I hate to ask this, but have you ever actually used NT4+IIS4, or is your judgement based on Slashdot rhetoric (which has a rather large prejudice against anything Microsoft)?
Looking at your comments:
NT is unstable - in my experience, an NT machine is exactly as stable as a Linux machine on the same hardware. Each have their own set of bugs and peculiarities which any halfway decent admin knows about and can configure the machines accordingly.
NT outperforms Linux until it gets under real load - isn't this exactly what the benchmarks are showing is false? Linux's SMP support is pretty woeful compared to NT's through its failure to make the kernel reentrant on all system calls. Check out http://www.winntmag.com/Magazine/Article.cfm?Artic leID=5048 and you'll soon understand why NT can scale much better than Linux.
Apache vs IIS - Where did you get the notion that IIS uses only multithreading? IIS can split off any part of the web site into separate processes, or use single processes for the whole site. It can execute Perl, VBScript, JScript and pretty much whatever other language you want to plug into it. Where you even dreamed up the notion that IIS programming is not source code viewable is completely beyond me - look at the term 'Active Server Page' sometime please. This all brings me back to the original question - have you used NT/IIS lately or not?
You do not need special 'developer kits', compiled binaries or any of the things you mention to develop dynamic content under IIS. You can do everything with Notepad (or Emacs if you want to). Where is this 'unconventional' development environment you speak of?
FYI - NT had TCP/IP before Linux (NT was developed before Linux), so I don't see how NT possibly required Linux to be in existance for the TCP stack to exist? Again, do you really know anything about NT, or is this all rehashed rhetoric?
Looks to me like the only bed you've made is one of self delusion and denial. Wake up and smell the real world!
You are exactly right - "Rabid advocate" isn't something to be proud of, but I generally only get that way because of more rabies on the other side.
If NT is indeed better than Linux for high volume web serving and file/print then I think anyone who advocates Linux in these situations is fooling themselves.
As for Hotmail, Microsoft can use what it feels is the best tool for the job. Your point was that it shouldn't?
I'm not saying NT is the best for everything. If you don't think Linux is the best for everything then why are we bothering to argue?
Ahh... I'm familiar with this story, and it would have been a good analogy except it doesn't fit.
You imply that NT users are afraid of Linux - quite the contrary. I use Linux where it is useful and use NT in the places where Linux fails. Who is the more blind? Those who use both systems where they work the best, or those who only use Linux because NT is produced by a certain company in Redmond?
The fact is, either NT is better in the situation the benchmarks describe (high volume file/print serving and high volume web serving) or Linux is better. The current benchmark shows NT far exceeds a poorly tuned Linux box. Now Mindcraft gives the opportunity to tune Linux and no one wants to do it.
I don't recall the part in your analogy where Sharky's methods were better than Frodo. This isn't a battle between good and evil, it is simply showing NT is better than Linux in these situations. If Linux users can't deal with this then I question their objectivity and motives.
I point you to a more factual quote, from Ken Thompson (the co-creator of Unix for those who don't know):
"I view Linux as something that's not Microsoft--a backlash against Microsoft, no more and no less."
Ask yourself if you found that NT was better at something than Linux, would you use it in that situation? If not then who is really fooling themselves? I already use Linux...
Cool - name calling. Just what I need to start my Sunday.;-)
The 'source' you are looking for is on the Mindcraft web site - they documented all their tests quite well which is what caused all the problems a few weeks back when the Linux users looked at the tests and claimed that they weren't fair because the Linux machine wasn't configured properly. Well, now Mindcraft offers the chance for Linux users to configure the machines properly and rerun the tests and what do you know - none of them are game to put their money where their mouths are.
If you are going to call someone a pansy, remember the old adage about people in glass houses...
The fact is this response from Microsoft is exactly what was asked for by Eric Raymond. Read back on Slashdot and you'll find (in the article titled "ESR and the MindCraft Fiasco") that not a single thing was said about the benchmark itself, only griping that the test configuration suite did not give Linux a fair chance against NT and so all results should be disregarded.
Now you have it - Microsoft has responded with the fairest of terms for this benchmark: Configure a RH Linux box any way you want with anything that was available on that date and they say NT will still beat the socks off Linux.
