Amen to that Ken. MS does an excellent job of correcting problems.
Do the MS bashers really think that the programmers at MS are different
from the programmers at ???. (You pick the Linux Vendor).
If it wasn't for MS, most of the people who subscribe to WROX
mailing lists would be out of a job. They would have to program CGI
in C++, Perl, or whatever else across many OS platforms. And based on
the sometimes goofy questions submitted to the P2P lists, they don't have
a clue on how to program.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Schaefer" <ken@a...>
To: "How To" <proasp_howto@p...>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Server
> > The latest article on wrox.com argues that W2000 server has many
> > compared with Linux. Many clients I deal with are not just wedded to
> > Microsoft products - welded would be a more apt description! - divorce
> > from Bill is not an option. Some NT4 clients are having problems with
> > server load, particularly with large SQL 7.0 databases - multiprocessor
> > W2000 servers would certainly reduce server load, but is the platform
> > stable enough?
> The article on Wrox.com looks like the same tired stuff we see on /. (et
> al), basically unsubstantiated claims of bugs, unreliability, lack of
> scalability etc etc, vs Linux
> The number of bugs in any of the major OSes is largely the same - just
> subscribe to a list like Bugtraq (www.securityfocus.com).
> As an systems administrator will tell you - your OS will be as stable as
> make it. Good admistrators who *know* their OS will be able to keep their
> machines up, and if your server is always crashing|doing inexplicable
> things, then you probably don't know enough about it.
> The proof is in the pudding - go to a site like
> to see if people can keep their servers up, you'll find that there are
> plenty of sites running IIS v5 on Win2k, and having few if any stability
> Personally I'm a little disappointed that Wrox even let such a stupid,
> troll-like article onto their homepage. For an organisation that
> fine books, it's sad to see it descending to the point of allowing
> Also on a personal note, compared to NT4, Win2k is a god-send - much
> stablity, fewer reboots, better features...(both on the server and the
> workstation versions)