Slashdot Mirror
Windows Server 2008 One Year On — Hit Or Miss?
magacious writes "Friday marked a year to the day since Microsoft launched Windows Server 2008, but did it have quite the impact the so-called software giant expected, or did it make more of a little squeak than a big bang? Before its arrival on 27 February 2008, it had been five long years since the release of the last major version of Windows Server. In a world that was moving on from simple client/server applications, and with server clouds on the horizon, Windows Server 2003 was looking long in the tooth. After a year of 'Vista' bashing, Microsoft needed its server project to be well received, just to relieve some pressure. After all, this time last year, the panacea of a well-received Windows 7 was still a long way off. So came the new approach: Windows Server 2008."
Love them or hate them, Microsoft is a factual software giant...
I run a few 2k8 servers and must say that there are very few features that distinguish it from 2k3. For me, those are the new remote-apps terminal server feature and hyper-v. not a whole lot has changed other than rearranging a bunch of stuff.
Excellent improvements and additions behind the scenes (such as the new group policy controls) but the usability has dropped considerably. "Roles" and "Features" are terribly silly and incongruous.
I've installed Win2008 a few times and it always surprises me that I have to dig up the driver disks for the storage controllers... never have to do that when I install Fedora or Debian.
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
because none of the businesses I see have adopted 2008 server.
Very few have any Vista desktops either.
Outside of removing ISA Server from the Small Business suite, I've read very few negative opinions on 2K8. If you dont need 64-Bit goodness, it might not be worth upgrading from a stable 2K3 environment.
Out of over 1000 servers installed in 3 different consulting sites this last year, not a single one is using or wants to use Win2008. Hundreds of Windows 2003, hundreds of Windows dozens of Vista machines in the server rooms, not one Windows 2008. Says it all, really.
I can see why that would be a terrible idea for a server.
You can mock all you want, but I find decreasing the attack vector for an out of the box install a sensible approach. Something all server intallations should do, regardless of their creators image.
2003 is the first.
I've been running 2008 since the beginning of the year and I couldn't be more pleased.
Just like 2003 is a stripped down version of XP's madness, 2008 acts the same way.
Indexing and all the other dross needs to be specifally turned on, and as others have attested, even when AERO and the other services are enabled, 2008 still runs circles around vista.
I am running x64 with 8 gigs of mem on a el-cheapo Dell 530. I have all the headroom for multiple virtual machines and a great desktop development station with dx10 gaming.
I still think dx10 is the most overrated carrot MS ever used as a stick, but I find the OS is very nice and delivered in a nice, locked down package.
Even creative has working x64 drivers by now.
Yeah, I know. Thankfully a new installation is safely locked down so that you can only browse the Microsoft website. Imagine what might happen if you could browse the web freely. You might accidently end up here which everybody knows is a site full of trojans and malware.
The obscure thing you need to do is to add the site in question to your trusted sites zone.
Of course if you are trying to download firefox which sends you to a different mirror each time, it could take a few goes until you get enough firefox mirrors listed.
Erm, not even Microsoft's own site is normally opened by default with the IE enhanced security enabled. All it does is severely lock down the ability to run scripts. It is also trivially easy to disable (remove it from add/remove windows components). Then again, why the hell are you browsing the web from your server? Do that from your workstation with a Remote Desktop/VNC/network KVM connection open to the server for any work that needs to be done on the server. I know its an extra step to download something from your workstation and then transfer to the server to install.
Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
The IE lock-down doesn't treat microsoft.com any differently than any other website. What it does is load every site as a restricted site by default. No JavaScript, no ActiveX, no plug-ins of any kind, etc. You can still download manually, but you can't execute, only save.
As for disabling the lock-down mode, there is nothing obscure about it. Go to Add/Remove Windows Features and click the check box for it. It is documented right in the help file and on Microsoft's site, as well as dozens of other sites.
A command line only Windows Server OS that is able to run on lower end hardware sounds good in theory, but the current implementation cannot provide most of the functionality of its non-Core counterparts. Is anyone using Windows Server Core 2008? If so, what do you use it for?
i am a developer and I just built a machine for server development and used server 2008, everything has worked perfectly out of the box, actually less driver issues than my previous 2003 machine.
The terminal service gateway is also pretty good. A controlled way to allows TS from the Internet into the clients on the subnet.
Its just the next Windows server. If you want to buy a Windows server its fine that you get 2K8 but there hasn't been a reason to upgrade a Windows server since Win2k.
Server 2008 has a much improved backup utility. It's easy to setup (I just make one backup job that repeats nightly), and will provide a BMR (Bare Metal Restore). The best part however, is the ability to assign multiple USB drives to a backup job. Which ever one is plugged in at the time, it will backup to it. This allows the admin or employee to swap drives before they leave office at night.
My only major gripe is that the backup utility will only do a file level backup. Exchange 2007 is not supported. In theory, you could stop the Exchange Store prior to the backups taking place, be we all know that's just not feasible. Instead, Microsoft states you *must* use a 3rd party backup program or their DPM 2007 product for backup/restore of Exchange! Damn :(
Life is not for the lazy.
I did test Win2003server for a year and I completely fail to grok the logic behind needing a special OS just to run a bunch of servers. Oh, I understand full well the need of MS to sell you a more expensive OS. But for me a server is an application. Win*server contains several, some more or less well written but that's not the point. The point is that this test convinced me to run Linux, where if I want a web server I just do "aptitude install apache" or "yum install apache", if I want an ssh server, I do "aptitude install openssh-server, likewise for vnc, sql, ftp, etc... And the rest of the OS continues to work the same.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
let me google the fix for you
That's not completely true. The default list trusts Windows Update, which in XP/2003 was still web based. Thats probably what the GGP referred to.
Of course, microsoft.com itself isn't given any special treatment.
Wait! What?
You are browsing the Net with a Server-OS during Installation? And you think that's a Core Feature on a Server-Grade-OS?
There's no need for a Browser on a Server (or a Mailclient or...). Such Tasks should be done with your Admin Notebook or the needed Files could be copied over Network or USB or...
MSs IE on 2k3/2k8 is a tribut to their OS-Strategy, not a Core-Service for a queer Admin ;)
jm2c
nothing travels faster than light - except the mind
I installed w2k8/64 and exchange 2k7 on a vmware esx (kept waiting for hyperV, but even when it came out M$ would not say it supported exchange). There have been many issues along the way - I did not think that doing the upgrades six months after the release would be so 'bleeding edge', but it seems to have been. Even late in 2008 some third party apps were not supported on server 2008. I want to move forward with other server upgrades, but others recommend keeping stable apps running on 2003. BTW - exchange 2003 to 2007 did NOT go smoothly - I am still suffering from issues of decommisioning the 2003 (public folders, GAL, OAB). We don't/won't use Vista so there is no advantage seen there. I have yet to setup the TS (which I understand is probably the biggest improvement).
I work for an IT consulting company (~40 people), and we've upgraded our internal production network to WS08 in April 2008.
So far, we've had few issues, most of them due to ISVs not being completely ready to support WS08 back in April 2008.
By now, we've killed of most of the WS03 VMs as vendors started supporting Server 2008.
WS08 offered lots of improvement - SMB 2.0 is getting a lot of love from our users, as access data over the VPN is now much faster, without the need for expensive WAN accelerator appliances.
Terminal Services were also much improved, being now able to eleminate the need for Citrix for some of our smaller customers. For them, this is a great value proposition.
Otherwise, Server 2008 seems like a good incremental upgrade. There is no need to throw out all 2003 servers right now, but transition them when the hardware is due for replacement.
A product that IMO has a much bigger impact is the release of SBS 2008. It finally gives you 64bit & Exchange 2007 for the smallest of customers.
We just switched to 2k8 in my shop (not my choice, AD and Exchange are "mandatory") and I've gotta say, I don't like it.
The only new feature that I've seen is DFS and even that is broken. The UI design team moved stuff for the sake of moving stuff and made everything bigger and chunkier. It also spams new windows that have a tendency to put themselves in the background like nobody's business. Also, the new DC's are giving all kinds of DNS errors.
Now maybe the DFS and DNS problems will be worked out in time (it's a new setup) but I still don't like the UI.
I don't see the point of switching.
Shhh! Those Windows only Admin boys don't understand that. They think because they dropped a few thousand dollars for the OS license (frequently more than what the hardware costs) that it has more features and capabilities than any of those dirty *nix systems. I have watched more than a few of those guys stare in disbelief as I showed them how trivial it is in Linux to add support for multiple cpus, higher memory, larger drives, etc. You know...all of those things MS charges you a goddamned fortune to add support for. Nothing quite like watching that realization that the extra few thousand they paid to "upgrade" to the next highest version of WinServer to support their hardware was nothing more than a few minutes of changing settings.
The entire Windows product line is defective by design. They intentionally cripple their "cheaper". The funniest thing is that Bill Gates himself said that having multiple versions of Windows would destroy the computer indusry during his antitrust trial...but then a few years later turns around and does it anyways.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Who said you did? You're kind of doing the whole strawman thing here, making up something nobody actually said, then arguing against it.
Where I work, we have tons of servers (mostly IIS) running on Windows XP.
Comment of the year
Did anyone else read the title as a Windows server had been running for 1 year? That would be impressive uptime for Windows...
...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
It shouldn't really have a web browser installed by default...
