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.

Hmm

[Medgur]

I've been using this one for years: http://www.experts-exchange.com

It's mostly help forums, but I haven't really felt a strong desire to get in touch with people on the grounds of a single software paradigm.

Usenet

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn to filter. Learn to use groups.google.com. Also, even when no one else is helping you and you find the answer elsewhere, post back to the board in question with the answer, if for no other reason, that you can find it again in groups.google.com -- embarassingly, I have plugged in complete questions into google and found the forum where I asked the exact same question 2 years ago.

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.

[orthogonal]

*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.

Actually, I suspect *nix people may well be more technical; *nix encourages the idea of (for example) stringing together awk | sed | cut | sort | grep to do things that under Windows would almost always be implemented as a monolithic program.

But let me second (part of) the parent poster's comment: compilation is so ridiculously easy these days on linux-y systems.

I remember when I -- a professional programmer -- hesitated to compile unfamiliar source, because of conflicting headers, non-standard "Standards" (before C++98/C99, everyone and his brother had a different idea of what bool should be), and other gotchas.

These problems have largely disappeared on linux-y systems, thanks mostly to configure scripts. Nowadays, I have no real worries about downloading source I'd never heard of before, and I'm surprised if it doesn't compile cleanly the first time.

Funnily enough, I do most of my compiling not under linux per se, but Cygwin. And most of what I've been doing recently has been cross-compiling, for the SH-1 and the StrongArm processors. Still, I have few problems, mostly because of the configure scripts.

If you've never used a configure script, it compiles a battery of test code in such a way as to test for any particularities of your environment, and adapts the Makefile to your system.

Nor are decent Makefiles limited to linux-y environments; Neil Hodgson, in addition to writing the excellent SciTE editor, also makes the source available with Makefiles that perform flawlessly for a number of compilers -- I was able to compile using the Borland command line compiler "out of the box" using Neil's Borland makefile.

What I dread these days are "Integrated Development Environments" with "projects" or other proprietary replacements for Makefiles. True, the Makefile is a dated and awkward format that goes so far as to (disastrously, if you don't know about it!) make semantic distinctions between spaces and tabs. But it also works most anywhere.

Recently, I took an app written for Qt on some linux distribution, and after a few days of compensating for the fact that it used the 3.x QT libraries and I was using 2.3.3, I was able to cross-compile it under Cygwin for my Sharp Zaurus. Other than implementing Qt 3.x functionality using Qt 2.3.3 classes, the configure script took care of all the work for me.

The parent poster also wrote "Linux is far superior there. But, as it stands, Windows is still a better desktop OS."

With Cygwin under Windows 2000, and a policy of using programs -- like Mozilla -- that are Open and exist in both MS-Windows and Linux -- I really think I have the best of both worlds.

Re:I'll stand up and be flamed.

[unixbob]

*nix people are NOT more technical by nature. I

I disagree with this completely. 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.

I'm not flaming. Here's 2 examples:
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. For your clients you can install MS Outlook, point them at the Exchange server, give it a username and your done. Try and do the same thing on UNIX. You'll need to install an IMAP server. Then a separate LDAP server (which the IMAP server must be able to use). Then work out which of the myriad of Groupware options is the best for what you need. Then you'll need to configure each of the clients for the IMAP settings, LDAP settings, etc. Neither of these systems will work just by running ./configure, make, make install. You'll need to have an understanding of how they work and how to configure them to play nicely together. And shared calendars from Windows clients communicating with a UNIX server? Not the simplest thing in the world.

What about a web server. Add Remove programs, Windows Components, Internet Information Server. Stick in the CD, away you go. Sure, it's simple to install apache on a linux box. But for dynamic pages? Well you can unstall PHP, but should you enable track vars? Which XML options should you choose? which database is better? Want to use mod_perl instead? should you install it as a DSO option or compile it into Apache? Or should you go the JSP route. then which version of tomcat do you choose?

Microsoft's product is designed to be easy. It's meant to be simple to setup a server. And as such it allows for less skilled individuals to get something working. If you actually did what I suggested in my examples then you would be having issues with your Windows Servers pretty quickly if they get reasonable load on them. For someone to understand exactly what their Windows server is doing and for it to be a scalable and reliable system, then they will need to be as knowledgable and experienced as their UNIX counterparts have to be. But the nature of the platform allows for lower skilled techs to get the systems running and that's why it's perceived to be a less technical solution to UNIX

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.

Mailing Lists

[shyster]

The problem with web forums is that, by and large, they get inundated with Windows users looking for help. USENET, as you mentioned, is a haven to spam, plus there's multiple groups and NNTP servers to track.

Microsoft does have a news server which I use occassionally, both on the Web and through NNTP. There's alot of granularity in the groups, which is nice when I'm, say, working on a scripting problem, I can hit the .NET Scripting group and get good responses. There's also multiple languages available, perhaps useful for non-English speakers. But, unless if you're looking for more general discussions like Slashdot has, I don't think you'll find it there.

For general sysadmin and related discussion, problem solving, tips, etc., I've found mailing lists are much more manageable and informative. A real good provider is Sunbelt Software. The NTSysAdmin and Exchange lists are the most popular and general (and the only ones I'm a member of), but there's also ones dedicated to Windows security, Active Directory, etc. Be aware, though, that there's a LOT of traffic on some of these lists. Mine go into a Public Folder, but you can also get the digest if you prefer. One other one that I have used and recommend is the WinNT-List. I'm not on it currently, but mainly because of time restraints. Then again...I hardly check the Sunbelt lists anymore either....

And, of course, I've yet to find a similar forum to replace Slashdot's unique blend of tech, news, and politics...that's why I'm still here.

who sells the software?

[mugnyte]

I write for Windows boxen all the time. I use MS's own site, where they host newgroups, BBSs, publish white papers, host sample code, and have entire ".NET channel" TV-like programs to suck bandwidth.

All in all, MS wants nobody to feel confused or threatened using their software, including admins. This means everything is hosted, or sysadmin'd by people who just get to the fact, no BS. So, your slashdot-like knockabout sites are elsewhere. There are lots of them (google Expert/Advice/Programming) in various flavors of competance.

Those thick books people layer on their desk are great now and then, but at ~$50 a pop, you may want to just register for an online book resource. Sorry, no link, but Books24x7 and stuff like that.

So if you want technial knowledge, MS shovels it out. Magazines, websites galore. If you're looking for general "science news" and the resultant BS chatter, then /. is your best choice. Sorry.

Personally I reconcile the two by not trying to change the world everywhere. My company pays me to do technical, and mostly interesting work. If it's on an MS box, an automotive-microcontroller, or just DSP math research in school, you're still in the tech world. So just put up with the flames and read /. for the fun of it. I won't tell anyone you're not a "real geek" if you don't bring it up ;)

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.

Not anymore, man

[tres]

You mean Expert bait-'n-switch, don't you?

I feel sorry for all the schmoes who put their time and energy into giving Experts Exchange their hard-earned knowledge.

I searched the other day on an issue with Exchange server; when I did a Google search for the relevant information I was pointed to Experts Exchange. The problem was, the page was no longer available--unless I paid for a subscription.

I had to read the google archive to get the info.

Experts Exchange is the epitome of what defines open vs. closed source products and knowledge. (And as much as I love the BSD's) Experts Exchange shows exactly what kind of protection the GPL provides us, as the valuable assets we are--whether it's our knowledge of building products, or building the documentation they require.

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.