Slashdot Mirror

Server Core is unfortunately pretty useless. Nearly everything of importance needs to be done using a remote server manager GUI, or MMC snap-ins on a desktop which, in my experience, are both slow and buggy. There's also not a snap-in for everything. For example: networking. Doing anything beyond setting the IP address for a network adapter (ie. disabling ipv6) has to all be done in the registry, and basic functionality like creating a PPTP connectoid is simply impossible.

There's many other basic server tasks you can't perform like installing exchange, even though 2010 can be entirely managed from powershell.

In short, Windows is entirely dependent on the GUI.

(Posting anonymously because I do not want random slashdotter's taking it upon themselves to start reconing the network)

We use Citrix and GPOs. The company I work for deals with complex disputes and investigations (read: major lawsuits involving the SEC, DOJ, Fortune 50 corporations, etc)

There are multiple layers of security, but in a nutshell we limit users to specific accounts that are logon restricted to specific machines. Those machines have all of their USB ports, DVD drives, etc disabled. The accounts and machines cannot access the internet, or file shares, or any other location that might be used to copy client data. Each client is segregated from every other client. It is a massive, administrative headache and requires a lot of specialized scripting to monitor the ACLs and make sure that permissions are not being modified.

The machines that the users log onto are basically dumb terminals for Citrix. They launch the Citrix session and do all of their work in the Citrix farm. Access is controlled to the Citrix farm via VLANs and firewall ACLs. Data is kept in CIFS shares (We are a Windows shop) and access to the CIFS shares is default deny with white lists to specific hosts. ACLs are audited quarterly and we have a whole process to wind down engagement and revoke user rights.

When we do need to get data in and out of the environment, we have custom daemons (specially written PowerShell "constrained endpoints" http://blogs.technet.com/b/heyscriptingguy/archive/2012/07/27/an-introduction-to-powershell-remoting-part-five-constrained-powershell-endpoints.aspx) that basically function as batch processors to move files back and forth between known locations. The endpoint accounts run in non-interactive mode.

It is a major PITA to stay on top of. Some of our clients are the largest financial institutions in the world, and they audit us on a yearly basis due to the sensitivity of the data that we have access to and the regulations that they are subjected to.

The users are constantly trying to circumvent the controls to make their lives easier. I have to play bad cop more frequently than I want to. We have fired people for repeatedly attempting to "make their lives easier". Our clients do not pay us so that our lives can be easy. Our clients pay us to keep their data safe and assist them with high risk, data driven events.

Then you can use the methods other people have said. I didn't say that it works in every case (someone else has complained about the requirement of having a Windows key), but it covers almost all cases.

Also, just in the off chance that you don't know this and be helpful, apparently you can set remote desktop so that it will always forward the Windows key to the remote host. (See the "alternatively, ..." bit here.) Again, not saying this is better or worse; you may or may not like it.

What is the WinSxS directory and why is it so large?

The TL;DR from that link is that Windows now stores what is basically a copy of the install DVD on the hard drive. Not only that, but when you install libraries, Windows keeps a second copy of them in WinSxS. Forever. Even if you upgrade to a newer version of that library, the old one is still kept and the new version is also added to WinSxS.

It even keeps pre-Service Pack copies of files that got upgraded in a Service Pack.

ok, so it is still considered harmful or was that the usual guff about how DirectX (or whatever brand-name they're pushing today) is vastly superior to anything standard.

Have they done anything with WebGL to "fix" the mentioned problems, or have they just realized no-one listens to their FUD anymore?

Sure you can. Heck, if you have the right version of Windows, you can even eschew the GUI entirely and go straight to the command line. Or, if you're looking for a lightweight DE, you could opt for the Minimal Server Interface.

Granted, it's not quite fvwm, and it's certainly not available on consumer-grade Windows, but it's out there if you really want it and are willing to fork out the money for it.

I'm probably going to sound like a shill but I'm not. I've been in the Microsoft World my entire life. They have a lot of tools (in a lot of cases free) to help people learn it's just that you have to find them.

go to http://borntolearn.mslearn.net/

To learn about not only classes and books to get certified but also free videos on what the exams use.

