Some of the changes in the upcoming release of Windows Server 2008 are a response to features and performance advantages that have made Linux an attractive option to Microsoft customers. One of these is the fact that Linux has less of a surface area, which led customers to believe that Linux is inherently more secure, Bill Laing, the general manager for Microsoft’s Windows Server division, told eWEEK. “Having less surface area does reduce the servicing and the amount of code you have running and exposed, so we have done a lot of work in 2008 to make the system more modular. There are more than 30 components not installed by default, which is a huge change,” Laing said. “We also have server core, which doesn’t have the GUI, so I would say that is a response to the options people had with Linux that they didn’t have with Windows.”
It is good to see Microsoft finally realizing that they need a lean and mean OS for server platform. I love the idea of server core with no GUI or other crap installed.
Looks like Windows 2008 server is turning up nice.
I agree, and I still can’t believe my own eyes; let’s just hope it doesn’t go the Vista way — tons of features announced and none that make it in the final version.
The rest of the article is common Microsoft advertising, but this doesn’t make the news go away. There’s one thing that made me laugh though:
Asked if Windows was lagging behind Linux on the virtualization front, McDonald said: “I can’t think of a time when anybody in production with a lot of virtualization has said to me that Linux is better than Windows in this regard.”
Ugh, go away…
Asked if Windows was lagging behind Linux on the virtualization front, McDonald said: “I can’t think of a time when anybody in production with a lot of virtualization has said to me that Linux is better than Windows in this regard.”
Ugh, go away…
On the high end market – VMWare with their ESX offering are far ahead of MS and XEN.
On the lower end of market, VMWare free server, workstation, Microsoft Virtual server and Microsoft Virtual PC compete.
Linux so far has not offered a competing solution with high reliablity or managability. But that is changing really fast.
KVM is coming up nice to compete in the lower end market and XEN needs more adoption and better management tools and it should be able compete on the higher end market (with ESX and yet to come MS product viridian).
Edited 2007-05-19 03:13
The funny thing though is that ESX is built on…..
Guess what???
LINUX. LOL!
But I use Open VZ and Virtuozzo on Linux in production and they work very well.
http://www.swsoft.com/en/virtuozzo
Edited 2007-05-19 03:37
Yes I am aware of that but it is not open source and it is a not full blown Linux. It is a custom linux kernel.
They could very well take any other open OS to build it like BSD or Solaris. They used Linux due to wider driver support.
Correction: I was wrong. According to wikipedia, they use Linux kernel only for their service console. So I don’t think it really built on Linux. That clears my doubt on why it is not open source.
Edited 2007-05-19 03:34
Actually if you have ever used ESX and installed it you would know that it runs on a stripped down redhat kernel.
That is how you can provision bare metal. VM doesn’t have their own kernel for runnin on bare metal I am sure you know that.
Even the installer is based on Anaconda.
But Open VZ is open source and works well.
OpenVZ is not virtualization. It is OS partitioning. The same kernel is used for all the virtual instances.
We are talking about Hypervisor or VMM based Virtualization here.
To answer your question: ESX is not based on Linux. It uses Linux for initial boot and then for the management of it’s virtual machine. But the underlying real kernel that is scheduling VMs etc is vmKernel. This is the reason it is not open source.
Not usre how much is linux and how much isnt. I know when I last lookied at esx a couple years ago, it had red hat software in it. I know because it uses rh’s init and some of it actually said RH 7.3. They just tweak the hell out of it and add in their own filesystem.
Err, if it’s Linux, it’s open source. Any modifications VMWare make have to released back into the wider world. The GPL mandates this.
All I can say is “About freakin’ time!”
A Server with a GUI just adds one more layer to worry about for security and stability. Without the need for video drivers and all that other crap that loads with a server, they can be a lot more stable.
For example, since X and the kernel aren’t integrated tightly like Windows is, there aren’t all that many servers out that even have X installed. The only exceptions are application servers. This is the way it should be.
Of course I think part of this scheme is perhaps not for the best interest of the enterprise market, but more for Microsoft themselves. After all, all those MCSE certified people are going to have to retrain and take those Microsoft classes again to learn how to work without having a GUI.
Is your worry rational, though? Do the Windows Server GUI and video drivers really hurt security and stability? Is there any proof, or is this just imaginary FUD?
first of all, most video drivers are third party and running really deep in the kernel, therefore prone to problems. all extra running services and files provide an extra angle of attack. running no services at all will be extremely safe (and useless
), running all services will be very unsafe. so it’s up to the system maintainer to enable the minimal set of services required to do the job, that’s just common sense.
in the real world i had little trouble with windows servers (stability wise), but i feel safer when a program is not installed. that way i’m 100% sure it can’t crash and it can’t be used to crack my server.
I’m sorry, but aside from that stupid JPEG/Windows GDI issue – what other exploits are related to the gui?
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/archive.mspx
not all gui/server related, but i rather not worry about stuff which should not be on the machine in the first place.
The cursor of death (from 2002/3 or somesuch] which is experiencing a revival lately. In all versions from ’95 on up.
most video drivers are third party and running really deep in the kernel
All the Windows Server boxes I’ve had the (dis)pleasure to see in action have used the generic SVGA driver from MS at 800×600, or at most 1024×768.
Can’t think of a good reason (although there probably is one out there) to need a larger screen on a server, or a better drive than a plain 2D one.
Let’s be honest here. To problem with Windows Server isn’t really security or stability. The problem is that it’s expensive and inflexible. If you want it to do something it doesn’t normally do, it’s going to cost you a lot of money to make it happen. If you build your business around the Microsoft ecosystem, you don’t really have any smooth and cost-effective migration paths off of the platform should you become unsatisfied with the products or services sometime down the line.
IT is too important to trust to a single vendor. Yes, Linux is modular, and it’s very easy for customers to customize to their needs or for vendors to provide targeted products. But the real innovation of Linux is that by creating an FOSS platform, it created a vibrant and competitive service-oriented ecosystem that is growing leaps and bounds. You’re going to get a better experience for your IT dollar with Linux, not just because of the technology, but because it’s an open ecosystem.
The question going through the minds of IT decision-makers regarding the new upcoming release of Windows Server is whether it’s wise to continue to hitch the future of their businesses to Microsoft. I think that most CIOs are past the idea that FOSS is about the ability to see and modify the code. They now realize that FOSS is about getting the high-quality products and services they need at a fair price. The future of IT is about free markets via free software.
It’s a shame that Microsoft is fixated on the wrong aspects of FOSS, but then again, they couldn’t really compete with FOSS on openness.
Edited 2007-05-19 04:43
It’s a shame that Microsoft is fixated on the wrong aspects of FOSS, but then again, they couldn’t really compete with FOSS on openness.
There is actually nowehere that Microsoft can compete with FOSS.
They are trying hard with IE7 against Firefox, but that would be it.
Vista cannot compete against Ubuntu 7.04 or Suse 10.3, (looking sweet).
Windows Server cannot compete with a Debian server.
No Windows verion can compete financially with a Linux version.
Some people say that OpenOffice.org cannot compete with Microsoft Office. Hmmm, I have never seen an incompatability, and I want some of these people to show a link to their file. It cannot compete financially either in this area.
