Windows 2003 Going Gold 651
chill writes "According to CNet's News.com, 'Microsoft is expected to announce on Friday that Windows Server 2003 has completed testing and has been certified final, or gold, code.' With 35% of their server customers still using NT 4 -- the NT 4 that is so broke it can't be fixed -- Microsoft is hoping for quick adoption."
2003...in 2003? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:2003...in 2003? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:2003...in 2003? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:2003...in 2003? (Score:2)
however if you turn on the Themes service in win2003, they come right back.
Why in god's name would you turn on the Themes service on a server?
Take WinXP, and set the visual effects to "Best Performance", and you'll see what the interface for Win2k3 looks like.
Re:2003...in 2003? (Score:3, Funny)
-Ben
(Not to offend any MCSE's who actually know what they're doing)
Re:2003...in 2003? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:2003...in 2003? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:2003...in 2003? (Score:3, Funny)
Python .NET (Score:3, Informative)
Cygnus... or if you need to give MS more $, MS SFU (Score:3, Informative)
Of course you can.
Its called Windows + Cygnus [redhat.com] + Lynx. Cygnus is also a good way to make a Windows server more friendly to admins who like the GNU environment, increase interoperability with UNIX platforms, and do some admin of the Windows server with XFree86 is you so desire.
Server doesn't use XP interface (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Server doesn't use XP interface (Score:5, Informative)
That is incorrect. The Themes service is disabled by default on 2003 Server. I do this on my workstations too (I prefer the standard skin - or lack thereof, and wish to recover the resources it uses). You can (or could, when I tested it) enable the service and apply themes. This is useful in terminal server environments.
Re:Server doesn't use XP interface (Score:2)
Re:Server doesn't use XP interface (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:2003...in 2003? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:2003...in 2003? (Score:2)
How do you know?
Re:2003...in 2003? (Score:5, Interesting)
Perl?
C?
C++?
Java?
Lisp?
Fortran?
Multiple windowing systems?
Games?
Editors? Emacs. xemacs. vi. vim. joe. (god knows what else)
Apache?
Tomcat?
ftp daemons?
an assortment of other tools? Take a look at those red hat CD's I bet you'll find at least one or two programs that you can make use out of.
Oh yeah, did we forget that you can pare down a LINUX install to the kernel and little else? You don't need the bloat.... uh extras.
Does the Borg... uh Microsoft give one that choice?
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:2003...in 2003? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you are misinterpreting bloat just a smidge. Bloat generally refers to individual programs, not the sum of the programs for a given distro. That being said, I do think the number of programs that come included with any given distro is increasing. However, *just* the windows install is getting bulkier.
Each individual program in, say RH8, is much less bloated than their Windows counterpart, even if there are a dozen of them. That doesn
It don't have to be big (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't know what you're talking about. Using installation media as a metric for labeling an OS to be "bloatware" is complete nonsense. Solaris comes on a DVD. Is it "more bloated" than Linux?
I've got Red Hat 8.0 running on a former cash register. A P233,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the ideal crowd for that (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This is the ideal crowd for that (Score:2, Funny)
It's an excellent strategy. (Score:5, Insightful)
You are then left with a choice, stay with an unsecure system which will never be patched (unless independent sources patch the flaw,) or buy a new system at an inflated price, that will do exactly the same thing your old system did, but not have the fatal security flaw.
Really, it's quite an ingenious business plan, because they aren't forcing you to do anything, just making sure they get paid for all these patches they've been releasing for free.
I would not be surprised to start seeing them stop patching all their older OSes, and seeing their new OSes all include legacy VM support so you can run the old programs without the security bugs.
Then you are left to a choice, buy more software from Microsoft (so you can run securely), use OS software with respective VMs (and take the risk that all of your software won't work), or keep using your unsecure OS.
Unfortunately, for most businesses only one of those 3 options is viable.
Re:It's an excellent strategy. (Score:2)
Yes, and judging by the number of Nimda and Code Red probes we're still seeing most of them go with option number #3, at least until replace their hardware and upgrade by default. Fortunately, a growing number of companies have seen the light and are in fact going with option #4: Say "screw
Re:It's an excellent strategy. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's an excellent strategy. (Score:3, Interesting)
As to the patching/flaws thing, my point was that some people only upgrade (and to an only slightly lesser extent, patch) their OS when they upgrade their hardware. That's certainly true fo
Re:It's an excellent strategy. (Score:5, Informative)
or buy a new system at an inflated price, that will do exactly the same thing your old system did,
That's hardly true now is it? There are likely to be a lot of things in 2003 that people want to use that were not in ealier versions of the OS. I know for example that our Windows guy wants the ability to rename Domains, something that isn't present in any previous version, but will be in 2003. You can argue of course that some of these feature should have been in earlier versions, but thats another matter altogether.
For the record, I'm a Linux admin, and use Windows as little as possible. But FUD is still FUD, no matter which side of the debate it originates.
Re:It's an excellent strategy. (Score:4, Insightful)
MS *refuses* to fix a serious bug in NT4. They did this on purpose. They want you to upgrade and spend the money. This is a GOOD business model for them, not for the consumer.
They are FORCING their users to shell out the money.
I equate this to Ford finding a problem with an older car that causes it to crash. It refuses to fix the problem and wants you to buy a new car.
Sorry, that's wrong.
Re:It's an excellent strategy. (Score:3, Informative)
and this http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/ProductInfo/Avai lability/faq.asp#16
According to their own website they are supposed to provide security fixes up to January 2005. So while you would not expect they have said that they would and now are refusing to do so. This makes them LIARS . Now admit you are wrong.
Brillant...and you found other crackpots to buy it (Score:5, Insightful)
All Microsoft has to do to force people to purchase upgrades is include a fatal flaw in each of their released systems
Fine, call them idiots everytime a new security issue is found. Instead, you are insinuating that they PURPOSELY include holes PREMEDITATED before the release of the product under the ASSUMPTION that it will not be found until AFTER they release the latest greatest product.
their new OSes all include legacy VM support so you can run the old programs without the security bugs.
From your POV, this is support for your twisted accusation. Actually, it is a very customer friendly action. You can use what you have for now instead of insisting that you have to use "Mission Critical App your Business Would Fail Without.LATEST VERSION designed ONLY for Latest Windows (TM)"
Not a big deal that you can try to make this lousy argument. What is sad is that you found people to mod your post "Insightful" and "Interesting" while my post will soon be modded "Flamebait" and "Troll" becuase it is unpopular not to see ultimate evil in every action by M$
Re:It's an excellent strategy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's an excellent strategy. (Score:3, Interesting)
They can't do that because then people would be able to figure out how much NT4 code is still in the main Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 development trunk. There is probably a lot more NT code there than people realise. You know, if it ain't broke
Microsoft's customers wouldn't think too highly of that given the upgrades they've been 'forced' to buy. It would be a PR disaster.
A little too agressive... (Score:2)
I'm sure we'll continue to use MS products in the future, but only where they are the best
Certified Final @ Micro$oft Means (Score:5, Funny)
Early Adapters (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, wait, you mean *legal* copies? Nevermind.
NT4 upgrade path (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead of incurring the massive expense of replacing the equipment that currently runs NT 4 plus the licences of running Windows 2003, perhaps they should just move over to Linux. Maybe there is scope for an advertising campaign from Red Hat or others that says as much.
Better yet, perhaps someone should offer an NT 'migration kit' which attempts to replicate the NT services and settings in Linux.
Re:NT4 upgrade path (Score:5, Insightful)
granted after the last merger the IT dept is now full of Microsoft Cheerleaders, but cince upper management is in the "SPEND LESS" mode getting linux in the door is still very easy. IT says no, I simply get a member of uppers sales management to approve it and they override the silly IT police.
