4277 posts • joined 31 May 2010
Re: Please help a Canuck out here...
...I have a lake lot...what wrong with that?
Re: Nothing to contribute-Will the winner please take a bow?
If you ask me, you're all a little bit aft.
Please help a Canuck out here...
It seems to me that Brits have a completely different use of the word "shed" than we do here. In Canada a shed is merely a storage unit. It is not additional living quarters. (We would generally call that an add-on.) Men in Canada use their garages as workspaces and hideouts, or a dedicated office/workspace/basement. Indeed, in Western Canada the basement is particularly commmon; hell, mine is 450 sq ft of whatever I want it to be.
So if "shed" in the UK has become synonymous with "man cave" (the North American equivalent), what would you name what we call a "shed?" (A place merely for storage and/or tools.)
Curious about the linguistic differences...
Re: Hamcheeseandonion is actually wrong
MSDN may be the licence solution that Microsoft uses to license test environments now. It was not always thus. Any attempt to reinterpret TechNet licensing to remove testing from it's usage cases is nothing more than a desperate attempt at newspeak. Convince the proles that the war in Eurasia is going exactly to plan.
It is only with the build up to TechNet's murder that MSDN has gained the "testing" role and the offering on the table with MSDN as a "replacement" for TechNet is wholly inadequate.
You can shovel shit as as much you want but it will still smell just as bad. But fear not, citizen, for we have always been at war with Eastasia.
Re: Hamcheeseandonion is actually wrong
MSDN Platforms is not included in Microsoft's buy now site. The cheapest on that site is MSN Operating Systems which starts at $700.
MSDN platforms is available only via Enterprise subscription, Select, Select Plus, Open value and Educational solutions, starts in around the $750 mark (If you hunt for a deal) and still doesn't include Office.
Official information on MSDN Platforms is functionally non-existent and thus not only can any MS professional be excused for not knowing about it's existence, but most of what is known is inference or speculation based on information exposed by partners. (Unless Microsoft has very recently finally posted an official page on the damned thing.)
MSDN Platforms is not only more than double the price of TechNet it isn't a direct substitute for what TechNet contained. Not Good Enough. Not by a long shot.
Also: you are sort of right in that MSDN platforms does not include Visual Studio but does include Team Foundation Server (?!?) as per this document"and MSDN Platforms subscriptions include a server license and one Client Access License for Visual Studio Team Foundation Server 2012. "
It also separately says "Visual Studio Ultimate with MSDN, Visual Studio Premium with MSDN, Visual Studio Professional with MSDN, Visual Studio Test Professional with MSDN, and MSDN Platforms subscribers can download and deploy one instance of Team Foundation Server 2012. These same MSDN subscribers are granted a Team Foundation Server 2012 CAL to be used within their organization (it is not valid for use of Team Foundation Server acquired by a different organization)."
The entire idea of TFS being in it but not VS gives me the question marks.
Re: TechNet Moaning
I've built an entire career on Microsoft. Deployed their technologies in almost all client locations. Trained on them, memorized the structure, syntax, layout and operation of their technologies and I still currently make over 80% of my income either supporting clients that use Microsoft technologies in the wild or writing about Microsoft technologies for The Register. Microsoft has recently flown me down to Redmond to show me Server 2012 R2 in all it's glory; just a few days ago they hooked me up with an MSDN account so that I could continue to build my test lab.
To suggest that I have "axes to grind" with Microsoft that would cause me to make false accusations in public is not only insulting it is patently ridiculous. I have every incentive on Earth to shove my nose so far up Microsoft's ass that when they speak it is with my voice. Without Microsoft I would be unable to pay my mortgage and I would have no career.
To speak out against Microsoft's practices - from shutting down Technet to pointing out that VDI licensing is holding back entire industries - is risky bordering on suicidal for me. Microsoft does not treat its critics well; look at how long Mary Jo Foley was banned for doing what reporters are supposed to do during the Microsoft monopoly trial. Every time I speak up I run the very real risk of being blackballed and having my entire livelihood collapse.
So no, I don't have "axes to grind" with Microsoft. Quite the opposite; I want a strong, healthy, vibrant Microsoft so I can continue to make money off of them until I retire. VMware doesn't spend nearly so lavishly and I don't have the network of contacts inside any of the other titans of technology to stand a snowball's chance in a neutron star of turning them into my cash cow should Microsoft start drawing down.
