Home > Rumors > PCMagazine Reviews Server OSes PCMagazine Reviews Server OSes Submitted by Peter Colijn 2004-01-18 Rumors 67 Comments PC Magazine has a review of several Server OSes targetted at the SMB market, ranging from MS Windows SBS 2003, to Novell, to SuSE Linux 9.0. Windows Server 2003 wins the editor’s choice. About The Author Eugenia Loli Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker. Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 67 Comments 2004-01-18 8:11 pm Are they capable of saying what a “intuitive” “polished” environment is. Because apparently Windows Server 2003 is a revolution in user environments. Sorry, but I don’t buy it. 2004-01-18 8:16 pm Im with you. That review was horrible. 2004-01-18 8:17 pm Actually, Windows Server 2003 is the best Windows ever released so far (and in my own preference, the best consumer OS today — as a workstation at least). It is extremely fast and stable in my own experience, I was very impressed with it when I first installed it last May. I wrote an article about it too: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3655 There is a free demo CD copy that MS gives away (in some states they might just to pay for the postage, in other states is sent completely free) and the demo CD is enabled for usage for 6 months. It should give a good idea of what Win2k3 can do, so please use it before you critisize it. 2004-01-18 8:19 pm Why don’t they include Red Hat Enterprise Linux, currently the biggest server-side distro (in the US, at least, which is where PC Magazine is published). Red Hat has a large amount of support options, and its relatively cheap. (No, I don’t work for RedHat) Also, what about the fact that linux is much more powerful than win2k3 in terms of performance (remember those max tcp thread tests, smb performance test, throughput tests etc.)? 2k3 might be easiest to use if one is used to configuring windows servers, but suse and redhat are just as easy to configure if the sysadmin is coming from a linux/unix background. Yet another “Microsoft*delete*PC Magazine dubs Windows more powerful than Linux” 2004-01-18 8:21 pm Editors choices are always about choosing the shiniest sparkling useless gadgets. 2004-01-18 8:25 pm It’s bizzare. In Linux there is X and they say essentually that you cann’t do that in Suse offering. Oh well… 2004-01-18 8:27 pm I suspect that when Linux becomes common on the desktop is when you will start to see growth in the Small Business Server market. Windows Server 2003 is easy to administer which is important in a Small Business situation where you cannot afford a full time IT professional. While I don’t particularly care for the limitations of Small Business Server I can see it’s advantages in a environment with fewer than 50 workstations. 2004-01-18 8:29 pm We’ve used Win2k3 here as an internal web server. It was so unstable that we were having to reboot it at least once a day. In the end we just went back to Win2k, which has been great since we switched back. 2004-01-18 8:31 pm did you ever see the huge glossy ads from microsoft in that magazine. of course they are going to pick a ms product. 2004-01-18 8:32 pm Why don’t they include Red Hat Enterprise Linux Beause PC Magazine has been shilling for Microsoft products since the begining of time. 2004-01-18 9:15 pm Most of you complaining about bias have never even tried Windows SBS 2003 — and yet you continue to spew venom. Why? Is the “bias” charge supposed to undo the TCO and usability advantages of SBS cited in the article? Is that how low the Linux FUD bar is these days? 2004-01-18 9:17 pm If you say you’re rebooting your Win2K servers once a day, you’re either in the wrong line of work or you’re exaggerating wildly. Even people who don’t like Windows agree that its stability is rock-solid. 2004-01-18 9:18 pm Why don’t they include Red Hat Enterprise LinuxRead the title: The review covers servers targeted at the SMB market. Get it? SMB ain’t enterprise. 2004-01-18 9:19 pm I completely agree with Eugenia– As a workstation, or even as a desktop, Server 2003 is damn stable, and fast as hell. I have been using it here on my PC for a while now. And it’s a shame to see people instantly catching fire when someone says something good about a MS product. These people really need to take their eyes out of their pockets. 2004-01-18 9:22 pm Beause PC Magazine has been shilling for Microsoft products since the begining of time. It must really be nice to be able to ignore reality. Like it or not, PC Mag covers a lot of products (not all of them M$): http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,54090,00.asp“>PC 2004-01-18 9:26 pm From our experiences with it at work the OS is extremely stable and quite fast. We use it to run our Exchange servers and also are setting it up for alot of internal file sharing. However, external hosts and a few other things are still Unix hosts. Each OS has their advantages but Win2k3 is def. Microsofts best OS so far. 2004-01-18 9:32 pm Some people not only thinks that remote desktop access solution is a MS “innovation” (VNC thru Java applet does it for ages now) but actually think that its is good to do it through ActiveX + IE. Geez! 2004-01-18 9:49 pm Well, if you want to shell out several hundreds for a desktop OS, then more power to you… And I have nothing against Windows. Use both it and Linux about 50/50. But this is really funny… 2004-01-18 10:02 pm It’s bizzare. In Linux there is X and they say essentually that you cann’t do that in Suse offering. You can’t. Remote Desktop and X are very different things. Not to mention how slow X is, especially over internet links. 