From: "Robert B. Denny" < rde...@dc3.com>
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Web Practices - Home Page (REPOST)
Date: 1996/09/10
Message-ID: <01bb9f25$d9f77460$4004f826@R1830.dc3.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 179718225
content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
organization: DC3 Dreams
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.windows,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
[REPOST - Original message was mistakenly tacked on to the end
of a very old thread.]
O'Reilly & Associates has recently opened a home page where they have
collated technical, press, editorial, and industry information regarding
Microsoft's anti-web and anti-competitive restrictions on TCP/IP usage in
their Windows NT Workstation 4.0 operating system.
http://software.ora.com/news/ms_internet_frame.html
Yes, their artificial "10 unique incoming IP in 10 minutes" restriction has
(temporarily) been removed from the operating system, yet it remains in
their License Agreement, worded specifically to exclude support of "peer
web services" (whatever _that_ is) for more than "10 users" (whatever a
"user" is). THIS IS A LIMIT ON FUNCTIONALITY OF TCP/IP AND WINDOWS SOCKETS.
MICROSOFT CANNOT CLAIM COMPLIANCE WITH THESE SPECS WHILE THEIR LICENSE
AGREEMENT LIMITS THEIR USE. They can limit the functionality of their own
programs all they want, but they're out of the box to limit the use of
these internet standard protocols by OTHER peoples' programs, yours
included!
THE MOST CONSTRUCTIVE WAY TO STOP THIS ANTI-WEB PRACTICE IS TO LET
MICROSOFT KNOW THAT IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO US. SPEAK OUT.
-- Bob
From: v...@vgis.demon.co.uk (Tim Haynes)
Subject: Re: Microsoft 10 connection Limit on NT Workstation
Date: 1996/10/28
Message-ID: <846541068snz@vgis.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 193452994
references: <9187cc$e722.271@p6dnf.drcoffsite.com> < w7d8ygno6s.fsf@mud.imperium.net>
x-mail2news-user: v...@vgis.demon.co.uk
x-mail2news-path: vgis.demon.co.uk
organization: Vodafone Limited
reply-to: v...@vgis.demon.co.uk
newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.windows,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc,comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix
Gosh - hundreds and hundreds of posts on this subject. I hope that MS
realises the magnitude of its blunder, and is big enough to admit it is
wrong. Note the wording of the license:
"...you may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers to connect to the
Workstation Computer to access and use services of the software
product, such as file and print services and peer web services..."
MS may have had the right to prevent the use of third party Web servers,
but the fact is that the above wording does not prevent this - and no
amount of "clarification" in the KB can change this, because it's not in
the wording.
You're going to lose this one Microsoft - either in court, or because you
drive large numbers of users away from NT to UNIX, OS/2 etc. Now swallow
your pride, grow up and surprise us by playing the "good guy" for a change.
Tim Haynes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my opinions. This license permits a maximum of ten (10) persons
to agree with these opinions. Opening and reading this message signifies
agreement to this license. If you believe that more than ten people have
already read and agreed with these opinions, you must send $600 to the
author for the enhanced 'server' version of these opinions.
From: erwin e crampton jr < cramp...@mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Microsoft 10 connection Limit on NT Workstation
Date: 1996/11/04
Message-ID: <327E205B.3721@mitre.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 194347152
references: <9187cc$e722.271@p6dnf.drcoffsite.com> < w7d8ygno6s.fsf@mud.imperium.net> <846541068snz@vgis.demon.co.uk>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: mitre
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.windows,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc,comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix
x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I)
Tim Haynes wrote:
>
> Gosh - hundreds and hundreds of posts on this subject. I hope that MS
> realises the magnitude of its blunder, and is big enough to admit it is
> wrong. Note the wording of the license:
>
> "...you may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers to connect to the
> Workstation Computer to access and use services of the software
> product, such as file and print services and peer web services..."
>
Note the slight difference in the wording of the NTWS license received a
few days ago.
"...a maximum of ten (10) inbound peer connections may simultaneously
access or otherwise utilize the basic network services of the SOFTWARE
PRODUCT on the COMPUTER. The ten-connection maximum includes any
indirect connections made through software or hardware that pools or
aggregates connections."
