Post by Max PowerPost by Ray PangPost by Max PowerLike what?
Do you mean running from a shared directory on the server,
or actually running as a service on the server?
Running as a service. Reporting tools, server management software,
I meant as in bespoke / in house software developed in VC++/VB
that you were saying needed to be run on the server (as a service).
Oh right. Well for example where I work they have an in-house platform
management system that deploys updates to the workstations and servers, and
with the workstations being Windows, connecting to the registry is easier
from a Windows server.
Post by Max PowerServer management software is integrated into windows servers,
and i'm pretty sure it is in linux too.
Basic stuff is, but more advanced stuff like ManageX and Tivoli isn't.
Post by Max PowerPost by Ray Pangmedia
streaming, etc. These are things that can be bought off the shelf of
course,
Post by Ray Pangand are much more readily and cheaply available for Windows (with lower
support costs too, due in part to their Linux counterparts' relative
scarcity).
The world's largest provider of streaming media, akamai,
use linux. In fact the same company hosts Microsoft.com and
Hotmail.com too. Microsoft don't even trust their own servers.
Now is it a case of Microsoft not TRUSTING their own servers, or is it a
case of it being more economical to let akamai, an established content
provider, deal with it all? While akamai do do streaming media, that's not
why Microsoft go to them. They go to them because they're a massive *content
provider and manager* - that's things like load balancing, downloads,
streaming media etc. Why would Microsoft bother setting up all the
infrastructure when they can just give it to somebody else to do?
Post by Max PowerPost by Ray PangLinux enterprise management software is rare.
What does enterprise management software do exactly?
Right, er where do I start? First things first. EMS isn't a type of software
like "word processor" or "game". You don't just "install it". At the risk of
introducing buzzwords, it's like an entire management solution for an entire
infrastructure of IT resources.
EMS software basically makes your entire infrastructure a lot more flexible.
It manages all the resources, like hardware, software, and all the users and
all the automated processes involved. It lets you know, basically, what to
do (and it does it itself) to make sure you're getting the best out of what
you've got - it spots opportunities for you to make the best judgements when
you need to upgrade, or when your client asks for some form of connectivity
or whatever. It integrates all your resources to make life simpler for end
users like your staff and your clients. It distributes the right resources
to the right people, like providing patches, news. It manages things like
automated backups and helps admins get at all the required data about the
backup process as quickly as possible. And a lot of other things. Bascially,
it does a hell of a lot.
It's basically impossible to answer your question in a usenet post, because
EMS is so vast. So I'll narrow it down to something I've used. ManageX is
server, network and applications management software (part of the larger
suite of enterprise management software called OpenView), which provides
management, monitoring and alerting for Windows environments. Basically it
allows you to fiddle about with groups of NT based systems from one
console, letting you deploy policies over the network. It's monitoring lets
you, say monitor a set of managed nodes, and alert you when the total CPU
load of a certain node has averaged about 70% for 4 hours, for example. You
can group servers together irrespective of the way they are set up in your
domain, so you can create different (kinda virtual) network topologies and
do analysis and maintenance on those topologies.
If you want to know more about EMS, then ask somebody else, because I'm not
an expert. Or search for HP OpenView or Tivoli.
Post by Max PowerPost by Ray PangThis is quickly turning into yet another Linux v Windows debate, and it's
clear that it's not a simple yes/no question, which is the point I make
every single time. To dismiss Windows as "crap" is naive.
I'm not saying it's crap. I use windows XP for my desktop pc,
and for developing applications VC++ and VB are absolutely fine.
"Just don't use Windows.
Ok, so that's not always an option when said company have spent
shedloads
of a piece of crap, but then that's just tough shit hey?"
That's why I specifically used the word "crap."
Post by Max PowerThe point we're debating is that it is preferable to not use windows
servers unless you have to (i.e. you must use MS Exchange, Active
Directory, SQL Server, or IIS). You still have not convinced me
that windows servers are required in order for developers to use
VC++ & VB to develop their applications.
No of course I haven't, because that's not what I was saying. I was saying
that an example of why you might need to use a Windows server is that you
might need to run bespoke apps, and it would be cheaper to write them for
Windows.
Post by Max PowerPost by Ray PangNo, but I would say they were too lazy and stingy to get it serviced, like
it says so in the service booklet when you buy it. Or too lazy to take it
back to the garage when there was a product recall made. If I bought a
carrot that blew up on me, then I would be unhappy, because it's not
something you would expect from a carrot, being completely lacking in
things
Post by Ray Pangthat can blow up. Or maybe I expect too much from carrots. You see how
silly
Post by Ray Pangthese analogies can be?
Yeah maybe, I just find this attitude of, "oh it's your fault you got a
worm,
you didn't install the correct service patches" a bit harsh on the users.
Microsoft created the problem with their stupid policy of running all
services
by default. They should take a leaf from linux and only run services if the
user specifically starts them.
That's cobblers. Do a default installation of Redhat for instance and see
what stuff it puts on your machine. To get a properly configured Linux box,
you do a custom install, picking out exactly what you do and don't want.
With Windows you install it and disable what you don't want.
Both need the same amount of configuration - it's not as though the install
routines know telepathically what you need.