WinBeta.org features a preview article of the new server operating system by Microsoft, Windows 2003 Server, accompanied by a number of screenshots.
Windows 2003 Server Feature Guide & Review at WinBeta.org
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
IIS comes disabled by default. When turned on, it runs in a more secure static page only mode. Not to start a MS flame war, but the impressive thing with that is that it took MS till 2003 with months of it’s internal “secure initiative” to figure out what is essentially common sense to your average 12 year old.
Well, a lot of Linuxes come with Apache running by default and not very well secured either.
The quality of the operating system is directly proportional to the size of the main system menu. Or at least that’s what MS seems to think.
Ok, I’ll read the article now (I just looked at the pictures) and then maybe I’ll have something more useful to say
True, however, you are comparing a multi-billion dollar company to a 50 man band who put together Linux distributions. I would expect that a company with billions of dollars and thousands of employees to have done it ATLEAST 7 years ago.
Well, this is not true. Market and needs are changing. Seven years ago there were not the same needs for the web, neither the software was the same. And if it is “common sense to your average 12 year old” to not start a web server by default, why major Linux distro *companies* do it with Apache? Are all these people who work for these Linux companies younger than 12 years old? Well, I assume no.
Which means that it is a design decision and a market/security evaluation takes place before someone decides to turn on a web server on or off by default. Seven or even two years ago things might not have been as stressful security or other-wise, today, maybe things are more stressful. So, today, MS decides to turn the web server off. There is no indication that “this should have been done years ago” because years ago the market was not playing with the same rules.
And I expected the Linux market to know better than MS on this issue, as they are the “experts” in security and networking! So, if it is brain-dead to turn off a web server by default and MS is getting hammered for this (even when they are doing the ‘right thing’), why many Linux distro still don’t do it that way?
Please retain the header in tact when replying.
Command-line Support
“The Windows Server family provides a significantly enhanced command-line infrastructure, allowing you to perform most management tasks without using a graphical user interface. Of special importance is the ability to perform a wide range of tasks by accessing the information store enabled by Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI). This WMI command-line (WMIC) feature provides a simple command-line interface that interoperates with existing shells and utility commands and can be easily extended by scripts or other administration-oriented applications. Overall, the greater command-line functionality in the Windows Server family combined with ready-to-use scripts rivals the power of other operating systems often associated with higher cost of ownership. Administrators accustomed to using the command line to manage UNIX or Linux systems can continue managing from the command line in the Windows Server family.”
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/techinfo/overview/mgmtsr…
CLI use will fail under win2003. Admin can’t use it, they are spoiled with GUI stuff. It’s impossible (or very hard) to switch from GUI to CLI imho. Many windows admin are just plain
click monkeys (as they have been told on MSCE track). BTW first MS is bitching at posix systems, but atm Windows is getting more and more Unix based. Started with adding “tab” function in cmd.exe
In my opinion this is cool, but personally I stick with bash and awk
“Started with adding “tab” function in cmd.exe”
The other feature I use often is “Quick Edit” And “Insert” mode. I can’t remembet if they are on by default but you can right click on the top of the cmd.exe window and check the optioins. Once done you just highlight a section and press enter to copy it, and right click to paste. Saves typing. I would love to see a native bash shell for windows though.
>I would love to see a native bash shell for windows though.
http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin/download.html
🙂
i know, i know, im sorry
Kevin
CLI use will fail under win2003. Admin can’t use it, they are spoiled with GUI stuff. It’s impossible (or very hard) to switch from GUI to CLI imho. Many windows admin are just plain
click monkeys (as they have been told on MSCE track).
MMMM Here’s how I switch to CLI: Win->r->Enter; or (Alt+Tab)+ if cmd is running. That seems to be a pretty straight forward tack. In fact, I would argue that the Windows GUI is easier to use (out of the box) from the keyboard only. It was designed this way because of Government accessibility requirements. I disagree with your postulation that Windows admins are ‘click monkeys’ as well. I think that a good Windows admin spends a great deal of time writing automation scripts (much like Unix and Unix-like admins) in JavaScript or VBS which run natively in the cmd shell.
BTW first MS is bitching at posix systems, but atm Windows is getting more and more Unix based. Started with adding “tab” function in cmd.exe
Actually, I don’t recall Microsoft ever complaining about POSIX. I think MS likes POSIX and does a pretty good job of making NT (2000/XP/2003) POSIX friendly. To be clear, POSIX != UNIX (and neither does GNU hahaha, okay that was a geek joke). The ‘”tab” function’ has been in CMD since NT 4.0; you just had to change a reg key to turn it on.
Personally, I think 2003 is a great platform. In my experience (and I have a good bit with 2003), the strongest areas are: performance, improved cmd line utils, better remote desktop support.
Ha ha ha. Time to add to my Microsoft short position…