The Gauntlet (What's missing in windows?)

I grew up in command line environments for everything and anything and I so much prefer the point-click-done scenario AD offers.

But I realize that there are still those who think vi is a superior alternative to Word 2003 for every secretary in the enterprise, so go figure.

My desktops are now all dual core AMD 64 bitters and MonopolySoft XP has no clue how to use Dual core. But Suse 9.3 does and well.
Some years ago I discovered VMware.
Since then I run good ol reliable winderz 95 in the VMware window under My Linux Desktop.
This did two things.
1. all the CAD/CAM software I had invested in and worked relaibly in 95 actally ran better in the VM window. And when it failed all i needed was to close that window and reopen. Poof a bunch faster that re Booting. Still works that way today and with the Linux multiple processor support is fast as well.
2. I saved a bunch of money as I did not have to pay to "upgrade" all my CAD/CAM stuff. NOR did I have to pay for XP. NOR did I have to go through
"update" after service pack update to further slow my machine down and add more stuff I don't use or want or add more memory usage to slow everything down. Nor all the headaches that these "updates" have brought. So I SAVED a BUNCH of money in both CASH and TIME.

MonopolySoft OSes are the best of it's world, "Over Gloated and Inefficient Operating Systems". Too bad they could not be just an operating system, as Linux is, and compete in the real world without forcing their crap on us.
The latest IE and beta for "VISTA" show what they can do. Install IE and lose all of anything except their links.

On my servers I use Linux. On my Laptop I use Lindows (Linspire now) and on my development machines I use Suse 9.3. BUT, on my GAME machine I would use XP Pro, since all the games are written for it.They cornered that market pretty good.

So for the best of both worlds I run 95 under Linux. It is the Best of all choices.

Secure reliable Linux with good ol reliable 95.

As we go from kernel to kernel we also get to add those inovative things that Monopolysoft won't for years.

Linux did and still does "multiple" processors not something MonopolySoft does well.
Even in this age of dual cores..

Maybe that is why the server manufactures are "certifying" to Linux and not MS.
Repairs happen faster too.

I agree,linux is now at the point that windows was in 1986,running on an upgraded 086 to a 286xt with an ems card.It has a ways to go,but linux will be exciting to watch for the next ten years.Then the winXX format will retire to rom cards like win3x has done(embedded systems).Just give me 16 processors...

I think, John, that you echo my adequacy argument: Microsoft got where they are by providing an adequate OS to most every PC sold.

Currently they provide an adequate OS, with adequate ease-of-use, and adequate apps that a person of adequate competence can use to perform business functions.

Which is all business execs (or more so, their admin assistants) really ask for. Something familiar, something that generally works and is adequate.

At any point in time from MS-DOS 1.0 forward, there always was a better OS, a better app, and better hardware ... most of which now resides in the dustbin of history. Why? While it was clearly superior to someone, what it was attempting to replace was (a) there already and (b) adequate.

Show me a LAMP box that is easier than a Windows 2000/IIS box for getting a small web site up and testing, and I may actually switch. Show the admin down the hall where OpenOffice loads faster than Word 2003, looks exactly the same and has all the Word features used every day, she'll switch.

Heck, show me a Linux distro (other than Red Hat) that will run Yahoo Instant Messenger, and likely my daughter will switch too.

Until then, adequacy of what arrived with the PC will stay in place.

I am not sure what you are telling us about what windows is missing.

Virtually everyone uses the security speech as windows downfall. Time to let that one go. Unix/Linux models haven't fared much better. You don't hear as much because they aren't such big targets, but they aren't really that much more secure(able). And While the Anti-MS crowds are sitting around talking about how Bad MS security is, MS keeps improving it, by adding malicious code checking, app-aware firewalling...

No, I think it's time to let go of that one.

I think Microsoft would love to separate this stuff better. The problem is that there are so many third-party Windows apps still in use that were designed for Windows 95 or even 3.1 and expect to have complete control over the OS.
If you've ever had to give a user Power User (or, heaven forbid, Local Administrator) rights in order for the accounting software to work, you've seen the problem I'm talking about. Office runs fine logged in as a regular user. Third party apps frequently don't.

