Slashdot Mirror
Windows Server 2003 Is A Small Step Forward
b17bmbr writes "According to eWeek, 'The release of Windows Server 2003 is a small step forward for the platform -- an effort that really should be considered Windows 2000 Server Second Edition. With the exception of Internet Information Services 6.0, there aren't any far-reaching or fundamental changes in the product.' And from CNet Microsoft prepares Windows Server ads, 'The ads are geared toward IT managers on tight budgets.' This is probably Microsoft's last chance to turn the tide and take mindset and market share from FOSS."
isnt it ironic how most open source developers are supported by software corporations that make software for microsoft operating systems?
Oh no!
Things don't sound so good for those poor guys at Microsoft! I better sell my stock!
This is probably Microsoft's last chance to turn the tide and take mindset and market share from FOSS.
please. they have $30 billion in cash. i think they'll be able to buy some other chances.
used to be, people explained less common acroynms or linked to definitions. I miss that
so all that money and time upgrading our reliable nt4/2k systems is only for iis6 and a pop3 service? hmmm glad my organisation is on volume licensing!
We played dungeons and dragons for 3 hours.....then i was slain by an elf
They took Windows 98 SE, dressed it up a bit, and called it Windows ME.
It's lousy from a consumer standpoint, but enough people thought it worthwhile to buy it and make it profitable for Microsoft.
It's not the most upstanding business strategy, but it still makes them money. And any business is not in it for the ethics, but about the cold hard cash.
The Pigloo
'The ads are geared toward IT managers on tight budgets
Thats like Hersey trying to advertise in Epopea.
Did anyone else find it really interesting that IIS now has text based configuration files. I only have passing expierence using IIS but one of the biggest headaches I have heard from people who use it alot is the fact that IIS is a real pain to configure among multiple machines.
Anyone here run IIS and used these new text based conf files and can comment on them?
I dont think so.
It will be:
'The ads are geared toward (IT?) managers on....
CRACK
Hmm... why does Microsoft continue to make relatively minor updates "major" version changes? Didn't they learn their lesson with Windows ME? It makes money but really drives people who are tired of playing their silly game.
It seems that Microsoft is learning a bit from their mistakes with Windows 2000 by not enabling everything under the moon by default or leaving the default settings to be so open and ripe for exploiting. That and additional support for NUMA, better clustering supports (or so Microsoft says) and supposedly new features in Active Directory to make life a little easier (again, something Microsoft is touting).
As with Windows XP, it seems that Microsoft will be making additional components and add-ons available throughout the life of the product, including an updated version of SharePoint Team Services (which has been renamed to something I can't remember now) and currently unnamed components.
Personally, I think Windows Server 2003 is the latest salvo Microsoft has launched to get people out of Windows NT 4.0... just like how Windows XP was the latest salvo to get people out of Windows 9x/ME. It's an incremental step up from Windows 2000, but a much bigger step up from Windows NT 4.0.
That's my $0.01.
Wouldnt it be cheaper for an IT manager on a tight budget to stick with 2000 Server rather than 2003 Server. I know I dont need it and I have a tight budget. We have most of our infrastructure already upgraded to win2k server at-least the stuff that will be migrated over. We will not be upgrading to 2003 server but rather get it as it comes preloaded on any new servers we buy.
This must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Infoworld says, Ironically, Microsoft is touting its Windows server platform as a cheaper alternative to Linux. "We really feel that we deliver some unique value in terms of dependability, manageability, and performance relative to open-source products," Oldroyd said.
I doubt anyone comfortable with alternative operating systems would have bothered enduring WinME in the first place... For all of our sakes, let's hope you're right on this one.
Another fine innovation from Microsoft.
I stopped working at Microsoft in January, after being there from June 2000. I was there during the whole "Whistler" cycle
Kernel improvements:
* Low-Fragmentation Heap: People use SmartHeap because NT heap serializes and sucks. LFH heap uses heap-per-processor on SMP.
* Desktop Limit: Remember "running out of resources" before running out of memory in Win 3.1? The 32-bit analog of that limit (higher but still there) is STILL in Windows, even in XP. This keeps you from spawning thousands of processes IF those processes use any functions from user32.dll. They did some lazy registering of U/I threads vs. kernel threads that makes the limit less painful.
* Gigabit ethernet, zero-copy networking stuff. Don't know as much about this but that it's much better.
* Unisys ES7000 32-way blows f'ing chunks on W2K. It doesn't suck as much on 2K3 (NUMA API).
* Tons of other perf tuning adjustments, mostly to make SQL Server run better. All SQL Server-TPC-winning numbers have been on 2K3 betas for the last year or more.
* Junk like that. Dumb-ass bug fixes. It really is a better kernel, but it still sucks. As someone who now loves Linux, my honest assessment of the situation is, at best, the whole Linux (in its current state, mostly usability drawbacks) vs. Microsoft (usable as hell but stagnant due to lack of competition) is a draw. But Linux has more promise because its fresher and interesting. MS wins in business because business likes staid "comfortable" not necessarily better technology.
I cannot enumerate the advantages that Windows Me had over 98. I'm sure 2003 will show the same level of advancement over 2000.
People run their business off windows.. They don't want radical shifts..
They want what runs now, just do it better.
This ( arguably an improvement or not.. ) does just this.. its an incremental upgrade..
Not that *I* care personally either way, but its how a lot of the business world works.. and they dont like suprises..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Remember, there was a stock split in there somewhere... :P
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
I am running Windows Media Services 9 on Windows Server 2003 RC1. It is simply awesome as a streaming media solution. First of all, if the client is a WMP 9 client.... there is no buffering! Instant start (on broadband only, naturally). Plus, you get a ton of configuration options on the WMS9 side. You can insert adverts automatically, apply all sorts of access control on the media (IP based, user/pass login, DRM, whatever you please).
.htm and .txt files to the outside world unless you go into the server configuration and edit this explicitly.... did I also mention that IIS 6 now stores its data in XML (similar to Apache directives) which can easily be exported to other servers if you're cloning or making a server farm.
The new IIS 6 comes in a super-secure default setup... allowing only
Plus it's pretty damn stable. My server has been running for about 60 days now... and it handles a decent amount of traffic.
I like the new Remote Desktop/terminal services. You can remote to the actual server console now, instead of starting a new TS session. The OS itself also seems faster than Windows 2000. I'm running it on a PII/350 w/ 256 MB ram and it screams.
It also comes with that HTTP.SYS kernel serving thingee for IIS, but I'm a strict believer that a web server doesn't belong in the kernel (this applies to Linux too).
So far my experiences have been all positive. How bout everyone else?
this release, including text-file-based configuration, much tighter
security defaults, user-level instead of administrator-level privileges,
and a kernel-mode HTTP request handler and cache.
Just wait for their next killer release.
are Software Restriction Policies (SRP). These policies allow an admin to manage software execution based on for example the hash of the binary. AFAIK they were first introduced with Windows XP (see here).
Come to think of it, that IS pretty funny. How the hell do they expect to out-cheap "Free"? Once again, they're fulfilling their destinies by being the IT industry's comic relief.
like say clustering up from 2 node max to 12 nodes, addressable memory support up to above 64 GB, 64 bit OS support, NIC load balancing, TRUE DEVICE ADDRESSING (ie no drive letters)for extended SAN support, and from what I hear a .8 version of a connectix vm system, plus features like BUILT IN document license management, full remote control support. The primary reason we're moving is for the extended clustering support.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
LINUX!
I read that it is suppose to be UX, User Experience. I dont make an claims to its validity.
The site a1204.ms.a.microsoft.com is running AkamaiGHost on Linux
That's an Akamai cache server, you stupid shit.
good thing IIS has proven itself both secure and stable. otherwise, this could really be an issue:
IIS adds a number of Unix-style playing cards to its hand in this release, including text-file-based configuration, much tighter security defaults, user-level instead of administrator-level privileges, and a kernel-mode HTTP request handler and cache.
hackers, start your engines...
"This is probably Microsoft's last chance to turn the tide and take mindset and market share from FOSS."
... Sure, 2/3 of the Web sites out there are running on Apache, but are they the bottom 2/3 of the Web? Increasingly, it's looking like the companies Where The Money Is are requesting more and more MS stuff. And that scares me.
Where I live (NYC area), it seems like if anything, MS technologies are getting a BIGGER grip on things. Virtually every new job out there, it seems-- and this includes jobs whose titles include the word "Unix"-- demands experience with ASP/IIS/VB/VC++ and other MS programming and server-side products... Perhaps it's just my imagination, but I am not so confident any more in the rankings posted on www.netcraft.net
My boss, who before taking the helm of the little dot-com I work for used to work with "big money" firms all the time (and was the CEO of a national chain or three at one point), refers to the work I do with Linux and Unix as "your silly little programs". Her attitude towards MS is that it's "The Industry Standard(TM)" (you can almost hear the "(TM)" at the end) and therefore that we will use it wherever it is The Standard, case closed, no questions asked. I am lucky that in her case, she has not extended this groupthink to the server room... yet. You can bet that within a few years, we will migrate away from our current servers (Solaris on UltraSPARCs) to Windows at this rate. The sort of pro-MS dronery one hears nowadays from businesspeople is nothing short of alarming.
It's depressing; I've been looking for a job as a Unix SA, and I swear I've actually seen one or two job postings for "Unix SAs" where it says "MCSE is a plus"... and I might have been hallucinating, but I think I even saw one that said "MCSE required"... In NYC, it seems like all of the big-money companies (financials, telcos, etc.) are all gung-ho about Windows, and it's hard to find a "virgin" Unix SA job... that is, one where you can't find words like "MCSE", "ASP/IIS", "VB" or "VC++" in the "Required" and/or "Preferred" lists.
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
Being a small bit of a geek, I think myself qualified to say whether a term is esoteric or not, and I must say, I've never seen FOSS in my life before. My first thought was "How is my local tourist goods shop suddenly competing with Microsoft on a global scale?".
Free Open Source Software (FOSS). Thanks, that's what I want. More adjectives. And, once more, have them all thrown into an acronym I can't recognize. That's not going to encourage cliquishness or scare away people who might otherwise be interested.
I even thought to look at E2 to see if the obscure FOSS had been noded. If it had been, a little link could have at least been provided to make this more accessible. Nope. Then again, I remember reading something in the Slash CVS which mentioned the E2 linking (with those little question marks) was broken.
You like splinters in your crotch? -Jon Caldara
I guess they were bound to do that, with the tech sector in the toilet, but really. Microsoft? Easy on the pockets?
I've never failed to raise an eyebrow with an open source pitch simply by quoting the customer what the microsoft liscensing would require for the project, and comparing it to what I would charge for the whole deal, which is usually about the same. The only way a MS shop could compete is if they installed their crappy equipment for free.
