Slashdot Mirror
MSN Lists 10 Dumb Things NT Users Do
Stephen Moore writes "10 Dumb Things Windows NT Users Do. By MSN. Strangely they don't mention buying Windows NT in the first place. I particularly like
7. Forgetting the password
(Look for their suggestion here)
and
9. Applying service packs unwisely.
This brings new meaning to the Hack PC Week story.
Here is
the url.
Cheers"
although it's miles ahead of Linux, OS/2, or even BeOS
Hrm... easier than BeOS? I wonder which NT they're using?
Use their NT box for something other than a doorstop!
--
I am quite civilized, and I should be brought a beer immediately. -- Bruce Sterling
11. installing NT
12. Forgetting to click on the 'Vegas' option on solitaire.
13. (My own one) typing 'ls' five times in a row trying to get a directory listing in the command shell
14. Signing up for a hotmail account
15. Paying $x for MS technical support, and believing them when they tell you reinstalling NT will fix your problem.
Obvious, I know. Sue me.
> (although it's miles ahead of Linux, OS/2, or even BeOS).
If its really miles ahead of those OS's, then why:
- can I set up my Linux box in 1/4 the time it takes me to set up a default installation of a WinNT machine.
- was I able to set up Be faster and easier the first time I ever used it than any of the times I've ever installed WinNT.
I don't think I agree with the author on these points, but then again, it was an MSN article.---
"Everybody knows the moon's made of cheese," Wallace.
Really, most of these things wouldn't be problems if NT was a bit more bulletproof. They could just boil this down to "Forgetting Your Password" and "Buying A Half-Assed OS" and save a whole lotta bits here...
"10. Cloning Windows NT
...
"Many people make the mistake of using a cloning utility, such as Ghost, in order make copies of Windows NT for their network computers. The problem is that every Windows NT installation has a unique number, a security identifier (SID).
"The trouble is that if you need support from Microsoft on a system that has been cloned, you're out of luck. They won't help you."
(unwritten: So buy lots of copies and keep making Bill rich.)
Or unlimited copies of Linux and never have that problem. Or, problems, I suppose, as NT presents many problems. The expensive licenses being just one.
-- haaz.
Oh, I nearly spewed coffee all over my monitor...
Within 4) is the phrase "Windows NT utopia". Having read Sir Thomas More's Utopia, I think I'd have to classify NT as more along the lines of Dante's Inferno! *G*
--
Lopht makes this so easy to fix, it's a joke. With a mid level Pentium 2, it might take 2 days to brute force them (assuming no special characters) but compared to wiping drives the drives and starting over, letting a machine churn on it for 2 days is nothing.
Of course, this isn't even necessary if the image is made before the master has a SID (i.e., before it is made a member of a domain). See, the machine doesn't have a SID until it receives it from a domain controller. Ghost first, join later. Works every time.
This guy is basically an idiot.
1. Hardware compatibility. Followup in this month's issue of NoShit Magazine.
4. No ERD. I'll bet that everyone who is reading this has a recent (less than 1 week) backup of their system. It is basically the same thing here.
6. Enable the GUEST account? Is this guy on acid or what. Every checklist on hardening NT has at or near the top disabling this account. If you want to share across machines you need local accounts or a domain account if you are running a domain.
7. Give yourself admin privileges for your everyday account? This is insane. If you do that and let a virus/macro/trojan by you, it has the machine. Your everyday use account should be as a USER (or POWER USER) and you should just remember the admin account password, or lock it in a safe.
9. Service Packs (and HotFixes) are pretty much mandatory and I think it is highly irresponsible to suggest that you don't apply them, espcecially if you are running a small number of machines. There have been some bugs that existed in Service Packs, but they were primarily related to new ways of authentication in response to security vulnerabilities. These bit shops that were not careful in their deployment (and yes, M$ could have made it _much_ easier).
10. This was accurate at one time, but for the last year or more, all the cloning utilities update the SID. M$ even has an approved procedure. Interestingly, this is not an issue for existing flavors, but W2K uses the SID in the ActiveDirectory scheme and they must be unique.
Ah, but it is unwise to install a SP in the first place. Why replace known bugs with brandnew unknown ones?
Hans Voss
---
Hans Voss
---
"I have no special talents, I am just passionately curious" -- Albert Einstein
That's what it's for. I have no users running as administrator, yet they all synch with the clock on the server (which is SAMBA on Linux of course!)
Oops, I should not have said ditto for item 10. I just got carried away. :) Years ago, I used to go clone installs for Win 3.1 boxes. We never had a problem, but those were simpler times.
Regarding filesystems: many people have pointed out that Linux can support numerous filesystems and NT can only support a couple. This is not in debate. The point is that users select the wrong filesystem for what they are using. I often use encrypted file systems, only to forget the I need to share some data with my NT partition (uh, I mean OS).
I am not an adovocate of NT (depite my sig, I actually use SGI IRIX all the time), just wanted to point things out.
Cheers!
--Ivan, weenie NT4 user, Jon Katz hater: bite me!
--weenie NT4 user: bite me!
"Computers are nothing but a perfect illusion of order" -- Iggy Pop
My previous place of imployment used Ghost to clone a lab full of NT machines. We had one floppy for each computer in the lab. Each disk contained a unique SID and TCP/IP number. We just stuck the disks in and went. Amazingly simple... except for the fact that we did this about twice a year. It seemed easier to install the SPs and other fixes to one machine, test it fully and then just clone the hell out of it rather then trying to fix all the machines individally. That would be hell!
Have you seen VMWare (1.1) for Linux yet :-)
Hans Voss
---
Hans Voss
---
"I have no special talents, I am just passionately curious" -- Albert Einstein
Okay so in the given link they start by saying ...
"October 1999--It's no big secret that Windows NT isn't an easy operating system to set up and configure (although it's miles ahead of Linux, OS/2, or even BeOS). "
now...take point 3 which has a link to the wonderful world of NTFS and the caption on this page..
"NTFS as you can see, is an excellent file system for the serious Windows NT user. However it has its drawbacks as well. For example, NTFS volumes cannot be seen by any other operating system other than Windows NT. "
Oh dear me !
Such a 'miles behind' o/s as Linux surely couldn't read a magnificent file system as NTFS
*end of sarcasm*
Does nobody M$ centric bother to look that "Yep Linux can read NTFS, and is now stabilising on the write issues"
Think themselves lucky that Linux dev peeps bother to think of them in the first place!
Alex
ps. M$ pay people to write this sort of dross ??
There is an 'su' in the Resource Kit (yeah, I know, extra $$$).
I administer (and I mean that in the loosest possible sense) an NT server at my workplace. About a year ago, we applied service pack 3, and our central sales processing database immediately went down. The lower level support people were unable to help, but as soon as I got hold of a senior, he immediately screamed, "Service pack 3? For heaven's sake, take it off! TAKE IT OFF!"
Hmmm, I've fixed many problems with hotfixes rather than service packs. Some of our most mission critical boxes run with SP3 and a list of group of carefully chosen hotfixes. Solid as a rock.
and only $63 for the personal edition...
</sarcasm>
Chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
Hmm, what other OSs have you installed in your machines? Have you tries Mac, Amiga, BSD, AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, IRIX in your box? I ask it because you said that "nearly every other OS on this planet has installed upon without incident." I hope you are not taliking only about MS stuff. Please make your self more knowledgable before writing.
Lets start with the reason why this article is mentioned on /. anyway. My guess is due to the 'Linux line'. It's no big secret that Windows NT isn't an easy operating system to set up and configure (although it's miles ahead of Linux, OS/2, or even BeOS). So? IMHO he has a fair point here; Linux, OS/2 can be a pain to setup on some hardware (can't comment on BeOS myself). If it wasn't we wouldn't see so many people drop in on the #linux channel asking a very wide range of questions; a lot of them concerning the installation.
Sure... RTFM. Thats what I tell most of those people also. But you cannot shove away the fact that RTFM makes is harder to install when compared to an OS which any braindead idiot can install. Face it; NT is click click click, done. If it will work remains to be seen but thats another story.
Next, I think a lot of people give to much credit to this author. IMO its just an article focused on the beginning admins & NT users. After reading the part about passwords (which have these weird habits of escaping our minds ;-)) This is more of a problem than you might think because of a security feature of Windows NT--the administrator account.. It has been some while for me but afaik you can easily boot from the NT cdrom & reinstall / reset the complete userdatabase using the recovery options. Afaik this will also reset the administrator account allthough I'm not 100% positive.
For example:
Now give it to one of your NT-loving buddies. Ask them if they can fill in the blanks.Then send them to the full story. It's good for some laughs! :)
The problems are somewhat common, but the solutions offered are the marks of a dimwit.
When is the last time someone in the unix world recommended giving yourself uid 0, just in case you forgot root's password? (A week after complaining over Linux' "all-or-nothing" security, no less.)
And why do we have to worry about service packs not being safe to install? They're supposed to be so much better (and better tested) that the unix world's "upgrade your cron package" method. He's actually asking that you delay already late security fixes because your system might not survive!
Moreover, your items 8 and 10 make no sense. You can have more than one libc on your machine (most people probably have by now) with no problems. And I clone my Linux box when I feel like it -- no problem.
This leads to developers writing installations that overwrite a section of system DLLs, to ensure that their application will work. What if the next program installed overwrites these files?
Perhaps I'm new to this, but I see this as inexcuseable.
"Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst."
(besides buying it in the first place)
Attempting to use NT on any system not configured by Microsoft or with any software not written by Microsoft or in any way not specifically condoned by Microsoft.
Any user with a lick of sense knows that you should only install NT on a MS certified system, install MS Office Sh^Huite, and never touch the thing until it is time to upgrade to W2004 (released in 2006 of course).
Heh, as an aside, did MS call NT 'W2K' so that when they get around to releasing it late next year, they can claim that it is actually 47 years early. (1K=1024 in computerland)
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Some of your points are quite reasonable, however I'm still going to be picky about a few of them!
... ?
> 3) Using UMS-DOS
Probably okay if you're just after testing Linux to see what all the fuss is about!
> 8) Using libc5 applications
Which is a problem because
> 10) Using different Linux distros on different machines
Which causes what sort of problem???
"It's no big secret that Windows NT isn't an easy operating system to set up and configure (although it's miles ahead ofLinux, OS/2, or even BeOS)."
Folks, don't just get caught up in the fuddish side of this. The mere fact that they even *made* this statement is incredibly meaningful. It means they're scared -- very scared. We have gone from blissfully ignoring the enemy, to launching tentative FUD attacks. This kind of thing, with just the casual, off the cuff, official-stamp-of-truth nature of it, is intended to do one thing: get into peoples minds and become accepted as fact.
This wasn't even an article about Linux... yet they included a jab. The war has just cranked up a notch.
Victory is approaching, but it will not be an easy fight.
"most of us just want to finish the installation and click on the cancel button to explore the Windows NT utopia."
I'll be in the bathroom vomiting my harmed brains out till I can't think about this statement anymore.
Scuse me?
12MB over system memory is not enough? I am running my Linux system with a swap space that is actually 16MB less then the amount of RAM.
[I must admit that you need some RAM in the first place. I have 96MB RAM and use 81920 for swap.]. And yes, I use X and Netscape and StarOffice and VMWare (running NT with a simulation of 48MB RAM) at the same time, so I think this qualifies as memory intensive use, at least comparable to what NT goes through with most users.
On my machine having a large pagefile.sys for NT is a good idea actually. I re-use that space as the Linux swap-file. (It's on FAT). But, as I said, I only use a small portion of it.
Whew, this must be about the only reason I still have NT installed. This and the fact that I am just to lazy to do it.Hans Voss
---
Hans Voss
---
"I have no special talents, I am just passionately curious" -- Albert Einstein
The "every OS" thing was a figurative and exagerated statement. I've installed NT (and W95), BeOS, Solaris, BSD on it. They all installed without any complaints at all. Linux could find my CD-ROM on my SCSI controller (AHA-2940 series) so I tried BusLogic. It still couldn't find it. It could see the hard drives but not the CD-ROM. Go figure.
Moderators are not always intelligent. But your comment was not flame bait... uninformed yes.. perhaps even an attempt at FUD. but I think it should not ave been moderated down.
Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
that's the think which causes ordinary applications not working when user is not administrator - like photoshop concerning about disk error when importing EPS with custom palette when loged without admin right (when doing same thing with admin rights, "do you want to use custom palette?" dialog appears and atfter pressing buton import proceeds hapily).
plain silly. developers get accustomed to program apps for "administrators" and forget about "real" users.
hany
Quit giving us 'heads a bad name! LSD doesn't lead to bad security, LSD leads to xaos, and maybe freeciv...
hehehehehehe
You BET i'm an AC.
two ways
use GhostWalker(available with ghost)
Take your image of a preinstallation. This is microsoft's preferred way and is required by MS if you distribute NT installed as an OEM.
I agree. Properly installed and maintained, an NT environment can be as reliable and productive as any other. I've worked with Solaris, NT, Linux, MacOS, and OS/2 in varying size companies. I've seen it done well and incredibly poorly. What makes the difference is not the OS but the planners and administrators. If they know what they're doing and stick to the plan any of these can be good choices depending on what you want to do. OS bashing is.. well, lame.
Lest we have to remind Microsoft:
Well, that list may have been not quite as thorough as it could have been, but eh, we get the point!
Insert mind here.
Most of the problems you mention aren't because of Windows NT it's because you don't know Windows NT. NT is not meant to be an OS that sits in a corner like a Novell server. It's not inferior it's just a different way of thinking than all you Unix/Novell admins are used to. And the only reason you have to reinstall NT when something goes wrong is: 1. Because you don't know what your doing so you screw it up 2. Because you don't know how to fix it when it screws up. Face it NT and Linux are pretty well equal. Our NT server has stayed up for 3 months straight, and would stay up longer if wouldn't change our configuration and installed packages so often. I'm sure a linux server is the same way everything perfect till you change something and it gets screwed up. And what do Linux novices do when their linux installation gets screwed? Reinstall. I've done it a million times because sometimes I just don't understand what linux is doing, I admit it. So why don't you admit you have no idea what a registry is so that's why you had to reinstall NT and not fix it.
It doesn't take a 3 step proof for most people.
---- sonoffreak
Yes, but remember that in WinDoze NT you need to logoff and then logon as Administrator (or whatever the hack you renamed it to).
:-).
Whereas in Unix I just open another XTerm and type 'su'.
Way back when I still used NT as my main Office environment, I made my own useraccount member of the Administrators Group, even knowing full well the implications on system security/stability etc.. This was just because - on whatever OS I run - I wanna be (and usually am) a PowerUser. (I didn't choose a career in IT for no reason, I wanna play with power, sheer unadulterated
Hans Voss
---
Hans Voss
---
"I have no special talents, I am just passionately curious" -- Albert Einstein
Always mke2fs -c /dev/fd0 your floppies before catting disk images to them. It'll save you a lot of misery in the long run!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
If the "another machine" that runs NT Natively had the problem with the mouse driver, it would have been a snap to fix, yes?
PS -- Linux novices have no business administering production servers. Someone whose idea of fixing a misbehaving server is reinstallation is not welcome to touch any of my servers.
The same applies to my production NT servers. Clueless admins who have to reinstall to fix something aren't admins. They're looking for a new job.
http://www.sysinternals.com/newsid.htm
noticed the author mentioned that the Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) was used for security purposes.
Yes, HAL was used on NT3, but after the GUI evolved, it turned out that using HAL was painfully slow, so now on recent NT versions, too many things just bypass HAL and all of them give their little contribution into making NT unstable.
Originally HAL was a good idea, but the implementation just evolved into a horrible kludge, like the whole NT itself. Please correct if I'm wrong on this.
I had the same driver problem when I installed NT natively. It's not a Vmware problem. When I installed Linux, it just worked. The Redhat 6.1 cd came with everything I needed, and installed in about 20 min. With NT, however, I had to go driver hunting after the install, and it took me about 4 hours before NT was up and running with all the drivers I needed. I should also note that I installed Linux and NT on identical hardware.
"The SID - Security Identifier - is a 128-but GUID created during the install of NT to uniquely identify that machine to the domain that it will become a member of. Therefore, if you GHOST one install to another machine, both will have the same SID, and unpredictable behaviour will arise.
If your not using NTs domain security, then it doesn't matter."
All true. I'm a little curious as to what the SID gets you, though. Isn't it just as easy to refer to machines by their MAC addresses, names within the domain, or IP addresses if you're using IP, with all those pieces of data cross-referencing like they do with ARP/RARP? I'm not sure why a fourth piece of data should be necessary.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
2) You have very little control over where you go to find your libraries. Compare this to LD_LIBRARY_PATH where you can set exactly where you look for your libraries (thus giving you the ability to use different versions without harming each other).
The PATH evironment variable is used by NT to locate libraries when they are needed. This value can be changed for any process, allowing for multiple versions of libraries to be loaded. Of course, setting this up for system level DLLs, like ODBC, can be tricky at best. But, for things like the equivalent to libc, it's really easy. Just put "." as the first entry in the PATH.
