RE: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
-Original Message- From: Micheal Patterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 10:26 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows Bottom Line. We're lazy, we've always been lazy and damn it, we WILL always look for something easier, more convienient that can do more. Until something cheaper comes along. Eazy+costly= nogo Complex+cheap=don'tlike,but will do if it's cheaper than everything else easy+cheap=everyone's favorite Note that easy+cheap generally reliable but that is a different argument. So, to you, Windows is harder to administrate, to me Unix is harder to administrate. THAT is a supportable position, and I agree that it is true for many. It however leaves the question of which is more complicated, still open. Ted ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [OT] Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ed Budd Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 10:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [OT] Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows It doesn't seem to matter whether the topic is international affairs or computer science, when the discussion degenerates to grandiose and overgeneralized assessments regarding human nature it's time for the thread to die, at least IMHO. No, we haven't brought Hitler and the Nazi's up, yet, so we are still viable. ;-) Ted ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
. - Original Message - From: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ed Budd [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 1:03 AM Subject: RE: [OT] Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ed Budd Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 10:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [OT] Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows It doesn't seem to matter whether the topic is international affairs or computer science, when the discussion degenerates to grandiose and overgeneralized assessments regarding human nature it's time for the thread to die, at least IMHO. No, we haven't brought Hitler and the Nazi's up, yet, so we are still viable. ;-) Ted You can have that discussion by yourself, I won't jump into that fire pit. -- Micheal Patterson TSG Network Administration 405-917-0600 Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
-Original Message- From: Micheal Patterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:23 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows I've seen the stuff with my own eyes. It ain't pretty. If you think that administering a Windows server is so simple then answer the following test: How do you lock down an Exchange 5.5 server to prevent a spammer from using it as a relay. I know how to do it. No, it does not involve grubbing around in the registry. No it is not documented, either. I know for a fact that it isn't because I was in the conference call where we had to do it, and the Microsoft support tech himself told us it wasn't documented. Are you referring to reconfiguring the IMC with: Reroute incoming SMTP mail, then in Routing Restrictions, selecting Hosts and Clients with these IP addresses and leaving the data fields blank? Yes, this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about - as this is non-intuitive, and not documented in the help files. Nor on the Microsoft knowledge base, although now it may be. If that's the method that you're talking about, it's only non-documented within MS's help files. It's plastered all over the web. Do a search on google for MS exchange 5.5 open relay and just look at the info that you get. If that's the issue that you're discussing, someone in your admin section just cost the company the price for the trouble ticket for no reason because they didn't bother to look for it. When this call took place was a number of years ago, the Exchange servers that we are installing today are not 5.5. This was right after the open relaying with 5.5 began to become a serious problem - because the UNIX servers had been rapidly switching off promiscious relaying and the spammers were switching over to Exchange servers for relaying. All those websites that your talking about started popping up AFTER people like us started bitching at MS about this - and if I recall right, you have to have one of the service packs loaded on Exchange for this to even be in the IMC. I don't remember if this went in as a result of problems with spammers relaying through 5.5 or 5.0 though, it has been some time since we dealt with one of these older servers. 5.5 doesen't run correctly on Windows 2003 server after all. People in the type of network that I'm in, only use Windows for applications that require it's use. Telerad, Centricity, and various other medical software that requires MSSQL. All other applications here on my network are using FreeBSD from 4.9 to 5.3.7 or AIX. Oh, yes.. I've had my share of issues with Windows. Just as I've had with every other OS that I've used. I also know how to use login restrictions to force users out of the network so that the backups can occur to reduce the amount of open file skips as well. That is a fine idea except that SQL manager keeps the database file open so all your doing is -reducing- as you say, the number of open files. It doesen't work for exchange either. And yes, there are of course ways around these problems, you can write a script to shut down exchange, run your backup, then bring it back up, if you want to use the free backup included with Windows and not have to pay thousands for veritos. But I never said it's not possible to DO these kinds of things under Windows. What I said is that administering Windows is as complex as administering UNIX. And by the time you get done writing your scripts and such for Windows to make it usable, well there you go. Complexity. The human race as a whole, is always looking for something to make doing something easier for them. That's what drives our desire to contstantly design new technology. Hate to wake you with the clue phone but WE don't design new technology. The people who design new technology are the companies that produce it. And they have agendas OTHER than just making your life easier. Such as making money. Why do you think that there's a new version of Microsoft Word every couple years? Can you tell me with a straight face that each new version of Word has made it easier to type a typical business letter? Clue phone? How about letting me smack you in the forhead with a clue bat. You speak about companies having other agendas. Yes, that's true. Pray tell, do answer the inevitable quesiton. How is it that companies, corporations and other big business are able to make that profit? If they are in a competitive market they generally provide what the customers want to buy. Often that includes propagandizing the customers into wanting the item in the first place - companies like Pepsi and Coke are good at that - and sometimes it actually includes providing things that the customers really do need and want. But the rules change in a monopolistic market
RE: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I said it takes a higher talent level to generally administer a un*x box than a windows box. I don't think that just because you can think of something thats not easy to do in windows makes any point at all. The fact that a un*x guy had to be called in to solve the problem says alot about the type of talent that is required to do most things that windows techs do. Do you know how many new customers the ISP I work at has signed up over the years who have had preexisting Exchange servers that were open relays? ALL of them who had exchange servers were open! Of course, we liked this, because several times the new customers came to us bitching about our competitors who had the slowest Internet connection in the world Needless to say, scanning for an open relays on IP addresses we assign to a new customer is SOP for us - we nip this in the bud right away. And to top it off, once fixed, most of them still don't even make the connection that their former ISP's internet connection wasn't the problem, it was the hundred thousand spams a day they were sending out that was making the connection slow. So much for most windows techs You may not, but I would consider that PROPERLY setting up a mailserver is something that 'most windows techs' should be required to do who choose to go buy exchange or whatever mailserver, and set it up. Ted ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
