Forums for Windows Admins?

Work-w/-MCSEs asks: "I work with Microsoft products for a living, as well as for fun. I've been lurking in Slashdot discussions for a while now. I find a lot of the stories interesting, but it is obviously geared more toward Unix people. Stories about MS products are often full of flames. I can see the reasons why Microsoft users aren't accepted as 'true geeks'. I acknowledge that Unix people are more technical (by necessity since they often compile their own software), and I'm not asking or expecting the attitudes here to change. However, I do wish I could find a similar forum for us to talk about our chosen operating system, applications, viruses, and other issues. Usenet is just too full of spam to be useful. Where is a Windows user to go for good discussion?"

Comments

Best Windows Discussions...

[Ieshan]

Usually take place over at symantec.com. They're full of all the information you need to secure your machine against the latest exploits and viruses.

I mean, that's what you want to talk about, right? The exploits?

-----------------

On a more serious note, I'm not sure such a true forum exists simply because of the way Windows is run. Linux (and slashdot) are much more meltingpot, and the ideas here are really just a community reflection. I mean, supposing someone *does* come up with some great code ideas and additions to Windows, how will they go about getting those changes implemented?

Most Windows forums that I've seen are either "ask the experts" things or "games games games". Lots of good Linux info can be found on slashdot, lots of good windows info can be found scattered around by means of the google.

I'll stand up and be flamed.

[bluephone]

*nix people are NOT more technical by nature. I know DOZENS of Linux "geeks" who compile their own software only because of easy compile scripts and easy packages. I started on non-DOS systems, but found DOS _extremely_ usable with QEMM and DesqView, later found Win98 tolerable, and find NT/2k/XP very usable. I'm far more techincal than at least 50% of the programmers in the wild becaus eI know _hardware_. I can't tell you how many coders over the years I've met and known who can write magnificent code, but couldn't install a SIMM in their old 386 if their lives depended on it.

By default, Windows is very insecure, and does need adjusting to become a fast, tech-friendly environment, but so does any Linux distro (although it's usually more secure by default). Being a Windows admin doesn't have to mean a dearth of techincal knowledge. EDUCATE YOURSELF. Don't rely on your PC or OS to educate you. Read technical books, play with hardware, get Cygwin and play with the command line tools. Compile your own programs, too. There's lots of open source Windows software. Learn to program, also.

Don't be intimidated by someone just because they use Linux. Don't be intimidated by the OS holy wars that have been raging since before DOS even existed. Anyone who says ONE OS is better than all is a fool. They're all around because of various niches that needed filled. Linux is growing while Windows is flattening (they're BOTH fattening, too...), sure, but that doesn't mean you're not a useful Admin.

Now, that said, I'll preemptively defend myself. I'd never put Windows up as a server, unless we're talking a home net where the server is also used as a PC. Putting Windows as a server on the net is insane. Linux is far superior there. But, as it stands, Windows is still a better desktop OS. I do sincerely hope Linux keeps improving there, though. Competition is good.

Re:I'll stand up and be flamed.

[NemoX]

I see where you are coming from but that is not always as clear cut as you make it. I have experience with Linux, Solaris, Windows, and DNS, E-Mail servers, Web and Database servers in all three environments.

UNIX takes more understanding when initially setting up. I know more UNIX commands then I could write down in one day (ok, an exageration :) ). I can do seeming more advanced administration from *NIX platforms, but that is because of the cool tools that come with the systems by default (windows requires a "resource kit" to get many similar, but not nearly all, of the admin functionalities as a *NIX)

Windows on the other hand is more *click* *click* crap, and yes, VERY easy to install by comparision.

HOWEVER...what determines an admins knowledge? The ability to set something up or fix it when it is broken?

I can set up either with ease. But, because windows is constantly randomly breaking, I have learned SO much more about networks and OS' then any class or certification course has ever taught me. I feel much more challenged when a *NIX station suddenly goes dumb, mostly because it rarely happens (I think I can count the number of times on one hand with out my tumb or pinkie :D) I have to scratch my head and think about what I once read in order to fix it. If a windows box goes down, I know that system inside and out, because I have been everywhere fixing so many problems with those boxes. All of the books I read stay fresh in my head, because I have to use its information more frequently. Whereas, on *NIX stations, there are several places I have not ever had to venture.

