I recently read this article on SharePoint 2007 in the CIO Magazine.
The article is mostly positive about the capabilities of SharePoint 2007.
The author also mentions that "Strategy should be incremental" - I think that applies to any IT project. Then, he has a heading "Where SharePoint falls short". He mentions a few points, that actually I mostly agree with. Out of the box, it doesn't provide you with 100% - it is a platform, not a solution. And out of the box, excel services, and it's ECM capabilities are not stellar, so you need to hook it up with SSRS, Documentum etc.
Though, there is one heading I had a hard time agreeing with, which is "Beware of Microsoft Baggage".
If anything, SharePoint 2007 has a very good story around ripping out the Microsoft Baggage. You can completely replace AD, and Exchange with whatever you want. I have personally delivered MOSS installations that integrated with SiteMinder, and Lotus Notes. The process to do so was quite straightforward.
I don't know for what reason, perhaps legal reasons, Microsoft made a very concious effort to make major components in MOSS replaceable. The end result is a product that has no dependency on Microsoft platform - other than on the server side (i.e. ASP.NET/SQL Server). But as far as the end user is concerned, they could be using a Mac or Linux.
Now, why is this blogpost titled "Journalistic Ethics"? Because I pointed the above as a comment on that article. Unfortunately, 48 hours later, my comment is still not visible, so I have to assume that someone is actively moderating comments.
It's not nice to have a "Leave comment" area, and then have comments not appear, sort of creates the false impression that the articles are validated by public comment and scrutiny, when they are not!
Update: See comment by Esther Schindler below. I have renamed the title of this post to "Technical Snag", because perhaps that is what it was. Or maybe I didn't go through the confirm process. Anyway, whether the comment was on CIO.com, or on my site, I've made my views about the article public, which was my intent anyway.