I have nothing to gain and everything to lose by speaking out. If you honestly believe that I would make shit up just poke Microsoft in the eye then you are a fucking idiot. You are even more of an idiot if you believe that the person who writes about trust, trustworthy computing and the importance of legal risk mitigation is going to post confidential customer information on the internet because some butt-snorkling coward is too goddamend lazy to pick up the phone and start calling systems administrators and partners around the world to see exactly how widespread Microsoft's dispersal of this message was.
Unlike some who call themselves "journalists" - especially those who report on Microsoft - I not only have legitimate (and ongoing) experience in the field I am reporting on, I go out of my way to cultivate contacts amongst systems administrators, CIOs, VARs, MSPs, and so forth to better understand the industry I occupy at all levels of the stack. My experience as regards Microsoft's messaging is not unique. Christ man, the comments section of this article alone should be enough to demonstrate that to anyone capable of even the most basic intellectual honesty.
If you want to malign me or impugn my trustworthiness you feel free to do so. As an SME sysadmin with a crippling weight problem, too much personal debt, an underwater mortgage, a lack of post secondary credentials that means my mommy will never respect me and the traditional self-confidence and personal image issues born of a lifetime of social ostraciseation as a nerd I don't have a fucking ego to offend. You cannot think less of me than I do of myself.
What you should probably bear in mind, however, is that my readers know me. They know my tics and my foibles. They know that I am honest to a fault. (I am such a terrible liar that it has gotten me into trouble on more than one occasion because calling things like you see them means you say things people don't want to hear.)
Trying to paint my article, my comments - and by extension those of all the others who have raised their voices alongside mine - as the works of a liar bent on sticking one to Microsoft simply reveals your own prejudices and intentions. I'd say you've done my work for me in this thread, sir. You've called yourself out in a far more efficient manner than I ever could.
I will leave it at that and let the reader decide. Good day.
Re: Peoples simply have a mistaken definition of testing
have to agree with hamcheeseandoninon: the word directly from Microsoft - from their employees, product managers and licensing specialists - as well as from their VARs was that I was not only allowed to build a lab for testing patches and new software versions from my TechNet licences, I was strongly encouraged to do so.
On more than one occasion Microsoft has furnished me personally with a TechNet licence for the express purpose of building a testlab. I remember getting one with an MCP exam I took for exactly that purpose. I was given one for attending a conference and another as part of my post-secondary education. I am pretty sure I've gotten at least one for blogging stuff. This year marks the very first time ever that Microsoft has provided me an MSDN subscription for that same purpose. It's the first year I have ever even had someone suggest MSDN as being useful for me as a systems administrator who does not do development on or for Windows in any way shape or form.
MSDN was always described as for developers who wanted to stand up environments to test builds of their software against. I have never once been told by Microsoft before 2013 that MSDN was the subscription level required for building a testlab. I had even asked that question several times - probably more than a dozen - to be absolutely sure during the last audit I participated in.
This was to ensure I understood the differentiation between Action Pack and TechNet licences. I very specifically asked if I could use a TechNet licence to stand up a testing VM for a third party application so that I could test if Microsoft patches would affect it. I was crystal clear on this and was told quite explicitly "that is what TechNet is for."
Microsoft has changed their positioning on this only very recently and is now retconning as hard as they possibly can.
Just because Microsoft's wetware tells you that something is so and has always been so does not make it the truth. Here's a little shocker for you: Microsoft distorts the truth, plays lose with the facts and outright lies to achieve their aims. Critical thinking, it's an important skill especially when combined with actual experience in the subject matter you're so prodigiously butt-snorkling about.
Re: TechNet Moaning
That Microsoft wants desperately to change the story on "what TechNet was for" doesn't alter the guidance they themselves gave to partners, cert holders and end users when asked direct questions on the matter.
As to comparing to other vendors like Oracle, you are absolutely right Oracle does not offer a simliar package. Oracle also doesn't give a rat's ass about SMEs and I do seem to recall making the compairaison rather directly between Microsoft and Oracle in my article.
Microsoft has abandoned the low margin SMEs, power users hobbyhorses and enthusiasts. Trying to argue that Microsoft are morally and ethically correct in doing so because "everyone else has done it" is weak at best and completely misses the point.
