Microsoft Corp. gave a sneak preview yesterday of new functionality in Windows Server 2003 R2, an update to Windows Server that the vendor plans to ship next year.
During a keynote presentation by Corporate Vice President Andy Lees at the Tech Ed conference in San Diego, Microsoft demonstrated an early version of R2, which hasn’t yet reached the beta stage. More at Computerworld.
I love to hear from these so-called analysts, like the one featured in this article from Directions on Microsoft, Inc.
First of all, these guys 99 out of a 100 don’t know what they are talking about.
Second, their job is to hype stuff that Microsoft does so that later they can learn these irrelevant features and pose as experts to their clients. That’s how they make a profit! Doh!
Well, of course this guy was going to say something like: “it shows that they will have some really appealing new capabilities that will help span the transition to Longhorn Server. These aren’t just some things that are nice to have.” Instead, of saying that this is irrelevant because similar features have been in the public domain for years at no cost to consumers.
Again, these are not analysts. These are Microsoft consumer-markets/press lobbyists.
Active Directory Federation Services (from the article)
Sounds like some non-understandable Star Trek solution to me (I don’t know, in order to divert more power to the structural integrty of the hull or somthing)
Instead, of saying that this is irrelevant because similar features have been in the public domain for years at no cost to consumers.
However, I’m not sure your statement is really any better. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that you didn’t bother to give a single example, thus making you appear at about the same level of intellegence as those you critize. How about a point-by-point analysis of the new features and explaining where you can get them all on a single platform? Not only would that be informative, but would be a much more interesting read than what you just posted.
The features aren’t irrelevant to IT departments that support 1000+ people in multiple continents, that need device conformation and data reliability as well as trying to be more economical with bandwidth costs. 3 T3s still cost around 11k a month.
Until now the only real solution that existed was netware and netware has never been economical with bandwidth.
RDC offers the ability to transfer only a change made in a file when replicating instead of the entire file. The hub-and-spoke model is part of Version 2 of the Windows Server file-replication services, which in Version 1 already offered full mesh replication.
This isn’t new except to windows.
I also like how the second key feature forces your clients to have all the latest patches from microsoft (and I guess MS’s Anti-Virus definitions too) before the network lets you connect.
I had no idea what the hell the author was talking about for the other two key points he was trying to make, but I doubt they did too becuase of all the one sentance paragraphs to make the body look bigger. If he say’s it’s cool and it looks like he can write alot about it then it must be so I guess.
This article receives a score of (3/4) yawns for not being informative and hyping stuff than doesn’t sound at all that exciting. I survived the article without being angry after reading the hype so i pray it will die soon.
Dude, what this fellow wrote was a comment. What you want is a review. Since you are the interested party, I suggest you write the review (that you are asking for) and explain how Microsoft is coming up with new, never before seen technology that is not in the “public domain” already.
I agree that Darius is asking a commentor for a review. Sure, his comment post on OSNews.com doesn’t have the detail to convince a CIO that x is better than y, but that’s a far cry from what he was aiming for!
It’s nice that WSS is going to be include in base product, will make my job abit easier that’s for sure. As it stands i don’t have many issues with Windows 2003 (or Exchange 2003 for that fact) quite stable in my expierence
who has been forced to upgrade to 2003?
Wow! I was the one that wrote the original note, and we have someone coming from the same Comcast node with the same view! Kool! I knew I made some friends sonner or later.
)))
Darius is somewhat correct. I should have added more meat. It is also true that I would then be writing a “Rview”. The point was not about Microsoft tech. I use their stuff everyday. It was ’bout analysts coming up w/ good things to say about tech they will never use.
Keep them cominggg!
Can you imagine those poor sods who were forced to upgrade from perfectly good 2000 installs to 2003 installs now have to upgrade yet again next year?
Forced ? Who was forced ?
This sounds like “Win2003 for MegaCorps” release yet again offering little reason for the vast majority of businesses to upgrade.
So don’t.
BTW, Microsoft recently announced it was going to extend operating system support from 7 to 10 years.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/applications/0,39020384,39155842,0…
I wouldn’t expect to read that on slashdot though.
Nobody has been “forced” to upgrade to 2003. Most of the heavy Windows shops went willingly, and for a host of good reasons…
Not claiming W2003 to be a perfect thing; but I’ve seen it BSOD only once, and it was because of an admin error.No small feat in a shop with over 30 servers running 2003.
