Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 18th May 2007 22:17 UTC
Windows 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."
Thread beginning with comment 241608
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

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?

Reply Parent Score: 5

renhoek Member since:
2007-04-29

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.

Reply Parent Score: 5

jelway Member since:
2006-05-14

I'm sorry, but aside from that stupid JPEG/Windows GDI issue - what other exploits are related to the gui?

Reply Parent Score: 3

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

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 800x600, or at most 1024x768.

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.

Reply Parent Score: 3

butters Member since:
2005-07-08

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

Reply Parent Score: 5

raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

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 ?

Reply Parent Score: 4

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

That post of yours says just about everything I have ever wanted to say to fans of proprietary wares.

Reply Parent Score: 2

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

More code = more bugs, period.

One of the only constants in programming.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

"

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?
"

It was only reacently that MS had to release a critical update because the Windows cursor could be exploited ;-)

Reply Parent Score: 3