Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
Greg McCarroll wrote: > * Philip Newton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > AFAIK Samba implements the SMB protocol, which is the > > native resource (file, printer, ...) sharing protocol of > > Windows. So if you have Windows, you've already got an SMB > > client and server running. > > for the same reasons people install apache on windows when > they already have personal web server running ;-) Well, PWS isn't part of the operating system. (Let's not talk about MSIE in this context.) Compare it, maybe, to NFS under Unix which is sometimes in the kernel -- why run usermode NFS ported from somewhere else if the kernel speaks it already? Cheers, philip -- Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
* Philip Newton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Greg McCarroll wrote on Freitag, 8. Juni 2001 11:11 > > And some pieces of software just wont be able to be plugged > > in - why can't i run Samba on Windows? > > Why would you want to? * in a heterogeneous network i may want to standardise on a single SMB implementation so that logs, config, etc. are in the same format * SAMBA offers functionality beyond that of the windows implementation, for instance i remember noting that you could link a shared ``printer'' definition to an executable, i added a little bit of hacking, a poor ps2html convertor and a webserver and i had a nice little document storage/archiving system, that people could simply print to * bugs/security holes may not be solved as quickly in MS's version * i may be an open source zealot and want to know what is running on my machine down to each line of code (shame about the rest of the OS on this point) * its my computer and i should be able to run what software/services i want and not be locked in > AFAIK Samba implements the SMB protocol, which is the > native resource (file, printer, ...) sharing protocol of Windows. So if you > have Windows, you've already got an SMB client and server running. for the same reasons people install apache on windows when they already have personal web server running ;-) > Sounds a bit like "How can I port MKS's korn shell to Unix? Is it > possible?". Well, maybe the analogy is not so hot, but it's the best I can > think of. but if you have the source and some time you can, and you may do it for similar reasons to the ones i stated above Greg -- Greg McCarrollhttp://217.34.97.146/~gem/
Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 10:11:13AM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: > > * GUI > > I really don't want to have a server running a GUI, it adds at least some > overhead, encourages people to `work on the server' and as its an additional > process may add additional security concerns. And huge numbers of people think it's neat to run the GL screen saver using 100% CPU, disabling interrupts so much the system clock drifts by ~10min/hour > While its possible (at least it was) to configure NT not to have a GUI, > the whole toolset is designed to have a GUI and GUI tools available. So > with Windows you are pretty much stuck with it, with UNIX, X isn't tightly > integrated into the OS. Remote text-based access ... without additional software. > * Mature Server Software > > Windows leads the world in desktop software, however it doesn't have as > much mature server side software, and i'm not just talking about server > processes, i'm thinking about Cron, Procmail, Perl, etc. And what there is, is integrated with the o/s (also applies to GUI): if the service goes AWOL it takes out the whole O/S. > * No compiler > > Why can't there be a compiler? Please just a simple one, so that if > i want to write some little program for myself I can do it there and > then. Its not that much to ask, it would just mean that when you get ActiveState Perl lets you do all the damage you need shurely :-) > a fresh windows box you dont have to go and waste time installing > additional software, and there are other examples of this ... VNC vi.exe/emacs.exe bash.exe Win/SSH Anti-virus s/ware Intrusion Detection s/ware Lynx > Editor > Scripting language > Cron > > * Final reason (for now) > > I don't trust them. Amen -- Chris Benson
Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
Greg McCarroll wrote on Freitag, 8. Juni 2001 11:11 > And some pieces of software just wont be able to be plugged > in - why can't i run Samba on Windows? Why would you want to? AFAIK Samba implements the SMB protocol, which is the native resource (file, printer, ...) sharing protocol of Windows. So if you have Windows, you've already got an SMB client and server running. Sounds a bit like "How can I port MKS's korn shell to Unix? Is it possible?". Well, maybe the analogy is not so hot, but it's the best I can think of. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
