Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Essential Open Source Tools For Windows Admins

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the right-tool-for-the-job dept.

Microsoft 226

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's J. Peter Bruzzese provides a list of 15 open source tools for enhancing your Windows server-side experience. 'You might imagine that the best place to go for improving your Microsoft server-side experience is to the mothership itself. In many cases, you would be right. But the truth is there are a meaningful number of open source tools that go above and beyond what Microsoft has to offer in support of Windows Server, Exchange, SQL, and SharePoint. Many of these alternatives provide — for free — more powerful capabilities than what you'd get with third-party retail products.'"

cancel ×

226 comments

Easy (4, Funny)

aglider (2435074) | more than 2 years ago | (#37442710)

Linux

Re:Easy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37442812)

OH how original! Seriously, I can't stop laughting, kill me now. Hilarious and unexpected jokes like this is the reason I come to slashdot day after day!

Re:Easy (0)

aglider (2435074) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443574)

Glad to serve you, Sir.
But I was serious.

Re:Easy (0)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#37444004)

And the easy drop in replacement for AD+GPO+Exchange+Sharepoint...is? Or are you suggesting they throw away all their desktops, their hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of dollars in windows software, and pay a giant team of developers to rewrite all that from scratch just so....they can what? Say they are leet?

Webservers with Linux makes sense, embedded development Linux makes even more sense. but trying to say you can just rip out every WinServer setup and replace it with Linux either shows you are incredibly naive about what these machines actually do or you are a total zealot who would be happy to torpedo a company as long as it advanced your agenda...so which is it?

Re:Easy (2)

said213 (72685) | more than 2 years ago | (#37444136)

"Or are you suggesting they throw away all their desktops, their hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of dollars in windows software, and pay a giant team of developers to rewrite all that from scratch just so....they can what? Say they are leet?"

This.

"you are incredibly naive about what these machines actually do or you are a total zealot who would be happy to torpedo a company..."

Neither. With such knowledge, one can appreciate how and where resources are wasted. It's less a question of "what these machines do" than it is a question of what these machines *cannot* do... and the list of "cannot do" is vastly greater in reference to MS powered servers than the list of "cannot *yet* do" is in reference to the capabilities of a *NIX system. One is controlled by artificial limitations, the other is limited by artificial controls.

Indeed (1)

Sduic (805226) | more than 2 years ago | (#37442856)

"Essential open source Windows admin tool No. 15: VirtualBox" -- TFA

Re:Indeed (0)

ge7 (2194648) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443198)

The funny thing is that the different Vmware products seriously kicks VirtualBox's ass. It's almost like comparing GIMP and Photoshop. VirtualBox might be enough for a home user, but no one uses it to do any serious virtualization in data centers or their corporate networks.

Re:Easy (1)

spongman (182339) | more than 2 years ago | (#37442902)

Yes! With one simple install you can make your whole infrastructure; the code your engineers spent so much time writing and maintaining; the third-party software you bought; your support contacts; in fact your whole business - stop.

Highly recommended!

(or was your comment a joke, in the not-funny sense?)

You proved his point (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37443156)

You proved his point! With Linux, code doesn't take anywhere near as much time to write as it does on Windows - so your engineers wasted their time (although they aren't really engineers if they used Windows), and Linux software doesn't need maintenance because it doesn't break with every release of the OS. Third party software you bought? You don't *have* to buy any software on Linux because it's all free - you clearly work for a company run by clueless sheep or you're a shill if you even consider Windows to be a positive part of any infrastructure.

Re:You proved his point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37443838)

Are they really ever engineers?

Better check your engineers ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37443246)

you can make your whole infrastructure; the code your engineers spent so much time writing and maintaining ... stop.

If your engineers are writing code that isn't portable to Linux or Mac then you have bigger problems than you think. They are painting you into a corner of inflexibility and dependency on one single vendor, and unable to harness the benefits of other systems as they appear.

Instead of defending their poor practices, you might want to consider giving them a kick up the backside, possibly starting with yourself if applicable.

Re:Better check your engineers ... (1)

jsnipy (913480) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443742)

the answer to your question is "write to standards"

Re:Easy (1)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443744)

Yes! With one simple install you can make your whole infrastructure; the code your engineers spent so much time writing and maintaining; the third-party software you bought; your support contacts; in fact your whole business - stop.

Highly recommended!(or was your comment a joke, in the not-funny sense?)