This is supposed to be a SERVER... Your not meant to use it as a workstation or browse sites from it... If you need to get files onto it, it should have some facility to allow you to transfer those files from your workstation. You should keep the amount of code running on your server down to an absolute minimum, and something so large and complex as a web browser that interacts with the outside world is a terrible idea.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
"I run a few 2k8 servers and must say that there are very few features that distinguish it from 2k3" - by itzdandy (183397) on Saturday February 28, @12:24PM (#27023603) Homepage
2 security features Microsoft has PULLED (port filtering) &/or crippled (for efficiency in HOSTS files) shouldn't be & yet, are.
----
1.) The removal of being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file
(vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1, which are bigger, slower on load into the local DNS Cache (as well as slower flushes via ipconfig /flushdns) & also occupy more RAM once loaded, for NO GOOD REASON - 0 blocks as well as the other 2 do, & is smaller + faster!)
In this case, this happened on 12/09/2008 Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" updates, it wasn't LIKE that before then!
E.G.-> Here, using 0 as my blocking IP address in a FULLY normalized (meaning no repeated entries) HOSTS file with nearly 650,000 bad sites blocked in it, I get a 14++mb sized HOSTS file... using 0.0.0.0 it shoots up to 18++mb in size (& even worse using 127.0.0.1, to around the tune of 24++mb in size)... Here? This is SENSELESS bloat creation as the result!
&
2.) The removal of IP Port Filtering GUI controls for it via Local Network Connections properties "ADVANCED" section
(This is up there w/ when MS removed the GUI checkbox after NT 4.0 for IP Forwarding, only, this time, the difference is (and, it's a PAIN) is that it is NOT a single 1 line entry to hack via regedit.exe, but FAR MORE COMPLEX to do by hand)... Port Filtering is a USEFUL & POWERFUL security (& to a degree, speed also) enhancing feature!
Afaik, on THIS case (vs. #1 above)? It has always been that way in VISTA &/or Windows Server 2008... & not just the result of a Patch Tuesday modification.
----
QUESTION: Do ANY of you folks have an answer, a GOOD SOLID TECHNICAL answer, as to WHY these cripplings have been implemented in VISTA, Server 2008, & most likely their descendant, in Windows 7?
See - I posted on Microsoft/Mr. Sinofsky's (?) blog -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx
AND, I have YET to get a SOLID TECHNICAL ANSWER on those things going on in VISTA, Server 2008, & probably Windows 7 as well, that justify doing so...
(They're things I'd really LIKE to get an answer to, as to WHY Microsoft has done the 2 things in my list above, to the above noted versions of Windows)
APK
P.S.=> I found the (imo) rather flimsy reasoning behind WHY the PORT FILTERING gui controls were allegedly removed in Windows VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7, after consulting with Mr. Mitch Tulloch ( http://www.windowsnetworking.com/Mitch_Tulloch/ ) ... here tis:
From Chapter 27 of the Vista Resource Kit that explains the rationale for removing the TCP/IP Filtering UI:
----
"Windows XP Service Pack 2 actually has three different firewalling (or network traffic filtering) technologies that you can separately configure, and which have zero
interaction with each other:
Windows Firewall that was first introduced in Service Pack 2
TCP/IP Filtering, which is accessed from the Options tab of the Advanced
TCP/IP Properties sheet for the network connection
IPsec rules and filters, which you can create using the IPsec Security
Policy Management MMC snap-in
On top of this confusion, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 had a fourth network traffic filtering technology that you could use: the Routing and Remote Access Service(RRAS), which supported basic firewall and packet filteringthe problem, of course, is that when more than one of these firewalls is configured on a computer, one firewall can block traffic that a
Yeah, I know. Thankfully a new installation is safely locked down so that you can only browse the Microsoft website.
That's peculiar...of the hundreds of Windows 2003 servers that I've installed in the past 5 years, I have never seen a case where the server was so locked down "that you can only browse to the Microsoft website."
Actually, despite what MS will tell you, a server should be fundamentally different to a desktop, it should have a lot less software installed... MS's server versions are quite the opposite, they're basically desktops with additional server applications installed, they have a ton of desktop related functionality that is completely useless on a server sitting in a rack somewhere.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
I'm actually really impressed with it as a workstation OS. It is as fast as XP due to the significantly fewer number of background services running as compared to Vista, with the prettiness and features of Vista (including Direct X 10 for gaming). Vista drivers work just fine. I installed it mostly as a joke after having received it at one of those Heroes Happen Here conferences, but now I don't even boot to my XP partition anymore.
Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
I've been using Server2008 x64 on my t61p laptop since it first came out.
It's great! It feels zippier than Vista. It has a smaller install footprint. (actually even wireless isn't installed by default: you have to add it manually). It's been completely rock-solid.
I even use Hyper-V when giving demos at conferences. (unfortunately Hyper-V doesn't cooperate with wireless and disables sleep/hibernate, so I can't use it routinely.)
Two position statements first: 1) I'm primarily a Unix sysadmin of multiple flavours and love it, 2) I've only used Server 2008 on my test VM network.
Having setup a private network thanks to a company purchased Technet subscription, I now have two Active Directory Domain Controllers, a WSUS server and Terminal Server. My take on 2008 is that when approached the right way, it's actually a very nice operating system.
I like the new Terminal Services seamless window capability, the default policy of only installing the minimum required services, the new look Server Manager, even IIS7 looks nicely moduler. In fact, I could imagine managing a network of 2008 machines in a way that I never could with 2003. Now that might be my lack of fundamental 2003 knowledge (I can use it, but wouldn't describe myself as a "Windows System Administrator").
The reality, even for us Unix/Linux advocates, is that we're probably going to have to interop with Windows Server from time to time, and if it's Server 2008 that I'm having to work with, then I can live with that.
I just left an unnamed Well known tech company which... lets just call them Intel for convenience sake. They still use Windows 2000 (and lots of 2k3, but maybe 50% max) for everything from small web servers to nas servers, terminal servers and clustered high usage sql servers. Its a pain in the ass not being able to use Asp.net 3.5 but... it works. I'm sure 2k8 would be a lot easier for some things... but wheres the one feature that everyone can look at and go "yeah, we need that"
Yeah, I know what you mean. IME, Linux is much more valuable to me because it offers more flexibility over the life of a system. If the organisation grows and I need more concurrent users, I don't need to worry about the license. If I need to add a service on an existing server, I don't need to worry about whether Moderately Enterprisey Edition has what I need, or if I can only do it on one of the Really Quite Enterprisey Edition boxes. I can install a zillion times in different VM's, and not have to read the EULA with a fine toothed comb to know if it was legal. In many ways, I'd consider an expensive Linux preferable to a free Windows.
That said, the Windows Server thing isn't that hard to grok. It's just market segmentation, plus a decision to only bundle the server and administrative application bundle with particular variations of the OS. If you prefer, think of it as buying the application bundle, and getting a free, tuned and tweaked version of Windows that is just there to run the expensive application bundle. Net result is that you don't need to worry about compatibility between the applications and your existing OS. MS comes to the table from a proprietary mindset. That's not inherently 100% terrible. And, more important than anything else, they bring some quite good tools. You can decide those tools aren't worth the headaches that come with MS for your situation. But, if you've ever set up NIS and NFS home directories on a bunch of Linux boxes, and you've joined Windows machines to a domain... You know that joining a Windows box to a domain is a heck of a lot more convenient than deploying NIS.
I'm a UNIX admin who has worked with Windows servers, but even coming from my "UNIX 4 eva" side of the fence, I have to admit that the MS solutions make some things very convenient compared to the most analagous UNIX options. Just make sure you know which edition you need, so you install the Windows Server OS that will actually use all of your RAM. :)
If you install "Server Core" for 2008 it doesn't have IE...
Did any one else notice they tagged Sony? Why?
wut?
That made me laugh -- apparently even Microsoft knows the security on its product is so bad that they have to ship it locked completely down. If they can't even trust their product, why should I?
If you think that's bad, wait until you see how bad OpenBSD's security is~
I log on remotely and work on similar tasks both on a Win2k3 and Win2k8 and I can tell you this: Win2k8 is a hell of lot faster than Win2k3! they are running on similar spec machines...
Thank you Alexander Peter Kowalski. On a completely unrelated note, why'd you post AC?
RHEL 5.3 still has tons more drivers than Win2k8. I know from very painful experience.
It's a natural consequence of
a) as mentioned before, the nature of the licensing, but probably more importantly...
b) the release cycle. RHEL is pretty good about timely major updates compared to eternities for MS service packs.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I have yet to see one, and I see a lot of servers. Seems like 2k3 is good enough and people run other OSs for bigger tasks and virtualization. So... I've seen way more recent deployments of RedHat, CentOS, Ubuntu LTS and W2k3 than 2k8. Maybe it's the Vista smell, I don't know.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
you obviously need tons of servers, as they still have the 10 connection limit imposed (on ports less than 1024) on WinXP.
Seriously, we haven't bothered.
Sure we will have to someday as servers are retired and 2003 goes off MOLP but it doesn't seem like a big deal to me to start some push to do it.
More of a quiet snooze then a dramatic miss.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Windows 2008's advanced firewall setting is now easier to use than iptables through webmin. I can finally configure an internet facing server securely!
That's why we upgraded all of our Windows servers. Since Oct 1, our Windows 2008 servers have an average of only two lock-ups per server. Not bad. 2003 was about twice that bad. Of course it's not nearly as reliable as Linux (about ten times worse according to our experience), but it is a step in the right direction.
I really wish Slashdot would fix that "You failed to confirm you are a human. Please start from the beginning and try again. If you are a human, we apologize for the inconvenience." serious bug. I've been here since Oct 1998. The posting software was much better then, and it sucks that some moron that changed the site doesn't know how to program well enough to get a simple post working reliably.
This is really an about face... 10 years ago...
