https://www.zdnet.com/article/ms-moving-hotmail-to-win2000-s...
...and then .NET and SQL Server started shipping for Linux.
Can't say much more, but I worked on a huge (internal) Sybase ASE on Linux based app (you've _all_ bought products administered on this app ;) ) way back (yes, pre-SSD, multi path fiber I/O to get things fast, failover etc.) and T-SQL is really nice, as is/was ASE and the replication server. Been about 20 years tho, so who knows.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server/blog/2016/12/16/s...
Can't say the same for Oracle...
Microsoft SQL Server has long stop being Sybase SQL Server, and works on Linux by making use of Drawbridge.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server/blog/2016/12/16/s...
I guess wording wise for my comment, the "Hah, they didn't actually write that themselves, they just bought the Sybase rights to everything license" got the better of me :)
To be fair again, from what I hear, SQL server at Microsoft did some nice things on top of Sybase but the base, T-SQL, is just nice overall and by itself. I really want to like Postgres (and I do) but some of the awesome things I had with actual Sybase ASE 20+ years ago, Postgres still does not have. And that was a piece of software that had those features I loved for 10+ years prior to when I started working with it. The app we're talking of here was 15 years old when I worked on it 20+ years ago and it's probably still around and very probably still uses Sybase ASE (tho the actual app was converted from Smalltalk to Java ;)
I also later on had to use Oracle and had the same "WTF? You can't do that?" experience :shrug:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/iis/get-started/introducti...
Yeah, the advantages (RCE) were copied by modern web browsers. /s
unlike shit show that was windows 95/98/ME
I don’t hate windows 2019 but Linux is better, easier, faster and a relief after any futile attempts to use IIS or sql server in 2025.
The first generation of tabletised 8/Metro interfaces made me audibly groan every time I had to RDP into machines running 2012.
ninja proof: https://i.imgur.com/l29rDVo.jpeg
(My fever dream wish is for a "distribution" of NT that boots in text mode and has an updated Interix subsystem alongside Win32. Throw in ZFS and it would be awesome.)
I too wish for an NT that was CLI-only, striped of services as much as possible.
Starting Windows NT...
C:\>
I agree re: MSFT having no interest in on-prem software. It saddens me.
Like I said in my earlier post, text mode NT is my fever dream fantasy. Maybe you were saying the same thing.
Text-only mode would be wonderful even if all you could do is look at a blinking cursor.
I'm not as much against windows as I uses to be but I'm not budging off Ubuntu LTS even though they too try really hard to rock the boat.
Really? Oh, compared to other Windows versions...
Because it never came close to the stability of OS/400, Netware 3, AIX, Solaris or even OS/2 v2.
I saw years of uptime on those systems whereas Win2000 iirc needed a reboot for every single update of the OS, and even for applications like IIS or Exchange.
Compared to NT4 it was probably very stable, since I remember telling most clients to just shut it down Friday evening and boot it Monday morning cause the pre-SP4 NT4 could not stay up more than three weeks.
Compare that to AS/400, where we pushed updates all over the country, without warning clients, to system running in hospitals, and there never was even the slightest problem. It sounds irresponsible to do that today, but those updates just worked, all the time and all applications continued to work.
This just means security updates were never installed.
(Or you claim that all those operating systems never had kernel-level security issues which seems doubtful...)
Most were only locally connected (for example OS/2 had a Token Ring in one building). The WAN connection (for AS/400) was trusted.
That is easier to achieve when your operating system only runs on your own proprietary hardware. (No mess of millions of drivers to write for one).
It worked well for years without any sysadmin touching it.
Well my mom was trained to be the "sys admin", which meant rotating backup tapes.
Wrt Win95 & it's kind - all processes in that family essentially run in a single address space, and data "isolation" were "achieved" only through obscurity. If you knew some magic constants that were easily obtainable from disassembly, you could do anything there. So no wonder it was as bad as the worst program you've installed..
The tone and content of this document is shockingly candid and frank. I think it did a ton to make Windows Server a better product. I have a lot of respect for the people at MSFT who reviewed the company's own product in such a critical light.
The 90s were the dark ages of cloud computing. It was the age of system administrator, desktop apps, Usenet, and the start of the internet as a public service. At the time concepts such as infrastructure as code, cloud, and continuous deployment, were unheard of.
AWS, which today we take for granted, was launched on 2002, and back then it started as a way to monetize Amazon's existing shared IT platform.
Of course migrating anything back then was a world of pain, specially when it's servers running on different OSes. It's like the rewrite from hell, that can even cover the OS layer. Of course it takes years.
There existed different names and solutions for things like cloud. I worked with Grid Engine in 2000 after Sun acquired Gridware, but that project started in 1993. By 2000 we were experimenting with running Star Office on the grid and serving UI to thin clients (kind of what Google Docs or Office 365 do now, but on completely different stack).