I have learned more about DNS from setting it up in UNIX, but more about network data packets from constantly monitoring oddities with windows. (for example)

So, while one is more challenging to setup and remember its commands and purpose/functionality, the other is more challenging to keep up and running. Herein lies the knowledge differences. Different, but oddly equal in their own respect.

Re:I'll stand up and be flamed.

[jonadab]

> The original story appears to come from a professional windows admin. By the
> nature of ths OS, that is an easier job to be competent at than a UNIX admin.

Actually, I'd say it's much harder to be a *competent* Windows admin. I have
more experience with Windows than with *nix (though not as *much* more as I
used to have), but I'm definitely more competent with *nix.

> If you need to setup an email / groupware server then go and install MS
> Exchange on a Windows 2000 server. I've done it. Click, Click, Click and
> you're done.

Heh. Rose-tinted glasses you're wearing. More like Click, click, click,
(most of those clicks are on "Next" BTW) and then you're just getting
started, because next week you're going to be googling for some obscure
error message trying to figure out what the heck it means. (Granted, this
happens with Linux too, but less often -- and when it does happen on Linux,
it's usually when you were making changes (e.g., installing a new version),
not out of the blue. Unless you have a hard drive start to quietly go bad,
in which case all *sorts* of weird things happen, as I know from experience.)

> For your clients you can install MS Outlook

Sure, and then your whole network goes down for two days at a time once or
twice per quarter. See, that's what I'm talking about; it's easy enough to
be a novice Windows admin, but competence is harder; you have to learn things
the hard way. For Windows desktops, you install Pegasus Mail for email, or
at least Eudora, or Agent, or *something*. No competent admin would install
Outlook for a fresh deployment unless directly ordered to do so by management,
because Outlook is virtually impossible to keep running smoothly over the
medium term. But you don't find that out (unless you're the kind who does
research on every piece of software before you deploy it) until you've been
running it for a few weeks/months, and by then your users have invested time
in learning it that you don't want to take away from them, so you're stuck
between a rock and a hard place. So you scour the internet for tips on
securing Outlook and Exchange. Now you have to learn five or ten times as
much (as you would have needed to learn if you installed a different option),
because you have to filter all the mail traffic, removing not only certain
content types, but also *any* content-type with certain filename extensions,
and you need to block outgoing connections to port 110 and 143 and 220 and
maybe 993. So you need to set up a firewall that all of your network's
traffic goes through... Now you've branched out into content-filtering
*and* firewalls, two relatively technical subjects, just to keep email
working properly. This is typical with Windows administration.

> Try and do the same thing on UNIX.

It takes longer to be "done" on *nix, yes, but when you're done your
actually mostly done. Say for example you install Postfix. (This is
really hard: in rpmdrake you click on the checkbox for postfix and hit
the "Install" button.) Now, granted, before you're "done" you have to
configure it, because otherwise nothing's going to work. So you fire up
a text editor and read through the config file (which is well commented,
as virtually all config files are on the major distros these days) and
change the options you need to change. Now, this *does* take longer than
installing Exchange, *and* it requires more technical knowledge, such as
how to use a text editor.

However, once you're done you can hire a chimpanzee to administer it, provided
you tie up the chimp so he can't touch anything. Security is mostly a matter
of scanning the slashdot headlines once a day just in case there's a big
exploit (in which case, you fire up the "update" utility, look for a Postfix
update, click its checkbox, and hit "install".)

> What about a web server. Add Remove programs, Windo

Re:I'll stand up and be flamed.

[gtrubetskoy]

Click, Click, Click and you're done.

But have you ever tried to set up a web hosting scenario where you have multiple clients acessing their sites in a secure way? On unix - just create a group, chown/chmod and you're done. On Windows you'll be clicking till sunrise, only to learn that there is no way to change permissions from command line.

So it's clickity-click on Windows until you run into one of these gotchas. Unix tends to be easier on you this way - once you've mastered the basic stuff, there is no limit to what you can do. On Windows, there is always a catch, and M$ is working hard on coming up with more.

Ars Technica OpenForum's

[harakh]

Ars Technica, known for alot of good articles often referred to on slashdot and other sites, have a very active forum which includes NT, Win2K and XP Technical Mojo. From my limited knowledge it seems like the place you are looking for.

You are very welcome on Slashdot.

[Futurepower(R)]

You are very welcome on Slashdot. Those aren't flames you are seeing, they are people trying to cope with Microsoft's abusiveness. With Linux and BSD, the users come first. There are no billionaires to spoil the party.

Slashdot published my questions about drive imaging software and about mirroring controllers. Both discussions were very valuable to me in my work on Windows systems:

Experiences w/ Drive Imaging Software?

Mirroring Controllers - What have been Your Experiences?

Microsoft has serious management problems. People don't always know how to respond to this. Sometimes they become very upset.

On the other hand, I feel some sympathy for Microsoft's managers. It is not easy to run a large corporation in a caring way.

commercial OS = commercial support

[ajagci]

However, I do wish I could find a similar forum for us to talk about our chosen operating system, applications, viruses, and other issues.

It's called MSDN and microsoft.com. You can also hire consultants, subscribe to commercial newsletters, and go to commercial training courses. You picked a commercial platform, your support is going to be commercial and you get astroturf for a community. I mean, what do you expect?

Linux and open source isn't as much about the software, it's about the community. If you want an open source-like community, you have to use software that comes out of that community, even if you would prefer something else in terms of software.

Occasionally, you will find a commercial platform with a vibrant and enthusiastic user community. But such situations usually only arise when the commercial platform is a technological breakthrough, and they usually don't last more than a few years. Eventually, people ask themselves: why should I work for free, only so that the company that's making the product can cut back on support and increase their profits?

Re:Asking for it ?

[kinnell]

you sadist !

I think you mean masochist. A sadist is someone who forces other people to use windows for fun.

Unix == less techincal than windows

[smoon]

"I acknowledge that Unix people are more technical (by necessity since they often compile their own software)"

I disagree. Yes, paper MCSE-morons are less technical since they view the world as a series of wizards, magical patches, and religious rites (like reboots).

However, true windows experts are _way_ more techincal than Unix type people. Unix people get to look at source code to figure out how things work. Unix people get to rely on published standards for reference. Unix people get to draw on decades of collective experience and can often see how things evolved over time, and usually have some kind of known-good reference site to emulate.

Windows, on the other hand, requires you to work with closed, buggy code, figure out where the bugs are and how to work around them, figure out what proprietary 'extensions' MS has 'helpfully added' to otherwise standard protocols, figure out how to script an essentially unscriptable system, deal with mysterious registry problems, malware, viruses, virtually no security to protect important files, etc. Ever try to replicate an IIS metabase to several servers? Ask an apache admin how hard it is (copy a few text files), then a seasoned windows person (buy a really expensive tool from Microsoft, or try to script it, or use ghost to move _the_entire_operating_system, or more likely manually point and click through the whole thing). Then think about which has the more challenging job. The Apache guy just needs to know a text editor and some copy commands. The Windows guy needs to understand, at a fundamental level, how the metabase file is used, why it cant be copied directly, and how to work around the situation. Frequently this type of problem then requires you to purchase a tool, either from MS or a 3rd party which means the ability to understand the problem well enough to explain it to management, evaluate the options, etc.

So, no, I don't think Unix people are more technical, they just aren't as masochistic.

You forgot to mention...

[leonbrooks]

...that we're "more technical" because we have better toys. Having any modern Linux distribution is like having a honking great Lego (tm) collection (top toy, and it runs under MS-Windows as well). Having MS-Windows is like having Barbie dolls - sure they look pretty, and have all of these neat (and expensive) accessories, but after you've posed them in variations of six different ways, that's about it for imagination. For kids, it's time to rip the legs off and see what makes them go.

The shiny stuff in modern Linux distros (KDE, GNOME etc) is like modern Lego in that it is kind of pre-built. This takes some of the fun out of it but also saves doing some repetitive tasks (e.g. "assemble Bob the Builder model") and more accurately represents small objects.

PS, I very seldom "compile my own software" (although I've been doing a lot of it this last week for customers). When I do, I sing halleliujahs for the ability to do it, sadly absent in much MS-Windows software. But for 99% of what I do, eminently suitable "shrink-wrapped" versions exist, and most stuff is modular enough that BASH will glue it together if the existing stuff falls short.

Oh... that's right, you don't have BASH. Well, try the CygWin suite which includes it, and/or pull down a free PERL and have a go with that as a glue language.

I haven't had time to er, use usenet for ages. Google's interface is a pretty good newbie gateway to it.