And the FREE tools. Some are time limited from 90 or 180 days. You can get free copies of Hyper-V ( http://blogs.technet.com/b/keithmayer/archive/2013/04/05/getting-started-with-hyper-v-server-2012-hyperv-virtualization-itpro.aspx#.UbH21efI58E ) , Free Copies of Windows 8 (90 days), Server 2012 (180 days http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/evaluate/trial-software.aspx ), Free copies of SQL Server 2012 ( http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sqlserver/get-sql-server/try-it.aspx ), and so on. All you need to do is provide a machine to run them on. I have the free Hyper-V running free copies of windows 8, server 2012, and Sql server for my learning environment. Sure they are timed and you have to start over every so often but who cares it just gets easer sinc eyou know what you are doign the secord/thrid time around or you can also use the free virtual labs at http://technet.microsoft.com/en-US/virtuallabs

Other resoruces Microsoft DreamSpark if you want to go that route https://www.dreamspark.com/

Channel 9 http://channel9.msdn.com/

Microsoft Virtual Academy https://www.microsoftvirtualacademy.com/

Microsoft Springboard series that covers new topics for ITs. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-US/springboard

If you can go the Hypter-V route microsoft will soemtimes have preloaded virtual machines that have everything configured and ready to learn off of. can't find my links for the ones in the past I've used but once you keep up to date with the other resources you see.

MSE for Corporate customers is Forefont. So yes, there is a "pay version" it's just reserved for business use.

According to the article the message is sent to your phone via Text Message, NOT email.

Both TFA [1] and, more importantly and more explicitly, the actual Microsoft announcement [2] linked in TFA on which TFA is based note that users have the option of using either a secondary email address (to which email is sent) instead of a mobile phone number (to which SMS is sent) for the "second step".

[1]: "Microsoft is using additional verification methods such as a short code sent to the user's mobile phone, which is then entered in addition to the password, or by asking the user to supply additional information, such as an alternative email address."

[2]: "This release enables optional two-step verification for your entire Microsoft account. Two-step verification is when we ask you for two pieces of information anytime you access your account — for example, your password plus a code sent to a phone or email on file as security info."

This means you have to physically have access to the phone to receive the message.

If SMS was the only second-step option (or even, the only option other than the dedicated authenticator app), and if SMS was a secure channel such that being able to capture the SMS required having physical access to the phone, this would be correct. Neither of these, however, is true.

If Microsoft at least disclosed to consumers that some of the options they provide were weaker-security options, this probably wouldn't be a big deal; as it is, Microsoft is adding something that seems attractive based on what people no doubt here about "two-factor authentication", with a deliberately similar name ("two-step authentication"), which includes multiple alternatives designed to make it more convenient, without disclosing that those alternatives undermine the security benefit of two-factor authentication.

The new option Microsoft authentication approach, as they describe it, is "two-step authentication", not "two-factor authentication". And, while the correct choice among the options they provide might make it two-factor authentication, they don't seem to focus on that in any particular way.

Two-factor authentication is "something you have and something you know" (commonly, the something you know is a password, the something you have is a device generating comfirmation codes.) The options for the second step in authentication (password is the required first step for Microsoft accounts) include a code sent to an email address on file, making it "something you know" (your Microsoft account password" plus "something else you know" (the password to alternative email.)

(Plus, since its sent through regular plaintext email if you are using that option, the second "step", in that case, relies on you supplying back information that Microsoft sends you over a completely insecure channel.)

I understand the *convenience* offered by the alternative to actual two-factor authentication here, but I don't understand why this is done since the convenience in "two-step" authentication that allows you to choose for it not to be two-factor authentication defeats the entire purpose of not using simple one-factor authentication.

According to the article the message is sent to your phone via Text Message, NOT email. This means you have to physically have access to the phone to receive the message. Combine this with your password and that sure seems like 2 factors to me.

The new option Microsoft authentication approach, as they describe it, is "two-step authentication", not "two-factor authentication". And, while the correct choice among the options they provide might make it two-factor authentication, they don't seem to focus on that in any particular way.

Two-factor authentication is "something you have and something you know" (commonly, the something you know is a password, the something you have is a device generating comfirmation codes.) The options for the second step in authentication (password is the required first step for Microsoft accounts) include a code sent to an email address on file, making it "something you know" (your Microsoft account password" plus "something else you know" (the password to alternative email.)

(Plus, since its sent through regular plaintext email if you are using that option, the second "step", in that case, relies on you supplying back information that Microsoft sends you over a completely insecure channel.)

I understand the *convenience* offered by the alternative to actual two-factor authentication here, but I don't understand why this is done since the convenience in "two-step" authentication that allows you to choose for it not to be two-factor authentication defeats the entire purpose of not using simple one-factor authentication.

This happened almost 7 years ago

Relatedly, I believe the reason that Word is being used as the exploit vector on Windows is because it doesn't have the sandboxing of IE/Firefox/Chrome. While you could get a lot more people to run the Windows attack code if you posted it on websites, it doesn't do any good when every popular browser newer than IE6 is locked down to not be able to launch arbitrary programs or write to most of the filesystem or registry.

