No, it takes one 3 months got get a handle on the Windows GUI tools for Windows admin. That does not mean the admin understands anything about how his system works and why things are configured the way they are. Which means, when something serious goes wrong (as often happens in Windows), he won't have a clue where to start looking and probably won't understand the problem, even if someone points it out to him.
Also, your statement that it takes a linux admin 5 years to get a firm handle on linux, wrongly assumes that all linux administrators are ex Windows boys. It may take a GUI-clicky-pointy-mouse dependant Windows user 5 years to get a firm handle on linux. But most people who've been around before windows get into it quite quickly. And people whose first computer exposure happened to be on linux learns the fastest of all. I know a few guys who has never used a GUI based OS before they got into linux, and you'll be amazed how quickly they learn without the restraints imposed by being needing pictures in order to understand your computer.
"But people that HAVE TO HAVE PC3200 vs. PC2700 memory or 10k rpm vs. 7200rpm drives... please, people, please!"
Unless you do CPU intensive stuff (in which case memory speed definitely has an effect - compare the performance of a P4 running PC133 SD-RAM to that of one running dual channel DDR400), more memory generally helps more than faster memory.
But you can't seriously, with a straight face, tell me the different between a 7200rpm and a 10k rpm disc is not significant.
Maybe the secretary won't care, but for the rest of us? Go get used to a 10k rpm disc, and then go back to the old 7200rpm. You'll see...
"Oh, I do buy the drives with 8MB cache, but that's because they're the only ones with 5yr warranties. I don't know if they really are faster since I don't have 2MB drives to compare against."
They definitely are if you have multiple things accessing your disc.
True about the degree-ed people. Computer certifications is a big bullshit business, as far as I'm concerned. At least for the regular stuff like MCSE, A+ and N+
We've interviewed so many guys with these qualifications that don't know dick about what they're supposed good at.
MCSEs are the worst. I don't know what they teach them. I have no MS qualifications, in fact, I'm mainly a self taught unix boy. But simply because I have an understanding of how things work and know how to apply what I know in theory, I'm often able to fix Windows problems the the MSCEs just can't.
But I must agree, the majority of Cisco certified guys I've dealt with knew their stuff. Same with RHCE.
You make a valid point. What exactly you're dealing with, what your logistics are makes a huge difference. We're about 50:1 - we do everything from plugging in the cable that a user somehow got unseated and where did my cat/dog/wizzard annoying office assistang go? to seting up their desktops and servers, linking up multiple offices of the same company, sometimes on either sides of the ocean (with out actually going overseas).
And this is just on the support side - the same guys also do work like build custom firewall solutions for ISPs.
On top of that our clients are spread over a 120km radius, most of them no more than 15 computer users per company, so a lot of time is lost to travel. At 50:1 the pressure is pretty high, and that doesn't really reflect on the support guys' competence, seeing as most of the support calls is for petty nonsens and PEBCAC problems.
You'd be surprised just how computer-clueless some engineers can be, even engineers whose engineering concerns IT. I have met a couple of software engineers/programms who can explain the most complex things about computer hardware and/or software, yet they are incapable of setting up and maintaining a Windows desktop.
Different strokes...
"adding the base dn entries, and then doing one ldapadd by hand to create the "organization" level objects in the OpenLDAP database."
What exactly do you add initially - I've been toying with this on and off when I get time. I've managed to do it right a few times, but I can never do it again in the same way...
Could you post and ldif file for that first organization entry?
NO, read my post again - I was talking about SUSE Linux Enterprise Server. There are significant differences between the two, of which the LDAP server module is one.
There's a tool available from Symantec that you can use to remove the rubbish that the normal Norton uninstaller leaves behind, well, some of it at least. ftp://ftp.symantec.com/misc/consumer/Rnav2003.exe
Gettin rid of Norton is a bit of a problem in some cases. I've seen what you discribe happen on Windows98. The boxen came shipped with an OEM customised Windows98SE with Norton Antivirus, Utilities and Internet Security included and somehow integrated. No uninstallers included.
Ripping them out by hand broke networking on each machine.
