[dundee] It's from MS, it MUST be true...

[R J Ladyman]

http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/2/0/0204bda6-770f-4f24-b4b5-
f3df3b0e5d93/UrbanTrans_SBS_Final.doc

I'm not sure when Red Hat Linux version 2.0 was released: 
http://www.operating-system.org/betriebssystem/_english/bs-redhat.htm shows 
1995 - as this server was apparently replaced with Windows 2003 (and hence 
either in or after 2002/3), this implies that the company concerned didn't 
bother replacing or updating for 8 years (April 2003 is RH9!). Not much of a 
case study, eh? Perhaps they should have replaced it with an MS equivalent of 
RH2.0 for comparison, er...let's see, Windows 98 wasn't out then....hmmm 3.0? 
Windows for Workgroups? Or compared it with a Linux of 2003 er...Red Hat 9?

Perhaps a better title would be "Consultancy Discards $1,650 in Monthly Fixes 
by not Bothering to keep up to date for Eight Years. Blames Linux for Own 
Failings. Nobody Surprised."

Also, reading the properties of the .doc file and comparing them with:

http://www.theuptimegroup.com/documents/case_studies/caseStudy-UTC.doc

is interesting. I wish I could knock up a document that well in only 26 
minutes (or 10 minutes, or whichever it was). The dates on the documents are 
2007 - perhaps my assumption of 8 years is wrong: it was really 12 years...or 
were MS scraping the barrel for old stories? Surely not.
-- 

Robert Ladyman
File-Away Limited, 32 Church Street,Newtyle
Perthshire, PH12 8TZ SCOTLAND
Registered in Scotland, Company Number: SC222086
Tel: +44 (0) 1828 898 158
Mobile: +44 (0) 7732 771 649

http://www.file-away.co.uk