The key to working with corperate IT is to use the leverage of the upper management to keep the IT department in line and doing their job of maintaining and increasing services for the company and the employees while using innovative and low cost solutions...
If you can do a linux project that will cost very little, WORK and can be maintained, I dont care what IT policy says, the upper management will let you do it.
This is my little secret, and it works great if you learn Corperate-speak and always talk in money to sales management.... Example.. "Switching to linux for this task will save us $$$$ on the next 4 quarters cash flow, which will get us closer to meeting budget."
Re:NT4 upgrade path (Score:3)
No truer word was said. I've just switched all the systems in an ISP to Linux from Windows. Getting the go-ahead was as simple as saying "We can leave it all in place. You will need to spend £x thousand on licences. Or, we can blow it away and replace it with Linux, which will mean you don't need to upgrade the servers as soon and will cost you far less."
It took all of five m
Re:NT4 upgrade path (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:NT4 upgrade path (Score:3)
Re:NT4 upgrade path (Score:3, Insightful)
Or to re-train them to Win2k. MS changed everything around and hid all of the old familiar tools under new headings. They even had to write a rather extensive document to help us find stuff again. (Start | Help, New ways to do familiar tasks)
Then in XP they stirred everything around *again!*
If we gotta port our operations to Win2k, why not port them to Linux for approximately the same cost in money and hassles?
Linux doesn't support ACLs (Score:2)
XFS (Score:4, Informative)
Re:NT4 upgrade path (Score:2, Informative)
Apache + mod_perl + Apache::ASP
Good timing (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it is a bit irresponsible for them to NOT support NT, and I just don't by the "too complex" architecture bit. Honestly, I think they don't want to fix it- it's time to move customers to the next version. They could come out with a really heavy service pack, but that probably doesn't make much business sense. It's likely they have a good grip on how many people are running NT still-- perhaps losing those customers are probably cheaper than doing another service pack? In addition, the only companies that REALLY need to be concerned are those that can't block the appropriate port with a firewall since that is a temporary fix.
Re:Good timing (Score:2)
Re:Good timing (Score:2)
I would say the odds, of a non-technical company, such as the automotive industry, to switch over to linux are probably the same odds you have at winning the lottery. Major corporations that don't know computers, don't take risks with a piece of software that is almost completely impossible to get support for.
There's definitely truth to that but I don't know that the odds are that slim
Re:Good timing (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good timing (Score:3, Funny)
Wouldn't Windows Clusters [microsoft.com] be better for crash testing?
The cluster is being used to SIMULATE crashes and ANALYZE crash test results. The Windows cluster would be used if you wanted actual crashes.
Re:Version 1.0? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd hardly equate it with version 1.0 software. Last time I checked, Windows has been around for awhile and they reuse code. Modern Windows is much more mature than Windows of the previous decade. A better analogy would be a
I wasn't trying to imply that 1.0 is a bad thing, just that there are a lot of new things that make it unlike its forebearers.
From my understanding, a significant part of it has been revamped/rewritten. At least in terms of the web side
Gold? (Score:5, Funny)
Hehehehehe
Legal musings about security (Score:2)
Re:Legal musings about security (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting theory.
Perhaps if you get assaulted in the street, and have been too lazy not to take the time to get a third degree black belt in a 'certified' martial art, then the police should put your assault on the back burner as well.
Its the beginning of the end for MS (Score:5, Interesting)
And I've been a windows guy forever...
When even guys like me leave, that's it.
Mind you, this'll take some years yet...
let's consider age (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:let's consider age (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:let's consider age (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:let's consider age (Score:5, Insightful)
nor do you have any responsibility of running software and hardware that generates 1.2 million dollars worth of income every day in my location alone. Nt4.0 is it, Hell many of the systems still run NT 3.51 but will be upgraded to NT 4.0 here within the next 12 months. If downtime can be measures in thousands of dollars a minute lost then you do not change your OS.
Sorry, but I know for a fact that for many more years that these critical systems that are making the money here will run Windows NT 4.0 and the vendor that these systems are from will still support them.
If you dont know about relying on the older OS's for mission critical tasks then you really are not in any Information technology fields.
only the foolish rush in and change things without a very strong reason.
Re:let's consider age (Score:2)
You say you don't care at all because you weren't foolish enough to leave port 135 open to the world (I hope)?
People are up in arms because MS decided not to patch this issue. Yes, it is closed source, and that limits your options (even though you could develop a filter for the port that would act as a patch). The thing is this:
The extent of this security hole is that someone could cause a DOS on the machine thr
Re:let's consider age (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:let's consider age (Score:3, Insightful)
And if they hadn't, I could do it myself or pay someone else to do it for me, and release it to the world for free, legally.
In other news... (Score:2, Funny)
A Security Enhancement? (Score:5, Insightful)
For whom, exactly, would this be a "Security enhancement"?
Re:A Security Enhancement? (Score:2)
Re:A Security Enhancement? (Score:2)
Re:A Security Enhancement? (Score:3, Funny)
this time its not the PRODUCT that can't be fixed: (Score:5, Insightful)
I still use NT 4... (Score:2, Interesting)
Three years from now a sizable portion of the windows server marketbase will still be using windows nt. NT SP6 is a solid product: if it works, why upgrade? Sure it might have security issues, but if you think new MS OS'es dont you're insane.
NT can't be fixed? Moving to w2k not 2003 (Score:2, Interesting)
Considering how quickly worms like Code Red/Nimda etc spread, I'm not convinced the majority of Windows servers admins do take the time to patch their systems, and I'm not convinced the current "we won't patch NT" stance will really change things. People who run NT and are concerned
Windows 2003 Going Gold (Score:2, Funny)
...yeah... Comedy Gold!
Top 10 Reasons to get Windows 2003 (Score:5, Funny)
9. Linux? Never heard of it.
8. It satisfies the overwhelming slashdot community demand for Palladium, secure
computing, and better enforcement of the DMCA.
7. SAVE OVER $300 ON V1AGRA (oops. my spam filter failed and one slipped into the list)
6. w3 3l33t d00dz must have 1t 2 run directx for Quakedoom 6.
5. IN SOVIET RUSSIA, 2003 WINDOWS YOU!
4. Hey, they've got a monopoly reputation to maintain. Why not help them?
3. Oh boy! Another EULA to ignore!
2. Microsoft says this one's going to be really really good! Why should
I not believe them?
1. It moves us ever closer to Windows 2078, in which all the security holes
will be fixed once and for all.
Man o Man (Score:5, Insightful)
I see it like this.
company: My computer is insecure, patch it.
MS: Your using an OS from years and years ago. Get a new one.
company: no.
is the same as
company: My house is insecure, upgrade the locks on my doors.
locksmith: You're using locks from the victorian era. There is no way to "upgrade" that. You just have to get modern locks, you know, ones that work. We've learned a lot about locks since then, and the ones we make now are actually useful.
company: no.
While there are tons of issues like having to pay MS for licenses, etc. etc. But when it all comes down to it its a matter of a company that can't stand to have their system down for a little bit of time. Sure, there are indeed some mission critical things that shouldn't go down, but its not like people will die. And if someone breaks in you'll lose a lot more than that little downtime would cost you. The only computers that can never go down are in a hospital, and even then only if they are keeping people alive. And those shouldn't be running Windows.
Re:Man o Man (Score:2, Insightful)
You: my locks are insecure, please upgrade them.
Locksmith: Sorry, your house is built so that you cannot change the locks. You must bulldoze the entire house and rebuild it with a new version, which includes better locks.
You: =(
Re:Man o Man (Score:3, Insightful)
"Replacing the locks." would be a patch. You get to keep your house, not have to move (much) furniture out of the way of the locksmiths, etc.
"Moving into a new home." is a lot closer to what Microsoft is asking for. See, if you want to gain all the security benefits of those new locks, then you've got to move all of your furniture into a new house, which you get to build from the ground up. Not exactly a simple process.
Re:Man o Man (Score:3, Interesting)
More like the locksmith answering: get a new house. Oh, but this time, you can't buy one; you have to rent. And, there's cameras everywhere to determine if you're using your rental the way that the landlords think you should; if you have a disagreement, you're evicted.
Maybe this is trollbait, but oh well. What's karma for anyway?
Bitching about NT4 not being patched... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bitching about NT4 not being patched... (Score:2)
Re:Bitching about NT4 not being patched... (Score:2)
Upgrade to 1.3.x linux kernel costs 0$ and can be expected to run on the same hardware. There are no restrictions on when / how / where the upgrade can be made.
Upgrade to NT4 will cost more than 0$, and can not be expected to run on the same hardware.
In addition, each client using services provided by said upgraded NT box will also have to pony up more than 0$ for a CAL.
Lastly, the new MS licensing allows Redmond to 'shut off' the operating system at some time in the future if
Re:Bitching about NT4 not being patched... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, there's a maintainer for every (stable) version of the kernel. 1.3.x is not stable. But 2.2, 2.0, 1.2, 1.0, including even the 0.0x series, have a maintainer. And those maintainers do fix bugs if they are found. Embedded systems and special machines still use 1.2 or 2.0 nowadays. Recently a couple bugs was even fixed in v0.01.
Yeah, most of them do it for the kicks, or because they/their businesses need it. Your point was?
In other news... (Score:2, Funny)
A betting pool has started on how long after Gold is released it will turn into Lead (How long until the first major security hole will be found)
An anonymous wager has been placed for 5 minutes..
MS Can't supply a fix for NT4 (Score:2, Informative)
This time for real? (Score:2)
I think that Microsoft should change the way they name releases... instead of say, i.e. "it goes Gold", say "it condensated" (from the vapor it was all those years, I mean)... saying that "it goes Solid" in the same way of thinking would be misleading, there is nothing solid in a new released Windows until there is a big amoun
exploits waiting (Score:2, Funny)
Duke Nuke 'em (Score:2)
Sounds like we have a new measurement for age once duke nuke 'em does come out.
"Yeah, our software went gold in half a nuke"
Windows 2003 Server is due to release on April 24 (Score:3, Interesting)
- adam
Upgrading (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Upgrading (Score:3, Insightful)
NT4 uptime record?! (Score:3, Interesting)
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
I can't imagine... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is supposed to be an upgrade? (Score:3, Interesting)
Final code? Does that mean this one can't be
fixed, either?
With 35% of their server customers still using NT 4
At least the NT4 users know what bugs they are dealing with. With 2003 you have the joy of discovering a whole new set of bugs. And having to pay for the privilege too.
One man's upgrade in another man's pain in the ass. That's not a bug, that's a feature. Etc.
Paugh.
Re:Oh brother.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh brother.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Gold? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Gold? (Score:3, Informative)
There's also, of course, the joke that once it's gone gold, you can finally start making money off it, or brining in the gold.
Re:Gold? (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft has used the term "gold" since before they were burning CD masters. Windows 3.1 and almost all products before that were mastered on floppies. Some reference materials were available on CD-ROM, but not many, until Windows 3.0 MPC and Windows 3.1 made CD-ROM an obvious and ubiquitous replacement.
The top tier authoritative master, regardless of media type, is "gold," and the direct copies from that master are "silvers." It's the silvers that are taken to the various departments to sign off, and
Re:Gold? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Gold? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Too bad it will still be just as unreliable (Score:2)
Re:Certified? Was NT 4 certified too? (Score:3, Informative)
There are *3* service packs for Windows 2000, not 6. Do some research (http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/downloads/se rvicepacks/default.asp [microsoft.com]) next time instead of taking a random guess.