2004-01-18 10:19 pm First, compare “SMB servers” is not fair for non-Microsft OSes. Why not compare “file servers” in general ? If Samba beats Windows in performance (see http://www.vnunet.com/News/1144289 , it is free (as beer and as freedom) and it runs on any linux distribution (including Debian and Slackware, who not require payment) or any *BSD, why choose pay for an expensive, bloated and insecure system (target of 99,99% of worms, viruses and exploits of the world) like Win2003 ? I think that these magazines want linux only as a windows clone, comparing them using M$ words like “exchange”, “SMB”, etc ; if something is different, even if it is better they don’t want. Please stop to think like M$ users ! There are other technologies that do the job and for less price and less headaches ! 2004-01-18 10:37 pm I wholeheartedly agree with you. 2004-01-18 10:42 pm For me it is where they are going.. ie I stopped when you had to ask premission to use the software you had just bought… you can’t sell your software..**business**, you have to pay off your service contract and the software is termanted.. they can’t show their code for national security ** that is not some program they wrote for the CIA, that has to do something each one of us running in OUR puter.. and so on. So I am making the switch to open source. Sorta like a Vegie, I will never know the taste of a steak, but then again I will never get mad cow either. I have always found a way to make my idea work on MS, so now I will find new and different ways… Thanks for letting me say my thoughts. 2004-01-18 10:53 pm I’m really curious to understand how remote desktop and X are functionally different. Both allow you to graphically manage remote servers. And with proper compression technology (NX!) its as fast as Citrix over internet links. Interestingly, the KDE Enterprise project will be integrating NX. That should be a powerful plus-point for graphically-administered Linux servers. 2004-01-18 11:04 pm It’s a review for small businesses, presumably the kind where a couple of people are programmer/help-desk/sysadmin rolled into one. They need something not to advanced they can configure with a few mouseclicks and it needn’t be terribly reliable. Windows does this perfectly. Like it says in the article : “the latest iteration of Microsoft Windows Small Business Server (SBS) is targeted at companies with little IT expertise” On the other hand an even better solution for these companies would be ‘appliance’ servers (the plug-in-and-go type) and ofcourse these DO run often run an Linux even though you’d never know it 2004-01-19 12:07 am I’ve used Windows Server 2003 as a desktop OS, I must say it was fast and stable but has some issues with Borlands Interbase (Connection was slow), I’ve never tested it as a server so I can’t say anything about it. 2004-01-19 12:45 am We use 2k3 at my work, had it professionally set up by a certified person, and it crashes 2 – 3 times per 5 day work week. I haven’t been impressed. 2004-01-19 12:53 am Maybe in small business you can get away with mediocre stability in your OS so MS is OK. I know that with larger businesses that actually depend on their servers for income MS isn’t cutting it. Not only is there the stability issue but then there are the monthly patches and other security issues that prevent any MS powered servers from achieving great uptimes. You should be able to run your server for at least six months between reboots and I still haven’t seen that in the real world. On desktops I’m sure that the 2003 OS does just peachy. 2004-01-19 12:55 am As far as OS’s go I have been very impressed with 2003 Server. Its fast as well as stable and in my opinion runs neck to neck with Linux in terms of performance. Security is an issue with all operating systems, no system is 100% secure and if hackers want to get into your system they will, I dont care if you are running BSD, QNX, Linux, BeOS, Windows there is a way into your system. The only reason why Linux is not heavily hacked is because its use is minimal for right now and to be completely honest with you it doesnt run anything particularily useful or anything anyone wants to get into. As that changes people will exploit Linux and viruses for Linux will propagate and everything will get out of control and everyone will criticize Linus, Red Hat, SuSE, Novell. Microsoft has over 97% of the market that is why they are hacked and why viruses are primarily written for the Windows platform. As trusted computing becomes mainstream