Next Windows obsolescence panic is 450 days from … NOW! With the not-quite-panic over the end of support for Windows XP behind us, you'd think it's a time to chill out for a bit. Not quite, and especially not if you're still using Windows Server 2003 R2: Microsoft's product lifecycle advisories suggest support for that operating system expires on July 14th, 2015. Which is 450 days …
It is a panic if (for no reason of your own) your update repeatedly fails - as it did for us:
MS admits the problem here:
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows8_1-windows_install/kb2919355-windows-81-update-fails-800f0092-and/4d4d23a3-695a-4bd4-b340-d2ce9c75919d?rtAction=1397851607789#ThreadAnswers
For me the fix in that thead eventually worked
Server 2012 License price rises = Avoid or go Linux / *BSD / iOS
Server 2012 is Windows 8.x without TIFKAM/Metro/Modern (nuff said) = all the better, hardly anyone likes that crap anyway.
Application availability. Several of our key applications just won't run on Server 2012 = Yes they do, you just need server editions of said programs (or apps as you kids say).
Server 2008 is just about possible = Server 2008 is based on Vista whilst Server 2008 R2 is based on Win7.
Quote
Application availability. Several of our key applications just won't run on Server 2012 = Yes they do, you just need server editions of said programs (or apps as you kids say).
You really don't have a clue do you.
All the crap that MS has loaded into the ecosystem in the name of security makes some Apps (Server versions) that run perfectly well on Server 2003 and Server 2008R2 (with a little care) just won't work properly if at all, on Server 2012.
Beleve me, we have tried.
Linux is not an option either as good portions of the ancillary apps use .NET classes that are not in Mono.
If you think that iOS is a server OS then can I please have some of what you are smoking?
We will move to Server 2008R2 later in the year but going beyond that will require considerable investment that at the moment is not forthcoming.
"Application availability. Several of our key applications just won't run on Server 2012 = Yes they do, you just need server editions of said programs (or apps as you kids say)."
Let's see, what programs refuse to run on this new OS? considering I've been in this game for years, nothing much would be preventing it unless we're talking about a difference akin to NT4 vs 9x
Chances are, you haven't altered the security policies of said machine, otherwise you wouldn't be posting what you did.
"Linux is not an option either as good portions of the ancillary apps use .NET classes that are not in Mono."
Now you're going insane, why would you use something with .NET, seriously? MySQL is understandable but .NET, man I want some of what YOU are smoking.
"If you think that iOS is a server OS then can I please have some of what you are smoking?"
People can and do use iOS on servers, I am not talking about iPhone or iPad iOS here even though you might get that impression /facepalm.
"Let's see, what programs refuse to run on this new OS? considering I've been in this game for years, nothing much would be preventing it unless we're talking about a difference akin to NT4 vs 9x"
What game would that be? It can't be System Administration on any scale with 'advice' like that.
"Chances are, you haven't altered the security policies of said machine, otherwise you wouldn't be posting what you did."
Far more probably dealing with a large scale system that cost tons of cash in the day and would require extensive and expensive work to migrate to 2012, with management unwilling to foot the bill because 'it still works, doesn't it?'
"Now you're going insane, why would you use something with .NET, seriously? MySQL is understandable but .NET, man I want some of what YOU are smoking."
Ah, sorry. that game; trolling.
"People can and do use iOS on servers, I am not talking about iPhone or iPad iOS here even though you might get that impression /facepalm."
Would that be OS X 'Server' which you can buy from the Apple App Store for the princely sum of £13.99 versus a previous price tag of 20 times more for the Snow Leopard version, and which Apple at one point considered simply giving away because nobody was buying it? That provides an interesting statement of faith in its own product from Apple. Apparently OS X Server is 'is perfect for a small studio, business or school'. I'm sure there are exceptions but it seems generally unlikely to be gracing the server racks of anything larger in the future.
"What game would that be? It can't be System Administration on any scale with 'advice' like that."
Oh nice, ad hominem when you haven't got a valid argument.
"Ah, sorry. that game; trolling."
I see, you like the game of ad hominem, see above.
"Would that be OS X 'Server' which you can buy from the Apple App Store for the princely sum of £13.99 versus a previous price tag of 20 times more for the Snow Leopard version, and which Apple at one point considered simply giving away because nobody was buying it? That provides an interesting statement of faith in its own product from Apple. Apparently OS X Server is 'is perfect for a small studio, business or school'. I'm sure there are exceptions but it seems generally unlikely to be gracing the server racks of anything larger in the future."
I suggested it exists, not that I recommend it, big difference really. But I forgot, even pointing something out gets you flame warriors around here.
"Oh nice, ad hominem when you haven't got a valid argument."
An Ad Hominem attack is one where an irrelevant fact regarding the person is used to attack him, not the argument. The fact of your qualification, or otherwise to make simplistic blanket statements regarding the ease of upgrading from 2003 to 2012, is very, very relevant.
"I see, you like the game of ad hominem, see above."
