The only appropriate way to whistle blow IS to go right to the press. The procedures and laws are there to curtail whistle blowing, not protect it. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. That's why freedom of the press is explicity mentioned in the bill of rights.
Our goverment does something wrong, someone alerts the press, we throw out said government officials. That is exactly how its supposed to work.
Well, I'm sitting in a client's office after working from 3-11pm on another job finally getting (I hope) a spontaneous reboot issue on an SBS 2003 install resolved. I have Calyx Point Data Server installed, and it runs a file server. I've had automatic updates disabled FOREVER. I haven't run any windows updates in about 6 months (maybe a year?).
Funny, I run an SBS 2003 server as well and don't have the problem you describe. Seaching on the newsgroups, not many people have your problem. I suspect hardware personally.
I've swapped out the CPU, tested the RAM, switched the NIC to another PCI slot, unmirrored the data drive and disconnected one of the mirrors.
What about the MB? Are you sure your IDE / SATA controller isn't dying? You didn't rule out hardware here, you ruled out a few things. It could be a faulty power supply.
Tonight, I took the problem ID I finally got, and supposedly it's a (somewhat) known problem (that doesn't come up when you search the MS KB) with SP1 on 2k3. Which is odd, considering I've been running on it for at least 6 months without travesty, but hey. I'm just a cave man.
Yet you omit it here.
But really. If none of your shit breaks from an update or an upgrade, you're lucky, or doing nothing mission-critical. You may also not notice the problems if you update frequently, because you're moving on to hotfix(snap) to hotfix(*sproiiing!*). To hotfix. Also, if you have autoupdates enabled, you have no idea what's breaking what. AND, if you just use your computer for internet and porn, you are in no position to discuss what may or may not be broken.
Well if you think an SBS server running a doctors office and many Win2k3 servers running a medium sized business isn't mission critical, then I guess you have a point. We've also recently begun pushing updates to our workstations via WSUS as well. Not one reported problem.
In fact, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, YOUR absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. My evidence will kick your lack of evidence's ass across the room any day.
A few isolated cases is not indicitive of problems with patches in general either. Your ONE problem isn't proof of anything; as I've said, you still have quite a bit of hardware to rule out as a problem.
While you're correct that XP's firewall can block IIS, it isn't even an issue on most machines. The default configuration, even for XP Pro, doesn't install IIS. As with Vista, you much go into the Windows Components section of the (Add/Remove) Programs window and select it. In XP you'll also need the install media; in Vista IIS is part of the installation image (this is part of why Vista's install footprint is so big; every feature, even those you aren't going to use, is copied to the hard drive at install time).
I wasn't sure as I haven't installed XP in a while, so I didn't want to put out a statement that I wasn't sure is true. Thanks for confirming this though, its what I expected, but didn't have time to verify.
"My band, they sold out MAN. What a bunch of sellouts MAN. Before I was the only cool person to like this band, and now that they haven't changed and have become people, I can't use that to make myself seem really cool MAN."
Ugh. You just liked FF because no one was using it. You'll leave anything that becomes popular, because popular things can't be cool, MAN.
They simply corrected the build process to work under Debian.
Yet it builds fine on all the other distros? No, it sounds like they hacked FF to work on a broken system.
Personally I can't wait until WebKit and Konqueror finish remerging code. Once Konqueror gets a Windows build, it's game-over for Firefox. It's a better browser - it just hasn't, until recently, run on Windows.
Konq is an awful browser. It was slow and couldn't render a great number of sites. Konq isn't going to displace FF anytime soon.
Southern Chester county, down near the Maryland and Delaware borders. Allentown and Philly aren't too awfully far away.
Not that far at all, especially since the blue route has been completed.
Possibly. Short of shifting the burden entirely to those with kids, another thing that might help is school vouchers. This would allow parents who send kids to private schools (because the public schools are so horrible) to make at least partial use of the taxes they pay. This also has the effect of decoupling the school budget from the taxes. However, I'm pretty sure the public school system would collapse within a few years, and that might leave some of the poorer parents unable to send their kids to school.
I agree; that would only further crush public schools at all. It still doesn't give people a simple value metric to decide of whether or not to have kids or figure out what some of the costs will be. Even with welfare or WIC, the poor are still forced to decide how much to spend on what. If you get name brands you get less food than generics. We need the same thing for schools, otherwise it gets to a point like we have here... people vote for the higher taxes.
