To print: Click here or Select File and then Print from your browser's menu

This story was printed from silicon.com, located at http://www.silicon.com/

Story URL: http://comment.silicon.com/0,39024711,10003888,00.htm

Windows Server 2003 - better late than insecure
Was the security boot camp worth it? We'll see...

By silicon.com

Published: Thursday 24 April 2003

Microsoft has come out with a major product release. Its latest version of Windows is no desktop operating system but a server OS, on the evolution path from NT.

The company will give it the usual push from the dry dock, with all eyes on Steve Ballmer in the US - delivered via satellite to the rest of the world, naturally.

There will be mud slinging as - especially - Sun and Linux backers, from enthusiasts to major players such as Red Hat and SuSE, talk down Microsoft's credibility as an enterprise software provider.

The Redmond giant will itself trot out dozens of happy customers and partners such as Dell will talk about what can be done using Windows Server 2003 and their hardware.

So far, so predictable. We shouldn't be too blasé. A lot will have gone in to the launch and many businesses will feel its effects. (A subsequent media campaign will see $250m spent.) But the major story here is the release delay - or rather, the reasons for the delay.

Software - and dare we say software from major vendors - is often rushed out with bugs or delayed along with some pretty creative excuses. However, Microsoft is at least so late with this OS because it is trying to live up to its Trustworthy Computing initiative.

Rocked by security fears which, if unchecked, could hurt the company long-term when trying to sell to businesses, the story has it that Gates and Ballmer sent many of their top engineers on a back-to-basics re-education programme. They came out the other end more security conscious, we'd all like to believe - but this software release was put back as a result.

If Windows Server 2003 is a more robust, less vulnerable piece of software as a result, then waiting was no bad thing. As it is, many Microsoft users are only now ready to upgrade from NT 4.

However, the alternative is to acknowledge that software will always have bugs. There will always be holes. It is how they are fixed that's important.

If this server OS - in all its seven incarnations - and the simultaneously released Visual Studio .Net 2003 and SQL Server 2000 64-bit version are better for a bit more attention, let's not knock it.