Nothing is “crash-proof”, but with a skilled admin staff; W2003 is damn close to it.
The stability of any network all comes down to the people running it. There are no exceptions to that rule.
“The stability of any network all comes down to the people running it. There are no exceptions to that rule.”
The vast majority of the people who post here are clueless to what it takes to admin a production network. They think all you have to do is to install Linux on all you machines and they will magically take care of themselves.
It is an OS not a religion.
“Active Directory Federation Services (from the article)”
Sounds like some non-understandable Star Trek solution to me (I don’t know, in order to divert more power to the structural integrty of the hull or somthing)
Well, from my understanding, it sounds like a copy of what Project Liberty is. Maybe this is what the whole “intellectual property” deal was about; Microsoft getting compatibility with project liberty through the back door.
Lord knows it would be hard for Microsoft to come out and say, “we admit it, we have secret desires of lust towards project liberty”.
Yo mean coolnesss! Where in NVA are you!?
Nope – you got it wrong.
Install linux on the servers and they will not magically look after themselves. The admin will do that, that is why he is paid.
A linux admin will almost always know what he is doing… not like these people who have PAID for MCSE qualifications
[Hub and spoke replication] isn’t new except to windows.
While this is most likely the truth, do you have any other examples of it? Beyond that, the only point of the article is that it is new to Windows, and is a useful feature.
I also like how the second key feature forces your clients to have all the latest patches from microsoft (and I guess MS’s Anti-Virus definitions too) before the network lets you connect.
That’s a strawman-version of what the 2nd point stated, which was that the network’s administrator can control whether or not clients need these things to connect to the network. Up-to-date virus protection and patches was simply given as an example of the types of requirements the administrator can put in place.
I had no idea what the hell the author was talking about for the other two key points he was trying to make, but I doubt they did too becuase of all the one sentance paragraphs to make the body look bigger.
They’re not presented as paragraphs, but rather as bullet points. The third appears to be a method by which users can move [federate identities] between networks [corporate boundaries], without opening the two networks completely to one another. The statement was very succinct, and probably taken directly from some pamphlet or powerpoint presentation, but it says everything that needs to be said (and also states that it used to be called TrustBridge, which would probably give you more information on google, here’s the first hit: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2002/Jun02/06-06Trustbridg… ).
The fourth bullet point is fairly easy to understand, though lacking in detail on how it actually works without VPN. There doesn’t really seem to be any more significant information available about this technology so far, except that it may be dependant on the other technologies listed in these bullet points (primarily Active Directory Federation Services and client inspection and isolation… ie federate an identity to the internet and use inspection and isolation to determine whether they are going to be safe within the network).
If he say’s it’s cool and it looks like he can write alot about it then it must be so I guess.
This article receives a score of (3/4) yawns for not being informative and hyping stuff than doesn’t sound at all that exciting. I survived the article without being angry after reading the hype so i pray it will die soon.
Frankly, I’m amazed that no one really picked up on the statement that this won’t be a free release. Then again, I probably shouldn’t be surprised that no one read the entire article, despite it’s lack of either length or depth.
Nope – you got it wrong.
Install linux on the servers and they will not magically look after themselves. The admin will do that, that is why he is paid.
Which is exactly why he got it right, not wrong. Your network (or server) is only as secure as your administrators can make it, which is directly related to how capable your administrators are with whatever OS and hardware you are using. Linux is no more secure with incompetant administration.
A linux admin will almost always know what he is doing… not like these people who have PAID for MCSE qualifications
This just simply isn’t the case. A random linux admin is no different from a random MCSE. Some of them will know how to secure a network and some won’t. There are plenty of people out there that can get your servers running on either OS that don’t know how to lock them down. MCSE simply guarantees an ability to pass a test that doesn’t necessarily involve the level of knowledge required to keep things secure. They can design and setup a Microsoft network with some level of competance IF they actually remember what they needed to know to take the test, but the maintenance and security of that network is something that requires continual improvement of an individual’s knowledge base, which is not something that can be easily tested.
People making blind assumptions about the security of linux and the capability of it’s administrators is exactly why the entire network went down at the school I was attending in 96/97, and that was just a virus.
