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
I for one think microsoft is right in thinking the NT 4 crowd is perfect for quick adoption.
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
Oh, wait, you mean *legal* copies? Nevermind.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
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.
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.
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 think Windows is going towards another element: Palladium
Hehehehehe
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
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 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})/
Today, Microsoft has released a new patch for their Windows.net 2003 Server line, fixing major security flaws.
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?
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.
It means a company is ready to profit heavily from it's software. The roots of the phrase "going gold" can be traced back to the first Crusade, when Pope Urban II, tired of having to cow the French nobility to action, declared that he was immediately ready to "go gold," i.e. reap massive profits from those less powerful (and early adopters). Software companies picked up the term shortly thereafter.
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
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?'"---
10. If Bill Gates gets more money, he can afford a borg implant for his left eye, too.
9. Linux? Never heard of it.
8. It satisfies the overwhelming slashdot community demand for Palladium, secure
computing, and better enforcement of the DMCA.
7. SAVE OVER $300 ON V1AGRA (oops. my spam filter failed and one slipped into the list)
6. w3 3l33t d00dz must have 1t 2 run directx for Quakedoom 6.
5. IN SOVIET RUSSIA, 2003 WINDOWS YOU!
4. Hey, they've got a monopoly reputation to maintain. Why not help them?
3. Oh boy! Another EULA to ignore!
2. Microsoft says this one's going to be really really good! Why should
I not believe them?
1. It moves us ever closer to Windows 2078, in which all the security holes
will be fixed once and for all.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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!
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/
A betting pool has started on how long after Gold is released it will turn into Lead (How long until the first major security hole will be found)
An anonymous wager has been placed for 5 minutes..
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.
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.
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.
[
It CAN support ACL's, with one several patches: grsecurity
which includes PaX.
Check it out!
-- I speak only for myself.
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.
- adam
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.
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
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!
- 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
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
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)'