I beg to differ, I have a custom MMC console where I can manage all the services you mentioned and more.....You need to study up on the MMC console. You would be suprised how much of your environment you can manage from one MMC console.
James R. MCSE, MCSA

NT was co developed by Microsoft and IBM, not MS and Novell. NT was built from the ground up based on TCP/IP, not IPX/SPX. Get your comp history straight. The only part of NT that is licensed from Novell, is the IPX/SPX specs with witch they built the Novell client.

How much does ZenWorks cost these days?

However I have to make one small point. We do let people on the road with insuffecient driving training.

I think Windows gets by on a system of diminishing returns. Chances are, the windows machines worth hacking are maintained by an IT Staff that "SHOULD" know how to keep them secure (this is not always the case.) The Windows Boxes that are the least secure, are the ones that the dial-up internet users have, because they have never downloaded any patches. What hacker wants to break into Grandma's machine, and steal her secret apple pie recipie at dial-up speed.

Since it is possible to secure windows, and keep it running reliably, it can be a very strong choice for an OS, but a business better make sure that they are getting it installed by someone that knows what they are doing.

If you are putting Linux in, you can be pretty sure it's being installed by someone who knows what they are doing, the Install alone will befuddle most novice's

David
want a Free Ipod?
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=9181869

Where in the world did you get this ""Best Practice."" If you have to format and reinstall, it will simply be because you have cluttered your drive to a point that you can no longer function. XP can run for decades without having to be reinstalled.

You do make a good point about uninstalling programs though, much easier on the Mac. Windows has started down that road, when you trash a shortcut, it asks you if you want to uninstall the program, if you say yes, it takes you to add/remove programs. You still have to find, and manually uninstall the program, but it's better than letting you believe that you did, just by trashing the shortcut.

David
want a Free Ipod?
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=9181869

>> I still find linux holds a better set of tools for text manipulation (regex, grep,etc...).

Linux does, but you can easily get these tools for Windows using the free Cygwin software.

I moved a number of fairly complex shell scripts and interactive shell environment from Unix to Windows using Cygwin and it worked out very well.

You can run every windows server since NT in CLI if you want to, just change the shell. Good luck configuring anything. But you could simply launch the gui for config, then go back to CLI afterward. You are not required to run GUI in Windows. I guess you were Ignorant of this feature.

David
want a Free Ipod?
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=9181869

Get Cygwin from www.cygwin.com (free).

I'm not sure about the e-mail part, but you could probably use your C-Shell script unmodified (or almost) by running it through Cygwin's C-Shell port.

Cygwin provides many Unix tools under Windows, including the shells (csh, ksh, etc.).

I moved several fairly complex Unix scripts and an interactive shell environment from Unix to Windows and it worked quite well. There were some modifications needed (due to file path differences mostly) but it was a lot less effort than trying to rewrite the scripts as .BAT files or vbscript.

As do all of it's successors, the support for these file systems is not loaded by default, but I have personally gotten Windows NT Workstation, to connect to Servers running Novell, Apple, and even OS/2. What Filesystem are you unable to connect to?

David
want a Free Ipod?
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=9181869

There is just no way to "kick" or "jump" a huge amount of servers quickly within Windows. We use kickstart and jumpstart servers to quickly configure, upgrade, patch, and install Linux/UNIX OS'es to servers in the hundreds within an hour. Let's see Windows do that. Kickstart is also a great DR plan. OK so I have to buy a third party to half way do that but not well.

go back to playing checkers.

How about Widnows had more than twice as much. Did you not count?
Malware will still be rare for Linux as people like Linux and us it because they want to, not because they have to. Also, being open source, everyone can look at the code to see what is or might be exploited. If something is exploited, it is much easier to fix and you don't have to wait for a company with another agenda to fix it. With MS products, you must wait for MS to fix the problem.
P.S. We are moving to AD from NDS and had to add 11 servers just to support AD. These servers do nothing else, they do not run any applications. For this same multicampus consolidation, we Novell admins planned on adding 2 servers just because it made us more comfortable. None of the tasks I do in AD are as easy to do as they are in NDS. We are over a year into a single sign on project and still are not over half way. Novell came in and showed how we could have done this with a point and click tool and have taken only a few months to implement. But the powers that be have M$ on the brain and would not pursue a Novell solution.

That Windows Treats all API's as if they were System calls. I think you are overstating the problem in windows.

