What's wrong with this picture? Conceptually, it is actually a good idea. Passports have capability to enforce a security standard across entire internet, and Microsoft has muscle and staying power to make it work. Lord knows it will be convenient to be able to log into hundreds of different sites using same username and password. This sure will make life easier for a lot of people.

On other hand, as demonstrated by more than 45 security alerts released by Microsoft in first two-thirds of 2001, this company is not well known for it's attention to security. In fact, Microsoft is directly responsible for two of worst security issues on internet today: Code Red and it's variants, and email worms such as Melissa and SirCam.

Steve Gibson, author of fabulous website Grc.com, makes following comment:

"With a bit of horror, I learned that Microsoft's developers have no understanding of security."

If that doesn't send a shiver down your spine, I don't know what will. Now, do you really want these people to be in charge of security of your bank account, medical records and dozens or even hundreds of other records?

So what should you do? Personally, I am concerned about Microsoft's obvious lack of security knowledge, and I do not want to trust them with my personal data. Thus, I will not be using anything "protected" by passport, unless it is absolutely necessary. I just have too many questions and concerns not only about privacy, but about safety of my personal information from criminals, terrorists and other evil-doers.

To see a list of article available for reprint, you can send an email to: mailto:article-list@internet-tips.net?subject=send_article_list or visit http://internet-tips.net/requestarticles.htm

Okay, enough of that! Now I'm getting sick to my stomach!

The problem that many of us are facing is that we are stuck with what we've got. We have already invested so much in Microsoft products that it would be extremely difficult to switch to something else. In addition, Windows NT 4.0 SP6a is a reasonably reliable operating system, and Office 2000 suite is exceptional.

However, every once in a while I get a little whimsical thinking back to good old days, when I used to run our multi-billion dollar company on two large VAX machines. That's ALL of our applications, every single one of them. Plus hundreds of users, over fifty printers and fax machines and numerous other things. In fact, we ran payroll, accounting, order processing, delivery scheduling, human resources, printing, communications and everything else on those two machines!

To top it all off, we ran for over ten years on these VAX machines without a major operating system upgrade! Yes, there were problems, but constant retraining, reinstalls, service packs, hot fixes and weekly major security alerts were not among them. And compared to clustering in OpenVMS (the operating system for VAX and Alpha hardware), "clustering" in Windows 2000 is a complete joke!

And now I need over 150 servers running Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000! The really sickening thing is I'll bet I could run everything on a dozen or so Unix or Linux servers, or, again, two big Alpha (the successor to VAX) systems. (It's really too bad that Digital Equipment Corporation, which made best hardware and operating systems on planet, could not market their way out of a paper bag).

I think that's what is annoying is and many of our peers most. The constant need to spend an outrageous amount of time to keep up with new releases from Microsoft.

I know it doesn't fit into Microsoft's hostile "do it our way and pay us for privilege" business model, but we would much prefer a different approach to MCSE certification model. Instead of constantly rolling it forward constantly, invalidating certifications of those who cannot keep up, why not just append operating system to certification?

Why not just make a "MCSE Win4.0" and an "MCSE Win2000"? To me as a manager, it would be far more valuable than current catch-all scheme. Look at it this way, I could scan a resume for "MCSE Win3.1", "MCSE Win4.0" or "MCSE Win95". Wouldn't that make it easier for me as a manager? You bet!

However, it wouldn't help Microsoft's bottom line, would it?

Fortunately, I am not in business of helping Microsoft's profit margin. In fact, on my list of worries, that wouldn't even be in top million! My job, and job of each and every person in our company, is to support our users by giving them tools which enable them to do their jobs.

To do that, we will get certified on Windows 2000, and probably Windows XP after that. However, we will do it on our schedule, fitting training and testing time around our jobs and personal lives. In meantime, we will take a closer look at other alternatives to Windows and Office, because, well, well really don't like this situation. We may, or we may not, change to those alternatives, but before this we were not even looking ... now we are.

Additional Information

The Certification Debate http://internet-tips.net/Careers/certifications.htm There is a huge debate out there in computer world - to certify or not to certify. Here's my two cents.

Microsoft's Licensing Model (Sigh) http://internet-tips.net/Microsoft/licensing.htm You would think that Microsoft would want to make it easy to give them money, wouldn't you? Think again.

What's Up With Microsoft? http://internet-tips.net/Microsoft/whatsup.htm Microsoft stock has been going down all through 2000. Here's an opinion as to why.