then things will get flawless, security on Windows has gotten much better and security is not just a Microsoft problem, it is a collective problem which means everyone in the industry has to help out. And it is working out from a colleague that I know Microsofts monthly patches, over 80% of the info gathered for those patches are relayed to Microsoft from Shared Source partners. But for right now, Windows Server 2003 has performed very well for me, I like it and have replaced some Linux and UNIX machines with it and everything has been seamless and no problems have veered their ugly head my way. 2004-01-19 1:02 am We are running SBS2003 and no problems since day one. Something the review misses is that there is a Standard version of SBS 2003, and cost about $600 with 5 users. If there is no need for SQL 2000, is a great price. (But I don’t recommend it for more than 50 users, although it can handle 75.) 2004-01-19 1:04 am ” I know that with larger businesses that actually depend on their servers for income MS isn’t cutting it. Not only is there the stability issue but then there are the monthly patches and other security issues that prevent any MS powered servers from achieving great uptimes. ” Uptimes are not everything, and my corporate web server was changed from Linux with Apache to Windows Server 2003 with Apache and it has been up for 3 months without any unintentional reboots. From my own testing and other forms of testing Server 2003 does make the cut and I wouldnt change back. Microsofts future initiatives are exciting, their future products are exciting. 2004-01-19 1:08 am Most of you complaining about bias have never even tried Windows SBS 2003 — and yet you continue to spew venom. Why? Is the “bias” charge supposed to undo the TCO and usability advantages of SBS cited in the article? Is that how low the Linux FUD bar is these days? Its the difference between true IT professionals and the Zealots. I have administered tons of Microsoft boxes mainly NT 4.0 and the myth that it crashes all the time is just that a myth. Anyone that has ever worked in a serious Windows environment and has half a clue knows this. 2004-01-19 1:15 am Win 2k3 is the best solution we have today, period. Live with it. 2004-01-19 1:17 am Isn’t PCMagazine own by Paul Allen? If it is no wonder they would pick MS 2003 Server. 2004-01-19 1:41 am “The only reason why Linux is not heavily hacked is because its use is minimal ” Once again, marketshare != exploits. Explain to me why: Apache 70%+ marketshare but only 5-7% viruses/worms IIS 25% marketshare but 85-90% viruses/worms Inferior s/w gets expolited more. Simple as that. 2004-01-19 1:55 am You can’t. Remote Desktop and X are very different things. No, X offers exactly that functionality – remote desktop access! (and shockingly, I find myself in agreement with Rayner Hashem, which fills me with horror) 2004-01-19 2:02 am JB, A customer of mine have many Red Hat Linux boxes, thinking the same as you, Microsoft inferior s/w gets expolited. But, their “secure” Red Hat boxes were hacked. That doesn’t means Red Hat is an inferior O/S. But we, the administrators, need to understand that security is a practice, not an O/S or software. If we have an excelent security plan, firewalls, etc, any O/S can be reasonably safe. 2004-01-19 2:06 am …if only some BS like this didn’t show up: Beyond the strong NDS engine under the hood, NSBS 6.5 provides a host of bundled products comparable to those found in Microsoft’s SBS 2003, including Novell GroupWise 6.5, BorderManager 3.8, and ZENworks 4.01 Nope, Microsoft SBS doesn’t have anything similar to ZENWorks 4.01 or BorderManager. And even GroupWise compared to Exchange is like comparing a nuclear submarine to a bicicle. Bah! Bul look at this flaming BS: Because of Novell’s slipping market share, GroupWise—unlike its Microsoft counterpart—has not been such a lightning rod for hackers; thus end users may be less of a target. This is also true of the included Apache Web server: It is less targeted than its Microsoft counterpart. This is so tragicomically false, I am torn whether I should laugh my butt off or cry. This guy is basically saying that Apache is less targeted than IIS because it has less marketshare??! One thing: Installing Novell SBS is extremely simple. Don’t believe the review, you don’t need nearly any knowledge of NDS in order to set up NSBS! They dumbed it down totally, it’s completely PnP. 2004-01-19 2:15 am First, compare “SMB servers” is not fair for non-Microsft OSes. Why not compare “file servers” in general ? They mean Small/Medium Business, not Server Message Block. 2004-01-19 2:20 am Mario, SBS2003 Premium includes a firewall, ISA Server. And with group policy and the management console you can manage, even remotely, your servers and desktops and all configurations on them. In case you find group policy limited, you can add SMS 2003 to the SBS2003. But the PC Mag article was focused on small business, so you can do fine with the management functionality included on SBS2003. The point is that SBS2003 includes software like ZENWorks and BorderManager. 