Windows 8 demo video parody

[Michael Butash]

On 12/31/2012 10:17 AM, Nathan England wrote:
> Excellent points. I don't entirely believe 2000 was a bomb. But in all
> reality, I don't know anyone that used it.

I've seen it used, and used it quite heavily at most environments I was 
at when still doing more systems stuff.  2003 was obviously much 
improved (xp+server stuff) and quickly became defacto, but for at time, 
it was good for passage out of the dark ages of 16bit os's.

I saw it on a couple servers
> and replaced it with linux on a few others. It wasn't horrible, but come
> one! Windows ME on an NTOS kernel? I thought the frequent automatic
> reboots were a "feature" so I did not have to manually reboot Windows
> ME! Windows 2000 destroyed the only good "feature" Windows ME had!

Hah!  Well like most I started life as a windoze guy, and my first 
experience with "servers" was using win2k server beta's for adventure in 
'99.  I was rockin' AD before I'd ever had to futz with NT.  Imagine my 
horror when I had to inherit some nt4 domains later!

That said, I learned what DNS, DHCP, LDAP/Kerberos, and IIS were good 
for in windoze land, then later replaced them once I got familiar enough 
with linux.  Learning how network services work under linux without some 
prerequisite knowledge is more than a bit daunting, so I was glad to 
have had exposure and understanding from windoze worlds.

All in all, AD still has numerous advantages for directory management 
that simply cannot be _easily_ replaced in linux.  99% of times, I'll 
still see it paired with linux if for nothing else than authentication 
and user/group enumerations (likewise/centrify), and I'm fairly OK with 
that.

>
> Nathan
>

-mb