“With each new release of Microsoft’s server operating system, pundits are moved to declare that this one is the first Windows truly suited to the enterprise. And it is especially tempting to hang that tag on Windows Server 2003. […] Of course the cost, bizarre licensing terms, forced migration, and confusing packaging will turn many companies away. But if a decision could be made on purely technical grounds, Windows Server 2003 would be an unquestionably worthwhile investment.” Read the overview at ARNnet.
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Platform Play Hits Big Time
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
you cant expect those when you actually pay for a software…….
im sorry.. anyone who needs a ‘wizard’ to set up a server shouldent touch the thing.
Debian is FAR easier for a admin to use then 2k3.
This article is hard to follow. (for me anyway)
The following two statments are contradictions.
1.But Microsoft has proved with Windows Server 2003 that it can dramatically rework its underlying OS without disrupting existing application-layer software.
2.Microsoft binds its enterprise application platform so tightly to Windows that it would be a monstrous task to pry the two apart.
The following statments is strange.
When Sun refers to the “Java platform,” it is claiming that the OS is irrelevant. That may be a bit too convenient to be taken seriously — if Sun can get the market to agree with that assertion, Microsoft won’t be able to make money from Windows.
The OS seems irrelevant because of the VM; but how will this keep Microsoft from making money?
“cost, bizarre licensing terms, forced migration, and confusing packaging” are just going to be ignored because WS2K3 has a few nice features? I don’t think so. Anybody who jumps into bed with MS better think it thru. You sleep with the dogs and you’ll get fleas. And these might carry Black Death (or Blue Screen 😉
d@
“cost, bizarre licensing terms, forced migration, and confusing packaging”. If you ignore these reasons and choose a MS product, you’re a suit impressed by any beautiful GUI.
I’ll say it again, there are some things Linux JUST CAN’T DO.
Is Windows perfect? No way! It does have lots of security issues for those who don’t make sure they apply all of the latest security patches… but then again, any system admin worth his salt would know when fixes came out, what they fixed, and how to apply them properly.
I run a large cluster of Terminal Servers where I work… we’ve never had a problem with any security breaches… why? Because I know what I’m doing. I take security seriously and I’m proactive in what I do.
A system’s security is only as good as the person who administers it. If you have an idiot at the helm, you’re asking for problems.
Linux has an excellent security record, but that doesn’t mean it’s 100% secure. There is no way to achieve 100% security (no network, no user accounts, etc – the building could still burn down). If you continue to believe as an admin that Linux will never have a problem you may be in for a shock at some point in the future.
Just my $.02
“”cost, bizarre licensing terms, forced migration, and confusing packaging”. If you ignore these reasons and choose a MS product, you’re a suit impressed by any beautiful GUI.”
Right. Ok, I need to have 250 users log onto a cluster of servers so they can access email, word, excel, powerpoint, databases, etc. Oh, 95% don’t have broadband capability, so, they log in with modems.
RDP allows me to do this on something as slow as a 14.4… ever tried running X or LBX over 56K? It’s unusable. On top of that, I have tons of hardware that simply isn’t supported by Linux at this point in time… should I just dump all of that and buy new “supported” hardware? Yeah, I’m sure my finance department would go for that.
Seriously, some of the people here are getting really stupid about Linux. They think it can solve the world’s problems, treat it like some kind of cookie cutter solution to any IT problem.
I have news for you… Linux can’t do a lot of stuff I need.
Linux is a very powerful operating system, and yes, I do have a couple Linux servers here doing things it EXCELS at… but, I don’t use Linux for the sake of using Linux. It can save money, but not time… and in business, time IS money.
Think before you speak.
It can save money, but not time… and in business, time IS money.
Easy to install, and easy to use wont grand you to save money nor time, A virus or a security flaw can make you lose 10 times money and 10 times time, that’s the reason many big companies change to Linux, Security.
Yes… MS security patches…
One patch comes to mind… instead of actually fixing the hole they just prevented the process of the program that exploited the hole from writing to a certain system directory.
