Vista

[-(Xyphox)-]

bump for kaos, waiting for a response

 

[Deleted member 65081]

1. What is your definition of hacking an OS?

OS X has had a number of daemon and buffer problems just like windows. Windows won the open security web server challenge in 2005 with Windows 2003 server running IIS and ISA server. They only had 1 rule in the firewall!

2. Linux is a modern language, have you ever heard of Unix? Bell Labs invented it in the 1960’s, and the text based configuration has been extended a little bit—but it hasn’t changed any. The registry hive (essentially a database) is a much more modern and efficient methodology for organizing system configuration parameters.

Besides that it’s just not true. I am running version 9 of Linux, and all the installation only lead me to create a root password. So if that has changed it has changed in the last 3 years, that is newer than what Microsoft has released a new OS. Any industry trends that you have seen in improved operating systems can be fairly evaluated against Windows Vista…. But if something came out in 2002 or later, you have to compare it on a per release comparison.

Linux is not a language, it is a kernel underneath an operating system commonly referred to as Linux, but perhaps more appropriately called GNU/Linux (although demanding such things is left for the zealots in the crowd).

The registry is a modern, efficient, organized configuration system? Funny, nearly everyone I have talked to in the programming and IT world consider the registry one of Windows biggest faults (and we are talking pro-windows people here). I don’t see how being forced to use REGEDIT or WinAPI’s to manipulate common configuration data best left to text processing models is efficient or organized. Particularly considering it is s structured in such a way that damage to the registry often means system failure.

I am also unsure of why you would want the Unix world to fix something that is not broken simply for what, the ability to say it’s modern? Shrug.

What do you mean you are running version 9 of Linux? The Linux kernel is currently at 2.6.x. Do you mean some particular distro? Further, what do you mean “all the installation only lead me to create a root password”? Do you mean you are forced to create a root password and you don’t like that? I am just not sure what that sentence is doing in your post.

Just like Oracle and SQL run in 6 year development cycles and Oracle and MS release new versions 3 years apart…. For 3 years SQL has the latest and greatest features, and for the next 3 years Oracle has them before MS releases a new product. You have to compare apples to apples.

That’s one thing I like about the open source world quite a bit. There is constant development and fast paced release cycles. Of course this has it’s disadvantages too, but I digress, it seems horribly off topic.

3. I said that Unix and Linux had dominated this with a better model. So there is no insecurity in Linux for this…… Microsoft is catching up, but in the process they are elevating the whole model up one notch.

To compare the complexity of the OS, Linux has about 5 million lines of code, Windows XP has 40 million lines of code, and Windows Vista is expected to have over 50 million lines of code…. Over 34 million lines of Windows Vista code is brand new from scratch. So its easy to argue that Microsoft essentially recreated all of the intellectual expertise in Linux – 6.5 times over. Like them or hate them… they are a company that does hire the most competent people that they can find, pays them very well, and organizes their work very well. They are an efficient operation.

You are entirely wrong. The Linux kernel has around 6 million source lines of code (SLOC), a common linux distribution has many more times that, considering a kernel does not complete an operating system. As I recall, Red Hat Linux 7.1 had over 31 million SLOC in it (I did a paper on it in school), and that was several years ago. I don't feel like digging for numbers (because my point is made) but I am sure modern distro's have comparable numbers and many probably much higher. So, you now need to completely rethink your comparison.

Linux runs on ridiculously old hardware because as I established, it is a ridiculously old OS that has changed very little since the 1970’s before the internet was called the internet. Linux is and always will be a text based OS at its core, and only has been retrofitted with a number of GUI options that run on top of it. MS’ model is a GUI OS at the core. MS has financial insensitive to drive the changing and future of its OS into a more efficient and powerful OS, Linux has progressed very little from its founding principles. The problem is that once an open source system has a standard and agreed upon basis for a foundation, it’s not really possible to do anything but extend it.

The Linux kernel and many distros are capable of running on ancient hardware. Also, nearly any distro can run in text mode so essentially they all can do this. However, any modern distro needs modern hardware to run as expected (in GUI mode). Minimum system specs for running in a normal desktop are comparable to Windows XP or OSX. Using some of the new fancy X extensions produces minimum specs more on par with Windows Vista.

Again, you seem to have a lot of trouble understanding what Linux is. You see, this is not a defect in Linux, it is an advantage. The ability to run as a text based operating system on ancient hardware is a great advantage.

You’re not going to ever get a consensus of people at the core to say lets take everything we have learned in the last 50 years, and start over. The business world has no problem with fundamental paradigm shifts in thoughts, process, or technology and starting over. This is evidenced by the billions MS is spending by having 60,000 developers work on rewriting Windows for 5 years.

Most companies are scared to death of such change. That’s a prime example of why at least 3 professional IT people are in this thread saying “you’re company is going to do what? Huhhh?”. I find it fascinating but horribly dim that you seem to think companies around the world are all using Windows XP and gearing up for a Vista upgrade in Q1 07. Man things couldn’t be further from the truth. As someone who worked as a contractor for medium sized business for 2 years, you would not believe how many Windows 95, 98, and NT boxes I worked in not but a year or so ago.

The performance gain is a Windows to Windows comparison. Had they used the Linux model back in the days of 8086/8088, 80286, 80386, 80486 processors it wouldn’t have been feasible. UNIX was entirely text based for many years after Windows headed to a GUI interface to bring computers to the masses.

Although I don’t entirely understand what you are trying to say, I will agree that Windows brought computing to the masses. I am not the type of person who can’t commend that. Also a good chance to say that I work on Windows and Linux full time for a living and love them both for what they are

4. Use whatever floats your boat… but people will always be writing CSS and everything else for the masses. Good or bad the masses are using IE today and for the foreseeable future. I would rather have the option for both, so that I can always see what works. When Microsoft creates something, such as ODBC…. It essentially becomes the standard regardless of what is officially published simply because it is on 90+% of the computer base.

A sad fact but a fact none-the-less. Beyond such common knowledge though, maybe we should address that having developers develop code for standards among several platforms may be better then allowing one monolithic company to control what code developers should be using. Prime examples are CSS and ODF.

5. Nobody has ever legitimately claimed that Microsoft is an innovator! They take what works (either buy buying it or recreating it from the ground up), package it for the masses and sell it cheap. To be able to buy an OS that has more than $2.5 billion of R&D in it on a computer for less than $100 is incredible.

Most businesses are fine using technology that is tried and true. We don’t want our servers to be the latest and greatest experiment released upon us by some programmer that thought he had a good idea. Its fine that Microsoft releases stuff to business 2-3 years after its conceptualized, after a thorough R&D vetting process and after a number of companies are using the software live.

If only this had some sort of positive impact. It’s quite the opposite though. Stability and security have long been a problem for Microsoft, the company admits that on its own. Apparently they are trying real hard to eliminate the problem for the future, and of course time will tell on the success of that.

6. put your money where his mouth is. $50 says that there won’t be any exploits that can give remote control of the machine or give a remote person access to the data on the computer that can be installed from a web browser running in the context of a ‘standard’ use account (no privileges). The bet starts the day the Windows Vista home product ships and requires any patches available prior to its ship date to be installed and lasts for 1 month.

