[rescue] Re: [geeks] THIS. MAKES. ME. SICK.
rescue at sunhelp.org
Wed Jun 13 15:29:36 CDT 2001
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
OK, I don't normally engage in this in public forums, but this is just too
> To be fair, there are numerous people who have had NT machines with that
> sort of uptime. It also is a miracle that those people weren't cracked,
> what with running such an outdated OS and all.
I call Bull$hit!
Point them out.
If they've been up that long (two years), which I seriously doubt, they are
obviously not patched to the current service pack, thus aren't even close to
safe to use for "real" purposes. And we all know you can't patch (or do much
of anything for that matter) to an NT box without a reboot. I also have a
HARD time believing that an NT box which hasn't been patched for TWO YEARS,
hasn't memory leaked itself into BSOD land.
> I'm just saying that anyone who is familiar with Windows can set up an NT
> workgroup server. Before NT, you had to get a real admin in to set up the
> new beast. And workgroup servers don't really NEED 2 year uptimes, even
> if it is something nice to brag about.
And this is crap too.
This is the real disservice that MS did to enterprise computing: Selling the
suits on the idea that they could get rid of their "high paid" sysadmins
because (quoting you) "anyone who is familiar with Windows can set up an NT
workgroup server". Bottom line is you need an experienced admin, period.
Otherwise, your stuff is eventually gonna flop in the wind.
But they seem to have caught on.... is anybody else sick of hearing the
Foobar Training Network's ads for "MCSEs make an average of $65k a year"?
> Thus, it wasn't any surprise that NT sold so well for file server use.
> Plus the pricing was pretty friendly. You can set up NT workstation as
> a workgroup just fine. With NT4, you are limited to 10 users, but under
> NT 3.51 wrkstation, the user count was unlimited. That meant, find the
> old 486 laying around. Add a new harddrive, stuff in more ram, and
> install NT 3.51, and away you go, a new workgroup server for under $500.
> Try doing that with Novel.
NT "sold" well for file server use for a couple of reasons. First, if you
beta'd it, they all but gave it to you. Second, try, as an exercise, to
bootleg a Novell server (short story, all but impossible for a clueless
newbie). NT could care less, one license key can light up the whole
enterprise. Yah, it's theft, but lots of folks did it, and MS tolerated it
because it got them penetration.
And $500 didn't buy very much RAM in the early 90s when this was going on. I
still have the two 4MB 30 pin simms that I bought to expand my OS/2 box to
16MB in 1993. I paid $160 apiece for them, and got a steal.
And while we're at it, "the old 486" wasn't laying around, it was the
then-current workhorse. The Pentium didn't come until 93.
> Obviously, almost any unixish operating system is better and cheaper, but,
> that is only a more recent option. Back when NT 3.51 was kicking Novels
> but, most people hadn't heard of linux or netbsd.
It's not obvious, it a question of suitabilty to the task at hand.
And when NT was taking on Novell (93), Linux barely existed. Looks like
NetBSD "officially" was announced in April of 93, Open forked off of Net, so
came later. FreeBSD started at about the same time, early 93.
There were PC Unicees then, but they almost universally sucked, and they were
horribly expensive. SCO cost thousands......
Do try and get it a little closer to right next time, eh?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the rescue