* Struan Donald ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > * at 08/06 11:35 +0100 Robin Szemeti said: > > On Fri, 08 Jun 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote: > > > > > calling wordpad an editor is as laughable as calling vi an editor ;-) > > > > arrghh .. burn the heretic! ... speak brother, for the truth will out .. > > have you been using [x{0,1]]emacs again ... ? > > and thus comes the inevitable end[1] to all unix geek discussions... > No, we haven't taught the discussion to send mail yet. -- Greg McCarrollhttp://217.34.97.146/~gem/
Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
* at 08/06 11:54 +0100 Robin Szemeti said: > > pah! .. tis written in the scripture ... 'let he who hath one eye be > blessed' .. clearly the 'one eye' is a reference to the one 'i' in vi .. > its *obvious* innit ... I shall found my entire religion on this shadowy > fact wriiten by our lord himself ( or one of his followers, or perhaps > someone just mistranslated it .. or made it up ) however ... if anyone > questions me I shall explain that 'thats what faith is all about' and mark > them up for burning as well ... in future years this may be marked down as the dawning of the second dark age. struan
Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
On Fri, 08 Jun 2001, Struan Donald wrote: > * at 08/06 11:35 +0100 Robin Szemeti said: > > On Fri, 08 Jun 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote: > > > > > calling wordpad an editor is as laughable as calling vi an editor ;-) > > > > arrghh .. burn the heretic! ... speak brother, for the truth will out .. > > have you been using [x{0,1]]emacs again ... ? > > and thus comes the inevitable end[1] to all unix geek discussions... > > struan > > [1] or at least end to the bit not based on flames and blind prejudice pah! .. tis written in the scripture ... 'let he who hath one eye be blessed' .. clearly the 'one eye' is a reference to the one 'i' in vi .. its *obvious* innit ... I shall found my entire religion on this shadowy fact wriiten by our lord himself ( or one of his followers, or perhaps someone just mistranslated it .. or made it up ) however ... if anyone questions me I shall explain that 'thats what faith is all about' and mark them up for burning as well ... -- Robin Szemeti Redpoint Consulting Limited Real Solutions For A Virtual World
Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
* at 08/06 11:35 +0100 Robin Szemeti said: > On Fri, 08 Jun 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote: > > > calling wordpad an editor is as laughable as calling vi an editor ;-) > > arrghh .. burn the heretic! ... speak brother, for the truth will out .. > have you been using [x{0,1]]emacs again ... ? and thus comes the inevitable end[1] to all unix geek discussions... struan [1] or at least end to the bit not based on flames and blind prejudice :)
Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
On Fri, 08 Jun 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote: > calling wordpad an editor is as laughable as calling vi an editor ;-) arrghh .. burn the heretic! ... speak brother, for the truth will out .. have you been using [x{0,1]]emacs again ... ? -- Robin Szemeti Redpoint Consulting Limited Real Solutions For A Virtual World
Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
* Dean ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > There is entirely to much DLL upgrading for my liking at every possible > > chance with Windows software/service pack. I don't believe that this can > > really lead to a stable system. > > Win2k address a lot of these issues with its dll and system file control > programs. If you change a dll that's needed and the replacement dll > doesn't work then the change gets tagged as a failure and rolled back by > the system. It seems to work reasonably well, we've had no major dll screw > ups. how is this implemented? at filesystem level, i.e. spotting changes of files or via special install programs? will it work if some lunatic simple copies (or retores) a backup over the DLLs actually now that i mention it, time to mention the fact that although windows has a lot of software very little of it supports any concept of filesystems permission that has only been available since NT came about > > > * No compiler > > > Why can't there be a compiler? Please just a simple one, so that if > > i want to write some little program for myself I can do it there and > > then. Its not that much to ask, it would just mean that when you get > > a fresh windows box you dont have to go and waste time installing > > additional software, and there are other examples of this ... > > (You said this is about servers) > Compilers on servers are a bad idea both from the security perspective > and from a stability angle. I don't care how good a coder you are, your > not writing code on the server. In a real production environment you need to > test it and do change control. I have an issue with this since i got a > phone call at 3am this morning after someone did just this. > > I only leave an interpreter