2004-01-19 3:10 am I think it’s ironic that some people this thread (and others) accuse someone as being ‘biased’, while at the same time throwing in the ‘M$’ thing every time they get a chance. Anyone using ‘M$’ in their discussions are clearly biased from the beginning, and frankly, I’m not interested in anything you have to say. 2004-01-19 3:18 am I don’t want to go into all the details ’cause I’m tired and I wouldn’t change a damn thing anyway. But just for the record: BorderManager 3.8 is much more capable than just a firewall. Various proxies (web proxy is not the only one), advanced web caching, VPN etc. As for SMS 2003, does it come free with SBS? If some, point partially taken, even htough I have worked with SMS and it’s a POS. Heck, I even had an MCSE exam on SMS. In any case, ZenWorks is more powerful than SMS, if nothing else for the integration with NDS. But, as I said, if you tell me that SMS comes bundled with SBS, then I’ll give you that SBS has something comparable to ZenWorks. 2004-01-19 3:25 am Well, I’m glad I didn’t make it to your “biased” list. But I am not convinced the review wasn’t biased. It was a very competent writeup, no doubt about it, but to say that installing NSBS requires a specialist or something, that’s ridicolous. I’ve seen NetWare for Small Business being installed, and it’s braindead-easy. Totally mindless. Look, I’m not saying Microsoft SBS 2003 shouldn’t have won, maybe it should. I’m just saying that there have been some misrepresentations. If that didn’t happen, i.e. if all products were presented fairly, I would feel happy about MS SBS being declared a winner. 2004-01-19 3:48 am The same can be said about the *NIX. Yeah but I forgot, only a true IT professionnals would dare try something else. Everyone here tried Windows in a “serious” environment, give a try to linux. Here’s a tip: tar -zxvf filename 2004-01-19 3:57 am “As far as OS’s go I have been very impressed with 2003 Server. Its fast as well as stable and in my opinion runs neck to neck with Linux in terms of performance.” Lets see – Samba 4 rated (by independent labs) at better than twice as fast as Windows 2003, will handle about 4 times as many clients than server 2003 before noticeable performance fall off. When Microsoft was contracted by testers they were told that they could get better performance out of 2003 server if they used only XP clients. Microsoft did stop short of saying that this would get a doubling of performance needed to just match Samba Server working on any old mix of clients. Yea – 2003 server is just as good as Linux. Yea right. 2004-01-19 4:20 am Ok, I asked why they didn’t explain what was “intuitive” about Win2k3. I said nothing about stability, administratibility or anything of that nature. I asked how it was an intuitive interface. As far as I knew it was the same old Windows GDI interface they have had for so long, and haven’t done any major changes to. Not to mention, desktop intuitiveness makes absolutely no difference for a server OS. I’ve never tried Win2k3. I don’t have time to retry Windows with every release on the server and desktop side. I’m sorry guys, but Microsoft has always been an underdog for server software. They are getting a marketshare now, but it’s mostly in small applications. I have tried Win2k and XP. I assume they haven’t rewritten too much kernel code, and so it is not massively better. As far as stability, your server is as stable as the server processes you run, Windows stability issues have usually been weaknesses with 3rd party apps that Windows isn’t powerful enough to control. Server software shouldn’t have these issues, if it does you bought crapware. So stability isn’t a major issue, it’s definitely stable enough. But this is a small business server and here is what matters for most of them: Features they need, which vary and usually are fairly few. Ease of administration. Easy for a Windows user, possibly. Easy for people with experience in anything else, NO! Ease of use to me is a complete manual distributed with the software. Small businesses don’t ask for much, and I’m sure Win2k3 gives it to them. Does it take too much hardware to do it? Is it easy to use? Is it secure? Intuitiveness in the server world is documentation so that different clients can be written. Why do we care how intuitive the gui that you will see once is in Win2k3? 2004-01-19 4:43 am ” Once again, marketshare != exploits. Explain to me why: Apache 70%+ marketshare but only 5-7% viruses/worms IIS 25% marketshare but 85-90% viruses/worms Inferior s/w gets expolited more. Simple as that. ” Web Servers do not get viruses or worms, they have security flaws. To write a virus you need to write for the platform for which you deploy ie. Windows, Linux. You can write viruses that target a certain hole that exists in the Web Server hardware. So once again it comes down to the OS. Linux 1.4% of the marketshare, Windows 97% marketshare. Linux is the inferior OS here. Linux has its exploits and as soon as you guys get out of Lowes hardware and Kentucky Fried Chicken then the virus writers will turn to you. 2004-01-19 4:58 am ” Lets see – Samba 4 rated (by independent labs) at better than twice as fast as Windows 2003, will handle about 4 times as many clients than server 2003 before noticeable performance fall off. When Microsoft was contracted by testers they were told that they could get better performance out of 2003 server if they used only XP clients. Microsoft did stop short of saying that this would get a doubling of performance needed to just match Samba Server working on any old mix of clients. Yea – 2003 server is just as good as Linux. Yea right. ” See the benchmarks you guys bring up are really funny because let me tell you what. No lab will perform benchmark tests for free. Someone got paid. I am going by my own tests that I perform and the pilots that I run and yes I do stand beside my position that Windows Server 2003 does in fact run neck and neck with any Linux Server OS. Yes, I am prepared for alot of feedback on this statement that people will feed that will say that Windows Server 2003 is crappy and that I dont know what I am talking about and that I am a fool, from people who undoubtedly have never run Windows Server 2003, have never it run and who are using Windows 98 or some flavor of Linux. One thing I have learned in my time is that the Open Source community and Linux communities can and sometimes do spread as much FUD and misinformation than Microsoft does. Tell ya what bigshot, call Veritest and tell them you want a Benchmark test on Samba and Windows 2003 Server and then tell them that you do not want to pay for the test. Be prepared to be laughed at right off the phone. But you will give their employees something to chuckle about. 2004-01-19 5:33 am You’re right, Roberto. There’s no reason why RedHat or Suse or any of the other commercial Linux distributions couldn’t pony up for real benchmarks. They may (in fact) do so (but I haven’t seen any, personally). But my own personal testing corroborates what you’re saying. I pitted Win 2003 SBS against Linux in my own lab and the results have been very impressive for SBS. Even more importantly, though, SBS provides enough usability features that make administration a piece of cake. That’s really important for the small business guy who doesn’t have his own IT staff. It really cracks me up when the predictable Linux bigots start badmouthing SBS; first, they’ve never even run the thing, and second, they have no concept of the TCO advantages that SBS offers over Linux. Hell, if these small businesses had to pay an admin to take care of every Linux config issue that they’re likely to run into, they’d never do anything else. 2004-01-19 6:36 am On my workstation I use WinXP and SUSE 8.2. When MS launched Win2k3 coincidently our small workgroup expanded and we needed a server, so we turned to MS for a free trial version of Win2k3 (it was the Enterprise Edition) and for six months we had no failures, not a single one. Since we were extremely pleased with the OS performance, when trial period expired we went for the SBS Edition and bought 5 additional client licenses. Our environment is MS zone (Win2k & WinXP with the exception of my w/station).I’m in charge of IT and I want to avoid the hassle of IT managing and dedicate my time to “real work”, so I use something familiar and with support. No TCO… and other stuff, it’s simple: tried it, liked it, bought it. And it is worth every single dollar we paid, all four figures 🙂 2004-01-19 6:42 am Ok, I asked why they didn’t explain what was “intuitive” about Win2k3. … I asked how it was an intuitive interface. As far as I knew it was the same old Windows GDI interface they have had for so long, and haven’t done any major changes to. Yes, they don’t change the GUI every version, so if you know the previous one- you can intuitively use the next version. 2004-01-19 7:27 am Yes, they don’t change the GUI every version, so if you know the previous one- you can intuitively use the next version. That’s not intuition, it’s familiarity. 2004-01-19 7:37 am So once again it comes down to the OS. Linux 1.4% of the marketshare, Windows 97% marketshare. I hate to break it to you but those numbers are an attempt to determine desktop marketshare, and they’re not all that accurate anyway. Linux is in greater use than Windows in the webserver market. Check netcraft. Linux is the inferior OS here. Linux has its exploits and as soon as you guys get out of Lowes hardware and Kentucky Fried Chicken then the virus writers will turn to you. It would be naive to claim that Linux had no exploits and I’m not going to do that but the root exploits that have been uncovered recently have been local root exploits that would be useless to your average cracker or script kiddie. The reason why you don’t have the problem with worms that you do with Windows is because root access doesn’t come easy and you’re going to have a hard time doing any real damage without it, nevermind propogating it. 2004-01-19 7:56 am I hate to break it to you but those numbers are an attempt to determine desktop marketshare, and they’re not all that accurate anyway. Linux is in greater use than Windows in the webserver market. Check netcraft. So what. The webserver market is a fraction of the overall server market. In that market, MS has a commanding lead over Linux (IDC estimates 40% market share). 2004-01-19 8:12 am What is very interesting is that while they reviewed several Non Windows Linux based “server in a box” solutions, they did not review Mac OS X Server v10.3. It’s a shame too, because like the Linux distros featured in this article, Mac OS X Server 10.3 is based completely upon open standards and builds on the same Open Source components (openLDAP, samba 3, Kerberos, SASL, etc…). On top of that you get an Apple GUI (whats better than that?) to administer the server (if you so choose, the BSD shell is there too) _and_ there is no per client liscense fees. For $1000 you get as many users as the box will handle. Seems like they should have factored this product in the mix, no? 2004-01-19 8:18 am I have to agree that win 2k3 is IMO a more solid evolutionay step for workstations. I am by defaul a linux user and try to turn friends onto it when i have to opertunity and hardware. But resently i have reinstalled windows 2000 on an old old pentium 200 and a Gateway solo both with 128MB’s of ram. I was very pleased by the installer and at the stability of windows on these old machines. Since windows 2000 i have stopped bashing MS for creating a unstable OS, (of course i still have there biz ethics and security holes ). I think currently its a great time for OS development because of Suns declining market share microsoft/novell/rh/apple are all fighinting to create the next server os. I think it time people stop bashing microsoft for creating bad OS’s and start focusing how they can support an alternative os of there liking. -greg 2004-01-19 10:50 am For those of you that say you’ve done performance tests between the above are either doing the job very badly or you are not doing it at all. Read the article below http://www.vnunet.com/News/1144289 2004-01-19 12:28 pm It’s not Windows that’s so inherently insecure, but rather that most people who use people who use Windows a) don’t install security patches, b) mostly use the same apps (think Microsoft Office) and c) all use the same CPU architecture (x86). Viruses can’t spread that easily on a Unix system because you are very unlikely to find a second machine with the same exploit. 2004-01-19 1:50 pm Mario, ISA is more than a firewall too. It does web caching, and the VPN is a Windows 2003 Server feature. Regarding SMS, again, this is for small business. It may bee to much for them to have SMS. You can manage the servers and desktops using the group policy and the remote administration feature on SBS2003. And although SMS is not included, it includes SQL 2000. Novell SBS doesn’t includes any database on its suite. I’m not saying that the Novell suite is bad, but the SBS2003 have a lot of functionality, and is very stable. And I’m talking on my own experience and of my customers. And that what the review is all about… 2004-01-19 3:02 pm “Viruses can’t spread that easily on a Unix system because you are very unlikely to find a second machine with the same exploit.” That is not the real reason although it would be if it was a “worm” and not a virus you were talking about, they are 2 different beasts. The real reason is that you cannot execute viruses (programs really) on these OSes unless you physically download them to your hard disk, give them an execute permission and then type the run command yourself. In Windows, this all happens automatically because it executes files depending on their file extension hence self-propogation of viruses. 2004-01-19 3:47 pm As a side note regarding Eugenia’s link to her review of Windows Server 2003, at http://www.thenerds.net, you can get the Standard Edition for about $670.00 now and the Web edition for $367.00. I think I’m going to get the Web Edition – it sounds like it can be a great workstation. 2004-01-19 3:50 pm I am tired of every time a review comes out that if it is favorable to LINUX all you linux prophets point to it as the gospel truth, but one that favors Microsoft you all start saying that the source is a shill for MS. Sometimes the reviews are even from the same source. Get a life guys. 2004-01-19 5:33 pm ” I hate to break it to you but those numbers are an attempt to determine desktop marketshare, and they’re not all that accurate anyway. Linux is in greater use than Windows in the webserver market. Check netcraft. ” Actually Netcraft checks webservers, not OS’s if I am wrong point me to the proper page on Netcraft. Alot of people assume when they see Apache the OS must be Linux which is not always the case, FreeBSD can run Apache and there is a Windows version of Apache and I run Apache with Tomcat on Windows. What I am saying tho is just because something says Apache dont assume its Linux. But if there is an OS page on Netcraft, show me. 2004-01-19 5:46 pm “Viruses can’t spread that easily on a Unix system because you are very unlikely to find a second machine with the same exploit.” If you run the same kernel version you have the same exploit. ” It’s not Windows that’s so inherently insecure, but rather that most people who use people who use Windows a) don’t install security patches, b) mostly use the same apps (think Microsoft Office) and c) all use the same CPU architecture (x86). ” Thats where it depends on the IT staff to make sure computer security protocols are followed. And I have seen a rise in the use of OpenOffice vs MS Office, even on Windows. 