Slashdot Mirror
End Of Support for Windows NT 4.0
IdleMindUI writes "This month is the last month that hotfixes for Windows NT 4.0 will be released. Security fixes will only be released to Microsoft customers with Custom Support Agreements. Custom Support Agreements are still available for customers that need them and can be obtained by contacting a Microsoft rep. More information is available on the NT 4.0 support lifecycle site."
Let's exclude IBM Mainframes here -- despite the hardware changes and market drift over the last few decades, it's still IEBGENR & CORGZ under the skin. And they haven't dusted the o/s since the 70's...
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
We are still building new servers at work (a bank) to use NT4. By the time we are finished certifying Win2000 for internal use it will be 2007 at least. We still have a few dinosaurs running Solaris 2.1 (!!!) and no one wants to upgrade them because they run mission critical applications which don't allow for any downtime.
Just out of curiosity, what other major software vendors are still providing security (or other) hotfixes for platforms two or three generations back? Do Oracle, SAP etc. and other major commercial vendors do the same?
I know Linux does. The 2.0 development cycle has seen work from July 1996 to February 2004. Since the source is open and I'm sure there's some 2.0 folks still around, any security fixes, as rare as they come up in the kernel, could easily be backported.
Companies EOLing stuff after 9 - 10 years scares me. With the notion of pervasive computing and kernels showing up in a wide range of things, the concept of software lasting far longer than we thought is now nothing new. Consider Y2K-affected machines--engineers never thought their products would still be running 30 years later, but somehow, they were.
You'd think that as big a company as Microsoft is, they'd support old crufty stuff ad infinitum to give their own products that lasting aura of strength and integrity. Of course, there's no money to be made in releasing patches for 10 year old stuff, but the simple notion that all customers could have access to them could be a major competitive advantage.
Just think, do you really know when you're going to be replacing that server you've just setup?
"[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
Microsoft commonly waits months before they fix a found announced vulnerability. In the past Microsoft has attempted to ignore vulnerabilities, forcing security heads to make public announcements.
Dont be fooled by the statistics, NT4 hasn't been supported for a while. When was the last service pack for NT4?
The difference between support on linux and support on windows is mostly statistical. Look at debian, gentoo, even freebsd. You can upgrade to stable packages (maybe not gentoo) dynamically without running a time wasting installer.
I personally dont like these automated tools, but I'd probably use them before windows update on a critical security network.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Betcha you can still find a lot of Netware 3.11 and Netware 4 installs out there too... Just because it's old doesn't mean you should stop using it.
Why invest 20k for NT or Linux if you don't have to?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
So you're saying that the firewall should be implemented in the IP stack.
No, he's saying that a proper IP stack will not respond to a request for service from a TCP/UDP port that has no service listening to it on that machine. I'm not 100% sure of the veracity of the statement, but I'm pretty sure XP does this as prescribed.
Whether the firewall is a separate service or whether it is built into the networking stack or whether it is a separate machine sitting at the root of the network, a firewall is needed.
Yes, for any external communications, a firewall (and encrypted links if you want to be picky) is a neccesity, and has been for quite some time. SP2 finally provided a firewall on by default, and gives the average user a fighting chance.
If you are cleaning out "mal|spy|ad-ware SP2 machines every day", you work with idiots. Or perhaps you are the idiot to continue working with them. Either way, I'm glad I don't work where you work.
I'm a BOFH. I work with lusers. Lusers are SpongeBob Squarepants without the personality. They are un-intelligent generally, but more so when it comes to computers. They don't know about computer security, nor do they care, since it's not thier job to administrate thier machine. The luser should be able to log on, go about it's business and not concern itself with what is in my prevue - making sure our comapnies data is safe.
Now, the problem XP, Win2K and NT present is that I, as an intelligent, responsible admin, do all that I can to prevent security issues and they still occur regularily, despite my best efforts. In order to be truly protected, I'd need to remove some of the machines functionality, which kinda removes the point of having the bloody PC there in the first place.
When I need to teach a luser how spyware gets on to thier XP SP2 machine - firewall and all - in order to try and prevent that event from happening is when I begin to question how much value XP really provides.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
I can't speak for DLing, but my company still sells PC based devices that run NT4 and will continue doing so for at least another year, perhaps two. It all depends on how much continued demand there is for these products (low, but enough to keep selling them), as well as if we can continue to get licenses for NT4.
Windows 2000 Embedded style licensing (which we use on most PC based products now) is preferred, but there are issues in upgrading these devices. Of course, Windows XP Embedded just plain stinks for what we are doing, and XP Pro OEM licensing is a nightmare for a company like us (ie we would not qualify for corporate licensing and we cannot pre-activate the OS).
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
What other vendor keeps supporting an OS 8 years after release and 5 years as a legacy OS?
Certainly not any linux distribution. I run Linux on my machine and it is still on fedora core 1. I refuse to update the machine to another core (due to RedHats cavalier approach to Fedora) and need to upgrade soon to another distro because I really like getting regular security updates from a reliable source.
When NT 4 was first out I was running RedHat 5 which I then had to upgrade to Redhat 7/8 and then I jumped to fedora core 1. Does RedHat even support 7 anymore?
My wife is using a win 2000 machine and it has been getting regular updates since the year 2001 and I expect her to get regular updates probably till the year 2008. I only WISH a Unix/Linux vendor had the support MS does for thier legacy products!
I would not consider this bad press for MS.
I miss the Karma Whores.