Username or EmailPassword
"Do you gain some sadistic pleasure in bashing Microsoft?"
I am forced to administer a few Windows servers at my place of employment. Out of thirty-five or so boxes, being FreeBSD, a couple are still Windows. I spend more time on two or three boxes than I do the rest of the network combined. MS costs me my freetime, my weekends and a butt-load of overtime I will never, ever get compensated for. Just last Wednesday I had to fiddle and handhold the list of "critical" patches that needed to be applied to these servers, if you could call them that. This doesn't even speak to the desktops - we have another poor sole that has that to deal with. Then I've got all the spam to deal with from spewing, compromised, MS workstations that fill the wire with horribly chatty protocols (smb).
Does it make me feel good? Yes. Is it satisfying? No, not until MS is outlawed for server use. Now I have Microsoft reps. calling daily about how/when we plan for a Vista migration? Yes, I'm angry.
I think I hear your bot-master calling.
There's something wrong with you. I manage Linux and Windows servers. Linux servers are fast to manage because of automation but it takes time in the beginning to learn and to get used. But Windows 2003 servers are a piece of cake to manage. I don't know why you have so many problems. As long as you have proper firewall settings, antivirus, and everything automated to update security patches and antivirus, you really shouldn't have any problem with Windows servers. To tell you the truth, I'm really surprised when I read you. It's easy to critisize Microsoft (sorry, I mean MS) for their lack of security, but I don't think they chose to have an unsecure system. Who would?
"but I don't think they chose to have an unsecure system."
Yes they did!
Whom is responsible for writing the code?
It's because (s)he's managing Windows 3.1/DOS servers. Don't blame him. Doing all those old LanManager commands all the time. I'd be royally pissed too.
....I don't think they chose to have an unsecure system. Who would?
I think, in a way, that they did. Windows networking is essentially promiscuous (this is not meant to be derogatory, but I cannot think of a better descriptive word) in that it, by design, will talk to anybody, easily.
The upside is that networking is relatively easy to set up, in accordance with MS general concept. The downside is that it tends to weaken security.
It's easy to critisize Microsoft (sorry, I mean MS) for their lack of security, but I don't think they chose to have an unsecure system. Who would?
Yes they did. They chose to integrate IE into the sytem, they chose to invent ActiveX, and they chose to have several different ports open to the outside world by default.