Blue screen is a Windows thing but core dump is not.
No actually core dumping IS a Windows thing, too. See also System Properties->Advanced->Startup And Recovery Settings->Write Debugging Information. That's where you configure a system core dump. Application core dumps are handled a bit differently, but you're familiar with dealing with them if you're a Visual Studio user.
I work in a Windows shop but we don't do automatic... er its behavior, probably because in recognition of the dangers of auto updating in a production environment.
I'm not sure of the purpose of your comment, here. But they're using WSUS, which is essentially SUS 2.0. It's not using the normal Automatic Update mechanisms.
At work, we use automatic patching via WSUS to great effect. However, SP2 caused us (well, the PC techs) some problems, but overall I'm happy.
blah blah blah SP2
Agreed. I think that SP2 was a necessary (painful) step for MS. And the SAP thing is a totally normal industry deal, not specifically Linux's fault. I blame SAP.
Patching in a production environment is ALWAYS a big headache if you want to do it right.
ALWAYS? No. We've had two patching problems in the 2.5 years since we've moved to Windows (from Solaris/BSD/Linux). If it's always a headache, you're doing something wrong as generally, windows server admins seem to be happy with patching mechanisms, these days (NT4 days SUCKED).
I'm wagering that your cluster server admins didn't read all of the release notes for the patches.
So we'd be better off if Java ruled the world right now? Everyone running a slow (yes, it IS slow, thank you), least-common-denominator, powerless development environment that Sun won't allow OS vendors to tailor to a particular OS's featureset? Kiss Aqua goodbye, kiss Win32, ASP.NET, Gtk good bye. Gee. Sounds wonderful.
They settled with Sun, they didn't "lose". They ceased releasing J++ due to the uncertainty of the outcome of the lawsuit BEFORE it settled.
And basically, J++ continues on as its next iteration with new technologies as J#, so the lawsuit didn't really do much, except get Java banished from Windows by default. Who lost again?
Right but JBoss and the ASP.NET application server are completely different technologies, for one, and two, I've used both and ASP.NET seems a hell of a lot more solid to me.
If Microsoft were to somehow "taint" JBoss with.NET, they'd essentially have to recode JBoss from scratch.
Uhm, J# is a Java-language interface to the.NET Framework, it has nothing to do with any JVM.
You might mean J++, and I don't really see what was wrong with that, other than lawsuit-happy Sun wanting to keep a maniacal strangehold on Java. What's wrong with adding proprietary libraries? Java has/had a ton of shortcomings. If you didn't like J++, you didn't have to use it.
This same thing is being done by OSS JVM projects, and the Mono project, who had developed their own implementation of the.NET Framework and added their own libraries*.
Why would they want to fire someone so passionate about the company? Doesn't make any sense to me, unless its a revenge tactic because someone big got egg on their face.
I'm impressed with how many very passionate people there are at Microsoft, and this is just another one who wants to see Microsoft succeed, compete, and innovate once again (We haven't seen those days in a long time).
Basically all this hubla about Microsoft's employee culture imploding is FUD. While everyone has things they hate about their job, you talk to most any MS employee and they love their jobs.
It's as if all the tech writers got bored and turned this little Google/Microsoft fiasco into a big blown up epidemic.
I do wish Microsoft would downsize a little and perhaps shed a little of its "running around like its head is cut off" way of marketing and developing products and not intercommunicating well enough between product groups. I can't even remember how many versions of Vista are slated for release, but its nuts.
Uhm, everywhere? Maybe not in Linux/Solaris shops, but go to the bookstore and see how many.NET books are there (hint: too many). Go to Windows shops (which I hear are a significant majority).
Java development is a nightmare, especially JSP and Servlets. The tools for.NET are light years ahead of anything Sun and third party vendors have for Java.
Perhaps.NET is just not that popular in Brazil? It's extremely popular in the US.
You don't want this, you think it's ugly. But the other 99.9% of the people in the world want it.
Me, I'm satisfied with the Windows 2000 look and feel -- it's boring and simple.
But you should probably go out into the world and you'll actually "see" the rest of the world liking it.
The look and feel of Vista has been based on massive amounts of user input, and they continue to gather that input, so what you see today, won't be what you see tomorrow.
