Arthur B. writes: Sure, experts with a certain economic interest say that Novell is dead and Linux is a wannabe....
By submitting your email address, you agree to receive emails regarding relevant topic offers from TechTarget and its partners. You can withdraw your consent at any time. Contact TechTarget at 275 Grove Street, Newton, MA.
But their expert advise so far has always caused unforeseen budget overflows and compromises. We handle the risks; they handle the profits. And it was always our fault or someone else's. It was never their fault. We simply wanted too much. We didn't understand it. Well, we always kept our part of the deal. We paid, they just didn't deliver. But somehow that was something we didn't understand. We just needed to adapt our way of business to their views. And sure enough, by the time things were starting to work (read: people learned to cope with the system), it was time to upgrade. And not just some things, but everything. And any third-party solution that couldn't cope with the new world was labeled outdated, of course, a fact that locked us even further in. If you think that that brought company knowledge, insight and oversight to new heights, you're sadly mistaken. No, both Novell and Linux will stay around at least long enough to help us in the coming years for a fair price. And Microsoft won't be booted completely out of the company. It'll be trimmed down to specialized islands so it won't bother other systems and do what it does best: application services until Linux, Novell or someone else is mature enough to handle that part as well. Or until Microsoft shapes up.
Oh, the horror, the horror. What difficult choices we await.
Erm, not really.
Dieter Klotzsche writes:
We have up to now a stable NT4 server installation. The software running on the server is stable. We are not going to upgrade until we are forced to do so by software updates, which will no longer run with NT 4.0. We do not need any support from Microsoft.
Ted D. writes:
Plans for post-NT upgrades? *nix.
Like we should have done in the first place, but were lazy/gullible/scared/tight? No more Redmond. Free at last!
Aaron Solomon writes:
Our lab upgraded to Windows 2000 two years ago, and will upgrade to Windows Server 2003 next month because IPv6 support in the OS is critical to us.
Marc Breit writes:
We did our Win2K migration in mid-June 2003 and brought up all of our servers and workstations to at least Windows 2000 within the last 24 months. The domain migration set the last action in the task list. As Exchange 2003 is nearby, we plan to migrate our Exchange 5.5 to 2003 in August 2003 and perform before a domain upgrade from 2000 to 2003, although we stepped to 2000 domain a fortnight ago.
>>Continue on to NT4 Independence Day: More users sound off.Have an opinion you'd like to throw in the fray? E-mail us. Your letter may be published in an upcoming article.