On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 06:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > -- who will maintain the OS and other various software updates?
Same could be asked of MS products. Case in point: in 2000 there were over 50 IIS patches; since IIS has been the entry point of some of the nastiest worms (remember the Code Red family? ) someone needs to sit on top of an IIS server and check daily for patches/fixes, IMHO. > -- I have a Windows NT Server which has been processing our HTTP, SMTP and > POP3 for more than 5 years. Total downtime is measured in hours, all of > it in upgrading the web server software (not MS) and MS patches. We don't > use it for anything other that what I spec'ed it for - a server. Hours can be a great deal of downtime. How many hours? In my last job I had a multi-server web site (3 boxes spanned the period of the life of the site). The servers ran RH Linux. The site ran for 2+ years without even a minute of downtime. Patches were added without a need for reboot. The first downtime we experienced was due to the requirement of the colocation facility for us to move to another site. After the move we had over a year without any downtime before I was laid off. > -- I have a Windows NT Server, used for user network authentication and > print server. It's been in place for more than 5 years, less downtime > than the web server. Again, it's used as intended and for nothing else. Yawn! A whole box for that little work? I hope it is not much of a box. > The only time we've had trouble with any Windows box is because of lame > users who install the latest worm or virus. And the reason that virii/worms is so prevalent is .... time's up ... MS has made almost 0 effort over the years to protect against such things. They have actively encouraged the proliferation, IMO, by being so nonchalant about the issue and shipping OS's with known multiple vulnerabilities open by default. BG is making noises now about 'trust-worthy' computing, but it has been only a couple of years since he publically stated that MS would not provide technological solutions to the problem because it was a social issue and should be addressed by society as such. Outlook and IE are nothing but virus propogators; those who use them will get infected unless they do daily updates, and then there is still a risk. > Linux is less prone to that > problem for now, but will not remain so as Linux desktops become more > prevalent. And they will maintain less prone since there is more protection in the OS against the proliferation of such things. > As for cost: did you (or the admin) consider Microsoft's Partner In > Development program? It runs about US$1000/year, and gets you the latest > Windows Server software, workstation software (XP these days), Office > software, etc. With licenses for multiple installs of the non-Server > software. Not a bad way to go, if you qualify. And the purposes and limitations of that program are .... to be used by those developing for MS platforms. Not to be used for installing at customer sites. Good for evaluating/testing in-house, but your customers still need to pay the bill to Belmont. - rick warner -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