Actually from Office 2010 onwards it does have a sandboxed mode which is triggered based on the origin of the document:
http://blogs.technet.com/b/office2010/archive/2009/08/13/protected-view-in-office-2010.aspx

Incidentally I'm not sure Firefox has a sandbox as such at least on Windows - e.g. it doesn't run as a low integrity process like IE.

After a decade in the console market Microsoft's Xbox 360 is the last place console this gen

(Emphasis added)

You might want to pull your head out of your ass before sticking your foot halfway down your throat:

360 Maintains Lead in US Console Market (TechNet blog - Feb 2012)
Xbox maintains Console lead in US for 18th consecutive month(ZD Net - Jul 2012)
Xbox 360 marks 22 months atop U.S. console market(Geekwire - Nov 2012)

Seriously, how the fuck do any of those stats equate to: "it's [a] failure"??

In fact, it's only when you compare world-wide figures for ALL generations of Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo consoles that Microsoft comes in 3rd place (~25% marketshare). But that's including Sony's PS/1, PS/2 AND PS/3 sales and all of Nintendo's sales against the original xBox and the 360. (Bearing in mind that Microsoft didn't enter the game until the PS/2 came out!) Nevertheless, in the current gen, Xbox has sold more current-gen consoles month over month than Sony; virtually for the entire life of the PS/3 and the 360 has surpassed both the PS/3 AND Wii sales for the past two years.

What matters though, is that at the current time, Microsoft is the king of the pile for current gen consoles in North America, and is continuing to make money for MS as the major players move towards the next-gen, so, by any measure, it's definitely not a "failure"... (it MADE Microsoft in-excess of US$56bn over the past 7 years, if that's a "failure", you can sign me up to "fail" just like that!)

So, maybe, in the future, when you're thinking about mouthing-off over something you don't know fuck-all about, you should just STFU and appear contemplative instead of retarded?

-AC

You think that's bad? Microsoft just announced pricing for the Surface Pro: $899. Yeah, those things will really be flying off the shelves when you can easily buy an ordinary laptop or even an iPad for <500. Granted, you're getting some modestly decent hardware for the price (i5, 1920x1080 display), but, seriously? $899? Who is going to buy that unless they are particularly enamored with Windows 8? And as near as I can tell, the keyboard isn't included in the price.

Bonus: it won't be available until January.

On the plus side, I guess the hardware manufacturers won't be grumbling as much.

It's not disk space that's the issue (and indeed, it's my understanding that Exchange already does this and has done so since at least the days of 5.5)

Nope.

All versions between Exchange 4.0 and Exchange 2003 did single-instancing of both messages and attachments.
With Exchange 2007, that changed to just attachments: http://blogs.technet.com/b/exchange/archive/2008/02/08/3404852.aspx
With Exchange 2010, that changed to no single-instancing at all: http://blogs.technet.com/b/exchange/archive/2010/02/22/3409361.aspx

Disk storage space is now addressed by compression of HTML/text bodies.

It's not disk space that's the issue (and indeed, it's my understanding that Exchange already does this and has done so since at least the days of 5.5)

Nope.

All versions between Exchange 4.0 and Exchange 2003 did single-instancing of both messages and attachments.
With Exchange 2007, that changed to just attachments: http://blogs.technet.com/b/exchange/archive/2008/02/08/3404852.aspx
With Exchange 2010, that changed to no single-instancing at all: http://blogs.technet.com/b/exchange/archive/2010/02/22/3409361.aspx

Disk storage space is now addressed by compression of HTML/text bodies.

Single Instance Storage

Surprisingly:
System Center 2012 Extends Client Management and Security to Mac and Linux

The point is that advertisers WILL (and want to) take this seriously on the server level, as long as the user KNOWINGLY sets the DNT option on. But, if it is abused by certain software vendors, the whole exercise is going to be rendered pointless.

TechRepublic noted this a while ago and provided detailed instructions on how to work-around the issue.

I found it:
Windows server backup not exchange aware
We have decided to develop and release a VSS-based plug-in for Windows Server Backup that will enable you to properly backup and restore Exchange 2007 with a built-in Windows 2008 backup application.
While you will be able to backup and restore Exchange 2007 on Windows 2008, you should not expect feature parity with the Windows 2003 NTBackup experience.

The removal of NTBackup / its (known) inferior successor:
(Reasons listed there roughly boil down to, 1) most people get third party software; 2) ntbackup was never meant to be an enterprise solution; 3) we think optical media is the future and that tape sucks)

There are lots and lots of other posts on this. More to the point, the features you mention are brand new as of R2-- they were not there in the original release:
Windows Server Backup in Windows Server 2008 R2 includes the following improvements:
More flexibility in what you can back up. Windows Server Backup enables you to back up selected files instead of full volumes. You can also exclude files based on file type and path.

