Slashdot Mirror
Longhorn Server's "Improved" Security
An anonymous reader writes, "The 'most secure Windows ever' may be very secure from hackers and malware — but what do you do when Longhorn Server lets you install the OS, set up Active Directory, and initialize the domain without once asking you even to create an administrator password? From the article: 'What happened to Windows Server? Where did all of the stringent security checks and ultra-protection of Windows Server 2003 go? Windows Server 2000 was quite insecure, and Windows Server 2003 turned over a new leaf... But it seems Microsoft is more than willing to flip that page back — even Windows Server 2000 required an Administrator password at the very least.'" Inevitably, Dave Barry's years-old quote comes to mind: "Microsoft has a new version out, Windows XP, which according to everybody is the 'most reliable Windows ever.' To me, this is like saying that asparagus is 'the most articulate vegetable ever.'"
In short, Windows NT was buggy, unstable and full of security holes. Which we all knew at the time, even if MS didn't admit it. Unfortunately, people don't question them on this and say "so, if this is more secure, runs things twice as fast and doesn't crash, what is this pile of shit you've been selling us for the last few years? Mmm???"
And it runs at 20% slower than Windows 2003 Server, oh and has less features and capabilities as well.
Why people insist on using older OSes because they thinking they are gaining something amazes me.
Why not install CPM or Novell 2.11 as well they were 'secure' for their time?
Not to mention all the software hacks and incompatibilities and limitations, like not even being able to run the lastest RDP protocols to running something like SQL Server 2005. Why on earth would you stick or choose Win2k, if you are going to spend money on a Server OS? You would be far better off with Windows2003.
This stuff amazes me, and these are probably high paid techs steering every company down a bad path just because they think they 'know' better.
Well, I guess it depends on whose security Microsoft is talking about.
I thought it was obvious.
Whenever Microsoft talk about 'security' they don't mean 'computer security for users' they mean 'financial security for Microsoft Corporation'.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.