I FEEL YOUR PAIN! This is one of the most perfect examples of the hipocracy that prevades OSS copycats. I mean, every interface looks like it stole from Windows (reguardless of where that came from itself. Don't waste saying Windows GUI was stolen from "xyx" - that's like say, Oh, since that car was already stolen I stole it from the thief and therefore I'm ok).
Fact is; this type of "file system" has been done before dozens of times. There are document management systems that you can install in Windows that will sit right above the real file system and change every dialog box to give you way to search by keywords, categories, substrings, you name it. They isolate the end users from long path names. This is not new in any way. And the next FS outta Redmond will have this at the kernel level. So, it's nothing but a copycat. And you were right to say it is a good thing, because it is. But the CLI worshippers (and anti-MS types) will label all such claims (and no doubt this post) as a troll. Whatever... I don't see that karma means anything at all.
There's never been a popular TV system that's remained uncracked, AFAIK
Allow me: The big dishes have been using a system that has been uncrackable since the day it was introduced with much noise from the underground claiming it'll be cracked in days... weeks... months... um... someone??
Sorry Poppa - read the link I provided. It quite clearly states that they replaced a larger number of BSD servers with fewer W2K ones. And at this time they continue to handle more users per box than BSD could handle. I am not trolling - I am presenting facts. You just don't like what you are hearing.
Your paragraph isn't worth talking about further. As for your second the point is what happens when your 500Mhz (or 3GHz) machine is under stress? The system that works well on a machine with few resources will also work well on a machine with lots of resources being consumed by high demand.
um... keep right on going? We have NT and W2K servers all over the place that peg both CPUs at 100% for hours on end. Disk subsystems that just chern all day and night. They don't crash, they don't fall over. I don't get your point? Oh, you were implying that since you can't get anyone to believe the "windows boxes just crash randomly for no reason" you are going to take the "well, they do work until pushed really hard, I mean really hard, like so hard you never saw them pushed that hard" Well. I'm sorry to tell you but I just don't see it happening and neither do others running W2K in datacenters around the world. Sorry, but your arguments are thin and lacking any credible evidence. *deleted*
Lets for instance you leave your car door unlocked and someone comes in and steals all your CD's. well since you already bought the CDs you can download them again all you want off p2p.
Huh? Show me that law!!
So I buy a copy of software at the computer store. But it gets stolen before I can even remove the shrinkwrap. I can download it from a warez site and it's legit now?
Yeah, because legal systems the world over are infallible and cost defendants nothing to participate in.
They made a mistake and handed you a "bill" that doesn't show your system but someone elses? Well, then - don't pay it. And if they try to sue you, you prove that it wasn't your system they are saying it is and you sue them for wrongful prosecution and get your attorney fees back and more.
Again - common sense. They probably spotted a LOT more people distributing illegal files than they handed out. a ***LLLOOOTTT*** more - but they picked the creme of the crop. Probably picking those guys with fixed IPs who had thousands of songs that they actually downloaded dozens from on more than one occasion with a room full of witnesses to swear to it.
They aren't chasing Joe Junior with an 8-mile soundtrack song - they are after teh guys with 1000s of *obvious* bootlegs that they can be 99+% certain of. They don't want this to backfire either so they are only going to pursue those they know they'll "win."
Now - if you KNOW that they are handing you a screen shot of your own system - are you going to actually fight this? Could you be that stupid? They hope a few do, I'm sure, so they can make examples of them.
I can imagine someone who says, "Screw this, I ain't paying" and who really is doing something illegal. They sue him and then tell him, ya know where we gave you the chance to get outta this at under $3 a song? Guess what - it's $250,000 PER Each violiation and lesse, in the 3 months we monitored you we saw at least 10,000 downloads so... you got a few billion laying around?