No, no, it's "Buy more hardware, buy more software, turn off security, and everything will be just fine." :)
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
I'm no MS lover, but if u consider usability, NT beats unixes hands down. ever thought about why all these 'powerful' and free unixes with 30 years of history but never popular except among a handful of brainless geeks?
Real geeks spit on unixes. They hug ITS, Multics, LispOS, or recently Mac OS and BeOS (^_^).
(shamless plug: we are hiring a unix guru and a perl monger. see my website for detail)
Xah
xah@best.com
http://www.best.com/~xah/PageTwo_dir/more.html
"Properly maintained" ??
What does it mean? Install NT & Office and never touch again the machine??
IT SUCKS!!! It sucks to install, it sucks to clone (NOT a stupid idea, there's no problem in doing that with IRIX, and it's commercial), it sucks to swap hard disks, change IP addresses...
AND IT FUCKING CRASHES ONCE A DAY!!
Isn't that article a HUGE piece of flamebait?
It fucks up because the SID is the same as another machine in the domain and you get problems.
Cloning has gone way beyond all this discussion...it works fine and I do it all the time.
The difference between you and me is that I do it RIGHT.
Giving admin rights to users is not one of the brighter things I have seen. Think of giving yourself id 0 on a Unix Box, one misplaced rm and your system will be hosed. It is probably similar on a NT. You can bring the entire system down and screw any other users on the machine, oops I forgot NT is not multi-user, but that should be left for a discussion on the Top 10 Dumb things that MS does.
I love how he advocates that the installer should run with administator. Can't wait for a virus to kick him in the butt. I can't imagine doing that. I'm curious, do we have a lot of Linux users that do everything as root?
The SID is nothing to do with the CD key. Nor is it anything to do with licensing.
The SID is generated/created/synthesised by the install process, and used to uniquely identify the machine to the domain controller's security database.
Multiple identical ID's in a DB that expects uniqueness is BAD.
If you're not using NT Domain security, then you won't notice anything.
Administrators whom are worth their salt know that you don't know what you're talking about.
This sig left unintentionally blank.
I love how he advocates that the installer should run as administator. I can't wait for a virus to kick him in the butt. I can't imagine doing that. I'm curious, do we have a lot of Linux users that do everything as root?
Linux could find my CD-ROM on my SCSI controller (AHA-2940 series) so I tried BusLogic.
/dev/cdrom -> scd0
I assume you mean could not find.
- What kind of CD-ROM?
- Have you verified that your SCSI controller has been properly recognized?
- did you check that the following link is there?
Show us a boot message with the relevant parts (i.e. SCSI, block devices) and we might find your story a little more credible...
Chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
Gee whiz, do you think it would be possible that someday stories on slashdot would be posted without inserting a comment dripping in sarcasm? Not everyone out there is an 37337 k-rad Linux usr. I for one have just installed Windows 2000 and I enjoy using it. Now if someone had posted a comment where they mentioned that "One of the dumbest things to do with Linux is install it" that would be quickly moderated to Troll, of course when it's NT being bashed then it's all good because Microsoft is "evil" yadda yadda
in many cases a service pack can cause a bug that didn't previously exist
Haven't we been hearing lately that the lack of service packs is a bad thing for Linux? I think PC Week recently mentioned the fact they needed 21 patches for their crack test linux box as if it was a bad thing.
I'd much rather apply the individual patches I need rather than slap on "Keg 'o Patches 7" weighing in with umpteen meg of system updates. The first method leaves me in control, the second leaves me wondering if I've overlooked some subtle interaction during testing or if I'll find a hardware variation in a production machine that is going to burn me.
My most memorable burn so far was complete system failure due to SP5 not being compatible with some NT4.0 WHQL certified video cards in some of our production machines. (No I can't afford to buy a twin machine for testing for every one on the floor.) I didn't need to update the video subsystems, I didn't want to update them. I had other needs to which Update to SP5 was the answer. Now the answer seems to be Update to SP5. Oh and buy new video cards that are NT4.0 WHQL certified. You say your's were listed as NT4.0 WHQL certified? Yes, well that was then, this is now. Have a nice day. Bye.
Yes I meant could not. I tried both an external NEC and an internal Toshiba. The h/w was in perfect condition and perfectly set up. I'm not at all a novice with h/w issues. The other OSes found all devices without issue so what other conclusion can I have except that linux is lacking good SCSI drivers/logic. Combine this with the known fact that the Linux SCSI subsystem is in terrible need of redesigning/rewriting and I think the conclusion is obvious.
I know a *little bit* about NT, but this guy knows nothing.
I never make an NT Emergency Repair Disk. Why? They don't work. About the only thing that can really be done with them is preserve elements like the system's security ID that can't be recreated if you were to just reinstall. It doesn't save your configuration -- all it will say is that the system cannot be repaired with that disk...
This guy also is confusing NT Administrator with UN*X root. NT can have multiple, fully privileged users, and the first two things you should do when starting NT for the first time are to rename the Administrator account to something else, then create *personal* administrator accounts -- when a few people share a password, it becomes a dozen people. If you give several people root, a lost root password is no problem.
Service Packs are saviors. When peculiar things start happening with NT, a Service Pack is almost always the answer. If something isn't working right in the first place, where's the harm in doing something that *might* ruin it, or more likely will fix it? If this is a production server, you *do* make backups, don't you?
This lamebrain really needs to get information from sources other than his parent company. Sheesh, Ars Technica has much more informative articles on NT...
--
E2 IN2 IE?
HAHA So Right you are! Odd that a NT's secure security model allowed a simple NON-Admin user to gain access to the Admin account via a little program called GetAdmin. Also, if that weren't scary enough... NT's secure password technology, which was not supposed to be cracked for 5,500 years (as MS marketing suggests), allowed 800 accounts to be cracked in less than 15 hours (70% of them were cracked in the first 20 minutes). Oh BTW, we did use the 128-bit service pack. WindowsNT is as secure as leaving the key to the door on top of the door mat or putting 30 locks on the door that use ALL the same key - to inconvientent to remember which key opens which lock. Why not label the keys and the locks. :) Adding yourself to Admin group! OH Hackers enjoy that... a nice Trojan that floats on by that infects the entire system. :) hehehehe Has anyone noticed the arogant tone in the article. It's odd they forgot: 11. Users deleting all those unnecessary files - you know Windows, Windows System, WHO PUT THESE on my System ANYWAY!!!! I don't use them, so why should I keep them! 12. Putting more than 1 Plug N Pray card in your machine. 13. Trying to Install NT from a SCSI CDROM! Sheesh ya think people would get real and stick with IDE already! (BTW - NTWS does a nice BSOD when installing from a 40x SCSI CDROM - even with new motherboard drivers added for the Controllers). I love the dig at Linux and other VERY HARD to configure OS. Hmm.. Linux took me about 12 minutes to configure on a new system - I was up on the network and running - no sound though.. but oh well - have to wait for drivers to come available - NT doesnt have all the drivers in the work either. 14. Trying to add more than 4 IDE devices to a system. NT just cannot handle this. WHY would you want more than 4 IDE devices ANYWAY!!! It's odd Win95B can support 8 IDE devices, but NT cannot. Linux had no problem with all the controllers. Trick is you need a controller that has all 4 IRQ's (10,11,12) and I/O ranges (1F0, 170, 1E8, 168).
7: NT Workstation. Why use 95 or 98? Obviously, NT is the better solution. 98 is for users-- NT is for power-users. That's why it costs so much more.
7.5 NT Server. When three registry settings are worth $500, you know you're getting a deal.
+&x
Did you enable SCSI CD-ROM support in the kernel? Yes, it's a seperate option from plain SCSI, and I made the same mistake myself, but my Adaptec 2940 controller sees all sorts of CD-ROM drives just fine.
This sort of thing could potentially be seen as a strike against the user friendliness of Linux, but it took me all of a day to solve, and then the solution was as simple as toggling an option box during 'make menuconfig'.
Well, you can just recompile & use... I'm using a libc5 based system during the last 2 years (updating kernel -2.2.12 now- and daemons frequently) without problems...
He does make a good point about installing/maintaining an operating system. NT was designed for people who don't have the time (ask an IT manager for his time, HA!) to learn the cryptic ins and outs of o/s adminitration
Except that this simply isn't the case, having to know which submenu controls what or which registry key alters what is no less cryptic that any CLI or text configuration files.
Training people to administer a network o/s is EXPENSIVE, and NT does lower the initial cost.
By following the approach of not training them.
yes, windows2000 has the "run as " command, but using it, you will be prompted to type the password of that . So this does not really help if you forgot the admin password.
"So, your problem updating the driver came from installing NT within VMware. That's an implemtation issue with VMware, not NT."
No, it's not an implementation issue with VMware. It's an implementation issue with his firewall. When you install NT within VMware on Linux, the NT installation gets a different IP than the Linux installation. This is, IMO, neither good nor bad, it's just the way they do it. The problem, in his situation, is that his firewall allows or denies access based on IP address, and the IP used by his NT/VMware installation does not have access through the firewall.
So, this is not a Linux problem, this is not an NT problem, and this is not a VMware problem. It is simply another case of one specific configuration not working in one specific environment. Happens all the time, it does not necessarily indicate a problem with any of the components involved.
Now, the REAL problem here, again IMO, is that MS has decided that it is more "user friendly" to install patches and upgrades through a browser than it is to download a file and do it the "old fashioned" way. The old way worked fine, yet MS felt the need to screw with it.
OK, since I've said what I meant to say, and feel myself quickly sinking into rant mode, I'll just end this right here.
"#10. Cloning Windows NT - ... a unique number, a security identifier (SID)..."
:)
Yep. This number is the CD-KEY that you're required to enter at startup. What else could it be? Nowhere are you asked for a different number which is named "security identifier." This is a false claim that "cloned systems will incur problems with networking." There's ABSOLUTELY no reason to think that this will ever happen. NT, even though I hate it with a passion, has no provision for checking this "SID", except for the rare occasion where a program might want to check the OEM/CD-key number. No crashes will happen, no "there is the same SID on this network" errors will pop up in the middle of a product build, no "goofy wackness" will happen and make you re-install the OS.
This is just a scare tactic by Micro$oft. They want to make sure that everyone is using a unique number so they can watch what you're doing with their software and, thus, market to you more efficiently. More money for Bill, right? (He can send some of it MY way... minus the hit-man, of course) Administrators whom are worth their salt know that copying NT to a new system causes no problems. Why should one open EVERY little package and pull out EVERY CD and have ALL the cd-keys ready so that you can waste an entire week getting 300 systems set up and working on a network? What I have done in the past, and will continue to do in the future is still purchase all the minimum pieces that I am required by law (the product licences, mainly) and install on one drive and copy it over to all the other drives and modify all the network stuff (Hostnames, TCP/IP numbers and subnet masks) so they become unique.
Micro$soft shouldn't get their panties in a bind over this. It's silly to try to scare people into submission. The US government does this enough as it is!
Note to US government and Microsoft:
The opinions expressed in this specific post/reply are mine and mine, alone. The opinions do not modify my behaviour in society or denote any wrong-doing. Please, no hit-men of FBI agents.
Heucuva
Actually, the point he makes (albeit indirectly) is that "people who don't have time....to learn the ins and outs of o/s administration" should not be handling os adminstration. Think about the advice he's giving to new NT admins: enable guest on shared drives, and give yourself admin permission so you don't have to worry about forgetting a password. In linux terms, that translates to: export your NFS drives to the network with no security and always login as root.
Wonderful. How many newbies are going to take his advice and never once realize the implications?
The fact that a particular system is easy to configure doesn't mean that it's easy to configure well. That's true no matter which OS you choose.
Considering MS makes it clear that you cannot upgrade 95 with NT , they explicitly do not recommend that you install NT into the same folder as windows. I would love to see your source that claims otherwise.
FWIW, I used to have a shared program files folder for 98 and NT, and netscape and MS Office worked fine. I am now runninng win2k exclusively
matt
No, the last time I reinstalled NT Server was four months ago. Our department print/web/file server suddenly started to give the strange error message, "Evaluation Period Ended. This installation will shut down in an hour." It had to be rebooted every hour so that people could get their work done before we had a chance to fix it.
The rumor going around here was that my predecessor had installed a Service Pack with a severe problem -- turning a licensed installation of NT Server into the Evaluation version. He got that service pack from Microsoft. Just a rumor. From the corporate IT guys who talk on the phone with Microsoft every week. Just a rumor.
Either way, an Operating System that has to be rebooted every hour until you reinstall is not what I want on my server. It might also have been nice to have warning beforehand... but then, I guess, there wouldn't have been as many people willing to write a $2000 check for a license (which we already had).
PS -- Linux novices have no business administering production servers. Someone whose idea of fixing a misbehaving server is reinstallation is not welcome to touch any of my servers.
--
QDMerge 0.4 just released!
how to invest, a novice's guide
HAL is nothing but a "driver" for the motherboard. This way, they can abstract away the specifics of the hardware - and ask the hardware manufacturer to supply the HAL. however, that has nothing to do with porting to Itanium. I think that the original codebase was written assuming 32bit pointers, so porting to 64bits does involve some pain ( Integer sizes, pointers changing).
No, Linux and NT are very different, it's just that the people who use them aren't that different . You might want to reconsider #10. I think I read an interview with Linus recently where he said he uses RedHat at work and SuSE at home
Using the wrong pagefile size is a dumb *user* mistake? This would fit better under an article like "Top 10 Dumb Things Windows NT Does". If MS knows the default size is bad, maybe they should change the default instead of blaming the user.
It is quite humorous seeing that the majority of followups have been additional members with such brilliance as "11. Installed NT...". Gotta love the Linux community. Nothing to contribute so just stick in those jibes at MS. Hehe...funny. Original too as you can see from the 200 or so clones of the same lame idea.
Secondly, two quick things: For people who really like LS, it's in the resource kit as are a variety of other POSIX utilities, as well as the fact that just about every UNIX command utility can be found for NT. Secondly you can make a "boot" disk in NT with ease...unless you're an idiot. Thirdly someone ranted about Linux supporting more file systems. That's GREAT. Thankfully NTFS is a great journalling file system to begin with, and as NT does anything there's no need to have 7 different OS' on your machine. Ah well irrelevence.
I agree that i've seen quite a few posts that defend NT given a flamebait rating. Perhaps some are, but quite a few I've seen are actually intelligent and are addressing points at hand. This is a BIG bias of quite a few moderators here. Don't even want to hear anthing about NT unless its bad. "Let me know when Slashdotters are interested in having a rational, open discussion instead of FUD slinging." I'd love to, but since you posted AC, no one knows who you are!
You can set LILO up not to prompt you. Most BIOSes these days all you to set your boot order to exclude A:. Most BIOSes also allow you to assign separate power-on and bios changing passwords (You don't want a power-on password since if the power goes down you want your system to boot back to the OS and run all your servers.) You do want a password prompt when you go to change the BIOS though, so people can't go in and add A: back to your boot order. Most BIOS passwords can be removed by setting a jumper on the system board and rebooting, if the guy with access to your system has this info, you're pretty much out of luck. Of course, you could put a padlock on the back of your computer...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
If you want to change bad moderation do your part and meta moderate. There will always be bad judgements or advantages taken but a system is in place to respond.
If its stupid but it works, its not stupid.
..the MAC and IP address can change while the "machine" itself doesn't. Therefore the security info will still apply to the "machine".
The machine is still refered to by others using the hostname/IP address, it's the security stuff that uses the SID.
Can image the grief M$ would get if you had to re-establish the domain security info after swapping out a bad NIC...
This sig left unintentionally blank.
1. A P.O.S. application can only overwrite system DLL's if (a) the installation is being run as administrator or (b) the administrator has not appropriately secured the system files. It's not Microsoft's fault if the P.O.S. application's author did not adhere to Microsoft's suggested design guidelines for setup routines. In either *nix or NT, you would need to run with elevated privileges in order to install daemons or services, in which case the installation routine if written poorly could potentially replace system components. Again, not the fault of the OS. 2. The application has complete control over where to look for libraries. 3. These points notwithstanding, both Windows NT Server 4.0 Terminal Server Edition, and Windows 2000 include mechanisms to thwart P.O.S. apps that misbehave during install, isolating anything the app tries to put in \system32 (WTS) or preventing system file replacement (Win2K). "Don't touch the machine anymore" after achieving a stable installation is a cornerstone of running a 5-9's datacenter, regardless of OS.
Huh? When was this, 1995? Red Hat and SuSE, I believe, come with a kernel that has SCSI CD-ROM enabled by default. What were you trying to use?
Make me aerodynamic in the evening air
Working hardware does not cause Blue Screen of deaths in NT either. Linux has had problems with SCSI cards from Adaptec.
;)
(Yes a server should not need a graphics card)
>Forgot the password?