“A linux admin will almost always know what he is doing… not like these people who have PAID for MCSE qualifications”
It all comes down to hands on experience. Either the admin has it, or he doesn’t. Matters not what OS it happens to be.
The best admins have years of experience with several different OS and most importantly the interaction between them.
Having a ton of experience with just operating systems alone won’t get you far these days. Toss in a good deal of experience with routers, telecommunications, management, politics, budgeting, and not the least of which PR. Add the time required to attain all of those skills and it brings the average age of a good admin to about 45.
You are correct about one thing; buying an MSCE or RHCE cert isn’t going to get you far. It wouldn’t get you past the pre-employment exams used to filter out exactly those people.
You said…”People making blind assumptions about the security of linux and the capability of it’s administrators is exactly why the entire network went down at the school I was attending in 96/97, and that was just a virus.”
Excuse me ?
your entire network went down with a virus ?
come again…
are you saying that your network was running on linux and it was taken out by a virus ? hmmmm I would love to hear more.
or
are you saying that because of your network admins poor experience, that “parts” of the network were taken out by a virus, (I will not mention they were probably windows machines)
I do agree with you though, and if you read my post, you will notice I said ALMOST all… I do know quite a few network admins, and some of them are MCSE people, they are the ones who have not got a clue. The ones running linux, solaris or unix servers all know their business inside out.
Granted there will always be the guy who tinkers on his home network then bluffs his way to getting a network admin job somewhere, then dutifully makes his way to destroy the whole network, but as Verbatim said, it is up to the HR department to root these muppets out.
>Which is exactly why he got it right, not wrong. Your
>network >(or server) is only as secure as your
>administrators can make > it, which is directly related
>to how capable your > administrators are with whatever OS
> and hardware you are using.
True for most but you miss one valid point if a OS has some serious flaw (Windows) it will never, no matter how hard the adminstrator will work, be as secure as OS’s who are more intial secure (BSD/Solaris/Linux)
>Linux is no more secure with incompetant administration.
Depens on the phase if you say after install..Linux is more secure than any Windows known to mankind.
But is Windows as secure with an competant administrator? i doubt it has many holes/bugs/flaws etc. to trust it in a secure envoirment. Smart companies run servers on Solaris, Unix or Linux not Windows. I would prefer BSD or Linux because i can look at the source and because it freely usable.
Excuse me ?
your entire network went down with a virus ?
come again…
are you saying that your network was running on linux and it was taken out by a virus ? hmmmm I would love to hear more.
or
are you saying that because of your network admins poor experience, that “parts” of the network were taken out by a virus, (I will not mention they were probably windows machines)
All of the Linux machines on the network were taken down by a virus, which essentially meant the network was down (since the Linux machines were the only non-admin accessable links to the Solaris machines, and controlled access to the rest of the campus and to the outside world. The reason it was such a major hit was because of a combination of the admins having little experience (most of the admins were students, both grad and undergrad) and everyone assuming that Linux was safe (because it was the first virus to hit Linux). The Windows, Solaris, Mac, and DOS machines were only affected in that they couldn’t get to the outside world and the campus computer center (except that the Solaris machines were mostly in the computer center and couldn’t get to anywhere else on campus).
I do agree with you though, and if you read my post, you will notice I said ALMOST all… I do know quite a few network admins, and some of them are MCSE people, they are the ones who have not got a clue. The ones running linux, solaris or unix servers all know their business inside out.
Most of the MCSE people I know got them while they were already on the job, and most of them have many other certs, mostly hardware (especially routers and such) related. Most of them also have experience in administration of at least 2 non-MS platforms, and most do not work as admins currently (instead they work as developers, managers, etc.). Some of them are clueless, some are not. Some are simply behind a bit, as they don’t do it on a day-to-day basis. In the end, whether or not I’d trust them with our network has nothing to do with whether or not they have the MCSE, because our company was sending people to get them left and right 5 years ago.
Granted there will always be the guy who tinkers on his home network then bluffs his way to getting a network admin job somewhere, then dutifully makes his way to destroy the whole network, but as Verbatim said, it is up to the HR department to root these muppets out.
Exactly, and it doesn’t matter whether they got this or that certification, or claim they’re a “Windows admin” or “Linux admin” (in fact, I think I’d boot anyone that claimed one or the other rather than “network admin” and then listed experience with individual architectures and operating systems).
