Meh, NTFS ACLs are not really that difficult. They are quite logical and powerful. I've never had any problem with the ACLs myself. I'd be interested to know more about these advanced ACLs for Linux though. How can I implement them into my distro?
I think file permissions in general are not difficult, but you'd be surprised how much confusion I've seen on this. Then again, you probably haven't seen a file or directory with hundreds or thousands of (often overlapping) permissions on it before. No matter how good you are with the concepts, you basically need a ven diagram to figure it out. IDS - Using ACLs
Don't get me wrong, there is no doubt that some people get confused by NTFS permission. But if you apply permissions logically and don't explicitly use the "deny" attribute then it becomes much easier. I feel as if I am the Windows defendant in this thread, and while that may be true, we all know that I actually use and prefer Linux! However I honestly believe that Windows (except Vista) is an good OS. Ok, Windows Server 2003 is excellent in my opinion. Everything is so easy to set up. DHCP, DNS, RRAS, Active Directory, Security, it's brilliant. Windows Server 2003 is the best thing Microsoft have ever done. Sure Pre-2000 was horrible, but that was almost 8 years ago! I am sure we can get over that! XP is a great OS too, but it can only be as great as the user.....
Like I said, I haven't had any problems with permissions on any OS so far. But as a consultant and later as an engineer, I saw it almost daily. That tells me that either the built-in tools are inadequate, or that Microsoft's own training doesn't sufficiently prepare MS IT "Pros" for the industry. I am willing to state that both are true, since extensive file permissions in MS's limited GUI is a nightmare when you get into huge permission trees. In some situations you honestly need 3rd-party tools for extremely complex permission matrices to come out as expected. Probably because you've just come out the other side with a shiny new MS cert. I felt the same way as you when I first started in the industry. MCSE and additionally specific ISA, domain topology, NT5 server, and Exchange certifications. Looking back, I can see that there was a whole lot of marketing in that, and I fell for a good deal of it at the time, before I knew better. I don't work on MS servers at all anymore by choice. Funny you mention 2003 server. I can literally tell the difference between 2000 server and 2003 just by the speed of a remote global user or group query. 2003 is something like 2-10x slower than 2000 on the initial query, then speeds up to only ~50% slower on each subsequent query. I have no idea what it's doing on the backend, but across ~3,000 unique customer networks I worked on in the last 2 years, it's been very consistent. MS added a lot of new features in 2003, but they took the typical MS bloatware approach without a doubt. In our own labs, we also found that NT5 (aka 2000) generally had a better uptime and lower hardware requirements for decent performance than NT5.2 (aka 2003 server). One step forward, two steps back. This is of course not even discussing the Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris systems on the same network that never had issues outside of hardware, and generally maintained themselves after the initial setup. So if you are a great user, XP is a great OS? Well, I ran XP even as much as a year before it went gold. I confess I was surprised by how many bugs they fixed at the last possible moment, but there were still many outstanding problems. The biggest problems with XP however go back to fundamental OS design. Let me give you a practical example. I'm going to run a little long on this one, but please bare with me. In this example, I have two groups of computer user friends. These are real people, not metaphorical nor theoretical. We'll call the first group "Group A", and the second group "Group B". Both users have broadband, and almost exactly the same hardware. They live about 20 miles apart from one-another, and have never met. I will tell you up front that one of these two groups of users has never got a virus or spyware infection on their PC, and the other has been infected with thousands over the course of several OS reinstallations. Can you guess which is which? Group A: These friends are good people, but what you'd call "bad users". They surf porn all day, and never think twice about what sites they're visiting. There are multiple users on the PC almost constantly, they never reboot, click on random dialog boxes without reading or understanding them, and they use P2P software like crazy. They don't use anti-virus software, never scan for spyware, and have no idea what processes are running on their computer at any given time. They don't have a hardware firewall, or a 3rd-party software one either. They share files between eachother in a common central area on their HDD, never defragment their filesystem, never make backups, never manually update the OS, and rarely so much as dust their chassis out. Group B: These friends are also good people, and additionally what you'd define as "good users". They never surf porn, never go to sites which might be considered backwater or seedy, don't use P2P software, and carefully read warning and dialog boxes before taking action. These people turn off their computer when not using it, use up to date anti-virus software, multiple anti-spyware tools on a regular basis, and keep their OS up to date with the latest patches. They defragment regularly, use a stateful hardware firewall and a commercial software firewall, make regular backups, use limited user accounts, don't let children on the system at all, and generally walk on eggshells around their computer. Can you guess which group has had the malware problems? If you guessed Group A, you're dead wrong. How can this be? Well, Group A Uses the Linux operating system on a PC I built for them. I set it to automatically update, setup some user accounts and basically walked away. Group B also has a computer I build using almost identical components, but they preferred to use Windows XP Pro, SP2. It's easy to blame the users in theoretics. I mean, Microsoft does it all the time, and that seems to go over surprisingly well. But the truth of the matter is that Group B did everything right and still had massive problems on more than one occasion. Group A did everything "wrong" by MS standards and still had a fast, stable and reliable OS for 4 years solid, with the same OS install, until the HDD finally died just last week. I was still able to get their data copied over onto a new set of HDD's setup with Linux's software RAID-1, and they never lost a thing. There is a happy ending, though; Group B just had me install Linux for them as well.
What's funny is that when I read this, I immediately thought of most of the people that come in to my work, except they run Windows XP. And we consistently have a line of 4-5 minimum throughout the day. I never thought so many people could have broken computers so consistently. Now Mega, I totally understand your point about the quality of the user deciding the greatness of the OS, but lets be honest, you're saying this from an admin's standpoint. As an intelligent, careful user, you are saying that it is possible to not get infected. Well that's great, if you're extremely careful and even then I've seen it a plenty of times where the most careful user still gets infected and is shocked to find it out. Even those type of users are rare. All day long I see the type of computers AT has described come into my work. I mean, he honestly hit the nail on the head. The very fact that people have a choice between two OS' where one is stable and reliable no matter who the user and the second is usable if only certain people are operating it says something about the latter OS. I don't mean to pound you about something AT already did, but I really feel you had a poor argument. The stuff AT described are the computers I work on all day every day and I don't run out of computers to work on. The users could be more careful, sure... but its obvious there is a bigger problem.
The only thing I like about Windows...is XP. I have Ubuntu Draper Drake also installed on my computer...But alas I have given up on it. I found it to be very none user friendly. But my largest frustration came from trying to get help from the Ubunu forum. It was as though I needed a crow bar and a sledge hammer, in order to get the help I needed.
I'm gonna say this out loud I LOVE WINDOWS VISTA On 64bit with 6GB of memory it's a thing of beauty. I know I'm going to get a lot of boo's from this comment but o well.
I like Vista too. Thanks to Vista, all the hardware that's made nowadays is super overpowered for Linux! Any CPU you buy, for any price, will run like a rocket on a non-bloated, open-source operating system. And hell, I was able to buy 8gb of DDR-2 for under $200/USD! So Vista is great. Maybe it's not a great operating system, sure. And maybe I don't run it on any of my systems, or recommend it to people I care about either. But thanks to its overwhelming bloat, it's been great for raising demand for faster hardware, effectively making fast hardware available for cheap.
Vista runs very nice here, but that's only because my PC has high-end hardware (game PC) to run the OS. I was surprised that a PC with a P4 and 1 GB of RAM couldn't run Vista correctly. So I'm wondering if Windows Server 2008 (vista based) is going to kill servers instead of letting them operate like they should.
Almost seems likes some unspoken deal between hardware manufacturers and Micro$oft to keep people renewing there computers! but its probably just the result of M$ spending as little time as possible (time is money) on there software and relying on faster hardware to make there OS seem faster than the last one.
I've never understand why MS always said that the new version of their OS is faster than the older one. They should define "faster". Is for example XP faster than 2000 when both installed on a machine with the same specs, or is XP faster than 2000 when you upgrade to XP on a P2 machine with 64 MB of RAM? Windows (except Vista) is fast after a fresh install, and then slows down after a few weeks. And just like Impotence said, the newer OS (when the system passes the recommended system req's) seems faster than the older OS. My Q6600 Vista PC seems faster than my previous P4 XP PC.
That is due to the fact that the right third party tools have not been installed, and/or used correctly. XP does not slow down for me (as indicated above.) XP has run like a dream on my machine...For more than a year now.