That is, you simply couldnt do this prior to R2, which, along with no tape and no exchange support, made it utterly fall off of my (and many others') radars as utterly irrelevant. Basically all of the cool features you mention simply werent there in the initial release-- it was a straight dumb "image the whole box or nothing at all" program, except it wouldnt even work if you had stuff like Exchange or HyperV and no VSS plugin.

Not only that, but even if I had noticed that release-- which TBQH i did not-- NTBackup was already such a disaster that I would be hesitant even now to return to something like WSB.

It sounds like your experience is mostly with Win Server R2 and above, which is fine; if thats true, just keep in mind that there are a lot of us with horror stories of NTBackup, and that WinServer2008 was not always as polished as it is now.

I found it:
Windows server backup not exchange aware
We have decided to develop and release a VSS-based plug-in for Windows Server Backup that will enable you to properly backup and restore Exchange 2007 with a built-in Windows 2008 backup application.
While you will be able to backup and restore Exchange 2007 on Windows 2008, you should not expect feature parity with the Windows 2003 NTBackup experience.

The removal of NTBackup / its (known) inferior successor:
(Reasons listed there roughly boil down to, 1) most people get third party software; 2) ntbackup was never meant to be an enterprise solution; 3) we think optical media is the future and that tape sucks)

There are lots and lots of other posts on this. More to the point, the features you mention are brand new as of R2-- they were not there in the original release:
Windows Server Backup in Windows Server 2008 R2 includes the following improvements:
More flexibility in what you can back up. Windows Server Backup enables you to back up selected files instead of full volumes. You can also exclude files based on file type and path.

That is, you simply couldnt do this prior to R2, which, along with no tape and no exchange support, made it utterly fall off of my (and many others') radars as utterly irrelevant. Basically all of the cool features you mention simply werent there in the initial release-- it was a straight dumb "image the whole box or nothing at all" program, except it wouldnt even work if you had stuff like Exchange or HyperV and no VSS plugin.

Not only that, but even if I had noticed that release-- which TBQH i did not-- NTBackup was already such a disaster that I would be hesitant even now to return to something like WSB.

It sounds like your experience is mostly with Win Server R2 and above, which is fine; if thats true, just keep in mind that there are a lot of us with horror stories of NTBackup, and that WinServer2008 was not always as polished as it is now.

Windows 2012 has built-in post processes duping so just upgrade your system: http://blogs.technet.com/b/filecab/archive/2012/05/21/introduction-to-data-deduplication-in-windows-server-2012.aspx

Check out dedup in Windows Server 2012 - http://blogs.technet.com/b/filecab/archive/2012/05/21/introduction-to-data-deduplication-in-windows-server-2012.aspx

The video linked in the Technet announcement is interesting:

blue: Windows
red: Office
green: XBOX
yellow: ???

Maybe Microsoft is planning a new product line ... (if yellow was Server or dev tools there would be no reason not to include it in the video)

Hmm I would have thought ...

Blue - Windows (For BSOD)
Red - XBox (For RROD)
Yellow - ASP/.NET (Yellow screen of death)
Green - ... Okay stuck on this one.

Aaron

Wow, oh wow! Whoa! A square rainbow! WHAT DOES IT MEAN!?!? T_T

The video linked in the Technet announcement is interesting:

blue: Windows
red: Office
green: XBOX
yellow: ???

Maybe Microsoft is planning a new product line ... (if yellow was Server or dev tools there would be no reason not to include it in the video)

According to the Microsoft blog (which wasn't linked in the PC Pro article), you're correct.

The link in the summary doesn't work for me. This is the correct link:

http://blogs.technet.com/b/security/archive/2012/08/02/microsoft-s-free-security-tools-attack-surface-analyzer.aspx

I suggest taking a look at Windows Server 2012 File Server role - W2K12 - deduplication is an in box feature
- SMB Multichannel - better performance uisng 4 TCP channels
- Storage Spaces - SAN like features with no special hardware (this is not dynamic volume)
- Thin provisioning - using Spaces, Windows can create TP LUNs
- NFS 4 server - in box role in W2K12
- Resilient File System (ReFS) - high degree of compatibility with the most common NTFS features, but has resiliency and scalability features that go beyond NTFS
- Windows Server Backup - now supports backup to the cloud (in box feature)
- Support for Hyper-V VMs - now Hyper-V supports running VMs using a file server and SMB 3.0
- Scale-out - with more than one server, File Server can be configured in a scale out mode for better scalability