. - Original Message - From: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Micheal Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 3:24 AM Subject: RE: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows I'll make this short, sweet, and to the point. The Human Race, is by nature a lazy race. We, as in, ALL humans, strive to make our life easier. I'm well aware of monopolies and their effect on us. I'm also aware of how technology has changed our lives. If you think that you, or I don't have it easy? Go check out the Amish. Ask them about why they don't have autos, or computers, electricity, running water, internal plumbing or any other item you and I take for granted on a day to day basis. Live for a year in the middle east in a tent, with none of those items and tell me that you'd not be thrilled to have a toilet to sit on again. As for your Milk monopoly, a few words, Pail, Bucket and grab an udder and roll your own. Unless you own the source of a product, you can't monopolize it, or prevent others from undercutting you. Don't harp on me about the internet and it's creation and how or why it was designed. I know why it was designed as I was a part of the US Air Forces side of it's inception. It's initial civilian usage was designed to allow colleagues from the testing universities to share data quickly and efficiently. DNS was designed because a host file couldn't hold every host that used it. The US Military had an interest in it as a possible redundant network in the event that Autovon, or Autodin failed and wanted a non-centralized network that could still function in the event of catastrophic failure of their internal communications network. Bottom Line. We're lazy, we've always been lazy and damn it, we WILL always look for something easier, more convienient that can do more. So, to you, Windows is harder to administrate, to me Unix is harder to administrate. Who do you think's had to spend more time on the phone getting someone else to answer their questions and who's had to look it all up themself? I don't call MS for my issues. -- Micheal Patterson Senior Communications Systems Engineer 405-917-0600 Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[OT] Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
little snip I'll make this short, sweet, and to the point. The Human Race, is by nature a lazy race. We, as in, ALL humans, strive to make our life easier. I'm well aware of monopolies and their effect on us. I'm also aware of how technology has changed our lives. If you think that you, or I don't have it easy? Go check out the Amish. Ask them about why they don't have autos, or computers, electricity, running water, internal plumbing or any other item you and I take for granted on a day to day basis. Live for a year in the middle east in a tent, with none of those items and tell me that you'd not be thrilled to have a toilet to sit on again. BIG SNIP We're lazy, we've always been lazy and damn it, we WILL always look for something easier, more convienient that can do more. It doesn't seem to matter whether the topic is international affairs or computer science, when the discussion degenerates to grandiose and overgeneralized assessments regarding human nature it's time for the thread to die, at least IMHO. EB ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
-Original Message- From: Micheal Patterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 9:44 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows Honestly, what makes you think that Windows is more complex in it's administration than a *Nix system? Well, the first thing that makes me think this is because the ISP I work at has an arm of the businesses that is purely Windows techs who companies pay to fix their Windows servers, and I get called in to help fix lots of messes there pretty regularly. (even though I do not have a MCSE myself) I've seen the stuff with my own eyes. It ain't pretty. If you think that administering a Windows server is so simple then answer the following test: How do you lock down an Exchange 5.5 server to prevent a spammer from using it as a relay. I know how to do it. No, it does not involve grubbing around in the registry. No it is not documented, either. I know for a fact that it isn't because I was in the conference call where we had to do it, and the Microsoft support tech himself told us it wasn't documented. It's common knowledge that Windows is easier to manage. That's one of it's selling points and it always has been. Windows is now easier than ever, just point and click. Tell me how many times have you heard someone say that about any *Nix OS currently available? Windows by itself is pretty useless as a server. It only becomes useful when you start adding in all the other crap, like a mailserver (exchange) a terminal server, a backup software, etc. You have obviously never had to sort out a mess with Veritos ie: Seagate Backup on Windows. Backup is so hairy under Windows servers that even Microsoft themselves is afraid or unable to release a backup program with the operating system that backs up open files. And SQL server, Exchange, and any other serious server application ALWAYS has open files under a Windows server. The human race as a whole, is always looking for something to make doing something easier for them. That's what drives our desire to contstantly design new technology. Hate to wake you with the clue phone but WE don't design new technology. The people who design new technology are the companies that produce it. And they have agendas OTHER than just making your life easier. Such as making money. Why do you think that there's a new version of Microsoft Word every couple years? Can you tell me with a straight face that each new version of Word has made it easier to type a typical business letter? o Man walked everywhere then he realized, riding a horse was faster and easier than walking 3 hours. o They designed a saddle for the horse because it was easier on the ass than barebacking it. You don't know what you are talking about. Saddles were designed as crutches both for poor riders, and because some horses have bony backs where you need a saddle. They also were designed for utility - so you can carry stuff on saddle bags, and so you can rope cows. If however you ride the SAME horse all the time you will find that most horses are just as comfortable riding bareback as riding in a saddle (keeping in mind that riding a horse, saddle or no, isn't as comfortable as sitting in a car driving) and that you have a lot better feel for what your horse is doing. There are all kinds of benefits to riding bareback, just check out any equestrian sites. It is discussed quite a lot and many people that give it a good try, end up preferring it. And many riders have been doing it long enough that they can run the horse at a gallop, bareback. o They designed a car because it was easier than riding a horse and thought to be faster in it's infancy. o Cars were made faster as the years went along because we wanted to get there faster. And how much as the car changed in the last, say, 40 years? Besides emissions controls, the major improvements have been safety. The act of driving a vehicle is STILL the same as it was. You could likely take someone 50 years forward in time from 1954 to today and they could get in a car and within a few minutes start driving it. Traffic signage is still pretty much the same, stoplights haven't changed in the last 50 years, we still drive on the right side of the road, etc. We are approaching a new fundamental change in vehicles from the engine stage, with hybrid technology and suchlike. But we are still at least two decades away from widespread adoption of this. And, the controls are not going to change much. o The airplane was designed because people wanted to leave the ground and fly to wherever they wanted to go. From the passengers point of view, the typical jet has not changed in the last 30 years. o Helicopters were made because it's easier to land in a field with no landing strip than to build the runway for a plane. Choppers have not changed since
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:20:08 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip PMFJI, (especially since I'm a newbie) but I think I understand at least some of what Ted is saying here. I set up a home firewall and later had a hardware failure. I replaced the box and decided to use Mandrake Linux for the firewall because I thought it would be easier to set up. It was easier to set up initially with all the pointy clicky stuff. Then a friend (who knows much more than I do) sniffed the box and warned me that I had holes galore. As I tried to fix the problem it became more difficult than when I was using BSD. I finally installed OpenBSD for the firewall (still use FreeBSD for everything else) and even tho there is a lot to learn I can make it do what I want. I have learned that just because something looks good on the surface, that doesn't mean that it's better. -- Terry ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