If a company has over 1000 desktop machines, why would they actually want to pay Microsoft license fees for them all ?
Now, back to the article….
Have Microsoft not said for years upon years that Windows is so tightly integrated that removing things like Internet Explorer or Media Player will essentially break it, and that the GUI stay to give everyone a common workplace and that it is essential for Windows to operate ?
How can they now remove it ?
Did theyrewrite Windows ? or have they (by their own logic), broken it ?
You stated that Vista can’t compare against several linux distributions, but you didn’t provide specifics or any kind of proof, so you are full of it. If they had been good features you’d have listed a few at least, now you will go into ad hoc mode where you start listing things in linux that aren’t in vista just to say you weren’t lying but they will as I said be features you didn’t want to talk about without being cornered so they aren’t any good on the whole to the vast majority of people. And your comment on IE being removed despite MS saying this isn’t possible is obtuse, they obviously meant within time and money restraints IE could not be removed but of course that wouldn’t be true forever, they’ve rewritten the relevant code, something they couldn’t do back then. You didn’t know this yet I bet you consider yourself some kind of ‘l33t’ computer user. Hysterical.
Edited 2007-05-19 06:47
they had been good features you’d have listed a few at least, now you will go into ad hoc mode where you start listing things in linux that aren’t in vista just to say you weren’t lying
Clearly YOU have not tried any of those Linux versions. There is no need to say anything about them.
Vista users will not listen, as they are still trying to convince themselves they made a good purchase and did not just pour money down the sink, and Linux user do not need to listen as that is just preaching to the choir.
Microsoft CANNOT remove IE from Windows, they said so in a court of law..
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Windows/Article/ArticleID/20715/20715.h…
Now, if you really want to see what Linux offers over Vista, have a peep at this…
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/568086/ubuntu_with_beryl/
Edited 2007-05-19 07:14
Raver31 – Really that was the best you could come up with for Linux features? Woobly windows, 3_useless_D desktop?
Microsoft surely wants more OSS fanboys like you
To the point though, i use Windows full time and i tried going to Linux few times. Recently in fact i even installed Ubuntu on my laptop (wrong choice of hardware i know).
I however did not find anything that i did not have in Windows. Something were different, some were not very high quality and overall there was nothing magical about Ubuntu.
I removed it and put back XP on it. The reason i put back XP was:
1. Power management did not work on Ubuntu
2. Most of the tools i needed were only on Windows like IDA pro, metrowerks codewarrior, yahoo messenger client with video support.
3. I had all the equivalent OSS tools as well like gcc, vim etc.
So running XP was like getting the best of both worlds.
Edited 2007-05-19 07:24
Raver31 – Really that was the best you could come up with for Linux features? Woobly windows, 3_useless_D desktop?
Microsoft surely wants more OSS fanboys like you
hahahaa one of Microsoft main selling points of Vista is that eye-candy !
Personally, I hate it, and turn it off on all platforms I use.
hahahaa one of Microsoft main selling points of Vista is that eye-candy !
Tch, you just don’t see the difference and you don’t get the facts!
I have googled a bit but couldn’t find a decent answer. I assume that Windows Server 2008 will come with PowerShell, or any other decent shell, by default, is that correct?
I’m curious to know this because the modular, GUI-less Microsoft server sounds like one hell of a dream for me, but there’s no way I’ll be using that CP/M-recycled cmd.exe. One of the reasons I feel like home on a Unix server *is* sh.
The other question on my mind is, if Windows 2008 got to the point of being modular, why didn’t this happen to Vista as well? I’m still baffled at how a naked OS can take 10 gigs of drive space.
The install takes 10Gigs due to Image Based Setup. Did you not notice how fast Vista installs as compared to say XP?
[Sorry to break an otherwise interesting discussion about permissions]
The point was that, fast install or not, a “bare” operating system, with next to no applications installed, takes 10 GB. My / and /usr Linux partitions have a total of 6 GB and I have a ton of apps installed.
I’m not willing to start the usual Linux vs. Windows flame, but what the heck is in those 10 GB in the end? This is the big reason for me applauding a more modular Windows: I could bet I not only don’t require, but wouldn’t even install more than 50% of the things that get on my drive.
What version of Linux you installing?
Desktop or server.
Did you CHOOSE to install a default configuration?
That is a LOT of crap installed?
10 GB??
Ubuntu server doesn’t even install half that.
Also I am running 5 VPS’s each with only 5 GB of disk space (Including the OS) I am runnin 3 on Cent OS 4.5 and the OS is using less then 1GB. And on the other 2 I am running Ubuntu server (Less then 1GB) and Debian (Around the one GB mark for the OS)
Sounds strange to me.
I just reset up one of my VPS’s to see how much space the OS took, with SSH on it, My SQL, Apache and Webmin.
(No gui etc)
Took about 565 MB of HD space. (Cent OS 5)
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/simfs 5208596 561008 4647588 11% /
You must of installed everything and the kitchen sink to get to the 10 GB mark.
Edited 2007-05-19 19:49
Sorry alexandru_lz
I thought you were talking about your Linux machine having 10 GB.
Oh that is standard practice on Windows.
Sorry about that 🙁 I was jumping the gun. LOL!
10 GB is because everything in Vista is installed by default. So even when you install home-basic, all vista ultimate features are present on your hard-drive.
Not the best design IMHO but i think it is done to make a single distribution of Windows. Kind of like reducing the management work on Microsoft’s side.
10 GB is because everything in Vista is installed by default. So even when you install home-basic, all vista ultimate features are present on your hard-drive.
Oh that would hardly be a problem if those features would be easy to remove. I wouldn’t mind having them installed by default if it takes 15 minutes to easily and safely clean them up.
It has been my objection towards Windows for years. I really hope to see Windows at least half as flexible in this matter as Linux (or Unix in general) is. I’ll be an early adopter if it is.
There is no need to say anything about them.
Hence, you have nothing valuable to say.
Clearly YOU have not tried any of those Linux versions. There is no need to say anything about them. Vista users will not listen, as they are still trying to convince themselves they made a good purchase and did not just pour money down the sink, and Linux user do not need to listen as that is just preaching to the choir.
Now, if you really want to see what Linux offers over Vista, have a peep at this…
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/568086/ubuntu_with_beryl/
Excuses. You’d have listed the features that set linux apart in the first place if there were any, posting ad hoc arguments just to prove people wrong shows you were full of it. As it is, windows has lots of programs that do similar 3D window things and nobody really uses them or wants them which is why MS didn’t add them to Vista, with DWM it would have been easy and near-free performance wise to add any of these effects, they are goofy and geeky, not mainstream and useful, so they are not going into MS OS’s by design.
Microsoft CANNOT remove IE from Windows, they said so in a court of law..
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Windows/Article/ArticleID/20715/20715.h…..
That doesn’t include the exact wordering that MS used, and it does not matter, when MS said it could not be done, it meant within time restraints, because any code can be changed with enough time, they just meant that there wasn’t enough time to change windows to seperate IE and the judge disagreed. This was before Vista, by time Vista came around MS had enough time to seperate IE, which raises the question, why aren’t you just happy with the outcome and leave it at that, you wanted IE seperate and got it, and are still complaining, obviously you just want MS destroyed and could care less what you say.
