9:00 AM President's Day. A federal holiday, and one that iTOOL actually recognizes. I'm still here, though, because damnit, I just love my job... no, wait, that's not it. Um. Because I'll get paid more for holiday time? Nope, nope, I won't. Hrm.

Why AM I here?

Oh. Got it. There's a chance - a slim one, but a chance - that people will leave me alone long enough to get some work done. I doubt it. It's never happened before. But I'm going to chance it.

Lots of playing around with our first Windows 2000 multi-machine domain over the last week. Interesting concept, this Microsoft-based Dynamic DNS stuff. Some exciting possibilities in there, and also some pretty good-sized "WTF??"'s as well. (Why does a wizard-created A record work but a manually-created one not? Why?) My outlook on the whole Win2k thing remains the same; it's a good product. Likely, it will get better. Remember how poor Windows NT 4 was when it first came out? Well, Win2k is one hell of a lot better than that.

Now we come to the part where asbestos clothing would be nice. Is it better than Linux?

No. Is linux better than Win2k? No. Why not? Because they aren't the same product. Not by a long shot. Linux is a wonderful OS for certain tasks. Centralization works wonderfully on Linux; regardless of all the hard work and improvement on the UI and powerful upgrades to the individual PCs, in the end *nix is still a terminal-server OS. In many cases, the terminal and the server are on the same machine, but the fact remains that it's terminal-server.

Windows is not like that. Windows is in many ways a more "open" architecture, in that the user interfaces more directly with the operating system. In Linux (or Solaris, or BeOS, or whatever) the user has certain restricted rights. They can run this program, but not that. If something doesn't work because of those permissions - too bad. The server is the core of existence, the be-all and end-all of the system. A new religion - the One True Church of the Almighty System.

That viewpoint has merit. For one thing, even if the individual user doesn't have as much control over their own destiny, it's also less likely that they'll break something. When a server is down, no one can do anything, regardless of their permissions.

NT is like becoming Unitarian, for lack of a better term. Everyone has access to everything, or near enough as to not matter. The system is not the king; the user is. That has the same problem that I mentioned above; it's easier for one user to take the system down, causing problems for everyone. It also causes a certain inherent lack of stability in general; because more applications and functions run as what a Unix system would call root, it's easier for a problem in one of those functions to take the system down. Is that REALLY a fault though?

I think it's all a matter of philosophy. Linux users like to compare OSes to cars; Windows, they say, is a beat-up station wagon that won't go over 20 MPH and will burn 10 gallons of gas to do it. Macintosh is a sports car, an old one, with the hood welded shut. And linux, they claim, is a tank, and better yet a tank you can get for free.

Well, I don't agree with those characterizations. Windows 98 is indeed a family station wagon; it doesn't drag race well, it doesn't get great gas mileage, but it can haul the family to where they need to go. Macintosh is an old car; as they say, the Mac OS is five years ahead of its time, which was ten years ago. And linux is indeed a tank - although the fine print reads "Assembly Required." (Ever try and build a tank? We aren't talking about a Snap-Tite plastic model, either...) The good thing about these characterizations is something most of the people touting them miss - they're all different vehicles. A tank is a wonderful vehicle for rolling through dangerous wastelands, shrugging off obstacles, and occaisionally blowing up other tanks. That does NOT make it a good vehicle for a trip to the supermarket. For one thing, just TRY and park it in the slot. A sports car is good for insecure people with more money than brains (the iMac for $1200 US? Please...) but not so good when you have to go off the beaten path. And the station wagon? Well, it will get to the grocery store and back. It can go off-road if needed - at least, some versions can - but it isn't really MADE for it. It can't take on a tank. But it can fit in a parking space.

What do I use? That depends. I have a few tanks. There's a station wagon in the garage, a couple as a matter of fact. Different models. Including my new SUV, my Windows 2000 Professional workstation. Granted, it's not as fast as the sports car or even some of the other station wagons. But it goes off-road better, and still looks OK at the store. Tighter squeeze in that parking space - gotta be careful opening the doors - but it still fits. Can't take on a tank. But hey - when I need to take on a tank, I'll use a tank.

I started this at 9:00 AM. It's now 10:40. I'm not a slow typist - I just got interrupted four times. Told you it wouldn't happen. <SEG>

10:00 AM Greetings and salutations. Hope you all had a pleasant evening.

Let's see. I did something yesterday. I know I did. I was busy all day. I must have accomplished something... oh. Yeah. There's the problem. The difference between DOING something and ACCOMPLISHING something. I did a lot, it just wasn't anything that was worth the effort. I seem to be doing more and more of that, lately...

More playing with Windows 2000 to do. Specifically, the Certificate Authority. How does that thing work? It's an interesting concept, particularly as it ties in with Exchange; the new Exchange Server 2000 includes the ability to use encrypted sessions, using certificate-based public key encryption and authentication. Neatest thing since the pinhole cam for the paranoid.

And more meetings. I hate meetings. Why should I have to explain what I'm doing to other people? It's not fair, damnit... <G>

Sue me.

10:00 AM Can anybody explain to me why the hell I still work here? Has anybody kept count of the the number of just plain out-the-door and around-the-corner stupid things this company does? I've got business people who can't turn their computer on without calling for help telling me I'm wrong about the requirements to run things. When I ask how they figured that out, they tell me they read it in the latest "Wired" or something similarly useless. I'm also tired of watching extra business people fly first class on trips "because we might need his/her expertise" while budget requests of less than $100 are put on hold for lack of funding. I'm tired of watching the executives order in $300 lunches for meetings while I skip lunch to hold machines together with scotch tape and positive thinking. And I am sick and tired of being told "things will get better." For the executives, sure. Maybe they'll be able to order $400 dollar lunches and take their wives on those trips! Whoopeee! But will I get a better budget? Why? Computers, after all, are a support function. We can live without that while we take care of the important things. Never mind that we're a DotCom. Never mind that without these systems, we don't exist.

I'm just plain tired.