Oops, you're right MSDN Universal's $1200 a year for us, $150 for our students, but it isn't a full Universal deal. I musta been on crack. Still, really damn worth it.
And most MS developers can obtain an MSDN subscription fairly cheap, which gives you a development license for every Microsoft product and beta under the sun.
I think we pay ~$150 per person for an annual MSDN Universal subscription.
All of this is true, and I actually recommend Linux server solutions to smaller shops. It's more cost-effecient at that level.
It has been my experience that in the big iron world, Windows is actually more cost-effective _for us_, despite the occasional, outrageous licensing fee. With all the freed management time, we're also able to do more.
This has been reflected in our situation where back in our Solaris/Linux/BSD days (the world I came from originally, before I ever used Windows) we were behind our local contemporaries in terms of services and infrastructure.
After we (me, grudgingly, originally) switched to a Windows infrastructure, we've rocketed past our contemporaries and now we're being asked how we do x and such.
Of course, we religious patch our systems (which is loads easier than anything on Linux/BSD/Solaris). We've had 1 security problem, which hit a neglected Windows 2000 server on our WAN. Other than that, we've had no security problems. Back in our UNIX days, we had about one a year (several ftpd daemons and sshd, ironically never sendmail or BIND).
Hopefully MS will get a clue and reduce licensing costs. I hope Linux gains a marketshare if only to force MS into its unstagnant competitive mode where prices plummet and we don't have to wait 7 years for new browser/etc releases.
You can get development tools off of Microsoft. Enterprise versions will cost you a little money, but you pay for quality, and thats what the enterprise tools are: quality.
I doubt you'll need a full version of IIS to play around with ASP.NET, so stop your whining. It does everything the server version of IIS does, it just allows fewer concurrent connections. Not exactly crippled.
1.) ASP.NET is NOT ASP and NOT scripting. ASP and PHP are analogs, JSP/Servlets and ASP.NET are analogs.
2.) ASP.NET is not 1GB, its more ~25mb or so. The entire MS development environment (Windows apps, ASP.NET/enterprise database dev tools/mobile development/all the SDKs and MSDN are about 1GB on my machine).
And if you want to argue about something stupid like framework size, let's talk about all the frameworks you see installed on the average Linux box.
3.) A framework's size does not have anything to do with robustness.
Yet another stupid, clueless Linux user who argues against Windows using Windows 95-era bullet items, gotta love it.
Can you set up IIS + php + mysql + few other modules in less than 5 min to serve up your php based sites?
Yes, actually I can, using one of several "WIMP" (Windows - IIS - MySQL - PHP) installers available on the net. Since I am particularly skilled with such software on Windows, I can do it manually in under 5 minutes. Why do you ask?
Oh, and on Windows, we usually use a more robust platform for web development: ASP.NET and MSSQL (The MSDE version works for most tasks where MySQL would otherwise be used. I personally use MSSQL Standard, though.)
And please compare PHP to ASP.NET, or vim/emacs/kdevelop to Visual Studio, I need a good laugh.
Yes, because we all have loads of spare time and the desire to (code our own shit|learn yet another 3rd party methodology) to make up for Apache's shortcomings.
Oddly, Linux zealots don't apply this same generousity to IIS, which can also be easily scripted for stuff the GUI can't do.
Firstly, I got from the parent poster's comment that he wrongly thought that the IIS process required GUI components to run and use it.
Secondly, Windows doesn't require explorer.exe to run at all. However it does require "the GUI" to run, because several core system services require the Win32 api to run.
This can be hacked, but why would you want to? The GUI uses no appreciable levels of CPU or RAM to just sit there. If one is so anal about it, they could run cmd.exe at full screen or just stay on Linux.
Why is it do they think that an eight year old Linux box running Apache can serve up such huge volume versus a latest and greatest IIS server?
Uhh proof? In my own non-scientific experiments, IIS6 smokes a modern Apache box, let alone an 8 year old one.
The fact that they are even talking about doing this rather than simply implementing the feature and then talking about it troubles me though.
The Microsoft developers are talking and blogging about this to get community feedback. This has long been an informal Microsoft tradition, and is now becoming more formal and widespread. Anyone who hangs out on MSDN or Channel 9 knows this.