I work in a testing environment where I have set up both Windows and *nix type servers. The first time I set up a server it was Exchange 2003 on Windows Server 2003. I was able to figure out how to securely set it up within two hours. On the other hand, setting up ldap on FreeBSD took me two days. All of these needed to connect to various computing platforms, including the embedded systems (using LYNX) that I was testing. I've worked with Windows, *nix, and Mac OS. I've found Mac to be the easiest to work with, Windows second easiest, and the *nix take far more skill than the other two combined. Part of the issue that you are facing from your description of the complications with Windows, comes from trying to make windows do what windows was not designed to do. I don't care what Bill Gates says, none of the windows server environments were ever designed with anything more than simple, small networks in mind. It's part of the culture of MS. They started out with personal computing systems, and then decided that they would get into the server market. They inherently approach all software from a personal computing standpoint. That's why there are so many undocumented procedures to make things work the way that they are supposed to. On the other hand, *nix was designed for larger systems and networking, that's why it has been so much harder for the average person to get into. It's not really a matter of what is better for everybody, but what is better for the context that you are working under. I've recommended both Windows and *nix solutions to people. It just depends on who I am talking to. It's the same thing with this subject. I cannot and will not emphatically state that one OS is better than the other. I can tell you which I prefer, but you have to look at the needs of the individual or company and try to determine the right solution from there. If you are having to mess around with undocumented procedures and do all this extra junk just to secure your windows servers, then I would say you need to take a serious look at changing your server OS. For what it's worth, there's my .02. Thad Butterworth Windows WAS simpler than UNIX. No longer. You need to get out into the field again, you have been sitting behind a desk managing things for too long. I'd love to see you setup a Active Directory network of any size that contains mixed Windows versions. You would lose a lot of these misguided preconceptions. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
On 2004-10-26 07:42, Butterworth, Thaddaeus (UI Exploratory) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I work in a testing environment where I have set up both Windows and *nix type servers. The first time I set up a server it was Exchange 2003 on Windows Server 2003. I was able to figure out how to securely set it up within two hours. On the other hand, setting up ldap on FreeBSD took me two days. All of these needed to connect to various computing platforms, including the embedded systems (using LYNX) that I was testing. I've worked with Windows, *nix, and Mac OS. I've found Mac to be the easiest to work with, Windows second easiest, and the *nix take far more skill than the other two combined. Part of the issue that you are facing from your description of the complications with Windows, comes from trying to make windows do what windows was not designed to do. I don't care what Bill Gates says, none of the windows server environments were ever designed with anything more than simple, small networks in mind. It's part of the culture of MS. They started out with personal computing systems, and then decided that they would get into the server market. They inherently approach all software from a personal computing standpoint. That's why there are so many undocumented procedures to make things work the way that they are supposed to. Nonsense, if you ask me. For many reasons: a. Windows doesn't work nicely even for small networks most of the time. It's not the size of the network that matters. It's the nature of the network. Homogeneous, Windows-only networks will usually work somehow; not optimally, mind you, but they can be coerced into working. Heterogeneous networking environments, with many different types and versions of operating systems, are not so easy to use from Windows. b. The small-network culture has nothing to do with documentation. Undocumented stuff is undocumented because Microsoft either didn't have the time to document them all (rushing a new release out to gather a few more billion dollars) or -- more importantly -- they don't _want_ them documented, to have an edge over the rest of the software developers. It's not really a matter of what is better for everybody, but what is better for the context that you are working under. I've recommended both Windows and *nix solutions to people. It just depends on who I am talking to. It's the same thing with this subject. I cannot and will not emphatically state that one OS is better than the other. I can tell you which I prefer, but you have to look at the needs of the individual or company and try to determine the right solution from there. If you are having to mess around with undocumented procedures and do all this extra junk just to secure your windows servers, then I would say you need to take a serious look at changing your server OS. I mostly agree. Then, one day, eventually and also pretty unavoidably, freedom suddenly matters. That's about the same time that Windows starts to feel uncomfortable, with all its undocumented lock-in stuff whose only purpose is not to make computing easier but to make more money for Microsoft. If it so happens that some part of the every day experience of the average user is also made easier, it's a happy coincidence in the Microsoft world; not the Ultimate Goal(TM), but not unwelcome either ;-) But this thread reminds me of far too many threads that I've seen this topic discussed to death and beyond, some of them on this list too. So I'll stop writing. /rant - Giorgos ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
- Original Message - From: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Micheal Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 1:20 AM Subject: RE: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows -Original Message- From: Micheal Patterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 9:44 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows Honestly, what makes you think that Windows is more complex in it's administration than a *Nix system? Well, the first thing that makes me think this is because the ISP I work at has an arm of the businesses that is purely Windows techs who companies pay to fix their Windows servers, and I get called in to help fix lots of messes there pretty regularly. (even though I do not have a MCSE myself) I've seen the stuff with my own eyes. It ain't pretty. If you think that administering a Windows server is so simple then answer the following test: How do you lock down an Exchange 5.5 server to prevent a spammer from using it as a relay. I know how to do it. No, it does not involve grubbing around in the registry. No it is not documented, either. I know for a fact that it isn't because I was in the conference call where we had to do it, and the Microsoft support tech himself told us it wasn't documented. Are you referring to reconfiguring the IMC with: Reroute incoming SMTP mail, then in Routing Restrictions, selecting Hosts and Clients with these IP addresses and leaving the data fields blank? If that's the method that you're talking about, it's only non-documented within MS's help files. It's plastered all over the web. Do a search on google for MS exchange 5.5 open relay and just look at the info that you get. If that's the issue that you're discussing, someone in your admin section just cost the company the price for the trouble ticket for no reason because they didn't bother to look for it. It's common knowledge that Windows is easier to manage. That's one of it's selling points and it always has been. Windows is now easier than ever, just point and click. Tell me how many times have you heard someone say that about any *Nix OS currently available? Windows by itself is pretty useless as a server. It only becomes useful when you start adding in all the other crap, like a mailserver (exchange) a terminal server, a backup software, etc. People in the type of network that I'm in, only use Windows for applications that require it's