__/ [ Ray Ingles ] on Wednesday 15 March 2006 21:29 \__
> On 2006-03-15, billwg <billw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I particularly liked the part that said:
>> "Blowers agrees: "Too much has been made of the cost of Microsoft
>> licences. After all, in return for that you get support. With Linux you
>> can't afford to go without support and you'll have to get it from third
>> parties like Novell or Red Hat." "
> I'm sure you did. My favorite part:
Why is he being fed?
> But Tarpey thinks the support problem is "overstated": "There are
> risks," he agrees. "You have to be careful where you get your code from.
> Some of it is ropey. But with Microsoft you pay for the service." Every
> call you make to Microsoft has to be paid for and, if you're a small,
> cash-strapped Windows user, "you're in the same boat."
> A few moments' browsing reveals plentiful free support from
> Linux-community websites. In the Linux world, someone somewhere has
> already encountered your problem and published a solution.
> As Latham acknowledges, no-one should expect to run Windows without
> in-house expertise either, "because of the security issue." Every
> Windows-based business, he says, needs someone to make sure the software
> updates and anti-virus software are installed and up to date: "To keep
> yourself secure you need an IT resource."
That's where the 'learning curve' comes into play. While I am highly skilled
with all versions of Windows (down to the level of keyboard accelerators), I
have always refused to learn how to 'protect' Windows. When colleagues brag
about their 'knowledge' on Windows security, I make them aware of the fact
that it is no IT skill. It is the skill of making up for design bugs of one
particular O/S. Sadly, it's a necessary survival skill nowadays, for Windows