I may spend a good amount of my time debating (internally and written) the value of Microsoft products over those that can be found in the Open Source world. I have done quite a bit of work with mostly Open Source products in the past three years and am convinced that especially for small businesses, Open Source products (software) will provide us the relief we desperately need from the ever increasing complexity and cost of software products. The types of discounts that academic and large organizations get on software from organizations like Microsoft are enormous in comparison with the per user costs that a business of 25 users or less must sustain, thus while we might enjoy Microsoft products for little money in school and perhaps at the large company we work at, when we go into the smaller, real world, those prices rise dramatically. Another issue comes to mind, however. While teaching a Windows 2000 Server admin class at a local college, I realized how little time is spent on focusing on problem solving instead of dealing with the latest and greatest. What this leads to is an overemphasis on dealing with new technology, instead of focusing on using current technology and appropriately integrating it into the work environment. Part of this obsession with new technology makes us forget that old and current technology needs to be maintained. While Microsoft is constantly focusing on the next upgrade path, we continue to suffer from patches gone uninstalled, etc. I don't blame Microsoft for this dilemma - I also blame the administrators. An administrator's job should not just be to bow to every whim of the public they server (their job is like any leader - they should be aware of the pitfalls of constant change), but to guide through logic and intelligence.
My point? Pay attention to what you are already managing. It is likely that the latest and greatest is not what you need - it is likely that some tweaking here and a fix there will solve the perceived problem. Thus, applying the latest security update and the latest system patch is a good place to start. If you want people to be happy with their current tools, they should be in good and constant working order. I would imagine that part of the reason why people are so quick to embrace new technology has to do with the fact that there is some problem with what they are already using - i.e. I keep having system crashes, I keep getting viruses spread by my own email server, the server is not acting as quickly as it used to - many of these things solved through good housekeeping.
IT managers don't trust MS: survey</a> is yet further proof for me:
Forrester suggests that although there are improvements Microsoft could make to security practices, the blame for incidents often rests with the users themselves.
The report points to major worm and virus attacks, and says Microsoft generally issued patches well before outbreaks. The company issued a patch for the Nimda vulnerability nearly a year before that worm's release, and issues a patch for SQL Slammer more than six months before it brought down a major bank’s ATM network in the US.
Many of the problems we have been made aware of in the past few years (i.e. the I love you virus, nimda worm, etc.) could have been prevented through proper management. Plus, it would behoove the companies that provide internet service (especially broadband) to help in educating their customers. Perhaps bundling firewalling devices (or NAT boxes) with the broadband modems would be a healthy start (and then an explanation of why). The person who leaves their unprotected WinXP Pro computer hanging on the net is just as bad as the administrator who fails to update SQL Server.***
A little bit of knowledge and organization would go a long way in solving many of the net problems that exists and in my opinion, it starts with the Administrator.
***I almost had to disagree with myself here, though... Have you ever tried to patch a SQL Server and/or Exchange only to find the patch completely hoses your system??? I have - and I know very well why patches aren't always applied... it still is no excuse (and nothing that a good R&D server wouldn't solve).