Another option would be to only publicly fund eduction for children who come from families with an income below some arbitrary level. This would make the parents who could afford it directly responsible for the investment in education while not leaving the poorer children without any choices. Done correctly, it would also probably reduce the per household tax burden. At the very list, it would make it very clear what the cost per child was. I think if people knew exactly what that cost was, some eyebrows would be going up and some investigations would take place. I cringe at what they would find.
You will have the middle and upper classes rightly claiming that its unfair to them; they not only pay for thier child, but for the poor's children. So any less tax is now going to pay for thier own kids education bill. It also does nothing to discourage the poor from having more children.
My solution, open to anyone that cannot afford it, is the same solution for college. Low interest educational loans. I have not problems with those, even using some tax money to get the program going. Ideally the interest income would pay for program itself.
Another more extreme option is this (and this also solve the welfare problem too): If you give birth to a child and your finances (purely looking at income / debt) don't allow you to take care of it, you lose the child and it will go to adoptive parents. Adoptive parents cannot adopt outside the US unless there are no children in the US that need adoption. I won't promise this solution would work, but I think it may have potential.
Agreed. This is just another part of a flawed system. I suspect the intention is that if you have a bigger house, you have more money and therefore should have a larger share of the tax burden. Unfortunately, that's not always the case. You might inherit a house that's really nice, but if that's your sole possession, you aren't wealthy. If everyone is to be taxed, it would be better to have those taxes spread fairly. Any ideas what the fairest method would be? Assume for the moment that not having children doesn't allow you to escape.
My end goal is simply to reduce taxes (and censorship). The only really fair method is to direct bill the parents, and let those without kids alone. As long as its coming from tax money, you're ignoring that some people have no kids, some one, some two, some have six. I very much doubt a "kid" tax would ever fly, but I know that there are some counties in VA or SC (I can't remember, in that area somewhere) that already have the system I suggest (direct bill only). Property taxes are VERY low, and schools are better than average.
I hate to break this to you, but you can work at the fry station in burger king and guys will still emphasize that you're hot (or not). How about accepting guys for how they are? There are plenty of things I could deal on that women do that are annoying, but I choose to accept them instead and move on.
You don't get the benefit you describe at all. Instead, the government wastes more time listening in on calls that are of no value at all; calls that a judge would have said "no, there's not enough evidence" to listen in on, and thus waste time listening to.
Roosevelt is also not infallible. You could say the same things about US internment camps of the same error; just because it was done for some vague good doesn't mean it was right or moral.
You claimed you installed six Win2k3 and the default was IIS on and an IIS administration site already setup and open to the world, and that's simply not true. I'm sorry, but I don't know what else to call someone who isn't telling the truth. I'm not going to get too upset by someone who's posts start at 0 at any rate.
Regarding the children, though, it's usually imagery from a horror movie. While it doesn't really bother me, it can cause nightmares for the kids. I personally don't care if they show the advertisements, but please not during the middle of children's programming. I don't really want a rating system on commercials, just for somebody who does the scheduling to avoid heavy medication prior to making decisions on what commercials go where.
Well I can't say that I believe nightmares are a bad thing for kids to have, I would think its a normal part of growing up. I am suprised that R rated movies are being advertised during a kids show. Its been a while since I've watched any, and when I was watching those shows it was pretty much toys and video games.
I'm assuming you wouldn't have a problem with a rating system whose cost was borne entirely by its users?
I'm not sure that's a fair question, because I don't think such a rating system could exist. Cost is also only part of the problem; as I've said, when you have a rating you have content developers self-censoring to fit into a particular rating.
One thing you may find interesting -- At least the for movie business, the ratings system was self-imposed by the MPAA. However, you would probably be unsurprised to find that it was a more or less direct response to the threat of outright censorship.
I am aware of that; censorship is also why the film industry is mostly centered in CA. It was believed that if they moved out to the "Wild west" they could escape the mandates of congress. Outright censorship in my mind is unconsitutional; its pretty clear our founders wanted a free exchange of ideas.
You may also be interested to know that when the printing press was first invented people had the same problems with books as they do today with movies, games and music. Back then it was the romance novel that people were upset about. Yet we've managed fine without a ratings system for books, I don't see why movies, music or games should be any different.
