You should see the number of vulnerabilities for Apache vs. IIS! Here's a hit: Apache has more, IIS has none. Oh, and IIS7 is faster than Apache. Even the Zend team recommends people use IIS over Apache.
No, you don't. You restart the service, either from the command-line or from services.msc. Or from the GUI. Or remotely. Your choice. Rebooting isn't required. As for ram bloating? Try again. That doesn't happen with IIS6 or 7.
So you're sacrificing performance all the time for an eventuality that might never happen. Doesn't sound too logical. It's like driving your car at 10mph all the time because if you have an accident, it'll do less damage.
You should have read those linked products' websites a bit more carefully before posting that:) None of them allow for GUI vhost editing, one doesn't work with Windows, one hasn't been updated since 2003, and one doesn't exist anymore. Not really a great example of the GUIs available for controlling Apache. The ones that work rely on you still editing files by hand, though they do give you an easy way of editing them, which is something completely alien to any IIS administrator.
No, I'm saying I use the built-in Windows tools to configure Windows. They're all integrated, need no configuration, and run out of the box. There's nothing ad-hoc about it.
I was going to go into detail about my experience with Linux, but you beat me to it! It sounds like you were doing something very similar to me, but I was just setting up a server. I was doing my bit in 2003/2004, getting a Fedora Core print server set up on our network. I had the spanking-new version of Samba, Kerberos, and CUPS. I managed to get network users automatically authenticating with our Active Directory using Samba and PAM, and I even got CUPS to deliver drivers to Windows clients on the network. I wrote a custom CUPS driver to make a PDF-writing print driver (using PHP and some shell script), which worked fine. As you stated, this is easy to achieve in Windows, indeed a day's worth of work. It took me about a week and a bit to get it set up - finding bugs in all three of the main components I was using (CUPS, Samba and Kerberos), debugging, sending logs to email lists, waiting for responses, etc. With Windows, it was painless. Last week I set up a Windows Small Business Server 2003 box in our new office, with both OS X and XP clients, and it took less than a day to get all that stuff working. Coupled with DHCP, DNS, email, etc. All straight-forward, no emailing logs to anyone, no downloading different bits of software from different sites, no compiling, nothing but deployment. It's not that I don't want Linux to do well, or that I love Bill and his boys, I just found the two approaches to setting up a server radically different, and I know which one I'd rather do again. Sorry Tux.
1. You can change anything in Windows using those tools - what Active Directory lets you do doesn't even figure, as it has nothing to do with configuring client machines, short of allowing an administrator account on the domain execute scripts and applications on each desktop. And it's just one application, not kickstart, rsync, SSH and scripts.
2. Support for Microsoft applications can come from anywhere, not just those vendors. There are literally millions of Windows admins out there who can stop by your office on very short notice and fix things in-house, not just talk you through fixing them over the phone or emailing you some links to FAQs.
3. Lots of Windows sys admins are perfectly happy with their Windows networks. Many I know have tried Linux for various aspects of their network, and never get past trying, due to shortcomings making themselves apparent rather quickly. As for making changes much quicker - you have to be joking. With Windows it's instantaneous - you can roll out changes to massive domains in seconds, to multiple domains, whatever - Linux may be just as fast, but saying Windows is slow when it comes to making changes across networks is plain FUD.
In some places a charge of DUI can only be given if a positive sample is taken using the breath-analyser at a police station, the initial roadside test is performed to allow the police to get this second sample. Having a reading taken at the side of the road is not enough to give you a DUI charge.
What about the systems that call for the driver to give another sample while driving, and if no sample is given, or if the sample fails, the car stops? A balloon is only going to work for so long. But then if someone's the sort of cunt that is determined to endanger others just because they're too cheap to pay for a taxi, I guess they won't think anything about just filling the back seat of their car with balloons.
Exchange isn't just an IMAP server. It has plenty of other functionality that isn't supported on Linux. Shared folders, calendars, etc. Sure you've found a replacement for the calendar, but unless you're going to get the entire company to switch, that means nothing.
Expecting companies to make a leap of faith, losing functionality and compatibility with their clients, etc. is somewhat naive. These are businesses. They have a job to do. If Microsoft lets them do their job, then what's wrong with that? I'm for using the right tool for the job - Linux, Windows, OS X, a fart in a cup, whatever. Saying that because Linux doesn't co-exist with your infrastructure means there's something wrong with your infrastructure is, quite frankly, pathetic. Linux doesn't support everything, and if you require something that Linux doesn't offer, how in the hell is that not Linux's fault? So a company needs to do some video editing - is that somehow condemning their infrastructure because you can't do it on Linux? Or they need to run Photoshop? As soon as linux advocates and developers realise the need to beat windows, not just making excuses for Linux, in order for folks to take it more seriously as an alternative, the better. All this "waah waah Microsoft did this waah waah" bullshit isn't helping anyone, in fact it just makes Linux look inferior as excuses don't run businesses.