True for most but you miss one valid point if a OS has some serious flaw (Windows) it will never, no matter how hard the adminstrator will work, be as secure as OS’s who are more intial secure (BSD/Solaris/Linux)
An OS is only as secure as it’s configuration (and the configuration of the network in which it resides). This is true regardless of OS, and blanket statements can not generally be made unless an OS is stripped of all configuration (in which case it can’t be secured if a hole is found until it’s patched). Anyone that leaves Windows, *BSD, Solaris, or any Linux distribution the way it was installed should not be getting paid as an administrator. Of course, if it’s behind a secure firewall with tightly controlled access, then it doesn’t usually matter what OS it is (because the network configuration negates most of the security issues). If you put a box on an open connection to the world, then it’s just a matter of time (though for a small handful of systems it’s more time than others).
Depens on the phase if you say after install..Linux is more secure than any Windows known to mankind.
But is Windows as secure with an competant administrator? i doubt it has many holes/bugs/flaws etc. to trust it in a secure envoirment. Smart companies run servers on Solaris, Unix or Linux not Windows. I would prefer BSD or Linux because i can look at the source and because it freely usable.
Many companies run servers on all 4 (or even 5 counting *BSD). Where and how they are used can change drastically even within the company. Windows servers are very common on corporate intranets, especially in remote sites, but it’s rare that the outside world can get anywhere near those servers. Email is still commonly run on Windows, as well (thanks to Exchange Server), but is only really accessable in that you can send email to recipients inside the network, and it may not (usually does not) go directly to the Exchange Server from the outside world. The problem is generally that the Windows servers have to in some way be isolated from the Windows clients while still performing whatever function they were put in place for. Some companies manage this pretty well, while others do not. Of all the servers a company may have, no matter what OS they run, you’re only likely to see a very small percentage of them, and those will be running IIS or Apache, depending on how much risk the company is willing to take with that particular function. Almost any other port on that server should be locked down, and chances are that it will be isolated from the intranet as well as any internal server is isolated from the internet.
Looking at the source is great for individuals (I’m modifying a particular version of VNC at the moment for a customer), but most corporations just don’t care. They want to know what the average turn-around time is for a vulnerability, and who they go to when they find a problem. If the source is open, they’ll simply look for a company to provide the turn-around time and response they need (which is a good thing for many of them, as they may not find this with MS, Apple, HP, IBM, etc.), or expect their IT to take care of it (which isn’t always a good thing, depending on the competance of their IT in development).
>The problem is generally that the Windows servers have to
> in some way be isolated from the Windows clients while
> still performing whatever function they were put in place
> for.
Huh? You mean Windows servers are being isolated from public
networks by BSD and Unix firewalls / Routers.
Most things a Windows server can do a free downloadable BSD/Linux iso can do, and mostly better, more, more stable, less problems and more choice. Windows server is becoming obsolute thats why they try and shuff .Net trough your troath.
>Looking at the source is great for individuals
>but most corporations just don’t care.
Its more the other way around…
How long has it been since you actually worked/been in a corperate envoirment? Here in the Netherlands there are a lot of companies who looking the open-source and Linux in general. I switch Small/medium sized businesses, schools, and non-profit organistations from Windows to BSD/Linux every single day. I never met any person who where doing the oposite. What is do see a lot is that MS software, like Windwos small business server , prody server , internet
server or something like that. etc. are being installed in companies with 5-10 employees. Those companies are paying a lot for this software and most of the time the companies/people that install the MS software are unqualified and merly do setup.exe and click click. Those companies are glad we come in format the drive and put decent free software on it wich gives them the time to concentrate on their work instead of the problems the MS software is making. In large companies there is better
qualified personal and more money so they will keep it together but if Linux is growing the coming 10 years at the
same rate it soes today. Windows server will become obsolute.
Its hard to forcast the future but its not difficult to see that Microsoft will try and tie the customers more and more to their platform/programs.
True for most but you miss one valid point if a OS has some serious flaw (Windows) it will never, […]
Flaws such as…?
But is Windows as secure with an competant administrator? i doubt it has many holes/bugs/flaws etc. to trust it in a secure envoirment. Smart companies run servers on Solaris, Unix or Linux not Windows.
There are thousands of smart, profitable companies running their infrastructure on Windows.
Huh? You mean Windows servers are being isolated from public networks by BSD and Unix firewalls / Routers.
