In my eyes, it's a bit like insuring against using using the fire-services.
You're putting your health in the hands of large corporations, who clearly have your best interests at heart. Wait until the insurance companies can get access to your genetic information...the people worst off truly will suffer then.
Being healthy is a basic human right I always thought, and even if it's not you suffering now, there will come a day when you'll need the system to help you, which if it's private enterprise, would make me feel terribly nervous.
Caching, queuing, URL parsing, and TCP/IP interfacing comes to mind. All very important tasks....for caching especially; handing over everything to user mode processes is quite heavy on CPU (relatively speaking) so if it can be dealt with at a kernel level, it saves an awful lot of workload.
Fair enough points, I'll agree. It's just nice to see that finally, Microsoft is seeing that "more is less".
The more of a 'potato' you can make your webserver (for any webserver), while not compromising its purpose, the faster, more secure, and more reliable it'll be.
Again, that's why I actually think IIS7 on Linux would be the absolute ultimate web-stack, ever, amen. The two are now very closely aligned in design principals (more is less).....oh well, when hell freezes over I suppose!
Again, that's not really the case. If you look at what is dealt with in kernel mode, it's extremely low-level. Anything more complex than handling & queuing HTTP requests or returning cache is handed off to isolated user-mode processes.
Bear in mind that the core, being in kernel mode, is less likely to fail as it's running completely separate from any ISAPI filters, user-applications, etc. Regardless, we are talking an extremely simple part of the kernel which deals with the lowest level of HTTP - anything more complex is pass onto an appropriate user-mode process, which for anything remotely dangerous will be running in its own isolated application pool.
I personally think IIS is a superior webserver to Apache. I speak as someone who's had to administer both systems, and like anything each has thier own quirks + benefits etc, but crucially...
Apache is not as modular as IIS (v7 that is). IIS7 you can literally strip it so bare, all it can do is send empty HTTP 200 responses - an absolute shell of a webserver. Not even file html/file-system support. Want disk-access? Turn on disk-access module. Want asp.net? Turn on the asp.net module. Absolutely everything (and really, everything) is a module that can be ripped out.
IIS6+ deals with HTTP requests at a kernel level. That is core functionality such as responses, caching, etc are all dealt with at ring0. Performance is unbeatable.
Oh and security? IIS6 has never been rooted, ever. Add-ons have been (asp.net for instance), but IIS6 has never been.
Oh, and it's locked down by default. And easy to administer.
In my opinion Linux is probably the better OS to host a webserver on, but IIS does spank Apache all over I'm afraid - mainly for the stated reasons above.
...If you business is looking to standardise on a technology platform. Put it another way, if all the "software" you have is on php/www then fine, but for most larger organisations, the application stack is only partly based on the web. For these cases, a platform like.Net (or indeed Java too) makes perfect sense because you can write for the web, desktop, server, and hand-held all in the one language, which you cannot do with php.
There may be a larger picture than you're seeing here. Php is fine....as long as you don't care about reusability outside of the website. For most companies, that's not the case.
Why? Because Vista has funkier backgrounds, Aero (which I must admit does look the business), and, er, a nifty utility for sorting photos. That fades in and out. And shiny blue buttons!
Seriously, when I show people Vista, the conversation goes more or less like:
Me: "check what happens when you open a window!" Them: "ooooooooooo! Nice!" Me: "check what happens when you close a window!" Them: "ooooooooooo! Nice!" Me: "check what happens when you minimise a window!" Them: "ooooooooooo! Nice!" Me: "and, er....." Them: "That's a nice background...where'd you get that?" Me: "Oh, that's came with Vista." Them: "AWESOME!"
So, you see, it's a vanity thing. Microsoft know this too, which is why they spent kazillions on the whole look and feel. It does it for average Joe.
Vista's dead in the water? Do you honestly think that?!
I'm not so sure....if Vista has one problem it's that it tries to be too compatible while being too much of a evolution - things like networking, multimedia, scheduling and so on have been completely ripped out and re-written (for the better IMHO). There's lots of excellent improvements gone into Vista....do some digging around and you might even find something out.