Install it cheap, make your money off the service contract, and watch your competitors go broke trying to undercut you.
Life is sweet.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Am I the only one that thought "IT depts are on tight budgets BECAUSE of Microsoft"?
Ironic....
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
You've posted a couple obscure servers with Microsoft.com hostnames - I fail to see what that proves? The big sites are all still run on Windows (including IIS6/Win2003 on Microsoft.com).
http://www.netcraft.com/whats/?host=msn.com
http://www.netcraft.com/whats/?host=hotmail.com
http://www.netcraft.com/whats/?host=microsoft.com
It really shocks me how the stupid people come out of the wood work when slashdot posts a story about Microsoft. Let me clear a few things up:
1) Microsoft doesn't expect many people to upgrade from Win2k. It's a damn reliable OS only released 3 years ago. Very few people will upgrade to Win2k3.
2) Major changes in a server OS are generally not a good thing. Incremental improvements are best when you're dealing with such a huge mission critical product. That's the main reason Win2k Server didn't replace NT4 machines overnight.
3) Microsoft expects many NT4 systems to be upgraded. Lots of people were weary of upgrading to Win2k Server but now they have a second generation AD and many other improvments over NT4. NT4 to Win2k3 is a big upgrade, well worth the cost.
I'm pretty high up in the IT food chain in a medium-sized (300 PC users, half-billion USD annual revenue) company. We've been using Linux in several mission-critical roles for over five years, and I'd love to cut Microsoft loose altogether, but I just don't think I can do it yet. A few of the reasons:
- There's still no match for the Exchange/Outlook combination for integrated email, directory, shared folders and calendaring.
- A lot of needed third-party software is still Windows-only (think UPS WorldShip, ADP, etc.).
- A lot of web sites, including several we must use because of business relationships, are IE-only.
- Many of our users live and die by Excel, which means macros, which means VBA.
- Word
.doc format is still lingua franca for business, and the FOSS alternatives aren't quite there yet.
I'm sure no fan of Microsoft's licensing terms and general business practices, but I sure don't see them as being on their last legs. As much as I hate "Embrace, Extend and Eliminate", I have to admit it works, and my job is to keep the business running, not to fight political battles.Time is money. If the cheapskates already have windows, chances are they won't want to spend time (and possibly money) moving to linux, learning linux, and porting any custom software.
Sure, linux is free, but it's not quite that simple for some people...
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
Back in Jan '00 it was at $60 - now it's about $25...
That would make it "a good time to buy".
The new terminal service client is nice, 24 bits support, full encryption, Group Policy applicable to Terminal Service Clients loging to the server... nice little addons.
:) Guess I am not the only one who hates XP's bloated interface.
:). of course ghosting the machine helps, but if you want to upgrade your raid and add more ram, and you change network card to a gigabit for example, blam? no thanks; as much as I like the NT environment more than Unix, there's a limit to be masochist :) Hope microsoft won't be stupid on this one (well web server edition at least).
The web server edition is also nice, cheaper than buying a full blown server just to serve web page, with full support of COM+ and Terminal server remote administration (on a funny note, win2003 server web edition has a "win 2000 skin" default... the start menu is "winXP-like" but the windows and all that I was was like win2000
Reading on their website, they make a big deal about the Group Policy editor, Didn't see it in action yet but that's one place they'd have plenty of room to maneuver; I hate active directory in current win2k server. Even with all patches applied, there's always that little thing somewhere hidden in some documentation deep somewhere that if you toggle on without being exactly sure on all the 2nd-effects of that action, you get burned. I have a hard time imagining somebody actually deploying an active-directory structure with remote offices and centralized servers with let's say 10 locations 50 servers and 5000 clients with some weird problems I've experimented recently, I can see why people are affraid of moving from NT servers and are always waiting for the second itteration of a technology before deploying it.
If activ directory is better in 2003 (which it should be) and there's less bugs, I won't mind upgrading it since I don't have a gazillion servers on site. The web edition is a nice add-on in their portfolio, again, depending on the final price it will sell for.
The only thing that would potentially make me NOT upgrade is that stupid activation crap. You're legit, you bought it, there's plenty of hacked keys or cracked version going around so if someone decides not to be legit, it's a no brainer..., if my system crashes or I have weird problems, the last thing I want is to be on the phone waiting for the right to "reactivate" my license while everybody will think "he needs tech support because he doesn't know what the problem is"
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
They're spending all that $30 million bribing kiddies to buy Xbox (and suing all thousand Linux-on-Xbox projects the world over). There's nothing left over for Windows Server, so this really is their last chance!
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
I took a 2 day hands on class on 2003 server. Microsoft was demonstrating all the new features 2003 comes with and one of them was that you could rename the domain or forest on the fly. but it would break a few active directory applications such as SQL 2000 and exchange 2000 when the class presenter came out from left field and nearly floored everyone when he said "since were on the exchange subject be aware that you can not run exchange 2000 on windows 2003 server". You would need a mix server environment which will then not allow some of the new features work, or wait for exchange titanium to be release at the end of the year.
Server: AkamaiGHost
Duh, they're just loading images and other static content from Akamai for faster load times as Akamai has colocations all over.
Although, I've got to admit it's rather funny to see this.
Address : www.dbcodegen.com only open port is 80 IIS6 Prize Money : $100 US winning entry - must replace the homepage with your contact so taht prize money can be paid. Ricky
Well, if OSS is "open source software", what are some terms that start with an f that are commonly associated with OSS? Free software? Duh! Free/Open Source Software. I thought computer nerds were supposed to be good at figuring things like this out. It took me all of 2 seconds to realize it.
Doesn't Akamai offer Windows based hosts? Microsoft should insist on their content being on Windows based servers. :^)
One small step for security, one giant leap for MS stocks.
Is Windows Server 2003 considered NT 6 yet? Just curious about their version numbers.
This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!
" Doesn't Akamai offer Windows based hosts? Microsoft should insist on their content being on Windows based servers."
They would be it would be too expensive.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
had a 2:1 split on Feb 18. still worth less since those $60 shares would be worth relatively $30 each, and MSFT closed $25.50 today.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
So, if Windows Server 2003 is just a not-very-radical update to Windows 2000, does that make Linux 2003 a not-very-radical update to Unix 1970?
I'm glad to see they're keeping for now the year-based naming convention and calling this Server 2003. Most product names are somewhat random. Often they are an opaque large number with strange incrementing i.e. the 80386 followed the 80286--don't even get me started on the motorola chip numbering. Year-based product naming has several good qualities: you automatically know where the product fits in the series, you automatically have a rough idea how old the tech is, and it's infinitely simply extensible.
"This is probably Microsoft's last chance to turn the tide and take mindset and market share from FOSS"
Yep, if this fails, their market share is going to fall from 95% to 94.9%. I hope they have enough money saved up to weather the storm.
FOSS makes me think of "FOSS-ILE"! who the hell started using this acronym? the MSFT FUD Dept?
They would be it would be too expensive. Microsoft could give them the license for free. :^)
I've been running windows 2003 as a desktop for a couple weeks, and am really liking it. It comes with virtually everything disabled by default, and all the security stuff maxed. The main reason I moved over is cause I read an article here a while ago stating that microsoft had actually tried to release an OS with as few bugs as possible, and if I remember correctly the bug count is somewhere low like 100 or less (obviously this is known bugs only, I'd bet it's way higher). After the install I found it had everything XP had, themes, directx, everything. Believe it or not, games performed better on win2k3 server than on winXP. I had both installed for a couple days, and did some other comparisons like memory usage, etc, and it turned out it uses WAY less. My 7 month old XP install used 400mb of virtual memory and 250 physical memory with no programs running, while 2k3 used 100 of each. That is a HUGE difference. It also boots alot faster as well. I haven't found any incompatibilities yet, so I'll be keeping this as my desktop. I do run a server on linux, and will definately keep it that way simply due to resources difference.
And all those incremential Linux distos are, naturally, huge steps forward--but the minute MS refines one of its products for release and calls it a new version, it's the work of the Devil.
Sure, linux is free, but it's not quite that simple for some people...
That's actually kinda comforting.. Because when Linux expertise becomes high in demand (which is happening), there will be a short supply.
--Drunk as in Beer
Try Win4Lin. This is what allowed me to migrate finally to Linux. Win4Lin is kind of like a "light" version of VMWare that only costs $89, and I presume there would be volume discounts available if you migrate your whole company.
Point is, Win4Lin lets you run virtually every business-critical Windows program there is. I use it to run Word, Excel, Powerpoint, VB6, VC++, Quicken, Quickbooks, PaintShopPro, Metrowerks Codewarrior (for Palm development). Multimedia apps, such as Windows Media and RealPlayer, both work under IE under Win4Lin.
Win4Lin is a great way to incrementally move away from MS. First you install Linux and Win4Lin throughout the enterprise, freeing yourself from Microsoft OS's. Then, as time goes on, you'll find that need fewer and fewer of the apps you thought you "needed" under Windows. I have Win4Lin for the applications I listed above but, to be honest, I use them very seldomly. But Win4Lin is a great idea for a company that would like to free itself from MS licensing but can't "risk" going cold-turkey.
Heck, try all your enterprise Windows apps on a single Linux machine with Win4Lin. If it doesn't work, oh well. If it does... Ready, set, deploy! :)
The new stand alone Active Directory (application mode AD, as it is called) for apps that require directory service but don't really require a full blown domain. That change alone is worth a major rev. level.
There is also the "restore from media" option that lets you build *new* DCs from the system state backup of an old DC. Previously, you couldn't do that, and bringing up a new DC meant running dcpromo and replicating all the data from the various domains. Big deal you say? An HP IT department had to sync a new DC that was also a global catalog over a WAN line. It took 3 DAYS just for the replication. Obviously this will save some serious amounts of time.
Geek used to be a four letter word. Now it's a six-figure one.
only open port is 80 IIS6
Prize Money : $100 US winning entry - must replace the homepage with your contact so taht prize money can be paid.
Ricky
.....like the finance dept. in MS HQ?
Wouldn't you also agree that for those looking to move from NT4, that they could also see a big ROI if they moved to OSS instead? If yes, why would you try to sell a MS solution here, without mentioning that?
What kind of moron chooses the root of the word "fossile" as the name of a movement trying to develop technology?
Get a 180 day Windows Server 2003 Evaluation Kit at this link
The following items are included in the Windows Server 2003 Evaluation Kit:
Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition, RTM CD
Windows Server 2003 Resource CD
A unique Product Key (required for installation)
Links to additional Web-based documentation
The Evaluation Kit is available only in English when you order it from this Web site. Localized versions may be available in other locales. We will add international Web site links as they become available.