Funny stuff.
“Easy to install, and easy to use wont grand you to save money nor time, A virus or a security flaw can make you lose 10 times money and 10 times time, that’s the reason many big companies change to Linux, Security.”
Please reread my above 2 posts.
1) Security – Windows is secure if you are proactive in installing the necessary patches that are released. Everyone who got hit with Blaster didn’t install the patch (available for over a month).
2) If Linux can’t do the required job, then the additional security is pointless.
1) Security – Windows is secure if you are proactive in installing the necessary patches that are released. Everyone who got hit with Blaster didn’t install the patch (available for over a month).
2) If Linux can’t do the required job, then the additional security is pointless.
The fact is than some patches get there after the virus or worm hits the server.
Please name some of the “jobs”, Linux couln’t do as a server.
Playing games?
I did list some of the jobs Linux cannot do.
RTF messages.
From the most fundamental cornerstone the design of windoze is flawed and can never be made secure. There are weekly, sometimes even daily, virii and worms that exploit windoze flaws. And it’s been over 2 years since melissa/sircam/iluvyou were running rampant, and now we’ve just had another slew of virus attacks which are exploiting bigger holes than those of 2 years ago. And with every virus, the windoze pundits say, “that’s it. that’s the worst that can happen.” But that’s not it, there are more holes and probably even bigger ones than ever before.
The only way ms has a chance of releasing a secure system is if they do a linux or bsd distro of their own…. but they’d probably screw that up too cause they don’t care about security for anyone except themselves, like keeping file format proprietary.
Red Hat Linux 9 Security Advisories for Aug and Sept 2003 alone…
2003-09-04 Updated httpd packages fix Apache security
vulnerabilities
2003-08-29 New up2date available with updated SSL
certificate authority file
2003-08-28 Updated Sendmail packages fix vulnerability.
2003-08-26 Updated pam_smb packages fix remote buffer
overflow.
2003-08-21 GDM allows local user to read any file.
2003-08-15 Updated unzip packages fix trojan vulnerability
2003-08-12 Updated Evolution packages fix multiple
vulnerabilities
2003-08-11 Updated KDE packages fix security issue
2003-08-11 Updated ddskk packages fix temporary file
vulnerability
2003-08-08 up2date improperly checks GPG signature of
packages
2003-08-05 Updated gtkhtml packages fix vulnerability
2003-08-04 New postfix packages fix security issues.
“Reality is that which when you stop believing in it does not go away.”
Because you cannot do it does not mean it cannot be done. RTFM + STFW. Have a nice day.
I ran Win 2003 Server for 2 or 3 months. I expected to like the way it worked, but eventually reject it because of the ridiculous licensing terms. If fact, it did not work as well as Windows 2000 and I erased the trial and installed Debian Linux. I believe Win 2003 is a step backward unless you need Terminal Services or maybe one or two other items. For file sharing and Web hosting, the same exact hardware under Debian Linux has been the best solution.
I don’t always advocate Linux Solutions. I try to pick what works. Win 2003 Server is a loser.
Windows has One big SP 135MB the patch its holes.
Linux has more small patch that are out faster than an
Windows SP.
Just my 2 pence
… that I see been true…
Even More when they still have MSDOS on there crap… XP has it… they just blocked its use to the user… but the OS is still there, under, lurking… rampart…
With competition we prosper… with monopolies we don’t… so MS better start fixing there products before they do themselves a kill… because there next victime will be themselves…
Linux and BSD aren’t 100% secure, but they’re not targeted and hated like micro$haft. M$ is targeted because they repulse, revile and hold nothing but contempt for their customers.
The dirty underhanded m$ shills who post here and bang the corporate gong are a perfect example of why m$ is dispised – they lie, they cheat and treat people like 2 years old with their flippant holier-than-thou condescening arrogance.
Gates himself has quoted the “business is war” attitude in interviews, and his customers are his enemy.
