InfoWorld: Is IIS worth the risk?

InfoWorld: Is IIS worth the risk?

Post by Adam Warne » Wed, 02 Jan 2002 19:31:52



"InfoWorld analysts debate the virtue of sticking with Microsoft's
oft-targeted Web server"

December 21, 2001 01:01 PM PST
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/12/24/011224tcpcp.xml

Print version:
http://staging.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/12/24/011224tcpcp.xml...

In one corner we have Tom Yager who in the byline "believes well-tended
Windows servers are as secure and reliable as any." ("Windows being
inherently less secure than, say, Linux, doesn't wash with me.") Sparing
with him is P.J. Connolly: ("Just try and remove the Outlook Express
virus-propagation tool -- oops, e-mail application -- from a server you
want to secure.")

What is remarkable about this article is that Tom Yager concedes that
Windows servers are not any easier to maintain or secure than Solaris or
Linux!

   Microsoft does need to admit that Windows requires as much
   administrative care as competing operating systems. But in my
   experience, Windows' burden of care does not exceed that of Solaris or
   Linux, and that's where Gartner's advisory jumps the tracks. Instead of
   abandoning IIS because it doesn't manage itself, companies running
   Windows servers should institute cultural reforms that ensure Windows
   machines get as much attention as those from Sun and IBM. That might
   affect Windows' perceived ROI within the organization, but the
   stability of Windows systems and services would improve dramatically.

This is an extraordinary concession. It instantly puts Windows on the back
foot compared to Linux in TCO comparisons. Is this a hard choice: Free
operating system that requires as much burden of care as an expensive
operating system with onerous licensing restrictions?

There could be significant consequences for Microsoft server sales and
deployments if the mass perception is lost that Windows servers are easier
to administer and maintain than competing operating systems.

Regards,
Adam

 
 
 

InfoWorld: Is IIS worth the risk?

Post by Erik Funkenbusc » Thu, 03 Jan 2002 02:26:21



Quote:> What is remarkable about this article is that Tom Yager concedes that
> Windows servers are not any easier to maintain or secure than Solaris or
> Linux!

>    Microsoft does need to admit that Windows requires as much
>    administrative care as competing operating systems. But in my
>    experience, Windows' burden of care does not exceed that of Solaris or
>    Linux, and that's where Gartner's advisory jumps the tracks. Instead of
>    abandoning IIS because it doesn't manage itself, companies running
>    Windows servers should institute cultural reforms that ensure Windows
>    machines get as much attention as those from Sun and IBM. That might
>    affect Windows' perceived ROI within the organization, but the
>    stability of Windows systems and services would improve dramatically.

I think what both you and Tom miss is the fact that Windows is not just an IIS
server, nor is it only used in high risk environments.  The most common use of
a Windows server is in a small office as a server, often without any internet
connection at all.  In this sort of environment, the server *CAN* be
maintained by a very light experience level staff (and since this is where
it's greatest volume is, this is a lot of revenue for a product that works
quite well for the environment it's in).

Quote:> This is an extraordinary concession. It instantly puts Windows on the back
> foot compared to Linux in TCO comparisons. Is this a hard choice: Free
> operating system that requires as much burden of care as an expensive
> operating system with onerous licensing restrictions?

Huh?  How does saying that your'e no worse than the competition put you on a
worse footing?  Certainly there are no "onerus licensing restrictions" when
using a Windows NT server as an internet server alone.  You need only a single
license.

If we're talking about an intranet in a major corporation, where many
authenticated logins are used on the web server, then licensing becomes a
bigger burden, but in my experience, that is a very rare situation.  Almost
always, web servers tend to give access only to those administering them.

Quote:> There could be significant consequences for Microsoft server sales and
> deployments if the mass perception is lost that Windows servers are easier
> to administer and maintain than competing operating systems.

Windows is actually coming a long way in this regard.  IIS6 includes many
features which make it easier for end-user to securely manage their server,
such as Wizards which set permissions correctly and only enable the services
you are using.  Of course you will always need experts at some point.  The
question becomes, do you need an expert every day, or once a month?

 
 
 

InfoWorld: Is IIS worth the risk?