There is no fee for the Windows Server 2003 Evaluation Kit. As a special promotional offer, Windows Server 2003 Evaluation Kits will be shipped at no charge to customers in the United States, through July 31, 2003. (However, fees will apply if customers choose to receive their shipment via express methods.) Orders from outside the United States are subject to shipping charges and may be subject to import duties and taxes. When ordering from this site, you are considered the importer of record and must comply with all laws and regulations of the country/region in which you are receiving the shipment.
Product Activation
A Product Key is included in the Kit. Product activation can be completed online or by telephone within 14 days of installation and is required for continued use of the software. Detailed instructions and Microsoft's privacy statement are displayed during the installation of the product.
Support Options
The Windows Server 2003 trial software is provided as a convenience only. For assistance, consider the following support options:
Windows Server 2003 Support Center.
View up-to-date support information, including Microsoft Knowledge Base articles, frequently asked questions, how-to guides, and support WebCasts on the Microsoft Product Support Services site.
Windows Server Community.
Get answers to questions about Windows Server 2003 from newsgroups, explore technology centers, or find out about upcoming events and chats.
Windows Server 2003 on TechNet.
Find information about deploying, managing, and optimizing your Windows Server 2003 installation.
Training and Certification
Visit the Windows Server 2003 Training and Events page to see what classes, technical books, and interactive training software for Windows Server 2003 are available.
An MS Engineers point of view:
Win2k3 is a nice upgrade...I say this because it includes a lot of the things that people ASKED Microsoft for from Win2k.
- Resultant set of GPO available without using GPRESULT (GUI reporting MMC. cool if you've ever have the problem of tracking down GPOs)
- Rename a domain & not have to rejoin all workstaitons
- Nice new volume utilities - VSS (volume snapshots)
- IIS 6.0 - a little more secure (it's still not APACHE)
but to compare this type of OS to Linux isn't fair. You really can't EVER compare the two.
- Linux requires really learning and living Linux, and I haven't really seen any training seminars/tracks dedicated to learning LINUX (ok, now you bastard nitpicky people are going to name places where they have them, but the fact is that they're not widely available)
- Linux doesn't have a tool for a unified directory. MS doesn't have it 100% there, or even 75% for that matter, but they're trying.
- Linux as a desktop is clunky...average users won't be able to deal with it, and AVERAGE USERS make the difference when it comes to LINUX OR NOT. We can be as asmart as we want with Linux, but they have to use it to do work, and the work drives the OS.
I happen to be more than a little familiar with Linux, and it's just not there. It's fun, it's different, and I HATE the way that MS bullies users into licensing and upgrading (I have clients who run NT4.0 happily and have to upgrade b/c support for it is being cancelled in July). BUT -
before linux can be accepted as MS has been accepted, they need to stop having so many FLAVORS OF IT. Can't you band together yet??? Getit together and SLAY this goliath. Until then, stop complaining. Linux is making it more difficult ot take seriously be having so many flavors.
(and STOP before you flame that...you know that everone that loves LINUX loves their flavor of LINUX and not just LINUX.)
Anyone else care to comment? I'm interested. if you're going to flame, keep it to yourself unless you can back it up.
MSFT P/E == 28.98. That's high for a producer of a commodity product. OSes and office suites aren't rocket science anymore.
Microsoft's $52,931,000,000 is Total Current Assets, but that is equal to cash when within a few months. People who buy and sell things for billions of dollars don't quibble over a few months. It takes that long to arrange a sale, anyway.
Making small changes in a product and calling it a new product is an abusive, misleading business practice, in my opinion. Microsoft did that with Windows Milennium. Windows 2003 Server seems to have real changes.
Here are a few more abuses: Reasons to Avoid Microsoft. (More than 200 in one year!) In case your boss is uncertain, this abuse list will help educate him.
I know this has been said before, but it seems almost everyday Windows become more Unix-like (cleaner, faster, more stable, better) while Linux becomes more Windows-like (less stable, slower, more bloated and less stable [why is is that the 2.2 kernels are generally considered more stable than the 2.4 series?]). With current predictions showing PDAs are going to overtake desktops in the next few years, the Linux community has to concede the desktop market to Microsoft and move on. Servers are is where Linux/Unix strength is. It just always seems to me Linux is playing catchup to Microsoft on the desktop while MS is learnig from their mistakes and trying to move forward.
That's why I use Linux on the server side and OS X (Unix with a great GUI) on the desktop. Unfortunately I'll have PC's too for the forseeable future as I support software on them and enjoy playing video games.
I don't know I have ever seen a tech stock with a p/e that high before.
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
UX? No, MS marketing is sure to put a * in the middle.
'The ads are geared toward IT managers on tight budgets.'
:)
Lets see...
Samba as a PDC/BDC : cost of hardware
Apache as a webserver : cost of hardware
Microsoft as both : cost of hardware and obscene license fees.
Take Economics 101.
The only reason I would use Win 2003 Server is because I can FINALLY change Domain Names on the fly, when I am doing a server reload and my domain needs to be different.
---
There is a market that Microsoft is having absolutely no luck at all breaking into. It is geeks who want control of their own systems. In the big scheme, that market is tiny. However, the problem is that the products that serve that market can be reproduced almost for free for everyone else. That's the secret behind open source. It isn't free. The people writing it are doing a lot of work. But copying is free, and to encourage project participation, the licenses permit it. Even if MS manages to squeeze open source out of the rest of the world, it will continue on its own. If GNU, Linux, *BSD, Apache, Perl, MySQL and all the rest withered and died, the idea could be reborn in new software. And because the existing code is out there, not everything has to be built from scratch. The mascot of the OS movement should not be the Linux penguin, FSF Gnu, or BSD Daemon. It should be a hydra. Cut off a head, and three more grow back!
Hmm, ok, I'll bite:
Not true. I've heard of plenty.
What marketing gimmicks exactly? I love Windows XP. It works perfectly for me. It has quite a bit of the software I use built in. I love the interface, and if I didn't, I could go back to the Win2000 interface, which I also love. I've used UNIX and I hate it. I will say, I'm going to give Linux a try soon though.
Name a Microsoft product that this ever happened to.
Um, I hate to break it to you, but most do. Now I realize what you are trying to say is that most don't understand the OS is actually seperate from the computer, but still, most new computers do come with Windows, so I think what you said is kind of true, no?
This is true. :-)
Um, Windows XP was a drastic change to the OS over WinMe/98/95. At least in my opinion.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
To give some context, this is a short column I wrote for this week's (4/21/2003) eWEEK news package on Windows Server 2003. It's short because of print space limitations. The whole collection of related news articles in this week's issue is at http://www.eweek.com/category2/0,3960,1034194,00.a sp.
Next week, eWEEK is publishing an eWEEK Labs review of the product. In that package, there are six pages of copy covering Windows Server 2003 overall security changes, IIS 6.0, 64-bit Windows, Active Directory changes, file and print changes, development, and storage and SAN changes.
Thanks,
Tim Dyck
eWEEK Labs West Coast Technical Director
they're akamai links, if you read, i betcha akamai uses linux...
In short the benefits are for the admins (no, not the idiot IT guys who manage to correctly install Win2k at least 80% of the time) The benefits are found in the scriptable administration. Task scheduling from script works correctly. The funky WMI to SNMP to Perfmon counter crap is gone providing scriptable interfaces via WMI to standard and preformatted counters. The holes in ADSI administration if IIS are fixed. Add to that a journaling filesystem with the ability to do point in time recovery over the network (what, didn't the article mention a flavor of journaled network file system?) Oh, what, you didn't even know they existed. You'd be really amazed at what a real admin can do with Win2k and not Win2k3. But most don't look, they are too busy trying to get their new open source browser to run correctly on the latest patched up version of their open source os of choice. I agree with premise of the article, but not the content.
If you want to know whats new, there is an abundance of information on all things Microsoft.
And you CAN do just about anything you want remotely (without a gui), but it does take planning to impliment. Everything you need is with the downloadable Resource Kit Tools.
Most Slashdotters (and managers as well) dont realize there is more to maintaining MS networks than point and click.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
I did (replace windows as my primary)...about the time mandrake 9.0 was release...windows crashed, and took everything with it...I spent weeks trying to recover the data (thank god for cvs or the baseline would have been screwed too). I had mandrake 8 on another machine, so I thought I'd give it a go on my primary, go 100% linux. At the beginning, I thought I'd have to re-install windows, I just didn't see how it would be possible to not have one windows machine around, but I have to tell you, I haven't looked back since...I'm more productive and a hell of a lot more stable. I don't stress nearly as much as I used to about the state of my systems and the change over was really quite painless. I'm now slowly converting the company I work for to the same way of thinking.
No, but you can use VNC, or their built in remote control thingo, if it's any good. The CLI isn't dead, but jesus, quit talking about GUI's like they're a contagious disease.
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
Windows is so dumb, it is like so dumb. What I mean to say is that if Oreck can lift a bowling ball with it's suckage, Windows 2003 could lift all of Russia, France, Germany's balls or maybe their bowling balls because they show no signs of testicularosity. It is a shame that it wasn't completed in time to be used on Iraq, who would have thought a 8x10.2x2.35 inch box would be more effective than a nuke.
\Windows is horrid
</burning_karma>
Who is this "Poster" guy and why does he own all of my comments?!?
I would like to see the last remnints of DOS gone and replaced by a shell. I mean Linux is becoming a industry standard since Windows NT series software always had a problem. I mean if someone can crash it with a simple C++ script then its somthing that is not Crash free. My recomondation use Linux or Mac OS X. Its easy to use, and its more secure and crash free.
Can't wait to get my hands on this one. I have been watching the Shockwave movies on Microsoft site. This is a bigger step forward than most people on here will have you believe.
but I think I like it. Soon I may have issues actually justifying my ingrown festering hatred for Bill and all things M$ :)
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
This is the real problem with MS these days and no amount of reform on the part of engineering is going to cure it. Win2k3 may be the best thing since sliced bread but pair it with MS legal and the MS corporate culture and it's not a partnership that I'm entirely comfortable recommending to anybody these days, even confirmed MS shops.
I'll probably renew my MCSE credentials in order to help out customers on migration and interoperability but without some forced reform like the Teamsters went through, I can't imagine how the public can trust MS with anything.
granted this doesnt free you from microsoft totally, but you can terminate exhange with extreme prejudice
and use Mdaemon with its add on Groupware (no, not the novell thing) feature. Still not cheap, but much less costly then exchange's license, and Mdaemon is WAY more stable to boot. Plus, mdaemon runs NICELY on a slow 2k professional box (my current setup is a k6-2 400 with 128 megs ram), as opposed to exchange NEEDING 2k server, massive ram, and nightly backing because it eats the user database with almost religious like devotion.