You had your chance to say that the benchmark was not relavent, to say that it wasn't real world, but all you came up with was that the Linux box wasn't given a fair go. Now you have to put your money where your mouth is, and from the comments in this group it seems no one has the guts to do it.
As stated elsewhere, you have to go through with it and admit that NT scales better than Linux for Web and SMB file sharing. Microsoft has won this round hands down and you all have to choke down that bitter pill and come back next time a little more battle hardened. The fact is that Microsoft plays the PR game better than any other organisation in town so you will have to pull finger out if you want to beat them.
Face it - you asked for this (well, ESR did anyway). Now you've got it don't cry that it isn't fair. Do the benchmark or be branded as cowards.
Ok. Looks like I was a little out of line blaming Hemos (well, actually way out of line). I should have blamed the "anonymous reader".
My apologies to Hemos on that count.
Also, I agree - the reader didn't say NT4 got C2. Damn these public forums for keeping me honest.
As for the "security hole" in NT - If you want to plug this one you can do a number of things. The most obvious is to disable posix and os/2 subsystems!! I believe this is documented well enough in just about every secure installation guide. If you don't care about users creating drive mappings you can change the permissions on the '??' object directory as well (which is identical to setting permissions on/dev in Unix)
I'm not convinced of the 'major implementation problem' yet.
Again, my apologies to Hemos. It really wasn't his fault the original mail was woefully inaccurate and more FUD than Fact.
"Domain based security functionality is included up to the transport driver interface; underlying network protocols and architectures are excluded."
Look at the NT architecture. TDI is the interface to TCP/IP, IPX, NetBEUI, Appletalk and everything else on the network. What they are saying is that they are evaluating the security of NT, not the security of the protocols - which are pretty insecure on the most part.
So, to answer the question: Yes. I do know what "excluded" means.
Prob #1: ITSEC is no worse than TCSEC, nor is it any better. It is apples and oranges. You imply that passing ITSEC/E3 is a breeze compared to TCSEC/C2. This is simply not true. They actually compared different things - ITSEC looks at operating systems (in this case) and TCSEC looks at a particular system from the hardware up.
Prob #2. NT 3.5 has as much to do with NT 4.0 as Linux 1.0 has to do with Linux 2.0. It shows the history of the system as secure and not just a patch added to make the current system pass. BTW - lots of people still use NT 3.51.
Prob #3. E3 security is *not* weakened by floppy, network card etc. Again, if you bothered to read the facts you would find that ITSEC/E3 has evaluated NT to include networking and domain level authentication.
If you guys want to be taken seriously, you really should start posting facts and stop making it up as you go along.
Following the exact link Hemos posted, Microsoft did not say that NT got a C2 (TCSEC) rating at all. Rather they posted that it passed the ITSEC E3 level testing which is UK based.
Read the article - event the first sentence gives it away: "On April 28th, 1999, the UK Government announced...". Hemos is so busy Microsoft bashing he forgot that the truth actually has some bearing in the matter.
To further prove his blatant incompetence in news reporting, he went on to say that it wasn't certified on a network. Again, this is blatantly false. A single click from the Microsoft page gives this (at http://www.itsec.gov.uk/cgi-bin/cplview.pl?docno=9 5):
"The evaluation of Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 excludes Exchange Server, System Management Server (SMS), MS Mail, remote access services and Clipbook viewer. Domain based security functionality is included up to the transport driver interface; underlying network protocols and architectures are excluded."
Gee... Sounds like networking to me!!
In fact, NT 3.51 is also rated at E3 level *with* network functionality (again Hemos can't get his facts right).
To put the icing on the cake for the worst reported article in slashdot history he goes on to mention a misconfiguration bug that has been around for at least a few months now (fixes/workarounds etc. have been around for just as long).
Look: If you want to be taken seriously then you have to dump on these losers who would make up the news to bag Microsoft than report the truth. If Hemos has any integrity left, he'll post a correction/retraction with what actually happened rather than leave his work of fiction up on the site.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to ask this, but have you ever actually used NT4+IIS4, or is your judgement based on Slashdot rhetoric (which has a rather large prejudice against anything Microsoft)?
c leID=5048 and you'll soon understand why NT can scale much better than Linux.
Looking at your comments:
NT is unstable - in my experience, an NT machine is exactly as stable as a Linux machine on the same hardware. Each have their own set of bugs and peculiarities which any halfway decent admin knows about and can configure the machines accordingly.
NT outperforms Linux until it gets under real load - isn't this exactly what the benchmarks are showing is false? Linux's SMP support is pretty woeful compared to NT's through its failure to make the kernel reentrant on all system calls. Check out http://www.winntmag.com/Magazine/Article.cfm?Arti
Apache vs IIS - Where did you get the notion that IIS uses only multithreading? IIS can split off any part of the web site into separate processes, or use single processes for the whole site. It can execute Perl, VBScript, JScript and pretty much whatever other language you want to plug into it. Where you even dreamed up the notion that IIS programming is not source code viewable is completely beyond me - look at the term 'Active Server Page' sometime please. This all brings me back to the original question - have you used NT/IIS lately or not?
You do not need special 'developer kits', compiled binaries or any of the things you mention to develop dynamic content under IIS. You can do everything with Notepad (or Emacs if you want to). Where is this 'unconventional' development environment you speak of?
FYI - NT had TCP/IP before Linux (NT was developed before Linux), so I don't see how NT possibly required Linux to be in existance for the TCP stack to exist? Again, do you really know anything about NT, or is this all rehashed rhetoric?
Looks to me like the only bed you've made is one of self delusion and denial. Wake up and smell the real world!
John Wiltshire
You are exactly right - "Rabid advocate" isn't something to be proud of, but I generally only get that way because of more rabies on the other side.
If NT is indeed better than Linux for high volume web serving and file/print then I think anyone who advocates Linux in these situations is fooling themselves.
As for Hotmail, Microsoft can use what it feels is the best tool for the job. Your point was that it shouldn't?
I'm not saying NT is the best for everything. If you don't think Linux is the best for everything then why are we bothering to argue?
John Wiltshire
Ahh... I'm familiar with this story, and it would have been a good analogy except it doesn't fit.
You imply that NT users are afraid of Linux - quite the contrary. I use Linux where it is useful and use NT in the places where Linux fails. Who is the more blind? Those who use both systems where they work the best, or those who only use Linux because NT is produced by a certain company in Redmond?
The fact is, either NT is better in the situation the benchmarks describe (high volume file/print serving and high volume web serving) or Linux is better. The current benchmark shows NT far exceeds a poorly tuned Linux box. Now Mindcraft gives the opportunity to tune Linux and no one wants to do it.
I don't recall the part in your analogy where Sharky's methods were better than Frodo. This isn't a battle between good and evil, it is simply showing NT is better than Linux in these situations. If Linux users can't deal with this then I question their objectivity and motives.
I point you to a more factual quote, from Ken Thompson (the co-creator of Unix for those who don't know):
"I view Linux as something that's not Microsoft--a backlash against Microsoft, no more and no less."
Ask yourself if you found that NT was better at something than Linux, would you use it in that situation? If not then who is really fooling themselves? I already use Linux...
John Wiltshire
Yep. Friday already. Sunday now. Monday tomorrow. Ack!!!
;-)
John Wiltshire
Cool - name calling. Just what I need to start my Sunday. ;-)
The 'source' you are looking for is on the Mindcraft web site - they documented all their tests quite well which is what caused all the problems a few weeks back when the Linux users looked at the tests and claimed that they weren't fair because the Linux machine wasn't configured properly. Well, now Mindcraft offers the chance for Linux users to configure the machines properly and rerun the tests and what do you know - none of them are game to put their money where their mouths are.
If you are going to call someone a pansy, remember the old adage about people in glass houses...
John Wiltshire
The fact is this response from Microsoft is exactly what was asked for by Eric Raymond. Read back on Slashdot and you'll find (in the article titled "ESR and the MindCraft Fiasco") that not a single thing was said about the benchmark itself, only griping that the test configuration suite did not give Linux a fair chance against NT and so all results should be disregarded.
Now you have it - Microsoft has responded with the fairest of terms for this benchmark: Configure a RH Linux box any way you want with anything that was available on that date and they say NT will still beat the socks off Linux.
You had your chance to say that the benchmark was not relavent, to say that it wasn't real world, but all you came up with was that the Linux box wasn't given a fair go. Now you have to put your money where your mouth is, and from the comments in this group it seems no one has the guts to do it.
As stated elsewhere, you have to go through with it and admit that NT scales better than Linux for Web and SMB file sharing. Microsoft has won this round hands down and you all have to choke down that bitter pill and come back next time a little more battle hardened. The fact is that Microsoft plays the PR game better than any other organisation in town so you will have to pull finger out if you want to beat them.
Face it - you asked for this (well, ESR did anyway). Now you've got it don't cry that it isn't fair. Do the benchmark or be branded as cowards.
John Wiltshire (Rabid NT advocate)
Ok. Looks like I was a little out of line blaming Hemos (well, actually way out of line). I should have blamed the "anonymous reader".
/dev in Unix)
My apologies to Hemos on that count.
Also, I agree - the reader didn't say NT4 got C2. Damn these public forums for keeping me honest.
As for the "security hole" in NT - If you want to plug this one you can do a number of things. The most obvious is to disable posix and os/2 subsystems!! I believe this is documented well enough in just about every secure installation guide. If you don't care about users creating drive mappings you can change the permissions on the '??' object directory as well (which is identical to setting permissions on
I'm not convinced of the 'major implementation problem' yet.
Again, my apologies to Hemos. It really wasn't his fault the original mail was woefully inaccurate and more FUD than Fact.
"Domain based security functionality is included up to the transport driver interface; underlying network protocols and architectures are excluded."
Look at the NT architecture. TDI is the interface to TCP/IP, IPX, NetBEUI, Appletalk and everything else on the network. What they are saying is that they are evaluating the security of NT, not the security of the protocols - which are pretty insecure on the most part.
So, to answer the question: Yes. I do know what "excluded" means.
To blow away your FUD:
Prob #1: ITSEC is no worse than TCSEC, nor is it any better. It is apples and oranges. You imply that passing ITSEC/E3 is a breeze compared to TCSEC/C2. This is simply not true. They actually compared different things - ITSEC looks at operating systems (in this case) and TCSEC looks at a particular system from the hardware up.
Prob #2. NT 3.5 has as much to do with NT 4.0 as Linux 1.0 has to do with Linux 2.0. It shows the history of the system as secure and not just a patch added to make the current system pass. BTW - lots of people still use NT 3.51.
Prob #3. E3 security is *not* weakened by floppy, network card etc. Again, if you bothered to read the facts you would find that ITSEC/E3 has evaluated NT to include networking and domain level authentication.
If you guys want to be taken seriously, you really should start posting facts and stop making it up as you go along.
Read the page. It says 'clipbook viewer' which is very different to 'clipboard viewer'.
Following the exact link Hemos posted, Microsoft did not say that NT got a C2 (TCSEC) rating at all. Rather they posted that it passed the ITSEC E3 level testing which is UK based.
9 5):
Read the article - event the first sentence gives it away: "On April 28th, 1999, the UK Government announced...". Hemos is so busy Microsoft bashing he forgot that the truth actually has some bearing in the matter.
To further prove his blatant incompetence in news reporting, he went on to say that it wasn't certified on a network. Again, this is blatantly false. A single click from the Microsoft page gives this (at http://www.itsec.gov.uk/cgi-bin/cplview.pl?docno=
"The evaluation of Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 excludes Exchange Server, System Management Server (SMS), MS Mail, remote access services and Clipbook viewer. Domain based security functionality is included up to the transport driver interface; underlying network protocols and architectures are excluded."
Gee... Sounds like networking to me!!
In fact, NT 3.51 is also rated at E3 level *with* network functionality (again Hemos can't get his facts right).
To put the icing on the cake for the worst reported article in slashdot history he goes on to mention a misconfiguration bug that has been around for at least a few months now (fixes/workarounds etc. have been around for just as long).
Look: If you want to be taken seriously then you have to dump on these losers who would make up the news to bag Microsoft than report the truth. If Hemos has any integrity left, he'll post a correction/retraction with what actually happened rather than leave his work of fiction up on the site.