RIP Windows Server 2003 - April 23, 2003 - July 14, 2015
104 replies, posted
[url]http://www.pcworld.com/article/2948337/microsoft-patch-tuesday-says-goodbye-to-windows-server-2003.html[/url]
[quote=PCWorld]With this month’s Patch Tuesday round of security fixes, Microsoft has ended its support for the Windows Server 2003 operating system.
“For anyone who still runs Windows 2003, I hope it is where no one can access it, and they are working on a project to replace those servers,” said Wolfgang Kandek, chief technology officer for IT security firm Qualys.
For July, Microsoft issued 14 bulletins, covering a total of 58 vulnerabilities.
The patches cover three critical holes in Microsoft Windows, in both the server and desktop editions, as well as one critical vulnerability in Internet Explorer, versions 7 through 11.[/quote]
And stay dead.
I don't know how anyone could still be running 2003, 2008 R2 is so good. I actually used to run it as my primary desktop OS back when Vista was shit because it was basically Vista with optimization so I could run DX10 games easily.
[QUOTE=Velocet;48209249]I don't know how anyone could still be running 2003, 2008 R2 is so good. I actually used to run it as my primary desktop OS back when Vista was shit because it was basically Vista with optimization so I could run DX10 games easily.[/QUOTE]
Our company is in process of moving to 2008/2012 R2 from 2003. A lot of the services and data on the 2003 servers have been there since they were originally installed 12 years ago. :v:
My job has been moving their Sharepoint 3.0 site to 2013. Getting the site set up was the easy part. Moving all the content has been daunting to say the least, while reformatting all the pages that were originally hacked together with Word.
Good thing though, the 2003 server decides to crash every 3 days or so. Its about time.
Welp. Guess it's time to update the beast sitting next to me.
[QUOTE=Velocet;48209249]I don't know how anyone could still be running 2003, 2008 R2 is so good. I actually used to run it as my primary desktop OS back when Vista was shit because it was basically Vista with optimization so I could run DX10 games easily.[/QUOTE]
One of the offices I service for handling all their data on a 2003 server. And because they are part of our local authority, I can't do jack about replacing it just yet.
[quote]“For anyone who still runs Windows 2003, I hope it is where no one can access it, and they are working on a project to replace those servers,” said Wolfgang Kandek, chief technology officer for IT security firm Qualys.[/quote]
I hope you don't have access to your children, you cockmongling child molester.
I just fucking finished migrating from Server 2000 six months ago. I refuse to migrate that RSM database again, especially if its only access from beyond the firewall is FTP, and some schmuck says to change, "just cuz'".
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("calm down" - Orkel))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=pentium;48210182]I hope you don't have access to your children, you cockmongling child molester.
I just fucking finished migrating from Server 2000 six months ago. I refuse to migrate that RSM database again, especially if its only access from beyond the firewall is FTP, and some schmuck says to change, "just cuz'".[/QUOTE]
Why are you always so behind on everything to the point where you're somehow at the same speed of adopting new technologies as American bureaucracies?
[QUOTE=Swilly;48210226]Why are you always so behind on everything to the point where you're somehow at the same speed of adopting new technologies as American bureaucracies?[/QUOTE]
You need to learn that the latest sometimes ain't the greatest. I've bowed to your stupid demands once before and not even a year later I'll have assholes pushing me yet again to start over.
It's a fucking file server used almost exclusively on a LAN. It has a single FTP server that is actually accessible through the internet. I have zero fucking reason to upgrade other than to waste more process cycles running the core OS instead of monitoring share quotas RAID capacity, and losing valueable disk cache.
Plus, much like an American bureaucracy, I'm strapped for cash.
[QUOTE=pentium;48210282]You need to learn that the latest sometimes ain't the greatest. I've bowed to your stupid demands once before and not even a year later I'll have assholes pushing me yet again to start over.
It's a fucking file server used almost exclusively on a LAN. It has a single FTP server that is actually accessible through the internet. I have zero fucking reason to upgrade other than to waste more process cycles running the core OS instead of monitoring share quotas RAID capacity, and losing valueable disk cache.[/QUOTE]
quit bitching that something that came out 12 years ago is unsupported, like jesus h christ pentium this is getting unbearable
want to know what's happened in computing since then
- mass market touch screens
- cell phones becoming the primary computing device for people in developing countries
- wi-fi
- media streaming
- flash storage
[QUOTE=Demache;48209340]
My job has been moving their [B]Sharepoint[/B][/QUOTE]
I feel so sorry for you
[QUOTE=pentium;48210282]You need to learn that the latest sometimes ain't the greatest. I've bowed to your stupid demands once before and not even a year later I'll have assholes pushing me yet again to start over.
It's a fucking file server used almost exclusively on a LAN. It has a single FTP server that is actually accessible through the internet. I have zero fucking reason to upgrade other than to waste more process cycles running the core OS instead of monitoring share quotas RAID capacity, and losing valueable disk cache.
Plus, much like an American bureaucracy, I'm strapped for cash.[/QUOTE]
So you recently upgraded to a version which was already in end of life? Why the fuck didn't you make the jump to 2008+ back then already?