Wait, is this the joke? That you think Linux is a joke? Maybe the engineers spend way too much writing and maintaining code in your company, and maybe Windows is the problem? Having bought expensive, broken third-party software is no reason to be a slave to it forever. Transitions take some work, which can pay off dramitcally from both a maintenance and cost perspective. There are alternatives that work, you know. But admitting that, and advocating something that you have no experience with or knowledge about, should put your own job at risk. So I understand your reluctance, though it could be characterized as willful ignorance.

Re:Easy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37444396)

I think Spongman means that you can't and shouldn't replace an entire existing system just because you want to.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Re:Easy (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37444478)

Wow, I posted basically this as a troll to show how retarded Linux users are, and here you are, being serious! I *love* Slashdot!

Re:Easy (1)

MSesow (1256108) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443916)

Fantasy Football is D&D for people who would never be caught dead playing D&D. Along the same lines, Fanboy-ism is rooting for the home team for people who never follow sports. And of course, obl. xkcd relating to this. [xkcd.com] If you can't see the humor and truth in this as it relates to both of the parents, maybe you should relax a bit.

Bandwidth monitoring (1)

l_bratch (865693) | more than 2 years ago | (#37444276)

Is there anything similar to iftop [1] for Windows?

[1] http://www.ex-parrot.com/pdw/iftop/ [ex-parrot.com]

Re:Bandwidth monitoring (1)

BlueScreenO'Life (1813666) | more than 2 years ago | (#37444534)

Yes.

Sysinternals Process Explorer [microsoft.com] , and add the network graphs.

Re:Bandwidth monitoring (1)

l_bratch (865693) | more than 2 years ago | (#37444868)

Process Explorer, along with most other network monitoring tools only seems to show interfaces' total bandwidth. iftop shows per-connection upload and download bandwidth. Please correct me if I'm missing something in Process Explorer though.

Re:Bandwidth monitoring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37444546)

.. yes? Google shows many such programs.

#1 tool (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37442820)

Cygwin is the first thing every windows server needs installed.

Re:#1 tool (3, Informative)

Stavr0 (35032) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443026)

Agree, but I prefer http://unxutils.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net] -- less powerful but plays nicer with Windows native APIs

Re:#1 tool (1)

toadlife (301863) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443344)

I created an MSI with all of those goodies and pushed it to every server and workstation.

Re:#1 tool (1)

Verunks (1000826) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443372)

actually cygwin is quite useless on a server, it's only useful if you need to execute bash scripts and you don't really want to write bash scripts on linux either, better use something like python
as for the article some of the tools seems quite "meh", they also put nmap two times since zenmap is included in the nmap installer for windows
also they didn't mention managepc (http://managepc.net/) it can read pretty much any wmi info from other windows computers without the need to install any client

Re:#1 tool (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37445050)

Oh yea, all those other goodies you can install are totally useless. You'd never want SSH on windows, or (just about anything else available on Linux).

Re:#1 tool (3, Informative)

jsnipy (913480) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443704)

needs more sysinternals

Re:#1 tool (1)

Guidii (686867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37444206)

Mod parent up. Sysinternals/Winternals are wonderful tools that every Windows geek should know about.

Re:#1 tool (2)

Handbasket Passenger (1023955) | more than 2 years ago | (#37444944)

Seems that this post is referring to non-MS tools... since MS acquired Sysinternals, it goes to reason they wouldn't include it. A little post-article mention of Sysinternals and other very useful free/cheap tools from MS would have been appreciated (I.E. Windebug, SOS) if you're reading this, Mr. Bruzzese

Re:#1 tool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37444066)

If you use Cygwin on your Windows servers, check out SUA instead.

Re:#1 tool (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#37444216)

Question:....why? I mean I can see it if you are a Linux admin just moonlighting on a WinServer as a favor or something, but if you are the administration full time on WinServer wouldn't it be smarter to stick with the native Powershell? What advantages does Cygwin give over Powershell? Do Cygwin scripts run natively across the network like Powershell scripts do?

Having never used Cygwin I'm curious to see what advantage that you think it gives an admin over Powershell. Because it seems like with .NET being everywhere that it would make more sense to just stick with what you already have deployed, am I missing something?

Re:#1 tool (2)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 2 years ago | (#37444286)

A lot of times it boils down to familiarity and convenience, especially in a place that has a mix of Unixy and Windows servers. I don't think Powershell is missing anything except the ability to run bash scripts.

