ADAMS Steven wrote:
I can clone a SuSE guest in about 5 minutes and be left with a
functional server. According to the published calculation I should be
able to bring up a win2k (and up) "server" in about 3.5 minutes?
You should ask MS how fast it can clone a system on zSeries under VM:-)
Ok, so that's not really fair, but even in an x86 world I can `dd` the
system disks, tote them to another standard server platform, and
personalize in less than an hour. This calculation still puts win2k up
and running in 30~40 minutes - not realistic. In fact, I don't even
think any reasonable Windows guru would believe that, even with the most
efficient scripted auto-install load that one could build. (I've worked
with some pretty efficient win2k auto-install scripts in the past and
it's 2 hours, bare server to communicating on the wire, at best.)
A few years ago I could kickstart install a desktop RHL 7.3 on a Pentium
III in under 15 minutes, including applying updates and my preferred
customisations. The Windows bloke who was trying the Windows automated
install was impressed/green. And he wasn't installing office-type software.
OTOH last Friday I replaced the main drive in our office server (a
Pentium III desktop) and it took around three hours.
We'd run out of space and chose to replace the drive, and I decided to
manually parition the drive so dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/hdc was out. I
could have used dd parition by partition, but then would have had to
muck around with e2fsck and resize2fs, so I chose to
cd /
tar cl . usr var boot | tar xpC /mnt/new
which ran for a couple of hours or so.
Oh, I also replaced a dead NIC while I had the system down, that cost
some time as I discovered where to plug the wires now.
And there was some time when I got bored and was probably reading
theregister.co.uk when the copy finished:-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Post, Mark K
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 8:37 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Windows Server thrashes Novell's Linux
How many of those patches were against packages that would not be in a
base Windows install? I didn't see any URL to the actual report, so I
can't answer that myself.
How many of the patches against Linux required rebooting, versus
restarting a service?
How many problems does Microsoft know about that they haven't admitted
to having, and won't be issuing patches for?
How many of the Open Source patches were the result of pro-active bug
fixes, versus:
- denying a problem exists
- slipping a fix in quietly that hadn't been previously acknowledged
- refusing to fix at all, unless you're running the latest and greatest
XP?
I have to give Microsoft credit for greatly improving their security
over the last couple of years. That simply doesn't fix a security model
that's outright broken to start with.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/
do not reply off-list
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