I have not installed NTWS 4.0. I use Win95 and NTWS 3.51. I thought
that it was interesting that in the Microsoft NTWS manual it states that
"...Windows NT Workstation is designed for personal Web publishing from
computers running Windows NT Workstation. With Peer Web Services, you
can set up a personal Web server to run on your company's intratnet,
which is ideal for development, testing and peer-to-peer publishing."
My question is how in a large company do you guarantee that the "inbound
peer" limit is always being met except by other than buying only NT
server versions for workstation applications? The IP part of the
protocol is a sequential, non-simultaneous serial packet oriented
connection. However, as others perhaps have made clear, the TCP part of
the protocol spans multiple packets in "virtual connections". Since NT
workstation has been shown to support up to 120 (and NTS 130
connections-see other posts) such connections simultaneously, the 10
limit seems a bit far-fetched in order to be able to do what the
Microsoft manual says that NTWS was designed for and is to be used for!
From: "Robert B. Denny" < rde...@dc3.com>
Subject: Re: Microsoft 10 connection Limit on NT Workstation
Date: 1996/11/05
Message-ID: <01bbcb17$1ef9e300$4004f826@r1830.dc3.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 194674666
references: <9187cc$e722.271@p6dnf.drcoffsite.com> < w7d8ygno6s.fsf@mud.imperium.net> <846541068snz@vgis.demon.co.uk> <327E205B.3721@mitre.org>
content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
organization: DC3 Dreams
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.windows,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc,comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix
erwin e crampton jr < cramp...@mitre.org> wrote in article
<327E205B.3...@mitre.org>...
> [...]
> My question is how in a large company do you guarantee that the "inbound
> peer" limit is always being met except by other than buying only NT
> server versions for workstation applications?
Precisely. I posed the same question in a post to the COM/OLE/ActiveX groups
a few days ago. The consequences to Distributed Common Object Model
developers and Microsoft themselves are possibly ridiculous. In order to
field DCOM-based applications, must all of us run NT server? How can we
monitor compliance?????
> [...] Since NT
> workstation has been shown to support up to 120 (and NTS 130
> connections-see other posts) such connections simultaneously, the 10
> limit seems a bit far-fetched in order to be able to do what the
> Microsoft manual says that NTWS was designed for and is to be used for!
AMEN!! I strongly believe that their limiting NTWS to 10 inbound connections
is an attempt to drive their market position towards usage-based charging for
the internet... a ridiculous business model given that flat-rates are the
successful model. They missed the boat when they decided to dump "free"
software as a way to drive out competition ("cut off their air supply" to
quote one Microsoftie), betting that they could charge for usage on the
back-end.
The corollary question to yours is "How many user-licenses at $150/ea. on my
$1100 NT Server do I need to support my Web-based application?"
-- Bob
From: Jaime Metcher < metc...@spider.herston.uq.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Microsoft 10 connection Limit on NT Workstation
Date: 1996/11/06
Message-ID: <327FD40C.1394@spider.herston.uq.edu.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 194731269
references: <9187cc$e722.271@p6dnf.drcoffsite.com> < w7d8ygno6s.fsf@mud.imperium.net> <846541068snz@vgis.demon.co.uk> <327E205B.3721@mitre.org> <01bbcb17$1ef9e300$4004f826@r1830.dc3.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: University of Queensland
mime-version: 1.0
reply-to: metc...@spider.herston.uq.edu.au
newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.windows,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc,comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix
x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
Robert B. Denny wrote:
>
>
> The corollary question to yours is "How many user-licenses at $150/ea. on my
> $1100 NT Server do I need to support my Web-based application?"
>
> -- Bob
There's a Knowledge Base article about per-server versus per-seat
licensing which explicitly states that HTTP connections are *not*
subject to licensing.
--
Jaime Metcher
Systems Programmer (i.e. plugger-in of printers and replacer of toner)
University of Queensland, Australia.
