[THIN] Re: Rebooting Win2k Terminal servers
- From: "Lucas Boyken" <lboyken@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:47:58 -0500
Neil,
I will continue this banter with you, because...for some strange
reason...I am finding this battle of opinions quite interesting. =20
Firstly, I would like to ask you to step out of your preconcieved
notions about this topic. Step back and take a broader look at what I
am saying. Could my arguments be flawed, sure...but could your counter
argument be flawed as well? Sure... But we will get to that.
Microsoft has become a slave not only to previous code they have
written, but to a certain extent, the code that others write. Sure,
they have "standards" and certain procedures that are in place to help
Application Manufactures to have a higher likelihood that their
applications will run in many different scenarios. However, they
are...like every other company in the free market society in which we
live...somewhat controlled by what people want, desire, and demand.
Customers demand things to work right, all the time, especially when
their money is the money being spent.
With this mantality, Free Market Economy customers also start to grey
over the ownership of problems, especially when it comes to intellectual
products such as programs. Therefore, problems that occur...even if
caused by an application problem, are related by these customers to the
system on which they are operating. Microsoft, at this point, might be
the cause of the customer's problems (in their mind) or it could be
their computer manufacture (because the application and OS are running
on a particular brand of equipment). As you can see, customers demand
from manufactures unrealistic things at times.
These unrealistic demands drive the market place to produce better and
better products. It is my contention, unfortunately, that Microsoft has
not been living up to these demands by the customer. I don't believe
Microsoft is a monopoly, however, it does (in my mind) practice unsavory
business practices. That isn't criminal and many companies over the
years have built large empires due to these types of practices. Even
though I don't think Microsoft is a monopoly, I do think that Microsoft
feels very comfortable in the position that it is in.
Because of this feeling (now I may be wrong about this and I am sure
that you will have a great retort for me) Microsoft has become in
essecense somewhat lazy. Maybe I am expecting too much from this
particular manufacturer...on the same token, though, I would be
expecting the same thing from IBM if I owned an AS/400 or from SCO if I
owned their flavor of Unix. Is it unfair, well...I don't really think
so. These manufactures have a great deal of trust being placed upon
them from their customers. Their products help companies around the
world operate. Without Windows, the most widely used and accepted OS in
the world at this point, there would be another company doing what
Microsoft is doing.
So, it is my opinion that when you are top dog, king of the mountain,
whatever, you have responsibilities to be doing it better, cleaner, more
efficient, etc. Any company at the top will eventually fall...entropy.
It is the natural order of things. That is all I am saying, if
Microsoft doesn't get its own house in order...they too will slide down
from number-one.
Neil, your turn...
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]=20
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:23 AM
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] Re: Rebooting Win2k Terminal servers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lucas Boyken [mailto:lboyken@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 12 June 2003 15:06
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Re: Rebooting Win2k Terminal servers
>=20
> Since we are continuing down this long and drawning out road,
> Neil, let me explain myself with more clarity than I=20
> expressed before. Micorsoft valnerability is in fact the=20
> sheer number of applications that its OS's have been applied=20
> towards.
That doesn't make them vulnerable.
OSs aren't designed around applications, per se.
Rather the other way around.
> Also, the number of OS's that are installed on
> desktops around the world that belong to MS. Because they=20
> have such a high share or the market, i.e. they are on so=20
> many computers around the world that use MS OS's, this leaves=20
> them in a precarious position.
???
How so?
Doesn't it leave them in a rather strong position?
> Microsoft, because more people
> use their programs with a wider variety and varient of=20
> applications and installs, has been forced to build OS's that=20
> must appeal to wider range of users than those that=20
> manufacture other OS's.
You say "force" and "must" - don't you see? Microsoft choose such
criteria as being favourable.
> Thus, because they are forced to
> work with a wider user base, their OS's must be able to work=20
> with a wider range of apps.
OSs aren't generally designed around working with applications *per se*.
It's the other way around.
> This compatibility with more and
> more apps makes it inherently harder to write efficient and=20
> clean code.
I'll agree that providing backward compatibility introduces compromises.
But the compatibility isn't with *apps* per se, it's with their previous
incarnations of OS.
And the realistic view, that customers cannot suddently dump LOB
applications.
> Microsoft has to continuely deal with "other
> peoples problems."
Do they?
Microsoft attempt to deal with their own problems - but make no mistake,
if there's a fault, and it's down to an application, Microsoft will
certainly tell you and point you in the ISV's direction for resolution.
> When someone buys an App and puts it on
> their machine, they expect it to work. If it doesn't they=20
> call up Microsoft and ask, "why not?"
Some may do.
Probably in the main, they'd be wrong. They didn't buy the application
(assuming a non-Microsoft app) from Microsoft - therefore any issues
should be via the vendor.
> Therefore, this is how
> I have come to this conclusion.
Then there's something of a flaw in your reasoning.
> Microsoft is more visable
> than other OS manufactures, they have a wider client base=20
> that is doing a greater variety of applications with its=20
> product,
Indeed.
> thus they are more vulnerable to bugs, hicups, etc.
> that might go unnoticed or undiscovered with other OS's.
They have introduced steps, over the years with this, though. Driver
evaluation, certification criteria for applications, digital
certificates etc...
Application issues, in general, shouldn't necessarily compromise the
stability of the OS, though. That's why there is an OS.
Neil
***********************************************************************
This e-mail and its attachments are confidential and are intended for=20
the above named recipient only. If this has come to you in error,=20
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=20
represent those of Littlewoods. Please note that email communications=20
may be monitored.=20
The registered office of Littlewoods Limited and its subsidiaries is
100 Old Hall Street, Liverpool, L70 1AB.=20
Registered number of Littlewoods Limited is 262152=20
***********************************************************************
********************************************************
This weeks sponsor - Emergent Online 99Point9.com
Designed to facilitate efficient resolution of your technical
server-based questions, issues and incidents, technical support is a few
mouse-clicks away: you submit your incident-specific support requests
via our online support helpdesk, our certified engineers resolve them
while you monitor the progress, and your systems get back to 99.9%
up-time in no time. http://www.99point9.com=20
**********************************************************
Useful Thin Client Computing Links are available at:
http://thethin.net/links.cfm
For Archives, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or=20
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
http://thethin.net/citrixlist.cfm
********************************************************
This weeks sponsor - Emergent Online 99Point9.com
Designed to facilitate efficient resolution of your technical server-based
questions, issues and incidents, technical support is a few mouse-clicks away:
you submit your incident-specific support requests via our online support
helpdesk, our certified engineers resolve them while you monitor the progress,
and your systems get back to 99.9% up-time in no time.
http://www.99point9.com
**********************************************************
Useful Thin Client Computing Links are available at:
http://thethin.net/links.cfm
For Archives, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
http://thethin.net/citrixlist.cfm
Other related posts:
