IS NT Server that BAD

certifyexpress

Senior member
May 30, 2000
211
0
0

I got this post under a diffrent forum and would like to know what you guys think.

**************************************************

I am certified by Microsoft and have worked with Windows NT quite extensively, so I think I have just a little experience to rely on in making this post:

Windows NT is a great OS for running an internal network on -- I've used it extensively when I worked for other organizations as an employee and later as a networking consultant. From fairly nice security, to the ability to easily customize it to our needs with simple scripts, to the ability to build a machine within only minutes by using a stored copy of a drive. I've built a LOT of public workstations, staff workstations, among other things under an NT network, and overall it worked VERY well. For day-to-day tasks NT offers all the features most business individuals would want, and the security as well. If you're looking for an OS to run within your business, and you need security and stability, Windows NT /2000 is by far your best bet, both cost-wise, and performance-wise.

However, I will strongly advise anyone who can against hosting under NT. The reasons are simple:
a. Security
b. Reliability and uptime

Security: In an internal network environment, as a systems administrator I have the power to set up a firewall to COMPLETELY block Internet Access to servers, and machines as necessary. Ports can be filtered, proxies installed, etc., and the threat of any outside security break-in can be taken to a minimum. In a closed-door environment where the systems administrator has access to the routers and firewalls, and there is no content being served through the Internet, NT is perfect. Even with separate locations, a VPN can be set up rather easily to do encrypted transmissions.

However, the moment you start working with the general public on the Internet, you're suddenly in a whole new boat. When you go out and put up a web server, you're suddenly placed into a very new environment, for which NT was *never* designed for. Microsoft threw up the IIS web server when they realized that the internet was suddenly growing, and it was and still is by no means ready for general use. Immediately, you got to have a systems administrator which knows EVERY in and out of NT, which VERY FEW hosting firms actually have -- you REALLY need to know NT to be able to secure it for this kind of use.

I find security of most NT servers highly questionable -- one of the key points in securing any server is constant monitoring which is next to impossible in NT because there is no feature like Telnet which allows you to see EVERYTHING on your server. Sure there are tools -- but nothing close to whats available under Telnet. The level of monitoring doesn't even come close to that which is available under Unix, no matter WHAT you use.

Microsoft software in general is extremely buggy and requires constant patches -- even with all the security set, NT needs to be patched VERY often, which is where the reliability factor comes in. Under Unix I can do most patches without rebooting the server, but under NT -- nono, you gotta reboot after you do every little thing! What kind of uptime is that?

Folks, the fact of the matter is that Microsoft itself uses FreeBSD [a flavor of unix we also happen to use] for HotMail because their NT couldn't handle the load, nor be properly secured! So why would you choose their OS for your site, when they themselves can't use it?

I don't have time right now to go into any more detail than I have mentioned, but I strongly advise you to stay away from NT at all costs for hosting -- its just not up to the task.

Have a great day, and good luck! I hope this little tidbit helps!

Sincerely,


**************************************************
 

jsm

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
971
0
0
I second that emotion.

So, why would someone choose NT instead of UNIX? Easy. Financial people don't know very much about computers for the most part. You might have some CFO saying that he wants to go with a cheaper solution (and NT is cheaper than Solaris and Sun servers). Also, just because your boss is making technical decisions doesn't mean he is technical. A lot of being a boss is about being politically savvy and being able to motivate people to do things - not necessarily how things work and what is the best solution out there.

Also, there is the cost factor as well. Let's say I want an NT admin and I contract one from someone like Taos Mountain. I will pay half the price for an NT admin then I would for a good UNIX admin. The UNIX admin has to know way more to get the job done and can therefore charge much more money. Also, NT admins are a dime a dozen. Good ones are more rare, but it is often times hard to tell the good from the bad from just a resume. The UNIX admins I've worked with are usually very bright people who know their OS very well. Half the NT admins I've worked with barely knew the difference between share permissions and NTFS permissions.

Alos, MS has a mighty marketing machine. If they say that IIS/NT are enterprise ready, then people will buy it. Then, once you get people locked into a "solution", it is very costly for them to get rid of their old one and get a new one. Now, people are more savvy to the lying machine that is MS, but we weren't that way a few years ago. Everyone just wanted to get away from Novell and onto the net.

I would also point you to this page: http://www.sans.org/topten.htm

Lots of popular UNIX holes out there - more than WinNT.

And, Hotmail is actually a mix of Solaris and BSD. There are so many large Sparc servers there, that they are affectionately referred to as Barneys. And all the PCs there which are mounted on trays in rack after rack after rack - no cases. Just motherboards on trays. Crazy shyt. I'd hate to have to be the architect for that setup.
 

Sunner

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
11,641
0
76
Actually, a Sun server with Solaris doesnt have to be much more expensive than an NT server, depends on what you're looking for.
If you want a good webserver, an Enterprise250 is in the same pricerange as a lowend Proliant from Compaq, while Solaris is free(as long as you dont use it on 8< CPU boxes), while NT costs some dough.
 

