<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Feb 12 2004, 06:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Feb 12 2004, 06:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Okay. A Windows 2003 server is less expensive than a RedHat server. However, a Windows 2003 server with the same level of offered support contract would cost /more/ than a RedHat server. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ahh, but as you said before, you don't usually actually call support. With MS you can pay per incident, buy blocks, get unlimited support, etc. So if you bought Windows 2003 and decided to pay per incident, but never had reason to call (I've only done so once in the past year for example, and that was a single $200), then you actually save quite a bit of money over redhat.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Correct me if I am wrong but why MonsieurEvil do you want to pay for LINUX servers when you can one for free? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Please go back and read the entire thread before posting again, as you appear to have not done so. This is a Discussion forum rules violation - please read pinned rules or face suspension of posting rights in this subforum. Ditto for you, Mr. Tux.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited February 2004
By the same token, a business could choose to run Fedora instead, get the software for free, and buy blocks of support as well. It's much the same difference, MonsE. The same level of accountability is inherent both in Windows Server 2003, AND in Fedora. The same level of support. Just if you have someone on staff with a clue, you don't need to spend $1500 per license.
As well, MonsE, a bit of an 'oops' on your part. It isn't $1500 for a copy of Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition. It's <b>$4000 per license</b>. THAT is the equivalent of the $3000 Premium RedHat service. Straight from the MS 'Shop'. And that isn't even the Datacenter edition, which is MORE expensive... to the point where they request that you call an OEM for pricing, rather than drive off potential business clients. <a href='http://www.microsoft.com/products/info/product.aspx?view=22&type=ovr&pcid=5c9ab977-c900-4924-b156-2615fc883e5c' target='_blank'>http://www.microsoft.com/products/info/pro...56-2615fc883e5c</a>
They're just introducing 64-bit functionality, too, as well as support for up to 128 processors. (Linux: Been there, done that) Plus you get the added 'functionality' of IIS for all web services, where users don't even have to validate themselves to take control of the system! Certainly makes patching everyone over to the latest backdoor more convenient, doesn't it.
I can't help but find it funny that the new MS-Server slogan is 'Do more with less', complete with a handy-dandy link to Microsoft funded benchmarks comparing Win2003 and Linux (they admit to it on the page). I mean... okay. Think. You have a machine, running a server. Which will be more likely to utilize its resources more fully:<ul><li>A machine running the purpose-written daemon, with no cruft or</li><li>A machine running an applet written to take care of the problem, with a GUI on top which cannot be disabled, and IE6 lurking somewhere in system memory. Kinda.</li></ul>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By the same token, a business could choose to run Fedora instead, get the software for free, and buy blocks of support as well. It's much the same difference, MonsE<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not really - the product lifecycle and support of fedora is quite different than 3.0, as Redhat themself has said. They tell you that if you want your PC's running linux, use WS.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As well, MonsE, a bit of an 'oops' on your part. It isn't $1500 for a copy of Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition. It's <b>$4000 per license</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nope, not an oops. I did not pick Enterprise edition, just Standard edition. It is $1000, like I said (not $1500). Enterprise edition is a special version of Windows that 99% of non-OEM hardware can't effectively utilize, as it supports 8-ways and such that most servers do not utilize. Enterprise 2003 and is not the equivalent of RH Enterprise 3.0. You are correct if you are talking about supporting ultra-OEM high-end systems though, 8-ways, 32-ways and 64-ways, which are the realm of the Enterprise and Datacenter editions of 2003. And which make up less than 1% of the installed server base.
Next time I'll just quote the price for 2003 Web Server - that's $399. I didn't want to really hurt your feelings previously so I left that one off. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They're just introducing 64-bit functionality, too, as well as support for up to 128 processors. (Linux: Been there, done that)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So what? They support it. Your argument would have been valid only when they did not support it. When Linux did not support 64-bit, did you say only UNIX was a viable OS? I doubt it. And what is 'just introducing' mean - they did it 4 years ago with Windows 2000, as soon as the first Intel 64-bit CPU's came on the market. They are tied to the x86 architecture for the most part these days, did you expect them to invent a 64-bit x86 chip to run on? Totally specious argument.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Plus you get the added 'functionality' of IIS for all web services, where users don't even have to validate themselves to take control of the system! Certainly makes patching everyone over to the latest backdoor more convenient, doesn't it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ehhh, feel free to point to some documentation on your theory here. It's not true. I think your lack of experience with Windows 2003 is starting to show. Not to mention that your big defense of all those linux patches that I mentioned in the other discussion were that they were non-kernel application patches. The double-standard comes back, I see.
and look around for the support description, as i said, im not a sys admin, but i think thats it.
I gona search some more, ill check the support of mandrake.
And dont tell me Redhat is the standard and the others are evil. The distributions are compatibel, when you know one you know most of them, there are only minor differences
edit: here is mandrake <a href='http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/corporate-server/scope' target='_blank'>http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/corporate-server/scope</a>
edit2: I have to post it, ok, they dont get in the problem of support, but well <a href='http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/32844.html' target='_blank'>http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/32844.html</a>
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Well if you're going to quote top-level, then quote top-level. Admittedly, the absolutely highest priced version (advertised on the website) of RedHat is $18,000 per year... but there is no Windows analog for those architectures (IBM zSeries & s/390). So they were left off as well. I was simply going after roughly-equal versions functionality wise. We /were/ talking about a large-scale business setting, correct?
And if you want to deal with the 'webserver' edition, you'd have to factor in the $179 RedHat Workstation version.. which is more than enough to deal with a far more robust webserver (via Apache) than IIS-WS can manage.
MonsE, IIS's vulnerabilities are admittedly less well-advertised than standard Windows', but they are still the leading cause of net worms (not virii, that title goes to Outlook Express). If you'd care to debate, I have a 15MB file of 30-60 character log entries reporting each time my home NAT machine was nosed by an IIS worm. Over the course of two months. And I'm on a dynamic, consumer-grade internet connection. I'm certain that business blocks are hammered far harder, and more often. And with the sheer number of infected servers sending out these probes, it's very difficult to argue that IIS is 'secure' in any sense of the word. On the other hand, it's generally accepted that if you want a secure, fast, extensible webserver, you'll be using Apache.
Asraniel, I've mostly been avoiding SuSE as my knowledge of it is limited. I tend not to support distributions that have no freely-downloadable version that I can prod at and hammer on to see what breaks, and where. MonsE has argued that RedHat is the only one to really be aggressively pushing for the 'business' model... SuSE is seen more as an elitist standard-user distribution. But I'd rather not get into a Linux-evangelism debate.. I don't particularly like RedHat, and prefer Slackware and Sorcerer over most out there now.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So they were left off as well. I was simply going after roughly-equal versions functionality wise. We /were/ talking about a large-scale business setting, correct? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes. And in a normal large-scale business setting, your largest WinTel machines will be 4-ways, which is Windows 2003 Standard edition. Like I said before, the 8, 32, 64-way boxes are extremely rare.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And if you want to deal with the 'webserver' edition, you'd have to factor in the $179 RedHat Workstation version.. which is more than enough to deal with a far more robust webserver (via Apache) than IIS-WS can manage. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 'More robust' is just a made up term with no basis in fact. Show me impartial performance numbers on the exact same hardware so we can discuss this like engineers and not slashdot kiddies. I think you are incorrect. I also wonder why Redhat makes a low-end server version if their redhat WS is capable of handling that - why would you have incentive to buy the server? Perhaps you can elaborate on the differences in features. If not, I can always look them up myself and compare - sort of like the licensing where you were living in 2002 <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->MonsE, IIS's vulnerabilities are admittedly less well-advertised than standard Windows'<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Untrue, in our world. Let's ignore the slashdot kiddies for a bit, shall we, they really don't count in this sort of discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but they are still the leading cause of net worms <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Naturally - because there are so many more of them. And I would change the word 'cause' to 'recipient of intended attacks', as the authors of those trojans are the cause.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And with the sheer number of infected servers sending out these probes, it's very difficult to argue that IIS is 'secure' in any sense of the word. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you are saying that bad admins make a bad OS? Are you saying that if linux admins did not patch their systems they would not be affected by attacks? Are you sure?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On the other hand, it's generally accepted that if you want a secure, fast, extensible webserver, you'll be using Apache. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not by my count of how many installed machines there are. Perhaps in your circle of friends?
Inotice a trend in my postings here - I keep asking for hard data, and you keep throwing out opinions. Let's agree that we both need to use some quantifiable facts in here, or the discussion will continue to be circular.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited February 2004
Really. <a href='http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html' target='_blank'>http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html</a> Apparently this survey by Netcraft seems to think that Apache is dominating the realm of webservers by over 66%, and has been well over 50% since August of 1998... while Microsoft IIS has never gone above 35%, and only come close during a surge. One which has dropped back to its old levels of approximately 20%. Less than a third of the Apache servers in use. And STILL we get flooded with IIS worms. Given that they're linked by numerous major websites (I was trying to find corroborating evidence, but they all continued to link back to Netcraft.. apparently it's a significant name), I'd have less cause to doubt their results.
If you'd prefer to talk numbers, I can do that. Care to throw out a few of your own before criticizing my lack, though?
I'd just like to say that the number of machines out there matters not when it comes to worms and viruses. The Slammer worm hit every IP address in under 15 minutes, and the number of machines actually infected was rather small ( this was a well known exploit and a patch had been out for over 6 months... Oh, and the exploit was in MS SQL server ).
As for IIS's vulnerabilities... The main problem are those who admin the servers. They neglect to patch their servers.
Oh, I believe Outlook is technically hit by worms far more than actual viruses... Well, the worms are what you hear about all the time and they're what cause the most damage overall.
The reality is that with all these worms you hear about all the time, Windows is not the problem. 99% of the time, the problem is the user. The user is the one that's stupid enough to actually open the attachments. The problem is social engineering ( Kevin Mitnik [ is that spelled correctly? ] said that his greatest asset was social enginnering ). So now lets look at the differences between the average Linux user and the average Windows user... Hrmmm... I see a technological understanding and experience gap ( a large one I might add ). So of course you're going to have virus and worm authors targeting the more gullible population ( not to mention the most popular desktop OS ). The majority of the time, these worms do not infect Windows head on, they have to go through an intermediary ( the gullible user ), so the just to recap... The problem is not Windows but the users... They're too ignorant and trusting.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
I tend to define worms as self-propogating, while virii have to be initiated by the user (whether through greed such as a 'free porn' attachment, or downloading a warez version of some program). And though it's true that a number of Outlook-specific hostile binaries can auto-execute themselves once the user has started the program, that's yet another flaw in the MS code. So I suppose calling them worms would be fair. Meanwhile, things like Mydoom.c are virii.
Things like Mydoom are a combination of a virus and social engineering. Using 'friendly' addresses to increase the probability of a successful infection. It's the same thing as the '.JPG virus' effect that has been going around for IE. The user feels safe... after all, a JPG can't contain a virus. Unfortunately, IE ignores the filetype MIME extension and guesses every time, so it's simple to just rename an infector-XML document over to JPG, with the image embedded. Leaving the clueless end user believing that a JPG (or .GIF, or .MP3) can carry a payload.
Truly, social engineering is a devastating tool if used correctly. However, that does not factor into most IIS worms, as they just take advantage of 'conveniences' left by MS to make updates easier. Program hooks that allow the program to upgrade itself with no user intervention. A good idea, but very flawed.
And the problem is, when a new IIS worm comes out, you cannot expect to see a Microsoft patch within a week, unless it's a VERY severe worm (as Code Red/II)... hell, there are a number floating around currently that have NOT been patched in over a year and a half, as they are not 'malicious in nature'. Meaning they won't crash your system or do anything overtly nasty to it, while quietly propogating themselves. So even 'good' admins cannot be assured that their IIS server is actually clean, even if they update to-the-minute.
As noted, when a flaw was found in OpenSSH, the team put out a new version within hours to quell it. Code Red/II had runs of.. what. A month? And Mydoom is looming even larger. And let's not forget Blaster (though patched) or SoBig. Those didn't only affect home users... they took down businesses.
MonsE, all right. If we don't want a double standard, I'd offer a challenge. Two servers, identical hardware. Both with externally-addressable IPs, directly connected to the web. One with Windows Server 2003, one with RedHat Enterprise 3. No configuration may take place outside the installation process beyond dropping the website into the default directory, disabling any SMB daemon/server, and setting the auto-patchers to update the machines on a scheduled basis. Let 'em run for three months with no intervention. Meaning no antiviral software. No 'software firewall'. No disinfection if a trojan gets in. I'd place money on the RedHat box for making it through the months without being a script-kiddiot infested playground sooner than I would the Windows machine.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Meanwhile, things like Mydoom.c are virii.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Mydoom.c ? Symantex has nothing by that name listed. Either way... Mydoom is listed as a worm. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Things like Mydoom are a combination of a virus and social engineering.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is obvious. Every worm or virus where blame can be placed on social engineering can claim this combination. It just goes to show that a virus/worm is an inherent danger, while social engineering is not. It is social engineering that accounts for the real spread of these worms/viruses. The worms/viruses may spread through their own means, but the actual thing that starts them is the social engineering aspect... The users.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Truly, social engineering is a devastating tool if used correctly. However, that does not factor into most IIS worms, as they just take advantage of 'conveniences' left by MS to make updates easier. Program hooks that allow the program to upgrade itself with no user intervention. A good idea, but very flawed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How are these taken advantage of though? Through a direct attack with no user intervention or is there a user action that does the infection ( not counting the virus/worm writer )? The majority of stuff I hear about or come across can be directly traced back to either social engineering or lack of updates by the admin.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And the problem is, when a new IIS worm comes out, you cannot expect to see a Microsoft patch within a week, unless it's a VERY severe worm (as Code Red/II)... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, I do believe MS had a patch and security bulletin about a month before CodeRed even hit [ MS Security Bulletin: <a href='http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/security/bulletin/MS01-033.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/...in/MS01-033.asp</a> ]. So that falls into the no-patch category.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->hell, there are a number floating around currently that have NOT been patched in over a year and a half, as they are not 'malicious in nature'. Meaning they won't crash your system or do anything overtly nasty to it, while quietly propogating themselves. So even 'good' admins cannot be assured that their IIS server is actually clean, even if they update to-the-minute.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then my server should be more than infected by now... But that is not the case.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Code Red/II had runs of.. what. A month?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Read above.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And Mydoom is looming even larger.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Mydoom.. a worm that falls into the social engineering category. If a user that is the "administrator" for a system decides to run a program or script, then why do you expect Windows to stop it? Its the user's fault for even running it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And let's not forget Blaster (though patched) or SoBig. Those didn't only affect home users... they took down businesses.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, don't forget about either of those. Blaster exploited a vulnerability that had a patch for about a month [ MS Security Bulletin: <a href='http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/security/bulletin/MS03-026.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/...in/MS03-026.asp</a> ] ( are we seeing a correlation yet about vulnerabilites and patches and then an attack to exploit them? ). So would that be another no-patch incident. And SoBig... Yet another social engineering incident as the user must execute the attachment.
How is this MS's fault? Seems like the blame should really be on the server admins and/or the users.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited February 2004
That's interesting, Othell. Because I remember a week when everyone was scrambling to FIND a patch, or *something* to stop CodeRed (or was it II that was the more severe outbreak? I can never remember, as I was unaffected and laughing at those who were) from hitting their machine. And microsoft was among those hit. Unless you mean to say that Microsoft doesn't even update its own servers?
Once more. IIS makes up around 20% of the servers out there. Apache is upward of 66%. With the sheer number of IIS worms that try to infect my machine each day, from a broad range of IP addresses, that either means that one or two are on dynamic IPs and are bouncing across subnets and allocation blocks, or that a decent chunk of them have terrible admins who don't bother to update their machines.
Perhaps a correlation could be formed? Though it'd invalidate the other data (about IIS being insecure), it would be quite telling if lazy sysadmins were most likely to be found running IIS. It'd also explain the overabundance of worms and vulnerability in a statistically much smaller segment of the market... and lift the burden of the blame from MS' shoulders, at least somewhat.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Feb 13 2004, 12:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Feb 13 2004, 12:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Really. <a href='http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html' target='_blank'>http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html</a> Apparently this survey by Netcraft seems to think that Apache is dominating the realm of webservers by over 66%, and has been well over 50% since August of 1998... while Microsoft IIS has never gone above 35%, and only come close during a surge. One which has dropped back to its old levels of approximately 20%. Less than a third of the Apache servers in use. And STILL we get flooded with IIS worms. Given that they're linked by numerous major websites (I was trying to find corroborating evidence, but they all continued to link back to Netcraft.. apparently it's a significant name), I'd have less cause to doubt their results.
If you'd prefer to talk numbers, I can do that. Care to throw out a few of your own before criticizing my lack, though? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Hey, guess what? I'm not just talking about <b>internet</b> <b>web</b>servers - there are far more <b>intranet</b> <b>web</b>servers running out there, and IIS dominates in that realm. That's because there are far more Windows servers out there in the business world - remember that 98% market share. Here's another little tidbit: webservers are not all servers. I know linux guys love to think they are, but some of us run File and Print, AD, SQL, Groupware, Mail, and Application servers as well over here.
Stop equating webservers as being the only servers out there, folks - they're just a small piece in the puzzle. At this location where I've been doing my AD rollout, they have 650 servers - there are about 45 <b>web</b>servers total, mostly running IIS, and a couple running UNIX and Linux.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So you are saying that bad admins make a bad OS? Are you saying that if linux admins did not patch their systems they would not be affected by attacks? Are you sure? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> GG ignoring most of my previous points, but especially this one. If you want to talk about CodeRed and not just revise history, the patch for that came out <b>3 months</b> before the worm. It affected people who were bad admins, and bad admins only.
And I apologize for sounding so harsh and irritated, now that I reread a lot of my posts. I'm not trying to be a jerk, and actually I'm enjoying the debate immensely.
And look right here, Microsoft <a href='http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/facts/casestudy.asp?CaseStudyID=14124' target='_blank'>itself proves</a> that it's cheaper to run 2003 than linux.. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited February 2004
Grand. So a 66% share of top-level domains says nothing? Mmhmm. Blind eye to the world.
I was only addressing the webserver issue as that was the one you brought up and cited. Mailservers are still *nix dominated... even Microsoft was using a *BSD installation of Courier for months on Hotmail, until the hypocrisy was pointed out. Certainly, you'll get plenty of businesses using Exchange and OE. Due to the fact that it takes very little work or training (comparatively) to set up.
On the other hand, you'll also have businesses who forget what they're using for mail at all. I used to op in #linuxhelp on DALnet.. the most extreme version of this came from a guy who needed to get into a Debian box that was their mailserver. The problem was, the person who had originally set it up had been fired almost six years ago. It'd been pottering along for seven years without a failure or thought from *anyone*. Once we'd gotten him in through single-user mode, we found out that the reason it stopped was due to a single e-mail box that was non-deliverable; the original admin's private box. It had not been checked, and was filled with six years' worth of spam, memos, and queries. It'd slowly filled the hard drive to capacity as no one had been around to clear it out, yet the address was still circulated as who to contact if you had mail problems.
File and print can easily be handled via SMB shares. Assuming you mean Applications Development, CVS is still heavily used regardless of if you are coding for Win32 or *nix. SQL... as in MySQL, a version you can use free, with fewer glitches than MSSQL?
Groupware, I still have to research. Though I'm certain there are suites available... and given that group access rights have been around since before MS-DOS, as well as floating user profiles, it'll take a bit more to argue that it's a MS-exclusive arena.
Mail, I've already covered. Courier, Procmail, QMail, Sendmail. Take your pick, or find another.
Application servers. A difficult thing to define at all, much less argue for analogs. That one is much more difficult to cover under a Linux server/Win32 workstation profile without remote screen applications. Though if you're talking about a homogenous environment... well, we COULD go back to dumb terminals and mainframes if you like. Or come up to the current version of graphical dumb terms, with a central X server handling all of the site's sessions.
(edit)Heh. A Microsoft-funded survey, determining if you should buy Windows or go to their competition. Shocking that it found in favor of Microsoft. Also, that survey is for Win2000, not 2003. It only mentions 2003 in passing as 'upcoming'.(/edit)
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Feb 13 2004, 01:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Feb 13 2004, 01:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Really. <a href='http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html' target='_blank'>http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html</a> Apparently this survey by Netcraft seems to think that Apache is dominating the realm of webservers by over 66%, and has been well over 50% since August of 1998... while Microsoft IIS has never gone above 35%, and only come close during a surge. One which has dropped back to its old levels of approximately 20%. Less than a third of the Apache servers in use. And STILL we get flooded with IIS worms. Given that they're linked by numerous major websites (I was trying to find corroborating evidence, but they all continued to link back to Netcraft.. apparently it's a significant name), I'd have less cause to doubt their results.
If you'd prefer to talk numbers, I can do that. Care to throw out a few of your own before criticizing my lack, though? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wait a second... Apache is free, and can be run on a variety of Linux boxes, including those from the Slashdot users who set up a computer in their basement, right? Doesn't that somewhat skew the results for this argument? We're talking the business world here, not the entire world, where an average poor computer user can't afford the servers with which this argument is dealing.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Felt that this deserved a new post, just to pick apart the 'facts' used in that survey MonsE linked. <!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1--> Increase revenue by maintaining high level of customer satisfaction
* Active Server Pages * Microsoft Access
Offer customers the products and capabilities that they want Annual customer turnover rate of less than 1 percent <!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2--> Okay... isn't 'customer satisfaction' a function of the business personnel, not the OS? How does Microsoft Access mean a less than 1% turnover rate? Unsupported claim. AKA, fertilizer stacked six feet high. <!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1--> Maintain competitive price points by setting up a data center with an infrastructure that is easy to provision and keeps TCO low
* Windows 2000 Server with IIS 5.0 * Active Server Pages * Visual Basic Scripting Edition
* Optimize provisioning speed to reduce IT support costs and maintain customer satisfaction * Increase provisioning efficiency to reduce number of servers bought and supported * Use more readily available IT talent and hardware devices to keep capital, hiring, and training costs low
* Average provisioning time of two seconds for Windows-based hosting compared with several minutes for a Linux environment * Up to several hundred customers hosted per Windows-based server * Lower server-related capital and IT support costs * Lower hiring and training costs Lower hardware device costs <!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2--> 'Provisioning time'. When it takes less than a tenth of a second to create a user, set their quota, and assure its availability. Right. Again, more fertilizer, or a severely retarded Linux install... setting up a new account taking 'several minutes'? They must think we're gobbling acid.
And the bit about VBScripting roughly translates as 'slap a monkey in a suit and hand him a VB Book, it's easy'. Similar on Linux would be 'slap a monkey in a suit and hand him a shell scripting book, it's easy'.
In short, that particular link is invalid for purposes of comparison. Though that should have been understood with 'Windows 2000 provides far greater uptime'. :3
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Feb 13 2004, 07:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Feb 13 2004, 07:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Feb 13 2004, 01:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Feb 13 2004, 01:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Really. <a href='http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html' target='_blank'>http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html</a> Apparently this survey by Netcraft seems to think that Apache is dominating the realm of webservers by over 66%, and has been well over 50% since August of 1998... while Microsoft IIS has never gone above 35%, and only come close during a surge. One which has dropped back to its old levels of approximately 20%. Less than a third of the Apache servers in use. And STILL we get flooded with IIS worms. Given that they're linked by numerous major websites (I was trying to find corroborating evidence, but they all continued to link back to Netcraft.. apparently it's a significant name), I'd have less cause to doubt their results.
If you'd prefer to talk numbers, I can do that. Care to throw out a few of your own before criticizing my lack, though? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wait a second... Apache is free, and can be run on a variety of Linux boxes, including those from the Slashdot users who set up a computer in their basement, right? Doesn't that somewhat skew the results for this argument? We're talking the business world here, not the entire world, where an average poor computer user can't afford the servers with which this argument is dealing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Which is why that survey only counted top-level domains. Meaning the geek who set it up in his basement would also have paid for a static IP and his own domain name. No free dynamic trackers.
Even then, wouldn't that perhaps mean a more extensive userbase?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Grand. So a 66% share of top-level domains says nothing? Mmhmm. Blind eye to the world.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Compared to the number of internal servers that never see the Internet? Correct, it says nothing. Remeber how you guys keep complaining about MS's 98% market share making them a monopoly? Remember that?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Mailservers are still *nix dominated<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Again - you mean <b>internet</b> mail servers. Internet != business world, fella. Where exactly do you work, for Verisign? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
SMB shares do not give nearly the functionality of true Win32 print services, nor does MySQL come close to handling the amount of transactions and features of an MSSQL, Oracle, DB2, etc. - go to the industry bible on this if you don't believe me <a href='http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp)' target='_blank'>http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp</a> ) - and look, I even point out that Linux is the winner (albeit running on a $6M system that costs nearly a million more than MS <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> - but certainly not with MySQL. And if you switch over to the price/performance ratio winner, the best deal is, TADA - <a href='http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_price_perf_results.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_price_perf_results.asp</a> - Microsoft - and in the top ten, no one else. Ouchie, linux!).
Feel free to point out those IBM pro-linux surveys that (*gasp*) show that IBM running linux kicks MS ****. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Your other points give me an idea: How about we play a little game - you convince me to run Linux for a customer who is currently on Windows NT4 and some 2000, and about to go to 2003 (this is a real scenario - I'm starting the contract in 6 weeks). I'll give you the scenario, and you tell me how Linux can meet the demands of the environment and what products I'd use for best results. If you're agreeable to this, I'll post the scenario here. Sound fun?
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited February 2004
All right, and how are we to get a survey of every OS installed on every server system of every company in the world, again? Rely on Microsoft's sales records? Ha.
The scenario sounds good to me, though it'd almost be preferable to take that to a private conversation and post the solution afterward, to both let the thread get back on track, and to avoid chime-ins. Just to be clear, Linux is not the best solution in every situation; I never said that it was. Just that for most businesses, it would be a better choice than Windows. Though a solution may have to wait until Sunday or Monday; I'm going to be driving down south to visit friends this afternoon, and won't be back until then. Contrary to popular belief, Linux geeks do occasionally maintain social lives. ^_^
(edit) And Oracle is not Win32-specific, MonsE. MySQL is sufficient for the majority of small-mid businesses. Those with a significant enough load would be able to afford an Oracle license. (/edit)
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Feb 13 2004, 03:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Feb 13 2004, 03:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Application servers. A difficult thing to define at all, much less argue for analogs. That one is much more difficult to cover under a Linux server/Win32 workstation profile without remote screen applications. Though if you're talking about a homogenous environment... well, we COULD go back to dumb terminals and mainframes if you like. Or come up to the current version of graphical dumb terms, with a central X server handling all of the site's sessions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Irrelevant factoid: I've noticed at IKEA, they seem to be running graphical Windows applications remotely on X terminals situated around the stores. I had a close look at one the other day - the Windows stuff was in a full-screen window which had very non-Windows buttons on it. I think it was called 'Mica' or something like that. When the mouse pointer's outside the Windows stuff, it turns into an classically X pointer, the 45 degrees arrow thing.
Half of the applications they seem to run in the Windows thing seem to be terminal emulators logged into UNIX machines. Talk about heterogenous environments...
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Feb 13 2004, 11:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Feb 13 2004, 11:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Which is why that survey only counted top-level domains. Meaning the geek who set it up in his basement would also have paid for a static IP and his own domain name. No free dynamic trackers.
Even then, wouldn't that perhaps mean a more extensive userbase? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Which aren't that expensive. $20 a year for a domain name, and what, $10 a month for the IP?