@ the Glen Miller band:
Instead of X or LBX try tightVNC. Kinda suprised you haven’t tried that.
Heres a pretty good VNC vs RDP thread:
http://www.wplug.org/pipermail/wplug/2003-February/004263.html
No crazy licensing snafu and you can get both clients and servers for most major platforms.
….be praises unto you, or great and powerful one, who by your hand alone provides us mere mortals with thy software, and who bequoth unto us the GUI, and the point and the click, and the drag and the drop, and by whose name the server shall be known forever and forever.
Amen.
….and to he that provideth us the music, in proper measure, that we not be overly entertained.
Amen.
How many programs come with Redhat 9? How many programs come with Windows Server 2k3?
I thought so. Redhat comes with THOUSANDS more programs that server 2k3, and of course some will have bugs/security holes. I dont think you’d even install X or X programs if you have a server anyway.
MS has more patches out for its (comparably) small OS.
And,thats just holes MS discloses, Open Source patches every small whole they find, where Microsoft prefers to cover things up for as long as possible.
“linux” “windows” it’s a computer, stupid.
These holy wars [read: gihad
] about whether windoze* or linsucks* will save us from the end of the world have become so petty and partisan that it’s become almost unbearable to read the comments on fine sitez like this.
John, u like Linux? Use it.
Peter, u like Windows? Use it.
Now both of u go to your respective corners!
Hello! That’s WTF the OSDN and sourceforge are for! So ppl committed to useful development of IT, and computing in general, can provide the rest of us with the tools to do what we need to do, on the platform/os we choose to do it.
For crying out loud! I luv (nt-based) win32 (the 9x line was a sad time in OS history) and i love linux. i respect them for their strong points and live with their weaknesses.
all of u should az well!!!! grow up!
* no response necessary from u petty flamers, used for my personal amusement.
Have we forgotten “open source”? and, How is Micosoft planning to prevent piracy of their “new” OS?
“I run a large cluster of Terminal Servers where I work… we’ve never had a problem with any security breaches… why? Because I know what I’m doing. I take security seriously and I’m proactive in what I do.”
Good for you. So, that means there are hordes of Windows administrators like you out there who do the same thing? Which is why the Internet isn’t flooded with crap from Microsoft products?
Look back on the literature from all the different marketing operations associated with Windows platforms and products, and then ask yourself whether bosses expect to hire really clever, precise, and knowledgeable people to run their Windows systems.
They’re learning, though….ever so slowly….that they must.
i use windows 2003 server to host my website amongst other things. and it works very well, sure my site only gets 300 or so hits per day but thats ok, it has stood up to 14,000 or so hits in one day without a blink, oh, and i havnt rebooted it either in 163 days. I like it, works very well, faster than windows 2000 server, but of course i would like to see the following:0-
1. remove unwanted stuff, such as IE/media player/outlook express
2. no need to reboot when installing a security update
if those two things above were dealt with, i would have no problem working with win2k3.
perhaps the next server release will be more interesting… who knows
cheers
anyweb
Employees will love it. It means they can take the rest of the day off because the technicians are trying to figure out what’s wrong with it.
say what?
With everyone else except msft, if you have to progam it yourself, AT LEAST YOU CAN FIX IT!!!!!!
That’s what I told the microsoft sales rep when he called. It was a great great feeling to tell him we were 100% microsoft free and that he could windows and shove it up his arse.
NO, I think it would be better to give them half day off,when they are ahead, no?
ahh.. windows gets in way of that.
//
2. no need to reboot when installing a security update
//
This is actually a big issue with Windows. You have to wait for a file to be “released” from memory before you can overwrite it. ie. You cant delete files that are running.
MS would have to change a lot to fix it, and I hope they do. I totally agree with you, sometimes rebooting isnt a possibility.
I dont see how you could change your kernel without rebooting though.
None of the old server software runs on win2003. You need to get a new version of exchange, SQL server, etc. That sucks!
I’ll say it again, there are some things Linux JUST CAN’T DO.
From the contents of the rest of your post, I will extrapolate that you mean to imply there are some things you can do with Windows that you just can’t do with Linux. I think that statement is (gasp) true. Those things are crash and force a reboot every few days.
Seriously though, what you are saying is that you are skilled at using Windows and therefore, for you, it is superior. That is a fair statement. I think to be more accurate in your post, however, you should rather say, “I’ll say it again, there are some things that I just can’t do with Linux”.
1) Run webMethods. We use webMethods for our EAI environment. It doesn’t run on Linux, for us it was either Windows or Solaris. Solaris was too expensive and we didn’t have Solaris expertise in-house.
2) running a high volume Java app. Linux kept coring when we pushed Java very hard. We confirmed that quite a few companies had the same problems with Java on Linux (JDK 1.4, RedHat 7.2), so we went Windows for our Java app as well. No problems since then.
How dare you say something besides praise about Linux.
You better RTFM lolO!LOLol! and we’re glad you volunteered to fix it. lolOLOLO
>1) Run webMethods
yup, linux doesn’t run exchange either. so what.
>2) running a high volume Java app … RedHat 7.2
try upgrading, neither does NT 3.51
>>1) Run webMethods
>yup, linux doesn’t run exchange either. so what.
So we can’t run Linux. We sure as hell aren’t going to switch EAI vendors just to run Linux. Not much ROI on that.
>>2) running a high volume Java app … RedHat 7.2
>try upgrading, neither does NT 3.51
RH72 is the most stable of the RHs
Looks like webMethods claims to work on Linux, for the server at least:
http://evals.webmethods.com/cgi-bin/evals/ev_main.jsp?w=0&s=3240165…
(Www.webmethods.com -> Solutions -> Downloads -> Product Info -> System Reqs)
Of course, it appears that it’s a SOAP/WebServices deal. Even if it doesn’t work on Linux, I’d guess that you could find a similar product that does.
webMethods Enterprise Server doesn’t run on Linux. And yeah, there are similar products that run on Linux. We could switch if we threw away our $2 million integration and rewrote it. You certainly wouldn’t advocate throwing away a system we spent 3 years building just so we could run Linux, would you?
The point is there are occasions when Linux isn’t an option. It isn’t for us (at least in the situations I described)
“Linux kept coring when”
“RH72 is the most stable of the RHs”
Well, looky here, mr windowshill is suddenly a redhat expert. NOT!
Linux zealots always tout security as its number one advantage. Fact is, Windows is attacked more because its on 80-90% of the computers out there.
Gee, Im going to write a worm. I Think I will target OS/2!!!
That will rock the net!!!
Script kiddies get into Unix all the time. Windows has security holes because of rush to market and backwards compatibility.
Honestly, neither is a panacea.
Windblows is attacked more because it’s easy to crack and has more holes than swiss cheese. In short, windhosed is total shiite.
Plus, there’s one other item that makes windoze more insecure than just about any other reason: the stupid users, like you.
Honestly, neither is a panacea.
No, but one is obviously much better at security than the other one.
1) Run webMethods. We use webMethods for our EAI environment. It doesn’t run on Linux, for us it was either Windows or Solaris. Solaris was too expensive and we didn’t have Solaris expertise in-house.
2) running a high volume Java app. Linux kept coring when we pushed Java very hard. We confirmed that quite a few companies had the same problems with Java on Linux (JDK 1.4, RedHat 7.2), so we went Windows for our Java app as well. No problems since then.
Hmm, I’ve run huge Java apps on Debian for the last 3 or 4 years, and I’ve never had that problem.
I would also like to point out that you are talking about applications. So the point whoever you were responding to made is not invalidated by your argument. What you’re saying is that’s Windows can’t do everything a Mac can do because it doesn’t run iTunes. As you can clearly see, such a statement is illogical.
