- This news story is archived and is closed to comments now -

Is every single article on neoseeker anti-microsoft?

Nope, of course not. But if someone can point me in the direction of some Linux distro wreaking havoc upon the public, I'll write about it. OSX doesn't cause many difficulties for usrs.

But for some reason, Windows just happens to be that one OS that spawns these huge news worthy stories.

Besides, as I had pointed out in the article, the onus falls upon both parties involved to work together to find an equitable solution.

There is no need to "open windows to let penguin in" just follow the rfc's that document these protocols.

MicahWrites,

This Linux admin wont give details, wont tell us the problem, and wont tell Microsoft how to fix it...But stands by his "Vista is Bugged"...Come on, this is a BS story and you know it.

TCP/IP is TCP/IP on all systems. This Linux admin is blocking packet headers that contain "Windows or NT" and trying to make it look like a Microsoft problem??

Your a noob sir.

I disagree that it is the responsibility of the Swedish city to test Microsoft's apps beforehand.

The Internet isn't a creation of Microsoft, who other people need to work to play nice with, it's an international standard that's not going away anytime soon, whether MS lasts another 50 years or folds tomorrow.

If Ford comes out with a revolutionary new kind of engine, should each gas company be forced to buy one of the new model to see if their gas works in the car, then create a new formula if not?

Gas is a standard fuel and the Internet is a standard network. It is up to the developer of the product that uses these standards to make sure they're producing a compliant product.

While it would be nice for the city to give detailed bug reports to MS, to help explain exactly what's going on, this shouldn't be needed. MS shouldn't even need a Linux server in house to see if Vista will behave well. All MS has to do is make sure THEIR system obeys then standard. Once they do, if it still doesn't work, they can pass the blame back to the Linux server.

At this point MS needs to

a: Fix Vista (or prove it is obeying the standard and the Linux server isn't)

or

b: Declare they're not going to fix their OS, openly defy the standard and see what happens

Keep in mind, this isn't the 1st attempt of MS to talk with the Net. We've used the Internet WITH Internet Explorer in Windows 3.1 and up. MS has been working more or less reliably for years. Why would this suddenly break / change? Per the article, no mention is made of XP users being hampered.

Not all TCP/IP protocols are the same, quote taken from MS website,

Microsoft® Windows Vista™ and Windows Server® 2008 include a new implementation of the TCP/IP protocol suite known as the Next Generation TCP/IP stack. The TCP/IP protocol stack provided with Windows® XP and Windows Server 2003 was originally designed in the early 1990s and was modified and enhanced over time to meet the needs of home and enterprise users. The Next Generation TCP/IP stack in Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 is a complete redesign of TCP/IP functionality for both Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) and Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) that meets the connectivity and performance needs of today's varied networking environments and technologies.

OkDude, don't be an idiot. MS is to blame for their OS incompatibility. They are the ones not following internet standards. The problem has nothing to do with the server and everything to do with their new OS.

Also, the internet company shouldn't help MS debug their product. Why would they? Is MS paying them for help on fixing their issues? Network standards are known and documented, all MS has to do is follow them to fix the issue. Everyone other OS does, and that is why they work.

First, I'm not saying the ISP isn't doing something that could be getting in the way of Vista customers. However, in the tech support circles I work in Vista is NOT known for being a very stable product. In one instance our customer put in Vista against our advise, and about a month later finally acknowledged that it would be better on XP and so we back-upgraded them (read: the newer product stinks so bad that an older version is better).
Communications *Standards* are put in place so that everybody is playing by the same rules. TCP/IP was a standard before Microsoft was anywhere near the size they are today, yet they take the liberty to change the protocol when they feel necessary. It seems to me that if a legitimate problem exists between the ISP and a Microsoft related product(Vista) that the ISP could donate perhaps some time in working with Microsoft to resolve the problem. Unfortunately, unless you are a large corporation or significantly sized government customer of Microsoft, getting ahold of somebody at MS who can fix a legitimate programming bug is near impossible. Additionally, if the ISP's systems are truly Internet Standards Compatible (in tech speak RFC compliant) it is not their responsibility to insure that every product on the market can communicate to the internet. It's up to the product maker to comply with standards.