So you are trying to make a bet that no one will understand? That’s all I took from the first half of that paragraph. Anyway, I hope Vista acquires a good track record concerning security. It would make my job easier and eventually phase out many of the zombie spam machines we have out there in the world running all sorts of different variety of Windows (patched and unpatched).

As near as I can tell your entire post was about security and a large uninformed comparison of a kernel and an operating system. I am not trying to sound like a total ass, but your posts (the couple of long ones) have really been way off base and misinformed. Not on stuff that can be an opinion, but on acknowledged facts.

In the future maybe you shouldnt be so quick to call someone out as wrong and in an attempt to back it start typing as fast as you can about random things you overheard here and there. Then to bump the post? Geez.

I had vista runing on 2 test boxes, a Desktop and a laptop. Both machine's has Office 2007 as well. I let them spend the hole morning learning and playing around with vista to get their thoughts. All the manager's were quite computer savy so it was a plus. Today i am going to see if some of our company software that we use will run on vista. Cirtrux, ROI, Powerway, ect...

Computer savy managers? One thing I will say is I do envy your job

 

[djnes]

Computer savy managers

Most people would call that statement an oxymoron.

 

[santaliqueur]

To be able to buy an OS that has more than $2.5 billion of R&D in it on a computer for less than $100 is incredible

yeah that would be incredible. so what is the OS that microsoft is selling for less than $100? let me guess...an upgrade?

you seem to be very well read on pro-microsoft/anti-linux propaganda without knowing what the hell linux is.

 

[general]

I'm either amazed at the OP or don't believe him/her. Any IT department that is that keen on getting the newest MS everything would be paying them on a subscription basis and would have had access to a beta already. The assumption that Vista will be a big asset to a company before they've even seen it seems a little silly.

 

[LittleMe]

All I can say is, Tweakin, you hit it head on. Bravo on a great post.

 

[odoe]

I hope Vista does get all its bugs worked out before it ships. As it stands right now, their rewrite of the network stack is still vulnerable to attacks. These are the types of bugs that they are aware of and I am sure will get fixed before going gold, but one drawback to completely rewriting something like the network stack form scratch is that you don't have the years of testing behind it. I commend MS for taking the initiative to try and secure the OS, but for them to make these bold statements of Vista being the most secure product ever shipped, well, we'll see.

 

[-(Xyphox)-]

Linux is not a language, it is a kernel underneath an operating system commonly referred to as Linux, but perhaps more appropriately called GNU/Linux (although demanding such things is left for the zealots in the crowd).

The registry is a modern, efficient, organized configuration system? Funny, nearly everyone I have talked to in the programming and IT world consider the registry one of Windows biggest faults (and we are talking pro-windows people here). I don’t see how being forced to use REGEDIT or WinAPI’s to manipulate common configuration data best left to text processing models is efficient or organized. Particularly considering it is s structured in such a way that damage to the registry often means system failure.

I am also unsure of why you would want the Unix world to fix something that is not broken simply for what, the ability to say it’s modern? Shrug.

What do you mean you are running version 9 of Linux? The Linux kernel is currently at 2.6.x. Do you mean some particular distro? Further, what do you mean “all the installation only lead me to create a root password”? Do you mean you are forced to create a root password and you don’t like that? I am just not sure what that sentence is doing in your post.




That’s one thing I like about the open source world quite a bit. There is constant development and fast paced release cycles. Of course this has it’s disadvantages too, but I digress, it seems horribly off topic.




You are entirely wrong. The Linux kernel has around 6 million source lines of code (SLOC), a common linux distribution has many more times that, considering a kernel does not complete an operating system. As I recall, Red Hat Linux 7.1 had over 31 million SLOC in it (I did a paper on it in school), and that was several years ago. I don't feel like digging for numbers (because my point is made) but I am sure modern distro's have comparable numbers and many probably much higher. So, you now need to completely rethink your comparison.




The Linux kernel and many distros are capable of running on ancient hardware. Also, nearly any distro can run in text mode so essentially they all can do this. However, any modern distro needs modern hardware to run as expected (in GUI mode). Minimum system specs for running in a normal desktop are comparable to Windows XP or OSX. Using some of the new fancy X extensions produces minimum specs more on par with Windows Vista.

Again, you seem to have a lot of trouble understanding what Linux is. You see, this is not a defect in Linux, it is an advantage. The ability to run as a text based operating system on ancient hardware is a great advantage.




Most companies are scared to death of such change. That’s a prime example of why at least 3 professional IT people are in this thread saying “you’re company is going to do what? Huhhh?”. I find it fascinating but horribly dim that you seem to think companies around the world are all using Windows XP and gearing up for a Vista upgrade in Q1 07. Man things couldn’t be further from the truth. As someone who worked as a contractor for medium sized business for 2 years, you would not believe how many Windows 95, 98, and NT boxes I worked in not but a year or so ago.




Although I don’t entirely understand what you are trying to say, I will agree that Windows brought computing to the masses. I am not the type of person who can’t commend that. Also a good chance to say that I work on Windows and Linux full time for a living and love them both for what they are




A sad fact but a fact none-the-less. Beyond such common knowledge though, maybe we should address that having developers develop code for standards among several platforms may be better then allowing one monolithic company to control what code developers should be using. Prime examples are CSS and ODF.




If only this had some sort of positive impact. It’s quite the opposite though. Stability and security have long been a problem for Microsoft, the company admits that on its own. Apparently they are trying real hard to eliminate the problem for the future, and of course time will tell on the success of that.




So you are trying to make a bet that no one will understand? That’s all I took from the first half of that paragraph. Anyway, I hope Vista acquires a good track record concerning security. It would make my job easier and eventually phase out many of the zombie spam machines we have out there in the world running all sorts of different variety of Windows (patched and unpatched).

As near as I can tell your entire post was about security and a large uninformed comparison of a kernel and an operating system. I am not trying to sound like a total ass, but your posts (the couple of long ones) have really been way off base and misinformed. Not on stuff that can be an opinion, but on acknowledged facts.

In the future maybe you shouldnt be so quick to call someone out as wrong and in an attempt to back it start typing as fast as you can about random things you overheard here and there. Then to bump the post? Geez.




Computer savy managers? One thing I will say is I do envy your job

1. Language… kernel… it’s actually a full fledged OS if you want to get technical.

2. It’s not a matter of being modern, it’s a matter of being efficient. I guess you need to get a grasp on database theory to understand the registry’s benefits and why it’s more resilient than flat files. I can loan him the material from my masters degree program database class if he likes.
The admin debate about the registry is long over and that’s why its still here and growing in its uses.
The debate between registry and ini files still rages in programming communities, but most modern programmers that want to give the user individual settings particular to an application find the registry a much more manageable approach. The hierarchical nature and segmentation in the registry between users, computers, classes, and configuration make it much more practical for customizing applications in various ways for each unique user. Mostly you will find that non-object oriented programmers don’t like the registry and all other programmers do. Object oriented programming has been the standard for maybe 10 years—and not in the Windows world, Java is entirely object oriented.

3. Ahhh you completely missing the point, but it was Linux redhat version 9.
It’s great that it asks me to assign it a password, but way off point. The point was that it does not lead me to create a non-root user as your friend said that ‘all modern languages’ do.