The guy works at a company, not a advocacy movement. Microsoft works perfectly for most businesses, to trying to get them to change to something untested is pointless. Most folks don't give a rat's ass if their documents are stored in a closed format - they just care that their documents can be read by clients/colleagues.
Microsoft Windows is fine for the office. So is Microsoft Office. People don't just use it because they have to - many folks want to use it.
That's not a reason to give up. If everyone on the face of the planet was able to think of others as they do themselves, had access to everyone's point of view, none of the bullshit we see happening around the world could happen. I'm sure humanity will get there some day, most likely when we give up our anachronistic views of countries, "them" vs. "us", etc.
If the Germans knew the Jews weren't the problem, that Hitler was an evil dick, etc., then they wouldn't have supported the war. If they knew the truth, millions would have been saved. We need to figure out what's stopping the truth getting to folks, and sorting it out - be it patriotism, ignorance, laziness, crappy media, whatever.
I'm not talking about a "nothing to hide" mentality. Far from it. I'm talking about ensuring our police forces run as the public wants them to, which in turn negates any concerns people have for any technology they use being mis-used.
If you're worried about Kafka-esque bureaucracy, then CCTV isn't your worry - it's the police force and the legal system you are worried about. Fix the problem, not the symptom. You're shooting yourself, and society, in the foot by denying useful technology to the police because you think the police will mis-use it. Fix the police, and the worries go away.
You clearly don't understand the laws surrounding the police holding people without charge. The reasons for the person being in charge are challenged frequently during the person's stay in police custody - by superintedants and judges, with either being able to overrule the claim. The 28 days isn't automatically given, and indeed lots of paperwork and people (both inside the police force and outside) have to agree for someone to stay in custody that long without charge. Your analogy with South Africa is again rather naive - the problem you state isn't people being held for 28 days without charge, but the police abusing their powers. Again - your problem is with the police, not CCTV. By your logic, the police shouldn't even exist, as they can abuse their positions. Clearly you can see your logic is flawed.
We don't have privacy in public. That's why we have the words "private" and "public". There is nothing to stop a policeman from watching you in the streets, and nothing has changed with the advent of CCTV.
I agree with you about fixing the causes of crime, and any sociologist or criminologist will tell you that those fixes will take time. Until they're fixed, the police need to use all technology they can to enforce the laws - indeed they're mandated to do so. Again, by your logic, the police should be disbanded and all efforts should be invested in solving people's need to cause crime, with the public riding out the wave of crime that will follow until crime disappears forever.
You're not everyone. Many, many folks want to run their own choice of applications on their phone. Having unmetered internet access, and not being able to use it for anything other than surfing the web and email (which is just one portion of the internet) seems like one hell of a waste. If what you said was true, then other companies would have been down that route a long time ago. As it is, they saw the benefit of allowing users to run whatever they wanted on their phone, be it a whole host of applications or just the ones that came with the phone, as everyone's different. Wouldn't you want a VoIP client on your phone, so you can make free calls? An SSH client? Games? No?
Most phones have internet access. I had web access on my phone I got back in 2003. It's nothing new. Most phone manufacturers know the web isn't a fad, and most know that web 2.0 is a meaningless buzz-word to describe some ambiguous functionality that's an old part of the X/HTML specifications. Heck, most phones have 3G, which is faster than the iPhone - by your logic, Apple thinks the web is a fad, as they didn't add 3G or even 3.5G.
You'd be on to something if we didn't see the dramatic decrease in power consumption and heat generation from the P4 Prescott chips to the Core 2 Duos. Heat and power consumption have never been more important to computer manufacturers, from Intel to the box-assemblers. Solid-state hard disks, LED screens, moves to have 12V DC bricks to power our computers, etc. are all the rage these days. Your argument is about 2 years too late.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot to add the black widows to the boots?!?
'cos this is slashdot.org not bananahammock.org :)
What about IIS7? Faster than Apache, just as modular, easier to install and configure. It's even the recommended server for PHP.
You should see the number of vulnerabilities for Apache vs. IIS! Here's a hit: Apache has more, IIS has none. Oh, and IIS7 is faster than Apache. Even the Zend team recommends people use IIS over Apache.