on servers for my own convenience and even then > i shouldn't. Of course if your server runs an interpreted language then yes > you need it :) > thats fine, but what should i do the development on? maybe it should at least be an option in the install process, and i don't mean an option asking "Would you like Windows to grab your Credit Card number and order yet another expensive M$ product for you? It will be know trouble we can send the order when we connect to log other information about you and your installed software." > > Editor > Wordpad :) calling wordpad an editor is as laughable as calling vi an editor ;-) > > > Cron > The at command or the task scheduler. > fine, how do you run something everyday at 3am? -- Greg McCarrollhttp://217.34.97.146/~gem/
Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 10:11:13AM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: > Well here are some reasons why i prefer UNIX to Windows * for servers, I'm going to play devils advocate. I've been using Win2k for the last four months and have a basic grasp of it. Its difficult because i agree with a lot of your comments. > * MSDN > Ok, I've just checked and it appears that more information is now > available on the web for free, but it wasn't like this a while ago. No it wasn't, Microsoft are learning. Its taking a bloody long time but they are learning. > There is entirely to much DLL upgrading for my liking at every possible > chance with Windows software/service pack. I don't believe that this can > really lead to a stable system. Win2k address a lot of these issues with its dll and system file control programs. If you change a dll that's needed and the replacement dll doesn't work then the change gets tagged as a failure and rolled back by the system. It seems to work reasonably well, we've had no major dll screw ups. > I want the servers to look different from the desktops, I don't want Er... I have a Linux box on my desk and we use a number of Win2k servers... mine does look different ;) > * No compiler > Why can't there be a compiler? Please just a simple one, so that if > i want to write some little program for myself I can do it there and > then. Its not that much to ask, it would just mean that when you get > a fresh windows box you dont have to go and waste time installing > additional software, and there are other examples of this ... (You said this is about servers) Compilers on servers are a bad idea both from the security perspective and from a stability angle. I don't care how good a coder you are, your not writing code on the server. In a real production environment you need to test it and do change control. I have an issue with this since i got a phone call at 3am this morning after someone did just this. I only leave an interpreter on servers for my own convenience and even then i shouldn't. Of course if your server runs an interpreted language then yes you need it :) > Editor Wordpad :) > Scripting language Windows scripting host can be installed when Win2k is. It handles jscript, vbs and can do perl python and rexx. You also have batch which is starting to become impressive on its own. > Cron The at command or the task scheduler. > * Final reason (for now) > I don't trust them. Agreed. Dean -- Profanity is the one language all programmers understand --- Anon
Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
* at 08/06 10:11 +0100 Greg McCarroll said: > > Well here are some reasons why i prefer UNIX to Windows * for servers, > they are pretty much personal reasons and i'm sure not everyone agrees with > them. I'd also add that is something hardwary does go wrong and the box stops running, windows boxes seem much more inclined to spontaneously corrupt. especially in the case of the power suddenly stopping ("if we just move that box forward a bit... oh, the lights have gone out"). struan
Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
* Jonathan Peterson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > >At the end of the day, the simple fact is that Windows 2000 crashes more > >frequently than *n[ui]x does -- this surely is unquestioned fact. > > I just questioned it. Win2k appears to be a very nice OS, although I've > never used it at the server end. It may have all sorts of scalability > issues and general crapnesses but I've not seen any evidence that it (or NT > 4 for that matter) crashed more than Unix. There appear to be near infinite > numbers of people who will testify that they worked in some huge IT place > and all the NT servers were rebooted daily and all the nix machines had > been running since 1988 with no reboots. There are just as many people who > will say that they worked in similar environments where both systems hardly > ever needed to be rebooted. I've known banks (GS) where solaris machines > were rebooted daily or weekly. > > As for my very limited experience, neither Solaris nor NT crash during > normal use as server platforms. I've known NT screw