MS product Security

came across some of you may of seen.

http://www.vnunet.com/News/1139896

isnt it funny in a way that although they are not secure the products still have to be used cos of Desktop monopoly ! (now thats what i call a smug feeling of power for MS and good luck to them for it.

Discussing the irony of MS Security not being trusted yet still being used.

Is everyone that MS biased or what ? I mean sure they have security holes and bugs etc but at the end of the day where would we be IT wise without them, i know some of you will say well we would use macs or linux but would they actaully be here without Microsft to push the market forward and make the industry what it is today ? I mean all Micorosft really are successful and every success is open to criticism whether they are perfect or not.

I dont for one minute think Microsft are perfect, i love all there apps and OS'es and i also love *nix so am not biased at all. I think MS do get some bad press and i have noticed in alot of the threads that MS are alsways getting berated sometimes i think from people just wanting to jump on the bandwagon.
Ok so they have a monopoly isnt that what successful business is all about, be the best wahts wrong with that. Ok they have flaws but so does everyone and everything.

i am sure this will kicksatrt some negative points and some heated discussions and general slagging OF mS but then so be it.

Does anyone feel the same, i mean does anyone agree that althought hey are not perfect they have alot to tank for and are not really that bad? are they ?

Microsoft products are not realy bad..

they are just overpriced and have some real compatibility isues..

IMHO microsoft is staying compatible in the wrong places.. There are windows games that won't run on WindowsXP while they run like a charm on wine..

And the biggest concern I have is that windows realy lowers peoples expectations of an OS !!

Well i sort of agree with what you say about pricing but shouldnt you sell for what people will pay ? which they do and can because of the monopoly.

i am not syaing i agree but stating what they can do and should be able to do because of there status that they have worked and cheated to deserve ! i mean is there any real ethics in business ?

as for lowering expectations of an OS in what way ? what does MS not provide in its OS'es that others do that is of global use need ?

again just a question not a opinion.

They are both great. With 2000 and active directory I think MS is pretty damn secure. Add a firewall, some internet filtering software, enterprise virus scanning, digital certificates and ISA and it is DAMN secure. But the one thing that gets anyone, even Nix users is NOT PATCHING! Yes you must PATCH and audit your users and security policies. It’s really simple and everyone knows it but it’s BORING. Technology is cool and fun so it’s hard to be disciplined and work at boring stuff, but that is essential.

That article is based on IT manager opinions. I think the reason either sides flames one another is lack of understanding, maybe a Nix admin doesn't know anything about Exchange server or some MS guru has never successfully set up a Nix box. So of course you are going to be single sided, in my own little world I have both flavors and they work out great. MS is expensive and that is a problem, I agree. If I replace all my Win boxes with Linux, I would save a bundle - but that would severely limit my productivity and I would need more people to do what I can do now. Managing a Windows network is CAKE with Microsoft, which is why it's so popular. Any flunky can get a network up and running and instantly become a network admin is a couple of hours. Heck when I first started windows admin I didn't know crap about NT or Domains and in a day I was building user accounts, email, etc. Why else would you use a system you consider "insecure" (referring to article), because it works! People have their email and printers and internet and they are happy. I for one wouldn't be caught on any record saying "Yeah our applications are mission critical but I was stupid and chose an OS that is insecure because I don't care about my job and my duty and it's only a matter of hours until we are hacked and I have egg on my face."

Do think IT managers really believe that? If that was the case, I would not be using Microsoft at all. Like I said, they are both great. One final word, my cheap and fast Linux file servers are perfect for what they do.