Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> __/ [ yttrx ] on Wednesday 07 February 2007 14:37 \__
>
>> Linonut <linonut@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o'
>>> wisdom:
>>>
>>>> Life with Vista - Is this dogfood really for the dogs?
>>>>
>>>> | # Vista is not ready for primetime. By that I mean that Vista still
>>>> | feels like a beta. That's right. It has so many compatibility
>>>> | problems with existing applications that running anything other
>>>> | than stuff from Microsoft that specifically says "for Vista Build
>>>> | XXXX" makes me feel like I'm taking my life into my own hands.
>>>> |
>>>> | 1. Games - don't even get me started...
>>>> | 2. Visual Studio 2005 - I can't find the words to express the
>>>> | irony... 3. Virtual PC - worthless. Don't even attempt on Vista.
>>>> `----
>>>
>>> It's not good when a company can't even choke down its own dog food.
>>>
>>>> Windows Vista: More Work in Progress
>>>> Vista: Behind the scenes
>>>> Analysts: Microsoft Changes Meaning Of 'Release Candidate'
>>>> Vista Breaks Applications
>>>> Lack of Internal Talks at Microsoft, Google
>>>> Vista Issues Bedevil Firefox
>>>
>>
>> And not only all of this awfulness, but check it:
>>
>> Every last one of the CIFS-aware network appliances that I use both
>> at home and at the office, which amounts to about 11 hunks of hardware
>> totalling about 4 terabytes cannot, and WILL not connect to Vista.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Because they do not understand what the LLTD protocol is, which Vista
>> requires to be recognized by the target device. It's easy enough to
>> download a patch for XP machines to solve this problem from microsoft, so
>> that you can
>> share between XP and Vista...but network storage devices? Nope.
>>
>> Also, for those of you using Netapps (I know I know, not around here you're
>> not), NA won't be coming out with an LLTD module for at least a few weeks,
>> so don't upgrade shit until you get it and you know it works.
>
> It also messes about with Linux.
>
> The Microsoft Zombie Army will force Samba out of the Enterprise
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Vista is to ship with a new version of SMB, called SMB2. At
> | minute 40 in this FLOSS Weekly podcast, Jeremy Allison of
> | Samba talks of behavior that will flood the network with
> | 1500 packets just to do a network file delete. This will
> | turn Vista computers into a DOS (Denial of Service) attack
> | upon Samba based computers on the network.
> `----
>
> http://www.twit.tv/floww14
>
> The EU required that they make available their full specs, which IIRC, were
> thousands of pages thick. It's akin to OOXML... look at the code and write
> it down in words (bugs included). While it's being reviewed, I doubt Samba
> can do anything about it, let alone get access to the docs.
>
Well, if there was ever an argument to upgrade to Enterprise (if it ever
fucking gets released) so that we can drop SMB completely and use NFS
instead, this is it. Thank the gods we'll be getting it for nothing.
Interestingly windows services for unix, which did that job under XP
actually rather nicely, is not compatable with Vista. You HAVE to
upgrade to enterprise to re-enable that functionality in windows, and
the only way to aquire Enterprise is to be in bed with Microsoft. Very
nice.
I'm not entirely sure if it will ever be included in Ultimate, but
that might actually not be a bad way to go, site-license wise. And
it would make for a lot of pretty happy employees I think.
-----yttrx
--
http://www.yttrx.net
|
|