>lilo: linux init=/bin/sh
This makes a Linux box unsecure.
New Kernel patches can most certainly cause trouble for people. (and I doo mean 2.2.x patches). It has for i.e. NFS, and remember the memory leak in 2.2.9?
Personally, I think that the article was incredibly stupid. Written by a Windows 9x user maybe?
NT is better than the 9x series by miles, but of course not as good as Linux.
This reminds me, I've forgotten the administrator password on the NT machine I have at work.
But as for the stupid comment about installing, I've never needed more than a day to get a Linux system up and running, whereas I've rarely been able to get an NT system working properly in under a week. Where I used to work we just took a PC, stuck a CD-ROM and floppy in, switched it on, and came back twenty minutes later to tell the new Linux machine what its name was... simple as that.
What amazes me is that Linux can handle FAT32 with ease and has been handling it for a while now but M$'s own OS which it is so proud of NT can't handle FAT32. Also Win95/98 can't handle NTFS yet Linux can read it in stable and write in Dev. How can they ever claim to be superior to Linux when Linux beats them on their own products.
The proper phrase for this item is:
"Installing NT on a computer"
which is an instance of:
"Installing the wrong software on a computer"
Of course, as NT doesn't support toasters or monkeys this can be abbreviated as:
"Installing NT"
There is a program called Ghostwalker that explicitly addresses the problem of the SID's. After restoring an image on a computer you can run ghostwalker from a boot floppy and give that installation any SID number you want (I think it must be the same length as the old SID)
One caveat: make sure that your boot floppy has HIMEM or else it can take a Loooooong time to change that SID!
2^5
Of course, if the researcher had done his homework he would know that recent versions of GHOST do give you the option of changing the SID.
--
-- Kernel Panic: Error reading
"The key to ensuring your two Windows NT computers can communicate is to make sure the guest account in user manager is enabled. This is the account that is used when one computer connects to another, with relatively little security--the reason it is disabled by default." Anybody else see the problem with this? HELLO! Anybody home?
Even considering that it is on msn.com, this article is overrun with propaganda.
- easier than BeOS??? NOT
- implies NTFS is not O/S specific
- quarterly service packs? then how is NT 4.0 only on SP5 by now?
- almost impossible to screw up on a single O/S machine? um... not in my experience
--- Bill
But, but ... I thought NT was 'much easier to administrate' than Linux, because you had a small number of well-organised service packs, not a host of minor patches .
Well it could be a randomly generated number with some guarantee (?) of uniqueness. There's nothing to stop people from using the same CD key for different machines - that's what site licences are for. However, that's not the same as ghosting a machine.
I don't know whether this is what's going on or not, but it seems perfectly feasible.
Jon
#7 is pretty easy to fix on most Linux boxes if you have physical access to the system (I don't have to say how to do it, now do I?) >;-)
Here are 10 more dumb things that NT users do:
1) Buy NT
2) Install NT
3) Read articles on MSN about NT
4) Not laugh at articles
5) Believe articles
6) Feel a kinship in the "dumbness" author describes in current article
7) Apply techniques suggested in article
8) Think you are safe and wise after doing 7
9) Write articles for MSN about NT
10) Believe you are helping others by doing 9
---
I hope you're not pretending to be evil while secretly being good. That would be dishonest.
As a side note - the only actual flames I've seen are left intact. THOSE need to be moderated, IMHO.
Moderators need to calibrate their sensors; apparently the "I don't agree with this" reading is picking up as "flamebait".
"This makes a Linux box unsecure"
No, it means you don't understand the first thing about system security.
There ARE options for Linux to have encrypted file store protected by a password on startup, but like their equivalents in NT they are rarely used.
The true way to prevent direct physical attacks (like inserting a boot floppy) is to prevent unauthorised people from having physical access to the machine.
The second level of defence (which is used in the Undergrad lab below me) is to deactivate the non-HD boot facility and alarm the cases.
Regardless this is off-topic, the AC was talking about how a LEGITIMATE administrator would access a machine. Physical security doesn't apply to the legitimate admins
You want us to compare it to a beta, which is only availible for a price ?
It is common practice to compare latest released product.
It is not our fault that Microsoft can't release things on time.
>How secure is this? Anyone with physical access can change the root password.
First, disable booting from anything other than your hard drive in your BIOS( this can still be shorted by opening the case though ).
Then, you can setup lilo to require a password if you add any parameters to the image label...
ie, in my lilo.conf
boot=/dev/hda
map=/boot/map
install=/boot/boot.b
#prompt -- make it so I have to hold shift to get the lilo prompt
timeout=50
image=/boot/k2321
label=linux
root=/dev/hda2
read-only
#this is the password that protects linux single
password=myspecialpassword
#restricted means that if I add any parameters at
# the prompt, I get prompted for the password
restricted
vga=0x030C
When I type linux single at the lilo prompt, it now asks for myspecialpassword before it'll continue
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
Neato, I must get another computer for *BSD at home soon!
definitely. like, y'know how nt installs in under 10 minutes off of one bootdisk + cdrom, only prompts you for a couple of questions before install (optional items or not, which partition), autodetects all your hardware, actually is capable of creating a drive bigger than 4gigs in its own native filesystem (during install, it actually creates a fat drive and converts it later), doesn't wipe your mbr, doesn't prompt you for drivers for everything, and works with new hardware (usb, anyone?) wait, i might be confused. pchan pchan@bemail.org ----- in my mind, i'm already gone.
"I don't like your tone of voice!"
*grin* love that ep
- Rei
NT is a good OS as a WORKSTATION (if you can even call it a *work*station). The why is because most people are familiar with the known look and feel of windows. That's about it. Over and out. Anything said beyond that is pure bulls.It basically has NO technical merits compared to Unix workstations such as SUN/HP-UX/SGI/Linux/ except the known look and feel and it's abillityto run on (read intel) hardware.The whole design and concept of NT is flawed by default. I am sick of people saying "weak security model" when they don't realize that NT DOES NOT have a security model whatsoever in a networked enviroment. It's a pseudo-multiuser OS that just happens to *work* in a networked enviroment. It was not designed for network-enabled enviroments. Unix/Bsd however were. This concept that NT is more secure, originates (i think) from the fact that NT is NOT a true multiuser OS. In some enviroments NT might be better than UNIX/Linux/*BSD. The same goes for any other OS. It depends on what the *USER* feels is better for him. Nothing else. Everything else is bulls for the suits who don't know how to distinguish a monitor from a TV......
It's no big secret that Windows NT isn't an easy operating system to set up and configure (although it's miles ahead of Linux, OS/2, or even BeOS)"
For the first time as a BeOS user, I'm truly insulted! I'll challenge any NT guru to set up NT faster than I set up BeOS!
My personal record: 7 minutes 35 seconds from putting BeOS R4.5 CD in the tray until surfing the net!
Eat my shorts, Jason!
Jón
You know someone has an interesting point when they declair NT 4.0 install "miles ahead" and then follow it up by explaining it was dumb to choose the defaults.
Hello... McFly... errr... I ment Jason Anderson... please read your own article carefully and then install NT and consider why people might be doing these "dumb" things.
Does an installer that is "miles ahead" encourage the following dumb actions:
"Installing Windows NT where it doesn't belong"...
well, where is the default location for installing NT if a c:\windows is detected?
"No emergency repair disk"...
like an emergency repair disk made at the end of a NT install does you much good. Probably *immediately* after installing NT the next thing your going to do is install programs like MS-Office. What happens to the registery entries for MS-Office if you revert to the registery on an emergency repair disk made during part of the install? Skipping the rdisk during the NT install has become some popular because it is such a dumb point to do it. Why doesn't the MS software package installer such as the one used for installing MS-Office prompt for creating a rdisk instead?
"Using the wrong Pagefile size"...
Oops... someone was "dumb" enough to choose a default from an OS installer that is "miles ahead"
Oh... and my favorite...
"Cloning Windows NT"...
If the NT installer was "miles ahead," admins would be using the "kickstart" option as is done with installing RedHat to multiple machines and include additional third-party packages as part of the kickstart. It is possible to have your choosen RedHat and third-party RPMs installed in a single boot while NT's installer doesn't lend itself to installing third-party packages at all other than drivers and does multiple reboots (one reboot is just to convert a FAT16 partition it just created to the requested NTFS!)
A site license for Ghost doesn't come cheap. There is a REASON why administrators are using it and it is probably because the OS installer for NT sucks, not "miles ahead."
Yeah, I was really impressed when I last installed NT. Took literally thirty seconds from first BIOS message to first Blue Screen Of Death (as far as I remember because I had a FAT32 partition on the hard disk)...
PATHs in NT don't behave like the ones in Unix, for a variety of reasons.
The result is that you can't have the complete control you'd like (and sometimes need) over the search path for executables and libraries.
Most of this isn't Microsoft's fault, except in as much as you could condemn them for writing a single user, non-networked OS which still uses Real Mode in 1998...
If software written in the late 90s had been designed for NT rather than 95 you'd see a lot less of these odd dependency problems.
Unix (at least the Unices I've used) still have better shared object support than NT though.
Yes I meant could not.
/cdrom directory, and upon not finding anything, assume that Linux can't find your CD-ROM?
Good you understood my first sentence
I tried both an external NEC and an internal Toshiba.
You mean these companies each make exactly one CD-ROM drive? How about narrowing down the possibilities just a little.
The other OSes found all devices without issue so what other conclusion can I have except that linux is lacking good SCSI drivers/logic
Sigh. How about addressing my other points? More specifically, what do you mean by not finding?
- Does Linux tell you "I can't find the CD-ROM"?
- Or did you just cd into the
Combine this with the known fact that the Linux SCSI subsystem is in terrible need of redesigning/rewriting and I think the conclusion is obvious.
Known by whom? Can you show me some concrete references from experts in SCSI driver design?
Again, I say show us a boot message, something like this:
(scsi0) <Adaptec AIC-7880 Ultra SCSI host adapter> found at PCI 12/0
(scsi0) Wide Channel, SCSI ID=7, 16/255 SCBs
(scsi0) Downloading sequencer code... 413 instructions downloaded
scsi0 : Adaptec AHA274x/284x/294x (EISA/VLB/PCI-Fast SCSI) 5.1.19/3.2.4
<Adaptec AIC-7880 Ultra SCSI host adapter>
scsi : 1 host.
(scsi0:0:0:0) Synchronous at 40.0 Mbyte/sec, offset 8.
Vendor: IBM Model: DDRS-39130W Rev: S92A
Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Detected scsi disk sda at scsi0, channel 0, id 0, lun 0
(scsi0:0:1:0) Synchronous at 40.0 Mbyte/sec, offset 8.
Vendor: SEAGATE Model: ST318275LW Rev: 0001
Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Detected scsi disk sdb at scsi0, channel 0, id 1, lun 0
(scsi0:0:4:0) Synchronous at 10.0 Mbyte/sec, offset 15.
Vendor: MATSHITA Model: PD-2 LF-D100 Rev: A108
Type: CD-ROM ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Detected scsi CD-ROM sr0 at scsi0, channel 0, id 4, lun 0
(scsi0:0:5:0) Synchronous at 5.0 Mbyte/sec, offset 8.
Vendor: SONY Model: SDT-5000 Rev: 3.26
Type: Sequential-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Detected scsi tape st0 at scsi0, channel 0, id 5, lun 0
scsi : detected 1 SCSI tape 1 SCSI cdrom 2 SCSI disks total.
sr0: scsi3-mmc drive: 0x/0x cd/rw xa/form2 cdda tray
Uniform CDROM driver Revision: 2.55
...otherwise: SHUT YOUR FUD AC
Chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
> > 8) Using libc5 applications
... ?
> Which is a problem because
IIRC, most of the newer stuff for Linux uses libc6. Like, the kernel. (2.2.x)
Someone correct me if I'm wrong...
censorship is a form of noise, which actively seeks to drown out content with silence - Crash Culligan
I'm getting really sick of these articles that say "linux is SO hard to install because I have to partition"
The only reason you have to repartition and everything else is because you run Windows on the machines in the first place.
Let's take the reverse. I Have a totally linux machine that has nothing but ext2 on it. Does that make Windows9x/NT "too hard to set up" because I have to repartition it for FAT or NTFS?
No it doesn't. that's why these people when they first install linux should do it on a harddirve that has nothing but freespace. Not try and jury-rig it on a some drive that's already FAT32 formatted and they have to resize it and reformat, etc.
Anthing about linux being harder to install becasue of re-partitioning is pure FUD, because it's not a linux problem, it's every OS'es problem. This includes ALL versions of Windows(even Win2k), linux, any just about anything else you can think of.
Thank you. No I did not and I didn't have time to spend all day on it. Besides my day job, I also have a family, am working toward my MS in Software Engineering, an am active in my church. I wish I had all the time to dig into this stuff but I don't. It isn't logical to me why it would be disabled by default. So I still think it is an 'unfriendly' feature although not a bug.
I'm a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer/Microsoft Certified Trainer. I instruct for one of the largest computer training companies in the world. I also run Linux...and MacOS...and BeOS...and AmigaOS... But I'm not here to debate the relative merits (or demerits) of an operating system because I've seen too many people complain about what they do not know about to know they're full of shit. But this guy scares me. Not only is he an MCSE, but Microsoft actually let him put that drivel on their page. I for one HATE paper MCSE's, because they take the relative value of the certification and kill it. I'm not saying he's one, but jeez! This guy, even though he claims to have used NT since 3.1 Advanced Server, says some pretty stupid shit:
1. To quote: "Windows NT has an abstraction layer between the hardware and the operating system. When a program wants access to a hardware device...it must go through this layer to do so. The purpose of this is security, and to ensure a bad application can't steal all resources from a given hardware device."
Yeah, right. Don't be a jackass. Yes, although the NT ARCHITECTURE is supposed to promote security (in many different contexts), the true purpose of the HAL is to make all hardware look the same to the microkernel. Therefore MS wouldn't have to use different source code every time NT was ported to a different platform. MS actually had the engineers code the prerelease versions of NT 3.1 on a MIPS box, and then PORT it to x86. NT's original premise was PORTABILITY...and that's where the HAL comes in. Now that all the other ports are gone (RIP Alpha...stupid MS) the only thing the HAL is good for is to maybe port W2K to IA-64? Who knows, but security ain't the issue here.
2. Here's another one: "If you install NT into the same partition, you'll end up sharing the \Program Files directory, which could be catastrophic for Internet Explorer, for instance. This is an easy one to avoid."
Whatever. Go to your NT box. Open that Program Files Directory. NT specific binaries are stored in a "Windows NT" subfolder. IE, specifically, is stored in %systemroot%\Program Files\Plus!\Microsoft Internet. When you install or upgrade a 9x machine (even with Plus!) with IE3/4/5, it installs to C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer. This guy's talking out of his ass. I've done dual boot 9x/NT boxes all day long. I DID, however, keep both copies of IE the same rev...for consistency's sake...:)
3. One more: "The key to ensuring your two Windows NT computers can communicate is to make sure the guest account in user manager is enabled. This is the account that is used when one computer connects to another, with relatively little security--the reason it is disabled by default."
Wha...WHAT?! Are you out of your freaking MIND?! One of the first things we teach in the classes is to keep Guest diabled. Why don't you just create a local user, put 'em in the appropriate ACL's for the share, use the "conenct as" option and be DONE with it...
There are more...but I gotta get back to work...:)
This guy says he's an MCSE? And MS puts his stuff up for the whole world to see? People like him make people like me look bad.
-Kevin, MCSE/MCP+I/MCT, MCP ID # 1198191
PS: Just to be fair...I do agree with him on the service pack issue...I don't use a newly released SP until it's been out in the field for a while. SP3, for instance, was an apology for SP2...:)
My posts don't reflect the opinion of my employer, and my employer's opinion doesn't influence the content of my posts.
k = kibo?
Yeah. Windows NT allows a complete idiot think he's adminning a box until something goes wrong. Those other OSes require you to actually KNOW something in advance of things going wrong.
1. Using the wrong hardware...
Hey you people! Why are you still messing around with IA32? The archetecture is a toy! We've been running 64 bit processors for years now. Of course, you only really need a huge server if your OS has no remote admin capabilities. Otherwise you'd buy a bunch of little ones and distribute the load (No single point of failure that way either, and you can lock those machines away in com closets because unix never crashes. IMHO, the wrong hardware could also mean any hardware I ever have to deal with because I Don't Do Windows.
2. Installing Windows NT where it doesn't belong...
Everyone who's ever installed NT is guilty of this.
3. Choosing the wrong file system...
You have two choices. Flip a coin.
4. No emergency repair disk...
I've never had that problem in Linux or OS/2.
5. Using the wrong Pagefile size...
Everyone has this problem, even in UNIX. OS/2 got around it by having a dynamically resizable swap file, but that led to its own problems.
6. Missing a key network component...
Sorry, anyone who says "Security" in the same breath as "guest account" should be taken out behind the barn and shot.