use. Telerad, Centricity, and various other medical software that requires MSSQL. All other applications here on my network are using FreeBSD from 4.9 to 5.3.7 or AIX. You have obviously never had to sort out a mess with Veritos ie: Seagate Backup on Windows. Backup is so hairy under Windows servers that even Microsoft themselves is afraid or unable to release a backup program with the operating system that backs up open files. And SQL server, Exchange, and any other serious server application ALWAYS has open files under a Windows server. Oh, yes.. I've had my share of issues with Windows. Just as I've had with every other OS that I've used. I also know how to use login restrictions to force users out of the network so that the backups can occur to reduce the amount of open file skips as well. The human race as a whole, is always looking for something to make doing something easier for them. That's what drives our desire to contstantly design new technology. Hate to wake you with the clue phone but WE don't design new technology. The people who design new technology are the companies that produce it. And they have agendas OTHER than just making your life easier. Such as making money. Why do you think that there's a new version of Microsoft Word every couple years? Can you tell me with a straight face that each new version of Word has made it easier to type a typical business letter? Clue phone? How about letting me smack you in the forhead with a clue bat. You speak about companies having other agendas. Yes, that's true. Pray tell, do answer the inevitable quesiton. How is it that companies, corporations and other big business are able to make that profit? Do they force their wares onto the unsuspecting public and force us to purchase them? Do they force you to use the aftershave you use to make you smell better to the little woman? Do they force upon you the car that you drive, the furniture in your home, the home you live in, is that forced upon you by anyone? Wait for it, wait for it. Clue bat time. You, as an individual, chose to own / use those items. Just as everyone else did. Your desire to make your life easier and more comfortable for yourself and your family. You, I and everyone around us are what makes the companies and corporations successful
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
In a message dated 10/26/04 12:24:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you think that administering a Windows server is so simple then answer the following test: How do you lock down an Exchange 5.5 server to prevent a spammer from using it as a relay. So who was the one who said either was easy? I said it takes a higher talent level to generally administer a un*x box than a windows box. I don't think that just because you can think of something thats not easy to do in windows makes any point at all. The fact that a un*x guy had to be called in to solve the problem says alot about the type of talent that is required to do most things that windows techs do. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 12:32 PM Subject: Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows In a message dated 10/26/04 12:24:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you think that administering a Windows server is so simple then answer the following test: How do you lock down an Exchange 5.5 server to prevent a spammer from using it as a relay. So who was the one who said either was easy? I said it takes a higher talent level to generally administer a un*x box than a windows box. I don't think that just because you can think of something thats not easy to do in windows makes any point at all. The fact that a un*x guy had to be called in to solve the problem says alot about the type of talent that is required to do most things that windows techs do. - I agree with you. However, it wasn't I that posed that question. :) -- Micheal Patterson Senior Communications Systems Engineer 405-917-0600 Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
In a message dated 10/26/04 10:07:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [much snippage] Nonsense, if you ask me. For many reasons: a. Windows doesn't work nicely even for small networks most of the time. It's not the size of the network that matters. It's the nature of the network. Homogeneous, Windows-only networks will usually work somehow; not optimally, mind you, but they can be coerced into working. Heterogeneous networking environments, with many different types and versions of operating systems, are not so easy to use from Windows. the same can be said of Cisco based networks. Everything works better with products of the same make. Even NFS between different un*x boxes has issues. Integration is what separates the men from the boys, so don't complain. If it were easy most of us would be doing something else. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
On 2004-10-26 14:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/26/04 10:07:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nonsense, if you ask me. For many reasons: a. Windows doesn't work nicely even for small networks most of the time. It's not the size of the network that matters. It's the nature of the network. Homogeneous, Windows-only networks will usually work somehow; not optimally, mind you, but they can be coerced into working. Heterogeneous networking environments, with many different types and versions of operating systems, are not so easy to use from Windows. the same can be said of Cisco based networks. Everything works better with products of the same make. Even NFS between different un*x boxes has issues. The fact that Cisco does something wrong doesn't somehow make it right for Windows. It's not a good excuse either. Integration is what separates the men from the boys, so don't complain. If it were easy most of us would be doing something else. I don't see you supporting UNIX because it's harder to use, so it must be what 'real men' use. Probably because this sort of argument is pointless. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
On Oct 26, 2004, at 2:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Integration is what separates the men from the boys, so don't complain. If it were easy most of us would be doing something else. Not necessarily. Changing your oil isn't that hard. Most people pay someone else to do it though. Fixing a hole in drywall isn't that hard. Most people pay someone else to do it though. Even mowing a yard isn't hard, but many people out there still hire people to do it for them. easy doesn't mean that the service niche goes away; as long as people are busy enough that the job is an inconvenience to do themselves, there's always a demand for the service, easy or not. Sorry, know this is probably a tangent from what was implied, but I get tired of people saying that we need our stress and problems because if it were easy we'd all be out of jobs. We'd be paid far less if it were a commodity service, perhaps, but it doesn't automatically mean we're going to be jobless just because we made a network or system that works...if anything, it means we could finally focus on training users and creating training materials for them to help them use the system we put into place! ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
In a message dated 10/26/04 3:38:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The fact that Cisco does something wrong doesn't somehow make it right for Windows. It's not a good excuse either. Its the way it is, and the way its always been. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 17:22:17 +0200, Stefan [Swebase AB] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi I have tried searching for this but i only get reports made by students and private programmers, i trust a programmer more than a large corporation any day but to show a person i know and convince him i need some serious investigations made by large corporations into comparing BSD and Windows systems in various areas. I would love to get some links that some of you have in your bookmarks on this. The person i'm trying to convince is a hardcore MS fan so i need real evidence of why BSD is better than MS products in server environments. Some friends of mine have told me that yahoo, msn and microsoft all use FreeBSD but until i can show him that and prove it to him that means nothing. This just came out, should be pretty usefull: http://linux.oreilly.com/news/bsd_ss.pdf -pete ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