Either Microsoft's own representatives have been lying to millions of us in the guidance they provided for roughly a decade or Microsoft are fucking SMEs, power users hobbyhorses and enthusiasts over right now. There are no other alternatives.
Just because you can interpret a document in a manner that suits Microsoft's current business priorities does not retroactively make that how it was was interpreted by Microsoft or retroactively alter the guidance their people provided when asked direct questions. No matter how badly Microsoft or the attendant sycophant brigade want it to be so.
Re: TechNet Moaning
A) timebomed evaluation copes are inadequate.
B) MSDN, volume licensing and software assurance are too expensive for most businesses.
It must be nice to believe that the entire world can be served by the narrow cone of your own experience; reality be damned, just stump up the dollars that aren't there, son, or do without. You didn't really need security, patches, or any other aspect of a business, did you? If you did, well, surely you can afford enterprise margins or cloud subscriptions!
Don't forget to pay your lawyer that little extra to deal with the fact that assholes with more money than human compassion have delegated you to be the legal canary in the coalmine.
It's easy to simply write off millions when you're seated atop a comfortable horse.
A) I was referring to systems administrators who work for companies too poor or too cheap to pay for things like technet, training and so forth. There are millions of them around the world and this is a knife in their belly. Those men and women are my brethren and sistren. Until only just recently I was one of them; no consulting company of my own, no budget beyond asking myself "do I buy a steak or put a few more dollars into the pot for the tools I need to do my job."
Apologists can condescend them all you want, or suggest that their employers should pay but reality doesn't comply whit the fantasies of those who set licensing policies. This is a direct attack on people like me; it is Microsoft saying that those who have spent their careers and lives doing what I have done are irrelevant, inconvenient, and above all guilty unless proven innocent.
I'll not stand idly by whilst one of the only groups of people in this world I can readily identify with is maligned, marginalized and shamed.
B) For your information, this article was written during the only weekend off I've taken in a year. It was the only weekend I've had to see my wife in two months. She's on location on an acting job and I won't get to see her for at least another two months. So I was on vacation. Some things are more important than my own personal amusement.
C) I don't have an MS addiction. I've been using Red Hat since late 1994 and have had periods of only a few months since 1995 when I wasn't running a network somewhere consisting of Red Hat, Apple and Microsoft.
Technology is technology, regardless of the purveyor. I disconnect my feelings regarding business practices from my respect for the technology produced. Microsoft makes good tech. They make shitty people.
Your understanding of the situation - and why so many are upset here - is at best incomplete at worst flat out wrong. What's more, hiding behind legalities like "consumer protection laws" as a means of trivializing the challenges this move has introduced into the lives of so many is simply offensive. It's easy to blithely demand people pay more, change the world around them to be more like you desire or simply write them off when they lack the power, authority or money to make others choose differently.
It is a different thing entirely to live in that world for decades. Perhaps you should. You might learn a thing or two about compassion and why the intersection of business and ethics needs be a primary concern not something we can allow to be overshadowed by the trumpets and drums of quarterly profits.
There is nobody in this industry you can trust. If sycophants of any flavour are your desire then bang on the desk until Eadon is given a forth-covered Pengiunskin soapbox and go read Ed Bott for a dose of truly singular Redmondian butt snorkling.
Me, I'll be as objective as I can and I"ll review any technology that crosses my path or interests me. My focus however, will always be on the SME. Someone has to, because our entire industry is focused on "being on message" where "being on message" means "captivating the enterprise buyer."
So try to understand my full meaning when I say that SME sysadmins are my fucking tribe and I will defend them to the bitter end. Even if all I can do in their defence is loose words upon the ether.
Re: TechNet Moaning
TESTING PATCHES IS NOT FUCKING DEVELOPMENT. IT IS A BASIC ELEMENT OF SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATION.
There is a fuck of a lot of difference between developing and systems administration. You can't do patch testing on the free versions for the reasons stated in the article. Microsoft has explicitly stated on more than one occasion that this is exactly what Technet is for. Only now has the story changed to reinterpret the licence so that they can retcon it's purpose and blame the victims for it's disappearance.
Anyone who does that is in my books a douchecanoe of the umpteenth order. Anyone who supports such a move is someone I will never have the vaguest shred of respect for.
"Most Technet sales would be to businesses wouldn't they? "
You'd be wrong. Which is sort of why everyone is so up in arms.
