Re: New Microsoft Security scare?

sam1967_at_hetnet.nl
Date: 02/11/04 

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:10:40 +0000

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:00:36 +0100, Frode
<news@mascot.REMOVETOREPLY.dyndns.org> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>sam1967@hetnet.nl wrote:
>>>Kind of blows a hole in the statement you made, doesn't it.
>>FYI I am MCSE in win2k and NT 4.
>
>I've met my share of MCPs and MCSEs over the years. Most of them, while
>having a nice paper to show, couldn't form a creative thought to save their
>lives. Point being, certifications don't automatically lend you any
>credence in the practical world.
>
i was merely pointing out that I had installed my fair share of compaq
proliants and dell poweredges and written perl scripts for large banks
to monitor their web banking applications.
unfortunately the stress nearly killed me (either that or the booze
and hookers).

>>I know how *** M$ products are
>
>Any OS is only as good as its tech guy.

not true.
microsoft products are palbably less secure than Linux boxes.
this latest bug has been known to MS for 6 months and they have only
released the patch today.
another anecdote . when I worked for a large bank in Germany
supporting their web servers I was asked to write some Perl scripts to
analyse log files which would then be pulled through the firewall
using RCP from a UNIX host.
I had to work with the UNIX sysadmin who had nothing but disdain for
MS products.
we struggled for several hours to get RCP working and then went
looking on the web for some ideas. it turned out that RCP would not
work correctly with the version of the NT service pack we were using.
I had to upgrade to the later service pack even though it was not back
policy to do so.
the UNIX guy was even more convinced the software was *** and so was
I.
My Perl scripts were excellent though ;-)

Quantcast