but really I have been arguing for an open source OS (to run practically all the machines in the server room- would make alotta things easier, right now we have: HPUX, Solaris Sparc, Solaris x86, WinNT, Win2k, etc...)
Most people let the OS choice be driven by what the server is running, not the other way round (within certain parameters). Don't base a decision on blind religous open source reasons. If you can't come up with good reasons to change, don't.
I try not to trust a single source, btw. If I find dissent among the experts, I'll look closer at it. But I want the option of looking at multiple sources. Though this may not be catastrophic, Microsoft is still trying to restrict information and move it onto their own servers that THEY control.
Crap. All they're doing is censoring their own information. The information you get from Bugtraq or on the MS web site will still be from the same source - MS. Noone elses opinion gets posted to the MS web site (and never has), but that doesn't mean that discussing the issue on other mailing lists is forbidden. If anyone is censoring or restricting the flow of information it's Bugtraq.
The councilwoman is posing. System administration is hard. You have to prioritize your tasks. Let's see: shall I put out the fire in the computer room or file some more license certificates?
System administration is easy, licensing is hard. Fortunately, licensing isn't really a part of system administration. It's a job for a procurement/finance department, which an organisation that size would surely have. They would also have an asset register, where they track things like desktop PC's. That takes care of 90% of your licenses. Then servers, that's the other 5%. Really, tracking exceptions is the hardest part, and that's the bit where desktop/server admins need to let procurement/finance know. I've worked in several large MS shops, and licensing isn't that much of a problem for them.
``I don't know if this satisfies Microsoft, but in my role as a council member it doesn't satisfy me,'' McClanan said. ``The fact that we can't produce records that simple is disconcerting to say the least.''
Exactly. With that amount of money changing hands for licenses, you'd think they'd keep track of them a little better. What other records can they not find?
In 1990, a gnat's fart from 50 metres could crash a UNIX box. But at least they could stay up for more than one week, which is far beyond all capabilities of the GUI enhanced MS-DOS (called Windows) at the time.
So all the claims about 30 years worth of development making for a stable OS are essentially bullshit? They developed it for 20 years and applications were still crashing it? In that case, Microsoft have done better than that in five years.
Occasionally, during our UNIX study, tests resulted in OS crashes. During this Windows NT study, the operating system remained solid and did not crash as the result of testing
I thought an application error couldn't crash a Unix box?
Interesting that the Open Source apps performed as poorly as the closed source apps. Guess the engineering discipline in open source (and the many eyes, many bugs fixed) is just as sloppy as closed source. Of course, most sensible people knew this already. Free clue open source folks - you're not smarter than everyone else, you're just as smart as everyone else.
The shipped/unpatched telnet binary of windows 2000 will try and authenticate first using NT challenge/response...If that fails, it will proceed to the normal interactive server login/prompt
Or you could just type "unset NTLM" when you start the Telnet client.
The NetBIOS traffic could be authentication traffic, if you have NTLM authentication turned on on the web site. If you don't need it, turn it off
The nightly builds from mozilla.org are already leaps and bounds ahead of the buggy product that Netscape is pushing onto the world. (
Great. All Mozilla needs to do now is tell the rest of the world (apart from the techies and those in the IT Industry i.e. Joe Average who uses a browser), that they have a browser, and who they are. Most consumers will recognise Internet Explorer, and some might even recognise Nutscrape, but few will recognise Mozilla. Having a great browser means absolutely nothing if A) you can't ship release code (they've had two years), and B) noone knows who/what mozilla is.
Slashdot Mirror
Totally m00t point. You can't *tell* the 2000 kernel how much memory the system has
True, although you can tell it to use less memory than is physically in the system. You just can't tell it that it has more.
but really I have been arguing for an open source OS (to run practically all the machines in the server room- would make alotta things easier, right now we have: HPUX, Solaris Sparc, Solaris x86, WinNT, Win2k, etc...)
Most people let the OS choice be driven by what the server is running, not the other way round (within certain parameters). Don't base a decision on blind religous open source reasons. If you can't come up with good reasons to change, don't.
I try not to trust a single source, btw. If I find dissent among the experts, I'll look closer at it. But I want the option of looking at multiple sources. Though this may not be catastrophic, Microsoft is still trying to restrict information and move it onto their own servers that THEY control.
Crap. All they're doing is censoring their own information. The information you get from Bugtraq or on the MS web site will still be from the same source - MS. Noone elses opinion gets posted to the MS web site (and never has), but that doesn't mean that discussing the issue on other mailing lists is forbidden.
If anyone is censoring or restricting the flow of information it's Bugtraq.
Whoops - typo. Meant to say "that's another 5%...
The councilwoman is posing. System administration is hard. You have to prioritize your tasks. Let's see: shall I put out the fire in the computer room or file some more license certificates?
System administration is easy, licensing is hard. Fortunately, licensing isn't really a part of system administration. It's a job for a procurement/finance department, which an organisation that size would surely have. They would also have an asset register, where they track things like desktop PC's. That takes care of 90% of your licenses. Then servers, that's the other 5%. Really, tracking exceptions is the hardest part, and that's the bit where desktop/server admins need to let procurement/finance know. I've worked in several large MS shops, and licensing isn't that much of a problem for them.
``I don't know if this satisfies Microsoft, but in my role as a council member it doesn't satisfy me,'' McClanan said. ``The fact that we can't produce records that simple is disconcerting to say the least.''
Exactly. With that amount of money changing hands for licenses, you'd think they'd keep track of them a little better. What other records can they not find?
In 1990, a gnat's fart from 50 metres could crash a UNIX box. But at least they could stay up for more than one week, which is far beyond all capabilities of the GUI enhanced MS-DOS (called Windows) at the time.
So all the claims about 30 years worth of development making for a stable OS are essentially bullshit? They developed it for 20 years and applications were still crashing it? In that case, Microsoft have done better than that in five years.
Occasionally, during our UNIX study, tests resulted in OS crashes. During this Windows NT study, the operating system remained solid and did not crash as the result of testing
I thought an application error couldn't crash a Unix box?
Interesting that the Open Source apps performed as poorly as the closed source apps. Guess the engineering discipline in open source (and the many eyes, many bugs fixed) is just as sloppy as closed source. Of course, most sensible people knew this already. Free clue open source folks - you're not smarter than everyone else, you're just as smart as everyone else.
The shipped/unpatched telnet binary of windows 2000 will try and authenticate first using NT challenge/response...If that fails, it will proceed to the normal interactive server login/prompt
Or you could just type "unset NTLM" when you start the Telnet client.
The NetBIOS traffic could be authentication traffic, if you have NTLM authentication turned on on the web site. If you don't need it, turn it off
The nightly builds from mozilla.org are already leaps and bounds ahead of the buggy product that Netscape is pushing onto the world. (
Great. All Mozilla needs to do now is tell the rest of the world (apart from the techies and those in the IT Industry i.e. Joe Average who uses a browser), that they have a browser, and who they are. Most consumers will recognise Internet Explorer, and some might even recognise Nutscrape, but few will recognise Mozilla. Having a great browser means absolutely nothing if A) you can't ship release code (they've had two years), and B) noone knows who/what mozilla is.