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
A lot of people here are complaining that Windows 2003 has few improvements, but as a software developer, I know that is not the case. For example, take a look at the latest Platform SDK or MSDN docs, you'll find that a lot of API improvements are listed as "Windows XP SP1 and Windows 2003 Server only".
For example, Windows XP/2003 adds enhancements to the Security API, making it easier and more efficient to check a user's access rights. (I'm referring to the Authz### series of functions)
There are also a whole slew of new command line enhacements that system administrators have been asking for. It is now possible to automate almost everything in windows through the CLI. This has not been possible before. For example, new CLI mode programs include 'reg' (for editing the registry), 'netsh' (for configuring networking), 'waitfor' (for synchronizing scripts across servers), 'diskpart' (for managing disks and volumes), and a whole bunch of others. Some of these are simply upgraded versions of existing tools in the Windows 2000 Resource kit, but it's nice to see them built-in, instead of an add-on.
One thing that still irks me though is that Microsoft simply refuses to make the UI defaults reasonable. Every time I install Windows, I am forced to go through about half a dozen dialog boxes to toggle every single setting in those boxes to the exact opposite of their default values. Hiding extensions is NEVER a good thing, and it has confused everyone I have ever met. Nobody likes it, and it is one of the primary causes of the ".jpg.vbs" style viruses. Why can't Microsoft simply admit that they were wrong? Why do folders still show the Win 3.1 era large icon view, when everyone I know prefers the Detailed view? Why? Why must you hurt me Billy?
A list of all CLI commands available in Windows 2003
An example of the new Security API functions in XP/2003
The new terminal service client is nice, 24 bits support, full encryption, [...]
What kind of encryption does MS use anyway? I mean all documentation that I've seen from MS always goes on about how many bits are used, but never about the algorithm.
As far as I know you can customize the default installation script virtually in every aspect, INCLUDING default parameter values. And it's something that's been there for as long as I can remember.
Support costs.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Support costs for Linux are lower per machine, and each machine does more. There have been abundant and numerous studies that show this. Try again.
I'm on win2k3 now, build 3790.svr03_rtm.030324-2048.
.NET. The rest of the Microsoft "backoffice" however leaves much to be desired. ADS is a nightmare. It is an okay directory service for exchange, but for authentication and permission domains cross platform? Whatever. Windows NT has fundamental flaws. UNIX has been "dying" for decades, and when Windows NT failed to seal its "fate," in less than 5 years, they should have given up.
;p
Before you all laugh; I was using this to verify if the OS can better handle SYN floods, etc. Let me tell you, FreeBSD and Linux are many times better at handling malformed ingress attack traffic, from SYN, to UDP and ICMP floods, stuff like trinoo / tfn2k / neptune / skydance / etc. Even with syn cookies and the various types of protections shut off, FreeBSD and Linux are many, many times more robust in handling bad traffic.
I would also like to point out that CNET is going to push this crap like crazy (Paul Allen, co-founder of Microsoft is a major stakeholder in CNET)
I don't believe that this is a minor facelift. This OS (5.2) is appreciably faster than NT 5.1 (XP - excretion product, if anyone used XP over 2000 for any reason they have severe brain damage). 5.1 is a bad expermient. This is a major overhaul in a lot of ways. I still think IIS is not very good. Version 6, 7 whatever - Apache 2.0 is free, opensource, and despite what Zeinfeld says, I see a lot less problems with using Apache than IIS. Sorry. But anyone who claims 5.2 is a minor change from 5.0 is smoking crack. This isn't a service pack.
And the nail in the coffin for Windows 2003? No SSH, no REAL command line configurability and remote control. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to get a real implementation of RDP, called Citrix, which is rather good and ungodly expensive, buy terminal server licenses and citrix seats and CALs and all this crap for a SAMBA share creator with horrible remote manageability. Windows zealots can take the MMC and the snap ins that can be used remotely, remote manageability, administrative packs, terminal services, RDP, remote registry service and Run As and shove it. It is 50 fucking times harder to act as root on a windows box when you arent on the screen logged in.
The OS is a bastard version of VMS. Its that simple. Microsoft should port SQL and Exhcange to other platforms. They should give up on IIS and embrace apache. I am not annoyed one way or the other by SQL, Exchange or
Microsoft has to accept facts. Juniper puts FreeBSD on its godly routers and not NT based crap or Linux for very good reason. Looks are a distraction! Does this stuff WORK? Is it useful, change-able, tunable code that is well documented and self-documenting? Is it mired with ridiculous licensing? The Microsoft EULA and the GPL must have competitions on being the weirdest license ever.
So, I ask all you Windows NT people. You XPers and you Win2003ers. Yeah, you won the browser war hands down - for now. For me it is easier to play games, do my "stuff" and browse with Windows. But do any of you really really believe in this piece of garbage for Servers? I mean fucking c'mon. This god damn tangled mess with fucking DRIVE LETTERS. No real sense of root. No well documented function to do "ln -s" (It's called joining - you can get a utility to do it with reskit, but its a hard link that cannot cleanly traverse drive letters or DFS mounts). No real way to do diskless or dumb clients unless you add citrix. TCP/IP implementation is curiously more expensive than it is on Unix clones and less able to handle attacks. Its rudely expensive with its CAL model. It seeks to proprietize the interoperable (Samba, Domain, LDAP, Kerberos, even HTML is bastardized). It cannot be easily "rescued" like unixes can. Fuck a trashed Unix box is so easy to fix, particularly if you are willing to start over.
Windows server zealots piss me off because they live a lie. They think this crap is more modern and better?
Fo shizzle my nizzle zealots.
[quote]
Um, Windows XP was a drastic change to the OS over WinMe/98/95. At least in my opinion.
[/quote]
Actually, Windows XP was an upgrade from Windows 2000 which was an upgrade from Windows NT 4. So, in reality, Windows XP was not a drastic change as it was just upgraded from 2000 and never came from the 9x line.
I think the biggest change is going to come in interfacing, and how you can set up new servers and domains in 2003. I was in the Beta test for it, and they made the setup of almost any "server role" seemless and simple. It was a nice addition. As for changes under the hood, I'm not sure. There was not a lot of demand for changes there. There is also the integration of the .NET initiative directly into the server structure, as compared to an add-on, like it was for 2000.
Dude, netsh has been builtin since Windows 2000...
only open port is 80 IIS6
Prize Money : $100 US winning entry - must replace the homepage with your contact so taht prize money can be paid.
Ricky
dunno all hte details, but they are aiming at Linux/UNIX from what I can see. There are additional console tools that are much more powerful than in previous windows versions.
Neither the article nor any comments mention Activation.
Does Win2k3 have activation? If so, why would anyone downgrade from Win2k?
as opposed to exchange NEEDING 2k server, massive ram, and nightly backing because it eats the user database with almost religious like devotion
Well, yeah it does need 2k server. That whole Active Directory thingie. Massive amounts of RAM - okay - no argument there assuming you have a couple thousand folks on busy equipment. Eat the user database w/almost religious devotion though? I don't think so. I've had to restore a database once in the past 2 1/2 years in my 4000 (3000 - wait 2500.. dang this downsizing) user shop and the traffic we get is fairly high (think abuse@biblicalchapterflightfromegypt.net for instance). Now if you're running E2k on crappy equipment (that 486sx 25 just isn't the right system for the job), I can see how you might be praying the backups are good...
A year ago it was call .NET server... there was .NET this... .NET that... these .NETs in your mouth... lalala... well I downloaded a 45MB patch for my win2k box then a service pak for it... and I still don't have even the faintest idea WTF .NET or what Windows Server 2003 means to it... obviously not a whole lot given the description... can somebody please define .NET and just what the hell Windows Server 2003 does for it?
||| I still can't believe Parkay's not butter.
they have $30 billion in cash
And since right now their biggest competitor is themselves, they are using that money to try to push win2003 further, by Giving it away with "evluation kits"...
Well, they seems to have learn a couple of things from FOSS... like "try before you buy"...
I live in Soviet Canuckistan you insensitive clod!
This is just another example of spineless crap moderation here on
Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Pinochet, Mussolini, Marshall Joseph Tito, Slobodan Milosevic, Idi Amin, Ho Chi Minh, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi, Juan Peron, Ayatollah Khomeini, Ferdinand Marcos, General Suharto, Pol Pot, Fransisco Franco, and certainly the worst of the bunch, SLASHDOT's editing/moderating [read: censoring] "community"(*) ALL AGREE on ONE THING:
(*)Note, the word community used often on Slashdot, this is referring to a proto communist commune.
So, you busy little plebian proletariats, get busy, you have some censoring to do! FUN! Do the bidding of your fat, undisciplined masters who never subject themselves to peer review!
Good job you little neo-commies. Don't want to hear the other side, shoot the fucker in the head as an ENEMY OF THE STATE [In this case anyone who seeks to improve the sad state of
I have a Gun and the Constitution [Not the urinated-on pissed-on hacked fucked up one WashingTOON thinks exists, I mean the real one, with Jefferson and Madison at my side], please, give me an excuse to use them both.
A few haikus to commemorate the sucktitude:
Crack Pipe Moderators
Crack smoke wafts though air
Dumb shit moderator!
Try to suck less, please
The Humorless Moderator
Crack smoke wafts through air
Humorless moderator!
Why do you hate me?
The Proletariat
Slashdotting Commie
Moderator fears new idea!
Censor him quickly
The reason China blocked Slashdot is that when Jiang Xemin saw at how good "The Editors" at Slashdot are at suppressing the community, he knew that if more of his party members saw this degree of suppressive efficacy, he would be deposed, for the good of the people, of course, in favor of Rob Malda as the all new supreme dictator and premier of China.
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. - Sir Winston Churchill (Especially when your democratic peers twist democracy into a reason commit censorship, to squash dissenting or unpopular opinions, and refer to them as trolls, flaimbait overrated or offtopic when they aren't any of the said)
The reason there are two senators for each state is so that one can be the designated driver. - Jay Leno.
The Constitution poses no threat to our current form of government. (Death to those who defile the root documents of a free nation to make economic freedom Supercede Freedom! Freedom First! Free market Second!)
Occam's Razor "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" "Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora" "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" Translation: " "Simple explanations are preferred to complex ones" Modern fucking translation "JUST DO IT."
Reading Slashdot at anything above -1 is like trying to put a shit filter on your ass.
Get busy moderating this down, you little pack of obedient prefects of the corrupt state! You are the vanguards of purity, and dissent is not allowed!
"That's high for a producer of a commodity product. OSes and office suites aren't rocket science anymore."
Must be all that money they're making on Xbox sales.