Post by Tsu Dho Nim » Thu, 03 Jan 2002 03:46:12



>I think what both you and Tom miss is the fact that Windows is not just an IIS
>server, nor is it only used in high risk environments.  The most common use of
>a Windows server is in a small office as a server, often without any internet
>connection at all.  In this sort of environment, the server *CAN* be
>maintained by a very light experience level staff (and since this is where
>it's greatest volume is, this is a lot of revenue for a product that works
>quite well for the environment it's in).

Yes, but the chaos that happens when any the IIS installations in
that sort of environment get infected is astounding.  Almost
every computer running Win(greaterthan95) will have a IIS server
installed and vulnerable in it.  And each computer has to be
upgraded with the patches individually, or has to have the IIS
server disabled.

My employers had to take their ENTIRE intranet offline and
reinstall and patch and upgrade all kinds of IIS-enabled   ... th
labor alone was $$$$ and the loss of productivity was even
greater.  

Quote:>Huh?  How does saying that your'e no worse than the competition put you on a
>worse footing?  Certainly there are no "onerus licensing restrictions" when
>using a Windows NT server as an internet server alone.  You need only a single
>license.

Correction: you need a licence for each "X" users that connect to
the server.  "X" can be any number, but you pay a per user fee
not a per server install fee.  With LINUX, you pay for the CDs
and install them as many places as you want (then pay for support
if you need it.)

Quote:>If we're talking about an intranet in a major corporation, where many
>authenticated logins are used on the web server, then licensing becomes a
>bigger burden, but in my experience, that is a very rare situation.

  It's a hell of a big burden ... which is why LINUX is becomeing
more popular.  No licensing police :)

Quote:> Almost
>always, web servers tend to give access only to those administering them.

  Except for the IIS web servers that have not had a multiplicty
of patches installed.

Tsu Dho Nimh

It is my job to completely create professional technology
in order that we may seamlessly supply competitive data.

 
 
 

InfoWorld: Is IIS worth the risk?

Post by Jim Richardso » Thu, 03 Jan 2002 05:20:27


On Tue, 1 Jan 2002 11:26:21 -0600,



>> What is remarkable about this article is that Tom Yager concedes that
>> Windows servers are not any easier to maintain or secure than Solaris or
>> Linux!

>>    Microsoft does need to admit that Windows requires as much
>>    administrative care as competing operating systems. But in my
>>    experience, Windows' burden of care does not exceed that of Solaris or
>>    Linux, and that's where Gartner's advisory jumps the tracks. Instead of
>>    abandoning IIS because it doesn't manage itself, companies running
>>    Windows servers should institute cultural reforms that ensure Windows
>>    machines get as much attention as those from Sun and IBM. That might
>>    affect Windows' perceived ROI within the organization, but the
>>    stability of Windows systems and services would improve dramatically.

> I think what both you and Tom miss is the fact that Windows is not just an IIS
> server, nor is it only used in high risk environments.  The most common use of
> a Windows server is in a small office as a server, often without any internet
> connection at all.  In this sort of environment, the server *CAN* be
> maintained by a very light experience level staff (and since this is where
> it's greatest volume is, this is a lot of revenue for a product that works
> quite well for the environment it's in).

In this environment, linux is just as easy to administer. Like windows,
you need someone familiar with the paradigm.

Quote:

>> This is an extraordinary concession. It instantly puts Windows on the back
>> foot compared to Linux in TCO comparisons. Is this a hard choice: Free
>> operating system that requires as much burden of care as an expensive
>> operating system with onerous licensing restrictions?

> Huh?  How does saying that your'e no worse than the competition put you on a
> worse footing?  Certainly there are no "onerus licensing restrictions" when
> using a Windows NT server as an internet server alone.  You need only a single
> license.

Because for years Micros~1 has claimed to be much easier than the
competition to administer.

Doesn't Micros~1 consider https use for ecommerce an "authenticated"
connection

Quote:> If we're talking about an intranet in a major corporation, where many
> authenticated logins are used on the web server, then licensing becomes a
> bigger burden, but in my experience, that is a very rare situation.  Almost
> always, web servers tend to give access only to those administering them.

>> There could be significant consequences for Microsoft server sales and
>> deployments if the mass perception is lost that Windows servers are easier
>> to administer and maintain than competing operating systems.

> Windows is actually coming a long way in this regard.  IIS6 includes many
> features which make it easier for end-user to securely manage their server,
> such as Wizards which set permissions correctly and only enable the services
> you are using.  Of course you will always need experts at some point.  The
> question becomes, do you need an expert every day, or once a month?