From: "Robert B. Denny" < rde...@dc3.com>
Subject: Re: Microsoft 10 connection Limit on NT Workstation
Date: 1996/11/06
Message-ID: <01bbcbe9$74062980$4004f826@r1830.dc3.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 194870483
references: <9187cc$e722.271@p6dnf.drcoffsite.com> < w7d8ygno6s.fsf@mud.imperium.net> <846541068snz@vgis.demon.co.uk> <327E205B.3721@mitre.org> <01bbcb17$1ef9e300$4004f826@r1830.dc3.com> <327FD40C.1394@spider.herston.uq.edu.au>
content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
organization: DC3 Dreams
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.windows,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc,comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix
Jaime Metcher < metc...@spider.herston.uq.edu.au> wrote in article
<327FD40C.1...@spider.herston.uq.edu.au>...
> There's a Knowledge Base article about per-server versus per-seat
> licensing which explicitly states that HTTP connections are *not*
> subject to licensing.
Weeeellll... If you are referring to the now infamous Q122920, have a look at
the various versions that have been published/revised by Microsoft:
http://solo.dc3.com/white/mstcp/q122920-1.htm
will start you with the original from last year. There are links from one to
the next covering all four known versions.
-- Bob
From: NSant...@inmail.com (Bob Wilson, Jr.)
Subject: Re: Microsoft 10 connection Limit on NT Workstation
Date: 1996/11/18
Message-ID: <56p5mt$rh8@nntp.iccom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 197178461
references: <9187cc$e722.271@p6dnf.drcoffsite.com> < w7d8ygno6s.fsf@mud.imperium.net> <846541068snz@vgis.demon.co.uk> <327E205B.3721@mitre.org> <01bbcb17$1ef9e300$4004f826@r1830.dc3.com> <327FD40C.1394@spider.herston.uq.edu.au> <01bbcbe9$74062980$4004f826@r1830.dc3.com>
organization: Internet Communications
newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.windows,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc,comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix
"Robert B. Denny" < rde...@dc3.com> wrote:
>Jaime Metcher < metc...@spider.herston.uq.edu.au> wrote in article
><327FD40C.1...@spider.herston.uq.edu.au>...
>> There's a Knowledge Base article about per-server versus per-seat
>> licensing which explicitly states that HTTP connections are *not*
>> subject to licensing.
>Weeeellll... If you are referring to the now infamous Q122920, have a look at
>the various versions that have been published/revised by Microsoft:
> http://solo.dc3.com/white/mstcp/q122920-1.htm
>will start you with the original from last year. There are links from one to
>the next covering all four known versions.
> -- Bob
See http://software.ora.com/news/ms_internet_frame.html
and maybe http://software.ora.com/news/tim_doj.html
They'll put some futher detail, and attempts to set perspective. I
know I sure don't like Microsofts' idea. My four licenses predate,
but I invested in WinNT for the ==REASON== of making and supporting
many connections. So now I need to abandon my investment and go
somewhere else....seems like it. Certainly will not be putting all
eggs into that basket now!
From: "Robert B. Denny" < rde...@dc3.com>
Subject: Re: Microsoft 10 connection Limit on NT Workstation
Date: 1996/11/18
Message-ID: <01bbd552$cd466d80$4004f826@r1830.dc3.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 197212647
references: <9187cc$e722.271@p6dnf.drcoffsite.com> < w7d8ygno6s.fsf@mud.imperium.net> <846541068snz@vgis.demon.co.uk> <327E205B.3721@mitre.org> <01bbcb17$1ef9e300$4004f826@r1830.dc3.com> <327FD40C.1394@spider.herston.uq.edu.au> <01bbcbe9$74062980$4004f826@r1830.dc3.com> <56p5mt$rh8@nntp.iccom.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
organization: DC3 Dreams
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.windows,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc,comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix
Bob --
Thanks for adding your voice here. You are completely justified in being
apalled at Microsoft's removing existing functionality from their operating
system. Never mind the reasons for doing it, which are
anti-3rd-party-developer at a minimum.
-- Bob
Bob Wilson, Jr. < NSant...@inmail.com> wrote in article
<56p5mt$...@nntp.iccom.com>...
> know I sure don't like Microsofts' idea. My four licenses predate,
> but I invested in WinNT for the ==REASON== of making and supporting
> many connections. So now I need to abandon my investment and go
> somewhere else....seems like it. Certainly will not be putting all
> eggs into that basket now!