Ah, we don't have this luxury. However, proposed big increases are generally put to a referendum. The last one that I mentioned (on increasing the local earned income tax) was shot down. But the officials in charge did everything they could to push it through. They sent confusing information to the public that tried to disguise it as a tax break (they offered to reduce the property taxes by a maximum of $311 annually per household if we voted for the higher EIT (which based on demographics would have increased the tax by an average of nearly $600 annually per household). They also planned the vote during an off-year election for the primaries, when hardly anybody would show up, and I think the polls were only open during working hours. I was so angry about it that I took off work to vote and called up all my neighbors asking them to do the same. Needless to say, the thing lost by a landslide. In fact, state-wide, I heard it only passed in two townships (Pennsylvania).
I'm not sure its a luxury. It seems as the totally illogical are now in charge today. We now are most people voting FOR higher and higher taxes. Where in PA are you from? I grew up between Allentown and Philly.
That's totally illogical, and I'd be pretty upset about it too. The only reason to keep a school that's less than half full open is if attendance is expected to swing up strongly in the next few years (as it's more expensive to build a new school than to keep the old one open for a few years). If they did that around here, I think there'd be a war. As it is, they built new schools recently. For some reason, there's an opinion that children will somehow be better educated in a newer physical structure. I have no idea whose brain fart that is, but it's the idea. One of the schools probably _did_ need to be replaced, as the structure was aging, but the other certainly didn't. So now we get to pay the cost of new schools in the budget. And I heard recently that the new
Well you're lying about something then, because there's no admin site that comes setup in IIS that's enabled and open to everyone by default. The default IIS install doesn't allow anything except static pages which IIS has MIME types for.
However, what about XP? Of the MS server platforms MS Server 2003 has negligable market penetration compared to XP.
SP2 firewalls it by default, IIRC. Also, XP is not a server platform, so I don't know why you'd compare 2003 to XP as servers.
It's common enough for MS patches and upgrades and services packs to turn things on or off, change configurations or just plain break something. So it's happened before, and since most of us have to work and don't have time or interest to follow the details of MS Windows, it's logical to ask.
Not really. The "secure by default" push isn't a one event and now that its "done" MS is going to go back to turning everything on by default. I work with MS products everyday, and nothing has broken as a result of a SP or even update for quite a while now.
It's also logical to ask because the remaining MS Windows users have become so used to that kind of effect from patches, upgrades and service packs that they don't complain. In fact it gains them a few hours of overtime. The press doesn't comment either, because it happens again and again and is business as usual, and because the remaining trade magazines are so dependent on MS advertising that the editors won't let any non-praise slip through.
Um, most people that need to work if MS breaks a patch don't get paid overtime. The press has no problem repeating the same garbage over and over again. They love disaster stories and if something like Sql slammer hit again you can bet they'd be on it.
Easy to dismiss any and all critique or questioning as "bashing", isn't it.
Having used both extensively over the past 10 years, IMHO 90% of the config tasks are easier with IIS for a non-expert, but 5% are MUCH harder, and the remaining 5% you just can't do at all. Period. It's that 5% that makes IIS a non-option for me personally.
Did one of the service packs or 'security' upgrades install and turn on IIS for all Windows users?
*Sigh* More mindless bashing. Starting with Server 2003 (four years ago now) IIS is off by default. In Vista, its not even installed.
Or are more domain parkers and cybersquatters using IIS in the server identification string?
If you read the link, you'd see they seperate total sites from "active" sites. I took it to mean active as in "not parked." If you look at the active only trends, IIS is even closer to Apache in marketshare.
So the simple explaination is that IIS is being more widely deployed.
First, text editors have this really nifty feature called "search". Takes you right to the string that you request
Yea, becuase I remember exactly the tag for each individual option. Especially if I'm not quite sure what the option would be called.
Second, what if I want to see/verify all settings? What if I want to make sure that Server B is configured exactly the same as Server A? Much easier to scroll through (or diff) a config file than to click on every single frigging tab and subdialog, remembering which ones I have looked at and what they were set to.
Ahh, very simple. Export your configuration once you have your setup, and import the settings on the other computer. No need to even compare, you KNOW its identically setup now.
