OFF: Virus alert (genuine)

[Paul Mather]

On Thu, 4 May 2000, JOHN M GRAY complained:

=> Jeez,  I really get sick of hearing people slamming MS products when
=> something like this virus hits.  The only reason people direct their viruses
=> at MS is that it achieves maximum impact.  If Linux or any other operating
=> system were as popular as MS then they would be writing the virus for them
=> and we would all be complaining how vulnerable that OS was.  Popularity
=> breeds contempt and I see it on this list all the time about MS.  Get real
=> people, MS has good products and has immeasurably improved the computer
=> industry.   Yes, there are many companies with products better but MS
=> software is overall pretty damn good.

Ha ha.  I haven't had a good laugh like this in a long time.  Hey, they
don't call it M$-Winblows for nothing.  If you're happy with a system
that is as unreliable and expensive as M$-Windoze then, heck, more power
to you.  But don't try and kid people that M$ has "good products."  They
don't.  They are wildly successful, but their technology blows big
chunks.  ("Get real!":)

People target M$ because, yes, it achieves maximum impact, but also
because it's so easy, it's like taking candy from a baby.  It's not even
a challenge.  "Micro$oft security" and "Micro$oft reliability" are both
oxymorons.  You have to wonder about a product (Windoze) that spawned an
entire industry devoted to selling third-party products ("CrashGuard,"
"Windoze First Aid," etc.) designed to make that product work
semi-reliably (or, as it should in the first place).

Fortunately for Micro$oft, they've managed to develop a business
strategy in which they are able to sell bug fixes as "product
upgrades."  Pay us $99 and we'll fix all the shoddy stuff we sold you
last time.  Heheh.  Nice work if you can get it, and proof that the old
adage of "there's a sucker born every minute" still rings true.  I'd say
Micro$oft marketing, not their software, is "pretty damn good."

Fortunately, I do not use M$ "products" on a regular basis.  A friend
that does is always cursing at her system, which usually crashes several
times a day.  On an unrelated note, the system I use on a daily basis
(gromit) is about to pass the 140 days uptime mark (despite constant use
as a FTP server when I'm not using it).  The last time it went down was
actually due to flaky power in our lab (power interruption during a bad
storm).  Similarly, a server for a project I'm involved with (and which
also hosts several other projects) passed the 200 day uptime mark; the
last time that machine went down was due to a hardware failure (hard
disc + mainboard failure).  Both are Unix systems.  The M$-Windoze NT
systems in our lab (ostensibly the more "reliable" M$ platform) rarely
manage more than about 1 week of uptime between software-induced
crashes.

I know people from our lab who have gone to work for Micro$oft, and even
they admit it blows, but, heck, it pays the rent...

I have no objection to people using Micro$oft products, but, please,
let's try and see it for what it is.  (And "pretty good" it ain't...:)

Cheers,

Paul.

PS: Word to the wise: "Linux" != "Unix"

e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production
 deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
        --- Frank Vincent Zappa