Changes that took 10 years to take place are more like a long hard slog than an about-face.
This has been an LHS not just for the Linux community, but for the larger Open Source community. OS has gone from a weird little movement supposedly based on programmers being willing to work for free to a serious player in enterprise computing. This has been based on changed business models and changed attitudes on all sides. Not the least of this is the end of the all-or-nothing attitude towards "free" software, at least on the part of the serious decision makers.
He keeps copy/pasting this shit and we all know he's an idiot because he can't set up a proper network firewall/dns server.
Have run across several customers who have upgraded to 2008. The majority still run 2003 or 2000.
I have some bad things to say about 2008:
1. What the hell happened to the windows backup utility? You can't even choose a list of folders you want to backup.
2. Have to play games with infs to get basic bluetooth working.
But really it rocks: supports dual stack sockets, less crap installed with base system, SATA AHCI, switching between active video cards while system online, better multi-core performance and power management.
In my view its the best released desktop OS from Microsoft to date.
If your hardware isn't supported on Linux, it may be at some time.
If your hardware isn't supported on Windows, it may NEVER be.
About the only time when hardware may *become* working under windows is when it's a fairly new version and fairly new hardware.
Old Windows? If it doesn't work now, it never will.
New Windows, old hardware? If it doesn't work now, it never will.
The logic is simple... There is a special OS for a server so the cost can be different. There is no technical reason that Windows couldn't be like Linux and allow you to add every server component to a single base operating system, The only reason is that they want to charge people that buy servers with 256GB of RAM $3000 per server and those that run small companies $600 per server. Both companies get a good deal (of course, not as good as free).
Where I work, a typical server costs $5,500, Windows costs around $600, physically putting the server in the datacenter costs $2,000, and labor for installing, configuring, and supporting the server costs $3,000 over the its life. At the end of the day, Windows servers cost around $11,100. Switching to Linux would save us $600, reducing our costs by 5%.
A typical server with 256GB of RAM would run about $60,000. This server would require the Enterprise editions of Windows Server, so that would run about $3,000. The other costs would remain the same and at the end of the day, the OS is still only five percent of the total.
I'm a web developer.
Never keen on Vista
Wanted IIS7...
Answer? Server 2k8
The fact that I have to activate my OS is annoying. With 2K3, there was a volume licensing option, but with 2K8, that option is gone, and I have to either allow my server to talk to a public Microsoft activation server, or run a KMS server in house.
Sorry, Microsoft, If you don't trust me, I don't trust you.
"Holy shit you loser fuckwit, would you stop posting the same spam multiple times in any conversation that mentions the word Windows?" - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, @03:08PM (#27024735) - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, @03:08PM (#27024735)
Have you considered decaf?
----
"Learn how to use the right tool for the job, and stop whining." - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, @03:08PM (#27024735)
WHAT tool, & for WHAT job?
I mean, what:
1.) Did your brain blow a gasket from that foaming @ the mouth display for us all above (amusing, like a clown, lol) that you forgot to type those specifics here?)
OR
2.) Did your fingers just slip on the frothing foam from your mouth all over your keyboard, & it made you press enter accidentally??
Somehow, judging from the 1st quote I got from you above, I'd say that's a GOOD likelyhood here, in either event, LMAO... Take your pick, & I made it multiple choice easy for you too, see? LOL!
Ever hear of "who/what/when/where/how?"
APK
P.S.=> You ought to be the gameshow host for the new gameshow "MR. BALLMER THROWS ANOTHER CHAIR!"... apk
"why'd you post AC?" - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, @02:52PM (#27024633)
Well, Why not?
----
"You're no longer part of the System. You're above the System. Over it. Beyond it. We're "them." We're "they." We are the Men in Black."
----
After all, & seriously? For what I feel are 3 good reasons:
----
1.) I'm not here for "karma points" & what-not
2.) When things like the AC "10 posts per 24 hr. period" hit me, I just get around that easily enough (takes me literally about 3 minutes to do so) & then I am right back posting more as AC anyhow as well!
3.) Registered users here are too EASILY trackable here also: I am NOT into that either...
----
I see no real need to register is all...
Besides - I do what I wish anyway, which is post & read, to learn or get diff. opinions etc. et al... as much as I like, as A/C!
(E.G.-> I beat the 'AC restrictions' game as an AC no less, & that's good enough for me, because in fact? I just did... saw this message:
Slashdot only allows anonymous users to post 10 times per day (more or less, depending on moderation). A user from your IP has already shared his or her thoughts with us that many times. Take a breather, and come back and see us in 24 hours or so. If you think this is unfair, please email posting@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID, which is. Let us know how many comments you think you've posted in the last 24 hours.
Thus - So, what would be the point of registering here for me?
APK
P.S.=> AND, as you can clearly see? Well guys, I am back in again posting, a few minutes later... &, as AC... too easy! apk
It's a shame that Slashdot can't just have news stories and leave opinion for the comments. Things like "the so-called software giant" just irk me.
But I suppose if I'm looking for news that isn't open-source biased, I shouldn't be at Slashdot!
To the people that think a Linux server can take the place of a Windows File Server: Please help me understand what Linux has to compete with Volume Shadow Copies?
Without calling the Help Desk, any user on my Domain can go back 30 days to a snap taken 2 times a day and retrieve a previous version of a file or folder. All that's required is an XP+ workstation.
With about 2 TB of data and 200 users, this costs a total of 100GB of additional storage.
I've asked our Linux person what can compare, and he didn't have an answer and admitted that for file servers we should probably stick with Windows, and in fact is considering moving our Samba servers we use for web accessible data to a Windows NFS mount instead so that people can use VSS.
he's an idiot because he can't set up a proper network firewall/dns server. - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, @04:37PM (#27025251)
Ever heard of "layered security"? If not, do... I practice it.
Clue: I have all the firewalling in the world in multiple layers, with a LOT more...
Take a read here:
----
HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even VISTA, plus make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond)...:
http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=af8f8f41f8cdcaf0d7b25cb482b4b7f4&showtopic=2662
----
It works, + I wrote it...
( & is a guide all over the internet about it, rated highly + even earned me some pay for writing it up.)
And, on 15 of the 20 sites it is featured @ online it is an "Essential Guide" Sticky Type post, & the remaining others have it "5/5 stars", most viewed, etc. et al...
Additionally in this art & science??
I have been featured in these publications in this field:
----
Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue
http://journals2.iranscience.net:800/www.win2000mag.com/www.win2000mag.com/Windows/Article/ArticleID/37/37.html
(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row).
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)
PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there
PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there
CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there
GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" my work is contained in it
HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), my work is there, first one featured, yet again!
Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, but by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...
----
SO, that all "said & aside"?
Have you done the same I wonder??
If not, & I am guessing probably not???
Well, lol, I wonder who folks here are going to think is an idiot here (as you called me) in this field???
----
BOTTOM-LINE, for my usepatterns on a PC here @ home?
Well - Why should I waste CPU cycles, memory, & other forms of I/O on running a DNS server that can be poisoned, &/or may be susceptible, AND that I clearly plainly do not need here locally, + I don't need AD either (has heavy DNS dependencies)...
(BY the by - & I do use DNS servers, external ones, & best in the business (as far as DNS servers external to my home here), in OpenDNS!)
Most of all why run a local DNS server, when this is for myself here on a workstation system anyhow which is a single standalone system connected to a NAT firewalling LinkSys router?
APK
P.S.=> Name tossing's not really helping your cause much either... I mean, this post's been modded up here +2 already, so, I am happy with that, but I would be moreso if I got a solid technical answer, & especially in regards to why the 0 was removed as a valid blocking IP address in a HOSTS file.... apk
Do you get a commission from that pr0n site you're advertising, or do you just want slashdotters to see what a pussy looks like?
Are you going to post this spam in every article about Windows? Just shut the fuck up already, AlecStaar.
even though server 2008 has it, i've only used it on Windows 7 beta. the performance is a lot better than the old SMB. downside is all your clients have to be at least Vista SP1
I know this isn't relevant to the post, since R2 is still in Beta at the moment, but I've been looking at some of the new features in R2 and they look pretty nifty. Particularly Branch Cache, Core parking, Offline domain joins, Live migration, Direct Access and Active Directory recycle bin feature. I'm sure these features will piss off a lot of people who have already purchased Server 2008 (and aren't on maintenance), but they are still pretty nifty. Of course half of them require Vista Enterprise to use the features.
How well did it sell? From what I understand, Windows Server 2008 has sold incredibly well, faster than any other server OS in history in its first year. That's certainly one measure of success.
The point is, no-one gives a shit about your hosts file whining, and it is actually quite annoying to keep seeing your pointless spam posted all over the Windows articles.
If Slashdot wasn't so liberal with its commenting policy, you would surely have been banned by now, like you have on so many other forums (where you are rather infamous for your idiocy and bad attitude). As it is, you're being repeatedly moderated down instead - just take the hint and fuck off.
Could somebody please remove the troll status from the parent article? It seems to indicate an honest opinion. Of course, the reply that you *can* have it installed without IE is even more interesting, but this is not a troll.
"Now kindly take this spam crap elsewhere; no-one cares about your irrelevant complaints. - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, @07:46PM (#27026239)
Well - again:
You don't own this website, Soooo... no, I think I'll do as I see fit to... how's that treating you?
(Why is it I predict more "frothing @ the mouth replies", "barking orders" (that no one has to obey), & being totally off topic will be his futher replies?)
Besides - As far as this discussion is worth @ the technical levels involved here?
Based on your utter lack of valid useful technical contribution to it (& instead, laughingly, 'barking orders' on this website you've got no right to dispense)?