Windows has the same abstraction layers that other OS's have. The problem is, windows has made accomadations for various reasons, and allowed certain application to have direct access to the hardware. This is a big no no. But if you want to be backward compatable, you need to have this. Also If you are a Gamer, you don't want the OS between your game and the Video Card, this overhead costs you FPS. In the past in an effort to keep everyone happy, Microsoft has violated the concept of an OS by allowing application direct access to system calls, and hardware. but Windows certainly does not treat layers of the architecture the same.

David
want a Free Ipod?
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=9181869

PS. Also as a side note CPU's don't have Rings, The OS has Rings, and the CPU resides at Ring 0.

I feel Ungle has a valid point here. Many I.T. professionals are curious about the fervor surrounding Linux/Unix. However, no one wants to change everything unless there is a ROI (return on investment) that makes sense - no not the cost of the OS, because the training and staffing issues far outweigh that. What are tangible pros to Linux? Security is an issue for BOTH OS's same old argument. Some are touting NDS - please forgive my ignorance but is that a part of Linux? I know Novell developed it when I was administering a Novell network and moved from the bindery. If that is part of the linux system - great. Does Linux use X-windows?

...and frankly, with the exception of the "make the kernel opensource", as with all rants I felt he is either wrong of misinformed. To address just the few you mentioned:

"Give each user their own 'Program Files' area..."

Given that Windows is most widely used on the desktop, and is a multi-user OS, this in itself does not make that much sense. Imagine if every one of the 10 users who logged into one machine had their own install of Office?? What microsoft have done is gone what I see one step better. They put the main program files into a "system space" which individual users should not have write access to - Program Files -, and put the user specific files into the profile - Application Data. File security on desktop machines should never allow users to enter the "system area" with write privileges.

"Do not allow use of system modules by other than a superuser"

This IS how Windows works...unless an inept administrator allows administration privileges to end users. This is not how Windows was ever intended to be used.

"Do not allow directory modifications to system areas"

Ditto above.

"Do not allow dynamic privilege escalation through code"

This is only ever seen, without proper authentication, in the event of bugs. Albeit they are often, it was never the intention of Windows to allow privilege escalation without authentication, and assuming everything is working right, it does not.

"Make sure no files on the system are writable by everybody..."

Good point this one. Originally there was a temp folder on the root drive accessible to everyone. Bad. Thus with Win 2000 MS realized the error and moved the Temp directory for each user to the profile. Every user has their own Temp folder. Thus the only files accessible to everyone are the ones...our inept admin allowed access to! There is one other time...I will expand.

In my time in the Windows Engineering department for a major investment bank one of my responsibilities was to ensure that no application required admin privileges to run. I was only ever beaten by one application: a promiscuous packet sniffer, not something joe average needs!.

However, I came across inumerous badly designed applications that required the user be granted access to the program folder. I say badly designed, because this data was, by windows design, supposed to reside in the Application Data folder within the profile. This is a shell folder, meaning there is a simple API call an application can make to find the location of the Application Data folder.

Finally, if anyone would like me to address any of the points made in the link you mention, I'd be happy to.

Please note again, I do not believe that Windows is perfect - far from it!, I do not think that Linux is bad - far from it!, but I do believe that each OS has it's place, none is inherently evil (even if their creators are :-) ), and I believe that there are a lot of people with grudges against dorky billionaires who are willing to bash what they do not understand (the guy in the link fits the last category!)

I read the litany of how great NDS is vs Windows and AD. Here is why Windows won and Novell failed: With a Windows (or, actually, a NetBIOS box), pull the network cable, and you lose connectivity to the network, but that's it. Pull the network cable on a Novell client box, and the machine crashes. NetBIOS was forgiving, and Novell was like the Network Nazis. "Pull the cable, and we pull your plug."

That was a sensible response. I've been in that position: Argued for the switch to Linux from Sun. They listened. Argued for certain services to switch to Windows FROM Linux. They listened.

What managers are most concerned about is TCO.

Demonstrate a reduced TCO without reducing service and they'll listen. Service levels is what THEY set; Most administrators forget that!

I'd say that was probably more a problem with a novell client than NDS.

I can't say that I've ever had that happen in my company they were using novell client on 95 when I started. The most you would have happen is if you left it unplugged for a while you'd loose your authentication with the server, as it is time and ID based.