'troll(v) 1. Make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them:'
Implying people are insane and/or drug users because they've made the perfectly reasonable decision to develop with .NET is not a particularly polite thing to do. So again, pointing out you are a troll is very relevant and in no way an ad hominem attack
"I suggested it exists, not that I recommend it, big difference really. But I forgot, even pointing something out gets you flame warriors around here."
That's a well-oiled backpedal you've got there. A few posts back:
"Server 2012 License price rises = Avoid or go Linux / *BSD / iOS"
Sounds like a recommendation to me, a blithe, casual one.
@Brewster's Angle Grinder
Why would I be another Eadon? Care to elaborate on that one? He spammed every forum topic with Windows related posts, I haven't but feel free to look through my history if you don't believe me.
@Andrew Fernie
"to make simplistic blanket statements regarding the ease of upgrading from 2003 to 2012, is very, very relevant."
Well, okay I did rather forget to mention I haven't tried Server 2012 yet so I was better off reserving comment, sorry about that. Was going from previous history which tripped me up somewhat.
"Sounds like a recommendation to me, a blithe, casual one."
Well okay then point taken, as I haven't tried Apple's offering either, but the Linux option still stands, and I fully recognise the time and effort to migrate so you'd need to calculate wherever it's worth it in contrast to the license asking price.
"People can and do use iOS on servers, I am not talking about iPhone or iPad iOS here even though you might get that impression /facepalm."
Well seeing as IOS is the OS of iPads and iPhones it would be obvious that someone would get that impression.
Unless you are talking about switch and router operating systems from Cisco?
Other than that I would say your game involves a basement in your parent's house.
"Well seeing as IOS is the OS of iPads and iPhones it would be obvious that someone would get that impression."
People like you maybe, I couldn't remember the true name of the OS and you have to look for a strawman.
"Unless you are talking about switch and router operating systems from Cisco?"
Nope.
"Other than that I would say your game involves a basement in your parent's house."
Obvious troll posting as AC.
"All the crap that MS has loaded into the ecosystem in the name of security makes some Apps (Server versions) that run perfectly well on Server 2003 and Server 2008R2 (with a little care) just won't work properly if at all, on Server 2012."
No, it's not Windows fault. It just meant you bought crappy apps that weren't written by unskilled and lazy developers who never followed the proper rules to write Windows software. Properly written applications for Windows 2000 would work in Windows 2012 without a hiccup.
Application written in a Windows 3.x style and adapted some way to work in NT and 2000 thanks to the work made by MS to allow them to work anyway (just read Raymond Chen's "The Old New Thing" blog to understand how far MS goes to let crappy app work... ), will now stop working, at last!
Sure, applications that attempt to write where they never should have, require privileges they don't need and so on will stop working, and that's a good thing. That means unskilled and lazy developers now have to learn how to properly code applications, or look for another job. One way or the other, IT will become a better place.
As yes, those "unskilled and lazy developers" who wrote stuff like Outlook express (which saved emails at one time to random/cryptically names hidden folders under Program Files) and Office (that, unless patched, failed when XP SP3 finally turned on the firewall by default)?
With MS playing fast-and-loose with software development for such a long time, often to get round the speed or effort penalty of doing it right, can you really blame other developers of that era for doing the same?
"applications that attempt to write where they never should have, require privileges they don't need and so on will stop working"
Windows does have enterprise security features like constrained delegation to properly handle a lot of that sort of stuff though. Unlike certain other penguin flavoured OSs...e.g. having to use SUDO which must run as root UID0. Major security fail.
"Unlike certain other penguin flavoured OSs...e.g. having to use SUDO which must run as root UID0"
What's less secure? Having a single, vetted program that accesses root on your behalf... or sticking the gubbins of a whole bloody web server into kernel space? I guess you've also not played with the ol' Toy Unix much, or you'd realise you don't need to use root all that often anyway. Besides, Windows evidently doesn't "properly handle a lot of that sort of stuff", because shit keeps breaking every time there's a major version update. What's next, Microsoft to change all of the various %PLACEHOLDERS% to something else, and then you to blame the programmers for their software breaking again?
Enterprise in this case seems to just mean "we charge more for less".
(I can AC too)
"Having a single, vetted program that accesses root on your behalf... or sticking the gubbins of a whole bloody web server into kernel space?"
Sticking it all into kernel space is certainly safer if you are running Windows. Unlike Linux's legacy monolithic kernel model, Windows can maintain true isolation between the kernel itself and running processes / drivers.
The SUDO point is that on Windows you don't have to run anything as root / admin to give elevated rights - so you have to trust zero code running as admin / root - you can directly give JUST the rights that are actually required.
Sticking it all into kernel space is certainly safer if you are running Windows. Unlike Linux's legacy monolithic kernel model,
Oooh, "legacy". Which sneakily implies "old". Okay.
Windows can maintain true isolation between the kernel itself and running processes / drivers.
You know that Windows is a hybrid kernel, right? Yes, that's right, it has "services" like a microkernel, which run shittily slow but have the separation you're on about. It also has shit glommed into the kernel, which run whizzily fast precisely because they are in Ring Zero, which is exactly where you don't want a web server.