The Empire Strikes Back.... It is a dark time for the Rebellion. Although the Death OS has been discredited, Imperial microserfs have driven the Rebel forces from their hidden base and pursued them across the mindshare. Evading the dreaded Imperial Software, a group of freedom fighters led by IBM has established a new secret base on the remote ice world of Canada. The evil lord Darth Gates, obsessed with finding young FOSS(?), has dispatched thousands of Windows OSes into the far reaches of IT... (Aplogies to Canada)
Post as an AC to generate an atmosphere that the ideas in the post are the ideas of the general public.
Maybe AC should mean "Astroturfing Commando"?
Same stupid arguments . . . comparing MSCE's to someone who actually knows what they are doing complaining the latter costs more (means more demand, you chimp) . . . oh yeah, and Linux is hard to set up for everyone, including those who know what they are actually doing. I guess posting as an AC beats being modded a "troll."
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
So basically, you're saying "It isn't UNIX, which is what I am used to."
Gotta do better than that. Makes you look like a steam engineer encountering his first electric motor.
I, for one, couldn't live without the tab completion (or any number of other meta-keys can be set up to trigger completion) that can easily be enabled for the Windows 2000 command prompt if you install and mess with the TweakUI Control Panel element. It sure as heck isn't a scripting prompt like /bin/bash or /bin/csh but there is a lot that's been added since command.com.
A lot of the good stuff in Windows these days can be attributed to the pressure being put on Microsoft by the Unix competition. Which is really good for anybody who has to use the MS stuff. I'd sure as hell hate for Microsoft to only be competing with Novell like in the old days.
well, Windows doesn't have as far to go on the desktop as linux does. They only need incremental updates to tweak stuff.
Unfortunately, if Open Source gets enough of a 'renegade' reputation, it'll be banned from more shops than it's in already. I like running OSS on my machines at home. I like experimenting around with it and learning from it. That doesn't automatically translate into a 'big scheme.'
It looks like windows has hired a few people to post here and make Win2k3 sound good.
But wait they don't know about Slashdot (as I stare at a giant Visual Studios Advertisement)
Umm, there are many, many things that Linux desktops can't do at all yet.
For example, the amount of Engineering Workstation software ported to Linux is miniscule. Sure, your Linux box makes a nice Xterm in the engineering lab as long as there's a big Unix box somewhere on the network running the licensed EDA apps, but any PC with Exceed can do that.
The amount of multimedia editing and creation software for Linux is pitiful, and doesn't seem to be growing much at all.
'Each machine does more' only works for niche server tasks like web serving and communciations apps, and only there because all the legacy UNIX stuff has been ported over.
Ooooh, IT managers just LOVE to adopt platforms where the only admins they can find are shakedown artists.
But it only runs win9x, last I checked. It's next to useless.
dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
You know a nice cup of hot tea(de-caf) and a Valium would do wonders for your outlook on life
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
The "NT kernel series" sucks when you try to port Unix-style thread or process per client model server software to it, because of the process limit I discussed and the VMS-like heaviweight processes. The ideal # of concurrent executing threads on 2K3 is one per processor, SQL Server and Exchange are modeled on this.
:) Tell me, how would it be possible to execute say 4 threads simultaneously on a processor (without HT) ? SQLServer and Exchange are modelled on the 'thread-scheduling' model, pure and simple. SQLServer's kernel (yes it has a kernel too) even uses NT-fibers, a part of the OS which can boost threads (and other threads are suffering on this). If Win2k3 has better thread-scheduling and less process-scheduling, SQLServer and Exchange will benefit from this, but also ALL threaded applications will benefit from this (can you say: IIS? aspnet_wp.exe ?)
Kernels do not suck. Kernels, if properly written (but not properly written kernels are hardly ever used in OS-es, except the win9x 'kernels'), do what was designed up-front. They have specs. If you want to use something, you read the specs and see if what you want to use can perform what you want it to perform so the usage is succesful. If you want to use an NT kernel as a monolithic UNIX kernel, and try to schedule processes instead of threads, it won't work efficiently. NT-based OS-es do not use shared memory for their processes. That's why they use threads, because these can use shared memory. When you want to use processes on an NT-kernel and you see that the performance is poor, it's not the fault of the kernel, it's the fault of the programmer who sux big time and doesn't know a thing about what he/she is doing.
Also your remark about 'VMS-like Heavyweight processes' is of the same quality: an NT-kernel based OS works differently than UNIX. You also do not eat soup with a fork, do you? even when the fork performs brilliantly when eating potatoes!
One thread per processor is the optimum? Whoa
Windows server performance is top notch, the kernels are tuned excellently, and with each server release they get better and better. I also found your resources-remark rather amusing. You are refering to the handle-count in each process. So you think it is a good thing, a process will open (2^32)-1 objects and thus has that much handles open? I think that's a bad thing. An open handle means you have an open resource, and are keeping it open. Not a lot of resources qualify for that, most resources get opened, used and are closed right after they are used. That's good programming practise.
I'm very happy for you that you think your monolithic, hardware-specific kernel is the way of the future. I also hope that you WON'T understand that how a kernel works internally is not that important, it's how the OS it is part of runs the software YOU want to run and use. If you WILL understand this, you will regret your swap. Until then, enjoy the ride, while it lasts.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
But people would rather pay a reasonable price than be robbed of their limited free time. Just charge a quarter per video clip or per hour of audio stream and nobody will bother to steal your stuff. Arcades, movie theaters, Blockbuster or Karaoke studios are not suffering from lack of business even with MAME or DivX.
Bandwidth might be expensive now, but multicast (you wait for 30 seconds for users to gather up and then send the file to many addresses) and location-sensitive P2P can address the problem. By the same token, credit card companies can come up with a low-cost model to process small payments.
By contrast DRM or invasive advertisement may work right away but only for short time. People will get burned trying to migrate their media collection to another PC. Or just get tired of putting up with all the boring junk to get to your stuff. Either way, they'll turn to something else for entertainment of information.
... in my OS OS as a matter of principle.
If you want to be told how to access *your* data, by which menas and under which conditions, good luck and hope that your "provider" is benign.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Linux is not there to slay any Goliaths.
Linux is there because many people believe it solves their computing problems, most importantly it solves the problem about who decides how to handle your own computer resources.
With MS you have to upgrade when they say you must, to what they say you must, under the conditions they dictate to you and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it if you have become completely reliant on MS based stuff for your crtitical computer work.
With Linux and other OS OSes the ones that make those decisions are the owners of the computer infrastructure. Red Hat does not support your version of RH Linux but you can't upgrade? No problem, all the code is open, you can pay somebody to fix any outstanding issues if that is what is required. Or you can move the data and programas to other Linux (and most probably any UNIX platform) when you are ready.
The variety of Linux distributions gurantees that you find the right solution to your problem and not a one size fits all approach that most probably will not please all the different types of needs out there.
Regarding Linux training, there is enough stuff around, but to be perfectly honest any good UNIX training is good enough and any particular caveats for a given distribution are easily covered by books or standard documentation.
I never learned Linux anywhere but had my first working machine up and running in no time at all. I had been working on Solaris before that, I felt at home on Linux.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Ummm, how wrong can you be. Assuming Itaniums (or their decendants) are still going to be around in 20 years, VMS will be running on it, they've already managed to boot the port and should be commonly available soon. How many people that actually use it is another question though.
A commodity??? Hardly - if you could slap any OS into a particular box and run the same applications, you might be able to call it a commodity. Regardless of whether you consider it "rocket science" (which is itself pretty old hat now), an OS is far from being a commodity. What do you think that whole antitrust trial was about? The fact that the OS basically locked users in to a variety of other MS products...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
There are a LOT of things you can't do remotely, even with the resource tools. Try unloading an isapi plugin from IIS so you can install a new verion. Huge pain in the butt when you're developing. Inability to overwrite libraries or applications that're loaded in memory is a big weakness of Windows, imo - it's probably the biggest single cause of rebooting at installations (with 2k/XP, at long last, you can do almost everything else except install new low-level hardware drivers without a reboot).
Even with syn cookies and the various types of protections shut off, FreeBSD and Linux are many, many times more robust in handling bad traffic.
:)
Must be that RFC 3514 compliance. (Sorry, couldn't resist.
My journal has hot
Either problem alone would scare potential buyers, so it seems to be forbidden to discuss.
It would be convenient to skip the upcoming deluge of advertisements and astroturf and see trade magazines feature the F/OSS tools instead. Ads cost a fortune and MS could instead use the money to 1) hire developers to rewrite software in a secure, stable form, 2) hire lawyers for the upcoming willful negligence lawsuits.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
I think that is the most realistic long term path for MS. As the parent says, they have a desktop monopoly on WWW browsing and office productivity.They have some decent dev tools but they seem to be a second order effect of their desktop and server marketshares. There is no potential for growth there. They have server market share but are basically just holding the line at best. There's some money to be made in console gaming but Sony isn't about to just let MS eat it's lunch entirely. 600lb gorilla meet 900lb gorilla. Aside from all of this, they are seen as King Nero on the Mountain by a horde of coders and smaller businesses. When you're King EVERYBODY wants to knock you off.
In this environment, what used to work isn't going to work going forward. I don't see the death of MS (much as I would enjoy attending a EULA bonfire...) anytime soon. I think the computer industry and many other fields have had just about enough of them. Something is going to have to give if they want to stay as large as they are now.
The way to survival and more importantly profit is probably diversification. Completely owning a couple of specialty markets isn't the most stable situation to be in. The only direction you can go is down. If they have large shares in lots of markets then they can live for the forseeable future...much like IBM. This may even mean, gasp!, Linux apps and support. Why not? Even I might consider buying MS sourced Linux apps if I had no suspicion they were out to migrate my servers to another platform. They can be closed source even. I won't tolerate un-interoperability or bits of intentional brain damage meant to force change in underlying technologies though. They're going to have to get over this insistance that they call all of the shots. For now, OS agnosticism isn't the best move for them. I'm not sure it always will be and that isn't entirely my point. I think the way for them to live long term is to have their fingers in lots of pies rather than being the only ones who can eat two or three.
I'll grant you that 2.4 brought improvements but it strictly handle with care ware until the minor release numbers got into the high teens. When 2.6 is released, I'll futz around on some throwaway desktops with it but it won't see server use for a number of minor releases. Do you know how to tell the pioneers from the later settlers? They're the ones with arrows sticking out of their backs.
I had a friend who beta tested an early beta and AD did not work with 2k AD.
Does anyone know the story?
hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
Oh, and I do the server management from a Linux system.
Cygwin handles drive letters very nicely (/cygdrive/C/Windows). Regrettably some of the shortcomings of the underlying platform can't be so easily overcome, but opensource can make W2K (and probably Win2K3) almost useable and manageable.Maybe the purists will still hate the idea of 2K underneath, but this is essentially encirclement, demonstrating to management the benefits of Open Source before they make the big leap. Perl and Bash certainly beat WindowsScriptingHell.