Finally, I've personally experienced where patches from Microsoft that change their implementation of TCP/IP have broken Linux based networks. KB893066(a Microsoft Identifier for their update) was meant to address security problems in TCP/IP, but because it was a Microsoft-change and not an Internet-Standards change several computers that were connected over an office-to-office VPN link (read: office-to-office secure communications channel) could not function. The Linux based part here was a Watchguard-Branch-Office-VPN solution, where Watchguard products run on Linux ; Note: Watchguard is a popular international company that produces firewall and related software.

Johnny 5, if the admin does not provide any details of the "bug" and refuses to talk, then he is looking like he's making sh*t up. On the flip side, it's the linux admin that might be doing some weird non-standard configs on his servers. We just don't know. MS was willing to look into it, but if they hit a brick wall from uncooperative linux-geek-MS-hater admin, then that's all there is to it: NO VISTA FOR U!

Funny, how Vista's TCP/IP stack is now compliant with the DHCP standard and the Linux implementation is not and this is a Vista problem. Boo.....

"Lundis Energi should have been testing Vista back in its early alpha release stages to ensure compatibility with their Linux based server system."

Why? Why should they waste time testing Microsoft's crap, it's up to M$ to test their stuff not everyone else!

Sure, it's MS's fault. This is the only place in the world where Vista won't work with the entire network. Maybe Vista has a problem with their TCP/IP stack, maybe it doesn't. How can anyone tell with a bonehead sysadmin that refuses to help.

I'm pretty sure it's the users choice to run whatever OS they want to run, and it sounds like some of them here want to run Vista. Great customer service by this Swedish SA in not helping his customers achieve what they want to achieve. Sounds like an immature little hater that can't wrap his head around a simple problem.

There are so many things wrong with this article, I'm suprised it got published. Does this really even make sense? Is there a rift in the space time continuum in this particular town that is causing this problem? Maybe the newly invented invisibility cloak is shielding all common sense from the writer and the goofy sys admin. Who knows... but this article is utter rubbish.

Packet headers that contain "windows nt"? I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. In order for someone to selectively block HTTP traffic originating from IE, the TCP connection would either have to terminate on the ISP's devices, or they would have to be filtering all HTTP traffic an introspecting it for the USER-AGENT string in web request. This wouldn't identify other types of traffic besides HTTP anyway.

There's an actual, technical problem here, TCP/IP is not TCP/IP as has been claimed. But we can't easily pinpoint the issue without more technical details.

Just a short comment.
I don't know how many of you actually write software. Well I do for multiple platforms. And I can't tell you how aggravating it is when a user comes over to my cube and tells me it is broken without any details. Come on people bugs exist. How can you fix it if the admin won't at least tell you what is being broken? Any time I have run into a bug in someone else's code I at least offer them a starting point or I work with the person to figure out what has gone wrong.
Remember what I said before Bugs happen that's life. But to be hardnosed and not tell the dev what is wrong is even worse.

Just my 2 cents,
Douglas

Ok maybe its me but http://www.lund.se/ works fine, is there some other Lund?

Cart

@ECartman

Somehow it's not surprising that you're using Vista, considering that you can't tell the difference between a web server and internet service. Your statement is something along the line of
"I can't get phone service."
"What do you mean, I can see the phone company's billboard from here."

"Linux breaks web compatibility. A town's network infrastructure is running on Windows Server 2003. However, users running the latest distro of Ubuntu haven't been able to connect to the internet. The sysadmin says the problem is a bug in the Ubuntu TCP/IP stack, but won't say what the bug is."

Yeah - if that story ran you folks would all be pointing the finger at Ubuntu and how broken their stuff is, right?

A sysadmin who professes to know what the problem is but won't tell anyone is where I'd point the blame before accusing *any* platform of being buggy. Lots of people running Vista are connecting through linux networks every day with no problem.

