don't* buy software (as a generalisation) on
*technical* merit. Business buy software to help them perform business.
You may deride the presence of beancounters in the arena of
product choice, but consider, for a second, *why* it is that business
buy software.
Once technical bods like ourselves, take a step back and look at
the big picture, of how the use of software fits into business, rather
than looking through rose-coloured spectacles at technical excellence,
things will make a whole deal more sense.
Meanwhile, normal service will resume, and technical forums will
continue to have emotive and incessant discussions on product advocacy,
and *still* completely miss the point...
This has been a scheduled break in your normal viewing... as you
were.
Neil
-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus [mailto:magnus@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: 02 July 2003 20:05
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: [OT]:RE: Re: Win2k SP4
I am no way stating that linux is ready for the desktop
arena, it is close but not there yet. As far as the back office server
arena goes it is definetley ready and has been implemented in alot of
SMB's and larger comapnies. Knowing how to use an office program really
isnt the issue (although if you look a OpenOffice.org you would be
surpised at how it looks and feels like Office XP/2000)
You wouldnt hire a plumber to fix your car so why whould
you take an accounting person and have them do IT? I understand that in
small organizations that the same person my wear many hats but even with
MS products you have to know what you are doingto a certain degree.
Some of the bugs are very easy to fix and some are not,
but more than likely you are not the only one having this issue and
someone is working on it already and if not the newsgroups (just like
this one) are dedicated to help you fix the issue and unlike this one it
is closely monitored by the orginal developers of the software and they
do (in the case aof a tougher bug) jump in and help and in most cases
your issue is resolved in an hour or so vice the weeks that you may wait
with MS.
-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Jarrett-Norton
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 2:38 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: [OT]:RE: Re: Win2k SP4
But what about the overhead that small companies
/ business would have to spend for either one of the accounting
employees to learn / use Linux or for them to hire an IT person who
knows Linux? Most people know some Windows basics already and know how
most office programs work. This is not M$ being the dominator and
forcing it down peoples throat but rather they have been around a
relatively long time and are a known name. When you buy a M$ product
yes some of your proceeds go into Marketing to get their name out.
What other than word of mouth between IT people and news coverage is the
Marketing of generic Linux?
Also, I have not worked in Linux mind you but
truly how hard is it to fix those bugs and to get a program that you
want to use working on Linux? Even though they might cost less or be
free as far as the software goes what is the overhead on the Technical
support and the user training side? I do not know nor do I claim to be
an expert in either M$ or Linux but just looking at the total picture
this is what I see. I have been this discussion for years and as I
stated in my first post each side will defend their side until "death".
Bruce Jarrett-Norton
-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus [mailto:magnus@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 1:51 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: [OT]:RE: Re: Win2k
SP4
The bugzilla report that you refer to is
the Red Hat 9 which was publicly release about a month or so ago. They
show bug fixes from alpha code to post release unlike other OS
manaufactures do.
Also if you look to see who is actually
fixing most of these bugs pre public release you will notice that they
have public help with it due to it beig open source, which in turn keeps
the product devlopement overhead significantly lower which they pass on
to the customer who buys it.
-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sjolund, Dag
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 1:38 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: [OT]:RE: Re: Win2k
SP4
Keeping services available are generally
more likely to be design and "best practices" issues, not platform or
application issues.
Make sure you don't ignore the extensive
bug list your "stable" linux installations may carry, though. Just
because you may not know about them doesn't mean they are not there.
Here is an example of what you may see from Redhat (may wrap).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/reports.cgi?product=Red+Hat+Linux&d
atasets=NEW%3A&datasets=ASSIGNED%3A&datasets=REOPENED%3A&datasets=UNCONF
IRMED%3A
...at least that is down from ~38000 or
so bugs documented through January 2003...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/reports.cgi?product=Red+Hat+Linux&d
atasets=CLOSED%3A
Happy computing!
Dag
-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus [mailto:magnus@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 10:10 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: [OT]:RE: Re: Win2k
SP4
They do hack linux in order to find its
flaws before it is a production release or RTM which microsoft doesnot
that is the whole problem they do not do enough testing which makes
there OS and server applications less stable. Some might say they do
it for monetary reasons and that is understandable but if they were open
source they would have alot more people testing and fixing there code
for a far less monetary expense
Magnus
-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Jarrett-Norton
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:57 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] [OT]:RE: Re: Win2k SP4
But look at who is using and trying to
"break" the systems. Why would hackers try to hack Linux and find its
flaws? I mean it is the same as saying that GroupWise is more Secure
than Exchange. Exchange is more widely used that GW and thus has a
larger % of people trying to break it. GW and Lotus Notes both work on
MS Windows platforms. Why are these left out of the argument that Linux
is better? No matter how you look at it there is not and will not be,
as far as I can see, a good apples to apples comparison for Linux v. MS
v. Novell. This is just the nature of the beast and each side will
defend their side to the "death".