Nice FUD from both mmcdonal@... and gphoto45@..., and now a fact:
Apache runs 68% of web servers and IIS runs 21% - but more attacks are made on IIS. So much for the myth that there is safety in small numbers. ;)

Information from:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/

Background: I use what works, whether it be MS Windows or Linux, so please do not try to paint me as a Linux lover. :)

...although I suspect it would not be difficult to develop one.

There are already certain applications that can allow elevated rights: MSI, for example, will allow elevated privileges during install.

On the other hand, I've never needed anything like this. What would you use it for? If there was enough interest, I may be willing to produce something...

although admittedly, getting it right can be tricky.

I suggest you do some more reading on MSI.

Just curious, what is it you find difficult about creating service accounts that don't have interactive rights?

BTW, Regex is available through WSH. It still annoys me that it's not available through the command line!

You can right click on the program, and choose run as. Enter the credentials, and choose, "always run with these credentials, or run once with credentials" It is esentially the same thing.

David
want a Free Ipod?
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=9181869

If your Drive is formatted with NTFS, you have file level security same as Unix. You can assign users that can and cannot view each file/ or directory/subdir as you see fit.

David
want a Free Ipod?
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=9181869

I Deployed Office 2003 network wide, and never need admin password for new users, it just runs the setup and off they go.

David
want a Free Ipod?
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=9181869

..and I appreciate the spirit of the question.

Yes, it would be a relatively trivial excercise and the kind of thing I do an a regular basis.

The Windows Scripting Host is very versatile and extremely extensible. VBScript seems popular because of it's simplicity and readability. JScript is also poular, but there are plugins to it for numerous languages (including Perl as mentioned). The bit I like about it, though, is I can mix languages in my scripts! I never liked VB string manipulation (although at least WSH does give us Regex) or math routines, so I do them in JScript.

Did you want and example? Or were you trying to find out if it was possible?

You are right and some distros do address the Windows transition BUT they do not allow as far as I know people to run applications that can only be obtained under Windows e.g. edutainment, games, etc.

IF there was *one* LINUX 2005 distro with the add/remove programs, security update, etc functionality then it would be a big seller but 100's of distros just does not cut it. Whatever happened to the groups of vendors that tried something like this, I recall numerous vendors trying to get a single distro up for Desktop linux...?

With the Linspire option you mentioned, if you still downloaded an update for Firefox it would not update/replace the existing version, it would prompt to install locally for the user and then you end up with 2 versions of Firefox.

I run Linux and Windows on the same machine at home but always end up going back to Windows as the frustration of updating,tweaking, etc just drives me nuts. i have used several distros from Novell, SUSE, Mandrake, all have the same usability issues. On the plus side to Linux though device detection has come on amazingly and almost all my hardware works now.....

I'm curiouse about:

1. Registry. You give no reason why you don't like it, or why you feel it's bad. Yes, I'm afraid this does come across as bygotry. Would you mind expanding?

2. Shared DLLs. Of course you can install software on Windows that does not share DLLs, if that's what you want to do. This I'm surprised you raised. It's not so different, except that there is ALSO the option of COM.

3. Scaleability. This is probably a fair point. I've never understood why my clusters should be restricted to 4 nodes, although I've never had reason to want more. Probably Oracle is not a good example here (others have commented on this), but it's still a true statement. Windows has not given the scaleability I've seen in Linux. Then again, I've never seen a 24 proc. windows machine either, but I know it's possible.

AFAIK under Windows the CPU runs in protected mode where it has special access privilage levels called 'rings'. Kernel code runs in ring 0 while user code in ring 3. This is why the CPU gets HW exception when a code running in ring 3 wants to execute a ring 0 instruction like direct access to ports. So Windows versions >= NT does not allow a user program direct access to ports unless a driver code is inserted into the kernel. Games do not use the hardware directly but through either an emulation layer or DirectX.

for the usage i have gotten out of linux its a standard gui on each and every program.
when you sit down in front of that windows computer everyday programs have the same standard buttons. I am still trying to figure out copy and paste from one windows to the next in linux but i do it every day in windows even from a dos prompt.

you'll see the point flying over it.

I'll aim lower for you.

The thing that is missing is when you are authorised to get onto a linux system, you are still outside the security perimeter, and no amount of cajoling will get you inside unless the guy who's system it is agrees explicitly to let you in.
You don't have to be anti MS to be anti BS.

we'll never really know how much of our third party code 'faults' are down to internal errors in windows or to a less than perfect interface to the OS.

