OT: Coolest thing... SCO on 2003 server!

[Silas Martinez]

On 8/25/05, John Esak <john at valar.com> wrote:
> 
> ...snipped....
> 
> Silas,
> 
> I can see that you are a Unix zealot. :-) And, I can appreciate that stand
> entirely. I used to be of the same mind as you. Not any more. 


Actually, I do come from a strong unix background. But I like to think that 
I try to choose technology based on what is the best fit for the need, 
rather than what *I* prefer - for example, we now run Exchange 2k3 on Win2k3 
servers with a full active directory installation. It is a pain to keep the 
server patched and secure and virus free - it takes up way too much time - 
but the exchange server fits our specific needs for now, in terms of ease of 
use for end users, etc.

Windows 2003
> Server is plenty stable enough for my home system. This has always 
> included
> and previously been based solidly on a Unix core. Things have changed over
> the past 5 years. I now rely strongly on various Windows platforms. As for 
> a
> production server as a virtual system... I don't think I would ever do 
> that
> either... with *nix guesting under Windows. While I totally trust 2003 
> these
> days, my uptimes with Unix hover in the hundreds of days, and I like it 
> that
> way. I have 2003 servers staying up that long now also... so, things *are*
> changing. 


They may be changing, but recently I made the simplest network 
reconfiguration - simply changing DNS servers on a win2k3 server that acts 
as gateway for some of the machines in one of our offices - and I was 
shocked to get the 'windows must restart to apply your changes' message. For 
DNS servers. *sigh*

In any case, virtual pc does put the guest system at the mercy of
> the host system, and why do this under any circumstances for a producton
> system?


I think I covered the reasons I've considered running a sort of virtual 
machine - sandboxing/firewalling (I had a web application that, the way it 
was originally coded, needed to run as a more trusted user than 'nobody'. I 
ultimately rewrote the application rather than compromise on security 
there.).

As for running Linux... We kind of do things the other way around in our
> sites. The data is all stored on Unix, but everyone has the benefit of a
> full Windows environment as their desktop. We manage to keep the systems
> free from virus's and security problems... No, it isn't easy, but it is 
> our
> job to do that. 


The powers that be (read as Upper Management) have deemed that it is in the 
best interests of the company to run with a skeleton IT crew - myself, and a 
couple of assistants - despite our strongest objections. For a network 
consisting of over 120 users spread across two countries and four states. I 
simply don't have the resources to manage a bunch of windows boxes, 
particularly those laptops that spend significant time in the field.

However, by running linux on workstations that are in untrusted situations 
(the laptops we send out to do on site calibratios) I can have it run linux 
natively. This allows me greater security (in my opinion of course), and the 
peace of mind of knowing that our techs are less likely to be able to break 
something. In addition, it lets me run filepro for linux on them and greatly 
automate the processes that synchs the data gathered on the mobile system 
into the divisional filepro server.

Our needs are too widely varying from place to place, office
> to office to limit ourselves and our users to only those things that Linux
> (or Unix) offer. In the end run, the rationale for doing this may be that 
> it
> is just _easier_. This may not be a _good_ reason, but it allows us much
> more time to write applications if we are not constantly trying to figure
> out how to do on Linux what is dead simple on Windows. For example, me
> writing this email with the benefit of a full screen reaer that works
> perfectly. Not yet a reality for Linux.


I agree that when windows makes things easier, it can often actually enable 
things that wouldn't otherwise be possible. Many, many of my users run 
windows as their core workstations - the vast majority of them. For that 
matter, I run a windows workstation at home for gaming - I'm by no means 
blinded by my linux bias. That being said, every machine running filepro 
here is a *nix based box. Actually, every machine running filepro here is 
running linux. The windows workstations use procomm, putty, or both. Because 
that is what is most productive for us at this point - it is what is 
/easiest/ for our users. But it is easiest for me, as a server admin, to 
manage my filepro system from the command line - I dread the day I have to 
open up remote desktop to reset a printer for filepro.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.celestial.com/pipermail/filepro-list/attachments/20050825/f7809598/attachment-0001.html