I'd also like to inject some additional rage in a second comment. You not only make huge assumptions about others, but you know there are whole classes of individuals with accessibility/disability requirements that basically you are writing off as irrelevant. Just throw 'em under a bus, eh? Who cares about people who aren't part of the master race! *hiss*
Re: Freeride @Trevor_Pott
...but my testlab environment is Synology + Samba 4 + CentOS + VMware + a picture of Ballmer with a penis drawn on his face.
They can deem the structure of my testlab environment anything they want. What they can't do is a goddamned thing about it. After all, you don't need to test MS software if 80% of your remaining sysadmin work is "getting MS the fuck out of the SME". The other 20%, well...they know the risks. If they want to Oracle themselves on the great sandbar of Microsoft, let 'em. I give no fucks so long as I get my bag of silver.
I use right-click context menus you ignorant cuntweasel. Not all of us have the gift of steady, pain free hands. For some of us it hurts to type. For others, we don't have properly designed workspaces. For still others we often work so many remote-whatever support sessions deep that keyboard shortcuts don't always translate.
Think about workflows other than your own. You are not the ubermensh; all men are not striving to be you. I'm a highly mouse-driven user and damned happy with it. I can fly around the screen with my trackball mouse and get things done just as quickly as any keyboard-shortcut addict.
Well, I could...until Microsoft decided that only the middle of the bell curve mattered. Bastards.
Yes. The staff would be in ribbons by the time I was done with them, were that to be introduced...
Re: Now is the time? [@ Trevor_Pott
@Stevie: we set up preferences we liked (those that were the most Outlook-like) and simply pushed them out with Puppet and/or logon scripts to set up customer systems. Works a treat!
I review technology, regardless of source. For all Microsoft's many - many, many, many (many!) - sins...they make some of the best technology on the planet. I get uppity because they used to be the preferred vendor for "my people" (the SMEs) and they now have kicked us to the curb for the prettier customers (hyperscale).
Loathing Microsoft's business practices will not stop me from reviewing the technology on offer and reviewing it as objectively as I can. My job is to provide information. In a lot of cases it is information on stuff that I won't be using personally.
In addition to reviewing Microsoft's latest greatest, I'll also be reviewing non-Microsoft technologies from other companies. It's just sort of what I do.
Re: Now is the time?
Yep; I used to think that way. Then I realised someone made Thunderbird stock sucking. As soon as I grokked that addons worked the same as Firefox I was set. Is it "as good in all ways" as Outlook? No. Is it "good enough" not that Microsoft is hellbent on getting rid of shared calendars and public folders as Outlook items? Yes.
Re: Allow me to reciprocate
I CONSUME THE LETTER R! ROAR!
Technet never allowed you to use those products in production environments. That was never a debated item. The debate is about the definition of evaluation environments and whether or not SMEs and individual sysadmins can be realistically be expected to shell out thousands - or even tens of thousands - of dollars in order to ensure that Microsoft's patches work as advertised.
Microsoft says "you have $20K worth of MS software in production? We want you to pay at least $6K (to get the base usable version of MSDN) per year to test our patches before deploying them, rent on a cloud for about the same or buy a whole other $20K." They had been telling us "that's what Technet's for" for around a decade.
Now apparently what they had told us wasn't accurate - and remember, the burden isn't on Microsoft to provide you accurate information, it is on you to know what it accurate and what's not! - so we're all of us guilty of financial terrorism thus making Microsoftion Techneticide entirely justified and not a dick move at all. Get it? Got it? Good.
Re: Peoples simply have a mistaken definition of testing
"Testing the suitability of their products" is what most of us used it for. The problem you have is that you can't seem to extend that to include things like "patches" and "service packs" in that definition. The point of the project was to ensure that you could deploy Microsoft software - including their ongoing support items - reliably. Or rather, that's what they told us. Now we get a different story; they need to kill it and with the least PR damage possible. So it's far easier to blame the users of the service than to say straight up "we want more money."
He was talking about the cost of the version with Office. Not the cheapest version. As to "prepared to pay for it as a business cost": fuck you, sir. With a gorilla. In the face. Sideways.
Let's lay some statistics down on you here; this time from Canada.
In December 2011 (the last point of published stats) we had 2,383,796 small or “indeterminate” (or government’s way of saying “too small to register properly”) businesses in our nation. A “small” business is less than 100 seats. There were 18,999 businesses between 100 and 499 seats and 2,528 businesses with 500 or more seats.