If you keep up to date with a patches a windows box it only has to last a month anyway, somewhat convenient that isn't it.
If you don't want to fix a fault, make it a feature.

Wouldn't call myself hardcore and I'd bash windows even harder if there wasn't an alternative, because I'd have no alternative, which is effectively true in the desktop market given business inertia.
Up and at 'em it is then.

Novell is much more forgiving of that now. With Native file access you don't even need a client to do file sharing.

Bill Dewey

LVM, clustering, commercial products... Yes indeed, Linux offers many ways to provide real-time data mirroring and high availability.

This aside - and no disrespect to your users - but it sounds like your organization should emphasize end-user training given the fact they have administrative privileges to data.

I work on various platforms on a daily basis, and I must say that most *nix systems do not allow users enough privileges to inadvertantly delete data. Some do, but not most.

Prevention is always the best solution.

apache boxes then instead win IIS ones. Much bigger target so you are bound to make headlines.
Lets see I'll just use IE to .. No
Hmm Outlook to ... No
Ah ActiveX ... No
RPC to ... No
Client Side Script to ... No
Log on as Admin .... No

Ah here's a windows Box, off we go.

Your statement, "MCSE training never included instruction on how to close the security holes in Microsoft products," is completely inaccurate. I'm currently earning my MCSE (since my old one has been amortized) and can tell you that both the old NT4 and the current 2003 MCSE certifications require knowledge on how to lock down Windows.

On another note, according to Netcraft, *nix servers are still the dominate platform in server farms around the world.

See the following URL:
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html

windows, it's nowhere near as bad as that. In fact I can't think of any occasion where I've had to wipe and reinstall the OS except through operator error.

until you mentioned IE.
What exactly are the default options for browser choice in windows ?
That was an option they definitely removed, choice.

The fork attack is why most of my friends and I switched from Red Hat to Debian a long time ago.

I am under the impression that most Linux users are still unaware of this vulnerability.

BTW - as with Debian, the BSDs are not vulnerable to the fork attack.

Have all forgot the power and security of Unix. Unix is the Server OS that is used and started the Internet. Unix is what linus wants to be, however, will never be. Server people should learn amd operate Unix. It is power, security and lovely, Not Linus. Linus is little sister of Unix.

OOPS

Obviously, you don't have an "under the hood" appreciation of what makes *nix secure.

Course that won't stop me mentioning all the problems in windows that could be fixed without impacting the 'user experience'.

for windows. You could probably find equivalents for the others. The thing is the way windows works and the application files types that are regularly on it, straight text facilities aren't all that useful.
Whereas on a 'nix box which is very file based they most deginitely are.

Can you imagine trying to teach Gerry the Grocer how to use commandline tools to create, configure and implement his web site.
That's where windows wins big time.
FP is absolutely awful.
File New website fill in your name and choose a theme, hey I'm a web developer and a grocer now is very attractive to the man in the street.

builders, nor on web page development tools come to think of it. They always lean towards building what the devloper of the tools thinks I should not what I wanted to. I do use them to rough things out then it's text editor time to put the professional touches in.

Saying that the absolute worst GUI DB builder I've ever had the misfortune to use is the MySQL tools that sit under windows, total garbage they are.

For things like creating tables it's quicker to do it in text anyway. By the time you've clicked in all the dropdowns the old index finger needs a rest.

on windows !
LOL

that could do tasks of similar 'complexity' for windows. Perl for instance. Piping a series of system utilties to do this would be a little more problematic though as they aren't all written to do that seamlessly.

IIS I can live with, ASP, well if you have to do a scripted solution under windows OK, but don't cite frontpage as a reason to use windows professionally, it just plain sucks.

You may not know this, but as of XP/2003 you can install applications just as you say. It's a little known feature called "side by side dll".

Effectively, if you want to use your own version of a COM object, you pop it in the same directory as the executable and then create a manifest for teh exe.

However, you've ALWAYS been able to do this, it's just you had to develop in a different way. There's always a compromise between simplicity and efficiency.

Some Linux advantages:

- Linux is manageable even when the video's out;
- Linux works well in embedded applications;
- Linux has a MUCH more responsive repair/
hole-patch process, and will likely always have;
- Linux runs well on older hardware;
- Linux is can be highly customized without
million-dollar licenses;
- Linux is a far better real-time OS, although it
is by no means the best;
- Databases have much better performance under
Linux;
- Linux and the apps for same do not endanger
ownership of one's data;

While Windows *can* be a tidge more friendly out of the box, it's really a 32 bit version of a 16 bit shell on top of an 8 bit OS origilanny coded for a 4 bit processor and purveyed by a 2 bit company which cannot stand 1 bit of competition.