I feel that at some point one of these music organizations is going to find some sucker with a penguin on his T-shirt and 30,000 MP3s on a P2P who, even through he knows he is caught red handed, will fight it in the forum of the EFF and Slashdot etc. And THAT will be the guy that the big time lawyers will say, ok, lets his him with the big one. Slam this guy and sue him for more than he's worth x 1000 and lets see how many others suddenly decide to fight.
Think of it - you are a burgler. You go and steal something. The police show up at your door and whip out a video tape showing you actually doing it with your face smiling into the camera as clear as day. They tell you: "either you pay for what you stole and we completely forget all about you, or we throw your ass in jail without any plea bargin" - tell me which burgler isn't going to whip out his wallet and pay on the spot. He'll even ask them to take paypal!
Ahh... the hipocracy begins to spue. I thought that P2P had legitimate purposes and that all the legitimate users would love it if the nasty abusers doing illegals things were punished and removed so that nothing would soil the pure clean image of P@P for... um... legit uses, if we can think of some.
BUT, putting that aside. Some points:
Too all those "They can't make me pay cause I didn't sign anything" or "Go ahead, sue me for not paying the bill.": You guys missed the point. This bill is an option. They are being nice to you. They are saying; OK, look, you're busted and, deep inside, you know you are busted. We are giving you a chance to avoid court and make this go away as if you were legit. Just pay this bill and you won't go to court. Oh, don't agree? Want to deny it? Won't pay? Fine. We'll take you to court. Oh... NOT for not paying this bill. You are right, you didn't sign or receive a service for THIS bill. Nope, we're taking you to court for the copyrighted material you have stole and are redistributing.
Too all the photoshop wannabe's with this: we could fake those screenshots. Do you honestly (stupidly) think that all they have are some dot-matrix printouts of some screen dumps? Think people. They probably had notarized witnesses present while capturing the data, or cops or the equivilent - for one. And they probably DID download the files from your computer and categloged them neatly with the IP your ISP DHCPed to you along with the records from the ISP where you dialed up from or which IP they gave to what MAC address on who's cable modem or what IP went to what DSL caller.
People - listen. This is not a troll or flamebait. Remember something If you are not doing anything illegal - you have nothing to worry about!
Obviously legal users of P2P networks aren't concerned, they are happy. All those bandwidth hogs trading illegal stuff are being forced off. This is a GOOD thing remember? You have said you actually want this right? How could you possibly complain?
Before replying, think: only the thieves have anything to worry about - and you aren't a theif are you?
What Paul Thurott has to say about this leak
on
"Longhorn" Alpha Preview
·
· Score: 5, Informative
It's always humorous seeing other news agencies pick up stories days after they've first run in WinInfo or the SuperSite, and my Longhorn alpha build preview is one perfect example, with a variety of legitimate news Web sites suddenly discovering Longhorn build 3683 after I wrote about it ten days ago. Two items arose in the aftermath of this event. First, this build is old, and doesn't even slightly resemble the Longhorn we'll be using years down the road (heck, it barely works), let alone more recent builds. Second, much of the email I've gotten about this and other leaked alpha builds revolves around where I got it and whether I can distribute it. I won't generally answer email of that nature, sorry, but to answer to one bizarre query, no; I wasn't responsible for the leak either. There's something about leaked Windows builds that gets people in a tizzy, but remember: We're on the XP train now and will be for some time. This Longhorn stuff is really just a shell for technology tests at this point. It isn't something anyone would actually use day-to-day.
So, as anyone who actually thought about it (hint: ALPHA release, strictly internal), this isn't what Longhorn is about. This is some internal MS messing about with ideas for a UI - that's all. Might be twenty more variations on taskbars and quickstarts and what-have-yous. And, besides, who cares about changes to the UI. You'll get used to them, as you got used to going from W3.1 to W9x to W2K to XP. They are small changes, progressive improvments/refinements. Why get so hung up on some screenshots.
Instead, read about some of the new features and improvements to Windows that Longhorn introducts by reading Paul's Longhorn FAQ. I especially like the SQL Server.NET-based file system - "Originally slated for Blackcomb, I've now verified that Longhorn will ship with a new SQL Server.NET-based file system, originally code-named "Storage+". Based on the "Yukon" release of SQL Server, this file system will let Microsoft's search tools work across a wider range of storage devices, including the file system, Active Directory, SQL Server databases, and Exchange Server data stores." Sweet!
Read The Link I provided - is it that hard? Or are you so brainwashed by linus that you only believe antiMS FUD and won't consider for a second that it's possible it's not so?
Ironic? If you do not give us enough information to reproduce your results, don't be disappointed when nobody takes your claims at face value.
Funny, rereading YOUR own comments I see that you provide absolutely no supporting evidence. SMB sucks. MS sucks Windows sucks. Hmm.. gosh, that just about convinces me! NOT.
The point of "millions using windows" is NOT one of "most popular=best" but instead that if there really were as many obvious problems and the choice of "better" was just SO obvious - then millions would have noticed by now, don't you think?
The funny part of your reply is that I believe that you actually believe this. You would choose to have us believe with you that the 100s of millions that use Windows daily have utterly not noticed that they are doing absolutely nothing. That their machines work so infrequently that it's rare they could actually produce anything meaningful. At the same time you'd have us believe that the few geeks running their distro of the week are actually doing all the work on their never crashed linux boxes?
The fact is I see Windows servers doing exactly the things unix servers do. I don't seem them crashing any more frequently. I do see people being quite productive on them despite whatever the cost. And anyone who believes just because you can download a copy of some distro for free that the entire total cost of ownership is free also - is as clueless as someone has based their entire opening remark on the fact that linux can run on a P133 a little better than W2K can. This is your proof that Linux is, what, "better?"
You stated a P133 with 24 megs. Now, I could have lied and said, sure I've seen W2K on a 24 meg P133 but I haven't so I didn't. That it could run wouldn't suprise me. However - no one would and no one cares that it could or couldn't. I cannot even buy a P133 w/24 megs new anymore. The very cheapest computer we build today will be running a PIII at over 500 mhz. The smallest practical stick of memory is 64 mbs. SO, basically, the cheapest possible bargin bin computer I can buy today will run W2K Server just fine. Your point is lost and meaningless other than some trivial comparison (My OS runs on more obsolete crap than your OS - sheesh).
Anyway, you are right, there is no further point to this. I spend my money where I see it do the most good for me and my clients. You do the same. I won't have to spend time explaining why they can't run this app, don't have that app, can't talk to that machine, don't interact with this hardware, lack that driver, need to wait for some 12 year old to get outta detention before hopefully he'll read a newsgroup post asking for support so he can modify the custom patch he wrote for an older version of the kernel everyone else has already fragmented their way past. Me, I just say, "You want what? Lets see... which of these 20 products do we choose from and get it overnighted tomorrow. Or, We'll fire up any language you choose and write it ourselves with hundreds of thousands of support sources to choose from).
Obviously - you are under the impression that "scripting" under Windows is limited to.BAT files. It would be useless to debate you with that as your basis for claims otherwise. Get a clue about what you can do from the cmd line in Windows then reconsider your comments. Is there a 1:1 parity between the unix command line and the windows one? of course not. Is there much of Windows you cannot control from the command line? Nope. Mouse clickers just don't know this (and most don't need to)
What I'm talking about is that you can control windows services and subsystems and the os from the command line.
YOU attribute my comments to the wrong article. I was refering the to link *I* provided. Not the stolen document written BEFORE Hotmail was converted successfully, in one shot, to W2K. All the comments you rebutt with are taken from the predated article, not the current record of fact.
Fact: There is full blown comprehensive scripting abilities in W2K. If you claim otherwise than you are simply wrong. And this is proven effortlessly by anyone who has actually used Windows 2000. Either you have not or if you have then you either don't know what you are missing or are simply lying.
Fact: Fewer servers handle more users on hotmail than ever was done using BSD. It's fact. Get over it.
Fact: W2K is stable. This is proven by anyone who runs it with anything remotely approaching two brain cells firing. The millions using it attest to this fact. Our data center with 100s of W2K servers running under load daily prove it. We just don't see crashes. Period. Neither to our partners. We do, often, laugh at how it seems that the only people reporting crashes are either the warez kiddies or (ex-)unix admins (and that not sarcasm).
My comments are based on the factual Hotmail migration - not the old pre-migration document stolen from some old FTP directory.
Side note: The guy that authored the stolen document -- he is also a reviewer for the final migration document I linked to and his opinions have changed CONSIDERABLY. He now knows how wrong he was. Do you?
You are missing the obvious. YOU are telling us that you have seen W2K machines just mysteriously blow up for no reason while just sitting there. But the linux machines you've seen are ultra stable titans that only failed under some super load. From this we are to determine that all W2K boxes fall over if looked at while Linux will save the world from nuclear bombs.
Meanwhile, I report that I haven't seen W2K fall over and have seen Linux crash during "normal" stuff.
So, taken as a sum - they cancel each other out. Anecdotal evidence is just that - you saw something/I saw something; neither is strong enough on it's own to support a conclusion in general. So, why bother using it?
My point about our printer server on 32 MB was a direct rebuttal, do with it as you will.
The fact remains that far far more people are NOT reporting W2K servers just magically crashing for no given reason whenever *nix fans are watching. Just as I wouldn't claim that Linux boxes have just crashed when stared at. It's not true. Neither is the claim that W2K is inherently unstable. It's not.
We have one such machine that ran for about 7 months as a print server and a WINS server for a workgroup of about 95 users. It handled the 12 printers they had (4 of them in a pool). It ran for 7 months without a single reboot (didn't need to be patched because it was on an internal lan, not internet attached). It was a box upgraded from NT4 without doing much other than inserting the CD and letting setup do it's thing.
The server you provide an OS fingerprint for is the popup banner server. Yep. They do all the serious stuff on W2K and they leave the junk for BSD. Again, they never claimed, nor do I, that Hotmail is 100% non-BSD. MS never tried to hide the fact that something they bought was originally written and running on BSD. Now it's running on something else:
Look, the truth IS out there; just look and see. The day MS announced the migration netcraft confirmed it and has been confirming it ever since. Hotmail runs faster and uses fewer servers per user than it ever did, despite offer more features and the ability to upgrade beyond what old Hotmail ever offered. And it does it with less than 1/2 the admin staff BSD required. Why is this so hard to accept? Get over it and move on.
Contrary to what Drestin believes, there _were_ multiple failed attempts and MS tried to hide the fact they were still running freeBSD up until about a year or so ago.
Contrary to what Chubby would have you believe, this is untrue. There were no attempts to move as MS had always, from the day they bought hotmail, intended to move to W2K and make a nice case study out of it. They new a year before they bought hotmail that W2K was coming and how big of a deal it was and how important it was for them to prove their marketing claims.
You are utterly incorrect in your claims (despite whether it's true you actually know anyone involved in the migration, which I doubt) that there was anything like a 1:1 migration. If you actually bothered to read the link I provided you'd see that what really happened is that they replace BSD machines at a rate BETTER than 1:1. The W2K servers ran more clients per machine than BSD ever did. It's a simple fact. Deal with it.
As for Hotmail making MS any money - that's out of the scope of this discussion. Who cares - it doesn't affect the performance of the OS.
If that is true, why did all inactive and full accounts on hotmail suddenly get deleted during the migration?
"Full" account were never deleted. Gee, deleting inactive accounts after moving? If that is true (and I don't know that it is) - why not? They are, after all, inactive.
As for handling the number of accounts - lets face facts - they used FEWER servers to handle MORE accounts after the conversion. At this time they are handling more traffic per machine than BSD EVER did before. As for changes to their policies - that is not related to any OS change; it's marketing. Your post is full of FUD and lacking in any facts or evidence. "Deleted"
They did however make a single failed attempt and tried to hide their actions
This is untrue and has been stated as such by, among others, the VERY author of both the piece this/. article refers to and the one I linked to. By the people who actually performed the conversion. They never intended nor tried to move from BSD to NT 4. They had always intended to move to W2K to prove it was the "right thing to do." All other claims are simple FUD, lacking a shred of evidence.
I should just leave this one alone but... your opinions here are utterly unsupported. In my own experiences I've proven W2K to be nothing but stable. It runs alongside other OSes and my only complaint is having to reboot to apply security patches. THAT is something I can honestly say sucks about windows.
XP is both stable and fast. This is an obvious fact that can be shown to be true by millions using it daily who can tell the truth.
Actually, we run both SMB and NFS here and we've found no advantage to NFS -- you are most likely comparing samba to nfs, not true SMB on MS boxes. And while there are some NFS addons to Windows that suck; the one in MS's Unix Services for Windows is faster than some native NFS we've run against. Hows that for ironic.
Of course, your last fact is indeed true and that is what I wish more people here would lead off with and understand. Use the right tool for the job - there is no one universal OS that will satify every requirement. But to blindly and ignorantly spue FUD and bash Windows is to reveal ignorance and, in a way, to admit windows is above you as you try to drag it down to your level.:)
A marketing/perception reason? Of course you are right that it didn't/wouldn't look good to run non-MS for a big MS property. So that had a great deal to do with it.
But, they approached it correctly and set a model for others to follow. They didn't rush to convert it the day they bought it. They didn't give it four failed attempts and hide their actions and make a mess. They took their time (it wasn't broke, it didn't need to be fixed - it was upgraded) and documented every move and turned it into a really excellent case model for others to see.
It is MS "eating it's own dogfood" and liking it! They told people, Windows 2000 can scale and do be scripted and it's reliable and it can replace *nix systems and be faster and stable -- and they proved it! And continue to prove it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you read the actual CERT Vulnerability note and seen that Windows is not vulnerable.
Wow, according to this Windows is NOT vulnerable
According to another post here Linux IS vulnerable
Reading the fluff piece isn't good enough. Go to the source and get the real deal.
Fact is; this type of "file system" has been done before dozens of times. There are document management systems that you can install in Windows that will sit right above the real file system and change every dialog box to give you way to search by keywords, categories, substrings, you name it. They isolate the end users from long path names. This is not new in any way. And the next FS outta Redmond will have this at the kernel level. So, it's nothing but a copycat. And you were right to say it is a good thing, because it is. But the CLI worshippers (and anti-MS types) will label all such claims (and no doubt this post) as a troll. Whatever... I don't see that karma means anything at all.
Allow me: The big dishes have been using a system that has been uncrackable since the day it was introduced with much noise from the underground claiming it'll be cracked in days... weeks... months... um... someone??
Sorry Poppa - read the link I provided. It quite clearly states that they replaced a larger number of BSD servers with fewer W2K ones. And at this time they continue to handle more users per box than BSD could handle. I am not trolling - I am presenting facts. You just don't like what you are hearing.
the point is what happens when your 500Mhz (or 3GHz) machine is under stress? The system that works well on a machine with few resources will also work well on a machine with lots of resources being consumed by high demand.
um... keep right on going? We have NT and W2K servers all over the place that peg both CPUs at 100% for hours on end. Disk subsystems that just chern all day and night. They don't crash, they don't fall over. I don't get your point? Oh, you were implying that since you can't get anyone to believe the "windows boxes just crash randomly for no reason" you are going to take the "well, they do work until pushed really hard, I mean really hard, like so hard you never saw them pushed that hard" Well. I'm sorry to tell you but I just don't see it happening and neither do others running W2K in datacenters around the world. Sorry, but your arguments are thin and lacking any credible evidence. *deleted*
Huh? Show me that law!!
So I buy a copy of software at the computer store. But it gets stolen before I can even remove the shrinkwrap. I can download it from a warez site and it's legit now?
Dream on!
They made a mistake and handed you a "bill" that doesn't show your system but someone elses? Well, then - don't pay it. And if they try to sue you, you prove that it wasn't your system they are saying it is and you sue them for wrongful prosecution and get your attorney fees back and more.
Again - common sense. They probably spotted a LOT more people distributing illegal files than they handed out. a ***LLLOOOTTT*** more - but they picked the creme of the crop. Probably picking those guys with fixed IPs who had thousands of songs that they actually downloaded dozens from on more than one occasion with a room full of witnesses to swear to it.
They aren't chasing Joe Junior with an 8-mile soundtrack song - they are after teh guys with 1000s of *obvious* bootlegs that they can be 99+% certain of. They don't want this to backfire either so they are only going to pursue those they know they'll "win."
Now - if you KNOW that they are handing you a screen shot of your own system - are you going to actually fight this? Could you be that stupid? They hope a few do, I'm sure, so they can make examples of them.
I can imagine someone who says, "Screw this, I ain't paying" and who really is doing something illegal. They sue him and then tell him, ya know where we gave you the chance to get outta this at under $3 a song? Guess what - it's $250,000 PER Each violiation and lesse, in the 3 months we monitored you we saw at least 10,000 downloads so... you got a few billion laying around?
I feel that at some point one of these music organizations is going to find some sucker with a penguin on his T-shirt and 30,000 MP3s on a P2P who, even through he knows he is caught red handed, will fight it in the forum of the EFF and Slashdot etc. And THAT will be the guy that the big time lawyers will say, ok, lets his him with the big one. Slam this guy and sue him for more than he's worth x 1000 and lets see how many others suddenly decide to fight.
Think of it - you are a burgler. You go and steal something. The police show up at your door and whip out a video tape showing you actually doing it with your face smiling into the camera as clear as day. They tell you: "either you pay for what you stole and we completely forget all about you, or we throw your ass in jail without any plea bargin" - tell me which burgler isn't going to whip out his wallet and pay on the spot. He'll even ask them to take paypal!
BUT, putting that aside. Some points:
Too all those "They can't make me pay cause I didn't sign anything" or "Go ahead, sue me for not paying the bill.": You guys missed the point. This bill is an option. They are being nice to you. They are saying; OK, look, you're busted and, deep inside, you know you are busted. We are giving you a chance to avoid court and make this go away as if you were legit. Just pay this bill and you won't go to court. Oh, don't agree? Want to deny it? Won't pay? Fine. We'll take you to court. Oh... NOT for not paying this bill. You are right, you didn't sign or receive a service for THIS bill. Nope, we're taking you to court for the copyrighted material you have stole and are redistributing.
Too all the photoshop wannabe's with this: we could fake those screenshots. Do you honestly (stupidly) think that all they have are some dot-matrix printouts of some screen dumps? Think people. They probably had notarized witnesses present while capturing the data, or cops or the equivilent - for one. And they probably DID download the files from your computer and categloged them neatly with the IP your ISP DHCPed to you along with the records from the ISP where you dialed up from or which IP they gave to what MAC address on who's cable modem or what IP went to what DSL caller.
People - listen. This is not a troll or flamebait. Remember something
If you are not doing anything illegal - you have nothing to worry about!
Obviously legal users of P2P networks aren't concerned, they are happy. All those bandwidth hogs trading illegal stuff are being forced off. This is a GOOD thing remember? You have said you actually want this right? How could you possibly complain?
Before replying, think: only the thieves have anything to worry about - and you aren't a theif are you?
Instead, read about some of the new features and improvements to Windows that Longhorn introducts by reading Paul's Longhorn FAQ. I especially like the SQL Server .NET-based file system - "Originally slated for Blackcomb, I've now verified that Longhorn will ship with a new SQL Server .NET-based file system, originally code-named "Storage+". Based on the "Yukon" release of SQL Server, this file system will let Microsoft's search tools work across a wider range of storage devices, including the file system, Active Directory, SQL Server databases, and Exchange Server data stores." Sweet!
Read The Link I provided - is it that hard? Or are you so brainwashed by linus that you only believe antiMS FUD and won't consider for a second that it's possible it's not so?
If you do not give us enough information to reproduce your results, don't be disappointed when nobody takes your claims at face value.
Funny, rereading YOUR own comments I see that you provide absolutely no supporting evidence. SMB sucks. MS sucks Windows sucks. Hmm.. gosh, that just about convinces me! NOT.
The point of "millions using windows" is NOT one of "most popular=best" but instead that if there really were as many obvious problems and the choice of "better" was just SO obvious - then millions would have noticed by now, don't you think?
The fact is I see Windows servers doing exactly the things unix servers do. I don't seem them crashing any more frequently. I do see people being quite productive on them despite whatever the cost. And anyone who believes just because you can download a copy of some distro for free that the entire total cost of ownership is free also - is as clueless as someone has based their entire opening remark on the fact that linux can run on a P133 a little better than W2K can. This is your proof that Linux is, what, "better?"
You stated a P133 with 24 megs. Now, I could have lied and said, sure I've seen W2K on a 24 meg P133 but I haven't so I didn't. That it could run wouldn't suprise me. However - no one would and no one cares that it could or couldn't. I cannot even buy a P133 w/24 megs new anymore. The very cheapest computer we build today will be running a PIII at over 500 mhz. The smallest practical stick of memory is 64 mbs. SO, basically, the cheapest possible bargin bin computer I can buy today will run W2K Server just fine. Your point is lost and meaningless other than some trivial comparison (My OS runs on more obsolete crap than your OS - sheesh).
Anyway, you are right, there is no further point to this. I spend my money where I see it do the most good for me and my clients. You do the same. I won't have to spend time explaining why they can't run this app, don't have that app, can't talk to that machine, don't interact with this hardware, lack that driver, need to wait for some 12 year old to get outta detention before hopefully he'll read a newsgroup post asking for support so he can modify the custom patch he wrote for an older version of the kernel everyone else has already fragmented their way past. Me, I just say, "You want what? Lets see... which of these 20 products do we choose from and get it overnighted tomorrow. Or, We'll fire up any language you choose and write it ourselves with hundreds of thousands of support sources to choose from).
What I'm talking about is that you can control windows services and subsystems and the os from the command line.
Fact: There is full blown comprehensive scripting abilities in W2K. If you claim otherwise than you are simply wrong. And this is proven effortlessly by anyone who has actually used Windows 2000. Either you have not or if you have then you either don't know what you are missing or are simply lying.
Fact: Fewer servers handle more users on hotmail than ever was done using BSD. It's fact. Get over it.
Fact: W2K is stable. This is proven by anyone who runs it with anything remotely approaching two brain cells firing. The millions using it attest to this fact. Our data center with 100s of W2K servers running under load daily prove it. We just don't see crashes. Period. Neither to our partners. We do, often, laugh at how it seems that the only people reporting crashes are either the warez kiddies or (ex-)unix admins (and that not sarcasm).
My comments are based on the factual Hotmail migration - not the old pre-migration document stolen from some old FTP directory.
Side note: The guy that authored the stolen document -- he is also a reviewer for the final migration document I linked to and his opinions have changed CONSIDERABLY. He now knows how wrong he was. Do you?
Meanwhile, I report that I haven't seen W2K fall over and have seen Linux crash during "normal" stuff.
So, taken as a sum - they cancel each other out. Anecdotal evidence is just that - you saw something/I saw something; neither is strong enough on it's own to support a conclusion in general. So, why bother using it?
My point about our printer server on 32 MB was a direct rebuttal, do with it as you will.
The fact remains that far far more people are NOT reporting W2K servers just magically crashing for no given reason whenever *nix fans are watching. Just as I wouldn't claim that Linux boxes have just crashed when stared at. It's not true. Neither is the claim that W2K is inherently unstable. It's not.