Edited 2007-05-19 17:49
From various news I think Microsoft is making Windows layered again. The kernel was well layered as designed by Dave Cutler but I think user mode applications and a lot of services got very tangled due to feature creep.
I have written applications for Windows in past and it was a nightmare. There are just way too many things in Windows. Now i do kernel development in Windows and kernel is actually well documented and not so complex (albeit i agree it can still be made more modular by removing extra crap like win32k.sys from kernel).
Now Microsoft is going back to the basics of being lean and mean and layered. I think they have realized that they can’t go on anymore. Windows has become too complex to understand and adding new features are becoming expensive.
So that IMO is the most possible reason they are removing UI etc from server core.
Let us hope we will see a better and more competent OS from Microsoft in future. May be people will love it the way they loved DOS.
There is actually nowehere that Microsoft can compete with FOSS.
No need to go beyond this statement. The rest is drivel…
Either elaborate why the rest of the post is drivel, or explain why the part about Microsoft saying in court that Windows cannot be taken apart should be ignored, or stfu.
That post of yours says just about everything I have ever wanted to say to fans of proprietary wares.
More code = more bugs, period.
One of the only constants in programming.
“
”
It was only reacently that MS had to release a critical update because the Windows cursor could be exploited 😉
It is good to see Microsoft finally realizing that they need a lean and mean OS for server platform. I love the idea of server core with no GUI or other crap installed.
Actually, that’s not what it is. It still runs a graphical, Windows environment, except that most of the GUI tools are unavailable except for a CMD window. Not exactly the same thing.
Edited 2007-05-18 23:27
Is this the reason Microsoft is going after linux and FOSS?
I think MS is full of BS and actually is making noise to get the attention of the US government to make changes to the patent laws so they wont get sued for billions.
Unlike FOSS, MS is big game. Everyone shoots at MS. They got so much money you bound to win something!
Read on and decide for yourself what is good and what’s not:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2127213,00.asp
Honestly, a _server_ which needs a graphics card to start up? This was always paradoxical to me.
Finally Microsoft seems to get _really_ serious at servers.
If you try the longhorn beta server core you STILL need a good video card. What MS did was took everything off the desktop and what you are left with is a blank desktop and then a CMD screen?
When you close the CMD prompt I still have not figured out how you get it back. LOL! Guess I will get that in future MS documents.
A “good” video card in this case costing damn near nothing. If you need a decent server the cost of a decent video card sure as hell ain’t gonna break the bank.
When are people going to realize the entire computing world isn’t running on antique hardware?
People don’t mean that you need a good video card as in you need a high price or high quality video card.
They mean good video card as in “WORKING” video card. You can run Linux with no video card at all. Saves clock cycles, allows for management of lots of servers from remote locations by script etc.
You don’t need a video card to install Linux or anything.
Sometimes if you have a rack mount server it sucks to have to try to hook up a monitor etc.
I can make an install CD to pull from the internet or network and I never have to have a GUI or monitor hooked up. I can have a server up and running and manage it with no GUI.
Another instance where not having a GUI comes in handy. I use VPS’s for my mail servers. I can pervision one and set the whole thing up, run and manage it all with no Gui. Allows me to have 100 users on a VPS with only 100 MHZ of CPU dedicated to the VPS and 256 MB (Burstable to 1GB) of ram and they work fine (I have 5 running) One of my servers handles about 35,000 emails more or less a day.
I pay 50 dollars a month for those 5 VPS’s (10 dollars each)
Doing that with Windows and for that cost would be a PIPE DREAM. LOL!
I havn’t speced up a server in a while, but I don’t recall the option to add a “decent” card to any of the servers Dell offers. Can you even fit a “decent” card in a 1U server, for that matter? Let’s assume I can; now I have to cool that card, too. It’s not as if a rack doesn’t put out enough heat as it is, now we’re supposed to add big, hot, over-speced GPUs to them too?
i’d really like to know what he is talking about when he says that redhat costs the same amount of money as windows. a basic subscription of rhel is $349 while windows 2003 standard edition r2 x86 with 10 cals is $1209. for $1299 you could get a premium subscription for rhel.
Also that $1209 does not include anymore then set up support one or 2 calls if that.
Redhat is selling support above everything else.
Like me, I sell a Groupware product against Exchange.
With exchange you have to pay for Windows and then Exchange and then CALS for Exchange at least (At $67 per user)
I sell my product for $29 per user for the first year, no cost for the the OS (I use and support Ubuntu server) and no cost for the software (Which has a free limited feature version but you get the full features when you pay for the cals) Then you pay $17 per user per year for each year after that.
People look at me like I am crazy! “Why would I pay $29 per year for the first year and $17 each year after that, when with MS I just pay once???” (Even though it’s $67 per user and $1200 for exchange standard)
I say “Look, with our cost, support and software upgrades are included! When a new version of my software comes out you get it no questions asked! When you have a support issue if I can’t fix it then I forward it right to the developers and they give me support in 12 to 24 hours! Can you get that from MS???? HECK no! Not for the $67 a user or the $1200 for exchange standard”
Support is KEY these days! You must have it. People want to run their businesses.. Not run their business and then worry about if their servers have problems!
Edit for spelling.
Edited 2007-05-19 00:57
“People look at me like I am crazy! ‘Why would I pay $29 per year for the first year and $17 each year after that, when with MS I just pay once???'”
Then you need to adjust your marketing to that kind of customer who doesn’t want to pay every year. Charge $67 per user includes support and upgrades for 3 years.
Actually that is not a bad idea to be honest.
Thanks. 🙂
Might have to look into this as a marketing addition.
you are the best.
This article show that ms have a pretty myopic view of ‘Web servers and hosting’ software as they did not design with ‘internet-facing’ in mind as a base environment.
And what is with the marketing new-speak ? Surface-area and footprint … lol! Don’t they mean unsecure [and] bloat ?
It reminds me of
“Those who don’t understand UNIX are doomed to reinvent it, poorly.”
–Henry Spencer
edit: finished subject.
Edited 2007-05-18 23:36
This article show that ms have a pretty myopic view of ‘Web servers and hosting’ software as they did not design with ‘internet-facing’ in mind as a base environment.
Maybe in the past, sure, but not true now.
It’s not a matter of exploits but stability. Not every display driver is stable. I’m a huge nVidia fan but Nvidia drivers will never be stable enough.
Another more important thing is that your server will run much faster without a gui.
It’s *awfully* early to believe much that MS has to say about their next operating system. How much did they cut out of Vista again?
Speaking as a long time Windows customer, I can’t see how this would be good. Having 30 more components that aren’t included in the default build just means 30 more ways to break compatiblity, as well as 30 more things we might have to buy.
Oh and you ALWAYS need that Windows CD around or to copy that i386 folder on your HD because you have to add each feature from CD when you want to use it.
That is one thing I love about things like APT and Yum. They are not perfect. But if you need to add or update something all you need is an internet connection. No digging for CD’s or making sure your CD has the right service pack etc. YUCK!
Using Longhorn beta I see the 30 things he means and they don’t charge you for them. But you have to install them etc. Which makes the time to set up your server that much longer.
Oh and you ALWAYS need that Windows CD around or to copy that i386 folder on your HD because you have to add each feature from CD when you want to use it.
Sure because putting a copy of i386 on a network share is such a complicated ordeal!
No it’s not. But it’s a stupid waste of space.
On top of that we ALL know the stupid windows error you get when you install something from CD and then you HAVE to put in the dumb CD to install anything else or fix the problem.
On top of that sometimes you need the whole CD and not just the i386 folder.
Then the crap doesnt work because the i386 folder you have, doesn’t go with the service pack you just installed etc.
Everyone knows it’s a pain in the butt.
On top of that sometimes you need the whole CD and not just the i386 folder.
*cough* bullsh*t *cough*
There is nothing there that you will be prompted for when making OS component changes that is not included in i386.
Then the crap doesnt work because the i386 folder you have, doesn’t go with the service pack you just installed etc.
Well if you slipstreamed the service pack and deployed your i386 on your network the problem would be solved.
Again not complicated and its done every day.
“Again not complicated and its done every day.”
Oh yes I know, I deal with the crap every day!
Oh and while I am slipstreaming (Woops some hot fixes and patches can’t be slipstreamed) my stupid Windows CD etc, my Linux servers are patched and secure. LOL!
I mean come on now. You can’t believe those stupid 1990’s processes like slipstreaming and keeping the i386 folder on the network and crap are anywhere near close to being as easy as Apt or Yum? You not that blinded by MS’s light are you?
Oh and while I am at it, doing patching etc is a major project cause I have to plan for server downtime for reboots and the like. On top of that 99% of the time, the server patches also affect the workstations. 🙁
Drats. Got to reboot those also.
While, unless it’s a major security risk or kernel update (That I want to use or need to use) my Linux servers keep humming along. Desktops also.
I mean come on now. You can’t believe those stupid 1990’s processes like slipstreaming and keeping the i386 folder on the network and crap are anywhere near close to being as easy as Apt or Yum? You not that blinded by MS’s light are you?
I never claimed it was easy compared to anything. You are the one assuming I was comparing it to linux.
I was simply pointing out that accessing the i386 folder was not as complicated an ordeal as you apparently have made it in your organization.
You’ve always seemed so happy to purchase from Microsoft though and give them your money. Why not now?
I just noticed a glaring flaw in his logic!
How can he already have done all this modularization work in 2008?
Server Core is useful if you wish to run only the server “roles” that are provided from the Server Manager.
It doesn’t include most of the common shell DLLs so for example: any binary that relies on an “open file” or “save file” dialog box will fail.
Server Core is not designed to be a general purpose GUIless Windows, but it is designed to provide the currently supported services such as a mirrored Active Directory Domain Controller. It does make sence here, but not as say, a web server as the .NET Framework will not install and one will not have .ASPX support in IIS.
Applications (including Microsofts own) under Windows are not used to having a large chunk of their DLL dependancies suddenly vanish. Microsoft have made a start with making the initial Server Roles work on this new platform (except for the .NET Framework) which tends to be what some organisations want. There is still quite a way to go and I’m sure more will be supported down the line.
For the rest, they’ll probably want to stick with Windows Server or any of the alternatives.
Server Core is useful if you wish to run only the server “roles” that are provided from the Server Manager.
I hate the concept of server roles Microsoft introduced with 2003 R2, because if you use their roles setup wizards it then makes manual configuration more difficult. The way they seem to be heading with this is encouraging you to have one server that does this, another that does specifically this, and another that does something else. The net effect of this is that you use more servers (virtual or not) and you end up paying more licenses.
Actually server licenses usually allow you to run many instances in virtual environment for same license.
This way you can run webserver, dhcp server etc in different virtual machines even with 1 license.
This way you can run webserver, dhcp server etc in different virtual machines even with 1 license.
Certainly true (the whole virtual licenses thing just seems a bit artificial to me). The whole concept of roles though, certainly the way Microsoft has done it, has disappointed me a bit.
can you really administrate windows server without gui? its command line console sucks
You administrate it from a client with the admin pack installed.
No need to log on to the server, just get a remote connection to it.
Thinking about this, I haven’t come across something similar to manage *nix servers. (not talking about any expensive enterprise tools)
You administrate it from a client with the admin pack installed.
No need to log on to the server, just get a remote connection to it.
It’s how I would do it too, but it’s not enough. Despite GUIs being as they are, I’m yet to see *any* administration pack which can offer the flexibility of the CLI. Sure, they may be easier to use and, at many times, way less annoying, but if I can’t grep logfiles, pipe them into a Python script and generate graphs from them to have a better look at traffic, they’re useless.
That was just an example of course, but the point is — if the administration pack, no matter how powerful, doesn’t have a certain facility, I really want a quick way to implement it — and adding yet another application, even if it’s nothing but a scripting language, is bogus.
In addition to this, there are cases when I’m not comfortable controlling the server from a remote client. If the server has been compromised, it’s common sense to disconnect it from *any* network, and the last thing I want to do in such a case is install the GUI module because Microsoft has ignored every innovation after CP/M.
Thinking about this, I haven’t come across something similar to manage *nix servers
But *nix OSes all have excellent, speedy command line support, so why would you ever need anything other than an SSH connection?
Webmin?
ssh -X <your server address> on a server with X installed?
Or webmin
I guess in the end it will come down to choice and price.
Linux can be deployed for next to nothing if no support contracts are needed and infinitely flexible in that its a totally pieced together OS with hundreds of components.
Windows Server is not free but that may very well be an unimportant detail for some businesses with generous profits. Windows Server has a comprehensive administration console for most server tasks. That is a defiantly a plus.
Linux/Unix servers are heavily based on the console commands until 3rd party admin tools are downloaded. The only exception I can think of is SUSE, which has the almighty YaST.
Edited 2007-05-19 04:24
Yeah, but even though YaST sucks big time, there is a console version of it.
It is less sucky, but still YaST.
Is MS trying to build that better Linux ?
Why not ? The source code is available for anyone, even Microsoft, to take and modify and release their version.
Well as a Linux user and supporter I welcome windows 2008 all features. Also thins means Microsoft has acknowledged that Linux has better edge over Windows servers till now and just like Linux is copying Windows features on desktop, Microsoft is copying Linux features on Server.
I like this idea cause now its gonna stress out Linux performance as well. Linux needs to do some more stuff in order to beat MS on server side.
Whatever is going on… its happening good for the industry and mankind 
I agree, MS is feeling the heath, and it’s improving it’s products again – after years of almost standstill. Thanx to firefox, we have IE 7 (which isn’t perfect, but a great improvement compared to IE 4/5/6 and it even has a few ‘new’ things). Thanx to OO.o, we have Office 2007 (see above). And now this. Let’s just hope linux won’t go away, as that would lead to another period of a total lack of innovation and progress. And standstill is bad for everybody. We already have higher IT costs and lower IT quality due to a lack off innovation caused by Microsoft’s dominant position. MS can innovate – but they need, just like every other company, a bit of pressure.
I agree, MS is feeling the heath, and it’s improving it’s products again – after years of almost standstill. Thanx to firefox, we have IE 7 (which isn’t perfect, but a great improvement compared to IE 4/5/6 and it even has a few ‘new’ things). Thanx to OO.o, we have Office 2007 (see above). And now this. Let’s just hope linux won’t go away, as that would lead to another period of a total lack of innovation and progress. And standstill is bad for everybody. We already have higher IT costs and lower IT quality due to a lack off innovation caused by Microsoft’s dominant position. MS can innovate – but they need, just like every other company, a bit of pressure.
Microsoft can improve their products, but they can’t compete against the real advantage of Linux. The reason PC’s are so cheap is that competition between vendors of a single standard drove prices down and allowed clients hardware independence (lack of lock-in). This was despite the fact that just about every other computer manufacturer who didn’t do PC’s (or did them alongside something else) sold something that, for a time at least, was better than PCs. Now, with Linux, the same is happening in software. It doesn’t matter if it’s “better” than Windows (even though I personally think it is); instead it matters that it’s cheaper and vendor-independent. Especially if you’ve had to put up with vendor lock-in, vendor independence is something which, once you get it, has to be prised from your cold, dead hands.
I think many (if not most) people don’t value vendor independence as much as they should, but I generally agree with you. Let’s just hope ppl won’t be tempted too much by MS getting their act together.
i am so sick of microshaft windoze!!11
evry0ne knows that winBLOWS is loosing market shares like crazy i mean linux is now at 43% and MS is loosing monies all over the world thanks to richard stallman
how much longer will windoze continue to loose money???
they are scared of linux cuz linux wins and winblowz loose!!
Wake up people! GUI or no GUI it makes no sense! It’s not GUI that makes a server OS inherently (un)secure. What they’re saying is that “Linux has no GUI and it’s successful, so we’re just gonna copy that approach and give you Windows without the GUI”! In other words, they’re not innovating, they’re not thinking about how to improve the actual thing, rather they just carbon-copy the form, the looks! I haven’t heard such a retarted talk in a long time from a server OS guy.
And just by the way, Apple has GUI on Xserves in one form or another and it hasn’t been a source of security problems (that is, if you just use it for everyday administration tasks, not for Quicktime vulnerability testing). So good security lies elsewhere…
What they’re saying is that “Linux has no GUI and it’s successful, so we’re just gonna copy that approach and give you Windows without the GUI”! In other words, they’re not innovating, they’re not thinking about how to improve the actual thing, rather they just carbon-copy the form, the looks! I haven’t heard such a retarted talk in a long time from a server OS guy.
Project much? Sheez, what a tool. Laing never said that. He was addressing customer requests for lighterweight servers — not simply copying Linux.
Laing never said that. He was addressing customer requests for lighterweight servers — not simply copying Linux.
They would never have gone for a commandline-based system if one hadn’t been kicking their asses, and it just so happens that the commandline-based system that is kicking their asses is Linux.
So yes, they did copy it. There’s a tool here, but it’s not the person you responded to, and it is not me.
They would never have gone for a commandline-based system if one hadn’t been kicking their asses, and it just so happens that the commandline-based system that is kicking their asses is Linux.
Headless servers aren’t a new phenomenon — and the concept wasn’t invented by Linux, n00b.
I didn’t say either that they were a new phenomenon, or that they were invented by Linux. Noob.
Please! Microsoft copies or buys! They have NEVER come up with an original idea! Just like the “NEW” Apple now they just market well!
Remember when Apple was a great innovator but marketing was half ass. MS cleaned their clock. Now Apple has the slick marketing and even though MS is 5 times bigger Apple is holding their own QUITE nice.
Anyway we must remember MS was the company that when Novell was selling NDS on Netware and Banyan was selling street talk and vines, had their sales people come to us and tell us that directory services were hard to use and stupid! That Windows NT domains were better and more easy to use. THEN as soon as Novell went down and Banyan went out of business and they stole people like James Allchin from Banyan and all of a sudden MS was pushing directory services like they invented it.
Now they coping Linux. They are making so called lightweight servers because that is a strong Linux selling point. Lightweight and modular. Those are terms that you have heard around Linux for YEARS!
Right now MS knows they have a HUGE problem and that is India and China. These are two countries that are starting to get on the money level of the US with their ability to buy software BUT also two countries that have to worry about if they want to be tied to MS and the US in the future.
China for sure knows that some time in the future they may butt heads with the US government. Do you want to be the country that butts heads with the US government knowing that the machines you use to do your TOP secret communications on etc could be bugged by the US government. I mean how would you know? You don’t have access to all the source code to be able to go over it and figure out if there is any spyware. Or what about encryption keys?
So why would you want to buy from MS when you can create your own OS from Linux to do that work? Plus you build an in country computer industry not dependent on the US. On top of that you could in effect end up with a Chinese Linux company like Red Flag that could be near the size of MS some time in the future, from just selling software and services to Chinese people and people in countries around the world who worry about how clean the code is in their OS and applications.
This is a HUGE problem for MS in the future.
But back to the other issue of how MS buys insead of creating. WHY is MS scared of Google when Google really doesn’t have the same products as MS? Cause MS likes to copy. In the tech world MS wants to be #1 at everything. Google office is not gonna take over MS office etc! But they want to be #1 so much so they are talking about spending $50 BILLION on Yahoo??? Is Balmer smoking crack?? That is all of their working capitol and then some.
I hope it actually happens though, then financially they would be back on a level playing field with companies like Oracle and IBM. No more $50 Billion war chest. And they will still loose to Google when it comes to search and on line marketing!
Edit – added text.
Edited 2007-05-19 17:35
Every company tries different tactics and ‘copies’ competitors in areas where its ideas didn’t succeed. It’s easy to say a small company with 1 idea is innovative if it lucks out, but any company as big and varied as MS is going to have an equal share of bad ideas, borrowed ideas and good ideas, but be obtuse.
And as far as China and India not using MS because of the US Govt, the US Govt has no legal authority to modify the Windows Source, also windows NT source has been leaked and I have not seen one report of anything that would justify this paranoia, not surprisingly because it is paranoia akin to thinking UFOs visit you, but that’s not obvious to most people because OS’s are too complicated for most of them. MS being a US company didn’t stop Iraq from using it, nor many other US enemies and rivals, so ranting and raving China will be the end of MS is again, obtuse, MS could sell Windows for virtually nothing in China and India if necessary just to get market share and still make more money than they are now which is more than good enough, considering that’s more than any other software company.
Ummmm, governments are run by people just like companies are run by people and back door deals are made ALL the time. If you don’t believe that then you should try working for the US government some time.
It’s just like the US government didn’t have the right to modify that $120 million Boeing 767-300ER model Airliner China purchased in June 2000. But they did and the Chinese government found 27 listening devices!
http://taiwansecurity.org/WP/2002/WP-012702.htm
Also is been rumored for YEARS that MS had given the US government keys to their encryption software in Windows. I know in the UK there are even laws in place for this:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,2123893,00.htm
“According to a law called the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, UK government agencies can demand encryption keys relating to intercepted data communications that are scrambled. Anyone not complying with the request faces a prison sentence of up to two years.”
And no this doesn’t extend to China proper, I am sure they can pass those keys to their spies. And lord if you don’t think they have spies in China, I don’t know what planet you been living on. LOL!
Also, yes the source code for PARTS of Windows NT has been leaked for a LONG time. And countries like China have access to some of the Windows source code through MS’s shared source agreement! But Windows NT is how old? First version came out in 93. LOL! Come on now. Long old and changed! And all the source didn’t hit the streets. That is why you have not seen a hacked, compiled running copy of Windows from that leaked source!
Countries like Iraq were bootleggin MS software so they could run their computers. And or buying what ever is available. I am SURE they didn’t have their own computer industry. And I am sure there were trade and sale embargoes on Iraq, just like on Iran etc.
“Every company tries different tactics and ‘copies’ competitors in areas where its ideas didn’t succeed. It’s easy to say a small company with 1 idea is innovative if it lucks out, but any company as big and varied as MS is going to have an equal share of bad ideas, borrowed ideas and good ideas, but be obtuse. ”
Please name one thing that MS came up with? if you look through the HISTORY of computing besides Windows 95 being extra popular! Name MS’s AH HA moment. Apple had it with the Ipod and with the Lisa and the Mac.
MS didn’t create IE, MS project, Visio and many, many other things that they just bought or stole.
MS’s AH HA moment is when they figured out how to sell the OS they made that copied the Mac OS (For which Apple won a lawsuit over) to bundle with their Office suite (That copied Word Perfect and Quattro Pro and for which Novell won a law suit over) And then give that to businesses and governments for next to nothing, then get them hooked and keep jacking up the prices.
“MS could sell Windows for virtually nothing in China and India if necessary just to get market share and still make more money than they are now which is more than good enough, considering that’s more than any other software company.”
But MS has not and who knows if they ever will, lower the prices on Windows and Office. No instead of giving you the good product for a lower price, to fight Linux they give you a bootleg, criptled product for the lower price.
If I lived in India or another third world county (As they are called) I would feel like MS doesn’t really appreciate us as whole people, since they wont sell me a whole version of Windows or Office at a price I can afford.
You really think that is gonna fly? LOL! Not for long.
“Please name one thing that MS came up with? if you look through the HISTORY of computing besides Windows 95 being extra popular! Name MS’s AH HA moment. Apple had it with the Ipod and with the Lisa and the Mac.
MS didn’t create IE, MS project, Visio and many, many other things that they just bought or stole.”
Microsoft started as a language company. They wrote the first interpreter for the altair. That’s pretty “aha” IMO. From a business standpoint, they’ve had hundreds of aha moments which, while sometimes unscrupulous, were equally as impressive and smart. The Lisa? By all definition of the word, a huge flop and cost Apple millions of dollars.
“MS’s AH HA moment is when they figured out how to sell the OS they made that copied the Mac OS (For which Apple won a lawsuit over)”
Eh? Apple lost that lawsuit, but gained a huge commitment from Microsoft over the next several years.
Please! Microsoft copies or buys! They have NEVER come up with an original idea! Just like the “NEW” Apple now they just market well!
Quite frankly, I’m sure that MS’s shareholders would rather that the company focused on bringing ideas to the masses in the form of products rather than obsessing — as its detractors continually seem to do — over whether an idea is “original” or not. Here’s a news flash for you, happy camper: Practically no “original ideas” have emerged from the computer industry beyond the 1970s. Everything is derivative. Apple, MS, Linux, and every company in existence today are standing on the shoulders of giants; and, if you think otherwise, then you either lack the historical context to acknowledge what I’m telling you — or you’re one of those intractable zealots who foolishly thinks that only the producers of his OS & applications innovates. Either way, you have a lot to learn.
No one say anything you just said. We know that everything copies other things!
But when I go out and download or even buy Linux and other open source software, I know that it’s not shotty software made by a multi billion dollar company that steals it’s ideas or tries to sue the comp out of business.
With ALL the money MS has they should be the BEST software company in the world. They have the most money but they are not the best sorry to say!
All MS’s shareholders care about is profits and marketshare. They don’t care about laws, customers or anything else that is not related to the bottom line!
On top of that I am a share holder of MS stock through a fund and MS rarely pays dividends on stock! ??? So to be honest MS isn’t even putting money in most shareholders pockets!
I’ve been reading all of your comments on this thread over the past day or so and am amazed at the disinformation you are spreading, and even more amazed that no one else is calling you out on it. The worst part is that you actually seem to believe it as well.
“But when I go out and download or even buy Linux and other open source software, I know that it’s not shotty software made by a multi billion dollar company that steals it’s ideas or tries to sue the comp out of business.”
Microsoft has never sued anyone “out of” business. They’ve never sued anyone high profile. They’ve actually rarely litigated against other companies period…they are always at the receiving end.
“On top of that I am a share holder of MS stock through a fund and MS rarely pays dividends on stock! ??? So to be honest MS isn’t even putting money in most shareholders pockets!”
They pay yearly, and last I checked it was around .16/share. As far as dividends go, it’s pretty generous.
To build a cluster in GNU/Linux, just grab GNU/Linux. To build a cluster in Windows Server 2008, pay extra for Windows Server 2008 Cluster.
That aside, the moment it’s released, some Linux distro will be ahead of it in some regard.
I was very excited about Windows “Longhorn” until it turned into Vista. I’m not going to be that optimistic again…
…only it comes 10 years too late. I mean, where will OSes be in 2008? And MS ist still struggeling with the basic concepts of their flagship server OS?
Sometimes I think it would have been better if the shared the fate of other home computing companies like Commodore and Atari. Their products are just not fit for serious stuff.
Sometimes I think it would have been better if the shared the fate of other home computing companies like Commodore and Atari.
Actually, for a while there, Amiga (from Commodore) and Atari could have been serious contenders. They both, at various times, were significantly better than the PC in both hardware and (system) software, and for a time bettered Mac too (or at least the Amiga did – ST fans may say this of their platform too). In fact even (a) and (b) together, without (c), would have ensured a longer lifetime for them.
It seems 2008 will be Microsoft’s first OS offering that I will consider as something worthy. That is, if they manage to do it as they say and not drop feature by feature on a monthly basis from now on.
Having said that, what the freaking hell took them so freaking long ? Geez my hands are itching to start trowing things [no, I don’t usually throw chairs
)] in random directions. we have done a lot of work in 2008 to make the system more modular – why in heavens didn’t they do it, uhmm, like, ten or twelve years ago ? From this point of view Linux based OSes were already ahead of Microsoft’s 2008 OS in the mid/end nineties ! You know what, forget I asked, when you can make this much money this way, it takes real effort to change. If you place yourself before your customer that is.
But thing is, modularity in itself won’t make you more secure. And reasoning – again – that smaller usage numbers are directly related to less infections just makes you stupid – again.
All I can say is, if this is the plan, stick to it, and we’ll see what happens. Because we’ll see.
It’s a good move for ms, but, once you’ve moved to Linux you’re not coming back.
– Bash
– Unix group permissions
– Grep, Find, and Apple’s Ditto for example.
You can’t turn a pig into a princess.
Unix group permissions? The Windows group and ACL permission system are pretty much better than the standard Unix group system. One major flaw I have found with the Unix group system is that you can’t nest groups. Also, you can’t get permissions like you can in Windows without POSIX ACL support in your file system.
I’m a huge linux supporter, running it as my primary desktop and server OS, but either I’m missing exactly what you mean there, or you’re way off.
Unix group permissions? The Windows group and ACL permission system are pretty much better than the standard Unix group system. One major flaw I have found with the Unix group system is that you can’t nest groups. Also, you can’t get permissions like you can in Windows without POSIX ACL support in your file system.
I’m a huge linux supporter, running it as my primary desktop and server OS, but either I’m missing exactly what you mean there, or you’re way off.
Of course ACLs are better than Unix permissions, but it’s a complicated subject so they think they can get away with making up claims that sound smart to people who don’t know any better, standard unix user tactic, I’d have thought everyone knew this by now.
MAJOR problem with Windows file permissions.
“The Windows group and ACL permission system are pretty much better than the standard Unix group system. One major flaw I have found with the Unix group system is that you can’t nest groups.”
One MAJOR flaw with Windows permissions is the dreaded grayed out check box when you try to apply permissions to all files in a folder.
(Which is almost as stupid as the file copy errors when you copy a large number of files from one place to another and for some reason out of all the files you are moving Windows errors out on ONE file. Instead of giving you the option to skip that file and continue, Windows will stop the whole damn file copy process leaving you scratching your head trying to figure out which file out of all of them stopped the copy! Oh and Windows never gives you the path to the file! How stupid is that?)
I had this problem with Windows 2003 server, 2000 server and now Longhorn beta. Windows will not allow you to be at the top of the file structure and apply a permission or give permissions to a user if there is a permission with a nested file or folder. Also Windows has a problem taking off things like read only on a folder if there is a permission issue with a subfolder.
You go to uncheck the read only option, hit apply and it runs through and tells you it’s applying this to all sub files and folder. Then you close the dialog box thinking its worked and you come back and look at the read only option and see that it’s still checked but grayed out?? What the heck does that mean?
After much searching I found:
Read-Only Attribute Aggravation
The problem you describe is probably amongst one of greatest annoyances many Windows administrators have had to deal with in recent years. Sometimes I think that the cure for baldness among network administrators would be providing them with dialog boxes that actually show them what they expect. Clearing the read-only attribute from a folder on a Windows 2003 system is a classic example of this. Here’s the typical scenario:
You view the properties of a folder in Windows Explorer.
At first, you note that the read-only attribute checkbox is grayed out. However, you are still able to clear the check mark from the box.
If you click Apply, you’ll see the operating system actually appear to be removing the read-only attribute from the folder’s subfolders and files.
You click OK to close the folder properties dialog box. Then you right-click on the same folder and select Properties. Once again, the read-only attribute box is grayed out and the box is checked!
For the admins that have sided against pulling out their hair, something usually goes flying across the office at this point. When you view the grayed-out checkbox, what it’s really telling you is that the Tri-mode flag has been set. I know, picking up that clue is like me understanding that I forgot to bring home milk when I get the stare from my wife. When the stare arrives, I follow up with something like “What? Did I forget to take the garbage out? Is my zipper down?” You get the idea.
Now on to the tri-mode flag. What the grayed-out and checked Read-only checkbox is telling you is that subfolders and files of the folder may have the read-only attribute and not the folder itself. While that’s fine, what drives most administrators crazy is that, in theory, if you go through the motions of removing the read-only attribute not only from a parent folder but also select the option to remove the attribute from all subfolders and files, then the read-only tri-mode flag should no longer be set. Since it still will be, let’s look at the cause of this problem.
This specific issue is fully explained in Microsoft KnowledgeBase article 326549, “You Cannot View or Change the Read-Only or System Attribute of Folders.” The bottom line with the read-only attribute when viewed as the properties of a folder is that seeing the tri-mode flag set for the read-only attribute does not mean that the folder (or any subfolders or files) have the read-only attribute. Instead, it may imply that the folder is deemed a “special folder.” For example, folders that support customized views are special folders.
To see this default behavior in action, just create a new blank folder on a Windows Server 2003 system, you should see that the read-only checkbox is selected (via the tri-mode flag) in the object’s properties. Keep in mind that the newly created folder does not even have any subfolders! If you run the attrib command to see the attributes of the folder, you’ll see that it is not marked as read-only.
So the bottom line with seeing the read-only attribute in Windows Explorer is that it’s not a reliable indication of whether or not subfolders or files in that folder are actually read-only. The best way to ensure that the read-only attribute is removed from all subfolders and files in a folder is to navigate to the folder from the command prompt and then run the command attrib –r /s /d. This removes the read-only attribute from all files and folders within the target folder, as well as its subfolders. If you want to query for the presence of any files or folders marked as read-only, you can navigate to the folder from the command prompt and run dir /ar /s. If the command does not return any files as read-only, then you know that there are no longer any read-only files contained in the folder or any of its subfolders. Note that with customized folders, removing the read-only attribute from the folder may result in the customizations being lost. Microsoft referenced this problem in KB 326549, in stating that “If you remove the Read-only or System attribute from a folder, it may appear as a[n] ordinary folder and some customizations may be lost.”
Finally, if you’re having problems writing to a folder that has the tri-mode flag of the read-only attribute set, don’t forget to check permissions. Since Windows Server 2003’s default share permissions are Everyone-Read, any newly shared folder will only offer read-only access by default.
http://mcpmag.com/columns/article.asp?EditorialsID=1213
How dumb is that? LOL! I mean we can go on and on about who or what is better. But those two things (The read only permission and the file copy error) are both some of the dumbest things I have ever seen!
And both this problems are HUGE when you need to quickly move files from one Windows server to another. Or from a DVD to the hard drive! What a mess.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070518124020691
I think that’s the way server environments are going.
I don’t want to make a cheapshot at Windows 2008 – I’ve had a look, and it is actually progressing very well, but at the same time – can they justify their pricing model any longer.
Why charge based on client access? why not just sell their products based on service levels? thats how UNIX and Linux distributors base their policies on – now how many clients are accessing the server.
With that being said, it confuses me as to why people use Windows on the server given the high pricing and poor record in both security, stability and reliability – I can understand the need for the desktop; compatibility and the likes, but given that a server sits behind the scenes and has very little direct user interaction, the reason for using Windows just confuses me.
Most things in life are not that simple, but this one is. THere is ONE AND ONLY TRUE WAY to begin with security, and there is and there could never be another way.
One must :
1. shut down ALL the services on the machine
2. enable and start only the services needed for the mission the server was deployed for
That means, if it was web server, only service on port 80 is to be active. No NTP port, no print service, no nothing. If there is a remote administration, then it must be clearly defined what ports and resources are needed for the administration tool. For example, SSH requires port 22.
If those conditions were met, system administrators are allowed to concentrate their efforts on those resources, and not waste time with the others.
