Printable View
From the zdnet interview posted here and it seemd that the win 03 server has addressed many security issues from the past ... (especially buffer overflow issues) as well as some of the performance issues...
point ... you guys have to remember that these ppl can review and STEAL improve on any open source code. they are catching up to all the advantages that linux and bsd OS's have we know how much the suits loooove the comfortable complacent bliss of windows
topic...
Not legally they can't... but then again.. who can get ahold of their source code to ever find out?Quote:
you guys have to remember that these ppl can review and STEAL improve on any open source code
I don't think that Win2k3 is going to do any harm to *nix. People are moving to *nix because they need to cut costs, improve security, stability, etc.
By getting Win2k3 you are raising costs (you have put purchase all new licneses), taking a big risk on security (hasn't been proved) and stability (hasn't been proved). Forget that sofware "assurance" crap.
For all those people who finally upgraded from NT4 to Win2k... they have to do it all over?
Same costs and for what!?
The same thing *nix gives your at much lower cost and everything will still work.
(provided you have the right techs)
Why is that when m$ upgrades their OS... you have to upgrade almost EVERY application you use? Well... every application that m$ will profit from....
Who knows... I'm not pro m$ nor pro *nix. I use both. I just happen to choose opensource first because its something my wallet can deal with. m$ is last resort.
Yes, I have heard several viewpoints on this site and off, that would suggest that the companies moving form UNIX are actually going to LINUX to cut costs, MS would of course, be the opposite.
Every time MS comes out with a new server OS its the Unix killer. I heard that with NT3.5, NT4, 2k, and now 2k3. Guess what Unix is still around. Even if MS steals tech from the Linux world most production calaber Unix systems are about 5 years ahead of linux feature wise (and approx. ten years ahead of windows).
Although I haven't used Windows 2003 server, I did play with "Windows .NET server", when it was called that.
Some things moved in the right direction ... IIS6 actually has most things disabled "Out of the box", which will prevent some problems.
However, I'm not entirely sure about its config file.
Apache -> pseudo-XML-like text config files, can be split up for convenience. (XML wasn't invented when Apache created this format, they were well ahead :) )
Default config 500 lines long, 95% comments.
IIS6 -> XML config - XML file
Not human readable unfortunately.
Default config has 1000s of lines, it is not legible. Few comments.
So they didn't get it right there. The idea was to try to win over Apache users by making a text file for the config... I don't think it's gonna work, because the config for IIS6 is simply too complicated.
Apache admins can copy httpd.conf between boxes in a cluster. Don't try that with the IIS6 one, it's full of GUIDs which are machine specific.
Download enterprise ISO for FREE from Micro$hit at
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo.../x09-22207.iso
I was reading an interesting article from yahoo this morning. \
I know we were discussing it yesterday, so I figured there was no need to post in a new thread.
Read it here.
Quote:
Linux' New Best Friend: Microsoft Licensing 6.0
Tue Apr 29, 2:16 PM ET Add Technology - NewsFactor to My Yahoo!
Vincent Ryan, www.NewsFactor.com
When Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT - news) first announced its new way of licensing products two years ago, corporations balked. It was not so much the entirety of Licensing 6.0 that bothered them as the Software Assurance program. That part of the new agreement took away version upgrades and required enterprises to pay up-front for a two- or three-year upgrade contract.
The program's high price, coupled with the absence of any guarantee that Microsoft would come out with timely upgrades, provoked overwhelming customer disapproval. In a survey of 4,000 IT managers by Giga Information Group and Sunbelt Software, a consulting company, more than half of those questioned said they were not going to sign up for Licensing 6.0.
But expressing disapproval about a licensing program and doing something about it are two different things. The evidence suggests Microsoft's Software Assurance program has caused some IT managers to defect to other platforms, particularly Linux (news - web sites). And more defections could be on the horizon.
Revolt Brewing?
Read on.