I was specifically commenting on an earlier poster's comment about Norton breaking a network connection by "binding itself to the Network Drivers so DHCP won't work."
Even if you're an all Windows shop, if you have an internet connection, you need a good firewall. This doesn't have to be your main server (should never be your main server, rally), and it doesn't have to be the world's most powerful box either.
An old Pentium 100 with 32mb ram + IP-COP (www.ipcop.org) will give you a very good firewall, with DNS, DHCP, NTP, proxy and intrusion detection. It's child play to install, uses a web interface for configuration, so even a die-hard windows junky can use it without any problems.
"Windows 2003 (in particular) does a pretty decent job serving up common network services" [snip] "I've run McAfee 8.0 on File servers/DNS/DHCP servers for a while and it doesn't seem to effect it all."
Sure enough, I don't disagree at all. I have a couple of Windows 2000 and 2003 servers doing a variety of things for clients. But remember what this thread is about - virus scanners not stopping the virus. If Joe User puts some infected file on your file server, and your virus scanner doesn't pick it up, your server is now at risk too.
That's my main concern. At least if your basic services like DHCP/DNS and even file or DC is done by a separate machine, if your Windows box gets hosed by a virus or your network gets broken thanks to crap antivirus products like Symantec's, your network doesn't go down too.
"Your an idiot for not running virus software on a server period."
Of course. Running antivirus software that executes virus code or doesn't detect it at all or breaks your network stack isn't any better, either.
I'm not trying to start an OS war here. I didn't even say the "L" word, after all. But I take issue with Antivirus/"Ineternet Security" products which cost a small fortune and don't do they job they advertise.
And if paying a handful of dollars for an old box to put linux/bsd on to take over some of the services essential to network stability helps protect my Windows server against an antivirus package's failure, then that's what I'll do.
True, PEBCAC problem is often to blame, but I'm not talking about joe avarage at home. This is a corporate envirnment, where we take care that each machine is updated regularly. I was talking about an up to date Norton with the latest definitions. An up to date Norton that tells me that beyond any doubt, this PC is clean, while I *know* it's not.
These things happen over and over. Every time we get a new client who swears by Norton, we have the same thing over and over. We update their virus definitions, scan the PCs, then pull Noron off just one PC, install BitDefender, scan the whole PC, and what do you know? A hand full of virus/trojan/backdoor found. Stuff that Norton claims to stop. It never fails - there's always something that slipped through somehwere, that allows us to convince them to pull the plug on Symantec and install something proper.
We just refuse to support neworks that rely on Norton, because its a lot of time wasted that could be spent improving other things.
I can't really speak for MacCaffee, because only one of our clients use it, and they happen to be an IT company with really clued up users who don't go open funny-looking mails and do other stupid things. So we never have issues there.
My point is Symantecs products are nowhere near as good as they used to be, and they're definitely not keeping up with the competition.
"binding itself to the Network Drivers so DHCP won't work"
That's why you really shouldn't run networks services like DHCP off a Windows box.
No, seriously, this goes beyond the fanboy linux vs windows arguments. Having to run antivirus software to "protect" your server is adding an unnecessary extra point of possible failure.
Would it matter? Symantec's antivirus products are getting shittier by the day. I've lost count of the times that I go to a first time client who's complaining their computer is behaving "funny."
I sit down in front of the computer, and I can see it's infected with something. The signs are the, writing is on the wall. But norton/symantec enterprise, updated and all, is telling me it's clean. So I download McCaffee Stinger or BitDefender's free scanner, clean the Machine out, and sell something better to them.
Case in point. I have a client who's ISP is running Symantec antivirus gateway on the ISP side. Behind that gateway, I've got a postfix box with amavis-new and clam, h+bedv and bitdefender scanners. You won't believe the amount of virusses I still catch, stuff that make it through symantec's waste_of_cpu_cycles_software.
Symantec was the good stuff back in the good old DOS days. Now they're baking in their former glory, but they're loosing business and I'm happy so see them burn if they don't get off their butts and start improving their software.
I used to run Return To Castle Wolfenstein and Quake 3 through wine (before the linux binaries came out) from KDE on Red Hat on a Celeron 500 with 256 MB and I actually got a 1 or 2 fps speed increase over running them natively in Windows.