Depends on how often you need to patch the holes for one thing.

--
Jim Richardson
        Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
www.eskimo.com/~warlock
        Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.

 
 
 

InfoWorld: Is IIS worth the risk?

Post by Adam Warne » Thu, 03 Jan 2002 08:07:27





>> What is remarkable about this article is that Tom Yager concedes that
>> Windows servers are not any easier to maintain or secure than Solaris
>> or Linux!

>>    Microsoft does need to admit that Windows requires as much
>>    administrative care as competing operating systems. But in my
>>    experience, Windows' burden of care does not exceed that of Solaris
>>    or Linux, and that's where Gartner's advisory jumps the tracks.
>>    Instead of abandoning IIS because it doesn't manage itself,
>>    companies running Windows servers should institute cultural reforms
>>    that ensure Windows machines get as much attention as those from Sun
>>    and IBM. That might affect Windows' perceived ROI within the
>>    organization, but the stability of Windows systems and services
>>    would improve dramatically.

> I think what both you and Tom miss is the fact that Windows is not just
> an IIS server, nor is it only used in high risk environments.  The most
> common use of a Windows server is in a small office as a server, often
> without any internet connection at all.  In this sort of environment,
> the server *CAN* be maintained by a very light experience level staff
> (and since this is where it's greatest volume is, this is a lot of
> revenue for a product that works quite well for the environment it's
> in).

Likewise with Linux, of course.

Quote:>> This is an extraordinary concession. It instantly puts Windows on the
>> back foot compared to Linux in TCO comparisons. Is this a hard choice:
>> Free operating system that requires as much burden of care as an
>> expensive operating system with onerous licensing restrictions?

> Huh?  How does saying that your'e no worse than the competition put you
> on a worse footing?

D'oh. Let's see:

"Microsoft does need to admit that Windows requires as much administrative
care as competing operating systems."

A large component of the TCO of a computer is the ongoing administration
costs/burden of care. If the burden of care is the same then the
administration costs will likely be similar. Perhaps you may like to argue
that a Windows security professional could be hired for cheaper than a
Linux security professional---but I doubt Windows professionals would be
happy about you talking down their wages.

Therefore Windows is almost certainly on a worse footing: No initial or
ongoing licensing costs for Linux. Positive licensing and upgrade costs
for Windows.

Quote:> Certainly there are no "onerus licensing restrictions" when using a
> Windows NT server as an internet server alone.  You need only a single
> license.

Erik just pushed the comparative TCO of a Windows server through the roof
with this carefully worded comment. I can use a Linux server for far many
more functions without worrying about Client Access Licenses.

Quote:> If we're talking about an intranet in a major corporation, where many
> authenticated logins are used on the web server, then licensing becomes
> a bigger burden, but in my experience, that is a very rare situation.
> Almost always, web servers tend to give access only to those
> administering them.

Wow. A server that can only perform one activity and does not authenticate
users so you are able to avoid the issue of CALs. That's a real low
per-server TCO Erik.

No, let's not talk about "an intranet in a major corporation, where many
authenticated logins are used on the web server, then licensing becomes a
bigger burden," since that would just push up the relative TCO of Windows
servers even higher (since there is no comparative licensing burden with
Linux).

Quote:>> There could be significant consequences for Microsoft server sales and
>> deployments if the mass perception is lost that Windows servers are
>> easier to administer and maintain than competing operating systems.

> Windows is actually coming a long way in this regard.  IIS6 includes
> many features which make it easier for end-user to securely manage their
> server, such as Wizards which set permissions correctly and only enable
> the services you are using.  Of course you will always need experts at
> some point.  The question becomes, do you need an expert every day, or
> once a month?

And how would this give Linux a higher administrative burden?

Regards,
Adam

 
 
 

InfoWorld: Is IIS worth the risk?

Post by jackso » Thu, 03 Jan 2002 09:26:11



> Huh?  How does saying that your'e no worse than the competition put you
> on a worse footing?  Certainly there are no "onerus licensing
> restrictions" when using a Windows NT server as an internet server
> alone.  You need only a single license.

> If we're talking about an intranet in a major corporation, where many
> authenticated logins are used on the web server, then licensing becomes
> a bigger burden, but in my experience, that is a very rare situation.
> Almost always, web servers tend to give access only to those
> administering them.

NT4/2000 is worse off here because it's buggy. I know from working with
them on a daily basis: a) Both servers and clients drop printers or
spools jam -- OFTEN. b) Servers need to be rebooted weekly and there are
times when the reboot turns into a REBUILD due to "corrupted files" c)
Web server works as long as it isn't working hard at what it's supposed
to be doing -- then ... crash. Often Frontpage publishing will crash the
server. That's why no one publishes to it, but to a dummy server first
then copy over. d) DHCP server don't implement DHCP properly.
There are IP conflicts all over our network. e) All I have to say here is
HOTFIXES suck.

Oh and before you say I must be doing something wrong, I'll say NOT. M$
always like to lay blame on the user. When the user isn't around, blame
the sysadmin.You and M$ are the incompetent ones that have sold a bunch of horse
shit to the public. Go home and cry in your M$ alphabet soup.

Jackson

 
 
 

InfoWorld: Is IIS worth the risk?

Post by Chris Ahlstr » Thu, 03 Jan 2002 10:01:43


After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:

Quote:> I think what both you and Tom miss is the fact that Windows is not just an IIS
> server, nor is it only used in high risk environments.  The most common use of
> a Windows server is in a small office as a server, often without any internet
> connection at all.  In this sort of environment, the server *CAN* be
> maintained by a very light experience level staff (and since this is where
> it's greatest volume is, this is a lot of revenue for a product that works
> quite well for the environment it's in).

In other words, IIS isn't fit for the Internet.

Quote:> Of course you will always need experts at some point.  The
> question becomes, do you need an expert every day, or once a month?

At at how much a pop?  <grin>

Chris

--
Living large and loving Linux!

 
 
 

InfoWorld: Is IIS worth the risk?

Post by GreyClou » Thu, 03 Jan 2002 11:52:32



> "InfoWorld analysts debate the virtue of sticking with Microsoft's
> oft-targeted Web server"

> December 21, 2001 01:01 PM PST
> http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/12/24/011224tcpcp.xml

> Print version:

http://staging.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/12/24/011224tcpcp.xml...
Quote:

> In one corner we have Tom Yager who in the byline "believes well-tended
> Windows servers are as secure and reliable as any." ("Windows being
> inherently less secure than, say, Linux, doesn't wash with me.") Sparing
> with him is P.J. Connolly: ("Just try and remove the Outlook Express
> virus-propagation tool -- oops, e-mail application -- from a server you
> want to secure.")

> What is remarkable about this article is that Tom Yager concedes that
> Windows servers are not any easier to maintain or secure than Solaris or
> Linux!

>    Microsoft does need to admit that Windows requires as much
>    administrative care as competing operating systems. But in my
>    experience, Windows' burden of care does not exceed that of Solaris or
>    Linux, and that's where Gartner's advisory jumps the tracks. Instead of
>    abandoning IIS because it doesn't manage itself, companies running
>    Windows servers should institute cultural reforms that ensure Windows
>    machines get as much attention as those from Sun and IBM. That might
>    affect Windows' perceived ROI within the organization, but the
>    stability of Windows systems and services would improve dramatically.

> This is an extraordinary concession. It instantly puts Windows on the back
> foot compared to Linux in TCO comparisons. Is this a hard choice: Free
> operating system that requires as much burden of care as an expensive
> operating system with onerous licensing restrictions?

> There could be significant consequences for Microsoft server sales and
> deployments if the mass perception is lost that Windows servers are easier
> to administer and maintain than competing operating systems.

Well, I wouldn't put much stock into Tom Yagers report anyway.
IIS cost the industry $2.3 billion in damage during the Code Red and Nimbda
virus attacks.  The Gartner group recommends moving away from IIS.
 
 
 

InfoWorld: Is IIS worth the risk?

Post by Charlie Ebe » Thu, 03 Jan 2002 11:59:09



> Well, I wouldn't put much stock into Tom Yagers report anyway.
> IIS cost the industry $2.3 billion in damage during the Code Red and Nimbda
> virus attacks.  The Gartner group recommends moving away from IIS.

Yes,  "The Gartner Group"..

The BIG BOYS who had recommended nothing but Microsoft products
for over a decade are now saying in unison,,,

"RUN AWAY!!!  RUN AWAY!!!  RUN AWAY!!!"

Can't you just see the corporate careers crumbling here?

Can you hear it??

Open your windows folks and give a listen to that
crumbling sound out there....

--

Charlie

 
 
 

InfoWorld: Is IIS worth the risk?

Post by Adam Warne » Thu, 03 Jan 2002 12:27:43



> Well, I wouldn't put much stock into Tom Yagers report anyway. IIS cost
> the industry $2.3 billion in damage during the Code Red and Nimbda virus
> attacks.  The Gartner group recommends moving away from IIS.

To be precise, Gartner recommended that business hit by Code Red and Nimda
immediately investigate moving away from IIS:

http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2813854,00.html

   Gartner recommends that businesses hit by both Code Red and Nimda
   immediately investigate alternatives to IIS, including moving Web
   applications to Web server software from other vendors such as iPlanet
   and Apache. Although those Web servers have required some security
   patches, they have much better security records than IIS and are not
   under active attack by the vast number of virus and worm writers.

Which indicates that the commentary was most concerned about businesses
that weren't capable of keeping their servers secure. By the way,
Microsoft was one of those companies:

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6826572.html

   Desler said he did not know how Microsoft itself had managed to fall
   victim to the virus. He said some Hotmail servers may have been
   replaced recently for some reason with servers that hadn't been patched
   yet.

Gartner did imply that a full rewrite of IIS was necessary:

   Gartner remains concerned that viruses and worms will continue to
   attack IIS until Microsoft has released a completely rewritten release
   of ISS that is thoroughly and publicly tested.

Regards,
Adam

 
 
 

InfoWorld: Is IIS worth the risk?

Post by GreyClou » Fri, 04 Jan 2002 17:21:27




>> Huh?  How does saying that your'e no worse than the competition put you
>> on a worse footing?  Certainly there are no "onerus licensing
>> restrictions" when using a Windows NT server as an internet server
>> alone.  You need only a single license.

>> If we're talking about an intranet in a major corporation, where many
>> authenticated logins are used on the web server, then licensing becomes
>> a bigger burden, but in my experience, that is a very rare situation.
>> Almost always, web servers tend to give access only to those
>> administering them.

> NT4/2000 is worse off here because it's buggy. I know from working with
> them on a daily basis: a) Both servers and clients drop printers or
> spools jam -- OFTEN. b) Servers need to be rebooted weekly and there are
> times when the reboot turns into a REBUILD due to "corrupted files" c)
> Web server works as long as it isn't working hard at what it's supposed
> to be doing -- then ... crash. Often Frontpage publishing will crash the
> server. That's why no one publishes to it, but to a dummy server first
> then copy over. d) DHCP server don't implement DHCP properly.
> There are IP conflicts all over our network. e) All I have to say here is
> HOTFIXES suck.

> Oh and before you say I must be doing something wrong, I'll say NOT. M$
> always like to lay blame on the user. When the user isn't around, blame
> the sysadmin.You and M$ are the incompetent ones that have sold a bunch of
> horse shit to the public. Go home and cry in your M$ alphabet soup.

You wouldn't have those problems with a linux secure system or Sun system.
 
 
 

InfoWorld: Is IIS worth the risk?

Post by GreyClou » Fri, 04 Jan 2002 17:23:43





>> Well, I wouldn't put much stock into Tom Yagers report anyway.
>> IIS cost the industry $2.3 billion in damage during the Code Red and
>> Nimbda
>> virus attacks.  The Gartner group recommends moving away from IIS.

> Yes,  "The Gartner Group"..

> The BIG BOYS who had recommended nothing but Microsoft products
> for over a decade are now saying in unison,,,

> "RUN AWAY!!!  RUN AWAY!!!  RUN AWAY!!!"

> Can't you just see the corporate careers crumbling here?

> Can you hear it??

> Open your windows folks and give a listen to that
> crumbling sound out there....

HEHEHE!!  Yes, I seem to hear the screams... almost reminds me of the stock
market crash of 1929 when the brokers jumped out of their windows.
Today they are jumping away from Windows.
Actually, the Gartner group is recommending to either use UNIX or OpenVMS
or IBMs AIX, etc... anything but IIS.
 
 
 

InfoWorld: Is IIS worth the risk?

Post by GreyClou » Fri, 04 Jan 2002 17:25:21




>> Well, I wouldn't put much stock into Tom Yagers report anyway. IIS cost
>> the industry $2.3 billion in damage during the Code Red and Nimbda virus
>> attacks.  The Gartner group recommends moving away from IIS.

> To be precise, Gartner recommended that business hit by Code Red and Nimda
> immediately investigate moving away from IIS:

> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2813854,00.html

>    Gartner recommends that businesses hit by both Code Red and Nimda
>    immediately investigate alternatives to IIS, including moving Web
>    applications to Web server software from other vendors such as iPlanet
>    and Apache. Although those Web servers have required some security
>    patches, they have much better security records than IIS and are not
>    under active attack by the vast number of virus and worm writers.

> Which indicates that the commentary was most concerned about businesses
> that weren't capable of keeping their servers secure. By the way,
> Microsoft was one of those companies:

> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6826572.html

>    Desler said he did not know how Microsoft itself had managed to fall
>    victim to the virus. He said some Hotmail servers may have been
>    replaced recently for some reason with servers that hadn't been patched
>    yet.

> Gartner did imply that a full rewrite of IIS was necessary:

>    Gartner remains concerned that viruses and worms will continue to
>    attack IIS until Microsoft has released a completely rewritten release
>    of ISS that is thoroughly and publicly tested.

True, but the group recommends anyone that has the bigiron products to stay
with them.  In comp.os.vms it was a hotly debated item for a while.  Lets'
face it IIS isn't good enough yet.
 
 
 

InfoWorld: Is IIS worth the risk?

Post by Matthew Gardine » Fri, 04 Jan 2002 18:27:13


Here is a better question. What does IIS do that iPlanet, Apache, Domino
can't do?

Matthew Gardiner


Quote:> "InfoWorld analysts debate the virtue of sticking with Microsoft's
> oft-targeted Web server"

> December 21, 2001 01:01 PM PST
> http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/12/24/011224tcpcp.xml

> Print version:

http://staging.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/12/24/011224tcpcp.xml...
te=/storypages/printfriendly.html
Quote:

> In one corner we have Tom Yager who in the byline "believes well-tended
> Windows servers are as secure and reliable as any." ("Windows being
> inherently less secure than, say, Linux, doesn't wash with me.") Sparing
> with him is P.J. Connolly: ("Just try and remove the Outlook Express
> virus-propagation tool -- oops, e-mail application -- from a server you
> want to secure.")

> What is remarkable about this article is that Tom Yager concedes that
> Windows servers are not any easier to maintain or secure than Solaris or
> Linux!

>    Microsoft does need to admit that Windows requires as much
>    administrative care as competing operating systems. But in my
>    experience, Windows' burden of care does not exceed that of Solaris or
>    Linux, and that's where Gartner's advisory jumps the tracks. Instead of
>    abandoning IIS because it doesn't manage itself, companies running
>    Windows servers should institute cultural reforms that ensure Windows
>    machines get as much attention as those from Sun and IBM. That might
>    affect Windows' perceived ROI within the organization, but the
>    stability of Windows systems and services would improve dramatically.

> This is an extraordinary concession. It instantly puts Windows on the back
> foot compared to Linux in TCO comparisons. Is this a hard choice: Free
> operating system that requires as much burden of care as an expensive
> operating system with onerous licensing restrictions?

> There could be significant consequences for Microsoft server sales and
> deployments if the mass perception is lost that Windows servers are easier
> to administer and maintain than competing operating systems.

> Regards,
> Adam

 
 
 

InfoWorld: Is IIS worth the risk?

Post by GreyClou » Sat, 05 Jan 2002 14:07:44



> Here is a better question. What does IIS do that iPlanet, Apache, Domino
> can't do?

Spread CodeRed, and nimbda viruses??
 
 
 

1. Linux - It just was not worth the risk

http://australianit.news.com.au/common/print/0,7208,6485559%255E15306...

Just look at how the "article" is written... I don't know how much that
Blake guy is earning, but he is stealing it.

--
Ivan Martinez
IMR at OERSTED dot DTU dot DenmarK

2. xpilot problems

3. non root can't login

4. Production SMP Linux? Worth the risk?

5. Selecting network for Internet access

6. Apache vs IIS 4: IIS 4 3 times faster

7. Incorrect SCO ISAM Runtime?

8. This clone thing...am I stupid, or am I right?

9. I am with the following error, when i am running lilo...

10. Am I touchy? Or am I right?

11. Am I seeing IPv5, or am I hallucinating?