[Gllug] Voluntary work

Gordon Joly gordon.joly at pobox.com
Fri Nov 14 09:28:50 UTC 2003


At 2:24 +0000 2003/11/14, Bernard Peek wrote:
>In message <p05210603bbd967e23d3c@[192.168.216.2]>, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly at pobox.com> writes
>
>>
>>Can we throw IP security into the pot? Yes, you can "switch on the firewall". Great!! Every Windoze user is now a security expert, handling servers and security....
>>
>>"We switched on the firewall on all our machines".
>>
>>What next? Sit back and have a beer? A pat on the back?
>>
>>***
>>
>>My recent experience was that I arrived with a server and two or three desktops, enjoying Blaster and many other viruses and worms, Kazaa running and who knows what else.
>
>But the performance of the server was OK?


No.

>If so that sort of makes my point. Someone with no real knowledge set up a server that got the job done. It wasn't optimal, but it worked.


Indeed. They walked away. It died. Then they walked back in to the office (in mid install - I had *not* finished) and said - "what is all this Linux shit?"


>
>If the same job had been done at the same time by someone using Linux it might easily have been an open relay server.
>
>What offices need is a system that has all of the advantages of Windows in addition to the advantages of Linux.


Indeed. That is very realistic.

>When I was running an all Windows site I got a little tired of people telling me that Linux was so much better. They kept telling me that Linux was more efficient. What they meant was that it used fewer processor cycles. I didn't care because processor-cycles are cheap. It was cheaper for me to buy another Windows server than to spend time thinking about Linux.


Samba 3.x outperforms Windows Server 2003 by 50%, reported elsewhere.

>
>With Windows 2003 it looks as if Microsoft is learning from Linux. When you first install it you can't do anything useful with it, because all of the inessential services are switched off. So are some of the essential ones. You need to decide which ones to switch on during the install. It's too new to decide just how good a product it is.
>
>I'm more interested in Microsoft's latest product, Small Business Server. That's closer to a traditional Linux distro, in that it includes all of the programs that a small company might want to put on one server. SBS is aimed at companies that want a small network based on a single server. It's aimed at companies that can't afford a sysadmin and have to rely on a "power user" to set up and run their servers.
>
>I'd like to see how Microsoft manages the conflict between the security requirements of Windows 2003 and the ease of use requirements of SBS.
>
>
>
>--
>Bernard Peek
>London, UK. DBA, Manager, Trainer & Author. Will work for money.
>

Small Business Server.

Brand awareness.... always a plus.

Gordo

-- 
Linux User No. 256022///
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
gordon.joly at pobox.com///

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug




More information about the GLLUG mailing list