Hahahahahahahahaha
Apr. 8th, 2008 12:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
le_bebna_kamniMicrosoft cracks me up. I'm reading my textbook on Server 2003, and I just couldn't resist posting this gem:
It certainly isn't because of quality. I started out getting my Microsoft certifications with a slight distaste for Microsoft, but I considered it a necessary and functional evil. Now that I'm actually learning Microsoft in-depth, I'm finding more and more ways that it just seems broken, or just handcuffs my abilities to do exactly what I want to do.
*Microsoft wants me to pay WHAT for reduced functionality???* *Microsoft won't let me do WHAT with my system unless I upgrade or purchase special licenses in addition to the ones I already purchased???* *It crashed because I did what???* Screw that -- I'll just boot off my Linux live CD and fix the problem for free. Strike that, I'll just make a Linux server and not have to worry about it at all.
For the average end user, I still recommend Windows (XP, not Vista), because Linux still has a ways to go before it is completely end-user friendly. But to paraphrase Eric S. Raymond slightly out of context, being a sysadmin running a Microsoft product is like learning to dance ballet in a full-body cast. As an admin, just don't do it! I'm finding that it's just so much easier to do what I want on Linux.
And once again this morning I was reminded of the fact that Linux doesn't have to defragment in order to keep running smoothly. Somehow I think it's Windows that should only be deployed in non-mission-critical environments...
_____________________________________________________________________________
**My own little side note: I noticed that Linux servers were pulling in a hefty $5.7 billion in sales compared to Windows $17.7 billion. I'm very amused, because a huge chunk of the cost associated with Windows servers is purchasing the operating system and per-client licenses, whereas the bulk of Linux server costs is the hardware itself. Microsoft users also have to purchase more expensive hardware to support the same functions as a Linux server, so I'm curious how Linux would fare if *numbers* of servers were compared...
The Linux environment, often deployed in development or test capacity, offers an affordable route to provide non-mission-critical [my emphasis added] network services.Yeah, right. ROFLMAO. That's why almost $5.7 billion was spent on Linux servers in 2005**. Linux is UNIX-based, and up until 2005 UNIX has been the top-selling server. Actually, I think the only reason why Microsoft has been pulling ahead of UNIX is because of similar propaganda crap like this.
It certainly isn't because of quality. I started out getting my Microsoft certifications with a slight distaste for Microsoft, but I considered it a necessary and functional evil. Now that I'm actually learning Microsoft in-depth, I'm finding more and more ways that it just seems broken, or just handcuffs my abilities to do exactly what I want to do.
*Microsoft wants me to pay WHAT for reduced functionality???* *Microsoft won't let me do WHAT with my system unless I upgrade or purchase special licenses in addition to the ones I already purchased???* *It crashed because I did what???* Screw that -- I'll just boot off my Linux live CD and fix the problem for free. Strike that, I'll just make a Linux server and not have to worry about it at all.
For the average end user, I still recommend Windows (XP, not Vista), because Linux still has a ways to go before it is completely end-user friendly. But to paraphrase Eric S. Raymond slightly out of context, being a sysadmin running a Microsoft product is like learning to dance ballet in a full-body cast. As an admin, just don't do it! I'm finding that it's just so much easier to do what I want on Linux.
And once again this morning I was reminded of the fact that Linux doesn't have to defragment in order to keep running smoothly. Somehow I think it's Windows that should only be deployed in non-mission-critical environments...
_____________________________________________________________________________
**My own little side note: I noticed that Linux servers were pulling in a hefty $5.7 billion in sales compared to Windows $17.7 billion. I'm very amused, because a huge chunk of the cost associated with Windows servers is purchasing the operating system and per-client licenses, whereas the bulk of Linux server costs is the hardware itself. Microsoft users also have to purchase more expensive hardware to support the same functions as a Linux server, so I'm curious how Linux would fare if *numbers* of servers were compared...