up during some hardware > installs and some application installs. But then I've known Solaris do the > same for some application installs. > > Well here are some reasons why i prefer UNIX to Windows * for servers, they are pretty much personal reasons and i'm sure not everyone agrees with them. * GUI I really don't want to have a server running a GUI, it adds at least some overhead, encourages people to `work on the server' and as its an additional process may add additional security concerns. While its possible (at least it was) to configure NT not to have a GUI, the whole toolset is designed to have a GUI and GUI tools available. So with Windows you are pretty much stuck with it, with UNIX, X isn't tightly integrated into the OS. * Mature Server Software Windows leads the world in desktop software, however it doesn't have as much mature server side software, and i'm not just talking about server processes, i'm thinking about Cron, Procmail, Perl, etc. The software that you use to administer and carry out processing with is just as important on a server as your httpd. Windows simply doesn't have as much mature software available on it, and when software is ported from UNIX it often suffers in functionality (e.g. Perl and fork). * There is only one Windows Imagine if every car manufacturor decided to use acme car alarm 2000, car thieves would love it. They'd get a simple acme car alarm disabler kit and off they'd go. This is what is starting to happen with Windows and it will continue to happen. I don't want to be as easy to hack as every other machine on the planet and be part of that great big red bullseye. When the Internet Worm came about it was possible due to there being 2 major types of system mostly configured in the same way, I think we'll see another worm soon but it will attack 2 or 3 types of windows. * MSDN I'd love to read more about Win 32 programming, and the best source is MSDN but it costs too much! Why for once can't they do the right thing and let this information be available to all. Ok, I've just checked and it appears that more information is now available on the web for free, but it wasn't like this a while ago. * DLLs "Trust me I'm know what I'm doing" - a windows install process changing your DLLs for you. There is entirely to much DLL upgrading for my liking at every possible chance with Windows software/service pack. I don't believe that this can really lead to a stable system. * Red Box vs. Blue Box I want the servers to look different from the desktops, I don't want the head accountant telling the CEO that his son is a wiz on windows and he can go and tweak our server for us. I don't want the requisitions officer to purchase from the same supplier of desktop hardware for server hardware. I just want them to be different. * MS Windows running MS IIS and MS Exchange using MS I do not believe that MS can be the best programmers of ... operating systems databases internet servers mail servers They are good at company structure, but surely they cannot position there company to be the best at everything on a level playing field. And thats just it, its not a level playing field, superior software will be hindered by the secret APIs, etc. And some pieces of software just wont be able to be plugged in - why can't i run Samba on Windows? Can I? I don't know but I doubt it will be easy. * SSH connecting through a cli interface from a remote location where you have limited bandwidth is much better than using a gui remote control tool. and because of windows GUI focus (see earlier GUI point) it simply will never support remote CLI connections as well. * No compiler Why can't there be a compiler? Please just a simple one, so that if i want to write some little p
Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
> >At the end of the day, the simple fact is that Windows 2000 crashes more >frequently than *n[ui]x does -- this surely is unquestioned fact. I just questioned it. Win2k appears to be a very nice OS, although I've never used it at the server end. It may have all sorts of scalability issues and general crapnesses but I've not seen any evidence that it (or NT 4 for that matter) crashed more than Unix. There appear to be near infinite numbers of people who will testify that they worked in some huge IT place and all the NT servers were rebooted daily and all the nix machines had been running since 1988 with no reboots. There are just as many people who will say that they worked in similar environments where both systems hardly ever needed to be rebooted. I've known banks (GS) where solaris machines were rebooted daily or weekly. As for my very limited experience, neither Solaris nor NT crash during normal use as server platforms. I've known NT screw up during some hardware installs and some application installs. But then I've known Solaris do the same for some application installs. -- Jonathan Peterson Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092 [EMAIL PROTECTED]