I want simplicity of management and therefore went with standard OSX hosting systems.
I find it funny you complain about performance earlier in your post and then say you use OS X servers, which are notorious for their poor server/network io performance. Still, client-side OS X is my favorite OS of all time.
but it is certainly easier to manage than Linux or IIS.
It's easier to manage than IIS in the same way that Commodore 64s are more secure than UNIX. Much of the web server's configuration options are hidden from you in the OS X server admin tools.
Often, us OS X administrators need to do more tweaking than the GUI tools allow, and thus, we must dive into the complete nightmare that is Apache.conf files.
And you're on total crack if you claim that Apache is easier than IIS to configure.
If Microsoft wants me to switch
It's funny when anti-MS zealots say this. As if they'd ever use anything from a company they consider the anti-christ.
they had better come out with something truly special rather than simply aping the rest of the industry.
They already have. While IIS5 was good, it was inferior to Apache, imho. As far as I'm concerned, IIS6 blows the doors off of Apache in terms of speed, power, and configuration.
IIS runs without a GUI. You can configure it* without a GUI by editing the XML config file. Have been able to since IIS6. 'Bout time to wake up and get a clue, don't you think?
I won't completely flame you for sounding like a Windows-ignorant Linux zealot, because you're a fellow climber.
Can you install two different versions of IIS and have them run on different ports and/or addresses?
What would be the need? Using the latest and greatest is the smart choice for 99.9999% of the people.
Install or uninstall without rebooting?
You can already do that.
Change or inspect the source code?
Of course not, and I don't really care. I have no care whether IIS is open source or not, but I imagine you'll conjure up Bill Gates as Satan and vomit in disgust at anything closed-source. As we all know, using closed source products is blasphemous!
Slashdot Mirror
Blue screen is a Windows thing but core dump is not.
... er its behavior, probably because in recognition of the dangers of auto updating in a production environment.
No actually core dumping IS a Windows thing, too. See also System Properties->Advanced->Startup And Recovery Settings->Write Debugging Information. That's where you configure a system core dump. Application core dumps are handled a bit differently, but you're familiar with dealing with them if you're a Visual Studio user.
I work in a Windows shop but we don't do automatic
I'm not sure of the purpose of your comment, here. But they're using WSUS, which is essentially SUS 2.0. It's not using the normal Automatic Update mechanisms.
At work, we use automatic patching via WSUS to great effect. However, SP2 caused us (well, the PC techs) some problems, but overall I'm happy.
blah blah blah SP2
Agreed. I think that SP2 was a necessary (painful) step for MS. And the SAP thing is a totally normal industry deal, not specifically Linux's fault. I blame SAP.
Patching in a production environment is ALWAYS a big headache if you want to do it right.
ALWAYS? No. We've had two patching problems in the 2.5 years since we've moved to Windows (from Solaris/BSD/Linux). If it's always a headache, you're doing something wrong as generally, windows server admins seem to be happy with patching mechanisms, these days (NT4 days SUCKED).
I'm wagering that your cluster server admins didn't read all of the release notes for the patches.
Informative comment, thanks for posting
So we'd be better off if Java ruled the world right now? Everyone running a slow (yes, it IS slow, thank you), least-common-denominator, powerless development environment that Sun won't allow OS vendors to tailor to a particular OS's featureset? Kiss Aqua goodbye, kiss Win32, ASP.NET, Gtk good bye. Gee. Sounds wonderful.
They settled with Sun, they didn't "lose". They ceased releasing J++ due to the uncertainty of the outcome of the lawsuit BEFORE it settled.
And basically, J++ continues on as its next iteration with new technologies as J#, so the lawsuit didn't really do much, except get Java banished from Windows by default. Who lost again?
Right but JBoss and the ASP.NET application server are completely different technologies, for one, and two, I've used both and ASP.NET seems a hell of a lot more solid to me.
.NET, they'd essentially have to recode JBoss from scratch.
If Microsoft were to somehow "taint" JBoss with
How is anything this guy said insightful? Please enlighten me. It looks like a troll post, to me.
Uhm, J# is a Java-language interface to the .NET Framework, it has nothing to do with any JVM.
.NET Framework and added their own libraries*.
