Well for those of you stupid enough not to figure this out by now, let's do a quick comparison. Of which two operating systems is win2k3 most like: Windows 2000 professional or Windows XP Professional? Aha! So It's really based on XP with a whole bunch of server stuff tacked on. But wait just a second. A lot has hapenned between NT 5 (2000) and 5.1 (XP), and current-day (NT 5.2 2k3). M$ has reflected a lot of these changes in code. This is why, for instance, that 2k3's TCP stack rivals BSD in speed. But that is for a different discussion. The point is, of all the *client oses* in the m$ world, it runs code very XP-like in nature (although a heck of a lot more stable, get your disassemblers out and have a look) Win2k3 is no more related to 2000Pro than XP is (which is still some, but not as much as you think). As to running WMP10 on server 2k3, so much of the IE code is replaced that's not passed the "stability tests that the server platform requires". At least, that's what m$ sent me in my inbox. I know, go figure, test it out on the users first. Hey, at least there's some forthought in their heads...
Is it really so hard to understand that worms are a *good* thing? For instance, if I had a major server running vulnerable OpenSSL on it, and it got caught by a worm, 10,000 other people would have the same problem, and it'd be easy to remove. Not only that, but everyone would know about it, how to patch it, etc. Now think what would happen if somebody wrote a non-automated tool. They could target my OpenSSL server, steal everyone's credit cards and patch my kernel so i'd never know... *shudder* Give me a worm over an underground exploit any day.
Slashdot Mirror
Well for those of you stupid enough not to figure this out by now, let's do a quick comparison. Of which two operating systems is win2k3 most like: Windows 2000 professional or Windows XP Professional? Aha! So It's really based on XP with a whole bunch of server stuff tacked on. But wait just a second. A lot has hapenned between NT 5 (2000) and 5.1 (XP), and current-day (NT 5.2 2k3). M$ has reflected a lot of these changes in code. This is why, for instance, that 2k3's TCP stack rivals BSD in speed. But that is for a different discussion. The point is, of all the *client oses* in the m$ world, it runs code very XP-like in nature (although a heck of a lot more stable, get your disassemblers out and have a look) Win2k3 is no more related to 2000Pro than XP is (which is still some, but not as much as you think). As to running WMP10 on server 2k3, so much of the IE code is replaced that's not passed the "stability tests that the server platform requires". At least, that's what m$ sent me in my inbox. I know, go figure, test it out on the users first. Hey, at least there's some forthought in their heads...
Is it really so hard to understand that worms are a *good* thing? For instance, if I had a major server running vulnerable OpenSSL on it, and it got caught by a worm, 10,000 other people would have the same problem, and it'd be easy to remove. Not only that, but everyone would know about it, how to patch it, etc. Now think what would happen if somebody wrote a non-automated tool. They could target my OpenSSL server, steal everyone's credit cards and patch my kernel so i'd never know... *shudder* Give me a worm over an underground exploit any day.