7. Forgetting the password...
See point 1 about absolute idiots...
8. Using older applications...
UNIX is backwards compatable with 30 years of applications (Assuming you can still find a K&R compiler somewhere.) MS can't even manage a decade? Ok, I'm not being fair, since 95/98 are still 16 bit under the hood (30 years after DEC introduced the 16 bit PDP 11 [in 1970] to replace the then-outdated 8 bit PDP 5 and PDP 8.)
9. Applying service packs unwisely...
Nevermind that there may be vital security fixes on those things. Maybe this was why those bozo's over at ZD were afraid to install a single linux security patch on their RedHat box. That's what you get when you put a trained windows monkey in charge of a Real OS.
10. Cloning Windows NT...
Hmm. I wonder how this affects those backups you've been making for the past year. Are you SURE your system will be functional when you restore from backup when your disks go to hell in a handbasket? Better double-check...
No other OS I've ever run across has had any problem being cloned. You can even do it with OS/2 (Admittedly you REALLY have to know what you're doing with OS/2, due to extended attributes.)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
nah, i think the problem was that it was behind a firewall.
...that the usual /. perspicacity flies out of the window (pun unintended) as soon as M$ appears.
The SID - Security Identifier - is a 128-but GUID created during the install of NT to uniquely identify that machine to the domain that it will become a member of.
Therefore, if you GHOST one install to another machine, both will have the same SID, and unpredictable behaviour will arise.
If your not using NTs domain security, then it doesn't matter.
(It also doesn't matter if you install from the same CD, or from a server copy of the CD, as the SID is created on the fly).
The underlying problem is giving "techs" the job of installing NT who don't actually understand it. Apparently this happens with Linux too...
This sig left unintentionally blank.
Just to clarify, you just should (in ms's view) do each install by hand.
The installer creates a unique sid for this installation, and if nt detects the same sid on the net, you have a problem. Pure diskimages will not work.
Look at www.sysinternals.com for a free solution.
> (you seem to use your systems mostly for games; I don't). ;-)
;-)
;-)
Actually I use it for software development (VC is pretty sweet), surfing, gaming, email, icq, etc, all the usuall things one does with a computer.
> The problem with Microsoft's operating systems is that there really aren't any instructions.
Not only that, but Windows9X is SO badly written. Thats WHY I use NT, Linux, and BeOS. (Doesn't anyone read the first 2 paragraphs?!!) With a REAL OS, I don't have to worry about the darn OS crashing every 5 mins.
> At least with Linux, I have instructions, in the form of the various HOWTOs, etc., to refer to if something goes awry during installation
I agree: an advantage in that help is availabble, and a dis-advantage that you need a lot of time to wade thru all the HOWTOs.
> however, I haven't had an install go wacky since an early 1.0.x kernel Slackware distribution
Actually I started using Linux with an early Slackware ver as well! The only hardware probs that I've had is getting Linux to recognize my 2nd NIC (nothing a compile didn't solve
> agreed with was failing to make emergency boot disks when prompted.
Yeap, I've been bitten by that one in both NT and Linux. At least in Linux its relatively easy to make a boot disk
Cheers
>>Forgot the password?
>>lilo: linux init=/bin/sh
>This makes a Linux box unsecure.
I'd say it makes it practical.
A network box needs to be protected through the network.
Similarily any computer is unsecure if I can remove the harddrive and "get into it" that way. (By mounting the drive on another computer.)
Personally I really do fail to see how this should be relevant to this situation.
Steve 'Nephtes' Freeland | Okay, so maybe I'm a tiny itty
He never says it's a vmware problem - he says he has the NT system firewalled off (which, is probably a good idea for the security of his machine).
Personally, I believe you have no idea what you are talking about - I haven't had any network connectivity problems with vmware (I'm posting this now from netscape, under windows 95, under slackware.)
I also see this as a problem for other classes of machines, namely those with no networking hardware installed. If Microsoft will only allow you to run the install in a web browser, and not just downloand the install files, how do they intend people trying to use Windows NT as a C2 secure install? (assuming they found the obsecure hardware it is rated as C2 on - and remember, no network card or modem)
Actually PotatoShop's requirements on the System Swap don't increase when working with large images, IIRC
:)
PotatoShop, like Gimp on Unix use a separate disk file to provide their own virtual memory for image tiles. I suspect that since PotatoShop is relying solely on WinNT they have a slight performance edge there.
The point in general is well made, it's just that big image editing apps don't expect their 240Mb of swap to come from the OS, especially on a 32Mb computer
I'm not an NT advocate, but please don't forget that even if NT works now only on Intel platform, the HAL is still useful because now on Intel platform, there is (will be) two ISA : 80x86 and the Itanium/Merced/EPIC ISA.
What I do find strange is that Microsoft had some trouble porting NT 2000 to the Itanium, I would think that thanks to the HAL, it would be very simple, or perhaps it is the different pointer size ? But isn't this kind of thing, that the HAL is supposed to hide ?
I'm (a bit) puzzled, anyone knowledgeable could answer ?
This cracked me up too.
The purpose of this is security, and to ensure a bad application can't steal all resources from a given hardware device.
Let's imagine a nt-webserver:
HAL: "Hey IIS, stop it, you're stealing all the system and net resource, calm down"
IIS: "But, this is ok, we have much traffic, I HAVE to use this much resources"
HAL: "FOR THE LAST TIME, STOP IT OR I KILL YOU"
IIS: "No, I can't, pleeease"
(IIS continues doing his work...)
HAL kills IIS.
But, an even bigger group of applications, there are lots of companies that spend lots of money making sure their programs are bug-free. Like people that make telecom equipment. Like the software that runs your car. It is just that MS Windows can get away with it, whereas if you're driving fast in heavy traffic and your car's microcontroller crashes, your manufacturer can get sued big-time.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
Areas of weakness include ... security model.
... NT would end up on top.
Are you on crack? This is standard M$ drivel (they mentioned this just recently in one of their "oh-so-objective" (yea right) articles about Linux's "shortcomings"), and should be thrown away out of hand. You're telling me users and groups are bad? (They're not exactly that different from what NT employs in the way of security) And don't tell us "well, it only applies ownership and permissions to files" - Unix systems treat EVERYTHING as files.
Ok. You _have_ to be on crack. You're telling me that an OS that crashes regularly, has a bloated GUI tied quite closely to its innards, has service packs regularly released that cause it to blow up... all these things don't take any points off it? The Linux box (yes, only one, and it does all that's needed) I run at work is quite stable. If I install a broken package, it doesn't kill the whole system. It doesn't need a GUI constantly loaded and sucking down resources. It just sits there and does its job. Oh, and did I mention it doesn't crash?
The NT workstations at my school crash regularly. All I have to do is open a terminal window and a few Netscape windows, and *BOOM* hard lock. These are configs shipped FROM THE MANUFACTURER with NT 4 WS installed. I'd trust them no further than I could throw them.
And did I mention you're on crack?
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Sounds to me like you've made up your mind and now just spout FUD. Just like Microsoft.
I've got some friends who work in some large scale NT shops. When it comes to Service Packs and Hotfixes, they're... cautious. The reason for that caution is that while Service Packs and Hotfixes do fix things - they're also known to occasionally break things in nasty, unexpected ways.
Meanwhile, I've left the NT environment and managed to emerse myself within several flavors of Unix. I install patches left and right. I've yet to run into trouble doing so (though I've never touched a patch labled as beta). However, I can't help but wonder if I'm not just a babe in the woods yet to encounter their first wolf?
Has anyone ran into trouble using patches for anything in any unix (or "unix-like" if you want to be picky) environment? And if so, what was required to return to safer ground?
Does anybody out there know the real reason MS won't let you clone systems? If there is some deeply hidden technical reason for this I'd love to know about it since I have two NT workstations cloning on my desk right now and several more to go before the end of the day. I've heard this from MS before and I have yet to figure out what they are talking about. As a consultant I have rolled out hundreds of NT workstations for many different companies using Ghost software and have never had a problem with a conflicting SID. I know this is supposed to be a problem if you "upgrade" to NT 5 (AKA 2000) but I have yet to see any problems running several hundred NT workstations with the same SID on the same network. As far as upgrading, I think that organizations are going to do what they did for NT 4.0 which is buy new hardware with 2000 installed on it. Not to mention the fact that if MS did something with SP 7 to check for unique SIDs all you have to do is run a program like Ghost Explorer to set unique SIDs for each computer.
Thomas More wrote Utopia as a parody above all else. Utopia is roughly Latin for "No place". The book was written not to see 'how good things could be' but to put these things together and see just how impossible it would be to realize. That is NT down to the core, IMHO. Okay, granted the vernacular term 'utopia' doesn't take all this into account, but it is interesting to note.
Addendum 1) If you haven't read Utopia, I highly suggest it. I especially love the children laughing at the visiting dignitary. Great stuff.
Addendum 2) As a previous NT user, I don't understand the value of the rescue disk. Sounds great (hmm, the Utopia analogy still applies), but everytime NT died to the point it wouldn't reboot (twice that I remember, and I used it for less than a year), the rescue disk did NOTHING except complain that it couldn't find NT. Frustrating.
Under Number 8: Using older applications
"With true geek lust for the latest and greatest technology, many people quickly migrated to Windows NT, not knowing that Doom or some other DOS-based games simply wouldn't work in NT."
Geek lust for latest and greatest technology??? Oh, come on! My main machine is a Pentium, and my router is a 486SuX. I've got a Commodore 64 in here, as well as a 286 and a couple of IBM RTs (1986 vintage). Latest and greatest they are not!
The only lust involved there is lust for power and money. These guys trying to get all us users of old tech to "upgrade" to Windows NT from our old DOS systems. God, I miss net surfing with my 286 and Telix...
--- Phyre
Windows 5 aka 2000 aka whatever will have a "Run as..." command in its start menu, which will let you do things as an administrator. MS will also start supporting disk quota. Looks like they're finally catching up to that '30 year old UNIX technology', as they put it on their Linux myths page!
Yup, I've used Ghost && Ghostwalker on groups of 30 or so on a regular basis. Ghostwalker gives each box a unique SID. save openstep!
Actually, if you forget the root password, you don't need a boot disk to fix it: boot into single user mode (usually by typing linux single at the LILO prompt). Once the system comes up, you are in a root shell and can run passwd to your heart's content.
...
I can't believe that that's not possible in NT. After all, if somebody has physical access to a machine and can power-cycle it, you're beyond the protection that a password can give you anyway
1) Its not our fault; if it were not for all the users, NT would work just great. In idle mode you can leave it up for weeks without a crash.
2) till 10) See 1)
If you have a BIOS password, a locked case, no removable drive booting enabled, and a LILO password, people can't just reboot your Linux box and change your password. But it's true - the whole Unix security model goes to hell once a would-be attacker gets physical access to a machine. Linux, NT, Solaris, whatever.
And also, encrypted FS? That's a big assumption there, don't you think? Does NT even support having its filesystem encrypted? (I know you can do FS encryption on Linux...) Not everybody uses an encrypted FS, even if their OS supports it.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
The "POS" app being referred to could verry well be, oh, Microsoft FTP Server Deluxe Expensive Edition, a theorietical app that requires Administraitor privs to install.
The point is, DLLs under Windows are a nasty kludge.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
This seems to be literally how Microsoft thinks. "It's not our fault. It's your fault. It's their fault. It's everybody's fault. But it's certainly not _our_ fault. We're infallible." Unfortunately, when something goes wrong, most people will blame themselves for making a "stupid" mistake rather than blame the product for having a stupid design. This is why Microsoft is still around. -- "A computer will do exactly what it thought you told it to do, which is often different from what you thought you told it to do."
The NT workstations at my school crash regularly. All I have to do is open a terminal window and a few Netscape windows, and *BOOM* hard lock
I have no idea what the idiots at your school have done to your machines, but it's not NT's fault. I'v ebeen running NT for almost 2 years now on two home machines and can count the number of full system locks on two fingers. And both of thsoe times were because I stupidly dl'd and ran sketchy software (services both times).
Just because your school is run by inept dillwads doesn't make NT a terrible OS. There are many VALID reasons to dislike NT, but none of yours are.
I have a third machine that I installed RedHat Linux 6.0 on and guess what? Netscape killed it. DEAD. Had to reboot.And it continued to do so until the 4.6 upgrade became available. Imagine my surprise when the "Super Stable" OS Linux found itself completely at the mercy of shitty software.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
Oh dear! No more postings by good old Anonymous Coward? Wait! Come back!
"In haste, most of us just want to finish the installation and click on the cancel button to explore the Windows NT utopia."
Utopia? How many people really would describe using NT as utopia?!?
"A dessert without cheese is like a beautiful woman who has lost an eye." -- Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin
The instability of X is not a problem for servers, because they do not need to run X. The GUI part of NT is probably the most instable part of the OS as well, but with NT you have no choice, even servers have to run the GUI.
Yes, it's true. Netware ships with an LS.EXE which does a neat little dir/w and also understands ls -a. No color though :-( I've seen it on a NW4.11 system and I'm not sure about version before that. But I do think it's a utility that gets installed by default on a NW server.
Please. BeOS configures at least twice as easy as Windows NT does now. Networking configuration is abysmal in NT, whereas in BeOS it's pretty much one-stop shopping. It took me about fifteen minutes to install drivers and set them up correctly for my system under Windows; under BeOS, it took me all of two not only to set it up, but to get my dynamic IP and visit a couple of my favorite web sites.
As for the Linux crack, NT may be "easier," but what it lacks in luser-friendliness it makes up for in raw power and flexibility. Further, for any competent computer user, Linux actually isn't significantly harder than NT to set up.
I suppose I should be grateful; now the PR arm of Microsoft is viewing not only Linux, but BeOS, an operating system not even competing with Windows NT, never mind competing in the same class, and OS/2, an arguably dead operating system that is no longer supported by their parent, as targets for their FUD.
Microsoft must be running scared.
"It's no big secret that Windows NT isn't an easy operating system to set up and configure (although it's miles ahead of Linux, OS/2, or even BeOS)" ...
It never ceases to amaze me that no matter what, they always put that *spin* on what they say. "Well, yeah, we know this product sucks, but hey, so does everything else! they all suck more!"
Furthermore, BeOS (which is way easier to set up, I thought) and Linux do not have a huge army taking up most of northwest Washington writing code for them, having meetings about menu items, etc etc. I fail to see how they could compare themselves to any other product when you consider the money backing them and the time spent. It's almost like saying "Hey, our tank may have a few design flaws, but it's way better than that moped designed by the other guys." Bleah.
EOM
Hmm, so MS is playing the 'ease of use' card again. Here's a little antecedote from personal experience.
/lib is pretty complex, much harder to deal with than Windows NT.
I install an app and try to load it on someone's NT workstation. It promptly won't load due to a corrupt DLL. I go looking for this DLL. Where to look? Let's see, NT stores DLLs in the following locations...
1. \WINDOWS
2. \SYSTEM
3. \SYSTEM32
4. Program Directory
Then I try and delete the offending DLL. No good. NT won't let me delete it claiming the file is in use. I flip to task manager and try and kill everything that might be using the DLL. Still no good. Finally I get out my DOS based boot disk with NTFS read/write tools, reboot the workstation with this and delete the DLL. Then I reboot. NT blue screens saying it can't find the file I just deleted. In goes my ERU. The ERU promptly asks me to do a recovery reinstall of the OS. Fine, I reload. NT comes back up 45 minutes later. I grab my NT CD and drive over it a few times to release a little tension. Then I go buy another copy of this 'easy to use and manage' operating system.
Yeah, I guess Linux's method of storing everything in
So what they're saying is, "there's nothing wrong with NT, it's all your fault, you moron!"
Nice attitude!
> NT4 isn't a games os.
;-)
/. ?! :-)
I am so sick and tired of hearing this crud. Especially since I am a GAME DEVELOPER, developing on NT ! Go figure !
a) What IS WRONG with MS conceding that it is OK to play games on NT? Isn't NT _GOOD ENOUGH_ to play games on?
Oh wait, I forgot GAMES are the ONLY apps that need real-time rendering ! *sarcasm off*
b) Programmers need to relax too !! I HATE having to reboot to a crap OS just to play games.
Thank-you Carmack for letting Quake run on NT!
> games on Win2000 with no problem. They seem to run faster and are SO much more stable than they are in Win98. Windows98 is a joke.
Hey, we agreed on something! Will wonders never cease on
Cheers
You really really don't know what you're talking about. Please, stop while you have a shred of credibility left.
I appreciate that you know about random numbers, intel chipsets, ghosting, etc. But you're using a collection of unrelated knowledge and misapplying it to the problem at hand. If you're interested, the method for generating the "random" numbers (called SIDs) is documented on the net, and has nothing to do with the CD key. Or hit men. Or straw men.
While you're at it, look up Socrates and Plato. The first step is learn that you don't know as much as you think you know. The next step is to endeavor to learn the truth. I hope you'll take this opportunity to learn about the topic, and distance yourself from the slashdotters who post without understanding.
