Edition or Standard edition.
======================================
Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway!
For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com
Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases.
ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772
Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf
======================================
If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Fusfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 9:50 AM
Subject: RE: Windows 2003 editions: Web vs Standard [WAS Re: Windows 2000 or
2003 Server?]
| We are using Windows Server 2003 Web Edition with ColdFusion MX 6.1
| standard; similar setup to you in that it is a 1U hooked up to a more
| powerful database server. Works really well and we like Win2k3 overall.
|
| Matt
|
| -----Original Message-----
| From: John Paul Ashenfelter
| [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 10:02 AM
| To: CF-Talk
| Subject: Windows 2003 editions: Web vs Standard [WAS Re: Windows
| 2000 or 2003 Server?]
|
|
| The bulk of the reasons that the "default" install is safer is
| that it turns off a lot of unnecessary services/etc. If you standard
| firewall/DMZ setup, you weren't really vunerable to external attack on
| those services anyhow. And running IIS Lockdown takes care of most of
| the rest...
|
| 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]