Based on your reply material, lol, it seems that you're of no worth here, dead weight, useless... a bump on a log - get over it. You're off topic, or haven't you noticed?
Realize no one cares about your (or obeys, because as anyone can see I am an example thereof) YOUR orders you try to shout to everyone either: Get over it... you're "Vasserot the armless ambidextrian", lol...
I mean, hey:
Have you contributed 1 useful thing here yourself, or answered why port filtering was removed or why 0 is no longer a valid blocking IP address in a HOSTS file in Windows Server 2008, &/or VISTA, + Windows 7 as well most likely?
No...
(I strongly wager this is the case most likely, because you cannot (you are apparently technically incompetent @ these levels in this field.))
Apparently, this is above your head, this type of topical material... &, I can only judge that you're some poor miserable person who has nothing better to do than try to spread your miseries to others, but, you're only making me laugh really, so I guess, thank you for being the "court jester"/minstrel fool here @ lesat, lol...
APK
P.S.=> All I would like is answer to why HOSTS files being able to use a superior 0 blocking address (smaller & faster than 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1) has been removed from VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 - AND - to discuss views on why PORT FILTERING has had its GUI front for it removed from they as well, because it works @ a diff. level of the IP stack drivers-wise than Software Firewalls or IPSec do, it aids layered security (because if one gets knocked down, the others working @ diff. levels are still in the way - just like using deadbolts + chainlocks + door handle locks & alarms to secure things like homes)... apk
Forget it, Microsoft.
Our brilliant IT chief switched from Linux-based
server to Win Server 2003. Spent a bundle for
all new hardware too.
Reason " Nobody ever fired someone for buying Microsoft.
Just the perfect way to bung-up our network efficiency. For a $500M Company. Absolutely
no visible benefit any of us can see.
As far as I can tell it is not as stable as Win 2k3 or as Linux (we run RedHat). Just installed a new division file server based on 2008 and it crashed last week, apparently because MS services for NFS caused it to Blue Screen on a race condition in NFS services. You have to install a hot fix! Separate from normal updates. ... some people lost a few hours of data and work! ... seriously considering shit-canning it and going back to a RedHat file server running Samba. 2008 is hardly something that should be called an "Enterprise" product. It's quite amateurish in its coding!
The people that modded me down and responded negatively have apparently never been exposed to a sensible server operating system. Locking a system down that tight is just ridiculous. Use your brains for a minute -- what is the only reason an OS has to be locked down absolutely that tight on boot? Because it's so insecure that any leaks can infect it before the admins have a chance to properly patch and secure it.
I know there are people paid by Microsoft to troll, mod down and post ridiculous responses to anything anti-Microsoft and/or pro-*nix (really -- I was told this by a Microsoft insider when the company I used to work for was doing some work with them), but it has really stepped up lately. One has to wonder the amount of sheer panic Microsoft has right now, and how good that looks for other OSes.
This is a sig. Deal with it.
Thank you. Finally someone stated the obvious.
Yea, don't get it. Neither do win admins. I run several linux based servers of all sorts. My Total Cost of Ownership, and also the only limit on my performance is my hardware + power bill + bandwidth bill. Any of my homegrown servers will take the Pepsi challenge with the thousands spent by the big boys just paying the license fees for windows. I can handle as much email, push as many web pages, do whatever. Don't get it. Where is the value?
Living in Chile
Nobody is paying me to point this out, and I'm not a particular fan of Microsoft in any way - but you very obviously don't know shit about security. Stop talking now if you want to avoid looking like an even bigger fool.
"The point is" - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, @08:21PM (#27026419)
The point is, you don't speak for everyone here, or elsewhere - get over it.
This post's material has been modded up +2 as "interesting" in a couple Windows related threads the past 2 days now so speak for yourself because you aren't speaking for everyone here including myself. The only point here is the one on top of your very narrow head.
"If Slashdot wasn't so liberal with its commenting policy, you would surely have been banned by now, like you have on so many other forums" - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, @08:21PM (#27026419)
You sure like to act as if you speak for everyone though, lol, & it must 'irk' you that apparently, you don't... I'm still here, after all! lol...
----
By the way:
Trust me, I cannot be banned here, OR, even be affected by the AC post limit... get over it.
I've just beaten it already just now again, seeing this message:
Slashdot only allows anonymous users to post 10 times per day (more or less, depending on moderation). A user from your IP has already shared his or her thoughts with us that many times. Take a breather, and come back and see us in 24 hours or so. If you think this is unfair, please email posting@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID, which is. Let us know how many comments you think you've posted in the last 24 hours.
ALA -> "You're no longer part of the System. You're above the System. Over it. Beyond it. We're "them." We're "they." We are the Men in Black."
But, as you can plainly see? I am here, still posting, as "A/C" no less...
----
"(where you are rather infamous for your idiocy and bad attitude)" - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, @08:21PM (#27026419)
Well:
I'm not the one tossing the profanities here, but you are...
See below in the last quote of yours I use!
I am not the one barking orders (with no authority to my name) but you are...
(Again, see below in the last quote of yours I use!)
I am not attacking people here first (only defending myself, show us otherwise where I 'started up' with others in this thread, ok?), but you are, in myself right now...
As have others like these in this very topic/exchange -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1144517&cid=27026239 & here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1144517&cid=27024735 etc. et al (amusing clown that he is)! but, never I, first. Show us otherwise.
Now, isn't that right, or are the letters on this page lying to anyone reading them?
----
"As it is, you're being repeatedly moderated down instead - just take the hint and fuck off." - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, @08:21PM (#27026419)
Funny, I have others on this very topic that have been modded up +2 as "Interesting" already... you & your cronies modding me down, or yourself doubtless under a registered user account, have done the down modding... many others have not.
Get over it - you're not smart enough to fool anyone here... least of all, myself.
APK
The problem is you keep spamming this irrelevant comment about hosts file entries in any article that even tangentially mentions Windows. I mean, seriously, what does this even have to do with a laptop review: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1144667&cid=27026819
You go out of your way to display inappropriate conduct on these forums and then are surprised when people complain about it. How can you not understand this?
Pretty happy with 2003R2 (which also includes SMBv2) here.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
boohoo...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...there will be more day to day problems, but your chimps are a lot cheaper, and easier to find.
Unless you encounter a problem over the chimp's head that he tries to "fix," and he really screws something up (make sure you have strict backup schedules, of course), or the chimp tries to eat your face. Both of these things happen, apparently.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
It's rare to combine Ad hominem argument and beg the question in the same sentence.
Actually, server 2003 R2 does not trust Windows Update by default.
I find it amusing that people would make fun of Microsoft for doing this to their browser when people were mocking them for shipping things insecure out of the box. Just goes to show, when it's Microsoft, you can't do anything right even if it is actually right. People will complain anyways.
Wow dude, you're out there! First of all, there are a lot of people out there that value the straight forward setup approach that Microsoft often gives you for that high dollar. Of course when I'm running Oracle and spend many thousands on it I install it on a free OS but I certainly can't apt-get install Oracle.
Aptitude is great and all, but you're forgetting apt-get install apache-modssl, mod_mysql, php and the myriad of other things that usually have to get installed too in order to do anything useful with your webserver.
You also seem very misguided in the decisions that Bill Gates can make even though he no longer holds CEO or President as positions at Microsoft. He didn't do anything to which you give him credit for doing.
As for adding multiple cpu support, wtf? Why are you adding support to something that is universally supported in all camps and never required users to spend money to upgrade. Higher memory support was never a reason to pay for an upgrade as they always had the 4gig 32bit limitation. Windows 98 had trouble dealing with that amount of memory but that's because it handled memory like crap to begin with.
Furthermore, trivializing the differences between Windows does your cause no good as there have been plenty of upgrades on the Linux side that haven't gone so smoothly, as an Ubuntu user I can assure you the world is far from perfect and often requires time consuming research to troubleshoot issues that crop up such as why my Sangoma card won't initialize despite lspci showing the card and using matching drivers. In the Windows world I get a nice easy to read event log that doesn't require me to go trapesing through /var/log looking for something that will give me a clue as to the cause of the problem. As a side note Asterisk can be a real pain in the arse.
Anywho, those of us that aren't Linux only and aren't Windows only admins will continue to laugh at you and your poor attempts to attack something you clearly don't understand.
Here's a hint for you, Linux is not free, not by a long shot. Time to deploy new technologies with Microsoft has almost always been significantly faster than time to deploy new linux based services, note this does not state whether or not the deployment was better. That time costs real money and isn't worth a lot of people's efforts. Often times paying for something instead of developing a solution yourself is the smarter move and saves you money in the long run. Of course this is not always the case so naturally, use the right tool for the job. Sometimes its Linux, sometimes it's Windows. My main issue is grappling with which distro to use for which task. CentOS or Elastix for Asterisk is a hell of a lot easier than getting the whole rig running on Debian for instance.
Who cares what you think. You are off topic, and others modded up the post to +2 informative, so give up speaking for everyone. Learn something useful in this field and try to contribute to the topic at hand. If this is beyond your ability, go away, you don't belong here.
Okay, so you do run a network without any clients? :-) ...
Lucky man!
Because last time I checked you also need to pay for CAL's
(OK, maybe you run webservers with unauthicated Clients from the Internet, that seems to be the only exception...)
You're obviously illiterate. What was said was that it was none of your business, and he was correct.
We pay much more than that for RHEL, by the way. But the good thing is, if we don't like it, we don't have to pay them anymore.
Windows licenses don't.