Hey, I used to live in Lund. The company is NOT "Lundis Energi", it is "Lunds Energi AB"! Couldn't find how to get in contact with anyone here so I'm just posing this fact here.

There are thousands Windows Vista computers connected to Linux servers around the world in many companies. If this combination doesn't work in Lund, the problem is from Windows Vista ?!? I don't think so.

BTW Apache use is declining repidly. Today it has 50.9% and IIS 34.2%.

"Apache's lead remains substantial in both categories. It's worth noting that Apache has lost market share to another open source server, lighttpd (1.2% of all sites), and Google (4.4%) as well as Windows. But if Microsoft continues to gain share at its current pace, it could close the gap on Apache sometime in 2008."
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/08/06/august_2007_web_server_survey.html

This is knee jerk yellow journalism. The bias is built into the story.
What does the network trace look like between the Vista machine and the Linux server? Are there any process return codes on the Linux or vista side that might shed further light to this issue? No deep explanation is given to the root of this issue and it is automatically assumed based on the fact that XP worked that Vista is broken.
If Microsoft got the RFC right and it was the Linux servers that were really causing the issue this article would have never been written.
Don’t get me wrong I am not a fan of Microsoft. I just regard this type of article as self-satisfying bullshit that panders to individuals that drive hybrids and enjoys the smell of their own farts.
Substantive, verifiable journalism wins in the long run.

Just buy a cheap cable/dsl router, plug it into the uplink, and plug your computer into it. It'll bypass the problem.

The point a lot of you are missing is that the so called "simple" act of fixing a bug in a product as large as Vista is actually an extremely time consuming, expensive, and risky process. It's clear that this bug does not affect ALL internet users and not even all users connecting to Linux networks (this is the first I've heard of it at all), however the fix will have potential side effects for everyone who uses Vista.

Even if the fix for this bug is as simple as changing one line of code, doing so has a potential impact on every code path that runs through that line. It requires extensive retesting to ensure that you're not breaking existing functionality. And even once you've gotten through all of that, with such a large and diverse user base, you run the risk of having scenarios where people are *relying* on the buggy code (perhaps by accident) and your bug fix will actually appear to break them (e.g. what of the people who have already implemented the work-around?).

I find the anti-MS tone of the story especially ironic, since no one is mentioning the fact that the ISP is essentially using its monopoly on the market to avoid implementing what is evidently a well-known work-around. If there were two providers in that city, you can be sure they'd both be supporting Vista the day it came out.

Bad Lunux Admins blames "Windows Vista flaw" when computers running Vista doesn't connect to a Linux DHCP Server.

Good Linux Admins follows a simple solution from Microsoft for this non-existing flaw:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\ SYSTEM\ CurrentControlSet\Services\ Tcpip\ Parameters\ Interfaces\ {GUID}

Value name: DhcpConnForceBroadcastFlag
Value type: REG_DWORD
Value data: 0

A tip to Linux admin @ Lund: BROWSE THE WEB TO FIND A SOLUTION BEFORE COMPLAINING ABOUT SOMETHING YOU DON'T KNOW.

Well, at least now everyone knows your knowledge limitation when administrating heterogeneous network

Precisely where on a Linux system does a system administrator set this Windows registry key to fix the problem?

That's exactly the difference between a SYSTEM ADMIN and a LINUX ADMIN. Lund needs a SYSTEM ADMIN, because the network they are responsible is not 100% Linux, and not a simple LINUX ADMIN.

This should be a basic rule before they hired just a Linux admin to handle the job.

What kind of stupid claim is that mrc554?

No matter who is admin, if its a bug in the proprietary windows kernel, how is he supposed to work around that?

Quick question: if in excess of 50% servers runs linux and 33% run windows, then how come there's a problem in only one town in Sweden?

One more question: %50 linux and 33% windows, what do the remaining 17% run? OSX? BSD? or is there any other option?

Stupid claim is telling a config in Vista is a "bug in the proprietary kernel".