I see what you're saying, but I disagree. Most users cannot walk on eggshells around Windows as well as you and I. And even if you do manage to avoid filesystem corruption, non-contiguous data in OS space (can't be defragged from within the OS), registry fragmentation and/or corruption, spyware, unwanted bloatware, viruses, trojans, rootkits, hijackers, bulk mailers... *gasping breath* ...registry and/or filesystem cruft from uninstalled programs, unwanted TSRs, necessary DLL redundancy, conflicting DLLs, driver revision overlap, intentional slowdowns, and even 'wanted' bloatware (like AIM, Yahoo Messenger, MS Messenger/Live, iTunes, Quicktime, any Norton/Symantec product, WMP>v5, Roxio, Nero>v6, MS Office>2000, Steam, etc) there's still one thing you can't avoid: the swap file. Windows loves to swap, and it will hit that paging file constantly no matter how much free RAM you have available. After a while, this wears out your HDD and will physically slow down your computer. You can disable the page file, but there a lot of known complications to go along with it. Additionally, unless you like gaping security holes, MS's service packs tend to degrade performance as well. Believe it or not, I'm no stranger to Windows, either. I've used MS products since MS DOS 2.0, administrated every form of NT (and some 9x) on servers and in large network environments, and even did some consulting for some large Windows IT support firms to help them run their own shop more efficiently. Just think about this: if Windows was easy to keep running in a desirable way, why are there a billion flashing adds on the internet saying "Click here to speed up Windows now!!!"? Why do worthless companies like "Geek Squad" and "firedog" even exist? Food for thought.
It is hard to respond to everything that you have posted, as it would take up literally hours to work though everything that you have presented. I am not here to argue with any one, or to prove anything. I am simply sharing my experiance, as one who thinks outside of any box, that anyone might like to place someone in. Most of the things you have alluded to as walking on egg shells, are things that I avoid. (Not out of fear..but after having tried most of them)...due to a lack of interest. I guess if I were to see something better presented (that I haven't already tried) I would be willing to look at it.
Honestly it took only a few minutes to post, since these were things I saw every day. Not necessarily on my own machines (though some of the above are common problems to all Windows users), but definitely on a myriad of machines I had encountered professionally. And this is not to say I'm better than anybody else, more experienced, more insightful, or anything else. Just trying to qualify that I'm not just another no-nothing wannabe trying to come off as some authority, as you'll often encounter on the web. Since you don't know me, I just wanted to give some background for reference. I don't know if you're suggesting that I'm trying to "put you in a box" allegorically, but just so you know, I'm not. My comments are solely about Windows, as it's a platform I have a lot of experience with. After working with MS products since the age of 6, I've come to the point where I feel Windows is a sinking ship that must be constantly bailed out to stay afloat. This is especially true for users who really push their PCs hard, as I always have. Users who only surf, get mail and use a few programs will not notice these things as radically. Still, it doesn't mean they're not happening, just not happening as quickly. To me, the whole culture around Windows is one of walking on eggshells. The things you are avoiding you are doing so consciously, right? Whether you agree is a different matter, but the fact that you recognize these problems as being potential at all says something. I remember at one point in time, during a new install process for Windows, I had to install my drivers in a certain order, or when all was said and done the OS would never be quite stable. It's a fragile OS. This is one reason so many IT/IS folks love it so much, whether or not they'll admit it: job security. Do you mean in terms of operating systems? For me, any OS is a better option than Windows, even Mac OS X (though I'm not an Apple fan). It shares some of the same disadvantages of Windows, such as gradual slowdowns over time (though not as drastic), some bloatware, and the propensity to catch viruses (though it doesn't have any to speak of -- yet). Despite all this, it's still noticeably faster and more reliable than Windows. As for me personally, I went from using all MS OS'es from DOS 2.0 all the way up until XP. A guy I worked with at Pitney Bowes interested me in an open-source platform called Linux, and once I'd learned enough to recognize the strengths I gradually moved over. Today I have 2 workstations, a laptop, 2 servers and a firewall, and all 6 boxes run Linux (though not all run the same distribution of Linux). I don't have to defragment, don't need an AV, don't need anti-spyware tools, don't have to reboot when installing new software, don't have to pay exorbitant fees for software licenses, and don't have to spend any time maintaining the OS. With Linux, you spend all the setup time right up front, then it runs like a dream until the hardware eventually wears out around it. So, if you don't have upgrade fever, you can potentially get 10 years of life out of a single machine without needing to upgrade.
