Hey, an idea...if one does not like an OS, or a company that makes it...then don't use it.
There are, and always have been alternatives and choices.
When I see posts about MS, or OSS, often it slides down hill fast - productive discourse seems to fade quickly.
Don't like MS or MS SW, use something else.
From all I have read, MS's only official comments about the RTM of XP SP2 were, "When we are done." The rest has been speculation - some hopeful, some not so hopeful. The company has been very clear about what applications will and will not run under XP SP2, and has offered a long history of available BETA and RC's to test with - strongly encouraging such testing. Numerous white-papers about the changes in SP2 have also been provided and updated, regularly. So why the heat? What more do you want such a company to do?
Many of us build software of one type or another - and we know what it is like to say,"Okay...enough already...it needs to be released." Many of us here, have experienced client influenced "scope-creep" and unrecoverable costs/time. I think we should know better.
Doesn't the continuous release of new distributions/versions and packages for the Linuces support this same perspective? Do any of us who build and sell software to clients seriously expect them embrace whatever tools were used and "fix it themselves" or do we acknowledge that we were hired in large part to take ownership of the software, warrant it to some degree and remain the responsible party they turn to?
|