In Windows XP SP2, the BROADCAST flag in DHCP discovery packets is disabled and in Windows Vista isn't.

A simple .reg file solves the "bug in the proprietary kernel", but I guess it's too complicated to a Linux admin understand that

Good question, Adithya.

The only problem in Lund network is the lack of knowledge of their "system admin". If this linux admin is so narrow-minded and he wants to know ONLY Linux, ok, let him manage only Linux boxes in a Linux-only network. Lund needs someone more capable in heterorgeneous networks.

mrc554 - I have so much fun reading what you write ...

I was a Linux user on many Windows networks and sorry but Windows admins of those networks ALWAYS limited everything to Windows.

At least in Lund other versions of Windows run ...

On several Windows networks NO Linux can run (proprietary login software or Windows-only hardware drivers).

Hey, not many of you know what is the problem here. You just look stupid...

1) This is a town owned customer ISP, not for the towns administration. So thet can't change any customers registry. They have already posted the registry solution.

2) It is a bug in MS Vista sending right DHCP-question to aquire an IP address. They do not follow standards. Not in this and in many other ways. Work around from the ISP can't lightly be done, as it could break there fully working network.

3) Microsoft knows about this, but not the local office which was asked by the news paper. That for technical knowled from MicroSoft.

4) The dhcp-server can be executed on any OS, like MS Vista with same problem. It's not technically a Linux problem.

5) This problem will show up in some users LAN. There is some reports on this, just search on the topic. And it will hit MS Windows Vista. For reasons already stated earlier here.

Read the original artickle!

AJxn... you need to do a little more research before you go casting blame for what is clearly a fairly isolated case...

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928233

http://www.askdavetaylor.com/dhcp_unicast_broadcast_flag.html

So basically the problem is that Vista is utilising a part of the DHCP standard that is not implemented on Lundis DHCP server.

It's the Linux system here which is failing to comply with the DHCP standard not the other way around.

I think this would be an entirely different story and an entirely different response from Lundis admin if this issue was with say... a new version of Apple OSX.

They should just update their DHCP server to something a little more up to date and compliant, and stop playing stupid anti-MS political games.

Hay, let's all invent our own method of networking, implement it, then blame everyone else when it does not work.

Ummm... yeah. I hardly think it was the responsibility of the ISP to test whether Vista adhered to basic and long standing network standards. You can hardly get more essentiall than DHCP, and Vista breaks it.

The city is exactly correct in refusing to change. They offer an IP connection to the Internet so they utilize standard tools for managing IP networks. I wouldn't expect them to start routing AppleTalk or IPX for me just because I felt like running an ancient OS. Rather, the burden would be on me to shelter my non-IP-compatible equipment from the network and do the necessary translation/encapsulation myself. Let Vista users run a Linux box in front of their Vista boxes to manage DHCP for them.

@mrc554

No, Apache web servers are increasing, it is Microsoft servers that are decreasing:
http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/200707/index.html
Apache 73.18% a +0.29% change
Microsoft 19.33% a -0.3 change

Netcraft has been fudging MS server counts for years. Remember the GoDaddy fiasco, the "active server" fiasco?

BTW, do a Netcraft search on A.Microsoft.com and tell me how many LINUX servers do you count that Microsoft is using because their won can't do the job. It's 36. Five years ago, before the Linux 2.6 kernel came out, Microsoft was using 110 Linux servers to make sure their "stuff" got served.

(...)Besides, with Apache (a Linux type web server)(...)

Apache runs on a hell lot more operating systems.

micktion: you need to do a little more research before you go casting blame for things.

Windows Vista, by default, has enabled a feature of DHCP which is indeed a part of the standard, but it is a "should" feature, not a "must". Therefore, to be compatible with the widest range of clients, the DHCP implementation supports clients without this feature.

That said, I agree that the sysadmin ought to be a little more forthcoming and accommodating in assisting the town's M$ users to connect. I mean, if they really want to cripple their PCs, they should be allowed to, right?

