__/ [ Sinister Midget ] on Saturday 13 May 2006 05:03 \__
> On 2006-05-12, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted
> something concerning:
>> On Fri, 12 May 2006 15:11:18 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Windows Server Patch fails to apply: Microsoft charges for support
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>| A few Linux people here will probably comment on the lines of "You
>>>| should be running Linux". But the reality is I feel comfortable with
>>>| Microsoft Windows Server 2003. Or used to.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://www.geekzone.co.nz/blog.asp?blogid=1&postid=500
>>
>> Update: As you may see in the comments I was contacted by someone in the
>> Windows Server team through this blog entry. I also received an e-mail
>> from other team member. I got a confirmation that PSS should not have
>> indicated this would be a charged support service since this is a security
>> patch, regardless of being home or commercial use. Currently I have
>> someone from Microsoft looking at this problem but since it is already
>> Satudary here in New Zealand I will not expect a status update until
>> Monday at least.
Typical Microsoft, which reminds me of a certain story. When Matt Mullenweg
(our WordPress Lead Developer) complained about a Windows failure that lost
plenty of data and work, he decided to blog about it. He soon received a
tonnage of response with the worst of 'sentiments' toward Microsoft. Only
*then* did someone from Microsoft contact him _in person_, only to apologise
and taking the blame.
Once they get under scrutiny, once the news is humming about how inept they
are and many eyes are there to swallow the evidence, will they actually
despatch some cocky loser to calm things down. You didn't make it into
Digg.com? Sorry, Microsoft doesn't give a flying fsck about problems with
their shoddy software. That's the way the Gods from Raymond communicate with
us -- the 'little people'
> Wow!
>
> All it took was saying something non-flattering about the crooked
> monopoly, and backing it with facts and situational evidence, being an
> MVP, being monitored by an employee, taking comments from the public,
> having a forum available that attracted enough people to *get* that
> sort of notice......in short, the same type of situation nearly every
> Winders user on the planet should be in. Just to get unpaid support for
> a patch for an overpriced piece of crapware, a patch that screwed the
> pooch. (Of course, they vetted that patch for months and months to make
> sure it was safe and stable. Which is why it takes them months and
> months before releasing many patches.)
>
> Windows: Wait'n'Patch'n'Pay'n'Pay'n'Pay'n'Pay'n'Pay
>
> Linux: Patch safely, patch quickly, patch for free.
The original author of that blog item -- that who suffered from the issue --
may have attracted a lot of traffic. That said, he lost a lot of time in
vain. This comes as no surprise to me. Windows has always been a time vacuum
cleaner, either for those who seek crackZ & s3rial numberZ, or those whose
software fails on them. Reverting a Windows box into its older state
(assuming no image+backups) can take *days*.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Disclaimer: no SCO code used to generate this post
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
5:50pm up 16 days 0:47, 12 users, load average: 1.48, 1.61, 1.74
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
|
|