The SUDO point is that on Windows you don't have to run anything as root / admin to give elevated rights - so you have to trust zero code running as admin / root - you can directly give JUST the rights that are actually required.
...and that's why UAC comes up every time a program needs elevated privileges. It's not elevating privileges, just pretending to?
When a program can arbitrarily put shit wherever it wants in the system, then whether it's technically running as the "admin" user or not is really a moot point. You might as well chmod 777 the whole hard drive and then say that it's safe because nothing is running as root.
"Server 2012 License price rises = Avoid or go Linux" - actually a lot more expensive for a supported version like SUSE or RedHat - and a higher TCO for most uses.
"Server 2012 is Windows 8.x without TIFKAM/Metro/Modern" - It has the same kernel is what you mean. And actually you can install all that if you want to on server. But the default is no GUI.
Missed the real reasons for many Enterprise applications:
ERP vendor only certifies version 'e' of their system on SQL-Server 2005 running on Server 2003. To go to Server 2012 will mean upgrading the ERP system to version 'g' and SQL-Server 2012; which is naturally a business change project rather than an IT project. Fortunately many will probably already be doing this as this version of the ERP product is also certified to work out of the box with Windows 7 and 8 clients.
Some server updates make a desktop refresh seem like a walk in the park...
Unless I've been given the runaround, the Server 2012 evaluation I downloaded from M$ has the goddamn TIFKAM/Metro/Modern on it >.>
Also, we're still using Ascential DataStage. IBM bought over Ascential and then killed the product line for whatever reason. The last version of DataStage still doesn't support WS2008 or newer. We've not yet found a replacement (Yes, I'm aware of SSIS. The big problem is that the product we're using Ascential DataStage for (bulk loading data to said product) doesn't support SSIS for whatever reason even though it uses the SQL Server 2008 R2 as a backend), although to be fair they did say that they're also discontinuing support for DataStage and have discontinued support for Server 2003 since last year.
I've been given the signal from my higher ups to move away from Server 2003 R2 this morning. Oh joy. Now I have to work with the vendor to find a DataStage replacement.
Note: My problem isn't the migrating job itself. It's the corporate red tape when it comes to acquiring new software...
"As I recall it, that story was about a DEC VAX/VMS machine. Unlike modern stuff, they did not need patching every week."
As I recall, Windows didn't need patching every week back then either. The patches are a response to bugs which have been found - the Internet has meant that more bugs get found in the more popular operating systems. This has literally nothing to do with code quality, and when the NT code was leaked the majority of coders actually credited MS with having very good code.
"As I recall it, that story was about a DEC VAX/VMS machine. Unlike modern stuff, they did not need patching every week."
Actually, I think that the world was somewhat different then and (if we are really taking VAX/VMS - not Open VMS) the number of systems connected to the Interwebs was miniscule - I'm not counting Arpanet, JANET or other early networks. I think that patching (tapes or later CDs) came out either monthly or quarterly and it was a right faff-on trying to apply them.
Of course, that was luxury compared to the previous generations of systems where the patches were delivered in paper in stapled books and had to be typed into running copies of system debugging tools - typically of the DDT family - or edited into source code and recomplied. Few if any had the benefit of test, development or pre-production systems so getting test slots on the production systems (often at unsocial hours) was the order of the day.
Doubtless others of a older generation will have their own stories of how it once was and how sysadmins today don't know they are born, but neither were we exposed to the same levels of malware and miscellaneous nasties seen today.
@Lusty: "As I recall, Windows didn't need patching every week back then either .. This has literally nothing to do with code quality ..
That a novel explanation for the virus/malware contagion currently infesting the Internet. If a Windows server is alone in the forest and throws an error, does that mean it doesn't have any bugs in the code.
"That a novel explanation for the virus/malware contagion currently infesting the Internet. If a Windows server is alone in the forest and throws an error, does that mean it doesn't have any bugs in the code."
Why not, that was the implication for the competition after all.
@Primus Secundus Tertius: "As I recall it, that story was about a DEC VAX/VMS machine."
This post has been deleted by its author
@Richard Jones 1
IBM used that story about half a decade ago in reference to an AS400. They had a whole campaign using similar stories, and they swore all stories were verified to be true. Search400 has a compilation of some of the stories at http://search400.techtarget.com/news/1207080/Just-how-invincible-is-the-iSeries-AS-400.
If you aren't running something wedded to Windows (e.g. SQL Server) then now would be a good time to consider using an alternative. You're going to have migration problems anyway going to the likes of 2012, so call it a "research project" and write it off against tax.
You will get out from the MS enforced-upgrade model, get more performance from the same hardware and really put the wind up your MS vendor.
Obsolete versions of Linux don't get updated either, enterprise Linux versions also surely have end-of-life/end-of-support just as Windows versions do?
Just because it's open source so you can in theory jump in to the code, doesn't remove the problem... pretty few companies want to be coding their own custom OS tweaks (do they?)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