4. For a computer person rapid development and fast releases are awesome. For business where people are not solving their own problems, they suck. TEST TEST TEST

5. Entirely wrong…..
Here is the source of 5.7 million lines of code. http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS4199739785.html. Point accepted on the Red Hat version having more lines of code, oh yeah but the point is……. ?
Oh darn, Microsoft only recreated the intellectual expertise of Linux redhat 7, just over 1 time in the last 4 years.

6. Can we call you back to earth?
This was nothing more than a direct repudiation to saying that Linux is a modern operating system, it is not a judgment call on what is good or bad. Both systems have their advantages. Some server systems and most number crunching systems have huge advantages to being text based, its common sense. However, systems that non-computer users need to use have huge advantages in being truly GUI based from the ground up, and not a GUI system being ‘glued’ on top of 40 year old text based technology. If your friend understands Linux as well as he professes, he won’t need me to point out all of the limitations attaching a GUI interface to a text based system versus creating a GUI system from the ground up.
Point in case is 2D and 3D engineering drawings. The reason that Autodesk came up with inventor is that retaining compatibility with 2D world was to restrictive on a 3D world.

Hmmmmm, obviously you didn’t read about all of the Fortune 500 companies that went to Windows 2000 and Active Directory while it was still in Beta R2.
You are is 100% right that most US based SMB don’t have the staffing and expertise to look at adapting new technologies fast, but if he looked at their financial statements he would probably see that they don’t have any choice. In most cases those businesses do not have an IT director at all, they simply do each project ad-hock with the cheapest strategy at the time (a very costly way of doing business), instead of with the cheapest strategy overall. Until you have managed a multi-country operation it’s really hard to understand how much of an impact ad-hock thinking costs in management and lost productivity. I would suggest you get some understanding of ITIL, ISO 20000, BS 15000 or MOF. I had some stuff published in Baseline magazine if you want to look at approaches to managing IT costs, and it’s still available.
Oetiker behaves much more like a global fortune 5000 player than a SMB or mom and pop shop. We have the experience, expertise, and capital to benefit from things that reduce our overhead and operating expenses. As someone who still does contract work for SMB, I have seen more than a dozen businesses with Windows 95 and 98 boxes in businesses in the last 12 months—all but 2 of them were in the course of shutting down and having their jobs transferred to either Mexico or China. Technology and even operating system choices can be a competitive advantage if you know how to use it.
Any company that has major wireless and mobile initiatives coming to age in the last 24 months is more than likely holding off for Vista if they are intelligent. Releases as big as Vista often force real businesses to hold off on major infrastructure, workstation or software changes for at least 12 months prior to a windows releases. Nobody is going to change over to Vista because it’s new and shiny, though companies that use technology to their advantage will look at it soon to see if it will make their IT infrastructure cheaper to manage. It is not the operating system itself that drives people to change in a hurry, its other technology initiatives that are awaiting it that force them to go sooner than what they might like.
Brazil is a perfect case study of Linux in the business world, as their government promotes open source development and actively tries to force businesses change from Windows to Linux. I will let you do your own research if you want to see the impact that governmental intervention has had on the business community.

7. Hmmmm, maybe we agree on something.

8. Ah yes, Linux definitely wins all debates in the perfect theoretical world…. I would have a completely different take on the whole discussion if I didn’t work for a company trying to make a profit.
I wonder why we don’t have any open source drug companies I mean it is quite idealistic to want to make people healthy and live long.

9. If decreasing the overall user base capable of using a computer is a benefit, lets go to Linux.
The positive impact is that even until 15 years ago the most common tool on a secretary’s desk was a typewriter, and everyone at any level of business knew how to use whiteout. Unix had been around for 40 years by that point in time and didn’t have the impact on everyday business that Windows did in 8 years.

10. Sorry you can’t understand…. or want to save his money.

Are you saying that there is a competitive advantage against Zombies in using Linux over Windows? Since millions of Linux machines are Zombiles… http://blogs.zdnet.com/threatchaos/?p=310 it’s just important for us to do a better job of educating home users of what items to say yes to and no to on the web as it is to squabble about the cause. Since defender is built into the OS, it will require to turn it off to prevent the OS from automatically detecting and deleting content before the user can answer yes.

11. Ummmmm, sure. You’re going to point them out I hope.

 

[-(Xyphox)-]

Oh my gosh…. I guess all hard core Linux people are smoking from the same bong as this guy http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/16/1063625013703.html Retail versus real cost studies…….. these people truly believe that there are real people in our world that are paying anything near retail for windows J Think I could hitch a ride with him to the mother ship? Maybe visit the home world? Plan for the invasion?

I thought I was pretty clear…… buy it on a computer should lead someone to think preinstalled? That’s how Windows comes on more than 95% of the computers shipped from the store. Tell me a home user that buys anything other than preinstalled OS and ever so so so rarely an upgrade? You buy your computer with Windows installed on it for as little as $350-400, less than $100 of that goes to Microsoft. Corporations buy Windows under select agreements (if they upgrade or don’t buy computers pre-installed) for between $90-$120 or Windows/Office bundles under enterprise agreements for $279 a year. Nobody except for a few of us that build our own computers pay anything near retail for Windows. The reason Windows has such a high retail price is, as you learn in basic marketing, to create the perception of value. Look at a stock analysis of the contribution to MS’ bottom line if you really think that they are making huge money on Windows for the desktop…. All it does for them is create a standards basis to sell their other products. I bet he even thinks that the war between Netscape and Microsoft actually had something to do with what browser we had on our desktops

Hopefully you have better business sense when it comes to debate than your friend. Your friend hasn’t demonstrated to me that he knows either Windows or Linux as anything more than a Linux religious zealot. What’s his name again, I want to make sure my friends in the area don’t ever interview him!

I have had and managed both Linux and Unix servers, even decommissioned a few in my time. I have a $75,000 HP Unix box taking up space in storage still today.

 

[santaliqueur]

Language… kernel… it’s actually a full fledged OS if you want to get technical.

nope, it's only the kernel. what you're referring to is gnu/linux, which is the operating system.

it's impossible to "debate" with someone like you, because anyone who disagrees with you is either crazy, a zealot, or "smoking from the same bong" as others. if linux is such a burden, why does google run exclusively on linux? last i read, they're not doing too bad in the search business. beating the pants off microsoft in that area, in fact.

Entirely wrong…..
Here is the source of 5.7 million lines of code. http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS4199739785.html

again, learn what the fuck you're talking about. the kernel has 5.7 million lines of code. the operating system has many more. from your link:

The 2.6.9 Linux kernel had 5.7 million lines of code

the linux kernel is NOT the same thing as the gnu/linux OS.

 

[Deleted member 65081]

I have had and managed both Linux and Unix servers, even decommissioned a few in my time. I have a $75,000 HP Unix box taking up space in storage still today.

At this point I would honestly question the Linux part of said management skills, as it is overly evident with each of your posts you have only a nominal idea of what Linux is. Perhaps there are a couple *nix servers under your departments control, but you have a limited idea of how they are operating. I would be particularly worried to find out you thought they were running with that 5.7 million SLOC kernel you pointed out (which by the way, I was going to link to when I made my previous post about SLOC, but I left references out as to not appear like I was attempting to teach you something).

This thread is pretty hazy at this point. I am not going to go through your additional points line by line. I am confident with the facts I hold and stated above. I will say that my opinions about the Windows Registry, Slanted standards, and security are riddled with opinions above, so very arguable. We should probably make separate threads if we go down that path.

I am sure I will be in charge of converting to Vista at some point down the road, and I hope the operating system is everything Microsoft has said it will be.

By the way, do I have something on my shoulder? Who the hell is this friend you keep talking about? Also, did you just literally whip out your epenis, $75k HP server rates you at nearly 9 inches!

 

[-(Xyphox)-]

At this point I would honestly question the Linux part of said management skills, as it is overly evident with each of your posts you have only a nominal idea of what Linux is. Perhaps there are a couple *nix servers under your departments control, but you have a limited idea of how they are operating. I would be particularly worried to find out you thought they were running with that 5.7 million SLOC kernel you pointed out (which by the way, I was going to link to when I made my previous post about SLOC, but I left references out as to not appear like I was attempting to teach you something).

This thread is pretty hazy at this point. I am not going to go through your additional points line by line. I am confident with the facts I hold and stated above. I will say that my opinions about the Windows Registry, Slanted standards, and security are riddled with opinions above, so very arguable. We should probably make separate threads if we go down that path.

I am sure I will be in charge of converting to Vista at some point down the road, and I hope the operating system is everything Microsoft has said it will be.

By the way, do I have something on my shoulder? Who the hell is this friend you keep talking about? Also, did you just literally whip out your epenis, $75k HP server rates you at nearly 9 inches!

Here's my Final thoughts.

Sorry but you really just a moron if you think that the counting the number of lines of code in Linux are in the least bit relevant to my skills in Linux. I don’t have Linux servers here any more, we got rid of them to lower our cost of operating. I still manage a couple, and exclusively use Linux for sniffing and hacking and probably 40% of my work at home. We talked about how Microsoft doesn’t provide promiscuous mode sniffing because of security, but Linux lets you do it with the flip of a switch and the default network drivers that it loads—if you’re a network admin and can’t use Linux your not worth crap because you don’t understand what is happening at the wire level. Linux just has no place on the desktop in a business that has to run anything more than Star Office and custom applications—nobody makes Linux clients. If you understood the point of debate, you would understand that you should back up you fuzzy and incorrect facts with credible support so that maybe we can both learn something from our debate.

You are absolutely right on one of two of his opinions (sticking to actual standards)…. They just aren’t relevant in business, we want the standards that are not the standards that should be. I feel sorry for the schools having to deal with someone like that upgrading them to Vista, they will inevitably have security and stability issues. I guess it doesn’t matter, education doesn’t run any business critical applications that demand high availability. Microsoft and Linux both have tremendous number of security flaws (primarily the users) and the industry has decided that neither will ever be fixed, that’s why all business has settled on multi-tiered approaches to security. Prevention, detection, and dynamic firewall rule creation.

Obviously you have no desire to learn anything, because you know everything. You want to be religious rather than factual and relevant in your argument, I don’t have any more to add. Your won’t learn anything… hopefully you have and don’t decide to worship at the religious house of either Windows or Linux. I can and have just as easily turned around intelligent religious Microsoft guy around, because I hate people that think they have the solution. You will never turn around either a religious Microsoft guy or a religious Linux guy because they are not grounded in reality, and its even harder to turn people around in government, education, or medical because their industries don’t operate like businesses that have any accountability for money. Businesses know what they are doing, they are good at it…. And Linux and Windows both have homes and they are pretty well defined by money and logic not by religious zealotry. If a business is running completely proprietary software like some insurance companies and stuff like that, they can run Linux on the desktop…. But if you have a dynamic and cross platform business that has to run applications, you can’t run anything but Windows on the desktop.

 

[AMD[H]unter]

Also, did you just literally whip out your epenis, $75k HP server rates you at nearly 9 inches!

That's a big fuckin' e-cock.

 

[LittleMe]

I'm still laughing about how you think the registry is a great and modern database. It blows! Let's get a quote from Paul Thurrott in here:

He noted that Vista is "still Windows": It includes the ugliness of the Registry, DLL hell, and Product Activation. Fair

You can find that quote from here. Apple uses it as one of many problems with Windows and Paul even gives it to them on that! Come on, everybody knows there are problems with the Registry.

 

[-(Xyphox)-]

I'm still laughing about how you think the registry is a great and modern database. It blows! Let's get a quote from Paul Thurrott in here:



You can find that quote from here. Apple uses it as one of many problems with Windows and Paul even gives it to them on that! Come on, everybody knows there are problems with the Registry.

waste of my time to even argue anymore

 

[-(Xyphox)-]

I'm still laughing about how you think the registry is a great and modern database. It blows! Let's get a quote from Paul Thurrott in here:



You can find that quote from here. Apple uses it as one of many problems with Windows and Paul even gives it to them on that! Come on, everybody knows there are problems with the Registry.

My analysis is spot on for the discussion we were having----flat files spewed everywhere at the programmers whim versus the registry---centrally managed, well structured, organized, and programmed. You seems to think the same way a lot of politicians do… just because I can point out the flaws in your design makes mine better. The truth is there will be something new in the future that is grand and great the best of all worlds in the future, maybe M$ will come up with it, maybe some Linux Open Source guy will come up with it, maybe some Linux guy came up with it but was shot down by the Open Source community… since Linux hasn’t implemented a single improvement in its configuration files (and hasn’t much changed the organization) since 1960 its not terribly likely to be the one to find the next better solution.

The Windows registry is the same as what Winston Churchill wrote of Democracy--- “Democracy is the worst form of government besides all of the others invented by man thus far”.

If his comparison is to an ideal world, Paul and you are absolutely correct—there are huge improvements needed in the registry. You (unlike Paul) are comparing it to Linux flat configuration files, which are no comparison at all. Microsoft had that model in Windows 3.01, 3.10 and 3.11 if he remembers and it was shit trying to centrally administer applications. Try centrally managing 1 configuration item (without touching the other items in that file) for 10 users in a network of 5000 Linux systems J

DLL hell is the side affect of letting all applications on a computer share all of the various programming libraries and it’s a problem because of things like Java that are version specific. What Microsoft needs to do is move to a model that requires the DLL to be called, instead of the registered functions inside the DLL. It will make programmers work more difficult, but much more scientific.

There is no justification for the product activation bullshit, other than people don’t understand the difference between open source and commercial software.

 

[Tetrahedron]

if windows is so great... why does microsoft use BSD to run its hotmail servers?

 

[Catweazle]

'twas a waste of time to start with. It began with a response to what was a throwaway comment which, in the context of the thread discussion could well have been ignored. If anything, a response of this nature would have been all that was needed:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Owns-96-97-of-Global-OS-Market-33363.shtml

It's a moot point in a context where Linux is not a feasible option, so why argue it?

This is a bizarre discussion and, like a number of others, I'm bewildered at the concept of a large organisation, at the forefront of technology, seeking an illicit source of a Beta OS weeks after a massive public preview distribution has completed.

Oh well. It's provided me with some entertainment in the form of a "Believe it or not!" diversion. I'ma think there's a blog entry in this somewheres!

 

[MrGuvernment]

Cool. I assume you must have showed them the test box, did they just mess with the interface and say they liked it? Or what exactly did they like about it?

Hope you don't mind me asking for the details. The thought of such a bold move by a large company intrigues me. I'm only 25 with limited experience (4 years) being semi-important in IT, but from what I have seen and done it's quite opposite of the norm.

I know that feeling, this company is my first real IT type of job, been with them for 5 years (small company), but i also do alot of other things, and trying to convince this company to even buy UPS for servers is like pulling teeth.

 

[GreNME]

if windows is so great... why does microsoft use BSD to run its hotmail servers?

I would love to see your source in this that isn't five years old or lies published by TheReg.

Guys, the registry is as good as the config files in /etc in that they both consist of flat files that can cause the whole system to sh!t the bed if an important one is incorrectly fiddled with. Get over it, you're arguing semantics over a non-issue. Both hail back to proper administration as far as managing settings and system configuration. To-may-to, to-mah-to.

 

[Tetrahedron]

I would love to see your source in this that isn't five years old or lies published by TheReg.

http://63.249.85.132/fbsd_intro.html
§ Who uses FreeBSD commercially?

• FreeBSD is used commercially to run the Yahoo web servers and some of the Microsoft Hotmail servers.
_____________________________________________________________

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/22474/22474.html?Ad=1 << is 5 years old but is also a windows site

After publicizing that it had switched its Hotmail servers from FreeBSD to 100 percent Windows, Microsoft admitted recently that a small fraction of Hotmail's servers (i.e., the ad-hosting and DNS servers) still run FreeBSD.

____________________________________________________________

http://news.com.com/5208-12-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=19322&messageID=165223&start=-1

Microsoft uses Linux

Posted on: July 14, 2006, 10:17 PM PDT
Story: More Linux facts from Microsoft
http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?host=.a.microsoft.com&position=limited&lookup=Wait..
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://video.msn.com

Thes also show to be Linux

uk.my.msn.com
toolbar.msn.com
techpreview.search.msn.com
sports.msn.com
site.search.msn.com
search.se.msn.com
search.msn.com
related.msn.com
partners.search.msn.com
msnvideo.msn.com
msnbcmedia.msn.com
media.msnbc.msn.com
lords.msn.com
jp.search.msn.com
ie.search.msn.com
fr.ca.search.msn.com
entimg.msn.com
doonesbury.msn.com
de.search.msn.com
clip.search.msn.com
ca.search.msn.com
beta.entimg.msn.com
auto.search.msn.com


Part of Microsoft's internal network is Linux.
http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;754084 996%3Bfp%3B2%3Bfpid%3B1


The download server (download.windowsvista.com) for the Vista beta is linux.


Get the facts indeed!


_________________________________________________________


looks like MS doesnt have much faith in their own server OSes eh?

 

[santaliqueur]

fixed your last link. nice post.

 

[HHunt]

Guys, the registry is as good as the config files in /etc in that they both consist of flat files that can cause the whole system to sh!t the bed if an important one is incorrectly fiddled with. Get over it, you're arguing semantics over a non-issue. Both hail back to proper administration as far as managing settings and system configuration. To-may-to, to-mah-to.

A flat file is a file containing records, generally one record per line. Fields may simply have a fixed width with padding, or delimited by whitespace or tabs or commas (CSV) or other characters. Extra formatting may be needed to distinguish an internal space from a delimiter. There are no structural relationships. The data are "flat" as in a sheet of paper, in contrast to more complex models such as a relational database.

The registry is a hierarchial data store in a custom format. How does that qualify?

And no, I can't think of any way to make my FreeBSD systems unbootable by config file mangling. At worst it could require manual intervention during boot, or would make a number of services fail to start. Even the worst-cases would only require copying some files from backup and starting whatever failed to do so at boot up.

Still, I actually agree: The bigger problem is often what is stored, not how, backups are neccesary either way, and ideally the problems should be avoided in the first place.
It's just that the registry and config files really are rather different (because of the different ways it's convenient to work with them, and the effects of various kinds of problems), and ignoring this is too simplistic.

Which one is the best is such a mine field I'll leave it alone, but dismissing either wouldn't be wise.

 

[GreNME]

The registry is a hierarchial data store in a custom format. How does that qualify?

Because I can edit the registry using a simple text editor, and you can too.

And now...

blah blah blah

Allow me to correct your uneducated trash.

Since you have problems understanding what you read on Netcraft, I would like to point out to you that Akamai-- the company listed as owning the netblock for each and every listing you see under your Microsoft searches that are using BSD-- is not owned, operated, or run by Microsoft. The actual Hotmail, MSN, and Microsoft.com websites are physically hosted on Microsoft-owned netblocks, and Microsoft pays Akamai to run front-end DNS for many of their web offerings.

Microsoft does this because it allows them to have Akamai handle maintenance of their DNS, and because it allows Microsoft to be able to dodge attacks on its flagship websites more easily. You see, back when everyone was screaming Blaster was going to DDoS Microsoft's websites, they weren't too worried because they had Akamai ready to switch DNS so that the IP address all the Blaster zombies were trying to hit wouldn't be populated with anything. Microsoft has done this more than once in the past, and I don't doubt they will do it again in the future.

However, if you do a quick Netcraft lookup on Hotmail: http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?host=hotmail.com&position=limited&lookup=Wait..

You find that every site owned by Microsoft using the name "hotmail" is a Windows box.

1. www.hotmail.com Site Report July 1996 Cable & Wireless Americas Operations, Inc. Windows Server 2003
2. hotmail.com Site Report October 1996 MS Hotmail Windows Server 2003
3. www.hotmail.com.br Site Report April 1997 MS Hotmail Windows Server 2003
5. gfx1.hotmail.com Site Report November 2004 MS Hotmail Windows Server 2003
6. gfx2.hotmail.com Site Report September 2004 MS Hotmail Windows Server 2003
7. graphics.hotmail.com Site Report February 2002 MS Hotmail Windows Server 2003
10. www.hotmail.com.ar Site Report April 1998 MS Hotmail Windows Server 2003
11. gateway.messenger.hotmail.com Site Report November 2001 Microsoft Corp Windows Server 2003
14. oe.msn.msnmail.hotmail.com Site Report September 2001 MS Hotmail Windows Server 2003
16. www.hotmail.com.tr Site Report April 1999 MS Hotmail Windows Server 2003
18. oe.hotmail.com Site Report August 1999 MS Hotmail Windows Server 2003
19. postmaster.hotmail.com Site Report August 2005 MS Hotmail Windows Server 2003
23. bay24.oe.hotmail.com Site Report August 2005 MS Hotmail Windows Server 2003
24. baym-wm13.msgr.hotmail.com Site Report October 2005 Microsoft Corp Windows Server 2003
28. dav.bay0.hotmail.com Site Report November 2004 MS Hotmail Windows Server 2003
29. oe.bay17.hotmail.com Site Report July 2004 MS Hotmail Windows Server 2003
30. www.hotmail.com.my Site Report December 1999 MS Hotmail Windows Server 2003
34. bay23.oe.hotmail.com Site Report August 2005 MS Hotmail Windows Server 2003
40. bay22.oe.hotmail.com Site Report August 2005 MS Hotmail Windows Server 2003
44. lc1.bay0.hotmail.com Site Report October 2003 MS Hotmail Windows Server 2003
48. f1.b.dev.hotmail.com Site Report October 2005 Microsoft Corp Windows Server 2003
54. bay21.oe.hotmail.com Site Report January 2006 Microsoft Corp Windows Server 2003
65. bay12.oe.hotmail.com Site Report December 2004 MS Hotmail Windows Server 2003
71. baym-gw17.msgr.hotmail.com Site Report March 2003 Microsoft Corp Windows Server 2003

Now, what I didn't list here are the half-dozen entries that are Microsoft-owned, but say "F5 Big-IP" instead of an OS name. These are all domains that begin with "bay", a number, and then "oe.hotmail.com" in the domain name. So let's take a look at one of the entries: bay111.oe.hotmail.com. As it turns out, the web server software being used is IIS 5. Gee, I wonder what operating systems can use IIS 5... oh, that's right: Windows.

To sum up: Akamai != Microsoft; Akamai == handles DNS to Microsoft servers running Windows and IIS (notice no Apache listed); Using "sources" that are half a decade old like that is nothing but trouble when you don't really know what you're talking about.

Oh, and listing subdomains of msn.com as if they were their own separate domains shows how little work you actually put into backing up your bullshit. Since there are more than 500 listings for "msn.com" at Netcraft and I am not in the mood to cut-and-paste 500 entries here to show how misinformed your statement was, I'll just link it and let you sit there, poring over each entry to try to find a single Microsoft-owned listing that is not a Windows variant running IIS.

Netcraft search: msn.com

Now, from here, you have two choices:

1. You simply reply with an "oh, I was wrong. My bad." and we leave things at that.
2. You begin backpedaling because you now need to explain to everyone who would read this thread how you didn't seem to understand how a large company like Microsoft could offload its DNS handling to some outside company, even one that uses *gasp* Linux and BSD. You'll probably hem and haw about things like: "but it says Linux and FreeBSD!" in your backpedaling, never once stopping to think about how the Netcraft would be reporting IIS 6 on a Linux machine when Linux cannot run IIS.

And by the way, posting a web page linked back to a DSL connection's IP in Santa Cruz is not just disingenuous of you, but lame as hell. If that isn't your internet connection, then I hope you got the person's permission to use their upload bandwidth like that. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it was your own internet connection. Either way, that IP address does not reverse back to any domain name I can find, which destroys its creditbility anyway (recursive logic is not credible).

looks like MS doesnt have much faith in their own server OSes eh?

Looks like you need to do your homework a little better next time so that you don't look like a jackass spouting bullshit, eh? I dare you to go make the false claim you just did over at the Ars Battlefront, if you don't like my explanation. They'll laugh you off the thread so fast your head will spin, and even the anti-Microsoft folk there will roll their eyes at your ignorance.

I await your acknowledgement that you were wrong.

 

[HHunt]

Because I can edit the registry using a simple text editor, and you can too.

If you're refering to .reg file, they're like the SQL files to a database. I can edit those with an editor, but I won't claim the DB is a flat-file system.

If, however, you mean the ability to browse it like a file system that ISTR has been added to monad, ok. While there are some differences, it's close enough for many purposes. (But I'm not sure if a representation layer in a non-bundled shell is enough to claim that is is a flat-file system. )

Or is there a third option I'm missing?

 

[GreNME]

If you're refering to .reg file, they're like the SQL files to a database. I can edit those with an editor, but I won't claim the DB is a flat-file system.

If, however, you mean the ability to browse it like a file system that ISTR has been added to monad, ok. While there are some differences, it's close enough for many purposes. (But I'm not sure if a representation layer in a non-bundled shell is enough to claim that is is a flat-file system. )

Or is there a third option I'm missing?

Sorry I didn't get more specific in the last post, I was too busy showing Tetrahedron the error if his/her ways.

I mean that, in reality, the separate registry hives are not much more than csv files. The relational aspects in how the Windows Registry accesses those hives is relational in nature, but the hives themselves are really not. To be honest, you do have a point in that they don't really qualify as a 'flat file' in and of themselves, but I wouldn't liken them to a SQL or even an Access database. I even hesitate to call it a database, with the possible exception of more recent incarnations (Vista). What I am saying is that, in essence, the registry isn't really any different in functionality and accessibility as the various conf files on a *nix system. With Windows, however, the registry is accessed in an arguably more unified manner (stress on "arguably"). Still, they are both equivalent.

So yeah, thanks for checking me on that, since I did misuse the phrase 'flat file' there. However, the manner of accessing, parsing, and changing it is still the equivalent of conf files in *nix (and OS X), so the argument tends to be rather moot, in my opinion. Six of one, half-dozen of the other, so to speak.

 

[Tetrahedron]

GreNME

Apparently you must use false quotes and slander about me eh? Just to get your point across.. not very mature. But let us continue shall we?

First,

And by the way, posting a web page linked back to a DSL connection's IP in Santa Cruz is not just disingenuous of you, but lame as hell. If that isn't your internet connection, then I hope you got the person's permission to use their upload bandwidth like that. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it was your own internet connection. Either way, that IP address does not reverse back to any domain name I can find, which destroys its creditbility anyway (recursive logic is not credible).

as we can see from a google search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=hotmail+servers+use+BSD the second link is...

FreeBSD SummaryFreeBSD is used commercially to run the Yahoo web servers and some of the Microsoft Hotmail servers. FreeBSD code is a significant part of Mac OS X. Wind ...
63.249.85.132/fbsd_intro.html - 18k - Cached - Similar pages


lookie there... it is the link I posted. and a quick whois shows

Search results for: 63.249.85.132


OrgName: Cruzio
OrgID: CZIO
Address: 903 Pacific Ave.
Address: Suite 101
City: Santa Cruz
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 95060
Country: US

NetRange: 63.249.64.0 - 63.249.127.255
CIDR: 63.249.64.0/18
NetName: CRUZIO-SC1
NetHandle: NET-63-249-64-0-1
Parent: NET-63-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS.CRUZIO.COM
NameServer: NS2.CRUZIO.COM
Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE
RegDate: 2000-12-15
Updated: 2004-07-19

RTechHandle: JR1102-ARIN
RTechName: Rhodes, Julianne
RTechPhone: +1-831-459-6301
RTechEmail: arin@cruzio.com

OrgTechHandle: JR1102-ARIN
OrgTechName: Rhodes, Julianne
OrgTechPhone: +1-831-459-6301
OrgTechEmail: arin@cruzio.com

well I am not this person, I live in AZ and my name is Benjamin. So tell me since I am not that person and the link is brought up in a simple internet search using google, why do I need the permission to link the website eh?


Secondly,

never once stopping to think about how the Netcraft would be reporting IIS 6 on a Linux machine when Linux cannot run IIS.

Well then the linux reporting part just might be the fact that the server is behind a firewall and the firewall is indeed linux based, or, alternatively microsoft having the billions of dollars they have, might themselves be able to run IIS on linux, while not sharing howto do this with anyone else.. but since we have no definite proof either way all we know is that there IS a linux box somewhere in the mess. So yup MS does use linux, in fact MS won an award in 2003 for linux http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2121356/microsoft-wins-linux-award but hey dont forget about this too http://www.mslinux.org/

So does MS use Linux you bet they do! Why is that? Cause they know that ultimately their Server OS is not completely up to the challenge of what *nix based servers can do at this time. Granted they are getting better and I support MS in them succeeding. Yes, I was illinformed about hotmail still running on BSD, apparently they did switch over to Win2k3server.. my bad.. I admit that I was wrong. Happy?


Lastly,

Looks like you need to do your homework a little better next time so that you don't look like a jackass spouting bullshit, eh? I dare you to go make the false claim you just did over at the Ars Battlefront, if you don't like my explanation. They'll laugh you off the thread so fast your head will spin, and even the anti-Microsoft folk there will roll their eyes at your ignorance.

You think I should go post on Ars Battlefront?? Well then I think you should go post on http:\\bearpit.net ... like it really matters, hey lets talk about other forums and what they will to, sorta reminds me of a misdirection tactic.

 

[Kaos]

Christ this got off topic, cool your ego's, zip up your pants etc.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions about whatever OS it is that they want to use.

I use all of the big 3 OS's and I tend to use OSX/Linux more because they fit me and dont have to spend much time maintaining them from viruses/spyware etc. And that's my reason. Sure there are ways to infect a linux box, and maybe ways to infect/root an osx box too. But Ive been running OS X for 2 years now...havnt had a single problem at all...not one.

So use what you want and dont argure your point into the ground, its a waste of time.

 

[GreNME]

GreNME

Apparently you must use false quotes and slander about me eh? Just to get your point across.. not very mature. But let us continue shall we?

I used no false quotes, I went to the same source you did (Netcraft) and pointed out how you were wrong.

First,

as we can see from a google search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=hotmail+servers+use+BSD the second link is...

FreeBSD SummaryFreeBSD is used commercially to run the Yahoo web servers and some of the Microsoft Hotmail servers. FreeBSD code is a significant part of Mac OS X. Wind ...
63.249.85.132/fbsd_intro.html - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

Which is some dude's home internet connection, and not any business or organization that can back up the claims. You seriously don't seem to get it that any idiot can make a website and post whetever spurious bullshit they want. There are idiots who post that sort of thing all the time on political blogs and extremist websites, and very rarely is the bullshit they spew credible in any sense of the word. So, I suggest that you go back to the drawing board and try to find a valid source that states Microsoft is running anything but Windows and IIS for their servers.

lookie there... it is the link I posted. and a quick whois shows
<snip>

Dude, I already posted a link to that information on DNSStuff.com. You are simply parrotting what I already posted. When you can come up with something original, get back to me on that.

well I am not this person, I live in AZ and my name is Benjamin. So tell me since I am not that person and the link is brought up in a simple internet search using google, why do I need the permission to link the website eh?

*sigh* Because it is a residential internet connection, and as a residential connection it has more regulations upon it by the ISP as far as what kind of content is allowed to be made accessible. Sure, you can link it whenever your heart desires, but if the ISP catches wind of it they could very well cut the guy's service off for breach of contract, unless he can provide a compelling reason for running a website on a residential line. No one said you aren't allowed to post it, but you should be aware of the implications behind using residential connections for running websites, as well as the zero credibility such websites often have to begin with.

And I don't care where you're from. All I care about is that you are completely and totally incorrect in your claims, and seem to not understand very well how this thing we like to call the internet really works.

Secondly,



Well then the linux reporting part just might be the fact that the server is behind a firewall and the firewall is indeed linux based, or, alternatively microsoft having the billions of dollars they have, might themselves be able to run IIS on linux, while not sharing howto do this with anyone else.. but since we have no definite proof either way all we know is that there IS a linux box somewhere in the mess.

You are talking nonsense here. IIS does not run on Linux or BSD because it requires key elements of Windows that only the Windows operating system can provide. Also, as I already pointed out, there is plenty of proof that Microsoft is not running those Linux and BSD boxes that are running DNS for the sites, because the net blocks are owned by a company that isn't Microsoft (Akamai). How many pieces of proof do you need before the obvious finally sinks in?

So yup MS does use linux, in fact MS won an award in 2003 for linux http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2121356/microsoft-wins-linux-award

Did you bother to read what you linked? Microsoft won an award for their Services for Unix software, which allows for Unix compatibility and a tsh shell to run in Windows. This has nothing to do with Microsoft doing anything with Linux or BSD, since Unix is a proprietary OS (at least, the commercial versions are).

but hey dont forget about this too http://www.mslinux.org/

You really must be out of your mind or completely joking at this point, because that is not a Microsoft site. That is a parody site that is poking fun at Microsoft. Please tell me you do not actually believe this is a real Microsoft project.

So does MS use Linux you bet they do! Why is that? Cause they know that ultimately their Server OS is not completely up to the challenge of what *nix based servers can do at this time. Granted they are getting better and I support MS in them succeeding. Yes, I was illinformed about hotmail still running on BSD, apparently they did switch over to Win2k3server.. my bad.. I admit that I was wrong. Happy?

Oh, this isn't about making me happy. Your silly attempts at claiming something that isn't true and actually trying to use that mslinux site as "proof" that Microsoft is using Linux made me literally laugh out loud. At this point, I am hoping you are trying to be funny and don't actually mean what you are saying, because I'm not sure you understand how embarrassing what you posted really is if you are serious.

Lastly,



You think I should go post on Ars Battlefront?? Well then I think you should go post on http:\\bearpit.net ... like it really matters, hey lets talk about other forums and what they will to, sorta reminds me of a misdirection tactic.

Oh, no, not a misdirection tactic. I am telling you that your claims have already been made years ago by people who didn't know what they were talking about, and back when I was posting at the BF regularly I recall quite a few threads where your claims were thoroughly and systematically debunked... by *nix advocates and Win advocates alike. At this point, you would stand a higher likelihood of getting banned if you let your temper match your poor grammar and seeming lack of understanding.

No, that last part was a jab at your ignorance, and pointing out that your incorrect claims have already been thoroughly debunked in other places on the net.

So, are you going to stop trying to spew crap like Microsoft is running Linux or BSD? We've already established that IIS does not run on *nix, and all Microsoft sites are run on IIS (5 & 6). We've already established that Netcraft even cleary points out that the BSD netblocks you noted are owned by Akamai, not Microsoft. We've established that any awards Microsoft has gotten from the *nix community is due to their Services for Unix software, which is used to increase compatibility with *nix, (presumably) not using GNU code. And, we've established that mslinux.org is in no way connected to Microsoft.

Care to try again? You can either give up now, or continue your backpedaling. It's getting fun laughing at the ridiculous claims you're making.

 

[-(Xyphox)-]

wow my thread sparked some heated debates, sweet

 

[Tetrahedron]

i stopped reading after this

I used no false quotes, I went to the same source you did (Netcraft) and pointed out how you were wrong.

You did in fact quote me saying Blah Blah Blah

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tetrahedron
blah blah blah

NEVER did I say blah blah blah in any of my post on this thread... so everything you said after that first sentence you just wrote must be false since you cant even admit to what you did, see sir you are the ones spreading lies.

I know that MS uses Linux. More proof...

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1813703,00.asp
Meet the Head of Microsoft's Linux Lab
By Mary Jo Foley
May 6, 2005
5 comments posted
Add your opinion



Hidden away in Building 17—when he's not on the road, working to counteract the impression among open-source backers that Microsoft is the devil personified—is Bill Hilf.

Hilf works for Microsoft's general manager of platform strategy and Linux point man, Martin Taylor. Hilf is the director of Microsoft's platform technology strategy group. He also happens to run a sizeable Linux lab on the Redmond, Wash., campus.
________________________________________________________________

Yup they have a whole Lab of linux machines.. but hey MS doesnt use linux one bit.

and still more...

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/23/1748249
Microsoft's New Linux-Based Wireless Network
Posted by timothy on Fri Jun 23, '06 02:54 PM
from the this-is-the-join-'em-part dept.


MECC points to an article about Microsoft's new wireless network. From the article
"The next time Bill Gates sends an e-mail through Microsoft's shiny new Wireless LAN it will be passed through a behind-the-scenes Linux-based network appliance." Microsoft has partnered with Aruba Networks for a large corporate wireless LAN deployment, involving 277 buildings and 5000 access points, 'all Linux based.'"

_______________________________________________________________

Yup they said LINUX not Windows... so yeah... I guess I am 100% wrong! MS doesnt use linux what so ever.

 

[GreNME]

You really have a reality problem. First, you claimed MS used BSD servers for their websites. I pointed out how you were wrong, and you changed your story to MS developing a Linux distro. I pointed out how you were wrong, and now you changed your story yet again to some assumed testing lab Microsoft has that has Linux in it. Seriously, man, you need to stick with one story instead of your ever-changing ones.

I wouldn't put it past any software company to have testing labs with copies of software from competitors and different platforms, since that is smart business practice. But being tested in a lab and being used in production are two completely different things. The fact that you're reaching so far as to claim lab testing machines are in any way a "proof" that Microsoft uses *nix as a company is ridiculous, since it is likely a lab in one of their many sub-departments and having to do with testing purposes for compatibility (any industry standard specification must meet certain requirements). You'll find a Mac inside of Microsoft before you'll find those ever-elusive Linux machines. Microsoft has had a whole Mac OS division for years (for Office and IE), but they don't run their websites on Mac OS. You typically can't get hired at Microsoft for anything other than their Mac development team and be able to at least work with a Mac in the office.

And, to back up what I say, I'll use your own links (again):

Hilf said he spends a lot of time "making Linux more transparent to Microsoft managers," doing a lot of educating around the open-source development, testing, deployment and licensing models.

Hilf's job sometimes involves telling the Microsoft product managers "where we suck" vis-a-vis open source. And sometimes it involves showing the Microsoft teams "where the big holes are in open-source environments."

"The bulk of my job is spent with the [Microsoft] product teams on where open-source software is going," he said.

But Hilf also interacts extensively with bigwigs in the open-source development world, maintaining close contacts with folks at Samba, Apache, Red Hat, Novell/Ximian and other key open-source developers.

"I try to help keep the peace," Hilf said modestly. "The reception from the open-source community has been amazingly positive."

Hilf said he has yet to have anyone he has contacted refuse a meeting, though he acknowledges he seeks to dialog with open-source developers, not "zealots."

One of the few guys who works with Linux in Microsoft is there to help keep Microsoft software able to work as easily as possible with *nix and open-source software. He is an advocate and consultory source. If you had read the damned article instead of scouring Google for "Microsoft uses Linux" or some nonsense, you would see how your own link pretty much shows the silliness of your claims.

Your /. link actually goes to this article, which clarifies your inanity:

Earlier this year Microsoft and Aruba Networks jointly announced the two companies will work to replace Microsoft's existing Cisco wireless network with Aruba's centrally-managed infrastructure, which eliminates the need for individual changes on the access points.

Aruba Networks was selected to provide the networking equipment for what is considered to be one of the world's largest next-generation wireless LANs, serving more than 25,000 simultaneous users a day in some 60 countries. According to an Aruba press statement, Microsoft's new WLAN will be deployed in 277 buildings covering more than 17 million square feet using Aruba mobility controllers, mobility software and some 5000 wireless access points.

What the press statement didn't mention is that Aruba mobility controllers run the Linux operating system which Microsoft has aggressively targeted as being inferior to Windows as part of its "Get the Facts" marketing campaign.

What the article doesn't point out is that Microsoft doesn't make WiFi devices that run on Windows, which means the Aruba (non-Microsoft) devices are not competitors for Windows. You may as well be saying that Microsoft can't rely on their Windows platform for their phones and their television systems, either. Just like Akamai, Microsoft is a client of Aruba and wants the service, not the OS the separate company uses to provide the service. If that's the best you can do, then you really have no point and are just trying to tie together unrelated tidbits as if they proved some larger ominous point.

You need to get a grip. Nothing you have posted so far is proof that Microsoft relies on Linux for anything. Microsoft has groups who keep track of and are proficient in competing platforms, and Microsoft pays some companies for services and those companies sometimes make use of *nix to get the job done. That still doesn't mean Microsoft is using Linux for anything they are producing. You may as well say that since a GM manager drives a BMW to work, that GM realizes the worthlessness of their cars and relies on BMW as a company.

You have one more chance to try to make a valid point, and after that I am going to assume you are simply some zealot who refuses to listen to any sort of reason whatsoever.

 

[Kaos]

lock this already....

 

[Catweazle]

Christ this got off topic, cool your ego's, zip up your pants etc.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions about whatever OS it is that they want to use.

I use all of the big 3 OS's and I tend to use OSX/Linux more because they fit me and dont have to spend much time maintaining them from viruses/spyware etc. And that's my reason. Sure there are ways to infect a linux box, and maybe ways to infect/root an osx box too. But Ive been running OS X for 2 years now...havnt had a single problem at all...not one.

So use what you want and dont argure your point into the ground, its a waste of time.

lock this already....

QFT

When Windows related topics turn into Windows v Linux arguments they might as well be sent off straight to the ZDNet message board, where people seem to enjoy that sort of nonsense.

 

[Deleted member 65081]

QFT

When Windows related topics turn into Windows v Linux arguments they might as well be sent off straight to the ZDNet message board, where people seem to enjoy that sort of nonsense.

There are laods and loads of BS in this thread. It is truely hard not to reply to such nonsense with some fact sorting. Imagine someone not being any sort of expert looking through this thread trying to learn something. Heh. Poor Soul.

It should have probably been locked after 'I work at some company who is upgrading to Vista the second it is released, how can I get a copy to demonstrate and test with' followed by the streams of 'you and your company are crazy and you are probably lying'. If I was the OP I would have locked the damn thing after GreNME's original post, because I would have felt like an idiot.

Live and learn

 

[GreNME]

You guys are right. I'm done replying on this argument. I'll put the brakes on, as per your guys' advice.

 

[Catweazle]

I must agree that the OT post gave even a 'back shed trained' IT journo like myself a damn good chuckle. It indicates a rather odd appproach to remaining "cutting edge".

 

[-(Xyphox)-]

this thread has gone way over topic
Please Delete