-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
6 things Microsoft needs to do before I’ll take Windows seriously
,----[ Quote ]
| While I’m going to address security later
| in this article, let me say one thing
| about Windows Updates: you need them. If
| you are
| not applying updates at least monthly, you
| will regret it, unless you’re one of those
| oddball system administrators who doesn’t
| MIND finding that your servers are part of
| a botnet, or have been turned into a porn
| server, or a spam server, or more on the
| stability side of things, are ridden with
| bugs that Microsoft has deemed worthy of
| fixing in a patch or a hotfix.
| As for my second truth there, in my
| experience Windows servers act “funny”
| when they’ve been up and running (and
| providing some service, not just sitting
| idle) for longer than a month or so. Odd
| things will happen… you might see some out
| of control paging file usage, bizarre
| error messages, services that are in some
| sort of “starting” or “shutting down”
| limbo (which only a reboot can fix), you
| know the drill.
| My point is, Windows servers need frequent
| reboots. If you’re a Windows IT person and
| you don’t think that only a month of
| uptime isn’t ridiculous, then you
| obviously haven’t done anything other than
| Windows in your data center, because I’m
| here to tell you: it’s nuts.
| Microsoft needs to address stability first
| and foremost, and while they’re at it, and
| while we’re on the subject of uptime, they
| need to engineer things in a way that
| won’t require a reboot for seemingly EVERY
| SINGLE UPDATE.
| My last maintenance evening I had to
| reboot one particular server four times in
| order for it to take all of its updates,
| and it had only been two weeks since its
| last round of them. That’s ridiculous. I
| can count on one hand the number of times
| I’ve actually HAD to reboot a Linux
| machine after applying pushed-out updates
| for it.
| I always find it funny when I read
| articles that are mostly FUD that say
| things like “Linux is not ready for the
| desktop” and “not ready for the
| enterprise”, because as I just discussed,
| the reality of the situation is that well,
| neither is Windows. Whether you’re running
| XP or Windows 7, Server 2003 or Server
| 2008, you’ll find that compared to the
| alternatives, you’re running something
| that requires constant attention, constant
| hand holding, constant reboots, constant
| patching, constant reloading,
| troubleshooting, more hardware
| requirements, and more security-mindedness
| in your administrative approach, just to
| do its job.
I've Installed Linux, Now What?
,----[ Quote ]
| How do you deliver the bad news to someone
| who is upset, technically unsavvy and has
| just overwritten their Windows system with
| He had installed a second hard disk in his
| system and wanted to put Linux there. The
| problem was that when he installed it, he
| did so to the primary (Windows) disk.
| I looked up a PC Recovery business in the
| phone book for him and politely told him,
| "Good luck." I unplugged my phone until
| the next morning.
| I'll never know what happened to that guy
| or if he ever recovered his files or his
| Windos system. But, it makes me wonder if
| that scenario could play out today with
| our newer, cooler, smarter installers.
| Could that happen on Ubuntu, for example
Why GNU/Linux is ready for the Average User
,----[ Quote ]
| I find it amusing that people like to jump on
| the Ubuntu bashing bandwagon just because an
| installation (or some piece of setup) goes
| astray. Ever tell the average user they need to
| reinstall Windows? Nine times out of ten they
| will look at you side ways (or if your a tech
| such as myself they will ask you to do it for
| them). Does this make Windows less popular or a
| "not ready" operating system just because you
| need a professional (or someone with at least
| some know-how) to get it all installed and
| running properly? No, it does not. Why should
| the standard be any different for GNU/Linux?
| In short I'd like to say this: Linux is more
| than ready for the average user to be using,
| but just like any operating system it may be a
| bit much for the average user to get it setup
| and thats just fine if you ask me.
Is Linux really that hard to use?
,----[ Quote ]
| Linux is just different and once people have
| become used to the differences they have no
| problems. Sort of like driving an unfamiliar
| car for the first time. Some controls feel
| different or be in a different place. The car
| will handle differently to start off with yet
| once you become used to the different control
| positions and the handling characteristics you
| are just as confident as in your own car.
| Linux is not hard to use, just different.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----