disappointed-gut
Tue Oct 21 19:45:30 CDT 2003
OK wise guy, you're right in one thing and wrong about
everything else; but before we get there, I'm sorry to
disappoint you but I don't follow your idols (Britney, Jlo,
etc), I got more important and fulfilling things to do in life.
I did a terrible job expressing what I wanted to say. I
didn't mean that MS suddenly went from Windows/IIS to
Linux/Apache, but rather to say that the W2003 DNS servers
in the front line were so bugged down during the last DDoS
attacks that they had to take the W2003 DNS servers off
line and get someone else with another OS so that the whole
scheme of MS web services wouldn't go to hell. Even worse,
they continue using Akamai system (runnign on Linux) as a
front line this very minute (while the webservers run
Windows obviously.)
Do I expect that a toiler paper provider for MS uses only
Windows products at their corporate offices? No. Do I
expect that MS uses its own products in their own website?
Hell yes! It would be ridiculous that Novell or Sun uses a
MS DNS server or a partner that uses MS products, wouldn't it?
Then what is it? A sense of false security? If I have a
good product, well hell I'll make sure to use every bit of
it. This is what puzzles and disappoints me and not your
idol Britney or whoever else.
Well, someone can say that Akamai is only a
provider/partner. Sure this is the case but if MS products
are so bullet proof, why not look for another
provider/partner that offers the same solution with a MS
product. This is my whole point and I don't care whether
you agree or not wise guy, because I've done a lot of
independent research and I'm right about it!
You're right about any OS being as good as the any other.
You're wrong about everything else. However, I didn't
express myself correctly in the beginning.
Now, so long and stop dreaming about ....ah, who cares.
>-----Original Message-----
>On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:44:27 -0700, "dissapointed-guy"
><anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>>Sometime ago a friend of mine told me that
>>www.microsoft.com was running on Linux and I also saw some
>>articles on the net saying that, but I couldn't believe it
>>until today when I saw it with my own eyes.
>
>Friends are barely believable, net articles even less so.
Although
>your eyes may be less deceiving, you did miss the Netcraft
note as to
>*why* you don't see accurate information from Netcraft.
>
>>I was told to go to www.netcraft.com and plug in
>>microsoft.com on the search and oh boy they were right!
>>Every server that I clicked in the results were showing
>>that microsoft.com is running on Linux, so I did my
>>research and the explanation that I saw was that the MS-DNS
>>servers were terribly bugged down with the latest security
>>flaws that they had to relay on Linux.
>
>Now I really suspect troll or flame bait, since if you had
done almost
>*any* research you'd have found the real answer.
Especially since you
>mention flawed DNS servers are why the web servers run
Linux, which is
>an argument about the same as "Aviation fuel is expensive
so I bought
>a diesel car...".
>
>>What's going on here? Wasn't Microsoft supposed to be the
>>best? I feel very disappointed to learn this.
>
>Why would this disappoint you? I mean it's not like
Britney got
>dumped by Justin, or Ben trashed J-Lo, I mean *those* were
>disappointing...
>
>>Does anyone know more details?
>
>Apparently almost everyone.
>
>You did make one comment, about how Microsoft is supposed
to be the
>best. The real-world truth is that Microsoft *is* the
best. So is
>Linux. Oh, and Solaris, OS/2, OS/400, HPUX and so on.
*Best* is only
>relative to a specific situation, and what's best for me
may not be
>best for you. Nor should it be. Otherwise I'd be stuck
running some
>crappy system that you figured was kEwL.
>
>Jeff
>.
>