We have one such machine that ran for about 7 months as a print server and a WINS server for a workgroup of about 95 users. It handled the 12 printers they had (4 of them in a pool). It ran for 7 months without a single reboot (didn't need to be patched because it was on an internal lan, not internet attached). It was a box upgraded from NT4 without doing much other than inserting the CD and letting setup do it's thing.
You have an incredible "memory" -- you "remember" things that never happened or were even claimed to have happened.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.hotma il.com with 200+ days of uptime.
Unstable? I think not.
Look, the truth IS out there; just look and see. The day MS announced the migration netcraft confirmed it and has been confirming it ever since. Hotmail runs faster and uses fewer servers per user than it ever did, despite offer more features and the ability to upgrade beyond what old Hotmail ever offered. And it does it with less than 1/2 the admin staff BSD required. Why is this so hard to accept? Get over it and move on.
Contrary to what Chubby would have you believe, this is untrue. There were no attempts to move as MS had always, from the day they bought hotmail, intended to move to W2K and make a nice case study out of it. They new a year before they bought hotmail that W2K was coming and how big of a deal it was and how important it was for them to prove their marketing claims.
You are utterly incorrect in your claims (despite whether it's true you actually know anyone involved in the migration, which I doubt) that there was anything like a 1:1 migration. If you actually bothered to read the link I provided you'd see that what really happened is that they replace BSD machines at a rate BETTER than 1:1. The W2K servers ran more clients per machine than BSD ever did. It's a simple fact. Deal with it.
As for Hotmail making MS any money - that's out of the scope of this discussion. Who cares - it doesn't affect the performance of the OS.
"Full" account were never deleted. Gee, deleting inactive accounts after moving? If that is true (and I don't know that it is) - why not? They are, after all, inactive.
As for handling the number of accounts - lets face facts - they used FEWER servers to handle MORE accounts after the conversion. At this time they are handling more traffic per machine than BSD EVER did before. As for changes to their policies - that is not related to any OS change; it's marketing. Your post is full of FUD and lacking in any facts or evidence. "Deleted"
This is untrue and has been stated as such by, among others, the VERY author of both the piece this /. article refers to and the one I linked to. By the people who actually performed the conversion. They never intended nor tried to move from BSD to NT 4. They had always intended to move to W2K to prove it was the "right thing to do." All other claims are simple FUD, lacking a shred of evidence.
XP is both stable and fast. This is an obvious fact that can be shown to be true by millions using it daily who can tell the truth.
Actually, we run both SMB and NFS here and we've found no advantage to NFS -- you are most likely comparing samba to nfs, not true SMB on MS boxes. And while there are some NFS addons to Windows that suck; the one in MS's Unix Services for Windows is faster than some native NFS we've run against. Hows that for ironic.
Of course, your last fact is indeed true and that is what I wish more people here would lead off with and understand. Use the right tool for the job - there is no one universal OS that will satify every requirement. But to blindly and ignorantly spue FUD and bash Windows is to reveal ignorance and, in a way, to admit windows is above you as you try to drag it down to your level. :)
If a Ferrari is so fast and well built, why will it barely start and not get over 50 mph while running 80 octain watered down gas?
BTW: W2K will run on a P133 with 32 MB of RAM (not sure about 24) because I've seen it.
As for your other anecdotal evidence? In this forum it's useless so I'll ignore it.
But, they approached it correctly and set a model for others to follow. They didn't rush to convert it the day they bought it. They didn't give it four failed attempts and hide their actions and make a mess. They took their time (it wasn't broke, it didn't need to be fixed - it was upgraded) and documented every move and turned it into a really excellent case model for others to see.
It is MS "eating it's own dogfood" and liking it! They told people, Windows 2000 can scale and do be scripted and it's reliable and it can replace *nix systems and be faster and stable -- and they proved it! And continue to prove it.