Yes, to each his own, but anyone who has done anything beyond setting up a single web server once, curses the MS GUI configuration interfaces.
Only if they don't know the tools they have readily available to them because they'd rather look at a text file then look around a GUI for a few seconds.
Enough of that nonsense, unless you have a 10,000 line display, you don't see ALL the options on one screen editing a text file. Nevermind how easy it is to have an error by typo.
Yes, I've been using IIS for about eight years now and have always been able to easly find the options I need. I also now run exchange / outlook. 95% of the time I can find what I need without even consulting the documentation. Not true with Apache (or linux in general). That's one of the reasons I swtiched my servers to Windows; it was much easier to manange.
Yes, there is more to it than that, but you still need selfcontrol and to not be lazy to burn the calories. You can have high carb foods, its just a matter of having only one serving. Also for me switching to whole wheat pasta helps as well, since the carbs are more comlex.
I stand by my condemnation though; saying that someone hasn't found something to works is a cope out and they aren't trying hard enough. At the very least you know you can cut out chips and soda and other snacks, and that will help immensely.
I hope you don't give up. I started changing my habits because I just felt lousy when I got up to 250 (I'm also 6'2"). Yes, it was hard at first, but if you can make it two or three weeks you can really make the changes you need to. I don't crave fries constantly, or chips or cakes. I can even have them once in a while, in moderation.
It sounds like you've done it before; you need to change how you eat, and you don't totally cut out things you enjoy. You just enjoy them less oftem (which can make them more special).
You do have the willpower in you... you just need to find a way to bring it out.
Because you can't learn something new? I honestly don't know why any serious shop even bothers with the MP part of LAMP. A database that doesn't support ACID and a scripting language? Scripting was the bigest PIA and is horrid for any larger website. Postgres and Java would be a nice step up.
Asp.Net is a very nice (and productive) way to build websites. Sql server is a very good db server. Its much easier to build sites in Asp.net than in a scripted language.
Slashdot Mirror
The only appropriate way to whistle blow IS to go right to the press. The procedures and laws are there to curtail whistle blowing, not protect it. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. That's why freedom of the press is explicity mentioned in the bill of rights.
Our goverment does something wrong, someone alerts the press, we throw out said government officials. That is exactly how its supposed to work.
Nope, I actually do know Linux server management as well. Its more time consuming that Windows.
Well, I'm sitting in a client's office after working from 3-11pm on another job finally getting (I hope) a spontaneous reboot issue on an SBS 2003 install resolved. I have Calyx Point Data Server installed, and it runs a file server. I've had automatic updates disabled FOREVER. I haven't run any windows updates in about 6 months (maybe a year?).
Funny, I run an SBS 2003 server as well and don't have the problem you describe. Seaching on the newsgroups, not many people have your problem. I suspect hardware personally.
I've swapped out the CPU, tested the RAM, switched the NIC to another PCI slot, unmirrored the data drive and disconnected one of the mirrors.
What about the MB? Are you sure your IDE / SATA controller isn't dying? You didn't rule out hardware here, you ruled out a few things. It could be a faulty power supply.
Tonight, I took the problem ID I finally got, and supposedly it's a (somewhat) known problem (that doesn't come up when you search the MS KB) with SP1 on 2k3. Which is odd, considering I've been running on it for at least 6 months without travesty, but hey. I'm just a cave man.
Yet you omit it here.
But really. If none of your shit breaks from an update or an upgrade, you're lucky, or doing nothing mission-critical. You may also not notice the problems if you update frequently, because you're moving on to hotfix(snap) to hotfix(*sproiiing!*). To hotfix. Also, if you have autoupdates enabled, you have no idea what's breaking what. AND, if you just use your computer for internet and porn, you are in no position to discuss what may or may not be broken.
Well if you think an SBS server running a doctors office and many Win2k3 servers running a medium sized business isn't mission critical, then I guess you have a point. We've also recently begun pushing updates to our workstations via WSUS as well. Not one reported problem.
In fact, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, YOUR absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. My evidence will kick your lack of evidence's ass across the room any day.
A few isolated cases is not indicitive of problems with patches in general either. Your ONE problem isn't proof of anything; as I've said, you still have quite a bit of hardware to rule out as a problem.
