One of the problems that I have had with Unix permissions is that - irregardless of ACL's - RWX is not enough for file servers. Being able to choose more specifically what a user can do (for example, Windows supports things like create files, create folders, take ownership, change permissions, etc). The biggest problem I have is that there is no way to change ownership of files if you're not root. Same thing with changing permissions, if you're not the owner. There are also some instances where I do not want the owner to be able to change permissions. Windows and Netware/OES make it relatively easy to specify more granular permissions. While some of this may be possible on Linux, I doubt it would be as easy or quick to use as it would be on Windows/Novell.
Now, I admit that it can be a pain to do stuff from the command line on Windows, however, that hopefully will get a bit better with PowerShell.
Now SELinux might change some of that, but from my very limited experiences, it is (or atleast was a year and a half ago) a PITA to deal with. That being said, I'm sure its improved since I've tried it. However, isn't it more for limiting what a program can do (who it can talk to, network access, etc), than file permissions?
SSL. Seriously, why the f*ck aren't people using SSL for everything? It isn't that complicated. Even if they're just self-signed certs, it's still vastly more secure then sending almost everything plaintext.
Vista is not a server OS. You would not run a web server on it. While it does come with IIS 7, I presume that it has a limited number of connections like IIS 5.1 does in XP.
Wow. People are still using OS/2 and its derivatives? Not only still using it, but switching to it? I haven't heard anything from OS/2 zealots in a long time.
Exchange 2007 isn't that hard to set up. As long as you don't have to worry about coexisting with Exchange 2003 and below (which is kind of a complicated bitch to deal with - but a small company wouldn't have to worry about that). And if you really want a simple easy to install version of Exchange, you can always use Small Business Server (granted, I don't think that's available with Exchange 2007 yet, but I presume it will be relatively soon). Having the choice of either a "simple to install" Windows NT4 domain/Exchange 5.5 system, and an Active Directory/Exchange 2003 system, I would gladly take the latter.
No problem at all until people start using other people's keys. Then all I would have to do is write down the serial from one of those Windows XP stickers and simply activate my computer as that, 'disabling' the previous (legit) activation. Considering the problems with spyware, botnets, and viruses, that would be a *big* problem.
I sort of doubt that any more than a handful of small companies do that but irregardless, I *believe* (though IANAL or an MS licensing expert) that you would still need CAL's for those people. I don't think it would be any different than if you had people running Thunderbird connecting to Exchange via IMAP, or people that just used OWA (which is sort of what Evo. does). Those people are still accessing Exchange, and they still need licenses to access Exchange. However, from a quick google, I think that in versions of Exchange prior to 2007 (ie 2003 and earlier), the Exchange CAL included a license for Outlook. Here's a page with more details: http://searchexchange.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483, sid43_gci1099509,00.html?bucket=ETA&topic=300583
To really threaten Exchange they would have to integrate seamlessly with Active Directory and fully support Outlook (ie Calendaring, Contacts, Tasks, and offline support). OWA 2003 is probably atleast as good as Gmail's web interface, and I think there are a few new things in OWA 2007. Even if Google were to do all this - why would companies switch? Exchange actually isn't too bad for a MS product. Why would someone go through migrating accounts (Google would have to have a solid tool to do that as well), changing configurations on cients, etc? And how much access would the customer have to the "google box"? Honestly, a search appliance can go down for a day or two while a replacement is being shipped out, but email is a lot more critical.
I've only used it once, but it didn't seem too bad to me. Maybe a little ackward going from the seller's site (buy.com IIRC) to Google Checkout, but it worked fine. I also liked the fact that there was a special at the time where you got $20 off of items over $50 if you used Google Checkout. I don't know if that was just through buy.com or not, but it was a good deal considering the thing I was buying cost just over $50.
How many releases back is Apple still providing updates for? I don't know off the top of my head, but given how quickly they drop support for older versions of OS X for their applications, I would be genuinely suprised if Apple is still providing new update for Mac OS X 10.1, which was released in 2001 - over a year after Windows 2000 was released. I'm not saying that MS shouldn't be making this patch generally available, but its sort of ironic that you bring up one of the company's that has the worst backwards compatibility and long term support in the industrly.
First of all, I have a somewhat hard time taking someone seriously when they can't even get the name right. Perhaps it was just a typo, but there is no such thing as SQL Server 2003. There is SQL Server 2000 and SQL Server 2005. I'm presuming you were using SQL Server 2000, since the management util is called SQL Server Studio in 2k5(and is more intuitive IMO).