2 security features Microsoft has PULLED (port filtering) &/or crippled (for efficiency in HOSTS files) shouldn't be & yet, are.
----
1.) The removal of being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file
(vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1, which are bigger, slower on load into the local DNS Cache (as well as slower flushes via ipconfig /flushdns) & also occupy more RAM once loaded, for NO GOOD REASON - 0 blocks as well as the other 2 do, & is smaller + faster!)
In this case, this happened on 12/09/2008 Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" updates, it wasn't LIKE that before then!
E.G.-> Here, using 0 as my blocking IP address in a FULLY normalized (meaning no repeated entries) HOSTS file with nearly 650,000 bad sites blocked in it, I get a 14++mb sized HOSTS file... using 0.0.0.0 it shoots up to 18++mb in size (& even worse using 127.0.0.1, to around the tune of 24++mb in size)... Here? This is SENSELESS bloat creation as the result!
&
2.) The removal of IP Port Filtering GUI controls for it via Local Network Connections properties "ADVANCED" section
(This is up there w/ when MS removed the GUI checkbox after NT 4.0 for IP Forwarding, only, this time, the difference is (and, it's a PAIN) is that it is NOT a single 1 line entry to hack via regedit.exe, but FAR MORE COMPLEX to do by hand)... Port Filtering is a USEFUL & POWERFUL security (& to a degree, speed also) enhancing feature!
Afaik, on THIS case (vs. #1 above)? It has always been that way in VISTA &/or Windows Server 2008... & not just the result of a Patch Tuesday modification.
----
QUESTION: Do ANY of you folks have an answer, a GOOD SOLID TECHNICAL answer, as to WHY these cripplings have been implemented in VISTA, Server 2008, & most likely their descendant, in Windows 7?
See - I posted on Microsoft/Mr. Sinofsky's (?) blog -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx [msdn.com]
AND, I have YET to get a SOLID TECHNICAL ANSWER on those things going on in VISTA, Server 2008, & probably Windows 7 as well, that justify doing so...
(They're things I'd really LIKE to get an answer to, as to WHY Microsoft has done the 2 things in my list above, to the above noted versions of Windows)
APK
P.S.=> I found the (imo) rather flimsy reasoning behind WHY the PORT FILTERING gui controls were allegedly removed in Windows VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7, after consulting with Mr. Mitch Tulloch ( http://www.windowsnetworking.com/Mitch_Tulloch/ [windowsnetworking.com] ) ... here tis:
From Chapter 27 of the Vista Resource Kit that explains the rationale for removing the TCP/IP Filtering UI:
----
"Windows XP Service Pack 2 actually has three different firewalling (or network traffic filtering) technologies that you can separately configure, and which have zero
interaction with each other:
Windows Firewall that was first introduced in Service Pack 2
TCP/IP Filtering, which is accessed from the Options tab of the Advanced
TCP/IP Properties sheet for the network connection
IPsec rules and filters, which you can create using the IPsec Security
Policy Management MMC snap-in
On top of this confusion, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 had a fourth network traffic filtering technology that you could use: the Routing and Remote Access Service(RRAS), which supported basic firewall and packet filteringthe problem, of course, is that when more than one of these firewalls is configured on a computer, one firewall can block traffic that another allows"
----
Lame reasoning imo!
I say this, because it is TRIVIAL to create exceptions rules in most any software (or hardware based) firewall generall
"Windows 2008 suffers from the same atrocious network performance problems than Vista. DPCs made by the network drivers use too much CPU time when transfering data over a 100Mbps-1Gbps network link." - by this great guy (922511) on Saturday February 28, @08:25PM (#27026449)
Good points, & historically they've plagued VISTA (&, in the case of filecopies, even older MS OS to an extent/afaik) & in the case of media file playback being affected adversely in VISTA, it has to do with caching, & iirc, specifically caching of network reads regarding media files (don't quote me on the specifics here though, I don't use VISTA, but also read about what you stated around a year++ ago)...
Here are 2 more points for you to be aware of:
(2 security features Microsoft has PULLED (port filtering) &/or crippled (for efficiency in HOSTS files) shouldn't be & yet, are.)
----
1.) The removal of being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file
(vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1, which are bigger, slower on load into the local DNS Cache (as well as slower flushes via ipconfig /flushdns) & also occupy more RAM once loaded, for NO GOOD REASON - 0 blocks as well as the other 2 do, & is smaller + faster!)
In this case, this happened on 12/09/2008 Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" updates, it wasn't LIKE that before then!
E.G.-> Here, using 0 as my blocking IP address in a FULLY normalized (meaning no repeated entries) HOSTS file with nearly 650,000 bad sites blocked in it, I get a 14++mb sized HOSTS file... using 0.0.0.0 it shoots up to 18++mb in size (& even worse using 127.0.0.1, to around the tune of 24++mb in size)... Here? This is SENSELESS bloat creation as the result!
&
2.) The removal of IP Port Filtering GUI controls for it via Local Network Connections properties "ADVANCED" section
(This is up there w/ when MS removed the GUI checkbox after NT 4.0 for IP Forwarding, only, this time, the difference is (and, it's a PAIN) is that it is NOT a single 1 line entry to hack via regedit.exe, but FAR MORE COMPLEX to do by hand)... Port Filtering is a USEFUL & POWERFUL security (& to a degree, speed also) enhancing feature!
Afaik, on THIS case (vs. #1 above)? It has always been that way in VISTA &/or Windows Server 2008... & not just the result of a Patch Tuesday modification.
----
QUESTION: Do ANY of you folks have a GOOD SOLID TECHNICAL answer as to WHY these cripplings have been implemented in VISTA, Server 2008, & most likely their descendant, in Windows 7?
See - I posted on Microsoft/Mr. Sinofsky's (?) blog -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx
AND, I have YET to get a SOLID TECHNICAL ANSWER on those things going on in VISTA, Server 2008, & probably Windows 7 as well, that justify doing so...
(They're things I'd really LIKE to get an answer to, as to WHY Microsoft has done the 2 things in my list above, to the above noted versions of Windows)
APK
P.S.=> I found the (imo) rather flimsy reasoning behind WHY the PORT FILTERING gui controls were allegedly removed in Windows VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7, after consulting with Mr. Mitch Tulloch ( http://www.windowsnetworking.com/Mitch_Tulloch/ )
From Chapter 27 of the Vista Resource Kit that explains the rationale for removing the TCP/IP Filtering UI:
----
"Windows XP Service Pack 2 actually has three different firewalling (or network traffic filtering) technologies that you can separately configure, and which have zero
interaction with each other:
Windows Firewall that was first introduced in Service Pack 2
TCP/IP Filtering, which is accessed from the Options tab of th
See subject line and this http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1144517&cid=27028211 because the topic was tcpip and his post was about tcpip and windows networking. Yes this is one of those times where I wonder if people here are literate or not on this website. That post from that url above is about tcpip and windows networking also just like the post that the ac there was replying to and yet it was modded down as off topic. That makes no sense. He was on topic which was about tcpip and networking.
End of Days forgot to post as ac this time as he has been doing. He does this type of thing here all the time in being off topic as well as childish and doesn't realize how stupid he looks as he gives orders but nobody ever seems to listen to him. Just because he has tantrums and mommy comes running doesnt mean others will because nobody here obeyed him once and he got frustrated into calling names like a grade school kid.
Here are 2 security features Microsoft has PULLED (port filtering) &/or crippled (for efficiency in HOSTS files) which shouldn't be (& yet, are.)
----
1.) The removal of being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file
(vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1, which are bigger, slower on load into the local DNS Cache (as well as slower flushes via ipconfig /flushdns) & also occupy more RAM once loaded, for NO GOOD REASON - 0 blocks as well as the other 2 do, & is smaller + faster!)
In this case, this happened on 12/09/2008 Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" updates, it wasn't LIKE that before then!
E.G.-> Here, using 0 as my blocking IP address in a FULLY normalized (meaning no repeated entries) HOSTS file with nearly 650,000 bad sites blocked in it, I get a 14++mb sized HOSTS file... using 0.0.0.0 it shoots up to 18++mb in size (& even worse using 127.0.0.1, to around the tune of 24++mb in size)... Here? This is SENSELESS bloat creation as the result!
&
2.) The removal of IP Port Filtering GUI controls for it via Local Network Connections properties "ADVANCED" section
(This is up there w/ when MS removed the GUI checkbox after NT 4.0 for IP Forwarding, only, this time, the difference is (and, it's a PAIN) is that it is NOT a single 1 line entry to hack via regedit.exe, but FAR MORE COMPLEX to do by hand)... Port Filtering is a USEFUL & POWERFUL security (& to a degree, speed also) enhancing feature!
Afaik, on THIS case (vs. #1 above)? It has always been that way in VISTA &/or Windows Server 2008... & not just the result of a Patch Tuesday modification.
----
QUESTION: Do ANY of you folks have a GOOD SOLID TECHNICAL answer as to WHY these cripplings have been implemented in VISTA, Server 2008, & most likely their descendant, in Windows 7?
See - I posted on Microsoft/Mr. Sinofsky's (?) blog -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx
AND, I have YET to get a SOLID TECHNICAL ANSWER on those things going on in VISTA, Server 2008, & probably Windows 7 as well, that justify doing so...