That makes 2,528 “enterprises” in my nation versus 2,402,795 SMEs.
A significant chunk of those SMEs - which are by far the majority of the companies in my nation - simply can't afford MSDN. Many of my clients have trouble finding 30-40k for hardware + software every 4 years. To say nothing of individual systems administrators seeking to build home labs to learn. In most cases in the SME world - and thus in most cases int he world, period, administrators don't get Technet or MSDN from work. They have to buy that shit themselves, just like certifications.
Your arrogance is astounding, as is how unbelievably out of touch you are with the people at the coalface just trying to make a living here. You are engaging in a game of "blame the victim" here. No matter how you try to rewrite history, the overwhelming majority of people using Technet were not pirates. They were coalface administrators trying to build a working and experimental environment from the only option realistically fiscally available to them.
Microsoft - and you, frankly - is engaged is nothing more than retroactively criminalizing, sentencing and punishing the very people who have devoted their careers to Microsoft's products.
Let's see what that nets them, shall we?
Re: Peoples simply have a mistaken definition of testing
Funny how this "clarification" - you'll pardon me if I more properly refer to it as a retcon - goes against years of guidance from Microsoft itself. I have asked very specifically on numerous occasions what the licensing rules are that differentiate Action Packs, Technet, MSDN and so forth. The word on Technet has always been the same: it is for testing (the word always used by MS employees, VAR licensing know-it-alls and other MS reps).
That said, I'm sure rewriting history will make everyone feel guilty about how they've spent years taking crusts of bread (known as "lost sales") out of Microsoft's hands all this time. Once they know they are worthless, thieving freetards then their anger will dissipate, they'll love Microsoft again and their wallets will fly open.
Don't have the money? No problem; they'll work a second job or take out another credit card just for Microsoft. We owe them that much, don't we?
After all, it simply must be true that we've been hearing wrong for a decade. I know it's true because Microsoft now tells me so.
ENDPOINTS is the measure that matters, not "desktops." Desktops are now facing real competition from smartphones and tablets for end user timeshare. No longer merely in consumption, productivity has begun to move as well.
As for server share: prove it.
Re: Now is the time?
Question - and a serious one - that I think needs answering: what exactly does Office 2013 offer me that LibreOffice doesn't? I mean, besides FUD?
They say everyone only uses 20 features of Office, but everyone uses a different 20 features. I cannot believe for a moment that LibreOffice has all of the features of Office, but I am willing to bet that it has the "20 features" that 80% of the productivity-suite using people of this world want.
LibreOffice doesn't have to be better than Office 2013. It doesn't even have to be "as good." It just has to be "good enough."
Re: Now is the time?
Hey, Anonymous Coward, um...
...yeah, I'm okay with a vastly inferior solution. Let me try to put this bluntly: I can run my business of Windows XP and Office 2003. I sure as shit can run it off Linux.
Is Microsoft's software superior in many respects to what Open Source has to offer? Yes. Does that matter any more? No. I don't need to be able to build a fucking hosted Azure solution to run a business. I'm fine with stuff that's 5-10 years behind the curve.
You know when we hit 2005 and CPU speed just stopped mattering? Well guess what: we've hit that with OSes and productivity suites too. The Enterprise world can careen ahead needing to be up-to-date simply because everyone else is up-to-date.
I'm fucking done with it. Seems like more than a few'll join me.
Re: Allow me to reciprocate
Sir, if I may, I am working on a series of articles about exactly that: replacing Microsoft in the SME. Give me a few weeks and you should have some of the answers you seek.
Except the license doesn't prohibit using it for a testing environment. It can be interpreted that way, however every single Microsoft employee, sales representative, VAR MS licensing specialist and even MS product managers I have spoken to in the past 3 years have assured me that "building a test lab" is exactly the intended purpose. It is the whole reason TechNet was included in the Action Packs.
So you can sling your bullshit somewhere else. The rationale that "TechNet was never for testing" (which I started to see pop up even before I had finished typing the article) flies in the face of everything Microsoft has said about TechNet since the beforetime.
I'm bitching because Microsoft are killing a great service whilst simultaneously getting the drone army to attempt to retcon the purpose of that service in order to change their plea in the court of public opinion from "guilty of murder" to "self defense." What is truly insulting, appalling and downright insane is that a learned Register commenter would be front and center amidst the mob trying to rewrite history to serve the next quarter's bonus targets.
