||and is it your suggestion that a slashdot-like community of quake playing, anime watching, open source script kiddies under the delusion they are programmers should constitute a "well trusted organization" for Microsoft?
If I'd only have time to play Quake. Anime is cute thing, but when the only available on TV is Pokemon and local culture has no fanclubs, it's tough to get.
Open source. The glue that holds my networks together. Example: just yesterday I managed to network a LAN-only DOS-based legacy system between several offices over a modem connection, using Linux with DOSemu and ssh; the alternative solution, proposed by the program's vendor, was a dedicated Windows 2000 server, and using Windows terminal services. Now, compare the cost and reliability.
Many of the "kiddies" are high-positioned admins of big companies. Whose just aren't big enough to be too meaningful for The Beast of Redmond. That I don't run a Fortune500 company isn't acceptable reason to me why I shouldn't have access to the code. Though a friend who considers friendship with a live person to have more moral weight than a NDA with faceless corporation could solve this neatly.
Also, their ban on modifying the code is a highly disagreeable thing - if there is an one-liner modification that will save my day, I have FULL RIGHT to do it! Being it in a free code, or in a "closed" binary - second case is just more annoying to do.
Most people would prefer to run software with a geneology of competence.
Then go FreeBSD or OpenBSD. Or, second choice, Linux.
If you don't consider Nimda and Code Red and heaps and heaps of coming-late patches and servicepacks and peddling betaversions as release-1 finished products as examples of software vendor's competence.
I remind you that Lunix is still crappy after all these years and falling relatively further behind with every Windows release.
Both Linux and Windows are heaps of shit. The really meaningful difference is that Linux holds in the shape I put it to, while around Windows - 9x, NT, 2000, doesn't matter - I have to run around with spatula.
Face it - Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is a question. No! is the answer.
On a side note, I can install Linux to a machine just by downloading a disk image to the hard drive. (Think about an emergency recovery floppy, or a bootROM.) Is it possible the same way for Windows 2000? Or has there to be a monkey on-site who will babysit the install each time it is necessary to do? We got more offices with no techsupport and I can't be everywhere physically... Ability to "reflash" the computer's disk with known-good installation would help a *lot*...