1. It's been a while since I've used SQL Server 2000, so I don't remember what my thoughts were on Enterprise Manager then, when I was just getting started using SQL Server. Irregardless though, SQL Server 2005's tools seem fairly user-friendly to me.
2. I'm not sure why you found it so difficult to do backups. I can understand a little bit of awkwardness if you didn't know to use SQL Server Agent, but performing the actual backup is fairly simple. I use SQL Server Agent to backup to a file(which is then backed up by BackupExec, since BE 10 seems to be bitchy as far as working with SQL Server 2005 goes. Typical clueless Symantec...), and all I use is
BACKUP DATABASE [dbname] TO [Name of Backup Device Created in SQLSvr]
WITH
DESCRIPTION = 'blah blah blah',
RETAINDAYS=14;
for each database. It probably took me a few hours when I first had to set this up (on SQL Server 2005, and I hadn't used backups in SQL Server or SQL Server Agent before). Admittedly, it probably took longer than it did for me to make by backup shell script for my MySQL and PostgreSQL databases running on Linux.
3. I've never had any problem with SQL Server's performance. Its generally been pretty good actually. Why on earth were you running a database on a server that had 100% CPU usage? That is a really bad idea, regardless of what database you're using, if you actually care about being able to access that data.
4. Yeah, I've had that sort of thing happen too(not the that extent, but the logs were still several gigs for a few meg DB). It is pretty damn annoying, but it is pretty simple to fix. All you have to do to stop it from happening (before it happens) is to change the Recovery Model (under the Options tab for the database's properties in SQL Server 2005) to Simple instead of Full. To shrink the DB logs, I think you run dbcc shrinkfile (Name_of_The_DB's_Log). Atleast that's what I put in my Knowledge Base. After changing the recovery model and running that command if necessary, I've never had any problems with it. More information can be found here
5. If you want to automate things in SQL Server, use SQL Server Agent. That's one of the things its there for. And if you really want to, you can use Task Scheduling in Windows to run a batch script or something automatically. I use task scheduler to automatically delete the file that my SQL Server backs its databases up to after BackupExec backs it up. I don't know what you were trying to do, but it sort of seems like you're wanting to do everything like you would on *nix. You sort of have to think differently and use different features to accomplish tasks on Windows. You're not going to be able to think about everything in the same way.
SQL Server and Windows aren't really that hard, once you get familiar with it. If they're used correctly, and their usage is well planned, then they are pretty damn solid. Not much different than PostgreSQL and Linux, or in some circumstances MySQL and Linux. I've used (and currently use) MySQL, PostgreSQL, and SQL Server. I don't know if I really have a favorite, but I do find a lot of SQL Server's and PostgreSQL's features really useful (things that MySQL isn't as strong in). You can't just expect to be able to start using a different piece of software and be able to do everything in the same way as you have done with another piece of software, and that goes for pretty much any of those databases.
Like I said, I use both Linux and Windows, as well as MySQL, PostgeSQL and MSSQL Server, so I'm
Umm, wtf? In Word 2007 and 2003 you can most definately create a new document and save it as an RTF. In 2007 its: Fucking Office Button->New, Fucking Office Button->Save As->Other Formats, save as type: Rich Text Format.
I used a trial of it with my Dell Axim x30 PocketPC (Windows Mobile 2003). Its not a smartphone though. Missing Sync sort of worked - most of the time. It didn't seem anywhere near as solid as syncing with Exchange and ActiveSync though. *Sigh*, I wish iCal would work seamlessly with Exchange. Then I could have the best of both worlds.
You know, I could understand if it were something as major as a different type of motherboard, but for something as minor as a f*cking TV tuner? Not only is that absolutely unnecessary, its absolutely pointless. I wonder how many changes it will take before you have to contact MS's support. Or is this a Technet copy (10 different activations IIRC)?
Does anyone know what they'll do with VLK type licenses (or are doing I guess)?
VMware Workstation can import/convert Virtual PC configurations/images to their format. I think v5.0 was the first that could do that. Additionally, if I really wanted to, I could just set up a Ghost (or equiv.) session between an empty VMware VM and this VPC one. Unless they've thrown in any magic in the copy of XP to stop that.
Exactly. MS does not want to piss of IBM as far as patents go. I'm sure IBM could make life rather difficult for MS if they were to get involved with in a patent war. On the bright side, if something like that happened, we might actually see some sanity come to the way patents are given out (or not have software patents all together - they're already "protected" by copyright).
If you're going to bitch about M$, atleast bitch about something that's true. MSSQL Svr is actually a pretty damn good database. It may not run on anything but Windows, but as long as it does what it needs to do, it really doesn't matter.