In a message dated 10/24/04 5:54:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I know more than a few people, small businessmen mostly, who have been completely screwed because their almost totally incompetent unix tech guy left the company. Ted wrote... For every small businessman screwed over this way there are ten times the number who have been screwed over by incompetent Windows tech guys. The point, Ted, is that you can easily find another incompetent windows tech, or even a good one to bail you out. With unix you're just screwed. Windows today is just as complex as any UNIX system. Sure, maybe a decade ago a peer-to-peer network of Windows systems your statement might have been true, but not today. You're also missing my point on this. You don't have to get into the guts of windows to make it work. You dont have to be a programmer to tweak all of the applications, in fact I know more than one windows tech who knows how to set things up but really has no idea what the settings mean. Yes you have to understand the applications to some degree. But to me, its a different level of skill to install and maintain applications in a unix-like environment. There's also less documentation, fewer resources, etc. So its more difficult to be proficient in unix than in windows. Ask a unix tech to install a windows application, or ask a windows tech to install a unix application. Which do you think has a better chance of success? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
There's also less documentation, fewer resources, etc. So its more difficult to be proficient in unix than in windows. what are you talking about less documentation for Unix?!? What Unix are you referring to...Solaris...HPUX..AIX...BSD? I'm sorry to bite on this flame bait but i've been tracking your posts for some time now and I really don't understand where you get these ideas from? -p ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
On Oct 25, 2004, at 9:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ask a unix tech to install a windows application, or ask a windows tech to install a unix application. Which do you think has a better chance of success? The unix tech will have much more easier time installing the Windows app than the other way around. For one reason: the unix tech is likely to understand what he is doing so he can transpose that knowledge. The Windows tech hasn't a clue Chad ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
In a message dated 10/25/04 11:48:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There's also less documentation, fewer resources, etc. So its more difficult to be proficient in unix than in windows. what are you talking about less documentation for Unix?!? What Unix are you referring to...Solaris...HPUX..AIX...BSD? I'm sorry to bite on this flame bait but i've been tracking your posts for some time now and I really don't understand where you get these ideas from? Let's see. The mailing list is freebsd-questions. Hmmm. I wonder. Perhaps the word logic in your domain name needs tweaking? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
On 2004-10-25 11:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're also missing my point on this. You don't have to get into the guts of windows to make it work. You dont have to be a programmer to tweak all of the applications, in fact I know more than one windows tech who knows how to set things up but really has no idea what the settings mean. This is not really an advantage though, if you ponder a bit the implications it has. It basically means that your average Windows tech knows nothing about the guts of the system (he doesn't need to, according to your description). Then, when a day comes that something breaks *badly* his best suggestion is throw away the entire thing, and start over with a bootable CD-ROM of Windows XYZ. This sort of tech-ness is considered dangerous in the UNIX world. Yes you have to understand the applications to some degree. But to me, its a different level of skill to install and maintain applications in a unix-like environment. Agreed. There's also less documentation, fewer resources, etc. So its more difficult to be proficient in unix than in windows. Au contraire, mon ami. I have always felt extreme frustration and angst at the lack of documentation for Windows services, programs, procedures and everything else but the very basic skills of clicking a mouse and moving around its pointer. The documentation for UNIX systems like Linux and the various open-source implementations of BSD has always amazed me. If you have ever tried debugging a Windows installation that crashes part-way through, about the same time the monitor displays a cute window with colourful borders, carefully crafted GUI components and other useless trivia surrounding a most-cryptic message like Updating system files you know what I'm talking about. The documentation and level of open-ness that a Windows system has in cases like this is exactly zero, nil, zip, nada, not-existent. No matter how experienced Windows or UNIX user you are, there is absolutely no documentation on debugging the installation process -- mostly because the majority of Windows programs have their own custom wizard-based installation. On the other hand, UNIX programs that run on Linux or BSD are usually built from source, have manpages, info manuals, README or INSTALL files that describe step by step the installation, configuration and running of the program, and a lot of other documentation material that I probably forget about right now. Ask a unix tech to install a windows application, or ask a windows tech to install a unix application. Which do you think has a better chance of success? Generally, the UNIX technician. Not because he knows a lot more about all things related to computers and will instantly adapt to the Windows environment because of some magical UNIX-foo he possesses, but because the average Windows tech will run away screaming when he's confronted with a UNIX terminal and a shell prompt ;-) - Giorgos ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:25:21 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/25/04 11:48:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There's also less documentation, fewer resources, etc. So its more difficult to be proficient in unix than in windows. what are you talking about less documentation for Unix?!? What Unix are you referring to...Solaris...HPUX..AIX...BSD? I'm sorry to bite on this flame bait but i've been tracking your posts for some time now and I really don't understand where you get these ideas from? Let's see. The mailing list is freebsd-questions. Hmmm. I wonder. Perhaps the word logic in your domain name needs tweaking? OK aside from personal attacks, I'm still confused as to where you derived the fact that Unix (which I suppose you do not mean as the generic term for a type of multiuser operating system, but infact BSD which is not technically UNIX) has less documentation than Windows. I can't remember the last time I typed: man net on anything like that on a win box. Now I would grant that Microsoft *does* have the MSCE millnow I'm not sure if that would equate them documenting thier products -p ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
In a message dated 10/25/04 11:48:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There's also less documentation, fewer resources, etc. So its more difficult to be proficient in unix than in windows. what are you talking about less documentation for Unix?!? What Unix are you referring to...Solaris...HPUX..AIX...BSD? I'm sorry to bite on this flame bait but i've been tracking your posts for some time now and I really don't understand where you get these ideas from? Let's see. The mailing list is freebsd-questions. Hmmm. I wonder. Perhaps the word logic in your domain name needs tweaking? Sounding really like a troll now.Personal attacks are not welcome. In general, I find UNIX of almost any variety to be better documented that MS and such open source systems as FreeBSD suplement documentation by making the source fully available to the user to examine. jerry ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
- Original Message - From: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 4:54 AM Subject: RE: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows snip There are more people around that can administer MS systems than unix, Yes, and it can be done with a lower level of talent. . Having seen and dealing with the aftermath of networks owned by people that thought that, I have to state your out of your gourd. Windows today is just as complex as any UNIX system. Sure, maybe a decade ago a peer-to-peer network of Windows systems your statement might have been true, but not today. This type of discussion has been going around the world since Windows and *Nix first clashed. Windows has a gui, *Nix by default on most OS's, doesn't. To configure Windows, you point here, click there, right click and check properties here, add this information in the line provided. Click apply and the program runs and yet there are those that feel it is more complex than *Nix. I'll tell you what. You take any MS certified, high end admin, that's never seen a *Nix OS and see how far he gets. Just tell him to setup ftp with chroot environment, or bind, or heaven forbid Sendmail with rbl, access, virtual aliasing, etc. If he's never seen it, it'll take him forever. To those that live in the *Nix world, we can generally walk up to a Windows DC and make it do what we want. Do you really think that MS was the first to come up with MS Shares? What about AD User propogation to other DC's? DNS? Or even Mail? Where do you think they got those ideas from? Honestly, what makes you think that Windows is more complex in it's administration than a *Nix system? It's common knowledge that Windows is easier to manage. That's one of it's selling points and it always has been. Windows is now easier than ever, just point and click. Tell me how many times have you heard someone say that about any *Nix OS currently available? The human race as a whole, is always looking for something to make doing something easier for them. That's what drives our desire to contstantly design new technology. o Man walked everywhere then he realized, riding a horse was faster and easier than walking 3 hours. o They designed a saddle for the horse because it was easier on the ass than barebacking it. o They designed a car because it was easier than riding a horse and thought to be faster in it's infancy. o Cars were made faster as the years went along because we wanted to get there faster. o The airplane was designed because people wanted to leave the ground and fly to wherever they wanted to go. o Helicopters were made because it's easier to land in a field with no landing strip than to build the runway for a plane. o Computers were made because people got headaches doing complex calculations and wanted something that could do it for them and do it faster as well. and so on and so forth. The human race, as a whole, is lazy and always looking for something to make their lives easier. In this day and age of computer technology, MS provides that to us better than *Nix does. Yet, there are those that are adamant that Windows is more complex than *Nix is. How ironic. Ted -- Micheal Patterson Senior Communications Systems Engineer 405-917-0600 Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
On Oct 25, 2004, at 12:36 PM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On 2004-10-25 11:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're also missing my point on this. You don't have to get into the guts of windows to make it work. You dont have to be a programmer to tweak all of the applications, in fact I know more than one windows tech who knows how to set things up but really has no idea what the settings mean. This is not really an advantage though, if you ponder a bit the implications it has. It basically means that your average Windows tech knows nothing about the guts of the system (he doesn't need to, according to your description). Then, when a day comes that something breaks *badly* his best suggestion is throw away the entire thing, and start over with a bootable CD-ROM of Windows XYZ. And this differs from your experience in the Windows world...how? :-) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
On 2004-10-25 12:49, Bart Silverstrim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 25, 2004, at 12:36 PM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On 2004-10-25 11:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're also missing my point on this. You don't have to get into the guts of windows to make it work. You dont have to be a programmer to tweak all of the applications, in fact I know more than one windows tech who knows how to set things up but really has no idea what the settings mean. This is not really an advantage though, if you ponder a bit the implications it has. It basically means that your average Windows tech knows nothing about the guts of the system (he doesn't need to, according to your description). Then, when a day comes that something breaks *badly* his best suggestion is throw away the entire thing, and start over with a bootable CD-ROM of Windows XYZ. And this differs from your experience in the Windows world...how? :-) I'm not sure I understand your question. Rephrase or make it more specific, because answering to such a vague question is pointless. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
On Oct 25, 2004, at 1:07 PM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: And this differs from your experience in the Windows world...how? :-) I'm not sure I understand your question. Rephrase or make it more specific, because answering to such a vague question is pointless. Just a side comment from the peanut gallery... I was referring to the fact that in most cases, the solution in the end most often IS to just reformat and reinstall because there's so much cruft/crap/crud in the registry and Windows directories that that is the best solution, unless you want to spend an extra couple days trying to sort everything out. -Bart ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
In a message dated 10/25/04 1:08:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And this differs from your experience in the Windows world...how? :-) I'm not sure I understand your question. Rephrase or make it more specific, because answering to such a vague question is pointless. The inability of people to stay on point is as befuddling as it is entertaining. I think we all agree that you wouldn't let a windows tech touch your unix-like box, but you'd have no problem having a unix tech install a windows application. 'nuf said. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
On 2004-10-25 13:18, Bart Silverstrim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 25, 2004, at 1:07 PM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On 2004-10-25 12:49, Bart Silverstrim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 25, 2004, at 12:36 PM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On 2004-10-25 11:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're also missing my point on this. You don't have to get into the guts of windows to make it work. You dont have to be a programmer to tweak all of the applications, in fact I know more than one windows tech who knows how to set things up but really has no idea what the settings mean. This is not really an advantage though, if you ponder a bit the implications it has. It basically means that your average Windows tech knows nothing about the guts of the system (he doesn't need to, according to your description). Then, when a day comes that something breaks *badly* his best suggestion is throw away the entire thing, and start over with a bootable CD-ROM of Windows XYZ. And this differs from your experience in the Windows world...how? :-) I'm not sure I understand your question. Rephrase or make it more specific, because answering to such a vague question is pointless. Just a side comment from the peanut gallery... I was referring to the fact that in most cases, the solution in the end most often IS to just reformat and reinstall because there's so much cruft/crap/crud in the registry and Windows directories that that is the best solution, unless you want to spend an extra couple days trying to sort everything out. Ah, I see. You have a point there. I was referring to problems that require a bit of esoteric knowledge about how things work but not really a reinstallation of the entire system, i.e.: - the reinstallation of a device driver - trouble shooting by skimming through system logs - network-related and/or connectivity problems A typical example of the common Windows-technicial mindset is what happened to me just yesterday. A friend called me to ask about a problem with his wireless network connection. He asked me if I had a bit of time, as a last chance before reinstalling Windows 2000 on his personal workstation. It turned out that the USB cable he used to connect his external NetGear adapter had issues. We swapped a new cable and all works now. This is only just *one* example of the method the typical Windows tech uses around here to fix problems. Reinstall it all and hope that the problem (sort of magically) goes away. The time and resources wasted to reinstall a perfectly working system is absolutely unbearable as a thought to someone who has worked a while with UNIX systems and has spent the time to learn how things actually work -- something that our local Windows fan, [EMAIL PROTECTED], seems to somehow consider a disadvantage of UNIX. I beg to differ... - Giorgos ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
On 2004-10-25 13:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/25/04 1:08:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And this differs from your experience in the Windows world...how? :-) I'm not sure I understand your question. Rephrase or make it more specific, because answering to such a vague question is pointless. The inability of people to stay on point is as befuddling as it is entertaining. I think we all agree that you wouldn't let a windows tech touch your unix-like box, but you'd have no problem having a unix tech install a windows application. 'nuf said. Does this make you think at all? Does it worry you that the so-called technicians of the Windows world are often called to install, configure and run systems just because they know how to 'do' Windows? Is what you describe something that can be considered a disadvantage of the way UNIX works (making it pretty much obligatory to know what you are doing before doing it)? Or is it an advantage, after all? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
On Oct 25, 2004, at 1:33 PM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: I was referring to problems that require a bit of esoteric knowledge about how things work but not really a reinstallation of the entire system, i.e.: I realize that...at the same time, I don't blame the techs working on Windows that end up reinstalling in lieu of other choices. It's trained. There are so many oddball interactions and cruft that builds up in the system that reinstalling fixes, it's a HUGE timesaver when troubleshooting systems compared to the preferred what's making this happen? investigative repairs. If you're fixing a client's computer it can really help on their bill too...2 hours of wipe/reinstall/driver hunting is better for most of them than 8 hours of googling, registry pruning, etc...especially if in the end you end up having to do the wipe/reinstall anyway. Windows just encourages the wipe/reinstall method because of it's quirks and sloppy management tools and security. Usually it's the biggest timesaver to do that. Of course, it depends on the circumstances. -Bart ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
At 02:59 PM 10/25/2004, you wrote: Just a side comment from the peanut gallery... I was referring to the fact that in most cases, the solution in the end most often IS to just reformat and reinstall because there's so much cruft/crap/crud in the registry and Windows directories that that is the best solution, unless you want to spend an extra couple days trying to sort everything out. I have been temping at Microsoft for a while now. They have a term for this operation: flatten. As in, CMS2002 is acting up on that box and authoring mode is broken... we need to flatten it. It's scheduled for next Monday. Here, deep in Mordor, it's a way of life. :) - matt ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: I think we all agree that you wouldn't let a windows tech touch your unix-like box, but you'd have no problem having a unix tech install a windows application. 'nuf said. Does this make you think at all? .:\:/:. +---+ .:\:\:/:/:. | PLEASE DO NOT |:.:\:\:/:/:.: | FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=: | | '=(\ 9 9 /)=' | Thank you, | ( (_) ) | Management | /`-vvv-'\ +---+ / \ | |@@@ / /|,|\ \ | |@@@ /_// /^\ \\_\ @x@@x@| | |/ WW( ( ) )WW \/| |\| __\,,\ /,,/__ \||/ | | | jgs (__Y__) /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ -- Dave ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: I think we all agree that you wouldn't let a windows tech touch your unix-like box, but you'd have no problem having a unix tech install a windows application. 'nuf said. Does this make you think at all? .:\:/:. +---+ .:\:\:/:/:. | PLEASE DO NOT |:.:\:\:/:/:.: | FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=: | | '=(\ 9 9 /)=' | Thank you, | ( (_) ) | Management | /`-vvv-'\ +---+ / \ | |@@@ / /|,|\ \ | |@@@ /_// /^\ \\_\ @x@@x@| | |/ WW( ( ) )WW \/| |\| __\,,\ /,,/__ \||/ | | | jgs (__Y__) /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Nice artwork. I think I will appropriate it just for fun. I hope it is under the BSD copyright/license. jerry -- Dave ___ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Jerry McAllister wrote: [ Do Not Feed The Trolls ] \||/ | | | jgs (__Y__) /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Nice artwork. I think I will appropriate it just for fun. I hope it is under the BSD copyright/license. It's been around for at least 15 years, if not more; first seen on Usenet (back when it was a useful resource). You probably ought to preserve the (presumably) author's initials, jgs, in the spirit of the BSD licence :-) -- Dave ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
In a message dated 10/25/04 1:37:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And this differs from your experience in the Windows world...how? :-) I'm not sure I understand your question. Rephrase or make it more specific, because answering to such a vague question is pointless. The inability of people to stay on point is as befuddling as it is entertaining. I think we all agree that you wouldn't let a windows tech touch your unix-like box, but you'd have no problem having a unix tech install a windows application. 'nuf said. Does this make you think at all? Does it worry you that the so-called technicians of the Windows world are often called to install, configure and run systems just because they know how to 'do' Windows? Is what you describe something that can be considered a disadvantage of the way UNIX works (making it pretty much obligatory to know what you are doing before doing it)? Or is it an advantage, after all? I haven't the foggiest idea what you're asking, but what I originally said what that, although unix may be better, there are reasons that people use Windows. Just because FreeBSD may be a better performer or perhaps more flexible, doesn't mean that its suitable for use any corporate environment. If you have a staff of people who know windows, you can't just move to FreeBSD and expect them to be able to administer it at the same level. The guy who originally posted was considering using Yahoo as evidence of FreeBSDs abilities. But the usefulness of an O/S is also a function of the talent that you have administering it. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
We use the term: Nuke and repave I'll have to remember that. Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Matt Staroscik Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 3:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows At 02:59 PM 10/25/2004, you wrote: Just a side comment from the peanut gallery... I was referring to the fact that in most cases, the solution in the end most often IS to just reformat and reinstall because there's so much cruft/crap/crud in the registry and Windows directories that that is the best solution, unless you want to spend an extra couple days trying to sort everything out. I have been temping at Microsoft for a while now. They have a term for this operation: flatten. As in, CMS2002 is acting up on that box and authoring mode is broken... we need to flatten it. It's scheduled for next Monday. Here, deep in Mordor, it's a way of life. :) - matt ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 3:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows In a message dated 10/23/04 11:27:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have tried searching for this but i only get reports made by students and private programmers, i trust a programmer more than a large corporation any day but to show a person i know and convince him i need some serious investigations made by large corporations into comparing BSD and Windows systems in various areas. I would love to get some links that some of you have in your bookmarks on this. The person i'm trying to convince is a hardcore MS fan so i need real evidence of why BSD is better than MS products in server environments. Some friends of mine have told me that yahoo, msn and microsoft all use FreeBSD but until i can show him that and prove it to him that means nothing. Better for what? Every product is better at some things and weaker at others. You can argue that a BMW 325 is better than a 540 if you are concerned about gas prices, and its certainly more cost effective if your only use for the car is to go a short distance to work or the stores. Also, programmers have different criteria than non-programmers. Big companies are