See my journal, I write things there
It's true that they are maintaining a very high barrier to entry today. However, when the intrinsic value they're protecting with their barrier is minimal, the situation becomes unstable. There have been many examples in the past where a market dominator is quickly dethroned once they make a mistake maintaining their position. Today, Microsof'ts best hope for maintaining their market share and profit margins is to change the architecture of PCs to lock customers in at the hardware level. They're trying to do this now; we shall see if the public accepts this move.
I attended a tech showing of Windows Server2k3 put on by microsoft. (My boss is a reseller of MS software, licenses, etc and he invited me along) So at the end of the day long seminar, the MS guy there had us all fill out a form and told us that each of us (there were about 15 there) would get a free copy of server2k3 (just the standard flavor -- not small business or anything like that). So, how stupid would it be to have a domain controller for my peer to peer network at home? LMAO. Seriously, though, here's the stupid question: Would it be dumb for me to put 2k3 server on my gaming rig that I've currently got 2kpro on? I'd really like to get familiar with 2k3 server, but I seriously doubt that driver support is going to be any good. I suppose I could be wrong though. Help a budding geek out, folks!
Get Virtual.
but i think that .net refers to the inclusion of xml on web servers. The definition of .net that I got from the MS spokesperson was pretty gushy, though.
the example he gave us:
an MS web developer built this tool that you could enter any flight number into and it would return with the outside temperature of the place that flight was over at any given time. he was able to build this by using multiple xml services across the net provided by different servers: gps, flight tracking, zip code verification, and weather service.
again. don't quote me on that, but that's what I got out of it.
Get Virtual.
I don't care if the software is the best thing since nethack, if the agreement is as painful as Win XP, I'm not touching it with a ten foot cattle prod.
-Zaphod
I was under the impression there was but a single thread of development for the Linux (kernel of the GNU Linux OS).
As opposed to windows with its DOS and VMS(ie "new technology technology") kernels.
Or perhaps you were confusing Linux with *BSD??? (which has 4)
--TRR
Active Dir Application Mode is backported to 2k as well though, so you don't need Win2k3 Server to get it. I was just offered this as a solution by MS, though in my case using a full-blown Domain was the better way, since I need it for authentication, not fancy directory lookups.
Can someone explain how ADAM is different from just running any LDAP server for this purpose? Not that they'll charge for ADAM, but it would be nice to know how cross-platform it is, or if LDAP is better for mixed environments.
I like music
uh..... qdos?
--TRR
"uhh, that's ignor-ahh-mus" -- love and death
Or you could just editN D PROCESSOR\CompleteionCharS OFTWARE\MICROSOFT\COMMAND PROCESSOR\CompleteionChar /XP lines) and you can tab along happily
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\MICROSOFT\COMMA
or
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\
and set the value to 9 in (I believe) every version of windows (certainly in all of the NT
K
Ooooh, IT managers just LOVE to adopt platforms where the only admins they can find are shakedown artists.
Shakedown artists? No, more like "people who are seriously interested in computers." It only helps to have Linux/UNIX listed in your resume. If people aren't educating themselves in this area, then its their loss, the industry will leave those people behind. Those who are competitive will remain.
--Drunk as in Beer
Hmm. Moderation doesn't removed the posts; this isn't censorship at all. Filter at your leisure.
Actually, with that type of writing, I can understand why you'd be upset about moderation.
If you want a site without filters, stick to newgroups sourpuss. Nobody forces you to come here, although being so angry does flatter the site.
mug
...you're figures are off quite a bit for those of us working as admins in the academic world. I realize that you wouldn't know that, and I also realize that most admins do not have access to the kind of pricing that academic institutions can get. I only pay $87 per license of 2K server that I use in a production environment. For academic teaching, we only pay $800 per year for almost everything MS makes, with the exclusion of any Office product. And, I can give a license for all that stuff away to each and every student enrolled in a CS class. We also get 4 free support incidents a year with that annual cost. Now, again, I know that this can't compare with Free Software in terms of absolute price, but I just wanted to make it known that MS's pricing isn't *always* horrible. As a matter of fact, for many universities, their software is downright cheap.
Geek used to be a four letter word. Now it's a six-figure one.
When I say many users, that doesn't include every single one. The majority doesn't mean or even IMPLY 100%. Go ask people around you, those who are non-technically inclined. Not surprisingly, MANY people have not heard of alternatives at all. Technically-inclined people would have naturally heard of alternatives because they are into that kind of stuff.
Microsoft has taken old products and polished them so many times. Explorer, DOS, and the Windows GUI are only a few examples!
And by the way, you are welcome to love Windows XP and hate UNIX.
Read my journal here.
Sean
Windows XP Home is the newest consumer level OS introduced by Microsoft. For the consumer, this means it is the "upgrade" from Windows ME. Yes, it was based Windows 2000, but it is quite a departure from it.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
Best. Rant. Ever.
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
And yes, I do realize this is the lazy mans way out, but at least the problem is starting to be addressed. They have made a LOT of progress if you look at where they started from. Lets face it, LanMan just plain SUCKED. Im glad that now, with Active Directory and Windows 2000 (and beyond) we can finally start to jettison the LanMan and NetBIOS stuff. It will probably take a bit more time to finally rid us of all of that, because they cant totally ditch backward compatibility. But someday, our children will no longer have to toil under the shadow of NetBIOS!!!
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
Mod this troll all the way down.
Any server product has its ups and downs. Why in the hell would you ues 2k3 for a SAMBA share? Jeez. If filesharing is all you're interested in, get a FREEDOS box and knock yourself out. You have little clue what you're talking about so I'm leaving it at that.
Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
Despite all the hoopla about marketing to cost-conscious IT managers, what you won't see in the Win2003 advertising campaign is the real, the actual, the true way to best manage your Windows servers in the most cost effective way.
To wit: Keep running Win2K. It's good enough for a while (Think cars: run it into the ground). That, and keep poking your toe in the Linux/SAMBA water from time to time to test for sufficient warmth.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Well, have you ever seen Microsoft's advertisements or their web site regarding their new, latest products? Take Office XP, for example. They were talking about smart tags and a new extensible architecture. But were the smart tags really something of use?
The primary reason why Microsoft profits is because it has the money, and because a lot of consumers do not know any other options, and think it is perfectly normal for their computer to crash occasionally.
If you give me the example of Windows XP not crashing often, what percentage of the population really uses Windows XP? Not everyone, in fact only a small portion of the population owns the latest and greatest computers running Windows XP.
Also, the reason why Microsoft's software, and proprietary software is popular, is because people often find ways of obtaining the software through illegal channels. Although the law is trying to stop this, it is an uphill task to completely eradicate software piracy. If everyone had no other option other than buying Microsoft's software, I think the percent of the population using Windows/Office will be much, much lesser.
As I said earlier, and I repeat myself, Internet Explorer (which was originally Spyglass' browser), the Windows GUI, why even DOS itself. All these products were not ORIGINALLY designed by Microsoft. They were either bought by MS, or were ideas that were copied from other software companies. Unfortunately, when the small companies try to retaliate, it has proven quite tough for them to win. There's nothing much you can do when you are up against a huge, monopolistic behemoth.
Another problem is Microsoft's closed approach to most of its products, and formats. If a user creates Office documents at his workplace, he is literally forced to use Office at home in order to make sure there's complete compatibility. This is because, as you all know, of Microsoft's closed document formats. Once Microsoft has control over Office, it automatically forces the user to use Windows, because Office works best on it. Office v.X (for the Mac) is a joke compared to Office XP, and it doesn't even come close to offering all of the features in the Windows version. Hence, you have a consumer lockdown cycle. Once Microsoft makes a change to its format, its customers are forced to make upgrades, through legal/illegal means. Once Microsoft has monopolized the OS market, software companies are forced to develop primarily, or even entirely for Windows. When users see that all their products work only on Windows, they automatically are attracted to it, and are helpless even if it crashes regularly, because no other platform supports all the proprietary formats they use every day.
This is why Microsoft is able to sustain such huge profits.
Read my journal here.
How interesting. So you assume that anyone who finds Windows XP usable, interesting or fun to use must, by definition, hate all other operating systems?
If you want to be a zealot, that's all fine and dandy. But don't make the mistake of assuming everyone else is, too.
"niche" things like mail servers and communications makes up 90% of the server market.
And they're commodity software that just about any server platform, anywhere, can deliver.
I am not claiming that Windows is better at that stuff, not at all. In fact old-line proprietary UNIX is still king in the EDA market. But it's certainly no 'killer app' to get Linux boxes into the server room.
Here is your original quote:
That's the kind of example I'm asking for. Personally, I don't feel "gouged" too often by Microsoft, except maybe if I had to purchase Office. But even then, the ugprades aren't that expensive. Of course, the amount of new features in newer versions of Office is obviously not worth the money.
As for proprietary formats, I would like to see more open formats used by Microsoft, but it's not as if it is impossible to write something that can open and create Office documents. But you are correct in saying that Office is one of the main reasons that Microsoft is still on top. It's a huge cash cow that makes them a ton of money.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
Yeah sure, it isn't that hard is it? I am sure you will agree that reverse engineering formats is a VERY tedious and hard process. Especially when the company changes the format every once in a while. Do you know how much trouble the Linux NTFS project went through to reverse engineer the NTFS file system? If you're interested, please check out how they were able to do it. Not making a format, or a technology open, or not releasing documentation on it, (at the very least) hurts the software industry, and consumers as well. For Microsoft, this is great isn't it? They don't have to release documentation, no one forces them to, and they get to keep all the secrets of the Windows API to themselves. Other than money, what more could a software giant want?
You asked for an example. Although off the top of my head, I can't think of an example that exactly fits the definition "triple the price", I do have what I consider to be a fairly good example. Take Windows 2000 and Windows XP for instance. I can comfortably say, I am fairly experienced in both the operating systems, especially Windows 2000. You must agree with me, that the differences between these two operating systems are not very great. Some people would not agree with me because to them it LOOKS entirely different. But hey, other than that, are there a lot more differences? According to me at least, no.
But, Microsoft expects users to pay close to $ 200.00 USD to upgrade to this completely new, full featured version. Frankly, after using both these operating systems, I find that upgrade price ridiculous. The new features certainly do NOT justify the price. Just for an upgrade, that price is completely absurd.
Coming back to Office, even if it is easy to create a program that can write and open Office documents, what about slightly more advanced features such as text-boxes? I don't know if you have experience with OpenOffice, but OpenOffice does not display all text boxes created in Word. Also, numbering and bulleting isn't always the way it was intended to be when you transfer between applications. The problem isn't writing or reading the Office formats. The problem is when you transfer files between the two suites. You can't exactly blame the OpenOffice group. They've only been at it for 2 years! See what the creation of closed file formats can do?