Rogue

Banned
Jan 28, 2000
5,774
0
0
Okay, what the hell are NTFS permissions? I know of share-level and file-level permissions, but have never heard of NTFS permissions. Perhaps that is a different way of saying file-level permissions?
 

SufferinSuccotash

Senior member
Jun 4, 2000
338
0
0
Basically, yes. Share level permissions apply, you guessed it, to users accessing a share over the network. NTFS permissions apply to local (sitting in front of the computer) users. In a nutshell, anyway.
 

Sebastian

Senior member
Oct 9, 1999
478
0
0
Lets put it this way. Me and my best friend's been running the school internet webserver and firewall and such on linux. We tired our best and everything's pretty much working. The only problem is we are both leaving for university this fall. So although we can continue to do our jobs for a while longer we wouldn't be in touch with the school and also eventually we expect to have to concentrate on our studies.

At anyrate... The thing I want ot talk about is the possibity that teh school will try to switch to NT. I say try because that's how it would be. I realised after some thinking that if they do try it would never be as good as it is now. Because although the IT tech at school is supposed to be a MCSE he knows not alot. Because all the functions and abilities we have setup on the linux box can't be reproduced or is expensive to reporduce in NT. All in all i see them needing to redo the while darn site just to switch to NT. HTML and all.

What alot of NT and 2000 supporter don't understand is that although NT and 2000 is pretty and supposely &quot;easy&quot; to use. It actually hides a lots a faults. The thing most people talk abouti security. Why? Cause if you take a look at http://www.attrition.org they have very nice graphs of OS and their hack rate. The NT/2000 graph looks like a expedential graph. While linux and solaris have had a steady drop.

Now some smart ass will say after reading the actual numbers that 2000 has one of the lowest hacked numbers then linux or solaris most months. But if you look at the nt/2000 graph you should realise that the majority of hacked site there runs NT. I ask.. how long as NT's been out? Why the hell it is still increasing in number of hacked site per month? And as 2000 is so new ( with so many unknown bugs) where do you think it would go?

Now onto the other things that people find annonying about NT. Network computing. NT was never really a system designed for enterprise networks. It just doesn't fit. It's pretty darn hard to admin a NT server from a different room let alone a different city. Good tech people cost money. And having them do more work in cost effective. It's not cost effective to send your admin over in a plane every week.

Granted you don't actually have no network admin ability. But it required extra software. And some people choses software like norton PC anywere. Bad choice. You'll be more secure using BO2k then norton anywhere. Extra software always reads &quot;extra holes&quot; so bad security.

 

aviris

Senior member
Feb 16, 2000
247
0
76
Visit http://www.netcraft.com/survey/. I think the numbers speak for themselves. Click on the &quot;What's that site running now?&quot; at the bottom and find out what url is using (platform and software).

Edit - just out of curiosity I checked and hotmaail.com is indeed running Apache on FreeBSD.
 

Spiff

Senior member
Oct 10, 1999
439
0
0
NT is very easy to manage remotely. I do it with nearly 10000 systems.

In any case, the first poster is correct. It is a bad choice for a firewall. A nix system or a hardware solution be better.
 

Zach

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
3,400
1
81
I tried to admin an NT server at my high school a few years ago. Couple maybe.. don't remember anymore. Back when Service Pack 4 was new. Anyway, we literally had to reboot that stupid machine every day, at least once. I realize it could probably have been more stable, considering my experiance, but still.. It shows the problems that new users can have. I spent less time getting a Redhat 6 installation ironed out than that NT server, mostly due to the platform's better stability.
 

warcleric

Banned
May 31, 2000
2,384
0
0
Aviris: what does that prove? 1. Apache has had alot longer to develop a client base than IIS <I'm not saying IIS doesnt suck> 2. I run Apache on Windows NT
 

mikepeck

Senior member
Jun 20, 2000
379
0
0
As a web designer/programmer, I work a lot with different type of servers. For me, the reason to choose NT is its programming language support. ASP in particular. Creating Web Applications using ASP is not only somewhat easy to do, but is also very versitle. I know that some ASP can be run on other platforms, but it isn't 100%. When that does happen, then it should make server choices much more interesting.
 

CQuinn

Golden Member
May 31, 2000
1,656
0
0
aviris, you might want to check again...

AFAIK Hotmail runs on Solaris, although Apache may be the
Web Server on the front end.

Hotmail is actually a hybrid environment; based on Solaris,
with modifications carried over from BSD. They are also
running NT on the back end and in the hotmail office.

Or at least that is what MS claims
http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/web/news/msnw/Hotmail.asp


 

Sebastian

Senior member
Oct 9, 1999
478
0
0
For that person who says he admin 10000 NT machines i need to ask what machines? If it's workstations then forget it. You can't admin 10000 NT servers out on the web without being totally overloaded. If you do and you are human then those servers are at great risk....
 

Sir Fredrick

Guest
Oct 14, 1999
4,375
0
0
I used a hosting company that was on NT. Needless to say that didn't last long. I soon found another company with unix/linix servers. Much easier to set up!
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |