Why is this stuff so crappy?

[Fao, Sean]

I've been running IT departments for many years and have used such operation
systems as Novell Netware 2.x - 5.x, many variations of the Unix OS,
including Linux, and of course, the Windows environments. I have to say
that Windows 2000 and 2003 are by far, so far behind even the Novell 3.x
servers that it's ridiculous. No other operating system, in my experience,
has ever had to be rebooted so many times because of crashes, updates, or
just random reboots because the gremlins inside stayed out too late and had
a bit too many drinks. I hope the guys at InterSystems eat you alive with
your patent case so these bonehead IT "experts" finally realize that there
are alternatives to your madness.
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,466180,00.html

 

[Fao, Sean]

I've been running IT departments for many years and have used such

operation

Operating Systems...Sorry for not checking the spell check suggestions more
closely.

 

[Joe Richards [MVP]]

I would question why your machines go down so much? We have thousands of Windows Servers running that do not seem to
have as many issues as you have encountered. I personally manage around 400 servers that do very well and rarely if ever
crash.

 

[Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

Hmm - I don't use W2003 yet, but I don't have problems with any of my NT4 or
2k servers. It's all in how you set them up, really - you have to know what
you're doing with a Sun box, too, or it'll be crap. I don't have any strong
political feelings about OSes, really - there's good and bad in each, and
there are usually more important things to worry about in this sad old
world.

Anyway, hope your rant made you feel better.

 

[Scott Harding - MS MVP]

If everything worked flawlessly would we have jobs???

--
Scott Harding
MCSE, MCSA, A+, Network+
Microsoft MVP - Windows NT Server

scrockel@***No_SPAM***hotmail.com

 

[Fao, Sean]

I would question why your machines go down so much? We have thousands of

Windows Servers running that do not seem to

have as many issues as you have encountered. I personally manage around

400 servers that do very well and rarely if ever

crash.

Of course not, companies with 400+ servers can probably afford to give their
administrators computers to work on other then the servers. Granted, I am
totally against using any server as a workstation; however, I do not
administer the LAN at this company on a regular basis, I am merely filling
in while the IT manager is out on vacation. Don't take that as a sign of
inexperience however; as of April this year I have decided to leave the IT
world for what I really enjoy --programming. I would say that there is a
high probability that some of the crashes are a result of inexperience on
the real IT managers part, however I cannot accept that I am the only one
facing these instability issues. Read the various Unix newsgroups on the
net, many of the posters are frustrated with Windows and are looking for a
powerful alternative. These are not inexperienced IT managers by a long
shot. These are people that came from the days when servers experienced
near year round uptime. The downtime Microsoft's OS's display is an insult
to us PC users.

My previous employer had a mix of Linux, Windows 2000, Windows NT 4.0 and
Novell Netware servers. The 2K server ran our financial MRP software on a
MS SQL 2000 database. It was, for the most part, quite stable. The only
user logon's permitted, either at the console or through Terminal Services,
were by the IT department and it was only used for nightly maintenance on
the database, which could be performed no other way. About once a month, it
would have some kind of random problem that a reboot would correct. The NT
4.0 servers ran our Microsoft Exchange 5.0 server and were the PDC/BDC for
the company. For the most part, as long as I never touched them, the
servers would run flawlessly; but, the second I tried logging into either of
them, things would get ugly. I spent many hours on the phone with Microsoft
Technical Support, trying to resolve my issues. After months of headaches,
I finally gave up with both of them and now just let them sit 99% of the
time and let them do what they have to do without asking them for anything
else. The Linux machine ran our internal Intranet site on Apache 2.x with
MySQL 3.x. That thing was a work horse to say the least. I could do
anything I wanted at any time and never had problems. It was so reliable
and spent too much of its time, looking for something to do, that we had to
give it something else to keep it busy. Whatever could be run on Linux was
put on it to help alleviate some of the load on the NT 4.0 servers. This
did help the stability of the NT servers, but not by enough. The Novell
file/print servers were rarely touched. As I'm sure most of you are aware,
the bulk of administering a Netware server is done on a workstation. About
the only time we touched the main server was to check the tape backup logs.
I've experienced uptime on both my Linux and Novell servers up to or
exceeding 6 months. Around that time, I would shut them all down for
regular routine cleaning. I have yet to see a Microsoft server with uptimes
near 6 months. I can't even make it a month.

Well, I am done ranting, I realize that 99% of you here are against me and
would never admit that there are better operating systems out there with far
less problems. You all have a nice day...

Sean

 

[Steven]

Its not the server. Remember servers are stupid, its the
people behind them that make them clever. Anyone can
click next next finish. Its the rest of the
configurations that are required. If Novell or Unix were
better than Windows then Windows wouldn't exist. I
recomend that you stay with what you know....COMMAND
LINE...It seems that GUI is still ahead of you.
Thanks
Steven

 

[Fao, Sean]

Your reply is without any thought or reasoning. First, my reply was to
dispute the fact that Microsoft OS's need to be rebooted far more then any
of the other OS's I use. Never in my argument did I bring up command line
versus GUI because it would have been quite weak considering I now do 90%+
of my work in a GUI --look at my headers, I'm using Outlook Express as we
speak. And what exactly are you trying to argue about a better OS making
another non-existent? Obviously each one has its own benefits but unless
some drastic changes occur, I don't see any major OS disappearing in the
near future because one is "better" then the other.