Not all firewalls and routers are based on Unix.
Not to mention any intelligent admin isolates his unix machines from the outside world just as much as his Windows machines.
Most things a Windows server can do a free downloadable BSD/Linux iso can do, and mostly better, more, more stable, less problems and more choice.
Maybe for trivial services like simple file and print sharing.
Windows server is becoming obsolute thats why they try and shuff .Net trough your troath.
Windows Server, if you’re adminning a network full of Windows machines (which most of them are) is vastly superior to the alternatives.
[ Looking at the source is great for individuals
but most corporations just don’t care. ]
Its more the other way around…
No, it’s not. It’s almost always cheaper for corporations to buy off the shelf tools that meet their requirements than it is for them to pay programmers to modify existing code.
How long has it been since you actually worked/been in a corperate envoirment?
I do work in a corporate environment.
Here in the Netherlands there are a lot of companies who looking the open-source and Linux in general. I switch Small/medium sized businesses, schools, and non-profit organistations from Windows to BSD/Linux every single day.
And probably for their trivial needs it is a better choice. If all they want to do is simple simple file and print sharing, basic email services and maybe some web serving, a Linux distro will probably do the job as well as a Windows Server for less $$$.
But if you’re trying to centrally manage networks full of Windows machines, run complex email/collaboration services and the like, Windows is better.
In large companies there is better
qualified personal and more money so they will keep it together but if Linux is growing the coming 10 years at the
same rate it soes today. Windows server will become obsolute.
It’s not going to become obselete while it offers better functionality and lower *overall* cost. Keep in mind the money spent *buying* the software is the cheapest part. It’s the money spent *using* it that matters.
Its hard to forcast the future but its not difficult to see that Microsoft will try and tie the customers more and more to their platform/programs.
As does every vendor, what’s your point ?
>Flaws such as…?
Right living under a rock or being in denial, fine i am not
going to take you on my hand.
>There are thousands of smart, profitable companies running
>their infrastructure on Windows.
Yes? I always see big Unix irons backing up.
>Not all firewalls and routers are based on Unix.
No, but how common are Windows Firewalls than?
>Not to mention any intelligent admin isolates his unix
>machines from the outside world just as much as his Windows
>machines.
A firewall / webserver a mostly running on Unix/BSD and a directly attached to public networks.
>Maybe for trivial services like simple file and print
>sharing.
Yeah right! Please stop being such an nip nack..LInux and BSD are capable of lots more than this. If you want to put your head in he sand fine but stop spreading FUD.
>Windows Server, if you’re adminning a network full of
>Windows machines (which most of them are) is vastly
>superior to the alternatives.
Novell?, IBM Domino etc..
vastly, in what way? Stop seeing the world trough your american glasses in Asia LARGE companies are full of LInux servers and workstations that is a grow market not America or Europe.
>No, it’s not. It’s almost always cheaper for corporations
>to buy off the shelf tools that meet their requirements
>than it is for them to pay programmers to modify existing
>code.
Yes it is. most off shelf tools do not work well in BIG envoirments.
>I do work in a corporate environment.
That question was for PainKiller not you.
>And probably for their trivial needs it is a better choice.
>If all they want to do is simple simple file and print
Here we go again..
>sharing, basic email services and maybe some web serving, a
>Linux distro will probably do the job as well as a Windows
>Server for less $$$.
Finally some sense
>But if you’re trying to centrally manage networks full of
>Windows machines, run complex email/collaboration services
>and the like, Windows is better.
Better in what way, is it better than IBM lotus Domino on Linux? Is it better than Novell? please…
Almost all email inthe world is going trough Unix servers,
almost all supercomputers are running Unix. Linux runs on supercomputers and not for simple file and print services. THats more a job for Windows server.
>It’s not going to become obselete while it offers better
>functionality and lower *overall* cost.
please where are those docs?
You look like a MS worker. Just spitting some BS in the air without backing it up. You better make it: i think.
>Keep in mind the money spent *buying* the software is the
>cheapest part.
Keep in mind that if you have over 5000 workstations and pay about 300 euro per workstation thats about an extra 1,5 million to spend. Its really happening.
>It’s the money spent *using* it that matters.
Yes so you are saying its cheaper to type a letter on Windows than under Unix? or what exactly?
>As does every vendor, what’s your point ?
That they are deperate.