Here I mistakenly thought Register readers were capable of spotting blatant attempts to disconnect message from missive. I am saddened to be wrong.
Re: The end of telcos
"If the FCC relaxed the requirements on local number portability and broke the universal service requirement"
How are either of these good for the end user?
Re: A couple of notes...
So we're both right...and Microsoft is insane.
Re: Informative article
I don't know. I doubt it. Any evidence to back this up with other directory systems? I've heard nothing similar about any of the others so far. I'd be interested, if true!
Re: A couple of notes...
60 according to all the official documentation I've read AND their technet articles about the VDCs AND the linked blogs in the piece I wrote.
Now that I think about it, I was rocking that Norton Ghost 9 CD for a long, long time...
Also: have to go down to Cowgary in a couple days. Going to be a mess, methinks...
Re: The truth is a funny thing
Understanding is a three edged sword, and then the Vorlons annihilate your planet.
Or you could realise that isn't available to Canadians yet (or wasn't last I checked) and stop being a smart ass. That would require you to think 2 feet in front of your face, however, and I suspect that may be incompatible with your wetware.
Download ISO. Install ISO. Patch. How do I log in this stupid store again? Curse loudly. Bang head against desk. Plead. Finally find upgrade method.
Now, if it doesn't blow up during install, let's see if this actually makes Windows 8 as useful for my scenarios as Windows 7 is.
Mine's the one with the bullet to bite on.
Host cache is a bit of a booming space at the moment. Currently working with Proximal Data's solution; good stuff so far. Everyone seems to have a slightly different twist on the idea, one of these days I have to see how FusionIOs stuff differs from the others I've tried.
Re: You like hard questions? ;)
a) Unless you keep the number of systems you RDP from to a very narrow cone - or you're made out of money - RDP/VDI is too costly to implement. So what good is that?
b) Remote Access is asstastic if your client is Windows 7 because Microsoft refused to backport the client.
c) Centralised deployment is awesome! If you're building Azure. We'll have arguments about the usefulness of that particular religion when it comes to servicing downmarket customers.
d) Damn rights: Server 2012 is finally at parity (well, almost) with VMware, and Server 2012 R2 is so good that you'd swear it can't be the same team that coded Hyper-V 2.0
3) SMB3 is eleventy squillion times better than SMB 2. That said, SMB 3 requires Windows 8, so what good is that?
Most of the reasons for Server 2012 over 2008 are only applicable in three scenarios:
1) You have so much "rolling around in it" money that you can ignore being pecked to death by licensing ducks.
2) You are willing and able to block move your entire infrastructure to Windows 8/Server 2012 all in one go.
3) You operate at datacenter scale.
If you are going from Server 2003 you might as well go Server 2012 in the hope that Windows 9 will be "not ass" enough to make the leap on your clients from Windows 7. At that point you've at least upgraded your backend to be better suited to that hopeful (but bloody unlikely) future.
If you are trying to build the case for Server 2008 --> Server 2012, I might be able to stomach the arguments. 2008 was pretty bad.
If you are trying to make the argument for 2008 R2 --> 2012 you've lost me completely. If you were using Hyper-V on 2008 R2 then by now you're already 2012 .
As to the rest of the market on Server 2008 R2...
Server 2008 R2 + Windows 7 ain't broke and I have yet to be presented with even a marginal business case to attempt to fix it. The greatest value Server 2012 brought to the extant 2008 R2 customer was the ability to drive down VMware licensing costs come renewal time.
Re: no smb 2012 !!!
Exchange in the cloud is not a solution unless you're flush with too much cash and American. The rest of us don't upgrade every refresh (so Microsoft's cloud offerings are TERRIBLE value) and live in countries where we as business owners can be sued if and when the PATRIOT act is used to get access to our customers' data (which in SMBs lives in e-mail far more often than any other form of storage.)
Sorry, but for all that Office 365 is awesome - well, when it's working, which isn't a lot lately - it is emphatically *not* an appropriate solution for a non-American SMB..or any SMB that doesn't upgrade with each release. (Which would be most of them.)
What's more, upgrading with each release is not a good thing. Microsoft has a nasty habit of releasing a steaming bucket of gorilla shit and then taking 3 versions to get the thing mostly usable. Then they crap out another bucket of shit and we're on the train again.