Too many users never come up with cryptic passwords in the first place. My personal favourites have been: secret, cookie, , , and the most fabulous of all- secret. And yes folks, all of these are at least six letters.
At least change the name of the local admin account and come up with a number letter sequence with alternating capital letters. And for goodness sakes, disable the guest account!
There is nothing worse than a windows user with root access. Makes my job even worse. I swear if WINE ever gets finished, I will go totally Linux and SAMBA.
Romanes eunt domus? People called Romanes, they go the 'ouse? It says Romans go home. No it doesn't. What's Latin fo
"BeOS is in practise, what in theory NT should of been." - UnknownSoldier
Though I guess we've lost AC there for
good his point is not relevant - it's silly.
There is no longer a post above his that
is marked as flamebait or is at -1. So some
one ninny moderated it down. people came back
soon (probably while he was writing his tirade)
and moderated it back up. That how it's
*supposed* to work.
Step back, take a deep breath, count to 10 (in greek)
garyr
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
1. Using the wrong hardware
This goes for almost any other OS, especially Linux.
2. Installing Windows NT where it doesn't belong
Ditto
3. Choosing the wrong file system
Ditto
4. No emergency repair disk
Ditto, especially Linux.
5. Using the wrong Pagefile size
Ditto (swap files anyone?)
6. Missing a key network component
Ditto
7. Forgetting the password
Ditto
8. Using older applications
Ditto (ie. libc and glib)
9. Applying service packs unwisely
Ditto (can anyone say kernel?)
10. Cloning Windows NT
Ditto
While I agree that these are dumb mistakes, they are not constrained to only NT users. So before you laugh, I would take a look at other OSes too.
--Ivan, weenie NT4 user, Jon Katz hater: bite me!
--weenie NT4 user: bite me!
"Computers are nothing but a perfect illusion of order" -- Iggy Pop
Is a truthful answer to someone's question flame bait? Who rates this stuff? If you can't reply to my side of the debate then don't worry, you can always just flag it as a flame and place it out of reach of your default settings. Neat trick. Can you roll over too?
Um, how long was it between SP3 and SP4? A year? Year and a half? Quarterly? I don't think so.
And you get support on workstations that haven't been cloned? Oh, wait. No you don't. So you lose.... what? They won't actually bother to say to you "Wait for the service pack"?
-- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.
This is a good one originally from ms (i.e. it works this way if nothing bad happens
A summary, look at the original, you will fall from your chair, because the are more trapdoors than a suse-distro has packages. And remember, for every point you see above there's an average of one reboot (my guesstimate).
First a bunch of pre-installation tips in the form of do not install ms-software xy version a.bcd together with mss 3.0, otherwise you're screwed, and then this:
If you installed Visual Studio, apply Visual Studio 97 Service Pack 3 or Visual Studio 6.0 Service Pack 3 appropriately.
After that there follow 8 "post-installation instructions, i.e. bugfixes and workarounds".
While you are talking about the 1996 version of NT,
Plus 5(more?) service packs. They *have* had almost 4 years to fix some of these darned bugs.
"pull my finger" - Uncle Chuckles
If you do not know your administrator account password, you will have to completely reinstall Windows NT because eventually you'll need to have access to this account.
Actually, this isn't true. A linux boot disk can be used to change the administrator password. Do read the warnings though.
The best way to avoid this dilemma is to immediately add your personal user account to the administrators local group of the system. This will make your main user account an administrator of the system, sparing you from heartaches and time later.
No comment on this one....
Can you get an equivalent of su for nt, and run the GUI apps by typing in a console?
I've compiled the 2.2 kernel with libc5 with no problems.
But 8 should probably be:
>> 8) Installing only libc5 library.
This I see can be a problem. Not just using apps that use libc5 (unless you don't have libc5 installed!)
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Hard to justify moderating UP a post where the poster doesn't even know how to respond to the pagefile size (#5) and doesn't even respond to #10 (which is one of the issues I hear NT admins complain about most often). Synopsis: "Win2000 fixes the problems I understand!" "Wah, why wasn't that post moderated up?!?!?" - AC
I remember reading all sorts of wonderful things about NT 3.51 (remember those days) and its abilility to be installed to Alpha and PowerPC systems thanks to the HAL. And that the purpose of the HAL was for cross-platform installs.
Am I wrong? Or are they just claiming it's for security now that they don't support any platforms other than Intel (instead of removing it and possibly stirring up bugs)?
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/99oc t/19991010.html
See, it's not the software's fault that so many people have so many problems with NT, it's because the users are so stupid! http://www.computingcentral.msn.com/Topics/windows nt/dumbthings.asp "in many cases a service pack can cause a bug that didn't previously exist" -- so YOU are an idiot if you don't check the Knowledge Base Web site to make sure the service pack actually fixes a problem you have! "People make the mistake of letting Windows NT suggest the default Pagefile size for your system." -- "hey, you fucked up, you trusted us!" This is just like Ford executives saying, "well, if our customers weren't such bad drivers, then the exploding gas tanks wouldn't be a problem!" Question: How long can a business stay in business if it's fundamental philosophy is that every problem is the customer's fault?
NT can be cloned using GHOST if one of the two are true.
1. GHOSTWALKER changeSID utility is used after the image is applied to a drive.
2. The image cloned is that of an NT preinstallation. The SID is created during the GUI installation. If the image is taken before the GUI setup starts, then you're in business. Note this requires an unattended install script using disk caching.
LOTHAR-- needs to log incheers,
Justin.
"My cat's breath smells like cat food." - The Tao of Ralph Wiggum.
Uh...no. They are free. FREE. Just like all other bugfixes I have ever seen from Microsoft. (No, people don't pay for bug fixes from Win98 to Win98 SE. The bug fixes are free from Microsoft's web site. It is new features people had to buy 98 SE for.)
This could easily be 10 dumb things linux users do:
1) Forgetting to check the Hardware-Compatibility HOWTO
2) Wrongly partitioning the hard disk
3) Using UMS-DOS
4) Forgetting to create a boot disk and not installing LILO
5) Creating a 1MB swap file
6) Micsonfiguring the network
7) Forgetting the root password (or setting it to root!)
8) Using libc5 applications
9) Applying kernel patches unwisely
10) Using different Linux distros on different machines
Perhaps NT and Linux aren't that different after all!
I used to have Problems with ghost/driveimage in that it would keep the machine name the same. when you changed this you had to change all the shortcuts aswell or else they tried to access the original cloned machine. I'm told imagecast is very good for this sort of thing but never got to try it cause it went balistic at my olicom token ring cards.
Hey, I'm not endorsing it, I'm just pointing out how easy it is to get started....and therefore how easy it is to get in over your head.
You are correct, you don't want o/s admins that don't know what they're doing. But the managers of companies don't understand this. What they understand is: "Under NT I got a web-based commerce solution up and running in a week"
What they don't understand is:
"Under xNIX I got a scalable, secure, robust open-standards commerce solution up and running, but since I was new to electronic commerce, it took me six months, since I actually developed a requirments document."
"We apologize for the inconvenience."
You CAN apply a small number of service packs (just one, actually: the latest one. It is inclusive of all previous ones), as you say. But if a specific need arises before the next service pack, hotfixes are made available. Actually, virtually all of the fixes in service packs are available as separate fixes, before the service pack is ready to be distributed as one complete fix. This is so people don't have to wait for the next service, pack, you know? Imagine that! Microsoft releases bugfixes (for free) in a timely fashion? But all my Linux zealot friends tell me that doesn't happen!
Isn't just about every file system "operating system specific at some level? NTFS? FAT32? What a stupid term to use. This is akin to Microsoft calling COM an Open technology. Works on all computers as long as they run Windows.
While you are talking about the 1996 version of NT, most of your agruments are moot with Windows 2000 (NT5). It may make your agruments easier to compare the 1996 version of NT4 with the latest version of Linux, but we don't want to spread FUD, do we? You think it is vaporware? You can buy the pre-release copy to test with, etc.
:-)
Let me address those 10 points:
>> 1. Using the wrong hardware
>When Linux is perfectly happy running on older
>Pentiums and 486s. As BOTH a Server and Desktop.
While Linux has excelent hardware support for older legacy hardware (386, 486, etc). It is notorius for not having support for the latest hardware until long after it is out. Granted this is haging, but your argument swings both ways.
>> 2. Installing Windows NT where it doesn't belong
>Especially when alot of games require Winblows 9X & DirectX 6, and NT 4 won't support DX6.
NT4 isn't a games os. Officially NT5 isn't a games OS either, but it supports the latest DirectX7, and assuming that games aren't HARD-CODED to not install in an NT system, and you have valid drivers, you can play games on Win2000 with no problem. They seem to run faster and are SO much more stable than they are in Win98. Windows98 is a joke.
>> 3. Choosing the wrong file system
>An OS that only recognizes FAT16, FAT32 (unofficially), and NTFS.
NT4 also support OS/2's HPFS and Win2000 supports FAT32 out of the box.
>> 4. No emergency repair disk
>Not being able to boot to a NT command line prompt unless you shell out a few clams for some special ERD Commander Pro utility.
Win2000 has a boot-to-command-line recover option. I guess the developers listened to the users.
>> 5. Using the wrong Pagefile size
>NT being so brain-dead that it won't let you set a pagefile of 0 bytes. Hey you with 256 Megs of Ram, don't you know you need a pagefile !
???
>> 6. Missing a key network component
>Having to reboot everytime you change one little network setting.
Yet again, no longer a problem in Wi2000.
>> 10. Cloning Windows NT
>Its not like anyone would need 100 identical copies of NT running on 100 different computers? Hey Mr Library SysAdmin, do you know that you shouldn't be cloning those public NT boxes?
This was rated "insightful"?!?
Okay, here's what I had to do to install NT 4.0 and SQL Server 7.0, over the course of two days -- and I'm still working on it!
/b. Won't let me do that, DOS complains "you need to run LOCK. Rebooting now". It reboots for me without asking. /b. Reboot.
1. Try booting from the installation CD. Oops, kernel dump! "Inaccessible Boot Device". Need to reboot.
2. Partition the drive. Need to reboot.
3. Format the drive to a FAT partition.
4. Run winnt
5. Run LOCK. Then run winnt
5. Try booting the installation. Kernel dump again! Reboot.
6. Go ask the service reps if they've ever seen the problem. Yep! Need to copy some updated Adaptec drivers to the installation directory on the HD for the installation to work.
7. Oops, my DOS bootup floppy is corrupted now!
8. Find a new bootup floppy. Put in drive and bootup.
9. Copy the drivers to the HD.
10. Now I can do the installation by rebooting again.
11. Installation finally finished after about 30 minutes. Reboot again.
12. Oops, forgot to configure networking. Log-in as administrator. Change TCP/IP settings and join a domain. Reboot.
13. Oops, I need some more partitions. Create partitions.
13. Install the SPs. Reboot several times (forced to).
14. Try installing SQL Server. Says that IE4 is a PREREQUISITE! Oh crap!
15. Install IE4 from the network. Forced to reboot.
16. Try installing SQL Server. Apparently, I need IE4 SP1! Oh crap.
17. Download and install IE4.01 SP2 from the Internet. Forced to reboot.
18. Install SQL Server.
With Redhat + PostgreSQL:
1. Create latest boot diskette from latest drive image on the web. Boot up.
2. Go through a few installation screens.
3. Choose PostgreSQL as a package.
4. Reboot.
5. Do security checks and make sure PostgreSQL is running properly.
5. Done!
Not totally true..
After recently upgrading to Linux myself, I've found that my particular type of modem did not work, and my video card was not supported by XF86.. Sound is pain yet to be configured too
In the end I've found that Linux too has a hardware compatibility list, and the list is no better than Microsoft's list for NT..
As for now, I can either wait till my hardware is supported, (which is what makes linux better), or I'll have to upgrade..
Why didn't I think giving my regular user root?
I think when I get home from work the first thing I am going to do is edit my passwd file and change my UID to 0. That'll certainly save me a lot of trouble, no?
While I'm at it, I think I'll enable my guest account!
Who needs security anyway; it's inconvenient and "dumb".
1. Using the wrong hardware
;-)
/w Litestep), it uses only 20mb of ram just loaded (little for Windows 98). It never uses its swap file, either ;-)
:-) YES! ... Uhm, NO!!!! Trojan horses? How hard is it for a bad program that needs to getadmin access, when you're already admin?! Gee, I donna know ;-) NT is designed with security in mind, but not its applications.
:-)
:-)
It's amazing how hardware sensitive NT can be. I've seriously abused a few Linux installs, just by using evil hardware that emits magic smoke at times. Still, the system was stable. It was funny. I had two systems, side by side, over drawing both their power supplies. Windows would BSOD, Linux had an uptime of 45 days (then I replaced the CPU fan, sigh). I did fix the power problem.
2. Installing Windows NT where it doesn't belong
Like on my HD!
(serious mode on)
It's funny how many people will install NT onto a FAT drive (what's this, no security?). I guess they like having world-writeable winnt dirs
3. Choosing the wrong file system
"Note that FAT32 isn't listed here and neither is the High-Performance File System (HPFS), or any other operating system-specific file system."
I would argue that NTFS is indeed OS specific, even though Linux can read it (write support is still experimental). What about FAT32 or HPFS? Linux can read (and write to FAT32, at least) those. How are they "Operating System Specific"?
Use Ford gas with Ford cars, I guess is the metaphor. But I like my Linux-mobile which uses all kinds of gas.
4. No emergency repair disk
If you don't have a boot disk, you're screwed.. The NT repair disk is something my NT loving friend uses all the time (tee-hee). I've used Linux boot disks as well, but not as often.
5. Using the wrong Pagefile size
"People make the mistake of letting Windows NT suggest the default Pagefile size for your system. This is the amount of memory in your system plus 12 megabytes. This just isn't sufficient for today's applications. "
That is the sickest statement, next to "use double your ram." I have 128mb of ram in my main system, and 96mb in the local network server. Both use 128mb as the swap partition size, and neither use their swap partitions. Heck, even in Windows (98lite
6. Missing a key network component
Well, MS networking. It frightens me. I'd rather have TCP/IP anyday. NFS is good.
7. Forgetting the password
" The best way to avoid this dilemma is to immediately add your personal user account to the administrators local group of the system. This will make your main user account an administrator of the system, sparing you from heartaches and time later."
So set the root password, forget it, then add your account as UID 0!
8. Using older applications
This could be easily solved by Source Of Course OpenSource software
9. Applying service packs unwisely
It's scarey how they have to roll up all these fixes into service packs, and they still don't work as intended. Part of it is, of course, software that runs using misfeatures of windows, but some of it is also lack of testing and documentation. I hope Linux is never like that (although some kernels are bad).
10. Cloning Windows NT
Because, who wants more?
I'd rather have something like SSH, which generates a new random key every hour or so.
NT is really a lot of good intentions, wrapped up in a nice Satanic MS wrapper. I wouldn't mind using it, if it wasn't so damned slow on anything less than the latest hardware.
Have fun.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
http://home.eunet.no/~pnordahl/ntpasswd/
"There is no such thing as a bug-free program. Windows NT is no exception"
thanks M$, I couldnt have said it better myself!
}:~)
icq:=22921393;
I'm not sure if NT4 has runas.exe, but W2K does - for running applications as another user from the command prompt.
:).
But a better tip - this one should work with IE5 on NT and certainly works with W2K.
Right click on any EXE, Shortcut etc while holding down the Shift key and the context menu will have an extra entry "Run As" - After which you're prompted with the standard user/password/domain dialog.
No need to go to the command prompt
A lot of people in this movement are really hurting its image. They are these evangelical Linux cranks that spew just as much FUD as Redmond. Well, I'm done reading your thoughts. I will continue to use Linux and support Linux groups that are not mindless drones chanting "down with Microsoft!". And I will continue to use NT, BeOS, and OS/2 because I find them all useful!
Let me know when Slashdotters are interested in having a rational, open discussion instead of FUD slinging.
ls is a tuff one but easy to get around.
the worst one for me is:
cd / (enter)
oops...
cd \ (enter)
cd pro(tab) (backspace)(backspace)(backspace)
cd Pro(tab) (backspace)(backspace)(backspace)
say damnit!!!
reboot (enter)
bad command or file name.
hit: reset button
Lilo:linux
Login:_
say: ahh much better
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
This moderator has dropped the ball. Now I'm going to have to go meta-moderating for hours until I find this mark-down to mark it "Unfair".
Maybe this guy has got it completely wrong. I certainly have my doubts about what he said. Maybe you passionately disagree with him. Nevertheless, nothing about that post was flamebait. On the contrary, he gave a string of concrete arguments for his position, and is completely polite throughout the post.
I give it an "Interesting". If you don't agree with him, post and tell us why. But follow this guy's example of a measured statement backed up by arguments.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
NT Server. When three registry settings are worth $500, you know you're getting a deal.