Windows exists because Microsoft knows how to market to a consumer that
can't think for his or her self, not because they make a product worth
buying. Review after review said it was unnecessary for Windows 2000 users
to make the update to Windows XP yet so many did because Microsoft knew how
to market it. I'm sorry that you are unable to see the truth behind their
schemes. Have you read the EULA you constantly agree to? Do you realize
you're throwing away your constitutional rights each time you click that
button? It's people like you that Microsoft will continue to market.
You're nothing more then a lemming following in the footsteps of all the
other IT managers that didn't care enough to research first. Review after
review warned of the major quirks that would exist after the upgrades to
Office XP yet people still insisted on upgrading only to find out that they
should have listened. If you have such a desire to spend money on
investments that will take you nowhere, why not toss some of that over my
way so I can do something with it?

Take care,

Sean

 

[Enkidu]

I miss a lot of things about Novell - including uptime - but I don't miss
the interface. I'm a wimp, admittedly. I like having a GUI as well as a
command line. I think Novell missed the boat due to arrogance or
something.....it's a shame, as NDS was lookin' pretty cool.

I don't miss Novell slo....w.....in....g to a crawl whenever an NLM is
started.

Cheers,

Cliff

 

[Enkidu]

My *n?x machines have security patches applied. About the only time I need
to reboot is when I compile a new kernel or when I shut it down for
preventative maintenance.

I don't see any problems with rebooting for security patches. And the
Unix ones sometimes require it too. One patch I put one stopped the
logrotate and other backup jobs. But it is rare to require a reboot.

Cheers,

Cliff

 

[MadDHatteR]

Windows systems generally do not have the uptime seen in other OSes, but (in
my experience) not because of inherent OS instability. We have some
air-gapped 2k servers with uptime exceeding a year now. Security patches
obviously mandate shorter uptimes for most networked production
environments. To be honest, I don't know why Microsoft requires a reboot so
often. It doesn't seem necessary to me. Microsoft seems to be moving in the
direction that redundancy is better than uptime.

Windows excels as a desktop operating system. MACs are close, but Linux and
Unix are so far behind on the desktop productivity front that it's almost
laughable. I believe I have yet to enjoy a positive experince with
OpenOffice, for example. With the exception of a mail client, I can do
everything I need efficiently and reliably in MSOffice.

After administering unix and windows systems (and working with Linux admins,
sorry no Novell experience), I will say that Windows servers can do more
with less effort than anything else I've seen. Compare GPOs, AD, and MSIs to
LDAP on Linux or Solaris and the various package systems. Compare DFS to
Solaris' NFS/automounter. Look at the permissions and flexibility available
on Windows compared to Unix. When it comes to getting sh*t done, it happens
cheaper (in terms of effort, not $$) and easier on Windows.

Now when it comes to DHCP, DNS, web-serving and the like, I'll happily hand
the trophy to Unix, because I don't think Microsoft has developed a
competitive product yet. (The yet is important, because NT wasn't much of a
server OS, but it didn't take them long to do infinitely better with AD.)

Anyway, that's a long-winded way of saying Windows doesn't suck -- it has
some great strengths, as well as some weaknesses, just like any other OS.

\\ MadDHatteR

(for my money, XP was worth the upgrade, if for no other reason than remote
desktop)

 

[Joe Richards [MVP]]

I still say that a lot of your issues are due to not understanding and using the platform correctly. The statement about
doing most admin from a workstation with Novell is true with NT. I rarely log directly into my servers, I would say of
the 400 there are maybe 3 or 4 that I do log on interactively in any given month.

When I ran SQL Servers they would go a year without a reboot if there was nothing in the security realm that I had to
patch with which was common in the SP2-3 days of NT4. I would have to shut down when we had our annual data center fire
supression system tests.

Someone who is good at running UNIX or any other OS is not necessarilly going to know what the hell they are doing on
Windows. Sorry to burst the bubble, being a UNIX admin doesn't mean the person is a computer god, just means they can
handle what they normally do ok. Since most of the stuff in UNIX world has been set up and stabilized 15 years ago it
doesn't take a tremendous amount to run a stable UNIX system. I was running Sparc systems in the 80's and they had been
stable for quite some time then. NT doesn't even really have but maybe 10 years in with most of the admins not really
having a clue. it will get better and better especially as the old UNIX admins come over and realize that running a
Windows System like a UNIX system isn't going to make it work very well. Windows is considerably different and for the
variety of applications it handles, it does a pretty good job.

joe

--
Joe Richards
www.joeware.net