Sources:
http://www.windowsnetworking.com/articles_tutorials/Overview-File-Server-Role-Windows-Server-8-Failover-Clustering.html
http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/windows-server/top-ten-windows-server-2012-storage-enhancements-143157
http://blogs.technet.com/b/windowsserver/archive/2012/03/28/microsoft-online-backup-service.aspx
http://blogs.technet.com/b/bettertogether/archive/2012/07/21/windows-server-2012-part2-virtualization-enhancements-scalability-amp-flexibility.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/windows-server/2012-editions.aspx

Full disclosure: I do work for Microsoft. I am a senior program manager on the Virtual Machine Manager team. I work on Storage Automation using SNIA SMI-S/ My blog is: http://blogs.technet.com/b/hectorl

I suggest taking a look at Windows Server 2012 File Server role - W2K12 - deduplication is an in box feature
- SMB Multichannel - better performance uisng 4 TCP channels
- Storage Spaces - SAN like features with no special hardware (this is not dynamic volume)
- Thin provisioning - using Spaces, Windows can create TP LUNs
- NFS 4 server - in box role in W2K12
- Resilient File System (ReFS) - high degree of compatibility with the most common NTFS features, but has resiliency and scalability features that go beyond NTFS
- Windows Server Backup - now supports backup to the cloud (in box feature)
- Support for Hyper-V VMs - now Hyper-V supports running VMs using a file server and SMB 3.0
- Scale-out - with more than one server, File Server can be configured in a scale out mode for better scalability

Sources:
http://www.windowsnetworking.com/articles_tutorials/Overview-File-Server-Role-Windows-Server-8-Failover-Clustering.html
http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/windows-server/top-ten-windows-server-2012-storage-enhancements-143157
http://blogs.technet.com/b/windowsserver/archive/2012/03/28/microsoft-online-backup-service.aspx
http://blogs.technet.com/b/bettertogether/archive/2012/07/21/windows-server-2012-part2-virtualization-enhancements-scalability-amp-flexibility.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/windows-server/2012-editions.aspx

Full disclosure: I do work for Microsoft. I am a senior program manager on the Virtual Machine Manager team. I work on Storage Automation using SNIA SMI-S/ My blog is: http://blogs.technet.com/b/hectorl

I suggest taking a look at Windows Server 2012 File Server role - W2K12 - deduplication is an in box feature
- SMB Multichannel - better performance uisng 4 TCP channels
- Storage Spaces - SAN like features with no special hardware (this is not dynamic volume)
- Thin provisioning - using Spaces, Windows can create TP LUNs
- NFS 4 server - in box role in W2K12
- Resilient File System (ReFS) - high degree of compatibility with the most common NTFS features, but has resiliency and scalability features that go beyond NTFS
- Windows Server Backup - now supports backup to the cloud (in box feature)
- Support for Hyper-V VMs - now Hyper-V supports running VMs using a file server and SMB 3.0
- Scale-out - with more than one server, File Server can be configured in a scale out mode for better scalability

Sources:
http://www.windowsnetworking.com/articles_tutorials/Overview-File-Server-Role-Windows-Server-8-Failover-Clustering.html
http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/windows-server/top-ten-windows-server-2012-storage-enhancements-143157
http://blogs.technet.com/b/windowsserver/archive/2012/03/28/microsoft-online-backup-service.aspx
http://blogs.technet.com/b/bettertogether/archive/2012/07/21/windows-server-2012-part2-virtualization-enhancements-scalability-amp-flexibility.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/windows-server/2012-editions.aspx

Full disclosure: I do work for Microsoft. I am a senior program manager on the Virtual Machine Manager team. I work on Storage Automation using SNIA SMI-S/ My blog is: http://blogs.technet.com/b/hectorl

I'd KILL for an official Control Panel option in Windows to allow me to customize the BSOD screen. Power Ranger Pink anyone?

http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2011/01/11/3379158.aspx

The "Notmyfault" link.

I saw an article about this already on Ars Technica. However, Ars included one detail that the Slashdot and Security Week stories don't:
Microsoft issued an emergency update Sunday that updated the Windows Certificate Revocation List specifically to expire the certificate used by this exploit.

LOL.. I love idiots like you.. You see two words in an article think your ridiculous theory is anything other than laughable.

Microsoft did not sign the malware. They were not "in" on it - whatever that means in your deranged mind.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/srd/archive/2012/06/03/microsoft-certification-authority-signing-certificates-added-to-the-untrusted-certificate-store.aspx

Specifically, when an enterprise customer requests a Terminal Services activation license, the certificate issued by Microsoft in response to the request allows code signing without accessing Microsoftâ(TM)s internal PKI infrastructure.

This attack could have been done by anyone. So.. No, sorry, your theory is still stupid, and sadly you still lack any mental capacity to understand things beyond superficial similarities.

The certs issues from the Terminal Server Licensing Service were intended to be used only for connections and not code signing. This is Microsoft's blunder. They weren't actually licensing malicious certificates but they were giving people tools to issue what appeared to be valid certs coming from MS.

The fixes are going to be changing TSLS so that its certs can no longer be used to sign code and revoking the intermediate CA certs that are affected.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/msrc/archive/2012/06/03/microsoft-releases-security-advisory-2718704.aspx

You don't even need to "give" them out. Flame was "signed by Microsoft" by exploiting a vulnerability in Terminal Services Licensing Server.

"Specifically, our Terminal Server Licensing Service, which allowed customers to authorize Remote Desktop services in their enterprise, used that older algorithm and provided certificates with the ability to sign code, thus permitting code to be signed as if it came from Microsoft."

from Microsoft releases Security Advisory 2718704

"Microsoft does not yet respond to the DNT signal, but we are actively working with other advertising industry leaders on what an implementation plan for DNT might look like, with a goal of announcing more details about our plans in the coming months."

http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2012/05/31/advancing-consumer-trust-and-privacy-internet-explorer-in-windows-8.aspx

So basically, this is all about screwing anyone who honors DNT by competitively disadvantaging them in the marketplace relative to Microsoft -- a statement I'll happily retract as soon as they start honoring DNT themselves, rather than just using it as an anticompetitive weapon in IE10.

This pretty much implies they are once again wielding their monopolistic power in the marketplace to promote their own products and services. Isn't this what got them into trouble last time?

-- Terry

Vista Aero was introduced in RTM too.

Not according to Wikipedia. It claims that Aero first made an appearance in Vista Beta 1 and that it was feature complete by build 5270 (the December Community Technology Preview). After that there were many releases including Beta 2 and Release Candidates 1 & 2.

Both of them are system logs, not application logs. Please tell me what advantage would you get from knowing what was the process id at the time of execution, since (usually) you can't have services with the same name running at the same time

The Windows XP event viewer application log does not have the process ID either. I don't think I have seen event viewer application logs include the process ID unless the application itself explicitly logs it. As for actual application specific logging, you can't use that to prove that Windows logging is OK. It's more likely to support the assertion that Windows logging is inadequate/crap!

The advantage of the process ID is you know which process logged the message. A few examples of how it can be useful:
1) If a process with crappy logging is restarted it typically ends up with a different process ID, seeing that different process ID already tells you that it somehow has been restarted even if there is no log of the startup or shutdown events.
2) If there are multiple processes for good or bad reasons, you can tell the difference between them and you can know that there are multiple processes (which sometimes can be the problem - service did not stop properly and another instance is trying to start).
3) you may be already monitoring the processes using procmon or other stuff . Having the process ID allows you to figure out which process logged the messages and correlate it with the other stuff you are monitoring via other means (registry and file access).

Having this included by default in the log means that even if the application logging sucks you still can get some useful info. The process IDs you see in those application logs are because someone decided they would be useful and so logged them.

So I don't know why you claim logging the process ID isn't useful. I think you yourself should be able to come up with many other reasons why it could be useful.

You example is apples and oranges. The errors you mentioned are _parsing errors_, not runtime errors.

That was a run-time error. It only shows up while the program runs. I could write a program that'll only show this error half the time it runs. So how's that a parsing error?

Try with a compiled language.

if you can access the message, you can easily examine the path taken. But hey, maybe your problems are more complex - I don't know.

The issue was the message was not arriving at all. And we had to figure out where it was blocked or died, AND WHY. All we know is the subject, the sender, the recipient and the content. With most "unix" style mail transport that is more than enough to figure stuff out in a few minutes. With Exchange, it seems way harder, just look at this: http://blogs.technet.com/b/messaging_with_communications/archive/2011/04/22/how-to-track-message-in-exchange-2003-2007-2010.aspx
I'm sure there are other approaches (we just resorted to trial and error ;) ), but do show me a simple one. As simple or simpler than the postfix equivalent (since you're familiar with postfix).

But many applications have separate logging (SQL Server, PostgreSQL, MySQL) to help with that. I'm not saying Windows logging is perfect, but it is not the unusable pile of crap everyone that never tried to use it say it is

I've used it a lot and "windows event viewer" logging is crap and crappier than it should be. That's why my applications by default log to text files instead of the windows event logger.