Access sucks balls, but then nobody with a clue uses Access anyway.
And don't get me wrong - there are *plenty* of good things to bitch about as far as Microsoft goes. Like the disorganization and inconsistency of Office 2007 RTM...
Congratulations to all you guys and gals that have worked on the MER's. It is just absolutely *amazing* how well these rovers have done. All of you guys deserve a lot of praise, great job!
Would Sendmail/IMAP & POP3 have calendaring, or storage policies that limit the size of user's mailboxes? Can you restore an individual message quickly if need be? Would it include calendar and contact management? What about the clustering? And webmail? How easy would it be to create an email account for a new user/does it pull passwords from the same place as the client computers do? I'm not trying to be an ass here, but MS does make some fairly nice products. And Exchange 2k3 is probably one of those. It can do a lot of neat stuff, pretty easily. Yeah, you could implement a lot of with a Linux based solution if need be, but it would take a while, and it wouldn't be quite as polished or easy to manage. I'm not saying that I hate Linux, I run and Linux mail server at home that does spam filtering and holds all my email that I get from the Internet. I also have an Exchange server that handles mostly groupware type stuff.
Six thousand years? Six thousand years is like a blink of an eye in terms of planets and such. Even six million years isn't a terribly long period of time geologically.
Deep Freeze would prevent them from screwing too much up, but it does make it a bitch to change any settings or install any software (legitamtely). It can turn something that would have taken 10 minutes for a lab(like changing a proxy server's address or something), into an hour long project. Also, you won't be able to have automatic updates pushed down, and kids will inevitably lose some stuff because they saved it to their computer not to their home directory drives. Yeah, the teachers at my school tell kids not to do that, but kids still do it fairly often. I've heard that there are some ways to get around deep freeze, but I haven't really tried them (I'm a high school student and my school uses deep freeze for some computers), partially because I know most the passwords (I've worked for the tech dept.)
At the company I work for (they make firewire and USB enclosures/adapters) we have maybe six computers that we use for production. Two are PowerMacs and the rest are Windows boxes. I think a lot of the apps we use to change the firmware on the units run only on Windows, though I could be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the problems that I have had with Unix permissions is that - irregardless of ACL's - RWX is not enough for file servers. Being able to choose more specifically what a user can do (for example, Windows supports things like create files, create folders, take ownership, change permissions, etc). The biggest problem I have is that there is no way to change ownership of files if you're not root. Same thing with changing permissions, if you're not the owner. There are also some instances where I do not want the owner to be able to change permissions. Windows and Netware/OES make it relatively easy to specify more granular permissions. While some of this may be possible on Linux, I doubt it would be as easy or quick to use as it would be on Windows/Novell.
Now, I admit that it can be a pain to do stuff from the command line on Windows, however, that hopefully will get a bit better with PowerShell.
Now SELinux might change some of that, but from my very limited experiences, it is (or atleast was a year and a half ago) a PITA to deal with. That being said, I'm sure its improved since I've tried it. However, isn't it more for limiting what a program can do (who it can talk to, network access, etc), than file permissions?
SSL. Seriously, why the f*ck aren't people using SSL for everything? It isn't that complicated. Even if they're just self-signed certs, it's still vastly more secure then sending almost everything plaintext.
Vista is not a server OS. You would not run a web server on it. While it does come with IIS 7, I presume that it has a limited number of connections like IIS 5.1 does in XP.
Wow. People are still using OS/2 and its derivatives? Not only still using it, but switching to it? I haven't heard anything from OS/2 zealots in a long time.
Exchange 2007 isn't that hard to set up. As long as you don't have to worry about coexisting with Exchange 2003 and below (which is kind of a complicated bitch to deal with - but a small company wouldn't have to worry about that). And if you really want a simple easy to install version of Exchange, you can always use Small Business Server (granted, I don't think that's available with Exchange 2007 yet, but I presume it will be relatively soon). Having the choice of either a "simple to install" Windows NT4 domain/Exchange 5.5 system, and an Active Directory/Exchange 2003 system, I would gladly take the latter.
No problem at all until people start using other people's keys. Then all I would have to do is write down the serial from one of those Windows XP stickers and simply activate my computer as that, 'disabling' the previous (legit) activation. Considering the problems with spyware, botnets, and viruses, that would be a *big* problem.