People should stop bitching and moaning and just do it. If you do, and send friendly and polite requests for extra support/features under linux (instead of complaining on public forums to people who can't help you even if they wanted to), you'll see the game manufacturers waking up to linux. Just look at Id...
"Move the cursor with HJKL... Couldn't they at least pick something in a shape similar to the way you're moving, like WASD?"
I think that those keys were chosen on machines there weren't PCs and probably had different keyboard layout.
Anyway, vi wasn't intended to be the simple basic editor. It's meant for the power user. Comparing vi to dos edit is like bitching about Photoshop being more complicated to use the windows paint. They're not aimed at the same people.
I wish people would stop expecting to be able to use powerful tools without wanting to learn to use them. If you don't want to learn to drive, get an automatic. If you want the power and control that a stick shift offers. learn to work the damn thing.
Norton is a piece of shit. I cann't believe people still pay the premium for that.
I have a number of linux mail server running postfix+amavis+clam/bdc/h+bedv command line scanners, sitting BEHIND ISP's Symantec antivirus mail gateways, and you won't believe the sheer volume of virus mails I still catch.
They're resting on their reputation of 10 years ago. They're products are slow, break your windows (you ever tried uninstalling it and installing another antivirus package? Or just adding one?), cost too much and are generally very ineffective.
My company now refuses to support networks who insist on using Symantec's products. It's just too much time wasted
Slashdot Mirror
No, it takes one 3 months got get a handle on the Windows GUI tools for Windows admin. That does not mean the admin understands anything about how his system works and why things are configured the way they are. Which means, when something serious goes wrong (as often happens in Windows), he won't have a clue where to start looking and probably won't understand the problem, even if someone points it out to him.
Also, your statement that it takes a linux admin 5 years to get a firm handle on linux, wrongly assumes that all linux administrators are ex Windows boys. It may take a GUI-clicky-pointy-mouse dependant Windows user 5 years to get a firm handle on linux. But most people who've been around before windows get into it quite quickly. And people whose first computer exposure happened to be on linux learns the fastest of all. I know a few guys who has never used a GUI based OS before they got into linux, and you'll be amazed how quickly they learn without the restraints imposed by being needing pictures in order to understand your computer.
"But people that HAVE TO HAVE PC3200 vs. PC2700 memory or 10k rpm vs. 7200rpm drives... please, people, please!"
Unless you do CPU intensive stuff (in which case memory speed definitely has an effect - compare the performance of a P4 running PC133 SD-RAM to that of one running dual channel DDR400), more memory generally helps more than faster memory.
But you can't seriously, with a straight face, tell me the different between a 7200rpm and a 10k rpm disc is not significant.
Maybe the secretary won't care, but for the rest of us? Go get used to a 10k rpm disc, and then go back to the old 7200rpm. You'll see...
"Oh, I do buy the drives with 8MB cache, but that's because they're the only ones with 5yr warranties. I don't know if they really are faster since I don't have 2MB drives to compare against."
They definitely are if you have multiple things accessing your disc.
True about the degree-ed people. Computer certifications is a big bullshit business, as far as I'm concerned. At least for the regular stuff like MCSE, A+ and N+
We've interviewed so many guys with these qualifications that don't know dick about what they're supposed good at.
MCSEs are the worst. I don't know what they teach them. I have no MS qualifications, in fact, I'm mainly a self taught unix boy. But simply because I have an understanding of how things work and know how to apply what I know in theory, I'm often able to fix Windows problems the the MSCEs just can't.
But I must agree, the majority of Cisco certified guys I've dealt with knew their stuff. Same with RHCE.
Computer And Chair
:-)
Call it the Brittish spelling if you wish
You make a valid point. What exactly you're dealing with, what your logistics are makes a huge difference. We're about 50:1 - we do everything from plugging in the cable that a user somehow got unseated and where did my cat/dog/wizzard annoying office assistang go? to seting up their desktops and servers, linking up multiple offices of the same company, sometimes on either sides of the ocean (with out actually going overseas).
