On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:11:16 +0100, Toby Inkster
<usenet200504.DeleteThis@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:
> Kerry wrote:
>
>> I once read they said that [Microsoft] also use *nix at times "because
>> it's so robust" Is that true?
>
> Microsoft once produced and sold their own version of Unix -- it was
> called Xenix. They abandoned that circa Windows NT though.
>
> When Microsoft bought Hotmail back in 1997, Hotmail was of course a
> Unix shop, running FreeBSD/Apache web servers, Solaris file servers and
> mail servers, but using NT boxes with Microsoft SQL to keep the members
> directory.
>
> This was rather an embarrasment for Microsoft, so a few years later they
> decided to switch them all over to Windows 2000 and IIS 5.0. There is an
> internal Microsoft document detailing the transition here:
>
> http://www.securityoffice.net/mssecrets/hotmail.html
very interesting read - thanks
> It doesn't paint a pretty picture for Windows as a server platform. I
> believe that some of the criticisms in this report though were actioned
> upon in Windows 2003, so perhaps there is hope for Microsoft yet.
yep - the most significant is that NLB is now available with 'server'
version of WS3 - 'advanced' is not required.
the IIS metabase is much less obscure, though not yet tranparent enough
IMHO
--
Rover Cars - RIP. Let the asset stripping begin.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
>> Stay informed about: Warning - Potentially Expensive virus!!