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."
Too bad it'll be SP 1 or 2 in 2004 that'll leave it usable and somewhat secure. I actually prefer 2000. The XP interface and how it handles some things really left me cold.
I was led to this place, a place I can't understand. A place that demands my belief just as strongly as my disbelie
All Microsoft has to do to force people to purchase upgrades is include a fatal flaw in each of their released systems. Then, with their new found buy of a VM company, they can offer a new system (at a price) that is secure, but runs all the programs from the old system.
You are then left with a choice, stay with an unsecure system which will never be patched (unless independent sources patch the flaw,) or buy a new system at an inflated price, that will do exactly the same thing your old system did, but not have the fatal security flaw.
Really, it's quite an ingenious business plan, because they aren't forcing you to do anything, just making sure they get paid for all these patches they've been releasing for free.
I would not be surprised to start seeing them stop patching all their older OSes, and seeing their new OSes all include legacy VM support so you can run the old programs without the security bugs.
Then you are left to a choice, buy more software from Microsoft (so you can run securely), use OS software with respective VMs (and take the risk that all of your software won't work), or keep using your unsecure OS.
Unfortunately, for most businesses only one of those 3 options is viable.
~ kjrose
Is there really who will run a critical application on W2003 before sp1?
Wow, good timing! I just wonder how many network admins will get ticked off that MS didn't fix NT so they're going to try out something else for a change (ie, enter Linux). Most companies aren't willing to jump to a new server OS for mission critical applications, which is most likely WHY anyone would still have NT running. Very few people are comfortable running version 1.0 server software, which is essentially what this is.
I think it is a bit irresponsible for them to NOT support NT, and I just don't by the "too complex" architecture bit. Honestly, I think they don't want to fix it- it's time to move customers to the next version. They could come out with a really heavy service pack, but that probably doesn't make much business sense. It's likely they have a good grip on how many people are running NT still-- perhaps losing those customers are probably cheaper than doing another service pack? In addition, the only companies that REALLY need to be concerned are those that can't block the appropriate port with a firewall since that is a temporary fix.
I see a lot of sarcasm (not only here) on the subject of NT4 not being fixed. Let's not forget the OS was introduced in 96. I'm not sure about the rest of you but I'm not running a linux-distro that's 7 years old.
/(bb|[^b]{2})/
For whom, exactly, would this be a "Security enhancement"?
this time, its not Windows which can't be fixed, its the license. Nobody is going to upgrade to WS 2003 unless they have to. WinNT 4.0 is slow and insecure, agreed, but it does the job and has been fairly extensively debugged (after 6 or so Service Packs). This is even more incentive for people to use Linux, the transition is cheaper, and although the cost per techie is higher, the TCO is arguably lower. When will MS ever realise that the product isn't the problem?
Or how about the fact that if your NT 4.0 servers are inside the corperate forewall LEAVE THEM RUNNING. sorry but Nt4.0 makes a good Fileserver/SQL platform on good hardware. W2K other than the changes in the domain model offer's nothing to 90% of the server users outther eexcept a way to make the companies wallet lighter. and W2k3 is no better. we are just now finalizing the change to W2K on the desktops, XP is still prohibited on the network and we are one of the largest companies in the USA..
granted after the last merger the IT dept is now full of Microsoft Cheerleaders, but cince upper management is in the "SPEND LESS" mode getting linux in the door is still very easy. IT says no, I simply get a member of uppers sales management to approve it and they override the silly IT police.
The key to working with corperate IT is to use the leverage of the upper management to keep the IT department in line and doing their job of maintaining and increasing services for the company and the employees while using innovative and low cost solutions...
If you can do a linux project that will cost very little, WORK and can be maintained, I dont care what IT policy says, the upper management will let you do it.
This is my little secret, and it works great if you learn Corperate-speak and always talk in money to sales management.... Example.. "Switching to linux for this task will save us $$$$ on the next 4 quarters cash flow, which will get us closer to meeting budget."
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Your argument is quite logical based on your assumption/accusation. But, really, that's where the problem lies:
All Microsoft has to do to force people to purchase upgrades is include a fatal flaw in each of their released systems
Fine, call them idiots everytime a new security issue is found. Instead, you are insinuating that they PURPOSELY include holes PREMEDITATED before the release of the product under the ASSUMPTION that it will not be found until AFTER they release the latest greatest product.
their new OSes all include legacy VM support so you can run the old programs without the security bugs.
From your POV, this is support for your twisted accusation. Actually, it is a very customer friendly action. You can use what you have for now instead of insisting that you have to use "Mission Critical App your Business Would Fail Without.LATEST VERSION designed ONLY for Latest Windows (TM)"
Not a big deal that you can try to make this lousy argument. What is sad is that you found people to mod your post "Insightful" and "Interesting" while my post will soon be modded "Flamebait" and "Troll" becuase it is unpopular not to see ultimate evil in every action by M$
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
Ok, while Microsoft can certaintly afford to support their old OSs like NT4, and they probably should considering a lot of people use them. It's hard to blame them for not doing so. I mean, it's like people have this obsession with uptime. It wont destroy your company if you turn all the servers off for maybe an hour while you upgrade to 2k or now 2k3, or linux even.
