If you're not stuck in the Windows only world and spend any time reading Slashdot or some other Linux based news source, you probably see the term "FUD" used. It stands for "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt", and is usually directed at Microsoft for spinning or slanting something to make their product look better than Linux or to spread FUD regarding the use of alternatives to MS products.
Whether accurate or deserved, it's something that Microsoft is accused of by the Linux community in general. I know I often see debates about Windows v. alternatives, usually Linux, but lately other Unix OS's are well. Currently I work with a number of AIX people. They usually are only too happy to tell me how great their OS is and how much more stable, better than Windows, blah, blah, blah. This is where I usually tune out and watch them answer email on their Windows 2000 laptop. That always makes me chuckle and keep my cool. What I really loved was going to an Oracle 2 day seminar at the local Denver Oracle office, on web services using Oracle 9i, Oracle 9i Application server and their Java based development tool with hands on labs for 1 day. So this SQL Server DBA got to program in Java (not my strong suit, but I can hold my own) on a Windows 2000 workstation. Guess Mr. Ellison doesn't quite put his company where his mouth is.
I'm not a Windows bigot, but it is the leader on the desktop and getting close in many ways on the server. Actually I'd say most all the major OS's these days are "good enough" for almost every enterprise. That includes Windows.
Which is why I was amazed when I saw this article: Seven Bad Reasons to Bar Windows from the Enterprise. This is a "Special Report" from Enterprise Windows Experience by Scott Bekker and it presents a number of reasons that people have used for not putting Windows in the Enterprise.
It's written by examining the FUD that I see quite often about NT/2000/2003 and then explaining how things have changed and mentioning how things compare to Unix. Overall I like the style and content of the article, though I wish there were less references to NT 4.0. I know there is still NT 4.0 in many places, including my company, but I'd like to think that there are many more W2K installations than 4.0 these days. There are instances where I think the author hasn't presented the full case and mixes a little FUD in there, but overall it's not bad.
What's really interesting are some of the comments placed below the different parts of the articles and how passionate people are for or against Windows. I added one of my own and I'd encourage anyone who wants to to add theirs as well.
If you get flack for using Windows in your organization, or just want to argue a little better, I'd recommend this article as something to read and think about and make your own decisions.
©dkRanch.net October 2003