One more point I forgot to make last time, sorry if I am bringing up something new. The inclusion of Internet Explorer and it being chosen by default as the default browser isn't exactly fair. Why? Because users tend to think that is the only browser that they can use. That's their link to the internet. You might say, "Well the users can always check out other browsers if they're interested." Sure, that's fine, but sad fact is, most don't. You are welcome to check statistics if you want, but IE is the most popular browser out there. What does this mean? Web designers are forced to focus mainly on making their web pages work on IE. If you don't know, IE isn't exactly a standard-compliant browser at all. This means web pages created using the standards may not look the same in IE, and hence web designers have to customize their web pages to work on IE. Some web designers ignore other browsers all together, and this creates a problem. You have a vicious cycle again. Users don't know other browsers exist, and hence they use IE. In response, web designers create more and more web pages exclusively for IE. In response to that, the users trying to switch to other browsers, don't, because most "IE-designed" web pages display poorly on non-IE browsers. Once again, you have the problem of Microsoft not following web standards, or even trying to switch to open, standard formats.
If you're tempted to say that IE might be popular because it's a great browser, you're welcome
Read my journal here.
Hmm, what makes you say I'm a zealot? All I was doing was responding to what he said that he likes Windows XP and didn't like UNIX. It was meant to be a gesture, not an insult, at all. Believe me if you please. I really find it hard to understand how you extrapolate that I think that all Windows XP users (those who enjoy it) by definition, hate all other operating systems. What makes you think that I assume everyone else is a zealot? If you like an operating system, go ahead and use it, who am I to question you? I never even hinted that fact in my post (or any part of it) at all. That wasn't my aim, sorry if you misunderstood it.
If you still think of me as a zealot, I don't mind. But I think you must think twice before labeling anyone a zealot just due to a single sentence. One line can have more than one meaning or intention you know...
Read my journal here.
I don't mean to say it's easy to reverse engineer a file format, file system or network protocol. And like I said, I do agree with you that it is obviously in Microsoft's interest to keep those formats closed. I'm trying to rememeber how we got on to that subject... :-)
I could come up with a list that shows how different the two really are. Many of them are "under the hood" so to speak but realize that they had to take Windows 2000 and make sure it ran most Windows ME/9X programs without messing everything up. They did that pretty darn well in my opinion. As for the price, if you want the professional version, then yes, the upgrade was $199, but for the home version the upgrade was $99. That's not really much more than say purchasing a commercial Linux distro, and for the most part, they didn't have to do nearly the work to come up with the Linux product as Microsoft had to to develop Windows XP.
Also, you will notice that the full price and upgrade price for Windows as new versions come out doesn't really change from year to year. That's why I took you to task on the "triple" the price. I don't really see Microsoft raising their prices in the last 10 years. In fact, when you account for inflation, many of their products probably cost less than they use to.
As for the diversion into IE, I don't have problem with you bringing it up. First off, the inclusion of IE into the OS, along with it being the default is to the benefit of the consumer in my opinion. Not only do they not have to worry about downloading a browser, or purchasing one, but the componentized (new word?) setup of IE makes it very easy for programmers to develop applications that use parts of IE and not have to worry about them not being their. I think incorporating the Web browser into the operating system is the next logical step for the OS. And as for crash statistics, I can't remember the last time IE crashed on me in Win2000 at work or WinXP at home. Honestly. If you really need to go back to Windows 95 to make your point about IE, I don't think it's a very strong one.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
*COUGH* umm... yes if you ignore the complete overhaul and rewrite of IIS - one their most bug riddled and important parts of their Server OS, it's a small step.
.... uuhhh hmmm yes most of them.
.NET framework.
But how many people out there are using their server to supply Web Services or Web forms ?
Windows 2003 Server represents a very major release. It's their first server which fully integrates the
IIS6.0 has very significant improvements that give a systems administrator full control over the security environment and processing environment of their Web applications.
These improvements will likely make IIS6.0 a much more stable and scalable solution than any of it's predecessors.
WOW, I wonder how Mr. Gates will survive such a "shock and awe" attack..Is he doomed like Saddam Husein?
Honestly, the amount you get by paying 99 dollars for a commercial Linux distro is MUCH MUCH more than what you would get from a Windows box. In fact, most modern Linux distros (not server editions, of course) cost only about 30 - 50 bucks, depending on the distro and your location. Also, you get a LOT for what you pay. Moreover, almost all versions of these distros (in most circumstances, i.e.) can be downloaded free of cost. What about the documentation? It's available in pdf/html format. One of the main reasons Distro companies charge for their OS is due to the cost of packaging, printing books, etc. The amount these companies ship in one box without paying over 30 - 50 bucks is amazing. Most distros offer good tech support, including speaking on the phone with customer service. Fortunately or unfortunately, I've had experience with Microsoft tech support, and it certainly could be better. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, don't you have to pay to speak to them?
And, if you say, "Well these distros don't have to do nearly the amount of work Microsoft has to.", each distribution offers a HUGE number of customized features in order to attract users. Although some people are against Red Hat, let me use it as an example. Red Hat recently included its own interface/theme known as BlueCurve. As soon as you look at it, it's quite clear that they put a lot of work into it. In fact, I speak from experience. Due to BlueCurve, GNOME applications run wonderfully on KDE, and vice versa. Also, the interface changes are minimalized. Hence, users can switch between the two without having to adapt to too many changes. Trust me, and if you're interested, check it out. In fact, when you buy a distro, you get basically everything you'll ever need for your work. Don't tell me that that's the case with any of Microsoft's Windows products.
As for IE, I am certainly not going to go back to Windows 95, as I know it's not a strong point. But however, remember that a significant part of the population still uses 95/98/Me, where IE isn't great. Also, to tell you the truth, I run Windows 2000 on another partition, and I have had quite a number of experiences where IE has crashed to my disappointment. It usually happens when I try to access an FTP server that's down (not online, whatever). I see a message, "Server name could not be resolved, then IE stops responding. Obviously, I have no other option other than giving the three-finger salute (Ctrl-Alt-Del :-) (And yes, if you want to know if I keep my system up2date, yes.) Anyway, that was only one instance where IE repeatedly succeeds to crash.
Coming back to the main point about IE, I don't mind most users liking IE, or using it. I was only talking about the problem of most users using a browser that isn't standard-compliant and what that does to the web and standards in general. In fact, integration of the browser is not a bad idea, and I agree with you on that point. (If you're familiar with KDE, it does sound a bit like Konqueror being both a file manager and a browser, right? :-)
Maybe you're right about the upgrade price for the Home edition not being too expensive. But take Windows XP Professional itself as an example. The full version, here in Canada, costs us 450 - 499 CAD (you could convert that I guess :-) I am just not able to justify that price for what you really get along with the OS. In fact, whether you accept it or not, one of the main reasons why Windows XP is so popular is 1. Stability has certainly been improved 2. Games run better and crash less frequently and 3. (most importantly) the interface looks much nicer compared to the previous versions of the OS.
However, if you as a user are only interested in having a better interface, he/she can check out Object Desktop. A
Read my journal here.
Sorry I failed to say this before, but before labeling someone a zealot, you should at least read through what they generally say. If you make the effort to read through my posts, you can clearly see that I'm not an impassioned bigot who hates Microsoft products because they are created by Microsoft. In fact, I am even ready to commend the company for facilitating the placement of a computer in so many homes around the world. My arguments against Microsoft are fairly justified, and hopefully the tone and content of my posts reflect that. I don't think I would classify as the classic, stuck-up person who hates a company due to no reason. And once again, I don't HATE Microsoft. All I am doing is speaking out against its policies, not being a zealot.
Read my journal here.
To put it in persecptive for you: Under WinXP it took 10 seconds to open Word 2000. Word 2000 under Win4Lin under Linux takes about 1.5 seconds. I kid you not! All I wanted was the ability to run some Windows programs when I needed to and I didn't really care if it was clunky or slow. Little did I know at the time that using Win4Lin would actually speed up my Windows applications! Now I'm getting to use all the laptop I paid for!
Try Win4Lin before you knock it. Very little actually requires WinXP and everything else runs faster under Win4Lin (except QuickBooks which appears to be just as slow as always under Win4Lin. I'm wondering if they put an actual time-based delay in the QuickBooks startup code!).
I take it back. I forgot about "activation". W2003 SERVER has that damnable bit of spyware. It is not worth. W2K FOREVER!!!!! Actually, this just might be the best reason to migrate to OpenBSD or Linux.
I'm glad you summarized because I'm rather busy IRL and don't have a lot of time to respond.
I very much disagree with this. While Linux distros may include a lot of third party utilities that will help get work done, that doesn't mean that they offer a lot more value. This is your opinion. My opinion is that I get a lot of value out of Windows. Let me repeat, I will be running Linux soon so I can get some experience with it, but from what I hear from people I know who run Linux and from what I see in conversations around here, it's just not as easy to use as Windows. Again, your opinion may differ, and mine may change when I actually run Linux, but from the limited experience I have with it (and UNIX), Windows is a lot easier to use. There is a HUGE value for me in not having to do anything to get Windows to work. At home, I rarely have to futz, play with, or configure anything. It just works.
So? I don't need huge amounts of customization of my OS. I realize that many people around here like that, but I really don't care. And again, I can't remember I've the last time I had to look up something in documentation to get something in Windows (the OS, not programs in it) to work.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is true. I don't know what kind of support you get when you just individually purchase a copy of the OS, with Windows or Linux. However, I can tell you at work, with our support agreement, I've had no problems with Micrsoft support. They've always been pretty helpful with problems that I've had to deal with. IBM is a completely different matter...
Never given a chance? Because someone may actually have to get the browser somehow and then install it? At least that kind of stuff is fairly simple in Windows... ;-)
And who has really had to guy the full version in the last 10 years? Yes, it is rather expensive to buy a full version of WinXP pro, but most people who want or need WinXP pro qualify for the upgrade.
Again, so? Why is that a bad thing? Windows XP is extremely stable (as was Win2000), the interface is consistent. It's very easy to use. I never have to worry about compiling, or library dependencies, or anything like that to get programs to work (unless I'm coding of course).
As for Microsoft going to XML formats for Office. I would advise you to take a look at an XML document saved from the newest version of Office and compare it to a document saved from OpenOffice as XML. Honestly, when I've compared the two, Microsoft's document structure looks a lot "easier" to work with than OpenOffice.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
Actually, you are off-base in places and off in others.
/. fashion and in a very uninformed manner.
/.? Think about it. You sound like one of the folks that has to have a "clear winner" in the server category as opposed to realizing that it is a very broad field and one may smoke on some features but not on others. I would never limit my network to a single architecture like alot of our clients do. But then again, the reason our co
Of course I'm not using something that went gold (and that's MS's definition of gold, so take the grain of salt because you know ymmv) weeks ago in a production environment. I'm lazy, not stupid.