2004-01-19 6:17 pm In response to Roberto J. Dohnert’s Windows 2003 comment about the security of Windows systems, your reply sounds like something you’re reading from a Windows security support group pamphlet. Don’t fall for the line that it’s okay for Windows to suffer from security issues because all systems have their security problems. That doesn’t give Microsoft a pass. You can’t justify bad behavior by citing other bad behavior. This rationale discounts the other reasons for the lack of security. For example its model for default configurations and open networking ports. Other systems do not have these sorts of difficulties and have been proven over the years to be more secure. Even despite invitations to be broken. Additionally, your spouting of the volume of users of Windows as the reason why it suffers so from a security standpoint doesn’t really hold either. Note the recent phishing exploit in Internet Explorer which had nothing to do with how many people use it. Rather it had to do with poor error checking. That is a development issue and nothing else. It was exploited because it was easy. 2004-01-19 8:44 pm This “Roberto J. Dohnert” is a liar and an incompetent one, at that. He talks about his own computer lab when by his own account, he is still attending school. I am sure he must have seen some serious enterprise deployments at the old age of 28. This you cand find by googling him and reading his page and blog. Less than a year ago, he was saying this: “Suse is by far the easiest and most user friendly distro I have seen and since migrating my customers to Suse I have had waaaaaaaaaaaaaay less service calls.” Where? Here: http://dot.kde.org/1041971213/1042087901/1042131937/1042240756/1042… Wait, it gets better. He was also a Machead. On a thread called “Greetings from a hardcore MacHead”, he states: “I have to [sic] words for any new Linux user who doesnt know much about the OS those words are: SuSE LINUX” The thread is here: http://dot.kde.org/1041971213/1042087901/1042131937/ So less than a year ago, Suse was the operating system he recommended to all his clients. Now, did the architectures of LInux and Windows change dramatically in the last year? The answer is no, even if Microsoft released Windows 2003 and it is an improvement. It’d better be. So a Machead proclaims the virtues of Linux and comes back running to Windows. What a joyous journey! And the guy who has his own test lab and runs apache on Windows 2003 cannot host his own site, but depends on, you are going to love this one: geocities. http://www.geocities.com/rjdohnert/ Right on, kiddo. Scroll down and read that he writes or should I say *codes* his webpage by using frontpage, clearly every web developer’s preferred development environment. And your preemptive statement at the bottom of the page about this issue simply does not cut it. Frontpage sucks and produces ugly code. So what else do we need to know about this loony individual? Oh, he is also a rebel: “UPDATE: While the California Supreme Court has ruled that DeCSS does not fall under the first amendment right, I will continue to offer this code online, until either i am served a cease and desist order or unless asked by Geocities to remove it. i do not see this happening anytime in the near future. If this does happen though, contact me and I will e-mail you the files, they are small enough to go through an e-mail server.” I agree in principle with what he is doing there. Civil disobedience has long been a way to achieve social change, why would soemone risk huge legal fines to defend the right to play DVDs by using open source software and then recommend and advocate a proprietary operating system that is on its way to become even more so and that uses DRM to deny the kind of choice that he is now defending? Nuts, I tell you. So the great Roberto J. Dohnert has been shown for the shill and self-contradicting late teenager that he is. Everytime I re-read your assertions on this page, I am both nauseated and fall off the chair laughing. “I tested W2003’s file serving on my lab”. The joys of google. 2004-01-19 8:55 pm thanks for the links. Some one who lists ricky martin, george straight and creed as their favorite mp3’s is Funny!!!! 2004-01-19 9:03 pm OK, I give it to you then, that MS SBS is certainly a contender. I was under the impression that MySQL was included in the Novell package. Of course’ it can’t hold a candle to MS SQL, but you can’t say that there’s nothing. Some DB thing is there, just not very good….