Bix

For graphics work, having multiple screens displaying one graphic, with another high res one showing the render is a huge plus for Linux.
Add that to a 3 x 4 screen wrap around for cedega game play and Windows is out the door.

If you can't afford lots of multiple screens you can use two and set up an alternate window manager like fvwm in one of them, 20 or so desktops with zero edge resistance, and drag a scanned in graphic across them so that one scanned in or output dot equals one screen pixel. Then you can view edges and shading as they will be in reality.
I haven't seen this in Windows.

I'm going to respond from the other direction, why I use Windows.

Basically because I spend my day supporting PCs, that last thing I want to do when I get home is battle with my PC. So, my requirements are that it runs reliably, that it can run the latest games. And that there is a good range of useful and powerful software available.

Now I've heard the Linux story of lots of apps available. Problem is that the ones I've tried are brain-damaged or don't have half the facilities of the commercial windows software.

Case in point. I'm into graphics. The sort of tools I'd expect would be the equivalent of Photoshop and Painter, and I mean ALL the tools. GIMP just doens't cut it if you are used to Photoshop and Painter.

Similarly, the Office clones don't have half the features I'm used to and aren't compatible with MS. Example, all my spreadsheets contain macros. They won't run in Office clones.

This seems to be the norm. The Linux software just doesn't cut it if you want to do more than the basics.

I don't know VB script, but I can use Runtime Revolution to make GUI interfaces and the shell to do the processing in Linux.

I tried to do it with RunRev on Windows with cygwin but it hangs on script execution, waiting for a key press.

I don't have these interoperation problems in Linux, being able to use just about any program's output for the next event, which means that I can solve just about any problem with a combination of any tools and applications I happen to think of with a high degree of automation and simplicity.

I find Windows restricts my thought processes by making me use tools I find hard to understand and implement.

AD is just a catch-up attempt by M$, and a poor one at that. How many servers do you need just to have AD security features available?? With NDS, the same server could not only host NDS, but be running GroupWise, NetWare for SAA, MySQL and a web server, and hardly break a sweat.

It's a shame though. It's VHS vs. Beta all over again, just with networking. I hope Novell can find a new market in its Linux products.

It works very well and saves the trouble of rebooting. I quite like it and it seems to work very well with minimal issues.

I highly suggest you give it a shot...at $15 bucks it is cheap!

Hi Friends,

Do u all know that because of Microsoft in the world more than 10lac peoples are getting there Food, Cloths and Shelters.

Don't get angry on me,

Here is the real picture for u all,

0round 100thousand people in side Microsoft are there in development, marketing, sales, support etc.,

Microsoft Venders in marketing, sales, and support. Unauthorized venders for Microsoft products, system administrators etc.

(Finally countless people uses Microsoft products like back office and Office products.)

This is the major contribution to the world from Microsoft. But at the same time no other company is having the wide range of people like this.

With the fear of descending into a long, drawn-out discussion...

I would consider the registry to be the following files:
NTUser.dat, Sam, Security, Software, System and Default.

Cryptic? Why would you find it cryptic? It's a database, after all, with heirarchical data in it. It's very simple once you get to know it and a lot more robust than all those disclaimers would have you believe.

For a good starter on the registry, look here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/en/server/help/sag_ntregconcepts_mply.htm

I have seen inept packagers kill machines by writing raw data to the registry, though - You can't completely protect yourself against idiots, right?? I've never come across anything unrecoverable yet.

I know you meant COM when you said shared DLL...all OS that I've seen use some form of shared libraries. COM is one implementation of it. but you don't have to use COM in Windows if you don't want to.

Crake,

Shadow copy is a technology aimed at file servers. The idea is that if you overwrite a file then later you can revert to the old version of the file, for 1, 2, 10 copies, whatever you want.

This is not about access as it's designed to save users from themselves on file servers where they are MEANT to have access under any scheme/OS.

Data integrity is another issue...