>
>
>
>
From: cardi...@onr.com (-)
Subject: Re: Microsoft 10 connection Limit on NT Workstation
Date: 1996/11/20
Message-ID: <32926276.3601698@news.onr.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 197540203
references: <9187cc$e722.271@p6dnf.drcoffsite.com> < w7d8ygno6s.fsf@mud.imperium.net> <846541068snz@vgis.demon.co.uk> <327E205B.3721@mitre.org> <01bbcb17$1ef9e300$4004f826@r1830.dc3.com> <327FD40C.1394@spider.herston.uq.edu.au> <01bbcbe9$74062980$4004f826@r1830.dc3.com> <56p5mt$rh8@nntp.iccom.com> <01bbd552$cd466d80$4004f826@r1830.dc3.com>
organization: Onramp Access, Inc. 512-322-9200
newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.windows,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc,comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix
On 18 Nov 1996 13:17:10 GMT, "Robert B. Denny" < rde...@dc3.com> wrote:
>Bob --
>
>Thanks for adding your voice here. You are completely justified in being
>apalled at Microsoft's removing existing functionality from their operating
>system. Never mind the reasons for doing it, which are
>anti-3rd-party-developer at a minimum.
>
> -- Bob
>
>Bob Wilson, Jr. < NSant...@inmail.com> wrote in article
So, is the 10 connection limit hard coded in, or is the limitation in
the EULA only? I attended a Microsoft seminar here in TX last week,
and they stated that the 10 connection limit is hard coded into the
released version of workstation... They also stated that the operating
system (NT4.0 server) was "optimized" for use as a server, but that
Workstation is not.
Randy
Cardinal Communications
From: a...@snowcrash.cymru.net (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Microsoft 10 connection Limit on NT Workstation
Date: 1996/11/21
Message-ID: <571fod$pn1@snowcrash.cymru.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 197809939
references: <9187cc$e722.271@p6dnf.drcoffsite.com> <56p5mt$rh8@nntp.iccom.com> <01bbd552$cd466d80$4004f826@r1830.dc3.com> <32926276.3601698@news.onr.com>
organization: CymruNET
newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.windows,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc,comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix
In article <32926276.3601...@news.onr.com>, - < cardi...@onr.com> wrote:
>released version of workstation... They also stated that the operating
>system (NT4.0 server) was "optimized" for use as a server, but that
>Workstation is not.
O'Reilly did a great expose on much of this claim. See their web site. But
basically NT workstation is NT server with a pair of different registry
entries.
The other argument, which is one they don't cover is that if I bought
workstation and its fast enough for my web serving, then I don't care if its
been optimised. Forcing customers down high cost channels they dont need for
completely non technical reasons seems wrong to me.
Alan
Alan
--
Alan Cox, Technical Director, CymruNET Ltd: Email: A...@cymru.net
-------- http://www.cymru.net ---------- Phone: +44 1792 290194
Internet/Intranet Solutions, ISDN, Leased Lines, Consultancy and Support
From: "Robert B. Denny" < rde...@dc3.com>
Subject: Re: Microsoft 10 connection Limit on NT Workstation
Date: 1996/11/22
Message-ID: <01bbd824$90c87860$4104f826@r1830.dc3.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 197984722
references: <9187cc$e722.271@p6dnf.drcoffsite.com> <56p5mt$rh8@nntp.iccom.com> <01bbd552$cd466d80$4004f826@r1830.dc3.com> <32926276.3601698@news.onr.com> <571fod$pn1@snowcrash.cymru.net>
content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
organization: DC3 Dreams
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.windows,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc,comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix
To be fair, the "pair of registry entries" changes the OS behavior in some
significant ways. However, we also found (more controversially) that NTWS is
actually better suited for typical webserver use than NT server. The
explanation is long, but you can't tune a system for hardc ore file/print
serving and SQL serving on an internal LAN, and end up with something tuned
for web serving (particularly with CGI and API extensions).
I heartily agree with your "other argument". We'll all be paying by the
"user" if they are successful with this strategy. There are some reeally bad
scenarios ahead if they manage to convince the world that they own the right
to limit TCP/IP itself on their OS.
-- BOb
Alan Cox < a...@snowcrash.cymru.net> wrote in article
<571fod$...@snowcrash.cymru.net>...
> In article <32926276.3601...@news.onr.com>, - < cardi...@onr.com> wrote:
> >released version of workstation... They also stated that the operating
> >system (NT4.0 server) was "optimized" for use as a server, but that
> >Workstation is not.
>
> O'Reilly did a great expose on much of this claim. See their web site. But
> basically NT workstation is NT server with a pair of different registry
> entries.
>
> The other argument, which is one they don't cover is that if I bought
> workstation and its fast enough for my web serving, then I don't care if
its
> been optimised. Forcing customers down high cost channels they dont need
for
> completely non technical reasons seems wrong to me.
>
> Alan
>
>
> Alan
> --
> Alan Cox, Technical Director, CymruNET Ltd: Email: A...@cymru.net
> -------- http://www.cymru.net ---------- Phone: +44 1792 290194
> Internet/Intranet Solutions, ISDN, Leased Lines, Consultancy and Support
>
From: and...@tagsys.com (Andrew Gideon)
Subject: Re: Microsoft 10 connection Limit on NT Workstation
Date: 1996/11/22
Message-ID: <574kvv$aqe@dixie.tagsys.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 198101690
references: <01bbd824$90c87860$4104f826@r1830.dc3.com>
organization: TAG Systems Inc.
reply-to: and...@tagsys.com
newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.windows,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc,comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix
In article 4104f...@r1830.dc3.com, "Robert B. Denny" < rde...@dc3.com> writes:
>
>I heartily agree with your "other argument". We'll all be paying by the
>"user" if they are successful with this strategy. There are some reeally bad
>scenarios ahead if they manage to convince the world that they own the right
>to limit TCP/IP itself on their OS.
>
There are only "bad scenarios" ahead if people keep buying a product
that is not well suited for their needs. If MS wants to limit a feature
(any feature) on their OS, and you need the feature, then puchase something
else.
- Andrew
From: a...@snowcrash.cymru.net (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Microsoft 10 connection Limit on NT Workstation
Date: 1996/11/22
Message-ID: <5759p2$hvu@snowcrash.cymru.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 198147917
references: <01bbd824$90c87860$4104f826@r1830.dc3.com> <574kvv$aqe@dixie.tagsys.com>
organization: CymruNET
newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.windows,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc,comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix
In article <574kvv$...@dixie.tagsys.com>,
>that is not well suited for their needs. If MS wants to limit a feature
>(any feature) on their OS, and you need the feature, then puchase something
>else.
We did. At under 1/10th of the price.
Alan
--
Alan Cox, Technical Director, CymruNET Ltd: Email: A...@cymru.net
-------- http://www.cymru.net ---------- Phone: +44 1792 290194
Internet/Intranet Solutions, ISDN, Leased Lines, Consultancy and Support
From: Gilles SIMON <gilles.si...@st.com>
Subject: Windows NT vs UNIX web servers ??
Date: 1996/11/13
Message-ID: <328A69CF.7243@st.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 196233409
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: SGS-THOMSON MICROELECTRONICS
mime-version: 1.0
reply-to: gilles.si...@st.com
newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix,comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows
x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win16; I)
Dear all,
I am currently in charge of making an internal study with respect to
positioning, sizing, scaling the various servers and platforms that form
our intranet in order to make it more productive.
Recently, a controvertial debate has been launched around the issue to
know whether NT is more suited and designed than UNIX to run web server
software. Now, it looks to me that looking at the problem through this
angle, will likely end-up with a kind of church-battle that I am not
willing to encourage.
Having said that, I am looking for information, if you can provide it to
me, about key differences, pros and cons, strenghts and weaknesses of
these two different environment.
Thks for your contribution, all ideas will be welcome,
--
-GilleS.
From: i...@intermedia.net (_)
Subject: Re: Windows NT vs UNIX web servers ??