More than likely this bug actually relates to the way Windows Vista implements L2TP and it's relaed security.

It seems to quite effectively break almost all linux l2tp implementations.

More info would be great tho.

@Micktion: Have you read the swedish sources?

I know about MicroSoft KB and about the unicast broadcast flag in DHCP.
That flag is OPTIONAL to implement AND should not be used, according to relevant RFC:s So the DHCP-software (not limited to linux, running on MS Windows Vista will give same problems to clients) work correctly, MS Windows Vista defaults are at fault here.

Lunds network works with all sort of network devices, that comply with Internet standards. They can't change a working environment just becouse MS play games with standards. Then something else could break if they do. And there isn't that many MS Vista users yet.

Still if it was Linux or Apple that had this fault/bug/problem, Linux and Apple would have had to change this.

@tmanfoo: Well, MicroSoft already does this.

@*cough* No, they don't get IP numbers propperly from DHCP-servers becouse MS don't comply with Internet standards. This problem is also reported with customers routers/firewalls/Wireless routers. So it is known problem that MS don't want to change.

73% is unreal, because Netcraft considers 10,000 Apache servers if only one Apache server hosts 10.000 websites. As Apache has been used in datacenters to host thousands of websites per server before Microsoft had a decent OS to do that, it's obvious it shows a much larger base.

Netcraft shows the report based on 128 million websites and the report on your link (securityspace.com) is based on only 25 million of them. I prefer to believe in Netcraft.

"The open source Apache has been the leading web server software since the March 1996 Netcraft Web Server Survey. In November 2005, Apache was found on 71 percent of web sites, putting it more than 50 percentage points ahead of Microsoft IIS (20.2 percent). At the time, Apache's market share advantage seemed insurmountable. But less than two years later, Microsoft has narrowed that 50 percent gap to 16.7 percent. The margin is even tighter in active sites, where Apache leads Microsoft by just 12.2 percent."

You said "So it is known problem that MS don't want to change."

Change what, if a .reg file solves this anti-MS "incompatibility" ?

Drop that anti-MS thing. It doesn't change the fact that it IS Microsoft's fault if they want to play with other computers on Internet.

If they use a feature marked SHOULD, they MUST support a way when that feature is not there. They don't.

That feature are not supposed to be used, as it is marked obsoleted. They do.

So yes, it's Microsofts fault.

But hey, it doesn't bother me any. As long as I can use my computers and connect to Internet services I want to use. It's only a problem for MS Windows Vista users, and maybe Microsoft. If they care.

(Now come a anti-MS comment that you asked for: "and the customers main problem is having MS Windows installed in first place")

@mrc554: and you want every MS Windows Vista customer to change that when they cant use network when they visit a customer, a friend etc?
Get real. Microsoft should fix there bug.

I would call the .reg file a anti-Internet incompatibility...

Ohh great. I would like to be in Lund Sweden to take all of those Vista users to my networks and sell internet to all of them and make a lot of money by doing that . Hey sure I would be running linux on the servers probably the admin simply should be seeking another job where he could be competent . That thing "use linux or don't use" is worse than a la microsoft way "pay or do not use". I usually see that with many software writers that write for some plataforms but prioritize linux and stinks a lot. Stinks more than microsoft so I prefer M$. I use what I want not what another mother*bleep*er tells me to use or pretends me to use. And windows is great for my taste. Ohh yes I love it and as a matter of principles nobody is going to force me to use another operating system just because is free. And if the guy really want's to help to fix things he should be contacting M$ to get the issue fixed instead of screaming to the 4 winds that it is broken.

It's not the fact that it's b0rk3n, the admin is piss off at what's not b0rk3n in Vista?

I guess the question is, why should i have to repave my roads to accommodate your new flying car.
]

Hi OkDude: If Microsoft would have wanted to solve the problem, they'd have found a way to send one of their techs (they do have some, right?) to Lund and test it out. They could even send him to their own Linux lab to experiment a bit.

