jim wrote:
>
> "Linonut" <linonut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:rv7ej.56531$L%6.6463@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>* Peter K�ann fired off this tart reply:
>>
>>> jim wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Linonut" <linonut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:N5Odj.55828$L%6.13732@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>* jim fired off this tart reply:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Microsoft's Windows Home Server corrupts files
>>>>>> Nothing against Microsoft....just thought you may need to know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then wny did you stick a linux ng into the xpost? We would be highly
>>>>> unlikely to use WHS, when we have NFS, Samba, sshfs, AFS, and probably
>>>>> a
>>>>> few other distributed file systems available to us.
>>>>
>>>> Most of the actual posters of this group that I have read also must
>>>> support users that use Microsoft software.
>>>
>>>> They will find this information useful
>>>> if they find themselves having to support Microsoft's Windows Home
>>>> Server.
>>>
>>> I certainly can't see any circumstances where I would find myself in
>>> such a
>>> dismal situation
>>
>> Especially in a business. Why would /any/ business use Windows Home
>> Server?
>
> I find it very hard to believe that you people are this stupid.
>
> People that do tech support are not relegated to only supporting
> businesses. Believe it or not, there are home users that are supported by
> computer technicians.
I'm with you so far. I'm one of those technicians.
> All support people do not have the luxury of telling their supervisors
> what they will and will not service when going on a tech support call or
> the luxury of only supporting one OS to the exclusion of all others.
But I do. Ten years ago, I gave Microsoft the middle finger in all respects,
and now I only service real OS'es. That means no Windows. And you know
what? My Linux customers are very happy, because I can either solve their
problems within minutes, or otherwise quickly find that there is no
solution (yet).
Oh yes: once, long ago, I also did Windows support and maintenance. It was
both very profitable and utterly frustrating: people kept coming back with
the same problems, time after time. And most of the time, I couldn't do
much except do Microsoft's "Three R Dance": Retry, Reboot, and Reinstall.
Even problems seemingly "solved" by means of this ludicrous collection of
hocus pocus remedies called the "Microsoft Knowledge Base" often reared
their ugly heads for a second or third time, or even more often. What I
learned from this is that you can only call yourself a computer technician
if you *understand* what you're working with. With every new Windows
generation, there's less to understand, and more to "just accept". I've
played around a few weeks with Vista, and I've seen literally dozens of
unexplained crashes, zombie windows which wouldn't go away until after a
reboot (which took an idiotic four minutes), system hangs for minutes on
end, copy or delete actions taking several months to complete, weird
problems with 3rd party software, and many more quirks. I still have to
come across a good explanation of why these things went wrong, and why many
of these things STILL go wrong. Trying to figure it out for myself has
proven totally fruitless.
Only idiots think of Windows as a serious operating system. People who
actually know a bit or two about computers consider it a bad joke.
> No friends, other computer technicians must actually work. At times, that
> means supporting technologies that you may not like, may not use
> personally and may even have valid reasons to not deploy - when given the
> option.
Sure, as I said, there's lots of money to be made keeping this crap called
Windows running, especially because it's what I'd file under the S of
Sisyphean Task, with the advantage of getting paid to keep rolling that
rock uphill. But I don't consider most people who keep Windows machines
running computer technicians. They're just a kind of second-rate magicians
who don't actually know what they're doing, but "it works most of the time,
for most of the people, so what the heck".
Only yesterday, I helped one of my Linux users replacing a broken sound
card. Well over a year ago, I installed Mandriva 2006 on her old 500MHz
PIII machine, and it has been running perfectly ever since. She never once
needed my help to keep the box running -- and what's more, she never once
needed to perform system maintenance other than installing updates.
It simply kept on working, without quirks, and without slowing down.
That's how a proper OS should work, and that's what I take pride in to offer
to people. And once people have seen it in action, they know why I won't
touch Windows again with a ten foot pole, ever. And neither will most of
them.
Richard Rasker
--
http://www.linetec.nl/
|
|