Current Windows servers have a number of service, that listen on a number of TCP and UDP ports. The purpose of some (many) of those services are unknown, and they are used for som Microsoft internal and non-transparent tasks. That is wrong, it violates ONLY TRUE WAY, and I am not prepared to trust Windows server.
The conclusion is that 30 OPTIONAL COMPONENTS IS NOT ENOUGH. ALL the components MUST be optional. There should be possible to configure the machine so that it is dead, deaf and blind on the network, if needed.
I am tired of the hypocrisy of Windows admins who claim that there is nothing wrong with their machines, and yet refuse to put their machines on public network, so I have to travel with USB sticks to their sites to update my applications. On the other hand it is quite common to put UNIX machine on the public network and everynody thinks that it is quite normal.
And I am tired of people who use Outlooks, Kmails and Evolutions, Words and OOWriters as the major way of interaction with computers that claim they are IT security experts.
As was to be expected, most comments are about how Linux is superior to Windows. While that’s often true, there are still some areas where Linux is behind.
Look, I’m a FOSS supporter too. But there are some gaps that need to be filled in before Microsoft can be completely obsoleted in the datacenter of tomorrow. Open your eyes and start coding, because there is a lot to do
We’re not there yet. And while a lot of vendors offer ‘solutions’ for Linux there aren’t much free and easily deployable options around.
Centralized patch management:
– Microsoft has SMS.
– Linux has: Uhm .. apt-get upgrade in a cronjob? Doesn’t quite cut it imo..
Centralized administration:
– Microsoft has WMI, group policies.
– Linux has: WBEM? (Where are the providers? Where are the management consoles?) Cfengine? (hard to setup and get right!) Webmin? (Pwhaha:) OpenSSH? (Great tool, but have you ever changed a setting on 100+ servers?)
Centralized authentication and identity management:
– Microsoft has Active Directory
– Linux has: OpenLDAP+Kerberos? (Where are the management consoles and tools? Not to mention it’s pretty hard to setup, especially if you want it fault tolerant) NIS+? (so 90’s..)
I could go on and on, the point is that you can bash Microsoft all you like. There are real business requirements out there and it’s often impossible to find a solution based on FOSS that meets all those requirements. A combination of FOSS and commercial software is the only option that comes close, but even then it doesn’t always cut it.
Case in point: Microsoft has a full stack of applications to manage Windows servers remotely and centrally. It isn’t about being able to manage Windows from the CLI, it’s about managing Windows from a central location. The GUI will be simply obsolete. A GUI-less Windows is the logical next step.
Edited 2007-05-21 08:57
I am a developer, not much into maintenace of large IT infrastructure, but I know that Red Hat has kickstart installation and massive remote update features. I don’t know about other distrbutions. Novell probably has something.
Why should management consoles be such advantage ? I don’t think that they matter much. They are just an administration GUI tool.
Every UNIX like OS I know has something called ‘nsswitch’ that enable all authentication requests to be rerouted to a particular authentication provider. LDAP can be such provider, but it is not the only one.
Uhm. Well you need some sort of interface. I called it a management console, might as well be a CLI tool.
“- Linux has: Uhm .. apt-get upgrade in a cronjob?”
Most “big name” distros have update applications, ie RedHat Network etc.
“Cfengine? (hard to setup and get right!)”
Oh my God, it takes some minimal investment in time to learn. Cfengine isn’t that hard really.
“OpenSSH? (Great tool, but have you ever changed a setting on 100+ servers?)”
Can be easily done with rdist.
“OpenLDAP+Kerberos?”
You realize that, for an authentication point, this is exactly what AD is?
Not that Kerberos isn’t a bitch to manage.
“NIS+? (so 90’s..)”
So? If it works it works, be it 90’s or not.
BTW, Active directory is LDAP + Kerberos, more or less.
I know
Have you ever tried to setup a redundant LDAP+Kerberos authentication platform and hook up hundreds of servers?
It’s a pain in the ***, trust me.
Soulbender, you totally missed the point.
Anyway, to answer your ‘constructive criticism’:
Indeed, the big distro’s (uhm, yea suse and redhat) have update applications, but none of them are free (and thus not flexible or customizable). Good luck trying to manage 500+ redhat servers if they aren’t connected to the internet (so they can phone home to RHN).
CFengine and rdist are nice tools, but only fill a niche. If you manage 500+ servers with hundreds of applications writing cfengine rules takes too much time and becomes increasingly difficult. In this regard, WBEM is a much better solution, allowing developers to create a standard interface for remote/centralized administration. Microsoft has this (WMI is WBEM too!) Why don’t we? The standards are there! There are even opensource implementations, but they’re not even close to production ready.
With NIS+ you can’t have a user surf to a webpage and transparently log in if he’s already authenticated to his desktop. With Kerberos you can and in a Microsoft environment this is easy to set up. It can be done with opensource, but it’s quite a bit more difficult. I’ve been there.
In case my point still isn’t clear enough:
With regard to centralized management of a big bunch of servers (and their hosted applications) there is a lot to be done to make Linux as easy to manage as Windows and it has nothing to do with GUI vs CLI.
(At least I can acknowledge Microsoft has done something right and am not ashamed to admit it.)
“Good luck trying to manage 500+ redhat servers if they aren’t connected to the internet (so they can phone home to RHN).”
You can run a local repository for most distro update services.
“WBEM is a much better solution”
For you perhaps, not necessarily for everyone else.
“There are even opensource implementations, but they’re not even close to production ready. ”
I’m sure they’ll be production ready soon if you and/or your company pour some money into the development.
Or did you expect people to spend time on something they perhaps have no interest in for free?
“With NIS+ you can’t have a user surf to a webpage and transparently log in if he’s already authenticated to his desktop.”
I’ve seriously never heard anyone complain that they have to input their password when they browse. And yes, we’re a big company.
“(At least I can acknowledge Microsoft has done something right and am not ashamed to admit it.)”
So can I, I just cant think of anything right now.
If Windows works for you and your company thats great but that doesn’t mean it’s the right solution for everyone else and their company.
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
I run Linux because 1) I can do what I like with it; 2) run as many copies as I can without having to worry about budgets; 3) get free online help from people who know what they’re talking about; 4) install other packages with a simple command; 5) dig around in the source to see how something works; 6) Konqueror beats Windows utterly for power and ease of use. Microsoft can’t address these issues with Windows because all they’re really interested in is billing you.
Microsoft can’t address these issues with Windows because all they’re really interested in is billing you.
Microsoft can’t address many of your issues because you’re asking them to work for free. Which they won’t do, because they’re a business with employees, shareholders, etc.
Surface Area? WT?
What the hell is surface area?
Perhaps he is being kind and really means BLOATWARE.
So where ever you see “surface area” reaplce it with the term BLOATWARE.
I am not looking forward to using 2008. The proposed changes are really surprising when taken in context of Microsoft developers/Admins in general.
I mean, most of them I have seen are entirely worthless if they do not have a GUI interface constantly telling them what to do and not to do.
Really I think most of them are certified OK and CANCEL experts.
I guess things are not all bad. A CLI type environment might actually made things less painful when they dump all of thier 2008 servers for Linux or BSD when they have to.
-Hack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_2008
Edited 2007-05-22 21:10