| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Windows Server 2003 overtakes Solaris 9 | |
|
||
| Time: 04:24 EST/09:24 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Jonathan Tigner | ||
|
The number of sites running Windows Server 2003 has overtaken Solaris 9, in spite of the fact that Windows Server 2003 does not launch until later on this month. Solaris 9 launched in May 2002. However, Sun seems to take relaxed view about envangelisng new operating system versions; even www.sun.com is still running Solaris 8. www.microsoft.com is at the opposite end of the product advocacy spectrum and started running Windows 2003 last July. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 312 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:42:42 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 12071 (203.217.70.238) at 4/14/2003 9:20:10 AM |
|
"www.microsoft.com is at the opposite end of the product advocacy spectrum and started running Windows 2003 last July."
Fairly much says it all really. What respectable company with more than a few hundred employees would risk putting on a brand new OS into their production environment, let alone a beta-grade OS!? And you wonder why most people don't put Microsoft and security in the same sentence! Honestly, who is suprised to hear this? Most companies are very happy to stay on Solaris 8 until 9 has been proven, the same thing they do when it comes time to upgrading any piece of software, whether it be a server, a firewall, database server, application server etc etc. First comment from the Linux camp will be laughter followed by comments regarding gun-ho Windows administrators! |
| #2 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 4/14/2003 11:15:08 AM |
|
chris_kabuki - "First comment from the Linux camp will be laughter followed by comments regarding gun-ho Windows administrators! "
Has Linux ever made it out of beta status? |
| #3 By 61 (65.32.171.144) at 4/14/2003 5:04:49 PM |
|
Pjotr:
Microsoft distributes 180day evals of the final version, which is easilly upgraded to the full version when it comes out. |
| #4 By 15705 (24.170.151.19) at 4/14/2003 7:01:32 PM |
| Because there is no Netcraft entry in the Source list. The link speaks for itself. |
| #5 By 2459 (24.170.151.19) at 4/14/2003 7:22:18 PM |
|
"With Microsoft it's always the next product that's going to be stable and good enough to use forever, always "the next one" carries that claim."
cba-3.14, MS has never made the claim that one of their products would be good enough to use forever. They know that technology evolves and customer needs change. In regards to the drive to upgrade, many people still use NT 4 after almost a decade. Still, what incentive does Sun give anyone to upgrade? When the company doesn't even trust their own software to run their business, why should anyone else be eager to upgrade? How does the customer know that Sun even tested their OS on more than a small testing server? And, as the company's focus shifts to Linux and more of their management tools suffer in performance because they are needlessly converted to Java, why bother purchasing new versions of Solaris? Sun is helping to kill their own market, and they don't seem to realise it. Also, with more alternative (and cheaper) 64-bit platforms coming to market, Sun becomes more irrelevant each day. |
| #6 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 4/14/2003 8:20:27 PM |
|
#5 That's such a lovely story, it really is, but it doesn't happen in any reputable company that takes security seriously! Have you worked for a large company? I'm wondering because that's something you learn fairly quickly. It doesn't matter how confident you are in your product, you're simply asking for trouble by running ANY OS in your production environment when that OS has not been thoroughly tested - and you don't even think about running a beta-grade OS. Would you feel safe if your financial institution kept on upgrading software the instant it came out? Or whilst it was still in beta? What don't YOU get about that? This is just another instance of Microsoft inviting critisism over their security.
#7 Linux the kernel? Linux/GNU the whole distribution? There is quite a distinct branch off between tested code and development code and you don't have administrators rushing off to install the latest 2.5.xx kernel on their server as soon as it's out, most are in fact still running 2.2.xx even though the 2.4.xx branch is stable. #12 You're kidding right! "When the company doesn't even trust their own software to run their business" Do you have any evidence to back this up? Or is your evidence the fact that they don't go and installa beta-grade OS in their production environment? Trust is built up by a reckless security policy? What a joke! "How does the customer know that Sun even tested their OS on more than a small testing server?" The same guarantee they have that MS tested their software! You can tell me about all the testing MS do until you are blue in the face, but so can Sun, and in the end I don't really know how much testing is done on either side! |
| #7 By 2459 (24.170.151.19) at 4/14/2003 9:38:26 PM |
|
"You can't buy Win 98 any more."
A quick search of PriceGrabber shows Windows98 for $61.00. That said, what credible reason would one have to want to purchase Windows98 (besides maybe price)? Anyway, to provide parity, I can still buy NT4 direct from MS. This is 2 versions downlevel from the current version just as Solaris 7 is two versions downlevel from current (can't get older versions direct from Sun). Sun is more of the mind of "How can we keep people in long-term service contracts during the time they are between buying new models of our expensive hardware?", and, "Who cares if Java is slow and memory intensive if we can sell our new model to speed things up a little?". I agree with your final assessment though. chris_kabuki, you're the one that has to be joking here. MS is pretty public about their testing processes. MS gains the most valuable data from testing under real-world usage. Every server at MS isn't running the beta product during testing, but they do deploy to a limited number at different intervals to gain feedback on issues that they may miss if not for real-world testing. The Windows Media 9 Series content offered during the WMP9 beta was served on beta Windows Server 2003 servers for instance. The Windows beta servers, parts of MSDN, and portions of MSNBC were also served using the beta. This helps test real-world deployment, scalability, usability, etc. Also, though MS states in their beta documentation that the product is not intended for use in production environments, the beta product is often stable and robust enough for this level of testing for many people. They don't necessarily switch their whole company over to the product at that stage, but it does help in further improving the product and testing for interaction/integration issues, making the RTM that much better. As for security, MS regularly hosts a beta website just for the purpose of letting hackers have at their OS. The team also does threat modeling and analysis for each product. This, combined with the feedback from millions of private testers and CPP customers, helps to provide a more accurate testbed than any limited lab tests. Trust is built up by a reckless security policy? What a joke!" What's Sun's excuse since Solaris 9 has been RTM for almost a full year? |
| #8 By 15705 (24.170.151.19) at 4/14/2003 9:43:09 PM |
|
As I said, ArkiMage, the link speaks for itself.
I linked to Netcraft. The Source attribute says ActiveWin because there is no entry for Netcraft in ActiveWin's database. Going to the link in the Headline will take you to Netcraft. |
| #9 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 4/15/2003 1:47:40 AM |
|
*** STANDARD DISCLAIMER:
Netcraft's results are questionable and not scientifically obtained and are therefore suspect or completely bogus. yadda, yadda, yadda. Not that I wish to defend Solaris 9, and I suspect that they're probably pretty close, they are suspect and I can't take them seriously. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 312 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:42:42 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