Apache has the extensive userbase partly because Microsoft doesn't own the rights to it. Microsoft haters would support it just for that.
EDIT:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->to both let the thread get back on track, and to avoid chime-ins.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okedoke - I'll post in Forum Mod and we can move it in when we're done (although I think it would be fun for people to see the process unfold - we could always ask I suppose. Damn forum readers! /me shakes fist! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Contrary to popular belief, Linux geeks do occasionally maintain social lives<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Lies!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->small-mid businesses<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How many times can I say this: I. Do. Not. Give. A. ****. About. SOHO. Businesses.
Please, for the children's sake, stop talking about Mom and Pop's single E-machine that runs everything and doubles as a CS-server at night.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Feb 13 2004, 10:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Feb 13 2004, 10:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wait... why not just a stickied, locked topic in here? Admins and mods can reply to those without unlocking, after all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Me rejoices! I didn't want to miss that!
AsranielJoin Date: 2002-06-03Member: 724Members, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester, Retired Community Developer
edited February 2004
:-/ i would have wanted to participate.. but well, will be fun to watch, i will PM Talesin when i have some ideas ;-)
edit: i just read it, i see im not a proffessional sysadmin atm. But hey, thats why im learning, but i will manage my first big LAN in half a year, too far away, but when i have something ill pm Talesin
Asraniel, that's a great idea. Actually, if a bunch of you want to team up (gang up? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) and put together a pro-linux plan together with Tal before posting it, I'd be all for it. Then once you have your reply in, we can unlock and dissect the whole thing.
AsranielJoin Date: 2002-06-03Member: 724Members, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester, Retired Community Developer
from the linux people i asked no one is realy interested. they say that you are not realy interested and just want a sollution without doing anything...
Explain to them that I want to try to debunk their solutions as unworkable. And that I think Linux is not capable of doing it. And that no matter what they tell me, I'm there to deploy Windows 2003 and that's what's going in.
Your friends are a bit odd. Isn't the OSS movement about convincing people that its better? Sounds like they know Linux can't hang with the big dogs to me... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
However, a Windows 2003 server with the same level of offered support contract would cost /more/ than a RedHat server. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahh, but as you said before, you don't usually actually call support. With MS you can pay per incident, buy blocks, get unlimited support, etc. So if you bought Windows 2003 and decided to pay per incident, but never had reason to call (I've only done so once in the past year for example, and that was a single $200), then you actually save quite a bit of money over redhat.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Correct me if I am wrong but why MonsieurEvil do you want to pay for LINUX servers when you can one for free?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please go back and read the entire thread before posting again, as you appear to have not done so. This is a Discussion forum rules violation - please read pinned rules or face suspension of posting rights in this subforum. Ditto for you, Mr. Tux.
Just if you have someone on staff with a clue, you don't need to spend $1500 per license.
As well, MonsE, a bit of an 'oops' on your part. It isn't $1500 for a copy of Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition. It's <b>$4000 per license</b>. THAT is the equivalent of the $3000 Premium RedHat service. Straight from the MS 'Shop'. And that isn't even the Datacenter edition, which is MORE expensive... to the point where they request that you call an OEM for pricing, rather than drive off potential business clients.
<a href='http://www.microsoft.com/products/info/product.aspx?view=22&type=ovr&pcid=5c9ab977-c900-4924-b156-2615fc883e5c' target='_blank'>http://www.microsoft.com/products/info/pro...56-2615fc883e5c</a>
They're just introducing 64-bit functionality, too, as well as support for up to 128 processors. (Linux: Been there, done that)
Plus you get the added 'functionality' of IIS for all web services, where users don't even have to validate themselves to take control of the system! Certainly makes patching everyone over to the latest backdoor more convenient, doesn't it.
I can't help but find it funny that the new MS-Server slogan is 'Do more with less', complete with a handy-dandy link to Microsoft funded benchmarks comparing Win2003 and Linux (they admit to it on the page).
I mean... okay. Think. You have a machine, running a server. Which will be more likely to utilize its resources more fully:<ul><li>A machine running the purpose-written daemon, with no cruft
or</li><li>A machine running an applet written to take care of the problem, with a GUI on top which cannot be disabled, and IE6 lurking somewhere in system memory. Kinda.</li></ul>
Not really - the product lifecycle and support of fedora is quite different than 3.0, as Redhat themself has said. They tell you that if you want your PC's running linux, use WS.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As well, MonsE, a bit of an 'oops' on your part. It isn't $1500 for a copy of Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition. It's <b>$4000 per license</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope, not an oops. I did not pick Enterprise edition, just Standard edition. It is $1000, like I said (not $1500). Enterprise edition is a special version of Windows that 99% of non-OEM hardware can't effectively utilize, as it supports 8-ways and such that most servers do not utilize. Enterprise 2003 and is not the equivalent of RH Enterprise 3.0. You are correct if you are talking about supporting ultra-OEM high-end systems though, 8-ways, 32-ways and 64-ways, which are the realm of the Enterprise and Datacenter editions of 2003. And which make up less than 1% of the installed server base.
Next time I'll just quote the price for 2003 Web Server - that's $399. I didn't want to really hurt your feelings previously so I left that one off. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They're just introducing 64-bit functionality, too, as well as support for up to 128 processors. (Linux: Been there, done that)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what? They support it. Your argument would have been valid only when they did not support it. When Linux did not support 64-bit, did you say only UNIX was a viable OS? I doubt it. And what is 'just introducing' mean - they did it 4 years ago with Windows 2000, as soon as the first Intel 64-bit CPU's came on the market. They are tied to the x86 architecture for the most part these days, did you expect them to invent a 64-bit x86 chip to run on? Totally specious argument.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Plus you get the added 'functionality' of IIS for all web services, where users don't even have to validate themselves to take control of the system! Certainly makes patching everyone over to the latest backdoor more convenient, doesn't it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ehhh, feel free to point to some documentation on your theory here. It's not true. I think your lack of experience with Windows 2003 is starting to show. Not to mention that your big defense of all those linux patches that I mentioned in the other discussion were that they were non-kernel application patches. The double-standard comes back, I see.
<a href='http://www.suse.de/en/business/products/server/sles/prices_x86.html' target='_blank'>http://www.suse.de/en/business/products/se...prices_x86.html</a>
and look around for the support description, as i said, im not a sys admin, but i think thats it.
I gona search some more, ill check the support of mandrake.
And dont tell me Redhat is the standard and the others are evil. The distributions are compatibel, when you know one you know most of them, there are only minor differences
edit:
here is mandrake <a href='http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/corporate-server/scope' target='_blank'>http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/corporate-server/scope</a>
edit2:
I have to post it, ok, they dont get in the problem of support, but well
<a href='http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/32844.html' target='_blank'>http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/32844.html</a>
And if you want to deal with the 'webserver' edition, you'd have to factor in the $179 RedHat Workstation version.. which is more than enough to deal with a far more robust webserver (via Apache) than IIS-WS can manage.
MonsE, IIS's vulnerabilities are admittedly less well-advertised than standard Windows', but they are still the leading cause of net worms (not virii, that title goes to Outlook Express).
If you'd care to debate, I have a 15MB file of 30-60 character log entries reporting each time my home NAT machine was nosed by an IIS worm. Over the course of two months. And I'm on a dynamic, consumer-grade internet connection. I'm certain that business blocks are hammered far harder, and more often. And with the sheer number of infected servers sending out these probes, it's very difficult to argue that IIS is 'secure' in any sense of the word.
On the other hand, it's generally accepted that if you want a secure, fast, extensible webserver, you'll be using Apache.
Asraniel, I've mostly been avoiding SuSE as my knowledge of it is limited. I tend not to support distributions that have no freely-downloadable version that I can prod at and hammer on to see what breaks, and where. MonsE has argued that RedHat is the only one to really be aggressively pushing for the 'business' model... SuSE is seen more as an elitist standard-user distribution. But I'd rather not get into a Linux-evangelism debate.. I don't particularly like RedHat, and prefer Slackware and Sorcerer over most out there now.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. And in a normal large-scale business setting, your largest WinTel machines will be 4-ways, which is Windows 2003 Standard edition. Like I said before, the 8, 32, 64-way boxes are extremely rare.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And if you want to deal with the 'webserver' edition, you'd have to factor in the $179 RedHat Workstation version.. which is more than enough to deal with a far more robust webserver (via Apache) than IIS-WS can manage.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
'More robust' is just a made up term with no basis in fact. Show me impartial performance numbers on the exact same hardware so we can discuss this like engineers and not slashdot kiddies. I think you are incorrect. I also wonder why Redhat makes a low-end server version if their redhat WS is capable of handling that - why would you have incentive to buy the server? Perhaps you can elaborate on the differences in features. If not, I can always look them up myself and compare - sort of like the licensing where you were living in 2002 <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->MonsE, IIS's vulnerabilities are admittedly less well-advertised than standard Windows'<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Untrue, in our world. Let's ignore the slashdot kiddies for a bit, shall we, they really don't count in this sort of discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but they are still the leading cause of net worms <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Naturally - because there are so many more of them. And I would change the word 'cause' to 'recipient of intended attacks', as the authors of those trojans are the cause.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And with the sheer number of infected servers sending out these probes, it's very difficult to argue that IIS is 'secure' in any sense of the word.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you are saying that bad admins make a bad OS? Are you saying that if linux admins did not patch their systems they would not be affected by attacks? Are you sure?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On the other hand, it's generally accepted that if you want a secure, fast, extensible webserver, you'll be using Apache.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not by my count of how many installed machines there are. Perhaps in your circle of friends?
Inotice a trend in my postings here - I keep asking for hard data, and you keep throwing out opinions. Let's agree that we both need to use some quantifiable facts in here, or the discussion will continue to be circular.
<a href='http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html' target='_blank'>http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html</a>
Apparently this survey by Netcraft seems to think that Apache is dominating the realm of webservers by over 66%, and has been well over 50% since August of 1998... while Microsoft IIS has never gone above 35%, and only come close during a surge. One which has dropped back to its old levels of approximately 20%. Less than a third of the Apache servers in use. And STILL we get flooded with IIS worms.
Given that they're linked by numerous major websites (I was trying to find corroborating evidence, but they all continued to link back to Netcraft.. apparently it's a significant name), I'd have less cause to doubt their results.
If you'd prefer to talk numbers, I can do that. Care to throw out a few of your own before criticizing my lack, though?
As for IIS's vulnerabilities... The main problem are those who admin the servers. They neglect to patch their servers.
Oh, I believe Outlook is technically hit by worms far more than actual viruses... Well, the worms are what you hear about all the time and they're what cause the most damage overall.
The reality is that with all these worms you hear about all the time, Windows is not the problem. 99% of the time, the problem is the user. The user is the one that's stupid enough to actually open the attachments. The problem is social engineering ( Kevin Mitnik [ is that spelled correctly? ] said that his greatest asset was social enginnering ). So now lets look at the differences between the average Linux user and the average Windows user... Hrmmm... I see a technological understanding and experience gap ( a large one I might add ). So of course you're going to have virus and worm authors targeting the more gullible population ( not to mention the most popular desktop OS ). The majority of the time, these worms do not infect Windows head on, they have to go through an intermediary ( the gullible user ), so the just to recap... The problem is not Windows but the users... They're too ignorant and trusting.
And though it's true that a number of Outlook-specific hostile binaries can auto-execute themselves once the user has started the program, that's yet another flaw in the MS code. So I suppose calling them worms would be fair. Meanwhile, things like Mydoom.c are virii.
Things like Mydoom are a combination of a virus and social engineering. Using 'friendly' addresses to increase the probability of a successful infection. It's the same thing as the '.JPG virus' effect that has been going around for IE. The user feels safe... after all, a JPG can't contain a virus. Unfortunately, IE ignores the filetype MIME extension and guesses every time, so it's simple to just rename an infector-XML document over to JPG, with the image embedded. Leaving the clueless end user believing that a JPG (or .GIF, or .MP3) can carry a payload.
Truly, social engineering is a devastating tool if used correctly. However, that does not factor into most IIS worms, as they just take advantage of 'conveniences' left by MS to make updates easier. Program hooks that allow the program to upgrade itself with no user intervention. A good idea, but very flawed.
And the problem is, when a new IIS worm comes out, you cannot expect to see a Microsoft patch within a week, unless it's a VERY severe worm (as Code Red/II)... hell, there are a number floating around currently that have NOT been patched in over a year and a half, as they are not 'malicious in nature'. Meaning they won't crash your system or do anything overtly nasty to it, while quietly propogating themselves. So even 'good' admins cannot be assured that their IIS server is actually clean, even if they update to-the-minute.
As noted, when a flaw was found in OpenSSH, the team put out a new version within hours to quell it. Code Red/II had runs of.. what. A month? And Mydoom is looming even larger. And let's not forget Blaster (though patched) or SoBig. Those didn't only affect home users... they took down businesses.
MonsE, all right. If we don't want a double standard, I'd offer a challenge. Two servers, identical hardware. Both with externally-addressable IPs, directly connected to the web. One with Windows Server 2003, one with RedHat Enterprise 3. No configuration may take place outside the installation process beyond dropping the website into the default directory, disabling any SMB daemon/server, and setting the auto-patchers to update the machines on a scheduled basis. Let 'em run for three months with no intervention.
Meaning no antiviral software. No 'software firewall'. No disinfection if a trojan gets in. I'd place money on the RedHat box for making it through the months without being a script-kiddiot infested playground sooner than I would the Windows machine.
Mydoom.c ? Symantex has nothing by that name listed. Either way... Mydoom is listed as a worm. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Things like Mydoom are a combination of a virus and social engineering.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is obvious. Every worm or virus where blame can be placed on social engineering can claim this combination. It just goes to show that a virus/worm is an inherent danger, while social engineering is not. It is social engineering that accounts for the real spread of these worms/viruses. The worms/viruses may spread through their own means, but the actual thing that starts them is the social engineering aspect... The users.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Truly, social engineering is a devastating tool if used correctly. However, that does not factor into most IIS worms, as they just take advantage of 'conveniences' left by MS to make updates easier. Program hooks that allow the program to upgrade itself with no user intervention. A good idea, but very flawed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How are these taken advantage of though? Through a direct attack with no user intervention or is there a user action that does the infection ( not counting the virus/worm writer )? The majority of stuff I hear about or come across can be directly traced back to either social engineering or lack of updates by the admin.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And the problem is, when a new IIS worm comes out, you cannot expect to see a Microsoft patch within a week, unless it's a VERY severe worm (as Code Red/II)... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I do believe MS had a patch and security bulletin about a month before CodeRed even hit [ MS Security Bulletin: <a href='http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/security/bulletin/MS01-033.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/...in/MS01-033.asp</a> ]. So that falls into the no-patch category.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->hell, there are a number floating around currently that have NOT been patched in over a year and a half, as they are not 'malicious in nature'. Meaning they won't crash your system or do anything overtly nasty to it, while quietly propogating themselves. So even 'good' admins cannot be assured that their IIS server is actually clean, even if they update to-the-minute.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then my server should be more than infected by now... But that is not the case.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Code Red/II had runs of.. what. A month?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read above.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And Mydoom is looming even larger.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mydoom.. a worm that falls into the social engineering category. If a user that is the "administrator" for a system decides to run a program or script, then why do you expect Windows to stop it? Its the user's fault for even running it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And let's not forget Blaster (though patched) or SoBig. Those didn't only affect home users... they took down businesses.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, don't forget about either of those. Blaster exploited a vulnerability that had a patch for about a month [ MS Security Bulletin: <a href='http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/security/bulletin/MS03-026.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/...in/MS03-026.asp</a> ] ( are we seeing a correlation yet about vulnerabilites and patches and then an attack to exploit them? ). So would that be another no-patch incident. And SoBig... Yet another social engineering incident as the user must execute the attachment.
How is this MS's fault? Seems like the blame should really be on the server admins and/or the users.
Once more. IIS makes up around 20% of the servers out there. Apache is upward of 66%. With the sheer number of IIS worms that try to infect my machine each day, from a broad range of IP addresses, that either means that one or two are on dynamic IPs and are bouncing across subnets and allocation blocks, or that a decent chunk of them have terrible admins who don't bother to update their machines.
Perhaps a correlation could be formed? Though it'd invalidate the other data (about IIS being insecure), it would be quite telling if lazy sysadmins were most likely to be found running IIS. It'd also explain the overabundance of worms and vulnerability in a statistically much smaller segment of the market... and lift the burden of the blame from MS' shoulders, at least somewhat.
<a href='http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html' target='_blank'>http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html</a>
Apparently this survey by Netcraft seems to think that Apache is dominating the realm of webservers by over 66%, and has been well over 50% since August of 1998... while Microsoft IIS has never gone above 35%, and only come close during a surge. One which has dropped back to its old levels of approximately 20%. Less than a third of the Apache servers in use. And STILL we get flooded with IIS worms.
Given that they're linked by numerous major websites (I was trying to find corroborating evidence, but they all continued to link back to Netcraft.. apparently it's a significant name), I'd have less cause to doubt their results.
If you'd prefer to talk numbers, I can do that. Care to throw out a few of your own before criticizing my lack, though? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey, guess what? I'm not just talking about <b>internet</b> <b>web</b>servers - there are far more <b>intranet</b> <b>web</b>servers running out there, and IIS dominates in that realm. That's because there are far more Windows servers out there in the business world - remember that 98% market share. Here's another little tidbit: webservers are not all servers. I know linux guys love to think they are, but some of us run File and Print, AD, SQL, Groupware, Mail, and Application servers as well over here.
Stop equating webservers as being the only servers out there, folks - they're just a small piece in the puzzle. At this location where I've been doing my AD rollout, they have 650 servers - there are about 45 <b>web</b>servers total, mostly running IIS, and a couple running UNIX and Linux.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So you are saying that bad admins make a bad OS? Are you saying that if linux admins did not patch their systems they would not be affected by attacks? Are you sure?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
GG ignoring most of my previous points, but especially this one. If you want to talk about CodeRed and not just revise history, the patch for that came out <b>3 months</b> before the worm. It affected people who were bad admins, and bad admins only.
<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And look right here, Microsoft <a href='http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/facts/casestudy.asp?CaseStudyID=14124' target='_blank'>itself proves</a> that it's cheaper to run 2003 than linux.. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I was only addressing the webserver issue as that was the one you brought up and cited. Mailservers are still *nix dominated... even Microsoft was using a *BSD installation of Courier for months on Hotmail, until the hypocrisy was pointed out.
Certainly, you'll get plenty of businesses using Exchange and OE. Due to the fact that it takes very little work or training (comparatively) to set up.
On the other hand, you'll also have businesses who forget what they're using for mail at all. I used to op in #linuxhelp on DALnet.. the most extreme version of this came from a guy who needed to get into a Debian box that was their mailserver. The problem was, the person who had originally set it up had been fired almost six years ago. It'd been pottering along for seven years without a failure or thought from *anyone*. Once we'd gotten him in through single-user mode, we found out that the reason it stopped was due to a single e-mail box that was non-deliverable; the original admin's private box. It had not been checked, and was filled with six years' worth of spam, memos, and queries. It'd slowly filled the hard drive to capacity as no one had been around to clear it out, yet the address was still circulated as who to contact if you had mail problems.
File and print can easily be handled via SMB shares.
Assuming you mean Applications Development, CVS is still heavily used regardless of if you are coding for Win32 or *nix.
SQL... as in MySQL, a version you can use free, with fewer glitches than MSSQL?
Groupware, I still have to research. Though I'm certain there are suites available... and given that group access rights have been around since before MS-DOS, as well as floating user profiles, it'll take a bit more to argue that it's a MS-exclusive arena.
Mail, I've already covered. Courier, Procmail, QMail, Sendmail. Take your pick, or find another.
Application servers. A difficult thing to define at all, much less argue for analogs. That one is much more difficult to cover under a Linux server/Win32 workstation profile without remote screen applications. Though if you're talking about a homogenous environment... well, we COULD go back to dumb terminals and mainframes if you like. Or come up to the current version of graphical dumb terms, with a central X server handling all of the site's sessions.
(edit)Heh. A Microsoft-funded survey, determining if you should buy Windows or go to their competition. Shocking that it found in favor of Microsoft. Also, that survey is for Win2000, not 2003. It only mentions 2003 in passing as 'upcoming'.(/edit)
<a href='http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html' target='_blank'>http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html</a>
Apparently this survey by Netcraft seems to think that Apache is dominating the realm of webservers by over 66%, and has been well over 50% since August of 1998... while Microsoft IIS has never gone above 35%, and only come close during a surge. One which has dropped back to its old levels of approximately 20%. Less than a third of the Apache servers in use. And STILL we get flooded with IIS worms.
