before this gets into a flamewar I'd just like to say that ms' support is all outsoruced. bad MS. then they're marketing stuff pulls this shit, and makes people use their formats. I'm sure windows was supposed to be an awesome thing but then marketing turned it into a crap product.

[TSA] Psychiccyberfreak wrote:before this gets into a flamewar I'd just like to say that ms' support is all outsoruced. bad MS. then they're marketing stuff pulls this shit, and makes people use their formats. I'm sure windows was supposed to be an awesome thing but then marketing turned it into a crap product.

Thanks for clearing it up with well-researched information.

Well, I can't really believe that Windows supports central administration, but maybe it's just that Windows admins that can do their stuff are much harder to come by than Linux admins.

Here at university, we have a guy who has some MS certificate (I forgot which exactly), and he also works at another company managing the Windows network. So one should expect that he knows his stuff... but no: we don't have unattended installation, if software should get added, someone has to walk to every single desktop and install it, and updates sometimes do not get installed and he has to run "wuauclt /detectnow" manually.

Compared to that, the Linux system pool works fine, and the only issue there is that the installer of Red Hat (or actually Fedora) is massively broken and needs quite some ugly workarounds (like, the partitioner tries to be clever and prevents making two primary Windows partitions - no, it always makes one of them a logical volume, although they SHOULD become two separate selectable primary partitions for two different Windows versions - so we do the partitioning not using the Anaconda scripting, but using a pre-install script that uses sfdisk). Once running, it works, and we can at any time install additional software and update ALL software, not just what one vendor has made.

BTW, the _installation_ part on the Windows workstations is currently the only "well, maybe" automated stuff that works - it is a sysprep image, after he gave up making an unattended install CD (he couldn't get the SATA drivers on it so they still exist after the first reboot).

Also, from what I have read, if you buy a special server software that we do not have the money for, we can install MSI packages on all computers at once. However, far from everything uses MSI... so this feature is useless if you need anything else than MS Office and MS Visual Studio.

So... after this experience, I can't really believe that Windows even supports this kind of automation we use on Linux every day. But maybe this guy is just an idiot, but he is certified by Microsoft, so that means Windows admins that actually ARE able to set up a working network are very hard to come by... if that certificate tells nothing.

Oh, and going back to the actual topic - I am totally against this becoming an ISO standard, mainly because it is unspecific. "Do it like Word Whatever" - no, such things do not belong in a standard format, especially if this exact behavior isn't specified. But even if the standard describes it exactly, if another manufacturer supports the format, he may be violating trademarks of Microsoft because he has to name a Microsoft product in the file - which possibly is the intention of putting such stuff in.

Well this really did start something!

I've known lots of MS only sysadmins who accept that Windows is bad, however they want it to stay that way as it gives them a job. That is bad computer science. It's a similar attitude to the sort of plumbers who don't really fix problems, they just bodge it so that they have to come back and fix it again, getting even more money.

Actually, I suppose Windows isn't THAT bad - for desktops. However, most of the "quality" of Windows isn't that of the operating system itself, but of the wide range of applications available for it. For example, GIMP can't match Photoshop when you need CMYK (and for web and digital camera stuff, GIMP is fine, but its user interface sucks and is slow, for example, there can only be one active tool and not one per mouse button).

However, from what I have seen, Windows is a sysadmin nightmare. You don't want to be admin in a network where users need to have the "Debug programs" privilege, because Microsoft says:

Determines which users can attach a debugger to any process. This privilege provides powerful access to sensitive and critical operating system components.

However, Visual Studio fails to debug self written programs when this privilege is not enabled, and a working Visual Studio is a requirement here! So basically, all the students have admin rights, if they know how to exploit this. GREAT operating system... on Linux I can debug but can only attach to my own processes, why not on Windows?

Admittedly, gdb on Windows seems to work fine without these privileges... so apparently this is a Visual Studio flaw and not a Windows flaw... still, as Visual Studio is a requirement, it can't be worked around.

I am sorry yout techs/admins don't know how or have SMS or even understand the basic principles of group policy and or active directory. Its all there, out of the box the minute you create a Windows Domain. Unattended installs are synch using msi's. You don't even need SMS, you can use a group policy and logon script if needed. Sounds like your IT has the lack of tools or know how, not Windows.

You can set policies across 1000's of desktops/servers. Push software/ updates. And with a few simple add ons you can Reboot/Reimage remotley. Remote control using encryption and authentication.

Now managing Linux machines is questionable, centrally managed? I think you may be confused on what it actually means. I can do any task to 1000's of machines remotely (WAN or LAN) at any give time using one management console at the drop of a dime. You may be thiniking that your admins lack of knowledge or know how is windows fault.

Are you referring to Noovell/ReHat? I am not talking about managing a few Linux boxes at home (as I do) or even the University computer lab or few computers tucked away in the library. I am talking abut managing machines at the corporate level.

7echno7im wrote:I am sorry yout techs/admins don't know how or have SMS or even understand the basic principles of group policy and or active directory. Its all there, out of the box the minute you create a Windows Domain. Unattended installs are synch using msi's. You don't even need SMS, you can use a group policy and logon script if needed. Sounds like your IT has the lack of tools or know how, not Windows.

Speaking of SMS... as you say, it can only install MSI apps, and many apps are not MSI (not even Firefox is officially available as MSI)... and yes, lack of tools is the problem, or actually, lack of money for these tools.

Speaking of lack of know how... a logon script can install software? How can it do that? IIRC it runs with the privileges of the user who logged on, so it certainly won't be able to install a system-wide application. Or where am I wrong here?

Now managing Linux machines is questionable, centrally managed? I think you may be confused on what it actually means. I can do any task to 1000's of machines remotely (WAN or LAN) at any give time using one management console at the drop of a dime.

That's exactly what the systems here are doing too. However, it works the pull way, not the push way - the clients regularily ask a server for instructions on what to do (like, installing updates).

You may be thiniking that your admins lack of knowledge or know how is windows fault.

Well, he obviously lacks knowledge, but he is certified, so...

Are you referring to Noovell/ReHat? I am not talking about managing a few Linux boxes at home (as I do) or even the University computer lab or few computers tucked away in the library. I am talking abut managing machines at the corporate level.

Okay, at corporate level, users maybe don't need certain freedoms like being able to debug or to install software, so that's maybe easier then.

There is no need to argue.. of cource a massive windows installation is easy to manage as long as you live in the world of being used to be told by microsoft exactly what to do, and simply accept that "this cannot be done" for the simplest taksk. (and why not wake up and realize that MS really dont care about their competition haveing problems with the installers, cause that is another very simple way to get adminst to keep to even more MS products (helloo.. transparent. do I need to knock you over the head with it?))

however, and i think this will be my last input to the discussion. Novells (not novell/suse, but novell netware) did all of this ages ago, but was effectivly put out of the market. This was pretty clear the moment MS made it harder to support IPX/SPX-protocols (protocols that are far far better Than NetBEUI, and faster than TCP/IP, and yes, IPX/SPX can be routed).

What I'm getting at. the Unix (not only linux) and Netware world had these soulutiions decades ago, and now that MS _finally_ get something half-way workable released, they again market it as innovation, allthough its not superior (i'm not saying inferieor, but i'm not not saying it either) to anything that has been in existance for years upon years.

This is the attitude thats pissing me off, and to keep it on topic, this petition is about not allowing MS to destroy the allredy existing ISO standard for ODF for their own market strategical, not technical, purposes. OOXML (where the hell did they get the nerve to call it the Open Office XML anyways, and dot tell me thats not on purpose to make confusioon about open office) might be a step forward compared to old MS solutions, but thats not what this is about.

tChr wrote:
where the hell did they get the nerve to call it the Open Office XML anyways, and dot tell me thats not on purpose to make confusioon about open office

It's actually Office Open XML. See the difference?

So they even managed to confuse you

(Not contradicting you in any other point)

Signed, of course.

tChr wrote:There is no need to argue.. of cource a massive windows installation is easy to manage as long as you live in the world of being used to be told by microsoft exactly what to do, and simply accept that "this cannot be done" for the simplest taksk.

emphasis mine..
last time i tried on a xp media edition laptop i couldn't even put the 'always visible' taskbar from the bottom of the screen to the top of the screen! New windows did popup UNDER it makeing it hard to impossible to move them as the taskbar was hiding the window top so couldn't move it with the mouse and alt-space, move does not work with all programs (putty for example can grap the alt key to transmit it via ssh). So i had to set the taskbar to automatically-hide so i could get to the window top and move it around.

Sure its a totally other thing as was discussed but it kinda shows how well-designed the windows ui is why should the other stuff be any better..

I never said SMS can only install msi's, scroll up. SMS can do sooo much more. I was just giving an example. SMS is also a reporting system, i can find make, model, serial number, bios revision, and anything about a machine via sms's reporting feature. It pulls hardware info from wmi and software from the OS.

SMS can do anything you tell it to, it is a deliverer, executer, reporter, tracker, monitor, not just and installer and definitely not just msi's.

And yes you can install thru logon scripts. Write a bacth or vbs or any scipt, have it execute on login by user or computer (via group policy editor) , simple, dirty, easy, pre-sms. You can chose a machine accoutn rather than a user account, thus having the rights to install. Plus, you can write the script tio do a 'run as'. PSEXEC is another good tool to use.

Certification does not always mean they possess the knowledge to manage a network. Depending on the cert. Some people just study answers for them, not learing best practices and concepts.

I agree that Novell Netware was good at the time, our entire network use to be novell/ipx/groupwise, as most were. It was a management nightmare, from logon scripts, file shares, accounts,mail accounts, aliases, etc... Everything was good for the time, but was not flexible to adapt to the market trends.

I am sorry that this thread veered so far away from it's original topic, it was not my intent.

oh well... looks like OOXML got accepted by Massachusetts.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20 ... oming.html

Office Open XML is a good thing and a clear improvement of Microsoft standrads, but its still a crappy half-done document, and should _not_ replace ODF as an ISO

Who are the ones making the ODF and who are the ones that needs it? As I see it, even if OOXML gets accepted, I think many still will use the other standard. Or what am I missing? Don't have too clear picture of what those are in more general (market)-term.
And how does not people see what MS are trying to do? I think bribery... or something alike. Stupid people with no intelligence.

OOXML Fails to Gain Approval in US

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/07/oox ... in-us.html

ai wrote:Who are the ones making the ODF and who are the ones that needs it? As I see it, even if OOXML gets accepted, I think many still will use the other standard. Or what am I missing? Don't have too clear picture of what those are in more general (market)-term.
And how does not people see what MS are trying to do? I think bribery... or something alike. Stupid people with no intelligence.

You are missing that MS is trying to make oosml replace odf as the standard,. (same ISO number among other things)