Slashdot Mirror
Windows 2003 Going Gold
chill writes "According to CNet's News.com, 'Microsoft is expected to announce on Friday that Windows Server 2003 has completed testing and has been certified final, or gold, code.' With 35% of their server customers still using NT 4 -- the NT 4 that is so broke it can't be fixed -- Microsoft is hoping for quick adoption."
You can turn off the Luna interface and make XP look just like 2000.
I believe (tho I'm not certain) that Gold refers to the color of the CD master that goes off to get reproduced for mass consumption.
Going gold usually refers to the point at which the codebase is released to manufacturing for production. Everyone feels the product is ready (enoguh) for prime-time, and it's sent out to be mastered, reproduced, packaged, and readied for distribution to the retail/reseller channels.
Idiot, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant
however if you turn on the Themes service in win2003, they come right back.
A rather cynical view if I may so, but not unsual for /.
or buy a new system at an inflated price, that will do exactly the same thing your old system did,
That's hardly true now is it? There are likely to be a lot of things in 2003 that people want to use that were not in ealier versions of the OS. I know for example that our Windows guy wants the ability to rename Domains, something that isn't present in any previous version, but will be in 2003. You can argue of course that some of these feature should have been in earlier versions, but thats another matter altogether.
For the record, I'm a Linux admin, and use Windows as little as possible. But FUD is still FUD, no matter which side of the debate it originates.
You are correct, Sir, sort've. Gold used to refer to the color (and I believe also materials) of the CD master that was sent off for duplication. However, other higher performing and longer lasting materials have become available, and, as such, Gold cds are no longer gold. But the term has stuck.
There's also, of course, the joke that once it's gone gold, you can finally start making money off it, or brining in the gold.
bance.net
Windows 2003 Server doesn't support the XP interface at all. It looks like 2000 and you cannot make it look like Windows XP. A lot of the "eye candy" is left out; it has no place in a server GUI.
Apache + mod_perl + Apache::ASP
Impossible to get support for? Dude, where have you been?
Redhat,
Suse,
Mandrake,
Lindows
More!
It's just not true! Even if you meant free support, Debian offers that over IRC.
Really, the Linux thing isn't bad at all.
Don't get me wrong; I'm sure that our friends at the record labels are going to piss themselves in joy at this technology...but there actually is a use for it besides oppressing your right to copy music :)
m.
Photography, technology, and my dog Scout - http://mattstratton.com
ACL support for Linux has been available through SGI's XFS for a LONG time. SGI even provides pre-compiled kernels based on the Redhat kernels, for those who are scared of patching and compiling on their own.
Redhat 9 will have support for ACLs out of the box.
XFS offers acls and has been out for a few years now. The upcoming Reiser4 will support them and if I'm not mistaken the 2.5 series kernels will contain a common framework for acls so that one can switch between acl supporting filesystems with minimal breakage.
It CAN support ACL's, with one several patches: grsecurity
which includes PaX.
Check it out!
-- I speak only for myself.
The simple fact is that upgrading from NT4 is waaaaaaaay too hazardous to try. This seems like a joke, but it's not. My workplace upgraded from NT4 Terminal Server and some version of Citrix to Win2K and a newer version of Citrix, and it took us weeks and a ton of downtime to come even close to finished, because of conflicts with applications that had worked fine under NT4 TS, but now were crashing/running into permission blocks/etc under the new config. Not to mention the issues we had with upgrading profiles, and everything else. This is literally why our webserver is still NT4 SP6a, and our SQL server is MS SQL 7 on NT4. We're too afraid of the possible downtime associated with the upgrades of these absolutely critical boxes. True, the security risks could be just as bad, but when in doubt, my boss wants the status quo. My boss would love to go to a Unix, because it's free... but we've dumped an insane amount of money into licenses. So that's also impossible at this point. Good strangehold MS has, now that I think about it. =) -Greg
-Greg
We have 1 NT server left on our block of servers. It is a stand alone server and we just use the normal NTBackup to back it up. The funny thing is, we have to reboot the server everytime we want to back it up because NTBackup will not start unless we do. If we want 500 days uptime with ours, it would be at the cost of not backing up... :(
Actually, there's a maintainer for every (stable) version of the kernel. 1.3.x is not stable. But 2.2, 2.0, 1.2, 1.0, including even the 0.0x series, have a maintainer. And those maintainers do fix bugs if they are found. Embedded systems and special machines still use 1.2 or 2.0 nowadays. Recently a couple bugs was even fixed in v0.01.
Yeah, most of them do it for the kicks, or because they/their businesses need it. Your point was?
Home Page
Straight from the horses' mouth: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/mar0 3/03-28WNS2003RTMpr.asp
There are *3* service packs for Windows 2000, not 6. Do some research (http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/downloads/se rvicepacks/default.asp) next time instead of taking a random guess.
mcox.com - Useful Information re: IT, Running, Fitness, Finance, or Ann Arbor!
An experimental Python for .NET with full source and a whitepaper from our friends at ActiveState.
Of course you can.
Its called Windows + Cygnus + Lynx. Cygnus is also a good way to make a Windows server more friendly to admins who like the GNU environment, increase interoperability with UNIX platforms, and do some admin of the Windows server with XFree86 is you so desire.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
Uh, first the 0.01 patch was done as a joke. NOONE is running 0.01.
There's certainly no maintainer of the 1.0 stable branch. I'm pretty sure there's no real maintainer of the 1.2 branch either (those of use who were using linux in a production environment back then had either moved to "relatively stable" 1.3.X's or 1.2+ISS by the time 2.0 was released because 1.2 had issues... that's one reason why 2.0 was a major version bump - it really took the OS from fun toy to something you could seriously consider)
But you're right that 2.0, 2.2, and 2.4 are all actively maintained for security. There is little likelyhood that 2.0 will be officailly EOL'ed for security any time soon either.
You are either a liar or just wrong. Either way you need to visit this page. http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/ProductInfo/Avai lability/Retiring.aspi lability/faq.asp#16 :)
and this http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/ProductInfo/Ava
According to their own website they are supposed to provide security fixes up to January 2005. So while you would not expect they have said that they would and now are refusing to do so. This makes them LIARS . Now admit you are wrong.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.