| 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 |
 |
How One Microsoft User Made The Switch To Open Source | |
|
||
| Time: 00:01 EST/05:01 GMT | News Source: Internet Week | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Since 1995, my friend Tristan Louis ran his Web site TNL.net on Microsoft Windows. He started his site on Windows NT using Microsoft IIS. In late 2000, he moved to Windows 2000 and continued to run on this until recently, when he switched to Linux. So why did he decide to change things? Here is his story. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 171 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:31:53 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 5/8/2003 1:00:19 AM |
|
Newswriter: (if I think hard enough, and write stupid enough articles, everyone will convert to open source!)
How is this even news? I mean, this might as well say, "We hate large corporations, so here's some propaganda to support our cause" |
| #2 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 5/8/2003 2:30:20 AM |
|
a) As #1 said, how is this news? WHY is this news? Is it just to get another OS war started? Why not something new for this site, let's have an AMD vs Intel war or something like that.
b) #2 Microsoft doesn't force you, they just stop supporting their software at some stage. Then people like some of those here go around abusing people that are still using NT4. So which is it? |
| #3 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 5/8/2003 3:50:38 AM |
|
Oh come off it, Kabuki. When will Microsoft stop supporting Windows 2000? Windows 2000 Professional Extended Support retires on 31-Mar-2007. I don't think in 2003 anybody should feel forced to upgrade. As for Windows 2000 Server it has a similar date of 31-Mar-2007. (ref http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;[ln];LifeWin)
Moreover, Kabuki, if you don't like flame wars, you should really stop posting such foolish things. |
| #4 By 13998 (212.153.190.3) at 5/8/2003 3:53:10 AM |
|
#5 I really couldn't understand you. You started the sentence as if you were opposing the practices of Microsoft and ended it as you were supporting them. You say basically that they are releasing better products that increase the efficiency of the companies so that you can compete in business.
In case you forget JWM, being a monopoly is NOT a problem, neither is it illegal. In a lot of countries electricity companies, railways and telecommunication services are monopolies. The problem occurs when a monopoly is misused. I really wonder how people are forced to upgrade. End of support? Can any one give an example of a company supporting their products longer than Microsoft. Redhat? I believe their procust cycles are much shorter than Microsoft's. |
| #5 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 5/8/2003 4:08:48 AM |
|
What's the use, JWM. Your bitterness will likely never subside. You seem like an intelligent man, but your posts which attack Microsoft seem to betray you.
If Microsoft does in fact force people to use its products, I suppose that means that this man didn't port his site to a new OS, new app server, and in general a new dev platform. I suppose that means that what this man thinks he has done, he, in fact, did not do. The fact of the matter is, you are wrong as is Tristan Louis. If Microsoft had any power to force people to do things, there would be no article, there would be no Linux, there would be no open source. The word that would more likely suit your argument (thought without evidence, I'm not sure that argument is technically correct) is "coerse". If you were to use that word, I still say you were in error. It seems that this man had a single license to Windows 2000 Server and a single license to Microsoft SQL Server. If I am not mistaken, the "force" that this man reacted to was Licensing 6.0. Licensing 6.0, however, doesn't apply to an entity with so few (in this case 1) licenses. Volume licensing doesn't apply if you aren't buying licenses en masse. One of these days, perhaps, somebody will use some good logic and produce a good argument detailing Microsoft's failings. Perhaps they could attack the failings of Winforms in .NET Framework 1.0. Perhaps they could attack the support policy for the SideWinder game controller, though that's a bit past tense. Perhaps they could attack the idea of investing in the company, since it's share price (taking the recent split into account) hasn't moved much in a positive direction in the last few years and the stock yields extremely low dividends (if any, who knows if or when there will be future dividends). Perhaps someone will attack Microsoft laud of XML, though it still has horrible XML support in its dev tool (XML Spy among others kicks Visual Studio .NET 2003's booty as an XML dev tool). Perhaps someone else will attack the browser support of ASP.NET server controls. Yet another might attack the design time support of ASP.NET (actually of all HTML based pages) in Visual Studio (even FrontPage is a better editor). There are a great many ways to attack Microsoft. If anyone wants to do some research, I've just given some very good places to start. Picking rediculous conspiracies out of the air (a la NGSCB), monopoly strong arming (the "force" referred to in this article), complexity created by ease (see Mr. Dvorak's latest article on "Longhorn"), or just making things up entirely (just pick any random statement about Microsoft by Mr. Ellison, Mr. McNealy, Mr. Perez, or Szulik) does nothing to support the anti-Microsoft cause. OK, that last bit about Ellison, McNealy, Perez, and Szulik is a touch hyperbole, but it's not near as exaggerated as most of their claims against Microsoft. Another tirade down....*BobSmith looks around and sighs, once again, fools don't want to accept the truth.* |
| #6 By 3465 (68.50.165.209) at 5/8/2003 6:10:53 AM |
| Have we noticed how much Activewin is reporting on Linux instead of Windows? And it's usually the same story. Maybe the name should be changed to ActiveSource or SlashWin. |
| #7 By 12071 (203.217.69.70) at 5/8/2003 6:59:47 AM |
| #6 Bob, honestly, either learn to deal with with people that criticise Microsoft or don't bother reading/replying back to their comments. Did I mention Windows 2000? No, you did. I mentioned NT4. Why did I mention NT4?.... because there's been a few stories out recently in regards to certain applications not running on Windows 2003 server (which is fair enough) and the majority of the comments here were to the order of "get with the program, nt4 is out of date, time to upgrade!". I also mentioned NT4 because there are a lot of businesses that still do run some if not all their servers on NT4 and finally I mentioned it because it is no longer supported. I didn not say that Microsoft should support it forever but here is an example of where you are in a way "forced" to upgrade at some stage. None of this had anything to do with Windows 2000, not every business is running 2000! Deal with it rather than going after my comments. |
| #8 By 7390 (63.211.44.114) at 5/8/2003 7:08:16 AM |
| Citing security concerns and administration time (applying weekly patches and hot fixes) he switches from SQL server to MySQL. I didn’t know that MySQL was a database (tongue in cheek). |
| #9 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 5/8/2003 7:13:05 AM |
|
Honestly, Chris, either learn to deal with my comments or don't bother reading/replying back to my comments.
In the article the user, who claimed Microsoft was forcing him to upgrade, was running Windows 2000. When #2 asked how Microsoft was forcing him into anything, you replied (#4) about support. The support or compatibility of applications on NT 4 is irrelevant in the context of this thread. I didn't introduce Windows 2000 into the thread; it was plainly stated in the article. I assumed that since the article dealt with Windows 2000, that your comment on support also applied to Windows 2000. As for all of the "get with the program and upgrade to Windows Server 2003" stuff...you'll notice that I've not said a word in that regard. |
| #10 By 9549 (63.88.169.2) at 5/8/2003 7:23:10 AM |
| yeah but the guy in the story was talking about win2000 and being forced to upgrade. Plus NT4 is only 10 years old and support is going to stop in the next few years. If your still using an OS 10-12years and don`t upgrade it is still ok you just won`t get free support. And if you don`t know everything you need to know about NT4 in 10-12 years you shouldn`t be using it. Plus anything that doesn`t get supported beyond MS support date will always be supported by third party apps. So you can still use it beyond 12 years that is your own choice not being forced or strongarmed. Plus any server running still running NT4 would probably choke under 2k3 so you wouldn`t want to upgrade. noones saying that you can`t keep your OS you just have to get off your 4$$ and work harder. |
| #11 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 5/8/2003 10:31:11 AM |
| Aelric, regardless, unless he was running his site on a large number of servers Licensing 6.0 wouldn't have applied to him. It is a volume licensing program. This article is FUD. It is about as much credibility as Apple's switch commercials, IOW none at all. |
| #12 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/8/2003 10:49:07 AM |
|
Aelric - I'm curious. How do you handle the daily patching of Linux?
I mean the weekly patching of Windows is bad enough, but to do this daily... How do you get any work done? |
| #13 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/8/2003 11:28:22 AM |
|
Aelric - "Soda, I am currently using very little in the way of Linux."
That's probably good considering how difficult it is to keep up with the daily patches. :) "I tried using an API with IIS to handle multiple sites, but found that it died after 10 users hit the site, causing me to have to reboot the entire server to fix it. " That's odd. We do multiple sites under IIS all the time, no issues. Most hosting companies do this as well, again with no issues. Sounds like some sort of problem with your third party product. "I've found additional uses for Apache. I setup a rule that looked at the URI used by CodeRed and passed the request to a non-existant page." Sounds like URLScan, you've just implemented it in a more complicated manner that is more difficult to support. "I wanted to point out that open source does not necessarily mean Linux only. " I know it doesn't, most open source software is actually written on Windows. I was just commenting on your statement about weekly patches. |
| #14 By 3465 (65.222.179.224) at 5/8/2003 2:46:52 PM |
|
kirk26: I, for one, enjoy the current level of Linux news. I don't want to live in a computing vacuum nor do I want to have to slog through the bias of Crash-Plop.Org.
I agree, so let's see some more Mac OS X stuff! |
| #15 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/8/2003 10:21:51 PM |
|
So I sent an email of complaint to the author of this article asking why they aren't interviewing people who have gone down the Linux path and have since given up.
He said one of the other authors would be contacting me. Time to write my life story. :) |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 171 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:31:53 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