Not sure of your AD background but all the things you say you cannot do are not correct. Ever hear of MMC and snap-ins of course not because you say it won't do it. of course you can put all of your snap-ins in a single console and from one location administer all optins either on the existing system or on another. If you would sit and actually learn the op system you woun't find that they all have there good points nad there bad points. It just what you know...

The benefits of a mixed environment can't be stressed enough. Replacing Windows where it makes sense to do so, can achieve significant cost savings. Here, I manage Windows, Citrix, SLES9, and Netware. The way I look at it is that I get the best of all worlds.....

I agree...I don't subscribe to the "one OS for all things" school of thought, and each OS brings it's own set of assets/liabilities. I'm develing into Linux as an alternative to explore new and/or better ways to "trap the mouse". I like the challenge and discovery aspects and learn a great deal in the pursuit.

Unfortuanatly we can't just all get along. You will always have fanatics that can't see the strengths in alternative products (both sides of the fence on this one).

David
want a Free Ipod?
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=9181869

Using ADS toolbox with all of the dll's, you can make your own '1 tool' applet to do everything you need to.

We transitioned from NDS to AD in 2003. I did not like having to go to several different programs to do all of the things I needed to do to manage my AD. So, I sat down and wrote my own 'AD Management' program. I even shared it across all of our divisions. Works great.

Create users, manage and assign groups, create DACL's and CACL's. Without this, I would have to go into Active Directory Users and Computers to create a user. Then, I would have to go to the filesystem to make a home folder, remove default permissions, manually assign DACL's and CACL's.

Be as it may, AD has it's advantages and disadvantages. Take the disadvantages and improve upon those

If you study the underlying structure of NDS and then look at AD you will see they copied NDS. They use similar terminology, trees and forests for AD, you can't see the forest for the trees lol. And NDS has been using a tree structure with branches since Netware 4.x. Microsoft copied their security from NDS and NDS is much more secure because they have been perfecting it for years. So the comment wouldn't hold true. NDS is much more secure because it has been around longer and has had more time to work the bugs out which Microsoft despite being around since the 90s has yet to be able to put out a product that can't be hacked. It is much tougher to hack a Netware OS because of all the security built into the OS.

No undelete method. Atleast with NDS, you could go into Purge/Recover and recover accidently deleted files, or those Excel files that got corrupt with the last save. You could go back in time to 1 hour ago and retrieve the last save state of that darn corrupted file...

You nailed it...NDS blows AD out of the water :)

This harks back to the conclusion of Pirates of Silicon Valley, when Steve Jobs said to Bill Gates: "We're better than you. We've got better stuff." Bill Gates responded: "But don't you see? That doesn't matter!"

I found myself wishing Mr. Gates would continue the dialog and explain what did matter. Right or wrong, I've drawn my own conclusions. Microsoft's timing mattered. Their various business decisions mattered: developing a GUI for their OS, marketing their technology, signing license agreements with Apple and others, convincing companies like Aldus to develop software for Windows, the success of Windows 3.x-9.x, the acquisition of innovative companies, and on and on... Due to those decisions and so many others, they became the 900-pound gorilla they are today.

So what matters to IT customers? TCO matters. Communication with business partners using compatible apps matters. Return on Investment matters. The cost of an exit strategy matters. Bottom line? There is one underlying thing that matters in business: Money. Money matters...

I'm not sure why people bash windows myself, Linux would have just as many virus's and be just as unsafe if it had as many users. Windows users make up something like 98% of the worlds computer users. Mac os X is not only a great system because its based of Unix, its a great OS because so few people use it, the hackers have no reason to spend theyre time hacking OSX. They Hack where the money is, and the money is where the people are, the people are using windows. There are big bucks in spyware, addware and other maliscous software these days. Information is worth a lot of money to the right people.

I personally think that compatibility is #1 and reliability is #2. You can re-boot a machine, re configure its system, but finding a piece of important productivity software for an unsupported OS will turn anyone off to any OS.

Our corporate costs are such that upgrading our support for our novell servers and migrating the tree to newer hardware is such that, with the desktop manageablity of AD, it would cost far too much money to essentailly duplicate the windows file server environment...
Maybe when Novell is little more mature in the Linux world it'll be worth exploring...

the point is why should I ?

I don't create databases much and the one's I do tend to be small and for a simple purpose (at home use). The other thing I use Access for is a front end to some other database. I can drag and drop several forms together and I have a simple quick app to input/extract info out of a DB with basically no money up front.

Bill Dewey