Bruce Jarrett-Norton
-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus [mailto:magnus@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:38 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Win2k SP4
In my own experience with MS exchange
and a Linux Open Source Email server (that has the same functionality as
exchange ) I have had 458 days of uptime with the Linux version with no
issues, bugs, security flaws(exploits, holes...etc) as with the exchange
server I am patching it every 2 to 4 weeks and their are more security
issues with exchange (Exchange 2000 with sp2 installed their are at
least 20 security exploits and bugs with it right now according to CERT
and SANS)
That is why I stated that Linux is more
stable. Although the hard data is from our own deployment of both
Magnus
-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lucas Boyken
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:25 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Win2k SP4
The comment you made about Linux being
more stable than Windows is subjective. Unless hard data is available,
an apples to apples comparison, I cannot hold this statement to be
either true or false. Windows has a larger market share and is used for
more applications at this point in time than Linux. Open source, I will
conceed, is a great way to work as a community to solve problems.
However, the old adage that too many cooks in a kitchen only spoils the
reciepe might apply in this case. Of course you are bound to see some
changes in how the code works, what it can do, etc. However, with open
source does come problems that you don't have in a closed environment
that Microsoft enjoys. We must remain objective, that is all that I am
stressing. When sweeping comments charge that one is better than the
other without any hard data, that is when we get into battles of opinion
instead of battles of fact.
Respectfully,
Lucas W. Boyken
Computer Systems Associates
Account Manager / Technical
Representative
lboyken@xxxxxxxxx
Company Phone: 800.222.7601
Office Phone: 515.332.2751
Fax: 515.332.5687
-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus [mailto:magnus@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 11:21 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Win2k SP4
Just food for thought
If Microsoft went to Open source we
would have alot less problems, That is why Linux is alot more stable
than Windows would be. Also the fact that 3rd party software vendors do
not adhere to OS programming standards doesnt suprise me when 30 to 45%
of the time Microsoft's own programmers do not adhere to those
standards.
-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lucas Boyken
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 11:50 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Win2k SP4
Neil,
After a while, you will see that I enjoy
the discussion more so than the actual position that I take in that
discussion. I hope this leaves no hard feelings between us. At the end
of the day, I like learning about what makes people tick, why they
choose the positions they take, etc.
Respectfully,
Lucas W. Boyken
Computer Systems Associates
Account Manager / Technical
Representative
lboyken@xxxxxxxxx
Company Phone: 800.222.7601
Office Phone: 515.332.2751
Fax: 515.332.5687
-----Original Message-----
From: Braebaum, Neil
[mailto:Neil.Braebaum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 10:45 AM
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] Re: Win2k SP4
You do realise the irony of your
perspective, now, is almost a U-turn from the one you were arguing
against me, regarding Microsoft and their software quality-control? ;-)
Neil
-----Original Message-----
From: Lucas Boyken
[mailto:lboyken@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 02 July 2003 16:35
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Win2k SP4
Importance: High
Slow down. SP4, and a majority of the
service packs released, work fine with Microsoft products. Simply
because you have chosen a third party piece of software, you cannot
blame Microsoft for all the adverse reactions that it has to new
updates. Microsoft can only control the code that they put into their
products. They cannot control, to a large degree, the code that third
party vendors put into their products. We have had this discussion
before on this board, and it just dawned on me why I have suffered so
few errors with service packs compared to many of the responses I have
recieved. Could it be, and this is just a suggestion, but could it be
because a majority of you are using Citrix that this is the cause of
many of your headaches and not Microsoft. Let me make a point,
Microsoft develops and manufactures software, and this software is the
only code that they have direct control over. If a third party
vendor/manufacturer decides to code a program and doesn't follow the
guidelines set out in the OS's whitepapers, etc. any errors or problems
should not automatically be assigned to Microsoft. We must look at the
total picture and realize that there is a lot in play here. Very
possibly it could be that Citrix has not be coding correctly or to the
standards that Microsoft has put out.
Respectfully,
Lucas W. Boyken
Computer Systems Associates
Account Manager / Technical
Representative
lboyken@xxxxxxxxx
Company Phone: 800.222.7601
Office Phone: 515.332.2751
Fax: 515.332.5687
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Murphy
[mailto:brian_murphy@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 6:10 PM
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] Re: Win2k SP4
Importance: High
Gee. Sounds exactly like my issue a few
posts back....
"Post SP4 Issue - Desktop Login"
How hard is it to create a Service Pack
that doesn't screw everything up?
I could understand the first, 2nd, and
maybe the 3rd SP but come on guys. This is the 4th SP.
Luckily, I have not deployed this to any
production systems yet but this is still ridiculous.
Frank,
Just curious. What type of Hardware was
this deployed on and were any other updates applied other than the
Service Pack during the same time frame?
Thanks.
***********************************************************************
This e-mail and its attachments are confidential and are
intended for
the above named recipient only. If this has come to you in
error,
please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from
your
system. You must take no action based on this, nor must you copy
or
disclose it or any part of its contents to any person or
organisation.
Statements and opinions contained in this email may not
necessarily
represent those of Littlewoods. Please note that email
communications
may be monitored.
The registered office of Littlewoods Limited and its
subsidiaries
is 100 Old Hall Street, Liverpool, L70 1AB.
Registered number of Littlewoods Limited is 262152
***********************************************************************
Other related posts:
