So Windows 2000 plus IIS lockdown tool vs Windows 2003 default install -- I'm kind of waiting for Windows 2003 SP1 :) Or running Apache on the windows box so the point becomes moot.
But I *am* interested in folks impressions of the Windows 2003 web edition vs standard. I run a small farm of 1U web/cf (only) servers on Windows 2000 that connect to a more powerful db server (running MS-SQL 2000 and MySQL of all things under Win 2000). I was considering replacing Windows 2000 with RedHat Enterprise ES 2.1 (3.0 in mid Oct) based in part on cost considerations and in part on security issues. But the Web Edition of Windows 2003 is price competetive (both are less than $500/server) so I'm a little torn. Since all either runs is web/cf, Windows 2003 Web Edition becomes a sensible upgrade path.
Thoughts? I know Dave said he had liked what he had seen with 2003 so far. Has anyone tried to license it? Seemed like OEM-only (eg buy a new server) was the idea when it was released. I've got it through MSDN so no prob testing it -- but curious about folks using it in produciton or getting ready to.
Regards,
John Paul Ashenfelter
CTO/Transitionpoint
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Watts
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 9:03 AM
Subject: RE: Windows 2000 or 2003 Server?
> That is total crap as Win2003 is based on WinXP code which
> was based on Win2K code and as such shares many of the same
> vulnerabilities.
>
> Do not consider installing Win2003 to be as "safe" as an
> unpatched Win2K installation.
The "default install" of Windows Server 2003 is much safer in many respects
than the default install of Windows 2000 Server. This is especially true
with the Web Edition.
As for reliability, it seems pretty good so far, and I've been recommending
it for use with our clients for about a month.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