SBS 2011 had a user limit of 75. Essentials 2012 has a user limit of 25. Microsoft got so much shit for that they had to come up with a horrible workaround that rightfully earned them scorn and enmity from virtually their entire SME partner base.
In addition to killing off Exchange, Sharepoint is gone.
Essentials 2012 does not have WSUS
And that's just off the top of my head. If you are honestly peddling Server 2012 Essentials as a replacement for SBS 2011 you're either a complete idiot or an MS PR flunky that is truly abominable at their job.
Microsoft has abandoned the SME and kicked them in the nuts on the way out. SME is my turf, bub; don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
Brussels Sprouts: a little bit of margarine, some nutmeg and some chopped almonds. Delicious.
But what to replace the XP with?
Re: NT 4
My personal log system is an old Sanyo 386 notebook with the screen sheared off (I am using a 10" orange IBM external monitor instead) with 1GB of RAM running DOS, WP 5.1 and Lotus 123. I use it every single day. There is a working TRS 80 in my basement used to monitor the Lizard's cage via a sensor suite.
"Old" doesn't mean "useless."
Re: Eh, Server 2008 R2 is awesome. (Trevor @07:42
Well, it's a good thing you're not humble. Because you're wrong AND full of shit. I like laughing at those people before I wake up.
Have you even used Server 2008 R2 DHCP? Evidently not. Your right place is right about...
What's wrong with 3389 forwarding? Port 18354 --> 3389 on a target. There has been exactly one RDP bug in the past decade that could allow a user to spoof the protocol and log in. They patched it ASAP. RDP is reasonably secure, especially if local administrator-level and domain-controller level users have been denied access. I know there are security paranoids out there that would prefer I use RDP inside an SSH tunnel inside a VPN through TOR, but this isn't the DoD. It's a guy wanting convenience to get to his data. Ease of use, you know, that thing about which no fucks are given by asbergers types?
I'm getting a certain sense of "I like Windows 8, so anyone who doesn't needs to be secretly condescended to because my preferences really should apply universally. If you don't like the same things I like, there is quite obviously something wrong with you, you short-bus loser." It's rarely a conscious thing, but when people have preferences we don't understand we all do it. To some extent at least. Computer nerds are the worst. You'd think they'd be beyond these sorts of petty ostracisation, but they enjoy finding reasons to isolate and belittle more than any group I've encountered. (VIM! EMACS! FIGHT!)
SMB3 versus SMB2: SMB3 goes faster in almost every scenario. Does it go fast enough to justify having to switch to Windows 8? Fuck no.
RDPing into the server is not odd.
A) when you work remotely you have to RDP into something (unless you use VPNs, which many/most SMBs don't have set up.)
B) The remote administration tools only work on "like" versions of the client operating system. You can't administer Server 2012 from Windows 7 and fuck you very much if you suggest I use Windows 8.
If I have two servers in from of me and each one does what I need it to do with the only difference in at the end of the day functionality being UI then I will pick the server with the UI that works best for me.
After all, I am the guy that has to use it. A UI is there to make my life as an administrator easier. That is not an irrelevant aspect of the operating system design. In fact, it's a goddamned critical one. Somehow a whole chunk of nerds seem to have forgot the reason we invented these things in the first place: to make our lives easier.
If the new version doesn't make my life easier than the old version why in the flaming monkey fuck would I spend money it?
"Newness" has no value. "New for the sake of new" is not a relevant argument. The item must deliver tangible benefits to me or my client for money to be spent on it. If it doesn't, then there is no incentive to splash the cash on that mouldy metro stash.
Re: The author is a wanker
I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF JETPACK JOYRIDE
Old media *yawn*
Just die already, eh?
Re: Why is latency so high?
I've noticed this as well. It's typically been related to issues with the AD infrastructure, in many cases on the MS side where you can't touch it. It's "open a ticket" time...
- Put down that Oracle database patch: It could cost $23,000 per CPU
- DAYS from end of life as we know it: Boffins tell of solar storm near-miss
- The END of the FONDLESLAB KINGS? Apple and Samsung have reason to FEAR
- Pics It's Google HQ - the British one: Reg man snaps covert shots INSIDE London offices
- Bose decides today IS F*** With Dre Day: Beats sued in patent spat