Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)

2001-06-11 Thread Philip Newton

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)

2001-06-09 Thread Greg McCarroll

* 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/



Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)

2001-06-08 Thread Jonathan Peterson



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]




Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)

2001-06-08 Thread Greg McCarroll

* 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 program for myself I can do 

Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)

2001-06-08 Thread Dean

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)

2001-06-08 Thread Greg McCarroll

* 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)

2001-06-08 Thread Robin Szemeti

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)

2001-06-08 Thread Struan Donald

* 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)

2001-06-08 Thread Robin Szemeti

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)

2001-06-08 Thread Struan Donald

* 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)

2001-06-08 Thread Greg McCarroll

* 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)

2001-06-08 Thread Philip Newton

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)

2001-06-08 Thread Chris Benson

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