By your own admission, there are other applications you could use that do run on Linux, but you chose to run one that didn’t. How does that make Linux incapable in any way. There are obviously other apps that do the same thing, and even if there weren’t, Linux is fully capable of supporting such an app, right?
“…There are obviously other apps that do the same thing, and even if there weren’t, Linux is fully capable of supporting such an app, right?”
yeah, run it with wine
sorry i’m a troll i know, couldn’t resist.
You guys are right about worms being written for windows because of its popularity but imagine for a second that one of the default services running on Redhat linux had a vulnerability, why not write a worm for it? because by default NFS,X,SSH,Sendmail are all firewalled by default. so what good would it do to attack the non techy types? The only ppl who would have it listening are admins who are more likely to run up2date atleast once a week.
“…the first Windows truly suited to the enterprise.”
Can I see the first Windows that is ready and suited for the internet please?
I’d like to see the 1st windows written for someone who has an IQ that’s at least 100.
“But the development teams banded together and somehow they did make key Windows features and services run twice as fast or handle twice as many connections as Windows 2000.”
Yeah, they stumbled upon the idea of using a cpu twice as fast as the ones they had when Windows 2000 came out and threw in twice as much memory to boot, then they put in a Gb NIC instead of 100Mb. Wow, those development teams are really innovative.
Even More when they still have MSDOS on there crap… XP has it… they just blocked its use to the user… but the OS is still there, under, lurking… rampart…
Remind me to never take anything you say seriously.
Explain to us just where MS-DOS is lurking in Windows XP? Obviously you don’t know jack squat about the NT kernel.
What I find interesting when discussing the number of security holes, that nobody actually thinks about the real point:
Let’s say there have been about the same number of holes in M$ Windows as have been in Linux (which isn’t the case, at least for remote root exploits, but let’s assume that for an example).
Considering that Linux and almost all of the software coming with it also come with source code it is still shocking that you can find the same number of holes in an operating system that is closed source and tries to achieve security through obscurety.
I think if Windows source code would ever become public it would probably immediately vaporize in a purple cloud of infinite improbability.
Now tell me how you know there’s no DOS in it? Have you seen the kernel source? I didn’t think so.
The truth is, we don’t know what MS has in that kernel, half of it could be DOS. 😉
That said, im doubtful there’s much DOS left in it. NT was a complete rewrite.
Yeah, they stumbled upon the idea of using a cpu twice as fast as the ones they had when Windows 2000 came out and threw in twice as much memory to boot, then they put in a Gb NIC instead of 100Mb. Wow, those development teams are really innovative.
Read the report, you twit. .NET Server 2003 was compared against Windows 2000 Server on the same hardware!!!! Get it?!?
Now tell me how you know there’s no DOS in it? Have you seen the kernel source? I didn’t think so.
Let me get this straight: You’re actually asking MoronPeeCeeUSR to disprove your unproven contention?!? Dude… take a class in logic. Please tell me you don’t code for a living…
My house has better locks than yours…neenerneenerneeeeener….
See! I can protect my house from you better than you can protect yours from me!!
Solve the security problem properly:
License plates
Pick-axes
Coal shovels
Basket-weaving and other crafts (for those who don’t have the stamina for above
…and other things that wouldn’t go well on a polite discussion group (things having to do with odd relationships in somewhat-desperate circumstances.
The smart-asses who are bringing about this argument in the first place belong in jail. Pure and simple.
Who said that?
Me… I hate myself….cause I hate MS
Why?
It is too easy.
Oh no… so many people use that…ri~~~ght.
First, IT WASNT MY STATEMENT. It was some other persons.
I dont think there’s DOS in NT, but my point was that saying “there’s no DOS in NT” is just as stupid as saying “NT is all DOS”.
That is, unless he actually has access to the source.
By Anonymous (IP: —.asm.bellsouth.net) – Posted on 2003-09-04 23:05:28
Linux zealots always tout security as its number one advantage. Fact is, Windows is attacked more because its on 80-90% of the computers out there.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/09/01/september_2003_web_ser…