I sort of doubt that any more than a handful of small companies do that but irregardless, I *believe* (though IANAL or an MS licensing expert) that you would still need CAL's for those people. I don't think it would be any different than if you had people running Thunderbird connecting to Exchange via IMAP, or people that just used OWA (which is sort of what Evo. does). Those people are still accessing Exchange, and they still need licenses to access Exchange. However, from a quick google, I think that in versions of Exchange prior to 2007 (ie 2003 and earlier), the Exchange CAL included a license for Outlook. Here's a page with more details: http://searchexchange.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483, sid43_gci1099509,00.html?bucket=ETA&topic=300583
To really threaten Exchange they would have to integrate seamlessly with Active Directory and fully support Outlook (ie Calendaring, Contacts, Tasks, and offline support). OWA 2003 is probably atleast as good as Gmail's web interface, and I think there are a few new things in OWA 2007. Even if Google were to do all this - why would companies switch? Exchange actually isn't too bad for a MS product. Why would someone go through migrating accounts (Google would have to have a solid tool to do that as well), changing configurations on cients, etc? And how much access would the customer have to the "google box"? Honestly, a search appliance can go down for a day or two while a replacement is being shipped out, but email is a lot more critical.
I've only used it once, but it didn't seem too bad to me. Maybe a little ackward going from the seller's site (buy.com IIRC) to Google Checkout, but it worked fine. I also liked the fact that there was a special at the time where you got $20 off of items over $50 if you used Google Checkout. I don't know if that was just through buy.com or not, but it was a good deal considering the thing I was buying cost just over $50.
How many releases back is Apple still providing updates for? I don't know off the top of my head, but given how quickly they drop support for older versions of OS X for their applications, I would be genuinely suprised if Apple is still providing new update for Mac OS X 10.1, which was released in 2001 - over a year after Windows 2000 was released. I'm not saying that MS shouldn't be making this patch generally available, but its sort of ironic that you bring up one of the company's that has the worst backwards compatibility and long term support in the industrly.
First of all, I have a somewhat hard time taking someone seriously when they can't even get the name right. Perhaps it was just a typo, but there is no such thing as SQL Server 2003. There is SQL Server 2000 and SQL Server 2005. I'm presuming you were using SQL Server 2000, since the management util is called SQL Server Studio in 2k5(and is more intuitive IMO).
1. It's been a while since I've used SQL Server 2000, so I don't remember what my thoughts were on Enterprise Manager then, when I was just getting started using SQL Server. Irregardless though, SQL Server 2005's tools seem fairly user-friendly to me.
2. I'm not sure why you found it so difficult to do backups. I can understand a little bit of awkwardness if you didn't know to use SQL Server Agent, but performing the actual backup is fairly simple. I use SQL Server Agent to backup to a file(which is then backed up by BackupExec, since BE 10 seems to be bitchy as far as working with SQL Server 2005 goes. Typical clueless Symantec...), and all I use is
BACKUP DATABASE [dbname] TO [Name of Backup Device Created in SQLSvr]
WITH
DESCRIPTION = 'blah blah blah',
RETAINDAYS=14;
for each database. It probably took me a few hours when I first had to set this up (on SQL Server 2005, and I hadn't used backups in SQL Server or SQL Server Agent before). Admittedly, it probably took longer than it did for me to make by backup shell script for my MySQL and PostgreSQL databases running on Linux.
3. I've never had any problem with SQL Server's performance. Its generally been pretty good actually. Why on earth were you running a database on a server that had 100% CPU usage? That is a really bad idea, regardless of what database you're using, if you actually care about being able to access that data.
4. Yeah, I've had that sort of thing happen too(not the that extent, but the logs were still several gigs for a few meg DB). It is pretty damn annoying, but it is pretty simple to fix. All you have to do to stop it from happening (before it happens) is to change the Recovery Model (under the Options tab for the database's properties in SQL Server 2005) to Simple instead of Full. To shrink the DB logs, I think you run dbcc shrinkfile (Name_of_The_DB's_Log). Atleast that's what I put in my Knowledge Base. After changing the recovery model and running that command if necessary, I've never had any problems with it. More information can be found here
5. If you want to automate things in SQL Server, use SQL Server Agent. That's one of the things its there for. And if you really want to, you can use Task Scheduling in Windows to run a batch script or something automatically. I use task scheduler to automatically delete the file that my SQL Server backs its databases up to after BackupExec backs it up. I don't know what you were trying to do, but it sort of seems like you're wanting to do everything like you would on *nix. You sort of have to think differently and use different features to accomplish tasks on Windows. You're not going to be able to think about everything in the same way.