I see it like this.
company: My computer is insecure, patch it.
MS: Your using an OS from years and years ago. Get a new one.
company: no.
is the same as
company: My house is insecure, upgrade the locks on my doors.
locksmith: You're using locks from the victorian era. There is no way to "upgrade" that. You just have to get modern locks, you know, ones that work. We've learned a lot about locks since then, and the ones we make now are actually useful.
company: no.
While there are tons of issues like having to pay MS for licenses, etc. etc. But when it all comes down to it its a matter of a company that can't stand to have their system down for a little bit of time. Sure, there are indeed some mission critical things that shouldn't go down, but its not like people will die. And if someone breaks in you'll lose a lot more than that little downtime would cost you. The only computers that can never go down are in a hospital, and even then only if they are keeping people alive. And those shouldn't be running Windows.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
"Or how about the fact that if your NT 4.0 servers are inside the corperate forewall LEAVE THEM RUNNING." Sure, this might work if the company trusts all their employees and never pisses any of them off. Don't forget that a massive number of attacks are internal.
Fine, call them idiots everytime a new security issue is found. Instead, you are insinuating that they PURPOSELY include holes PREMEDITATED before the release of the product under the ASSUMPTION that it will not be found until AFTER they release the latest greatest product.
I am not stating that they premeditate the insertion of the bug, but I am stating that they aren't going out of their way to remove them.
A majority of the bugs that have been discovered in windows would be easily caught by a proper security QA code review team.
I am more saying that they don't go out of their way to remove security bugs before release, not that they actively place bugs in there. It's not very easy to place a bug that seems like an accident and that won't be found by the public for a while.
Not a big deal that you can try to make this lousy argument. What is sad is that you found people to mod your post "Insightful" and "Interesting" while my post will soon be modded "Flamebait" and "Troll" becuase it is unpopular not to see ultimate evil in every action by M$
I find it disappointing that a person who obviously is knowledgeable and logical resorts to insulting not only me, but people who mod my post and people who mod yours. In a way it is an irony that you were wrong and your post was modded insightful (at least it was insightful when I first read it.) Personally though, I find your post very interesting and insightful, and it points out something that I had unfortunately failed to clarify my stance on.
I don't see ultimate evil in every action by Microsoft, I just see a lot of potential for abuse, and historically Microsoft has taken advantage of these opportunities. Perhaps this time they aren't, but unfortunately you and I will never truly know.
~ kjrose
The "source code", so to speak, for the Model T is out there, and Ford will not sue you for making or modifying Model T parts.
It is not unfair that Ford does not support the Model T, but it might be if they did what they are not doing: prevent the Model T devotees from "supporting" their cars.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Awfully convenient don't you think, that an UN-FIXABLE bug shows up in NT 4.0 right before 2003 server goes gold. Seems a little toooooo convenient to me.
Next thing ya know MS is going to tell us they didn't have anything to do with removing dividend taxes right after they started paying them.
- If you are a normal user, you could give a crap. No upgrade.
- If you are a developer, you might upgrade if you can afford it/justify it/take the time to stress it out. But I can't see much development moving to 2003 anytime soon, other than just testing on it.
- Most companies are in a bind, they've just figured out how to work 2K or XP upgades into their budgets/plans. 2003 is NOT going to be appealing for awhile.
- If they've already upgraded to 2K, they're not going anywhere. 2K's been solid for me, and it seems like the rest of the world generally agrees. (YMMV) At least we know of a lot of the problems with 2K and (if you've kept up with it) the patches are applied. No surprises. 2003? It's like opening a present from your grandmother. You have no idea what's inside, but you're pretty sure you're not going to like it.
- If you are using NT, you are either a) an NT zealot/whore and you wouldn't switch if God himself upgraded, b)you have so many scars from NT that you now feel obligated to your tormentor *crack!* Yes, Mistress!, or c) you are on NT for a reason...you have a 56 day uptime, the box sits in the corner under the donut rack, and has survived 3 major floods. You can't justify getting rid of it.
So. Microsoft releases yet another product to mediocre reviews and sluggish market response. Next.Blog,Twitter
You're very confident, aren't you? Shouldn't you be thinking about the downtime if one of your NT4 boxes gets exploited? That'll be even more costly. Personally, I would budget for costs of upgrading on separate hardware and make the move in a controlled manner, not when forced to by the next worm.
"it will cost a very large amount of money to re-train all of your NT people to Linux...."
Or to re-train them to Win2k. MS changed everything around and hid all of the old familiar tools under new headings. They even had to write a rather extensive document to help us find stuff again. (Start | Help, New ways to do familiar tasks)
Then in XP they stirred everything around *again!*
If we gotta port our operations to Win2k, why not port them to Linux for approximately the same cost in money and hassles?
Well, command line has its uses, for sure. I mean, you wouldnt want to put a GUI on a cisco router, but a GUI has a way of organizing information to present to you all at once. In a lot of cases, I can grasp a concept of how something works, or better work on a configuration on a service, with a GUI. Take a checkpoint firewall for instance. Checkpoint has TONS of options for setting up objects, encryption domains, etc. Having a GUI lets me see groups of options that are inter-related, where a command line leave's me wondering.
No I didnt spell check this post...