I really hope that neither Microsoft nor Lundis Energi "solves" the problem.

Maybe it's the users' fault. Has anybody checked to see if these people have actually plugged their computer into the power outlet?

"Problem may exist between user and keyboard."

What a stupid commentary. Who is to blame?

If I stick to a networking standard and make something that works, and someone uses an OS that doesn't work, then the OS doesn't work.

It is why we have protocols and standards.

Whichever one deviates from the protocol is the one that is wrong. In this case, not knowing the details, it seems that Microsoft have deliberately created an incompatibility hoping to maintain an idea that Linux 'doesn't always work'.

This backfired and now it is another blow to Vista, which by the way, is being beaten in the market place by OSX installs.


" Well, both actually. Lundis Energi should have been testing Vista back in its early alpha release stages to ensure compatibility with their Linux based server system."

Are you insane? Yeah right. I'd better check to see if my xhtml valid website works in IE. haha. it was that bow down and get shafted thinking that cost people TRILLIONS (lots of fudding naughts) prior to them realising that , hey, why support something that is so broken.

Use spell check, as a "journalist" it might be advantageous to your career.

Of course the city should solve the problem. They should release a CD with a patch on it. knoppix maybe? That would solve all the problems, and people would still have access to the content of their hard drives.

Why bother the users, revloony ? The city should solve the problem with a much clever way: dump Linux servers. They are having problems just because they use Linux with a lazy sysadmin there

50 plus comments is a lot to try and respond to, but I'll give it a try.

1) The 'Cool t-Shirt Company' designs a new t-shirt. They have to (if they want to sell any) make them of appropriate sizes for the users that would buy them. There are standards that say what small, medium and large are and companies take a risk if they decide to do something different. They work with what is considered the industry standard and stick to it. They don't have to ask every customer in the world to test the shirt for them.

2) Customer goes to a store and buys a shirt which is the wrong size. Yes they can return it but they should have tried it on first. Same if I were to goes out and buy an AMD processor for my Intel based board. I should have done my homework first.

3) Networking and the Internet is standardized to allow for seamless communications with few or no errors. In this case, it is up to both parties involved to look at their code and determine what can be done to fix the problem. It may be a Microsoft problem which MS should fix. It could be a problem with the servers in Lund which their SysAdmin should fix.

In the end, there will always be these types of errors between OS/Software/Hardware because of the capitalist market in which we live that allows for multiple types of the same genre of product. In terms of computers, greater interoperability is needed to allow for the seamless communications between the guest and host systems.

Or we could just blame this one on the Virus writers. They deserve it.

It's easy to say 'The city should inform Microsoft', but it's very likely that they've been trying to get Microsoft to fix this problem.

I once worked in a mostly-microsof shop, and the guy in charge of Windows support in our section (lets call him "Dave") was pretty much run ragged. One of the problems he was dealing with was Excel spuriously trashing the contents of spreadsheets in a wierd way (let us call this "Problem A". When he explained Problem "A" to the Microsoft support rep assigned to us, Dave was repeatedly told, over a period of months, that we must be doing something wrong because we were the only people he, or anybody else he talked to at Microsoft knew of who was suffering Problem "A".

Well, one day Dave was talking to our MS rep, and mentioned that he'd been talking to Mikie at Competitor X.

"Oh," breaks in the MS rep. "Competitor X is on my rounds too. I talk to Mikie all the time.

"How Interesting" replies Dave, "then you should be fully aware that they're suffering from Problem "A" as well!!

The only response from his MS rep, at this point, was a guilty silence.

There are, presumably, hundreds of people in this town affected by this problem, and I seriously doubt that none of them has had both the technical expertise and the incentive to contact Microsoft with a detailed explanation of what is going wrong.

If Microsoft doesn't already have a detailed explanation of the problem here, then I expect that it's because they haven't wanted to receive a detailed explanation -- not because the detail hasn't been offered.

