Stephen Yorke wrote:
> To each their own BUT...
But nothing.
> Now look at 2003...it is rock solid in my thoughts unless you are
> looking at the WWW/HTML/.NET patches which were released recently but
> then again if you are looking at those and saying the OS is unsecure you
> must be running IE on your servers. Me, I never run ANY web browser on
> my servers and I don't think ANYONE should run any web browser on ANY
> server unless you are looking for trouble.
Lemme know when you can turn off the GUI on those "servers", mmm'kay.
It's all well and good to say that "working on Microsoft pays the bills" but
man, how do you cover the medical expenses of banging your head against the
idiocy Microsoft throws at every OS they produce? Sure, Microsoft keeps our
PC techs hoppin' at work. I look at 99% of the problems they face and shake
my head as it was solved in the unix world D-E-C-A-D-E-S ago.
My all time favorite to date was unable to remove to some machines with
one type of remote login because it double-started a service which brought the
machine down. So we used a different type of remote login for just that
machine but not the others. Why? Because using it on other machines caused
pretty much the same problem! :/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
