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."
From the screenshots I've seen, 2003 doesn't use the Luna decorations. I guess they may just be turned off.
"[A] high IQ is like a Jeep; you will still get stuck, just farther from help!" --Just d' FAQs, c.g.a
Instead of incurring the massive expense of replacing the equipment that currently runs NT 4 plus the licences of running Windows 2003, perhaps they should just move over to Linux. Maybe there is scope for an advertising campaign from Red Hat or others that says as much.
Better yet, perhaps someone should offer an NT 'migration kit' which attempts to replicate the NT services and settings in Linux.
Now that Palladium is going to lock me into Windows, I'm switching to OpenBSD with some GUI on it.
And I've been a windows guy forever...
When even guys like me leave, that's it.
Mind you, this'll take some years yet...
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
I still use NT 4, so does my university. Hell, they only upgraded some of their machines from linux 1.x about a year ago.
Three years from now a sizable portion of the windows server marketbase will still be using windows nt. NT SP6 is a solid product: if it works, why upgrade? Sure it might have security issues, but if you think new MS OS'es dont you're insane.
But MS promised its customers that it would support NT until either this summer or early next year (I think there was some confusion about that). Its not about age its about what MS says they are going to do. Its nothing new that MS breaks promises but it is amazing to me that so many companies and individuals blatently pander to them even after this kind of crap.
The Anti-Blog
Windows 2000 Advanced was far better than all the previous NTs, and from what I have seen, Windows 2003 server runs amazingly quick and light. There seem to be significant performance advantages to the upgrade. And by the way, there were many facilities that never ever got code red or Nimda. because microsoft had a patch out almost immediately and if you were intelligent, you downloaded it and applied it. If there were have as many hackers trying to hack linux as there are people trying to hack windows, I am sure we would see all of Linux's flaws as well.
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
Is like saying you want patches for your 1.3.x Linux kernel branch (which was released around the same time as NT 4). Think Linus would care if there were a flaw found in 1.3.75? DOUBTFUL.
Prevent linux based DDOS's!
http://linux.denialofservice.org/
As to the patching/flaws thing, my point was that some people only upgrade (and to an only slightly lesser extent, patch) their OS when they upgrade their hardware. That's certainly true for *nix as well, although I would expect to see a higher proportion of *nix users keeping on top of patches than Windows, purely because of the demographics of the userbases. Most *nix users have made an informed decision to go down that route, whereas many Windows users are using it purely because it's what the box came with from the vendor.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Microsoft has used the term "gold" since before they were burning CD masters. Windows 3.1 and almost all products before that were mastered on floppies. Some reference materials were available on CD-ROM, but not many, until Windows 3.0 MPC and Windows 3.1 made CD-ROM an obvious and ubiquitous replacement.
The top tier authoritative master, regardless of media type, is "gold," and the direct copies from that master are "silvers." It's the silvers that are taken to the various departments to sign off, and silvers that are taken to the production facility. The gold goes in the vault.
[
- adam
I've got a Dell server running NT4 with an uptime of over 500 days. The nice thing about such an old OS is that it doesn't get updated every 2-6 months! And because I'm behind a firewall, I don't need to worry about the recent vulnerability.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Microsoft is expected to announce on Friday that Windows Server 2003 has completed testing and has been certified final, or gold, code.
Final code? Does that mean this one can't be
fixed, either?
With 35% of their server customers still using NT 4
At least the NT4 users know what bugs they are dealing with. With 2003 you have the joy of discovering a whole new set of bugs. And having to pay for the privilege too.
One man's upgrade in another man's pain in the ass. That's not a bug, that's a feature. Etc.
Paugh.
I'd hardly equate it with version 1.0 software. Last time I checked, Windows has been around for awhile and they reuse code. Modern Windows is much more mature than Windows of the previous decade. A better analogy would be a
I wasn't trying to imply that 1.0 is a bad thing, just that there are a lot of new things that make it unlike its forebearers.
From my understanding, a significant part of it has been revamped/rewritten. At least in terms of the web side of things (I'm a developer so I know that much), it means an entirely new version of IIS that runs a completely different process model. Undoubtedly a lot of core server applications will also be written in the
Hope that clarifies
What about certification? I mean when 2K came out there were a lot of complaints about how if you failed the Win2K test you had to start over. Does this mean it will be the same with 2k3? If so that means people who want to keep the cert get to shell out another few hundred to about a grand on books , classes and teting.
SuDZ
Yup, it does. There are some little squiggles, (such as the Everyone group can't be removed, to get the same result that you get from removing it in Win2k, you have to deny all permissions to it), but other then that it works fine (be sure you compile Samba with ACL support.)
Fellowship 9/11
Maybe Microsoft should release the source code to products that they no longer support so that users can fix the unfixable flaws.
...
They can't do that because then people would be able to figure out how much NT4 code is still in the main Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 development trunk. There is probably a lot more NT code there than people realise. You know, if it ain't broke
Microsoft's customers wouldn't think too highly of that given the upgrades they've been 'forced' to buy. It would be a PR disaster.
----- rL
More like the locksmith answering: get a new house. Oh, but this time, you can't buy one; you have to rent. And, there's cameras everywhere to determine if you're using your rental the way that the landlords think you should; if you have a disagreement, you're evicted.
Maybe this is trollbait, but oh well. What's karma for anyway?
--
$tar -xvf