(They're things I'd really LIKE to get an answer to, as to WHY Microsoft has done the 2 things in my list above, to the above noted versions of Windows)
APK
P.S.=> I found the rather flimsy reasoning behind WHY the PORT FILTERING gui controls were allegedly removed in Windows VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7, after consulting with Mr. Mitch Tulloch ( http://www.windowsnetworking.com/Mitch_Tulloch/ )
From Chapter 27 of the Vista Resource Kit that explains the rationale for removing the TCP/IP Filtering UI:
----
"Windows XP Service Pack 2 actually has three different firewalling (or network traffic filtering) technologies that you can separately configure, and which have zero
interaction with each other:
Windows Firewall that was first introduced in Service Pack 2
TCP/IP Filtering, which is accessed from the Options tab of the Advanced
TCP/IP Properties sheet for the network connection
IPsec rules and filters, which you can create using the IPsec Security
Policy Management MMC snap-in
On top of this confusion, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 had a fourth network traffic filtering technology that you could use: the Routing and Remote Access Service(RRAS), which supported basic firewall and packet filteringthe problem, of course, is that when more than one of these firewalls is configured on a computer, one firewall can block traffic that another allows"
----
Lame reasoning imo!
I say this, because it is TRIVIAL to create exceptions rules in most any software (or hardware based) firewall generally, & to match that in Port Filterin
You said "You go out of your way to display inappropriate conduct on these forums". My opinion after reading how you have tried to mess up a good discussion here is quite different based on how you have been off topic here the whole time End of Days and quite the immature annoyance disturbing a good technically oriented discussion here, while you posted as ac, to try to do so and not be caught in it, but you have been. This url is where you ruined yourself here http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1144517&cid=27027131 and then you finally messed up in posting as End of Days by mistake obviously and gave yourself away quite stupidly there in this exchange quite deep into it where no one but yourself is reading along with the people you are attacking at this point. That shows myself and others reading that you are stupid and got caught for it on top of your being off topic here constantly. Grow up. The only person posting irrelevant off topic maneur is you in this forums in this topic. No wonder your post history today shows responders to your stupidity in this posting and others where people are calling you a douche bag today and yesterday here. What is it like being a noobie clown like you? I'll tell you that it is always priceless watching worms like you get caught in your stupidity.
Off topic noob you were caught posting as your registered name instead of ac like you have been doing and then the pressure of your being exposed as a know nothing nobody here just got to you and you got caught. I saw where others state you have been nothing but off topic and I did take the time to look and you were indeed off topic in every post you made here. That must be embarassing being caught posting as your registered name after doing so many while unjustly attacking others throughout this thread and saying they were attacking others but you could provide no proof where those you bothered clearly did. That was totally priceless because of your lame antics you clown. The person you are harassing here raises some interesting points which make you look more the imbecilic fool even moreso when you do nothing but rant and rave giving others orders here which nobody even pays attention to. Thanks clown.
Maybe you need glasses because I see it says off topic as the modding down reason and when I read it the poster is anything but that upon inspection because the parent post is about networking and so is the reply. A shame because that posting makes valid points I wasnt aware which I then quickly tested. apk appears to be correct on the hosts file not using 0 as a blocker ip address in vista and that port filtering is indeed gone from vista also despite the poor rating of the post and I am glad that I am now aware of it also. Someone has made a mistake or is just being an immature moron who probably made technical errors and cant handle that he did so publicly. We have all seen the post as ac trick from registered users who are frustrated after some ac gets the better of them here with facts before and it is hilarious watching those types here rant and toss names around in defeat. I dont think that kind of person realizes that the first thing people have a tendency to do is read an exchange when people are modded down is to read the entire conversation from both parties involved end to end and form their own opinions like you see me stating now. The down modding was not justified.
Oh the shame of being modded down as a profanity spewing troll. Utterly hilarious and the price of geek angst.
2009 is going to be the year of the Windows server
If you like Server 2008 as a workstation, you're liking Vista as a workstation. It's the same kernel with different services on by default. You can just turn off the services you don't want on Vista quite easily, and get an essentially identical experience.
And with decent server-class equipment, even the default install of Vista should outperform that of XP for typical use. There's a lot to be said for pushing the CPU hit of rendering the GUI to the GPU.
My video compression blog
I agree with the parent. I work in an MS shop running 2003 enterprise for our applications. We evaluated 2008 and found the following:
1. Very little new anything with clustering. By all appearances, I'm still completely hosed in some failure scenarios.
2. It looks like most of the 2008 'features' are meant to enhance the same old hostility to mixed Microsoft environments. Same old crack-dealer scheming and continuing small-business customer contempt.
3. IIS GUI has changed, but feature-wise it looks about the same. How long will this new scripting thing last before it's .Netified or abandoned? It's not a glue-like solution at all.
License fees have risen to astronomical levels for the Enterprise license we would, in theory, purchase. Management would look ridiculous even mentioning the numbers. Contrast this with hardware purchases that are quite easy to justify even in these times.
Management is *very* open to platform alternatives as a result of Microsoft's perceived reskinnng 2003 and calling it new.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
1. On aptitude. What is your point? You have to install stuff to do useful things? You don't say. You have to add all kinds of extra BS to an IIS install to do useful things too. I fail to see what the hell that has to do with anything. Most commercial software for Linux comes with very straightforward setup stuff to. Your point here makes no sense.
/var/log syslog stuff exists, not understanding why event viewer is broken garbage, not understanding the hardware limitations of Windows and how they are artificially enforced to drive licensing sales...yeah..I'm totally the one that clearly doesn't understand.
2. Bill Gates said this then Bill Gates proceeded to start doing this and then Ballmer made it worse by fracturing windows versions even more than before.
3. WRONG! Go look again the various versions of Windows have a max number of CPUs they will support. So when you had to have that extra power you had to shell out big bucks for the higher versions of Windows just to make use of your hardware. Now, here is another fun Windows world lie. There is no 4GB limitation. PAE support in the kernel allows 32bit Linux to go above the 4GB "limit". 32bit Server 2k3 Standard= 4GB limit, 32bit Server 2k3 Enterpirse = 64GB limit. So again, artificial software limitation of Windows requiring bigger investments to use more hardware.
4. The versions of Windows have nothing to do with the differences between Windows and Linux. The point the differences in the versions of Windows are artificial, in Linux there is no such artificial barrier. Further nice easy event log? Seriously, you need to do some enterprise work. Syslog is the standard across unixes and most network hardware. That "nice and easy" event log is a nonstandard piece of trash that is damned near impossible to use to correlate events across multiple devices. There is a damned good reason why people are selling syslog services for Windows to translate that screwball event log garbage into something more useful.
5. Not understanding why
6. The time to deploy new technologies with Microsoft is "significantly faster" because you can get trained monkeys to do it. When you have trained and experienced unix/solaris/linux admins that "significantly faster" means horseshit. Now, if your organization can't bother to invest in real admins and would rather just have that guy that knows how to sorta get things running in linux that is an organizational fuckup, not a software fuckup. The reverse is true as well, you don't hire unix admins to manage Windows servers. As far as time...I can have a linux database server up and running in a fraction of the time it takes to get a Windows box doing the same thing installed. I also waste a hell of a lot less resources runnign that stupid f'ing useless GUI in the process (Though I hear MS finally pulled their heads out of their asses and got Win2k8 running headless).
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Nah, they're mostly Development or Staging web servers.
Apparently me saying that was Flamebait or something, though, I got modded down. Alas.
Comment of the year
(If your post is intended to be facetious, I apologize for the following)
And that is...? Sensible defaults that don't block your every move? OpenBSD has only had 2 remote security holes in its default installation for 16 years now, that is several orders of magnitude better than anything Microsoft has ever produced, it's even better than Linux distributions to a smaller degree.
Think how much more hardware you could buy with that extra $3000, if you went with Linux instead. Three grand would pay for a nice data backup solution, for example.
Why do you suppose Ubuntu comes in Desktop and Server versions?
Why does Red Hat have their Enterprise Server Linux and Fedora Desktop Linux?
Why does SuSE have a regular and a Desktop version?
Microsoft is not the only OS that has seperate server and desktop versions.
The reason is simple, Desktops tend to have all the bells and whistles installed. Fancy graphics, sound, etc... But servers are configured for higher network throughput, usually they have older (more stable) versions of the applications and drivers and kernel. Servers are tuned for different scheduling. Etc..
So why is that you think Microsoft is the only OS that comes in a special server version?
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
We count the CAL as part of the workstation cost. They're cheap, only about $20 each ( http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=488489 ), and you only have to pay once per client, there is no additional cost for another server that is accessed by existing licensed clients. If you look at our accounts payable, Microsoft server licenses are a very small portion of our overall cost of doing business. I like Linux. But if I switch, it won't be because of cost. Windows just isn't all that expensive.
Most of my servers are at under 5% utilization because they were purchased for a specific project and whatever crackpot software we are running on them requires a dedicated server. This is the problem that virtualization is supposed to solve, but the same crackpot software vendor refuses to support it if we virtualize the server. Server consolidation is out of the question for me most of the time.
BTW, I've never seen MS recommend a specific workload for a server. They'll gladly support a tiny overloaded box with way too many clients on it. I've got a 900GB "dumping ground" shared folder accessed all day long by 100 people on a 7 year old single processor Xeon server with 512MB of RAM. The server has no processor or memory problems, the bottleneck is all IO.
I've got problems with a lot of software vendors. Microsoft is not anywhere near the top of the list of vendors I would like to see go away.
You seem to think syslog is the be all? Sorry, but I actually do use syslog and you have to specifically set it up for each service you wish to monitor. Windows has built in syslog services so it makes no sense that people are selling services for it.
Unfortunately for you I do enterprise work so I'll guarantee my automated image based installs are just as fast as your automated image based installs.
