[rescue] Re: [geeks] THIS. MAKES. ME. SICK.
Joshua D. Boyd
rescue at sunhelp.org
Wed Jun 13 16:29:37 CDT 2001
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Al Potter wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 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 what with running such an outdated OS and all.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.
Many people run NT servers that barely get used and that aren't exposed to
OK, I can't quote anyone specific for NT achieving that uptime. I've
heard people claim it, but I'm not going to take the time to find a
reference. I do know that for several years now (and this is easy to find
references to) there have been companies guaranteeing uptimes upwards of
99.99% uptime. Now, if they can guarantee that in a bad case, then
average or good cases for those companies should easily exceed 2 years.
> > 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.
It is quite a boon if you are small business trying to get started on
chicken feed. Oh, lets just give up and shutdown because we can't afford
a real system admin to set up a server, even though us idiots could get NT
to work well enough.
> 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"?
I don't think I actually know any MCSEs that make anywhere near that much.
I suspect that there are probably a few Cisco certified people here, and
perhaps some CEOs there, who just happen to also have an MCSE who are
driving the averages so high.
> > 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.
Since I was talking specifically about 3.51 (is that the version that
really started taking over? That's the first version I ever used, and I
had used novell quite a bit before), we are talking about something like
1995. At that point, 486s were often the old machine lieing around. And
all you really needed for a semi decent file server was 16 or 20 megs of
ram. Obviously not an enterprise class system, but enough to let a
workgroup save their word files in a reasonable amount of time.
More information about the rescue