I've played this game. I was bored one day so I thought I'd see if I could get my NT WS PC to be a Primary Domain Controller(PDC). My using a NT server cd and we bit of hack the registry, I was able to get to browser service to run and send out NT server election packets.
What was interesting was that the NT server would release control, but because it would not go automatically to BDC status, it would launch a new election after a few minutes. Even on a SAMBA machine with OSLEVEL set to 255, the NT server would not give up until the browser service was manually restarted on the NT server (the real one)
Is there a way to make samba demote a NT PDC to BDC status now?
>Can you show me some concrete references from
>experts in SCSI driver design?
Actually, I seem to remember Alan Cox recently saying on linux-kernel that the SCSI code blows major chunks and need to be completely rewrtten. This shouldn't affect users much though.
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
I loved the part of a service pack causing bugs in the OS. Go figure, they sell them as being the other way 'round...
Ah yes, my bad. Danke.
But yeah, my point was that swap needs were based on, well, memory needs.
(I remember once loading a many-frame sequence of 320x200 JPEGs into xanim for testing... gah. Not a good idea.)
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I have no less than four different models of SCSI CD-ROM drive (Toshiba, Sony & two varieties of Panasonic), and no less than six different SCSI cards (Adaptec 1540B (ISA), Adaptec 1540CF (ISA), Adaptec 2840A (VLB), Future Domain 950 (8 bit ISA), Future Domain 1860 (ISA) and NCR/Symbios Logic 53C810A (PCI). I have never had any troubles with Linux recognizing CD-ROM drives on any Linux kernel, and I've been using Linux since 0.99pl7.
Getting back to the article, isn't it a bit odd that this author seem compelled to remind us what a "great" operating system this "Windows NT utopia" is in almost every sentence? Isn't this sort of like, the most obvious sign that someone is lying is when they constantly reassure you that they're telling the truth? Or "if you repeat a lie often enough, it will come to be accepted as the truth"? Scary people, these marketing droids...
The article starts out saying that NT is easier to install than the BeOS. It goes downhill from there.
My initial reaction to the claim I started with was outrage. No one who has installed NT can claim it's easy.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
Finally someone with some sense ;) I've been using Windows 2000 for a few days now and I must say it's fantastic. I even installed the Unix services for NT without any trouble. Got a telnet server, some basic unix tools, perl, yadda yadda. The computer management console is great too, beats the socks off redhat's linuxconf imho.
Has anyone run into trouble using Ghost to load NT machines with reagrd to the SID? I've heard this said before but I've also been in a few different positions where Ghost was used successfully with no SID change. Thoughts?
10. Cloning Windows NT
This is more for Windows NT network administrators who, if they are reading this, know exactly what I'm about to say. Many people make the mistake of using a cloning utility, such as Ghost, in order to make copies of Windows NT for their network computers. The problem is that every Windows NT installation has a unique number, a security identifier (SID). When multiple workstations have the same SID, there can be severe networking problems down the road. Note that I said could--as far as I know, there are very few, if any, concrete problems having to do with multiple SIDs. But that's not the problem. The trouble is that if you need support from Microsoft on a system that has been cloned, you're out of luck. They won't help you. You've been warned.
Don't feel bad if you've fallen into one or many of these traps. I've fallen into just about all of them myself, which is why I can speak about them. The key to success with Windows NT is knowing what you're getting into, and how to get out of it when you blow it. Heeding these tips can save you a huge amount of pain later.
No support from MS unless you pay them loads (I mean loads) of $$$ and become a Microsoft Select customer, then they will actually provide you with a utility to modify each NT machines SID. They will support you too, but you will still have to pay them for the support.
Arn't they such a nice company to deal with.
> While you are talking about the 1996 version of NT, most of your agruments are moot with Windows 2000 (NT5).
Yeap, I know. I run RC2 at work. The original article discussed NT 4, not Win2K, so I did the same.
> but we don't want to spread FUD, do we?
The post was an attempt at humor, with a little bit of truth to each point.
>> 5. Using the wrong Pagefile size
> ???
NT pages most of it kernal out, i.e. 11 of its 12 megs. NT doesn't like NOT having a page file. Linux handles this MUCH better, i.e. you DON"T need a page file to run Linux if you have more then i.e. 32 Megs, and even there is not really a need of setting more then 8 or 16 megs swap space, UNLIKE NT, where the usually recommendation is RAM * 1.5, which I think is silly. (sorry for the run-on sentence.)
Cheers
Makes me wonder if they planned the BSOD just to make more software that people would have to buy...
Only 'flamers' flame!
As another post here mentioned, you can use Ghost Walker to change the SID- most large-scale corporate environments I have been in that use NT have ALL ghosted an image onto all the new systems. I can't imagine anyone else would do it another way, what a pain in the ass... All you do is ghost your image on, run ghost walker, and change part of the sid to something else, usually the machine's asset tag (if your organization doesn't use asset tags... then you've got more than one problem!) This seems to work painlessly for most places, and lets you roll out hundreds of machines in a day as opposed to, say, 10 :)
and besides, hasn't he ever heard of site licensing? sheesh...
EOM
7. Forgetting the password...
...and now go to the Locksmith and have your house key duplicated. Leave it with him for safekeeping.
"Know the facts before distorting them."
"Know the facts before distorting them."
--Ernest Hemingway
Well as you should perfectly well consider, if we're allowed to compare to an OS that doesn't yet exist on one side, why not the other?
:P
I mean, if we can say 'It's all good in Win2k' then I get to say 'It's all good in Linux 3.0!' Comparing what's out NOW, well there's no contest. And as for what's to come, well if NT is going to correct it's oversights, so is Linux! So any time anyone says 'That's a weakness fixed in the next NT' I'll just say 'Fine, and our weaknesses will be fixed too.' And remember, NEITHER exist yet
ROTFL - MSN.COM actually recommends poking two major holes in NT security, keeping an extra machine running another operating system for the stuff NT can't handle, and warns you not to install Microsoft's service packs! I love it! And incidentally, as someone who has installed OS/2, NT, and many flavors of linux, I can say that OS/2 3x on CD (not disk) and pretty much all CD-bootable versions of Red Hat are no more difficult to install than NT.
--Charlie
>> Yet This number is the CD-KEY that you're required to enter at startup. What else could it be?
> Well it could be a randomly generated number with some guarantee (?) of uniqueness.
Well... this is completely possible, but it's not the "correct" way to do this task. Let's take a look at this: Most (if not almost all) random number generators use a time-stamp to seed the randomness of a static function. Let us speculate that we have two systems: A and B. Just for the sake of differentiation, A is a Sun UltraSparc running Solaris; and B is an Intel PC running NT 4.0 SP5. Also, we'll speculate that both A and B are running the EXACT same random number generator function. What would happen if these generators were to be seeded with the same number? The answer? They'd return the same "random" number. This is bad if you're looking to generate a "Unique" number.
If Microsoft used a "random" number generator to guarantee a unique station ID, they made a horrible mistake. What if I were to power-up two machines at the same time with the same hardware, a clone of the automated install, and everything were to work in "ideal" conditions? Most likely, I'd end up with 2 computers which looked alike, had different IP addresses, different MAC addresses, but would have this "Security Identifier" be the same on both. Not a smart idea, IMO.
Now, with Intel adding a "random number generator" into their new chipset (i820), the effectiveness of this style of "unique ID" generation will be more effective and accurate.
I've NEVER had a problem with any version of NT and Ghosting, but this doesn't mean that there "couldn't" be a problem. This is, after-all, Micro$oft we're talking about.
Heucuva
From the first dumb thing NT users do:
Have no fear, though. Most decent hardware is compatible. You can see if your hardware is compatible by visiting Microsoft's Hardware Compatibility List. If anything, this is an excuse that you can use on your spouse to upgrade your hardware.
So use this excuse to your boss when suggesting Linux. You don't have to spend the money on hardware upgrades. OR, the other spouse can suggest using Linux for $19 instead of $1000 for some type of hardware upgrade.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs
I can't think of a GNU utility, or general program actually, that doesn't run on NT. Gnu emacs, ghostscript, gcc, yadda yadda yadda. That's the great thing about NT, you can run all your old favorite unix stuff, PLUS the myriad of new stuff available for the Windows world.
There's no reason to run a unix box anymore. I was a unix guy for over 10 years and watched the PC world catch up, then overtake, the unix world. My NT box is far stabler than any unix I've ever ran (I've never had NT 4.0 crash on me, and I've been running it since it first came out). No unix I ran ever went more than a year or so without a kernel panic. And the Windows apps are far superior to anything you can get under unix. How many graphical unix apps are there even? All most unix folks do with X is run xterms. What a waste.
Sure, it's still in alpha testing with Linux, but HP-UX, just about any commercial Unix out there has ACLs and has had them for some time. If you have 35,000 users, you probably aren't using Linux. If you have 35,000 users and you're smart, you aren't using NT either.
Under NT there is a (fairly) legitimate reason for an administrator to put his regular user account (at least on workstations) into the admin group, because there is no su command. Since there is no su command you have to close all your programs, log out, and log back in as administrator. The fact that a user physically sitting at the machine cannot override the network security (like lilo:linux single) is dumb. Sometimes there is a problem and you don't have time to find out what the password is. The unique SIDs in windows NT cause a problem with ACLs. If you have a server with two disks, and for some reason you need to reinstall, you have to reset the ACLs on your other disks because the sid is different now. I've been annoyed by this several times before (sam database corrupted.....couldn't log on to restore it from backup)
He does make a good point about installing/maintaining an operating system. NT was designed for people who don't have the time (ask an IT manager for his time, HA!) to learn the cryptic ins and outs of o/s adminitration.
I'll argue till I'm blue in the face with my own IT managers about the technical merits and superiority of Linux, but when it comes down to it, I'm the only person here that knows how to administer it. Training people to administer a network o/s is EXPENSIVE, and NT does lower the initial cost.
You and I both know the long-term costs of NT (scalability, reliability), but NT is FAMILIAR to people.
People don't switch to Linux because they don't know what it will cost them to do a setup, and if you don't know a cost, you cannot justify a purchase to your division managers or your directors. These guys want hard numbers.
But look out, Linux install programs are improving very rapidly. I was shocked how easy it was to install Mandrake 6, after years of Slackware boot/rootdisks.
"We apologize for the inconvenience."
Stop spreading misinformation, dipshit.
The SID is created in the domain when the workstation contacts the PDC to create the account during installation, OR when you create the account for the machine manually in server manager. It has NO connection to Microsoft. If it did, how the fuck would a private network with no internet connection EVER get anything running? Are you THAT stupid?
Despite what another poster said about cloning, it has nothing to do with needing a seperate CD. You *could* install a whole network with one CD. But do you really want to spend the time of installing one system after the other?
There are a couple of options:
1. You use Microsoft's "blessed" method, which is configuration scripts (almost like the Redhat Kickstart), and install off a network share with a DOS bootdisk with the appropriate network drivers (you can make a disk with these via rdisk).
2. Or, you can prove this author a liar and use a newer version of Ghost that resets the SIDs for you, and use Multicasting and install a whole network of NT machines in under an hour.
I'm not sure that I agree with most of your comments (you seem to use your systems mostly for games; I don't).
Anyway... I started reading the MSN article first thing this marning and then got sidetracked. I should have read it first thing; funniest thing I've seen in a while.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who found most of the tips in this article contradicting quite a bit of what Microsoft says about its products. That is, IMHO, what makes this article worth reading.
Easier to install: Maybe but it sure looks like you'll have a sub-optimal or even screwed up installation if you accept the default options.
You'll make one or more of these ten mistakes if you don't read the instructions: Just like any other operating system installation. So what's so easy about installing Windows XX on a system? Oh yah, your OEM does it for you, I forgot. The problem with Microsoft's operating systems is that there really aren't any instructions. There sure weren't any for Win95, I don't recall the NT admins where I used to work having any available during their installs (That crappy little book with pages full of screen dumps and the license key on the cover doesn't count as documentation for me). At least with Linux, I have instructions, in the form of the various HOWTOs, etc., to refer to if something goes awry during installation (however, I haven't had an install go wacky since an early 1.0.x kernel Slackware distribution, i.e., a fairly long time ago).
I think the only thing that the MSN author said that I half agreed with was failing to make emergency boot disks when prompted. This isn't a problem with NT, though. I've met many a Linux user that blew off that step when installing their distribution only to regret it later (even done it my self).
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
This is my favorite one of the entire bunch. Basically Windows DLL management is basically broken by design and should be tought as a prime example of how not to build a stable system. Consider the facts:
...
1) Every little (or bit) P.O.S. application can (and often will) overwrite system DLLs. I would not dare to overwrite libc.so on my system every time I install a new app.
2) You have very little control over where you go to find your libraries. Compare this to LD_LIBRARY_PATH where you can set exactly where you look for your libraries (thus giving you the ability to use different versions without harming each other).
This is a prime example where MS's design is fundamentally broken, but they turn it around and blame the user for not understanding the beartraps that lurk under the surface. Of course installing a service pack, then installing your app and then re-applying the service pack (to make sure that all your DLLs match) is not quite intuitive. IMHO, the only way to have a stable windows machine is to do the following:
1) Install the OS
2) Apply all necessary service packs
3) Install your apps
4) Re-apply the service packs
5) Don't touch the machine anymore
Anybody with half a brain should see right away that something is fundamentally wrong here. It's admirable (or rather quite daring) of MS's marketing machine to blame this on the user. If they would have desgined it right the first time, you wouldn't end up in DLL hell everytime you install something new
I'm going to take Unix (in all it's incarnations) into account here as well. I've said it before, I don't think Windows is ready for the server environment. No matter what you say, there is alevel of control that you cannot have with NT that you need. Also that GUI makes things more difficult IMHO since you can't always see exactly what is going on. MS says NT is easier to use, requires less training, i think it's the opposite. Well here are some point's i'd like to note from the post:
While Linux has excelent hardware support for older legacy hardware (386, 486, etc). It is notorius for not having support for the latest hardware until long after it is out. Granted this is haging, but your argument swings both ways.
Point taken, but why should i always need to spend large amounts of money for a new server if it doesn't require it? Spending thousands on a developmental server is a little much to me. Also the hardware issue is moot imho as i think you should always get the best hardware you can for the job.
NT4 isn't a games os. Officially NT5 isn't a games OS either, but it supports the latest DirectX7, and assuming that games aren't HARD-CODED to not install in an NT system, and you have valid drivers, you can play games on Win2000 with no problem. They seem to run faster and are SO much more stable than they are in Win98. Windows98 is a joke.
NT5 is dead, windows2000 is being marketing towards home users in one aspect i thought. Many home users play games, it had better support gaming or that's shooting yourself in the foot. Also you can use DX6 on NT just MS doesn;t officialy support it.
5. Using the wrong Pagefile size >NT being so brain-dead that it won't let you set a pagefile of 0 bytes. Hey you with 256 Megs of Ram, don't you know you need a pagefile !
???
This is important. setting a pagefile of 0 is foolish imho though. You should have this set to twice your physical ram minimum imho, then again a nice thing about most Unices is that unless your doing something very memory heavy (like running netscape under X) you shouldn't even have to worry about your RAM if you have 128 megs.
I'm glad that Microsoft has made some changes that were long needed, I still think it has a way to go before it is a true server os on the level that the various unices are. I'm leery of GUI's because im the type that like a command line and I am an admitted control freak to a level.
this space for rent
You're -paraphasing-. There's no metaphor.
2. Installing Windows NT where it doesn't belong
;)
You mean NT DOES belong on a computer? That's news to me.
emufreak
www.kontek.net/pp
5. Using the wrong Pagefile size
... People make the mistake of letting Windows NT suggest the default Pagefile size for your system. This is the amount of memory in your system plus 12 megabytes. This just isn't sufficient for today's applications. As a result, your system will perform rather poorly in just about all cases...
Of course, we can't accept the default setting, we should know it's a stupid value. It will make NT slow all the time.
Arggghhh, so now I have 1500 NT workstations to make changes on...
Such a nice company to work with...
The implications of the unique security identifier (SID) described in No. 10 'Cloning Windows NT' are frightening. The NT installer program cannot, by itself, assign the unique SID for every new installation because it would have no way of knowing what SIDs were already used. No, what this means is that the NT installer program has to contact the Microsoft database and access the new unique SID number for every new install. Presumably, the Microsoft database contains other personal and system information, that the installer wizard gleans, which it then ties to this SID record. This one "feature" of NT would be sufficient to prevent me from ever even considering its use, as long as another OS choice still exists.
The bug fixes are free from Microsoft's web site. It is new features people had to buy 98 SE for.)
Except that not all the bug fixes are actually on the website. For some, such as the Win 9X MSNP32.DLL bug, you have to mess arround phoning them. (Telephone calls arn't free, time wasted talking to "receptionists" isn't free.)