Then I can use stuff like baretail on the text file and see stuff happening in near real time without having to keep refreshing. With highlighting too.

Or grep for significant events - my log lines have a section that has more hashes for increasing severity, for example INFO level

He warned Cebit delegates that unless young citizens were provided with safe and reliable ways to vote online, democracy as we know it could be dead within 20 years. People would expect biometric, cryptographic online identification verification that was 100 per cent secure in order to vote online.

Without that he said that without that conventional modes of democracy could be extinct within two decades as the younger generation would not vote in a conventional physical polling booth, which could lead to âoevery serious conflict between the generations.â

Really young'uns won't show up to the ye olde fashioned polling boothe? And his evidence for this is.. what exactly? The Arab Spring, where polling booths ..... didn't work... correctly?

He recommends biometrics.. what biometrics exactly? Surely not this:

http://blogs.technet.com/b/steriley/archive/2006/09/20/457845.aspx

While I've not tried it myself, it is widely reported that Vista SP1 is, in fact, much better that Vista at first release. There are your patches. BTW, the "new kernel" seems to be a minor upgrade, unless Microsoft has wildly exotic ideas about version numbering:

Windows Vista pre-SP1 is Windows version 6.0 build 6000 (6.0.6000) whereas Windows Vista SP1 RTM is version 6.0 build 6001 (6.0.6001) â" the same as Server 2008.

In my world, going from version 6.0 build 6000 to version 6.0 build 6001 might be a bugfix release, but major changes would get at least a version 6.1.

And under the hood, Windows 7 differs very little from Vista. One could say it is Vista SP3 with a new look and slighly relaxed UAC. I tend to believe this is true and the release of Windows 7 was mostly a clever marketing ploy to get rid of the tainted name "Vista".

By the way, this is not meant as an apology for Microsoft. While I don't buy every rumour about collusion with big entertainment, you might have noticed that I do think they are guilty of sloppy software engineering. One particular embarrassing example:
In Vista pre-SP1, various sources reported much diminished network throughput while playing back multimedia. See Mark Russinovich's blog: http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2007/08/27/1833290.aspx.
To me, that does not smell of conspiracies, but of incompetence in project management. Obviously, Microsoft with all its ressources was not able to develop a mature new OS within the six years between XP and Vista. It took another year until SP 1 appeared and fixed the worst bugs. In other words, Vista was both "long overdue" and still rushed in terms of being not mature at release.

No 1 console worldwide.. 49% marketshare

Except that the Wii has outsold the Xbox 360 worldwide

See that underline thingy.. click on it, and read the words on that page.

Xbox outsold, in number of units, all other consoles, including the Wii, in 2011.

produce the next product that would end up in every home - but Microsoft, under Ballmer's guidance, didn't.

BS. Ballmer took over in 2000.. the XBox was released in 2001.

No 1 console worldwide.. 49% marketshare

If that doesn't count, then what would?

Except that the Wii has outsold the Xbox 360 worldwide, despite the fact that Microsoft's product was out longer. The only reason why Microsoft is where they are right now is because the Wii is now entering EOL, mostly because Nintendo decided to use older technology.

It is also an open question if Xbox is profitable. Both Sony and Microsoft spent a lot of money on their consoles this generation and I don't think either have gotten their money back on it yet.

BS. Ballmer took over in 2000.. the XBox was released in 2001.

No 1 console worldwide.. 49% marketshare

If that doesn't count, then what would?

Two things:

1) The XBox still has yet to realize ROI - Twelve Years Later, and pulled in no profits at all until 2009 or so. The XBox program may finally reach ROI in 2015, but there's the fact that they'll have to start sinking even more money into R&D for the next gen console before then, so even that date is an iffy proposition. Most tech companies would have called that a miserable failure by now, if they had managed to survive such a massive loss. Nintendo had OTOH made a pure profit off of their line and usually reach ROI for any given console line within a few months of release. Sony is a bit tougher to see because their primary goal was not just selling consoles, but selling Blu-Ray players.

2) Ballmer was officially CEO in 2000, but Gates held the Chairman of the Board slot for quite some time after that - and if you don't think Gates called the shots during that time with Ballmer as a figurehead-in-transition, you're either naive or lying.

Why would you remove him? In the past 10 years he has increased revenue 3x to 73b and net income 3.3x to 25b. A year after he become ceo the xbox was launched, and it now has 49% marketshare.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=msft
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2001/jul01/07-19Q014ER.aspx

If I only care about the stock price, then ballmer has been terrible. But if I care about the actual health of the company? Then ballmer has been pretty great. I think anyone who seriously thinks he should be replaced really only cares about their own profits from the stock.. we really don't need more companies that only care about this quarter's profits and CEOs who only value their own stock options.

produce the next product that would end up in every home - but Microsoft, under Ballmer's guidance, didn't.