The problem with Vista is it wasn't very compatible with applications/drivers when it came out. People could see it a mile away, and so waited, but that's changing fast. Name me one major application on the market that does not run on Vista now?
Anyway, GNU/Linux has it's place, but until I and everyone else can walk into a shop and buy the latest game/app for my [insert name of any one of the hundreds of linux distros here] Linux PC, no one's going to jump boat.
would be if an iPod had an optional lock code that on first sync would be entered and subsequently remembered....no code, no charge. Oh, and just make sure external chargers would work too...I know that would be a way around not having any battery, but one set of tracks gets pretty damned boring after a while
I've used virtualization for both containerisation and also to consolidate boxes too...
At my previous company, we invested in two almighty servers with absolutely stacks of RAM in a failover cluster. They ran 4-5 other servers for critical tasks...each virtual machine was stored on a shared RAID5 array. If anything critical happened to the real server, the virtual servers would be switched to the next real server and everything was back up again in seconds. The system was fully automated too, and frankly, it saved having to buy several not-so-meaty boxes while not losing much redundancy and giving very quick scalability (want one more virtual server? 5 minute job. want more performance? Upgrade redundant box and switch over virtual machines).
The system worked a treat, and frankly, the size & power of the bigger, more important fewer servers gave me a constant hard-on.
Very US biased, highly generalised, and highly negative of anything not US.
Whoever said the A380 isn't supported any more? Pure FUD - I love it!
175 orders and counting - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A380#Orders , which for the biggest plane ever manufactured by the human race is pretty good. And before you bring up the delays issue, I would point out the 747 nearly bankrupted Boeing (http://www.aviationexplorer.com/747_facts.htm) - a far cry from Airbus today.
And for fucks sake, grow up - it's entirely possible the EU + US can get along just fine. There wouldn't be much of a global market place if we didn't now would there? Sometimes it pays to get on.
Including support for configuring Firefox across thousands of desktops? As it turns out AD does that fine with a free extension - posted in this thread. If it's as easy as AD, wake me up.
Can I just first I'm a huge FireFox fan, and am indeed writing this very message from it.
That said, IE is the only browser where you can easily configure it enterprise wide, extremely easily. Want to lock down specific websites to text & images only for thousands of machines remotely? It's as easy as doing it in "Internet Options" in Windows. Want to switch off JavaScript internet-wide for specific departments/offices in your enterprise? Same again - just set the group policy option.
Basically, ALL of the IE options are over-ridable at a Group Policy level, built into every AD system since Windows 2000 Server. IE is the only browser that makes this possible. That, folks is quite often why IE is the corporate browser of choice - it's the only one that can be centrally managed like that.
...but not for terrorism purposes; it's primary purpose is to keep congestion down in the city of London, which it does so quite effectively. Also, the money (not all, but some) gets reinvested in the city's transport infrastructure too...
The only bad thing about the system is as the thing is timed, you get tonnes of squatters waiting each side of the borders until it's free...but in the centre at least, traffic (when I lived in London) was noticeably less when it was introduced.
Also, did I mention the system runs on.Net? That's right slashdotters, even more reason to hate Microsoft...they built the system that watches where you drive!
Does everyone here secretly run Windows systems, or is this another MS-bashing opportunity? Can we have security fixes released for Linux kernel published too please? I think that might be more relevant for the practical purposes this article was no doubt published...
I mean, Christ, it's almost like everyone here hates Microsoft or something!
Slashdot Mirror
In my eyes, it's a bit like insuring against using using the fire-services.
You're putting your health in the hands of large corporations, who clearly have your best interests at heart. Wait until the insurance companies can get access to your genetic information...the people worst off truly will suffer then.
Being healthy is a basic human right I always thought, and even if it's not you suffering now, there will come a day when you'll need the system to help you, which if it's private enterprise, would make me feel terribly nervous.
At the risk of repeating what has already been written, please refer to this document which should explain all.
o wsserver2003/technologies/webapp/iis/iis6perf.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/wind
Caching, queuing, URL parsing, and TCP/IP interfacing comes to mind. All very important tasks....for caching especially; handing over everything to user mode processes is quite heavy on CPU (relatively speaking) so if it can be dealt with at a kernel level, it saves an awful lot of workload.
Fair enough points, I'll agree. It's just nice to see that finally, Microsoft is seeing that "more is less".
The more of a 'potato' you can make your webserver (for any webserver), while not compromising its purpose, the faster, more secure, and more reliable it'll be.
Again, that's why I actually think IIS7 on Linux would be the absolute ultimate web-stack, ever, amen. The two are now very closely aligned in design principals (more is less).....oh well, when hell freezes over I suppose!
Again, that's not really the case. If you look at what is dealt with in kernel mode, it's extremely low-level. Anything more complex than handling & queuing HTTP requests or returning cache is handed off to isolated user-mode processes.
o wsserver2003/technologies/webapp/iis/iis6perf.mspx
Have a look - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/wind
Thus, even basic file-handling is done by an isolated process running at the lowest level of security by default (Network Service in Win2k3).
You've got to love this Twitter fella. Really, the guy should get published, no?
Not so simple as that I'm afraid - http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1765
Bear in mind that the core, being in kernel mode, is less likely to fail as it's running completely separate from any ISAPI filters, user-applications, etc. Regardless, we are talking an extremely simple part of the kernel which deals with the lowest level of HTTP - anything more complex is pass onto an appropriate user-mode process, which for anything remotely dangerous will be running in its own isolated application pool.
I personally think IIS is a superior webserver to Apache. I speak as someone who's had to administer both systems, and like anything each has thier own quirks + benefits etc, but crucially...
Apache is not as modular as IIS (v7 that is). IIS7 you can literally strip it so bare, all it can do is send empty HTTP 200 responses - an absolute shell of a webserver. Not even file html/file-system support. Want disk-access? Turn on disk-access module. Want asp.net? Turn on the asp.net module. Absolutely everything (and really, everything) is a module that can be ripped out.
IIS6+ deals with HTTP requests at a kernel level. That is core functionality such as responses, caching, etc are all dealt with at ring0. Performance is unbeatable.
Oh and security? IIS6 has never been rooted, ever. Add-ons have been (asp.net for instance), but IIS6 has never been.
Oh, and it's locked down by default. And easy to administer.
In my opinion Linux is probably the better OS to host a webserver on, but IIS does spank Apache all over I'm afraid - mainly for the stated reasons above.
...If you business is looking to standardise on a technology platform. .Net (or indeed Java too) makes perfect sense because you can write for the web, desktop, server, and hand-held all in the one language, which you cannot do with php.
Put it another way, if all the "software" you have is on php/www then fine, but for most larger organisations, the application stack is only partly based on the web. For these cases, a platform like
There may be a larger picture than you're seeing here. Php is fine....as long as you don't care about reusability outside of the website. For most companies, that's not the case.
Why? Because Vista has funkier backgrounds, Aero (which I must admit does look the business), and, er, a nifty utility for sorting photos. That fades in and out. And shiny blue buttons!
Seriously, when I show people Vista, the conversation goes more or less like:
Me: "check what happens when you open a window!"
Them: "ooooooooooo! Nice!"
Me: "check what happens when you close a window!"
Them: "ooooooooooo! Nice!"
Me: "check what happens when you minimise a window!"
Them: "ooooooooooo! Nice!"
Me: "and, er....."
Them: "That's a nice background...where'd you get that?"
Me: "Oh, that's came with Vista."
Them: "AWESOME!"
So, you see, it's a vanity thing. Microsoft know this too, which is why they spent kazillions on the whole look and feel. It does it for average Joe.
Funny you should mention old games, I'm actually playing C&C95 right now.....under Vista! Absolutely no issues.
As for the sound issue...sound hardware isn't lost completely; OpenAL supports it fine - http://www.openal.org/openal_vista.html
Vista's dead in the water? Do you honestly think that?!
I'm not so sure....if Vista has one problem it's that it tries to be too compatible while being too much of a evolution - things like networking, multimedia, scheduling and so on have been completely ripped out and re-written (for the better IMHO). There's lots of excellent improvements gone into Vista....do some digging around and you might even find something out.
The problem with Vista is it wasn't very compatible with applications/drivers when it came out. People could see it a mile away, and so waited, but that's changing fast. Name me one major application on the market that does not run on Vista now?
Anyway, GNU/Linux has it's place, but until I and everyone else can walk into a shop and buy the latest game/app for my [insert name of any one of the hundreds of linux distros here] Linux PC, no one's going to jump boat.
would be if an iPod had an optional lock code that on first sync would be entered and subsequently remembered....no code, no charge. Oh, and just make sure external chargers would work too...I know that would be a way around not having any battery, but one set of tracks gets pretty damned boring after a while
I've used virtualization for both containerisation and also to consolidate boxes too...
At my previous company, we invested in two almighty servers with absolutely stacks of RAM in a failover cluster. They ran 4-5 other servers for critical tasks...each virtual machine was stored on a shared RAID5 array. If anything critical happened to the real server, the virtual servers would be switched to the next real server and everything was back up again in seconds. The system was fully automated too, and frankly, it saved having to buy several not-so-meaty boxes while not losing much redundancy and giving very quick scalability (want one more virtual server? 5 minute job. want more performance? Upgrade redundant box and switch over virtual machines).
The system worked a treat, and frankly, the size & power of the bigger, more important fewer servers gave me a constant hard-on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windo ws_Vista
e w_to_Windows_Vista
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_features_n
It's true, EOL warnings are given years in advance. Any evidence to the contrary is of course welcome, but I don't think you'll find any.
Thanks man, you said it for me :)
Very US biased, highly generalised, and highly negative of anything not US.
Whoever said the A380 isn't supported any more? Pure FUD - I love it!
175 orders and counting - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A380#Orders , which for the biggest plane ever manufactured by the human race is pretty good. And before you bring up the delays issue, I would point out the 747 nearly bankrupted Boeing (http://www.aviationexplorer.com/747_facts.htm) - a far cry from Airbus today.
And for fucks sake, grow up - it's entirely possible the EU + US can get along just fine. There wouldn't be much of a global market place if we didn't now would there? Sometimes it pays to get on.
It just doesn't last very long, gives you a hangover the next morning, and makes ugly women look like supermodels.
Including support for configuring Firefox across thousands of desktops? As it turns out AD does that fine with a free extension - posted in this thread. If it's as easy as AD, wake me up.
Christ, that's the most incomprehensible, flaming and irrelevant comment I've seen in a while. Welcome to Slashdot - you'll fit right in.
Can I just first I'm a huge FireFox fan, and am indeed writing this very message from it.
That said, IE is the only browser where you can easily configure it enterprise wide, extremely easily. Want to lock down specific websites to text & images only for thousands of machines remotely? It's as easy as doing it in "Internet Options" in Windows. Want to switch off JavaScript internet-wide for specific departments/offices in your enterprise? Same again - just set the group policy option.
Basically, ALL of the IE options are over-ridable at a Group Policy level, built into every AD system since Windows 2000 Server. IE is the only browser that makes this possible. That, folks is quite often why IE is the corporate browser of choice - it's the only one that can be centrally managed like that.
...but not for terrorism purposes; it's primary purpose is to keep congestion down in the city of London, which it does so quite effectively. Also, the money (not all, but some) gets reinvested in the city's transport infrastructure too...
.Net? That's right slashdotters, even more reason to hate Microsoft...they built the system that watches where you drive!
The only bad thing about the system is as the thing is timed, you get tonnes of squatters waiting each side of the borders until it's free...but in the centre at least, traffic (when I lived in London) was noticeably less when it was introduced.
Also, did I mention the system runs on
Does everyone here secretly run Windows systems, or is this another MS-bashing opportunity? Can we have security fixes released for Linux kernel published too please? I think that might be more relevant for the practical purposes this article was no doubt published...
I mean, Christ, it's almost like everyone here hates Microsoft or something!
Wait a minute....
It reminds me of the landing card q/a you have to fill out. Including:
"Are you a part of any known terrorist organisation? [y/n]"
"Do you intend to participate in illegal or immoral activities in the US? [y/n]"
Needless to say, I had every intention of participating in immoral activities in the US.