Re:#1 tool (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37444916)

What advantages does Cygwin give over Powershell?

The question you should be asking is: What advantages does Cygwin give over cmd.exe (the old DOS prompt)? The answer is none.

Unfortunately, Cygwin is a steaming pile of crap. There are other products that do the same thing much better than Cygwin.

Re:#1 tool (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37445078)

I think you're confusing the cygwin bash shell with what cygwin.dll lets you do - compile linux stuff to run on windows mostly transparently.

My Picks (1)

jamesgamble (917138) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443016)

7-Zip, Notepad++, TrueCrypt, UltraVNC

Re:My Picks (1)

magamiako1 (1026318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443136)

If you run a business with Windows you should be using Windows 7 Enterprise for any nominal amount of computers. Once you move to Enterprise, you can use Bitlocker, which has FIPS-validated AES256 encryption, integrated into Active Directory, and you have recovery agents available.

Re:My Picks (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443994)

I'll ++ your Notepad++ pick. When massaging a bunch of filenames, the vertical column edit mode is helpful, as is the regex search/replace feature. Plus it is extensible via plugins and macros.

No AD Stuffs? (1)

Caratted (806506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443030)

This site [cjwdev.co.uk] is crucial to not being driven insane by the default AD management tools (we use 2008 R2), and getting more hardware with my budget.

I hate InfoWorld (4, Interesting)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443080)

Holy moly, but I hate InfoWorld. Without mentioning all the ads, or their apparent unrealization of the fact that browsers have scroll bars (though to be fair they're not the only ones), my biggest complaint is that never, not once have I read one of their articles and gotten what the headline promised. Isn't Zenmap just a GUI for nmap? Yet both of them are there. Is there a reason to prefer the third-party PowerGUI over the Microsoft Powershell ISE [microsoft.com] other than the former being open source? Maybe so, but you wouldn't know it from the article. Same with VirtualBox vs HyperV. Et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum.

This is what passes for tech journalism?

Re:I hate InfoWorld (1)

mewsenews (251487) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443824)

clamwin antivirus is devastatingly inferior to microsoft security essentials. google "clamwin userinit.exe" to read about clamwin's false positives leaving computers inoperable back in 2009

Re:I hate InfoWorld (2)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#37445088)

while i am a fan of MS security essentials for end users - MS intentional prevent it from running on their server OS's. (and for good reason, it's not designed for that workload environment). so when it comes to free ClamAV is up there on the server side.

Not all of these tools are that useful... (1)

magamiako1 (1026318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443096)

Tools I agree with:
-Wireshark
-NMAP

Tools I disagree with:
-UltraDefrag: Windows Vista and Windows 7 include built-in, very capable, automatic defragmentation tools

Everything else is on a situational basis and depends largely on your environment. If you've got a massively virtualized system, Virtualbox is not necessary.

Re:Not all of these tools are that useful... (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#37444888)

Can anybody give a brief summary of the differences between UltraDefrag, Defraggler, and the native defrag utility in Windows 7? The only difference I'm aware of is that the native utility only defragments entire drives, whereas the other two can defragment a single file or folder.

Re:Not all of these tools are that useful... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37445104)

MyDefrag beats them all. Does sorting and other optimizations, and calls the built-in Windows defragmentation API to do the actual work. Scriptable as well.

UltraDefrag (fail) (1)

Manip (656104) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443118)

This list is fairly poor, but I just wanted to draw negative attention to UltraDefrag and all third party defrag programs. A lot of people use third party solutions but very few actually know why they are using them, except for claims like "they are better!" The truth is that defragging a hard drive is a fairly simple process that is hard to get wrong, you literally just re-organise chunks together into blocks. Windows Defrag gets it right, and to be honest you cannot improve on just getting it right, so why do third party solutions need to offer an alternative? The best they could accomplish is matching the Windows Defragger, and the worst is that they could do a poorer job...

Re:UltraDefrag (fail) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37443358)

does standard windows defrag let you consolidate empty space? Last time I used a 3rd party, it was for that.

Re:UltraDefrag (fail) (1)

magamiako1 (1026318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443980)

Yes, free space consolidation is a part of the Vista and 7 defragmenter.

Re:UltraDefrag (fail) (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37445114)

Does it intelligently put files commonly accessed together together on the disk, leave space for frequently changing files to expand/contract, etc?

