Re: Windows on servers, how noughties! @Eadon 05:11
Not convinced by your inevitable lock-in argument. The quote you provided states that Linux, Unix and OSX can connect, albeit with third party software. The option is there, so no lock-in. Yes, it'd be nice is MS handed it to you on a platter, but in the real world any sensible business would balk at that.
"The only VPN competitor that is named is OpenVPN, but it is implied that OpenVPN is only for IPv4 systems, which is no longer true. "
Nope. It actually says that if you don't have IPv6, DirectAccess is of "questionable value", and that OpenVPN will do just as well with less hassle. They haven't implied - you're inferring and using that wishful thinking to attempt to discredit the article. And you accuse the writer of being disingenuous? I would be incredulous, but - look who I'm talking to ...
"The article also recommends sticking with the Windows stack for security reasons. Given that MS has the worst track record in security of all the major vendors and of open source combined, then I'd say that this is disingenuous."
Since we're talking about new stuff, it would be best to evaluate it and offer specific arguments based on that rather than talk about track records. FUD, my good man - akin to saying that you need compile anything you want to run on Linux, no?
"And that was before the news erupted that MS are in bed with the NSA."
Oh brother - another hobby horse you're going to run into the ground. We doesn't need your hyperbole to be worried about that, Eadon.
"As I say, this article is what I would expect from an advertorial"
People often say that sort of thing about an article that says something positive about anything from any commercial entity. Are you scared that actually calling the writer a shill will get you zapped? I note you seem to have shied away from that word of late. Perhaps since a warning to that effect was posted in one of the threads?
"and it is also misleading, to put it kindly. Why does it need me, a non-sys admin, to point this out?"
I don't see anything misleading, to be quite honest. You're presenting it as such because it doesn't say Microsoft is bad. You're pointing things out that you've pulled out of your own leanings, rather than the article.
Note - all this is simply a critique of your arguments, not of the article content. You have an unfortunate tendency to "point things out" based on what you want people to think an article means rather than what it says, and present that as a fact. As has been said, even when you do make a point, you spoil it by poor presentation. Then people start mocking you and you think that more of the same is going to win them over. It isn't.