concerned with the ability to find people to administer their systems. There are more people around that can administer MS systems than unix, Yes, and it can be done with a lower level of talent. . Having seen and dealing with the aftermath of networks owned by people that thought that, I have to state your out of your gourd. Windows today is just as complex as any UNIX system. Sure, maybe a decade ago a peer-to-peer network of Windows systems your statement might have been true, but not today. A car enthusiast might prefer older, pre-computer cars because they're easier to tinker with. They are, that's news to me! I'll take a computerized engine any day over fighting rust encroachment in a 25 year old or older vehicle. And you just try getting parts for a 1976 Datsun. I know more than a few people, small businessmen mostly, who have been completely screwed because their almost totally incompetent unix tech guy left the company. For every small businessman screwed over this way there are ten times the number who have been screwed over by incompetent Windows tech guys. Being a screwed over small businessman because your key tech person went away and turned out to be incompetent is just a sad fact of life. Most small businessman are small businessman simply because they don't like working for large companies, ie: they want to be their own boss. That is all fine and good but the personality type that wants to be completely in control of their business, ie: be their own boss is generally the same personality type that does not want to hire a computer tech and tell them I don't care how you do it or how much it costs, all I want is for you to get it working reliably Instead, they are the type that wants to review every last expenditure and does not want to give any shred of control to the computer tech guy, because after all, they didn't go setup their own company just to be bossed around by the computer tech guy, now did they? It is a rare small businessman who wants to be their own boss and yet has the ability to understand that they need to focus on their core competency and turn over control of the computers to someone else. And such people generally when they start small companies, such companies don't stay small very long, so those people end up running large companies. The problem here is that the boss didn't hand the poster a task and say get it done and don't bother me with the details, and if you can't get it working you don't get paid The problem is the boss don't know shit from shinola, read on an InFlight magazine that Windows is better, and thinks that makes him competent to micromanage the guy he's hired to do the work. Ted ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
Hi I have tried searching for this but i only get reports made by students and private programmers, i trust a programmer more than a large corporation any day but to show a person i know and convince him i need some serious investigations made by large corporations into comparing BSD and Windows systems in various areas. I would love to get some links that some of you have in your bookmarks on this. The person i'm trying to convince is a hardcore MS fan so i need real evidence of why BSD is better than MS products in server environments. Some friends of mine have told me that yahoo, msn and microsoft all use FreeBSD but until i can show him that and prove it to him that means nothing. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
Stefan [Swebase AB] wrote: I have tried searching for this but i only get reports made by students and private programmers, i trust a programmer more than a large corporation any day but to show a person i know and convince him i need some serious investigations made by large corporations into comparing BSD and Windows systems in various areas. You should ask this question on freebsd-advocacy. Better yet, if whoever this is wants to do a serious investigation, tell him (or her) to go find a ruler and do their _own_ measurements. Some friends of mine have told me that yahoo, msn and microsoft all use FreeBSD but until i can show him that and prove it to him that means nothing. http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.yahoo.com http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.msn.com ...etc... -- -Chuck ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
- Original Message - From: Stefan [Swebase AB] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 6:22 PM Subject: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows [...] Some friends of mine have told me that yahoo, msn and microsoft all use FreeBSD but until i can show him that and prove it to him that means nothing. Yahoo runs FreeBSD as well as many other popular sites. You can check www.netcraft.com to find out which site is running what. A direct link to yahoo's results: http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.yahoo.com MSN and Microsoft run Win2k, Win2k3. Netcraft's website is filled with various surveys/graphs about web servers, their performance and uptime. You can find out more information on how does FreeBSD stand against other OSes as a web server. As for a comparison between FreeBSD and Windows you may want to post your question to freebsd-advocacy@ mailing list (?), or wait until someone else replies with a more fulfilling answer. Hope this helped. Eihab E. Ibrahim ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
On 10/23/2004 at 5:22 PM Stefan [Swebase AB] wrote: |The person i'm trying to convince is a hardcore MS fan so i | need real evidence of why BSD is better than MS products in | server environments. = Hardcore MS fan? Do you really think that any hardcore fan will be open to a differing view? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
In a message dated 10/23/04 11:27:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have tried searching for this but i only get reports made by students and private programmers, i trust a programmer more than a large corporation any day but to show a person i know and convince him i need some serious investigations made by large corporations into comparing BSD and Windows systems in various areas. I would love to get some links that some of you have in your bookmarks on this. The person i'm trying to convince is a hardcore MS fan so i need real evidence of why BSD is better than MS products in server environments. Some friends of mine have told me that yahoo, msn and microsoft all use FreeBSD but until i can show him that and prove it to him that means nothing. Better for what? Every product is better at some things and weaker at others. You can argue that a BMW 325 is better than a 540 if you are concerned about gas prices, and its certainly more cost effective if your only use for the car is to go a short distance to work or the stores. Also, programmers have different criteria than non-programmers. Big companies are concerned with the ability to find people to administer their systems. There are more people around that can administer MS systems than unix, and it can be done with a lower level of talent. . A car enthusiast might prefer older, pre-computer cars because they're easier to tinker with. The same might be said for programmers. Programming types whine if they don't have source code, but source code is useless to people that don't know what to do with it (and its dangerous for those who only THINK they do). I think any high-level programmer who has used both unix and MS products is going to prefer unix for most things server-related, mainly because if it doesn't work just the way he wants he can likely fix it. On the other hand, there are more products available for MS, more vendors with supported products for certain, and if you're located in Moosebreath Montana and you need 40 guys to run an IT dept who know unix, good luck (unless you're willing to settle for a bunch of guys who know what YACC stands for and not much else). I know more than a few people, small businessmen mostly, who have been completely screwed because their almost totally incompetent unix tech guy left the company. FreeBSD is vastly better in a multitude of ways than an MS server on the same hardware, IF you have someone who knows what they're doing AND you can count on that guy hanging around. If not, you'll end up with a bunch of servers running poorly supported software that will run like the dickens until something happens, but that you won't be able to update, upgrade or repair. Of course there's no reason that you can't slap up a FreeBSD server until you're comfortable with it. I don't know of any law that says you have to decide between one or the other exclusively. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