While you're correct that XP's firewall can block IIS, it isn't even an issue on most machines. The default configuration, even for XP Pro, doesn't install IIS. As with Vista, you much go into the Windows Components section of the (Add/Remove) Programs window and select it. In XP you'll also need the install media; in Vista IIS is part of the installation image (this is part of why Vista's install footprint is so big; every feature, even those you aren't going to use, is copied to the hard drive at install time).
I wasn't sure as I haven't installed XP in a while, so I didn't want to put out a statement that I wasn't sure is true. Thanks for confirming this though, its what I expected, but didn't have time to verify.
Opps... become people should be become popular..
"My band, they sold out MAN. What a bunch of sellouts MAN. Before I was the only cool person to like this band, and now that they haven't changed and have become people, I can't use that to make myself seem really cool MAN."
Ugh. You just liked FF because no one was using it. You'll leave anything that becomes popular, because popular things can't be cool, MAN.
They simply corrected the build process to work under Debian.
Yet it builds fine on all the other distros? No, it sounds like they hacked FF to work on a broken system.
Personally I can't wait until WebKit and Konqueror finish remerging code. Once Konqueror gets a Windows build, it's game-over for Firefox. It's a better browser - it just hasn't, until recently, run on Windows.
Konq is an awful browser. It was slow and couldn't render a great number of sites. Konq isn't going to displace FF anytime soon.
Yet if this was done by some MS employee I'm sure /. would be bashing away.
Hmm, I've found the .Net help to be better than help in vb6.
Southern Chester county, down near the Maryland and Delaware borders. Allentown and Philly aren't too awfully far away.
Not that far at all, especially since the blue route has been completed.
Possibly. Short of shifting the burden entirely to those with kids, another thing that might help is school vouchers. This would allow parents who send kids to private schools (because the public schools are so horrible) to make at least partial use of the taxes they pay. This also has the effect of decoupling the school budget from the taxes. However, I'm pretty sure the public school system would collapse within a few years, and that might leave some of the poorer parents unable to send their kids to school.
I agree; that would only further crush public schools at all. It still doesn't give people a simple value metric to decide of whether or not to have kids or figure out what some of the costs will be. Even with welfare or WIC, the poor are still forced to decide how much to spend on what. If you get name brands you get less food than generics. We need the same thing for schools, otherwise it gets to a point like we have here... people vote for the higher taxes.
Another option would be to only publicly fund eduction for children who come from families with an income below some arbitrary level. This would make the parents who could afford it directly responsible for the investment in education while not leaving the poorer children without any choices. Done correctly, it would also probably reduce the per household tax burden. At the very list, it would make it very clear what the cost per child was. I think if people knew exactly what that cost was, some eyebrows would be going up and some investigations would take place. I cringe at what they would find.
You will have the middle and upper classes rightly claiming that its unfair to them; they not only pay for thier child, but for the poor's children. So any less tax is now going to pay for thier own kids education bill. It also does nothing to discourage the poor from having more children.
My solution, open to anyone that cannot afford it, is the same solution for college. Low interest educational loans. I have not problems with those, even using some tax money to get the program going. Ideally the interest income would pay for program itself.
Another more extreme option is this (and this also solve the welfare problem too): If you give birth to a child and your finances (purely looking at income / debt) don't allow you to take care of it, you lose the child and it will go to adoptive parents. Adoptive parents cannot adopt outside the US unless there are no children in the US that need adoption. I won't promise this solution would work, but I think it may have potential.
Agreed. This is just another part of a flawed system. I suspect the intention is that if you have a bigger house, you have more money and therefore should have a larger share of the tax burden. Unfortunately, that's not always the case. You might inherit a house that's really nice, but if that's your sole possession, you aren't wealthy. If everyone is to be taxed, it would be better to have those taxes spread fairly. Any ideas what the fairest method would be? Assume for the moment that not having children doesn't allow you to escape.
My end goal is simply to reduce taxes (and censorship). The only really fair method is to direct bill the parents, and let those without kids alone. As long as its coming from tax money, you're ignoring that some people have no kids, some one, some two, some have six. I very much doubt a "kid" tax would ever fly, but I know that there are some counties in VA or SC (I can't remember, in that area somewhere) that already have the system I suggest (direct bill only). Property taxes are VERY low, and schools are better than average.