You completely missed the point of everything that I was saying since you were implying that Linux and accompanying philosophy is vastly superior when it simply isn't. You seem to be under a horrible impression that an experienced Unix admin is any more skilled than an experienced Windows admin. You write with a tone indicating that you are on the one true path and that just isn't the case. If it were the case Microsoft would never have made a dent in the world. People are inherently lazy and want the path of least resistance, very often that path simply means shelling out for a solution rather than coming up with one with a Linux kludge. Look at Proxmox VE to see what I mean, an all around great product but falls short in important places because they haven't been able to get the right tools working reliably. If I didn't have a SAN I would definitely not spend my money on VMWare or Xenserver and just install Proxmox.
As for event correlation I shouldn't even bother to explain the ridiculousness you are spouting. The only difference is that in Windows you have a central facility and in Linux you don't. That's not to say you can't have one in Linux, you just put a few tools together and you get the same thing. So one tool is Windows is 5 tools in Linux.
You also fail to understand why Microsoft products are significantly faster to deploy, they get you up and running with the latest technology in no time at all. From scratch you cannot setup a Linux distro that will provide all the same functionality as a Windows server install including your favorite directory services in the same amount of time and without documentation. Why should it be difficult to deploy new technology? Why should I have to bandaid qmail to get modern functionality? Oh right, I'll just install postfix or sendmail with the mail scanner suite which involves several separate installs and most certainly requires careful following of installation guides leaving much room for typos during configuration although as my email server can attest you get great performance although I can send and receive just as many emails with my Exchange server.
You seem to think that most businesses care about the quality of a deployment as opposed to the speed at which it is deployed. In most shops you are pressed to deliver or be replaced and that is a reality you clearly don't understand.
All your problems with Microsoft appear to stem from the fact that you have to pay for it and the divisions there of as a result of it being proprietary technology. This is a pointless argument as it makes no attempt to argue that open source software is superior because it plain and simply isn't. It can be in a lot of circumstances but the mere fact that it's open source doesn't mean it's perfect and the same goes with proprietary software so it makes more sense to attack things on merit that actually matter such as the manner in which Windows has historically mismanaged memory and process threading.
Who running Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard edition needs more than 4 sockets and doesn't also need the additional features you get with Enterprise edition? You might also note that the 64bit versions and editions you list don't have the same limitations. A pointless argument because you have to operate under the assumption that people are paying for a solution, an extra $600 for a copy of Windows that can handle the hardware you've spend 30k on is no big deal even though we both agree it would be a waste of money in some circumstances.
In short, you're way off base with reality man. First and foremost, lighten up and realize that a GUI isn
As if Microsoft's tech specs were any better.
In short, Ubuntu server is only an install with different default settings. In a few apt-get you can turn one into the other. You cannot do that with Windows and I find this very limiting. And I am NOT taking into account the price, even though I find it normal to pay for good software.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
think of it this way that still 5% that could be in your paycheck
I noticed you casually disregard the fact that a 2008 license for my employer is ridiculously expensive. We don't use retail crack-pipe licenses.
Here we go with more hyperbole... .NET integration, for instance, is killer for shops that use .NET.
We've got .net apps runnning no one in there right mind would rewrite for an upgrade.
The ability to completely maintain IIS via config files is an even better feature.
OK, maybe but we've been getting along for years without it.
A whole new host of command line tools are also new, not to mention Powershell support.
Casually ignoring Microsoft's destructive tendency to launch something then not support it doesn't help your case. How many of these "new" toys will be actively developed going forward? Batch files anyone? Perl and Python are more than enough glue that work across *many* operating systems, widely supported, huge base of libraries.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Here are 2 security features Microsoft has PULLED (port filtering) &/or crippled (for efficiency in HOSTS files) which shouldn't be (& yet, are.)
----
1.) The removal of being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file
(vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1, which are bigger, slower on load into the local DNS Cache (as well as slower flushes via ipconfig /flushdns) & also occupy more RAM once loaded, for NO GOOD REASON - 0 blocks as well as the other 2 do, & is smaller + faster!)
In this case, this happened on 12/09/2008 Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" updates, it wasn't LIKE that before then!
E.G.-> Here, using 0 as my blocking IP address in a FULLY normalized (meaning no repeated entries) HOSTS file with nearly 650,000 bad sites blocked in it, I get a 14++mb sized HOSTS file... using 0.0.0.0 it shoots up to 18++mb in size (& even worse using 127.0.0.1, to around the tune of 24++mb in size)... Here? This is SENSELESS bloat creation as the result!
&
2.) The removal of IP Port Filtering GUI controls for it via Local Network Connections properties "ADVANCED" section
(This is up there w/ when MS removed the GUI checkbox after NT 4.0 for IP Forwarding, only, this time, the difference is (and, it's a PAIN) is that it is NOT a single 1 line entry to hack via regedit.exe, but FAR MORE COMPLEX to do by hand)... Port Filtering is a USEFUL & POWERFUL security (& to a degree, speed also) enhancing feature!
Afaik, on THIS case (vs. #1 above)? It has always been that way in VISTA &/or Windows Server 2008... & not just the result of a Patch Tuesday modification.
----
QUESTION: Do ANY of you folks have a GOOD SOLID TECHNICAL answer as to WHY these cripplings have been implemented in VISTA, Server 2008, & most likely their descendant, in Windows 7?
See - I posted on Microsoft/Mr. Sinofsky's (?) blog -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx [msdn.com]
AND, I have YET to get a SOLID TECHNICAL ANSWER on those things going on in VISTA, Server 2008, & probably Windows 7 as well, that justify doing so...
(They're things I'd really LIKE to get an answer to, as to WHY Microsoft has done the 2 things in my list above, to the above noted versions of Windows)
APK
P.S.=> I found the rather flimsy reasoning behind WHY the PORT FILTERING gui controls were allegedly removed in Windows VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7, after consulting with Mr. Mitch Tulloch ( http://www.windowsnetworking.com/Mitch_Tulloch/ [windowsnetworking.com] )
From Chapter 27 of the Vista Resource Kit that explains the rationale for removing the TCP/IP Filtering UI:
----
"Windows XP Service Pack 2 actually has three different firewalling (or network traffic filtering) technologies that you can separately configure, and which have zero
interaction with each other:
Windows Firewall that was first introduced in Service Pack 2
TCP/IP Filtering, which is accessed from the Options tab of the Advanced
TCP/IP Properties sheet for the network connection
IPsec rules and filters, which you can create using the IPsec Security
Policy Management MMC snap-in
On top of this confusion, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 had a fourth network traffic filtering technology that you could use: the Routing and Remote Access Service(RRAS), which supported basic firewall and packet filteringthe problem, of course, is that when more than one of these firewalls is configured on a computer, one firewall can block traffic that another allows"
----
Lame reasoning imo!
I say this, because it is TRIVIAL to create exceptions rules in most any software (or hardware based) firewall generally, & to match that in Port Filter
Here are 2 security features Microsoft has PULLED (port filtering) &/or crippled (for efficiency in HOSTS files) which shouldn't be (& yet, are.)
----
1.) The removal of being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file
(vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1, which are bigger, slower on load into the local DNS Cache (as well as slower flushes via ipconfig /flushdns) & also occupy more RAM once loaded, for NO GOOD REASON - 0 blocks as well as the other 2 do, & is smaller + faster!)
In this case, this happened on 12/09/2008 Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" updates, it wasn't LIKE that before then!
E.G.-> Here, using 0 as my blocking IP address in a FULLY normalized (meaning no repeated entries) HOSTS file with nearly 650,000 bad sites blocked in it, I get a 14++mb sized HOSTS file... using 0.0.0.0 it shoots up to 18++mb in size (& even worse using 127.0.0.1, to around the tune of 24++mb in size)...
This is SENSELESS bloat creation as the result!
&
2.) The removal of IP Port Filtering GUI controls for it via Local Network Connections properties "ADVANCED" section
(This is up there w/ when MS removed the GUI checkbox after NT 4.0 for IP Forwarding, only, this time, the difference is (and, it's a PAIN) is that it is NOT a single 1 line entry to hack via regedit.exe, but FAR MORE COMPLEX to do by hand)... Port Filtering is a USEFUL & POWERFUL security (& to a degree, speed also) enhancing feature!
Afaik, on THIS case (vs. #1 above)? It has always been that way in VISTA &/or Windows Server 2008... & not just the result of a Patch Tuesday modification.
----
QUESTION: Do ANY of you folks have a GOOD SOLID TECHNICAL answer as to WHY these cripplings have been implemented in VISTA, Server 2008, & most likely their descendant, in Windows 7?
See - I posted on Microsoft/Mr. Sinofsky's (?) blog -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx
AND, I have YET to get a SOLID TECHNICAL ANSWER on those things going on in VISTA, Server 2008, & probably Windows 7 as well, that justify doing so...
(They're things I'd really LIKE to get an answer to, as to WHY Microsoft has done the 2 things in my list above, to the above noted versions of Windows)
APK
P.S.=> I found the rather flimsy reasoning behind WHY the PORT FILTERING gui controls were allegedly removed in Windows VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7, after consulting with Mr. Mitch Tulloch ( http://www.windowsnetworking.com/Mitch_Tulloch/ )
From Chapter 27 of the Vista Resource Kit that explains the rationale for removing the TCP/IP Filtering UI:
----
"Windows XP Service Pack 2 actually has three different firewalling (or network traffic filtering) technologies that you can separately configure, and which have zero
interaction with each other:
Windows Firewall that was first introduced in Service Pack 2
TCP/IP Filtering, which is accessed from the Options tab of the Advanced
TCP/IP Properties sheet for the network connection
IPsec rules and filters, which you can create using the IPsec Security
Policy Management MMC snap-in
On top of this confusion, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 had a fourth network traffic filtering technology that you could use: the Routing and Remote Access Service(RRAS), which supported basic firewall and packet filteringthe problem, of course, is that when more than one of these firewalls is configured on a computer, one firewall can block traffic that another allows"
----
Lame reasoning imo!