And this is just on the support side - the same guys also do work like build custom firewall solutions for ISPs.
On top of that our clients are spread over a 120km radius, most of them no more than 15 computer users per company, so a lot of time is lost to travel. At 50:1 the pressure is pretty high, and that doesn't really reflect on the support guys' competence, seeing as most of the support calls is for petty nonsens and PEBCAC problems.
Yip, the most porn dailers and "instant access" icons are to be found on the MDs and FDs en CEOs' computers....
You'd be surprised just how computer-clueless some engineers can be, even engineers whose engineering concerns IT. I have met a couple of software engineers/programms who can explain the most complex things about computer hardware and/or software, yet they are incapable of setting up and maintaining a Windows desktop. Different strokes...
Thank you! I'll give that a try.
"adding the base dn entries, and then doing one ldapadd by hand to create the "organization" level objects in the OpenLDAP database."
What exactly do you add initially - I've been toying with this on and off when I get time. I've managed to do it right a few times, but I can never do it again in the same way...
Could you post and ldif file for that first organization entry?
" He isn't talking about SuSE, even though he may think he is."
Maybe you wanna read my post again and then go read up on the different editions of SUSE.
Novel Linux Enterprise Server and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES) are two different products.
Novel Linux Enterprise Server ships with all the Novell goodies.
SUSE Linux Enterprise Server ships with some of the Novell goodies, but it suses OpenLDAP, not eDirectory.
Was I talking about SUSE 9.2?
NO, read my post again - I was talking about SUSE Linux Enterprise Server. There are significant differences between the two, of which the LDAP server module is one.
I believe SUSE Enterprise Server (and SUSE Open Exchange server too) has a yast module to setup LDAP easily.
I might be wrong though - I'm still waiting for my copy...
My apologies, I misunderstood that.
There's a tool available from Symantec that you can use to remove the rubbish that the normal Norton uninstaller leaves behind, well, some of it at least. ftp://ftp.symantec.com/misc/consumer/Rnav2003.exe
Gettin rid of Norton is a bit of a problem in some cases. I've seen what you discribe happen on Windows98. The boxen came shipped with an OEM customised Windows98SE with Norton Antivirus, Utilities and Internet Security included and somehow integrated. No uninstallers included.
Ripping them out by hand broke networking on each machine.
Wow, didn't know that. I still sorely miss PC-Tools. Anyone remember that?
"And you would recommend what?"
I was specifically commenting on an earlier poster's comment about Norton breaking a network connection by "binding itself to the Network Drivers so DHCP won't work."
Even if you're an all Windows shop, if you have an internet connection, you need a good firewall. This doesn't have to be your main server (should never be your main server, rally), and it doesn't have to be the world's most powerful box either.
An old Pentium 100 with 32mb ram + IP-COP (www.ipcop.org) will give you a very good firewall, with DNS, DHCP, NTP, proxy and intrusion detection. It's child play to install, uses a web interface for configuration, so even a die-hard windows junky can use it without any problems.
"Windows 2003 (in particular) does a pretty decent job serving up common network services"
[snip]
"I've run McAfee 8.0 on File servers/DNS/DHCP servers for a while and it doesn't seem to effect it all."
Sure enough, I don't disagree at all. I have a couple of Windows 2000 and 2003 servers doing a variety of things for clients. But remember what this thread is about - virus scanners not stopping the virus. If Joe User puts some infected file on your file server, and your virus scanner doesn't pick it up, your server is now at risk too.
That's my main concern. At least if your basic services like DHCP/DNS and even file or DC is done by a separate machine, if your Windows box gets hosed by a virus or your network gets broken thanks to crap antivirus products like Symantec's, your network doesn't go down too.
"Your an idiot for not running virus software on a server period."
Of course. Running antivirus software that executes virus code or doesn't detect it at all or breaks your network stack isn't any better, either.
I'm not trying to start an OS war here. I didn't even say the "L" word, after all. But I take issue with Antivirus/"Ineternet Security" products which cost a small fortune and don't do they job they advertise.
And if paying a handful of dollars for an old box to put linux/bsd on to take over some of the services essential to network stability helps protect my Windows server against an antivirus package's failure, then that's what I'll do.