I hate to break this to you, but you can work at the fry station in burger king and guys will still emphasize that you're hot (or not). How about accepting guys for how they are? There are plenty of things I could deal on that women do that are annoying, but I choose to accept them instead and move on.
You don't get the benefit you describe at all. Instead, the government wastes more time listening in on calls that are of no value at all; calls that a judge would have said "no, there's not enough evidence" to listen in on, and thus waste time listening to.
Roosevelt is also not infallible. You could say the same things about US internment camps of the same error; just because it was done for some vague good doesn't mean it was right or moral.
You claimed you installed six Win2k3 and the default was IIS on and an IIS administration site already setup and open to the world, and that's simply not true. I'm sorry, but I don't know what else to call someone who isn't telling the truth. I'm not going to get too upset by someone who's posts start at 0 at any rate.
Regarding the children, though, it's usually imagery from a horror movie. While it doesn't really bother me, it can cause nightmares for the kids. I personally don't care if they show the advertisements, but please not during the middle of children's programming. I don't really want a rating system on commercials, just for somebody who does the scheduling to avoid heavy medication prior to making decisions on what commercials go where.
Well I can't say that I believe nightmares are a bad thing for kids to have, I would think its a normal part of growing up. I am suprised that R rated movies are being advertised during a kids show. Its been a while since I've watched any, and when I was watching those shows it was pretty much toys and video games.
I'm assuming you wouldn't have a problem with a rating system whose cost was borne entirely by its users?
I'm not sure that's a fair question, because I don't think such a rating system could exist. Cost is also only part of the problem; as I've said, when you have a rating you have content developers self-censoring to fit into a particular rating.
One thing you may find interesting -- At least the for movie business, the ratings system was self-imposed by the MPAA. However, you would probably be unsurprised to find that it was a more or less direct response to the threat of outright censorship.
I am aware of that; censorship is also why the film industry is mostly centered in CA. It was believed that if they moved out to the "Wild west" they could escape the mandates of congress. Outright censorship in my mind is unconsitutional; its pretty clear our founders wanted a free exchange of ideas.
You may also be interested to know that when the printing press was first invented people had the same problems with books as they do today with movies, games and music. Back then it was the romance novel that people were upset about. Yet we've managed fine without a ratings system for books, I don't see why movies, music or games should be any different.
Ah, we don't have this luxury. However, proposed big increases are generally put to a referendum. The last one that I mentioned (on increasing the local earned income tax) was shot down. But the officials in charge did everything they could to push it through. They sent confusing information to the public that tried to disguise it as a tax break (they offered to reduce the property taxes by a maximum of $311 annually per household if we voted for the higher EIT (which based on demographics would have increased the tax by an average of nearly $600 annually per household). They also planned the vote during an off-year election for the primaries, when hardly anybody would show up, and I think the polls were only open during working hours. I was so angry about it that I took off work to vote and called up all my neighbors asking them to do the same. Needless to say, the thing lost by a landslide. In fact, state-wide, I heard it only passed in two townships (Pennsylvania).
I'm not sure its a luxury. It seems as the totally illogical are now in charge today. We now are most people voting FOR higher and higher taxes. Where in PA are you from? I grew up between Allentown and Philly.
That's totally illogical, and I'd be pretty upset about it too. The only reason to keep a school that's less than half full open is if attendance is expected to swing up strongly in the next few years (as it's more expensive to build a new school than to keep the old one open for a few years). If they did that around here, I think there'd be a war. As it is, they built new schools recently. For some reason, there's an opinion that children will somehow be better educated in a newer physical structure. I have no idea whose brain fart that is, but it's the idea. One of the schools probably _did_ need to be replaced, as the structure was aging, but the other certainly didn't. So now we get to pay the cost of new schools in the budget. And I heard recently that the new
Well you're lying about something then, because there's no admin site that comes setup in IIS that's enabled and open to everyone by default. The default IIS install doesn't allow anything except static pages which IIS has MIME types for.
However, what about XP? Of the MS server platforms MS Server 2003 has negligable market penetration compared to XP.
SP2 firewalls it by default, IIRC. Also, XP is not a server platform, so I don't know why you'd compare 2003 to XP as servers.
It's common enough for MS patches and upgrades and services packs to turn things on or off, change configurations or just plain break something. So it's happened before, and since most of us have to work and don't have time or interest to follow the details of MS Windows, it's logical to ask.
