[BBLISA] Chucking samba

[Internaut at Large]

Good morning,

On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 07:25 -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> > From: dkap at haven.org [mailto:dkap at haven.org] On Behalf Of Internaut at
> > Large
> > 
> > And, this is yet another reason why I will _NEVER_ recommend using
> > Windows software as a server in a production environment.  
> 
> Trolling for similar anecdotes on other platforms?

Nope.  Just pointing out why, in my personal experience, I would never
do what you, from your experience, recommended.

> I've got just as many
> updates-broke-something stories for Windows, Linux, Solaris, and OSX.  But I
> don't find it rewarding or interesting to engage in platform flame wars. 

Indeed, not.  And I've had updates-broke-something stories as well, but
I know Unix, and can often, if not always, simply find the problem, and
fix it, or back it out, under Unix, because I know it well.  I'm not a
Windows administrator, nor, do I expect Toby to be one either, nor, does
it sound like he has one in his shop, so bringing in an unfamiliar, and
error-prone whole new infrastructure to try and help solve a problem
generated by clients outside the main focus of the existing
infrastructure is what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about methods, not a particular system, which you seem to be
missing (a trait amongst Windows people, I've noticed ... *tongue firmly
in cheek*).

Should the problem be different, I'd be saying "Don't bring the HA-AIX
box into the Windows-centric shop, to manage people's mail quotas."
Because that would be the symmetric view.

> I also find it not-worth-while to try convincing somebody to be more open
> minded, or speak more logically, when they have an obvious religious
> anti-platform sentiment.  It doesn't benefit anyone.

Nope.  Sorry.  Guess again.  You are speaking from your own bias, and
not actually reading what I'm talking about.

> No platform is perfect.

Granted.

>   And frankly, IMHO, windows updates are more
> reliable than the other mentioned platforms.

Flame bait, FUD, and, provably incorrect, if you want to do statistical
analysis on any semi-significant sized chunk of the SANS reports.
Sorry.

-dkap