SQL Server and Windows aren't really that hard, once you get familiar with it. If they're used correctly, and their usage is well planned, then they are pretty damn solid. Not much different than PostgreSQL and Linux, or in some circumstances MySQL and Linux. I've used (and currently use) MySQL, PostgreSQL, and SQL Server. I don't know if I really have a favorite, but I do find a lot of SQL Server's and PostgreSQL's features really useful (things that MySQL isn't as strong in). You can't just expect to be able to start using a different piece of software and be able to do everything in the same way as you have done with another piece of software, and that goes for pretty much any of those databases.
Like I said, I use both Linux and Windows, as well as MySQL, PostgeSQL and MSSQL Server, so I'm
Umm, wtf? In Word 2007 and 2003 you can most definately create a new document and save it as an RTF. In 2007 its: Fucking Office Button->New, Fucking Office Button->Save As->Other Formats, save as type: Rich Text Format.
Oh, so that's why they said it takes 20 days - the tubes must be clogged.
I used a trial of it with my Dell Axim x30 PocketPC (Windows Mobile 2003). Its not a smartphone though. Missing Sync sort of worked - most of the time. It didn't seem anywhere near as solid as syncing with Exchange and ActiveSync though. *Sigh*, I wish iCal would work seamlessly with Exchange. Then I could have the best of both worlds.
You know, I could understand if it were something as major as a different type of motherboard, but for something as minor as a f*cking TV tuner? Not only is that absolutely unnecessary, its absolutely pointless. I wonder how many changes it will take before you have to contact MS's support. Or is this a Technet copy (10 different activations IIRC)? Does anyone know what they'll do with VLK type licenses (or are doing I guess)?
VMware Workstation can import/convert Virtual PC configurations/images to their format. I think v5.0 was the first that could do that. Additionally, if I really wanted to, I could just set up a Ghost (or equiv.) session between an empty VMware VM and this VPC one. Unless they've thrown in any magic in the copy of XP to stop that.
Exactly. MS does not want to piss of IBM as far as patents go. I'm sure IBM could make life rather difficult for MS if they were to get involved with in a patent war. On the bright side, if something like that happened, we might actually see some sanity come to the way patents are given out (or not have software patents all together - they're already "protected" by copyright).
If you're going to bitch about M$, atleast bitch about something that's true. MSSQL Svr is actually a pretty damn good database. It may not run on anything but Windows, but as long as it does what it needs to do, it really doesn't matter.
Access sucks balls, but then nobody with a clue uses Access anyway.
And don't get me wrong - there are *plenty* of good things to bitch about as far as Microsoft goes. Like the disorganization and inconsistency of Office 2007 RTM...
OK, this doesn't really have anything to do with the point of your post, but this just caught my eye:
We install Windows 2000 on them
That is, Wine, Firefox...
I guess this sort of makes me like the fscking grammar Nazi's, but it just made me go, huh?
Congratulations to all you guys and gals that have worked on the MER's. It is just absolutely *amazing* how well these rovers have done. All of you guys deserve a lot of praise, great job!
Would Sendmail/IMAP & POP3 have calendaring, or storage policies that limit the size of user's mailboxes? Can you restore an individual message quickly if need be? Would it include calendar and contact management? What about the clustering? And webmail? How easy would it be to create an email account for a new user/does it pull passwords from the same place as the client computers do? I'm not trying to be an ass here, but MS does make some fairly nice products. And Exchange 2k3 is probably one of those. It can do a lot of neat stuff, pretty easily. Yeah, you could implement a lot of with a Linux based solution if need be, but it would take a while, and it wouldn't be quite as polished or easy to manage. I'm not saying that I hate Linux, I run and Linux mail server at home that does spam filtering and holds all my email that I get from the Internet. I also have an Exchange server that handles mostly groupware type stuff.
Six thousand years? Six thousand years is like a blink of an eye in terms of planets and such. Even six million years isn't a terribly long period of time geologically.
Deep Freeze would prevent them from screwing too much up, but it does make it a bitch to change any settings or install any software (legitamtely). It can turn something that would have taken 10 minutes for a lab(like changing a proxy server's address or something), into an hour long project. Also, you won't be able to have automatic updates pushed down, and kids will inevitably lose some stuff because they saved it to their computer not to their home directory drives. Yeah, the teachers at my school tell kids not to do that, but kids still do it fairly often. I've heard that there are some ways to get around deep freeze, but I haven't really tried them (I'm a high school student and my school uses deep freeze for some computers), partially because I know most the passwords (I've worked for the tech dept.)
I don't need no stinkin' browser, I use telnet you insensitive clod!
At the company I work for (they make firewire and USB enclosures/adapters) we have maybe six computers that we use for production. Two are PowerMacs and the rest are Windows boxes. I think a lot of the apps we use to change the firmware on the units run only on Windows, though I could be wrong.