Date: 1996/11/30
Message-ID: <57opj7$qpu@news0-alterdial.uu.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 201563310
references: <328A69CF.7243@st.com> <w7n2wk7iat.fsf@mud.imperium.net> <328F2C8A.674C@ericom.be> <56ts2b$7vs@sun1.sure.net> <w7k9radug4.fsf@mud.imperium.net> <329b0eb7.7412209@news.intercenter.net>
organization: Intermedia, Inc.
reply-to: i...@intermedia.net
newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix,comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows
http://www.intermedia.net
Windows NT is a great platform for Web Serving. NT lets you do
some very handy stuff with CGI programming that you just can't do
(at least not as quickly) on UNIX . Database programming and
ODBC that lets you connect to SQL, MS Access, FoxPro, etc. with
very little coding.
There are now tools like Cold Fusion and FoxWeb that allow basic
database connectivity through ODBC in your HTML files. These
products are very slick and are light years ahead of anything
else in the Web world for data access.
NT also gives you "Windows" access to your files - if you run NT
or Windows 95 you can connect to the server and bring up a
"folder" of your Website. From there you can live-edit your site
in your favorite editor. This saves hours... Plus, MAC users can
connect directly to NT shares.
The final argument for NT is it's security. You don't have to
worry about someone hacking your system and taking out your
webserver.
There isn't any /etc for them to get to! Everything in NT is
128-bit encrypted. This is very reassuring if you're storing
something more important than a user's HTML files (a companies
online catalog for example, or your precious CGI script).
From: a...@snowcrash.cymru.net (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Windows NT vs UNIX web servers ??
Date: 1996/11/30
Message-ID: <57poud$apt@snowcrash.cymru.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 201607911
references: <328A69CF.7243@st.com> <w7k9radug4.fsf@mud.imperium.net> <329b0eb7.7412209@news.intercenter.net> <57opj7$qpu@news0-alterdial.uu.net>
organization: CymruNET
followup-to: alt.tasteless.jokes
newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix,comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows
In article <57opj7$...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>, _ <i...@intermedia.net> wrote:
> Windows NT is a great platform for Web Serving. NT lets you do
Oh yes. Thats right. See the microsoft license debate and the 10 user
screw you facility.
> (at least not as quickly) on UNIX . Database programming and
> ODBC that lets you connect to SQL, MS Access, FoxPro, etc. with
You've obviously not played with all the free SQL and ODBC stuff (not that
the Unix world cares for ODBC except for MS, nor for MS Access and FoxPro).
Let me translate your statement "Windows NT does microsoft things better".
Right ? - now if you want to do microsoft things that important.
> NT also gives you "Windows" access to your files - if you run NT
> or Windows 95 you can connect to the server and bring up a
> "folder" of your Website. From there you can live-edit your site
Yes but you have to pay for all the client licenses, oh and don't forget
you have to buy client license upgrades for your windows clients if you
go to NT4.0. Now in the Unix world the Windows access software is FREE,
there are NO CLIENT LICENSES for stuff like Samba which do all the file
sharing.
> in your favorite editor. This saves hours... Plus, MAC users can
> connect directly to NT shares.
University Of Michigan Metatalk. Oh and thats free as well. And then NFS
for Unix and other open standard boxes. Oh dear isnt that free on NT ;)
> The final argument for NT is it's security. You don't have to
> worry about someone hacking your system and taking out your
> webserver.
Choke. I suggest you join the NT security lists and get enlightened - FAST
as well as keeping track of them. There is no secure OS on the planet,
and NT has enough flaws (if you are bored set up a second DHCP server
on the same net with the same addresses). Take a look at some of the 3.5
upgrade patches that appeared to stop people doing all sorts of things
they shouldnt.
> 128-bit encrypted. This is very reassuring if you're storing
> something more important than a user's HTML files (a companies
Data files arent encrypted. The administration passwords are. Anyway I
can just mount an NT disk under another OS - eg a handy Linux boot disk
with ntfs support. Oh sorry.. your NT security. Sorry I turned that bit
off.
Ultimately - NT is a tool not a religion (IMHO an expensive tool - what
are you going to do if NT4.1 is double the price).
Alan
--
Alan Cox, Technical Director, CymruNET Ltd: Email: A...@cymru.net
-------- http://www.cymru.net ---------- Phone: +44 1792 290194
Internet/Intranet Solutions, ISDN, Leased Lines, Consultancy and Support
|