True, PEBCAC problem is often to blame, but I'm not talking about joe avarage at home. This is a corporate envirnment, where we take care that each machine is updated regularly. I was talking about an up to date Norton with the latest definitions. An up to date Norton that tells me that beyond any doubt, this PC is clean, while I *know* it's not.
These things happen over and over. Every time we get a new client who swears by Norton, we have the same thing over and over. We update their virus definitions, scan the PCs, then pull Noron off just one PC, install BitDefender, scan the whole PC, and what do you know? A hand full of virus/trojan/backdoor found. Stuff that Norton claims to stop. It never fails - there's always something that slipped through somehwere, that allows us to convince them to pull the plug on Symantec and install something proper.
We just refuse to support neworks that rely on Norton, because its a lot of time wasted that could be spent improving other things.
I can't really speak for MacCaffee, because only one of our clients use it, and they happen to be an IT company with really clued up users who don't go open funny-looking mails and do other stupid things. So we never have issues there.
My point is Symantecs products are nowhere near as good as they used to be, and they're definitely not keeping up with the competition.
Typo, sorry.
Geez.
"binding itself to the Network Drivers so DHCP won't work"
That's why you really shouldn't run networks services like DHCP off a Windows box.
No, seriously, this goes beyond the fanboy linux vs windows arguments. Having to run antivirus software to "protect" your server is adding an unnecessary extra point of possible failure.
Would it matter? Symantec's antivirus products are getting shittier by the day. I've lost count of the times that I go to a first time client who's complaining their computer is behaving "funny."
I sit down in front of the computer, and I can see it's infected with something. The signs are the, writing is on the wall. But norton/symantec enterprise, updated and all, is telling me it's clean. So I download McCaffee Stinger or BitDefender's free scanner, clean the Machine out, and sell something better to them.
Case in point. I have a client who's ISP is running Symantec antivirus gateway on the ISP side. Behind that gateway, I've got a postfix box with amavis-new and clam, h+bedv and bitdefender scanners. You won't believe the amount of virusses I still catch, stuff that make it through symantec's waste_of_cpu_cycles_software.
Symantec was the good stuff back in the good old DOS days. Now they're baking in their former glory, but they're loosing business and I'm happy so see them burn if they don't get off their butts and start improving their software.
But but but..... Solitaire does run on linux!
I used to run Return To Castle Wolfenstein and Quake 3 through wine (before the linux binaries came out) from KDE on Red Hat on a Celeron 500 with 256 MB and I actually got a 1 or 2 fps speed increase over running them natively in Windows.
People should stop bitching and moaning and just do it. If you do, and send friendly and polite requests for extra support/features under linux (instead of complaining on public forums to people who can't help you even if they wanted to), you'll see the game manufacturers waking up to linux. Just look at Id...
"Move the cursor with HJKL... Couldn't they at least pick something in a shape similar to the way you're moving, like WASD?"
I think that those keys were chosen on machines there weren't PCs and probably had different keyboard layout.
Anyway, vi wasn't intended to be the simple basic editor. It's meant for the power user. Comparing vi to dos edit is like bitching about Photoshop being more complicated to use the windows paint. They're not aimed at the same people.
I wish people would stop expecting to be able to use powerful tools without wanting to learn to use them. If you don't want to learn to drive, get an automatic. If you want the power and control that a stick shift offers. learn to work the damn thing.
Norton is a piece of shit. I cann't believe people still pay the premium for that.
I have a number of linux mail server running postfix+amavis+clam/bdc/h+bedv command line scanners, sitting BEHIND ISP's Symantec antivirus mail gateways, and you won't believe the sheer volume of virus mails I still catch.
They're resting on their reputation of 10 years ago. They're products are slow, break your windows (you ever tried uninstalling it and installing another antivirus package? Or just adding one?), cost too much and are generally very ineffective.
My company now refuses to support networks who insist on using Symantec's products. It's just too much time wasted
"What are you smoking? Give me some, please."
Maybe you want to read the web page. Or is your short term memory so buggered from all the ganja, you won't remember anyway?