Re:UltraDefrag (fail) (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443380)

Probably because we have better things to do than to hit defrag whenever the fragmentation hits 15% or so and that the built in defrag can't defrag files that are in use at the time. A lot of the 3rd party utilties will allow you to have them run automatically every week or two so that you don't have to pay attention to that. Additionally, some of the 3rd party utilities use the same algorithms that the official defragger uses to accomplish the task.

Re:UltraDefrag (fail) (2)

magamiako1 (1026318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443998)

Windows 7 and Vista automatically defragment without user interaction.

Bonus points is the 7 defragmenter will disable itself on SSDs automatically as well.

Re:UltraDefrag (fail) (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37444758)

They finally added that with 7? I'll have to look into that. I've only been using it for a couple months.

Re:UltraDefrag (fail) (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#37444972)

My Win7 computer came preconfigured to defrag on Wednesdays at 01:00, IIRC.

Re:UltraDefrag (fail) (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 2 years ago | (#37444554)

Depending on the size of your file system blocks.. if you use a server with Shadow Copy enabled, and run a defrag, you will lose all of your "previous versions" as it sees every file touched as an update, and basically overwrites the previous versions buffer. I think (but not sure) you need 16k clusters or bigger to prevent that. I run Defrag manually, only when really needed on my file servers, because otherwise users can't retrieve backups themselves, and I have to get them from tape.. (ie, I do it after a major deadline is done)

Re:UltraDefrag (fail) (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#37445146)

you are correct that your clusters have to be 16k or larger..

my question is why haven't you taken the time to back up, reformat to 16k clusters, and restore.. do it once and you don't have to worry about defrag and shadow copies running into problems.. i'm sure it's a lot less work then having to go get backups from tape, and scheduling defrag around major deadlines rather than need.

Defrag in general (fail) (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443394)

If Windows had a decent file system defragmenters would be a thing of the past. Windows is the only (supposedly) serious server side OS that requires them. I've yet to have to defrag my 1999 vintage linux file server.

Re:Defrag in general (fail) (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37445156)

That's funny, because I've had to use "e2fsck -D" before to reduce an obscenely slow pile of files to usability. To be fair, that there was such a huge pile of files to begin with was the fault of someone being a tool.

That said, having to use it is quite rare.

Re:UltraDefrag (fail) (1)

leathered (780018) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443408)

I've always liked O&O Defrag, with lots of options available to arrange files on the disk in the way you want. To be honest though I can't remember the last time I've even felt the need to defrag a production server. It seems that the performance penalty for fragmentation has become more or less irrelevent with today's systems.

One UltraDefrag advantage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37443462)

UltraDefrag can do one thing that few other can, it can defrag *before* Windows boots.
This allows moving the most-used files towards the beginning of the drive, where it's
  fastest.
Pagefile, Event Logs and all Registry files benefits most. Here's an config-example,

set UD_IN_FILTER=Pagefile;SysEvent;AppEvent;SecEvent;Windows\System32\config;ntuser;usrclass

Re:UltraDefrag (fail) (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443482)

The defrag tools built into XP and earlier were utter crap. When they worked, they worked... but they were extremely prone to crashes, hangs and took forever. This is what gave rise to the belief that you need a separate defrag program. Fortunately, all that got fixed with Vista/ Win7, but most people are stuck on their third party defragger or don't know it got fixed.

Re:UltraDefrag (fail) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37443844)

Win7 defrag seems to take FOREVER. Defraggler completes in tiny fractions of the time.

Re:UltraDefrag (fail) (1)

gallondr00nk (868673) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443672)

This list is fairly poor, but I just wanted to draw negative attention to UltraDefrag and all third party defrag programs. A lot of people use third party solutions but very few actually know why they are using them, except for claims like "they are better!" The truth is that defragging a hard drive is a fairly simple process that is hard to get wrong, you literally just re-organise chunks together into blocks. Windows Defrag gets it right, and to be honest you cannot improve on just getting it right.

Traditionally, Windows defrag tools will defrag the data but won't reorganize it by doing things like putting system files at the start of a partition and everything else afterwards. On Windows 2000 and XP, the Windows tool was actually a basic version of Diskeeper which MS had licensed, that didn't have the functionality for organising the disk. Your data may not be fragmented, but you still end up with large seek times because the system files are all over the partition.

If you want my recommendation, Jkdefrag is a great third party tool.

Re:UltraDefrag (fail) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37444332)

Called "MyDefrag" now.

Untrue: Defrag API has MANY options... apk (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37443738)

IN fact, even when you look @ other defraggers (commercial ones) like PerfectDisk &/or Diskeeper (if not O&O) for example?

There are MANY variations on the defrag strategy programmatically!

So, what you're stating here:

"Windows Defrag gets it right, and to be honest you cannot improve on just getting it right, so why do third party solutions need to offer an alternative? The best they could accomplish is matching the Windows Defragger" - by Manip (656104) on Monday September 19, @11:58AM (#37443118)

Isn't true...

* Additionally, defraggers offer individual file defrags, placements & rejections of defrag of certain files, & much more, that Windows' std. defrag does not (inclusive of a drivemap which Win7/Server2k8 no longer offer, but older models did).

APK

P.S.=> I also spoke to their dev. team personally in forums/email etc. in regards to it also, & had a "small part" in the programs' "evolution", via ProcessPriority control API usage in code -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2435272&cid=37443252 [slashdot.org] , so I know what these guys went thru and how they did some of the work in it, as well as what options were chosen (such as boottime defrag being another in addition to CPU usage/scheduling priority control, etc./et al)...

... apk

Re:UltraDefrag (fail) (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 2 years ago | (#37444610)

Diskeeper defrags on the fly.

ClamWin Seriously? (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443140)

I can't really say much from experience with most of these, but clamwin? I am always in favor of open source when it is on the same league as paid software, but in this particular case... you are just asking for trouble if you cut this corner.

Re:ClamWin Seriously? (2)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443258)

Really? Do you consider Symantec to be that much better? What experience have you had? In my experience all virus protection is somewhat haphazard.

ClamWin is garbage (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443580)

It might be ok for checking a suspicious file or two but scanning an entire drive would take days. Its THAT slow, seriously.

Re:ClamWin is garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37443734)

Versus Symantec and most other commercial antivirus software, which may scan a drive much faster, but also significantly slows down *everything* at *all* times.

Re:ClamWin is garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37444410)

> It might be ok for checking a suspicious file or two but scanning an entire drive would take days. Its THAT slow, seriously.
It is slow, but it isn't THAT slow, seriously.

How about the new Immunet 3.0 with ClamAV, I wonder why that didn't make the list. It does realtime scanning and uses the cloud for file analysis and for virus signatures.

I would add (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443238)

I would add Metasploit to the list, that is if you have any kind of custom website (most companies do). It would suck to have your user accounts or personal data spread all across the internet.

VERY Cool: I'm part of 1 of them... apk (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37443252)

http://ultradefrag.sourceforge.net/handbook/Credits.html [sourceforge.net]

(Pretty cool!)

* It's a very good defragmentation program, which is WHY I tried to help out their dev. team w/ this suggestion after seeing others complain of CPU usage & what-not in their forums...

APK

P.S.=> Process Priority Control is credited to me there (after I gave the authors some easily ported Borland Delphi + Windows API calls code (the REAL "active ingredient" was in API calls), in order to port it into C for UltraDefrag -> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2993462&group_id=199532&atid=969873 [sourceforge.net] which is VERY easy to do for an experienced developer): "Will wonders NEVER cease..."...

... apk

Amanda backup ineligible? (1)

Stavr0 (35032) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443272)

There doesn't seem to be any Amanda servers for Windows, only clients.

Netmon (2)

Gitcho (761501) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443274)

While I truly love wireshark, if we're talking microsoft server admin, you might want to think about Microsoft Network Monitor (current ver == 3.4). It does most of what wireshark does but pairs packet streams to windows processes. If you're on an enterprise premier support call with Microsoft, they'll only accept a pcap from netmon.

Lose the Borg Face (1, Insightful)

drkich (305460) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443296)

I know haters will hate and Slashdotters love to hate Microsoft, but honestly, what the hell does open source tools have to do with the Borg Face?

Re:Lose the Borg Face (1)

Bob-taro (996889) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443542)

I know haters will hate and Slashdotters love to hate Microsoft, but honestly, what the hell does open source tools have to do with the Borg Face?

That sounds like something the Borg would say.

Re:Lose the Borg Face (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37443548)

It looks more like a Combine control panel than Borg...

Re:Lose the Borg Face (2)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443554)

Hover your mouse pointer over the borg face and your question will be answered. Since this is a story about tools for Microsoft servers, it was tagged with the Microsoft icon.

Re:Lose the Borg Face (0)

drkich (305460) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443684)

Sorry, but the Borg Face is so infantile. This is new for nerds, not how the editorial staff is pandering to a certain group of readers.

Re:Lose the Borg Face (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37443596)

with only 6 digits in you id, you should have connected the dots by now.

Re:Lose the Borg Face (0)

drkich (305460) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443716)

I know, you would think I would know better. It has irked me for sometime. Oh well, let me tilt at my windmills.

Re:Lose the Borg Face (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443762)

The Borg face has to do with windows, that is a borgified Bill Gates.

It's due for a replacement.

Re:Lose the Borg Face (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 2 years ago | (#37444582)

They should have some pictures of him doing charitable work with the Gates Foundation.

Re:Lose the Borg Face (0)

drkich (305460) | more than 2 years ago | (#37444776)

No, nothing so extreme in the other direction either. How about, oh say putting up a non-troll image that represents Windows. Say the four color window icon.

Re:Lose the Borg Face (1)

lonelytrail (1741524) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443888)

Seriously?
There are MANY open source tools for windows and some of them are really good for the 'doze sysadmin.
Just because it's open source, doesn't mean the tool is required to ONLY run on Linux, does it?

no just no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37443494)

What is handy is Netscan and Treesize...

but thats just me....

mRemote NG (1)

leathered (780018) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443576)

If you hate having multiple RDP, SSH, Telnet etc windows all over your desktop you should look at mRemote NG [mremoteng.org] .

GPL Email Server with a GUI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37443588)

If you kinda want a free email server that's manageable with a clean GUI and is built off of robust FOSS software, here it is:

http://www.hmailserver.com/

Re:GPL Email Server with a GUI (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443746)

Management sayeth - "But we can't use a GPL email server.... we'll have to release all our emails under GPL!!!!!"

*humorous trolling ends here*

SysInternals (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37443708)

SysInternals - The best toolset for Windows. It is pity that the it's author was hired be the evil MS....

Yahoo! (1)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443792)

I install Yahoo! toolbar for Internet Explorer before anything, its teh shit.

PDM (1)

phrostie (121428) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443816)

Any recommendations for a CAD PDM?

Windows server? On MY slashdot? (0)

atari2600a (1892574) | more than 2 years ago | (#37443908)

What is this 1998? I hear there's some great server products for the NeXT box as well, including this new thing called the "world wide web".

SpiceWorks (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 2 years ago | (#37444374)

How in the world can you talk about administration in a Windows environment and not mention SpiceWorks.com? It's an end-to-end, 100% free support system and help desk.

PuTTY (5, Informative)

bpfinn (557273) | more than 2 years ago | (#37444474)

I use PuTTY [greenend.org.uk] daily.

Server-side experience (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37444544)

Wow, do these tools give me a sunny beach with palm trees? Spectacular mountain views and waterfalls? Good food? Hot sex?

No? Then please stop calling everything related to using software an experience.You use it to get a job done, that is its purpose. The experience the admin (or any other person that uses software for other reasons than entertainment) has can certainly make a difference, but that facilitates its purpose. Don't treat it as if it is the purpose.

This [xkcd.com] is what you get if you treat the "experience" as the purpose.

I nominate... (1)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 2 years ago | (#37444706)

any linux distro's install disk.
Why struggle with the lame duck that is windows? just blow the whole thing away.

You need 15? (0)

MrMacman2u (831102) | more than 2 years ago | (#37444822)

As an admin of a small cluster, I can name one, and ONLY one, open source tool that I use in ALL my servers.

Linux.

Re:You need 15? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37444932)

Wow, a lot of work you must get done without any shells or GUIs or compilers or utilities.

Re:You need 15? (1)

MrMacman2u (831102) | more than 2 years ago | (#37445202)

Heh, actually I have a variety of platforms including a few embedded devices, SO the additional tools I use, including the shell, compilers and utilities varies from server to server depending on their job or task. The only thing that immediately springs to mind as really being universal across all of my devices is the kernel itself!

Though there may be one or two other utilities or programs that might be common to all of them.... I'm not about to put forth the exertion to check ;)

Re: So you have a kernel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37445092)

What do you do with it? i mean, other than file i/o. By itself, a kernel is fairly useless.

Re: So you have a kernel? (1)

MrMacman2u (831102) | more than 2 years ago | (#37445224)

Copy and pasta!!!

Actually, I'll save people wanting to kill me, see my above post to the first AC :)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...