Next!
Nice straw man argument! Did it take you a while to come up with, or did you get some help?
IIS7 is faster than any Apache out there. Or maybe what a web server does is less important to you than who wrote it?
No, you don't. You restart the service, either from the command-line or from services.msc. Or from the GUI. Or remotely. Your choice. Rebooting isn't required. As for ram bloating? Try again. That doesn't happen with IIS6 or 7.
That's IIS6 - what about IIS7?
So you're sacrificing performance all the time for an eventuality that might never happen. Doesn't sound too logical. It's like driving your car at 10mph all the time because if you have an accident, it'll do less damage.
You should have read those linked products' websites a bit more carefully before posting that :) None of them allow for GUI vhost editing, one doesn't work with Windows, one hasn't been updated since 2003, and one doesn't exist anymore. Not really a great example of the GUIs available for controlling Apache. The ones that work rely on you still editing files by hand, though they do give you an easy way of editing them, which is something completely alien to any IIS administrator.
Ain't nothin' worth explorin' any more ;)
No, I'm saying I use the built-in Windows tools to configure Windows. They're all integrated, need no configuration, and run out of the box. There's nothing ad-hoc about it.
I was going to go into detail about my experience with Linux, but you beat me to it! It sounds like you were doing something very similar to me, but I was just setting up a server. I was doing my bit in 2003/2004, getting a Fedora Core print server set up on our network. I had the spanking-new version of Samba, Kerberos, and CUPS. I managed to get network users automatically authenticating with our Active Directory using Samba and PAM, and I even got CUPS to deliver drivers to Windows clients on the network. I wrote a custom CUPS driver to make a PDF-writing print driver (using PHP and some shell script), which worked fine. As you stated, this is easy to achieve in Windows, indeed a day's worth of work. It took me about a week and a bit to get it set up - finding bugs in all three of the main components I was using (CUPS, Samba and Kerberos), debugging, sending logs to email lists, waiting for responses, etc. With Windows, it was painless. Last week I set up a Windows Small Business Server 2003 box in our new office, with both OS X and XP clients, and it took less than a day to get all that stuff working. Coupled with DHCP, DNS, email, etc. All straight-forward, no emailing logs to anyone, no downloading different bits of software from different sites, no compiling, nothing but deployment. It's not that I don't want Linux to do well, or that I love Bill and his boys, I just found the two approaches to setting up a server radically different, and I know which one I'd rather do again. Sorry Tux.
1. You can change anything in Windows using those tools - what Active Directory lets you do doesn't even figure, as it has nothing to do with configuring client machines, short of allowing an administrator account on the domain execute scripts and applications on each desktop. And it's just one application, not kickstart, rsync, SSH and scripts.
2. Support for Microsoft applications can come from anywhere, not just those vendors. There are literally millions of Windows admins out there who can stop by your office on very short notice and fix things in-house, not just talk you through fixing them over the phone or emailing you some links to FAQs.
3. Lots of Windows sys admins are perfectly happy with their Windows networks. Many I know have tried Linux for various aspects of their network, and never get past trying, due to shortcomings making themselves apparent rather quickly. As for making changes much quicker - you have to be joking. With Windows it's instantaneous - you can roll out changes to massive domains in seconds, to multiple domains, whatever - Linux may be just as fast, but saying Windows is slow when it comes to making changes across networks is plain FUD.
So you'd advocate fighting FUD with FUD? Brilliant!
I hope you're joking, otherwise you are really selfish!
In some places a charge of DUI can only be given if a positive sample is taken using the breath-analyser at a police station, the initial roadside test is performed to allow the police to get this second sample. Having a reading taken at the side of the road is not enough to give you a DUI charge.
What about the systems that call for the driver to give another sample while driving, and if no sample is given, or if the sample fails, the car stops? A balloon is only going to work for so long. But then if someone's the sort of cunt that is determined to endanger others just because they're too cheap to pay for a taxi, I guess they won't think anything about just filling the back seat of their car with balloons.
Exchange isn't just an IMAP server. It has plenty of other functionality that isn't supported on Linux. Shared folders, calendars, etc. Sure you've found a replacement for the calendar, but unless you're going to get the entire company to switch, that means nothing.