I say this, because it is TRIVIAL to create exceptions rules in most any software (or hardware based) firewall generally, & to match that in Port Filtering is
Here are 2 security features Microsoft has PULLED (port filtering) &/or crippled (for efficiency in HOSTS files) which shouldn't be (& yet, are.)
----
1.) The removal of being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file
(vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1, which are bigger, slower on load into the local DNS Cache (as well as slower flushes via ipconfig /flushdns) & also occupy more RAM once loaded, for NO GOOD REASON - 0 blocks as well as the other 2 do, & is smaller + faster!)
In this case, this happened on 12/09/2008 Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" updates, it wasn't LIKE that before then!
E.G.-> Here, using 0 as my blocking IP address in a FULLY normalized (meaning no repeated entries) HOSTS file with nearly 650,000 bad sites blocked in it, I get a 14++mb sized HOSTS file... using 0.0.0.0 it shoots up to 18++mb in size (& even worse using 127.0.0.1, to around the tune of 24++mb in size)...
This is SENSELESS bloat creation as the result!
&
2.) The removal of IP Port Filtering GUI controls for it via Local Network Connections properties "ADVANCED" section
(This is up there w/ when MS removed the GUI checkbox after NT 4.0 for IP Forwarding, only, this time, the difference is (and, it's a PAIN) is that it is NOT a single 1 line entry to hack via regedit.exe, but FAR MORE COMPLEX to do by hand)...
Port Filtering is a USEFUL & POWERFUL security (& to a degree, speed also) enhancing feature, especially for the concept of LAYERED SECURITY... so, why was it removed? The reasons given by the VISTA reskit in my p.s. below are COMPLETELY lame but, judge for yourselves later below. Read on...
Afaik, on THIS case (vs. #1 above)? It has always been that way in VISTA &/or Windows Server 2008... & not just the result of a Patch Tuesday modification.
----
QUESTION: Do ANY of you folks have a GOOD SOLID TECHNICAL answer as to WHY these cripplings have been implemented in VISTA, Server 2008, & most likely their descendant, in Windows 7?
See - I posted on Microsoft/Mr. Sinofsky's (?) blog -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx
AND, I have YET to get a SOLID TECHNICAL ANSWER on those things going on in VISTA, Server 2008, & probably Windows 7 as well, that justify doing so...
(They're things I'd really LIKE to get an answer to, as to WHY Microsoft has done the 2 things in my list above, to the above noted versions of Windows)
APK
P.S.=> I found the rather flimsy reasoning behind WHY the PORT FILTERING gui controls were allegedly removed in Windows VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7, after consulting with Mr. Mitch Tulloch ( http://www.windowsnetworking.com/Mitch_Tulloch/ )
From Chapter 27 of the Vista Resource Kit that explains the rationale for removing the TCP/IP Filtering UI:
----
"Windows XP Service Pack 2 actually has three different firewalling (or network traffic filtering) technologies that you can separately configure, and which have zero
interaction with each other:
Windows Firewall that was first introduced in Service Pack 2
TCP/IP Filtering, which is accessed from the Options tab of the Advanced
TCP/IP Properties sheet for the network connection
IPsec rules and filters, which you can create using the IPsec Security
Policy Management MMC snap-in
On top of this confusion, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 had a fourth network traffic filtering technology that you could use: the Routing and Remote Access Service(RRAS), which supported basic firewall and packet filteringthe problem, of course, is that when more than one of these firewalls is configured on a computer, one firewall can block traffic that another allow
Here are 2 security features Microsoft has PULLED (port filtering) &/or crippled (for efficiency in HOSTS files) which shouldn't be (& yet, are.)
----
1.) The removal of being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file
(vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1, which are bigger, slower on load into the local DNS Cache (as well as slower flushes via ipconfig /flushdns) & also occupy more RAM once loaded, for NO GOOD REASON - 0 blocks as well as the other 2 do, & is smaller + faster!)
In this case, this happened on 12/09/2008 Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" updates, it wasn't LIKE that before then!
E.G.-> Here, using 0 as my blocking IP address in a FULLY normalized (meaning no repeated entries) HOSTS file with nearly 650,000 bad sites blocked in it, I get a 14++mb sized HOSTS file... using 0.0.0.0 it shoots up to 18++mb in size (& even worse using 127.0.0.1, to around the tune of 24++mb in size)...
This is SENSELESS bloat creation as the result!
&
2.) The removal of IP Port Filtering GUI controls for it via Local Network Connections properties "ADVANCED" section
(This is up there w/ when MS removed the GUI checkbox after NT 4.0 for IP Forwarding, only, this time, the difference is (and, it's a PAIN) is that it is NOT a single 1 line entry to hack via regedit.exe, but FAR MORE COMPLEX to do by hand)...
Port Filtering is a USEFUL & POWERFUL security (& to a degree, speed also) enhancing feature, especially for the concept of LAYERED SECURITY... so, why was it removed? The reasons given by the VISTA reskit in my p.s. below are COMPLETELY lame but, judge for yourselves later below. Read on...
Afaik, on THIS case (vs. #1 above)? It has always been that way in VISTA &/or Windows Server 2008... & not just the result of a Patch Tuesday modification.
----
QUESTION: Do ANY of you folks have a GOOD SOLID TECHNICAL answer as to WHY these cripplings have been implemented in VISTA, Server 2008, & most likely their descendant, in Windows 7?
See - I posted on Microsoft/Mr. Sinofsky's (?) blog -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx
AND, I have YET to get a SOLID TECHNICAL ANSWER on those things going on in VISTA, Server 2008, & probably Windows 7 as well, that justify doing so...
(They're things I'd really LIKE to get an answer to, as to WHY Microsoft has done the 2 things in my list above, to the above noted versions of Windows)
APK
P.S.=> I found the rather flimsy reasoning behind WHY the PORT FILTERING gui controls were allegedly removed in Windows VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7, after consulting with Mr. Mitch Tulloch ( http://www.windowsnetworking.com/Mitch_Tulloch/ )
From Chapter 27 of the Vista Resource Kit that explains the rationale for removing the TCP/IP Filtering UI:
----
"Windows XP Service Pack 2 actually has three different firewalling (or network traffic filtering) technologies that you can separately configure, and which have zero
interaction with each other:
Windows Firewall that was first introduced in Service Pack 2
TCP/IP Filtering, which is accessed from the Options tab of the Advanced
TCP/IP Properties sheet for the network connection
IPsec rules and filters, which you can create using the IPsec Security
Policy Management MMC snap-in
On top of this confusion, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 had a fourth network traffic filtering technology that you could use: the Routing and Remote Access Service(RRAS), which supported basic firewall and packet filteringthe problem, of course, is that when more than one of these firewalls is configured on a computer, one firewall can block traffic that another allow
End of Days you keep getting modded down, and especially when you post no technically valid content in your replies, and where you use profanity, and then to top that off you also post as Anonymous Coward when you do so quite often but there was evidence here this week of you being caught in it also where you gave that tactic of yours away. Go away.
Yet Ubuntu Server is a seperate download, and you completely ignored my point about the other distro's.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Why this was modded down makes no sense because it does have valid information in it on some items microsoft should not have done to vista, windows server 2008 or windows 7.
Not a good mod down as the poster did not spam here in his reply, and the information in his reply is technically correct. I agree also that microsoft shouldn't have done the 2 things listed (removing 0 as a blocking ip address in a hosts file and also removal of port filtering controls in the graphical user interface) to windows 7, windows server 2K8, or vista. Bloat is the definite result on hosts file on disk for filesize along with slower load speeds because of greater filesize, possibly memory as well once loaded, in the hosts file no longer being able to use 0 as a blocking ip address versus 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1. The removal of port filtering graphical control in network connection advanced properties is another poor move by microsoft, because I read the article on securing windows at the ip stack layer from the guide noted here. In essence, since ipsec, software firewalls, and port filters work at different levels of driver abstraction from one another, that if 1 is taken down by a malware, the others are still in that malware's way. This would grossly affect the practice of layered security badly here. Good post. Kinf of a shame someone who is an idiot did a mod down on it for the wrong reasons.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1147437&cid=27056793
See End of Days admit to using multiple accounts to "mod himself up" via multiple username accounts he has here to 'support himself', and to mod others down as well, after he was caught stalking and harassing others repeatedly no less via said nefarious means (transparent though & easily caught). Man - What a loser, and a stupid one at that.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1147437&cid=27056793
See End of Days admit to using multiple accounts to "mod himself up" via multiple username accounts he has here to 'support himself', and to mod others down as well, after he was caught stalking and harassing others repeatedly no less via said nefarious means (transparent though & easily caught). Man - What a loser, and a stupid one at that.
Nice posting despite the unjustified moderation down. Good to see that someone is on top of these things tcpip wise and thank you because I had not been informed of these changes, which I do not care for either myself.
Modded your informative reply up even though the penguins or visiting bot masters here obviously gave you a down moderation as they often are wont to do when they say you are trolling, or off topic, yet with no backing justification, as this was here, which is a completely wrong. The topic is tcpip and you spoke of layers it has that were in older Windows than vista and it is gone now which I agree needs correction. I decided to mod you up to to spite them and also to reward an informative posting that has information I have not seen before that I find useful for technical things in Windows to protect myself online. Thank you.