No, I'm not a Tom/Kyle/Anand type, but I do have to keep on top of the latest OS releases. I do have to evaluate the pros and cons of each release and figure out if it is worth it to my enterprise or to any of our customers. I download RH/Slack/BSD releases within days of availability and start putting them through their paces on test boxen. I do the same with MS products via my MSDN subscription. Working with both worlds all the time, I can't afford to bury my head in the sand and ignore the march of so-called progress or discount something just because it comes from Redmond.
I read the same tsarkon posts and info you did and what I gleaned from it was he installed it to do file-sharing and then proceeded to bash everything about the OS including what he didn't test or even understand in classic
You can bash Win2k DNS all you like but I have been running it production for two years for a number of complex domain trees and to also support a production AD (which interoperates just fine with my other LDAP servers, thank you) and I have found it to be quite stable. I am not stupid enough to let the AD servers talk DNS to the real world (use a DNS proxy locked down tighter than dick's hat band for that), but these are the kind of things you learn by actually USING a product rather than just clicking around a little and deciding it's inferior and not worth your time. BTW - maybe you're saying that there have been fewer serious BIND vulnerabilities than Win2K *DNS-specific* exploits? Umm, no.
As for IIS, if you're using it to serve up simple DB-bound web pages, again, you SHOULD be using Apache and pHp. IIS is not just the server version of PWS, dunghole. IIS is an application platform, not a simple web server. And that's not to say that Apache w/Jakarta or WebSphere or whatever else can't compete with that, because they definitely have their uses. But using the latest incarnations of IIS to work with windows-only application platforms is simply cheaper, faster and more extensible for large clients who have standardized on that homogeneous environment at both the client and the server. Notice I'm not defending that decision, I'm just telling you what it takes to stay competitive in the large contract RAD market, since you seem to not understand why anyone would even consider checking W2K3 out.
As for RRAS, it does what my org needs it to do and I don't have to buy/support another piece of hardware to do it. I'm sure an ISP would prefer another solution (understandably), but, then, I am not an ISP.
I really can't believe you even used the words "Solaris" and worse "Lotus" in the same paragraph with the word "service". Quarterly maintenance is not a good option when your users are down waiting for the fix or when a critical exploit needs attention. Patches come out when they have to not when they have been scheduled, moron.
I am certainly *not* a Microsoft-trained monkey, and I understand that many, many such creatures exist. Everything I know about MS I've learned from having to work with it. And I guarantee you I've had much more pain from their products than you have. But I have noticed a trend in their products improving in some areas, as much as I may disagree with their direction in others. I am not very interested in what is percieved as *cool*. If I were, would I be even arguing this with you on
Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
It is always interesting to note that our difference of opinion on this topic, is mostly because of what we use our computers for. I develop a lot, and I find the Linux environment very suitable for my development purposes. Although I am not sure what you use your machine for, I am sure Windows must be satisfying your needs, and I have no problem with that.
In terms of support, when you purchase any software (individually, not as a company with a support agreement), as far as I know and out of experience, you only get online support by means of e-mails and messages. You do have to pay for direct, person-to-person customer service (this is as far as I know and was true the last time I checked). To be fair, even Linux distros only offer direct person-to-person customer service for a period of 30 to 90 days, depending on the distribution you buy.
I disagree. In the open source world, (specifically the Linux world), there is a growing trend to providing binaries of all programs in the form of RPMs or DEBs, depending on the specific platform you are using. Although until a few years ago, RPMs had to be installed through the command line, nowadays, double-clicking them will open a small window, that does a complete installation for you, including adding shortcuts to your main menu. Of course, because it is open source, you always have the option of obtaining the source and compiling it for yourself. But virtually all major open-source programs, including Mozilla, OpenOffice, Tcl, the X server, KDE, etc. all have binary distributions that hardly require any technical expertise to install. What you said does not hold true so much any more. Yes, a few years ago, virtually everything had to be compiled, etc. Why, now you even have a kernel configurator in KDE to configure and tweak the kernel graphically if one wishes to do so. So you see, the Linux world has changed a lot even in just a few years.
In terms of documentation, I don't mean troubleshooting manuals, etc. I mean documentation that gives you information on security, tips on optimising your system. Although installation guides are provided, the big distributions have wonderful, fully-graphical installers that do all the groundwork for the user, and even a complete newbie needs to know virtually nothing about installation itself.
In terms of the full version, many people need full versions if they ever need to re-install their system from scratch. I don't know about you, but me, and most of the people I know have to reinstall Windows every once in a while (about once or twice a year). This is either because our system gets too cluttered with all our files and programs, or because we encounter problems with our computer/operating system. Well we could always install our original full version, then upgrade once again to Windows XP, but that might not even be possible in some cases. One more reason why I, and many others, like to do a clean re-install is because Windows, over time, tends to store too many system files, and temporary files that are next to impossible to find and get rid of. Well, I could always use commercial programs like Window Washer (which I do) to clean my system tracks, but it's far from being perfect. So for people like us, if we intend to buy an OS, we usually tend to go for the full version. And personally, I would be surprised if a person started out with Windows 95 and has only upgraded all the way to Windows XP (although I certainly don't mind if they choose to do so).
By saying given a chance, I don't mean that people are blocked by a mysterious magic force from downloading and installing another browser. All I'm saying is, the creation of IE as the default browser hurts web standards and other browsers (I have already explained why it hurts other browsers) Maybe the fault is in the users for not finding out about other alternatives, but since I do not have any
Read my journal here.
I appreciate the discussion. I don't think either of us are zealots, and it makes having a conversation much easier.
And for the record, I am a developer. And I have recently had more experience developing in a UNIX environment and I must say, I kind of liked having to build my own make file for GCC, rather than just having a Visual C++ project file that I know nothing about. That's actually the reason I'll be installing Linux at home soon.
Anyway, I do appreciate it. I think some of my perceptions regarding Linux may not be true anymore with the latest distro's. I'll give it a try as soon as I can get a spare box.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
Yes definitely. The problem is, in most forums and discussions, the people are impassioned zealots who do not have any information to back up their arguments. A good argument is one in which each side has the respect to acknowledge the strengths of the other side.
Anyway, good luck, and hopefully you'll enjoy working with Linux and find it a pleasant experience.
Read my journal here.
It's when the GUI takes over completely leaving the commandline to ruin. How do you type "rm -rf lame*.mp3" in a gui? "mkisofs foo/* > foo.iso"?
I've used M$'s terminal-server client as well as rdesktop on my Linux box. It only allows so many people to login and the server quickly crashes under the stress. It was an NT 5 server with the latest patches; thank goodness I'm out of there.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
You imply a disparity in your years of experience and mine and I do not doubt that. Judging from the maturity level of your posts, you don't have as many years breathing as I have of industry experience.
Say what you want about Lotus, but I will never use it again. And yes, that implies I have before. Solaris has generally performed well for me... it's just the on-again, off-again attitude towards x86 that makes me leery of ongoing support from Sun.
You assume you make more than me, and maybe you do (there's alot of people paying too much for too little out there) but you really shouldn't assume it because you are likely wrong. It matters not though, because I am secure in my career and my craft. You also assume I don't have a consulting biz of my own or "can't get a client". Whatever. If you feel it necessary to carry on this bullshit troll, go ahead. You're in my killfile.
Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
Interesting note that Juniper uses BSD for core servers. I'll bet their office users still do their mail and memo's with Microsoft products. But hold it, Juniper routers are ASIC-based devices, so what are these awesome servers? Everytime I work with Cisco IOS I find myself wishing that Microsoft would buy Cisco and give us a useable user interface. Am I a Windows Zealot? I was doing UNIX before Linux was around, and for the record put the first UNIX-like system into the Peace Corps: SCO Xenix with an Oracle database. Last week I completed the train-the-trainers course for Windows Server 2003. Yes I still run BSD, but it's something of an afterthought as I'm mostly interested in how to manage UNIX from a Windows seat. Doing things the hard way is for people who *need* to do something to feel more macho, not for those who already are. Seems to me that evaluating an individual OS on an individual machine for resistance to attacks is kind of the "little picture" approach. It's not a systems approach, to be sure. Individuals who use OS's connect them to ISP's who are increasingly vigilant. Why worry about protecting my own DNS servers when I can use Verizon's? Businesses do not buy an OS for its resistance to attacks if they know they've already paid the price to stop such attacks at the firewalls and routers. It is interesting that rather than meet technical arguments head-on, this writer already labels those who might disagree with ad hominem attacks. Zealots? It issort of the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it? As for command line configurability, everything in W2K3 is configurable from the command prompt. The problem is that it is not as simple an OS as Linux, so you might have to do some real study and learning before you can figure out how to be that dangerous. As for *secure* scripting, I sure do not want to install certificate authorities and do signed code on UNIX in any business I'm going to support.
JB Fields jbfields3@gmail.com http://jaysmotorcycle.blogspot.com "Crossing the Canadian border, the customs guy asks
Like I said in a previous post, I don't think my experience is atypical. I cannot believe that my shop is alone in not having constant software issues with MS software. Again, it comes down to competency...I'm reminded of someone's sig. here on /. it goes something like clueless admin Homer Simpson on NT: Server goes up, server goes down, server goes up, server goes down....you get the picture.
In any case, Microsoft has *always* given very favorable discounts to Academia, not just when it suits them. But they're not stupid either...giving large discounts to schools and students helps promote another generation weaned on MS software, another generation using/administering/and coding for their software simply because they're used to it. Then MS hopes and prays like hell that when they can pay for a copy, they will.
Also, you're right, I don't think that linux pricing is more expensive. In all of my previous posts I explicitly stated that I couldn't argue that point because it *is* nearly impossible to argue (that said, now that I look at it, the support you get for the $1499 RH AS license looks pretty paltry...9-5 only and only for one machine....)
Anyway, it's late and I'm going to bed. Perhaps I'll continue this another day.
Geek used to be a four letter word. Now it's a six-figure one.
OMFG, LOFL & ROTF! Yes, I actually read it all and the mirth was the worth. Thank you, AfC, for demonstarting that you have the aptitude to commit the same verbicide of which you accuse me but of which you offer no evidence and of which none can I find. If you want anyone to take you seriously (and that would be a very high ambition for you, maybe unrealistic), try posting with some identity and get back to the discussion at hand. BTW anyone can get transciptions of the minutes from their local demagoguery's meetings and do find and replace; that does not equal original thinking or speaking. But it is one way to learn the language. FOAD.
Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
This is a poorly formatted, half assed troll.
And your use of ** for *emphasis* dates you as a fucking retard Apple ][e shithead - but certainly not before.
What a fucking retard.
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.