"Besides, with Apache (a Linux type web server) being the dominant web server with more than 50 percent market share world wide, Microsoft should bow down just a little and open a window or two to help let the penguin in. After all, only a third of the web servers on earth run Microsoft."

A "linux type web server"? yeah .. no. Apache comes for Windows too. Also, Apache's market share has been steadily DECREASING.

Don't get me wrong, I use LAMP for all my servers, I just hate to see fanboys lying to themselves and others believing them.

That should teach you something: stay away from Microsoft, and your life will become immediately easier

Isn't this most likely fallout from the WGA 'glitch' that hit Microsoft users this weekend? I could see the WGA server identifying all those swedes as pirates, and shutting off their internet access (possibly to their internal linux servers, too).

Chris

"Apache (a Linux type web server)"

From Wikipedia . . .

The Apache HTTP Server, commonly referred to simply as Apache, is a web server notable for playing a key role in the initial growth of the World Wide Web. Apache was the first viable alternative to the Netscape Communications Corporation web server (currently known as Sun Java System Web Server), and has since evolved to rival other Unix-based web servers in terms of functionality and performance. Since April 1996 Apache has been the most popular HTTP server on the World Wide Web; since March 2006 however it has experienced a steady decline of its market share[1]. As of August 2007 Apache served 50% of all websites.[2]

Apache is Unix based, just like Linux.
Apache is crossplatform where as Windows is just for Windows.
Apache may have a declining market share but does hold the largest market share.
Apache is Open Source where as Windows is not.

Apache may not be 100% Linux, but it's far closer to it than Windows.

Bill Grava

As for the WGA glitch, who knows? The culprit remains unknown as the SysAdim in Lund hasn't saidany thing of any real relevance and Microsoft hasn't released a statement.

Stephen Samuel

I like that story. In big business, deniability is the best solution of all. Take politicians for example who will when confronted with a subject that could implicate them is some nefarious and or dishonest deeds how they will always say "I'm not aware of that. I wouldn't feel comfortable commenting upon that until all of the facts are in." They could just as easily have said "I'm sacred of what might happen to me so I'm gona cover my ass by playing dumb until I can get one of my speech writers to whip up a cleverly crafted excuse for me that will absolve me of any wrong doing and paint me as the better party in this situation."

The PR heads at Microsoft have made sure that "reasonable deniability" is written into every MS Tech Support manual, as it is for every other big business in the world.

Darn capitalism!

Astonishing ?
No !
VISTA does not work with some other Microsoft Products. Try with Sharepoint 2005.

Blaming Microsoft is too easy.

Responsibility is shared. If you put all your eggs in a single basket, don't be astonished. The reverse situation could have been true.

I completely disagree with the comment that he "should have been testing" back at Alpha and Beta stages.

Screw that... companies can test their own products before release, thank you. I am not REQUIRED to test ANYTHING someone wants to someday sell to me. It'd better damn well work, or I won't buy it.

(And with Vista, it's held true that I haven't so far... the Macs and Linux boxes here are doing fine, and the company-provided machine is still on Win XP with no plans from them to do any upgrades any time soon.)

I had the reverse of this problem (linux pc connecting to some sort of windows server)
to avoid the problem I had to turn off the the asyncmap option of PPP (disable all control characters),leaving that feature on
was fine for connecting to the old
windows based server,

"A "linux type web server"? yeah .. no. Apache comes for Windows too. Also, Apache's market share has been steadily DECREASING.

Don't get me wrong, I use LAMP for all my servers, I just hate to see fanboys lying to themselves and others believing them."

Well its the most common used app on on the linux system to run a server. Runing it on windows is doable but most people prefer to run it on linux since it originated around the linux/unix type operating system and for the fact it works better on it. Hail to the power users >_>

Hey, when I say Linux type I usually mean the free and open source model behind it. Thanks GNU!

Apache also accepts user contributed packages. It's the philosophy mostly.

Besides, with Microsoft code locked away tighter than Fort Knox, any software that allows the user to look at the source falls into the same camp as Linux.

- This news story is archived and is closed to new comments now -