Monday, March 25, 2002

Web, Standard, Enterprise and Data Center - new .Net

On .Net Webserver:
"Presumably, Microsoft is going to market this server as a quick and easy way to deploy a front-end Web server and establish an Internet presence. It will also provide a ready platform for deploying .NET Web services components. This version supports up to two processors and up to 2 GB of RAM. It lacks many of the built-in features of Standard Server and Enterprise Server, such as Remote Installation Services (RIS), Services for Macintosh, Windows Media Services, SharePoint Team Services, and Terminal Services."

Improved "security" in IIS:
"There's no secret formula involved here. Microsoft simply followed the model of most Linux/UNIX software by scaling down the default IIS install to a minimal package with no extras."

On Luna:
"Luckily, this is easy to turn off. Nevertheless, other than marketing reasons and wanting to standardize the NOS interface with the client OS interface, I see no reason for including the Luna interface. In fact, I can't think of a single instance when an administrator would not want to deactivate the interface, which is a serious memory and system resource hog."

On Product Activation:
"Finally, we come to the onerous issue of product activation, which has drawn a great deal of criticism with the release of Office XP and Windows XP. Microsoft has also decided to include product activation as a part of .NET Server, which means that any retail copies of .NET Server, as well as many copies that are preloaded on OEM-purchased servers, will require activation via the Internet or by phone. Software copies purchased through volume licensing do not require activation.

While this was a major annoyance for desktop software, it is unacceptable for NOS software. First, a lot fewer copies of NOS software are in use, so I doubt that much money will be saved with this draconian approach to fighting piracy. Second, I don't expect any savings recouped by Microsoft from this antipiracy strategy to be passed on to IT departments in the form of lower software prices. Yet it is IT departments that will be most inconvenienced by this policy. Third, and most important, I still don't trust this amorphous protocol that transfers information from my systems to Microsoft, and on a server—where confidential and mission-critical data is stored—that is a much more serious concern than on a desktop machine. "

http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/enterprise/story/0,2000025001,20264171,00.htm

No comments: