I really hope you're joking - I mean, 20 mins per box is not exactly a proud boast. I work for a company which has 50,000 employees and 20,000 deployed workstations in one rather small European country alone (100% NT 4 boxes, before you ask). In terms of rapid deployment and having a network which works straight away, Samba is next to useless. Plug an NT box in, and as the orignal poster observed, it works and sees everything immediately. Unless 400,000 minutes of configuration for the LAN client alone sounds like fun of course... OK, so it's time for some big flames, among which: Yeah, but put a Win9x box on there and you won't see a thing! Correct, but people who use Win9x to do business on a corporate LAN should be shot. Non-existent security and remote management, combined with the stability of a drunk, mean bad things... OK, but why pay for M$ when you could have Samba servers for free? Because in terms of a large company, the license costs are largely irrelevant. Licensing is a tiny fraction of the TCO; much more important are things like hardware support, application availability, and a guaranteed escalation channel for support issues. But M$ support is useless anyway! No, you just haven't had the benefit of a Premier Support contract... Actually, I have, and it's still not good. Fair enough, they're not IBM, but the corporate clients are getting something extra for their support bucks... You sound too much like a big corporation apologist! So what? I happen to have worked for very large TLA companies all my life. This is the way things happen in that environment, and all the idealism in the world isn't going to change that overnight (if ever...) Yeah, but it doesn't matter - M$oft sucks! Linux rules! That's just to save someone having to type the usual response to comments like this;-) Basically, grow up and try to comprehend that the sooner Linux matures, the better for everyone, but for now, it's second fiddle to Solaris and NT when it comes to the world of big corporations. I won't dispute that it can do the job well in some markets (ISPs. *NIX shops generally), but if you expect to see it blow away NT any time soon, you're deluding yourself.
In the interests of pointing out double standards wherever I find them, this sounds suspiciously like...
Q. I found it quite unsettling how much work it takes just to get a standard Windows NT4 install to have decent security A. This is fixed in Win2K. Have a look at the current beta. We're now disabling all questionable services by default.
Q. Are they EVER to include a telnet server in Windows NT? A. Yes - Win2K. Look at the beta.
Q. Some of the stuff they do is so brain-dead A. So why don't you report these bugs to www.microsoft.com?
Now, if the average/.er saw that exchange, s/he wouldn't hold back on condemning Msoft for forcing upgrades on users, never fixing the current version etc. But since this is Red Hat, not doubt it's simply being repsonsive to users needs...
Slashdot Mirror
I really hope you're joking - I mean, 20 mins per box is not exactly a proud boast. I work for a company which has 50,000 employees and 20,000 deployed workstations in one rather small European country alone (100% NT 4 boxes, before you ask). In terms of rapid deployment and having a network which works straight away, Samba is next to useless. Plug an NT box in, and as the orignal poster observed, it works and sees everything immediately. Unless 400,000 minutes of configuration for the LAN client alone sounds like fun of course... OK, so it's time for some big flames, among which: Yeah, but put a Win9x box on there and you won't see a thing! Correct, but people who use Win9x to do business on a corporate LAN should be shot. Non-existent security and remote management, combined with the stability of a drunk, mean bad things... OK, but why pay for M$ when you could have Samba servers for free? Because in terms of a large company, the license costs are largely irrelevant. Licensing is a tiny fraction of the TCO; much more important are things like hardware support, application availability, and a guaranteed escalation channel for support issues. But M$ support is useless anyway! No, you just haven't had the benefit of a Premier Support contract... Actually, I have, and it's still not good. Fair enough, they're not IBM, but the corporate clients are getting something extra for their support bucks... You sound too much like a big corporation apologist! So what? I happen to have worked for very large TLA companies all my life. This is the way things happen in that environment, and all the idealism in the world isn't going to change that overnight (if ever...) Yeah, but it doesn't matter - M$oft sucks! Linux rules! That's just to save someone having to type the usual response to comments like this ;-) Basically, grow up and try to comprehend that the sooner Linux matures, the better for everyone, but for now, it's second fiddle to Solaris and NT when it comes to the world of big corporations. I won't dispute that it can do the job well in some markets (ISPs. *NIX shops generally), but if you expect to see it blow away NT any time soon, you're deluding yourself.
In the interests of pointing out double standards wherever I find them, this sounds suspiciously like...
/.er saw that exchange, s/he wouldn't hold back on condemning Msoft for forcing upgrades on users, never fixing the current version etc. But since this is Red Hat, not doubt it's simply being repsonsive to users needs...
Q. I found it quite unsettling how much work it takes just to get a standard Windows NT4 install to have decent security
A. This is fixed in Win2K. Have a look at the current beta. We're now disabling all questionable services by default.
Q. Are they EVER to include a telnet server in Windows NT?
A. Yes - Win2K. Look at the beta.
Q. Some of the stuff they do is so brain-dead
A. So why don't you report these bugs to www.microsoft.com?
Now, if the average