Not really. The "secure by default" push isn't a one event and now that its "done" MS is going to go back to turning everything on by default. I work with MS products everyday, and nothing has broken as a result of a SP or even update for quite a while now.
It's also logical to ask because the remaining MS Windows users have become so used to that kind of effect from patches, upgrades and service packs that they don't complain. In fact it gains them a few hours of overtime. The press doesn't comment either, because it happens again and again and is business as usual, and because the remaining trade magazines are so dependent on MS advertising that the editors won't let any non-praise slip through.
Um, most people that need to work if MS breaks a patch don't get paid overtime. The press has no problem repeating the same garbage over and over again. They love disaster stories and if something like Sql slammer hit again you can bet they'd be on it.
Easy to dismiss any and all critique or questioning as "bashing", isn't it.
When its not based in any truth, it certainly is.
If Perl/Php are your languages of choice, you must be a sadist.
Having used both extensively over the past 10 years, IMHO 90% of the config tasks are easier with IIS for a non-expert, but
5% are MUCH harder, and the remaining 5% you just can't do at all. Period. It's that 5% that makes IIS a non-option for me personally.
What 5% is harder or not possible?
I'm guessing its be a while since you last touched an MS product.
Did one of the service packs or 'security' upgrades install and turn on IIS for all Windows users?
*Sigh* More mindless bashing. Starting with Server 2003 (four years ago now) IIS is off by default. In Vista, its not even installed.
Or are more domain parkers and cybersquatters using IIS in the server identification string?
If you read the link, you'd see they seperate total sites from "active" sites. I took it to mean active as in "not parked." If you look at the active only trends, IIS is even closer to Apache in marketshare.
So the simple explaination is that IIS is being more widely deployed.
First, text editors have this really nifty feature called "search". Takes you right to the string that you request
Yea, becuase I remember exactly the tag for each individual option. Especially if I'm not quite sure what the option would be called.
Second, what if I want to see/verify all settings? What if I want to make sure that Server B is configured exactly the same as Server A? Much easier to scroll through (or diff) a config file than to click on every single frigging tab and subdialog, remembering which ones I have looked at and what they were set to.
Ahh, very simple. Export your configuration once you have your setup, and import the settings on the other computer. No need to even compare, you KNOW its identically setup now.
Yes, to each his own, but anyone who has done anything beyond setting up a single web server once, curses the MS GUI configuration interfaces.
Only if they don't know the tools they have readily available to them because they'd rather look at a text file then look around a GUI for a few seconds.
Enough of that nonsense, unless you have a 10,000 line display, you don't see ALL the options on one screen editing a text file. Nevermind how easy it is to have an error by typo.
Yes, I've been using IIS for about eight years now and have always been able to easly find the options I need. I also now run exchange / outlook. 95% of the time I can find what I need without even consulting the documentation. Not true with Apache (or linux in general). That's one of the reasons I swtiched my servers to Windows; it was much easier to manange.
Yes, there is more to it than that, but you still need selfcontrol and to not be lazy to burn the calories. You can have high carb foods, its just a matter of having only one serving. Also for me switching to whole wheat pasta helps as well, since the carbs are more comlex.
I stand by my condemnation though; saying that someone hasn't found something to works is a cope out and they aren't trying hard enough. At the very least you know you can cut out chips and soda and other snacks, and that will help immensely.
I hope you don't give up. I started changing my habits because I just felt lousy when I got up to 250 (I'm also 6'2"). Yes, it was hard at first, but if you can make it two or three weeks you can really make the changes you need to. I don't crave fries constantly, or chips or cakes. I can even have them once in a while, in moderation.
It sounds like you've done it before; you need to change how you eat, and you don't totally cut out things you enjoy. You just enjoy them less oftem (which can make them more special).
You do have the willpower in you... you just need to find a way to bring it out.
Because you can't learn something new? I honestly don't know why any serious shop even bothers with the MP part of LAMP. A database that doesn't support ACID and a scripting language? Scripting was the bigest PIA and is horrid for any larger website. Postgres and Java would be a nice step up.
Asp.Net is a very nice (and productive) way to build websites. Sql server is a very good db server. Its much easier to build sites in Asp.net than in a scripted language.