You might mean J++, and I don't really see what was wrong with that, other than lawsuit-happy Sun wanting to keep a maniacal strangehold on Java. What's wrong with adding proprietary libraries? Java has/had a ton of shortcomings. If you didn't like J++, you didn't have to use it.
This same thing is being done by OSS JVM projects, and the Mono project, who had developed their own implementation of the
* See also Gnome.*, Mono.*, Novell.*, Mozilla.*
And even if there *were* poison dart weilding dolphins, why on earth would they be left armed while at a training facility during a storm?
Because its the military, duh.
Uhm, the .NET Compact Framework is totally free:
n g/netcf/
http://msdn.microsoft.com/smartclient/understandi
but I agree eC++ is ugly and a pain.
But Symbian market share still growing.
Proof? References?
Why would they want to fire someone so passionate about the company? Doesn't make any sense to me, unless its a revenge tactic because someone big got egg on their face.
I'm impressed with how many very passionate people there are at Microsoft, and this is just another one who wants to see Microsoft succeed, compete, and innovate once again (We haven't seen those days in a long time).
Basically all this hubla about Microsoft's employee culture imploding is FUD. While everyone has things they hate about their job, you talk to most any MS employee and they love their jobs.
It's as if all the tech writers got bored and turned this little Google/Microsoft fiasco into a big blown up epidemic.
I do wish Microsoft would downsize a little and perhaps shed a little of its "running around like its head is cut off" way of marketing and developing products and not intercommunicating well enough between product groups. I can't even remember how many versions of Vista are slated for release, but its nuts.
Wow, very informative reply, thank you.
BTW, where's the big wave of .NET applications?
.NET books are there (hint: too many). Go to Windows shops (which I hear are a significant majority).
.NET are light years ahead of anything Sun and third party vendors have for Java.
.NET is just not that popular in Brazil? It's extremely popular in the US.
Uhm, everywhere? Maybe not in Linux/Solaris shops, but go to the bookstore and see how many
Java development is a nightmare, especially JSP and Servlets. The tools for
Perhaps
You don't want this, you think it's ugly. But the other 99.9% of the people in the world want it.
Me, I'm satisfied with the Windows 2000 look and feel -- it's boring and simple.
But you should probably go out into the world and you'll actually "see" the rest of the world liking it.
The look and feel of Vista has been based on massive amounts of user input, and they continue to gather that input, so what you see today, won't be what you see tomorrow.
Oops, you're right MSDN Universal's $1200 a year for us, $150 for our students, but it isn't a full Universal deal. I musta been on crack. Still, really damn worth it.
Roger that,
And most MS developers can obtain an MSDN subscription fairly cheap, which gives you a development license for every Microsoft product and beta under the sun.
I think we pay ~$150 per person for an annual MSDN Universal subscription.
All of this is true, and I actually recommend Linux server solutions to smaller shops. It's more cost-effecient at that level.
It has been my experience that in the big iron world, Windows is actually more cost-effective _for us_, despite the occasional, outrageous licensing fee. With all the freed management time, we're also able to do more.
This has been reflected in our situation where back in our Solaris/Linux/BSD days (the world I came from originally, before I ever used Windows) we were behind our local contemporaries in terms of services and infrastructure.
After we (me, grudgingly, originally) switched to a Windows infrastructure, we've rocketed past our contemporaries and now we're being asked how we do x and such.
Of course, we religious patch our systems (which is loads easier than anything on Linux/BSD/Solaris). We've had 1 security problem, which hit a neglected Windows 2000 server on our WAN. Other than that, we've had no security problems. Back in our UNIX days, we had about one a year (several ftpd daemons and sshd, ironically never sendmail or BIND).
Hopefully MS will get a clue and reduce licensing costs. I hope Linux gains a marketshare if only to force MS into its unstagnant competitive mode where prices plummet and we don't have to wait 7 years for new browser/etc releases.
You can get development tools off of Microsoft. Enterprise versions will cost you a little money, but you pay for quality, and thats what the enterprise tools are: quality.
I doubt you'll need a full version of IIS to play around with ASP.NET, so stop your whining. It does everything the server version of IIS does, it just allows fewer concurrent connections. Not exactly crippled.
You're an ignorant dumb ass. Why?
