| 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 |
 |
MS paper touts Unix in Hotmail's Win2k switch | |
|
||
| Time: 15:44 EST/20:44 GMT | News Source: The Register | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
An older MS internal whitepaper from August 2000 on switching Hotmail, which MS acquired in 1997, from front-end servers running FreeBSD and back-end database servers running Solaris to a whole farm running Win2K, reads like a veritable sales brochure for UNIX, but concludes that the company ought to set the right example by ensuring that each division "should eat its own dogfood." The whitepaper, by MS Windows 2000 Server Product Group member David Brooks, has been posted on the Web by Security Office, which says it discovered the item and numerous other confidential MS documents on a poorly protected server. There are a number of other fascinating documents posted, in which the careful reader will find a veritable treasure map for hacking the citadel, but the one I enjoyed best was the comparison between Win2K and UNIX. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 167 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:16:58 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 415 (68.54.10.120) at 11/21/2002 7:06:28 PM |
|
You know what's sad? I work with a few people that ACTUALLY BELIEVE the register is a reputable technology news source! ... some people just can't get their head out of there own ass long enough to see reality! This post was edited by IronCladLou on Thursday, November 21, 2002 at 19:07. |
| #2 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 11/21/2002 7:41:07 PM |
| baarod - Interesting. The way the Register and slashdot articles read, you'd think this was some sort of big win for software communism. :) |
| #3 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/21/2002 8:13:24 PM |
| Neo, they posted that what was acquired by Microsoft? |
| #4 By 1643 (205.240.158.3) at 11/21/2002 9:42:06 PM |
|
IMHO, this really shows some of Microsoft's strengths:
* They realize that they are not perfect...it 's a process, not a result. * They realize their mistakes and take measures to improve swiftly. It also shows how a massive UNIX site can migrate to the Windows platform successfully and realize the benefits (although I realize that their minuses as well, they are much less for those with a deep level of knowledge and experience of Win2k or Whistler) I couldn't happen over night, but it shows it can be done...and it would be much more difficult to swing the other direction. This post was edited by humor on Thursday, November 21, 2002 at 21:45. |
| #5 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/21/2002 11:03:29 PM |
|
hippie,
The memo didn't state that Windows 2000 was harder to administer. I said that the administration tools were not suited to the migration. Referring to Windows 2000 "its administrative model is not well suited to the conversion." That doesn't mean it is harder to administer. Footnote 3 refers, I believe, to FreeBSD, not Windows 2000. Twice the cost? If you only think of licensing and hardware, perhaps. If you think in terms of TCO, I think not. |
| #6 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/21/2002 11:16:05 PM |
|
"Those articles written by that outfit seem to biased against Microsoft anyways."
What outfit are you talking about? The hotmail.com migration paper was written by Microsoft employees. |
| #7 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/21/2002 11:19:33 PM |
|
The register didn't write the whitepaper, though.
Also, hippie, let me correct my previous cost statement. "No business analysis was undertaken to determine whether the benefit of the conversion would outweigh the notional cost of the Windows licenses." So, no analysis was made. |
| #8 By 1643 (207.46.137.253) at 11/21/2002 11:37:39 PM |
|
baarod, I definitely agree with you. In addition, Windows .Net server (and Windows XP) is extremely scriptable due to the WMI provider access to just about everything in the OS, AD, DNS, etc.
With VBScript, WMI, and the .Net cmd line tools (which you can now do anything at the cmd line, which you can do with the GUI) there will be no more complaints about lack of scriptability. This way you can administer any way you choose (GUI or cmd_), and now have the ability to script just about any setting, process, or administration task. Plus, w/ Microsoft Software update services, delivering security updates to your clients (and servers) will be much, much easier and will happen almost automatically. Which makes securing a large Windows network easier, IMHO, then other platforms. This post was edited by humor on Thursday, November 21, 2002 at 23:39. |
| #9 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/21/2002 11:43:19 PM |
|
hippie,
I think the reason they didn't look at cost other than the brief mention of license fees and also the fee difference between Windows 2000 Server and Windows 2000 Advanced Server, is that it was a technical analysis not a financial analysis. Since this was an internal paper, I see no reason that Microsoft would want too fool itself about cost comparisons. If they were presenting it to the public (which they weren't), though, I think your argument has merit. |
| #10 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/22/2002 3:13:30 AM |
| By a significant margin, the AW visitors read more articles from the most complained about sources (like the Register). If we as a community don't want to see stuff from the Register (or similar sources), we shouldn't read their stuff. Our actions of boycotting those news sources will speak volumes to the Active Network admins. |
| #11 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/22/2002 3:19:11 AM |
|
"And yet, this was on the Marketing FTP"
First of all, I don't think this was fetched from the same FTP server that the customer db was found and other marketing stuff a few days ago. Secondly if it was the same server, the server was used for several purposes. It was an FTP server for product support and had, among other things, numerous patches and hot fixes. If it was a marketting only server, PSS wouldn't have had anything on it. As for eating its own dogfood, I think Microsoft does a dang good job of it. You can bet a good portion of production servers are already running Windows .NET Server 2003 and production clients with Office 11 and VisualStudio .NET 2003. In like manner in coming months a they'll begin rollouts of "Titanium" and "Yukon" into production environments. |
| #12 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/22/2002 10:51:49 AM |
|
I've installed the .NET Server release candidate at home, and it's pretty bloody cool.
I agree with the other comments here that this article was written prior to the migration, and many of the lessons learned worked there way into features now found in win2k and .net server. |
| #13 By 1643 (207.46.137.250) at 11/22/2002 12:30:46 PM |
|
#33
Why would you want to disable GDI from ring 0 when about the 98% percent of users use the GUI for everything, why mess with the performance drawbacks of running GDI in a higher ring? With todays HW, it really is not a perff penalty, and if you use the standard VGA/VESA driver, there is no chance of stability issues. You can disable the GUI (change the shell in the registry) and administer everything through telnet. But why would you want to except remote admin and scripting...why can't you use both? There is no DOS in NT (only a emulated cmd shell), and you can use shell (cmd_) tools for just about everything in .NET (and most of Win2k today)? I have never had an issue with the registry on NT (from 3.51+) except a few that I have come across that had HW (bad array controller, bad HD, etc.)...why lose the central management of all system apps? BTW, for individual apps, I like text files, which is the way it is the .NET world (componentized applications)...just not for the thousands of system and backoffice settings, that would be too overwhelming. This post was edited by humor on Friday, November 22, 2002 at 12:33. |
| #14 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/22/2002 2:51:26 PM |
| matgarnz - Don't know much about Windows, do ya? |
| #15 By 5444 (208.180.140.124) at 11/24/2002 1:23:10 AM |
|
#34,
Well for one, VGA/VESA is a old technology and MS and Intel want to get rid of it at the hardware level. as a matter of fact, the VGA standard is the only legacy standard that still requires the OS to directly interact with the hardware. I imagine by the middle of next year most new systems will start supporting EFI with UGA and start phasing out the VGA standard. El |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 167 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:16:58 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