Is a beowulf system not many processors running in parallel? Linux seems to do this very well.
so, what he appears to be telling me regarding the point keeping a spare machine around for games is that if you want to work (nt) and play (95/98), you'll need to pay up twice. and i always wondered how they managed to make a profit ;p they'll be expecting us to pay for upgrades and for the privilege of testing their beta code next... oh, they already do. my mistake. might as well send them the pin# on my bank account and tell them to help themselves when they're a bit strapped for cash... anyway, must go and reboot my machine cos i dared to change some preferences...
Never had any problems whatsoever with NT and SCSI (including installing from 40x SCSI CD-ROMs). And I've been admining NT since version 3.1 (in other words, before you were born)
Someone moderate this moron down to flamebait.
just stating the facts
"Ye who would cross the sea of fait must answer me these questions twenty-eight"
It killed Linux, dude. DEAD. Could not break. Could not open another terminal. Could not open another console via keyboard commands. Could not slay X server. Nada. did not respond to three finger salute. Dead. Deceased.
All I'm saying is: It don't matter what OS you use if the software on top of it so crappy that it can kill a multi-threaded secure kernel.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
you are an idiot.
AMEN TO THAT!!!
"Ye who would cross the sea of fait must answer me these questions twenty-eight"
Ohhh so in order to get what I want out of NT 4 I have to buy NT 5? Do you see a problem here? Or has MS pulled the wool way over your eyes and mouth? So your happy shelling out MORE money for a NEW version of an OS that promises to be better then the previous one, do you see a trend here? I bet Win 2000 will be missing some key features that will be fixed in Windows 2001, which you can purchase for the small fee of $199.00.
Netscape in NO WAY IN HELL can crash the whole system. UNLESS you were STUPID enough to run it as root in which case u ARE indeed an idiot. Netscape crashes the *X* server (when it happens). Get off X and the system will be just F-I-N-E. If you are an idiot is not the system's fault....
If You ask me (and You probably wouldn't) i think that the entire article is just a very very sad advertisement for winblows nt. ..." ? A pitiful attempt to draw people who read the Top5 lists. And what do we see inside? Basically, a list of (crappy) features. Very sad, not even funny, those are just 'lame things to know about nt for beginners' or something.
"(Top) 10 Dumb Things
A serious top10 dumb things done by nt users?
here are some suggestions
10. Connecting to the net without modem/cable/etc
9. Calling microsoft support
8. Calling isp help desk and asking "is this the internet?"
...
1. getting nt (thanks to Stephen Moore)
Anyways, nuff of me trying to be funny.
All in all, that is a rather sad piece of advertising, but seriously, what else would you have expected from msn ?
/put pants on here
Sorry dude but i am on a PII 450 with 128 PC100 RAM and NT takes *WAY* too long to get a *DECENT* installation running.Remember that AFTER u finish installing u absolutely HAVE to install the service packs and patches and so on and so forth.... DO your reading before opening your mouth.....
Well, I'm glad it wasn't you who posted the rather crude message. The perils of AC, sigh. I therefore say to the AC who did post 'Nuts to You'.
Now, back to our debate. We were talking about the filesystem and security model. ACL's are 'a' way to do flexible security schemes. However, I can be just as flexible in *NIX. It's different not better or worse. I don't uinderstand why you can't realize this.
Areas where *NIX is dated? You'd have to expound on that esp. since you've said that you don't know much about *NIX. Your example of VI is uninformed... VI is an extremely powerful editor, but you don't have to use it. I personally use XEmacs (which by the way makes Visual InterDev look like a toy).
I guess your real problem is that since you're not a *NIX admin your statements are pretty much repetitive FUD... 'Linux isn't Unix, its a toy' (How can you say this without having used the product extensively?) 'UNIX is Outdated' (Again, you don't have knowledge to back this up)
In conclusion, I have never said that there is no place for other OS's, very few in the Linux communitity would say such a thing. You're the one who made statements (incorrect statements) about where Linux was bad. Look back at your first post.
Since your entire discussion is based on comments of others, I have to ask... Why did you post at all? Why did you make 'statements' about problems with Linux that don't exist? Why did you attempt to sound knowledgeable about a product you apparently haven't used? You degrade those of the Linux communitity who disparage NT, how are you any better?
Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
If NT 4 + SP 5 was just called NT 4.5 (too easy I guess) you wouldn't say it was a 1996 version.
This confuses me. What about site licenses?
I interned at a large securities (not "security") firm for a summer, and they just duplicate a few master install harddrives wholesale to set up new computers with NT and all the base software.
Seems to me perfectly normal to do this when you have a site license.
Is #10 just talking about illegal copying, or do you actually have to install from a different CD on to every machine? (That'd be insane!)
If your read between the lines. What you will hear is...
1. Windows users think NT will run on anything. ... is enabled - Relativily little security" need I say anything more.
2. NT Doesn't play well with others.
3. Read number 2 again.
4. This is NT, You really nead an "Emergency Repair Disk".
5. Buy more memory, NT is a pig.
6. It says outloud "...Make user the guest account
7. Not true. Re-read number 6.
8. It dosn't work - Go back 5 years.
9. Even NT Fixes don't fix anything.
10. NT is so hard to load everyone is looking for another way to do it.
Just say NO!
There are 10 type of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
> Like preventing users from installing their own software.
I always hear this in regard to NT. You don't need such precautions on a UNIX, there the user can only add software to his $HOME und is, unless he is root, unable to screw up the system. At max, he can screw up his account.
> Having a system to distribute new packages and install them silently over the network.
Non-issue on a properly set up UNIX since there you can install all applications on a central server and share them out through NFS. No need for expensive packages. Otherwise, 'rsync' is your friend. On NT, the braindead idea of the registry gets in the way here.
> Forcing users to store their data on network shares instead of local hard disks.
Mounting $HOME through NFS und done.
> These are issues that should be a part of any corporate desktop environment regardless of OS.
Only if you are using an OS that obviously wasn't designed with a network and multiuser in mind. Such an OS will of course need kludges like the ones you mentioned. Unfortunatly they also result in extra work for the admin.
If you come from Win95/98, NT is really nice. But if you come from UNIX, the kludges on NT are glaringly obvious and become annoying quickly.
Don't get me started about the idiocy of roaming profiles...
It's common knowledge that OEM setups are crap. If your school admin (you maybe?) doesn't know this you should get a new admin. NT takes 15 min to install on anything faster than a $300 K6/300, nuke those boxs and do it right and NT won't crash any more often than Linux does.
Not only that, but Windows9X is SO badly written. Thats WHY I use NT, Linux, and BeOS. (Doesn't anyone read the first 2 paragraphs?!!) With a REAL OS, I don't have to worry about the darn OS crashing every 5 mins.
well, I run 9x without any problems here. I can usualy get about two days of uptime. When I turn my computer off at night, I can go for weeks without a crash.
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
In the NT ResKit there is a cheesy SU.exe function. It's a goddamn vb 3 app!!! Must be a hangover from NT3.5
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Talking out of your ass .... ugh.
Sorry, Mr. NT-Is-Easier-Than-BeOS, but you can use Ghost with NT. Just make sure you also get the utility "Ghostwalk", and run it after ghosting the machine with NT. Ghostwalk changes the SID. Simple as that.
Of course, you could easily avoid that problem by installing an OS that doesn't use such a silly "security" measure, like, perhaps, Linux.
You silly putz.
Oh the irony!
Problem (10 Dumb Things):
Using the wrong hardware
Spin (Linux Myths):
Linux does not provide support for the broad range of hardware in use today
but there's more!
It's important to understand that licensing cost is only a small part of the overall decision-making process for customers.
Talk about TCO!
Problem:
People make the mistake of letting Windows NT suggest the default Pagefile size for your system.
Spin:
Configuring Linux security requires an administrator to be an expert in the intricacies of the operating system and how components interact.
Hmm, sounds like NT administrators have more to worry about than security.
Problem:
The key to ensuring your two Windows NT computers can communicate is to make sure the guest account in user manager is enabled. This is the account that is used when one computer connects to another, with relatively little security--the reason it is disabled by default...The best way to avoid this dilemma is to immediately add your personal user account to the administrators local group of the system. This will make your main user account an administrator of the system, sparing you from heartaches and time later.
Spin:
Linux security is all-or-nothing.
LOL!
Problem:
Windows NT also has somewhat strict software requirements.
Spin:
Linux application support is very limited, meaning that customers end up having to build their own horizontal and vertical applications.
Poh-tae-toh... Poh-tah-toh... sounds like the same article, but we don't need linux advocates to bash windows, the NT users can do it!
Problem:
I don't recommend applying the latest service pack unless you are having some problems because in many cases a service pack can cause a bug that didn't previously exist
Spin:
Linux system administrators must spend huge amounts of time understanding the latest Linux bugs and determining what to do about them.
At least we don't have to test our own OS to be sure a problem exists.
Problem:
Many people make the mistake of using a cloning utility, such as Ghost, in order to make copies of Windows NT for their network computers.
Spin:
Today with Windows NT 4.0, customers can be confident in delivering applications that are scalable, secure, and reliable--yet cost effective to deploy and manage.
So, while you can clone an install for most linux boxes... you can't even clone NT boxes! Ahhhhahaha, cost-effective distribution... right.
This is one of the worst help-yourself articles on NT i've ever seen. What's next? Oprah Winfrey's tips for Solaris? Jerry Springer on HPUX? Bill Clinton on Linux? (sorry if i spelled any names wrong...)
The ten things he names are for terrible lozers that should run win98 instead of NT, because they don't have more than a single harddrive and no network connection at all.
Like the stupid thing he suggest about giving your 'main' user admin rights. He really has no clue, does he? If a user is member of admins, all his files are owned by "administrators" instead of by the user. The whole point of creating a user account for yourself is to protect the computer from you and the programs you run.
GCS/MU d- s+: a- C++$ USH++$ P- L+> E W++$ N o-- K- W++@ O-- M- !V PS Y+ PGP- t+ 5(+) X- R tv? b++++ y++(+++)
While you are talking about the 1996 version of NT, most of your agruments are moot with Windows 2000 (NT5). It may make your agruments easier to compare the 1996 version of NT4 with the latest version of Linux, but we don't want to spread FUD, do we? You think it is vaporware? You can buy the pre-release copy to test with, etc.
May I offer you a clue?
I had to set up a test system and had to make compressed disc images of standart nt installations, nt, nt+sp3, nt+sp4. (dd if=/dev/hda1 | gzip windowsnt+sp4.gzip;)
The size of the nt+sp4 gzip is more than the two time of the pure nt-gzip.
This isn't the same OS as 1996 at all!!
The [NT] file system could stand some improving (anyone ever run out of drive letters?)
Drive letters are an abomination. That "30 year old" operating system realized long ago that there needn't (and mostly shouldn't) be a linkage between the file system the user sees and the physical drives. (The exception being removable media -- CD-ROMs, floppies, et al.)
Let's not forget the godawful file layout; the mix of writable and non-writable system files, the "put it anywhere" philosophy which results in users losing the files they just created, ad infinitum.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
NTFS only journals on its metadata. That's why. They call it a "journalling" filesystem, but it only is in that sense.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
He meant sell them as a figure of speech meaning that they "Promote" them as the other way around. I guess it is purely and American reference though and if you are in England or some place you would get confused.
Blech. Firstly the guy doesn't represent the singular opinion of Microsoft moron, it's one guy expressing his beliefs on people's screwups. Secondly I hope you're not a Linux lover or you're barking up the wrong tree. Ooops, doesn't recognize more than 64MB of RAM. Oooops your geometry was misread and your drive was nuked. Ooops you didn't set the admin password on your Redhat default to no password install. Oooops. "Well RTFM!"
Really... that wasn't called for.
So I might not know what I'm talking about. Didn't I state that I was voicing an opinion? Snide comments and cruel name-calling is the first things the truly ignorant provide. Why not, instead, provide a URL to some documentation or list some information on the topic before jumping to lewd remarks?
To get back on topic: Does anyone have a URL to documentation on these SID schema so that I (and possibly others) may look it over and scream obsceneties at it in private?
Heucuva
I'm surprised that MS would let one of their
own people setup 10 dumb things... list. Just renaming it would have helped.
a basic rule of business is that when your customers get ticked off, they take their money elsewhere.
It is by far the best way, and the old way lacks. That's all there is to it! In NT you can block ports (in the network control panel -> Protocols -> Properties -> Advanced -> "Enable Security"). Firewalls? Used plenty of them on NT. They work great. Encrypting FS? EFS. Uses a PKI. Very nice. How about, uh, linux? oh, ext2fs! HAHA. It's not even journaled or indexed like NTFS or the BeOS FS. So shut the fuck up and SIT DOWN.
Well, it did, jackass, get over it.
Linux can suck just as bad as NT.
And no, I wasn't logged in as root, and didn't have root access on the account that I was using.
Wrap your piddly little brain around that one.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
> I mean, if we can say 'It's all good in Win2k' then I get to say 'It's all good in Linux 3.0!' Comparing what's
Win2000 _IS_ out now. Release-Candidate 2. I'm running it as I type this. It IS out. There is a difference between a pre-release and something that does not exist. Win2000 DOES exist, that is why I attempted to display people shouting 'vaporware' at the beginning of my post. If you don't think it is real, please try to explain to all the people running Win2000 what they are running.
where i work, it's not uncommon for a lab (like mine) to "inherit" machines from other labs that have been merged with other groups or done away with altogether. sometimes those machines have NT on them.
;)
a solution that we have used is to have a Linux boot disk handy....
When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
that you are a dumbass, right?
> May I offer you a clue?
There is a lot of that going on here.
> This isn't the same OS as 1996 at all!!
Option Pack aside (That isn't the same thing as the service packs), what new FEATURES are added in those service-packs?
Buy Windows NT.
My ass. I can set up RH in a few minutes, light years ahead of the rebootathon that is setting up windows NT.
Another load of crap, you forgot to mention why it's unwise. I'll tell you. Because Micro$oft insists on including things like filesystem and kernel "upgrades" along with bug fixes. This is blatantly unethical, because some people need bug fixes but can't use them because the "upgrades" will break other programs they need. Flat out bullshit.
This one's just hilarious. This dude's obviously never run, administrered, or otherwise been anywhere near a network. There is simply no way to run a pc windows network without cloning. Where I work, it would take an entire day to set up a PC from scratch, installing the OS and all the apps we use; it's not ust a waste of time and money, anyone who has done this sort of work knows how dreadfully boring and sanity depriving it is to endlessly type in serial numbers, reboot, repeat. Cloning takes about 25 minutes. Not to mention ghost takes care of the SID problem. Of course in linux you can just use dd.
It's time people started dumping windows altogether.
support gun control: take guns from cops
Did the RH6 - RH6.1 upgrade last night. It did take 3 tries to get started since I put the bootnet.img on a bad floppy, then the setup died (network problem?) with python errors while getting the package list from the FTP server. Third time was the charm and I went to bed when files started downloading. Rebooted in the morning and everything is there. This took about 20 minutes of my time. This morning, I spent more than 1/2 hour trying to upgrade the mouse driver (MS intellipoint) for NT4 (run under VMWare). The upgrade is to fix a stupid error message that comes up at boot time (conflict between two microsoft products!). Getting the driver is nearly impossible - MS website doesn't allow you to just download the fscking file! Only option is to run the install from a webbrowser. Now this sucks since NT is behind a firewall and I can't download to it - I can only download from Linux directly. OK, go to another machine (runs NT natively). Install the fscking browser pluggin - then stop the install in the middle and save the temp files. copy the temp files to my local NT. arg. run setup. It was much harder to install this driver for NT than do an entire system upgrade in RedHat! Windows wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't so hard to use, and it ran the software I need.
Have you actually read the arguments? It seems you are not only overlooking a lot off stuff but you are not placing it in the right context as well! As far as you know??? That doesn't appear to be very much now does it!!
Well, X crashed my linux box the other day (after i tried to change some of the configureation). so it's not imune...
anyway, all I was saying was that the system wasn't as unstable as it was being made out to be
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Will the Microsoft plant please piss off back to the hole he crawled out of? Thanks.
sometimes it's fun, sometimes it makes me crazy (wile i'm sharing some NT machines with colegues).
hany
MS would not make most of these statements, my dog could come up with a better list.
My dog could come up with a better OS!
Juln
The cited Microsoft White Paper "Windows NT from a Unix point of view" is in fact a Word for Windows Document enclosed in a self-extracting NetZip .EXE... good luck reading it if your not running Windows!!! Are THESE the people who should be determining the internet standards???
6) Flip the power switch to "off"
I played with W2K RC1. And I hardly know how they could call it a 'Release Candidate'. It buggered up my system in a hard way. Barely played Half Life. Didn't support my MAINSTREAM hardware (that's a yet of course, once again, will be fixed soon).
And for the sake of argument, Win2000 is NOT out now. Can I get it, with support and software? NO.
And as far as I'm concerned, if its not pro-Linux, it's not FUD, but it certainly might be brainless.
They forgot to mention that the SID can be changed with an (obiviously little known) app called ghost walker.
Who are these guys kidding anyway? Be NT, Linux or etc ghosting saves time. Who in there right mind wants to install and config the same apps on different workstations over and over again?
Guess I should have known... be it that this is coming from MSN.
vladtheimpaler33@hotmail.com
There is so an "su" utitlity that comes with NT.
/user:administrator cmd.exe
RUNAS.EXE
RUNAS
I really don't know what they were thinking when they designed this OS, there are just so many really stupid things about it that it amazes me.
Uh, it really has very little to do with the design of the OS. Any idiot could write an exe such as runas after the OS has been designed.
Funny, on my computer 'Free' says total memory is 95 megs. Is my computer just special or does Linux detect more than 64mb?
Oooops your geometry was misread
When I first tried to install Linux my geometry was misread. Desperate to escape Winblows I installed FreeBSD. The funny thing is while tring out some COMMERCIAL Windows based partition manager such as Partition Magic, it too failed to read my geometry correct. The problem of incorrect geometry lies in the computer's bios which also the root of the problem that causes you to have to put all bootable partitions before 8 gb. I agree Linux should try to find a way around this like FreeBSD did, but you can't blame the OS for something that lots of other programs fall victim too.
and your drive was nuked.
Hmmmmm, if you knew your geometry wasn't showing up right (which you can tell because the size of the drive doesn't show up right) then why did you ignore the big ole warnings that say "Pressing yes will erase all data on your hard drive!"? I thought even Windows users were smarter than that.
Ooops you didn't set the admin password on your Redhat default to no password install
Egad! You mean I'll have to type 'passwd' and add a password to the system?! The horror! Ohhh the Humanity! Obviously you'll know when you log in that you forgot to set a password and will be able to change it.
Also unlike MICROSOFT Windows NT, RED HAT Linux isn't the only fish in the sea, secondly if you forget to set a password you probably shouldn't be a system administrator.
I fell into this one, not checking the list, and what was it that fell over? Microsoft Natural Keyboard!
NT isn't for power users, its for dorks who don't know how to computers, and can only barely use it if it has a GUI... And since its built on a GUI, its more than a joke.. If anyone is truely serious about serving, etc, they run an OS that isnt based around a GUI. And for power users that really really have to use windows for compatibility, then 95/98 would be the choice. There is no good use for NT.
#pragma message( "I use Linux, BeOS, and NT, and happen to like them ALL. This message is NOT meant to be flamebait." )
;-)
:-)
#include "i_cant_find_my_funny_bone.h"
> 1. Using the wrong hardware
When Linux is perfectly happy running on older Pentiums and 486s. As BOTH a Server and Desktop.
> 2. Installing Windows NT where it doesn't belong
Especially when alot of games require Winblows 9X & DirectX 6, and NT 4 won't support DX6.
> 3. Choosing the wrong file system
An OS that only recognizes FAT16, FAT32 (unofficially), and NTFS.
> 4. No emergency repair disk
Not being able to boot to a NT command line prompt unless you shell out a few clams for some special ERD Commander Pro utility.
> 5. Using the wrong Pagefile size
NT being so brain-dead that it won't let you set a pagefile of 0 bytes. Hey you with 256 Megs of Ram, don't you know you need a pagefile !
> 6. Missing a key network component
Having to reboot everytime you change one little network setting.
> 7. Forgetting the password
DOH! You mean I need to REMEMBER info? I thought that's what computers were for
> 8. Using older applications... not knowing that Doom or some other DOS-based games simply wouldn't work in NT.
Doom (DOS version and other VGA DOS Games) DO work, just not with sound.
>9. Applying service packs unwisely
You mean like installing SP3, then installing a network card, then having to re-install the damn thing again?
> 10. Cloning Windows NT
Its not like anyone would need 100 identical copies of NT running on 100 different computers? Hey Mr Library SysAdmin, do you know that you shouldn't be cloning those public NT boxes?
check out: www.reactos.com
Cheers
...for the most part. Everything that the author listed could also be said for just about any other OS. Though, you said "ditto" on point 10, "Cloning Windows NT". I missed that one. How do you equate that to something on, say, Linux? Just curious, that's all.
... who needs crackers?
Talk about social engineering...
-- Hi! I'm the "Good Times" signature virus. Copy me into your Sig!
this amuses me greatly, all you people arguing the obvious and irrelivant. Face the simple facts, Windows NT is good for nothing but running dual or higher processors. it's a bitch to set up, makes a realy shitty server (i'd like to point out how nice and efficent the linux based server for http://www.linux.com is), and ok wait, who else here remembers when gates arrogantly offered money to anyone who could hack NT, hmm...as my memory serves me, it took 15 mins then the damn thing crashed, and you people are talking about security, please... The only reason Windows usually gets a better wrap than linux is because people are to damn stupid and lazy to figgure out how to use a real os like linux. this also the reason for the lack of games/apps for linux. sure the programs for windows are better and for obvious reasons. c'mon people use some common sense!!
"Ye who would cross the sea of fait must answer me these questions twenty-eight"
I rarely created boot disks in any OS but once while installing Red Hat 5.0 (Wow! A real long time ago!) I learned my lesson. The install crashed during the lilo install... I didn't notice the install didn't finish and got very upset, to say the least, as I spent the next few hours trying to fix it.
I finally just re-installed.
Devil Ducky
MY peers would get out of jury duty.
>>even servers have to run the GUI. Did you remember to LOG OFF! Explorer.exe quits out of memory when you log out. Other than a very few times, it is not necessary to log on at a the server directly, Log out and no more "unstable" GUI.
Ever try contacting MS for tech support? Most of the time they just say it's an OEM problem and to talk to your manufacturer. I e-mailed once about my Nino (it was an obvious software flaw), but they insisted I contact Nino because my Product ID had OEM in it.
Oh, I love this! And by the way, don't firewall out UDP 137, UDP 138 and TCP139. (Nor, the DCOM port at TCP135). And watch as someone waltzes right into your NT sh!tbox as a guest user and proceeds to give it the raping it so richly deserves.
CNN story describing breaking into machines with Guest access, among other things.
. The best way to avoid this dilemma is to immediately add your personal user account to the administrators local group of the system. This will make your main user account an administrator of the system, sparing you from heartaches and time later.
Except that now that latest little IE5 bug has suddenly given some loser in Bosnia whose page you happened to click in a search engine complete access to your internal network...
I've been wondering... To Joe User is it really any comfort to know that the crash that lost there work was caused by X and not Linux. Since most none Admin types work only in X is it fair to seperate the two?
I find that ghosted NT boxes don't work as well as boxes without NT on them. They tend be quite bloated, slow and crash a lot. I have found that a better way is to not clone them in the first place, then they won't have shity OSes on them.
10: MSDN. Hey, who *wouldn't* want to read Slashdot using the latest Windows 2000 beta?
9: No third-party shit. When you go Microsoft all the way, you're guaranteed to have *at least* three less crashes per day.
8: Multiple servers. Come on, like a PII 450 with 128 MB RAM can *really* handle both the Web Proxy *and* mail load for a ten machine network? Hey, Microsoft's products are top-of-the-line... when computers are meant to handle that type of load, they'll tell you.
7: NT Workstation. Why use 95 or 98? Obviously, NT is the better solution. 98 is for users-- NT is for power-users. That's why it costs so much more.
6: Microsoft tech support. Isn't it nice to know that *when* Windows NT crashes into an unrecoverable state, Microsoft will at least be willing to tell you "Re-install NT, see if that fixes it."?
5: PPTP. It's easy, it's simple, and it's secure, right? I mean, sure, Schneier and Mudge *claim* to have attacks against it, but there are no *implementations* of it, right? Besides, most people pick strong passwords anyway!
4: Outlook Express. Hey, when you need a cool mail program, OE is it. You don't have any of that "attachment" shit-- it all looks inline. And if there's a script attached, OE will even execute it upon opening the message!!
3: Microsoft Office. What better program for editing text files?
2: J++. It's Java. Almost. But it works under Windows, at least! Never mind the fact that Microsoft violated their license terms with Sun and shouldn't legally be distributing it-- it makes writing Java applets almost as easy as writing Visual Basic applications!
1: IE 4 / 5. Hey, at least you can view www.windows2000test.com with it! That's more than you can say for that Netscape shit.
I would hate to think that any companies that I used to work for that run NT server could take my access away.
Since there is no 'su' utility in NT everyone ends up adding themselves to the admin group sooner or later if they can. I know once you have done this NT is as secure as 95/98 (ie not at all) but the alternative is to have to shutdown everything, logout, and then login as administrator just so you can reset the clock! I really don't know what they were thinking when they designed this OS, there are just so many really stupid things about it that it amazes me.
journalling file system?!?! Yeah, right, try this : 1)Start copying a big file from one drive to another (both using NTFS) 2)Pull the machines plug in the middle. 3)Reboot If you still think that NTFS is a good journalling file system then you are too stupid to own a computer. PS. Try doing that in BeOS sometime ;) WhiteRabbit
I personally like the installing NT on the wrong hardware one. I think the answer on this one should be "a computer".
I also like the excuse that the abstraction layer is for "security". I belive at the time it was being developed it was for portibility. I'm so glad NT runs on MIPS (whoops, not supported anymore), Alpha (whoops, not supported anymore, oh yeah and its only 32 bit on a 64 bit platform), and of course it will be ready for the new Merced chip (running on all 32 of 64 cylinders) (BTW I refuse to recognise the new name).
---- sonoffreak
Each NT system not only has a a unique computer name, it also has a SID (Security ID), which is generated in much the same way as a GUID. If the network has several systems that share the same security ID, there are problems, and *that's* why it's unsupported.
Systems Internals has had an app that allows you set up a new ID for a long time. Take a look at it here.
--
E2 IN2 IE?
Well, then this could easily be 10 dumb things
BeOS users do if theyre dumb: =)
1) Forgetting to read the hardware compability list.
2) Putting the Install CD upside down in their cdrom.
3) Setting anything else than your be partition as default in the boot menu.
4) Creating a bootdisk, beos doesnt need it to be recovered, the cd is just fine
5) Using beos for x86 and ppc on the same machine
6) Trying to recompile the kernel
7) Using x86_R3 applications
8) Rebooting after setting up the network
9) Defragmenting their beos partition
10) Trying to exit the GUI to get to a fullscreen prompt
2. Installing Windows NT where it doesn't belong
...Install Windows NT in a partition or separate hard drive. Don't share it with another operating system, especially Windows 95/98...
...you'll end up sharing the \Program Files directory, which could be catastrophic for Internet Explorer, for instance. This is an easy one to avoid...
Absolutely, you see NT wasn't designed to co-operate with our own operating systems and our own software...
Regardless of the fact that NT installation suggests that you should install in the same folder as Windows so that you can share Program files. Administrators should know that this is a trick question, and should say no.
Obviously the aformentioned clauses are the silly things that protect the MCPs and MCSEs of this world and make the rest of us look silly.
Grrrr.....
The PATH variable is used to find executables to be run. Why the hell is this used as path to DLLs too?
You claim it to be simple, yet use nearly 2 pages of HTML to describe the process to find a DLL. And it doesn't even cover incompatible versions of DLLs, which is a PAIN in NT.
And you people blaming the apps for all these problems are just plain wrong. If Microsoft had provided a decent Installer, simple methods of finding DLLs+other components and a structured way of storing them, the clueless application makers of NT would have done the right thing. Do you really expect every company out there to make their own installer?
Why do applications clutter their DLLs all over the SYSTEM directory? Is this the application makers fault too? Do you really expect every individual company to do the right thing, the same thing and stay compatible. Not following the leader's example?
You conviniently left out the hassles of OCXes and other things which must be installed into the registry. (Another chapter all by itself)
How can anybody in their right mind defend the DLL "system"?
And I'm NOT saying the Linux system for libraries is perfect, it's just better handled by competent developers and semi-standard methods. It could always be made better, especially with restrictions and structure regulations from the system. Or just an agreement of standards among Linux distributions. It's incredible how little developers fuck up the system when they have the right tools for the job.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
For #7, Forgetting the password, it mentions that "after your system is installed and working you have little need to use it." With my NT machine at work, almost every time I install a software, I need administrator access. To fully use my ZIP drive, I often need administrator access. Perhaps my IT group has my computer set up in a strange way, but I don't believe this.
I also like the solution for this. To avoid forgetting my root password, I'm going to give my account root privileges. Why didn't I think of that before? So now I feel secure.
I also noticed numbers 1, 4, 6, 7, 10 all deal with security. The 50% of the Top 10.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs
Use Ghost to clone boxes in our lab on a regular basis. The part that got left out of the article is that Ghost comes with a Util to change the SID of imaged machines. So the process is as simple as restoring the image then running the util. 10-20minutes later (depending on image size) the entire process is complete and the machine is now a unique member of the lab network.
All better hardware support is, is a reflection of the MS marketing muscle and market penetration. This does NOT make the OS itself superior, since hardware drivers != the OS. Hardware drivers are tools utilized by the OS.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Imho it's much better to take the win95/98 route and give all your users full admin privledges, if you're concerned about security don't worry, the login box will prevent anyone from clicking cancel and getting into your account.
As for hardware issues you should have known you couldn't put a pII in a socket7 motherboard (oh wait, what's this slot labeled "bank 0".. it might fit there..)
These tend to be the same epople that argue linux is too complicated.
- MbM
- MbM
A utillity to generate new SIDs (called NewSID, strangely enough) is available from http://www.sysinternals.com under NT utilities. It's certainly easier to clone a machine and run this utility than to use NTs automated install.
-- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
* NT is only easier to install if you've got blessed hardware... I've seen (NT4) installation cheerily, deterministically crash during hardware probing on a remarkably normal hardware configuration.
* One would think the swap file recommendation might not give "magic" formulas, and instead say something to the effec that, "What you're doing will largely determine how much swap you need. While NT generally recommends XX MB of memory, total, and perhaps at least YY of swap, in which to simply run happily, running something like Word or Excel might -- depending on document size and complexity -- boost your needs to ZZ MB or so, and doing memory-intensive tasks like using Photoshop to edit large, detailed imagery could require far more."
* Aigh! He recommends enabling the guest account for file sharing, rather than doing it the right way?
* "No such thing as a bug-free program?" {shrug} cat" seems pretty reliable to me... Also, this seems to be a remarkably tolerant attitude (accepting the idea that releasing buggy SPs is perfectly OK?!).
* The article should probably mention hot-fixes, too. When they're security-related, they could be IMPORTANT.
Yadda yadda.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
> Like preventing users from installing their own software.
It's a LIE that that helps. I never go messing around in the system directories or registry. I only have admin permissions as Administrator. I always use installers AND DEINSTALLERS.
Things get screwed up anyway. If it's NORMAL for ESTABLISHED 3rd party vendors to replace system DLLs, that's M$ fault for not providing adequate support for versioning and configuration checks.
I see the strong points of Linux being it's flexibility and its being open. Areas of weakness include threading and security model. For BeOS the APIs, file system, threading and multimedia feature set are second to none. Hardware and software support are currently major show-stoppers for BeOS. NT has a great security model and good threading. The file system could stand some improving (anyone ever run out of drive letters?) and the code base could be scrutinized a bit better before release. In the end, the best OS is the one that works best for you.
Personally, Linux has never even installed properly on my hardware (same h/w that nearly every other OS on this planet has installed upon without incident) so it is obviously not my first pick.
It's just damm right STUPID! It's labeled as a "feature", although the main intention might well be a control-freaking licensing issue. It's only useful to just get in the way of legitimate users, and having them waste time and effort.
At least install Linux and play doom.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs
It shows how bad NT is at real world computing. Terrifying really.
It tells you to "Windows 95/98 machine handy for your games" but warns you against trying to run 95 or 98 on the same machine.
Many of the things on the list are pretty basic things that other systems have fixed (and I'm just not talking Unix here).
I love number 5 - "People make the mistake of letting Windows NT suggest the default Pagefile size for your system." Given that every other OS on the planet can do this without too much hassle I'm surprised that this is a big a problem. Pagefile size is a pretty basic formula for most systems, not "amount of system memory + 12mb".
Most other operating systems that aim for the lofty ideals of NT do a lot of these things automatically, eg page sizing, hardware detection, patch installs, network setup, file system setup etc.
Most operating systems have a single user mode that allow users to change the superuser password from the console without needing to reinstall the whole system.
This article points out more that just the dumb things that users do. It points out the dumb things that microsoft does. In operating system terms NT is about 8 years behind on administration.
9 out of the 10 of these points are pretty basic flaws with NT that Microsoft should have sorted out years ago; all other Operating systems I support have had these fixed for years. It still proves my point that Microsoft are more interested in revenue than in producing a stable and useable operating system.
visit nt FAQ for a method of doing it via scripting (should make life a little easier).
Why is this article funny? Reading about NT always makes me want to cry.
Given one hour to live, the student replied: "I'd spend it with professor FP who can make an hour seem like a lifetime."