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."
Bottom line: It just works. Nice new GPO features, Hyper V is fine, but overall, nothing to get terribly excited about other than the fact that there have been few negative issues.
You're right, there's nothing to get terribly excited about unless you want a more secure server, more control via GPO, improved network performance, Terminal Services Remote App, a FREE hypervisor, read-only domain controllers for branch offices, lightweight and secure "core" installations, IIS7, improved failover clustering, simplified clustering configuration, vastly improved printing support in Terminal Services, improved functionality in certificate services, improved and image-based deployment via Windows Deployment Services, improved performance monitoring, PowerShell, improved TCP/IP v6 functionality, improved DFS functionality, better NFS support, and so on...
By the way, what were those "few negative issues" that you were referring to?
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.
Holy shit you loser fuckwit, would you stop posting the same spam multiple times in any conversation that mentions the word Windows? Learn how to use the right tool for the job, and stop whining.
I have a clue, but I can't share it in a public forum. If I did, I'd lose my job faster than you can say "vaporware litigation". You might try talking to Sun field people and hope for some discreet hints.
What exactly do you mean by "out of the box"? There are tons of devices whose Linux drivers haven't found their way into distros yet. You download them from the vendor's web site.
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.
Again with the vague pronouncements. What does "guaranteed to have their hardware supported by Windows" mean? That Microsoft includes the drivers on its install discs? By that definition, a lot of widely used hardware is not "supported by Windows".
I know this first hand, because I work for Sun, and a big part of my job is seeing to it that the process for installing drivers is properly documented. We do try to get as many of our drivers as we can onto the Windows server install discs. (Expediting that process is a big reason Sun is now a Microsoft OEM, despite past battles between the two companies.) But there are always new devices that Microsoft hasn't certified yet.
And we have exactly the same relationship with Red Hat and Novell, so they can certify our drivers for inclusion on their Linux distros. And I could be mistaken, but it's my perception that the process goes a little faster with Red Hat and SUSE, because these distros, like all Linux distros, are open source.
So whatever your reasons for preferring Windows to Linux, they should not include "guaranteed hardware support". Red Hat and SUSE are just as good in this department, and arguably a little better.