[QUOTE=Lord Fear;48210331]So you recently upgraded to a version which was already in end of life? Why the fuck didn't you make the jump to 2008+ back then already?[/QUOTE]
you're not new here, so you should know pentium
[QUOTE=Lord Fear;48210331]So you recently upgraded to a version which was already in end of life? Why the fuck didn't you make the jump to 2008+ back then already?[/QUOTE]
The migration only to 2003 was intentional. Server 2008 and beyond doesn't support Appletalk in any form. It renders a giant portion of my network and two NLE machines unable to access any files. The alternatives were to use alternate protocols which are not supported by machines before 1995, strictly FTP which makes no sense on a mac, or setup a secondary server running Appleshare IP which would have to be constantly synchronized to the main server as it is also the host machine for the Remote Storage library.
There is real reasons to my madness. Kiwi is just plain irrational, or just ignorant.
[QUOTE=pentium;48210436]The migration only to 2003 was intentional. Server 2008 and beyond doesn't support Appletalk in any form. It renders a giant portion of my network and two NLE machines unable to access any files. The alternatives were to use alternate protocols which are not supported by machines before 1995, strictly FTP which makes no sense on a mac, or setup a secondary server running Appleshare IP which would have to be constantly synchronized to the main server as it is also the host machine for the Remote Storage library.
There is real reasons to my madness. Kiwi is just plain irrational, or just ignorant.[/QUOTE]
And you need to support a 30 year old protocol, why exactly?
i feel that supporting 20 year old hardware is more irrational tbh
[QUOTE=pentium;48210182]I hope you don't have access to your children, you cockmongling child molester.
I just fucking finished migrating from Server 2000 six months ago. I refuse to migrate that RSM database again, especially if its only access from beyond the firewall is FTP, and some schmuck says to change, "just cuz'".[/QUOTE]
Except it's not "just cuz" and migrating from an age old system to a slightly newer but still age old system is pretty damn stupid even considering your horrible opinions on software.
[QUOTE=Lord Fear;48210467]And you need to support a 30 year old protocol, why exactly?[/QUOTE]
The same reason you still use TCP/IP. There's stuff out there that's still using it and has no idea how to handle other protocols.
[QUOTE=Killuah;48210485]Except it's not "just cuz" and migrating from an age old system to a slightly newer but still age old system is pretty damn stupid even considering your horrible opinions on software.[/QUOTE]
My horrible opinions on software or even hardware are the kind of things that keep some companies running and some infrastructure from collapsing. You balk at the idea of the US military using 8" floppy disks or nuclear power stations running on PDP era machines but if you ever took a moment to realize exactly what makes the rest of the world outside the internet spin, your head will explode.
[QUOTE=pentium;48210436]The migration only to 2003 was intentional. Server 2008 and beyond doesn't support Appletalk in any form. It renders a giant portion of my network and two NLE machines unable to access any files. The alternatives were to use alternate protocols which are not supported by machines before 1995, strictly FTP which makes no sense on a mac, or setup a secondary server running Appleshare IP which would have to be constantly synchronized to the main server as it is also the host machine for the Remote Storage library.
There is real reasons to my madness. Kiwi is just plain irrational, or just ignorant.[/QUOTE]
Unless you are running a computer museum the only one ignorant or irrational is you.
[editline]15th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=pentium;48210182]I hope you don't have access to your children, you cockmongling child molester.
[/QUOTE]
Just what the fuck this reaction is so creepy and weird
[QUOTE=pentium;48210436]The migration only to 2003 was intentional. Server 2008 and beyond doesn't support Appletalk in any form. It renders a giant portion of my network and two NLE machines unable to access any files. The alternatives were to use alternate protocols which are not supported by machines before 1995, strictly FTP which makes no sense on a mac, or setup a secondary server running Appleshare IP which would have to be constantly synchronized to the main server as it is also the host machine for the Remote Storage library.
There is real reasons to my madness. Kiwi is just plain irrational, or just ignorant.[/QUOTE]
Please don't tell me you have a job in server management, this type of attitude to not upgrading to safer platforms is incomprehensible. You wont drop Appletalk as a primary protocol, which means you wont drop a 12 year old operating system that's [b]being phased out[/b]. This is why we have preventable security breaches, people [u]have[/u] to upgrade there's no other way around it.
You put too much trust in that firewall to say you trust a (now) unsupported operating system, I work as server engineer and I wouldn't let you near our systems within mile radius, regardless of how many relics you have in your garage.
[QUOTE=pentium;48210503]The same reason you still use TCP/IP. There's stuff out there that's still using it and has no idea how to handle other protocols.[/QUOTE]
Then use something exclusively for them, you have an FTP on Windows Server 2003 with WAN access. Surely you'd be more rational to use something more modern and support your LAN AppleTalk with a middleman?
[QUOTE=pentium;48210436]The migration only to 2003 was intentional. Server 2008 and beyond doesn't support Appletalk in any form. It renders a giant portion of my network and two NLE machines unable to access any files. The alternatives were to use alternate protocols which are not supported by machines before 1995, strictly FTP which makes no sense on a mac, or setup a secondary server running Appleshare IP which would have to be constantly synchronized to the main server as it is also the host machine for the Remote Storage library.
There is real reasons to my madness. Kiwi is just plain irrational, or just ignorant.[/QUOTE]
Why exactly are you running a [I]Windows[/I] server at all, then?
[editline]15th July 2015[/editline]
Don't tell me there's no Linux or other open source implementation of 12 year old windows server functionality.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;48210540]Why exactly are you running a [I]Windows[/I] server at all, then?[/QUOTE]
Linux is not an alternative OS, nor is it a suitable server OS. It's a lab OS. It's designed for classrooms and facilities which want machines customized for temporary applications and use. Its use in enterprise with absolutely no control of the code that makes some modules run is not only reckless but dangerous. If you were educated otherwise then I recommend you go back to school because your teacher was a joke.
[quote]Why exactly are you running a Windows server at all, then? [/quote]
For the NFS and Appletalk integration AND the [url=https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc759742%28v=ws.10%29.aspx]Remote Storage Service[/url], plus why the hell are you using a desktop OS for server applications? If you wanna be insecure do it with that way.
[QUOTE=pentium;48210584]Linux is not an alternative OS, nor is it a suitable server OS. It's a lab OS. It's designed for classrooms and facilities which want machines customized for temporary applications and use. Its use in enterprise with absolutely no control of the code that makes some modules run is not only reckless but dangerous. If you were educated otherwise then I recommend you go back to school because your teacher was a joke.[/QUOTE]
I swear to god I can't tell whether or not you're joking
[QUOTE=pentium;48210584]Linux is not an alternative OS, nor is it a suitable server OS. It's a lab OS. It's designed for classrooms and facilities which want machines customized for temporary applications and use. Its use in enterprise with absolutely no control of the code that makes some modules run is not only reckless but dangerous. If you were educated otherwise then I recommend you go back to school because your teacher was a joke.
For the NFS and Appletalk integration AND the [url=https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc759742%28v=ws.10%29.aspx]Remote Storage Service[/url], plus why the hell are you using a desktop OS for server applications? If you wanna be insecure do it with that way.[/QUOTE]
I love the way right from your first post in here was like this whole thing was set up as a personal attack on you.
How DARE they stop supporting a 12 year old operating system?? How DARE an IT security expert suggest people might want to not use something likely to become more vulnerable over the coming days/months/years, the cheek of actually doing his job!
[QUOTE=pentium;48210584]Linux is not an alternative OS, nor is it a suitable server OS. It's a lab OS. It's designed for classrooms and facilities which want machines customized for temporary applications and use. Its use in enterprise with absolutely no control of the code that makes some modules run is not only reckless but dangerous. If you were educated otherwise then I recommend you go back to school because your teacher was a joke.
For the NFS and Appletalk integration AND the [url=https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc759742%28v=ws.10%29.aspx]Remote Storage Service[/url], plus why the hell are you using a desktop OS for server applications? If you wanna be insecure do it with that way.[/QUOTE]
You've got to be kidding me.
This thread: [IMG]http://i62.tinypic.com/27wsn5h.jpg[/IMG]
[editline]Edited:[/editline]
But seriously Pentium, you really gotta learn to adapt and move forward.
[QUOTE=B!N4RY;48210725]This thread: [IMG]http://i62.tinypic.com/27wsn5h.jpg[/IMG]
[editline]Edited:[/editline]
But seriously Pentium, you really gotta learn to adapt and move forward.[/QUOTE]
he'll get severely bitten in the ass someday and still won't learn, it will just be hilarious to everyone watching from the outside
[QUOTE=pentium;48210282]You need to learn that the latest sometimes ain't the greatest. I've bowed to your stupid demands once before and not even a year later I'll have assholes pushing me yet again to start over.
It's a fucking file server used almost exclusively on a LAN. It has a single FTP server that is actually accessible through the internet. I have zero fucking reason to upgrade other than to waste more process cycles running the core OS instead of monitoring share quotas RAID capacity, and losing valueable disk cache.
Plus, much like an American bureaucracy, I'm strapped for cash.[/QUOTE]
You need to learn to catch up with the times, you know how badly outdated and a security risk using old OS's? By having that internet connection no matter how little used, you're putting it at risk.
You can at least get Windows Server 2008 for fuckall now.
[QUOTE=pentium;48210584]Linux is not an alternative OS, nor is it a suitable server OS. It's a lab OS. It's designed for classrooms and facilities which want machines customized for temporary applications and use. Its use in enterprise with absolutely no control of the code that makes some modules run is not only reckless but dangerous. If you were educated otherwise then I recommend you go back to school because your teacher was a joke.
[/QUOTE]
Linux is in a lot of cases a superior server os than windows. And what you mean absolutely no control of the code? The entire os is open source down to the kernel level, you could recompile the entire thing and know exactly what every little detail of the os does. Windows is closed source, you have zero control or knowledge of what Microsoft puts in it. How could you even come up with such a preposterous statement?
linux doesnt cook pizza pockets
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.