Anti-unix campaign runs into some difficulties

[Matthew Hawkins]

On Fri, 05 Apr 2002, Damien Elmes wrote:
> "Since the switch was completed on Tuesday, however, the server has not
> been able to serve pages."

What wuss wrote that?  It has not been "able to serve pages" as it has
constantly crashed, though for some reason I just can't recall right
now, when it was running Unix it handled the load just fine.

Oh, yeah, that's the reason - it was running Unix and everything worked
sweetly as expected.

People on slashdork also pointed out that when the site was moved, it
appeared to have been a blind verbatim copy as FreeBSD binaries to
support the chrooted environment the original site were in were possible
to download (eg. /bin/ls).  That indicates to me it was a rush job with
no thought in order to solve the original issue of being caught
red-handed.  I think that's just as interesting as the switch itself,
as it shows even Microsoft can't get their so-called enterprise server
to deploy applications quickly without the whole thing falling to pieces
around them. (Though blaming Microsoft is probably not fair as they've
most likely outsourced it - but hey, its fun ;)

What's probably more annoying about this is the stupid middle-managers
who get taken to free brainwashing lunches by Microsoft and hence
funnily enough make a favourable descisions towards purchasing Microsoft
rather than solutions to problems, those morons won't hear of this and
purchasing decisions won't be affected one iota.  These kinds of events
just provide amusement to our dwindling ilk.

I'd love to be able to do an "eyes-only" (see Dark Angel) kind of thing
and interrupt prime-time TV with reports like this, pointing out all the
facts including the implications for organisations implementing
Microsoft over actual solutions.

-- 
Matt