Expecting companies to make a leap of faith, losing functionality and compatibility with their clients, etc. is somewhat naive. These are businesses. They have a job to do. If Microsoft lets them do their job, then what's wrong with that? I'm for using the right tool for the job - Linux, Windows, OS X, a fart in a cup, whatever. Saying that because Linux doesn't co-exist with your infrastructure means there's something wrong with your infrastructure is, quite frankly, pathetic. Linux doesn't support everything, and if you require something that Linux doesn't offer, how in the hell is that not Linux's fault? So a company needs to do some video editing - is that somehow condemning their infrastructure because you can't do it on Linux? Or they need to run Photoshop? As soon as linux advocates and developers realise the need to beat windows, not just making excuses for Linux, in order for folks to take it more seriously as an alternative, the better. All this "waah waah Microsoft did this waah waah" bullshit isn't helping anyone, in fact it just makes Linux look inferior as excuses don't run businesses.
The guy works at a company, not a advocacy movement. Microsoft works perfectly for most businesses, to trying to get them to change to something untested is pointless. Most folks don't give a rat's ass if their documents are stored in a closed format - they just care that their documents can be read by clients/colleagues.
Microsoft Windows is fine for the office. So is Microsoft Office. People don't just use it because they have to - many folks want to use it.
That's not a reason to give up. If everyone on the face of the planet was able to think of others as they do themselves, had access to everyone's point of view, none of the bullshit we see happening around the world could happen. I'm sure humanity will get there some day, most likely when we give up our anachronistic views of countries, "them" vs. "us", etc.
If the Germans knew the Jews weren't the problem, that Hitler was an evil dick, etc., then they wouldn't have supported the war. If they knew the truth, millions would have been saved. We need to figure out what's stopping the truth getting to folks, and sorting it out - be it patriotism, ignorance, laziness, crappy media, whatever.
I'm not talking about a "nothing to hide" mentality. Far from it. I'm talking about ensuring our police forces run as the public wants them to, which in turn negates any concerns people have for any technology they use being mis-used.
If you're worried about Kafka-esque bureaucracy, then CCTV isn't your worry - it's the police force and the legal system you are worried about. Fix the problem, not the symptom. You're shooting yourself, and society, in the foot by denying useful technology to the police because you think the police will mis-use it. Fix the police, and the worries go away.
You clearly don't understand the laws surrounding the police holding people without charge. The reasons for the person being in charge are challenged frequently during the person's stay in police custody - by superintedants and judges, with either being able to overrule the claim. The 28 days isn't automatically given, and indeed lots of paperwork and people (both inside the police force and outside) have to agree for someone to stay in custody that long without charge. Your analogy with South Africa is again rather naive - the problem you state isn't people being held for 28 days without charge, but the police abusing their powers. Again - your problem is with the police, not CCTV. By your logic, the police shouldn't even exist, as they can abuse their positions. Clearly you can see your logic is flawed.
We don't have privacy in public. That's why we have the words "private" and "public". There is nothing to stop a policeman from watching you in the streets, and nothing has changed with the advent of CCTV.
I agree with you about fixing the causes of crime, and any sociologist or criminologist will tell you that those fixes will take time. Until they're fixed, the police need to use all technology they can to enforce the laws - indeed they're mandated to do so. Again, by your logic, the police should be disbanded and all efforts should be invested in solving people's need to cause crime, with the public riding out the wave of crime that will follow until crime disappears forever.
You're not everyone. Many, many folks want to run their own choice of applications on their phone. Having unmetered internet access, and not being able to use it for anything other than surfing the web and email (which is just one portion of the internet) seems like one hell of a waste. If what you said was true, then other companies would have been down that route a long time ago. As it is, they saw the benefit of allowing users to run whatever they wanted on their phone, be it a whole host of applications or just the ones that came with the phone, as everyone's different. Wouldn't you want a VoIP client on your phone, so you can make free calls? An SSH client? Games? No?
Most phones have internet access. I had web access on my phone I got back in 2003. It's nothing new. Most phone manufacturers know the web isn't a fad, and most know that web 2.0 is a meaningless buzz-word to describe some ambiguous functionality that's an old part of the X/HTML specifications. Heck, most phones have 3G, which is faster than the iPhone - by your logic, Apple thinks the web is a fad, as they didn't add 3G or even 3.5G.
That's a completely different issue. You didn't bring your SSN with you on the street. These cameras aren't watching your SSN.
You'd be on to something if we didn't see the dramatic decrease in power consumption and heat generation from the P4 Prescott chips to the Core 2 Duos. Heat and power consumption have never been more important to computer manufacturers, from Intel to the box-assemblers. Solid-state hard disks, LED screens, moves to have 12V DC bricks to power our computers, etc. are all the rage these days. Your argument is about 2 years too late.