Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(December 1997)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: RE: NT as a central intranet firewall
From: "Crowe, Peter" <peterc @ netsol . com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 10:46:22 -0500
To: "'Clyde Williamson'" <clydew @ ee . net>, Billy Verreynne <vslabs @ onwe . co . za>, firewalls @ GreatCircle . COM

Fact: Each time you OS sluggers get in the ring to duke it out about who
is best, I see at least 2 if not 3 unsucbscribes following.
Fact: If you keep this up, performance and scalability of this list will
go way down.
Fact: If fact 2 occurs, I also will unsubscribe.

Lets talk about firewalls and security and leave the bullshit for the
tradeshows and offline arguments.

Your decision.

Peter Crowe

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Clyde Williamson [SMTP:clydew @
 ee .
 net]
> Sent:	Thursday, December 11, 1997 11:51 PM
> To:	Billy Verreynne; firewalls @
 GreatCircle .
 COM
> Subject:	Re: NT as a central intranet firewall
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> At 07:44 AM 12/11/97 +0200, you wrote:
> >Clyde Williamson said:
> ><snip>
> >>Either, NT goes through a major evolution (hint: cut and paste the
> >>kernal and OS code from Linux), or Infrastructure will come 
> crashing
> >>down around our ears.....
> >
> ><flame>
> >Crap. Fact : many businesses *are* using NT as a mission critical 
> platform.
> 
> Many people smoke too, that doesn't mean it's good for them. Just 
> because alot of people do something doesn't mean it's right.
> 
> >Fact : NT is as robust as any Unix version.
> 
> Fact: Apparently you're working from the Mars Probe. The below 
> example pits UNIX in a very tough position, and NT running it's own 
> software. I'd hope to God that if I wrote the OS and the server and 
> the program I could get it to work as well as a high end, high demand 
> service from multiple vendors. There is no proof in the below story 
> that proves that NT is as robust as any UNIX version. 
> 
> Fact: I was at a Microsoft conference today, twice they had to admit 
> that their product was inferior to 1)UNIX and 2)Any Firewall product 
> (for their Proxy Server)
> 
> As a matter of fact to quote:
> 
> " While we may not have the stability of a Solaris Server, our 
> interface makes up for it by the easing Server Management." (In other 
> words- " We suck, but if your lazy, you can get us to run sometimes.)
> 
> " MS Proxy is a solution for a small company that cannot afford a 
> firewall."
> 
> If this is the confidence that their own sales force puts into the 
> product, how am I supposed to have faith in it?
> 
> M$ has it's place, it works well as a server for small companies. 
> It's adaquate as a small Web Server or Mail Server. From a supprot 
> standpoint, I'd rather have 95 on the end users desk. But, if there 
> is a need for real horsepower/reliablity and security(since Firewalls 
> is what we should be talking about) M$ doesn't make the cut. 
> 
> I have worked quite a bit with NT... mostly because we do alot of 
> consulting with companies who have an existing infrastructure and an 
> internal IS dept. And I agree it can be made stable, but to clainm 
> that it's as robust as any NT platform is a bit far fetched.
> 
> 
> BTW- MS announced that NEC using NT just set a record in the number 
> of transactions per minute 14,900. I was impressed, until they later 
> admitted that they had MS engineers at NEC for 2 years and NEC 
> engineers at MS for two years customizing, rewriting code and all 
> around jury-rigging the system for this one benchmark. Still, 14,900 
> is a record... Until we then find out that it was a record for NT on 
> an INTEL processor. Other systems had done over that two years 
> ago.... So when the smoke cleared from their exciting announcement... 
> we had nothing but a marketing gimmick. Herein lies my distaste for 
> Microsoft.
> 
> >Want to dispute these? How about running Oracle Parallel Server on a
> >$1,000,000 MPP platform and having MPP nodes just fall over 
> *without* any
> >explanation - nothing on the console and nothing in any log. Now 
> tell me
> >that Unix is more robust that NT. Bull. We have NT boxes that run 
> everything
> >from Exchanges, large file servers, to application servers - and 
> seldom have
> >a crash. And the few times that there are crashes it's usually 
> hardware
> >related.
> >
> >I fail to understand why this NT vs. Unix issue keeps on cropping 
> up. You
> >match the technology with the business requirements and business
> >limitations - and then you do your best with that technology. I work 
> with NT
> >and Unix every single day. Yes, there are times when I curse 
> Microsoft for
> >not having a proper NT command line scripting language and for 
> having a
> >stupid GUI that gets in the way when you want to work with the o/s, 
> as there
> >are times when I curse Unix when the damn Distributed TCP/IP does 
> not work
> >properly and stuff up the router tables. But NT address business AND
> >technical requirements that Unix can not meet and vice versa.
> >
> >It seems to me that most "experts" around here base their views on 
> NT on the
> >few times they worked with it. If that's the case, then Netware is 
> the
> >shittiest operating system IMHO. ;-)
> ></flame>
> >
> >regards,
> >Billy
> >
> >
> >
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
> Charset: noconv
> 
> iQEVAwUBNJDCrMeWPtttGqZhAQEg/wf9FvDvhCTEGUu03MRChtZj+Kr+o6cS1Jz7
> zMHi5+zhMz7bi9qNQ0iSnkO0lfKYtXWVZXK5Bq8QAtMkEgHqgW1JNhWbVdLezd6G
> 67tB2Jn2zh37N22aYzSBvicEXieLGvXXZdQ9A+TiCzDAgnaAl/vkYyMzIvyK6CeM
> 1BvuJWb/gwUIl56g5KQLdAFIvGQr7/dTVAj+33ktqrXR1bQszR+kHVOD8AsAo0bf
> sldt5FurXKbKay+6KhDhGo4ok9aj2bPvuE7F0YTBBRTk1nNL+tCr7kbsFXTqbDA2
> a5mUp//vNIRCJw7cAuVsuWiZ3ENfDfqpfCS0/wPcFciFoOsnu2ACmg==
> =dfJG
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> Clyde Williamson
> PGP Public Key found at http://users1.ee.net/clydew/pgp.htm
> 
> "My uncle always said that there was more 
> than one way to skin a cat....
> I guess that explains the fur pants."


Indexed By Date Previous: spam received from this list
From: Don Lewis <Don . Lewis @ tsc . tdk . com>
Next: RE: NT as a central intranet firewall
From: Russ <Russ . Cooper @ rc . on . ca>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re[2]: NT as a central intranet firewall
From: "Guse, Darren J." <dguse @ ccmail . zim . bms . com>
Next: RE: NT as a central intranet firewall
From: Russ <Russ . Cooper @ rc . on . ca>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com