Given that they're linked by numerous major websites (I was trying to find corroborating evidence, but they all continued to link back to Netcraft.. apparently it's a significant name), I'd have less cause to doubt their results.
If you'd prefer to talk numbers, I can do that. Care to throw out a few of your own before criticizing my lack, though? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait a second... Apache is free, and can be run on a variety of Linux boxes, including those from the Slashdot users who set up a computer in their basement, right? Doesn't that somewhat skew the results for this argument? We're talking the business world here, not the entire world, where an average poor computer user can't afford the servers with which this argument is dealing.
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->
Increase revenue by maintaining high level of customer satisfaction
* Active Server Pages
* Microsoft Access
Offer customers the products and capabilities that they want Annual customer turnover rate of less than 1 percent
<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
Okay... isn't 'customer satisfaction' a function of the business personnel, not the OS? How does Microsoft Access mean a less than 1% turnover rate? Unsupported claim. AKA, fertilizer stacked six feet high.
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->
Maintain competitive price points by setting up a data center with an infrastructure that is easy to provision and keeps TCO low
* Windows 2000 Server with IIS 5.0
* Active Server Pages
* Visual Basic Scripting Edition
* Optimize provisioning speed to reduce IT support costs and maintain customer satisfaction
* Increase provisioning efficiency to reduce number of servers bought and supported
* Use more readily available IT talent and hardware devices to keep capital, hiring, and training costs low
* Average provisioning time of two seconds for Windows-based hosting compared with several minutes for a Linux environment
* Up to several hundred customers hosted per Windows-based server
* Lower server-related capital and IT support costs
* Lower hiring and training costs
Lower hardware device costs
<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
'Provisioning time'. When it takes less than a tenth of a second to create a user, set their quota, and assure its availability. Right. Again, more fertilizer, or a severely retarded Linux install... setting up a new account taking 'several minutes'? They must think we're gobbling acid.
And the bit about VBScripting roughly translates as 'slap a monkey in a suit and hand him a VB Book, it's easy'.
Similar on Linux would be 'slap a monkey in a suit and hand him a shell scripting book, it's easy'.
In short, that particular link is invalid for purposes of comparison. Though that should have been understood with 'Windows 2000 provides far greater uptime'. :3
<a href='http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html' target='_blank'>http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html</a>
Apparently this survey by Netcraft seems to think that Apache is dominating the realm of webservers by over 66%, and has been well over 50% since August of 1998... while Microsoft IIS has never gone above 35%, and only come close during a surge. One which has dropped back to its old levels of approximately 20%. Less than a third of the Apache servers in use. And STILL we get flooded with IIS worms.
Given that they're linked by numerous major websites (I was trying to find corroborating evidence, but they all continued to link back to Netcraft.. apparently it's a significant name), I'd have less cause to doubt their results.
If you'd prefer to talk numbers, I can do that. Care to throw out a few of your own before criticizing my lack, though? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait a second... Apache is free, and can be run on a variety of Linux boxes, including those from the Slashdot users who set up a computer in their basement, right? Doesn't that somewhat skew the results for this argument? We're talking the business world here, not the entire world, where an average poor computer user can't afford the servers with which this argument is dealing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is why that survey only counted top-level domains. Meaning the geek who set it up in his basement would also have paid for a static IP and his own domain name. No free dynamic trackers.
Even then, wouldn't that perhaps mean a more extensive userbase?
Compared to the number of internal servers that never see the Internet? Correct, it says nothing. Remeber how you guys keep complaining about MS's 98% market share making them a monopoly? Remember that?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Mailservers are still *nix dominated<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again - you mean <b>internet</b> mail servers. Internet != business world, fella. Where exactly do you work, for Verisign? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
SMB shares do not give nearly the functionality of true Win32 print services, nor does MySQL come close to handling the amount of transactions and features of an MSSQL, Oracle, DB2, etc. - go to the industry bible on this if you don't believe me <a href='http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp)' target='_blank'>http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp</a> ) - and look, I even point out that Linux is the winner (albeit running on a $6M system that costs nearly a million more than MS <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> - but certainly not with MySQL. And if you switch over to the price/performance ratio winner, the best deal is, TADA - <a href='http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_price_perf_results.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_price_perf_results.asp</a> - Microsoft - and in the top ten, no one else. Ouchie, linux!).
Feel free to point out those IBM pro-linux surveys that (*gasp*) show that IBM running linux kicks MS ****. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Your other points give me an idea: How about we play a little game - you convince me to run Linux for a customer who is currently on Windows NT4 and some 2000, and about to go to 2003 (this is a real scenario - I'm starting the contract in 6 weeks). I'll give you the scenario, and you tell me how Linux can meet the demands of the environment and what products I'd use for best results. If you're agreeable to this, I'll post the scenario here. Sound fun?
The scenario sounds good to me, though it'd almost be preferable to take that to a private conversation and post the solution afterward, to both let the thread get back on track, and to avoid chime-ins. Just to be clear, Linux is not the best solution in every situation; I never said that it was. Just that for most businesses, it would be a better choice than Windows.
Though a solution may have to wait until Sunday or Monday; I'm going to be driving down south to visit friends this afternoon, and won't be back until then. Contrary to popular belief, Linux geeks do occasionally maintain social lives. ^_^
(edit) And Oracle is not Win32-specific, MonsE. MySQL is sufficient for the majority of small-mid businesses. Those with a significant enough load would be able to afford an Oracle license. (/edit)
Irrelevant factoid: I've noticed at IKEA, they seem to be running graphical Windows applications remotely on X terminals situated around the stores. I had a close look at one the other day - the Windows stuff was in a full-screen window which had very non-Windows buttons on it. I think it was called 'Mica' or something like that. When the mouse pointer's outside the Windows stuff, it turns into an classically X pointer, the 45 degrees arrow thing.
Half of the applications they seem to run in the Windows thing seem to be terminal emulators logged into UNIX machines. Talk about heterogenous environments...
Even then, wouldn't that perhaps mean a more extensive userbase? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which aren't that expensive. $20 a year for a domain name, and what, $10 a month for the IP?
Apache has the extensive userbase partly because Microsoft doesn't own the rights to it. Microsoft haters would support it just for that.
EDIT:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->to both let the thread get back on track, and to avoid chime-ins.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Contrary to popular belief, Linux geeks do occasionally maintain social lives<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lies!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->small-mid businesses<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How many times can I say this: I. Do. Not. Give. A. ****. About. SOHO. Businesses.
Please, for the children's sake, stop talking about Mom and Pop's single E-machine that runs everything and doubles as a CS-server at night.
Me rejoices! I didn't want to miss that!
edit: i just read it, i see im not a proffessional sysadmin atm. But hey, thats why im learning, but i will manage my first big LAN in half a year, too far away, but when i have something ill pm Talesin
Two heads are greater than etc. Sounds like fun!
BUT
thats not my opinion. Ill see what i can do
Your friends are a bit odd. Isn't the OSS movement about convincing people that its better? Sounds like they know Linux can't hang with the big dogs to me... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->