1.) ASP.NET is NOT ASP and NOT scripting. ASP and PHP are analogs, JSP/Servlets and ASP.NET are analogs.
2.) ASP.NET is not 1GB, its more ~25mb or so. The entire MS development environment (Windows apps, ASP.NET/enterprise database dev tools/mobile development/all the SDKs and MSDN are about 1GB on my machine).
And if you want to argue about something stupid like framework size, let's talk about all the frameworks you see installed on the average Linux box.
3.) A framework's size does not have anything to do with robustness.
Yet another stupid, clueless Linux user who argues against Windows using Windows 95-era bullet items, gotta love it.
Can you set up IIS + php + mysql + few other modules in less than 5 min to serve up your php based sites?
Yes, actually I can, using one of several "WIMP" (Windows - IIS - MySQL - PHP) installers available on the net. Since I am particularly skilled with such software on Windows, I can do it manually in under 5 minutes. Why do you ask?
Oh, and on Windows, we usually use a more robust platform for web development: ASP.NET and MSSQL (The MSDE version works for most tasks where MySQL would otherwise be used. I personally use MSSQL Standard, though.)
And please compare PHP to ASP.NET, or vim/emacs/kdevelop to Visual Studio, I need a good laugh.
Yes, because we all have loads of spare time and the desire to (code our own shit|learn yet another 3rd party methodology) to make up for Apache's shortcomings.
Oddly, Linux zealots don't apply this same generousity to IIS, which can also be easily scripted for stuff the GUI can't do.
Firstly, I got from the parent poster's comment that he wrongly thought that the IIS process required GUI components to run and use it.
Secondly, Windows doesn't require explorer.exe to run at all. However it does require "the GUI" to run, because several core system services require the Win32 api to run.
This can be hacked, but why would you want to? The GUI uses no appreciable levels of CPU or RAM to just sit there. If one is so anal about it, they could run cmd.exe at full screen or just stay on Linux.
Why is it do they think that an eight year old Linux box running Apache can serve up such huge volume versus a latest and greatest IIS server?
.conf files.
Uhh proof? In my own non-scientific experiments, IIS6 smokes a modern Apache box, let alone an 8 year old one.
The fact that they are even talking about doing this rather than simply implementing the feature and then talking about it troubles me though.
The Microsoft developers are talking and blogging about this to get community feedback. This has long been an informal Microsoft tradition, and is now becoming more formal and widespread. Anyone who hangs out on MSDN or Channel 9 knows this.
I want simplicity of management and therefore went with standard OSX hosting systems.
I find it funny you complain about performance earlier in your post and then say you use OS X servers, which are notorious for their poor server/network io performance. Still, client-side OS X is my favorite OS of all time.
but it is certainly easier to manage than Linux or IIS.
It's easier to manage than IIS in the same way that Commodore 64s are more secure than UNIX. Much of the web server's configuration options are hidden from you in the OS X server admin tools.
Often, us OS X administrators need to do more tweaking than the GUI tools allow, and thus, we must dive into the complete nightmare that is Apache
And you're on total crack if you claim that Apache is easier than IIS to configure.
If Microsoft wants me to switch
It's funny when anti-MS zealots say this. As if they'd ever use anything from a company they consider the anti-christ.
they had better come out with something truly special rather than simply aping the rest of the industry.
They already have. While IIS5 was good, it was inferior to Apache, imho. As far as I'm concerned, IIS6 blows the doors off of Apache in terms of speed, power, and configuration.
IIS runs without a GUI. You can configure it* without a GUI by editing the XML config file. Have been able to since IIS6. 'Bout time to wake up and get a clue, don't you think?
I won't completely flame you for sounding like a Windows-ignorant Linux zealot, because you're a fellow climber.
* Although why the hell would you want to?
Can you install two different versions of IIS and have them run on different ports and/or addresses?
What would be the need? Using the latest and greatest is the smart choice for 99.9999% of the people.
Install or uninstall without rebooting?
You can already do that.
Change or inspect the source code?
Of course not, and I don't really care. I have no care whether IIS is open source or not, but I imagine you'll conjure up Bill Gates as Satan and vomit in disgust at anything closed-source. As we all know, using closed source products is blasphemous!
I disagree, but funny shit. I'm glad I +5 all troll posts.