BS. Ballmer took over in 2000.. the XBox was released in 2001.

No 1 console worldwide.. 49% marketshare

If that doesn't count, then what would?

Microsoft's stock price - while fairly high - has remained constant for ten years, while many of its competitors have seen enormous growth

Stock price is a terrible metric. For example, it will value a company that has increased its revenue from 25 billion to 73 billion, and increased its net income from 7.35 billion to 23.34 billion in 10 years exactly the same.

Now to me, 25 billion is less than 73 billion, and 7.35 billion is less than 23.34 billion... so I would think if a company did that, their share price would be higher, right?

Yet, that's exactly the position Microsoft finds itself in. Is this Microsoft's fault, or the investors who don't know basic math?

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=msft
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2001/jul01/07-19Q014ER.aspx

So, I see you're having trouble w/ this too -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2802947&cid=39776295

(in regards to Jay "fatboy" Little)

This too -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2802947&cid=39771369 where I merely asked you to disprove my points on hosts files!

Why's that, hmmm? You can't... & that IS that.

LMAO @ U: U FAIL, or better yet? This will "tell the tale" on you here -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVmBAd76kak from my fav. film this year (Capt. America)

Yes, there also in the link about Blimp-Boy Jay Little??

Unfortunately, I also took down a former "co-contractor/co-worker" for Sunbelt Software in the mid-to-late 1990's of mine Dr. Mark Russinovich (now @ Microsoft), as well in that exchange @ Windows IT Pro forums also...

Dr. Mark Russinovich PhD, whose work I even corrected "rookie hardcodes" before that article & by telling him how/what/when/where/why it failed (pagedefrag.exe -> http://www.pcmech.com/article/defragging-the-windows-page-file/ ) to which he thanked me for in email)

Hey - @ least he did THAT - he has class... Jay "fatboy" Little doesn't & got severely BURNED for it. Served him right, he brought it on himself.

However, Dr. Mark's SUPPOSED to know the OS inside-out, & is often referred to as such...

(Certainly as a PhD, & not to hardcode as well being a doctor of computing, literally...!)

However... then, I blew his doors out for attacking a class of apps I wrote the 1st GUI model of!

Bigtime... absolutely.

See - PhD's don't matter to me, I take them on & dust them too... Especially when I can PROVE I am literally correct! And, I did... bigtime, see the link on Jay Little... lol!

(MS did one before it in character mode, clearmem.exe, that is proven to unfragment RAM & get stalled or lagged Exchange Servers working again without reboots - which is part of how I absolutely "DUSTED" Blimp-Boy Jay Little, to which all he has now is a lot of "b.s." on his personal website... lol!)

* HOWEVER - Unlike Jay Little? Well... Dr. Mark Russinovich of Microsoft I respect though!

I even wished him well @ MS after that fiasco @ Windows IT Pro -> http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2006/07/18/on-my-way-to-microsoft.aspx because he created ProcessExplorer (I can't & won't disrespect a guy that does that).

In fact?

I think HE ought to be the next guy to lead MS -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2792155&cid=39718511 even though "lil' ole' me" has "proven the GOOD DOCTOR WRONG" & even had to show him how & WHY to correct wares of his before too.

APK

P.S.=> Poor trolls... above all else - Do you *think* I'm going to follow you links OFF of this site here, onto 4Chan, home of trolls/hacker-crackers, etc./et al?

No, I don't *think* so... lol!

... apkDr. Mark's SUPPOSED to know the OS inside-out, even had to show him how

The current Xbox 360 is still generating massive amounts of revenue, http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2012/01/12/xbox-360-extends-win-streak-to-12-straight-months-with-banner-holiday-sales.aspx, if they introduce a new platform, it will kill off the current version and forego the millions in additional revenue by extending the life of the 360. only when sales start to slump will the 720 be announced.

It's ok, because they will just suddenly pull the plug and cease all development for the Xbox 360 when the 720 is announced. Microsoft did this with the first get Xbox and I have the utmost confidence that they will do it again once their next gen is ready to be launched.

The current Xbox 360 is still generating massive amounts of revenue, http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2012/01/12/xbox-360-extends-win-streak-to-12-straight-months-with-banner-holiday-sales.aspx, if they introduce a new platform, it will kill off the current version and forego the millions in additional revenue by extending the life of the 360. only when sales start to slump will the 720 be announced.